Shaping Quality With Fuzzy Logic
Scott M. Paton’s recent editorial asking “Does Quality Matter?” (First Word, Quality Digest, September 2004 issue) should serve as a wake-up call to anyone interested in quality and organizational improvement. In describing the relative importance of quality to consumers, the editorial presents significant implications for the fundamental question of how we define quality--i.e., the dynamics of customer decisions as well as the marketing and practice of “quality” as a method for organizational performance improvement.
Implicit in the editorial is a notion of what quality means. The foun-ders and champions of the quality movement had various definitions. Philip Crosby famously defined it as “conformance to requirements” in Quality Is Free (Signet, 1992). In Out of the Crisis (MIT Press, 2000) W. Edwards Deming asked, “Who is the judge of quality?” and said that quality “can be defined only in terms of the agent.”
All too often we look at quality more as quality control. Ideas such as conforming to specifications and freedom from defects work fine on an assembly line, where the benchmark of quality is typically well-defined and the production process is linear. But in my view, the examples provided in Paton’s editorial highlight the limitations of a traditional, fundamentally Newtonian perspective on quality and consumer choice.
If we think of quality as a “thing in itself,” we see the origins of definitions such as Crosby’s. If this is what they want and we build it to spec, then quality is good, and the product will be acceptable and fit for use. Yet we know that there’s far more to the matter than this static view. As Paton illustrates, and as I find largely ignored in quality literature, the voice of the customer is a reflection of the mind of the customer: We always have incomplete or imperfect knowledge in any situation requiring choice. This is a more dynamic view of what quality means, and it has more in common with the relational aspects of quantum physics than with the world of traditional quality control. This dynamic view was also alluded to by Armand Feigenbaum, who noted that quality is a “customer determination… based upon… actual experience with the product or service, measured against his or her requirements… conscious or merely sensed--and always representing a moving target.” (Total Quality Control, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1991).
A different way to think about the definition of quality and customer behavior comes from the work of complexity theorists, who use the computer science concept of “fuzzy logic” to describe the ways customers assess options and make their choices. When we have a choice, such as where to shop, we tend to assess each option based on a whole range of criteria (e.g., price, quality, social responsibility, convenience). But our knowledge is always imperfect and incomplete.
Ralph Stacey, director of the Complexity and Management Centre at the University of Hertfordshire in England, teaches that the patterning of our interpersonal communications gives rise to our personal norms, values and ideology. In this context, quality becomes a process shaped by the dynamics between customer and supplier, and choice is determined by the relative importance of a variety of criteria that the consumer prioritizes at every moment.
Understanding the complexity perspective has tremendous implications for quality and organizational improvement practitioners worldwide. I’m extremely pleased to note that the American Society for Quality and GoalQPC, together with the Plexus Institute, are undertaking a research project on this topic. Participants will learn about Stacey’s concepts of “complex responsive processes of human relating” and explore the implications of a complexity perspective in their own work. Their efforts will be reported at the next World Quality Conference in Seattle in May 2005.
For several years, I’ve found it increasingly difficult to get people’s attention by talking about quality. Like other ideas--even great ones--the attraction of quality for business leaders and managers has faded over time. But I’m sure Quality Digest readers would agree that, however we define it, quality is as important to business success now as it ever was.
Paton has asked what the future will be for quality and its practitioners. I don’t know how well his crystal ball works. But if, as I tell my own colleagues, “the relationship is everything,” then in the future we may work on improving the quality of these relationships, and in so doing, the quality in our businesses and communities as well.
Bruce Waltuck co-created the USDOL’s award-winning quality improvement system. He’s a senior member of ASQ, an active member of the Plexus Institute and was an examiner for New Jersey’s quality award. Waltuck is presently working on a graduate degree in complexity from the University of Western Sydney.
|
Bruce Waltuck