Ch1 Quality

z
INTRODUCTION TO QUALITY
THE HISTORY AND IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY QUALITY AS A MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
The Age of Craftsmanship Principles of Total Quality
QUALITY PROFILES: Clarke American Checks, Inc., Infrastructure, Practices, and Tools
and Motorola, Inc. QUALITY AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
The Early Twentieth Century Quality and Business Results
Post–World War II THREE LEVELS OF QUALITY
The U.S. “Quality Revolution” QUALITY AND PERSONAL VALUES
Early Successes QUALITY IN PRACTICE: The Evolution of Quality at
From Product Quality to Performance Excellence Xerox: From Leadership Through Quality to
Disappointments and Criticism Lean Six Sigma
Current and Future Challenges QUALITY IN PRACTICE: Bringing Total Quality
DEFINING QUALITY Principles to Life at KARLEE
Judgmental Perspective REVIEW QUESTIONS
Product-Based Perspective DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
User-Based Perspective PROJECTS, ETC.
Value-Based Perspective CASES Skilled Care Pharmacy
Manufacturing-Based Perspective A Tale of Two Restaurants
Integrating Perspectives on Quality A Total Quality Business Model
Customer-Driven Quality
Q uality is by no means a new concept in modern business. In October 1887, William

Cooper Procter, grandson of the founder of Procter & Gamble, told his employees,
“The first job we have is to turn out quality merchandise that consumers will buy and
keep on buying. If we produce it efficiently and economically, we will earn a profit, in
which you will share.” Procter’s statement addresses three issues that are critical to
managers of manufacturing and service organizations: productivity, cost, and quality.
Productivity (the measure of efficiency defined as the amount of output achieved per
unit of input), the cost of operations, and the quality of the goods and services that
create customer satisfaction all contribute to profitability. Of these three determinants
4 Part 1 Foundations of Quality Management
of profitability, the most significant factor in determining the long-run success or

failure of any organization is quality. High-quality goods and services can provide an
organization with a competitive edge. High quality reduces costs due to returns,
rework, and scrap. It increases productivity, profits, and other measures of success.
Most importantly, high quality generates satisfied customers, who reward the orga-
nization with continued patronage and favorable word-of-mouth advertising.
To better understand the relationship among these factors, just consider Ford
Motor Company. During the 1980s, Ford fought its way from the bottom of Detroit’s
Big Three automakers to the top of the pack through a concerted effort to improve
quality and better meet customer needs and expectations. It quickly became a highly
profitable business. However, on January 12, 2002, a newspaper headline read, “Ford
to cut 35,000 jobs, close 5 plants.” CEO William Ford is cited as stating “We strayed
from what got us to the top of the mountain, and it cost us greatly. . . . We may have
underestimated the growing strength of our competitors. There were some strategies
that were poorly conceived, and we just didn’t execute on the basics of our business.”
The article goes on to observe that Ford “has been dogged by quality problems that
forced the recall of several new models, including the Explorer, one of the top money-
makers.”1 One of the key elements of Ford’s 2002 Revitalization Plan was to “Continue
Quality Improvements.” In fact, the top two “vital few priorities” set by Ford’s presi-
dent for North America are “Improve quality” and “Improve quality”! If it were an
easy task, there would be little need for this book. The mandate for focusing on quality
is clear. In working with Chrysler Corporation (now Daimler-Chrysler) to improve
quality, a vice president of the United Auto Workers
(UAW) succinctly stated the importance of quality: Building—and maintaining—quality
“No quality, no sales. No sales, no profit. No profit, into an organization’s goods and ser-
no jobs.” vices, and more importantly, into the
In this chapter we examine the notion of quality. infrastructure of the organization itself,
We discuss its history, its importance in business, and is not an easy task.
its role in building and sustaining competitive
advantage. At the beginning of each chapter we profile two leading companies that
have developed exemplary quality management practices (see the Quality Profiles on
page 5). These examples will help you understand some of the key cultural issues that
comprise the foundation of high-performing organizations.
THE HISTORY AND IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY

In a broad sense, quality assurance refers to any planned and systematic activity
directed toward providing consumers with products (goods and services) of appro-
priate quality, along with the confidence that products meet consumers’ requirements.
Quality assurance, usually associated with some form of measurement and inspection
activity, has been an important aspect of production operations throughout history.2
Egyptian wall paintings circa 1450 B.C. show evidence of measurement and inspection.
Stones for the pyramids were cut so precisely that even today it is impossible to put a
knife blade between the blocks. The Egyptians’ success was due to the consistent use
of well-developed methods and procedures and precise measuring devices.
The Age of Craftsmanship

During the Middle Ages in Europe, the skilled craftsperson served both as manufac-
turer and inspector. “Manufacturers” who dealt directly with the customer took con-
siderable pride in workmanship. Craft guilds, consisting of masters, journeymen,
Chapter 1 Introduction to Quality 5
z QUALITY PROFILES e dia C

ltim
Mu
as
e
CLARKE AMERICAN CHECKS, INC., AND MOTOROLA, INC. CLARKE AMERICAN CHECKS, INC.
Headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, Clarke key beliefs guide the culture of the firm: re-
American supplies personalized checks, check- spect for people and uncompromising integrity.
ing account and bill-paying accessories, finan- Motorola’s goals are to increase its global market
cial forms, and a growing portfolio of services to share and to become the best in its class in all
more than 4,000 financial institutions in the aspects—people, marketing, technology, product,
United States. In the early 1990s, when an excess manufacturing, and service. In terms of people,
manufacturing capacity in check printing trig- its objective is to be recognized worldwide as a
gered aggressive price competition, Clarke company for which anyone would want to work.
American elected to distinguish itself through Motorola was a pioneer in continual reduc-
service. Company leaders made an all-out com- tion of defects and cycle times in all the com-
mitment to ramp up the firm’s First in Service® pany’s processes, from design, order entry,
(FIS) approach to business excellence. Compre- manufacturing, and marketing, to administra-
hensive in scope, systematic in execution, the tive functions. Employees in every function of
FIS approach defines how Clarke American the business note defects and use statistical tech-
conducts business and how all company associ- niques to analyze the results. Products that once
ates are expected to act to fulfill the company’s took weeks to make are now completed in less
commitment to superior service and quality than an hour. Even the time needed for closing
performance. the financial books has been reduced. What used
From orientation and onward, associates are to take a month now requires only four days.
steeped in the company’s culture and values: Although the corporation has had its share of
customer first, integrity and mutual respect, difficulties in tough competitive markets and the
knowledge sharing, measurement, quality work- economic environment that technology compa-
place, recognition, responsiveness, and team- nies have encountered, Motorola’s focus on
work. They are schooled regularly in the quality has not waned. In 2002, the Commercial,
application of standardized quality tools, perfor- Government, and Industrial Solutions Sector
mance measurement, use of new technology, (CGISS) was recognized as a Baldrige Award
team disciplines, and specialized skills. Indi- recipient. CGISS is the leading worldwide sup-
vidual initiative and innovation are expected. plier of two-way radio communications and
Associates are encouraged to contribute im- products and is recognized around the world for
provement ideas under Clarke American’s its environmental, health, and safety efforts.
S.T.A.R.—suggestions, teams, actions, results— Customers report high levels of satisfaction, and
program. In 2001, more than 20,000 process the division demonstrates strong financial,
improvement ideas saved the company an esti- product quality, cycle time, and productivity
mated $10 million. performance. These results stem from excep-
Motorola, Inc., is among the largest U.S. tional practices in managing human assets,
industrial corporations. Its principal product sharing data and information with employees,
lines include communication systems and customers, and suppliers, and aligning all its
semiconductors, and it distributes its products business processes with key organizational
through direct sales and service operations. objectives.
Motorola was a leader in the U.S. quality revolu-
tion during the 1980s and was one of the initial
Source: Baldrige Award Recipient Profiles, National Institute of
group of companies to receive the Malcolm Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce. Copy-
Baldrige National Quality Award in 1988. Two right © Clarke American Checks, Inc., 2001. All rights reserved.
and apprentices, emerged to ensure that craftspeople were adequately trained.

Quality assurance was informal; every effort was made to ensure that quality was
built into the final product by the people who produced it. These themes, which were
lost with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, are important foundations of
modern quality assurance efforts.
During the middle of the eighteenth century, a French gunsmith, Honoré Le
Blanc, developed a system for manufacturing muskets to a standard pattern using
interchangeable parts. Thomas Jefferson brought the idea to America, and in 1798 the
new U.S. government awarded Eli Whitney a two-year contract to supply 10,000
muskets to its armed forces. The use of interchangeable parts necessitated careful
control of quality. Whereas a customized product built by a craftsperson can be
tweaked and hammered to fit and work correctly, random matching of mating parts
provides no such assurance. The parts must be produced according to a carefully
designed standard. Whitney designed special machine tools and trained unskilled
workers to make parts following a fixed design, which were then measured and com-
pared to a model. He underestimated the effect of variation in production processes,
however (an obstacle that continues to plague companies to this day). Because of the
resulting problems, Whitney needed more than 10 years to complete the project.
Nonetheless, the value of the concept of interchangeable parts was recognized, and it
eventually led to the Industrial Revolution, making quality assurance a critical com-
ponent of the production process.
The Early Twentieth Century

In the early 1900s the work of Frederick W. Taylor, often called the “father of scientific
management,” led to a new philosophy of production. Taylor’s philosophy was to
separate the planning function from the execution function. Managers and engineers
were given the task of planning; supervisors and workers took on the task of execu-
tion. This approach worked well at the turn of the century, when workers lacked the
education needed for doing planning. By segmenting a job into specific work tasks
and focusing on increasing efficiency, quality assurance fell into the hands of inspec-
tors. Manufacturers were able to ship good-quality products, but at great costs.
Defects were present, but were removed by inspection. Plants employed hundreds,
even thousands, of inspectors. Inspection was thus the primary means of quality con-
trol during the first half of the twentieth century.
Eventually, production organizations created separate quality departments. This
artificial separation of production workers from responsibility for quality assurance
led to indifference to quality among both workers and their managers. Concluding
that quality was the responsibility of the quality department, many upper managers
turned their attention to output quantity and efficiency. Because they had delegated
so much responsibility for quality to others, upper managers gained little knowledge
about quality, and when the quality crisis hit, they were ill-prepared to deal with it.
Ironically, one of the leaders of the second Industrial Revolution, Henry Ford, Sr.,
developed many of the fundamentals of what we now call “total quality practices” in
the early 1900s. This discovery was made when Ford executives visited Japan in 1982
to study Japanese management practices. As the story goes, one Japanese executive
referred repeatedly to “the book,” which the Ford people learned was a Japanese
translation of My Life and Work, written by Henry Ford and Samuel Crowther in 1926
(New York: Garden City Publishing Co.). “The book” had become Japan’s industrial
bible and helped Ford Motor Company realize how it had strayed from its principles
over the years. The Ford executives had to go to a used bookstore to find a copy when
they returned to the United States.
The Bell System was the leader in the early modern history of industrial quality
assurance.3 It created an inspection department in its Western Electric Company in
the early 1900s to support the Bell operating companies. Although the Bell System
achieved its noteworthy quality through massive inspection efforts, the importance
of quality in providing telephone service across the nation led it to research and
develop new approaches. In the 1920s, employees of Western Electric’s inspection
department were transferred to Bell Telephone Laboratories. The duties of this group
included the development of new theories and methods of inspection for improving
and maintaining quality. The early pioneers of quality assurance—Walter Shewhart,
Harold Dodge, George Edwards, and others, including W. Edwards Deming—were
members of this group. These pioneers not only coined the term quality assurance,
they also developed many useful techniques for improving quality and solving
quality problems. Thus, quality became a technical discipline of its own.
The Western Electric group, led by Walter Shewhart, ushered in the era of statis-
tical quality control (SQC), the application of statistical methods for controlling
quality. SQC goes beyond inspection to focus on identifying and eliminating the
problems that cause defects. Shewhart is credited with developing control charts,
which became a popular means of identifying quality problems in production
processes and ensuring consistency of output. Others in the group developed many
other useful statistical techniques and approaches.
During World War II the United States military began using statistical sampling
procedures and imposing stringent standards on suppliers. The War Production
Board offered free training courses in the statistical methods developed within the Bell
System. The impact on wartime production was minimal, but the effort developed
quality specialists, who began to use and extend these tools within their organizations.
Thus, statistical quality control became widely known and gradually adopted
throughout manufacturing industries. Sampling tables labeled MIL-STD, for military
standard, were developed and are still widely used today. The discipline’s first pro-
fessional journal, Industrial Quality Control, was published in 1944, and professional
societies—notably the American Society for Quality Control (now called the American
Society for Quality, http://www.asq.org)—were founded soon after to develop, pro-
mote, and apply quality concepts.
Post–World War II
After the war, during the late 1940s and early 1950s, the shortage of civilian goods in
the United States made production a top priority. In most companies, quality
remained the province of the specialist. Quality was not a priority of top managers,
who delegated this responsibility to quality managers. Top management showed
little interest in quality improvement or the prevention of defects and errors, relying
instead on mass inspection.
During this time, two U.S. consultants, Dr. Joseph Juran and Dr. W. Edwards
Deming, introduced statistical quality control techniques to the Japanese to aid them
in their rebuilding efforts. A significant part of their educational activity was focused
on upper management, rather than quality specialists alone. With the support of top
managers, the Japanese integrated quality throughout their organizations and devel-
oped a culture of continuous improvement (sometimes referred to by the Japanese
¯
term kaizen, pronounced ki -zen). Back in 1951, the Union of Japanese Scientists and
Engineers (JUSE) instituted the Deming Prize (see Chapter 3) to reward individuals
and companies who meet stringent criteria for quality management practice.
Improvements in Japanese quality were slow and steady; some 20 years passed
before the quality of Japanese products exceeded that of Western manufacturers. By
the 1970s, primarily due to the higher quality levels of their products, Japanese com-
panies’ penetration into Western markets was significant. Hewlett-Packard reported
one of the more startling facts in 1980. In testing 300,000 16K RAM chips from three
U.S. and three Japanese manufacturers, Hewlett-Packard found that the Japanese
chips had an incoming failure rate of zero failures per 1,000 compared to rates of 11
and 19 for the U.S. chips. After 1,000 hours of use, the failure rate of the U.S. chips was
up to 27 times higher. In a few short years, the Japanese made major inroads into a
market previously dominated by American companies. The automobile industry is
another, more publicized, example. The June 8, 1987, Business Week special report on
quality noted that the number of problems reported per 100 domestic models (1987)
in the first 60 to 90 days of ownership averaged between 162 and 180. Comparable
figures for Japanese and German automobiles were 129 and 152, respectively. The
U.S. steel, consumer electronics, and even banking industries also were victims of
global competition. U.S. business recognized the crisis.
The U.S. “Quality Revolution”

The decade of the 1980s was a period of remarkable change and growing awareness
of quality by consumers, industry, and government. During the 1950s and 1960s,
when “made in Japan” was associated with inferior products, U.S. consumers pur-
chased domestic goods and accepted their quality without question. During the
1970s, however, increased global competition and the appearance of higher-quality
foreign products on the market led U.S. consumers to consider their purchasing deci-
sions more carefully. They began to notice differences in quality between Japanese-
and U.S.-made products, and consequently began to expect and demand high quality
and reliability in goods and services at a fair price. Consumers expected products to
function properly and not to break or fail under reasonable use, and courts of law
supported them. Extensive product recalls mandated by the Consumer Product
Safety Commission in the early 1980s and the intensive media coverage of the Chal-
lenger space shuttle disaster in 1986, in which the Challenger exploded shortly after
takeoff killing all seven astronauts, increased awareness of the importance of quality.
Consequently, consumers are more apt than ever before to compare, evaluate, and
choose products critically for total value—quality, price, and serviceability. Maga-
zines such as Consumer Reports and newspaper reviews make this task much easier.
Obviously, the more technologically complex a product, the more likely that some-
thing will go wrong with it. Government safety regulations, product recalls, and the
rapid increase in product-liability judgments have changed society’s attitude from “let
the buyer beware” to “let the producer beware.” Businesses now see increased atten-
tiveness to quality as vital to their survival. Xerox, for instance, discovered that its
Japanese competitors were selling small copiers for what it cost Xerox to make them at
the time, and as a consequence, initiated a corporate-wide quality improvement focus
to meet the challenge. Xerox, and its former CEO David Kearns, who led their “Lead-
ership Through Quality” initiative, were a major influence in the promotion of quality
among U.S. corporations. In the five years of continuous improvement culminating in
the firm’s winning the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in 1989, defects per
100 machines were decreased by 78 percent, unscheduled maintenance was decreased
by 40 percent, manufacturing costs dropped 20 percent, product development time
decreased by 60 percent, overall product quality improved 93 percent, service
response time was improved by 27 percent, and the company recaptured much of the
market it had lost. The company experienced strong growth during the 1990s. How-
ever, like Ford Motor Company discussed earlier in this chapter, Xerox lost focus on
quality as a key business driver, much of it due to short-sightedness on the part of

former top management. Fortunately, new corporate leadership recognized the crisis
and renewed its focus and commitment to quality (see the Quality in Practice case at
the end of this chapter).
A Westinghouse (now CBS) vice president of corporate productivity and quality
summed up the situation by quoting Dr. Samuel Johnson’s remark: “Nothing con-
centrates a man’s mind so wonderfully as the prospect of being hanged in the
morning.” Quality excellence became recognized as a key to worldwide competitive-
ness and was heavily promoted throughout industry.4 Most major U.S. companies
instituted extensive quality improvement campaigns, directed not only at improving
internal operations, but also toward satisfying external customers.
One of the most influential individuals in the quality revolution was W. Edwards
Deming. In 1980 NBC televised a special program entitled “If Japan Can . . . Why
Can’t We?” The widely viewed program revealed Deming’s key role in the develop-
ment of Japanese quality, and his name was soon a household word among corporate
executives. Although Deming had helped to transform Japanese industry three
decades earlier, it was only after the television program that U.S. companies asked for
his help. From 1980 until his death in 1993, his leadership and expertise helped many
U.S. companies to revolutionize their approach to quality.
Early Successes
As business and industry began to focus on quality, the government recognized how
critical quality is to the nation’s economic health. In 1984 the U.S. government desig-
nated October as National Quality Month. In 1985 NASA announced an Excellence
Award for Quality and Productivity. In 1987 the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award (see Chapter 3), a statement of national intent to provide quality leadership,
was established by an act of Congress. The Baldrige Award became the most influen-
tial instrument for creating quality awareness among U.S. businesses. In 1988 Presi-
dent Reagan established the Federal Quality Prototype Award and the President’s
Award for governmental agencies.
From the late 1980s and through the 1990s, interest in quality grew at an unprece-
dented rate, fueled in part by publicity from the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award. Companies made significant strides in improving quality. In the automobile
industry, for example, improvement efforts by Chrysler, General Motors, and Ford
reduced the number of problems reported per 100 domestic cars in the first 60 to 90
days of ownership from about 170 in 1987 to 136 in 1991. The gaps between Japanese
and U.S. quality began to narrow, and U.S. firms regained much of the ground they
had lost.
In 1989 Florida Power and Light was the first non-Japanese company to be
awarded Japan’s coveted Deming Prize for quality; AT&T Power Systems was the
second in 1994. Quality practices expanded into the service sector and into such non-
profit organizations as schools and hospitals. By 1990, quality drove nearly every
organization’s quest for success. By the mid-1990s thousands of professional books
had been written, and quality-related consulting and training had blossomed into an
industry. Companies began to share their knowledge and experience through formal
and informal networking. New quality awards were established by the federal gov-
ernment under the Clinton administration. The majority of states in the United States
developed award programs for recognizing quality achievements in business, educa-
tion, not-for-profits, and government. In 1999, Congress added nonprofit education
and health care sectors to the Baldrige Award.
From Product Quality to Performance Excellence

Although quality initiatives focused initially on reducing defects and errors in prod-
ucts and services through the use of measurement, statistics, and other problem-
solving tools, organizations began to recognize that lasting improvement could not
be accomplished without significant attention to the quality of the management prac-
tices used on a daily basis. Managers began to realize that the approaches they use to
listen to customers and develop long-term relationships, develop strategy, measure
performance and analyze data, reward and train employees, design and deliver
products and services, and act as leaders in their organizations are the true enablers
of quality, customer satisfaction, and business results. In other words, they recog-
nized that the “quality of management” is as important as the “management of
quality.” Many began to use the term Big Q to contrast the difference between man-
aging for quality in all organizational processes as opposed to focusing solely on
manufacturing quality (Little Q). As organizations began to integrate quality princi-
ples into their management systems, the notion of total quality management, or
TQM, became popular. Quality took on a new meaning of organization-wide perfor-
mance excellence rather than a narrow engineering- or production-based technical
discipline and permeated every aspect of running an organization.
Today, the term TQM has virtually disappeared from business vernacular; however,
the underlying principles of quality management are recognized as the foundation of
high-performance management systems and an important factor for competitive suc-
cess. Many organizations have integrated quality principles so tightly with daily work
activities that they no longer view quality as something special. In contrast, many other
organizations have barely begun.
Disappointments and Criticism

Unfortunately, with all the hype and rhetoric (and the unfortunate three-letter-
acronym, TQM), companies scrambled to institute quality programs. In their haste,
many failed, leading to very disappointing results. Consequently, TQM met some
harsh criticism. In reference to Douglas Aircraft,
a troubled subsidiary of McDonnell Douglas While quality initiatives can lead to
Corporation (since merged with the Boeing Cor- business success, they cannot guar-
poration), Newsweek stated, “The aircraft maker antee it, and one must not infer that
three years ago embraced ‘Total Quality Man- business failures or stock price dives
agement,’ a Japanese import that had become are the result of poor quality.
the American business cult of the 1980s. . . . At
Douglas, TQM appeared to be just one more hothouse Japanese flower never meant
to grow on rocky ground.”5 Other articles in The Wall Street Journal (“Quality Pro-
grams Show Shoddy Results,” May 14, 1992) and the New York Times (“The Lem-
mings Who Love Total Quality,” May 3, 1992) suggested that total quality approaches
were passing fads and inherently flawed. Business Week commentator John Byrne
even pronounced TQM “as dead as a pet rock” (June 23, 1997, p. 47). However, rea-
sons for TQM failures usually are rooted in poor organizational approaches and man-
agement systems, such as poor quality strategies or good strategies that were poorly
executed, and not in the foundation principles of quality management. In fact, Busi-
ness Week’s Byrne went on to say that today’s most popular management ideas focus
on “good old-fashioned, strategic planning” and customer satisfaction, which are
generic to the quality management philosophy.
As the editor of Quality Digest put it: “No, TQM isn’t dead. TQM failures
just prove that bad management is still alive and kicking.” A poor major business
decision such as an inappropriate merger or acquisition, a weak global economy, or a

change in top management can easily undo years of effort to build a quality-focused
organization. This possibility is evident in what happened at Ford and Xerox. For
example, in June 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission fined six former top
Xerox executives, including two former CEOs who followed David Kearns, to settle
allegations of financial fraud—clearly executive attention was diverted to Wall Street
rather than quality.
In recent years, a new interest in fundamental quality principles emerged in cor-
porate boardrooms under the concept of Six Sigma, a customer-focused and results-
oriented approach to business improvement. Six Sigma integrates many quality tools
and techniques that have been tested and validated over the years, with a bottom-line
orientation that appeals to senior managers. Xerox’s new quality focus, for example, is
based on Six Sigma principles. We will discuss the concepts of Six Sigma as they relate
to the topics in many chapters of this book and delve into it in more depth in Part III.
Current and Future Challenges

The real challenge today is to ensure that managers do not lose sight of the basic prin-
ciples on which quality management and performance excellence are based. As
former Xerox president David Kearns observed, quality is “a race without a finish
line.” The global marketplace and domestic and international competition have made
organizations around the world realize that their survival depends on high quality.6
Many countries, such as Korea and India, are mounting national efforts to increase
quality awareness, including conferences, seminars, radio shows, school essay con-
tests, and pamphlet distribution. Spain and Brazil are encouraging the publication of
quality books in their native language to make them more accessible (this book has
been translated into Spanish and Chinese). These trends will only increase the level of
competition in the future. New approaches, such as Six Sigma, require increased levels
of training and education for managers and front-line employees alike, as well as the
development of technical staff. Thus, a key challenge is to allocate the necessary
resources to maintain a focus on quality, particularly in times of economic downturns.
However, businesses will require an economic justification for quality initiatives:
quality must deliver bottom-line results.
In 1999, the American Society for Quality identified eight key forces that will
influence the future of quality in this new century:7
• Partnering: Superior products and services will be delivered through partnering
in all forms, including partnerships with competitors.
• Learning systems: Education systems for improved transfer of knowledge and
skills will better equip individuals and organizations to compete.
• Adaptability and speed of change: Adaptability and flexibility will be essential to
compete and keep pace with the increasing velocity of change.
• Environmental sustainability: Environmental sustainability and accountability
will be required to prevent the collapse of the global ecosystem.
• Globalization: Globalization will continue to shape the economic and social envi-
ronment.
• Knowledge focus: Knowledge will be the prime factor in competition and the cre-
ation of wealth.
• Customization and differentiation: Customization (lot size of one) and differentia-
tion (quality of experience) will determine superior products and services.
• Shifting demographics: Shifting demographics (age and ethnicity) will continue
to change societal values.
A number of implications arise out of these forces. Organizations must reinterpret work
to provide learning experiences for workers and use quality tools at all levels because
they provide a common language and the means by which people work together. Fewer
professionals will be dedicated strictly to quality; the main function of quality profes-
sionals will be to train others in cutting-edge tools. Business leaders must also take
responsibility and be held accountable for the quality outcomes of their work processes.
In addition, the growth of the Internet continues to shape the business landscape.
For example, consumers accustomed to the speed, efficiency, and superior customer
service of e-commerce will demand the same in retail transactions. Tom Engibous,
president and chief executive officer of Texas Instruments, commented on the present
and future importance of quality in 1997: “Quality will have to be everywhere, inte-
grated into all aspects of a winning organization.” Companies such as Ford and
Xerox recognized that the process is not easy; true quality requires persistence, disci-
pline, and steadfast leadership committed to excellence.
DEFINING QUALITY
Quality can be a confusing concept, partly because people view quality in relation to
differing criteria based on their individual roles in the production-marketing value
chain. In addition, the meaning of quality continues to evolve as the quality profession
grows and matures. Neither consultants nor business professionals agree on a uni-
versal definition. A study that asked managers of 86 firms in the eastern United States
to define quality produced several dozen different responses, including the following:
1. Perfection
2. Consistency
3. Eliminating waste
4. Speed of delivery
5. Compliance with policies and procedures
6. Providing a good, usable product
7. Doing it right the first time
8. Delighting or pleasing customers
9. Total customer service and satisfaction8
Thus, it is important to understand the various perspectives from which quality is
viewed in order to fully appreciate the role it plays in the many parts of a business
organization.9
Judgmental Perspective
One common notion of quality, often used by consumers, is that it is synonymous with
superiority or excellence. In 1931 Walter Shewhart first defined quality as the good-
ness of a product. This view is referred to as the transcendent (transcend, “to rise above
or extend notably beyond ordinary limits”) definition of quality. In this sense, quality
is “both absolute and universally recognizable, a mark of uncompromising standards
and high achievement.”10 As such, it cannot be defined precisely—you just know it
when you see it. It is often loosely related to a comparison of features and characteris-
tics of products and promulgated by marketing efforts aimed at developing quality as
an image variable in the minds of consumers. Common examples of products attrib-
uted with this image are Rolex watches and BMW and Lexus automobiles.
Excellence is abstract and subjective, however, and standards of excellence may
vary considerably among individuals. Hence, the transcendent definition is of little
practical value to managers. It does not provide a means by which quality can be
measured or assessed as a basis for decision making.
Product-Based Perspective
Another definition of quality is that it is a function of a specific, measurable variable
and that differences in quality reflect differences in quantity of some product
attribute, such as in the number of stitches per inch on a shirt or in the number of
cylinders in an engine. This assessment implies that higher levels or amounts of
product characteristics are equivalent to higher quality. As a result, quality is often
mistakenly assumed to be related to price: the higher the price, the higher the quality.
Just consider the case of a Florida man who purchased a $262,000 Lamborghini only
to find a leaky roof, a battery that quit without notice, a sunroof that detached when
the car hit a bump, and doors that jammed!11 However, a product—a term used in this
book to refer to either a manufactured good or a service—need not be expensive to be
considered a quality product by consumers. Also, as with the notion of excellence, the
assessment of product attributes may vary considerably among individuals.
User-Based Perspective
A third definition of quality is based on the presumption that quality is determined by
what a customer wants. Individuals have different wants and needs and, hence, dif-
ferent quality standards, which leads to a user-based definition: quality is defined as fit-
ness for intended use, or how well the product performs its intended function. Both a
Cadillac sedan and a Jeep Cherokee are fit for use, for example, but they serve different
needs and different groups of customers. If you want a highway-touring vehicle with
luxury amenities, then a Cadillac may better satisfy your needs. If you want a vehicle
for camping, fishing, or skiing trips, a Jeep might be viewed as having better quality.
Nissan Motor Car Company Limited’s experience provides an example of
Quality Spotlight
applying the fitness-for-use concept.12 Nissan, which produced a line of vehicles Nissan
called Datsun (stemming from the company’s historical roots), tested the U.S. market
in 1960. Not wanting to put the Nissan name on a very risky venture, they decided to
use the name Datsun on all cars and trucks sold in North America. Although the car
was economical to own, U.S. drivers found it to be slow, hard to drive, low-powered,
and not very comfortable. In essence, it lacked most of the qualities that North Amer-
ican drivers expected. The U.S. representative, Mr. Katayama, kept asking questions
and sending the answers back to Tokyo. For some time, his company refused to
believe that U.S. tastes were different from its own. After many years of nagging, Mr.
Katayama finally got a product that Americans liked, the sporty 1970 240Z. Eventu-
ally, the Nissan brand name replaced Datsun. Car enthusiasts will know that Nissan
reintroduced a modern version of this classic vehicle in 2002.
A second example comes from a U.S. appliance company whose stoves and
refrigerators were admired by Japanese buyers. Unfortunately, the smaller living
quarters of the typical Japanese home lack enough space to accommodate the U.S.
models. Some could not even pass through the narrow doors of Japanese kitchens.
Although the products’ performance characteristics were high, the products were
simply not fit for use in Japan.
Value-Based Perspective
A fourth approach to defining quality is based on value; that is, the relationship of
usefulness or satisfaction to price. From this perspective, a quality product is one that
is as useful as competing products and is sold at a lower price, or one that offers
greater usefulness or satisfaction at a comparable price. Thus, one might purchase a
generic product, rather than a brand name one, if it performs as well as the brand-
name product at a lower price. An example of this perspective in practice is evident
in a comparison of the U.S. and Japanese automobile markets. A Chrysler marketing
executive noted “One of the main reasons that the leading Japanese brands—Toyota
and Honda—don’t offer the huge incentives of the Big Three (General Motors, Ford,
and Chrysler) is that they have a much better reputation for long-term durability.” In
essence, incentives and rebates are payments to customers to compensate for lower
quality.13
Competing on the basis of value became a key business strategy in the early
1990s. Procter & Gamble, for example, instituted a concept it calls value pricing—
offering products at “everyday” low prices in an attempt to counter the common con-
sumer practice of buying whatever brand happens to be on special. In this way, P&G
hoped to attain consumer brand loyalty and more consistent sales, which would pro-
vide significant advantages for its manufacturing system. Competition demands that
businesses seek to satisfy consumers’ needs at lower prices. The value approach to
quality incorporates a firm’s goal of balancing product characteristics (the customer
side of quality) with internal efficiencies (the operations side).
Manufacturing-Based Perspective
A fifth view of quality is manufacturing-based and defines quality as the desirable
outcome of engineering and manufacturing practice, or conformance to specifications.
Specifications are targets and tolerances determined by designers of products and
services. Targets are the ideal values for which production is to strive; tolerances are
specified because designers recognize that it is impossible to meet targets all of the
time in manufacturing. For example, a part dimension might be specified as “0.236 ±
0.003 cm.” These measurements would mean that the target, or ideal value, is 0.236
centimeters, and that the allowable variation is 0.003 centimeters from the target (a
tolerance of 0.006 cm.). Thus, any dimension in the range 0.233 to 0.239 centimeters is
deemed acceptable and is said to conform to specifications. Likewise, in services,
“on-time arrival” for an airplane might be specified as within 15 minutes of the
scheduled arrival time. The target is the scheduled time, and the tolerance is specified
to be 15 minutes.
For the Coca-Cola Company, for example, quality is “about manufacturing a
product that people can depend on every time they reach for it,” according to Donald
R. Keough, former president and chief operations officer. Through rigorous quality
and packaging standards, the company strives to ensure that its products will taste
the same anywhere in the world a consumer might buy them. Even service organiza-
tions strive for consistency in performance; The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, which
we discuss further in Chapter 2, seeks to ensure that its customers will have the same
quality experience at any of their properties around the world. Conformance to spec-
ifications is a key definition of quality, because it provides a means of measuring
quality. Specifications are meaningless, however, if they do not reflect attributes that
are deemed important to the consumer.
Integrating Perspectives on Quality

Although product quality should be important to all individuals throughout the value
chain, how quality is viewed may depend on one’s position in the value chain, that is,
whether one is the designer, manufacturer or service provider, distributor, or cus-
tomer. To understand this concept more clearly from a manufacturing perspective,

examine Figure 1.1. The customer is the driving force for the production of goods and
services, and customers generally view quality from either the transcendent or the
product-based perspective. The goods and services produced should meet customers’
needs; indeed, business organizations’ existences depend upon meeting customer
needs. It is the role of the marketing function to determine these needs. A product that
meets customer needs can rightly be described as a quality product. Hence, the user-
based definition of quality is meaningful to people who work in marketing.
The manufacturer must translate customer requirements into detailed product
and process specifications. Making this translation is the role of research and devel-
opment, product design, and engineering. Product specifications might address such
attributes as size, form, finish, taste, dimensions, tolerances, materials, operational
characteristics, and safety features. Process specifications indicate the types of equip-
ment, tools, and facilities to be used in production. Product designers must balance
performance and cost to meet marketing objectives; thus, the value-based definition
of quality is most useful at this stage.
A great deal of variation can occur during manufacturing operations. Machine set-
tings can fall out of adjustment; operators and assemblers can make mistakes; mate-
rials can be defective. Even in the most closely controlled process, specific variations
in product output are inevitable and unpredictable. The manufacturing function is
responsible for guaranteeing that design specifications are adhered to during produc-
Figure 1.1 Quality Perspectives in the Value Chain
Transcendent quality
and
Product-based quality
User-based quality
Needs
Customer Marketing
Value-based
quality
Design
Products
and
Services
Manufacturing
Manufacturing-based
Distribution quality
Information flow
Product flow
tion and that the final product performs as intended. Thus, for production personnel,
quality is described by the manufacturing-based definition. Conformance to product
specifications is their goal.
The production-distribution cycle is completed when the product has been
moved from the manufacturing plant, perhaps through wholesale and retail outlets,
to the customer. Distribution does not end the customer’s relationship with the man-
ufacturer, however. The customer may need various services such as installation,
user information, and special training. Such services are part of the product and
cannot be ignored in quality management.
Hospital care offers a good illustration of Because individuals in different
how different views of quality can affect a single business functions speak differ-
product in a service context. The transcendent ent “languages,” the need for dif-
definition of quality applies to the hospital’s ferent views of what constitutes
need to promote and maintain an image of excel- quality at different points inside and
lence by ensuring the competency of its medical outside an organization is necessary
staff, the availability of treatments for rare or to create products of true quality
complicated disorders, or the presence of ad- that will satisfy customers’ needs.
vanced medical technology. Patients and third-
party organizations make subjective judgments about this kind of quality. Those who
audit hospital efficiency and monitor treatment consistency and resource consump-
tion define quality according to product-based dimensions. This view of quality is pre-
dominant among government and health care accrediting agencies.
Patients’ perceptions of health care quality are focused on product-based and
user-based criteria, and their expectations are high because of widely publicized
improvements in medical care, advances in therapeutic drug treatments, and innov-
ative surgery. These expectations increase the pressure on hospitals to provide a
variety of services to meet these expectations. As demand for flawless service
increases, the medical staff and ancillary services must turn their attention to a man-
ufacturing-based definition of quality. This view of accrediting agencies and the med-
ical profession mandates conformance to various practices and determines licensing
requirements for practice.
Customer-Driven Quality
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society for
Quality (ASQ) standardized official definitions of quality terminology in 1978.14 These
groups defined quality as “the totality of features and characteristics of a product or
service that bears on its ability to satisfy given needs.” This definition draws heavily
on the product- and user-based approaches and is driven by the need to contribute
value to customers and thus to influence satisfaction and preference. By the end of the
1980s, many companies had begun using a simpler, yet powerful, customer-driven
definition of quality that remains popular today:
Quality is meeting or exceeding customer expectations.
To understand this definition, one must first understand the meanings of “cus-
tomer.” Most people think of a customer as the ultimate purchaser of a product or
service; for instance, the person who buys an automobile for personal use or the guest
who registers at a hotel is considered an ultimate purchaser. These customers are
more precisely referred to as consumers. Clearly, meeting the expectations of con-
sumers is the ultimate goal of any business. Before a product reaches consumers,
however, it may flow through a chain of many firms or departments, each of which
adds some value to the product. For example, an automobile engine plant may pur-
chase steel from a steel company, produce engines, and then transport the engines to
an assembly plant. The steel company is a supplier to the engine plant; the engine
plant is a supplier to the assembly plant. The engine plant is thus a customer of the
steel company, and the assembly plant is a customer of the engine plant. These cus-
tomers are called external customers.
Every employee in a company also has internal customers who receive goods or
services from suppliers within the company. An assembly department, for example, is
an internal customer of the machining department, and managers are internal cus-
tomers of the secretarial pool. Most businesses consist of many such “chains of cus-
tomers.” Thus, the job of an employee is not simply to please his or her supervisor; it
is to satisfy the needs of particular internal and external customers. Failure to meet the
needs and expectations of internal customers can result in a poor-quality product. For
example, a poor design for a computerized hotel reservation system makes it difficult
for reservation clerks to do their job, and consequently affects consumers’ satisfaction.
Identifying who one’s customers are and understanding their expectations are funda-
mental to achieving customer satisfaction. This focus is a radical departure from tra-
ditional ways of thinking in a functionally oriented organization. It allows workers to
understand their place in the larger system and their contribution to the final product.
(Who are the customers of a university, its instructors, and its students?)
Customer-driven quality is fundamental to high-performing organizations. The
president and CEO of Fujitsu Network Transmission Systems, a U.S. subsidiary of
Fujitsu, Ltd., stated, “Our customers are intelligent; they expect us to continu-
ously evolve to meet their ever-changing needs. They can’t afford to have a thousand
mediocre suppliers in today’s competitive environment. They want a few excep-
tional ones.”
QUALITY AS A MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

In the 1970s a General Electric task force studied consumer perceptions of the quality
of various GE product lines.15 Lines with relatively poor reputations for quality were
found to deemphasize the customer’s viewpoint, regard quality as synonymous with
tight tolerance and conformance to specifications, tie quality objectives to manufac-
turing flow, express quality objectives as the number of defects per unit, and use
formal quality control systems only in manufacturing. In contrast, product lines that
received customer praise were found to emphasize satisfying customer expectations,
determine customer needs through market research, use customer-based quality per-
formance measures, and have formalized quality control systems in place for all busi-
ness functions, not just for manufacturing. The task force concluded that quality
must not be viewed solely as a technical discipline, but rather as a management dis-
cipline. That is, quality issues permeate all aspects of business enterprise: design,
marketing, manufacturing, human resource management, supplier relations, and
financial management, to name just a few.
As companies came to recognize the broad scope of quality, the concept of total
quality (TQ) emerged. A definition of total quality was endorsed in 1992 by the
chairs and CEOs of nine major U.S. corporations in cooperation with deans of busi-
ness and engineering departments of major universities, and recognized consultants:
Total Quality (TQ) is a people-focused management system that aims at con-
tinual increase in customer satisfaction at continually lower real cost. TQ is a
total system approach (not a separate area or program) and an integral part of
high-level strategy; it works horizontally across functions and departments,
involves all employees, top to bottom, and extends backward and forward to
include the supply chain and the customer chain. TQ stresses learning and
adaptation to continual change as keys to organizational success.
The foundation of total quality is philosophical: the scientific method. TQ
includes systems, methods, and tools. The systems permit change; the phi-
losophy stays the same. TQ is anchored in values that stress the dignity of
the individual and the power of community action.16
Procter & Gamble uses a concise definition: Total quality is the unyielding and con-
tinually improving effort by everyone in an organization to understand, meet, and
exceed the expectations of customers.
Actually, the concept of TQ has been around for some time. A. V. Feigenbaum
recognized the importance of a comprehensive approach to quality in the 1950s and
coined the term total quality control.17 Feigenbaum observed that the quality of
products and services is directly influenced by what he terms the 9 Ms: markets,
money, management, men and women, motivation, materials, machines and mecha-
nization, modern information methods, and mounting product requirements.
Although he developed his ideas from an engineering perspective, his concepts
apply more broadly to general management.
The Japanese adopted Feigenbaum’s concept and renamed it companywide
quality control. Wayne S. Reiker listed five aspects of total quality control practiced
in Japan.18
1. Quality emphasis extends through market analysis, design, and customer ser-
vice rather than only the production stages of making a product.
2. Quality emphasis is directed toward operations in every department from exec-
utives to clerical personnel.
3. Quality is the responsibility of the individual and the work group, not some
other group, such as inspection.
4. The two types of quality characteristics as viewed by customers are those that
satisfy and those that motivate. Only the latter are strongly related to repeat
sales and a “quality” image.
5. The first customer for a part or piece of information is usually the next depart-
ment in the production process.
The term total quality management was developed by the Naval Air Systems Com-
mand to describe its Japanese-style approach to quality improvement and became
popular with businesses in the United States during the 1980s. As we noted earlier,
TQM has fallen out of favor, and many people simply use TQ, which we will do in
this book.
Principles of Total Quality

Whatever the language, total quality is based on three fundamental principles:
1. A focus on customers and stakeholders
2. Participation and teamwork by everyone in the organization
3. A process focus supported by continuous improvement and learning
Despite their obvious simplicity, these principles are quite different from traditional
management practices. Historically, companies did little to understand external cus-
tomer requirements, much less those of internal customers. Managers and specialists
controlled and directed production systems; workers were told what to do and how to
do it, and rarely were asked for their input. Teamwork was virtually nonexistent. A cer-
tain amount of waste and error was tolerable and was controlled by postproduction
inspection. Improvements in quality generally resulted from technological break-

throughs instead of a relentless mindset of continuous improvement. With total quality,
an organization actively seeks to identify customer needs and expectations, to build
quality into work processes by tapping the knowledge and experience of its workforce,
and to continually improve every facet of the organization.
Customer and Stakeholder Focus The customer is the principal judge of quality. Per-
ceptions of value and satisfaction are influenced by many factors throughout the cus-
tomer’s overall purchase, ownership, and service experiences. To accomplish this
task, a company’s efforts need to extend well beyond merely meeting specifications,
reducing defects and errors, or resolving complaints. They must include both
designing new products that truly delight the customer and responding rapidly to
changing consumer and market demands. A company close to its customer knows
what the customer wants, how the customer uses its products, and anticipates needs
that the customer may not even be able to
To meet or exceed customer expec- express. It also continually develops new ways
tations, organizations must fully of enhancing customer relationships.
understand all product and service A firm also must recognize that internal
attributes that contribute to cus- customers are as important in assuring quality
tomer value and lead to satisfaction as are external customers who purchase the
and loyalty. product. Employees who view themselves as
both customers of and suppliers to other
employees understand how their work links to the final product. After all, the
responsibility of any supplier is to understand and meet customer requirements in
the most efficient and effective way possible.
Customer focus extends beyond the consumer and internal customer relation-
ships, however. Employees and society represent important stakeholders. An organi-
zation’s success depends on the knowledge, skills, creativity, and motivation of its
employees and partners. Therefore, a TQ organization must demonstrate commit-
ment to employees, provide opportunities for development and growth, provide
recognition beyond normal compensation systems, share knowledge, and encourage
risk taking. Viewing society as a stakeholder is an attribute of a world-class organi-
zation. Business ethics, public health and safety, the environment, and community
and professional support are necessary activities that fall under social responsibility.
Participation and Teamwork Joseph Juran credited Japanese managers’ full use of
the knowledge and creativity of the entire workforce as one of the reasons for Japan’s
rapid quality achievements. When managers give employees the tools to make good
decisions and the freedom and encouragement to make contributions, they virtually
guarantee that better quality products and
In any organization, the person who production processes will result. Employees
best understands his or her job and who are allowed to participate—both individ-
how to improve both the product and ually and in teams—in decisions that affect
the process is the one performing it. their jobs and the customer can make substan-
tial contributions to quality.
This attitude represents a profound shift in the typical philosophy of senior man-
agement; the traditional view was that the workforce should be “managed”—or to
put it less formally, the workforce should leave their brains at the door. Good inten-
tions alone are not enough to encourage employee involvement. Management’s task
includes formulating the systems and procedures and then putting them in place to
ensure that participation becomes a part of the culture.
Empowering employees to make decisions that satisfy customers without con-

straining them with bureaucratic rules shows the highest level of trust. Marriott and
Nordstrom are examples of two companies that empower and reward their
employees for service quality. Marriott calls its customer service representatives
“associates.” Associates are permitted wide discretion to call on any part of the com-
pany to help customers and can earn lush bonuses for extraordinary work. Nord-
strom’s customer service stories are legendary, and include employees who have
ironed a new shirt for a customer who needed it that afternoon, one who warmed
customers’ cars in winter while they shopped, and even one who refunded money
for a set of tire chains, even though Nordstrom does not sell them!19
Another important element of total quality is teamwork, which focuses attention
on customer-supplier relationships and encourages the involvement of the total
workforce in attacking systemic problems, particularly those that cross functional
boundaries. Ironically, although problem-solving teams were introduced in the
United States in the 1940s to help solve problems on the factory floor, they failed, pri-
marily because of management resistance to workers’ suggestions. The Japanese,
however, began widespread implementation of similar teams, called quality circles,
in 1962 with dramatic results. Eventually, the concept returned to the United States.
Today, the use of self-managed teams that combine teamwork and empowerment is
a powerful method of employee involvement.
Traditionally, organizations were integrated vertically by linking all the levels of
management in a hierarchical fashion (consider the traditional organization chart).
TQ requires horizontal coordination between organizational units, such as between
design and engineering, engineering and manufacturing, manufacturing and ship-
ping, shipping and sales. Cross-functional teams provide this focus.
Partnerships with unions, customers, suppliers, and education organizations also
promote teamwork and permit the blending of an organization’s core competencies
and capabilities with the complementary strengths of partners, creating mutual ben-
efits. For example, many companies seek suppliers that share their own values. They
often educate them in methods of improvement. If suppliers improve, then so will
the company. For instance, Motorola requires suppliers to take courses in customer
satisfaction and cycle time reduction at Motorola University. It also established a 15-
member council of suppliers to rate Motorola’s own practices and offer suggestions
for improvement.20
Process Focus and Continuous Improvement The traditional way of viewing an

organization is by surveying the vertical dimension—by keeping an eye on an orga-
nization chart. However, work gets done (or fails to get done) horizontally or cross-
functionally, not hierarchically.
According to AT&T, a process is how work A process is a sequence of activities
creates value for customers.21 We typically think that is intended to achieve some
of processes in the context of production: the col- result.
lection of activities and operations involved in
transforming inputs (physical facilities, materials, capital, equipment, people, and
energy) into outputs (products and services). Common types of production processes
include machining, mixing, assembly, filling orders, or approving loans. However,
nearly every major activity within an organization involves a process that crosses tra-
ditional organizational boundaries. For example, an order fulfillment process might
involve a salesperson placing the order; a marketing representative entering it on the
company’s computer system; a credit check by finance; picking, packaging, and ship-
ping by distribution and logistics personnel; invoicing by finance; and installation by
field service engineers. This process is illustrated in Figure 1.2. A process perspective
links together all necessary activities and increases one’s understanding of the entire
system, rather than focusing on only a small part. Many of the greatest opportunities
for improving organizational performance lie in the organizational interfaces—those
spaces between the boxes on an organization chart.
Continuous improvement refers to both incremental changes, which are small
and gradual, and breakthrough, or large and rapid, improvements. These improve-
ments may take any one of several forms:
1. Enhancing value to the customer through new and improved products and
services
2. Reducing errors, defects, waste, and their related costs
3. Increasing productivity and effectiveness in the use of all resources
4. Improving responsiveness and cycle time performance for such processes as
resolving customer complaints or new product introduction
Thus, response time, quality, and productivity objectives should be considered
together. A process focus supports continuous improvement efforts by helping to
understand these synergies and to recognize the true sources of problems.
In 1950, when W. Edwards Deming was helping Japan with its postwar rebuilding
effort, he emphasized the importance of continuous improvement. While presenting
to a group of Japanese industrialists (collectively representing about 80 percent of the
nation’s capital), he drew the diagram shown
Major improvements in response in Figure 1.3. This diagram depicts not only the
time may require significant simpli- relationships among inputs, processes, and
fication of work processes and often outputs, but also the roles of consumers and
drive simultaneous improvements suppliers, the interdependency of organiza-
in quality and productivity. tional processes, the usefulness of consumer
research, and the importance of continuous
Figure 1.2 Process Versus Function
}
CEO
Functional
Focus
Vice President • • • Vice President
Department Department Department Department Department

Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager
}
Process A
Process B
Process
Focus
Process C
Process D
Process E
Figure 1.3 Deming’s View of a Production System
Design
and Consumer
redesign research
Suppliers of
materials and
equipment Consumers
Receipt and
test of
A materials Distribution
Production, assembly, inspection
B
C
Tests of processes,
D machines, methods,
costs
Source: Reprinted from Out of the Crisis, p. 5, by W. Edwards Deming, by permission of MIT Press and the W.
Edwards Deming Institute. © 1986 by The W. Edwards Deming Institute.
improvement of all elements of the production system. Deming told the Japanese that
understanding customers and suppliers was crucial to planning for quality. He
advised them that continuous improvement of both products and production
processes through better understanding of customer requirements is the key to cap-
turing world markets. Deming predicted that within five years Japanese manufac-
turers would be making products of the highest quality in the world and would have
gained a large share of the world market. He was wrong. By applying these ideas, the
Japanese penetrated several global markets in less than four years!
Real improvement depends on learning, which means understanding why
changes are successful through feedback between practices and results, leading to
new goals and approaches. A learning cycle consists of four stages:
1. Planning
2. Execution of plans
3. Assessment of progress
4. Revision of plans based upon assessment findings
The concept of organizational learning is not new. It has its roots in general systems
theory22 and systems dynamics23 developed in the 1950s and 1960s, as well as theories
of learning from organizational psychology. Peter Senge, a professor at the Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has become the major advocate of the
learning organization movement. He defines the learning organization as
. . . an organization that is continually expanding its capacity to create its
future. For such an organization, it is not enough merely to survive. “Survival
learning” or what is more often termed “adaptive learning” is important—
indeed it is necessary. But for a learning organization, “adaptive learning”
must be joined by “generative learning,” learning that enhances our capacity
to create.24
The conceptual framework behind this definition requires an understanding and

integration of many of the concepts and principles that are part of the total quality
philosophy. Senge repeatedly points out, “Over the long run, superior performance
depends on superior learning.” Continuous improvement and learning should be a

regular part of daily work, practiced at personal, work unit, and organizational
levels, driven by opportunities to affect significant change, and focused on sharing
throughout the organization.
Infrastructure, Practices, and Tools

The three principles of total quality need to be supported by an integrated organiza-
tional infrastructure, a set of management practices, and a set of tools and techniques,
which all must work together as suggested in Figure 1.4. Infrastructure refers to the
basic management systems necessary to function effectively and carry out the princi-
ples of TQ. It includes the following elements:
1. Customer relationship management
2. Leadership and strategic planning
3. Human resources management
4. Process management
5. Information and knowledge management
Practices are those activities that occur within each element of the infrastructure to
achieve high-performance objectives. For example, reviewing company performance
is a leadership practice; training and determining employee satisfaction are human
resources management practices; and coordinating design and production/delivery
processes to ensure trouble-free introduction and delivery of products and services is
a process management practice. Tools include a wide variety of graphical and statis-
tical methods to plan work activities, collect data, analyze results, monitor progress,
and solve problems. For instance, a chart showing trends in manufacturing defects as
workers progress through a training program is a simple tool to monitor the effec-
tiveness of the training; the statistical technique of experimental design is often used
in product development activities. The relationships among infrastructure, practices,
and tools are illustrated in Figure 1.5.
This section gives a brief overview of the major elements of a total quality infra-
structure. We will expand on these topics and describe specific practices and tools in
Figure 1.4 The Scope of Total Quality
Practices
C
on
t
in and
us
uo L
oc
us ea
F
Im rni
er
om
pr ng
ov
t
us
em
C
en
PRINCIPLES
t
Participation and Teamwork
Infrastructure Tools and

Techniques
Figure 1.5 Relationships Among Infrastructure, Practices, and Tools
Infrastructure Leadership Strategic Human resources Process Information and

Elements planning management
management knowledge management
Determining •••
Practices ••• ••• Training ••• •••
employee
satisfaction
Tools ••• ••• • • • Trend chart • • • ••• •••
subsequent chapters. It is important to realize that quality management practices and

helpful tools continually evolve and improve. Therefore, discussion of each and
every useful practice or tool is not possible within the scope of this book.
Customer Relationship Management Understanding customer needs, both current

and future, and keeping pace with changing markets requires effective strategies for
listening to and learning from customers, measuring their satisfaction relative to
competitors, and building relationships. Customer needs—particularly differences
among key customer groups—must be linked closely to an organization’s strategic
planning, product design, process improvement, and workforce training activities.
Satisfaction and dissatisfaction information are important because understanding
them leads to the right improvements that can create satisfied customers who reward
the company with loyalty, repeat business, and positive referrals. Creating satisfied
customers includes prompt and effective response and solutions to their needs and
desires as well as building and maintaining good relationships. These issues will be
discussed in Chapter 4.
Leadership and Strategic Planning The success of any organization depends on the
performance of the workers at the bottom of the pyramid. Ross Perot, the Texas bil-
lionaire and founder of a large software consulting firm, once said that inventories can
be managed, but people must be led. All managers, ideally starting with the CEO,
must act as the organization’s leaders for quality. Their task is to create clear values
and high expectations for performance excellence, and then build these into the com-
pany’s processes. Senior management should serve as role models to inspire and moti-
vate the workforce and encourage involvement, learning, innovation, and creativity.
The pursuit of sustainable growth and market leadership through quality requires
a strong future orientation and willingness to make long-term commitments to cus-
tomers and stakeholders. Strategic business planning should be the driver for quality
excellence throughout the organization and needs to anticipate many changes, such as
customers’ expectations, new business and partnering opportunities, the global and
electronic marketplace, technological developments, new customer segments, evolving
regulatory requirements, community/societal expectations, and strategic changes by
competitors. Plans, strategies, and resource allocations need to reflect these influences.
Leadership and strategic planning are addressed further in Chapter 5.
Human Resource Management Meeting the company’s quality and performance

goals requires a fully committed, well-trained, and involved workforce. Front-line
workers need the skills to listen to customers; manufacturing workers need specific
skills in developing technologies; and all employees need to understand how to use
data and information to drive continuous improvement. These can only be achieved
through the design and management of appropriate work systems, reward and
recognition approaches, education and training approaches, and a healthful, safe,
and motivating work environment. Major challenges in this area include the integra-
tion of human resource practices and the alignment of human resource management
with business directions and strategic change processes. Addressing these challenges
requires effective use and understanding of employee-related data on knowledge,
skills, satisfaction, motivation, safety, and well-being. These issues are discussed fur-
ther in Chapter 6.
Process Management Process management involves the design of processes to

develop and deliver products and services that meet the needs of customers, daily
control so that they perform as required, and their continual improvement. Process
management activities place a strong emphasis on prevention and organizational
learning, as the costs of preventing problems at the design stage are much lower than
costs of correcting problems that occur “downstream.” Also, success in globally com-
petitive markets demands creating a capacity for rapid change and flexibility, such as
shorter product introduction cycles and faster and more flexible response to cus-
tomers. Keeping pace with competition often requires simplification of processes and
the ability to make rapid changeovers from one process to another. Process manage-
ment activities involve not only an organization’s core capabilities that create direct
value for customers, but also those support processes that facilitate value creation.
Process management is the subject of Chapter 7.
Information and Knowledge Management Modern businesses depend on data and

information to support performance measurement, management, and improvement.
Such measurements should derive from an organization’s strategy and provide
critical information about key processes, outputs, and results. The measures and
indicators used should best represent the factors that lead to improved customer,
operational, and financial performance. A comprehensive and balanced set of leading
and lagging measures and indicators tied to customer and organization performance
requirements represents a clear basis for aligning all activities with the organization’s
goals. These data must be supported by effective analysis capabilities to extract
useful information to support evaluation, comparisons with competitor and best
practices benchmarks, decision making, and operational improvement. In addition,
information must be reliable, accurate, and timely. Disseminating and sharing orga-
nizational knowledge is critical to an effective management system. We will discuss
these issues further in Chapter 8.
QUALITY AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

Competitive advantage denotes a firm’s ability to achieve market superiority. In the
long run, a sustainable competitive advantage provides above-average performance.
S. C. Wheelwright identified six characteristics of a strong competitive advantage:25
1. It is driven by customer wants and needs. A company provides value to its cus-
tomers that competitors do not.
2. It makes a significant contribution to the success of the business.

3. It matches the organization’s unique resources with opportunities in the envi-
ronment. No two companies have the same resources; a good strategy uses the
firm’s particular resources effectively.
4. It is durable and lasting, and difficult for competitors to copy. A superior
research and development department, for example, can consistently develop
new products or processes that enable the firm to remain ahead of competitors.
5. It provides a basis for further improvement.
6. It provides direction and motivation to the entire organization.
Each of these characteristics relates to quality, suggesting that quality is an important
source of competitive advantage.
The importance of quality in achieving competitive advantage was demonstrated
by several research studies during the 1980s. PIMS Associates, Inc., a subsidiary of
the Strategic Planning Institute, maintains a database of 1,200 companies and studies
the impact of product quality on corporate performance.26 PIMS researchers found
the following:
1. Product quality is an important determinant of business profitability.
2. Businesses that offer premium-quality products and services usually have large
market shares and were early entrants into their markets.
3. Quality is positively and significantly related to a higher return on investment
for almost all kinds of products and market situations. (PIMS studies showed
that firms whose products were perceived as having superior quality earned
more than three times the return on sales of firms whose products were per-
ceived as having inferior quality.)
4. Instituting a strategy of quality improvement usually leads to increased market
share, but at the cost of reduced short-run profitability.
5. High-quality producers can usually charge premium prices.
These findings are summarized in Figure 1.6. A product’s value in the marketplace is
influenced by the quality of its design. Improvements in design will differentiate the
product from its competitors, improve a firm’s quality reputation, and improve the
perceived value of the product. These factors allow the company to command higher
prices as well as to achieve a greater market share, which in turn leads to increased
revenues that offset the costs of improving the design.
Figure 1.6 Quality and Profitability
Improved quality Improved quality

of design of conformance
Higher perceived Higher Lower manufacturing

value prices and service costs
Increased market Increased

share revenues
Higher profitability
Improved conformance in production or service delivery leads to lower costs

through savings in rework, scrap, resolution of errors, and warranty expenses. Philip
Crosby popularized this viewpoint in his book Quality Is Free.27 Crosby states:
Quality is not only free, it is an honest-to-everything profit maker. Every
penny you don’t spend on doing things wrong, over, or instead of, becomes
half a penny right on the bottom line. In these days of “who knows what is
going to happen to our business tomorrow,” there aren’t many ways left to
make a profit improvement. If you concentrate on making quality certain, you
can probably increase your profit by an amount equal to 5 percent to 10 per-
cent of your sales. That is a lot of money for free.
The net effect of improved quality of design and conformance is increased profits.
It is vital to focus quality improvement efforts on both design and conformance.
Many organizations simply confine their quality efforts to one dimension; for
example, they might focus on defect elimination but fail to design products that cus-
tomers really want, or they design great products that are plagued with defects and
service errors. In today’s global marketplace, high conformance is considered “entry
into the game,” rather than a source of competitive advantage. Quality is simply the
foundation for achieving competitive advantage. Competitive success in today’s
market depends on such attributes as the speed of new product development, flexi-
bility in production and delivery, and extraordinary customer service. For example,
Business Week reported in 1998 that several wireless communications providers had
replaced products from Motorola—a long-time quality leader—with other compa-
nies’ technologies. A BellSouth spokesman said the products did not pass its “shake
and bake test.” After Qualcomm, Inc., released digital phones the size of cigarette
packs, Motorola was nearly a year behind, and as a result, was quickly losing market
share.28 However, within a year, Motorola’s wireless communications returned to
profitability, including making a $1 billion, 10-year pact with Sun Microsystems to
build wireless telecom equipment for the Internet with a 99.999 percent reliability.
Only the most agile companies could make such a quick turnaround.
Quality and Business Results

As an old saying goes, “The proof is in the pudding.” Companies that invest in
quality management efforts experience outstanding returns and improvements
in performance. Various research studies show that quality-focused companies
achieved better employee participation and relations, improved product and service
quality, higher productivity, greater customer
satisfaction, increased market share, and im-
Considerable evidence exists that
quality initiatives positively impact proved profitability.29.
bottom-line results. The Commerce Department annually eval-
uates the results of a hypothetical investment
of $1,000 in common stock in each publicly
traded company that won the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (or a pro-
portional investment in winning subsidiaries of larger companies). The stock perfor-
mance of these companies has outperformed the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 stock
index by a substantial margin in eight of the first nine years the study was conducted.
The fictitious stock fund fell behind the S&P for the first time in 2003, primarily
because technology stocks are a significant component of the portfolio, indicating
that a poor economy can impact organizations no matter how good their manage-
ment and quality practices may be. (The results of the current study can be found on
the Baldrige Web site, http://www.baldrige.org.)
Kevin Hendricks and Vinod Singhal published one of the most celebrated studies
in 1997.30 Based on objective data and rigorous statistical analysis, the study showed
that when implemented effectively, total quality management approaches improve
financial performance dramatically. Using a sample of about 600 publicly traded
companies that won quality awards either from their customers (such as automotive
manufacturers) or through Baldrige and state and local quality award programs,
Hendricks and Singhal examined performance results from six years before to four
years after winning their first quality award. The primary performance measure
tracked was the percent change in operating income and a variety of measures that
might affect operating income: percent change in sales, total assets, number of
employees, return on sales, and return on assets. These results were compared to a set
of control firms that were similar in size to the award winners and in the same
industry. The analysis revealed significant differences between the sample and the
control group. Specifically, the growth in operating income of winners averaged 91
percent versus 43 percent for the control group. Winners also experienced a 69 per-
cent jump in sales (compared to 32 percent for the control group), a 79 percent
increase in total assets (compared to 37 percent), a 23 percent increase in the number
of employees (compared to 7 percent), an 8 percent improvement in return on sales
(compared to 0 percent), and a 9 percent improvement in return on assets (compared
to 6 percent). Small companies actually outperformed large companies, and over a
five-year period, the portfolio of winners beat the S&P 500 index by 34 percent.
A sample of specific operational and financial results achieved by recent Baldrige
winners includes:
1. Among associates at Clarke American, overall satisfaction improved from 72

percent in 1996 to 84 percent in 2000. Rising associate satisfaction correlates
with the 84 percent increase in revenue earned per associate since 1995. Annual
growth in company revenues increased from a rate of 4.2 percent in 1996 to 16
percent in 2000, compared to the industry’s average annual growth rate of less
than 1 percent over the five-year period.
2. The Spicer Driveshaft Division of Dana Corporation lowered internal defect
rates by more than 75 percent. Employee turnover is below 1 percent, and eco-
nomic value added increased from $15 million to $35 million in two years.
3. Texas Nameplate Company increased its national market share from less than 3
percent in 1994 to 5 percent in 1997, reduced its defects from 3.65 percent to
about 1 percent of billings, and increased on-time delivery from 95 to 98 percent.
4. Region Americas of STMicroelectronics, Inc., reduced lost-day injuries from
1.01 per 100 workers in 1996 to 0.65 in 1999, which is 74 percent below the
industry average, and employee satisfaction levels in 1999 exceeded the
industry composite in 8 of 10 categories.
5. Pal’s Sudden Service, a privately owned quick-service restaurant chain in
eastern Tennessee, garnered customer quality scores averaging 95.8 percent in
2001, compared with 84.1 percent for its best competitor, and improved order
delivery speed by more than 30 percent since 1995.
6. Parent satisfaction at Pearl River School District increased from 62 percent in
1996 to 96 percent in 2001.
7. KARLEE, a contract manufacturer of precision sheet metal and machined com-
ponents, reduced waste from 1.5 percent of sales to less than 0.5 percent of sales
while nearly doubling productivity from 1995 to 2000.
8. SSM Health Care’s share of the St. Louis market increased substantially while
three of its five competitors lost market share. They achieved a AA credit rating
by Standard and Poor’s for four consecutive years, a rating attained by fewer
than 1 percent of U.S. hospitals.
THREE LEVELS OF QUALITY31

At the organizational level, quality concerns center on meeting external customer
requirements. An organization must seek customer input on a regular basis. Ques-
tions such as the following help to define quality at the organizational level:
1. Which products and services meet your expectations?
2. Which do not?
3. What products or services do you need that you are not receiving?
4. Are you receiving products or services that you do not need?
Customer-driven performance standards
An organization that is committed should be used as bases for goal setting,
to total quality must apply it at three
problem solving, performance appraisal,
levels: the organizational level, the incentive compensation, nonfinancial rewards,
process level, and the performer/job and resource allocation.
level. At the process level, organizational units
are classified as functions or departments,
such as marketing, design, product development, operations, finance, purchasing,
billing, and so on. Because most processes are cross-functional, the danger exists that
managers of particular organizational units will try to optimize the activities under
their control, which can suboptimize activities for the organization as a whole. At this
level, managers must ask questions such as the folllowing:
1. What products or services are most important to the (external) customer?
2. What processes produce those products and services?
3. What are the key inputs to the process?
4. Which processes have the most significant effect on the organization’s
customer-driven performance standards?
5. Who are my internal customers and what are their needs?
At the performer level (sometimes called the job level or the task-design level),
standards for output must be based on quality and customer-service requirements
that originate at the organizational and process levels. These standards include
requirements for such things as accuracy, completeness, innovation, timeliness, and
cost. For each output of an individual’s job, one must ask:
1. What is required by the customer, both internal and external?
2. How can the requirements be measured?
3. What is the specific standard for each measure?
Viewing an organization from this perspective clarifies the roles and responsibil-
ities of all employees in pursuing quality. Top managers must focus attention at the
organizational level; middle managers and supervisors at the process level; and all
employees must understand quality at the performer level. Getting everyone
involved is the foundation of TQ.
QUALITY AND PERSONAL VALUES

Today, companies are asking employees to take more responsibility for acting as the
point of contact between the organization and the customer, to be team players, and
to provide more effective and efficient customer service. Rath & Strong, a Lexington,
Massachusetts-based management consulting firm, polled almost 200 executives
from Fortune 500 companies about activities that foster superior performance results
for an organization.32 The survey revealed that personal initiative, when combined
with a customer orientation, resulted in a positive impact on business success and
sales growth rate. However, although 79 percent of all respondents indicated that
employees are increasingly expected to take initiative to bring about change in the
company, 40 percent of the respondents replied that most people in their company do
not believe that they can make a personal contribution to the company’s success.
Alan Frohman, a senior associate with Rath & Strong, stated, “These results are sig-
nificant because they suggest that although people are being expected to take per-
sonal initiative, most organizations have not figured out how to translate those
expectations into positive behaviors.”
Such behaviors reflect the personal values Unless quality is internalized at the
and attitudes of individuals. Employees who personal level, it will never become
embrace quality as a personal value often go be- rooted in the culture of an organiza-
yond what they’re asked or normally expected tion. Thus, quality must begin at a
to do in order to reach a difficult goal or provide personal level (and that means you!).
extraordinary service to a customer. A good
example involved a young girl who laid her dental retainer on a picnic table at
Disney World while eating lunch.33 She forgot about it until later in the day. The
family returned to the spot, found the table cleaned up, and were at a loss to know
what to do. They spotted a custodian, told him the problem, and the custodian
sought permission from his supervisor to have the garbage bags searched by the
night crew that evening! Two weeks later, the family received a letter from the super-
visor explaining that, despite their best efforts, they had been unable to locate the
retainer.
The concept of “personal quality” has been promoted by Harry V. Roberts, pro-
fessor emeritus at the University of Chicago’s Graduate School of Business, and
Bernard F. Sergesketter, vice president of the Central Region of AT&T.34 Personal
quality may be thought of as personal empowerment; it is implemented by system-
atically keeping personal checklists for quality improvement. Roberts and Serges-
ketter developed the idea of a personal quality checklist to keep track of personal
shortcomings, or defects, in personal work processes. The authors defended the use
of a checklist to keep track of defects:
The word “defect” has a negative connotation for some people who would
like to keep track of the times we do things right rather than times we do
things wrong. Fortunately, most of us do things right much more than we do
things wrong, so it is easier in practice to count the defects. Moreover, we can
get positive satisfaction from avoiding defects—witness accident prevention
programs that count days without accidents.
An example of a personal quality checklist developed to improve professorial activi-

ties is provided in Figure 1.7. It can be used as a starting point for developing a per-
sonal quality checklist (see the project later in the chapter). Note that each item on the
checklist has a desired result, a way to measure each type of defect, and a time frame.
Both work and personal defect categories are listed on the sheet.
Sergesketter plotted defects that he observed during the first 18 months of his use
of his own personal quality checklist on a run chart as shown in Figure 1.8. Many of
the results were surprising.35 For instance, he was surprised at the extent to which he
was not returning phone calls the same day. He discovered that he had no way to
Figure 1.7 An Example of a Personal TQ Checklist
Week of:
Defect Category M T W TH F S SU Total
Search for something misplaced

or lost, over 20 minutes
Failure to discard incoming

junk by end of day
Putting a small task on the

“hold” pile, over 2 hours
Failure to respond to letter or

phone call in 24 hours
Lack of clarity in setting

requirements/deadlines
Excessive “general interest” reading;

over 30 minutes/weekday
Failure to provide weekly opportunity

for feedback from a class
Less than two hours of writing

per day, 4 days/week
Less than 8 hours of sleep on

a weeknight
Less than 3 exercise

periods/week
Take wife out for fewer than 1 meal/week
Less than 0.5 hour meditation

per weekday
count defects related to correspondence. As a result, he started to date stamp corre-

spondence when it arrived and date stamp the file copy of the response. None of the
items he measured were in the “four-minute mile” category, and yet he started out at
a rate of 100 defects per month, but dropped drastically simply because he was aware
of them. He also observed that when a person shares a defect list with others, they can
help in reducing defects. Sergesketter noted, “I encourage and challenge you to start
counting defects. It is impossible to reduce defects if we don’t count them, and we
can’t reasonably ask our associates to count defects if we don’t! I really believe that if
several thousand of us here in the Central Region start counting defects, we will
reduce them and differentiate ourselves from
our competitors in a significant way.”
In the daily attempt to bring about
Personal quality is an essential ingredient
change in the individual parts of the
organizational universe, managers, to make quality happen in the workplace, yet
employees, professors, and students most companies have neglected it for a long
can find that personal quality is the time. Perhaps management, in particular,
key to unlock the door to a wider operates under the idea that promoting qual-
understanding of what the concept ity is something that companies do to em-
really is all about. ployees, rather than something they do with
employees.
Figure 1.8 Chart of Number of Defects/Month
105
4
70
Defects
35 5 6
9
7 8 0 A 3 4 8
1
0 9
B 2 5 6 7
0 12 24
1990 1991
Month
Source: Adapted with the permission of The Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group
from Quality Is Personal: A Foundation for Total Quality Management by Harry V. Roberts and Bernard F. Serges-
ketter. © 1993 Harry V. Roberts and Bernard F. Sergesketter, p. 13. All rights reserved.
QUALITY IN PRACTICE
z THE EVOLUTION OF QUALITY AT XEROX: FROM LEADERSHIP THROUGH QUALITY TO LEAN
SIX SIGMA36
The Xerox 914, the first plain-paper copier, was principal market. Several Japanese companies
introduced in 1959. Regarded by many people as introduced high-quality low-volume copiers, a
the most successful business product ever intro- market that Xerox had virtually ignored, and
duced, it created a new industry. During the 1960s established a foundation for moving into the high-
Xerox grew rapidly, selling all it could produce, and volume market. In addition, the Federal Trade
reached $1 billion in revenue in record-setting time. Commission accused Xerox of illegally monopo-
By the mid-1970s its return on assets was in the low lizing the copier business. After negotiations,
20 percent range. Its competitive advantage was Xerox agreed to open approximately 1,700 patents
due to strong patents, a growing market, and little to competitors. Xerox was soon losing market
competition. In such an environment management share to Japanese competitors, and by the early
was not pressed to focus on customers. 1980s it faced a serious competitive threat from copy
machine manufacturers in Japan; Xerox’s market
Facing a Competitive Crisis share had fallen to less than 50 percent. Some
people even predicted that the company would
During the 1970s, however, IBM and Kodak not survive. Rework, scrap, excessive inspection,
entered the high-volume copier business—Xerox’s lost business, and other problems were estimated
to be costing Xerox more than 20 percent of rev- iors and attitudes throughout the company as well
enue, which in 1983 amounted to nearly $2 billion. as operational changes in the company’s business
Both the company and its primary union, the practices. Kearns determined that Xerox would ini-
Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers, were tiate a total quality management approach, that
concerned. In comparing itself with its competi- they would take the time to “design it right the first
tion, Xerox discovered that it had nine times as time,” and that the effort would involve all
many suppliers, twice as many employees, cycle employees. Kearns and the company’s top 25 man-
times that were twice as long, 10 times as many agers wrote the Xerox Quality Policy, which states:
rejects, and seven times as many manufacturing
Xerox is a quality company. Quality is the
defects in finished products. It was clear that rad-
basic business principle for Xerox.
ical changes were required. Quality means providing our external
and internal customers with innovative
Leadership Through Quality products and services that fully satisfy
In 1983 company president David T. Kearns became their requirements. Quality improvement
convinced that Xerox needed a long-range, compre- is the job of every Xerox employee.
hensive quality strategy as well as a change in its This policy led to a process called Leadership
traditional management culture (see Figure 1.9). Through Quality, which had three objectives:
Kearns was aware of Japanese subsidiary
Fuji Xerox’s success in implementing quality- 1. To instill quality as the basic business prin-
management practices and was approached by sev- ciple in Xerox, and to ensure that quality
eral Xerox employees about instituting total quality improvement becomes the job of every Xerox
management. He commissioned a team to outline a person.
quality strategy for Xerox. The team’s report stated 2. To ensure that Xerox people, individually
that instituting it would require changes in behav- and collectively, provide our external and
Figure 1.9 Origin of the 1983 Xerox Quality Imperative
Xerox is a model of
success in the late
1960s and early 1970s.
Xerox starts to turn the situation

30 around. By 1992, ROA is the
highest in 11 years and Xerox is
Japan Inc. targets U.S. only U.S. company that takes
ROA hits 4% low in 1983/1984.
copier market in 1979. market share back from Japanese.
25 Leadership Through Quality
started in 1983.
20
Quality
% ROA
Awards
15
CRISIS
10
0
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 1 1 1
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 988 989 990
internal customers with innovative products firm. Five years, 4 million labor-hours, and more
and services that fully satisfy their existing than $125 million later, all employees had received
and latent requirements. quality-related training. In 1988 about 79 percent
3. To establish, as a way of life, management and of Xerox employees were involved in quality
work processes that enable all Xerox people to improvement teams.
continuously pursue quality improvement in Several other steps were taken. Xerox worked
meeting customer requirements. with suppliers to improve their processes, imple-
ment statistical methods and a total quality
In addition, Leadership Through Quality was di-
process, and to support a just-in-time inventory
rected at achieving four goals in all Xerox activities:
concept. Suppliers that joined in these efforts were
• Customer Goal: To become an organization involved in the earliest phases of new product
with whom customers are eager to do designs and rewarded with long-term contracts.
business. Employee involvement and participation was
• Employee Goal: To create an environment also an important effort. Xerox had always had
where everyone can take pride in the organi- good relationships with its unions. In 1980 the
zation and feel responsible for its success. company signed a contract with its principal
• Business Goal: To increase profits and union, the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile
presence at a rate faster than the markets in Workers, encouraging union members’ participa-
which Xerox competes. tion in quality improvement processes. It was the
• Process Goal: To use Leadership Through first program in the company that linked man-
Quality principles in all Xerox does. agers with employees in a mutual problem-
solving approach and served as a model for other
Leadership Through Quality radically changed
corporations. A subsequent contract included the
the way Xerox did business. All activities, such as
provision that “every employee shall support the
product planning, distribution, and establishing
concept of continuous quality improvement while
unit objectives, began with a focus on customer
reducing quality costs through teamwork.”
requirements. Benchmarking—identifying and
Most important, management became the role
studying the companies and organizations that
model for the new way of doing business. Man-
best perform critical business functions and then
agers were required to practice quality in their daily
incorporating those organizations’ ideas into the
activities and to promote Leadership Through
firm’s operations—became an important compo-
Quality among their peers and subordinates.
nent of Xerox’s quality efforts. Xerox benchmarked
Reward and recognition systems were modified to
more than 200 processes with those of noncompet-
focus on teamwork and quality results. Managers
itive companies. For instance, ideas for improving
became coaches, involving their employees in the
production scheduling came from Cummins
act of running the business on a routine basis.
Engine Company, ideas for improving the distrib-
From the initiation of Leadership Through
ution system came from L.L. Bean, and ideas for
Quality until the point at which Xerox’s Business
improving billing processes came from American
Products and Systems organization won the Mal-
Express.
colm Baldrige National Quality Award in 1989,
Measuring customer satisfaction and training
some of the most obvious impacts of the Leader-
were important components of the program.
ship Through Quality program included the
Every month, 40,000 surveys were mailed to cus-
following:
tomers, seeking feedback on equipment perfor-
mance, sales, service, and administrative support. 1. Reject rates on the assembly line fell from
Any reported dissatisfaction was dealt with imme- 10,000 parts per million to 300 parts per
diately and was usually resolved in a matter of million.
days. When the program was instituted, every 2. Ninety-five percent of supplied parts no
Xerox employee worldwide, and at all levels of the longer needed inspection; in 1989, 30 U.S.
company, received the same training in quality suppliers went the entire year defect-free.
principles. This training began with top manage- 3. The number of suppliers was cut from 5,000
ment and filtered down through each level of the to fewer than 500.
4. The cost of purchased parts was reduced by Through Quality process. Soon afterward, as Six
45 percent. Sigma became more popular across the United
5. Despite inflation, manufacturing costs States, this approach was refined around a struc-
dropped 20 percent. tured, Six Sigma–based improvement process with
6. Product development time decreased by 60 more emphasis on behaviors and leadership to
percent. achieve performance excellence. The new thrust,
7. Overall product quality improved 93 percent. established in 2003 and called “Lean Six Sigma”
(see Chapter 10 for a detailed discussion), includes
Xerox learned that customer satisfaction plus a dedicated infrastructure and resource commit-
employee motivation and satisfaction resulted in ment to focus on key business issues: critical cus-
increased market share and improved return on tomer opportunities, significant training of
assets. In 1989 president David Kearns observed employees and “black belt” improvement special-
that quality is “a race without a finish line.” ists, a value-driven project selection process, and
an increased customer focus with a clear linkage to
Crisis and Quality Renewal business strategy and objectives. The basic princi-
ples support the core value “We Deliver Quality
Throughout the 1990s, Xerox grew at a steady rate.
and Excellence in All We Do” and are stated as:
However, at the turn of the century, the tech-
nology downturn, coupled with a decreased focus • Customer-focused employees, accountable
on quality by top corporate management, resulted for business results, are fundamental to our
in a significant stock price drop and a new crisis success.
(see Figure 1.10). A top management shake-up, • Our work environment enables participation,
resulting in new corporate leadership, renewed speed, and teamwork based on trust,
the company’s focus on quality, beginning with learning, and recognition.
“New Quality” in 2001 and leading to the current • Everyone at Xerox has business objectives
“Lean Six Sigma” initiative. aligned to the Xerox direction. A disciplined
The New Quality philosophy built on the process is used to assess progress towards
quality legacy established in the 1983 Leadership delivery of results.
Figure 1.10 Restrengthening Quality to Address a New Crisis
500%
Xerox loses its
quality focus.
% Stock Growth
New Quality launched

as prelude to Xerox
Lean Six Sigma.
Xerox enjoys great growth.
NEW
CRISIS
0%
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03
New corporate
leadership renews Xerox makes
focus on quality. commitment to
Lean Six Sigma.
• Customer-focused work processes, sup- • Disciplined approach to benchmarking

ported by disciplined use of quality tools, • Establishes a common four-step approach
enable rapid changes and yield predictable to benchmarking
business results. • Encourages all employees to be aware of
• Everyone takes responsibility to communi- changing markets
cate and act on benchmarks and knowledge • Strong linkage to performance excellence
that enable rapid change in the best interests process and DMAIC
of customers and shareholders. 4. Behaviors and leadership
• Reinforces customer focus
The key components of Xerox’s Lean Six Sigma
• Expands interactive skills to include more
are as follows:
team effectiveness
1. Performance excellence process • Promotes faster decision making and
• Supports clearer, simpler alignment of cor- introduces new meeting tool
porate direction to individual objectives • Supports leadership skills required for
• Emphasizes ongoing inspection/assess- transition and change
ment of business priorities
• Clear links to market trends, bench- The heart of Xerox’s Lean Six Sigma is the per-
marking, and Lean Six Sigma formance excellence process, illustrated in Figure
• Supports a simplified “Baldrige-type” 1.11. It consists of three phases: setting direction,
business assessment model deploying direction, and delivering and inspecting
2. DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve, results. It starts at the top of the organization—
control) process even the chair and CEO, Anne Mulcahy, has an
• Based on industry-proven Six Sigma individual performance excellence plan with
approach with speed and focus objectives that are aligned with organization goals
• Four steps support improvement projects, and measures and targets for assessment. This
set goals approach provides clear communication of direc-
• Used to proactively capture opportunities tion and accountability for objectives. A structured
or solve problems approach is used to prioritize and select projects
• Full set of lean and Six Sigma tools that have high benefits relative to the effort
3. Market trends and benchmarking involved in accomplishing them. Statistical
• Reinforces market focus and encourages methods, lean work flow methods, and other
external view process management skills are used to drive
Figure 1.11 Xerox Performance Excellence Process
Individual Objectives
Deploying Direction (Performance Excellence Plans)
Customers Customer Value

Markets Delivering and
Values
Setting Direction Inspecting Results Business Results
Priorities
LEARNING
improvement from a factual, objective basis, leadership commitment is the key ingredient. As
driven by the DMAIC methodology. Anne Mulcahy noted, “What I worry most about
Market trends and benchmarking help provide is how to return Xerox to greatness. . . . Lean Six
an external perspective required to lead the Sigma is not the only answer, but it’s a significant
market with innovative products, services, and part of the equation.”
solutions and add value to the customer experi-
ence. This component encourages all people to Key Issues for Discussion
share information and knowledge that enables
changes in the best interest of customers and 1. Contrast Leadership for Quality and Lean Six
shareholders. Finally, behaviors and leadership Sigma as quality initiatives for Xerox. How
reinforce customer-focused behaviors, based on did their motivations differ? What differ-
the principle that “Quality is the responsibility of ences or similarities are evident in the princi-
every Xerox employee.” ples behind these initiatives and the way in
In 2003, Xerox trained more than 1,000 senior which they were implemented?
leaders across the company and communicated 2. What lessons might this experience—particu-
this business approach, the key differences from larly in responding to the new crisis—have
their quality legacy, and expectations to every for other organizations?
employee, and is rapidly moving Lean Six Sigma 3. Discuss the meaning of “Quality is a race
concepts from manufacturing and supply chain without a finish line.” What is its significance
into all business areas. They recognize that full to Xerox, or to any organization?
QUALITY IN PRACTICE
z
e dia C
ltim
Mu
as
e
BRINGING TOTAL QUALITY PRINCIPLES TO LIFE AT KARLEE37 KARLEE
KARLEE is a contract manufacturer of precision Customer and Stakeholder Focus

sheet metal and machined components for
telecommunications, semiconductor, and medical KARLEE made a strategic decision to carefully
equipment industries, located in Garland, Texas. select customers that support their values, which
KARLEE provides a vertically integrated range of include a systematic approach to business and
services that support customers from initial com- performance management, a desire for long-term
ponent design to a finished, assembled product. partnerships, and being a global leader. Senior
Their services include: executives work with each customer to establish
current requirements and future needs, and each
• Advanced design engineering support
customer is assigned a two-person customer ser-
• Prototype production
vice team that is on call 24 hours a day for day-to-
• Manufacture and assembly of precision
day production issues. One member is an
machined and sheet metal fabricated
estimator who provides quotes for the customer.
products
The second member is a customer service repre-
• Product finishing (painting, silk screening,
sentative (CSR) who provides liaison support in
plating)
communicating delivery, scheduling, order entry,
• Value-added assembly integration (cabling,
and other requested information. The customer
power supply and back plane installation,
service representatives for three of KARLEE’s
and electrical testing)
primary customers provide on-site support,
KARLEE exemplifies the principles of total spending two to three days a week to full time at
quality that we introduced in this chapter in a the customer site. KARLEE uses a mobile phone
number of ways, which are discussed next. system that includes voice-mail, e-mail, and radio
communications to make CSRs accessible when- responsible for knowing their customer’s require-
ever they are away from their office. In the event ments and for producing products to meet those
they are unavailable, a private voice-mail can be requirements. KARLEE promotes cross-training
left for any team member. Home phone numbers and job rotation to foster flexibility and learning
of customer service representatives are given to and to enable rapid response to changing customer
customers as well. demands. These concepts are deployed throughout
KARLEE develops and ensures customer loy- all teams. For example, accounting team members
alty by providing a full range of manufacturing, rotate to train in different accounting positions
engineering, and customer support services, main- after mastering their primary job responsibilities.
taining a committed “can do” attitude, and being Job rotation provides a flexible response to peak
able to rapidly meet changing requirements. Their loads in a work area, while enhancing job diversity
ability to vertically integrate processes and pro- and skill knowledge.
vide engineering support from design conception KARLEE helps team members to develop and
through production strengthens the bond they utilize their full potential by creating an environ-
have with customers and ensures continued rela- ment of empowerment and opportunity for growth.
tionships. Additional methods of building and Team members are empowered to take ownership
sustaining long-term relationships with customers of, and are held accountable for, the processes
include the following: within their work area. During strategic planning,
objectives and targets are developed for the opera-
• Learning customers’ business challenges and tional, administrative, and support teams across the
using this information to seek opportunities company. Each team is empowered to change its
to better support their performance recommended targets and request additional mea-
• Providing proactive cost management solu- sures if they believe it will help them achieve higher
tions, remaining responsive and flexible to performance. Team members plan and execute their
schedule changes, and maintaining capacity own improvement activities to meet those targets.
and resources to adjust to customer growth Teams are empowered to schedule work, manage
requirements inventory, and design the layout of their work
• Maintaining open communications at each areas. Any team member can stop production if the
business level process is not performing to customer requirements
• Supporting major customer initiatives, such or process specification. KARLEE fosters a team
as lean manufacturing culture based on genuine caring and support
• Sharing detailed cost information to assist among leaders and team members.
customers in joint cost reductions KARLEE stresses the importance of mutual
trust, honesty, respect, and team member well-
Participation and Teamwork being. The support climate is also enhanced
through the following means:
The entire workforce is organized into operational,
administrative, and support teams to encourage • The KARLEE Cares Team, which members
decision making at the individual and team levels. formed to meet catastrophic needs of their
A management team leader (MTL) or an opera- fellow workers and the community
tional team leader (OTL) leads each team. OTLs • The Cultural Advisory Committee, which
are charged with daily coaching and mentoring of recommends ways to better fulfill company
team members while balancing customer needs values, vision, and mission
such as quality and delivery, with corporate needs • The “KARLEE Super Kids” and scholarship
such as lowering scrap and rework. Team mem- programs, which recognize and reward the
bers are empowered to take initiative and con- students of team members for scholastic
tribute in many ways, including setting achievement
performance targets and monitoring and • Team Resources, which provides a Welcome
improving their processes. Bag to all new team members and sponsors
Production and delivery processes are designed social activities such as holiday lunches, pic-
around teams of manufacturing cells. Each cell is nics, and parties on a regular basis
Process Focus and Continuous Improvement evaluated to ensure adequate cost justification.
Every business goal and project has defined
Processes such as prototype development, sched-
methods for measurement, and senior leaders
uling, production setup, fabrication, assembly, and
meet weekly to review company performance and
delivery have process owners responsible for main-
ensure alignment with directions and plans.
taining the process to customer requirements. The
KARLEE’s focus on continuous improvement
key steps for each process are clearly documented
extends to all its managerial activities, including
and measures are used to ensure that process
its leadership processes. For example, KARLEE
requirements are met. A quality assurance team
utilizes input from seven sources to improve lead-
member works with manufacturing teams to create
ership effectiveness and management skills:
process documentation. For example, the process of
generating a production quote consists of three • Annual team member surveys include
steps: reviewing specifications, defining shop floor questions regarding the leadership
routing, and estimating materials and labor. effectiveness.
Response time is a key requirement of this process, • Senior executives perform peer reviews
and is measured by customer satisfaction with the annually.
quote response time. This process focus extends to • Senior executives perform self-assessments
support processes that include maintenance, annually.
accounting, information systems, and training. • The SELs perform an assessment of the KSC
Teams use a structured approach to evaluate during strategic planning.
and improve their processes, document them, and • Senior executives assess organizational lead-
present a status report of improvements to senior ership against the MBNQA criteria.
leaders and the KARLEE Steering Committee • An annual strategic planning questionnaire
(KSC). Teams analyze defect data, customer- includes questions about the effectiveness of
reported problems, and control charts generated KARLEE’s mission, vision, and values.
during production to identify problems and oppor- • Leadership and quality consultants evaluate
tunities for improvement. Teams benchmark com- KARLEE’s leadership effectiveness.
petitors, “best practice” companies, and customers
KARLEE was recognized for its business achieve-
to learn from others. Manufacturing teams use
ments by receiving a Baldrige Award in 2000.
benchmarking to focus on improved technologies,
cell layout, process flow, and process procedures
Key Issues for Discussion
and identify methods to reduce cycle time and
improve capacity. Examples of recent improve- 1. From the information presented in this case,
ments include the addition of robotic brakes and how are the various definitions of quality
welding equipment, upgrades in CAD/CAM soft- that we discussed in this chapter reflected in
ware to support customer design requirements, KARLEE’s practices?
and the replacement of their business computer 2. A current trend in the industries that
system. KARLEE serves (and in most high-tech
The KSC uses a cost/benefit approach for industries) is toward mergers and acquisi-
assessing and approving improvements. For tions. However, with the small customer base
example, the social committee budget and the that KARLEE has, this trend represents a
annual selection of insurance benefits are evalu- high level of risk. What types of practices in
ated against the perceived value of the benefits. the total quality infrastructure described in
Capital purchase requests, especially for this chapter might KARLEE engage in to
machining and sheet metal equipment, are closely address this risk?
z REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Briefly summarize the history of quality before and since the industrial revolu-
tion. What caused the most significant changes?
2. What factors have contributed to the increased awareness of quality in modern
business?
3. Explain the various definitions of quality. Can a single definition suffice? Why?
4. Distinguish among consumers, external customers, and internal customers.
Illustrate how these concepts apply to a McDonald’s restaurant, a Pizza Hut, or
a similar franchise.
5. What is the concept of total quality? What does it mean for the way an organi-
zation is managed?
6. Describe the three fundamental principles of total quality.
7. What is a process? How does a process focus differ from a traditional organiza-
tion?
8. List some examples of the types of improvements an organization can make.
9. What is the difference between improvement and learning?
10. What are the important elements of a total quality infrastructure?
11. Explain the relationship among infrastructure, practices, and tools.
12. How does quality support the achievement of competitive advantage?
13. What did Philip Crosby mean by “Quality is free”?
14. Explain the role of quality in improving a firm’s profitability.
15. What evidence exists to counter the claim that “Quality does not pay”?
16. Explain the three levels of quality and the key issues that must be addressed at
each level.
17. Why is it important to personalize quality principles?
z DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Discuss how either good or poor quality affects you personally as a consumer.
For instance, describe experiences in which your expectations were met,
exceeded, or not met when you purchased goods or services. Did your experi-
ence change your regard for the company and/or its product? How?
2. Discuss the importance of quality to the national interest of any country in the
world.
3. How might the definitions of quality apply to your college or university? Pro-
vide examples of its customers and ways in which their expectations can be met
or exceeded.
4. Think of a product or a service that you are considering purchasing. Develop a
list of fitness-for-use criteria that are meaningful to you.
5. Select a service activity with which you are familiar. If you were the manager of
this activity, what “conformance to specifications” criteria would you use to
monitor it?
6. Choose a product or service (such as the hospital example on page 16 in this
chapter) to illustrate how several definitions of quality can apply simultaneously.
7. What definition of quality is implied by the following consumer advertisements?
a. A Tiffany & Co. ad for timepieces entitled “The Business Gift.” In describing
the gift, the ad suggests that “It must honor the recipient. It must express
your gratitude. It must reflect well upon you and your firm. It is packaged
neatly, securely, elegantly. It arrives on time every time. It is an honest design.
Original and timeless.”
b. An ad for Certified Preowned Ford vehicles that describes how it has been
quality checked by a rigorous 115-point bumper-to-bumper inspection.
c. A picture of a luxury automobile with the caption “Wish granted.”
d. A Land Rover ad that states, “Polished walnut and select leather combined
with Electronic Air Suspension and a 460-watt, 12-speaker audio system
make the best of even the worst conditions. As do permanent four-wheel-
drive and four-wheel Electronic Traction Control.”
e. A Xerox ad that explains that its printer is three times faster than one pro-
duced by Hewlett-Packard, with the caption “Xerox color printers exceed all
speed limits.”
f. A Lands’ End ad that states, “The $68 down jacket that turns winter inside
out,” and explains how it is packed with goose down—the warmest insula-
tion on earth.
8. How might quality management practices differ between a firm that might be
characterized as “market-driven” and one that might be called “marketing-
driven”?
9. Do you feel that your college or university is applying the principles of total
quality? Why or why not?
10. What are some processes that you personally perform? What opportunities can
you think of for improving them?
11. Choose some organization that you have read about or with which you have
personal experience and describe their sources of competitive advantage. For
each, state whether you believe that quality supports their strategy or does not
support it.
12. Explain how the “three levels of quality” might apply to a college or university.
z PROJECTS, ETC.
1. Develop a portfolio of advertisements from newspapers and magazines and
illustrate how quality is used in promoting these products. Do the ads suggest
any of the different definitions of quality?
2. Visit the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Web site at http://
www.baldrige.org and summarize the key results of winners for the past two
years. In addition, investigate the latest report on stock performance of
Baldrige-winning companies.
3. Prepare a Quality in Practice case similar to the KARLEE and Xerox cases using
sources such as business periodicals, personal interviews, and so on. Focus
your discussion on how their approach to total quality supports their competi-
tive strategy.
4. Examine the annual reports of one company over a period of years. Summarize
how quality is discussed or implied in the company’s statements and philos-
ophy. Are any changes in the perspectives of quality evident over time?
5. Many countries around the world have professional organizations similar to
the American Society for Quality; however, each has its own unique history and
offers exclusive activities to its corporate and individual members. They
include Excellence Finland, Excellence Ireland, German Society for Quality,
Hong Kong Society for Quality, Instituto Profesional Argentino para la Calidad
y la Excelencia, Israel Society for Quality, Union of Japanese Scientists and
Engineers (JUSE), National Quality Institute (Canada), Programa Gaucho da
Qualidade e Produtividade (Brazil), Singapore Quality Institute, and the
Spanish Association for Quality. Conduct some research on several of these
societies and contrast their similarities and differences.
6. Develop your own personal quality checklist and analyze the results over an
extended period of time. After you have gathered data for a week or two,
review the data for the purposes of analysis and improvement. Use charts to
plot and analyze weekly results. Use the following guidelines.
• Each participant should initiate a personal quality improvement project and
maintain and improve it during the rest of the study period.
• Consistent effort, rather than elegant precision in pursuing the project will be
rewarded; that is, individual benefit, rather than “a grade,” or perfection, is
to be the major objective.
• The personal quality checklist in Figure 1.7 will provide a starting point for
the project. Other tools and techniques may be incorporated at a later time.
• Eight to ten items for personal tracking and improvement should be chosen.
The listing of possible checklist standards in Table 1.1 may be useful. How-
ever, participants are not required to use only items from this list. Whatever
is meaningful to you may be tracked.
Table 1.1 Suggested Standards for a Personal Quality Checklist

• Review class notes after each class
• Limit phone calls to ten minutes, where possible
• No more than 10 hours of TV per week
• Get up promptly—no snooze alarm
• Complete all reading assignments as due
• Plan by using a brief outline of what is to be accomplished daily
• Refer to daily plan each day
• Use stairs instead of elevator
• Follow up on job contacts within 24 hours
• Work in library (or other quiet place) to avoid interruptions
• Stick to one subject at a time while studying
• Don’t doggedly persist in trying to clear up a confusing point (or “bug” in a com-
puter program) when stuck; set it aside and return later; for example, no more
than 10 minutes after searching for a problem
• Don’t spend too much time on routine activities; for example, no more than 15
minutes for breakfast, decrease grooming time to no more than 20 minutes
• Remember names of people to whom you have been introduced
• In bed every night before midnight
• Good housekeeping standards around house, apartment, dorm room, by the end
of the day
• Prompt payment of bills, before their due date
• Various dietary standards—eat vegetables, avoid fats (be specific!)
• Limit beer and/or cigarette consumption (be specific!)
Source: Adapted with the permission of The Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group
from Quality Is Personal: A Foundation for Total Quality Management by Harry V. Roberts and Bernard F. Serges-
ketter. Copyright © 1993 by Harry V. Roberts and Bernard F. Sergesketter, p. 35. All Rights reserved.
• After a week’s data are gathered, plot a simple graph to determine the level
of “defects” encountered.
• A suggested practice is that you share your personal checklist items and
goals with your instructor, a colleague, spouse, or friend. Have that person
ask you about your progress every week or so. If you are making regular
progress, you should be happy to discuss it, and to show your charts and
graphs. Even if your progress is uneven, you should be able to show that
you’ve improved on one or two items, which is progress. Don’t be too self-
critical!
• An intermediate progress report should be built into the process around the
middle of the pilot study period. The final report on the pilot project should
be made at the end of the study period. Consideration should be given to
making personal quality a permanent part of your personal planning and
improvement process.
After completing the project, answer these questions:
a. What did your analysis reveal?
b. Did you experience the same thing that Sergesketter did when he found that
certain items disappeared as problems in a short period of time, simply
because he began to measure them?
c. How did you feel about discussing your “defects” with others?
d. How does the personal quality process tie into processes in a work environ-
ment?
z CASES
us Mater
Bon
Additional cases are available in the Bonus Materials Folder on the CD-ROM.
ial
s
I. SKILLED CARE PHARMACY38
Skilled Care Pharmacy, located in Mason, Ohio, is Because of the high risk factor of its business,
a $25 million dollar privately held regional these needs require that the right drug be deliv-
provider of pharmaceutical products delivered ered to the right patient at the right time. More-
within the long-term care, assisted living, hospice, over, depending on the environment being served,
and group home environments. The following different medication dispensing methods may be
products are included within this service: used such as vials, multidose packaging, or unit
dose boxes. Also, depending on the customer type,
• Medications and related billing services
specific delivery requirements may be imple-
• Medical records
mented to better serve the end user.
• Information systems
Skilled Care’s dedication and commitment to
• Continuing education
continuous quality improvement is evident
• Consulting services to include pharmacy,
throughout its internal and external operations. By
nursing, dietary, and social services
reflecting on the principles needed to attain
The key customer groups that Skilled Care quality success across all levels of customers,
provides services to include the senior population Skilled Care adopted the quality policy statement
housed within the extended and long-term care shown in Figure 1.12.
environments. Customers within this sector Skilled Care’s employee population includes
depend on Skilled Care to provide their daily 176 culturally diverse associates committed to
pharmaceutical needs at a competitive rate. a substance-free workplace. The team includes
associates with all levels of educational training tomer issues for companywide resolution.
representing many of the following disciplines: Advantages of e-commerce include quicker cus-
pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, medical data tomer service response time for all areas of service
entry, accountants, billing specialists, nurses, including placing the order, pharmacist’s review,
human resources, sales/marketing, purchasing, delivery, and billing of the product.
administrative and administrative assistance, Skilled Care Pharmacy faces key strategic
delivery, customer service representatives, and IT challenges from the rapidly evolving financial
certified personnel. At times, multifaceted work structure of health care, a shortage of licensed
teams are formed through cross-functional pharmacist personnel, the constant evolution of
approaches to complete the task(s) at hand. medical practice, and employee retention at all
Skilled Care’s deliverables are generated from levels. These as well as future challenges are
its sole 24,000-square foot location in Mason, Ohio. always balanced with the responsibility to the
The pharmacy, which is open 24 hours a day, 365 stakeholders.
days a year is secured by a Honeywell alarm
system. The company’s primary technology rests Discussion Questions
within its pharmacy software, Rescot. This system
enables Skilled Care to process, bill, and generate 1. How might the various definitions of quality
pertinent data critical to the overall operations of apply to Skilled Care?
the company. Other partnerships have also been 2. How are the principles of total quality
established within Skilled Care’s multidosed pack- reflected in Skilled Care’s policy and
aging capabilities and wholesaler purchasing operations?
interface. 3. Given the nature of Skilled Care’s operations
SCP utilizes the Internet for publishing perti- and the challenges it faces, discuss how a
nent information and news as well as hosts a Web- total quality approach can help the company
enabled customer service application called meet these challenges and improve its ability
Track-It to report specific information about cus- to provide the services its customers need.
Figure 1.12 Skilled Care Quality Policy
Our Quality Policy
Services and products that meet or exceed both our internal and
external customers' expectations
S
Leading to
C Complete customer satisfaction
P
Resulting in
People working together to enhance the lives of those served
II. A TALE OF TWO RESTAURANTS39

Tim Kelley founded Kelley’s Seafood Restaurant because of numerous suppliers. The restaurant
about 15 years ago. The restaurant is very prof- operations are divided into front-end (servers)
itable because of its excellent quality of food, but and back-end (kitchen). The kitchen has Post-It
lately has been having problems with consistency notes to boost employee morale, employees are
cross-trained in all areas, and the kitchen staff con- his cooks high wages to attract quality employees.
tinually seeks improvements in cooking. Servers, Servers get 70 percent of tips, bussers 20 percent,
however, have few perks and minimal wages, and and the kitchen staff 10 percent to foster teamwork.
turnover is a bit of a problem. Tim’s primary crite- Many new hires come from referrals from current
rion for selecting servers is their ability to show up employees. Jim interviews all potential employees
on time. Little communication takes place between and asks them many pointed questions relating to
the front-end and back-end operations, other than courtesy, responsibility, and creativity. The restau-
fulfilling orders. Tim makes sure that the servers rant sponsors bowling nights, golf outings, picnics,
refer any complaints to him immediately. and holiday parties for its employees. At Jim’s,
The restaurant uses no automation, because Tim birthday customers receive a free dinner, children
believes it would get in the way of customers’ spe- are welcomed with balloons, candy, and crayons,
cial requests. “This is the way we’ve done it for the and big screen TVs cater to sports fans. Jim walks
past 15 years and how we will continue to do it,” around and constantly solicits customer feedback.
was his response to a suggestion of using a comput- Jim visits many other restaurants to study their
erized system to speed up orders and eliminate operations and learn new techniques. As a result of
delays. Tim formerly held staff meetings regularly, these visits, Jim installed computers to schedule
but recently went from one each week to one every reservations and enter orders to the kitchen.
five or six months. Most of his time is spent focusing
on negative behavior, and he can often be heard to Discussion Questions
say, “You can’t find good people anymore.”
Jim’s SteakHouse is a family-owned restaurant 1. Contrast these two restaurants from the per-
in the same state. Jim uses only the freshest meats spective of TQ. How do they exhibit or not
and ingredients from the best suppliers and gives exhibit the fundamental principles of TQ?
extra large portions of food to customers so they 2. What advice would you recommend to the
feel they are getting their money’s worth. Jim pays owners?
III. A TOTAL QUALITY BUSINESS MODEL40

Two young entrepreneurs, Rob and Diane, were friendly greeting to each customer on arrival, rec-
contemplating an idea of developing a new type of ognizing repeat customers, offering samples of
take-out restaurant with limited dining facilities different items, answering questions, serving the
that would provide a wider variety of home- products, and a genuine thank-you on leaving.
cooked cuisines than found in currently available Another way to exceed expectations would be to
businesses. In developing their business model, accommodate any reasonable request. Employees
they realized that a TQ-focused management would have the authority to do whatever it takes
infrastructure would be vital to success. Here are to satisfy the customer. When a complaint is
some of the ideas they arrived at. raised, the employee should act immediately to
solve to the problem, listen attentively to the cus-
Customer Relationship Management tomer, and apologize. No matter what, the cus-
tomer should always be thanked for bringing the
Rob and Diane realized that they must focus on complaint to the staff’s attention.
the customers’ perceived quality of both the To evaluate the customer’s experience, the
product and service. They believe they must pro- company would require shift managers to be the
vide unexpected value to their customers and go first customer on each shift, starting from the
beyond customer expectations to create lifetime parking lot to check its cleanliness. In addition,
customers. As part of training, employees will they would use technology to track service times
focus on “moment of truths”—the many instances and complaints, and “mystery shoppers” each
that a customer forms an impression of the com- month throughout the system. Every quarter, all
pany, either through its products or interactions regional store and shift managers would meet to
with its employees. These moments include a discuss their experiences and seek improvements.
Leadership and Strategic Planning new work environment. The session would
include a history of the company, mission, policies,
The leadership system would consist of regional
and training procedures. To keep good people, the
vice presidents responsible for all of the stores in a
compensation program would need to be competi-
geographical area, regional managers in charge of
tive in the industry. Managers would be required
about a dozen stores within a region, store man-
to visit local competitors to identify their compen-
agers responsible for the day-to-day operations,
sation structure and compare them.
and shift managers to manage the employees on
Job performance of all hourly employees
each shift. This “cascading” structure would allow
would be reviewed periodically using perfor-
communications to be disseminated rapidly
mance appraisals by the store manager after the
throughout the company, both top-down and
first 30, 90, and 180 days of employment, followed
bottom-up. A manager training and development
by annual appraisals. The appraisal would cover
program would ensure that each level of manager
such topics as customer focus, quality of work,
obtained the necessary skills for their job responsi-
teamwork, and responsibility. It would also
bilities. This training would not only address the
require the employee to identify future goals and
needs of entry-level managers, but also those who
objectives and plans for improving performance.
move up the career ladder in the firm into higher
leadership positions.
Process Management
The company’s vision would be simple: to be
the consumer’s choice for all varieties of fresh con- All food production processes would be carefully
venience meals. The strategy would be based on documented so that all employees are aware of
product quality (variety, freshness, value) and out- what specifications must be met, particularly those
standing customer service. Rob and Diane realized health and safety requirements that regulated tem-
that every employee needed to understand the perature of food and proper storage. Managers
company strategy, which would be conveyed would be responsible for taking periodic measure-
during the employee orientation and management ments and observations to ensure that all employees
training and development programs. Managers are following procedures. Managers would also be
would be responsible for ensuring that all hourly responsible for their relationships with food sup-
employees focus on these two goals through daily pliers. Rob and Diane are thinking of identifying
meetings, written quality check sheets that must one large supplier for most of their food supplies.
be completed on every shift, and an employee
stock-option program that would be tied to Information and Knowledge Management
meeting these goals as well as profit targets.
All key data and information, such as inventories,
Human Resource Management financial reports and projections, customer feed-
back, employee and operational performance,
All managers would be trained in several posi- would be collected and displayed in the kitchen
tions in order to gain a solid understanding of the area, so all employees can understand the results
duties and requirements of all employees, to be of their efforts. Information from all stores would
able to cover certain positions if needed, to train be consolidated at corporate headquarters for
hourly employees, and to gain credibility with evaluation and analysis.
them. The training program for a new manager
would be designed to be somewhat self-directed. Discussion Questions
The manager trainee would be given a skill check-
list that includes each skill he or she should learn. 1. What advice might you give Rob and Diane
Experienced trainers would be available to answer about the management practices they are
any questions and assist the manager trainee with proposing within each element of the TQ
any difficulties. Trainees would be given short infrastructure? What additional practices
evaluative tests and feedback from the trainer. might you suggest?
Before their first day of work, all hourly 2. How might viewing the organization from
employees would attend an orientation session the “Three Levels of Quality” discussed in the
focused on making them feel welcome in their chapter help improve their business plan?
ENDNOTES
1. The Cincinnati Enquirer, January 12, 2002, pp. A1, 14. ANSI/ASQC A3-1978, Quality Systems Termi-
A9. nology (Milwaukee, WI: American Society for Quality
2. Early history is reported in Delmer C. Dague, Control, 1978).
“Quality—Historical Perspective,” Quality Control in 15. Lawrence Utzig, “Quality Reputation—Precious
Manufacturing (Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Asset,” ASQC Technical Conference Transactions, Atlanta,
Engineers, 1981); and L. P. Provost and C. L. Norman, 1980, 145–154.
“Variation through the Ages,” Quality Progress 23, no. 12 16. Procter & Gamble, Report to the Total Quality
(December 1990), 39–44. Modern events are discussed in Leadership Steering Committee and Working Councils
Nancy Karabatsos, “Quality in Transition, Part One: (Cincinnati, OH: Procter & Gamble, 1992).
Account of the ‘80s,” Quality Progress 22, no. 12 17. A. V. Feigenbaum, Total Quality Control, 3rd ed.,
(December 1989), 22–26; and Joseph M. Juran, “The rev. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991), 77, 78.
Upcoming Century of Quality,” address to the ASQC 18. Wayne S. Reiker, “Integrating the Pieces for Total
Annual Quality Congress, Las Vegas, May 24, 1994. A Quality Control,” The Quality Circles Journal (now The
comprehensive historical account may be found in J. M. Journal for Quality and Participation) 6, no. 4 (December
Juran, A History of Managing for Quality (Milwaukee, WI: 1983), 14–20.
ASQC Quality Press, 1995). 19. Ron Zemke and Dick Schaaf, The Service Edge
3. M. D. Fagan (ed.), A History of Engineering and Sci- (New York: New American Library, 1989), 352–355;
ence in the Bell System: The Early Years, 1875–1925 (New William Davidow and Bro Utall, Total Customer Service
York: Bell Telephone Laboratories, 1974). (New York: Harper & Row, 1989), 86–87.
4. “Manufacturing Tops List of Concerns Among 20. Myron Magnet, “The New Golden Rule of Busi-
Executives,” Industrial Engineering 22, no. 6 (June 1990), 8. ness,” Fortune, February 21, 1994, 60–64.
5. “The Cost of Quality,” Newsweek, September 21. AT&T’s Total Quality Approach, AT&T Corporate
7,1992, 48–49. Quality Office (1992), 6.
6. Lori L. Silverman with Annabeth L. Propst, 22. L. von Bertalanffy, “The Theory of Open Systems
“Quality Today: Recognizing the Critical SHIFT,” in Physics and Biology,” Science, 111 (1950), 23–29.
Quality Progress, February 1999, 53–60. 23. J. W. Forrester, Industrial Dynamics (New York:
7. American Society for Quality: “Foresight 2020: John Wiley & Sons, 1961).
The American Society for Quality Considers the 24. Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and
Future,” undated report. Practice of the Learning Organization (New York: Dou-
8. Nabil Tamimi and Rose Sebastianelli, “How Firms bleday Currency, 1990), 14.
Define and Measure Quality,” Production and Inventory 25. S. C. Wheelwright, “Competing through Manu-
Management Journal 37, no. 3 (Third Quarter,1996), facturing,” in Ray Wild (ed.), International Handbook of
34–39. Production and Operations Management (London: Cassell
9. Four comprehensive reviews of the concept and Educational, Ltd., 1989), 15–32.
definition of quality are David A. Garvin, “What Does 26. The PIMS Letter on Business Strategy, no. 4 (Cam-
Product Quality Really Mean?” Sloan Management Review, bridge, MA: Strategic Planning Institute, 1986).
26, no. 1 (1984), 25–43; Gerald F. Smith, “The Meaning of 27. Philip Crosby, Quality Is Free (New York:
Quality,” Total Quality Management 4, no. 3 (1993), McGraw-Hill, 1979).
235–244; Carol A. Reeves and David A. Bednar, “Defining 28. Roger O. Crockett, Peter Elstrom, and Gary
Quality: Alternatives and Implications,” Academy of Man- McWilliams, “Wireless Goes Haywire at Motorola,”
agement Review 19, no. 3 (1994), 419–445; and Kristie W. Business Week, March 9, 1998, 32.
Seawright and Scott T. Young, “A Quality Definition Con- 29. U.S. General Accounting Office, “Management
tinuum,” Interfaces 26, 3 (May–June 1996), 107–113. Practices: U.S. Companies Improve Performance Through
10. Garvin (see note 7), 25. Quality Efforts,” GA/NSIAD-91-190 (May 1991);
11. “Lamborghini owner says he got $262,000 “Progress on the Quality Road,” Incentive, April 1995, 7.
lemon,” Cincinnati Enquirer, June 23, 1998, B5. 30. Kevin B. Hendricks and Vinod R. Singhal, “Does
12. Gregory M. Seal, “1990s—Years of Promise, Implementing an Effective TQM Program Actually
Years of Peril for U.S. Manufacturers,” Industrial Engi- Improve Operating Performance? Empirical Evidence
neering 22, no. 1 (January 1990), 18-21. We also thank from Firms That Have Won Quality Awards,” Manage-
Ben Valentin for providing some historical facts about ment Science 43, 9 (September 1997), 1258–1274. The
Nissan and Datsun. results of this study appeared in extensive business and
13. Alex Taylor III, “Detroit’s Used-Car Blues,” For- trade publications such as Business Week, Fortune, and
tune, September 16, 2002, 147–150. others.
31. Adapted from Alan P. Brache and Geary A. World of Quality (Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press,
Rummler, “The Three Levels of Quality,” Quality 1993); and “Restrengthening Xerox: Our Lean Six Sigma
Progress 21, no. 10 (October 1988), 46–51. Journey,” Presentation slides, May 2003. Courtesy of
32. Rath & Strong Executive Panel, Winter 1994 Xerox Corporation. Our thanks go to George Maszle of
Survey on Personal Initiative, Summary of Findings. Xerox Corporation for providing the information on
33. David Armstrong, Management by Storying current Six Sigma initiatives.
Around (New York: Doubleday Currency, 1992), 117–119. 37. Adapted from KARLEE 2000 Malcolm Baldrige
34. Harry V. Roberts and Bernard F. Sergesketter, Application Summary, National Institute of Standards
Quality Is Personal: A Foundation for Total Quality Manage- and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.
ment (New York: The Free Press, 1993). 38. Appreciation for materials in this case is
35. Roberts and Sergesketter (see note 30), 13–14. expressed to Nancy Mlinarik, VP of Quality, Skilled
36. Information for this case was obtained from Care, Inc.
“Xerox Quest for Quality and the Malcolm Baldrige 39. Based on a student project prepared by Stacey
National Quality Award” presentation script; Norman Bizzell, Suzanne Lee, and Kenneth Shircliff. We grate-
E. Rickard, Jr., “The Quest for Quality: A Race without a fully acknowledge their contribution.
Finish Line,” Industrial Engineering, January 1991, 25–27; 40. Based on research conducted by Michael Judge,
Howard S. Gitlow and Elvira N. Loredo, “Total Quality Melanie Landthaler, Pamela Stermer, and April Urso.
Management at Xerox: A Case Study,” Quality Engi- We gratefully acknowledge their contribution.
neering 5, no. 3 (1993), 403–432; Xerox Quality Solutions, A
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bauer, John E., Grace L. Duffy, and Russell T. Page, Harold S. “A Quality Strategy for the ‘80s.”
Wescott (eds.). The Quality Improvement Handbook. Mil- Quality Progress, 16, no. 11 (November 1983), 16-21.
waukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press, 2002. Schmidt, Warren H., and Jerome P. Finnigan. The
Freund, Richard A. “Definitions and Basic Quality Race without a Finish Line. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
Concepts.” Journal of Quality Technology, January 1985, 1992.
50–56. Stewart, Tom. The Wealth of Knowledge: Intellectual
Garvin, David A. Managing Quality. New York: The Capital and the Twenty First Century Organization. New
Free Press, 1988. York: Currency, Inc., 2001.
Hayes, Glenn E. “Quality: Quandary and Quest.” Van Gigch, John P. “Quality—Producer and Con-
Quality, 22, no. 7 (July 1983), 18. sumer Views.” Quality Progress 10, no. 4 (April 1977),
Hiam, Alexander. Closing the Quality Gap: Lessons 30–33.
from America’s Leading Companies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Wachniak, Ray. “World-Class Quality: An American
Prentice-Hall, 1992. Response to the Challenge.” In M. Sepehri (ed.), Quest
Hunt, V. Daniel. Managing for Quality: Integrating for Quality: Managing the Total System. Norcross, GA:
Quality and Business Strategy. Homewood, IL: Business Institute of Industrial Engineers, 1987.
One Irwin, 1993.

Ch1 Quality

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ch1 Quality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

z

Q uality is by no means a new concept in modern business. In October 1887, William

of profitability, the most significant factor in determining the long-run success or

THE HISTORY AND IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY

The Age of Craftsmanship

z QUALITY PROFILES e dia C

and apprentices, emerged to ensure that craftspeople were adequately trained.

The Early Twentieth Century

The U.S. “Quality Revolution”

quality as a key business driver, much of it due to short-sightedness on the part of

From Product Quality to Performance Excellence

Disappointments and Criticism

decision such as an inappropriate merger or acquisition, a weak global economy, or a

Current and Future Challenges

Integrating Perspectives on Quality

tomer. To understand this concept more clearly from a manufacturing perspective,

Figure 1.1 Quality Perspectives in the Value Chain

QUALITY AS A MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Principles of Total Quality

inspection. Improvements in quality generally resulted from technological break-

Empowering employees to make decisions that satisfy customers without con-

Process Focus and Continuous Improvement The traditional way of viewing an

Figure 1.2 Process Versus Function

Vice President • • • Vice President

Department Department Department Department Department

Figure 1.3 Deming’s View of a Production System

The conceptual framework behind this definition requires an understanding and

depends on superior learning.” Continuous improvement and learning should be a

Infrastructure, Practices, and Tools

Figure 1.4 The Scope of Total Quality

Participation and Teamwork

Infrastructure Tools and

Figure 1.5 Relationships Among Infrastructure, Practices, and Tools

Infrastructure Leadership Strategic Human resources Process Information and

Tools ••• ••• • • • Trend chart • • • ••• •••

subsequent chapters. It is important to realize that quality management practices and

Customer Relationship Management Understanding customer needs, both current

Human Resource Management Meeting the company’s quality and performance

Process Management Process management involves the design of processes to

Information and Knowledge Management Modern businesses depend on data and

QUALITY AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

2. It makes a significant contribution to the success of the business.

Figure 1.6 Quality and Profitability

Improved quality Improved quality

Higher perceived Higher Lower manufacturing

Increased market Increased

Improved conformance in production or service delivery leads to lower costs

Quality and Business Results

1. Among associates at Clarke American, overall satisfaction improved from 72

THREE LEVELS OF QUALITY31

QUALITY AND PERSONAL VALUES

An example of a personal quality checklist developed to improve professorial activi-

Figure 1.7 An Example of a Personal TQ Checklist

Defect Category M T W TH F S SU Total

Search for something misplaced

Failure to discard incoming

Putting a small task on the

Failure to respond to letter or

Lack of clarity in setting

Excessive “general interest” reading;

Failure to provide weekly opportunity

Less than two hours of writing

Less than 8 hours of sleep on

Less than 3 exercise