An Alternative Definition of Quality Control

In his book, Introduction to Quality, Kaoru Ishikawa defined quality in the following way:

An alternative definition of QC could in fact be, ‘Everyone doing what should be done, in an organized, systematic way’

It is a very simple and easy to understand definition that almost anyone can relate.  Everyone just needs to do what should be done.  Basically everyone just needs to do their job!  In fact I heard a lot of this, when I worked in the automotive industry back when the Japanese were first making inroads into the US market.  As the pressure from the Japanese mounted, I would hear a fair number of people say any variation of this.  “We could beat them easily if everyone just hunkered down and did their jobs.”  “Why are we taking all these quality courses?  People just need to do their jobs!”

It is easy.  Everyone just needs to do their job and they need to do it in an organized way.  Well, it is easy to say at least.

How do we determine what should be done and who should be doing it?  After we get a clear understanding of what should be done and who should be doing it, how do we get everyone to do what they are supposed to do in an organized and systematic way?  This is the role of management.  They need to set the direction so everyone will know in general what to do.  Management then must provide teams with the tools to evaluate and refine what should be done.

Accomplishing this can be a daunting task but not as daunting as getting the systematic and organized part right.  This requires the cooperation across departments and functions.  The handoffs between internal customers and suppliers need to be defined and refined over time.  What information does the supplier need from the customer to deliver the product or transaction on time and complete.  Is there a need to apply any measures to the outputs or inputs to track and verify improvements?

People think they know what should be done.  It may be the way that things always should be done.  Different people in the same job have their own ways of doing things the way they have always been done… or at least how one of them believes it should have always been done.

In this day and age, it seems odd we are still fighting this battle.  Yet, it is at every turn and underlying every process and transaction.  With ERPs and all the reengineering involved in implementing one, the processes need tightening up in the most socio-technical way.  Even given all the work done in implementing an ERP to ensure that “everyone is doing what should be done in an organized, systematic way” the work never seems to end.   There is no question that ERPs are about enhancing and enabling the systematic doing of what should be done but the effort and investment is substantial.

Ishikawa’s statement is brilliant in it’s simplicity.  It is confounding in how hard it can be to realize.