There’s perhaps no better reputation for quality than Stradivarius. As I’ve learned from Wikipedia, a Stradivarius is a violin or other stringed instrument “built by members of the Italian family Stradivari, particularly Antonio Stradivari (Latin: Antonius Stradivarius), during the 17th and 18th centuries.” The quality of these violins’ sound is legendary and widely believed by many to be unequalled to this day. (Wikipedia does cite some studies that show certain other instruments, including some recent ones, are in fact equals to Stradivarius sound quality, but the Stradivarius reputation remains undiminished.)

It’s not an exaggeration to suggest that most organizations today would be honored to be rated alongside Stradivarius. Do you know of any that are? I can’t think of any.

That’s quite a high bar. We should be able to learn from it, including perhaps why more than three centuries of successors apparently have been unable to replicate let alone surpass Stradivarius’ quality.

Stradivari built the finest violins without the benefit of modern technology—or the lessons of the quality profession, which have been learned relatively recently, including the role of a quality management system (QMS). What can we learn from him about a QMS?

Assumptions

Full disclosure: I’m not a maker or player of any musical instruments, nor am I knowledgeable about or, I fear, even appreciative of the sound aspects that set Stradivarius above the competition. Also, I don’t know how Stradivari actually made his instruments and achieved such timeless quality. However, to do so, I believe he must have understood and mastered key quality concepts long before they became recognized explicitly. Allowing for many assumptions, I think we can cull out things Stradivari probably did that since have become institutionalized in QMSs.

Document tracking and retrieval

Stradivari didn’t have the benefit of international standards, regulators, or auditing compliance. This is important to note because facilitating document retrieval to support and respond to audits is a major purpose of a QMS that didn’t pertain to Stradivari. Literacy was somewhat uncommon at the time, but regardless, he surely relied on oral communication. He probably organized whatever documents he did use much as a QMS would.

Although Stradivari probably didn’t maintain many of the types of documents today’s standards require of a QMS, he undoubtedly in other ways accomplished the purposes those various documents are intended to serve. It’s likely he instead relied on outstanding personal knowledge and recollection—his and key employees’, and especially family members raised in and ultimately inheriting the craft.

That knowledge surely came from the master’s own experience building instruments and passing it along directly when training and supervising his children and other workers. Stradivari had exceptional skill, and was perceptive about it. This resulted in continually exceptionally excellent instruments.

Modern QMSs strive to substitute documentation and defined procedures for the master craftsman’s capabilities so they can be passed on to less-skilled workers over time. Whether intended or not, Stradivari didn’t provide documentation or other means to enable successors to match the sound quality of his work.

What to do, how to do it

Consider some of the types of knowledge that Stradivari probably kept in his head rather than in written documents, although he could have done so, likely in abbreviated form. For instance, a QMS identifies customer requirements, but for whatever reasons, Stradivari himself was the primary definer of what customers require with regard to string instruments.

A QMS also includes written specifications for materials, both qualitative and physical measurements, as well as step-by-step work instruction procedures. Almost certainly, Stradivari would have kept and updated drawings, patterns, and measurement specifications in written form.

However, the several parts of a violin are made from different types of wood, each with particular characteristics that most people wouldn’t even be conscious of—but which Stradivari must have distinguished to an extreme degree. Rather than describing characteristics like texture and hardness in writing, Stradivari probably relied on his judgment, though he might have kept reference samples with those characteristics to compare against pieces of wood and other materials he considered acquiring.

Similarly, he surely relied on memory and “feel” to cut and assemble the pieces just so. Like Grandma’s recipe direction to “mix until right,” Stradivari might not have articulated these critical distinctions in a manner that could be captured in a document. But, like Grandma, he could pass along these fine points by showing and telling when working with apprentices.

I’d guess that, over time, Stradivari did increase the use of and refine written records, perhaps based on his awareness of information he wished he’d had as situations arose. Rather than focusing on documenting workflow instructions, he probably developed a record to track the history of each instrument manufactured. Remember, each instrument was built by hand over an extended period of time, so recording basic data now and then wouldn’t take much of the total time or great writing skills. In contrast, a modern QMS usually would be needed to capture such data for many items being manufactured at the same time.

Each item’s record would allow him to see when various activities occurred and what went into them. These would have included the sources of each material, time spent on each activity, changes to work practices, tools used, special techniques applied, issues detected, corrective actions, outcomes, and improvement ideas. He might also have recorded buyer information as well as follow-ups such as an item’s actual use, any complaints or comments, and repairs.

Quality control

One limitation of standards and QMSs is that they can’t dictate from or rely on the presence of a Stradivarius. Instead, they identify mechanisms that enable typical workers to apply their skills sufficiently in ways that can repeatedly produce acceptable quality. Many such mechanisms are forms of quality control (QC).

Today, QC often is delegated to independent specialists who may find issues that product creators miss. Even so, many recognize that workers have a responsibility to evaluate the adequacy of their own work before others do. As the preeminent expert, Stradivari probably relied mainly on himself to confirm the accuracy of each step as he performed it. Note that what today we consider separate QC activities, he likely considered integral parts of the engineering and manufacturing processes.

Moreover, while Stradivari might not have had others explicitly evaluate his work, and thus didn’t need written evaluation procedures, he probably used evaluation as an effective hands-on teaching technique, including teaching how to evaluate products and workmanship. Undoubtedly, he’d detect and correct many issues as they occurred, especially noncompliance with procedures he kept in his head. However, he could have involved others in detecting the instrument components’ nonconformances at the end of each step.

All of an instrument’s parts might seem perfect, but it won’t matter unless the instrument produces proper sound. That most important evaluation can’t be done until the instrument is complete enough to play. Moreover, confirming world-class sound quality takes world-class playing. Stradivari and his key staff surely had discriminating ears, but they might have had to rely on others to play each instrument expertly. A QMS ordinarily identifies skills and knowledge necessary for various activities, such as QC.

Most issues would be addressed as soon as Stradivari or his associates detected them. Some could be repaired, some parts could be rebuilt, and some things had to be discarded, up to and including a finished instrument.

Analysis and reporting

A QMS keeps extensive records about nonconformances and noncompliances, mainly to enable later analysis to guide short- and longer-term corrective and preventive actions. Much of Stradivari’s analysis and corrective actions surely occurred in real time based on observation during or shortly after each manufacturing step. Moreover, he likely also identified improvement opportunities that weren’t nonconformances.

One reason, though, why Stradivari probably increased written recordkeeping over time was to provide opportunities for reflective review. For example, captured data could help answer questions that came up in hindsight. A recorded observation about a material or procedure in one step could suggest reasons for an outcome in a later step. In addition, such data would be invaluable for spotting trends across instruments.

QMSs produce reports that indicate the need for current actions to correct particular product nonconformances, along with longer-term process improvements to prevent such nonconformances from occurring in the future. Large and diverse organizations rely on reporting, whereas it’s likely Stradivari saw the data and took relevant actions himself without formal reporting.

QMSs strive to approximate a master’s methods and results without the master present. Often, they offer alternative ways to accomplish similar, acceptable, but perhaps less-than-Stradivarius-excellence results. Organizations can rise above that minimum when they do have master workers, and also when they implement more capable processes, including using a modern QMS.