18 replies to this topic

[Wallace Tait]

What's your definition of quality, outwith the constraints of the ISO standards?
Wallace.

[Puzzle]

Product wise - Fit for purpose

Systems wise - Say what you do, and then do it.

And then the rub, if an improvement can be identified and actioned with the above - do it (within commercial constraints)

Perhaps naively simplistic, but thats me at the moment. Back to basics.

Chris

[Wallace Tait]

My definition has changed a few times, but I've come up with my own generic chant.

Quality may be defined as:

The realization of value added steps,
Driven by needs, that fulfil a desired outcome.

If I were to give quality a one word definition, I would say" REALIZATION".
Wallace.

[Simon]

ISO 8402 - Quality management and quality assurance - Vocabulary, defines quality as:

'The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs'

ISO 8402 Scope: Defines the fundamental terms relating to quality concepts, as they apply to all areas, for the preparation and use of quality-related standards and for mutual understanding in international communications.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It's not bad, my definiton today is:

"Achieving the optimum level of satisfaction for All interested parties"

Regards,
Simon

[Wallace Tait]

The ISO 8042 definition,
Well it's so ISO, isn't it?
I have recently decided to assist (as a freebie) a warehousing organization that wishes to develop their own particular BMS.
They have in the past had, a quality system that was developed upon the requirements of ISO 9001 and, yes they were registered.
I wasn't surprised at all, when asked to develop a quality system that basically walked away from the ISO 9001 requirements. There's almost a wholesale rejection of the registration process in certain quarters here in North America.
Back to the SDF with this one.
Wallace.

[Simon]

There's almost a wholesale rejection of the registration process in certain quarters here in North America.
Back to the SDF with this one.
Wallace.

Hi Wallace,

Are there any facts and figures to back up what you are saying, or is it just a general 'on the ground' feeling?

Simon

[Wallace Tait]

Yeah,
There are figures to be had.
I recall viewing the figures at the C*#! recently, can't remember at this time where the thread was located.
I have worked with a few Ford suppliers who basically said, they no longer had the incentive to remain registered to the ISO9001 standards yet wished to use the standard as their organization wide Business Management Standard.
I guess the cost's associated with maintaining registration and the headaches related to registrar audits have become restrictive to say the least.
I want to say, I don't particularly agree with this stance yet, I'm getting feedback from many suppliers to Ford that, the ISO standards and other OEM add-in requirements are becoming too restrictive to supplier business management cost's.
There is for sure, lots too digest with this debate of Register or not and, use and conform to the ISO standard or, make it the formal organization wide management system standard.
Back to SDF.
Wallace

[Simon]

There is a very interesting and heated 'petition debate' on the ISO1stop forum.

http://www.iso1stop....show.cgi?34/628

On a company by company basis I suppose it's very much down to what your customer(s) want. As an overall trend I'm still to be convinced of a 'wholesale rejection' and I am more inclined toward the saturation and deceleration theory.

I don't have any facts...

Regards,
Simon

[Wallace Tait]

I am more inclined toward the saturation and deceleration theory.

You have a very valid point Simon.
Wallace.

[Puzzle]

It could also be the appearance of many 'specific' types of standards, and the various businesses are choosing to go down this route.

[Jim Wade]

Definition of 'quality'? My opinion?

1
All generic definitions of Q are of very little practical use - they are helpful only to help us 'get' principles.

2
The following applies perfectly to all organisations and to all situations. IMO.

- Quality is defined by whatever your current measurable objectives state.

- Quality is measured by the degree of deviation between what the objectives stated and what you actually achieved.

Easy. Comments?

rgds Jim

[Simon]

Jim,

I'm finding it very difficult to argue...probably because you're right.

Then again what if your measurable objectives or the importance which you (the supplier) place on them are out of sync with say your customers?

Just a thought...

Simon

BTW Puzzle you make a good point re the introduction of other certificate and industry specific schemes and standards contributing to the 'mooted' drop-off in ISO certificates.
.

[Jim Wade]

"... what if your measurable objectives or the importance which you (the supplier) place on them are out of sync with say your customers?"

Good question, Simon. That might be the case; and if we know about it, we will presumably adjust the objectives to get them 'right', giving us a better definition of Q.

If we don't know, then we stick with the somewhat more inadequate objectives and then we have - for the time being, at least - a definition of Q that is not as good as it could be. Maybe it's even a really crap definition. But if that's what we've decided we are shooting for, then that's our Q definition, for good or for bad!

rgds Jim

[Simon]

In order that our definition of quality is accurate shouldn't it be whatever our customer(s) says it is - today?

Regards,
Simon

[Puzzle]

Having just scanned through this thread again, it seems to me there is not a defined statement for 'Quality' except what is 'acceptable' at the instant it is considered.

We all have the customer that insists on the best, but when they are desperate they will accept anything!!!

'Quality' (or part of it) is supposed to be about continuously improviing. Therefore the definition of quality will change.

[Jim Wade]

"In order that our definition of quality is accurate shouldn’t it be whatever our customer(s) says it is - today?"

Well, as the 'excellence' models remind us, we have several stakeholders to satisfy.

Not taking the customers' needs & wants closely into account would not be smart, but they cannot determine all our objectives. And what do objectives make...?

IMO

rgds

Jim

[Simon]

And what do objectives make…?

PRIZES!!!

Or was that points?

My original definition was / is:

"Achieving the optimum level of satisfaction for All interested parties"

Or 'stakeholders' - and I think this more or less reflects what you were saying in your last post Jim. In reality how many organizations go beyond defining customer and shareholder-based objectives?

ISO 9004:2000 (8.2.4) Measurement and monitoring the satisfaction of interested parties, states:

"The organization should identify the measurement information required to meet the needs of interested parties (other than customers) [my bold emphasis], in relation to the processes of the organization in order to balance the allocation of resources. Such information should include measurements relating to the people in the organization, owners and investors, suppliers and partners, as well as society…" As well as much more…

ISO 9001:2000 (8.2.1) Customer satisfaction, requires:

"As one of the measurements of the performance of the quality management system, the organization shall monitor information relating to customer perception as to whether the organization has met customer requirements. The methods for obtaining and using this information shall be determined.

ISO 9001:2000 does also require that quality objectives are consistent with the quality policy, but it's not prescriptive and is left to the organization to determine.

I argue that before we fully understand the needs of All stakeholders, and have set measurable objectives for their satisfaction and improvement. In most case we will find it very difficult to accurately develop objectives for products or processes.

Regards,
Simon

[Jim Wade]

"In most case we will find it very difficult to accurately develop objectives for products or processes"

Three thoughts here:

1 Measurements need only be accurate enough.

2 If it ain't measurable, it don't matter.

3 If we want to improve results, we must improve processes, so we must measure them.

rgds Jim

PS sorry my comments are curt - I'm downgraded to a clunky laptop since BTopenworld is down and I want to get off it fast and back to a real computer (=Mac).

[Simon]

3  If we want to improve results, we must improve processes, so we must measure them.

No probs so long as the objectives of the process are in alignment with the strategic objectives - obviously where practicable.

So a macman, everyone who has used both a mac and a PC say that macs are far superior - I should try. I mean who in the hell would put the shutdown option in the 'start' menu?

Regards,
Simon