The unscientific approach to philosophy concentrates on anecdotal discussion and usually relates to "who" and "why." Who created the universe and why?

The scientific approach to philosophy concentrates on "what’ and "how." Plow the ground with this tool to plant seed.

The conventional approach to quality management is an unhappy combination of these two concepts. Rather than determining what’s best for a particular company and a particular situation, people concentrate on learning what other companies did. Then they take what they’ve learned and change it around to suit themselves. The result is less than satisfactory because if something works, they never really know why.

Those responsible for making quality happen tend to assume that those who write or speak on the subject are all talking about the same things. Thus I hear people say that they combine the best of philosopher A with the best of philosopher B, adding a teaspoon from philosopher C. So a little Newton, some Franklin, and a slice of Voltaire make up a performance cocktail suitable for understanding how the price of gold is set.

A strategic quality management approach requires that subject’s concepts to be understood exactly the same by all involved. It wouldn’t be practical, for instance, to have different accounting concepts in each department of an organization. No one would know what the other was talking about. No one would dream of a strategic accounting plan based on such unscientific thought. The who and why must be understood by top management before the what and how can be launched. Unless the strategy is approached in this way, the company will find itself searching fruitlessly for the mythical silver bullet that solves all problems.

Quality isn’t something the temple priests can create for you. Swearing great oaths and offering blood sacrifices accomplishes little. Quality can’t be delegated as we’ve noted before. That’s why I’ve always referred to the "quality reformation" rather than "quality revolution."

Once I had a manufacturing line in my department that made coils for telephone switches. For years it had had a defect level of 4 percent. That number was accepted as the sort of worldwide standard in the company. I could never get much done about reducing it. Then I had the opportunity to appoint a new manager for that operation. I selected a young electrical engineer who had no experience in that area.

"We need to get the coils down to zero defects," I told her. "That’s the world standard."

"OK," she said and went to work identifying specific causes of the defect rate. She built her work force into a team that improved material handling, machine maintenance, worker training, and a dozen other things. They found, for instance, that many coils were damaged when they dropped off the end of the winding machine and fell onto the transfer ramp. They learned that it was possible to stack the finished goods in a way that nicked wires; they found that new workers weren’t being properly oriented.

Within a few months the defect rate was under 1 percent and they were still pounding away at it. I sent the details and results of their work throughout the international operations of the corporation where they also had coil departments. Soon defect rates began to drop elsewhere and they stayed down, many at zero. Now anything less than defect-free is considered unacceptable.

That’s what a worldwide quality strategy is all about. Define proper goals, help people reach them, and recognize their achievements.

© Copyright 1999 Philip Crosby Associates II, Inc. All rights reserved.

Send mail to wdevlin@q2000.com.au with questions or comments about this web site.