Customer satisfaction vs cost reduction

This is the classic struggle of Quality. High quality and high customer satisfaction demands that suspect product be thoroughly scrutinized and a high standard set for its release to a customer. Customers expect this and quality staff strive to achieve it. The other side of the tug of war is cost.

Business leaders are looking for every advantage they can get in reducing their costs and scrap product is one fo the biggest targets out there.

Does it have to be this way?

Can Quality and Business be on the same side? In short, the answer is, yes they can. What's require is a change in attitude and approach about quality. The two models below help to illustrate the different attitudes about quality. In the Economic Conformance Model illustrate below the classic Quality vs Cost struggle is portray.

The underlying philosophy is that high quality costs money and that there exists a point of diminishing returns. That point is call the Economic Conformance Level (ECL). The ECL is the point above which higher quality is more costly to achieve that its "worth".

This viewpoint pits those with "Quality" in their job title against those without in a dance to determine where the ECL exists for the business and promotes a "good enough" rationalization mindset that permeates every product quality decision eventually.

Quality Cost

For a different perspective, we turn to the work of Phillip Crosby. Mr. Crosby develope a four part quality philosophy through years of proven experience. The four components of Mr. Crosby's philosophy are:

1. The definition of quality is conformance to requirements.


2. The system of quality is prevention.


3. The performance standard is zero defects


4. The measurement of quality is the price of non conformance

Mr. Crosby's approach is illustrate below in the "Quality if Free" perspective on quality costs.

Example of Quality cost

A key component of Mr. Crosby's philosophy is the definition of quality. "Quality is define as a conformity to certain specifications set forth by management and not some vague concept of "goodness."

These specifications are not arbitrary either; they must be set according to customer needs and wants." This statement is very important for what it really means in practice. It means that everyone from top management on down is engage in the work of quality, not just those folks with "Quality" in their job title. It means that management must grapple with interpreting what the customer wants and needs and set policy to achieve those wants and needs, accepting the consequences of not achieving those results and relieving the pressure on the organization to rationalize quality and cost.

I participate in a discussion recently which is frightening but illustrates the point. In this discussion, trend data were being review and a poor trend was display for a product that is limping along. A meeting participant then announce that the product would continue to be made for the next couple of years in response to customer demand. Since this was beyond what we had all come to understand was the End Of Life of this product, the questions start to fly.

Will we now engage suppliers in process improvement?

It Will we perform process improvement in-house? That Will we upgrade the raw materials? In short, will we invest in helping make and keep the product "good".

The answer to all of these questions was No. Now here's the frightening part; tack onto that No was a statement that the problems with the product. Were because we can not accept the notion that variation should decrease over time. The continuous improvement was driven by customer demands. "We should just say no" to tighter control limits request by the customer is the viewpoint express. Clearly, this is not a customer-centric approach to quality and shows that there is still work to be complete to change hearts and minds.

So how do people with Quality in their job title fit into this system?

The unpleasant answer is that, in my opinion, Quality folks should do everything in their power to work themselves out of a job by working with top management. To change the view of quality from a job responsibility to an organizational value. When everyone values quality from the customer perspective, and acts accordingly. "Quality" folks in the traditional sense will no longer be need. Because there will be no need to police for quality. Quality becomes a  consultative role to management in interpreting customer needs. Even and wants and giving guidance on what that means in practice.