letters

Change of Focus?

Each month I eagerly anticipate the next copy of Quality Digest. I search for articles that I might be able to share with my staff and the rest of the organization. Great ideas for implementation here at Informative Research typically are in abundance in your publication.

With that in mind, however, I must admit that I have been disappointed lately that you have focused more on quality control, quality assurance, ISO 9000, etc. I recognize that these topics are very important, and most readers are enjoying these articles and tables, but for me, they are not very applicable.

My organization is not involved in manufacturing, and most of us are not familiar with ISO 9000, nor will we be for several years. I miss the articles that dealt more with management, employee and team development. I learn a lot from the articles I read now, but I can't really share ideas from them with my company because, for the most part, they just are not applicable to our situation.

I plan on subscribing to Quality Digest for years to come, but I would be remiss if I did not share my feelings about your format and content changes.

-Edward J. Hart
Yorba Linda, California

Thanks for your input. Because ISO 9000, QS-9000 and ISO 14000 are so important to our readers, we feel that the extra emphasis on these standards is warranted.
-Ed.


Flavor of the Month

Paul Scicchitano's article, "Dubious Industry First" (April 1996), has prompted me to write my first letter to any magazine.

The article stated that AT&T Quality Registrar has announced it is closing its doors, which raises questions about the industry's ability to respond to future closings. The statement that really grabbed my attention was, "There is no requirement that one accredited registrar accept the certificates or audit reports of another, even if they are accredited by the same organization." What? This is quality bureaucracy at its best. It's nonsense like this that keeps setting the quality movement back.

While I appreciate the warning, I do not appreciate the loophole. Are there others? What if I "sold" ISO 9000 to my company and found out later my certification must be redone? Imagine my top managers asking me why I did not know this at the start. Imagine how all the people that worked extremely hard to receive that certification now have to be told it must be redone. Imagine how I feel now after three years of selling this system, and will probably receive the acknowledgment to start the process this year.

While most "quality leaders and consultants" are not only telling us-but our customers as well-what will get them to the next level of quality, we are the ones who must do the work. They go back to their think tanks and dream up another system to sell.

Am I upset? You bet I am. Please extend my thanks to Paul Scicchitano for his enlightening article.

-Tom North
Ashland, Ohio

21st Century Management

I wish to take issue with the views expressed by William L. Heintz in his letter, "Why cover ISO 14000," published in your February 1996 issue. In a very lucid paper presented at the South African International Quality Convention in November 1995 and subsequently published in the South African Bureau of Standards Bulletin of January/February 1996, Michael C. Carruthers, managing director of the South African Quality Institute, appealed for a single, optimized management approach to safety, health, environment, risk and quality. This certainly makes good management sense to me and would seem to be the efficient way to proceed into the 21st century.

Although I tend to agree that environmental issues should be managed by environmental professionals, this is not always possible, and the integrated approach would be more suitable in small- and medium-sized businesses. Even in large organizations, a team effort would be preferable to piecemeal and a possibly conflicting approach by individual functions.

-Athol Pratt
Johannesburg, South Africa

Back to Basics

I am writing this brief note regarding A. Blanton Godfrey's article ["Integrating Quality and Strategic Planning"] in the March 1996 issue of Quality Digest. As always, you (and the Juran Institute) can be counted on to continually remind us of the "fundamentals" in any management philosophy. The article is timely, and the topic (in my experience) continues to be the "missing link" in many (good) companies' approaches to success.

Joe DeFeo has done the Juran Strategic Quality Planning workshop at my company. It certainly opened many eyes and provided an excellent model for SQP. Joe is an outstanding teacher and communicator of ideas.

The four sacred obligations are worthy of serious thought and contemplation, even as simple as they are. I can't think of a company that couldn't do a better job of strategic quality planning and a better job of deploying the vision to those who do the work.

-Jim Wachowski
Rochester Hills, Michigan