Quality

Quality is in the eye of the beholder; a subjective attribute given a product by users, owners, creators, critics, and competitors.  Quality is also objective; an attribute defined by a collection of standards.  From a marketing standpoint, quality becomes a basis for consumer acceptance, appreciation, and brand loyalty.  To manage quality, it is essential to understand and quantify both the desired subjective and objective attributes for the product at hand.

Objective quality standards come from proven industry “best practices”.  Depending on the industry, these may be drawn from an entity such as the International Standards Organization (ISO).  For example, the ISO 29001 standards detail the best and safest known practices for the oil and gas industry.  Failing to follow these practices may result in hazards to human life, the ecology, and the company (BSI, 2011), a la the BP/Deep Water Horizon fiasco or worse.

Generally, standards governing bodies collect and maintain information on successful methods of performing and managing the processes that produce some consumable item.    The ISO is the most recognized and has comprehensive data on many processes in many industries.  They also provide a tried and tested framework for taking a systematic approach to managing an organization’s processes (ISO, 2011).  There are other methods of managing quality that may better meet whatever standards the company chooses to adopt.

Subjective standards focus on the expectations of the afore-mentioned group: users, owners, et al.  These quality standards are only understood through thorough communication with the members of this group, and are the basis for developing the requirements for a product development project.  This is especially true in the IT field, where users are the stakeholders upon who the final product will have the greatest impact.  The processes for managing these quality points will be part of the overall Total Quality Management (TQM) plan.

The rest of this paper will explain three common quality management methodologies, their pros and cons, and when they may be a best fit for a project.

ISO 9001:2008

A sub-set of the ISO 9000 family of standards, the 9001:2008 is a standard for Design, Development, Manufacturing, Sales and Distribution (Quadrant, 2011).  Regardless of industry, these standards form the basis for a quality management framework that can be custom tailored to any company’s needs.  The standards cover everything from internal and external quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty, environmental performance, supplier quality and human resource management (Godfrey, 1997).  Key principles of the ISO framework are:

1) Customer Focus

2) Leadership

3) Involvement of People

4) Process Approach

5) System approach to management

6) Continual improvement

7) Factual approach to decision making

8) Mutually beneficial supplier relationship

(Foong, 2001)

The advantage of the ISO 9001:2008 framework is the international acceptance of the standards which may be very valuable in the global marketplace.  A disadvantage would be the complexity of the framework.  Certainly, with so many business units involved, this quality management model is more than a “one-man-show” in any but the smallest companies.  Although adaptable to even small businesses, full implementation of this methodology seems best suited for larger, widely distributed, companies that could well benefit from the consistency of a standardized TQM initiative.

Six Sigma

Six Sigma is intended to take TQM to the highest level that it can attain.  Named by a Motorola engineer in the 1980’s, Six Sigma (a Motorola trademark) refers to the number of standard deviations from the norm in product quality defects per million opportunities (iSixSigma, 2010).  An “opportunity” is defined as a chance for nonconformance, or not meeting the required specifications (GE, 2009).

Touted as more than a quality management system, Six Sigma is a business philosophy that attempts to instill quality in the very heart of the company, down to each employee.  At the core of the model is continuous granular statistical analysis of processes, identification of issues that detract from quality, and taking steps to improve the process.  The value of this could be great if there is near total buy in at all of the company levels.  Achieving this may be difficult as the constant, repetitive information gathering can become tedious (Nussbaum, 2007).

The advantage of Six Sigma would be the company-wide commitment to improvement that the philosophy attempts to instill.  Also, like ISO, the brand recognition of the Six Sigma philosophy is global and useful for marketing.   The disadvantages seem to be the increased attention to measurements and the focus on improving existing processes rather than developing new ones (Nussbaum, 2007).  This model would likely be best used in manufacturing where processes change little even across model changes.

Benchmarking

Benchmarking is possibly one of the most used quality management methods in IT.  This method uses statistics from other companies’ high-quality products as a comparison by which to rate your own.  Originating in manufacturing, the practice has spread to other business units over time, creating goals to be met and surpassed based on numeric data; Mean Time between Failures (MTBF), numbers sold, product returns, sales calls made, etc. ad nauseam (Reh, 2011).

The advantage to benchmarking could be the enhanced awareness of what needs to be done to beat the competition.  The disadvantage may be the difficulty and time it takes to get the information on competitors.

This model could fit any situation as it is product/service specific.

Thoughts and recommendation

Each of the models has merit and the choice of which model to adopt is contingent on what the company wishes to achieve.  The ISO and Six Sigma models only have real value when there are certified practitioners in key management and training positions throughout the company, ensuring that business-wide standards are developed and adhered to in everything the company does.  Without that kind of commitment, the value is diminished to mostly just the marketing angle of touting their use.  Benchmarking to competitors is probably easier to implement as there would likely be a greater focus on what really matters in the products/services in question.

Added Value

Regardless of the model chosen as a company standard, there must be a commitment to follow-through.  While it is possible to assign metrics to measure objective quality in some things (chrome content in stainless steel to make parts, for example) the subjective measurements are harder to define and enforce: Are requirements concise and understood or broad and vague; is software code clean, effectively commented, well documented and user-tested, or is it not?  How can these be measured and managed?  Much of quality comes down to the individual(s) doing the work.

References

BSI. (2011). ISO 29001 Oil and Gas. Retrieved May 3, 2011, from BSI Group: http://www.bsigroup.com/en/Assessment-and-certification-services/management-systems/Standards-and-Schemes/ISO-29001/

Foong, L. M. (2001). ISO 9001 Quality Management Principles. Retrieved May 4, 2011, from TQM Case Studies: http://article.tqmcasestudies.com/iso9001-principles.html

GE. (2009). What Is Six Sigma? Retrieved May 5, 2011, from GE.com: http://www.ge.com/en/company/companyinfo/quality/whatis.htm

Godfrey, A. B. (1997). Statistical Standards and Quality. Retrieved May 5, 2011, from Quality Digest: http://www.qualitydigest.com/oct97/html/qmanage.html

iSixSigma. (2010). New to Lean Six Sigma. Retrieved May 5, 2011, from iSix Sigma: http://www.isixsigma.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=201&Itemid=27

ISO. (2011). ISO 9000 essentials. Retrieved May 4, 2011, from International Organization for Standardization: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_9000_essentials

Kerzner, H. (2009). Project Management. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Nussbaum, B. (2007, June 11). Six Sigma: So Yesterday? Retrieved May 5, 2011, from Businessweek: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_24/b4038409.htm

PMI. (2008). Project Management Body of Knowledge. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute, Inc.

Quadrant. (2011). Quality Commitment. Retrieved May 5, 2011, from Quadrant Plastics: http://www.quadrantplastics.com/index.php?id=158&L=1

Reh, F. J. (2011). How to Use Benchmarking in Business. Retrieved May 5, 2011, from About.com: http://management.about.com/cs/benchmarking/a/Benchmarking.htm

Stewart, T. A. (1996, October 28). Beat the Budget and Astound Your CFO. Retrieved May 5, 2011, from CNNMoney.com: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1996/10/28/203926/index.htm