Who is responsible for quality?
For the past two weeks, I’ve been writing about topics related to quality. This is the last topic of the series, and it’s focus is on the role of the quality organization.
There is always a tension between the quality organization, regardless of its title, and the rest of the organization: who is responsible for quality?
The quality organization wants the control, but knows that they can’t possibly deliver the results that are needed. The operations and product development groups want the quality group to stay out of their way, but complain when quality seems to pass the buck on quality issues.
It doesn’t seem to be so confusing in regards to safety. Everyone understands that the safety department, or person, cannot control safety. It’s in the hands of everyone – their decisions, their behaviors, their work. The safety person can coach, problem solve, and develop and monitor systems that help everyone with safety. Why is there so much consternation about quality?
Quality is the result of every single persons decisions, behaviors, and work. A quality group cannot control quality. They can build systems to help people get the quality right. They can give people tools to help prevent problems, detect problems, and solve problems. They can give people information that helps them understand the voice of the customer.
In the end, the output of quality is primarily the result of all the people in the organization. The systems put in place by the quality organization only contributes to quality.
So who owns quality? Everyone owns quality outcomes. The quality group owns quality systems.
So quality organizations can’t blame the rest of the organization for bad quality and take credit for quality improvements. And the rest of the organization can’t pass the buck.
The same problem happens with continuous improvement organizations. The existence of a continuous improvement organization doesn’t mean that everyone else doesn’t own continuous improvement. The CI groups do not make a great CI journey. But they are the enabler. They build the systems. They coach and train people. They facilitate. But in the end, they are only a portion of the continuous improvement journey.
After all, there is only one team, and we’re all on it.
How does ownership of quality and continuous improvement work in your organization?
Spot on! Enabling teams, expanding the idea of “ownership” in both quality and continuous improvement are powerful and a way to build momentum, depth and agility in an organization.
Spot on! Enabling teams, expanding the idea of “ownership” in both quality and continuous improvement are powerful and a way to build momentum, depth and agility in an organization.
Spot on! Enabling teams, expanding the idea of “ownership” in both quality and continuous improvement are powerful and a way to build momentum, depth and agility in an organization.
I guess I was lucky in that I worked in organization in which everyone was responsible for ensuring defective product never went beyond their work station. Unless everyone in an organization is responsible for quality it will never exist.
And despite what quality people may think product design (including material selection and supplier selection) and production system design have more actual impact on the achievable level of quality than any quality department can. The quality department can only make sure that it is maintatined at a certain level, and if it is to even get close to 100% they need everyone else to be actively involved in preventing defects.
I personally feel that quality people shouldn’t be in a separate department, but be active members of every product team, and thus work with everyone else to find ways of improving quality and prevent defects.
Good Quality like good Lean and Safety needs everyone’s involvement constantly.
I guess I was lucky in that I worked in organization in which everyone was responsible for ensuring defective product never went beyond their work station. Unless everyone in an organization is responsible for quality it will never exist.
And despite what quality people may think product design (including material selection and supplier selection) and production system design have more actual impact on the achievable level of quality than any quality department can. The quality department can only make sure that it is maintatined at a certain level, and if it is to even get close to 100% they need everyone else to be actively involved in preventing defects.
I personally feel that quality people shouldn’t be in a separate department, but be active members of every product team, and thus work with everyone else to find ways of improving quality and prevent defects.
Good Quality like good Lean and Safety needs everyone’s involvement constantly.
I guess I was lucky in that I worked in organization in which everyone was responsible for ensuring defective product never went beyond their work station. Unless everyone in an organization is responsible for quality it will never exist.
And despite what quality people may think product design (including material selection and supplier selection) and production system design have more actual impact on the achievable level of quality than any quality department can. The quality department can only make sure that it is maintatined at a certain level, and if it is to even get close to 100% they need everyone else to be actively involved in preventing defects.
I personally feel that quality people shouldn’t be in a separate department, but be active members of every product team, and thus work with everyone else to find ways of improving quality and prevent defects.
Good Quality like good Lean and Safety needs everyone’s involvement constantly.
Quality should be everyone’s responsibility. The quality department should be a group that helps problem solve and design systems to deliver the quality needed. They are a support group for the system. Unfortunately, most quality groups I have been around focus on product quality. They find the defects and report them and push it off to manufacturing departments which doesn’t help the relationship. The quality department should find the problems with the process causing the product defects and work hand-in-hand with the manufacturing area to fix the issues. This would foster a better relationship.
Quality should be everyone’s responsibility. The quality department should be a group that helps problem solve and design systems to deliver the quality needed. They are a support group for the system. Unfortunately, most quality groups I have been around focus on product quality. They find the defects and report them and push it off to manufacturing departments which doesn’t help the relationship. The quality department should find the problems with the process causing the product defects and work hand-in-hand with the manufacturing area to fix the issues. This would foster a better relationship.
Quality should be everyone’s responsibility. The quality department should be a group that helps problem solve and design systems to deliver the quality needed. They are a support group for the system. Unfortunately, most quality groups I have been around focus on product quality. They find the defects and report them and push it off to manufacturing departments which doesn’t help the relationship. The quality department should find the problems with the process causing the product defects and work hand-in-hand with the manufacturing area to fix the issues. This would foster a better relationship.
Great post Jamie! I have featured it in my Rainmaker ‘Fab Five’ blog picks of the week (http://www.maximizepossibility.com/employee_retention/2011/04/the-rainmaker-fab-five-blog-picks-of-the-week-3.html) to share your important message about quality control with my readers.
Be well!
Great post Jamie! I have featured it in my Rainmaker ‘Fab Five’ blog picks of the week (http://www.maximizepossibility.com/employee_retention/2011/04/the-rainmaker-fab-five-blog-picks-of-the-week-3.html) to share your important message about quality control with my readers.
Be well!
Great post Jamie! I have featured it in my Rainmaker ‘Fab Five’ blog picks of the week (http://www.maximizepossibility.com/employee_retention/2011/04/the-rainmaker-fab-five-blog-picks-of-the-week-3.html) to share your important message about quality control with my readers.
Be well!
Great write up. More often than not quality group plays the role of controller and not of assurrer. The assurrance has to come from process. Quality group is just like the traffic policeman on the traffic signal. At best he can book the offender. To make the offender drive correctly is beyond his reach. Good driving comes from robust training and understanding the rules (process) of the game.