Twists and turns in quality terminology
When it comes to certain words and phrases, there are no shades of correctness. Editors, of course, are hyper-aware of such differences. As far as I’m concerned, using the word “there” when it should be “their” is a justifiably fireable offense (OK, ONE free pass)! Most people can get away with an occasional your/you’re switch-up and be no worse for wear. But in the quality field as well, specificity is highly valued, meaningful and any nuance is often intentional.
That’s why the “continual vs. continuous” debate continues to surface relating to ISO 9001. In “In No Uncertain Terms,” QP revisits the topic, presenting some compelling evidence that moving to “continuous” as the term of choice might be a prudent direction. What do you think? Weigh in on the article on the Quality Progress discussion board at my.asq.org.
In “A Fundamental FMEA Flaw,” Gary G. Jing discusses how quality efforts can be foiled by failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) limitations. After you’re aware of where the deficiencies lie, you can better leverage the tool and ensure teams work most efficiently. Jing provides several tips on integrating FMEA with other quality methods to produce the best results.
Ever been stuck in a doctor’s waiting room? We’ve all been there. Healthcare processes tend to lend themselves to insightful case studies after practitioners are able to make swift and significant changes. In “Scoping Things Out,” learn how three rural healthcare systems attacked their endoscopy practices, each with its own unique set of challenges.
Finally, we have an article on another debatable topic—what is, isn’t, and what should be included in the quality body of knowledge. Quality is a broad field, so being an expert in every subset of the body of knowledge is impossible. But where does quality begin and end? In “Under the Umbrella,” the authors attempt to bring this elusive topic into focus.
Editor in Chief and Publisher