By February 17, 2007 1 Comments Read More →

Defining Defects

Flawless products no one wants

This was sent by my old colleague Darren, a lean guy from Phoenix. He didn’t add any commentary, but here’s mine.

The linked article is another one (from syndicated columnist Dale Dauten) that tries to make the claim “quality doesn’t matter” as if the Six Sigma or Lean “zero defects” crowd should just stop. Dauten tries to paint a picture that shows the quality folks are single minded and aren’t focused on the market or customers.

He points to survey data that shows large “Six Sigma” companies underperform in the stock market:

Could it be possible that quality is to the manufacturing business what health food is to the restaurant business: Everybody says they want it, but nobody actually buys it?

The author uses an example that he thinks proves his point:

A few years back I heard a story about two cellphone companies. One had virtually eliminated defects, while the other had just ordinary quality control – let’s call them the Perfect and Good phones.

When customers had problems using the Perfect phone, the company had them box up the phone and send it in, and then the company sent it back, saying it was fine. And it was, because most problems were customers not understanding how to use the thing.

On the other hand, if you called the Good phone people, they would work with you to figure out how to use the thing, and if it was a manufacturing problem, it would send someone out with a replacement.

The upshot was that the Good phone had higher satisfaction ratings than the Perfect phone. I was told this by someone in the industry, but could never track down the actual data. It makes sense, though, doesn’t it?

The author is defining quality in terms of “# of defects.” I’d argue that quality is really defined much more broadly than that, including:

  • Does the product meet the customer’s needs?
  • Is the product easy to use properly?
  • How is the overall buying experience for the customer?

Of course it’s not enough to just focus on the # of defects if you’re going to have crappy service when a defect occurs.

I don’t understand the perspective of the “quality doesn’t matter” crowd. I don’t discount the impact that product design, being fast to market, and other business drivers make. So why does the “innovation crowd” think you have to choose either “quality” (low defects) or “innovation?” You need both right?

Please check out my main blog page at www.leanblog.org

The RSS feed content you are reading is copyrighted by the author, Mark Graban.

, , , on the author’s copyright.


Thanks for reading! I’d love to hear your thoughts. Please scroll down to post a comment. Click here to receive posts via email.


Now Available – The updated, expanded, and revised 3rd Edition of Mark Graban’s Shingo Research Award-Winning Book Lean Hospitals: Improving Quality, Patient Safety, and Employee Engagement. You can buy the book today, including signed copies from the author.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Please consider leaving a comment or sharing this post via social media.

Mark Graban's passion is creating a better, safer, more cost effective healthcare system for patients and better workplaces for all. Mark is a consultant, author, and speaker in the "Lean healthcare" methodology. He is author of the Shingo Award-winning books Lean Hospitals and Healthcare Kaizen, as well as The Executive Guide to Healthcare Kaizen. His most recent project is an eBook titled Practicing Lean that benefits the Louise H. Batz Patient Safety Foundation, where Mark is a board member. Mark is also the VP of Improvement & Innovation Services for the technology company KaiNexus.

Posted in: Uncategorized
Tags:

1 Comment on "Defining Defects"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. robert says:

    I’ve found that innovation across the whole product supply/value chain if often necessary. However, low-cost outsourcing to for example, China makes the necessary collaborative approaches difficult, and sometimes impossible. Companies must do more than exploit cheap labour. They must develop the “soft” processes that spur productivity and innovation. China’s have not.

    Rob

    http://www.rob-thompson.net
    http://www.63buckets.co.uk (lean)
    http://www.qualityhero.co.uk (six sigma)

Post a Comment