“It’s really difficult to speak against ‘quality.’ Who doesn’t want quality?” Read on to discover Doug’s thoughts on this topic.
Heat Treat Today publishes eight print magazines a year and included in each is a letter from the publisher, Doug Glenn. This letter first appeared in the March 2024 Aerospace Heat Treat print edition.
With door plugs flying out of airplanes at scary-high altitudes, it seems an appropriate time to revisit where we are in quality initiatives in the North American heat treat industry from an equally high, 30,000-foot perspective.
It’s really difficult to speak against “quality.” Who doesn’t want quality? Those who even bring it up are bound to be looked at with suspicion. Let the suspicion begin, because I would like to bring it up.
One Standard To Rule Them All
Since my early days in the heat treat industry (late 1980s), there have been discussions about “quality” standards and certifications. I first remember QS-9000, a standard imposed on automotive industry suppliers by the Big 3: General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. The understanding was if you (a supplier to the Big 3) work and achieve QS-9000, then you won’t need to worry about complying with any other quality certifications, especially from one of the Big 3; it was one standard to rule them all, to borrow language from Lord of the Rings.
Before QS-9000, each of the Big 3 could demand that you comply with their specific quality standards, and each of them could (and would) audit your processes, costing suppliers significant time and money. Saving these costs by complying with JUST ONE standard that would make the Big 3 happy was the driving force behind QS-9000.
But QS-9000 ceased to exist on December 14, 2006, and was replaced by one or two other standards systems (depending on how you look at it). So much for one standard.
During the 1980s and 1990s, the quality industry saw enormous growth. “Quality Assurance” (QA) departments burgeoned, “Quality Managers” became more prevalent, and standards organizations, like SAE and ISO, flourished. Quality had become an industry of its own. In fact, my previous employer, BNP Media, publishes Quality Magazine just to serve the growing quality industry. Quality is now a living, breathing organism that, like all living things, is interested in self-propagation and survival.
“Quality” or Consistency?
One of the first thoughts I remember having about the corporate quality initiative I was involved with was the distinct lack of a definition of what “quality” really meant. For many of the standards, they did not really care what you did (whether or not you did quality work), they just wanted you to prove you had documented your work, that your people knew said documentation existed, and they were following the processes you had described in documentation.
That doesn’t sound so much like true quality so much as it sounds like a consistency check for documentation. Certainly, documenting and complying with documentation is a good thing. To that extent, the quality movement has certainly helped many companies.
“. . . current “quality” standards . . . act [more] as an anchor on a fully throttled ship . . . .”
Doug Glenn, Publisher, Heat Treat Today
“Quality” or Conformity?
As the current “quality” movement stands, it seems to be more of a hindrance to quality than a help. Today, most of the current quality standards that exist, as much as they may help in some instances, act as an anchor on a fully throttled ship — slowing progress and innovation.
Regularly, we hear about new technologies that are very innovative. These new technologies, if they could be adopted, would undoubtedly increase true quality and lower costs. They are, however, not being commercialized at a significant rate because suppliers have to conform to quality standards, and it would take heaven and earth to change those standards. In this sense, the quality movement is inhibiting quality instead of supporting it.
Love-Hate Relationship
Even many in the quality industry are aware of this hinderance. Over the past several months, I’ve spoken with quite a few quality people who think their industry is bloated and, in many cases, counterproductive. But it is a huge part of their livelihood. When I ask them if they think the industry would be better off without a quality movement, nearly all of them have a hard time letting go . Most think it would be a bad thing if quality standards and audits went away.
Perhaps in a future column, I can give you one scenario of how we could pivot away from the current “quality” system to a more market-oriented quality system which would do a better job promoting both quality and innovation .
For more information contact Doug at doug@heattreattoday.com.
