Featured Product
This Week in Quality Digest Live
Quality Insider Features
Julie Winkle Giulioni
Old givens are giving way to new ungivens
Few hybrid workers report feeling connected to their organization’s culture
Claudine Mangen
If you have the energy to try and address organizational overwork, start small
Bryan Christiansen
It’s not who you know—it’s what they know
Jill Roberts
Another way to know what’s too old to eat

More Features

Quality Insider News
Meet the latest generation of LC xx6 encoders
Run compliance checks against products in seconds
Aug. 25, 2022, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern
Sept. 28–29, 2022, at the MassMutual Center in Springfield, MA
Could be used for basic performance information on raw materials used in the most common 3D printers
Maximum work envelope in a small footprint
On-demand pipe flow measurement, no process interruptions

More News

Mehul Shah

Quality Insider

The Do’s and Don’ts of Changing a Quality Culture

If you don’t allow for flexibility, start stretching

Published: Monday, April 29, 2013 - 10:29

Although quality is an enterprisewide issue, many companies struggle to define how it fits into overall corporate strategy. The 2012–2013 LNS Research Quality Management Survey put this into perspective when it asked executives what their top quality challenge was. More than 50 percent marked off having difficulty with the way quality was viewed in their organization. They said it was looked at as a department rather than a responsibility.

When quality management is perceived in this manner, efforts to improve the quality of products and processes tend to be localized rather than across the organization. In many cases, it’s the quality structure within the organization that enables holistic quality management. However, when corporate leadership tries to change this perception, it can be met with considerable pushback at the regional, business unit, or site level.

To find out more on this topic, LNS Research had a conversation with a leader in the quality field, KP Lim. We asked him about his experiences with the centralization vs. decentralization of quality while working as the chief quality officer (CQO) at UTStarcom and various other large electronics manufacturing organizations. The following is an excerpt from that interview.

LNS Research: In your experiences, which quality group structure works the best?

KP Lim: Decentralization tends to happen if the business model is very big, where different groups would have various approaches to quality. In some cases, it’s even more appropriate than a centralized structure. But with decentralization, there’s typically a loss in quality. You lose strategic direction for quality and where it’s going, which is why a company will have corporate quality initiatives, metrics, and so on, to oversee some aspects of quality and make sure it’s on the right track. In my opinion, there’s no right or wrong; it depends on the scenario.

LNS: What happens when you try to change the quality structure of an organization?

KL: When I joined my last company, there was decentralized manufacturing quality, R&D quality, service quality, and so on. Everyone had their own quality functions and responsibilities. However, the customer wanted us to have a companywide approach to driving quality, so we restructured in a way that all quality would report to the chief quality officer (CQO). Initially, there was no centralized quality structure, so naturally there was a lot of internal friction with the new approach.

LNS: How do you address and overcome internal friction?

KL: When there’s a change, it has to be proven. Because everyone was reporting to me, I worked to make everyone think that quality is important. I wanted to let them know that if they shipped something out the door, it’s going to have an impact, positive or negative, and that impact will come back and affect the company and them personally. I collected data on the cost of poor quality, and once I did that, people started taking ownership. It wasn’t just that the customer demanded it anymore; people also started enjoying benefits of improved performance.

LNS: When you centralize quality like that, do you leave room for any flexibility?

KL: What we found is that every division was doing its own thing and didn’t want to be standardized. In response, we standardized just a few critical things, and then left flexibility to each local site. This helped to preserve culture and reduce pushback. When leaving room for flexibility in how to do a process, you allow people to participate, and that’s what gets ideas flowing. It’s what motivates them to say, “I’m not just doing it because people told me to.” Instead they take ownership. As a quality organization, you need to be looked at as a solution provider, not as the police telling people what they can and cannot do.

The quality police vs. the solution provider

When it comes to quality management strategy, it’s no surprise that people can be resistant to change. In many cases, they’re set in their ways, but internal friction can also arise because they’re apprehensive about being held more accountable for the quality of products and processes. When dealing with the issue of local vs. corporate quality, Lim makes a number of good points, most notably about being a solution provider rather than the police.

With considerable internal friction, he had to find innovative ways to both preserve the culture unique to sites while also generating a broader interest in and ownership of quality from the enterprise perspective. By standardizing select areas and recording the cost of poor quality in a way that helped to highlight areas for improvement, he was able to instill a culture of greater responsibility for the quality of products and processes.

Do you have an interesting story regarding internal friction and quality culture? If so, we’d like to hear about it in the comments section below.

First published April 9, 2013, on the LNS Research blog. The complete interview can be read here.


About The Author

Mehul Shah’s picture

Mehul Shah

Mehul Shah is a senior associate at LNS Research, developer of solutions for industrial operations management. Shah builds solutions that will help executives leverage results from research. Shah has experience in managing quantitative and quality research projects and has provided practical insights to senior executives to improve operational and financial performance. He is a recognized speaker on various topics including sustainability, asset management, and quality management.