Comments

In fairness to the standards people, I think they've tried to move companies away from the concrete life jacket scenario. There's more focus on the appropriateness of what your doing and improvement measures. Ultimately, though, it seems to me that a lot of this depends on attitude. If a business wants a quality certification certificate purely for the sake of having a certificate, then it's likely to be little more than paperwork exercise. And if you think that ownership of it is of itself sufficient to ensure you're doing well, then maybe you should just give up now!

At the end of the day, you can't rely on or expect someone else to tell you how to run your company. Quality standards are a benchmarking tool and what matters is what you do with that benchmark.

I sometimes wonder if quality certification is like the Groucho Marx comment, "I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would have me as a member." After all, if you're passionate about quality, wouldn't you rather get on with it than sign up to a club that put all these admin tests in the way?

Posted by Mark JF at February 21, 2008 10:43 AM

Well i understand what quality is : to make products what attend delight the necessitys the clients the raw material good transformation norm distribuicion competitive sell just and result the client satisfact is not quality ??

Posted by JOSE GILBERTO at February 21, 2008 1:58 PM

I was a Baldrige examiner back in '99 and '00 in Georgia, and really see nothing incompatible with the Baldrige Criteria and what Tom suggests in Re-Imagine! The Baldrige looks for sustained superior performance backed by valid data. That does not mean you cannot "futuremark" instead of benchmark. Where I think the Baldrige is helpful is in asking companies to show the alignment between leadership, planning, people, and processes with end results. A company can have that alignment and still be agile.

Posted by Britt Watwood at February 21, 2008 5:58 PM

Mark, I agree with you. So many quality certifications (ISO, QS,etc) seem to have become more important to the sales and marketing team than they were to the op's group. There are many helpful practices and processes discovered when one goes through the exercise, but it really does come back to intent, and as you say, attitude. When adherence to getting checks in the box for following certification requirement trumps a deeply ingrained belief and dedication to quality, it loses credibility. I am sure there have been some learnings and improvements, but Baldridge lost me when they gave Cadillac the award in 1990. By the way, I would nominate Cadillac 2008 without reservation.

Posted by Mike Neiss at February 21, 2008 6:38 PM

From previous discussions on TP Blog about FSW and Baldridge I am sure there are merits for both. I will be interested to hear Dave Wheeler's take on this discussion. Dave has a great deal to offer us from his practical experience of using Baldridge and like Britt he is an advocate of that system.

My take on all these models, systems and processes is that the one thing that must be at the top of the agenda in every meeting, every event and every discussion must be 'people.' I hope Managers know that all they really have is 'people' and those people must be valued. When I was manager in the NHS I had responsibility for very large budgets. Almost 90% of those budgets were salaries - i.e. flesh and blood, people, human beings. Sure it is important to look after expenditure on the 10% i.e. equipment, consumables, energy, office expenses etc., but the 90% was what I needed to pay attention to most. The 90% is the bit that makes the difference to patients, the 90% is where we can illustrate quality and the 90% is where we can achieve meaningful and lasting change. I have to say my emphasis is ALWAYS on people above process or system. I take the view if we look after our people the other 10% takes care of itself. Another simple view I guess and I make no apology for that.

That is my two pennyworth, my two cents or my two euros depending on your currency :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 21, 2008 7:04 PM

Richard...thank you. This is such a power packed post. The beauty in firms that "cherish impermance" (those who truly value excellence and quality beyond lip service and immediate profits) revolve around the right base; this base (the only constant) is talent teamed to create excellence and quality around a revolving axis. The base is not the system, but the system is talent fully engaged beyond models to meet client and customers' needs. "Body of knowledge" itself is not something about which to disagree. (Hence, its very presupposition.) It is, however, something to reconsider over time. "Everything deteriorates over time."

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 21, 2008 11:18 PM

The "retrospeative static models of quality" typically focus on systems, not on talent or clients. We fit talent and client needs into a system which forever deteriorates. I too would be interested to know the various systems that "calibrate the impermance requirement for future winners." This requirement is constant in future winning companies. Without it, the result of "concrete life jackets" is imminent.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 21, 2008 11:55 PM

Folks, Richard provided a link to the both the FSW and Baldrige Quality Award site. You can label or categorize any performance management system anyway you choose so if you want to categorize it as a "certification" or "standards" system feel free. You can label the "Criteria for Performance Excellence "the application of retrospective static models of quality, which are supervised and certified by third-party process-conformance checking" feel free. If you took the time to review Baldrige you would however see that nothing is "supervised" or "certified" by anyone. BTW....since there is nothing prescriptive, there is no process conformance element to anything. But if you wanted to expand your knowledge on Baldrige, Richard provided the tools to do it, including the answer to the question of why Cadilliac was selected for the award in 1990 (Click the link to Award Winners and you'll see profiles and contact info for all companies recognized from 1988-2007).

I look at both systems and see differences only in the visuals and labels. Baldrige has seven categories (the Architecture equivelant)shown on pg iv of the Criteria for Performance Excellence and pg 49 has the Core Values and how they link and align (visually different than a gyroscope but shows the "system perspective"). If by impermance you mean a system that continously systematically evaluates and improves all elements of the Architecture....you will see it in Baldrige although the terms used to describe it are agility, systematic, embedded learning cycles, and sustainability and it is embedded in each piece of the system. (Core Values and Concepts and Scoring Criteria). As Britt points out, it's all about how all categories link and align, actions taken in anyone will show in other categories. It's about development and deployment organization wide. That I see no real difference in the systems means only that I see great value in both but again, my perspective on Baldrige is based on my knowledge and application of it. I sure don't see the same things others do when categorizing or comparing Baldrige or FSW. But I don't have a need to either.

But Trevor,as always, makes the key point. It's all about people...leaders and frontliners. The best of systems in the hands of poor leadership will not produce results. It works when there is an organizational culture based on trust,accountability, teamwork, shared goals and values, and continuous improvement. Culture is core to FSW and Baldrige alike. I reminded once again of the good coach/great coach. A good coach can take his players and beat yours. A great coach can take your players and beat his. This isn't about one being better than the other. Your knowledge of FSW would enable you produce results with the Baldrige system were you so inclined to do so....the linkages and alignment between the two systems are minimal at best.... Baldrige might be labeled a quality award, but it's clearly a systems based approach to performance excellence.

Posted by Dave Wheeler at February 22, 2008 3:10 AM

Trevor....I recently read your book "I Wanna Tell You A Story" and it was terrific! The pages were filled with more wisdon and "actionable" knowledge than most that I have read on the topic of leadership. Stories are a remarkable learning tool and those that you shared very simply and eloquently made each of the "lessons" very easy to learn. It seems our views and perspective on the value of the frontline folks are based on our shared experiences as leaders. We have an informal group of leaders who meet weekly to just talk about a variety of stuff and there is a standing item to discuss interesting things we have seen/read. I'm definitely gonna tell them about this story! Great stuff.....

Posted by Dave Wheeler at February 22, 2008 3:46 AM

>Is there a quality assessment tool that can accommodate hot words like "cherish" and "thrive"?

Sure. It's called 'heart and soul'. We all have it - look inside.

Posted by g at February 22, 2008 4:33 AM

Damn... too keen to preach, didn't complete the post.

Seriously... we're born with it as kids - but educate ourselves (RETREAT!) away from it as we age.

Posted by g at February 22, 2008 4:37 AM

Ah, what the hell... haven't posted in months, so may as well go for three-in-a-row then vanish again.

Seriously, what's with the obsession to measure every damn thing and whack a good/bad failed/passed sticker on it?

Tom Peters Seminar pg 230-ish... 'quality doesn't have to be defined, you understand it without definition' etcetera.

In grading, we dull the life out of things and birth that oh-so-familiar situation of businesses becoming bland, boring, banal and passionless.

Screw it - and screw all who 'measure'. Approached appropriately, enterprise can be 'real sweet'; so to hell with quality markers and awards, give me something with heart, soul... and a rock'n'roll beat.

Manifesto now pauses.

Posted by g at February 22, 2008 4:58 AM

Q uite
U sually
A
L ot
I mproved
T han
Y esterday

would be the future shape of QUALITY

Posted by Sriram at February 22, 2008 5:09 AM

Thanks Dave - glad the book was well received and the language travelled over the pond :-)

I love the use of story telling in business. I think story telling is the most under used skill in the armoury of any manager or leader - and we don’t need to go to business school to learn how to tell stories – we just listen to experts like our Grandparents and then try to do the same with our children and Grandchildren. Interestingly enough even story telling is now made complex by some managers and presumably some business schools who call it

“The use of narrative!!”

Thereby is the problem about complexity – we make things complex that don’t need to be complex. It is STORYTELLING for crying out loud - NOT 'the use of narrative!

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 22, 2008 6:44 AM

Mark JF's points are usually so precise and fair that they sink in fast and furiously, even when no acknowledgmement is made. Thank you. WE have visited the how (appropriateness-approach) and improvement measures (systems) here before.

The biggest and best quality certification a business could have is in its talent and NOT in a system. And by this, I mean -- ANY SYSTEM. This kind of investment assures the elimination of the mere "paperwork execrise." You can own systems BUT YOU CANNOT OWN PEOPLE! (You cannot own mind-sets and ideas, that is.)

"Attitude" goes beyond checks and balances to continuance (or the lack thereof), to creativity, to innovation. Quality as benchmarking? Yes! Quality as mere systems? No! (This is often the how and what conflated -- a most non-effective way of achieving the desired result.) Quality measurements often become the significance itself, not the means by which performance and execution occur.

Club membership often exceed the reality of necessary impermanance.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 22, 2008 8:31 AM

What a love fest that goes on between Dave Wheeler and Trevor -- no impermanence there.
About the book, however, I will confer. Bravo, Trevor!

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 22, 2008 8:36 AM

Trevor - I beg to differ. A story is a narrative. However, a narrative is not always a story. "Narrative" also means a description of events in a sequential, chronologically correct and logically consistent manner. Thus, clear and concisely explained forensic evidence is a narrative, but you probably wouldn't call it a story.

Judith - thanks for the compliment.

All - words matter!

Posted by Mark JF at February 22, 2008 8:37 AM

The writings of Virginia Woolf, William Faulkner and Toni Morrison all have a sense of disconnection, though each tell powerful stories. For me, Tom Peter's "Implementation" can be likened to such a story, streaming with consciousness. Great stories go beyond narrative to the power of conveyance, the power of transformation, the power of now and action.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 22, 2008 8:53 AM

Richard--the accommodation of "hot words like 'cherish' and 'thrive'" is inconceivable in ANY system whose structure is not talent. By their sheer structure alone, systems are not breathing, living, thinking. Thus, permanence is foundational.

The impermanence of talent itself is a HUGE factor of systems change (the "built-in changability" spoken beforehand) to better meet the needs of clients and customers, engendering creativity and innovation.

Words matter out of which brillance and forward thinking come.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 22, 2008 10:40 AM

The term "retrospective static models of quality" defines what quality isn't. Quality is not primarily a model. Quality is not static, nor movement. Quality is not retrospective. Quality is the universal application of distinction created in impermenance. We ALL know it when we see it.

Essentially, quality is primarily found in talent and expressed in action, in the now, in the synthesis of teams in huddles. Time in and of itself has no real basis in quality. (Quality is forever ongoing. So, is excellence.) Thus, retrospection is not needed, save for benchmarking BEFORE hard work begins.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 22, 2008 12:39 PM

Bravo to Dave (and Britt too) for displaying your deep knowledge of and passion for the Baldridge Awards. Thanks also to Mark JF for pointing out my obvious prejudice on this topic. Touché! It's just that I am so certain that the future will be won by talent centric businesses lead by people who know their job is to create a context in which their talent can do great work and feel great about doing it. I desperately want to help my clients to develop their "quality" capability through this route. With due reverence to Dave and Britt, and I'm certainly no expert at this, but "not precluding" doesn't mean "advocating". I still don't hear or see much evidence of the quality industry actively engaging with people based "cherish and thrive" approaches. From the blog responses so far, I'm still not convinced I'm being unfair!

Posted by Richard King at February 22, 2008 1:55 PM

OK Mark I bow to your greater knowledge of the dictionary. ‘Narrative’ may technically be something different to a story but to me it will always be story telling. My main point was why do we make things unnecessarily complicated by using language that most people don’t use most of the time?

Judith - no 'love fest' - just mutual professional and personal respect between me and Dave. :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 22, 2008 2:27 PM

OK, Trevor. I buy the mutual admiration and personal respect among professionals. This is good.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 22, 2008 3:08 PM

Beautiful, Richard King.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 22, 2008 3:11 PM

There is a lot of confusion between what is meant by quality versus grade. The quality section of Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK) draws attention to the distinction between quality and grade in the opening paragraphs; that quality is meeting the requirements of the grade definition. For example, if a chemical is produced in two grades and the measured performance is as below:

GRADE...MINIMUM PURITY SPECIFICATION...ACTUAL PURITY
Laboratory..............99.99%...............................99.8%
Commercial.............99.0%.................................99.2%

Although the Laboratory grade is higher purity, it does not meet grade specifications and is not a quality product.

The concrete life jacket you refer to is presumably specified to sink. If it doesn’t, you can bet that it would not be considered a quality product if the customer was the mafia! By the same reasoning, a world renowned hamburger chain consistently delivers a poor grade product impeccably. Although they are considered awful in grade by most people over the age of ten years, their quality is extraordinary in terms of consistency and control – these hamburgers are high quality, low grade junk.

Although there are many definitions of quality floating around, most are abstractions which are totally subjective and rely on variable customer perception. I suggest that the definition proposed by Philip B.Crosby is the most objective, namely: “Quality is conformance to requirements”.

The challenge is to ensure that the specifications have quantative parameters which can be measured; e.g. how do you know that you got them to the specified degree. In this model, the degree of excellence would be clearly defined in the grade specifications and hot words like "cherish" and "thrive" would be accommodated and could be assessed.

Posted by Bryan Walton at February 22, 2008 8:47 PM

Excellence is important. To everyone excellence means something a bit different. Do we need a metric for excellence? But, Why do I believe that the qualitative side of it is more important than its numericalization. By the way, increasing tsunamis of vanguard sciences and corresponding technologies to be applied bring about the upping of the technical parlance.

These times as Peter Schwartz would firmly recommend require to “pay” the highest premium for leading knowledge.

“Chindia” (China and India) will not wait for the West. People like Balmer (Microsoft) and Ray Kurzweil insist that current levels of complexity –that one can manage appropriately and timely- might get one a nice business success.

Yes, simple is beautiful, but horrendous when this COSMOS is overwhelmed with paradoxes, contradictions, and predicaments. And you must act to capture success and, overall, to make sustainable.

Quality is crucial. Benchmarks are important but refer to something else, though similar. But Quality standards, as per my view, would require a discipline to be named “Systems Quality Assurance.” None wishes defects/waste.

But having on my hat and vest of strategy and risk management, the ultimate best practices of quality –in many settings- will not suffice. Got it add, (a) Systems Security, (b) Systems Safety, © Systems Reliability, (d) Systems Strategic Planning/Management and a long “so forth.”

When this age of changed CHANGE is so complex like never ever –and getting increasingly more so- just being truly excellent require, without a fail, many more approaches and stamina.

Posted by Andres Agostini at February 22, 2008 9:18 PM

Being neither author or consultant I often view and filter the comments of those who are as being one of their potential customers. In a Passion for Excellence, Chapter 4 is titled People, People, People. Tom shares this story. "Now hear this, take care of those people in that speech of yours. In this room are the finest 1200 people in this country. They deserve the best you can give." -Dave Thomas, Wendy's founder, on the ocassion of a speech by Tom Peters to Wendy's franchisees.

Whether I lead 4, 40,400, or 4,000, I will have worked very hard to gain their trust and confidence and build a great deal of credibility capital because that is currency number one on the frontline. It's what gets folks engaged and involved. Label it what you will but should I ever need the services of a consultant, Trevor Gay is one that I would hire in a minute. His "message" of simplicity, "hands on" frontline leadership experience, and consistency are but a few of the factors that would enable him to excel in the lowest levels of any organization....where the work gets done, where the service gets delivered, where the profits are earned. He speaks and understands the language of the frontline and get "US" results. My folks deserve the best....and that's what we would get!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at February 22, 2008 11:17 PM

Richard...I agree with your comment "I am so certain that the future will be won by talent centric businesses lead by people who know their job is to create a context in which their talent can do great work and feel great about doing it." My initial experience with Baldrige was as a trainer/consultant.....helping organizations to build performance management systems. Since I lead a team of trainers/consultants I had to "model" the behaviors we were teaching and since I "controlled" what happens below me in my areas of responsibility, I became the Sr. Leadership (Category One) for my team. I knew then,and still to this day believe, my team mates are my greatest strategic resource and competative advantage. They are what was "going to separate and define us as the best in this industry from the rest in this industry"
I understand it is my job to "to create a context in which their talent can do great work and feel great about doing it." When they are the focal point we are "people centric" (the use of people vs "talent" reminds me that they have both personal and professional needs I need to meet). This is advocacy! In this system "Senior leaders should inspire, motivate, and encourage your entire workforce to contribute, to develop, to learn, to be innovative, and to embrace change" and "Senior Leaders should serve as role models through their ethical behavior and personal involvement in planning, communicating, coaching the workforce, developing future leaders, reviewing organizational performance, and recognizing members of your workforce." (Core Concepts: Visionary Leadership pg 48). This is how I build the culture that makes it happen. The system also makes me accountable because what I do here will be presented in Category 7 "Results". This is the balanced scorecard where we present the measures and metric in the sub categories of Leadership Outcomes, Process Effectiveness Outcomes, Product Service Outcomes, Financial and Market Outcomes, and Workforce Focused Outcomes. This data shows my performance but also performance relative to my competitors and key benchmarks. "Changeability"/Agility/Reaction to Change/Chaos appears in the scoring system. Look at the scoring bands on pages 64 and 65 and you will see that you have to show systematic "cycles of refinement and learning" to earn the 90 or higher band. Ths insures you have a fully deployed and mature system in place. I understand the "quality industry" tag. But that gets it backwards. I use the system and to validate and continuously increase my organizations capacity and capability to become "world class". I did not see in the FSW "model" the equivelant of the Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence but I assume that's the NavAid tool that was described. As to your " I still don't hear or see much evidence of the quality industry actively engaging with people based "cherish and thrive" approaches." I can't speak for the quality industry, but I do know that this system is definitely "people focused" and places responsibility for making it happen right where it needs to be....leadership! Different visuals and labels between the two to be sure...but conceptually and fundamentally similar. The Criteria are also a tool I can use to audit the "system" and use this data to continuously Plan-Do-Check-Act....to change and adjust the system to improve my performance, productivity, and results in an ever competative business environment. And that it might reduce the defects in whatever widgets I produce is just a bonus!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at February 23, 2008 3:08 AM

Andres - thanks for your astute comments - appreciated

You say - 'Yes, simple is beautiful, but horrendous when this COSMOS is overwhelmed with paradoxes, contradictions, and predicaments.'

I recently read Sir Richard Branson's fantastic book 'Screw it Lets Do It' – It is the best book I’ve read about business since I read 'In Search of Excellence' 25 years ago.

This is a typical extract from the book and this is only Page 2!! There are a further 200 pages plus of similar simple but profound wisdom!

Sir Richard says …

‘Then there are those silly little rules that someone has invented for baffling reasons. I always think that if you set up quangos or committees, they will find something useless to do. The world is full of red tape, created by committees with too much time and an overbearing desire for control. Most red tape is a tangled mess of utterly useless, nonsensical jargon. If I want to do something worthwhile – or even just for fun – I won’t let silly rules stop me. I will find a legal way around the rules and give it a go.’

My point is that simplicity is indeed beautiful. I have no doubt some believe I have a naive view of the buisness world. I will however stick with simplicity because then we may just have half a chance of demystifying and dispelling the myth that complexity is something only understood by 'experts' .... who, after all would say that wouldn't they?

If simplicity is good enough for Sir Richard it is good enough for me.

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 23, 2008 6:19 AM

Bryan Walton... thank you for your great quality and grade distinction. Is the significance of quality then based on perceived notions of it, and not necessarily the quality itself? If this is true, the customer decides the need for quality. And if this is so, the key (in the short run at least) is marketing, branding and consistency of product regardless of grade, not quality or excellence.

If the idea is to please customers with products or services that they deem of quality, do we really care what the term means or how much of a percentage we are off in quality measurements? (Your distinction reminds me of the Six Sigma discussion we had here about the percentile of quality where the method trumped important issues of talent and the customer.) The main measurement then becomes sales alone.

As sales is the crux of business, the measurement of massive consumption (often masked in the skillful hands of savvy marketing geniuses as quintessential) is essential. But the question seems to be both of consistency of product and the perceived acceptance of it, regardless of grade. The issue then become not one of quality, but of what the customer wants. Excellence and quality then are not compromised but their offshoots accepted universally. We are all failing forward, striving to reach the bar, which needs to be present.

Without consistency and acceptance, sustainability does not seem possible. For example, in the case of McDonalds its purpose isn't to meet the needs of the sophisticated hamburger palate. But rather those who want a quick acceptable burger in an environment where the packaging and tastes are consistent worldwide, where kids often dictate to parents where to stop for a quick meal. Arguably, it is the fries that we stop in McDonalds for. But this, of course, is irrelevant. We stop for the Golden Arches....period.

Why we stop at McDonalds has little to do with excellence or quality of the produce, but more to do with our perceived universal acceptance of this fast food restaurant. I get concerned when excellence becomes subjective. Often times it is not the universal standard of excellence in any field that matters, but how the standard is arrived at and the ability to sustain it. The primary element to me is built-in changeability that focuses of talent and not systems.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 23, 2008 10:26 AM

When the term "quality industry" is written or spoken of, is its value undoubtedly, immediately compromised? While benckmarks are necessary, they too detriorate over time and "require wholesale redefinition" and "excellence," not only "constant improvement" and "constant change." Excellence is the primary benchmark achieved through talent, based on the clients' particulars that will undoubtedly change over time. (This change will be based on the company, growth rate, and necessary disruptions.) Maybe the only "system" that would embrace "hot words like cherish and "thrive" are excellent talent-centered firms whose focus is the customer. This is not an altogether novel idea, but one which needs application. (It is how we do what we do when we do it.) How do we apply and address the intangibles innate in talent? Which standard quality program addresses this?

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 24, 2008 2:09 AM

canadian pharmacy and real viagra

Glad to see the comments about being excellent at producing low quality products - as long as it's a concious decision! The toy market is crammed with this - especially made in China - the stuff does not last a lifetime but is dirt cheap and probably profitable for someone.

To me Excellence and quality are two completely different concepts(although often related).

An interesting case study for this is Apple - some of their quality has been ropey to say the least (battery life etc) and yet they are sited as a leader in brand excellence. Could you argue that Apple are excellent (style, usability, brand, emotional appeal) and yet average on the quality front?

Posted by PaulH at February 24, 2008 5:02 AM

The comments to me clearly reference market demands as a means of precisely distinguishing between excellence and quality. The latter being subjective, the former not. It sounds clever to conceive of products excellently built for the low quality market but this IS exactly the original point. Some say America has lost the car battle to foreign markets precisely for this reason. Foreign markets came in with both excellence and quality when American cars were purposely built NOT to last soley for market consumption. The customer was lost in the equation. Enter: Japan. The entrance of some other brand will undoubtedly challenge Apple in time too, if not already. Enter: India. But as long as there remains a market for quality in the hands of savvy brilliant marketers and the endorsement of such quality universally accepted (based on perceptions more than excellence), we will all remain purposely blissfully ignorant until the next disruption...maybe.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 24, 2008 7:26 AM

When I was at art college I once produced a life drawing of which I was particularly proud, and showed it my teacher. He took a look, said "yes, that's good", and then tore it into pieces. I looked at him in distress, and he went on "now you've done this one you can do another, better, and then another after that. Remember, never be satisfied". It was a rough but necessary lesson in the process of creativity, and it seems to me that the chase for quality is not so much a quest for improvement as a restless dissatisfaction with the current state, however good it may seem.

Posted by Rob at February 24, 2008 8:10 AM

Judith asked: Is the significance of quality then based on perceived notions of it, and not necessarily the quality itself? The answer depend on whether one accepts the practical definition of quality, namely that it is “meeting specified requirements”. This means that the requirements need to be documented so clearly that everyone knows whether those requirements were met or not. It is a notion that precludes any reliance upon differing perceptions: Quality is synonymous with meeting requirements and is totally objective.

Excellence on the other hand is a perceptual construct and usually involves trade-off between competing aspects. For example the thorough steps taken to achieve an excellent product may cause the cost to lead to a less than excellent price. However, the combination of excellent characteristics can be thoroughly documented and specified as requirements (e.g. High grade). If those requirements are met, then you have a quality product.

As PaulH suggested, “excellence and quality are two completely different concepts”.

Posted by Bryan Walton at February 24, 2008 9:52 AM

I agree with Bryan Walton's point about the necessity of documentation for requirement determination. My point, however, was the universal acceptance of a product, making it acceptable without the necessity of excellence. This includes the marketing and perception factors.) The product then can be of quality, but not necessarily one of excellence. Quality then is subjective, whereas as excellence is objective. My concern remains that we do not in any field make excellence subjective as in what is excellent to you may not be excellent to me. We all know excellence when we see it; quality is debatable.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 24, 2008 12:33 PM

Thanks everyone! I am totally enjoying the "quality" of the debate here. I think Judith is right to keep refocusing us on her view that future "quality" companies should obsess on their talent and their customers. As far as their talent is concerned, I think quantitative data will help the "rational managers" who run most of our businesses to track how well they are unleashing the full capability of their people, ie enabling them to be "talent" in the way performing artists or sports men and women are enabled by great directors and coaches. As far as the customer is concerned, I remember a video Tom made a while ago on quality which showcased the German "mittelstand" companies. A combi-oven design and manufacturing company called Rational defined quality to its talented workforce on the simple (Trevor will love this) basis of "Good enough? The customer decides!". As far as their quality monitoring system is concerned, they worked as hard on promoting "things gone right" as they did on eliminating "things gone wrong".

I suspect PaulH is technically correct when he says that "Excellence and quality are two completely different concepts (although often related)". But if Apple is a good illustration of this then I'm in big trouble because I "love" my Apple laptop and forgive them the battery replacement I recently suffered because their product is simply "beautiful"! I am proud to own and use it. More hot words that for me define the future shape of quality and should be advocated and measured in any future quality excellence system worth its salt.

Posted by Richard King at February 24, 2008 12:49 PM

Beautiful analogy, Richard. This is precisely what is lacking in "rational managers" who often replace talent with systems. This is not a winning proposition in that systems are NOT living, thinking, breathing beings with built-in changeability (disruptions) if allowed to thrive unencumbered by oppressive systems.

A system is only as good as its talent. Great coaches and directors use "quantitative data" purely as a way of extracting from talent excellence. The importance of a "quality monitoring system" to determine the rights and wrongs of future winners is necessary. But the system must not override the innate intangibles of talent. These intangibles define and apply "hot words such as cherish and thrive." Thank you, Richard.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 24, 2008 1:17 PM

Earlier I said that "quality is ongoing. So, is excellence." I'd like to clarify this which is evident in my comments thereafter. Excellence is the end result of the highest quality not affected by the process of quality. This process is "constant movement" or "constant change." Could Michaelangelo, for example, have carved a more perfected image of his very much "alive" David? Excellence is not affected by market demands or perceptions of it. It is. Quality, on the other hand, is influenced by external factors i.e., the customer's needs and desires etc. This is the distinction between quality and excellence for me.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 24, 2008 2:09 PM

Excellence is, in fact, TALENT out of which innate intangibles spring. In the Psalm King David writes, "I will praise you, for I am feafully and wonderfully made."

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 24, 2008 2:30 PM

Question: " Maybe the only "system" that would embrace "hot words like cherish and "thrive" are excellent talent-centered firms whose focus is the customer. This is not an altogether novel idea, but one which needs application. (It is how we do what we do when we do it.) How do we apply and address the intangibles innate in talent? Which standard quality program addresses this?"

Answer: The Criteria for Performance Excellence, the basis of the Malcom Baldridge Quality Award, for one.

You address the intangibles innate in talent through credible leadership, inclusion in planning and decision making, inclusion product/process design and development, and inclusion in customer and supplier relationship management activities, through training and resource allocation that insures they have all the tools and resources needed to meet your performance expectations, you provide a workplace that promotes trust, teamwork and continuous improvement, rewards and recognizes in a tangible and meaningful way. You basically tell them what you expect, give them the tools to do it and get the heck out of their way.

"Hot words" are just that....words....until someone in a leadership position figures out a way to enagage, involve and equip the people who are gonna be the ones to get it done, A system is not a four letter word. A system is a roadmap that helps leaders execute, focuses on doing the right things the right way, establishes accountability, builds credibility, allocates the resources strategically, and provides a systematic process to continuously monitor, mesaure, and improve the customer, supplier, people(internal), product/service quality and many others to remain competative and adjust to changes and trends in the market place. This is the changeability that gives you sustainability.

This is not a which system is better debate....the Criteria for Performance Excellence has seven categories for a reason folks and anyone that does should produce results. It starts with Leadership in Category One and ends with Results in Category 7 for a reason. It's how well leaders and people do the five in the middle that determines their Results. Any system that focuses on these seven elements, regardless of what it's called in the hands of a committed leader is gonna get results.

Posted by Dave Wheeler at February 24, 2008 6:03 PM

Dave Wheeler -- I do believe our discussion has become rather exhausting for me and will probably not bring further enlightenment. I respect and appreciate your point of view. There remain, however, fundamental differences in approach and understanding. For this, I graciously bow out, until the next discussion...at least, wishing you continued success until then.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 25, 2008 12:31 AM

Judith, please know I too respect and appreciate your point of view.

Posted by Dave Wheeler at February 25, 2008 2:34 AM

Jeez, what a bunch of effort people put into something so... er, simple.

Can we please have a new topic about which to blow wind?

How's about how Trevor looked on the telly - and his 'crime' of not wearing a jacket?

;-)

Posted by g at February 25, 2008 5:23 AM

S - Your comment appears to be slightly tongue in cheek. OK. But the effort about which you speak is engendered by the knowledge, experience, and passion of those who make comments here of which you are one. Many of the comments on this blog have gotten me to think differently about what I do daily. Whether I agree or disagree or the passion with which I do either is pale in comparasion to the understanding received in the very act of discussion or when reviewing the comments later. Mind-set is the beginning of disruptive actions. So, I am happy for this most active small huddle which is, quite frankly, needed more in corporate culture en masse.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 25, 2008 8:00 AM

g - thanks for that and good to see you back.

BTW - I can't afford a jacket, suit nor tie on my wages :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 25, 2008 1:57 PM

Quality is a measure of performance against a clear standard. The quality of a product or service is below, at or above standard.

Excellence is temporary because excellence is the best you can do in today's circumstances plus another 5%. You did well to do this good, I'm impressed, you should feel proud and we'll celebrate. But tomorrow, we're going to start working on lifting the bar that extra 5%. And when we've done that, we'll celebrate again and then we'll aim another 5% higher.

Posted by Mark JF at February 25, 2008 3:00 PM

Mark - Nice definition!

Posted by PaulH at February 26, 2008 5:33 AM

Mark JF - Excellence is not effort. It is the end result. It is the result of the creation process which included a series of "good" things. Then came the creation of man and it was "very good", excellent indeed. Excellence is talent. Excellence is not subjective. Excellence is. Effort, as in the incremental process you describe above, is grade- based. It is of quality. I understand the necessity of such a process. It is the great process of evolution. It is, however, not excellence. Evolution is a necessary process. Excellence is talent from which evolutionary processes evolve. I speak here of a mind-set that forms processes not the reverse. This is the necessary deterioration of all things. Unless a seed falls to the ground and die, it will not bring forth new buds.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 26, 2008 12:39 PM

Judith - I think excellence is subjective. Especially as we are moving much more to emotional definitions of brand excellence. For example I think Starbucks and Apple are not actually that great - others would rightly disaggree because they have developed an emotional bond with those companies. My definition of excellence in that area is different from theirs.

Posted by PaulH at February 27, 2008 3:49 AM

PaulH...the interjection of marketing and branding to the original thought -- derived from Bryan Walton -- was to define the emotional response to product which clearly distinguishes excellence from quality or grade. For me talent is excellent...period. PEOPLE ROCK! But how we arrive at excellence is through many evolutionary processes of quality and grade. The process is subjective not the result. This is a mind-set. But I think an important one.

As I see it, the biggest problem we have in so many areas in business and life is the subjectivity of standard -- as in what is excellent to me may not be excellent to you. This is why we have made thousands of various training manuals for the same work environments and schools. Ego is also always a factor. This is one of the reason for the focus on talent. With this focus not only do we have built-in changeability, but we can go back to how we do what we do when we do it and have change be meaningful...not merely systematic. Many times change does not evolve from necessity but from someone's subjective view of excellence that may or may not have anything to do with outcomes or results. (This occurs often in cultures where the system reigns superior and not the talent.) This malaise seeps into every area of both business and life, undoubtedly, because one inherently affects the other.

So, while exellence is talent, the distinction comes in the process, the reason we do what we do based upon the clients goals and objectives...whether they are long or short term. Enter: marketing professionals and my whole earlier analogy about McDonalds which distinguishes excellence and quality. To insist upon palate sophistication in a fast food market would be simply ludicrous. The desire of the customer for a greasy burger with the help of savvy advertising agents, do not change excellence, but most certainly affects quality and grade.

But as far as profits go...it wouldn't matter what the product is so as long as the customer finds some sort of value in it... be it convenience, price or mere habit. (There does remain here, however, a question of sustainability and objective. Maybe the company is, at any giving moment, looking for a quick rise in reveune and sustainability is not most important. This goes back to the "when" of how we do what we do when we do it when helping our client and to correct timimg of a launch, systems change etc.) The profitability of a product may or may not have ANYTHING to do with excellence, but ALL to do with what people want, have become accustomed to, and the brillant advertising agents that make the product appealing. These images probably stay in our subconscious long after the images themselves have past.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 27, 2008 9:48 AM

“I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.” (Jefferson). In a world –once called the “society of knowledge”- that is getting (society, economics, [geo] politics, technology, environment, so forth) more and more sophisticated in over-exponential rates. Ray Kurzweil in “The Singularity is Near” assures that, mathematically speaking, the base and the exponent of the power are increasingly chaotically jumping, almost as if this forthcoming “Cambrian explosion,” bathed with the state of the art applied will change everything.

viagra no prescription on line Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, the German philosopher, reminds one, “It is our future that lays down the law of our work.” While Churchill tells us, “the empires of the future belong to the [prepared] mind.”

Last night I was reading the text book “Wikinomics.” Authors say that in the next 50 years applied science will be much more evolved than that of the past 400 years. To me, and because of my other reaserch, they are quite conservative. Vernor Vinge, the professor of mathematics, recalls us about the “Singularity,” primarily technological and secondarily social (with humans that are BIO and non BIO and derivatives of the two latter, i.e. in vivo + in silico + in quantum + in non spiritus). Prof. Vinge was invited by NASA on that occasion. If one like to check it out, Google it.

Clearly, Quality Assurance progress has been made by Deming, Juran, Six Sigma, Kaisen (Toyota) and others. I would pay strong attention to their respective prescriptions with an OPEN MIND. Why? Because SYSTEMS are extremely dynamically these days, starting up with the Universe (or “Multiverse”). As I operate with risks and strategies –beyond the view of (a) strategic planner, and (b) practitioner of management best practices à la non ad hoc “project management,” I have to take advantage of many other methodologies.

The compilation of approaches is fun though must be extremely cohesive, congruent, and efficacious.

And if the economy grows more complex, many more methodologies I will grab. I have one of my own that I called “Transformative Risk Management,” highly based on the breakthrough by Military-Industrial (-Technological) Complex. Chiefly, with the people concerned with nascent NASA (Mercury, Saturn, Apollo) via Dr. Wernher von Braun, then engineer in chief. Fortunately, my mentor, a “doctor in science” for thirteen years was von Braun’s risk manager. He’s now my supervisor.

The Military-Industrial (-Technological) Complex had a great deal of challenges back in 1950. As a result, many breakthroughs were brought about. Today, not everyone seems to know and/or institute these findings. Some do as ExxonMobil. The text book “Powerful Times” attributes to U.S. defense budget a nearly 50% of the totality of the worldwide defense budgets. What do they do with this kind of money? They instill –to a great extent- to R&D labs of prime quality. Afterwards, they shared “initiatives” with R&D labs from Universities, Global Corporations, and “Wiki” Communities. Imagine?

In addition, the grandfather of in-depth risk analyses is one that goes under many names beside Hazard Mode and Effect Analysis (HMEA). It has also been called Reliability Analysis for Preliminary Design (RAPD), Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA), Failure Mode, Effect, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA), and Fault Hazard Analysis (FHA). All of these – just to give an example – has to be included in your methodical toolkit alongside with Deming’, Juran’, Six Sigma, Kaisen’s.

These fellow manage with what they called “the omniscience perspective,” that is, the totality of knowledge. Believe me, they do mean it.

Yes, hard-working, but knowing what you’re doing and thinking always in the unthinkable, being a foresight-er, and assimilating documented “lesson learned” from previous flaws. In the mean time, Sir Francis Bacon wrote, “He that will not apply remedies must expect new evils; for time is the greatest innovator.”

• A "killer" to "common sense" activist. A blessing to rampantly unconventional- wisdom practitioner.

For the “crying” one, everything has changed. It has changed (i) CHANGE, (ii) Time, (iii) Politics/Geopolitics, (iv) Science and technology (applied), (v) Economy, (vi) Environment (amplest meaning), (vii) Zeitgeist (spirit of times), (viii) Weltstanchaung (conception of the world), (ix) Zeitgeist-Weltstanchaung’s Prolific Interaction, etc. So there is no need to worry, since NOW, —and everyday forever (kind of...)—there will be a different world, clearly if one looks into the sub-atomic granularity of (zillion) details. Unless you are a historian, there is no need to speak of PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE, JUST TALK ABOUT THE ENDLESSLY PERENNIAL PROGRESSION. Let’s learn a difficult lesson easily NOW.

“Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Picture mentally… Draw experientially. Succeed through endless experimentation… It’s recommendable to recall that common sense is much more than an immense society of hard-earned practical ideas—of multitudes of life-learned rules and tendencies, balances and checks. Common sense is not just one (1), neither is, in any way, simple.” (Andres Agostini)

Dwight D. Eisenhower, speaking of leadership, said: “The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office.”

“…to a level of process excellence that will produce (as per GE’s product standards) fewer than four defects per million operations…” — Jack Welch (1998).

In addition to WORKING HARD and taking your “hard working” as you beloved HOBBY and never as a burden, one may wish to institute, as well, the following:

1.- Servitize.
2.- Productize.
3.- Webify.
4.- Outsource (strategically “cross” sourcing).
5.- Relate your core business to “molutech” (molecular technology).

Search four primary goals (in case a reader is interested):

A.- To build trust.
B.- To empower employees.
C.- To eliminate unnecessary work.
D.- To create a new paradigm for your business enterprise, a [beyond] “boundaryless” organization.
E.- Surf dogmas; evade sectarian doctrines.

Posted by Andres Agostini at February 27, 2008 7:54 PM

Thank you, Andre Agostini, for your words. They indeed matter. But this is heavy stuff. Trevor, can you please simplify?

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 27, 2008 10:03 PM

Thank you all for your great contributions and insightfulness. Take a Quality Assurance Program, (e.g.), to be instituted in a company these days, century 2008. One will have to go through tremendous amounts of reading, writing, drawing, spread-sheeting, etc. Since the global village is the Society of Knowledge, these days, to abate exponential complexity, you must not only have to embrace it fully, you have to be thorough at all times to meet the challenge. One must also pay the price of an advanced global economy is that is in increasingly perpetual innovation. Da Vinci, in a list of the 10 greatest minds, was # 1. Einstein was # 10. Subsequently, it’s highly recommendable, if one might wish, to pay attention to “Everything should be made as simple [from the scientific stance] as possible, but not simpler.” ~Albert Einstein. Mr. Peters, on the other hand, has always stressed the significance to continuously disseminate new ideas. He is really making an unprecedented effort in that direction. Another premium to be, it seems to be extremely “thorough” (Trump).

Posted by Andres Agostini at February 28, 2008 3:11 PM