Quality Semantics—Name It What It Is

One of the earliest quotes I remember from a general manager: “If my manufacturing manager and quality manager weren’t at each other’s throats, then I would be concerned.” At the time, as a young graduate mechanical engineer acting a quality control manager for a small aerospace firm, I thought that this statement was in perfect keeping with the established tension that usually exists between manufacturing and quality assurance.

In the ensuing forty years, I've often been in that nether region between the demands and quotas in production and the checks and balances required in quality environments. Each time I've accepted the acknowledged rift and how they seem to be inherently contradictory.

Although there is much information on establishing a closer working relationship between manufacturing and quality, there is a tool available which I believe hasn't been tried that may have profound significance—if those in control have the gumption to use it. I don't consider it to be a silver bullet to end all manufacturing problems, but the ratio between the expenditure to implement versus the potential revenue from the improvements, proves it's in a category by itself.

The realization that preceded this suggestion is simple: People usually try to do what is expected of them. If they are in manufacturing, their goal is production. Those in quality are tasked with the responsibility of maintaining or improving the status quo of the company’s product. At this point, I suggest that we take a radical step in the basic construct and verbiage surrounding our manufacturing environment.

If we expect our army of operators to take the responsibility for being the source of whatever quality level is inherent in their output, then their job and department should be called “fault-free production" rather than "manufacturing." If we expect a high quality product and the manufacturer is in agreement that it must be done right the first time, then any operator should have no problem with a job title of fault-free operator rather than operator, and fault-free machinist instead of machinist, and so forth. (Note: This is similar to the past notion of zero defects but is taking it a step farther. )

Likewise, the quality department needs redirection. Instead of quality assurance, quality control, or simply quality, this department should be called “manufacturing feedback.” This is, I believe, the most succinct description of the main functions in which quality personnel are engaged: dealing with, correcting, improving, and tracking the output of the “fault-free production” group.

I sincerely believe that these minor tweaks of a company’s organization chart might well provide the incentive and power to withdraw the current wedge between manufacturing and quality. I would very much like to receive any feedback you may be willing to provide regarding these suggestions. Just use the "Add Comment" link below.