I think most of us would agree that there are a handful of attributes that separate average companies from those that should be held up as role models. Some of those traits would be: a strong and achievable strategic plan, management interaction with staff and customers, well-trained employees, a passion for excellence, a silo-free organization, an open-door policy, and a team of professionals who are empowered to perform their job without constant management intervention, to name just a few.

Of all those traits, I would place empowerment at or near the top. Organizations that properly train and empower their staff operate more efficiently and do a better job of meeting and exceeding expectations of customers. There’s a minimum of lag time in resolving problems or disputes with customers because each employee can take the appropriate action without kicking it upstairs.

In examining the reasons for employees’ lack of power, one has to conclude that managers are afraid to let go of their decision-making domain. Carrying that concept a bit further, I contend that quality is greatly diminished in an organization unless people are empowered.

Question: When the first-grade boy asked to use the washroom, the teacher said that he must first say his ABCs aloud. The little boy obediently did so, but he skipped the “P” and the “Y.” The teacher asked, “Why did you skip the ‘P’ and the ‘Y’?”

Answer: “My Daddy told me to never say ‘Y’ again and the ‘P’ went down my leg.”

Lately, I’ve been asked to provide root-cause analysis training more than ever before in my 14 years as an independent quality/lean consultant. This is interesting in the age of Six Sigma, especially because “analyze” is the heart of DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve, control). I further find this interesting in this age of lean, in which the lean tools that are taught to so many people are only possible solutions to good root-cause analysis. I (further) further find this interesting in this age of so many companies being ISO 9001-certified for many years, when the essence of continually improving the effectiveness of the quality management system is good root-cause analysis.

I began to wonder, “Why does root-cause analysis suck?,” and I came up with the following possible root causes. You decide which apply to your company by asking “Why?” somewhere around five times until you find the systemic reason(s) that it sucks at your company.

Question: When the first-grade boy asked to use the washroom, the teacher said that he must first say his ABCs aloud. The little boy obediently did so, but he skipped the “P” and the “Y.” The teacher asked, “Why did you skip the ‘P’ and the ‘Y’?”

Answer:“My Daddy told me to never say ‘Y’ again and the ‘P’ went down my leg.”

Lately, I’ve been asked to provide root-cause analysis training more than ever before in my 14 years as an independent quality/lean consultant. This is interesting in the age of Six Sigma, especially because “analyze” is the heart of DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve, control). I further find this interesting in this age of lean, in which the lean tools that are taught to so many people are only possible solutions to good root-cause analysis. I (further) further find this interesting in this age of so many companies being ISO 9001-certified for many years, when the essence of continually improving the effectiveness of the quality management system is good root-cause analysis.

I began to wonder, “Why does root-cause analysis suck?,” and I came up with the following possible root causes. You decide which apply to your company by asking “Why?” somewhere around five times until you find the systemic reason(s) that it sucks at your company.

I recently gave a speech on products made in China to ASQ’s customer service division in Raleigh, North Carolina. The critical takeaways were that global uncertainties and risks were fundamentally changing the rules of outsourcing and offshoring. What’s going on? Let’s look at few of the changes.

Over the past year, two companies reanalyzed their business models and supply chains. Boeing Co. adopted a business model that emphasizes outsourcing and supply management. It incorporates designing the core product, outsourcing the core assembly (up to 85 percent of manufacturing costs), assembling the complete product, testing the product to assure compliance, and then managing the Boeing brand. Although the Boeing 787 Dreamliner was built following this model, Boeing didn’t anticipate and manage supplier-fastener risks. The result was delays in its introduction and reputation loss.

Toyota’s lean management is the benchmark for best manufacturing practices. As Toyota has become the world leader in auto production, it has had difficulty scaling its lean practices.

It seems that not a day goes by that some politician, government official, or CEO of a major company has to retract a misspoken remark or admit that a previous message was either exaggerated or wasn’t factual. Despite the seriousness of the transgression, we as a forgiving society, are prepared to accept the misdeed if the word apology is part of the hand-wringing and personal admission of guilt.

Having said that, I must admit that I haven’t been totally truthful with you readers of QualityInsider, and you deserve better. Since October of last year and through March of 2008, I haven’t actually been in my hammock but rather have penned these columns from the warm confines of our home.

What with all the publicity given to officials who have expanded on their accomplishments, I thought it necessary to file a preemptive explanation before someone else does and I lose all credibility.

In the future, I will dateline my column depending on where I’m located. I hope this clears up the matter so we can now move to the issues that affect quality and customer service. Finally, I admit that I haven’t walked to my hammock in the woods dodging sniper fire, an incident that evidently has haunted others who have stretched the truth. So there!

Never say “never”? I guess I overlooked that memo. In case you missed it, the last two columns were written about what you should never do with control limits. These three nevers, if avoided, will ensure that your control charts are useful, reliable tools.

The first two nevers of control limits are:

1.

Never allow control limits to be typed in.

2.

Never allow control limits to be automatically recalculated.

If any of the nevers is undertaken, you could be left with a control chart that doesn’t identify important process changes. But isn’t that the whole idea? Shouldn’t control limits be set so that they alert users to unusual circumstances? Well, yes. That’s the idea, and that’s why control charts are so extraordinarily useful.

Lots of different alarm rules can be applied on a control chart. But this column is written to specifically address the most commonly applied Western Electric rule of all: points that fall outside of control limits.

This is the first of a new QualityInsider column that will discuss new practices, processes, tools, and lessons learned in what I think is the future of quality—risk management. I’ll feature quality and other professionals who use quality and risk in supply management, auditing, health care, security, and other fields. This month I focus on cyber security and ISO 27001 with an interview of cyber-security expert Ed Perkins.

Greg Hutchins: Can you tell us a little about who you are and what you do?

Ed Perkins: I’m a computer engineer. I have two master’s degrees, one in electrical engineering and one in computer science. I presently work on cyber security and cyber assurance projects for Homeland Security.

Hutchins: How does this fit into quality?

Perkins: I provide IT quality assurance and control. I use quality standards such as ISO 27001 to ensure the requisite level of assurance and control. From my point of view, information security is the most critical challenge our government, companies, and even we as individuals face today.

Hutchins: Pretty strong language. Can you elaborate?

Perkins: OK.

Starbucks’ announcement that it would close for three hours on February 26 to retrain about 135,000 in-store employees sent shudders through the thousands of coffee fanatics in the nation. Would java aficionados have to forego their venti-decaf-no foam-double vanilla-light whip-extra caramel-cinnamon on top-espresso frappuccino? Oh, the humanity! While there was a certain amount of panic from loyal customers after the announcement, I think more organizations should try a similar shutdown.

Starbucks’ management indicated that closing and retraining the staff was a way to implement all-new standards for how their beverages are created. A spokesperson stated that in so doing the customer experience will be ratcheted up to new levels of satisfaction. As a follow-up to the three-hour closing, more changes are expected to be unveiled during the next several months.

Consider for a moment if some companies and individuals took a three-hour time-out, or if there were a cessation of some of the more irritating events that constantly bombard us in the media. Let’s examine the benefits of a temporary shutdown. Maybe we too will be able to ratchet up our levels of satisfaction personally and for our customers.

Question:What do you call it when a quality manager is caught cheating on a quality exam?

Answer:Benchmarking

Several months ago, I taught a three-day internal-audit class to about 15 people. On the morning of the first day, Joe, the quality manager, gave me an Excel spreadsheet of the lunch orders of every participant for each day of class, including special orders. Joe had previously e-mailed menus to each participant, and they had e-mailed their orders back. He had taken the time to input every order and detail (e.g., extra mayo, no ice, etc.) and had color-coded the lines for ease of reading.

I looked at it, looked at him, looked at it again, and then looked at him to see if he was serious. He was. He was proud of his work, and he thought that I would be impressed. I couldn’t help laughing, even as I tried not to.

You see, Joe doesn’t excel when it comes to Excel, and he’s a very slow typist. He types with one index finger at a time. (Even I’ve even mastered three fingers at a time—middle left, index right, and middle right.) My guess is that it took him two to four hours to organize the lunch, send and review e-mails, and develop the spreadsheet. Meanwhile, several corrective actions assigned to him were late.

Each year at this time a momentous event is announced in the pages of a prominent magazine. No, I’m not talking about the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition, although thoughts of that warm me up on frigid evenings in Michigan (sorry if that’s sexist). I’m referring to Fortune Magazine’s announcement of “The 100 Best Companies To Work For.”

For us quality and customer-service geeks it’s an opportunity to examine the inner workings of some of the best organizations in our nation. For the companies who applied for this recognition it’s a guessing game to see where they rank among some of their peers and who is labeled No. 1.

Ever since this list was first published I’ve been following and reviewing these companies like a broker follows blue chip stocks or a wine connoisseur absorbs Wine Spectator’s list of the top bubbly. We all want to work for an organization that espouses sound customer-service processes and provides employees with a safe, challenging, rewarding environment. Fortune Magazine lists those companies.

After the list is published each year, the featured companies are flooded with unsolicited applications.