ASQ Six Sigma

John E. Bauer, Grace L.
Duffy,
and Russell T. Westcott, Editors
Lib rary of Con gress Catalogin g-in -Pu b lication D ata
′
Contents
List of Figu res an d Tab les . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
N otes to th e Read er . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Ack n ow led gm en ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Part I Q u ality Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Ch ap ter 1 A. Term s, Con cep ts, an d Prin cip les . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Ch ap ter 2 B. Ben efits of Q u ality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

C. Q u ality Ph ilosop h ies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Part II Team s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Ch ap ter 3 A. Un d erstan d in g Team s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Ch ap ter 4 B. Roles an d Resp on sib ilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Ch ap ter 5 C. Team Form ation an d G rou p D yn am ics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Part III Con tin u ou s Im p rovem en t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Ch ap ter 6 A. In crem en tal an d Break th rou gh Im p rovem en t . . . . . . . . . . 72
Ch ap ter 7 B. Im p rovem en t Cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
v
vi Contents
Ch ap ter 8 C. Prob lem -Solvin g Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Ch ap ter 9 D . Im p rovem en t Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Ch ap ter 10 E. Cu stom er–Su p p lier Relation sh ip s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Ap p en d ix A Bod y of Kn ow led ge ASQ : Certified Q u ality Im p rovem en t

Associate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Ap p en d ix B ASQ Cod e of Eth ics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Ap p en d ix C Q u ality G lossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Ap p en d ix D Ad d ition al Read in g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
In d ex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
List of Figures and Tables
Part I
Part II
Part III
vii
Preface
ix
Notes to the Reader
A BRIEF HISTORY OF QUALITY1
xi
xii Notes to the Reader
STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK
DIVERSITY
xiii
READERS
ADDITIONAL PRACTICE SUPPLEMENT—APPENDIX E
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

xiv Notes to the Reader
Acknowledgments
xv
Part I
Q u ality Basics
Chapter 1 A. Term s, Concepts, and Principles
Chapter 2 B. Benefits of Qu ality
C. Qu ality Philosophies
Look beneath the surface, let not the quality nor its worth escape thee.
M arcus Aurelius
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but habit.
Aristotle
Quality is about making products that don’t come back for customers that do.
M argaret Thatcher
1
Chapter 1
A. Term s, Con cep ts, an d Prin cip les
1. QUALITY
Define and know how to use this term

correctly. (Apply)
CQIA BoK 2006
There are m any d efinitions of qu ality, su ch as the follow ing:

• Qu ality is a su bjective term for w hich each p erson has his or her ow n
d efinition. In technical u sage, qu ality can have tw o m eanings: (1) the
characteristics of a p rod u ct or service that bear on its ability to satisfy
stated or im p lied need s, and (2) a p rod u ct or service free of d eficiencies.1
• Qu ality is the d egree to w hich a set of inherent characteristics fu lfills
requ irem ents.2
• Qu ality is conform ance to requ irem ents.
• Qu ality is fitness for u se.
• Qu ality is m eeting cu stom er exp ectations.
• Qu ality is exceed ing cu stom er exp ectations.
• Qu ality is su p eriority to com p etitors.
• Qu ality—I’ll know it w hen I see it.
2
Chapt er 1: A. Ter ms, Concept s, and Pr incipl es 3
In ad d ition to these variou s m eanings, qu ality m ay also be view ed from several

d im ensions:
• Characteristics su ch as reliability, m aintainability, and availability
• Drivers of qu ality, su ch as stand ard s
• Qu ality of d esign versu s qu ality of conform ance
• Qu ality p lanning, control, and im p rovem ent
• Little q and big Q (p rod u ct or fu nctional qu ality versu s im p rovem ent of all
organizational p rocesses)
• Qu ality as an organizational strategy
Many other qu ality-related term s are d efined in Ap p end ix C, Qu ality Glossary.
The tw o qu ality m anagem ent system m od els m ost frequ ently u sed by qu ality
p rofessionals are (1) the Bald rige N ational Qu ality Program Criteria for Perfor-
m ance Excellence,3 and (2) the ISO 9000:2000 fam ily of qu ality m anagem ent sys-
tem stand ard s.4 These qu ality m od els p rovid e an insight into the com p onents of a
qu ality m anagem ent system and d efine qu ality as it is p racticed tod ay.
2006 Baldrige National Quality Program: Criteria for Performance

Excellence (Business Version)
1 Lea dership
1.1 Senior Lead ership
1.2 Governance and Social Resp onsibilities
The Leadership category exam ines how you r organization’s senior lead ers
gu id e and su stain you r organization’s governance and how you r organization ad -
d resses its ethical, legal, and com m u nity resp onsibilities.
2 St ra t egic P la nning
2.1 Strategy Develop m ent
2.2 Strategy Dep loym ent
The Strategic Planning category exam ines how you r organization d evelop s
strategic objectives and action p lans. Also exam ined are how you r chosen strategic
objectives and action p lans are d ep loyed and changed if circu m stances requ ire,
and how p rogress is m easu red .
3 Cust omer a nd Ma rket Focus
3.1 Cu stom er and Market Know led ge
3.2 Cu stom er Relationship s and Satisfaction
The Customer and Market Focus category exam ines how you r organization d e-
term ines the requ irem ents, need s, exp ectations, and p references of cu stom ers and
m arkets. Also exam ined is how you r organization bu ild s relationship s w ith cu s-
tom ers and d eterm ines the key factors that lead to cu stom er acqu isition, satisfac-
tion, loyalty, and retention, and to bu siness exp ansion and su stainability.
4 Part I: Quality Basics
4 Mea surement , Ana lysis, a nd Know ledge Ma na gement

4.1 Measu rem ent, Analysis, and Review of Organizational Perform ance
4.2 Inform ation Managem ent
The Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management category exam ines how
you r organization selects, gathers, analyzes, m anages, and im p roves its d ata, in-
form ation, and know led ge assets. Also exam ined is how you r organization re-
view s its p erform ance.
5 Huma n Resource Focus
5.1 Work System s
5.2 Em p loyee Learning and Motivation
5.3 Em p loyee Well-Being and Satisfaction
The Human Resource Focus category exam ines how you r organization’s w ork
system s and em p loyee learning and m otivation enable all em p loyees to d evelop
and u tilize their fu ll p otential in alignm ent w ith you r organization’s overall objec-
tives, strategy, and action p lans. Also exam ined are you r organization’s efforts to
bu ild and m aintain a w ork environm ent and em p loyee su p p ort clim ate cond u cive
to p erform ance excellence and p ersonal and organizational grow th.
6 P rocess Ma na gement
6.1 Valu e-creation p rocesses
6.2 Su p p ort p rocesses and op erational p lanning
The Process Management category exam ines the key asp ects of you r organiza-
tion’s p rocess m anagem ent, inclu d ing key p rod u ct, service, and organizational
p rocesses for creating cu stom er and organizational valu e and key su p p ort
p rocesses. This category also encom p asses all key p rocesses and all w ork u nits.
7 Result s
7.1 Prod u ct and Service Ou tcom es
7.2 Cu stom er-Focu sed Ou tcom es
7.3 Financial and Market Ou tcom es
7.4 H u m an Resou rce Ou tcom es
7.5 Organizational Effectiveness Ou tcom es
7.6 Lead ership and Social Resp onsibility Ou tcom es
The Results category exam ines you r organization’s p erform ance and im p rove-
m ent in all key areas—p rod u ct and service ou tcom es, cu stom er satisfaction, finan-
cial and m arketp lace p erform ance, hu m an resou rce ou tcom es, op erational
p erform ance, and lead ership and social resp onsibility. Perform ance levels are ex-
am ined relative to those of com p etitors and other organizations p rovid ing sim ilar
p rod u cts and services.
In recent years the Bald rige N ational Qu ality Program has been exp and ed to
inclu d e criteria covering health-care and ed u cational organizations. The p rogram
w ill exp and fu rther in 2007 to cover not-for-p rofit organizations. Inform ation on
these new er p rogram s is available at http://www.quality.nist.gov.
ANSI/ ISO/ ASQ Q9000:2000 Quality Management Systems Principles

A quality management principle is a com p rehensive and fu nd am ental ru le or belief
for lead ing and op erating an organization; it is aim ed at continu ally im p roving
p erform ance over the long term by focu sing on cu stom ers w hile ad d ressing the
need s of all other stakehold ers. There are eight qu ality m anagem ent p rincip les that
form the basis of cu rrent international qu ality m anagem ent requ irem ents. These
p rincip les are p arap hrased as follow s:
1. Customer Orientation. Organizations m u st focu s on u nd erstand ing their
cu stom ers’ need s and requ irem ents. Su ccessfu l organizations try to
anticip ate and exceed the cu stom ers’ exp ectations.
2. Leadership. Organizations need strong lead ers to establish com m on goals
and d irection. Effective lead ers establish op en environm ents in w hich all
em p loyees can p articip ate in m eeting their organization’s goals.
3. Involvement. Peop le are the m ost im p ortant p art of any organization.
Managers m u st ensu re that em p loyees at all levels of the organization
can fu lly p articip ate and u se all their skills to m ake the organization
su ccessfu l.
4. Process Management. The m ost su ccessfu l organizations u nd erstand that
they m u st m anage all their activities as p rocesses.
5. System Management. Su ccessfu l organizations u nd erstand that their m any
ind ivid u al p rocesses are interrelated and that, in ad d ition to being
m anaged ind ivid u ally, they m u st be m anaged w ithin an overall system .
6. Continual Improvement. Continu al im p rovem ent is the key to long-term
su ccess and high p erform ance. Su ccessfu l m anagers recognize that
p rocesses m u st be review ed and im p roved continu ou sly to ensu re that
their organization stays com p etitive.
7. Fact-Based Decisions. Organizations that base their d ecisions on factu al
d ata are m ore likely to m ake the correct d ecision than those that d o not.
8. Close Supplier Relationships. Organizations that p artner and w ork closely
w ith their su p p liers ensu re that both the organization and the su p p liers
are better able to achieve su ccess.
A sid e-by-sid e review of the Bald rige and ISO 9000:2000 qu ality m od els reveals m any
sim ilarities. They both stress strong organizational lead ership ; a focu s on cu stom ers;
the d evelop m ent and involvem ent of the organization’s p eop le; gathering, analyzing,
and u sing inform ation to m ake d ecisions; and p rocess m anagem ent. Together these
characteristics d efine qu ality as it is p racticed in m any su ccessfu l organizations.
2. QUALITY PLANNING
Understand a quality plan and its purpose

for the organization as a whole and who in
the organization contributes to its
development. (Understand)
CQIA BoK 2006
Qu ality p lanning is the p rocess of d evelop ing a m aster p lan linked to organiza-
tional strategy, goals, and objectives that p ertain to the qu ality of p rod u cts or serv-
ices to be d elivered to cu stom ers. The qu ality p lan inclu d es key requ irem ents,
p erform ance ind icators, and com m itm ent of resou rces to ensu re that cu stom er
need s are m et.
Althou gh it is sep arate from the three p hases of organizational p lanning
(strategic, tactical, and op erational), qu ality p lanning is d ep end ent on the d eci-
sions and p rocesses established by m anagem ent d u ring these p hases. Key qu ality
requ irem ents and p erform ance ind icators m u st be established in the d esign, d e-
velop m ent, and im p lem entation of all p rod u cts and services for final cu stom er d e-
livery. Qu ality initiatives m u st be u nd erstood in their relation to all three levels of
the organization: strategic p lanning, tactical p lanning, and op erational p lanning.
Strategic planning d eals w ith d evelop ing the long-range strategies of the orga-
nization, inclu d ing:
• The organization’s basic goals and objectives
• External cu stom ers’ need s and exp ectations
• The need s and exp ectations of internal stakehold ers (em p loyees,
sharehold ers, and so on)
• Risks that m u st be taken into accou nt
• Regu latory requ irem ents
• Com p etitors’ cap abilities
• Bu siness system s need ed to op erate the organization effectively and
efficiently
Tactical planning (som etim es called action or p roject p lanning) d eals w ith translat-
ing strategic objectives into actionable activities that m u st occu r, on a short-term
basis, to su p p ort the achievem ent of the strategic p lans. These are the m easu rable
step s and events that resu lt from the d ow nw ard d ep loym ent of the strategic p lans.
Operational planning d eals w ith d evelop ing d ay-to-d ay op erating p roced u res
that ensu re the qu ality of ind ivid u al p rod u cts and services. Op erational p lans ad -
d ress areas su ch as:
• Resou rces need ed to d evelop and create the organization’s p rod u cts and
services
• Materials and su p p lies requ ired for creating and d elivering the p rod u cts
and services
• Know led ge and skills requ ired of em p loyees
• Processes and p roced u res requ ired to create the organization’s p rod u cts
and services
• Uniqu e tools or equ ip m ent requ ired
• Docu m entation (sp ecifications, stand ard s, d raw ings, visu al aid s, and so
on) requ ired
• Exam ination, insp ection, or testing requ irem ents
• Ad m inistrative su p p ort and follow -u p for cu stom er com m u nication
• Record s requ ired to d ocu m ent the creation of the organization’s p rod u cts
and services
• Process im p rovem ent m ethod s to continu ally im p rove the organization’s
d eliverables
Quality planning: At the d ay-to-d ay level, m eeting a sp ecific cu stom er ’s requ ire-
m ents som etim es requ ires a “qu ality p lan” for an ind ivid u al contract or p u rchase
ord er. To d evelop su ch a w orking p lan m eans looking at the p articu lar ord er and
d eterm ining the resou rces (tim e, m aterials, equ ip m ent, p rocess step s, skills, and so
on) that w ill be requ ired to com p lete the ind ivid u al transaction to the cu stom er ’s
satisfaction and p rovid e an ad equ ate retu rn on the resou rce investm ent. This typ e
of qu ality p lan is u su ally com p leted as p art of the p rocess that organizations u se to
give qu otes on new or rep eat w ork for their cu stom ers.
Overall, a consistent p lanning, m onitoring, and review ing ap p roach is re-
qu ired for organizations u sing established qu ality system s based on criteria su ch
as the Bald rige N ational Qu ality Program or the ISO 9001:2000 stand ard . The ap -
p roach taken by an organization becom es the gu id ing p olicy in p rod u cing a val-
u ed p rod u ct or service that rem ains com p etitive in the m arketp lace. The p lanning
m u st inclu d e:
• A com p rehensive focu s on cu stom er need s and exp ectations
• Su p p ort of qu ality goals and strategies by u p p er m anagem ent
• A balance of resou rces betw een short-term and long-term requ irem ents,
inclu d ing cap ital exp end itu res, training, and continu ou s im p rovem ent
• Ongoing interp retation of long-term goals into tactical and op erating p lans
• Develop m ent of p rocesses for evalu ation and p rocess im p rovem ent
• Integration of qu ality activities into the d aily w ork of the front-line
associates
3. THE IMPORTANCE OF EMPLOYEES
Understand employee involvement and

employee empowerment and understand
the benefits of both concepts, distinguish
between involvement and empowerment.
(Understand)
CQIA BoK 2006
The tw o p red om inant qu ality m od els (Bald rige and ISO 9000) stress the im p or-
tance of the p articip ation of all em p loyees in an organization’s qu ality efforts. Or-
ganizations w ork to m otivate and enable their em p loyees to d evelop and u tilize
their fu ll p otential in su p p ort of the organization’s overall goals and objectives. Or-
ganizations also w ork to bu ild and m aintain w ork environm ents that su p p ort their
em p loyees and create a clim ate cond u cive to p erform ance excellence and p ersonal
and organizational grow th. Peop le at all levels are the essence of any organization,
and em p ow ering them to fu lly u se their abilities and to be fu lly involved in the or-
ganization’s p rocesses benefits the organization.
Empowerment m eans that em p loyees have the au thority to m ake d ecisions and
take actions in their w ork areas w ithou t p rior ap p roval, w ithin established bou nd -
aries. Allow ing em p loyees to w ork as active m em bers of p rocess im p rovem ent
team s is one w ay to em p ow er them to fu lly u se their collective w isd om and d eci-
sion-m aking skills. Bu t they m u st also be given the training, tools, m aterials, equ ip -
m ent, p rocesses, and p roced u res to accom p lish their ind ivid u al tasks. Provid ing
these critical resou rces show s em p loyees that the organization tru ly valu es their
m ind s, not ju st their bod ies.
Each em p loyee m u st recognize that the ou tp u ts of his or her ind ivid u al activ-
ities p rovid e the inp u ts to the next p erson’s p rocess. Em p loyee involvem ent allow s
em p loyees the right to p articip ate in d ecision m aking at som e level, p rovid es the
necessary skills to accom p lish the requ ired task, and carefu lly d efines resp onsibil-
ities and au thority. Em p loyee involvem ent also p rovid es recognition and rew ard s
for accom p lishm ents and enables com m u nication w ith all levels of the organiza-
tion’s stru ctu re.
Managers m u st d o m ore than ju st tell em p loyees that they have the au thority
to p articip ate fu lly in p rocesses. They m u st also relinqu ish som e of their au thority
and show by their actions that they exp ect fu ll em p loyee involvem ent and that
they su p p ort actions taken by em p loyees and d ecisions m ad e by them to fu rther
the organization’s goals and objectives. Giving em p loyees the au thority to act also
gives them resp onsibility and accou ntability for w hat they d o. To fu lly p articip ate,
em p loyees m u st u nd erstand the organization’s m ission, valu es, and system s.
It is also im p ortant to u nd erstand the d ifference betw een job enlargement and
job enrichment. Enlarging a job m eans exp and ing the variety of tasks p erform ed by
an em p loyee. Enriching a job m eans increasing the w orker ’s resp onsibilities and
au thority in w ork to be d one. Tw o exam p les are as follow s:
In addition to staffing a customer-transaction window, a bank teller’s job is

expanded to tidying-up the tables used by customers to fill out forms and also
ensuring that all brochure displays are restocked. (job enlargem ent)
A waitperson’s job is increased in scope to include helping the cook in deciding

on the next day’s menu. (job enrichm ent)
Organizations som etim es have form al su ggestion system s that allow em p loyees to
p rovid e inp u t on p roblem s and su ggestions on how to im p rove existing p rocesses.
Many of these su ggestion system s are tied to incentives or rew ard s for su ggestions
that are im p lem ented .
4. SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES
Define a system and a process; distinguish

between a system and a process;
understand the interrelationship between
process and system; and know how the
components of a system (supplier, input,
process, output, customer, and feedback)
impact the system as a whole. (Analyze)
CQIA BoK 2006
A system can be d efined as a set of interrelated or interacting p rocesses. A p rocess

is a set of interrelated or interacting activities that transform s inp u ts into ou tp u ts.
For exam p le:
The quality audit process uses various inputs (trained auditors, procedures,
employee interviews, checklists, and so on) to develop an output (the audit
report) that is used to improve the organization’s overall quality management
system. The quality management system is composed of many individual
processes that interact with each other and contribute to improving the
organization’s overall performance.
Using a system of interrelated p rocesses to m anage an organization is called a
process approach to management, or sim p ly process management. The p rocess m anage-
m ent ap p roach is based on the ability of an organization to id entify all its
p rocesses, recognize the inp u ts and ou tp u ts of each p rocess, d ocu m ent the
p rocesses so they can be easily im p lem ented , id entify w ho the ow ners of each
p rocess are, im p lem ent the p rocesses, m easu re the ou tcom es of the im p lem enta-
tion, and continu ally im p rove the efficiency and effectiveness of the p rocesses. The
objectives of an organization are achieved m ore efficiently w hen related resou rces
and activities are m anaged as p rocesses and w hen the ind ivid u al p rocesses w ork
together to form an integrated m anagem ent system .
Processes can be d ivid ed into variou s categories:

• Prod u ct/ service d evelop m ent p rocesses d eal w ith how the organization:
• Designs new and im p roved p rod u cts and services
• Changes old p rod u cts and services to m eet new cu stom er
requ irem ents
• Incorp orates im p rovem ents in technology
• Anticip ates cu stom ers’ fu tu re need s
• Prod u ct/ service p rod u ction p rocesses d eal w ith how the organization:
• Prod u ces p rod u cts and services in the m ost efficient and
econom ical w ay
• Ensu res that the p rod u cts and services m eet all technical
requ irem ents
• Delivers the p rod u cts and services in the tim e fram e requ ired by
the cu stom er
• Uses cu stom er and em p loyee feed back
• Bu siness p rocesses d eal w ith how the organization:
• Accou nts for its resou rces
• Develop s and u ses m easu res of p erform ance
• Continu ally im p roves its op erations
• Trains, evalu ates, and rew ard s its em p loyees
Process d ocu m entation m ight inclu d e these com p onents:
1. A short, sim p le d escrip tion of the p rocess and its p u rp ose
2. A d escrip tion of the p rocess’s starting and end ing activities
3. A list of inp u ts requ ired at the p rocess starting p oints and w ho p rovid es
the inp u ts, or the p rocess su p p lier
4. A list of ou tp u ts at the p rocess end ing p oint and w ho receives the
ou tp u ts, or the p rocess cu stom er
5. A flow chart of the p rocess; that is, a p rocess m ap id entifying the
interfaces of the p rocess w ith other fu nctions of the organization
6. Id entification of the p rocess ow ner, establishing clear resp onsibility,
au thority, and accou ntability for m anaging the p rocess
7. The m easu rem ents u sed to id entify that the p rocess has been com p leted
su ccessfu lly
8. A statem ent of the overall cap ability of the p rocess
Using the p rocess ap p roach to m anagem ent lead s to m ore p red ictable resu lts, bet-
ter u se of resou rces, p revention of errors, shorter cycle tim es, and low er costs, as
w ell as a better u nd erstand ing of the cap ability of p rocesses and m ore p red ictable
ou tp u ts.
The Bald rige and ISO m od els encou rage the u se of a p rocess and system ap -
p roach to m anagem ent. They also stress the im p ortance of integrating d ifferent
bu siness p rocesses, su ch as d esign, p rod u ction, qu ality, p ackaging, and ship p ing,
into one interlinked system . All p rocesses have inp u ts and ou tp u ts. The inp u ts into
a p rocess being w orked on u su ally com e as ou tp u ts from another p rocess, and the
ou tp u ts of the p rocess being w orked on u su ally serve as the inp u ts to another
p rocess. For exam p le:
Parts manufactured and inspected to meet customer requirements are sent to the
packaging department for preparation for shipment. The packaged parts are sent
to the shipping department for transfer to a transportation company. The
outputs of the manufacturing and inspection processes are inputs to the
packaging process. The outputs of the packaging process are inputs to the
shipping process. These interrelationships must be understood by managers to
develop an efficient overall system.
This bu siness m ethod ology, som etim es called a system of processes or a process ap-
proach, is critical to the efficient and effective op eration of m od ern organizations.
Also critical to this m ethod ology is the concep t that all p rocesses generate d ata (in-
form ation) that m u st be “fed back” to other interrelated p rocesses. Inform ation
abou t a d eficient p rod u ct fou nd at insp ection m u st be “fed back” to the m anu fac-
tu ring p rocess so that corrective action can be taken to cu re the p rocess d efect that
created the d eficient p rod u ct.
SIPOC Analysis
Process im p rovem ent efforts are often focu sed on rem oving a situ ation that has d e-
velop ed in w hich a p rocess is not op erating at its norm al level. H ow ever, m u ch of
continu al im p rovem ent involves analyzing a p rocess that m ay be p erform ing as
exp ected , bu t w here a higher level of p erform ance is d esired . A fu nd am ental step
to im p roving a p rocess is to u nd erstand how it fu nctions from a p rocess m anage-
m ent p ersp ective. This can be u nd erstood throu gh an analysis of the p rocess to
id entify the su p p lier-inp u t-p rocess-ou tp u t-cu stom er linkages (see Figu re 1.1).
It begins w ith d efining the p rocess of interest, and listing on the right sid e the
ou tp u ts that the p rocess creates that go to cu stom ers, w ho are also listed . Su p p li-
ers and w hat they p rovid e to enable the p rocess (the inp u ts) are sim ilarly show n
Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers

• Part suppliers • Auto repair shop • Car owner
• Auto manufacturer • Family members
• Troubleshooting guides • Repaired auto

• Replacement parts • Bill
Figur e 1.1 SIPOC diagram.

on the left sid e. Once this fu nd am ental p rocess d iagram is d evelop ed , tw o ad d i-

tional item s can be d iscu ssed : (1) m easu res that can be u sed to evalu ate p erfor-
m ance of the inp u ts and ou tp u ts, and (2) the inform ation and m ethod s necessary
to control the p rocess.
5. VARIATION
Understand the concept of variation and

common and special cause variation.
(Understand)
CQIA BoK 2006
Variations are d ifferences, u su ally m inor, from the d esigned and exp ected ou tp u ts
of a p rocess. Som e variation is fou nd in all p rocesses. The key to controlling
p rocesses is to control variation as m u ch as p ossible.
All variation has som e cau se. Know ing the cau ses of variation is im portant in
ord er to d eterm ine the actions that m u st be taken to red u ce the variation. It is m ost
im p ortant to d istingu ish betw een special cause variation and common cause variation.
Sp ecial cau se variation resu lts from u nexp ected or u nu su al occu rrences that
are not inherent in the p rocess. As an exam p le:
A new school bus driver is on her way to pick up her first student in the
morning when the engine stalls because of a fuel-line leak.
This occu rrence w as not inherent in the stu d ent p ick-u p p rocess. Sp ecial cau ses of
variation accou nt for ap p roxim ately 15 p ercent of the observed variation in
p rocesses. They are u su ally very easy to d etect and correct. N o m ajor m od ifications
to the p rocess are requ ired . These sp ecial cau ses are som etim es called assignable
causes, becau se the variation they resu lt in can be investigated and assigned to a
p articu lar sou rce.
Com m on cau se variation resu lts from how the p rocess is d esigned to op erate
and is a natu ral p art of the p rocess. As an exam p le:
A school bus driver starts her route of assigned streets on time, makes her
required stops, and arrives at the school nine minutes later than usual but
within the overall time allowance of her schedule. She experienced a slowdown
due to the timing of traffic lights.
Com m on cau ses of variation accou nt for ap p roxim ately 85 p ercent of the observed
variation in p rocesses. When the p rocess is in control, as it w as in the school bu s
exam p le, there is no need to take action. Com m on cau ses are som etim es called sys-
tem causes or chance causes, becau se the variations they resu lt in are inherent in the
system .
Making m inor ad ju stm ents to a p rocess becau se of p erceived com m on cau se
variation is called tampering. Tam p ering can d rive a p rocess into fu rther variation
d u e to u nnecessary changes being m ad e to a stable p rocess becau se of a p erceived

sp ecial cau se that is actu ally a com m on cau se.
Process ow ners shou ld recognize that the sp ecial cau se variations in p rod u c-
tion or qu ality w ithin m anu factu ring or service p rocesses can u su ally be d etected
and rem oved by the ind ivid u als op erating the p rocess and that the com m on cau se
variations u su ally requ ire m anagem ent action to change som e inherent featu re of
the p rocess. This is som etim es called the “85/ 15 ru le,” recognizing that m anage-
m ent is resp onsible for p rovid ing the necessary inp u ts to correct the m ajority of
variation p roblem s, that is, common causes.
One of the first goals of su ccessfu l organizations is to concentrate on d evelop -
ing reliable p rocesses. A reliable process is one that p rod u ces the d esired ou tp u t each
tim e w ith very little variation. Once reliable p rocesses are established and the sys-
tem becom es stable, the next goal is to continu ally im p rove the p rocess (fu rther re-
d u ce variation) to p rod u ce ou tp u t that is even better able to m eet cu stom er
requ irem ents.
Many p rocesses, p articu larly long-term , high-qu antity p rod u ction p rocesses,
lend them selves to the u se of statistical process control (SPC). SPC is a m ethod of
m onitoring a p rocess d u ring its op eration in ord er to control the qu ality of the
p rod u cts or services w hile they are being p rod u ced rather than relying on insp ec-
tion of the p rod u cts or services after com p letion. SPC involves gathering inform a-
tion (d ata) on the p rod u ct or service as it is being created , grap hically charting the
inform ation on one of several typ es of control charts, and follow ing the p rogress of
the p rocess to d etect u nw anted variation.
Once a p rocess is u nd er control and show s very little variation, p rocess cap a-
bility stu d ies can be ru n to calcu late the m axim u m cap ability of the p rocess. Once
a p rocess is ru nning near its m axim u m cap ability, m aking any ad d itional changes
to the p rocess is u su ally not econom ical.
Notes
1. Siebels, Donald L. The Quality Improvement Glossary. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality
Press, 2004).
2. ASQ. ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9000:2000, Quality Management Systems—Fundamentals and
Vocabulary, Decem ber 2000.
3. N ational Institu te of Stand ard s and Technology. Baldrige National Quality Program:
Criteria for Performance Excellence. (Gaithersbu rg, MD: N ational Institu te of Stand ard s
and Technology, Technology Ad m inistration, United States Dep artm ent of
Com m erce.) The criteria are available in three categories: bu siness, health care, and
ed u cation. The p rogram is ad m inistered by ASQ. One cop y of the criteria, any
category, is available free of charge. Contact N IST: telep hone 301-975-2036; fax 301-
948-3716, e-m ail nqp@nist.gov, or Web site http://www.baldrige.nist.gov. Bu lk cop ies are
available from ASQ: telep hone 800-248-1946, fax 414-272-1734, e-m ail asq@asq.org, or
Web site http://www.asq.org. Call ASQ for p ricing. (The criteria changes yearly. The
version cited in this book is the 2006 criteria.)
4. ASQ. ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9000:2000, Quality Management Systems—Fundamentals and
Vocabulary, ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9001:2000, Quality Management Standards—Requirements,
and ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9004:2000, Quality Management Standards—Guidelines for
Performance Improvements. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ, 2000). Available from ASQ:
telep hone 800-248-1946, fax 414-272-1734, e-m ail asq@asq.org, or Web site
http://www.asq.org. Available in p rint form , for d ow nload ing (PDF), and in English and
Sp anish. Call ASQ for p ricing.
Additional Resources
Am erican N ational Stand ard s Institu te. ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9000:2000. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ
Qu ality Press, 2000). (The series consists of ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004.)
Ju ran, J. M., and A. B. God frey, ed s. Juran’s Quality Handbook (5th ed .). (N ew York:
McGraw -H ill, 1999).
N ational Institu te of Stand ard s and Technology. Baldrige National Quality Program: Criteria
for Performance Excellence. (Gaithersbu rg, MD: N IST, 2006).
N aval Lead er Training Unit. Introduction to Total Quality Leadership. (Washington, DC: U.S.
Dep artm ent of the N avy, 1997).
N avy Total Qu ality Lead ership Office. Handbook for Basic Process Improvement.
(Washington, DC: U.S. Dep artm ent of the N avy, 1996).
Westcott, Ru ssell T., ed . The Certified Manager of Quality/Organizational Excellence Handbook
(3rd ed .). (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2006).
Part I
Q u ality Basics (con t.)
Chapter 2 B. Benefits of Qu ality
C. Qu ality Philosophies
Quality is not the exclusive province of engineering, manufacturing, or, for

that matter, services, marketing, or administration. Quality is truly every-
one’s job.
John R. Opel (IBM )
Defects are not free. Somebody makes them, and gets paid for making them.
Everybody here has a customer. And if he doesn’t know who it is and what
constitutes the needs of the customer . . . then he does not understand his job.
Inspection with the aim of finding the bad ones and throwing them out is too
late, ineffective, and costly. Quality comes not from inspection but from im-
provement of the process.
People work in the system. Management creates the system.
A company cannot buy its way into quality—it must be led into quality by
top management.
W. Edwards Deming
15
Chapter 2
B. Ben efits of Q u ality
Understand how improved process,

product and/or service quality will benefit
any function, area of an organization, or
industry. Understand how each
stakeholder (e.g., employees, organization,
customers, suppliers, community) benefits
from quality and how the benefits may
differ for each type of stakeholder.
(Understand)
CQIA BoK 2006
H igh qu ality affects all of an organization’s stakehold ers. Em p loyees, the organi-
zation itself, cu stom ers, su p p liers, and the com m u nity benefit from strong qu ality
p erform ance.
EMPLOYEES
Qu ality benefits the em p loyees involved in p rod u cing high-qu ality p rod u cts and
services by enhancing their feeling of accom p lishm ent in know ing they have d one
their jobs to the best of their ability. It also strengthens the secu rity of their p osition
by ensu ring continu ed w ork to m eet the d em and s of satisfied cu stom ers. H igh-
qu ality p rod u cts and services som etim es d em and higher p rices, w hich can resu lt
in higher w ages. Well-d ocu m ented qu ality system s and p rocesses m ake the em -
p loyee’s job easier and less fru strating, red u ce errors, and allow em p loyees to grow
becau se they are given read y access to the inform ation they need to acqu ire the
16
Chapt er 2: B. Benef it s of Qual it y 17
skills and know led ge to su cceed . By p articip ating in the d evelop m ent of the orga-
nization’s p rocesses, em p loyees can see their exp erience, skills, and id eas being p u t
to u se for the benefit of everyone in the organization. Accu rate, com p lete d ocu -
m entation red u ces errors. And w ith instant access, d ocu m entation allow s u n-
p lanned p roblem s to be d ealt w ith qu ickly and safely. Well-inform ed em p loyees
have less risk of on-the-job inju ries. Em p loyees benefit from the p ositive organiza-
tional cu ltu re that exists in a high-qu ality organization. The rep u tation, p restige,
and im age of a high-qu ality organization m ake it easier to recru it new em p loyees
and p lay an im p ortant p art in em p loyee job satisfaction. Satisfied em p loyees are
less likely to w ant to m ove on to other organizations.
THE ORGANIZATION
Qu ality benefits the organization becau se it rep resents the p rod u ctive and p rof-
itable u se of the organization’s resou rces. Processes that generate high-qu ality
p rod u cts and services resu lt in low er costs from rep air, rew ork, and w arranty ac-
tions. H igh qu ality can lead to rep eat ord ers from cu rrent cu stom ers, and it often
enables an organization to w in an enhanced rep u tation and ad d itional ord ers in
the m arket.
When there is a lack of qu ality it can not only resu lt in losing the cu rrent ord er
bu t also d am age the su p p lier ’s rep u tation and resu lt in loss of fu tu re ord ers. It’s
w id ely believed that one d issatisfied cu stom er w ill tell at least 20 other p eop le how
p oor you r organization’s p rod u ct or service is, and the loss of fu tu re ord ers cou ld
be su bstantial. The lack of a qu ality system can create the need for extensive re-
w ork, rep air, and w arranty actions. These actions ad d extra costs and d elays and
red u ce the p rod u ctivity of the system . When com p onents are scrap p ed or services
have to be rep eated , it is not only the tim e and m aterial cost that is lost bu t also the
cost of all the w ork d one on the p rod u ct or service (the ad d ed valu e) u p to the p oint
at w hich it is scrap p ed . Poor qu ality costs m oney. Good qu ality m ay cost m oney,
too, bu t in m ost cases the costs of p oor qu ality exceed those of good qu ality.
Accord ing to a su rvey sp onsored by the Au tom otive Ind u stry Action Grou p
(AIAG) and the ASQ Au tom otive Division, “Com p anies certified to QS 9000, the
p ast au tom otive ind u stry version of ISO 9000, estim ated their average certification
cost at $118,100 p er site, w hile they estim ated their benefit w as $304,300 p er site.” 1
Good qu ality can be a very p ow erfu l m arketing tool. Recognition by third -
p arty sou rces can enhance an organization’s ability to m arket its p rod u cts and
services in w ays that com p etitors can’t. H ere’s an exam p le from a recent au tom o-
tive ad vertisem ent:
Over the past few years, Buick has steadily and quietly been improving its
vehicles to where last year it received the highest ranking among domestic
manufacturers for quality from JD Power and Associates. Buick’s Regal, which
comes in either the LS or more elaborate GS trim, has benefited from this move
to quality, which begins with the versatile 3.8 liter V-6 fuel-injection workhorse
engine that powers several models.
A high-qu ality organization can focu s on continu ou s im p rovem ent—assessing
w hat’s hap p ening in the organization and p reventing bad p rod u ct and service
qu ality—rather than ju st reacting to p roblem s and cases of cu stom er d issatisfac-
tion. This p roactive style of m anagem ent w ill resu lt in a m u ch m ore p rofitable
organization than a style that only reacts to p roblem s. It greatly increases the p rob-
ability of the organization’s su rvival.
CUSTOMERS
Cu stom er satisfaction has been d efined as meeting or exceeding the customers’ re-
quirements for product and service features, price, timeliness, and performance. Qu ality
benefits the cu stom er by increasing cu stom er satisfaction. Few er d efects m ean that
the cu stom er w ill be m ore satisfied . H igher service qu ality w ill also m ake the cu s-
tom er ’s exp erience m u ch m ore p leasant.
Cu stom ers d ealing w ith an organization that has a strong qu ality p rogram w ill
have few er com p laints becau se they are being su p p lied a p rod u ct or service from
better-trained staff follow ing clearer p rocesses and thu s m aking few er errors. As
the organization p rogressively red u ces the tim e it is forced to d evote to correcting
m istakes, it can tu rn to stream lining its p rocesses to m ake them m ore cost-effective
and m ore cu stom er-friend ly. Cu stom ers w ill tru st the organization m ore becau se
they know that it takes qu ality seriou sly and gives a better level of service.
Every organization has cu stom ers. Qu ality organizations d ifferentiate them -
selves from their com p etitors by p rovid ing their cu stom ers w ith high levels of p er-
sonalized cu stom er service. It’s easier and m u ch less costly to retain cu rrent
satisfied cu stom ers than to d evelop new ones.
Thou gh increased sales and grow ing p rofits are generally seen as an accu rate
m easu rem ent of su ccess, cu stom er retention m ay be the m ost im p ortant m easu re-
m ent of all. H igh-qu ality organizations bu ild long-term cu stom er relationship s.
Evid ence has show n that it u su ally costs m ore to obtain a new cu stom er than to re-
tain an existing cu stom er.
A nu m ber of organizations, both p u blic and p rivate, m easu re cu stom er satis-
faction. One of the m ost p rom inent m easu res is the Am erican Cu stom er Satisfac-
tion Ind ex (ACSI), a national econom ic ind icator of cu stom er satisfaction w ith the
qu ality of good s and services available to consu m ers in the United States. The in-
d ex is p rod u ced throu gh a p artnership of w hich the Am erican Society for Qu ality
is a m em ber. The resu lts of the su rveys are p osted on the ACSI Web site http://
www.theacsi.org.
SUPPLIERS
Qu ality organizations w ork closely w ith their su p p liers and share inform ation to
ensu re that the su p p liers fu lly u nd erstand the organization’s requ irem ents and
that the organization know s the cap abilities of their su p p liers. Su p p liers’ sales,
m arketing, and service p ersonnel know w hat the organization need s and can com -
m u nicate w ith the ap p rop riate p ersonnel at their cu stom ers’ facilities to resolve
p otential p roblem s before they becom e seriou s concerns.
Su p p liers benefit from w orking w ith qu ality organizations becau se of the close
p artnership s that the organizations and the su p p liers establish to accom p lish their
m u tu al goals. Good su p p lier–organization p artnership s tend to have a com m on
set of characteristics, inclu d ing:
• Red u ced cost of insp ections
• Less-frequ ent cu stom er au d its
Chapt er 2: B. Benef it s of Qual it y 19
• Op en sharing of organization and su p p lier qu ality inform ation

• Frequ ent visits to both the organization’s and the su p p lier ’s facilities to
ensu re m u tu al u nd erstand ing of each p arty’s relative resp onsibilities
• Su p p lier ship m ents of m aterials d irectly to the organization’s p rod u ction
line for im m ed iate u se
• Decreased exp enses from cost sharing
• Red u ced risk to the organization becau se of its ability to u se the su p p lier ’s
know led ge and skills to im p rove its p rod u ct or service
THE COMMUNITY
The ind ivid u al com m u nities in w hich high-qu ality organizations op erate share in
the benefits ju st m entioned . Su ccessful em ployees, organizations, and su p pliers are
taxpayers. They contribu te to the com m unity by stabilizing the econom y. Think of
the m any com m u nities and regions that have been d evastated by the failu re of or-
ganizations and ind u stries. The quality, p rod u ctivity, and com p etitiveness of high-
qu ality organizations d irectly affect the viability of the com m u nities they occu p y.
Com m u nities are very aw are of the benefits of having high-qu ality organiza-
tions. Many state and local governm ent ju risd ictions p rovid e incentives, inclu d ing
training and consu lting, for organizations to fu lly d evelop their p otential and to
assist em p loyees in gaining the necessary training and skills to w ork in the highly
com p etitive environm ent of tod ay’s econom y.
QUALITY BENEFITSTO SOCIETY AS A WHOLE

Everyone can help m ake com m u nities better p laces in w hich to live and w ork. The
p rocess of im p rovem ent requ ires p roactive p articip ation by all m em bers of the
com m u nity: technical societies, neighborhood associations, governm ent agencies,
religiou s organizations, ed u cational institu tions, corp orations, and bu sinesses.
In m any locations, com m u nity qu ality cou ncils p rovid e a foru m for im p roving
the qu ality of life in com m u nities and regions throu gh the u se of total qu ality m an-
agem ent (TQM) p rincip les. TQM p rincip les are a m ajor step forw ard in m anu fac-
tu ring organizations and , m ore recently, in service ind u stries. The next step
involves society itself. Ap p lying im p rovem ent p rincip les to a com m u nity is a
lead ing-ed ge concep t in the qu ality m ovem ent.
Qu ality brings other factors into p lay, su ch as vision, lead ership , and lifelong
learning. It is im p ortant becau se it gives p eop le the op p ortu nity to coop erate and
gives their enterp rises the m eans to strive for excellence. The essential ingred ient
for com m u nity im p rovem ent is a netw ork of civic and governm ent entities focu sed
on qu ality and im p rovem ent p rincip les. The benefit of p rop agating qu ality and im -
p rovem ent techniqu es and p rincip les throu gh a com m u nity qu ality cou ncil is that
su ccess d oes not cost the citizens their jobs—tru ly a w in-w in situ ation.
Su ccessfu l exp eriences in life are alm ost alw ays the resu lt of carefu l p lanning
and thorou gh p rep aration. Peop le are u sing qu ality p rincip les in their com m u ni-
ties, p rovid ing a p ragm atic, holistic ap p roach to m aking fu nd am ental im p rove-
m ents in the w ay com m u nity p roblem s are ad d ressed . Their exp eriences are
lessons that can be shared for the benefit of all.
Many state and local governm ents also sp onsor qu ality aw ard s, u su ally based
on the Bald rige N ational Qu ality Program criteria, to encou rage organizations to
ad vance the level of the qu ality m anagem ent p rocesses in their resp ective
com m u nities.
C. Q u ality Ph ilosop h ies
Understand each of these philosophies

and how they differ from one another.
(Remember)
CQIA BoK 2006
Philosophy is d efined in Webster ’s Dictionary as “a critical exam ination of the

grou nd s for fu nd am ental beliefs.” A quality philosophy has been d efined as “a sys-
tem of fu nd am ental or m otivating p rincip les that form a basis for action or belief.”
A qu ality p hilosop hy shou ld reflect how an organization acts in its d ay-to-d ay
bu siness op erations. It shou ld reflect the organization’s id eas, valu es, p rincip les,
attitu d es, and beliefs. The organization’s qu ality p hilosop hy sets the cu ltu ral back-
grou nd in w hich the organization op erates. The p hilosop hy shou ld focu s on im -
p roving the organization and help ing it grow to m eet its fu ll p otential.
A qu ality p hilosop hy w ill be the backgrou nd for d evelop ing the organization’s
m ission, goals, objectives, and strategic p lans and w ill assist the organization’s em -
p loyees in u nd erstand ing w hat is exp ected of them . With these d ocu m ents, em -
p loyees can w ork in an environm ent w ith gu id elines for u nd erstand ing and
resp ond ing to d ay-to-d ay variables in their w ork exp eriences.
A p hilosop hy w ith a strong focu s on qu ality requ ires m anagers to d evelop
w ell-d efined m anagem ent system s w ith an em p hasis on p rocess m anagem ent. In
d evelop ing a qu ality p hilosop hy, m anagers need to focu s on:
• What their cu stom ers consid er the m ost im p ortant qu ality characteristics
of the organization’s p rod u cts and services
• What their cu stom ers’, other stakehold ers’, and society’s need s and
exp ectations are
• What ethical p rincip les shou ld govern how the organization op erates
• H ow the qu ality p hilosop hy affects the overall op eration of the
organization’s other m anagem ent system s (financial, health and safety,
environm ental, and so on)
• What statu tory, regu latory, and technical sp ecification requ irem ents affect
the organization’s op erations
Chapt er 2: C. Qual it y Phil osophies 21
• Which of the cu rrently available qu ality tools shou ld be u sed in

d evelop ing and su p p orting the organization’s qu ality m anagem ent system
The p rincip les for m od ern qu ality m anagem ent have evolved over the p ast 50
years based on the w ork of a nu m ber of exp erts w ho are som etim es referred to as
“qu ality gu ru s.” These exp erts have d evelop ed a nu m ber of theories and p rinci-
p les that assist organizations in d evelop ing their ow n qu ality p hilosop hies.
The follow ing is an encap su lated review of the w ork of three p rom inent qu al-
ity gu ru s: Dr. W. Ed w ard s Dem ing, Dr. Josep h M. Ju ran, and Philip B. Crosby. Brief
inform ation is also p rovid ed on several other qu ality gu ru s w ho have influ enced
the p ractice of qu ality in recent tim es.
1. DR. W. EDWARDS DEMING

William Ed w ard s Dem ing w as born on October 14, 1900, in Siou x City, Iow a. H is
fam ily then m oved to several other locations, end ing u p in Pow ell, Wyom ing.
Dem ing attend ed the University of Wyom ing, earning a bachelor ’s d egree in engi-
neering in 1921. H e w ent on to receive a m aster ’s d egree in m athem atics and
p hysics from the University of Colorad o in 1925, and he earned a d octorate in
p hysics from Yale University in 1928. Du ring the su m m ers of 1925 and 1926, he
w orked for the Western Electric Com p any’s H aw thorne p lant in Chicago. It w as at
H aw thorne that he m et Walter A. Shew hart and becam e interested in Shew hart’s
w ork to stand ard ize the p rod u ction of telep hone equ ip m ent. After receiving his
PhD, Dem ing w ent to w ork for the U.S. governm ent. H e ap p lied Shew hart’s con-
cep ts to his w ork at the N ational Bu reau of the Censu s. Rou tine clerical op erations
w ere brou ght u nd er statistical p rocess control in p rep aration for the 1940 p op u la-
tion censu s. This led to sixfold p rod u ctivity im p rovem ents in som e p rocesses. As
a resu lt, Dem ing started to ru n statistical cou rses to exp lain his and Shew hart’s
m ethod s to engineers, d esigners, and others in the United States and Canad a.
In 1938, he p u blished a technical book 2 and tau ght cou rses on the u se of his sta-
tistical m ethod s. The beneficial effects of Dem ing’s p rogram s, su ch as red u ctions
in scrap and rew ork, w ere seen d u ring World War II. H ow ever, his techniqu es w ere
generally aband oned after the w ar as em p hasis shifted to p rod u cing qu antities of
consu m er good s to alleviate the shortages that had been exp erienced d u ring
w artim e.
After World War II, Dem ing w as invited to Jap an as an ad visor to the Jap anese
censu s. H e becam e involved w ith the Jap anese Union of Scientists and Engineers
(JUSE) after its form ation in 1946. As a resu lt, Dem ing’s nam e becam e know n and
JUSE invited him to lectu re to the Jap anese on statistical m ethod s. In the early
1950s he lectu red to engineers and senior m anagers, inclu d ing in his lectu res id eas
now regard ed as p art of m od ern qu ality p rincip les. In 1956, Dem ing w as aw ard ed
the Shew hart m ed al by the Am erican Society for Qu ality. Fou r years later,
Dem ing’s teachings w ere w id ely know n in Jap an, and the em p eror aw ard ed him
the Second Ord er of the Sacred Treasu re.
In the late 1970s, Dem ing started to w ork w ith m ajor Am erican organizations.
H ow ever, his w ork w as relatively u nknow n in the United States u ntil Ju ne 1980,
w hen N BC aired a d ocu m entary entitled “If Jap an Can, Why Can’t We?” Follow -
ing this exp osu re, he becam e w ell know n and highly regard ed in the qu ality com -
m u nity. Dem ing’s first p op u lar book, Out of the Crisis, w as p u blished in 1986. The
follow ing year, he w as aw ard ed the N ational Med al of Technology in Am erica.

Dr. Dem ing d ied in 1993 at the age of 93.
Deming’s Philosophies
Dem ing’s teachings reflected his statistical backgrou nd . H e encou raged m anagers
to focu s on variability and to u nd erstand the d ifference betw een sp ecial cau ses and
com m on cau ses.
Dem ing’s w ritings, teachings, and w ork also extend ed beyond statistical
m ethod s. H e encou raged organizations to ad op t a system atic ap p roach to p roblem
solving, w hich later becam e know n as the Dem ing cycle, or the Plan—Do—
Stu d y—Act (PDSA) cycle. H e also p u shed senior m anagers to becom e actively in-
volved in their com p anies’ qu ality im p rovem ent p rogram s. Work d one by Dem ing
and his follow ers in the United States and elsew here has attem p ted to m ake m ajor
changes in the style of Western m anagem ent.
Dr. Dem ing tau ght that m anagem ent shou ld have a fu ll u nd erstand ing of his
p hilosop hies in ord er to achieve su stainable p rogress in an organization. H e con-
stantly im p roved and refined his id eas, and he also u sed the id eas of others. H e is
consid ered by m any to be the father of the m od ern qu ality revolu tion.
In his land m ark 1986 book Out of the Crisis, Dr. Dem ing d elineated a “chain re-
action” p hilosop hy: im p rove qu ality → d ecrease costs → im p rove p rod u ctivity →
increase m arket share w ith better qu ality, low er p rice → stay in bu siness →
p rovid e m ore jobs. In the book, he d iscu ssed m anagem ent’s failu res in p lanning for
the fu tu re and foreseeing p roblem s. These shortcom ings create w aste of resou rces,
w hich in tu rn increases costs and u ltim ately affects the p rices to cu stom ers. When
cu stom ers d o not accep t p aying for su ch w aste, they go elsew here, resu lting in loss
of m arket for the su p p lier. See Figu re 2.1.
In the introd u ction to Out of the Crisis, Dem ing w rote abou t the need for an en-
tirely new stru ctu re, from the fou nd ation u p w ard , to achieve the need ed transfor-
m ation and rep lace the typ ical Am erican reconstru ction or revision ap p roach. H e
p rop osed a new stru ctu re in his renow ned 14 p oints of m anagem ent. The 14 p oints
inclu d e creating a constant p u rp ose for the organization, elim inating reliance on
insp ection, constantly im p roving system s, increasing training, and institu ting
lead ership . The com p lete text of the 14 p oints is available on the Massachu setts In-
stitu te of Technology Center for Ad vanced Ed u cation Services Web site at
http://caes.mit.edu/deming/14-points.html.
In Out of the Crisis, Dem ing also d iscu ssed the seven “d ead ly d iseases,” w hich
inclu d e lack of constancy of p u rp ose, focu s on short-term p rofits, m anagem ent that
is too m obile, and excessive m ed ical and legal costs.
Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge

In 1993, in his final book, The New Economics for Industry, Government, and Educa-
tion, Dem ing ou tlined his system of profound knowledge. This is the know led ge
need ed for transform ation from the p resent style of m anagem ent to one of op ti-
m ization. Dem ing’s system of p rofou nd know led ge inclu d es m anagem ent’s need
to u nd erstand system s, to have know led ge of statistical theory and variation, to
p lan based on p ast exp erience, and to have an u nd erstand ing of p sychology.
The Deming Chain Reaction
Adapted from Out Of The Crisis,

W. Edwards Deming. Cambridge,
MA: MIT, Center for Advanced Return-On-
Engineering Study, 1986. Investment
Provide Jobs &

More Jobs
Stay In
Business
Increase
Market
Decrease
Prices
With each improvement,
processes and systems run
Improve better and better.
Productivity Productivity increases as
waste goes down.
Customers get better
Decrease
products, which ultimately
Costs
increases market share
leading to better return-on-
Improve investment.
Quality
Figur e 2.1 Deming’s “Chain Reaction.”

Adapted from Out Of The Crisis, W. Edwards Deming. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Center for Advanced Engineering
Study, 1986.
2. DR. JOSEPH M. JURAN

Josep h Moses Ju ran w as born to a poor fam ily in Braila, Rom ania, in Decem ber
1904. Five years later his father Jakob left Rom ania for Am erica. By 1912, he had
earned enou gh m oney to bring the rest of the fam ily to join him in Minnesota. The
you nger Ju ran d id w ell in school and show ed a high level of p roficiency in m ath
and science; in fact, he d id so w ell that he w as able to skip the equ ivalent of four
grad e levels. In 1920, he enrolled at the University of Minnesota, the first m em ber
of his fam ily to p u rsu e higher ed u cation. By 1925, he had received a BS in electrical
engineering and began w orking w ith Western Electric in the insp ection d ep art-
m ent of the fam ou s H aw thorne Works in Chicago. In 1926, he w as selected from a
grou p of 20 trainees to becom e one of tw o engineers for the Insp ection Statistical
Dep artm ent, one of the first su ch d ivisions created in Am erican ind u stry. By 1937,
Ju ran w as the chief of ind u strial engineering at Western Electric’s hom e office in
N ew York. Du ring World War II, Ju ran received a tem p orary leave of absence from
Western Electric to assist the U.S. governm ent w ith the w ar effort. Du ring that
tim e, he served in Washington, D.C., as an assistant ad m inistrator for the Office of
Lend -Lease Ad m inistration. H e and his team im p roved the efficiency of the
p rocess, elim inating excessive p ap erw ork and thu s hastening the arrival of su p -
p lies to the United States’ overseas friend s. Ju ran d id not retu rn to Western Elec-
tric. Rather, he chose to d evote the rem aind er of his life to the stu d y of qu ality
m anagem ent. As early as 1928, Ju ran had w ritten a p am p hlet entitled “Statistical
Method s Ap p lied to Manu factu ring Problem s.” By the end of the w ar, he w as a
w ell-know n and highly regard ed statistician and ind u strial engineering theorist.
After he left Western Electric, Ju ran becam e the chairm an of the Dep artm ent of Ad -
m inistrative Engineering at N ew York University, w here he tau ght for m any years.
In 1951, the first Juran Quality Control Handbook w as p u blished and led him to in-
ternational em inence. Still a classic stand ard reference w ork for qu ality m anagers,
it is now in its fifth ed ition.
The Jap anese Union of Scientists and Engineers invited Ju ran to com e to Jap an
to teach them the p rincip les of qu ality m anagem ent as they rebu ilt their econom y
after World War II. H e arrived in 1954 and cond u cted sem inars for top and m id d le-
level execu tives. H is lectu res had a strong m anagerial flavor and focu sed on p lan-
ning, organizational issu es, m anagem ent’s resp onsibility for qu ality, and the need
to set goals and targets for im p rovem ent. H e em p hasized that qu ality control
shou ld be cond u cted as an integral p art of m anagem ent control. In 1979, Ju ran
fou nd ed the Ju ran Institu te to better facilitate broad er exp osu re of his id eas. The
Ju ran Institu te is tod ay one of the lead ing qu ality m anagem ent consu ltancies in the
w orld . In 1981, Ju ran received the Second Ord er of the Sacred Treasu re aw ard from
Em p eror H irohito for “the d evelop m ent of qu ality control in Jap an and the facili-
tation of U.S. and Jap anese friend ship .”
H is 12 books have collectively been translated into 13 langu ages. H e has re-
ceived m ore than 30 m ed als, honorary fellow ship s, and aw ard s from 12 d ifferent
cou ntries. Dr. Ju ran, w ho continu ed w orking to p rom ote qu ality m anagem ent into
his 90s, is now sem iretired .
Juran’s Philosophies
Ju ran teaches a p roject-by-p roject, p roblem -solving, team m ethod of qu ality im -
p rovem ent in w hich u p p er m anagem ent m u st be involved . H e believes that qu al-
ity d oes not hap p en by accid ent; it m u st be p lanned . And he asserts that qu ality
im p rovem ents com e from a p roject-by-p roject ap p roach.
Ju ran’s book Planning for Quality is p erhap s the d efinitive gu id e to Ju ran’s cu r-
rent thou ghts and his stru ctu red ap p roach to com p anyw id e qu ality p lanning.
Ju ran teaches that qu ality p lanning is the first step in a three-level ap p roach to
qu ality m anagem ent w ithin the organization. Along w ith p lanning com es qu ality
control, w hich involves assessing qu ality p erform ance, com p aring p erform ance
w ith established goals, and closing the gap betw een actu al p erform ance and stated
goals. Ju ran sees the third level—qu ality im p rovem ent—as an ongoing and con-
tinu al p rocess that inclu d es the establishm ent of the organizational infrastru ctu re
necessary to m ake cyclical qu ality im p rovem ents. H e recom m end s u sing team s
and p roject-by-p roject activities to m aintain a continu al effort tow ard both incre-
m ental and breakthrou gh im p rovem ent. Ju ran sees qu ality p lanning as p art of the
quality trilogy of qu ality p lanning, qu ality control, and qu ality im p rovem ent.
H is key p oints in im p lem enting organization-w id e qu ality p lanning inclu d e
id entifying cu stom ers and their need s; establishing op tim al qu ality goals; creating
m easu rem ents of qu ality; p lanning p rocesses cap able of m eeting qu ality goals u n-
d er op erating cond itions; and p rod u cing continu ing resu lts in im p roved m arket
share, p rem iu m p rices, and red u ction of error rates in an office or factory.
Ju ran’s m ore recent w ork involves creating an aw areness of the qu ality crisis,
establishing a new ap p roach to qu ality p lanning, training, assisting com p anies to
rep lan existing p rocesses to avoid qu ality d eficiencies, and establishing m astery
w ithin com p anies over the qu ality p lanning p rocess, thu s avoid ing the creation of
new chronic p roblem s. In the fifth ed ition of Juran’s Quality Handbook, the contrast
betw een the concep ts of “Big Q” and “little q” is d isp layed in a table: “little q”
view s qu ality as a technological m atter, w hereas “Big Q” relates to qu ality as a
bu siness concern.3
Dr. Ju ran believes that the m ajority of qu ality p roblem s are the fau lt of p oor
m anagem ent rather than p oor w orkm anship on the shop floor. In general, he be-
lieves that m anagem ent-controllable d efects accou nt for over 80 p ercent of all qu al-
ity p roblem s.
H e w as the first to incorp orate the hu m an asp ect of qu ality m anagem ent,
w hich is now em braced w ithin the concep t of total qu ality m anagem ent. Ju ran’s
p rocess of d evelop ing his id eas w as grad u al. Top m anagem ent involvem ent, the
need for w id esp read training in qu ality, the d efinition of qu ality as fitness for u se,
the p roject-by-p roject ap p roach to qu ality im p rovem ent, the d istinction betw een
the “vital few ” and the “u sefu l m any,” and the trilogy (qu ality p lanning, qu ality
control, and qu ality im p rovem ent)—these are the id eas for w hich Ju ran is best
know n.
3. PHILIP B. CROSBY
Philip B. Crosby w as born in Wheeling, West Virginia, on Ju ne 18, 1926. H e served
tw o tou rs in the U.S. N avy, sep arated by attend ance at Western Reserve University.
H e w orked as a technician in the qu ality d ep artm ent for the Crosley Corp ora-
tion from 1952 to 1955. H e then m oved to the Martin-Marietta facility in
Mishaw aka, Ind iana, w here he w as a reliability engineer on a governm ent m issile
p rogram . Later Crosby m oved to the Martin-Marietta facility in Orland o, Florid a,
as a qu ality m anager. Du ring his tim e at the Orland o facility, he created the “zero
d efects” concep t. In 1965, he began w orking for ITT. Du ring his 14 years as corp o-
rate vice p resid ent for ITT, he w orked w ith m any ITT su bsid iary m anu factu ring
and service d ivisions arou nd the w orld , im p lem enting his p hilosop hy.
In 1979, he fou nd ed Philip Crosby Associates (PCA). PCA tau ght m anagem ent
cou rses on how to establish a qu ality im p rovem ent cu ltu re. Large corp orations
su ch as GM, Chrysler, Motorola, Xerox, and m any other organizations w orld w id e
cam e to PCA to u nd erstand qu ality m anagem ent. The cou rses w ere tau ght in m any
langu ages in locations arou nd the w orld .
Mr. Crosby’s first book, Quality Is Free, sold over 2 m illion cop ies and has been
translated into 15 langu ages. Many organizations arou nd the w orld began their
qu ality im p rovem ent activities becau se of the p op u larity of Quality Is Free and be-
cau se of Crosby’s rep u tation for clear and to-the-p oint ad vice. Mu ch of Quality Is
Free is d evoted to the concep t of zero d efects, w hich is a w ay of exp laining to em -
p loyees the id ea that everything shou ld be d one right the first tim e, that there
shou ld be no failu res or d efects in w ork ou tp u ts.
Crosby left PCA in 1991 and fou nd ed Career IV. In 1997, he p u rchased PCA
and established Philip Crosby Associates II, a consu ltancy that now op erates in
over 20 cou ntries arou nd the w orld .
H e p u blished his second best seller, Quality Without Tears, in 1984, and he is
also the au thor of The Art of Getting Your Own Sweet Way. More recently, he has p u b-
lished a grou p of three m anagem ent books: Running Things, The Eternally Success-
ful Organization, and Leading: The Art of Becoming an Executive.
Philip B. Crosby d ied in Au gu st 2001.
Crosby’s Philosophies
Accord ing to Crosby, qu ality is conform ance to requ irem ents, and it can only be
m easu red by the p rice of nonconform ance. This ap p roach m eans that the only
stand ard of p erform ance is zero d efects.
Cost of quality refers to all costs involved in the p revention of d efects, assess-
m ent of p rocess p erform ance, and m easu rem ent of financial consequ ences. Man-
agem ent can u se cost of qu ality to d ocu m ent variations against exp ectations and
to m easu re efficiency and p rod u ctivity. Crosby believed that tracking cost of qu al-
ity takes the bu siness of qu ality ou t of the abstract and brings it sharp ly into focu s
as cold hard cash.
Crosby claim ed that all nonconform ances are cau sed —they d on’t ap p ear
w ithou t reason. Anything that is cau sed can be p revented . Therefore, organiza-
tions shou ld ad op t a qu ality “vaccine” to p revent nonconform ance and save
m oney. The three ingred ients of the vaccine are d eterm ination, ed u cation, and
im p lem entation.
The Points, or Steps to Quality Improvement

The p oints that Crosby consid ered essential involve the follow ing id eas:4
• Managem ent com m itm ent
• Ed u cation and training
• Measu rem ents
• Cost of qu ality
• Qu ality aw areness
• Corrective action
• Zero d efects
• Goal setting
• Recognition
Crosby’s p oints offer a w ay to im p lem ent the qu ality im p rovem ent p rocess in an
organization. They are m anagem ent tools that evolved from a conviction that an
organization’s qu ality im p rovem ent p olicy shou ld be d efined , u nd erstood , and
com m u nicated in a p ractical m anner to every m em ber of the organization.
Crosby’s p ercep tion of a continu ing su ccessfu l organization em braces the
id eas that everyone in the organization rou tinely p erform s their tasks right the first
tim e, that the organization continu es to grow and p rosp er, that new offerings to
cu stom ers are created as need ed , that change is view ed as an op p ortu nity, and that
the p eop le in the organization enjoy w orking there.
The Four Absolutes of Quality Management

Crosby articu lated fou r absolu tes of qu ality m anagem ent as the basic concep ts of
a qu ality im p rovem ent p rocess. The essence of these absolu tes is contained in the
follow ing statem ents:
1. Conform ance to requ irem ents is the only d efinition of qu ality
2. What cau ses qu ality is p revention, not ap p raisal
3. Zero d efects is the only accep table p erform ance stand ard
4. The p rice of nonconform ance is how qu ality shou ld be m easu red
Crosby is best know n for his concep ts of do it right the first time and zero defects. H e
consid ered trad itional qu ality control, accep table qu ality lim its, and w aivers of
su bstand ard p rod u cts to rep resent failu re rather than assu rance of su ccess. H e be-
lieved that becau se m any organizations have p olicies and system s that allow d e-
viation from w hat is actu ally requ ired , the organizations lose vast am ou nts of
revenu e by d oing things w rong and then d oing them over again. H e estim ated the
loss to be 20 p ercent of revenu es for m anu factu ring com p anies and u p to 35 p er-
cent of revenu es for service organizations.
DR. ARMAND V. FEIGENBAUM

Arm and V. Feigenbau m w as born in N ew York City in 1920. H e attend ed Union
College and Massachu setts Institu te of Technology (MIT), grad u ating in 1951 w ith
a PhD in engineering. The first ed ition of his book Total Quality Control w as com -
p leted w hile he w as still a d octoral stu d ent at MIT. Total Quality Control has been
p u blished in m ore than a score of langu ages, inclu d ing French, Jap anese, Chinese,
Sp anish, and Ru ssian, and is w id ely u sed throu ghou t the w orld as a fou nd ation for
qu ality control p ractice. A 40th anniversary ed ition w as p u blished in 1991.
Feigenbau m w orked for the General Electric Com p any from 1942 u ntil 1968.
H e w as w orld w id e d irector of m anu factu ring op erations and qu ality control at
General Electric from 1958 to 1968, w hen he left to fou nd General System s Com -
p any w ith his brother Donald .
Feigenbau m w as elected to the N ational Acad em y of Engineering of the
United States in 1992. The citation p resented at his election read , “For d evelop ing
concep ts of ‘total qu ality control,’ and for contribu tions to ‘cost of qu ality’ and
qu ality system s engineering and p ractice.”
H e w as the fou nd ing chairm an of the International Acad em y for Qu ality and
is a p ast p resid ent of the Am erican Society for Qu ality, w hich p resented him w ith
the Ed w ard s Med al and the Lancaster Aw ard for his international contribu tion to
qu ality and p rod u ctivity. In 1988, the U.S. secretary of com m erce ap p ointed
Feigenbau m to the first Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Bald rige N ational Qu al-
ity Aw ard Program .
Feigenbau m is consid ered by m any to be the originator of total qu ality control.
H e argu ed for a system atic or total ap p roach to qu ality, requ iring the involvem ent
of all fu nctions, not ju st m anu factu ring, in the qu ality p rocess. The id ea w as to
bu ild in qu ality at an early stage rather than insp ecting and controlling qu ality af-
ter the fact.
Feigenbaum’s Philosophies
In his teachings, Feigenbau m strove to m ove aw ay from the then p rim ary concern
w ith technical m ethod s of qu ality control to qu ality control as a bu siness m ethod .
H e em p hasized the ad m inistrative view p oint and consid ered hu m an relations to
be a basic issu e in qu ality control activities. Ind ivid u al m ethod s, su ch as statistics
and p reventive m aintenance, are seen only as segm ents of a com p rehensive qu al-
ity control p rogram . H e d efined qu ality control as “an effective system for coord i-
nating the qu ality m aintenance and qu ality im p rovem ent efforts of the variou s
grou p s in an organization so as to enable p rod u ction at the m ost econom ical levels
w hich allow for fu ll cu stom er satisfaction.”
H e stated that qu ality d oes not m ean “best” bu t “best for the cu stom er u se and
selling p rice.” The w ord control in the term quality control rep resents a m anagem ent
tool that inclu d es setting qu ality stand ard s, ap p raising conform ance to the stan-
d ard s, acting w hen stand ard s are violated , and p lanning for im p rovem ents in the
stand ard s.
Dr. Feigenbau m em p hasized in his w ork that total qu ality p rogram s are the
single m ost p ow erfu l tool for organizations and com p anies tod ay. For qu ality p ro-
gram s to w ork, organizational m anagem ent m u st assu m e the resp onsibility of
m aking the lead ership com m itm ent and contribu tions that are essential to the
grow th of their resp ective organizations.
DR. KAORU ISHIKAWA

Kaoru Ishikaw a w as born in 1915 and grad u ated in 1939 from the Engineering De-
p artm ent of Tokyo University, having m ajored in ap p lied chem istry. In 1947, he
w as m ad e an assistant p rofessor at the u niversity. H e obtained his d octorate of en-
gineering and w as p rom oted to p rofessor in 1960. H e has been aw ard ed the
Dem ing Prize and the N ihon Keizai Press Prize, the Ind u strial Stand ard ization
Prize for his w ritings on qu ality control, and the Grant Med al from the Am erican
Society for Qu ality Control in 1971 for his ed u cation p rogram on qu ality control.
H e d ied in Ap ril 1989.
Ishikaw a is best know n as a p ioneer of the “qu ality circle” m ovem ent in Jap an
in the early 1960s. In a sp eech at a convention to m ark the 1000th qu ality circle in
Jap an in 1981, he d escribed how his w ork took him in this d irection: “I first con-
sid ered how best to get grassroots w orkers to u nd erstand and p ractice qu ality con-
trol. The id ea w as to ed u cate all p eop le w orking at factories throu ghou t the
cou ntry bu t this w as asking too m u ch. Therefore I thou ght of ed u cating factory
forem en or on-the-sp ot lead ers in the first p lace.”
In 1968, Ishikaw a p rod u ced a nontechnical qu ality analysis textbook for qu al-
ity circle m em bers. The book, Guide to Quality Control, w as su bsequ ently translated
into English in 1971, w ith a second ed ition p u blished by the Asian Prod u ctivity Or-
ganization in 1986. H e su bsequ ently p u blished What Is Total Quality Control? The
Japanese Way, w hich w as again translated into English (Prentice H all, 1985).
Ishikawa’s Philosophies
In his teachings, Ishikaw a em p hasized good d ata collection and p resentation. H e
is best know n for his p rom otion of the u se of qu ality tools su ch as the Pareto d ia-
gram to p rioritize qu ality im p rovem ents and the cau se-and -effect (Ishikaw a or
fishbone) d iagram .
Ishikaw a saw the cau se-and -effect d iagram , like other tools, as a d evice to as-
sist grou p s or qu ality circles in qu ality im p rovem ent. As su ch, he em p hasized op en
grou p com m u nication as critical to the constru ction of the d iagram s. These
Ishikaw a d iagram s are u sefu l as system atic tools for find ing, sorting ou t, and d oc-
u m enting the cau ses of variation of qu ality in p rod u ction and for organizing m u -
tu al relationship s betw een them .
Dr. Ishikaw a is associated w ith the com p anyw id e qu ality control m ovem ent
that started in Jap an in the years 1955 to 1960, follow ing the visits of Dem ing and
Ju ran. Und er this system , qu ality control in Jap an w as characterized by com p any-
w id e p articip ation, from top m anagem ent to low er-ranking em p loyees. Qu ality
con trol con cep ts and m ethod s w ere u sed for p roblem solving in th e p rod u ction
p rocess, for in com in g m aterial con trol and new p rod u ct d esign con trol, for
analysis to h elp top m an agem en t d ecid e p olicy and verify that p olicy w as being
carried ou t, an d for solving p roblem s in sales, p erson nel, labor m anagem ent, and
clerical d ep artm ents. Qu ality au d its, intern al as w ell as external, form ed p art of
th is activity.
DR. GENICHI TAGUCHI

Dr. Genichi Tagu chi w as born in 1924. After service in the Astronom ical Dep art-
m ent of the N avigation Institu te of the Im p erial Jap anese N avy in 1942 to 1945, he
w orked in the Ministry of Pu blic H ealth and Welfare and the Institu te of Statistical
Mathem atics, Ministry of Ed u cation. H e learned m u ch abou t exp erim ental d esign
techniqu es from the p rize-w inning Jap anese statistician Matosabu ro Masu yam a,
w hom he m et w hile w orking at the Ministry of Pu blic H ealth and Welfare. This
also led to his early involvem ent as a consu ltant to Morinaga Pharm aceu ticals and
its p arent com p any, Morinaga Seika.
In 1950, Tagu chi joined the new ly fou nd ed Electrical Com m u nications Labo-
ratory of the N ip p on Telep hone and Telegrap h Com p any. H e stayed for m ore than
12 years, d u ring w hich he began to d evelop his m ethod s. While w orking at the
Electrical Com m u nications Laboratory, he consu lted w id ely in Jap anese ind u stry.
As a resu lt, Jap anese com p anies, inclu d ing Toyota and its su bsid iaries, began ap -
p lying Tagu chi m ethod s extensively from the early 1950s. H is first book, w hich in-
trod u ced orthogonal arrays, w as p u blished in 1951.
From 1954 to 1955, Tagu chi w as a visiting p rofessor at the Ind ian Statistical In-
stitu te. Du ring this tim e, he m et the w ell-know n statisticians R. A. Fisher and
Walter A. Shew hart. In 1957/ 1958, he p u blished his tw o-volu m e book, Design of
Experiments. H is first visit to the United States w as in 1962 as a visiting research as-
sociate at Princeton University, d u ring w hich tim e he visited the AT&T Bell Labo-
ratories. Also in 1962, he w as aw ard ed his PhD by Kyu shu University.
In 1964, Tagu chi becam e a p rofessor at Aoyam a Gaku in University in Tokyo, a
p osition he held u ntil 1982. In 1966, he and several coau thors w rote Management by
Total Results. At this stage, Tagu chi’s m ethod s w ere still essentially u nknow n in the
West, althou gh ap p lications w ere taking p lace in Taiw an and Ind ia. In this p eriod
and throu ghou t the 1970s, m ost ap p lications of his m ethod s w ere on p rod u ction
p rocesses; the shift to p rod u ct d esign occu rred in the last d ecad e.
In the early 1970s, Tagu chi d evelop ed the concep t of the quality loss function. H e
p u blished tw o other books in the 1970s as w ell as the third (cu rrent) ed ition of De-
sign of Experiments. H e w on the Dem ing Ap p lication Prize in 1960 and the Dem ing
Aw ard for Literatu re on Qu ality in 1951 and 1953.
In 1982, Tagu chi becam e an ad visor at the Jap anese Stand ard s Association. In
1984, he again w on the Dem ing Aw ard for Literatu re on Qu ality.
Taguchi’s Philosophies
Tagu chi m ethod s are concerned w ith the rou tine op tim ization of p rod u ct and
p rocess p rior to m anu factu re rather than reliance on the achievem ent of qu ality
throu gh insp ection. Concep ts of qu ality and reliability are p u shed back to the d e-
sign stage, w here they really belong. The m ethod p rovid es an efficient techniqu e
to d esign p rod u ct tests p rior to entering the m anu factu ring p hase. H ow ever, it can
also be u sed as a trou bleshooting m ethod ology to sort ou t p ressing m anu factu ring
p roblem s.
In contrast to Western d efinitions, Tagu chi w orked in term s of qu ality loss
rather than qu ality. This is d efined as “loss im p arted by the p rod u ct to society from
the tim e the p rod u ct is ship p ed .” This loss inclu d es not only the loss to the com -
p any throu gh costs of rew orking or scrap p ing, m aintenance costs, d ow ntim e d u e
to equ ip m ent failu re, and w arranty claim s, bu t also the costs to the cu stom er
throu gh p oor p rod u ct p erform ance and reliability, lead ing to fu rther losses to the
m anu factu rer as its m arket share falls. Taking a target valu e for the qu ality charac-
teristic u nd er consid eration as the best p ossible valu e of this characteristic, Tagu chi
associated a sim p le qu ad ratic loss fu nction w ith d eviations from this target. The
loss fu nction show ed that a red u ction in variability abou t the target lead s to a d e-
crease in loss and a su bsequ ent increase in qu ality.
Tagu chi m ethod ology is fu nd am entally a p rototyp ing m ethod that enables the
engineer or d esigner to id entify the op tim al settings to p rod u ce a robu st p rod u ct
that can su rvive m anu factu ring tim e after tim e, p iece after p iece, in ord er to p ro-
vid e the fu nctionality requ ired by the cu stom er. Tw o m ajor featu res of the Tagu chi
m ethod ology are that it w as d evelop ed and is u sed by engineers rather than stat-
isticians, thu s rem oving m ost of the com m u nication gap and the p roblem s of lan-
gu age trad itionally associated w ith m any statistical m ethod ologies, and that the
m ethod ology is also tailored d irectly to the engineering context.
DR. WALTER A. SHEWHART

Walter A. Shew hart w as born in N ew Canton, Illinois, on March 18, 1891. H e re-
ceived his bachelor ’s and m aster ’s d egrees from the University of Illinois and his
PhD in p hysics from the University of California at Berkeley in 1917. H e tau ght at
the Universities of Illinois and California, and he briefly head ed the Physics De-
p artm ent at the Wisconsin N orm al School in LaCrosse.
Shew hart sp ent m ost of his early p rofessional career as an engineer at Western
Electric (1918–1924) and later w orked at Bell Telep hone Laboratories, w here he
served as a m em ber of the technical staff from 1925 u ntil his retirem ent in 1956. H e
lectu red on qu ality control and ap p lied statistics at the University of Lond on, at
Stevens Institu te of Technology, at the grad u ate school of the U.S. Dep artm ent of
Agricu ltu re, and in Ind ia.
Called u p on frequ ently as a consu ltant, Dr. Shew hart served the War Dep art-
m ent, the United N ations, and the governm ent of Ind ia, and he w as active w ith the
N ational Research Cou ncil and the International Statistical Institu te. H e served for
m ore than 20 years as the first ed itor of the Mathematical Statistics series p u blished
by John Wiley and Sons. H e is consid ered by m any to be the father of statistical
qu ality control. Dr. Shew hart d ied on March 11, 1967, in Troy H ills, N ew Jersey.
Shewhart’s Philosophies
Shew hart’s m ost im p ortant book, Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Prod-
uct, w as p u blished in 1931 and is consid ered by m any to be the origin of the basic
p rincip les of qu ality. The book w as consid ered by statisticians to be a land m ark
contribu tion to the effort to im p rove the qu ality of m anu factu red good s. Shew hart
rep orted that variations existed in every facet of m anu factu ring bu t that variation
cou ld be u nd erstood throu gh the ap p lication of sim p le statistical tools, su ch as
sam p ling and p robability analysis. Many of his w ritings w ere p u blished internally
at Bell Laboratories. One of these w as the historic m em orand u m of May 16, 1924,
in w hich he p rop osed the control chart to his su p eriors.
Shew hart’s techniqu es tau ght that w ork p rocesses cou ld be brou ght u nd er
control by d eterm ination of w hen a p rocess shou ld be left alone and w hen inter-
vention w as necessary. H e w as able to d efine the lim its of rand om variation that
occu r in com p leting any task and said that intervention shou ld occu r only w hen
the set lim its have been exceed ed . H e d evelop ed control charts to track p erfor-
m ance over tim e, thereby p rovid ing w orkers w ith the ability to m onitor their w ork
and p red ict w hen they w ere abou t to exceed lim its and p ossibly p rod u ce scrap .
Shew hart also w rote Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control in
1939 and p u blished nu m erou s articles in p rofessional jou rnals. H is w ork in sam -
p ling and control charts attracted the interest of and influ enced others w orking
w ith qu ality p roblem s, m ost notably W. Ed w ard s Dem ing and Josep h M. Ju ran.
Shew hart’s id ea for the Plan—Do—Check—Act cycle w as u sed extensively by
Dem ing and others to help m anagem ent qu ality im p rovem ent p rojects. The cycle
involves p lanning w hat you w ant to d o, d oing it, stu d ying the resu lts, m aking cor-
rections, and then starting the cycle again.
SUMMARY
Dr. Dem ing em p hasized statistical p rocess control and u niform ity and d ep end -
ability at low cost. “Work sm arter, not hard er,” he said . Dr. Ju ran stresses the hu -
m an elem ents of com m u nication, organization, p lanning, control, and
coord ination, and says that p roblem s shou ld be sched u led for solu tion. Mr. Crosby,
w ho introd u ced the concep t of zero d efects, argu ed that qu ality is conform ance to
requ irem ents and that p revention is the best qu ality m anagem ent techniqu e.
All three of these qu ality m anagem ent exp erts agree that qu ality m eans m eet-
ing cu stom er requ irem ents and that increased p rod u ctivity is the resu lt of qu ality
im p rovem ent. They all ad vocate m anagem ent com m itm ent and em p loyee in-
volvem ent to im p rove system s and avoid p roblem s, id entification of the m ost crit-
ical p roblem s, u se of statistics and other p roblem -solving tools, and the focu s of all
activities on the cu stom er.
It is im p ortant to u nd erstand that the p hilosop hies of Dem ing, Ju ran, Crosby,
and the m any other qu ality and m anagem ent “gu ru s” are starting p oints to the d e-
velop m ent of an organization’s qu ality p hilosop hy. Each organization has u niqu e
p rod u cts, services, cu ltu res, and cap abilities. The p hilosop hies of the gu ru s can
help an organization get started , bu t m anagem ent, w orking w ith all the organiza-
tion’s stakehold ers, m u st d evelop a p hilosop hy that fits the u niqu e need s of the or-
ganization. N o one p hilosop hy is totally correct or incorrect. All m u st be stu d ied
and u sed in the context of how they ap p ly to each ind ivid u al organization.
Ad d itional inform ation abou t each of the m entioned gu ru s m ay be fou nd by
d oing a Web site search u sing their fu ll nam es.
QUALITY MODELS
For the qu ality p rofession, 1987 w as a very significant year. Du ring 1987, tw o
events occu rred that d ram atically changed the w ay m any qu ality p rofessionals op -
erate. The first w as the p u blication of the original Malcolm Baldrige National Qual-
ity Award Criteria (now called the Baldrige National Quality Program). The second
w as the p u blication of the first ed ition of the ISO 9000 series of qu ality m anagem ent
system requ irem ents and gu id eline d ocu m ents. Both events have resu lted in the
establishm ent of hu nd red s of thou sand s of d ocu m ented qu ality m anagem ent sys-
tem s based on the m od els ou tlined in the tw o p u blications. The follow ing is a brief
review of the tw o m od els.
The Baldrige Quality Award Program

The Malcolm Bald rige N ational Qu ality Aw ard w as created by Pu blic Law 100–107
and signed into law on Au gu st 20, 1987. The aw ard is nam ed for Malcolm Bald rige,
w ho served as secretary of com m erce from 1981 u ntil his tragic d eath in a rod eo ac-
cid ent in 1987. H is m anagerial excellence contribu ted to long-term im p rovem ent
in the efficiency and effectiveness of governm ent.
The qu ality aw ard p rogram w as established to assist organizations in the
United States to im p rove qu ality and p rod u ctivity by:
• H elp ing to stim u late Am erican com p anies to im p rove qu ality and
p rod u ctivity for the p rid e of recognition w hile obtaining a com p etitive
ed ge throu gh increased p rofits
• Recognizing the achievem ents of those com p anies that im p rove the qu ality
of their good s and services and p rovid e an exam p le to others
• Establishing gu id elines and criteria that can be u sed by bu siness,
ind u strial, governm ental, and other organizations in evalu ating their ow n
qu ality im p rovem ent efforts
• Provid ing sp ecific gu id ance for other Am erican organizations that w ish to
learn how to m anage for high qu ality by m aking available d etailed
inform ation on how w inning organizations w ere able to change their
cu ltu res and achieve em inence
The aw ard s are given to recognize organizations based in the United States for
their achievem ents in qu ality and bu siness p erform ance and to raise aw areness
abou t the im p ortance of qu ality and p erform ance excellence as a com p etitive ed ge.
The aw ard is not given for sp ecific p rod u cts or services. In 1998, the p resid ent and
the U.S. Congress ap p roved legislation that m ad e ed u cation and health-care or-
ganizations eligible to p articip ate in the aw ard p rogram . Up to three aw ard s m ay
be given annu ally in each of five categories: m anu factu ring, service, sm all bu si-
ness, health-care, and ed u cation.
Thou gh the Bald rige Aw ard and its recip ients form the very visible centerp iece
of the U.S. qu ality m ovem ent, a broad er national qu ality p rogram has evolved
arou nd the aw ard and its criteria. A rep ort, Building on Baldrige: American Quality
for the 21st Century, by the p rivate Cou ncil on Com p etitiveness said , “More than
any other p rogram , the Bald rige Qu ality Aw ard is resp onsible for m aking qu ality
a national p riority and d issem inating best p ractices across the United States.” The
U.S. Com m erce Dep artm ent’s N ational Institu te of Stand ard s and Technology
(N IST) m anages the Bald rige N ational Qu ality Program in close coop eration w ith
the p rivate sector. The Am erican Society for Qu ality assists in ad m inistering the
aw ard p rogram u nd er contract to N IST.
The Bald rige p erform ance excellence criteria are a fram ew ork that any organi-
zation can u se to im p rove overall p erform ance. Seven categories m ake u p the
aw ard criteria. Com p arisons of the Bald rige Aw ard Criteria for each of the three
m ajor segm ents are listed in Table 2.1.
The aw ard p rogram p rom otes qu ality aw areness, recognizes qu ality achieve-
m ents of U.S. organizations, and p rovid es a vehicle for sharing su ccessfu l strate-
gies. The Bald rige Aw ard Criteria focu s on resu lts and continu ou s im p rovem ent.
They p rovid e a fram ew ork for d esigning, im p lem enting, and assessing a p rocess
for m anaging all bu siness op erations.
In recent years the Bald rige N ational Qu ality Program has been exp and ed to
inclu d e criteria covering ed u cational and health-care organizations. The p rogram
w ill be exp and ed fu rther in 2007 to cover nonp rofit organizations. Inform ation on
these new er p rogram s is available at http://www.quality.nist.gov/.
The criteria are u sed by thou sand s of organizations of all kind s for self-
assessment and training and as a tool to develop performance and business processes.
Almost 2 m illion copies have been d istributed since the first ed ition in 1988, and
heavy reprod uction and electronic access multiply that num ber m any times.
For m any organizations, u sing the criteria resu lts in better em p loyee relations,
higher p rod u ctivity, greater cu stom er satisfaction, increased m arket share, and im -
p roved p rofitability. Stu d ies by N IST, u niversities, bu siness organizations, and the
U.S. General Accou nting Office have fou nd that investing in qu ality p rincip les and
p erform ance excellence p ays off in increased p rod u ctivity, satisfied em p loyees and
cu stom ers, and im p roved p rofitability—for both cu stom ers and investors. For ex-
am p le, N IST has tracked a hyp othetical stock investm ent in Bald rige Aw ard w in-
ners and ap p licants receiving site visits. The stu d ies have show n that these
com p anies significantly ou tp erform the Stand ard & Poor ’s 500.
34
Table 2.1 Comparisons of Baldrige Award Criteria.
Bald rige N ation al Q uality Program —2006 Criteria Categories

M an u factu rin g Services
an d Sm all Business H ealth Care Ed u cation
1. Lead ership 1. Lead ership 1. Lead ership
1.1 Senior Lead ership 1.1 Senior Lead ership 1.1 Senior Lead ership
1.2 Governance and Social Responsibilities 1.2 Governance and Social Responsibilities 1.2 Governance and Social Responsibilities
Part I: Quality Basics
2. Strategic Planning 2. Strategic Planning 2. Strategic Planning

2.1 Strategy Develop m ent 2.1 Strategy Developm ent 2.1 Strategy Developm ent
2.2 Strategy Deploym ent 2.2 Strategy Deploym ent 2.2 Strategy Deploym ent
3. Custom er and Market Focus 3. Focus on Patients, Other Custom ers, 3. Stu d ent, Stakehold er, and Market Focu s
3.1 Custom er and Market Know led ge and Markets 3.1 Stu d ent, Stakehold er, and Market
3.2 Custom er Relationships and 3.1 Patient, Other Custom ers, and H ealth Know led ge
Satisfaction Care Market Know led ge 3.2 Stu d ent and Stakehold er Relationship
3.2 Patient and Other Custom er and Satisfaction
Relationships and Satisfaction
4. Measu rem ent, Analysis, and 4. Measurem ent, Analysis, and Know led ge 4. Measurem ent, Analysis, and Know led ge
Know led ge Managem ent Managem ent Managem ent
4.1 Measu rem ent, Analysis, and Review of 4.1 Measurem ent, Analysis, and Review of 4.1 Measurem ent, Analysis, and Review of
Organizational Perform ance Organizational Perform ance Organizational Perform ance
4.2 Inform ation and Know led ge 4.2 Inform ation and Know led ge Managem ent 4.2 Inform ation and Know ledge
Managem ent Managem ent
5. H u m an Resou rce Focus 5. H um an Resou rce Focus 5. Faculty and Staff Focu s
5.1 Work System s 5.1 Work System s 5.1 Work System s
5.2 Em ployee Learning and Motivation 5.2 Staff Learning and Motivation 5.2 Faculty and Staff Learning and
5.3 Em ployee Well-Being and Satisfaction 5.3 Staff Well-Being and Satisfaction Motivation
5.3 Faculty and Staff Well-Being and
Satisfaction
Continued
Table 2.1 Comparisons of Baldrige Award Criteria. (Continued)
Bald rige N ation al Q u ality Program —2006 Criteria Categories

M an ufactu rin g Services
an d Sm all Bu sin ess H ealth Care Edu cation
6. Process Managem ent 6. Process Managem ent 6. Process Managem ent
6.1 Value Creation Processes 6.1 H ealth Care Processes 6.1 Learning-Centered Processes
6.2 Support Processes and Operational 6.2 Support Processes and Operational 6.2 Su pport Processes and Operational
Planning Planning Planning
7. Results 7. Results 7. Results
7.1 Prod u ct and Service Outcom es 7.1 H ealth Care and Service Delivery 7.1 Stud ent Learning Outcom es
7.2 Cu stom er-Focused Outcom es Outcom es 7.2 Stud ent and Stakehold er-Focused
7.3 Financial and Market Ou tcom es 7.2 Patient- and Other Custom er-Focused Outcom es
7.4 H um an Resource Outcom es Outcom es 7.3 Bud getary, Financial, and Market
7.5 Organizational Effectiveness Outcom es 7.3 Financial and Market Ou tcom es Outcom es
7.6 Leadership and Social Responsibility 7.4 H um an Resource Outcom es 7.4 Faculty and Staff Outcom es
Outcom es 7.5 Organizational Effectiveness Outcom es 7.5 Organizational and Effectiveness
7.6 Lead ership and Social Responsibility Outcom es
Outcom es 7.6 Lead ership and Social Responsibility
Outcom es
Ad d itional inform ation on the aw ard is available at the Bald rige N ational
Qu ality Program Web site, http:///www.quality.nist.gov.
ISO 9000 Series

ISO 9000 is a series of international stand ard s first p u blished in 1987 by the Inter-
national Organization for Stand ard ization (ISO), Geneva, Sw itzerland . Organiza-
tions can u se the stand ard s to help d eterm ine w hat is need ed to m aintain an
efficient qu ality m anagem ent system . For exam p le, the stand ard s d escribe the
need to have an effective qu ality system , to ensu re that m easu ring and testing
equ ip m ent is calibrated regu larly, and to m aintain an ad equ ate record -keep ing
system , as w ell as m any other elem ents of a com p lete qu ality m anagem ent system .
The ISO 9000 fam ily of stand ard s rep resents an international consensu s on
good m anagem ent p ractices that ensu re that an organization has a system that can
d eliver a p rod u ct or services that m eet the cu stom er ’s qu ality requ irem ents. The
ISO 9000 series is a set of stand ard ized requ irem ents and gu id elines for a qu ality
m anagem ent system ap p licable to any typ e of organization, regard less of w hat the
organization d oes, how big it is, and w hether it’s in the p rivate or p u blic sector.
Und er the ISO 9000 app roach, organizations establish w ritten quality m anage-
m ent systems based on the qu ality elem ents listed in the ISO 9000 requirem ent d oc-
u ments. Once the qu ality managem ent system has been d ocum ented and is in
regu lar use, the organization can have an ind epend ent third -party registrar d o an au -
d it to assess the system to d etermine whether it, in fact, m eets the requirem ents of
the ISO 9000 stand ard . If the w ritten quality managem ent system m eets the stand ard
and is operating as w ritten, the registrar will certify the qu ality m anagem ent system
as m eeting ISO 9000 requirem ents and will register the organization on an interna-
tional list of organizations that have m et the quality m anagement system stand ard .
The 2000 ed ition of the ISO 9000 fam ily has a qu ality assu rance m od el against
w hich organizations can be certified : ISO 9001. The series also contains tw o ad d i-
tional d ocu m ents. The three d ocu m ents are:
• ISO 9000:2000, Quality management systems—Fundamentals and vocabulary.
This d ocu m ent gives the basic qu ality m anagem ent p rincip les u p on w hich
the new series is based and d efines the fu nd am ental term s and d efinitions
u sed in the ISO 9000 fam ily.
• ISO 9001:2000, Quality management systems—Requirements. This d ocu m ent
is the requ irem ent stand ard that ou tlines the qu ality m anagem ent system
elem ents that m u st be ad d ressed to m eet cu stom er and ap p licable
regu latory requ irem ents. It is the only stand ard in the ISO 9000 fam ily
against w hich third -p arty certification can be granted .
• ISO 9004:2000, Quality management systems—Guidelines for performance
improvements. This d ocu m ent p rovid es gu id ance for the u se of ISO 9001 to
attain continu al im p rovem ent of the qu ality m anagem ent system in ord er
to ensu re cu stom er satisfaction.
Becau se the 2000 ed ition of the ISO 9000 fam ily contains only one qu ality m anage-
m ent system s m od el—ISO 9001—the organization itself d eterm ines w hich ele-
m ents of the stand ard ap p ly to its bu siness operations and d evelop s a quality
m anagem ent system to m eet those ap plicable requ irem ents. Registrars w ill then in-
d icate on the certificates issued to each organization w hat the scop e of the registra-
tion is and any quality m anagem ent elem ents of ISO 9001 that have been exclu d ed .
The ISO 9001 stand ard lays ou t requ irem ents in broad , general term s. Each
com p any m u st interp ret them w ithin the context of its ow n bu siness and d evelop
its ow n qu ality m anagem ent system (QMS) to com p ly. A brief ou tline of key re-
qu irem ents follow s:
• Qu ality m anagem ent system —ad d resses:

• Id entifying and sequ encing p rocesses
• Monitoring, m easu ring, and analyzing p rocesses
• Docu m enting the QMS: qu ality m anu al, p roced u res, instru ctions,
record s
• Controlling d ocu m ents and record s
• Managem ent resp onsibility—ad d resses:
• Top m anagem ent’s evid ence of com m itm ent to the QMS:
com m u nicating, qu ality p olicy, qu ality objectives, m anagem ent
review s, availability of resou rces
• Top m anagem ent’s su p p ort of a cu stom er focu s
• Qu ality p lanning
• Resp onsibility of a m anagem ent rep resentative
• Resou rce m anagem ent—ad d resses:
• Provid ing resou rces
• Ensu ring com p etence, aw areness, and training of hu m an resou rces
• Provid ing su itable infrastru ctu re and w ork environm ent
• Processes for p rod u cing p rod u cts and services (“p rod u ct realization”)—
ad d resses:
• Planning for p rod u ct realization
• Requ irem ents for cu stom er-related p rocesses
• Requ irem ents for d esigning and d evelop ing p rod u ct
• Pu rchasing p rocesses
• Controlling p rod u ction and service
• Controlling d evices u sed for m onitoring and m easu ring
• Processes for m easu rem ent, analysis, and im p rovem ent—ad d resses:
• Monitoring and m easu ring relative to:
• Satisfaction of cu stom ers
• Au d iting the QMS
• Monitoring, m easu ring, and controlling p rod u ct
• Analyzing d ata
• Continu ally im p roving (corrective and p reventive action)5
An estim ated 500,000 ISO 9001 certificates have been issu ed w orld w id e. ISO 9001
certificates have been issu ed in m ore than 150 cou ntries arou nd the w orld .
In recent years, ISO has begu n p u blishing International Workshop Agreem ents
(IWAs) to establish the u se of ISO 9000 in d ifferent com m u nities of p ractice. Ex-
am p les are:
• IWA 1:2005—Quality Management Systems—Guidelines for process
improvements in health service organizations
• IWA 4:2005—Quality management systems—Guidelines for the application of
ISO 9001:2000 in local government
Ad d itional inform ation abou t the ISO 9000 fam ily of qu ality m anagem ent stan-
d ard s can be fou nd at the International Organization for Stand ard ization Web site,
http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage.
Notes
1. Econom ou , M. “Qu ality’s not costly.” Manufacturing Engineering 120, no. 3 (Dearborn,
MI: Society of Manu factu ring Engineers, 1998): 20.
2. Dem ing, W. E. Statistical Adjustment of Data. (N ew York: John Wiley and Sons, 1938,
1943; Dover, 1964).
3. Ju ran, J. M., and A. B. God frey, ed s. Juran’s Quality Handbook (5th ed .). (N ew York:
McGraw -H ill, 1999), table 2.1.
4. Derived from Crosby, P. B. Quality Is Free. (N ew York: McGraw -H ill, 1979), and also,
Quality Without Tears (N ew York: N ew Am erican Library, 1984).
5. Ad ap ted from Westcott, R. T., ed . The Certified Manager of Quality/Organizational
Excellence Handbook (3rd ed .). (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2006).
Crosby, P. B. Quality Is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979).
———. Quality Without Tears: The Art of Hassle-free Management. (N ew York: N ew
Am erican Library, 1984).
Dem ing, W. E. Out of the Crisis. (Cam brid ge: MIT Center for Ad vanced Engineering Stu d y,
1986).
———. The New Economics for Industry, Government, and Education. (Cam brid ge:
Massachu setts Institu te of Technology, 1993).
Fed eral Qu ality Institu te. Federal Total Quality Management Handbook. (Washington, DC:
U.S. Office of Personnel Managem ent, 1990).
Feigenbau m , A. V. Total Quality Control (3rd ed ., rev.). (N ew York: McGraw -H ill, 1991).
Ishikaw a, K. Guide to Quality Control (2nd ed ., rev.). (Tokyo: Asian Prod u ctivity
Organization, 1986).
———. What Is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way. (N ew York: Prentice-H all, 1985).
Ju ran, J. M. Management of Quality. (4th ed .). (Wilton, CT: Ju ran Institu te, 1986).
———. Juran on Planning for Quality. (N ew York: The Free Press, 1988).
Ju ran, J. M., and A. B. God frey, ed s. Juran’s Quality Handbook (5th ed .). (N ew York:
Latzko, W. J., and D. M. Sau nd ers. Four Days with Dr. Deming: A Strategy for Modern
Methods of Management. (Read ing, MA: Ad d ison-Wesley, Longm an, 1995).
N aval Lead er Training Unit. Introduction to Total Quality Leadership. (Washington, DC: U.S.
Dep artm ent of the N avy, 1997).
Westcott, R. T., ed . The Certified Manager of Quality/Organizational Excellence Handbook (3rd
ed .). (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2006).
Part II
Team s
Chapter 3 A. Und erstand ing Team s
Chapter 4 B. Roles and Responsibilities
Chapter 5 C. Team Form ation and Group
Dynam ics
Time after time, team members set what they feel are challenging but realistic
goals for themselves, and once the program gets rolling, they find that they
are not only meeting but also exceeding their goals. This is something that
rarely happens if goals are set for the team, rather than by the team.
M ark Shepherd (Texas Instruments)
39
Chapter 3
A. Un d erstan d in g Team s
1. PURPOSE
Understand the definition of a team, when

to use a team and for how long. (Apply)
CQIA BoK 2006
The Definition of Team

• A team is a grou p of ind ivid u als organized to w ork together to accom p lish
an objective
• A team is a grou p of tw o or m ore p eop le w ho are equ ally accou ntable for
the accom p lishm ent of a task and sp ecific p erform ance goals
• A team is a sm all nu m ber of p eop le w ith com p lem entary skills w ho are
com m itted to a com m on p u rp ose
• A team com bines ind ivid u als’ know led ge, exp erience, skills, ap titu d e, and
attitu d e to achieve a synergistic effect
A team is not:
• An organizational w ork u nit that is not fu nctioning as a team ; how ever, a
team m ay be com p rised of m em bers of a w ork u nit
• An inform al gathering of p eop le, a crow d
• Mem bers of a clu b, association, or society that is not fu nctioning as a team
40
Chapt er 3: A. Under standing Teams 41
• Top m anagem ent of an organization, even thou gh they m ay be referred to

as the “m anagem ent team ,” u nless they tru ly fu nction as a team
• A staff m eeting, conference, sem inar, ed u cational cou rse, u nless
fu nctioning as a team
Team s m ay be initiated for a variety of p u rp oses, som e of w hich are to:
• Im p rove a p rocess—for exam p le, a cycle-tim e-red u ction team
• Com p lete a p roject—for exam p le, a relocation task force to relocate a
m anu factu ring p lant
• Cond u ct a stu d y of a best p ractice—for exam p le, a benchm arking team
• Solve a p roblem —for exam p le, a hosp ital “tiger team ” to hu nt for the
cau se of fatalities
• Prod u ce a sp ecial event—for exam p le, a team to p lan, organize, and
cond u ct an em p loyee recognition evening
• Investigate a d iscrep ancy—for exam p le, a team to d eterm ine the root cau se
of inventory shrinkage
• Particip ate in a com p etitive sp ort—for exam p le, an organization’s softball
team
A team is ap p rop riate w hen:
• Achieving an objective involves (or shou ld involve) m ore than one
organizational fu nction. For exam p le, a team to im p rove the p rocu rem ent
p rocess m ight involve m em bers from p u rchasing, m aterials m anagem ent,
finance, p rod u ction, and key su p p liers.
• Som e d egree of isolation from the m ainstream w ork is d esirable in ord er to
focu s on a sp ecific objective or p roblem —for exam p le, a team to lau nch a
year-long p roject to im p lem ent a qu ality m anagem ent system .
• Sp ecially trained and exp erienced p eop le are “on call” w hen a sp ecific
need arises. Three exam p les are: a “p rop osal resp onse team ” that is qu ickly
assem bled to ad d ress a requ est for p rop osal from a p otential
cu stom er/ client; a m aterial review board that assem bles w hen there is
nonconform ing p rod u ct to review and d eterm ine d isp osition; and an in-
p lant volu nteer fire brigad e.
H ow long a team rem ains active in a fu nctioning m od e d ep end s u p on several fac-
tors, su ch as:
• The natu re of the p u rp ose of the team
• An anticip ated or p red eterm ined tim e sp an
• Available resou rces
• The p rogress being m ad e by the team
• The valu e of the p lanned ou tcom es
• The effectiveness of the team itself
42 Part II: Teams
One fau lt that m ay occu r w ith a team is w hen it rem ains in effect after its p u rp ose
and objectives are m et. Tw o exam p les are:
1. A com p any has a p olicy that states that p rocess im p rovem ent team s
shou ld m eet for 14 w eeks for any given im p rovem ent effort (regard less
of circu m stances).
2. A p roject team continu es to find reasons to m eet long after the original
p roject has been com p leted . (Mem bers like the com rad eship . Som e
m em bers m ay fear retu rning to their regu lar w ork after a long hiatu s.)
2. CHARACTERISTICS AND TYPES
Recognize characteristics and types of

teams and how they are structured; know
how teams differ and how they are similar;
know which type of team to use in a given
situation. (Apply)
CQIA BoK 2006
Natural Team
A natu ral team (su ch as a w ork grou p , d ep artm ent, or fu nction) is m ad e u p of p er-
sons w ho have resp onsibility for a sp ecific p rocess or fu nction and w ho w ork to-
gether in a p articip ative environm ent. Unlike the p rocess im p rovem ent team ,
w hich is d iscu ssed next, the natu ral team is neither cross-fu nctional nor tem p orary.
The team lead er is generally the p erson resp onsible for the fu nction or p rocess p er-
form ed w ithin the w ork area. The natu ral team is u sefu l in involving all em p loy-
ees in a w ork grou p in striving for continu al im p rovem ent. Starting w ith one or
tw o fu nctions, su ccessfu l natu ral team s can becom e role m od els for exp ansion of
natu ral team s throu ghou t an organization. A natu ral team exam p le follow s:
The information technology (IT) department serves all the functions within the
4,000-person Mars Package Delivery’s countrywide operations. The IT
department’s work units (technical system maintenance, application systems
design and programming, data entry, computer operations, data output,
customer service—internal, technology help desk, and administration) function
as an internal team. Selected representatives from each work unit meet weekly to
review the IT department’s performance and to initiate corrective and preventive
actions.
Improvement Teams
Process im p rovem ent team s, or PITs, as they are typ ically called , focu s on creating
or im p roving sp ecific bu siness p rocesses. A PIT m ay attem p t to com p letely reengi-
neer a p rocess or m ay w ork on increm ental im p rovem ents (see Increm ental and
Breakthrou gh Im p rovem ent in Chap ter 6). If attem p ting a breakthrou gh, the team
is u su ally cross-fu nctional in com p osition, w ith rep resentatives from a nu m ber of
d ifferent fu nctions and w ith a range of skills related to the p rocess to be im p roved .
A PIT w orking on increm ental im p rovem ents is often com p osed of p ersons having
a fu nctional interest in im p roving a p ortion of the overall p rocess, su ch as rep re-
sentatives from a sp ecific fu nctional w ork u nit. Tw o exam p les follow :
BPC, which manufactures a flexible packaging product, periodically convenes a
“cycle-time-reduction team” (CTRT) under the leadership of a pressroom
supervisor, with four or five operators from the supervisor’s pressroom. A
trained facilitator helps to bring about the team’s formation and keep the
meeting process on track during the one-hour-a-week meetings. Each CTRT
defines its objectives and the procedures and tools to be used to improve its
process. The CTRT typically meets for 10 to 12 weeks, and it may disband
earlier if its objectives have been met. Pressrooms rotate so that only one CTRT
is functioning at any one time. A technical trainer as necessary provides
training, either for members new to improvement tools or for the whole team
when a new tool or technique is needed. The CTRT may call upon anyone in the
company to provide needed information. At BPC, it is considered a privilege to
be invited to join a CTRT.
At A&H, a provider of group accident and health insurance in the southwestern
United States, originators of significant process improvement suggestions (with
an estimated savings of $100,000 per year or more) are invited to participate in a
PIT to address their suggestions. A trained facilitator is assigned to help with
team formation and team process issues. A&H finds that this approach not only
recognizes and rewards those with suggestions, but also stimulates involvement
in the suggestion system. The synergy of the PITs often results in savings
exceeding the original estimates.
A variation u sed in m any fast-p aced organizations is the kaizen blitz or kaizen event.
This accelerated team ap p roach intensely focu ses on achieving im p rovem ents in a
three-d ay to five-d ay tim e fram e. Red u cing cycle tim e and w aste and increasing
p rod u ctivity are exam p les in w hich im p rovem ents of as m u ch as 70 p ercent have
been rep orted .
Cross-Functional Teams
PITs that are focu sed m ore on the overall p rocess w ithin the w hole organization as
it im p acts m any fu nctions are cross-fu nctional in the com p osition of their m em -
bers. This is esp ecially so if the objective of the PIT is to d evelop a breakthrou gh
im p rovem ent (see Chap ter 6).
In som e organizations, cross-fu nctional team s carry ou t all or nearly all of the
fu nctions. In su ch cases, the organization resem bles a m atrix- or p roject-typ e orga-
nization. In attem p ting to elim inate internal com p etition am ong fu nctional grou p s,
organizations have ad op ted cross-fu nctional team s for m any areas, su ch as p rod -
u ct d esign. Exam p les inclu d e the follow ing:
Macho Motors, a leading manufacturer of off-road service vehicles, integrates its
marketing, engineering, production, support services, shipping, and customer
service functions into product families. Employing quality function deployment
44 Part II: Teams
tools and concurrent engineering-production techniques, each family (cross-

functional team) works together to meet customers’ needs. Representatives from
each family meet quarterly to share process improvement information.
The employees own Williams Air Service, a regional air passenger service firm.
Nearly everyone, from the airline’s president to the people staffing the check-in
counter, are trained to rotate jobs in performing passenger check-in, baggage
handling, fueling, flight attendant functions, and clerical functions. Only the
pilots, mechanics, and the bookkeeper have specialized functions not delegated to
other personnel. The entire airline is a cross-functional team.
The sm aller the organization, the m ore likely em p loyees are to w ork together, of-
ten d oing each other ’s d esignated jobs as the need arises. Each em p loyee “w ears
m any hats.” In recent tim es, larger organizations have com e to recognize the valu e
of sm aller, cross-fu nctional entities. In a fast-p aced econom y, these m ore flexible
organizations can often m ove m ore sw iftly than larger com p etitors to reconfigu re
them selves and their p rod u cts and services to m eet changing need s.
Project Teams
A p roject team is form ed to achieve a sp ecific m ission. The p roject team ’s objective
m ay be to create som ething new, su ch as a facility, p rod u ct, or service, or to ac-
com p lish a com p lex task, su ch as to im p lem ent a qu ality m anagem ent system cer-
tified to ISO 9001:2000 requ irem ents, or to u p grad e all p rod u ction equ ip m ent to be
com p u ter-controlled . Typ ically, a p roject team em p loys fu ll-tim e m em bers, on
loan, for the d u ration of the p roject. The p roject team op erates in p arallel w ith the
p rim ary organizational fu nctions. The p roject team m ay or m ay not be cross-
fu nctional in m em ber com p osition, d ep end ing u p on its objectives and com p etency
need s. Often the p roject lead er is the p erson to w hom the u ltim ate resp onsibility
for m anaging the resu lting p roject ou tcom e is assigned . An exam p le is as follow s:
Abel Hospital, a community health-care organization of 250 employees, has
established a task force (project team) to select a site and design and build a new
hospital to replace the existing 112-year-old facility. New governmental
regulations make a new facility imperative. The “Must Build It” (MBI) project
team includes representatives from each hospital department, an external
consulting firm, an architectural design firm, and a legal firm. A full-time
facilitator-consultant provides team training and facilitates meetings. The team
leader is the former assistant director of Abel Hospital and will likely assume the
role of director when the present director retires (coincidental with the planned
occupation of the new facility). The MBI has a three-year window in which to
complete the facility and move the existing services and patients. Care is taken
to conduct team building and provide training in the tools and techniques the
team members will need, especially project planning and management. Team
members have been replaced in their former positions until the project is
completed. The MBI is located in a rental site that is removed from the present
premises of Abel Hospital. The MBI leader provides weekly project status reports
to senior management and quarterly project summary presentations to the board
of directors.
Self-Directed Teams
Self-d irected (self-m anaged ) team s are grou p s of em p loyees au thorized to m ake a
w id e range of d ecisions abou t how they w ill hand le issu es regard ing safety, qu al-
ity, sched u ling of w ork, w ork allocation, setting of goals, m aintenance of w ork
stand ard s, equ ip m ent m aintenance, and resolu tion of conflicts. Often called high-
p erform ance w ork team s, these team s offer em p loyees a broad er sp ectru m of re-
sp onsibility and ow nership of a p rocess. Often the team m em bers select the team
lead ers; som etim es lead ership is rotated am ong m em bers. Tw o exam p les are as
follow s:
Med Plastics has structured its new manufacturing operations for medical
devices on the principles of cell manufacturing and self-managed teams. Each
cell manufactures one complete category of products. Within a cell, each operator
is fully trained to perform all operations. Self-led and making their own
decisions, the members of the teams in each cell determine how and when to
rotate tasks and are responsible for the quality of the products shipped.
District 4 of Alabaster County’s K–12 educational system allows the editorial

offices of each of the three high schools’ student newspapers to manage its own
operations, within the rules and regulations of the district. Each school’s
newspaper office is responsible for recruiting its own student staff, selecting its
editor, arranging for team and technical training, allocating assignments, and
producing a high-quality student newspaper. Each newspaper office has adopted
some unique approaches to managing its operations. The achievements of the
student newspaper offices are publicized in local community media. Awards for
significant contributions are given annually, sponsored by the Alabaster
Chronicle.
Becau se of the level of em p ow erm ent afford ed , carefu l p lanning and training is
key to a su ccessfu l self-d irected team . The m ost su ccess u su ally occu rs w hen a new
bu siness or p rocess is initiated . Transform ing a trad itional w ork cu ltu re to self-
m anagem ent is a lengthy p rocess and is p rone to seriou s w orkforce tu rm oil.
Virtual Teams
Virtu al team s are grou p s of tw o or m ore p ersons w ho are u su ally affiliated w ith a
com m on organization and have a com m on p u rp ose bu t are not necessarily em -
p loyees. The natu re of the virtu al team is that its m em bers cond u ct their w ork ei-
ther p artly or entirely via electronic com m u nication. Virtu al team s are a hybrid in
that they m ay or m ay not be cross-fu nctional in term s of com p etencies. These
team s m ay or m ay not be p artly or entirely self-m anaged . Typ ically, the virtu al
team is geograp hically d isp ersed , often w ith ind ivid u al m em bers w orking from
their hom es. For exam p le:
A virtual team of three members of ASQ’s Quality Management Division—one

member in Pennsylvania, one in Florida, and one in Connecticut—wrote this
book.
46 Part II: Teams
3. VALUE
Understand how a team’s work relates to

the organization’s key strategies and the
value of using different types of teams.
(Understand)
CQIA BoK 2006
A key p rincip le is that no team shou ld be form ed u nless its p u rp ose (m ission) and
objectives can be traced u p w ard in su p p orting the organization’s strategies and
p lans.
This alignm ent w ith organizational strategies, goals, and objectives shou ld be
show n throu gh m easu rem ents d irectly related to the cu stom er requ irem ents of the
com p any. Tools su ch as the Balanced Scorecard , Voice of the Cu stom er, H ou se of
Qu ality, cu stom er or em p loyee su rveys, and focu s grou p s are all effective vehicles
for d ocu m enting the u ltim ate valu e of the team ’s w ork w ithin the organization.
Fu rther, team s shou ld be cap able of d em onstrating valu e. Every team , regard less
of typ e, shou ld p lan to ad d ress one or m ore of the follow ing p u rp oses or m issions:
• Fu lfilling a m and ate (law, regu lation, ow ners’ requ irem ents)
• Prod u cing a favorable benefits-to-cost ratio
• Provid ing a retu rn on investm ent (ROI) equ al to or greater than an
alternative p roject
• Im p roving cu stom er satisfaction and retention
• Meeting or exceed ing com p etitive p ressu res
• Introd u cing new p rocesses, p rod u cts, or services
• Im p roving a p rocess (cycle-tim e red u ction, cost saving/ avoid ance, red u ce
w aste)
• Increasing organization’s core com p etencies
• Bu ild ing an effective and efficient w orkforce
• Involving key su p p liers and cu stom ers in im p rovem ent initiatives
• Enhancing the organization’s rep u tation for d elivering qu ality
p rod u cts/ services
Chapter 4
B. Roles an d Resp on sib ilities
Identify major team roles and the attributes

of good role performance for champions,
sponsors, leaders, facilitators, timekeepers,
and members. (Understand)
CQIA BoK 2006
ROLE RESPONSIBILITIES
Of the seven roles d escribed in Table 4.1, those of tim ekeep er and scribe are the
only ones that are op tional, d ep end ing u p on the m ission of the team . Thou gh the
rem aining five roles are essential, they m ay be com bined in a variety of w ays.
H ow ever, the m ost cru cial roles for the su ccess of the team , once it is form ed , are
those of the team lead er and the facilitator. The team lead er is resp onsible for the
content, the w ork d one by the team . The facilitator is resp onsible for ensu ring that
the p rocess affecting the w ork of the team is the best for the stage and situ ation the
team is in.
The need for a trained facilitator d ep end s on w hether:
• The team has been m eeting for som e tim e and is cap able of resolving
conflicting issu es
• A new m em ber has been ad d ed , thu s u p setting established relationship s
• A key contribu tor to the grou p has been lost
• Other d istu rbing factors su ch as lack of ad equ ate resou rces, the threat of
p roject cancellation, or a m ajor change in requ irem ents
47
48
Table 4.1 Roles, responsibilities, and performance attributes.
Role Nam e Resp onsib ility D efin ition Attrib utes of G ood Role Perform ance
Cham pion Advocate The person initiating a concep t or id ea for • Is ded icated to seeing it im plem ented
change/ im provem ent. • H old s absolu te belief it is the right thing to d o
• H as perseverance and stam ina
Part II: Teams
Sponsor Backer; The person w ho su pports a team’s plans, activities, • Believes in the concept/ id ea
risk taker and ou tcom es. • H as sou nd business acum en
• Is w illing to take risk and responsibility for outcom es
• H as authority to approve need ed resources
• Will be listened to by u pper m anagem ent
Team leader Change agent; A person who: • Is comm itted to the team ’s m ission and objectives
chair; head • Staffs the team or provides input for staffing • Has experience in planning, organizing, staffing, controlling,
requ irem ents and directing
• Strives to bring abou t change/ im provem ent through • Is capable of creating and m aintaining channels that enable
the team ’s outcom es m em bers to d o their w ork
• Is entru sted by followers to lead them • Is capable of gaining the respect of team mem bers; serves as
• Has the au thority for, and directs the efforts of, the team a role m odel
• Participates as a team m em ber • Is firm , fair, and factual in dealing with a team of d iverse
• Coaches team m em bers in d eveloping or enhancing individ uals
necessary com petencies • Facilitates d iscussion without d om inating
• Comm u nicates w ith m anagem ent abou t the team’s • Actively listens
progress and need s • Em powers team m em bers to the extent possible within the
• Handles the logistics of team m eetings organization’s cu lture
• Takes responsibility for team record s • Supports all team m em bers equ ally
• Respects each team m em ber ’s ind ividu ality
Facilitator Helper; A person who: • Is trained in facilitating skills
trainer; • Observes the team ’s processes and team m em bers’ inter- • Is respected by team m em bers
ad visor; actions and su ggests process changes to facilitate positive • Is tactful
coach m ovem ent toward the team’s goals and objectives • Know s w hen and w hen not to intervene
• Intervenes if d iscussion develops into m ultip le • Deals w ith the team ’s process, not content
conversations • Respects the team lead er and d oes not overrid e his or her
• Intervenes to skillfully prevent an ind ivid ual from responsibility
d om inating the discussion or to engage an overlooked • Respects confidential inform ation shared by ind ividuals or
ind ivid ual in the discussion the team as a whole
• Assists the team lead er in bringing d iscussions to a close • Will not accept facilitator role if expected to report to
• May provid e training in team build ing, conflict managem ent inform ation that is proprietary to the team
m anagem ent, and so forth • Will abide by the ASQ Code of Ethics
Continued
Table 4.1 Roles, responsibilities, and performance attributes. (Continued)
Role Nam e Resp onsib ility D efin ition Attrib utes of G ood Role Perform ance
Tim ekeeper Gatekeeper; A person designated by the team to watch the use of • Is capable of assisting the team lead er in keeping the team
m onitor allocated tim e and remind the team mem bers w hen their m eeting w ithin the pred eterm ined tim e lim itations
tim e objective may be in jeopard y. • Is sufficiently assertive to intervene in d iscu ssions w hen the
time allocation is in jeopard y
• Is capable of participating as a m em ber while still serving as
a tim ekeeper
Scribe Record er; A person designated by the team to record critical d ata • Is capable of capturing on paper, or electronically, the m ain
note taker from team m eetings. Form al “m inutes” of the m eetings points and d ecisions m ad e in a team meeting and providing
m ay be published and d istributed to interested parties. a com plete, accurate, and legible d ocum ent (or formal
m inu tes) for the team ’s record s
• Is sufficiently assertive to intervene in discussions to clarify
a point or d ecision in ord er to record it accurately
• Is capable of participating as a m em ber while still serving as
a scribe
Team Participants; The persons selected to work together to bring about a • Are willing to com mit to the purpose of the team
m embers subject m atter change/ im provem ent, achieving this in a created • Are able to express id eas, opinions, and suggestions in a
experts environm ent of m utual respect, sharing of expertise, nonthreatening m anner
cooperation, and support. • Are capable of listening attentively to other team m em bers
• Are receptive to new id eas and suggestions
• Are even-tem pered and able to hand le stress and cope w ith
problem s openly
• Are com petent in one or m ore fields of expertise needed by
the team
• H ave favorable perform ance record s
• Are willing to function as team m em bers and forfeit
“star” status
Chapt er 4: B. Rol es and Responsibil it ies 49
50 Part II: Teams
Obviou sly, the team m em ber role is also im p ortant, bu t it is som ew hat less critical
than those of team lead er and facilitator. Su p p lem enting the team w ith “on-call”
exp erts can often com p ensate for a shortfall in either the nu m ber of m em bers or
m em bers’ com p etencies. Selected m em bers m u st w illingly share their exp ertise,
listen attentively, and su p p ort all team d ecisions.
The selection of a team m em ber to serve as a tim ekeep er m ay be help fu l, at
least u ntil the team has becom e m ore ad ep t at self-m onitoring its u se of tim e.
When a tim ekeep er is need ed , the role is often rotated , giving consid eration to
w hether the selected m em ber has a fu ll role to p lay in the d eliberations at a p ar-
ticu lar m eeting.
For som e team m issions for w hich very form al d ocu m entation is requ ired , a
scribe or notetaker m ay be need ed . This role can be d istracting for a m em ber w hose
fu ll attention is need ed on the top ics u nd er d iscu ssion. For this reason, an assistant,
not a regu lar m em ber of the team , is som etim es assigned to “take the m inu tes” and
p u blish them . Care shou ld be taken not to select a team m em ber for this role solely
on the basis of that team m em ber ’s sex or p osition in the organization.
All team m em bers m u st ad here to exp ected stand ard s of qu ality, fid u ciary re-
sp onsibility, ethics, and confid entiality. (See Ap p end ix B, ASQ Cod e of Ethics.) It is
im p erative that the m ost com p etent ind ivid u als available are selected for each role.
See Table 4.1 for the attribu tes of good role p erform ance.
Very frequ ently, a team m u st fu nction in p arallel w ith d ay-to-d ay assigned
w ork and w ith the m em bers not relieved of resp onsibility for the regu larly as-
signed w ork. This, of cou rse, p laces a bu rd en and stress on the team m em bers. The
d ay-to-d ay w ork and the w ork of the team m u st both be cond u cted effectively. The
inability to be tw o p laces at one tim e calls for innovative tim e m anagem ent, con-
flict resolu tion, and d elegation skills on the p art of the team m em bers.
Several roles w ithin a team m ay be com bined , d ep end ing u p on the size of the
team and its p u rp ose. Follow ing are som e exam p les:
• The team has begu n to fu nction sm oothly and the team lead er has becom e
m ore skilled u nd er the gu id ance of a facilitator. It is d ecid ed that the
facilitator is no longer need ed .
• A three-p erson team self-selects the p erson w ho originated and sold the
id ea to m anagem ent (the cham p ion) as team lead er.
• A cross-fu nctional p erform ance im p rovem ent team of eight p ersons elects
to rotate the team lead er role at tw o-w eek intervals.
• A d ep artm ental w ork grou p (natu ral team ) rotates tim ekeep er and scribe
roles at each m eeting so as not to d iscrim inate based on gend er, job held ,
age, schooling, and so forth.
• The backer of the p roject team serves as the team lead er becau se the p roject
is confined to his or her area of resp onsibility.
• Sp ecialists, su ch as a m aterial-hand ling system s d esigner or a cost
accou ntant, are p eriod ically requ ested to tem p orarily join a team as
need ed .
TEAM SIZE
Thou gh an id eal team size m ay be five m em bers, team size w ill vary d ep end ing
on the:
• Pu rp ose for the team —its m ission
• Size and com p lexity of the task that the team is to p erform
• Size of the organization in w hich the team w ill be form ed
• Typ e of team
• Du ration of the team ’s w ork and the frequ ency of its m eetings
• Degree of u rgency for the ou tcom es of the team ’s efforts
• Resou rce constraints, su ch as fu nd ing, availability of ap p rop riate
p ersonnel, facilities, and equ ip m ent
• Team m anagem ent constraints, su ch as m inim u m and m axim u m nu m ber
of team m em bers need ed to achieve the team ’s m ission
• Organizational cu ltu re—organizational p olicies and p ractices
• Pred om inant m anaging style of the organization to w hich the team rep orts
• Regu latory requ irem ents
• Cu stom er m and ates
When a w hole fu nction or d ep artm ent w orks as a natu ral team , the team size is the
nu m ber of p ersons in the d ep artm ent. If three p ersons band together to op erate a
charter air-taxi service and they w ork as a team , then the team is the three p ersons.
When a cross-fu nctional p roject team is form ed to d esign and bu ild a new shop -
p ing center, the team cou ld be very large and cou ld com p rise a nu m ber of sm aller
team s w ithin the larger entity. In a m u nicip al p u blic library, w hen a PIT is form ed
to red u ce retrieval and re-shelving cycle tim es, it is likely to be cross-fu nctional bu t
lim ited to one rep resentative from each fu nction w ithin the p rocess cycle and con-
strained by the availability of staff.
TEAM MEETINGS
The stru ctu re of team m eetings d ep end s on the team ’s p u rp ose, its size, its d u ra-
tion, its p rojected ou tcom es, and the d egree of u rgency of resu lts requ ired . Team s
m ay range from having no form al m eetings to having frequ ent sched u led m eetings
w ith extensive agend as and form al m inu tes. Certain ru les and regu lations as w ell
as client requ irem ents m ay sp ecify the extent of m eetings to be held .
A com p any w hose qu ality m anagem ent system is certified u nd er the
ISO/ TS16949 Au tom otive stand ard is exp ected to cond u ct p eriod ic d esign review s
(m eetings) as a p rod u ct is being d evelop ed . Evid ence that su ch review s have been
cond u cted and d ocu m ented is exam ined . Failu re to com p ly cou ld p lace the certi-
fication in jeop ard y.
52 Part II: Teams
In a typ ical form al team m eeting, the team lead er arranges for an agend a to be
p rep ared and sent to all team m em bers. The agend a states the tim e, p lace, and in-
tent of the m eeting. Ad d itional m aterial m ay be attached as p rem eeting read ing for
p articip ants to p rep are them selves for d iscu ssion. In som e cases, the agend a states
the role of each team m em ber, w hy his or her inp u t is need ed , and d ecisions that
m u st be m ad e relative to the top ics for the m eeting. The logistics of obtaining the
m eeting venu e and equ ip p ing the m eeting room is the resp onsibility of the team
lead er, bu t the task is often d elegated to an assistant.
All team m em bers have a resp onsibility to assist the team in reaching consen-
su s w hen d ifferences of op inion arise, yet also to challenge assu m p tions that cou ld
end anger the ou tcom e of the team . Fu rther, each m em ber m u st resp ect and coop -
erate w ith others on the team .
Inasm u ch as a team shou ld fu nction as a p rocess, a team m eeting p rocess self-
assessm ent, Figu re 4.1, can be a u sefu l tool to critiqu e the overall effectiveness of a
Circle a number to represent your perception of the team’s process in this meeting.
We had no agenda or we did not TEAM ON TRACK An agenda was distributed in

follow the agenda we had. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 advance of the meeting and we
followed it exactly.
Members who were supposed to ATTENDANCE AND All expected members attended
attend didn’t show. Others PROMPTNESS and arrived on time. The meeting
straggled in late. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 started at the scheduled time.
Some members tended to PARTICIPATION Member participation was evenly
dominate and others did 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 balanced; everyone contributed
not participate. to decisions and openly
discussed ideas.
More than one person talked at LISTENING One person talked at a time;
a time; disruptive remarks were 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 others helped clarify and build on
made; side conversations ideas; all were attentive to person
occurred. Overall disrespect of speaking. Respect for one another
person speaking was evident. was evident.
No attempt was made to redirect SHARED Both the team leader and team
the team to the agenda or to LEADERSHIP members intervened to keep the
encourage balanced participation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 team focused on the agenda and to
stimulate participation when needed.
When conflicts arose, chaos CONFLICT The energies involved with differing
resulted. Differences of opinion MANAGEMENT opinions were directed toward
were allowed to escalate to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 understanding conflicting views
inappropriate behavior and lack and seeking consensus.
of adequate resolution.
Team decisions were inferior to RESULTS Team expertise and decisions were
what individuals would have pro- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 superior to individual judgments.
duced. There was no attempt to Main ideas/decisions were summar-
summarize main ideas/decisions ized, and action assignments were
or future actions/responsibilities. made at end of meeting.
Team was totally ineffective OVERALL RATING Team was totally effective in
in achieving its purpose for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 achieving its purpose for this
this meeting. meeting. All agenda items were
addressed or properly tabled for
the next meeting.
Figur e 4.1 Team meeting process self-assessment.

team m eeting. The valu e lies in having each team m em ber and the facilitator com -
p lete the assessm ent and then having the grou p as a w hole d iscu ss the resu lts,
reach consensu s, and set one or m ore im p rovem ent objectives for the next m eeting.
Circle a nu m ber to rep resent you r p ercep tion of the team ’s p rocess in this
m eeting.
TEAM LEADER AS COACH

Lead ers frequ ently com p lain abou t em p loyees, saying they have p oor w ork habits,
have little resp ect for au thority, requ ire constant su p ervision, arrive late and leave
early, lack d rive and initiative, w ant m ore m oney for less w ork—the list goes on.
“If only they w ere m ore m otivated ” is the com m on lam ent. The fact is that m ost
p eop le start a new job alread y m otivated . Som ething m akes them w ant to take the
job in the first p lace. It’s w hat hap p ens to em p loyees after they take the job that d e-
m otivates them . To lead p eop le better, a team lead er need s to becom e an effective
coach.
A basic p rincip le is that one p erson cannot “m otivate” another. Motivation
com es from w ithin and is a consequ ence of one’s environm ent. This environm ent
m ay consist of p ast exp eriences, the p resent situ ation, com p etency to d o the job,
know led ge of w hat’s exp ected by m anagem ent, w orking cond itions, w hether and
how recognition is received , the d egree to w hich d ecisions and su ggestions are al-
low ed and accep ted , the d egree to w hich one feels em p ow ered to act on behalf of
the bu siness, p ercep tion of m anagem ent’s actions (for exam p le, p u nishing), op -
p ortu nity to d evelop and m ake m ore m oney, cond itions ou tsid e of w ork, and p er-
sonal health. Each p erson has a u niqu e set of need s that vary d ep end ing on
circu m stances and that, if fu lfilled , w ill tend to m ake them feel m otivated . An ef-
fective lead er can p rovid e an environm ent in w hich an em p loyee feels m otivated .
To d o this, consid er the “6 Rs”:
1. Reinforce. Id entify and p ositively reinforce w ork d one w ell.
2. Request information. Discu ss team m em bers’ view s. Is anything
p reventing exp ected p erform ance?
3. Resources. Id entify need ed resou rces, the lack of w hich cou ld im p ed e
qu ality p erform ance.
4. Responsibility. Cu stom ers m ake p ayd ays p ossible; all em p loyees have a
resp onsibility to the cu stom ers, both internal and external.
5. Role. Be a role m od el. Don’t ju st tell; d em onstrate how to d o it. Observe
learners’ p erform ances. Together, critiqu e the ap p roach and w ork ou t an
im p roved m ethod .
6. Repeat. Ap p ly the p reviou s p rincip les regu larly and rep etitively.
Coaching is an ongoing p rocess. Bu t it d oesn’t have to be a bu rd en. Follow ing these
action step s to shap e behavior w ill help a team lead er to becom e an effective,
qu ality-d riven coach:
• Catch team m em bers d oing som ething right and p ositively reinforce the
good behavior in that sp ecific situ ation.
• Use m istakes as learning op p ortu nities.
54 Part II: Teams
• Rew ard team m em bers w ho take risks in changing, even if they som etim es
fail.
• When d iscu ssing situ ations, sit next to the team m em ber. Resp ond w ith “I
see/ u nd erstand .”
• Acknow led ge the team m em ber ’s reason for action, bu t d on’t agree to it if
it’s inap p rop riate.
• When giving p erform ance feed back, reveal reactions after, not before,
d escribing the behavior need ing change.
• Encou rage m em bers to m ake su ggestions for im p roving. Alw ays give
cred it to the m em ber m aking the su ggestion.
• Treat team m em bers w ith even m ore care than other bu siness assets.
POTENTIAL PERILS AND PITFALLS OF TEAMS

• The p u rp ose of the team is not linked to the organization’s strategic
d irection and goals.
• Managem ent com m itm ent and p ersonal involvem ent are nonexistent or
inad equ ate.
• The environm ent for the team is hostile or ind ifferent.
• Assigned m em bers lack the need ed com p etence (know led ge, skills,
exp erience, ap titu d e, and attitu d e).
• Training for team m em bers is not m ad e available or is inad equ ate for the
tasks to be d one.
• Team lead ership is inad equ ate to lead the team in m eeting its objectives.
• Team bu ild ing is nonexistent or inad equ ate.
• Team facilitation is nonexistent or inad equ ate.
• Team grou nd ru les are nonexistent or inad equ ate.
• Team p rocess is ignored or im p rop erly m anaged .
• Mem bers are not behaving as a team .
• Team m em bers are u nsu re of w hat’s exp ected of them .
• Recognition and rew ard for w ork d one w ell is nonexistent or
inap p rop riate.
• Ad equ ate resou rces are not p rovid ed (su p p ort p ersonnel, facilities, tools,
m aterials, inform ation access, and fu nd ing).
• Conflicts betw een d ay-to-d ay w ork and w ork on the team have not been
resolved .
• The team cannot seem to m ove beyond the “storm ing” stage.
• Team m em bers constantly need to be rep laced .
• Team m em bers show little resp ect for one another ’s com p etency.
• The d ecision to form a team is not the best ap p roach for the situ ation.
• The team lead er is relu ctant to give u p absolu te control and u nqu estioned
au thority.
• Day-to-d ay op erations p erceive the team as a p otential threat.
• The u nion resists team form ation.
• The team , if self-d irected , lacks the training and know led ge to hand le
situ ations that m ay be off-lim its, su ch as hiring/ firing and com p ensation.
• Planning the p rocess and m anaging the p rocess by w hich the team w ill
op erate has been d one p oorly, if at all.
• The team lead er d oes not u nd erstand tw o p rim ary concep ts: how to lead a
team and how to m anage the team p rocess.
• The team is allow ed to continu e beyond the tim e w hen it shou ld have been
d isband ed .
• Team m em bers have been selected involu ntarily.
• The basis for team m em ber selection is not consistent w ith the goals and
objectives and the exp ected ou tcom es of the team .
• Team m em bers’ roles and organizational levels in d ay-to-d ay op erations
are carried into team activities, u p setting the “all are equ al” environm ent
d esired .
• The team assu m es an u nau thorized life of its ow n.
• The team fails to keep the rest of the organization ap p rised of w hat it’s
d oing and w hy.
• Team m em bers are cu t off from their form er d ay-to-d ay fu nctions, losing
op p ortu nities for p rofessional d evelop m ent, p rom otions, and p ay raises.
• The size of the team is inap p rop riate for the intend ed ou tcom e—too
lim ited or too large.
• The team ’s actions are in violation of its contract w ith the u nion or in
violation of labor law s and p ractices.
WHAT MAKES A TEAM WORK?

• All team m em bers agree on the exp ected ou tp u ts and ou tcom es of the
team .
• Each m em ber is clearly com m itted to the goals and objectives of the team
and u nd erstand s w hy he or she is on the team .
• Each m em ber fu lly accep ts the resp onsibilities assigned and m akes an
overall com m itm ent to help w ith w hatever need s to be d one to ensu re the
team ’s su ccess.
56 Part II: Teams
• Mem bers agree to freely ask qu estions and op enly share their op inions and
feelings, w ith no hid d en agend as and w ith resp ect for other team
m em bers.
• Inform ation is not hoard ed or restricted . Each m em ber has access to w hat
is need ed , and w hen it is need ed , to get the w ork accom p lished .
• Bu ild ing and m aintaining tru st is of p aram ou nt im p ortance to the team ’s
su ccessfu l achievem ent of its p u rp ose.
• Every m em ber feels he or she can m ake a d ifference w ith his or her
contribu tion.
• Managem ent is com m itted to su p p orting the team ’s d ecisions, as is each
team m em ber.
• Conflict w ithin the team , w hen p rop erly m anaged , p rod u ces a w in–w in
ou tcom e.
• The team m aintains a d u al focu s: its p rocess as a team and its anticip ated
ou tcom es.
• Serving on the team can increase a m em ber ’s exp ertise and rep u tation bu t
shou ld never be a d etrim ent to his or her p ersonal d evelop m ent (su ch as
p rom otional op p ortu nities, com p ensation increases, and training to
m aintain job skills).
Chapter 5
C. Team Form ation
an d G rou p D yn am ics
1. INITIATING TEAMS
Apply the elements of launching a team:

clear purpose, goals, commitment, ground
rules, schedules, support from
management, and team empowerment.
(Apply)
CQIA BoK 2006
The u nd erlying p rincip les p ertaining to lau nching m ost any team are as follow s:
• There m u st be a clearly u nd erstood p u rp ose for having the team . This
p u rp ose m u st be com m u nicated to all ind ivid u als and organizations
p otentially im p acted by the w ork of the team .
• The team m u st be p rovid ed w ith or generate a m ission statem ent and a
clear goal—the exp ected ou tcom e of the team ’s efforts. The m ission and
the goal m u st su p p ort the organization’s strategic p lans.
• The team m u st d ocu m ent objectives, w ith tim e lines and m easu rem ent
criteria, for the achievem ent of the goal.
• The team m u st have the su p p ort of m anagem ent, inclu d ing the need ed
resou rces to achieve the team ’s objectives.
• The team m u st be given or d efine for itself the grou nd ru les u nd er w hich it
w ill op erate.
57
58 Part II: Teams
• The team m u st be em p ow ered , to the extent allow ed by the sp onsor, to

p erform its sched u led activities.
• The team m u st bu ild into its p lans a m eans for interim m easu rem ent of
p rogress and the m eans for im p roving its p erform ance.
• The team m u st com m it to achieving its m ission, goals, and objectives.
• The sp onsor m u st p rovid e a m echanism for recognizing both the efforts
and the ou tcom es of the team ’s activities.
Guidelines for Team Formation

• A form al charter m ay be ap p rop riate. The charter cou ld inclu d e:
• The p u rp ose for the team and overall ou tcom e anticip ated
• The sp onsor
• Ap p roval to lau nch the team (inclu d ing release of fu nd ing)
• Criteria for team m em ber selection
• Method ology and technology to be u sed
• Degree of au tonom y granted and team m em ber em p ow erm ent
bou nd aries
• Any constraints p ertinent to the team ’s w ork and cond u ct
• A start and com p lete tim e (as ap p licable)
• Techniqu es and tools of p roject p lanning and m anagem ent w ill be u sed as
ap p licable.
• A tracking, m easu ring, and rep orting p roced u re w ill be im p lem ented .
• Risk assessm ent criteria w ill be established , contingency p lans m ad e, and
p eriod ic assessm ents cond u cted .
• Means w ill be p u t in p lace to recognize, reinforce, and rew ard the team for
w ork d one w ell.
2. SELECTING TEAM MEMBERS
Know how to select team members who

have appropriate skill sets and knowledge
(e.g., number of members, expertise, and
representation). (Apply)
CQIA BoK 2006

Chapt er 5: C. Team For mat ion and Gr oup Dynamics 59
The basis for a strong, su ccessfu l team is carefu l selection of its m em bers. See
Table 4.1 for the attribu tes of good role p erform ance.
Team m em bers are often selected becau se of their know led ge and p ast
achievem ents. Mem bership choices for sm aller and shorter-d u ration team s are fre-
qu ently based on inform al referrals. Som e instru m ents and form al m ethod s m ay
be em p loyed in staffing larger and longer-d u ration team s, esp ecially w hen cand i-
d ates are u nknow n to the sp onsor or team lead er.
In ou r fast-p aced environm ent, m ost organizations seek team lead ers w ho are
both visionary and flexible—team lead ers w ho can insp ire an eclectic, high-
p erform ance grou p of follow ers. N eed ed are team lead ers w ho can coach as w ell
as cajole, cap tain as w ell as crew, control as w ell as collaborate, criticize as w ell as
com m end , confess as w ell as confront, consu m m ate as w ell as conced e, create as
w ell as conform —these and others are attribu tes of a flexible lead er. Althou gh they
m ay help , neither charism a nor su p eriority (in term s of p osition, ed u cation,
longevity, or p olitical clou t) shou ld be the p rim ary criterion for choosing a p oten-
tially effective team lead er.
A floundering project team formed to design and implement a substantive
information technology project failed to reach any of its first-year goals, other
than spending the $100,000 (1970 time period) allocated for the project. The
small team of three, augmented by personnel from a software design firm, was
led by a person who had in-depth knowledge of present systems, the
organization, and the principal people in the organization. He had been with the
company his entire working career and was within two years of retirement when
first assigned. A systems analyst and an accomplished computer programmer
were the other in-house team members.
When the CEO became concerned that nothing visible was occurring, he
ordered that a new project manager be assigned with the directive to find out
what was going on and then recommend either continuance with restructuring
or abandonment. The new project manager assessed the situation and confirmed
that the three project incumbents had sufficient expertise, with help from the
software house, to complete the project with a one-year extension and with
additional funding.
The recommendation was approved, and the now-four-person team
proceeded under new direction. Formal project management practices were
instituted, and a tight time line with interim milestones and clear objectives for
the work were established. Measurements and monitoring were instituted along
with weekly progress reviews. Much of the earlier work had to be discarded.
Assurances had to be obtained for the analyst and the programmer to ensure
their reentry to their former work units when the project was completed. The
contract with the software house had to be renegotiated, with penalty clauses for
nonconformances. Working conditions for the team were improved. Means for
recognizing their contribution were created.
Relieved of his project manager responsibility, the former leader poured
newfound energy and his extensive knowledge into the detailed design of the
system, eager to retire with a success. Ensured of their jobs after the project was
completed, the analyst and the programmer committed to making the project
successful.
60 Part II: Teams
The key to the successful completion of the project, 10 months later, was due
in large part to the new team leader’s attributes, some of which were similar to
those noted earlier.
Id eally, a p rofile of w hat attribu tes are sou ght for each m em ber of a team estab-
lishes the criteria for gu id ing selection. Résu m és of cand id ates and record s of p ast
p erform ance are review ed , and interview s of p otential m em bers are cond u cted . In-
stru m ents m ay au gm ent m em ber selection, su ch as:
• The Myers-Briggs Typ e Ind icator (MBTI) is an instru m ent for assessing
p ersonality “typ e” based on Carl Ju ng’s theory of p ersonality p references.
The test resu lts, analyzed by a trained p ractitioner, can aid in stru ctu ring
either the d iversity or the sim ilarity d esired in a p otential team . Fou r
bip olar scales, as follow s:
(E) Extroverted or (I) Introverted
(S) Sensing or (N ) Intu itive
(T) Thinking or (F) Feeling
(J) Ju d ging or (P) Perceiving
form 16 p ossible styles, for exam p le:
EN FP, IN TJ, ISFJ . . .
• The DiSC p rofiling instru m ent, based on William Marston’s theories,
m easu res characteristic w ays of behaving in a p articu lar environm ent. The
DiSC d im ensions are: Dom inance, Influ ence, Stead iness, and
Conscientiou sness.
• A KESAA factors analysis is a m ethod for cap tu ring and analyzing the
factors that are im p ortant for p erform ing a sp ecific job or task. The factors
are: Know led ge, Exp erience, Skills, Ap titu d e, and Attitu d e.1
In ad d ition to the com p osition of the team , another key consid eration for its su c-
cess is w hether the team w ill fu nction as an au tonom ou s p arallel organization or
as an ad ju nct to the d aily op eration of the organization. The stand alone team is of-
ten located aw ay from the p arent organization and is also som etim es exem p t from
som e of the restrictive ru les of the p arent organization. Mem bers of su ch a team are
typ ically on tem p orary assignm ent to the team and d o not carry their form er d aily
resp onsibilities w ith them to the new assignm ent. When the team m u st fu nction
w hile at the sam e tim e m em bers retain d ay-to-d ay resp onsibilities, conflicts can
arise over w hich activity takes p reced ence. If su ch conflicts are not carefu lly han-
d led , team effectiveness can be com p rom ised .
“Pills-are-us,” a cross-functional PIT in a small community hospital, was
established to find ways to reduce the time it took to obtain medications from the
hospital’s pharmacy. The nine-person team, consisting of nurses from each of the
larger departments, was to meet for one hour once a week “until they found a
way to substantially reduce the cycle time.”
From the outset, the team was plagued with absences and late arrivals. Each
absent or tardy nurse had legitimate reasons for his or her behavior. Regardless,
team effectiveness suffered and the team dragged on without an end in sight.
Repeatedly, the team leader attempted to get department heads to help resolve
the conflict, but their concerns were elsewhere.
Finally, the team’s sponsor, a vice president, stepped up to his responsibility
and convened a meeting of department heads to reaffirm their commitment and
reach agreement as to how their nurses’ participation would be handled.
Priorities were established, resource-sharing agreements were reached, and
supervisors were advised of the decisions. Project team participation now had its
assigned priority and the appropriate management commitment to back it up.
The team members—the nurses—were relieved of the decision as to which
“master” to serve first and under what conditions.
3. TEAM STAGES
Describe the classic stages of team

evolution (forming, storming, norming,
and performing). (Understand)
CQIA BoK 2006
Team s m ove throu gh fou r stages of grow th as they d evelop m atu rity over tim e.2
Each stage m ay vary in intensity and d u ration.
Stage 1: Forming
The cu ltu ral backgrou nd , valu es, and p ersonal agend a of each team m em ber com e
together in an environm ent of u ncertainty. N ew m em bers w ond er, “What w ill be
exp ected of m e? H ow d o I, or can I, fit in w ith these p eop le? What are w e really
su p p osed to d o? What are the ru les of the ‘gam e,’ and w here d o I find ou t abou t
them ?” Fear is often p resent bu t frequ ently d enied . Fear m ay be abou t p ersonal ac-
cep tance, p ossible inad equ acy for the task ahead , and the consequ ences if the team
fails its m ission. These fears and other concerns m anifest them selves in d ysfu nc-
tional behaviors su ch as:
• Maneu vering for a p osition of statu s on the team
• Und ercu tting the id eas of others
• Degrad ing another m em ber
• Trying to force one’s p oint of view on others
• Bragging abou t one’s acad em ic cred entials
• Vehem ently objecting to any su ggestion bu t one’s ow n
• Abstaining from p articip ation in d iscu ssions
• Distracting the w ork by injecting u nw anted com m ents or trying to take the
team off track
• Retreating to a p osition of com p lete silence
62 Part II: Teams
Becau se of the d iversity of som e team s, there m ay be a w id e variety of d iscip lines,

exp erience, acad em ic levels, and cu ltu ral d ifferences am ong the m em bers. This can
resu lt in confu sion, m isu nd erstand ing of term inology, and langu age d ifficu lties. A
techniqu e for m oving the team throu gh this stage is to clearly state and u nd erstand
the p u rp ose of the team , id entify the roles of the m em bers, and establish criteria for
accep table behavior (“norm s”).
Stage 2: Storming
In this stage, team m em bers still tend to think and act m ostly as ind ivid u als. They
stru ggle to find w ays they can w ork together, and som etim es they belligerently re-
sist. Each m em ber ’s p ersp ective ap p ears to be form ed from his or her ow n p er-
sonal exp erience rather than based on inform ation from the w hole team .
Uncertainty still exists, d efenses are still u p , and collaborating is not yet the ac-
cep ted m od e of op eration. Mem bers m ay be argu m entative. They frequ ently test
the lead er ’s au thority and com p etence. Mem bers often try to red efine the goal and
d irection of the team and act as ind ivid u al com p etitors.
Stage 3: Norming
At this stage, tru e team w ork begins. Mem bers shift from d w elling on their p er-
sonal agend as to ad d ressing the objectives of the team . Com p etitiveness, p erson-
ality clashes, and loyalty issu es are su blim ated , and the team m oves tow ard
w illingness to coop erate and op enly d iscu ss d ifferences of op inion. The lead er fo-
cu ses on p rocess, p rom oting p articip ation and team d ecision m aking, encou raging
p eer su p p ort, and p rovid ing feed back. A p otential d anger at this stage is that team
m em bers m ay w ithhold their good id eas for fear of reintrod u cing conflict.
Stage 4: Performing
N ow the m em bers, fu nctioning as a m atu re and integrated team , u nd erstand the
strengths and w eaknesses of them selves and other m em bers. The lead er focu ses on
m onitoring and feed back, letting the team take resp onsibility for solving p roblem s
and m aking d ecisions. The team has becom e satisfied w ith its p rocesses and is
com fortable w ith its w orking relationship s and its resolu tion of team p roblem s.
The team is achieving its goals and objectives. H ow ever, reaching this stage d oes
not gu arantee sm ooth w aters ind efinitely.
Typ ically, a team m oves throu gh these fou r stages in sequ ence. H ow ever, a
team m ay regress to an earlier stage w hen som ething d istu rbs its grow th. The ad -
d ition of a new m em ber m ay take a team back to stage 1 as the new m em ber tries
to becom e accep ted and the existing team m em bers “test” the new com er. Loss of a
resp ected m em ber m ay shift the ap p arent balance of p ow er so that the team reverts
to stage 2. A change in scop e or the threat of the cancellation of a team ’s p roject m ay
d ivert the team to an earlier stage to red efine d irection. Exp osu re of an ind ivid u al
team m em ber ’s m anip u lation of the team can cau se anger, retrenchm ent to silence,
or a p u sh to reject the offend ing m em ber, along w ith a ju m p back to stage 1.
Som e team s find d ifficu lty in su staining stage 4 and oscillate betw een stages 3
and 4. This m ay be a m atter of inep t team lead ership , u nsu p p ortive sp onsorship ,
less-than-com p etent team m em bers, external factors that threaten the life of the
team ’s p roject, or a host of other factors.
Big Risk, an insurer of off-road construction and pleasure vehicles, has a
strategic plan to reduce administrative expenses by 30 percent over the next
three years. In support of this goal, the vice president of administration sponsors
a project: a claim-processing team (CPT) to reduce the claim-processing cycle
time (mission) from three weeks to four days within one year. A team leader is
selected. She gathers data and estimates savings of $250,000 per year and an
estimated project cost of $25,000.
The CPT members are selected from functions affected by any potential
change. A facilitator is retained to conduct team-building training and to guide
the team through its formative stages until it reaches a smooth-functioning level
of maturity. The CPT prepares a project plan, including monthly measurement
of progress, time usage, and costs. The vice president of administration (sponsor)
approves the plan. The CPT fine-tunes its objectives, determines ground rules,
and allocates the tasks to be performed. The project is launched.
The CPT reviews its progress weekly, making any necessary adjustments.
The CPT presents a monthly summary review to the vice president of
administration, giving the status of time usage, costs, and overall progress
toward the goal. Any problems requiring the vice president’s intervention or
approval are discussed (such as the need for more cooperation from the manager
of field claims adjusters or the need to contract for the services of a computer
systems consultant).
The CPT completes the process reengineering and successfully implements the
changes. A formal report and presentation are presented to the senior management.
The outcomes of the CPT are publicized (recognition). The CPT is disbanded.
4. TEAM BARRIERS
Understand the value of conflict, know

how to resolve team conflict, define and
recognize groupthink and how to
overcome it, understand how poor
logistics and agendas as well as lack of
training become barriers to a team.
(Analyze)
CQIA BoK 2006
Conflict am ong team m em bers can occu r at any of the stages bu t is m ore likely to
su rface d u ring the “form ing” and “storm ing” stages. Conflict can, and d oes, occu r
in coop erative as w ell as com p etitive relationship s. It is a p art of hu m an life. Con-
flict is inevitable—m ake it w ork for the team .
64 Part II: Teams
Au thors Schm id t and Tannenbau m list five stages of the evolu tion of conflict:3
1. Anticip ation
2. Consciou s bu t u nexp ressed d ifference
3. Discu ssion
4. Op en d isp u te
5. Op en conflict
The team lead er, w ith gu id ance from a facilitator, if need ed , can help transform a
conflict into a p roblem -solving event by:
• Welcom ing d ifferences am ong team m em bers
• Listening attentively w ith u nd erstand ing rather than evalu ation
• H elp ing to clarify the natu re of the conflict
• Acknow led ging and accep ting the feelings of the ind ivid u als involved
• Ind icating w ho w ill m ake the final d ecision
• Offering p rocess and grou nd -ru le su ggestions for resolving the d ifferences
• Paying attention to su staining relationship s betw een the d isp u tants
• Creating ap p rop riate m eans for com m u nication betw een the p ersons
involved in the conflict
A com m only u sed instru m ent for assessing ind ivid u al behavior in conflict situ a-
tions is the Thom as-Kilm ann Conflict Mod e Instru m ent.4 This instru m ent assesses
behavior on tw o d im ensions: assertiveness and coop erativeness. These d im en-
sions are then u sed to d efine three sp ecific m ethod s for d ealing w ith conflicts:
avoid ing–accom m od ating, com p eting–collaborating, and com p rom ising.
“Conflict is com m on and u sefu l. It is a sign of change and m ovem ent. Conflict
is neither good nor bad . The effort shou ld not be to elim inate conflict bu t to refo-
cu s it as a p rod u ctive rather than d estru ctive force. Conflict can be a vital, energiz-
ing force at w ork in any team .” 5 Therefore, if conflict is ap p roached as an
op p ortu nity to learn and m ove forw ard it really isn’t a barrier, it’s m ore an enabler.
Active listening is a key attribu te for team lead ers in m anaging conflict. Active
listening is u sed to:
• Red u ce d efensiveness
• H elp others feel u nd erstood
• Defu se em otional situ ations
• Bu ild rap p ort and tru st
• H elp to focu s energy on p roblem solving
Active listening involves tw o step s:
1. Accep t w hat the ind ivid u al is saying (w hich d oes not im p ly agreem ent)
and his or her right to say it
2. Offer you r u nd erstand ing of both the content of w hat w as said and the
feelings you observe and hear, giving no u nsolicited ad vice
Groupthink
In the team -selection p rocess, as w ell as w hen the team is fu nctioning d ay-to-d ay,
care m u st be taken to avoid grou p think. Grou p think occu rs w hen m ost or all of the
team m em bers coalesce in su p p ort of an id ea or a d ecision that hasn’t been fu lly
exp lored , or one on w hich som e m em bers secretly d isagree. The m em bers are m ore
concerned w ith m aintaining friend ly relations and avoid ing conflict than in be-
com ing engrossed in a controversial d iscu ssion.
Actions to forestall grou p think m ay inclu d e:
• Brainstorm ing alternatives before selecting an ap p roach
• Encou raging m em bers to exp ress their concerns
• Ensu ring that am p le tim e is given to su rface, exam ine, and com p rehend all
id eas and su ggestions
• Develop ing ru les for exam ining each alternative
• Ap p ointing an “objector” to challenge p rop osed actions
Other Barriers
• Logistics is d efined as a p rocess involving p lanning, im p lem enting, and controlling
an efficient, cost-effective flow and storage of raw m aterials, in-p rocess inventory,
finished good s, and related inform ation from p oint of origin to p oint of consu m p -
tion for the p u rp ose of conform ing to cu stom er requ irem ents.6 Breakd ow ns in the
p lanning and im p lem enting p hases can su bstantially and negatively im p act the
w ork of a team . For exam p le:
HandiWare, a manufacturer of household tools designed especially for women,
has assembled its first team to design, procure, and install an exhibit at an
upcoming home show. The team completes the exhibit design on schedule,
procures the needed materials to assemble the exhibit, and arranges for the
shipping to and erection of the exhibit at the site—all on schedule.
The HandiWare salespeople arrive at the site to set up, but the exhibit does
not. Phone calls and e-mails finally confirm the exhibit is on a truck four states
away and heading even farther away. The sales team cobbles together a makeshift
exhibit that fails to portray the quality products they wish the consumers to buy.
A postexhibition lessons learned debriefing concludes that:
• No risk assessment had been done
• No contingency plans were made based on potential scenarios
• No exhibition-savvy person was involved in the planning
• No attempt had been made to query other, more experienced exhibitors
• No representative of the HandiWare exhibition team had been invited to sit in on
the design team
• The exhibit design was beautifully and cost-effectively designed, and was never used
66 Part II: Teams
• Agend as (hid d en and otherw ise) are another com m on barrier. If a team m em ber is
hid ing a p u rp ose for p articip ating that conflicts w ith the m ission and objectives of
the team , it can resu lt in a d ysfu nctional team . Su ch hid d en agend as m ay be
p olitically m otivated or m otivated for self-gain.
Also, a m em ber w ho continu ally d isru p ts the w ork of the team w ith behavior that is
offensive to other m em bers can cau se rebu ffs, resentm ent, and / or retaliation. Som e
su ch p eop le seek to:
• Get p ersonal attention
• Gain control of the team
• Disresp ect the team lead ership
• Take the team “off-track”
• Destroy the team environm ent
It is vital that the team lead ers, perhap s w ith assistance from the facilitator, d eal w ith
these agend as as soon as d etected . Best scenario: a brief, straight-to-the-p oint talk
w ith the ind ivid u al, aw ay from the team , resu lting in a p ositive behavior change.
Worst scenario: the p erson becom es belligerent, resists attem p ts to correct the
d isrup tive behavior, and requ ires d iscip linary action, even rem oval from the team .
• Lack of training is yet another com m on barrier. Lack of the “soft” or interp ersonal
skills as w ell as lack of skills in the u se of ap p rop riate tools can im p ed e a team ’s
p rogress. Unless team m em bers have had p reviou s exp erience on team s, it is w ise to
p rovid e training on team w ork and team d ynam ics. A team shou ld strive to m ove
throu gh the stages of team d evelop m ent in as effective a w ay as p ossible. It u su ally
p ays to sp end the effort, tim e, and exp ense to carefu lly train the team m em bers for
the roles they w ill be asked to fu lfill.
With m ost ad u lts, ju st-in-tim e training w orks w ell. This m eans that skill training takes
p lace im m ed iately before the trainee w ill u se the skill.
5. DECISION MAKING
Understand and apply different decision

models (voting, consensus, etc.) (Apply)
CQIA BoK 2006
Definitions
Decision making is a p rocess for analyzing p ertinent d ata to m ake the op tim u m
choice. Decisiveness is the skill of selecting a d ecision and carrying it throu gh.
Some readers, fans of the Star Trek television program, may recall the decision
process of the captain of the Starship Enterprise. He considered the input (data
and a recommendation) from his subordinate officers, made a decision, and
ordered: “Make it so.”
The Decision Making Process

1. Clearly state the d ecision p u rp ose
2. Establish the criteria (basis for d ecision and resu lts requ ired )
3. Assess criteria for those criterions that w ou ld be accep table and
m easu rable (id entify the d esirable criteria in ord er of p riority)
4. Create a list of alternatives to consid er, and collect d ata abou t each
5. Assess the alternatives (relate each alternative solu tion back to the
criteria and elim inate those that are u naccep table, w eigh and p rioritize
rem aining alternatives)
6. Cond u ct a risk analysis of the rem aining alternatives (w hat cou ld go
w rong?)
7. Assess the risks (p robability and seriou sness of im p act)
8. Make the d ecision (a d ecision w ith m anageable and accep table risk)
Decision Making Styles

• Top -d ow n (The boss m akes the d ecisions.)
• Consu ltative (Top -level p eop le solicit inp u t from low er levels.)
• Proactive consu ltative (Low er-level p eop le p rop ose id eas and p otential
d ecisions to the top level for final d ecision.)
• Consensu s (Intelligence and alternatives are w id ely d iscu ssed in the team .
When everyone agrees they can su p p ort a single d ecision, w ithou t
op p osition, it is consid ered final.)
• Delegation
• Delegation w ith p ossible veto (Top -level retains right to reject
d ecision m ad e at a low er level.)
• Delegation w ith gu id elines (Low er levels m ay m ake d ecisions
w ithin established constraints.)
• Total d elegation (Low er levels are free to m ake d ecisions how ever
they w ish.)
• Voting (Each team m em ber has a vote. Each m em ber stating his or her
rationale for his or her vote m ay exp and this m ethod . Voting is accep table
for fairly u nim p ortant d ecisions. It is fast bu t lacks the rigor necessary for
critical and m ore com p lex d ecisions.)
Attributes of a Good Decision

The d ecision:
• Rep resents the op tim u m in op erational feasibility
• Involves a m inim u m of u nd esirable sid e effects and trad e-offs
68 Part II: Teams
• Is technically free from flaw s

• Delineates sp ecific action com m itm ents
• Is w ithin the cap acity of the affected p eop le to com p rehend and execu te
• Is accep table to those involved
• Is su p p ortable w ith the resou rces that can be m ad e available
• Inclu d es p rovision for alignm ent, au d it, and m easu rem ent
Considerations
• Fact-find ing is often confu sed w ith d ecision m aking. Technical qu estions
can be answ ered w ith a “yes or no” or a “Go or no go” d ecision. There are
no alternatives; the answ er is right or w rong.
• Decision m aking is selecting the m ost effective action from am ong less
favorable actions.
• Decisions can be no better than the intelligence su p p orting them .
• Determ ine the d ollar valu e of d ecision-m aking intelligence and then
d eterm ine w hat a better d ecision is w orth.
• Decision m aking is a p rocess rather than a single act.
• Good team lead ers d on’t m ake d ecisions; they m anage d ecision m akers
and d ecision m aking.
• N o team lead er in tod ay’s w orld know s enou gh to m ake m ajor d ecisions
w ithou t help from others.
• Good d ecision m akers hold off d ecisions u ntil they are need ed , bu t they d o
think abou t d ecisions they w ill m ake, and they d on’t d elay the gathering
of intelligence.
• A d ecision m ad e tod ay m ay be totally inap p rop riate in tom orrow ’s
changed environm ent.
Notes
1. Westcott, Ru ssell T. Simplified project management for the quality professional.
(Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2005), p p . 79–81.
2. Defined by Tu ckm an, B. W. Develop m ental sequ ence in sm all grou p s. Psychological
Bulletin 63, no. 6 (N ovem ber–Decem ber, 1965): 384–99.
3. Schm id t, W., and R. Tannenbau m . Managem ent of d ifferences. Harvard Business
Review (N ovem ber–Decem ber 1960).
4. Thom as, Kenneth W., and Ralp h H . Kilm ann. Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument.
(Tu xed o, N Y: XICOM Inc.).
5. Beecroft, G. Dennis, Grace L. Du ffy, and John W. Moran, ed s. The executive guide to
improvement and change. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2003).
6. Ad ap ted from the Cou ncil of Logistics Managem ent.
Bau er, Robert W., and Sand ra S. Bau er. The team effectiveness survey workbook. (Milw au kee,
WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2005).
Beecroft, G. Dennis, Grace L. Du ffy, and John W. Moran, ed s. The executive guide to
Bens, Ingrid , M., ed . Facilitation at a glance! (Salem , N H : GOAL/ QPC, 1999).
Dreo, H erb, Pat Ku nkel, and Thom as Mitchell. The virtual teams guidebook for managers.
(Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2003).
Evans, J. R., and W. M. Lind say. The management and control of quality. (5th ed .). (Cincinnati:
Sou th-Western College Pu blishing, 2002).
GOAL/ QPC and Joiner Associates. The team memory jogger. (Salem , N H : GOAL/ QPC,
1995).
H artzler, Meg, and Jane E. H enry. Team fitness: A how-to manual for building a winning work
team. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 1994).
H icks, R. F., and D. Bone. Self-managing teams. (Los Altos, CA: Crisp Pu blications, 1990).
H itchcock, D. The work redesign team handbook: A step-by-step guide to creating self-directed
teams. (White Plains, N Y: Qu ality Resou rces, 1994).
Ju ran, J. M., and A. B. God frey, ed s. Juran’s quality handbook (5th ed .). (N ew York: McGraw -
H ill, 1999).
McDerm ott, Lynd a C., N olan Braw ley, and William W. Waite. World class teams: Working
across borders. (N ew York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998).
Parker, Glenn M. Cross-functional teams: Working with allies, enemies & other strangers. (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pu blishers, 1994).
Plu nkett, Lorne C., and Gu y A. H ale. The proactive manager: The complete book of problem
solving and decision making. (N ew York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1982).
Scholtes, Peter R., Brian L. Joiner, and Barbara J. Streibel. The team handbook (3rd ed .).
(Mad ison, WI: Joiner Associates, 2003).
Westcott, Ru ssell T. Simplified project management for the quality professional. (Milw au kee,
Westcott, Ru ssell T., ed . The certified manager of quality/organizational excellence handbook (3rd
ed .). (Milw au kee, WI : ASQ Qu ality Press, 2006).
Part III
Con tin u ou s Im p rovem en t
Chapter 6 A. Increm ental and Breakthrough
Im provem ent
Chapter 7 B. Im provem ent Cycles
Chapter 8 C. Problem -Solving Process
Chapter 9 D. Im provem ent Tools
Chapter 10 E. Cu stom er–Su pplier Relationships
1. Internal and External Cu stom ers
2. Custom er Feed back
3. Internal and External Suppliers
4. Su pplier Feed back
Quality improvement must be included in the corporate yearly strategy.

H. James Harrington (IBM )
If you think you are going to be successful running your business in the next
10 years the way you [did] in the last 10 years, you’re out of your mind. To
succeed, we have to disturb the present.
Rober to Goizueta (Coca- Cola)
Even if accurate data are available, they will be meaningless if they are not
used correctly. The skill with which a company collects and uses data can
make the difference between success and failure.
M asaaki Imai, Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success
The largest room in the world is room for improvement.

Anonymous
You can observe a lot by watching.

Yogi Berra
71
Chapter 6
A. In crem en tal an d Break th rou gh
Im p rovem en t
Understand how process improvement can

identify waste and non-value-added
activities. Understand how both
incremental and breakthrough
improvement processes achieve results.
Know the steps required for both types of
improvement. Recognize which type of
improvement approach is being used in
specific situations. Know the similarities
and differences between the two
approaches. (Understand)
CQIA BoK 2006
There are tw o fu nd am ental p hilosop hies relative to im p rovem ent. Im p rovem ent
m ay be achieved on a grad u al basis, taking one sm all step at a tim e. A d ram atically
d ifferent concep t is p racticed by p rop onents of breakthrou gh im p rovem ent, a
“throw ou t the old and start anew ” ap p roach frequ ently referred to as process
reengineering. Both ap p roaches have p roven to be effective d ep end ing on the cir-
cu m stances, su ch as the size of the organization, the d egree of u rgency for change,
the d egree of accep tability w ithin the organization’s cu ltu re, the recep tivity to the
relative risks involved , the ability to absorb im p lem entation costs, and the avail-
ability of com p etent p eop le to effect the change.
72
Chapt er 6: A. Incr emental and Br eakt hr ough Impr ovement 73
INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENT
For exam p le:
Assume that a team is formed in the order fulfillment department of a magazine
publisher to find ways to reduce the processing time for new subscriptions. The
team will likely be seeking small steps it can take to improve the processing time.
When a change is implemented and an improvement is confirmed, the team may
meet again to see whether it can make further time reductions.
This ap p roach of increm ental im p rovem ent m ay be in u se throu ghou t an
organization.
Masaaki Im ai m ad e p op u lar the p ractice of kaizen,1 a strategy for m aking im -
p rovem ents in qu ality in all bu siness areas. Kaizen focu ses on im p lem enting sm all,
grad u al changes over a long tim e p eriod . When the strategy is fu lly u tilized , every-
one in the organization p articip ates. Kaizen is d riven by a basic belief that w hen
qu ality becom es ingrained in the organization’s p eop le, the qu ality of p rod u cts
and services w ill follow. Key factors are the initiation of op erating p ractices that
lead to the u ncovering of w aste and non-valu e-ad d ed step s, the total involvem ent
of everyone in the organization, extensive training in the concep ts and tools for im -
p rovem ent, and a m anagem ent that view s im p rovem ent as an integral p art of the
organization’s strategy. In a seriou s p roblem situ ation, an intensified ap p roach
m ay be u sed , called kaizen blitz. For exam p le:
MedElec, a manufacturer of switches used in medical diagnostic equipment, was
faced with the potential of losing its six largest customers. The threat, due to
mounting numbers of missed delivery dates, caused significant delays in the
entire supply chain. Employing a facilitator, MedElec initiated a five-day kaizen
blitz, with representatives from every department and management. The
objective of the session was to find and implement ways to not only shorten the
delivery cycle but also prevent any future late deliveries. Ultimately, the goal
was to initiate an unconditional guarantee policy for on-time shipments to the
company’s customers.
Following extensive training, the team members gathered and analyzed
performance data, pinpointed the root causes of delays, and prioritized the
problem areas. Then they systematically addressed each problem in order of
priority, first dealing with those problems for which solutions could be
immediately implemented. For each solution, a careful review ensured that no
additional problems would be created once the solution was initiated. The team
then took the solutions back to their work areas and began implementation of the
changes.
The follow ing step s, w hich follow a Plan—Do—Check—Act sequ ence, are typ i-
cally taken in increm ental im p rovem ent:
1. Select the p rocess or su bp rocess to be p rocess-m ap p ed
2. Define the p rocess
a. Inp u ts to the p rocess, inclu d ing su p p liers
b. Ou tp u ts from the p rocess
74 Part III: Continuous Improvement
c. Users/ cu stom ers to w hom ou tp u ts are d irected

d . Requ irem ents of u sers/ cu stom ers
e. Constraints (su ch as stand ard s, regu lations, and p olicies)
3. Map ou t the p rincip al flow (the m ain flow w ithou t excep tions)
4. Ad d the d ecision p oints and alternative p aths
5. Ad d the check/ insp ection p oints and alternative p aths
6. Analyze the p rocess flow to id entify:
a. N on-valu e-ad d ed step s
b. Red u nd ancies
c. Bottlenecks
d . Inefficiencies
e. Deficiencies
7. Prioritize p roblem s:
a. Qu antify the resu lts of each p roblem
b. Id entify the im p act each p roblem has on the overall p rocess
c. Su bject the p roblem s to Pareto analysis and id entify the m ost
im p ortant p roblem
8. Red o the m ap to rem ove a p rim ary p roblem
9. Do a d esktop “w alk-throu gh” w ith p ersons w ho are involved w ith the
p rocess
10. Mod ify the p rocess m ap as need ed (and m od ifications w ill be need ed !)
11. Review changes and obtain ap p rovals
12. Institu te changes
13. Review resu lts of changes
14. Make need ed changes to d ocu m ented p roced u res
15. Rep eat the p rocess for the next-m ost-im p ortant p roblem area
The ind ivid u als resp onsible for the p rocess m ay m ake increm ental im p rovem ents.
H ow ever, d ep end ing on organizational p olicies and p roced u res, ap p rop riate ap -
p rovals m ay be requ ired . Also, there shou ld be concern for interactions w ith other
p rocesses that take p lace before and after the p rocess being changed . More typ i-
cally, a team from the w ork grou p involved initiates increm ental changes. If the or-
ganization has a su ggestion system in p lace, care m u st be taken to ensu re that
conflict of interest d oes not resu lt.
BREAKTHROUGH IMPROVEMENT
Taken to its extrem e, breakthrou gh im p rovem ent m ay encom p ass totally reengi-
neering an entire organization.2 This u su ally m eans literally ignoring how the or-
ganization is stru ctu red and how it cu rrently p rod u ces and d elivers its p rod u cts
and services. It’s a “start from a clean sheet of p ap er” ap p roach. The su bject of
m u ch criticism and a nu m ber of notable failu res, this ap p roach has gained an u n-
savory rep u tation. Unfortu nately, m any organizations have grabbed at this ap -
p roach as a w ay to d rastically cu t costs, m ost significantly by red u cing the nu m ber
of their em p loyees.
In these organizations w ith a qu est to cu t back (on everything), the basic tenets
of the reengineering ap p roach w ere either ignored or su blim ated . A few of the m ost
im p ortant factors to be consid ered inclu d e the need for:
• Carefu l u nd erstand ing of the organization’s cu ltu re and m anagem ent’s
com m itm ent to change (esp ecially w hen p ositions are threatened )
• A w ell-com m u nicated p olicy and p lan for the d isp osition of p eop le
d isp laced by the changes
• A w ell-com m u nicated p lan for the transition (for exam p le, w hether the
changes ju st m ean m ore w ork for the em p loyees left behind )
• Means for d ealing w ith the p sychological trau m a inherent in d ow nsizing
(su ch as the gu ilt felt abou t being a su rvivor, the loss of friend s, and the
anger of term inated or transferred em p loyees)
• Means for ad d ressing the p otential for sabotage, intentional or
u nintentional (su ch as lethargy, loss of interest in the job, retaliation, a
careless attitu d e, and so forth)
Given the sm all nu m ber of real su ccesses in totally reengineering an entire com -
p any all at once, a m ore lim ited ap p roach has em erged , typ ically called process
reengineering. Using p rocess reengineering, a team exam ines a given p rocess, su ch
as com p laint hand ling. It m ay take a m acro look at how com p laints are now han-
d led , ju st to gain a sense of the situ ation. Then, starting w ith a clean sheet of p ap er
(and p erhap s based on inform ation gained from benchm arking), the m em bers of
the team d evise a new (and hop efu lly better) p rocess ap p roach w ithou t resorting
to how the p resent p rocess op erates. The resu ltant p rocess d esign is a breakthrough.
Achievem ent of the breakthrou gh p resu m es that the team p articip ants are able to
shed their biases and their ingrained notions of how things have alw ays been d one.
For exam p le:
State University realizes that its student enrollment process is cumbersome to
administer and frustrating for new students. A cross-functional process
improvement team is formed with a charter to “completely overhaul” the
enrollment process.
The team members undergo training in the concepts of process
reengineering and the tools they may need. Up front, they identify the primary
subprocesses that must be considered: student applications (review, selection,

and notification), payment processing, student loans, new student orientation,
class assignments, dormitory assignments, special requirements (security issues,
dietary needs, and disability accommodations), document completion, data
entry, data processing, and report preparation. They then generate a macro-level
process flowchart showing the interaction of these subprocesses. A
brainstorming session, followed by a multivoting activity, uncovers a host of
ideas on how some of the subprocesses can be improved and a priority for
addressing the ideas and how the ideas can be prioritized. As the team
progresses, it becomes apparent that almost all of the data required to initiate
student enrollment can be captured on a single document prepared by the
expectant enrollee in machine-readable format. From this document, students
selected for enrollment can be sent a bar-coded identification card that can be
used throughout the enrollment process and subsequently for ongoing
transactions throughout the academic year. Upon arrival on enrollment day, the
student presents the bar-coded card to a computer terminal that generates a
printout of the student’s class and dormitory assignments and any special
requirements. The equipment needed to handle the enrollment-day processing is
“on loan” from other university processes, such as the cafeteria and the school
store. This major breakthrough reduces the number of administrators needed to
staff tables on enrollment day. It also eliminates the long wait times in lines and
the crowding for forms and places to fill out the forms. Essentially, the only table
requiring staff, assuming a well-designed system, is one to handle student
requests for assignment changes.
The team drafts a process map of the new student enrollment process, in
detail, and drafts an implementation plan. The plans are submitted to the
appropriate officials, modifications are made as needed, and approval is obtained.
The major breakthrough results in reduced processing time, greater accuracy,
and substantial reduction in student complaints.
Certain generic step s are u su ally involved in initiating breakthrou gh

im p rovem ents:
1. Ensu re that there is a strong, com m itted lead er su p p orting the

initiative
2. Form a high-level, cross-fu nctional steering com m ittee
3. Create a m acro-level p rocess m ap for the entire organization
4. Select one of the m ajor p rocesses to be reengineered
5. Form a cross-fu nctional reengineering team
6. Exam ine cu stom ers’ requ irem ents and w ants in d etail
7. Look at and u nd erstand the cu rrent p rocess from the cu stom er ’s
p ersp ective (its fu nction, its p erform ance, and critical concerns), bu t not
in finite d etail
8. Brainstorm w ays to resp ond to cu stom ers’ need s. Think ou tsid e the box
9. Create breakthrou gh p rocess red esign (assu m ing that the p rocess is still
need ed !):
a. Design to inclu d e as few p eop le as p ossible in the p erform ance of the
p rocess
b. Id entify and qu estion all assu m p tions and elim inate as m any as
p ossible
c. Elim inate non-valu e-ad d ed step s
d . Integrate step s and sim p lify everything p ossible
e. Incorporate the ad vantages of information technology wherever feasible
f. Prep are a new vision statem ent
g. Plan how to com m u nicate the new vision and new s of the p rocess
red esign
h. Determ ine how to achieve p erform ers’ “bu y-in” of new p rocess
d esign
i. Determ ine how to get m anagem ent to see the w isd om of d ism antling
the old p rocess d esign
j. Determ ine how the inevitable d isp lacem ent of p eop le (new w ork
p roced u res, job elim ination, transfers, and d ow nsizing) w ill be
ad d ressed
10. Test-d rive the new p rocess d esign w ith a p ortion of the bu siness and
w ith one or tw o cu stom ers w ho can be cou nted on for collaboration and
feed back
11. Collect feed back from the selected cu stom ers, the involved em p loyees,
m anagem ent, and other affected stakehold ers (su ch as the u nion,
su p p liers, and stockhold ers)
12. Mod ify the p rocess red esign as need ed and com m u nicate the changes
13. Plan a controlled rollou t of the p rocess red esign
14. Im p lem ent the rollou t p lan
15. Evalu ate the effectiveness of the red esigned p rocess continu ou sly at
every stage
a. Assess assim ilation of the changes by w orkforce and m anagem ent
• Ind ivid u al accep tance of changes (technical and social)
• Und erstand ing of need for d isp lacem ent of p eop le (reassignm ents
and term inations)
• Changes to m anagerial and su p ervisory roles and statu s
(red istribu tion of resp onsibilities and au thority)
• Changes to com p ensation, training, d evelop m ent, and other hu m an
su p p ort system s
b. Assess the im p act of the changes on cu stom ers (for exam p le, d id the
red esign accom p lish w hat the cu stom ers need ed and w anted ?)
c. Assess the im p act of the changes on other stakehold ers (for exam p le,
d id the red esign achieve its intend ed p u rp ose w ith m inim u m
negative consequ ences?)
A p rincip al reason for im p roving p rocesses is the rem oval of w aste. Waste occu rs
in clearly visible form as w ell as hid d en from sight. Follow ing are exam p les of vis-
ible and invisible w aste.3
EXAMPLES OF VISIBLE WASTE

• Ou t-of-sp ec incom ing m aterial: for exam p le, invoice from su p p lier has
incorrect p ricing; alu m inu m sheets are w rong size
• Scrap : for exam p le, holes d rilled in w rong p lace; shoe soles im p rop erly
attached
• Dow ntim e: for exam p le, school bu s not op erating; p rocess 4 cannot begin
becau se of backlog at p rocess 3
• Prod u ct rew ork: for exam p le, failed electrical continu ity test; cu stom er
nu m ber not cod ed on invoice
EXAMPLES OF INVISIBLE WASTE

• Inefficient setu p s: for exam p le, jig requ ires frequ ent retightening; incom ing
ord ers not sorted correctly for d ata entry
• Qu eu e tim es of w ork-in-p rocess: for exam p le, assem bly line not balanced
to elim inate bottlenecks (constraints); inefficient load ing-zone p rotocol
slow s school bu s u nload ing, cau sing late classes
• Unnecessary m otion: for exam p le, m aterials for assem bly located ou t of
easy reach; need to bring each com p leted ord er to d isp atch d esk
• Wait tim e of p eop le and m achines: for exam p le, u tility crew (three w orkers
and tru ck) w aiting u ntil p arked au to can be rem oved from w ork area;
p lanes late in arriving d u e to inad equ ate sched u ling of available term inal
gates
• Inventory: for exam p le, obsolete m aterial retu rned from d istribu tor ’s
annu al clean-ou t is p laced in inventory anticip ating p ossibility of a fu tu re
sale; to take ad vantage of qu antity d iscou nts, a yearly su p p ly of p ap er
bags is ord ered and stored
• Movem ent of m aterial (w ork-in-p rocess and finished good s): for exam p le,
in a fu nction-oriented p lant layou t, w ork-in-p rocess has to be m oved from
15 to 950 feet to next op eration; stacks of files are constantly being m oved
abou t to gain access to filing cabinets and m achines
• Overp rod u ction: for exam p le, becau se cu stom ers u su ally ord er the sam e
item again, overru n is p rod u ced to p lace in inventory “ju st in case“;
“extras” are m ad e at earlier op erations in case they are need ed in

su bsequ ent op erations
• Engineering changes: for exam p le, p roblem s in p rod u ction necessitate
engineering changes; failu re to clearly review cu stom er requ irem ents
cau ses changes
• Unneed ed rep orts: for exam p le, a rep ort initiated five years ago is still
p rod u ced each w eek even thou gh the need w as elim inated fou r years ago;
a hard -cop y rep ort d u p licates inform ation available on a com p u ter screen
• Meetings that ad d no valu e: for exam p le, m orning “p rod u ction m eeting” is
held each d ay w hether or not there is a need (coffee and Danish are
served ); 15 p eop le attend a staff m eeting each w eek at w hich one of the
tw o hou rs is u sed to solve a p roblem u su ally involving less than one-fifth
of the attend ees
• Managem ent p rocesses that take too long or have no valu e: for exam p le,
all requ isitions (even for p ap er clip s) m u st be signed by a m anager; a
“m em o to file” m u st be p rep ared for every d ecision m ad e betw een one
d ep artm ent and another
For exam p le:
Years ago, a division of a well-recognized conglomerate reengineered its
manufacturing processes. The division built a new plant and installed all new
processes. Integral to the new process design was an elaborate system for
handling material to and from each workstation. In theory, the material
conveyor system would allow a vast reduction in workspace heretofore taken up
with buffer inventories in the old plant. Improved cycle time, inventory cost
reduction, and smaller plant space were the touted advantages. Most of the
responsibility for designing the handling system was delegated to the equipment
supplier ’s engineers.
Unfortunately, the system was not well planned before the expensive
handling equipment was ordered and installed. Within less than two months of
operation, the plant was hopelessly mired in piles of work-in-process and buffer
stocks stacked under and between machines—so much so that trailer trucks were
rented to store overflowing materials in the parking lot. After six months of
operation, the plant closed for a major overhaul with serious loss of business and
financial impacts. Management was replaced.
The lessons learned were the need to better understand the processes,
especially the constraints involved; to avoid becoming enamored with fancy new
machinery and promises from suppliers; and to involve the people who will have
to operate the system in the process redesign.
Notes
1. Im ai, M. Kaizen: The key to Japan’s competitive success. (N ew York: McGraw -H ill, 1986).
2. Pop u larized by M. H am m er and J. Cham p y in Reengineering the corporation: A
manifesto for business revolution. (N ew York: H arp erBu siness, 1993).
3. Ad ap ted from The certified manager of quality/organizational excellence handbook (3rd ed .).
Chapter 7
B. Im p rovem en t Cycles
Define various improvement cycle phases

(e.g., PDCA, PDSA) and use them
appropriately. (Analyze)
CQIA BoK 2006
WHAT IS AN IMPROVEMENT CYCLE?

An im p rovem ent cycle is an action or series of actions, taken as the resu lt of an or-
ganized and p lanned effort, that m akes a p rocess better.1
WHAT IS PROCESS IMPROVEMENT?

Process improvement m eans m aking things better, not ju st fighting fires or m anag-
ing crises. It m eans setting asid e the cu stom ary p ractice of blam ing p eop le for
p roblem s or failu res. It is a w ay of looking at how w e can d o ou r w ork better.
When w e take a p roblem -solving ap p roach or sim p ly try to fix w hat’s broken,
w e m ay never d iscover or u nd erstand the root cau se of the d ifficu lty. Trying to fix
the p roblem frequ ently d oes not fix the p rocess that created the p roblem , and ef-
forts to “fix” things m ay actu ally m ake them w orse.
H ow ever, w hen w e engage in tru e p rocess im p rovem ent, w e seek to learn
w hat cau ses things to hap p en in a p rocess and to u se this know led ge to red u ce
variation, rem ove activities that contribu te no valu e to the p rod u ct or service p ro-
d u ced , and im p rove cu stom er satisfaction. A team exam ines all of the factors af-
fecting the p rocess: the m aterials u sed in the p rocess, the m ethod s and m achines
u sed to transform the m aterials into a p rod u ct or service, and the p eop le w ho p er-
form the w ork.
80
Chapt er 7: B. Impr ovement Cycl es 81
HOW DOES PROCESS IMPROVEMENT BENEFIT

THE ORGANIZATION?
A stand ard ized p rocess im p rovem ent m ethod ology allow s u s to look at how w e
p erform w ork. When all of the m ajor p articip ants are involved in p rocess im -
p rovem ent, they can collectively focu s on elim inating w aste—of m oney, p eop le,
m aterials, tim e, and op p ortu nities. The id eal ou tcom e is that jobs can be d one m ore
cheap ly, m ore qu ickly, m ore easily, and , m ost im p ortant, m ore safely. Using total
qu ality tools and m ethod s reinforces team w ork. Using team m em bers’ collective
know led ge, exp erience, and effort is a p ow erfu l ap p roach to im p roving p rocesses.
Throu gh team w ork, the w hole becom es greater than the su m of its p arts.
HOW DOES AN ORGANIZATION GET STARTED

ON PROCESS IMPROVEMENT?
An essential first step in getting started on p rocess im p rovem ent is having senior
m anagem ent m ake it an organizational p riority. The im p ortance of p rocess im -
p rovem ent m u st be com m u nicated from the top . Lead ers need to foster an organi-
zational environm ent in w hich a p rocess im p rovem ent m entality can thrive and
p eop le are u sing qu ality-related tools and techniqu es on a regu lar basis. This in-
form ation has been d evelop ed to p rovid e team s w ith a step -by-step ap p roach for
their p rocess im p rovem ent efforts. The focu s is on im p roving a p rocess over the
long term , not ju st p atching u p p roced u res and w ork rou tines as p roblem s occu r.
Managers need to start thinking in these term s:
• What p rocess shou ld w e select for im p rovem ent?
• What resou rces are requ ired for the im p rovem ent effort?
• Who are the right p eop le to im p rove the selected p rocess?
• What’s the best w ay to learn abou t the p rocess?
• H ow d o w e go abou t im p roving the p rocess?
• H ow can w e institu tionalize the im p roved p rocess?
WHAT IS INVOLVED IN THE BASIC PROCESS

IMPROVEMENT MODEL?
The basic p rocess im p rovem ent m od el is show n in Figu re 7.1. The basic p rocess im -
p rovem ent m od el has tw o p arts:
• Step s 1 throu gh 7 rep resent the p rocess sim p lification p art, in w hich the
team begins p rocess im p rovem ent activities
• Dep end ing on the stability and cap ability of the p rocess, the team m ay
continu e on to step 8 or go d irectly to step 14
The Plan—Do—Check—Act (PDCA) cycle, also know n as the Plan—Do—Stu d y—
Act (PDSA) cycle (Figu re 7.2), w hich consists of step s 8 throu gh 14, flow s from the
p rocess sim p lification segm ent. Using all 14 step s of the m od el w ill increase an
Step 1
Select a process and establish
the improvement objective
Step 2
Organize the “right” team
Step 3
Flowchart the current process
Step 4
Simplify the process
and make changes
Step 5
Develop a data collection plan
and collect baseline data
Step 6 No Step 6
Remove Is the process stable?
special cause(s)
Yes
Step 7 Yes
Is the process capable? Go to Step 14
No
Step 8
Identify root causes for A
lack of capability
Figur e 7.1 Basic process improvement model. Continued

(Continued)
A
Step 9
Plan to implement
the process change
Step 10
Modify the data collec-
tion plan (if necessary)
Step 11
Test the change
and collect data
No Step 12
Step 12
Is the modified process
Remove the change
stable?
Yes No Yes
Step 13 No Step 13
Keep the change? Did the process
improve?
Yes
Yes
Step 14 No Step 14
Is further improvement Standardize the process and reduce
Step 8 feasible? the frequency of data collection
Identify root causes
for lack of capability Yes
Figur e 7.1 Basic process improvement model.

Act Plan
Check
Do
(Study)
Figur e 7.2 Plan—Do—Check/Study—Act cycle.
organization’s p rocess know led ge, broad en d ecision-m aking op tions, and enhance
the likelihood of satisfactory long-term resu lts.
PLAN
• Select p roject
• Define p roblem and aim
• Clarify/ u nd erstand
• Set targets/ sched u les
• Inform and register the p roject
• Solve/ com e u p w ith m ost su itable recom m end ation
DO
• Record / observe/ collect d ata
• Exam ine/ p rioritize/ analyze
• Ju stify/ evalu ate cost
• Investigate/ d eterm ine m ost likely solu tions
• Test and verify/ d eterm ine cost and benefits
• Develop / test m ost likely cau ses
CHECK (STUDY)
• Consolid ate id eas
• Select next p roject
• Seek ap p roval from m anagem ent
ACT
• Plan installation/ im p lem entation p lan
• Install/ im p lem ent ap p roved p roject/ training
• Maintain/ stand ard ize
Let’s take a qu ick look at w hat’s involved in each of the step s in the m od el.
Step 1: Select the p rocess to be im p roved and establish a w ell-d efined
p rocess im p rovem ent objective. The objective m ay be established by the team
or m ay com e from other interested p arties, su ch as cu stom ers or
m anagem ent.
Step 2: Organize a team to im p rove the p rocess. This involves selecting the
“right” p eop le to serve on the team ; id entifying the resou rces available for
the im p rovem ent effort, su ch as p eop le, tim e, m oney, and m aterials; setting
rep orting requ irem ents; and d eterm ining the team ’s level of au thority. These
elem ents m ay be form alized in a w ritten charter.
Step 3: Define the cu rrent p rocess u sing a flow chart. This tool is u sed to
generate a step -by-step m ap of the activities, actions, and d ecisions that
occu r betw een the starting and stop p ing p oints of the p rocess.
Step 4: Sim p lify the p rocess by rem oving red u nd ant or u nnecessary
activities. Peop le m ay have seen the p rocess on p ap er in its entirety for the
first tim e in step 3. This can be a real eye-op ener that p rep ares them to take
these first step s in im p roving the p rocess.
Step 5: Develop a p lan for collecting d ata and then collect baseline d ata.
These d ata w ill be u sed as the yard stick for com p arison later in the m od el.
This begins the evalu ation of the p rocess against the p rocess im p rovem ent
objective established in step 1. The flow chart from step 3 help s the team
d eterm ine w ho shou ld collect d ata and w here in the p rocess d ata shou ld be
collected .
Step 6: Assess w hether the p rocess is stable. The team creates a control chart
or ru n chart ou t of the d ata collected in step 5 to gain a better u nd erstand ing
of w hat is hap p ening in the p rocess. The follow -u p actions of the team are
d ictated by w hether sp ecial cau se variation is fou nd in the p rocess.
Step 7: Assess w hether the process is cap able. The team p lots a histogram to
com pare the d ata collected in step 5 against the process im provem ent objective
established in step 1. Usu ally the process simp lification actions in step 4 are not
enough to m ake the process cap able of m eeting the objective, and the team will
have to continu e on to step 8 in search of root causes. Even if the d ata ind icate
that the process is m eeting the objective, the team shou ld consid er whether it is
feasible to im prove the process further before going on to step 14.
Step 8: Id entify the root cau ses that p revent the p rocess from m eeting the
objective. The team begins the PDCA cycle here, u sing the cau se-and -effect
d iagram or brainstorm ing tools to generate p ossible reasons that the p rocess
fails to m eet the d esired objective.
Step 9: Develop a p lan for im p lem enting a change based on the p ossible
reasons for the process’s inability to m eet the objective set for it. These root
cau ses were id entified in step 8. The planned im provem ent involves revising
the step s in the sim plified flowchart created after changes w ere mad e in step 4.
Step 10: Mod ify the d ata collection p lan d evelop ed in step 5, if necessary.
Step 11: Test the changed p rocess and collect d ata.
Step 12: Assess w hether the changed p rocess is stable. As in step 6, the team
u ses a control chart or ru n chart to d eterm ine p rocess stability. If the p rocess
is stable, the team can m ove on to step 13; if not, the team m u st retu rn the
p rocess to its form er state and p lan another change.
Step 13: Assess w hether the change im p roved the p rocess. Using the d ata
collected in step 11 and a histogram , the team d eterm ines w hether the
p rocess is closer to m eeting the p rocess im p rovem ent objective established in
step 1. If the objective is m et, the team can p rogress to step 14; if not, the team
m u st d ecid e w hether to keep or d iscard the change.
Step 14: Determ ine w hether ad d itional p rocess im p rovem ents are feasible.
The team is faced w ith this d ecision follow ing p rocess sim p lification in step 7
and again after initiating an im p rovem ent in step s 8 throu gh 13. In step 14,
the team has the choice of em barking on continu ou s p rocess im p rovem ent by
reentering the m od el at step 9 or sim p ly m onitoring the p erform ance of the
p rocess u ntil fu rther im p rovem ent is ind icated .
STEP 1: SELECT A PROCESS AND ESTABLISH THE PROCESS

IMPROVEMENT OBJECTIVE
Selecting the Process
When an organization initially u nd ertakes p rocess im p rovem ent efforts, senior
m anagem ent m ay id entify p roblem areas and nom inate the first p rocesses to be in-
vestigated . Later, p rocesses w ith p otential for im p rovem ent m ay be id entified at
any organizational level by any em p loyee, w ith the ap p roval of their im m ed iate
su p ervisor.
The follow ing consid erations are im p ortant in selecting p rocesses for
im p rovem ent:
• Total qu ality is p red icated on u nd erstand ing w hat is im p ortant to the
cu stom er. Every w ork u nit, w hether large or sm all, has both internal and
external cu stom ers. H ence, the starting p oint in selecting a p rocess for
im p rovem ent is to obtain inform ation from cu stom ers abou t their
satisfaction or d issatisfaction w ith the p rod u cts or services p rod u ced by
the organization.
• It’s best to start on a sm all scale. Once p eop le can hand le im p roving a
sim p le p rocess, they can w ork on m ore com p licated ones.
• The selected p rocess shou ld occu r often enou gh to be observed and
d ocu m ented . The team shou ld be able to com p lete at least one
im p rovem ent cycle w ithin 30 to 90 d ays; otherw ise its m em bers m ay lose
interest.
• The p rocess bou nd aries have to be d eterm ined . These are the starting and
stop p ing p oints of the p rocess that p rovid e the fram ew ork w ithin w hich
the team w ill cond u ct its p rocess im p rovem ent efforts. As an exam p le, the
p rocess by w hich an organization resp ond s to a cu stom er com p laint call
w ou ld have these bou nd aries:
Starting point: The call is answered promptly and courteously.
Stopping point: The complaint is resolved to the customer’s complete
satisfaction.
It is cru cial to m ake su re that the step s involved in m eeting the p rocess
im p rovem ent objective are located insid e the bou nd aries.
• A Pareto analysis can help the team id entify one or m ore factors or
p roblem s that occu r frequ ently and can be investigated by the team . This
analysis w ou ld be based on som e p relim inary d ata collected by the team .
After the organization m em bers have som e exp erience w orking w ith the
basic p rocess im p rovem ent m od el, p rocesses can be selected that have
been p erform ing p oorly or that offer a p otentially high p ayback in
im p roving organizational p erform ance. The form er category m ight inclu d e
p rocesses that are rou tinely accom p lished in a less-than-satisfactory
m anner. The latter category inclu d es critical p rocesses, su ch as internal
au d iting, corrective and p reventive action, and cost red u ctions. In each
case, it’s best to m ove from the sim p le to the com p licated and from the
better-p erform ing to the w orst-p erform ing p rocesses.
• A p rocess that is p rim arily controlled or significantly constrained by
ou tsid e factors is p robably not a good cand id ate for im p rovem ent by the
organization’s p ersonnel. Processes selected m u st be controlled entirely
w ithin the au thority of the organization’s p ersonnel.
• Only one team shou ld be assigned to w ork on each p rocess im p rovem ent.
Establishing the Process Improvement Objective

Once a p rocess is selected , a w ell-d efined p rocess im p rovem ent objective need s to
be established . The d efinition of the objective shou ld answ er this qu estion:
What improvement do we want to accomplish by using a process
improvement methodology?
The p rocess im p rovem ent objective is frequ ently d iscovered by listening to inter-
nal and external cu stom ers. The team can u se interview s or w ritten su rveys to
id entify target valu es to u se as objectives for im p roving the p rod u ct or service p ro-
d u ced by the p rocess.
Id entifying a p roblem associated w ith the p rocess help s d efine the p rocess im -
p rovem ent objective. The p eop le w orking in the p rocess can id entify activities that
take too long, involve too m any m an-hou rs, inclu d e red u nd ant or u nnecessary
step s, or are su bject to frequ ent breakd ow ns or other d elays. Bu t this is not ju st a
p roblem -solving exercise; this is p rocess im p rovem ent. Problem s are sym p tom s of
Table 7.1 Setting objectives the S.M.A.R.T. W.A.Y.
S Focu s on specific need s and op p ortu nities

M Establish a measurement for each objective
A Be su re objectives are achievable as w ell as challenging
R Set stretch objectives that are also realistic
T Ind icate a time fram e for each objective
W Ensu re that every objective is worth d oing
A Assign resp onsibility for each objective
Y Ensu re that all objectives stated w ill yield d esired retu rn
Source: Reprinted with perm ission of R. T. Westcott & Associates.
p rocess failu re, and it is the d eficiencies in the p rocess that m u st be id entified and
corrected .
For an im p rovem ent effort to be su ccessfu l, the team m u st start w ith a clear
d efinition of w hat the p roblem is and w hat is exp ected from the p rocess im p rove-
m ent. Let’s look at an exam p le:
The organization’s internal audit activity has found only three deviations from
process requirements in the last six audits. The team knows from experience that
there are many day-to-day problems that should be detected by the internal audit
process. The team defines the problem as “an internal audit process that is not
functioning to its full potential.” In beginning to formulate a process
improvement objective, the initial words could be “Improve the internal audit
process so it will routinely find day-to-day process deviations.” A time frame,
measures, and so forth, will then be added.
A team form u lating a p rocess im p rovem ent objective m ay find it help fu l to p ro-
ceed in this w ay:
• Write a d escrip tion of the p rocess that starts, “The p rocess by w hich
w e . . .“
• Sp ecify the objective of the p rocess im p rovem ent effort
• Follow the gu id elines for setting objectives the S.M.A.R.T. W.A.Y. (see
Table 7.1)
A final note: Withou t a stated im p rovem ent objective, the team m ay cond u ct m eet-
ings bu t achieve little im p rovem ent in the effectiveness, efficiency, or safety of its
p rocess. A clearly stated p rocess im p rovem ent objective keep s the team ’s efforts fo-
cu sed on resu lts.
STEP 2: ORGANIZETHE “ RIGHT” TEAM

Team Composition
Once the p rocess has been selected and the bou nd aries established , the next criti-
cal step is selecting the “right” team to w ork on im p roving it. The right team con-
sists of a good rep resentation of p eop le w ho w ork insid e the bou nd aries of the
p rocess and have an intim ate know led ge of the w ay it w orks.
Team Size
Teams consisting of 5 to 7 members seem to function most effectively much of the time.
Though larger teams are not uncommon, studies have shown that teams with more
than 8 to 10 members may have trouble reaching consensus and achieving objectives.
Team Leader
The team lead er m ay be chosen in any of several w ays. The d ep artm ent head or
p rocess ow ner m ay ap p oint a know led geable ind ivid u al to lead the team , or the
p rocess ow ner m ay op t to fill the p osition p ersonally. Alternatively, the team m em -
bers m ay elect the team lead er from their ow n ranks d u ring the first m eeting. Any
of these m ethod s of selecting a lead er is accep table.
The team lead er has the follow ing resp onsibilities:
• Sched u le and ru n the team ’s m eetings.
• Com e to an u nd erstand ing w ith the su p ervisor or w hoever form ed
or chartered the team on the follow ing:
• The team ’s d ecision-m aking au thority. The team m ay only be able
to m ake recom m end ations based on its d ata collection and
analysis efforts, or it m ay be able to im p lem ent and test changes
w ithou t p rior ap p roval.
• The tim e lim it for the team to com p lete the im p rovem ent actions,
if any.
• Determ ine how the team ’s resu lts and recom m end ations w ill be
com m u nicated u p throu gh the organization.
• Arrange for the resou rces—m oney, m aterial, training, ad d itional p eop le—
that the team need s to d o the job.
• Decid e how m u ch tim e the team w ill d evote to p rocess im p rovem ent.
Som etim es, im p roving a p rocess is im p ortant enou gh to requ ire a fu ll-tim e
effort by team m em bers for a short p eriod . At other tim es, the
im p rovem ent effort is best cond u cted at intervals in one- or tw o-hou r
segm ents.
Team Members
Team m em bers are selected by the team lead er or the ind ivid u al w ho form ed the
team . Mem bers m ay have variou s skills, p ay rates, or su p ervisory statu s. Dep end -
ing on the natu re of the p rocess, they m ay com e from d ifferent d ep artm ents, d ivi-
sions, w ork centers, or offices. The key factor is that the p eop le selected for the team
shou ld be closely involved in the p rocess that is being im p roved .
Being a team m em ber carries certain obligations. Mem bers are resp onsible for
carrying ou t all team -related w ork assignm ents, su ch as d ata collection, d ata
analysis, p resentation d evelop m ent, sharing of know led ge, and p articip ation in
team d iscu ssions and d ecisions. Id eally, w hen actu al p rocess w orkers are on a
team , they ap p roach these resp onsibilities as an op p ortu nity to im p rove the w ay
their jobs are d one rather than as extra w ork. (Many of the p oints m ad e in this sec-
tion abou t team s have been fu rther am p lified in Chap ters 3, 4, and 5.)
Team Charter
A charter is a d ocu m ent that d escribes the bou nd aries, exp ected resu lts, and re-
sou rces to be u sed by a p rocess im p rovem ent team . A charter is u su ally p rovid ed
by the ind ivid u al or grou p w ho form ed the team . Som etim es the p rocess ow ner or
the team m em bers d evelop a charter. A charter is alw ays requ ired for a team w ork-
ing on a p rocess that crosses d ep artm ental lines. A charter m ay not be necessary for
a team that is im p roving a p rocess fou nd solely w ithin a single w ork u nit.
A charter shou ld id entify the follow ing:
• The p rocess to be im p roved
• Tim e constraints, if ap p licable
• The p rocess im p rovem ent objective
• The team ’s d ecision-m aking au thority
• The team lead er
• The resou rces to be p rovid ed
• The team m em bers
• Rep orting requ irem ents
Other inform ation p ertinent to the im p rovem ent effort m ay also be inclu d ed , su ch
as the nam e of the p rocess ow ner, the recom m end ed frequ ency of m eetings, or any
other elem ents d eem ed necessary by those chartering the team .
STEP 3: FLOWCHART THE CURRENT PROCESS

Before a team can im p rove a p rocess, the m em bers m u st u nd erstand how it w orks.
The m ost u sefu l tool for stu d ying the cu rrent p rocess is a flow chart. To d evelop an
accu rate flow chart, the team assigns one or m ore m em bers to observe the flow of
w ork throu gh the p rocess. It m ay be necessary for the observers to follow the flow
of activity throu gh the p rocess several tim es before they can see and chart w hat ac-
tu ally occu rs. This record of w here actions are taken, d ecisions are m ad e, insp ec-
tions are p erform ed , and ap p rovals are requ ired becom es the “as-is” flow chart.
It m ay be the first accu rate and com p lete p ictu re of the p rocess from beginning
to end .
As the team p articip ants start w ork on this first flow chart, they need to be care-
fu l to d ep ict w hat is really hap p ening in the p rocess. They d on’t w ant to fall into
the trap of flow charting how p eop le think the p rocess is w orking, how they w ou ld
like it to w ork, or how an instru ction or m anu al says it shou ld w ork. Only an as-is
flow chart that d isp lays the p rocess as it is actu ally w orking tod ay can reveal the
im p rovem ents that m ay be need ed . When team s w ork on p rocesses that cross d e-
p artm ental lines, they w ill have to talk to p eop le at all levels across the organiza-
tion w ho are involved in or affected by the p rocess they are w orking on. It is even
m ore im p ortant to get an accu rate p ictu re of these cross-fu nctional p rocesses than
of those w hose bou nd aries are insid e a w ork u nit or office. The goal of this step is
for the team to fu lly u nd erstand the p rocess before m aking any attem p t to change
it. Changing a p rocess before it is fu lly u nd erstood can cau se m ore p roblem s than
alread y exist.
The team can d efine the cu rrent situ ation by answ ering these qu estions:
• Does the flow chart show exactly how things are d one now ?
• If not, w hat need s to be ad d ed or m od ified to m ake it an as-is p ictu re of
the p rocess?
• H ave the w orkers involved in the p rocess contribu ted their know led ge of
the p rocess step s and their sequ ence?
• Are other m em bers of the organization involved in the p rocess, p erhap s as
cu stom ers? What d o they have to say abou t how it really w orks?
• After gathering this inform ation, is it necessary to rew rite the p rocess
im p rovem ent objective (step 1)?
STEP 4: SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS AND MAKE CHANGES

The team d escribed the current process by d eveloping a flowchart in step 3. Review -
ing this depiction of how the process really works helps team m em bers spot problems
in the process flow. They m ay locate steps or decision points that are red und ant. They
m ay find that the process contains unnecessary inspections. They may d iscover pro-
cedures that were installed in the past in an attem pt to mistake-proof the process af-
ter errors or failures were experienced. All of these consum e scarce resources. Besid es
id entifying areas w here resources are being wasted, the team m ay find a w eak link in
the process that it can strengthen by add ing one or more steps.
Bu t before step p ing in to m ake changes in the p rocess based on this p relim i-
nary review of the as-is flow chart, the team shou ld answ er the follow ing qu estions
for each step of the p rocess:
• Can this step be d one in p arallel w ith other step s, rather than in sequ ence?
• Does this step have to be com p leted before another can be started , or can
tw o or m ore step s be p erform ed at the sam e tim e?
• What w ou ld hap p en if this step w ere elim inated ? Wou ld the ou tp u t of the
p rocess rem ain the sam e?
• Wou ld the ou tp u t be u naccep table becau se it is incom p lete or has too
m any d efects?
• Wou ld elim inating this step achieve the p rocess im p rovem ent objective?
• Is the step being p erform ed by the ap p rop riate p erson?
• Is the step a w ork-arou nd becau se of p oor training or a safety net inserted
to p revent recu rrence of a failu re?
• Is the step a single rep eated action, or is it p art of a rew ork loop that can be
elim inated ?
• Does the step ad d valu e to the p rod u ct or service p rod u ced by the p rocess?
If the answ ers to these qu estions ind icate w aste, the team shou ld consid er d oing
aw ay w ith the step . If a step or d ecision block can be rem oved w ithou t d egrad ing
the p rocess, the team m ay be recovering resou rces that can be u sed elsew here in
the organization.
Elim inating red u nd ant or u nnecessary step s d ecreases cycle tim e. Only p art of
the tim e it takes to com p lete m ost p rocesses is p rod u ctive tim e; the rest is d elay.
Delay consists of w aiting for som eone to take action, w aiting for a p art to be re-
ceived , and sim ilar u np rod u ctive activities. Consequ ently, rem oving a step that
cau ses d elay red u ces cycle tim e by d ecreasing the total tim e it takes to com p lete the
p rocess.
After m aking p relim inary changes in the p rocess, the team shou ld create a
flow chart of the sim p lified p rocess. N ow the team d oes a sanity check:
Can the simplified process produce products or services acceptable to
customers and in compliance with applicable existing standards and
regulations?
If the answ er is yes, and the team has the au thority to m ake changes, it shou ld in-
stitu te the sim p lified flow chart as the new stand ard p rocess. Shou ld the team re-
qu ire p erm ission to m ake the recom m end ed changes, a com p arison of the
sim p lified flow chart w ith the original flow chart can becom e the centerp iece of a
briefing to those in a p osition to grant ap p roval.
At this p oint, the p eop le w orking in the p rocess m u st be trained u sing the new
flow chart of the sim p lified p rocess. It is vital to ensu re that they u nd erstand and
ad here to the new w ay of d oing bu siness. Otherw ise, the p rocess w ill rap id ly re-
vert to the w ay it w as before the im p rovem ent team started w ork.
STEP 5: DEVELOP A DATA COLLECTION PLAN

AND COLLECT BASELINE DATA
Step s 1 throu gh 4 have taken the team throu gh a p rocess sim p lification p hase of
p rocess im p rovem ent. In this p hase, all d ecisions w ere based on exp erience, qu al-
itative know led ge of the p rocess, and p ercep tions of the best w ay to op erate.
For the rem aining step s in the basic p rocess im p rovem ent m od el, the team w ill
be u sing a m ore scientific ap p roach. Step s 5 throu gh 14 of the m od el rely on statis-
tical d ata that, w hen collected and analyzed , are u sed to m ake d ecisions abou t the
p rocess. In step 5, the team d evelop s a d ata collection p lan.
The p rocess im p rovem ent objective established in step 1 is based on cu s-
tom ers’ exp ectations and need s regard ing the p rod u ct or service p rod u ced by the
p rocess. When the team d evelop s a d ata collection p lan, it m u st first id entify
the characteristic of the p rod u ct or service that has to be changed in ord er to m eet
the objective. Let’s look at an exam p le:
The local coffeehouse prepares coffee and sells it to patrons. The coffee is brewed
in a separate urn in the kitchen, then transferred to an urn in the front of the
store. Lately, customers have been complaining that the coffee is too cold when
it’s received.
A team interested in improving this situation developed a process
improvement objective that the coffee would be delivered to customers at a
temperature between 109°F and 111°F. The team members then looked at their
simplified flowchart to identify individual steps where measurements should be
taken.
Some members of the team thought that the water temperature should be
measured as it boiled prior to the actual brewing of the coffee. Others thought
that such a measurement might be easy to obtain, and even interesting, but
would not help them understand why cold coffee was given to customers.
The key to this segm ent of the m od el is to u se p rocess know led ge and com m on
sense in d eterm ining w here to take m easu rem ents. The team shou ld ask: Will the
d ata collected at this p oint help u s d ecid e w hat to d o to im p rove the p rocess?
The team in the exam p le investigated the p rocess fu rther and op ted to take
tem p eratu re m easu rem ents of the coffee ju st after it w as p ou red into the u rn at the
front of the store.
Once the team d eterm ines w hat d ata to collect—and w hy, how, w here, and
w hen to collect it—it has the ru d im ents of a d ata collection p lan. To im p lem ent the
d ata collection p lan, the team d evelop s a d ata collection sheet. This d ata collection
sheet m u st inclu d e exp licit d irections on how and w hen to u se it. The team shou ld
try to m ake it as u ser-friend ly as p ossible.
The team can collect baseline d ata w hen, and only w hen, the d ata collection
p lan is in p lace, the d ata collection sheet has been d evelop ed , and the d ata collec-
tors have been trained in the p roced u res to u se.
STEP 6: ISTHE PROCESS STABLE?

In this step , the team analyzes the baseline d ata collected in step 5. Tw o tools that
are u sefu l in this analysis are a control chart and a ru n chart. Both of these tools or-
ganize the d ata and allow the team to m ake sense of a m ass of confu sing inform a-
tion. They are exp lained in Chap ter 9, Im p rovem ent Tools.
Control charts are better at revealing whether a p rocess is stable and its futu re
perform ance pred ictable. How ever, even if a team begins w ith the sim pler run chart,
it can convert the ru n chart to a control chart w ith a little extra w ork. These tw o tools
are im portant because they help team s id entify special cau se variation in the process.
Whenever an ind ivid u al or a team rep eats a sequ ence of actions, there w ill be
som e variation in the p rocess. Let’s look at an exam p le:
Think about the amount of time it took you to get up in the morning, get
dressed, and leave your house for work during the past four weeks. Although the
average time may have been 28 minutes, no two days were exactly the same. On
one occasion it may have taken 48 minutes for you to get out of the house.
This is w here a control chart or a ru n chart can help you analyze the d ata. Control
charts, and to a lesser extent ru n charts, d isp lay variation and u nu su al p atterns
su ch as ru ns, trend s, and cycles. Data that are ou tsid e the com p u ted control lim its,
or u nu su al p atterns in the grap hic d isp lay of d ata, m ay be signals of the p resence
of sp ecial cau se variation that shou ld be investigated . In ou r exam p le:
Investigation revealed that you were delayed by an early morning phone call
from one of your children who is at college. The data provided a signal of special
cause variation in your getting-off-to-work process.
Bu t w hat if, over a p eriod of 10 d ays, a series of tim es is record ed that averages 48
m inu tes? It seem s that you r getting-off-to-w ork p rocess now inclu d es m aking
breakfast for you r son and d au ghter. This is not ju st a variation—the d ata ind icate
that you r p rocess has changed .
Thou gh this exam p le p ortrays an obviou s change in the p rocess, su btle
changes often occu r w ithou t the know led ge of w orkers. These m inor changes p ro-
d u ce enou gh variation to be evid ent w hen the d ata are analyzed . If sp ecial cau se
variation is fou nd in the p rocess, the team is obligated to find the cau se before m ov-
ing on to the next step in the m od el. Dep end ing on the natu re of the sp ecial cau se,
the team m ay act to rem ove it, take note of it bu t take no action, or incorp orate it
in the p rocess:
• When sp ecial cau se variation red u ces the effectiveness and efficiency of
the p rocess, the team m u st investigate the root cau se and take action to
rem ove it.
• If it is d eterm ined that the sp ecial cau se w as tem p orary in natu re, no
action m ay be requ ired beyond u nd erstand ing the reason for it. In the
cu rrent exam p le, the early p hone call cau sed a variation in the d ata that
w as easily exp lained and requ ired no fu rther action.
• Occasionally, sp ecial cau se variation actu ally signals a need for
im p rovem ent in the p rocess to bring it closer to the p rocess im p rovem ent
objective. When that hap p ens, the team m ay w ant to incorp orate the
change p erm anently.
If the team fails to investigate a signal of sp ecial cau se variation and continu es w ith
its im p rovem ent activities, the p rocess m ay be neither stable nor p red ictable w hen
fu lly im p lem ented , thu s p reventing the team from achieving the p rocess im p rove-
m ent objective.
STEP 7: ISTHE PROCESS CAPABLE?

Once the p rocess has been stabilized , the d ata collected in step 5 is u sed again. This
tim e the team p lots the ind ivid u al d ata p oints to p rod u ce a typ e of bar grap h called
a histogram . This tool is exp lained in Chap ter 9, Im p rovem ent Tools.
To p rep are the histogram , the team su p erim p oses the target valu e for the
p rocess on the bar grap h. The target valu e w as established in step 1 as the p rocess
im p rovem ent objective.
If there are u p p er and / or low er sp ecification lim its for the p rocess, the team
shou ld p lot them as w ell. (N ote: Sp ecification lim its are not the sam e as the u p p er
and low er control lim its u sed in control charts.)
Once the d ata, the target valu e, and the sp ecification lim its (if ap p licable) are
p lotted , the team can d eterm ine w hether the p rocess is cap able. The follow ing
qu estions can be u sed to gu id e the team ’s thinking:
• Are there any u nu su al p atterns in the p lotted d ata? Does the histogram
have m u ltip le tall p eaks and steep valleys? This m ay be an ind ication that
other p rocesses are influ encing the p rocess the team is investigating.
• Do all of the d ata p oints fall insid e the u p p er and low er sp ecification lim its
(if ap p licable)? If not, the p rocess is not cap able.
• If all of the d ata p oints fall w ithin the sp ecification lim its, are the p oints
grou p ed closely enou gh to the target valu e? This is a ju d gm ent call by the
team . Even w hen the p rocess is cap able, the team m ay not be satisfied w ith
the resu lts it p rod u ces. If that’s the case, the team m ay elect to continu e
trying to im p rove the p rocess by entering step 8 of the basic p rocess
im p rovem ent m od el.
• If there are no sp ecification lim its for the p rocess, d oes the shap e of the
histogram ap p roxim ate a bell cu rve? After exam ining the shap e created by
p lotting the d ata on the histogram , the team has to d ecid e w hether the
shap e is satisfactory and w hether the d ata p oints are close enou gh to the
target valu e. These are su bjective d ecisions. If the team is satisfied w ith
both the shap e and the clu stering of d ata p oints, it can choose to
stand ard ize the sim p lified p rocess or to continu e throu gh the step s of the
basic p rocess im p rovem ent m od el.
From here to the end of the basic p rocess im p rovem ent m od el, the team w ill u se
the scientific m ethod ology of the PDCA cycle for cond u cting p rocess im p rove-
m ent. The team w ill p lan a change, cond u ct a test and collect d ata, evalu ate the test
resu lts to find ou t w hether the p rocess im p roved , and d ecid e w hether to stan-
d ard ize or continu e to im p rove the p rocess. The PDCA cycle is ju st that—a cycle.
There are no lim itations on how m any tim es the team can attem p t to im p rove the
p rocess increm entally.
STEP 8: IDENTIFY ROOT CAUSES FOR LACK OF CAPABILITY

Step s 1 throu gh 7 of the m od el w ere concerned w ith gaining an u nd erstand ing of
the p rocess and d ocu m enting it. In step 8, the team begins the PDCA cycle by id en-
tifying the root cau ses for the lack of p rocess cap ability.
The d ata the team has looked at so far m easu re the ou tp u t of the p rocess. To
im p rove the p rocess, the team m u st find w hat cau ses the p rod u ct or service to be
u nsatisfactory. The team u ses a cau se-and -effect d iagram to id entify root cau ses.
This tool is exp lained in Chap ter 9, Im p rovem ent Tools.
Once the team id entifies p ossible root cau ses, it is im p ortant to collect d ata to
d eterm ine how m u ch these cau ses actu ally affect the resu lts. Peop le are often su r-
p rised to find that the d ata d o not su bstantiate their p red ictions or p ercep tions as
to root cau ses.
The team can u se a Pareto chart to show the relative im p ortance of the cau ses
it has id entified . This tool is exp lained in Chap ter 9, Im p rovem ent Tools.
STEP 9: PLAN TO IMPLEMENT THE PROCESS CHANGE

Step 9 begins the “p lan” p hase of the PDCA cycle. Step 10 com p letes this p hase.
After consid ering the p ossible root cau ses id entified in step 8, the team p icks
one to w ork on. The team then d evelop s a p lan to im p lem ent a change in the
p rocess to red u ce or elim inate the root cau se.
The m ajor featu res of the p lan inclu d e changing the sim p lified flow chart cre-
ated in step 4 and m aking all of the p rep arations requ ired to im p lem ent the
change.
The team can u se the follow ing list of qu estions as a gu id e in d evelop ing
the p lan:
• What step s in the p rocess w ill be changed ?
• Are there any risks associated w ith the p rop osed change?
• What w ill the change cost? (The cost inclu d es not only m oney bu t tim e,
nu m ber of p eop le, m aterials u sed , cu stom er p ercep tions, and other
factors.)
• Which w orkers or cu stom ers w ill be affected by the change?
• Who is resp onsible for im p lem enting the change?
• What has to be d one to im p lem ent the change?
• Where and w hen w ill the change be im p lem ented ?
• H ow w ill the im p lem entation be controlled ?
• At w hat step s in the p rocess w ill m easu rem ents be taken?
• H ow w ill d ata be collected ?
• Is a sm all-scale test necessary p rior to fu ll im p lem entation of the change?
• H ow long w ill the test last?
• What is the p robability of su ccess?
• Is there a d ow nsid e to the p rop osed change?
Once the im p rovem ent p lan is form u lated , the team m akes the p lanned changes in
the p rocess, if em p ow ered by the team charter to d o so. Otherw ise, the team p re-
sents the im p rovem ent p lan to the p rocess ow ner, or other ind ivid u al w ho form ed
the team , to obtain ap p roval to p roceed .
STEP 10: MODIFY THE DATA COLLECTION PLAN,

IF NECESSARY
Step 10 conclu d es the “p lan” p hase of the PDCA cycle.
Reviewing and Modifying the Data Collection Plan

The d ata collection p lan w as originally d evelop ed in step 5. Becau se the p rocess is
going to change w hen the p lanned im p rovem ent is institu ted , the team m u st now
review the original p lan to ensu re that it is still cap able of p rovid ing the d ata the
team need s to assess p rocess p erform ance. If the d eterm ination is m ad e that the
d ata collection p lan shou ld be m od ified , the team consid ers the sam e things and
ap p lies the sam e m ethod ologies as in step 5.
STEP 11: TEST THE CHANGE AND COLLECT DATA

Step 11 is the “d o” p hase of the PDCA cycle. If feasible, the change shou ld be im -
p lem ented on a lim ited basis before it is ap p lied to the entire organization. For ex-
am p le, the changed p rocess cou ld be institu ted in a single office or w ork center
w hile the rest of the organization continu es to u se the old p rocess. If the organiza-
tion is w orking on a shift basis, the changed p rocess cou ld be tried on one shift
w hile the other shifts continu e as before. Whatever m ethod the team ap p lies, the
goals are to p rove the effectiveness of the change, avoid w id esp read failu re, and
m aintain organization-w id e su p p ort.
In som e situ ations, a sm all-scale test is not feasible. If that is the case, the team
w ill have to inform everyone involved of the natu re and exp ected effects of the
change and cond u ct training ad equ ate to su p p ort a fu ll-scale test.
The inform ation that the team d evelop ed in step 9 p rovid es the ou tline for the
test p lan. Du ring the test, it is im p ortant to collect ap p rop riate d ata so that the re-
su lts of the change can be evalu ated . The team w ill have to take the follow ing ac-
tions in cond u cting the test to d eterm ine w hether the change actu ally resu lts in
p rocess im p rovem ent:
• Finalize the test p lan
• Prep are the d ata collection sheets
• Train everyone involved in the test
• Distribu te the d ata collection sheets
• Change the p rocess and ru n it to test the im p rovem ent
• Collect and collate the d ata
STEP 12: ISTHE MODIFIED PROCESS STABLE?

Step s 12 and 13 together constitu te the “check” p hase of the PDCA cycle.
The team has m od ified the p rocess based on the im p rovem ent p lan and con-
d u cted a test. Du ring the test of the new p roced u re, d ata w as collected . N ow the
team d eterm ines w hether the exp ected resu lts w ere achieved .
The p roced u res in this step are id entical to those in step 6. The team u ses the
d ata it has collected to check the p rocess for stability by p rep aring a control chart
or ru n chart. Becau se the p rocess has changed , it is ap p rop riate to recom p u te the
control lim its for the control chart u sing the new d ata.
If the d ata collected in step 11 show that p rocess p erform ance is w orse, the
team m u st retu rn to step 8 and try to im p rove the p rocess again. The p rocess m u st
be stable before the team goes on to the next step .
STEP 13: DID THE PROCESS IMPROVE?

Step 13 com p letes the “check” p hase of the PDCA cycle. The p roced u res are sim i-
lar to those in step 7.
This is a good p lace for the team m em bers to id entify any d ifferences betw een
the w ay they p lanned the p rocess im p rovem ent and the w ay it w as execu ted .
The follow ing qu estions w ill gu id e the team in checking the test resu lts:
• Did the change in the p rocess elim inate the root cau se of the p roblem ?
Whether the answ er is yes or no, d escribe w hat occu rred .
• Are the d ata taken in step 11 closer to the p rocess im p rovem ent objective
than the baseline d ata collected in step 5? The answ er ind icates how m u ch
or how little the p rocess has im p roved .
• Were the exp ected resu lts achieved ? If not, the team shou ld analyze the
d ata fu rther to find ou t w hy p rocess p erform ance im p roved less than
exp ected or even becam e w orse.
• Were there any p roblem s w ith the p lan? The team need s to review the
p lanned im p rovem ent as w ell as the execu tion of the d ata collection effort.
STEP 14: STANDARDIZETHE PROCESS AND REDUCE

THE FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION
Step 14 is the “act” p hase of the PDCA cycle. In this step , the team m akes som e im -
p ortant d ecisions. First, the m em bers of the team m u st d ecid e w hether or not to im -
p lem ent the change on a fu ll-scale basis. In m aking this d ecision, they shou ld
answ er the follow ing:
• Is the p rocess stable?
• Is the p rocess cap able?
• Do the resu lts satisfy cu stom ers?
• Are the necessary resou rces available?
• Does the team have au thorization?
If the answ ers are affirm ative, the changed p rocess can be installed as the new stan-
d ard p rocess.
Second , they m u st d ecid e w hat to d o next. Even w hen everything is in p lace
for im p lem enting and stand ard izing the p rocess, the team still has to choose be-
tw een tw o cou rses of action:
• Identifying possibilities for making further process changes. Assu m ing that
resou rces are available and ap p roval given, the team m ay choose to
continu e trying to im p rove the p rocess by reentering the PDCA cycle at
step 9.
• Standardizing the changed process without further efforts to improve it. If this
d ecision is m ad e, the team is still involved —d ocu m enting the changes,
m onitoring p rocess p erform ance, and institu tionalizing the p rocess
im p rovem ent.
To stand ard ize the changed p rocess, the team initiates changes in d ocu m entation
involving p roced u res, instru ctions, m anu als, and other related issu es. Training
w ill have to be d evelop ed and p rovid ed to m ake su re everyone is u sing the new
stand ard p rocess correctly.
The team continu es to u se the d ata collection p lan d evelop ed in step 11 bu t sig-
nificantly red u ces the frequ ency of d ata collection by p rocess w orkers. There are
no hard -and -fast ru les on how often to collect d ata at this stage, bu t, as a ru le of
thu m b, the team can try red u cing collection to a qu arter of w hat is called for in the
d ata collection p lan. The team can then ad ju st the frequ ency of m easu rem ent as
necessary. The p oint is that enou gh d ata m u st be collected to enable the team to
m onitor the p erform ance of the p rocess.
The team m u st p eriod ically assess w hether the p rocess rem ains stable and ca-
p able. To d o this, the d ata collected in step 14 shou ld be entered into the control
chart or ru n chart and histogram d evelop ed in step s 12 and 13, resp ectively.
Whichever cou rse of action the team p u rsu es, it shou ld com p lete one last task:
d ocu m enting the lessons learned d u ring the p rocess im p rovem ent effort and m ak-
ing the inform ation available to others.
Note
1. Mu ch of the inform ation in this section is ad ap ted from the U.S. Navy Handbook for
Basic Process Improvement. Dep artm ent of the N avy, Total Qu ality Lead ership Office,
Arlington, VA 22202-4016. (1996).
Chapter 8
C. Prob lem -Solvin g Process
Apply the basic problem solving steps:

understand the problem, determine the
root cause, develop/implement solutions
and verify effectiveness. (Apply)
CQIA BoK
WHY?
There is a d ifference betw een “fixing” a p roblem and “solving” a p roblem . Fixing
the p roblem , thou gh it m ay be necessary to p rovid e im m ed iate relief, d oes not
gu arantee the p roblem w ill not recu r. Injecting a m ed icine to relieve a sym p tom
d oes not im p ly that the u nd erlying cau se has been cu red . Of cou rse, m any every-
d ay p roblem s can be easily fixed w ithou t taking elaborate step s; for exam p le,
squ irting oil on a squ eaky d oor-hinge w ill fix that p roblem . In tim e, of cou rse, the
hinge m ay d ry ou t and squ eak again.
More com p lex p roblem s fall into tw o broad categories: a p roblem related to a
d eficiency or failu re of som e kind (a sensor failed to signal an error) and a p roblem
of d iscovering som ething new (seeking a d ru g that w ill cu re a rare d isease). This
chap ter w ill d eal w ith the form er typ e of p roblem —instances w here a nonconfor-
m ance has occu rred and the tru e or root cau se is not im m ed iately obviou s.
If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you
always got.
100
Chapt er 8: C. Pr obl em-Sol ving Pr ocess 101
PROBLEM-SOLVING MODEL
In ad d ition to the sim p le m od el su ggested by the chap ter-op ening BoK, nu m erou s
m od els exist for p roblem solving, each w ith a series of step s; som e are very sim p le
and others are m ore com p lex. A seven-step m od el is show n in Figu re 8.1 and d e-
scribed as follow s:
1. Und erstand and d efine the p roblem
2. Collect, analyze, and p rioritize d ata abou t the p roblem sym p tom s;
d eterm ine the root cau se(s) of the m ost significant sym p tom s
3. Id entify p ossible solu tions
4. Select the best solu tion
5. Develop an action p lan
6. Im p lem ent the solu tion
7. Evalu ate the effectiveness of the solu tion in solving the p roblem
Define
Problem
Evaluate Analyze
Progress/ Collect Data
1
Results What Is, Is Not?
Root Cause?
7 2
Problem-Solving
Model
Implement 6 3
Solution Identify
Project Possible
Management Solutions
5 4
Develop
Action
Plan Select Best
Project Solution
Planning Feasibility?
Risk?
Figur e 8.1 Problem-solving model.

1. Define the Problem

It is u su ally relatively sim p le to list the sym p tom s of a p roblem . Unfortu nately,
id entifying the sym p tom s is often w here p roblem analysis stop s and selecting a so-
lu tion takes over. The resu lt can be m issing the real cau se, the root cause, and ap -
p lying an inap p rop riate solu tion. The ou tcom e can be that the p roblem w as never
solved and thu s resu rfaces again later, or in a w orst-case scenario, the p atient d ies
as a resu lt of the p roblem .
For there are few things as useless if not as dangerous—As the right answer
to the wrong question.
Peter E. Ducker, The Practice of Management
Realize that not all p roblem s requ ire a m u ltistep p rocess to resolve. If you r m orn-
ing new sp ap er is not lying in you r d rivew ay, as it u su ally is, you call the new sp a-
p er d istribu tion office and they ru sh the p ap er to you . N o need for you to analyze
w hy the carrier m issed the d elivery. It’s m issing, you call, and it’s d elivered . An-
noying, yes, bu t not a com p lex p roblem .
Usefu l qu estions to ask in exp laining the p roblem are:
• What “it” is—w hat are w e trying to exp lain?
• Where w as “it” observed ?
• Is “it” a real or assu m ed p roblem ?
• H ow d id “it” becom e a p roblem ?
• When d id “it” occu r?
• H as “it” been a p roblem before, how long ago, and w hat w as d one at the
tim e?
• Is “it” a technical or nontechnical p roblem ?
• What is u nsatisfactory abou t the p resent situ ation?
• What are the observed sym p tom s? H ow often d o these sym p tom s occu r?
• What cou ld have occu rred , bu t d id n’t?
• Who or w hat is im p acted / affected by the p resent situ ation?
• H ow w id ely sp read is the p roblem ?
• H ow seriou s is the p roblem accord ing to those affected ?
• What p reviou s actions have alread y been taken to solve this occu rrence
of “it”?
• Is the cau se of the p roblem tru ly know n or m erely su sp ect?
Ad d itional w ays to red efine the p roblem m ay be assisted by:
• Reversing the p roblem (tu rn it arou nd , look at “it” from u p sid e d ow n,

back to front) to get a d ifferent p ersp ective
• Breaking a set (d oes “it” occu r in the w hole p rod u ct line, or ju st in certain
p rod u cts?)
Using inform ation from these qu estions, d evelop a w ritten p roblem statem ent and
the d esired resu lts. State w hy the p roblem is im p ortant to solve.
2. Analyze and Find the Root Cause
I keep six honest serving men

(They taught me all I know);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.
Rudyard Kipling
A symptom is an observable phenomenon arising from and accompanying a

defect.
A cause is an identified reason for the presence of a defect or problem.
Collect d ata to help id entify p otential cau ses. Som e of the techniqu es and tools that
are u sefu l inclu d e:
• Brainstorm ing (Chap ter 9)
• Cau se-and -effect d iagram (Chap ter 9)
• Force-field d iagram (Chap ter 9)
• Flow chart (Chap ter 9)
1
• “What is, w hat is not” chart
Id entify the m ost likely cau ses. Usefu l tools inclu d e:
• “Five Whys” (d on’t stop at five if m ore w ill be better) (Chap ter 9)
• Pareto chart (p rioritizing the p otential cau ses) (Chap ter 9)
• Reality check (Is the p roblem statem ent still valid ?)
3. Identify Possible Solutions

Create a list of p ossible solu tions. Creativity tools that m ay be u sefu l inclu d e:
• Brainstorm ing (Chap ter 9)
2
• Mind m ap p ing
• Analogies 3
4. Select the Best Solution

Red u ce the nu m ber of alternatives from w hich to choose in three su bstep s:
• Use a p aired -choice d ecision m atrix to id entify a sm all nu m ber of best
solu tions.
• Su bject each of the tw o to five selections m ad e in the p reviou s su bstep to:
• Feasibility analysis (Do w e have the resou rces to p u rsu e this
solu tion? Does this solu tion fit the organization’s strategy? etc.)
• Risk analysis (What is the organization’s exp osu re to risk if this

solu tion is chosen?)
• Develop final selection criteria (u p to six) and assign w eights to criteria
(“1”—low, “5”—highest). Ap p ly w eights to each criterion w ithin each
solu tion alternative. The solu tion having the highest total w eight is the
choice.
5. Develop the Action Plan

In all bu t very sim p le solu tions, a p roject to im p lem ent the solu tion m u st be
p lanned and m anaged . Figu res 8.2a and 8.2b p rovid e a sam p le form for action
p lanning. A m ore com p lex p roblem solu tion m ay requ ire m ore sop histicated p roj-
ect m anagem ent m ethod ology and tools.
6. Implement Solution
Follow the p lan.
7. Track and Measure Progress, Evaluate Results

Track the p rogress of the solu tion im p lem entation against the action p lan im p le-
m entation sched u le. Make necessary ad ju stm ents to achieve the solu tion
objectives.
Evalu ate accom p lishm ent of ou tp u ts at com p letion of im p lem entation. Evalu -
ate ou tcom es of the solu tion after an ap p rop riate p eriod of tim e has elap sed . Ask:
• H as the p roblem been su ccessfu lly elim inated ?
• Is the p rocess in w hich the p roblem occu rred now stable?
• H as the solu tion p rod u ced a p ositive p ayback?
• H ave all the step s been taken to ensu re the p roblem w ill not recu r?
• H ave other p rocesses w here a sim ilar p roblem m ight occu r been exam ined
and has p reventive action been taken?
• H ave the lessons learned from exp erience w ith this p roblem been
d ocu m ented and m ad e accessible for fu tu re training and p roblem -
solving u se?
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS IN DEALING WITH PEOPLE

PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS
• Does the p erform er have tim e to d o the job w ell? (The job m ay need to be
red esigned or the w ork better organized so the w orker is not
overbu rd ened . Fix the job, not the w orker.)
• Does the p erform er know w hat is su p p osed to be d one? (Provid e
instru ction and p erform ance feed back.)
• H as the p erform er ever d one the job correctly? (Refresh instru ction and
p rovid e p erform ance feed back.)
ACTION PLAN
Plan No.:
Problem addressed: Date Initiated:
Date Needed:
Approval:
Team (L):
Team:
Solution description:
Major Outcomes/Objectives Desired/Required:
Scope (Where will the solution/implementation be applied? What limitations?):
By what criteria/measures will completion and success of project be measured?
Assumptions made, which may impact project (resources, circumstances outside this project):
Describe the overall approach to be taken:
When should the project be started to meet the date needed/wanted?
Estimate the resources required (Time and Money):
Outline the tentative major steps to be taken, a projected start and complete date for each step,
and the person to be responsible for each step. (Use the back to sketch your timeline.)
Figur e 8.2 a Action Plan Form. (front)

ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Step Responsi- Start End Est. Est.

No. Activity/Task/Event Description bility Date Date Hours Cost
Totals →
Figur e 8.2 b Action Plan Form. (back)

Table 8.1 Distinguishing between performance and skill/knowledge issues.
Relative to Target Pop u lation (TP) J T F C

Does TP have tim e to d o job w ell? X X
Does TP have p rop er facilities in w hich to w ork? X
Does TP have the p rop er tools to d o the w ork? X
Does TP have p rop er p roced u res, instru ctions, job aid s? X
Does TP know w hat they are su p p osed to d o? X X
H as TP ever d one the job correctly? X X
Cou ld TP d o the job p rop erly if their lives d ep end ed on it? X X
If TP cou ld d o the job in an exem p lary w ay, w ou ld they? X
Are there m ore negative than p ositive consequ ences in X
d oing the job?
Does TP know w hen they are not p erform ing as X
su p ervisor exp ects?
Do su p ervisors of TP have requ isite know led ge/ skills X X X
Source: Reprinted w ith perm ission of R. T. Westcott & Associates.
J = Job Satisfaction T = Training Solu tion F = Feedback Solu tion C = Consequences Solution
• Can the p erform er d o the job if his/ her life d ep end ed on it? (Change the
consequ ences for p erform ing the job to increase correct p erform ance.
Provid e p ositive p erform ance feed back.)
• Does the w orker ’s su p ervisor have the requ isite skills to fix the task,
p rovid e ap p rop riate feed back and p ositive consequ ences? (If not, train the
su p ervisor.)
Table 8.1 su m m arizes actions to consid er. An “X” in a colu m n ind icates the focu s
of p otential action to be taken.
A situ ation m ight involve both a know led ge/ skill d eficiency and a p roblem
w ith the task. The task p roblem shou ld be resolved first so that any training efforts
are not w asted .
BENEFITS OF APPLYING A GOOD

PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCESS
Som e of the benefits of a w ell-constru cted p roblem -solving p rocess are:
• The right p roblem gets solved
• Fu tu re w aste is saved becau se the p roblem d oes not recu r
• Su ccessfu l u se of the p roblem -solving m ethod fosters fu rther u se of the
m ethod
• It p rovid es a basis for not only evalu ating the effectiveness of the p roblem
solu tion bu t also the effectiveness of the m ethod ology u sed
DECISION MAKING
Problem solving and decision making are often com bined in the sam e p hrase. Thou gh
there are d ecisions to be m ad e in the p roblem -solving p rocess, su ch as how to d e-
fine the p roblem and w hich solu tion is best, the d ecision-m aking p rocess is gener-
ally consid ered d istinct from p roblem solving. One d ifferentiation is that d ecision
m aking m ay be ap p lied at three levels and tim e fram es:
• Long-term , strategic-typ e d ecisions (3 to 5-year or longer p eriod )
• Tactical d ecisions m ad e to translate strategic d ecisions into fu nctional
requ irem ents (w ithin a year)
• Op erational d ecisions concerning the d ay-to-d ay ru nning of the bu siness 4
CONCLUSION
The inherent tend ency of m any m anagers and p rofessionals is often to leap from
an inad equ ate d efinition of a p roblem to selection of an inap p rop riate or w rong so-
lu tion. Becau se of this there is increased em p hasis need ed on root-cause analysis—
the core of p roblem solving.
Notes
1. Kep ner, Charles H ., and Benjam in B. Tregoe. New rational manager: An updated edition
for a new world. (Princeton, N J: Kep ner-Tregoe, Inc., 1997).
2. Westcott, Ru ssell T., ed . The certified manager of quality/organizational excellence handbook
(3rd ed .). (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2006).
3. Ibid .
4. Beecroft, G. Dennis, Grace L. Du ffy, and John W. Moran. The Executive Guide to
Improvement and Change. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2003).
Am m erm an, Max. The root cause analysis handbook: A simplified approach to identifying,
correcting, and reporting workplace errors. (N ew York: Qu ality Resou rces, 1998).
And ersen, Bjo / rn, and Tom Fagerhau g. Root cause analysis: Simplified tools and techniques
(2nd ed .). (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2006).
Chang, Richard Y., and P. Keith Kelly. Step-by-step problem solving: A practical guide to ensure
problems get (and stay) solved. (Irvine, CA: Richard Chang Associates, Inc., 1993).
GOAL/ QSP. The problem solving memory jogger: Seven steps to improved processes. (Salem ,
N H : GOAL/ QSP, 2000).
Kem p ner, Charles H ., and Benjam in B. Tregoe. New rational manager: An updated edition for
a new world. (Princeton, N J: Kep ner-Tregoe, Inc., 1997).
Ritter, Diane, and Michael Brassard . The creativity tools memory jogger: A pocket guide for
creative thinking. (Salem , N H : GOAL/ QSP, 1998).
Wilson, Pau l F., Larry D. Dell, and Gaylord F. And erson. Root cause analysis: A tool for total
quality management. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 1993).
Chapter 9
D . Im p rovem en t Tools
Use, interpret, and explain flowcharts,

histograms, Pareto charts, scatter diagrams,
run charts, cause and effect diagrams,
checklists (check sheets), affinity diagrams,
cost of quality, benchmarking,
brainstorming, and audits as improvement
tools. Understand control chart concepts
(e.g., centerlines, control limits, out-of-
control conditions), and recognize when
control charts should be used. (Apply)
CQIA BoK 2006
A tool is d efined as a d evice u sed to help accom p lish the p u rp ose of a techniqu e.
Qu ality im p rovem ent tools are nu m eric and grap hic d evices u sed to help ind ivid -
u als and team s w ork w ith, u nd erstand , and im p rove p rocesses.1
Walter Shew hart and W. Ed w ard s Dem ing began d evelop ing the initial qu al-
ity im p rovem ent tools in the 1930s and 1940s. This d evelop m ent resu lted in better
u nd erstand ing of p rocesses and led to the exp ansion of the u se of these tools. In the
1950s, the Jap anese began to learn and ap p ly the statistical qu ality control tools and
thinking tau ght by Kaoru Ishikaw a, head of the Jap anese Union of Scientists and
Engineers (JUSE). These tools w ere fu rther exp and ed by the Jap anese in the 1960s
w ith the introd u ction of the follow ing seven (old ) basic qu ality control tools:2
1. Cau se-and -effect d iagram (also called fishbone diagram and Ishikawa
diagram)
2. Ru n chart
109
3. Scatter d iagram
4. Flow chart
5. Pareto chart
6. H istogram
7. Control chart
In 1976, the Jap anese Society for Qu ality Control Techniqu e Develop m ent p ro-
p osed the follow ing seven new tools for qu ality im p rovem ent:
1. Relations d iagram (interrelationship d igrap h)
2. Affinity d iagram
3. System atic d iagram (tree d iagram )
4. Matrix d iagram
5. Matrix d ata analysis
6. Process d ecision p rogram chart (PDPC)
7. Arrow d iagram
At the beginning of a p rocess im p rovem ent p roject, it’s im p ortant to u nd erstand
the cu rrent state or cond ition of the p rocess. Check sheets, flow charts, and his-
togram s are u sefu l for acqu iring and d isp laying basic d ata for this p u rp ose. Con-
trol charts can be u sed to d eterm ine w hether the p rocess is in control or not. If there
is a p ossibility of interrelated factors, then scatter d iagram s m ay be u sed to test for
correlations betw een tw o sets of variables.
Once a problem has been defined using the m ethod s described , various ap-
proaches can be used to find solutions. Of the seven basic tools, the fishbone diagram
works very w ell for teams wishing to seek the m ost likely root cause for a problem .
Once the causes are id entified , they can be prioritized and d isplayed in a Pareto dia-
gram to help in making the d ecision about which problem should be add ressed first.
The follow ing inform ation d escribes m any of the basic qu ality im p rovem ent
tools and how they are u sed . The tools are d iscu ssed in alp habetical ord er, not in
any ord er of p reference.
AFFINITY DIAGRAM
An affinity diagram is a tool to facilitate consid eration and organization of a grou p
of id eas abou t an issu e by a team throu gh a consensu s d ecision. The team m em bers
take tu rns w riting each of their id eas on sep arate slip s of p ap er. The team then
gathers all the id eas into natu ral (affinity) grou p s; in other w ord s, it grou p s the
id eas in a m anner that allow s those w ith a natu ral relationship or relevance to be
p laced together in the sam e grou p or category.
An affinity diagram is used to organize verbal information into a visual pattern.
An affinity diagram starts with specific ideas and helps work toward broad categories.
Affinity d iagram s can help :
• Organize and give stru ctu re to a list of factors that contribu te to a p roblem
• Id entify key areas w here im p rovem ent is m ost need ed
Chapt er 9: D. Impr ovement Tool s 111
The step s to generate an affinity d iagram are as follow s:

1. Id entify the p roblem . Write the p roblem or issu e on a blackboard or flip
chart.
2. Generate id eas. Use an id ea-generation techniqu e, su ch as
brainstorm ing, to id entify all facets of the p roblem . Use ind ex card s or
sticky-back notes to record the id eas.
3. Clu ster id eas, on card s or p ap er, into related grou p s. Ask, “Which other
id eas are sim ilar?” and “Is this id ea som ehow connected to any others?”
to help grou p the id eas together.
4. Create an affinity card (head er card ) for each grou p w ith a short
statem ent d escribing the entire grou p of id eas.
5. Attem p t to grou p the initial affinity card s into even broad er grou p s
(clu sters). Continu e u ntil the d efinition of an affinity clu ster becom es too
broad to have any m eaning.
6. Com p lete the affinity d iagram . Lay ou t all of the id eas and affinity card s
on a single p iece of p ap er or a blackboard . Draw bord ers arou nd each of
the affinity clu sters. The resu lting stru ctu re w ill p rovid e valu able
insights abou t the p roblem .
Figu re 9.1 show s a com p leted affinity d iagram after the team has com p leted step 6.
ARROW DIAGRAM
The arrow diagramming m ethod establishes a sequ enced p lan and a tool for m oni-
toring p rogress. It m ay be rep resented grap hically by either a horizontal or verti-
cal stru ctu re connecting the p lanned activities or events.
The arrow d iagram m ethod can be u sed to:
• Im p lem ent p lans for new p rod u ct d evelop m ent and its follow -u p
• Develop p rod u ct im p rovem ent p lans and follow -u p activities
• Establish d aily p lans for exp erim ental trials and follow -u p activities
• Establish d aily p lans for increases in p rod u ction and their follow -u p
activities
• Synchronize the p reced ing p lans for qu ality control (QC) activities
• Develop p lans for a facility m ove and for m onitoring follow -u p
• Im p lem ent a p eriod ic facility m aintenance p lan and its follow -u p
• Analyze a m anu factu ring p rocess and d raw u p p lans for im p roved
efficiency
• Plan and follow -u p QC insp ections and d iagnostic tests
• Plan and follow -u p QC conferences and QC circle conferences
• Plan an office m ove or fu rnitu re rearrangem ent for im p roved p ersonnel
com m u nication
Causes of Typographical Errors
Environment Equipment
Computers
Interruptions Printers
Unreasonable deadlines Ergonomics Typewriters
Time of day
Noise
Lighting
Desk height Training
Chair height
Typing skill
Comfort
Editing skill
Computer skill
Proofreading skill
Original Documentation No Definition

of Quality
No measurement
Author Skill Requirements
No feedback
Handwriting Draft copy
Grammar Final copy
Punctuation Distribution
Spelling Font
Technical jargon, slang
Figur e 9.1 Affinity diagram.
• Establish a better p rocess for m oving a su p p lies requ est form throu gh the
office for signatu res
Figu re 9.2 show s the interd ep end encies of step s for a system s p roject.
AUDIT
A qu ality audit is d efined as “a system atic and ind ep end ent exam ination to d eter-
m ine w hether qu ality activities and related resu lts com p ly w ith p lanned arrange-
m ents and w hether these arrangem ents are im p lem ented effectively and are
su itable to achieve objectives” (AN SI/ ASQC Q10011-1-94). An au d it of a qu ality
m anagem ent system is carried ou t to ensu re that actu al p ractices conform to the
d ocu m ented p roced u res.
There shou ld be a sched u le for carrying ou t au d its, w ith d ifferent activities re-
qu iring d ifferent frequ encies based on their im p ortance to the organization. An au -
d it shou ld not be cond u cted ju st w ith the aim of revealing d efects or
irregu larities—au d its are for establishing the facts rather than find ing fau lts. Au -
4 7
Quality Management System Project
S 1 2 13 14 15 16 E
10
5 8
9 11
6 12
Figur e 9.2 Arrow diagram.
d its d o ind icate necessary im p rovem ent and corrective actions, bu t they m u st also
d eterm ine w hether p rocesses are effective and w hether resp onsibilities have been
correctly assigned .
The basic step s involved in cond u cting an au d it are as follow s:
1. Initiation and p rep aration, w hich inclu d es d efining the au d it scop e and
objectives, assigning the resou rces (lead and su p p ort au d itors), and
d evelop ing an au d it p lan and checklists
2. Perform ance of the au d it, w hich inclu d es briefing concerned p ersonnel
and cond u cting the collection, evalu ation, verification, and record ing of
inform ation
3. Rep orting, w hich inclu d es d evelop ing an au d it rep ort and briefing
concerned p ersonnel on the au d it resu lts
4. Com p letion, w hich inclu d es evalu ating any corrective action taken as a
resu lt of the au d it and closing ou t the au d it p rocess
The assessm ent of a quality system against a stand ard or set of requ irem ents by the
organization’s ow n em p loyees is know n as a first-party assessment or internal audit.3
If an external cu stom er m akes an assessm ent of a su p p lier, against either its ow n or
a national or international stand ard , a second-party audit has been cond u cted .
An assessm ent by an ind epend ent organization that is not connected w ith any
contract betw een the customer and sup plier bu t is acceptable to them both is an in-
d ep end ent third-party assessment. The latter can resu lt in some form of certification or
registration, su ch as ISO 9001 certification, provid ed by the assessing organization.
When an organization p laces em p hasis on p rocess im p rovem ent and enhanc-
ing cu stom er satisfaction, the au d it p rocess becom es one of the m ost im p ortant
p rocess im p rovem ent tools.
BAR CHART
A bar chart is a grap hic d isp lay of d ata in the form of a “bar” show ing the nu m ber
of u nits (for exam p le, frequ ency) in each category. Different typ es of bar charts (his-
togram s, Pareto charts, and so forth) are d escribed in this chap ter.
BENCHMARKING
Benchmarking is an evalu ation techniqu e in w hich an organization com p ares its
ow n p erform ance for a sp ecific p rocess w ith the “best p ractice” p erform ance of a
recognized lead er in a com p arable p rocess. The evalu ation help s the initiating or-
ganization id entify shortcom ings and establishes a baseline or stand ard against
w hich to m easu re its p rogress in the d evelop m ent and m aintenance of a qu ality as-
su rance p rogram .
Several d ifferent ap p roaches to benchm arking have been d escribed , inclu d ing
the follow ing:
• Com p etitive—com p aring w ith d irect com p etitors, locally, nationally, or
w orld w id e
• Fu nctional—com p aring w ith com p anies that have sim ilar p rocesses in the
sam e fu nction ou tsid e one’s ind u stry
• Perform ance—com p aring p ricing, technical qu ality, featu res, and other
qu ality or p erform ance characteristics
• Process—com p aring w ork p rocesses su ch as billing, ord er entry, or
em p loyee training
• Strategic—com p aring how com p anies com p ete and exam ining w inning
strategies that have led to com p etitive ad vantage and m arket su ccess
The basic step s involved in benchm arking are as follow s:
1. Id entify w hat is to be benchm arked . Be sp ecific in d ecid ing w hat the
team w ants to benchm ark.
2. Decid e w hich organizations/ fu nctions to benchm ark. The com p arison
shou ld be cond u cted not only against p eers bu t also against recognized
lead ing organizations w ith sim ilar fu nctions.
3. Determ ine the d ata collection m ethod and collect d ata. Keep the d ata
collection p rocess sim p le. There is no one right w ay to benchm ark. It is
im p ortant to look ou tw ard , be innovative, and search for new and
d ifferent w ays to im p rove the p rocess u nd er stu d y.
4. Contact a p eer in the benchm ark organization. Exp lain the p u rp ose of
the benchm arking stu d y and w hat inform ation is d esired . Give
assu rance that confid ential inform ation w ill not be asked for. Proceed to
inqu ire abou t the p eer ’s organization: w hat they d o, w hy they d o it, how
they m easu re and / or evalu ate it and w hat their p erform ance m easu res
are, w hat has w orked w ell, and w hat has not been su ccessfu l.
5. Determ ine w hether w hat the team has learned from benchm arking can
be ap p lied to im p rove the organization’s p rocess. Are there new and
d ifferent w ays to solve the p roblem or im p rove the p rocess? Are there
other solu tions to the p roblem that the team has overlooked ? It’s
im p ortant to keep an op en m ind abou t new and p erhap s rad ically
d ifferent w ays of d oing things.
BRAINSTORMING
Brainstorming is a grou p p rocess u sed to generate id eas in a nonju d gm ental envi-
ronm ent. Grou p m em bers are p resented w ith the issu e and are asked , first, to be
w id e-ranging in their ow n thinking abou t the issu e and , second , not to criticize
the thinking of others. The p u rp ose of the tool is to generate a large nu m ber of
id eas abou t the issu e. Team m em bers interact to generate m any id eas in a short
tim e p eriod .
As the goal of brainstorm ing is to generate id eas, m ake su re everyone in the
grou p u nd erstand s the im p ortance of p ostp oning ju d gm ent u ntil after the brain-
storm ing session is com p leted .
The basic step s involved in brainstorm ing are as follow s:
1. Write the p roblem or top ic on a blackboard or flip chart w here all
p articip ants can see it
2. Write all id eas on the board and d o as little ed iting as p ossible
3. N u m ber each id ea for fu tu re reference
4. There are several brainstorm ing techniqu es: stru ctu red brainstorm ing,
u nstru ctu red (or free-form ) brainstorm ing, and silent brainstorm ing
In structured brainstorm ing (the one-at-a-tim e or “rou nd -robin” m ethod ):
• One id ea is solicited from each p erson in sequ ence
• Particip ants w ho d on’t have an id ea at the m om ent m ay say, “p ass”
• A com p lete rou nd of p asses end s the brainstorm ing session
The ad vantage of stru ctu red brainstorm ing is that each p erson has an equ al chance
to p articip ate, regard less of rank or p ersonality. The d isad vantage of stru ctu red
brainstorm ing is that it lacks sp ontaneity and can som etim es feel rigid and restric-
tive. Encou rage p articip ation and bu ild ing on the id eas of others.
In unstructured (or free-form ) brainstorm ing, p articip ants sim p ly contribu te
id eas as they com e to m ind . The ad vantage of free-form brainstorm ing is that p ar-
ticip ants can bu ild off each other ’s id eas. The atm osp here is very inform al bu t hec-
tic. The d isad vantage of free-form brainstorm ing is that less assertive or
low er-ranking p articip ants m ay not contribu te. An id eal ap p roach is to com bine
these tw o m ethod s. Begin the session w ith a few rou nd s of stru ctu red brainstorm -
ing and finish u p w ith a p eriod of u nstru ctu red brainstorm ing.
In silent (or “w rite-it-d ow n”) brainstorm ing:
• The p articip ants w rite their id eas ind ivid u ally on sticky-back notes or
sm all slip s of p ap er
• The p ap ers are collected and p osted for all to see
The ad vantage of silent brainstorm ing is that it p revents ind ivid u als from m aking
d isru p tive “analysis” com m ents d u ring the brainstorm ing session and p rovid es
confid entiality. It can help p revent a grou p from being u nd u ly influ enced by a sin-
gle p articip ant or com m on flow of id eas. The d isad vantage of silent brainstorm ing
is that the grou p loses the synergy that com es from an op en session. Silent brain-
storm ing is best u sed in com bination w ith other brainstorm ing techniqu es.
After brainstorm ing:
• Red u ce you r list to the m ost im p ortant item s
• Com bine item s that are sim ilar
• Discu ss each item in tu rn—on its ow n m erits
• Elim inate item s that m ay not ap p ly to the original issu e or top ic
• Give each p erson one final chance to ad d item s
There are several p oints to rem em ber abou t brainstorm ing:
• N ever ju d ge id eas as they are generated . The goal of brainstorm ing is to
generate a lot of id eas in a short tim e. Analysis of these id eas is a sep arate
p rocess, to be d one later.
• Don’t qu it at the first lu ll. All brainstorm ing sessions reach lu lls, w hich are
u ncom fortable for the p articip ants. Research ind icates that m ost of the best
id eas occu r d u ring the last p art of a session. Try to encou rage the grou p to
p u sh throu gh at least tw o or three lu lls.
• Try to w rite d ow n all of the id eas exactly as they are p resented . When you
cond ense an id ea to one or tw o w ord s for ease of record ing, you are d oing
analysis. Analysis shou ld be d one later.
• Encou rage ou trageou s id eas. Althou gh these id eas m ay not be p ractical,
they m ay start a flow of creative id eas that can be u sed . This can help
break throu gh a lu ll.
• Try to have a d iverse grou p . Involve p rocess ow ners, cu stom ers, and
su p p liers to obtain a d iverse set of id eas from several p ersp ectives.
CAUSE-AND-EFFECT DIAGRAM
The cau se-and -effect d iagram grap hically illu strates the relationship betw een a
given ou tcom e and all the factors that influ ence the ou tcom e. It is som etim es called
the Ishikawa diagram (after its creator, Kaoru Ishikaw a) or the fishbone diagram (d u e
to its shap e). This type of d iagram d isplays the factors that are thou ght to affect a
p articu lar ou tp u t or ou tcom e in a system . The factors are often show n as grou pings
of related su bfactors that act in concert to form the overall effect of the grou p . The
d iagram helps show the relationship of the p arts (and su bp arts) to the w hole by:
• Determ ining the factors that cau se a p ositive or negative ou tcom e (or
effect)
• Focu sing on a sp ecific issu e w ithou t resorting to com p laints and irrelevant
d iscu ssion
• Determ ining the root cau ses of a given effect
• Id entifying areas w here there is a lack of d ata
Althou gh both ind ivid u als and team s can u se the cau se-and -effect d iagram , it is
p robably m ost effectively u sed w ith a grou p of p eop le. A typ ical ap p roach is one
in w hich the team lead er d raw s the fishbone d iagram on a blackboard , states the
m ain p roblem , and asks for assistance from the grou p to d eterm ine the m ain
cau ses, w hich are su bsequ ently d raw n on the board as the “m ain bones.” The team
assists by m aking su ggestions, and eventu ally the entire cau se-and -effect d iagram
is filled ou t. Then team d iscu ssion takes p lace to d ecid e w hich are the m ost likely
root cau ses of the p roblem . Figu re 9.3 show s the com p leted d iagram resu lting from
a team ’s initial effort to id entify p otential cau ses for p oor p hotocop y qu ality.
The cau se-and -effect d iagram is u sed for id entifying p otential cau ses of a
p roblem or issu e in an ord erly w ay. It can help answ er qu estions su ch as “Why has
m em bership in the organization d ecreased ?” “Why isn’t m ail being answ ered on
tim e?” and “Why is the ship p ing p rocess su d d enly p rod u cing so m any d efects?”
It is also u sed for su m m arizing m ajor cau ses into categories.
The basic step s involved in creating a cau se-and -effect d iagram are as follow s:
1. Draw a long horizontal line w ith a box at the far right end of the line.
2. Ind icate in the box at the far right of the d iagram w hat effect, ou tp u t, or
im p rovem ent goal is being p ortrayed . The effect can be p ositive (an
objective) or negative (a p roblem ). When p ossible u se a p ositive effect
instead of a negative one as the effect to be d iscu ssed . Focu sing on
p roblem s can p rod u ce “finger-p ointing,” w hereas focu sing on d esired
ou tcom es fosters p rid e and ow nership over p rod u ctive areas. The
resu lting p ositive atm osp here w ill enhance the grou p ’s creativity.
3. Draw fou r d iagonal lines em anating from the horizontal line. Term inate
each d iagonal line w ith a box.
People Materials
Hands dirty Copy paper quality
Bad settings
Wet wipes not available
Material storage
Manual not available Paper alignment
Bad originals Correct toner

Poor
Photocopy
Quality
Bad paper handling
Roll condition
Original settings Too old
Roll speed
Drying time Lamp
Contamination
Bad heating element
Dirty
Methods Machine
Figur e 9.3 Cause-and-effect diagram.

4. Label the boxes on the d iagonal lines to show the fou r categories of
p otential m ajor cau ses (Men/ Wom en, Machines, Method s, and Materials
or, alternatively, Policies, Proced u res, Peop le, and Plant). The team can
su bstitu te other category nam es if d esired .
5. On each of the fou r d iagonal lines, d raw sm aller horizontal lines (sm aller
“bones”) to rep resent su bcategories and ind icate on these lines
inform ation that is thou ght to be related to the cau se. Draw as m any
lines as are need ed , m aking su re that the inform ation is legible. Use an
id ea-generating techniqu e to id entify the factors and su bfactors w ithin
each m ajor category.
6. Use the d iagram as a d iscu ssion tool to better u nd erstand how to
p roceed w ith p rocess im p rovem ent efforts. The d iagram can also be u sed
to com m u nicate the m any p otential cau ses of qu ality that im p act the
effect/ ou tp u t/ im p rovem ent goal. Look for factors that ap p ear
rep eated ly and list them . Also, list those factors that have a significant
effect, based on the d ata available. Keep in m ind that the location of a
cau se in you r d iagram is not an ind icator of its im p ortance. A su bfactor
m ay be the root cau se of all of the p roblem s. You m ay also d ecid e to
collect m ore d ata on a factor that has not been p reviou sly id entified .
Cau se-and -effect d iagram s can be u sed at varying levels of sp ecificity and can be
ap p lied at a nu m ber of d ifferent tim es in p rocess im p rovem ent efforts. They are
very effective in su m m arizing and d escribing a p rocess and the factors im p acting
the ou tp u t of that p rocess. Use this tool w hen it fits w ith a p articu lar p rocess im -
p rovem ent effort. It is p ossible to have a nu m ber of cau se-and -effect d iagram s d e-
p icting variou s asp ects of the team ’s p rocess im p rovem ent efforts.
CHECK SHEET
A check sheet is a form u sed to record the frequ ency of sp ecific events d u ring a d ata
collection p eriod . It is a sim p le form that you can u se to collect d ata in an organ-
ized m anner and easily convert it into read ily u sefu l inform ation. The m ost
straightforw ard w ay to u se a check sheet is sim p ly to m ake a list of item s that you
exp ect w ill ap p ear in a p rocess and to m ake a checkm ark besid e each item w hen it
d oes ap p ear. This typ e of d ata collection can be u sed for alm ost anything, from
checking off the occu rrence of p articu lar typ es of d efects to cou nting exp ected
item s (for exam p le, the nu m ber of tim es the telep hone rings before it is answ ered ).
Check sheets can be d irectly cou p led to histogram s to p rovid e a d irect visu aliza-
tion of the inform ation collected . Figu re 9.4 w as u sed to cap tu re the frequ ency of
reasons for m isp laced letters over a one-w eek p eriod .
Variou s innovations in check sheets are p ossible. Consid er, for exam p le, u sing
a m ap of the United States as a check sheet. The id ea in this check sheet is for the
u ser to sim p ly m ark on the m ap the location of each sale that is m ad e. The m ap be-
com es a very effective grap hic p resentation of w here sales are the strongest. An-
other nam e for this typ e of check sheet is a measles chart.
A check sheet m ay be u sed to:
• Collect d ata w ith m inim al effort
• Convert raw d ata into u sefu l inform ation
Reasons for Misplaced Letters
Type of Defect April 23 April 24 April 25 April 26 April 27 Total Defects
Illegible address 71
Wrong state 22
Wrong zip code 59
Bad office symbol 16
Total Defects 50 19 36 34 29 168
Figur e 9.4 Check sheet.
• Translate p ercep tions of w hat is hap p ening into w hat is actu ally
hap p ening
The basic step s involved in creating a check sheet are as follow s:
1. Clarify the m easu rem ent objectives. Ask qu estions su ch as “What is the
p roblem ?” “Why shou ld d ata be collected ?” “Who w ill u se the
inform ation being collected ?” and “Who w ill collect the d ata?”
2. Create a form for collecting d ata. Determ ine the sp ecific things that w ill
be m easu red and w rite them d ow n the left sid e of the check sheet.
Determ ine the tim e or p lace being m easu red and w rite this across the top
of the colu m ns.
3. Label the m easu re for w hich d ata w ill be collected .
4. Collect the d ata by record ing each occu rrence d irectly on the check sheet
as it hap p ens.
5. Tally the d ata by totaling the nu m ber of occu rrences for each category
being m easu red .
6. The d ata from the check sheet can be su m m arized in a nu m ber of w ays,
su ch as w ith a Pareto chart or a histogram .
CONSENSUS
Consensus is a form of grou p d ecision m aking in w hich everyone agrees w ith—or
can at least live w ith—the d ecision. If even one p erson says, “I’m sorry, bu t I can’t
su p p ort this d ecision,” then the team need s to keep w orking tow ard consensu s.
Consensu s can be m ore tim e consu m ing than d ecid ing by sim p le m ajority, bu t or-
ganizations arou nd the w orld have learned that the d ecisions that com e from
bu ild ing consensu s are generally better and , in the long ru n, m u ch m ore effective.
The m ost im p ortant ru le in com ing to consensu s is honesty. A consensu s d ecision
is one that everyone on the team agrees to su p p ort. This m eans that no one can say
later, “I never really liked that d ecision, so I’m not going to su p p ort it.” When a
consensu s vote is taken, everyone votes w ith a show of thu m bs:
• Thu m bs-u p m eans, “I like this op tion and I fu lly su p p ort it.”
• Thu m bs-sid ew ays m eans, “I’m not thrilled w ith this op tion, bu t I can live
w ith it and w ill su p p ort it fu lly.”
• Thu m bs-d ow n m eans, “I cannot live w ith this op tion and cannot
su p p ort it.”
If there are a lot of thu m bs-sid ew ays votes, you m ay w ant to sp end the tim e to find
a m ore ap p ealing op tion. If som eone d oes not vote, take it as an au tom atic thu m bs-
d ow n, becau se it is im p ortant that the entire team agrees to su p p ort the d ecision
fu lly. Generally, team s shou ld talk abou t consensu s as a d ecision-m aking p rocess,
and p eop le shou ld agree that they w ou ld u se it and abid e by it.
CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

Continuous quality improvement (CQI) is a m anagem ent ap p roach to im p roving and
m aintaining qu ality that em p hasizes internally d riven and relatively constant (as
contrasted w ith interm ittent) assessm ents of p otential cau ses of qu ality d efects,
follow ed by action aim ed either at avoid ing a d ecrease in qu ality or else correcting
it in an early stage. CQI u ses m ost if not all of the tools d iscu ssed in this chap ter at
som e p oint or another.
CONTROL CHART
A control chart is u sed to m easu re sequ ential or tim e-related p rocess p erform ance
and variability. The control chart is p robably the best know n, m ost u sefu l, and
m ost d ifficu lt-to-u nd erstand qu ality tool. It is a sop histicated tool of qu ality im -
p rovem ent.
A control chart is a line chart (ru n chart) w ith control lim its. It is based on the
w ork of Drs. Shew hart and Dem ing. Control charts are statistically based . The u n-
d erlying concep t is that p rocesses have statistical variation. One m u st assess this
variation to d eterm ine w hether a p rocess is op erating betw een the exp ected
bou nd aries or w hether som ething has hap p ened that has cau sed the p rocess to go
“ou t of control.” Control lim its are m athem atically constru cted at three stand ard
d eviations above and below the average. Extensive research by Dr. Shew hart ind i-
cated that 99.73 p ercent of com m on cau se variation w ou ld fall w ithin u p p er and
low er lim its established at three tim es the stand ard d eviation of the p rocess (p lu s
and m inu s, resp ectively).
Data are collected by rep eated sam p les and are charted . Based on the grap hic
p resentation of the d ata on the control chart, one can observe variation and inves-
tigate to d eterm ine w hether it is d u e to norm al, inherent (com m on cau ses) or is
p rod u ced by u niqu e events (sp ecial cau ses).
A typ ical control chart contains a centerline that rep resents the average valu e
(m ean) of the qu ality characteristic corresp ond ing to the in-control state. Tw o other
horizontal lines, called the upper control limit (UCL) and the lower control limit
(LCL), are also d raw n. These control lim its are chosen so that w hen the p rocess is
in control, nearly all of the sam p le p oints w ill fall betw een them . As long as the
p oints p lot w ithin the control lim its, the p rocess is assu m ed to be in control, and
no action is necessary. A p oint that p lots ou tsid e of the control lim its is interp reted
as evid ence that the p rocess m ay be ou t of control and investigation and corrective
action cou ld be requ ired to find and elim inate the cau ses resp onsible for this be-
havior. The control p oints are connected w ith straight lines for easy visu alization.
Even if all the p oints p lot insid e the control lim its, if over several consecu tive tim e
intervals they behave in a rep etitive or other nonrand om m anner, then this is an in-
d ication that the p rocess is ou t of control. Figu re 9.5 show s p oints rep resenting the
variable m easu rem ent taken for each of 10 item s.
N ote that u p p er and low er control lim its are not sp ecification lim its. They have
a m athem atical relationship to the p rocess ou tp u ts. Sp ecification lim its are based
on p rod u ct or cu stom er requ irem ents.
There are several typ es of control charts, bu t all have the sam e basic stru ctu re.
The tw o m ain categories of control charts are those that d isp lay attribu te d ata and
those that d isp lay variables d ata.
Upper control limit (UCL) 0.75
Centerline (X-bar) 0.60
Lower control limit (LCL) 0.45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sample Number
Figur e 9.5 Control chart (process in control).

Attribute Data
This category of control chart d isp lays d ata that resu lt from cou nting the nu m ber
of occu rrences or item s in a single category of sim ilar item s or occu rrences. These
“cou nt” d ata m ay be exp ressed as p ass/ fail, yes/ no, or p resence/ absence of a d e-
fect. Charting the p rop ortion of failed item s resu lts in the ability to observe
w hether failu res are in control or ou t of control.
Variables Data
This category of control chart d isp lays valu es resu lting from the m easu rem ent of a
continu ou s variable. Exam p les of variables d ata are elap sed tim e, tem p eratu re,
and rad iation d ose. Exp lanation of these chart typ es and their characteristics re-
qu ires m ore sp ace than is available in this p u blication.
Control charts m ay be u sed to:
• Disp lay and u nd erstand variation in a p rocess
• H elp the investigator d eterm ine w hen actu al events fall ou tsid e of
sp ecified lim its of tolerance (control lim its) and becom e “ou tliers” that are
ou t of control
• Determ ine w hether qu ality im p rovem ent efforts have m ad e a statistically
significant d ifference to a key qu ality ind icator
• Monitor a p rocess ou tp u t (su ch as cost or a qu ality characteristic) to
d eterm ine w hether sp ecial cau ses of variation have occu rred in the p rocess
• Determ ine how cap able the cu rrent p rocess is of m eeting sp ecifications, if
sp ecification lim its exist, and of allow ing for im p rovem ents in the p rocess
The benefits of control charts are that they:
• H elp organizations recognize and u nd erstand variation and how to
control it
• H elp id entify sp ecial cau ses of variation and changes in p erform ance
• Keep organizations from trying to fix a p rocess that is varying rand om ly
w ithin control lim its (that is, no sp ecial cau ses are p resent)
• Assist in the d iagnosis of p rocess p roblem s
• Determ ine w hether p rocess im p rovem ents are having the d esired effects
A control chart m ay ind icate an ou t-of-control cond ition either w hen one or m ore
p oints fall beyond the control lim its or w hen the p lotted p oints exhibit som e non-
rand om p attern of behavior.
COST OF QUALITY
Cost of quality is a m ethod ology that allow s an organization to d eterm ine the extent
to w hich organizational resou rces are u sed for activities that p revent p oor qu ality,
that ap p raise the qu ality of the organization’s p rod u cts or services, and that resu lt
from internal and external failu res. H aving su ch inform ation allow s an organiza-
tion to d eterm ine the p otential savings to be gained by im p lem enting p rocess
im p rovem ents.
Qu ality-related activities that incu r costs m ay be d ivid ed into p revention costs,
ap p raisal costs, and internal and external failu re costs.
Prevention costs are incu rred to p revent or avoid qu ality p roblem s. These costs
are associated w ith the d esign, im p lem entation, and m aintenance of the qu ality
m anagem ent system . They are p lanned and incu rred before actu al op eration, and
they cou ld inclu d e:
• Prod u ct or service requ irem ents—establishm ent of sp ecifications for
incom ing m aterials, p rocesses, finished p rod u cts, and services
• Qu ality p lanning—creation of p lans for qu ality, reliability, op erations,
p rod u ction, and insp ection
• Qu ality assu rance—creation and m aintenance of the qu ality system
• Training—d evelop m ent, p rep aration, and m aintenance of p rogram s
Appraisal costs are associated w ith m easu ring and m onitoring activities related to
qu ality. These costs are associated w ith the su p p liers’ and cu stom ers’ evalu ation of
p u rchased m aterials, p rocesses, p rod u cts, and services to ensu re that they conform
to sp ecifications. They cou ld inclu d e:
• Verification—checking of incom ing m aterial, p rocess setu p , and p rod u cts
against agreed sp ecifications
• Qu ality au d its—confirm ation that the qu ality system is fu nctioning
correctly
• Su p p lier rating—assessm ent and ap p roval of su p p liers of p rod u cts and
services
Internal failure costs are incu rred to rem ed y d efects d iscovered before the p rod u ct
or service is d elivered to the cu stom er. These costs occu r w hen the resu lts of w ork
fail to reach d esign qu ality stand ard s and are d etected before they are transferred
to the cu stom er. They cou ld inclu d e:
• Waste—p erform ance of u nnecessary w ork or hold ing of stock as a resu lt of
errors, p oor organization, or com m u nication
• Scrap —d efective p rod u ct or m aterial that cannot be rep aired , u sed , or sold
• Rew ork or rectification—correction of d efective m aterial or errors
• Failu re analysis—activity requ ired to establish the cau ses of internal
p rod u ct or service failu re
External failure costs are incu rred to rem ed y d efects d iscovered by cu stom ers. These
costs occu r w hen the p rod u cts or services fail to reach d esign qu ality stand ard s bu t
are not d etected u ntil after transfer to the cu stom er. They cou ld inclu d e:
• Rep airs and servicing—both of retu rned p rod u cts and of those in the field
• Warranty claim s—failed p rod u cts that are rep laced or services that are
rep erform ed u nd er a gu arantee
• Com p laints—all w ork and costs associated w ith hand ling and servicing
cu stom ers’ com p laints
• Retu rns—hand ling and investigation of rejected or recalled p rod u cts,
inclu d ing transp ort costs
The costs of d oing a qu ality job, cond u cting qu ality im p rovem ents, and achieving
goals m u st be carefu lly m anaged so that the long-term effect of qu ality on the or-
ganization is a d esirable one. These costs m u st be a tru e m easu re of the qu ality ef-
fort, and they are best d eterm ined from an analysis of the costs of qu ality. Su ch an
analysis p rovid es:
• A m ethod of assessing the effectiveness of the m anagem ent of qu ality
• A m eans of d eterm ining p roblem areas, op p ortu nities, savings, and action
p riorities
Cost of qu ality is also an im p ortant com m u nication tool. Crosby d em onstrated
w hat a p ow erfu l tool it cou ld be to raise aw areness of the im p ortance of qu ality. H e
referred to the m easu re as the “p rice of nonconform ance” and argu ed that organi-
zations choose to p ay for p oor qu ality. Many organizations w ill have tru e qu ality-
related costs as high as 15 to 20 p ercent of their sales revenu e, and effective qu ality
im p rovem ent p rogram s can red u ce this su bstantially, thu s m aking a d irect contri-
bu tion to p rofits.
To id entify, u nd erstand , and reap the cost benefits of qu ality im p rovem ent ac-
tivities, an organization shou ld inclu d e the follow ing fu nd am ental step s in its
ap p roach:
• Managem ent com m itm ent to find ing the tru e costs of qu ality
• A qu ality costing system to id entify, rep ort, and analyze qu ality-related
cost
• A qu ality-related cost m anagem ent team resp onsible for d irection and
coord ination of the qu ality costing system
• The inclu sion of qu ality-costing training to enable everyone to u nd erstand
the financial im p lications of qu ality im p rovem ent
• The p resentation of significant costs of qu ality to all p ersonnel to p rom ote
the ap p roach and id entify areas for im p rovem ent
• The introd u ction of schem es to achieve the m axim u m p articip ation of all
em p loyees
The qu ality cost system , once established , shou ld becom e d ynam ic and have a p os-
itive im p act on the achievem ent of the organization’s m ission, goals, and objectives.
DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS (DOE)

Design of experiments (DOE) p rovid es a stru ctu red w ay to characterize p rocesses. A
m u ltifu nctional team analyzes a p rocess and id entifies key characteristics, or fac-
tors, that m ost im p act the qu ality of the end item . Using DOE, the team ru ns a lim -
ited nu m ber of tests, and d ata is collected and analyzed . The resu lts w ill ind icate
w hich factors contribu te the m ost to final qu ality and w ill also d efine the p aram e-
ter settings for those factors. N ow, rather than tw eaking or tam p ering w ith the sys-
tem , m anagers have the p rofou nd know led ge of their factory floor p rocesses that
allow s them to bu ild qu ality in, starting at the earliest stages of d esign. This allow s
m anagem ent to d eterm ine that equ itable requ irem ent trad e-offs are m ad e betw een
the d esign and m anu factu ring p rocesses d u ring d evelop m ent.
FIVE WHYS
The “five w hys” is a sim p le techniqu e for getting at the root cau ses of a p roblem
by asking w hy after each su ccessive resp onse, u p to five tim es. Asking w hy is a fa-
vorite techniqu e of the Jap anese for d iscovering the root cau se (or cau ses) of a
p roblem . By asking the qu estion “Why?” a nu m ber of tim es (five is only an arbi-
trary figu re), you p eel aw ay layer after layer of “sym p tom s” to get to the real heart
of an issu e. You m ay never know ahead of tim e exactly how m any tim es you ’ll
have to ask w hy.
This techniqu e help s to:
• Id entify the root cau se(s) of a p roblem
• See how the d ifferent cau ses of a p roblem m ight be related
The basic step s involved in u sing the “five w hys” techniqu e are as follow s:
1. Describe the p roblem in very sp ecific term s.
2. Ask w hy it hap p ens.
3. If the answ er d oesn’t id entify a root cau se, ask w hy again. You know
you ’ve id entified the root cau se w hen asking w hy d oesn’t yield any
m ore u sefu l inform ation.
4. Continu e asking w hy u ntil the root cau ses are id entified . This m ay take
m ore or few er than five w hys.
5. Alw ays focu s on the p rocess asp ects of a p roblem rather than the
p ersonalities involved . Find ing scap egoats d oes not solve p roblem s!
FLOWCHART
A flowchart is a grap hic rep resentation of the flow of a p rocess. It is a u sefu l w ay to
exam ine how the variou s step s in a p rocess relate to each other, to d efine the
bou nd aries of the p rocess, to verify and id entify cu stom er–su p p lier relationship s
in a p rocess, to create com m on u nd erstand ing of the p rocess flow, to d eterm ine the
cu rrent “best m ethod ” of p erform ing the p rocess, and to id entify red u nd ancy and
u nnecessary com p lexity.
A flow chart d isp lays the ord er of activities. The rou nd ed -rectangle sym bol in-
d icates the beginning or end of the p rocess. Boxes ind icate action item s, and d ia-
m ond s ind icate d ecision p oints.
Flow charts can be u sed to:
• Id entify and com m u nicate the step s in a w ork p rocess
• Id entify areas that m ay be the sou rce of a p roblem or d eterm ine
im p rovem ent op p ortu nities
Start
Need coffee? No
Yes
Go to
coffee room
Is coffee ready? No C
C = Go to make coffee flowchart

Yes
Pour
coffee
Need cream/ No
sugar?
Yes
Add cream Return to

End
and/or sugar office
Figur e 9.6 Morning coffee flowchart.
A flow chart p rovid es the visu alization of a p rocess by the u se of sym bols that rep -
resent d ifferent typ es of actions, activities, or situ ations. Figu re 9.6 d isp lays a typ -
ical p rocess flow chart that d escribes the sim p le p rocess of getting a cu p of coffee.
The sym bols u sed are connected w ith arrow s that show the flow of inform ation be-
tw een the sym bols u sed to rep resent the step s in the p rocess.
Process Represents any type of process
Decision Indicates a point where a decision will be made
Input/ Represents information or data that goes

Output into or out of a process
Represents an activity that must be

Document documented
Connector—links one point in a flowchart

to another point without using a line
Terminator Indicates the start or end of a process
Line connector—links one point in a flowchart

to another point with a line and arrow
Figur e 9.7 Basic flowchart symbols.
The basic step s involved in creating a flow chart are as follow s:

1. Select the p rocess to chart.
2. Determ ine w hether to d evelop a high-level or d etailed flow chart.
3. Define the bou nd aries of the selected p rocess.
4. Id entify the “start block” and p lace it on the top left corner of the p age.
5. Id entify the “finish block,” or the end p oint, and p lace it on the bottom
right corner of the p age.
6. Try to id entify the easiest and m ost efficient w ay to go from the “start
block” to the “finish block.” Thou gh this step isn’t absolu tely necessary,
it d oes m ake it easier to d o the next step .
7. Docu m ent each step in sequ ence, starting w ith the first (or last) step .
8. Use the ap p rop riate sym bol for each step (see Figu re 9.7).
9. Be su re to chart how the w ork is actu ally d one, not how it is su p p osed to
be d one.
10. At each d ecision p oint, choose one branch and continu e flow charting
that section of the p rocess.
11. If a segm ent of the p rocess is u nfam iliar to everyone, m ake a note and
continu e flow charting.
12. Rep eat step s 6, 7, and 8 u ntil that section of the p rocess is com p lete. Go
back and flow chart the other branches from the d ecision sym bols.
13. Id entify all the areas that hind er you r p rocess or ad d little or no valu e.
14. After the flow chart is accu rate and com p lete, analyze it.
15. Bu ild a new flow chart that corrects the p roblem s you id entified in the
p reviou s step .
N ote: You can p u t the step s of you r p rocess on ind ex card s or sticky-back notes.
This lets you rearrange the d iagram w ithou t erasing and red raw ing and p revents
id eas from being d iscard ed sim p ly becau se it’s too m u ch w ork to red raw the
d iagram .
A com p leted flow chart show s several u sefu l p ieces of inform ation:
• H ow the p rocess actually occu rs
• Encou rages com m u nication betw een cu stom ers and su p p liers
• Illu strates the relationship of variou s step s in a p rocess
• Ed u cates team m em bers abou t all the step s w ithin the p rocess
• Can be u sed to train new em p loyees involved in the p rocess
• Who is involved in the p rocess
• H elp s set the bou nd aries of the p rocess
• Id entifies team m em bers need ed
• Where the p rocess can be im p roved
• Is u sefu l for d ata collection
• May id entify im m ed iate im p rovem ent op p ortu nities
Failu re to d ocu m ent the actu al p rocess is an im p ortant p itfall that shou ld be
avoid ed . The failu re to reflect reality m ay resu lt from a variety of cau ses:
• The p rocess is d raw n as it w as d esigned and not as it actu ally hap p ens
• Team m em bers are relu ctant to d raw p arts of the p rocess that m ight exp ose
w eaknesses in their areas
• Rew ork loop s are seen as sm all and u nim p ortant and are overlooked
• Team m em bers tru ly d o not know how the p rocess op erates
Tw o typ es of flow charts are:
• Process flowcharts, w hich u se sym bols to rep resent the inp u t from
su p p liers, the sequ ential w ork activities, the d ecisions to be m ad e, and the
ou tp u t to the stakehold er
• Deployment flowcharts, w hich show the p eop le resp onsible for tasks as w ell
as the flow of tasks in a p rocess
Flow charting has been arou nd for a very long tim e and is u sed to gain vital p rocess
inform ation by m any organizations. The reason for this is obviou s. A flow chart can
be cu stom ized to fit any need or p u rp ose. For this reason, flow charts are recog-
nized as a very valu able qu ality im p rovem ent m ethod .
FOCUS GROUP
The focus group is a cu stom er-oriented ap p roach for collecting inform ation w herein
a grou p of p articip ants (10–12), u nfam iliar to each other, m eet to d iscu ss and share
id eas abou t a certain issu e. Focu s grou p s are a u sefu l qu alitative analysis tool for
help ing to u nd erstand the beliefs and p ercep tions of the p op u lation rep resented by
the grou p .
FORCE-FIELD ANALYSIS
Force-field analysis (FFA) is a tool that u ses a creative p rocess for encou raging
agreem ent abou t all facets of a d esired change. It is u sed for clarifying and
strengthening the “d riving forces” for change (for exam p le, w hat things are “d riv-
ing” u s tow ard school im p rovem ent?). It can also be u sed to id entify obstacles, or
“restraining forces,” to change (for exam p le, w hat is “restraining” u s from achiev-
ing increased test scores?). Finally, it can be u sed for encou raging agreem ent on the
relative p riority of factors on each sid e of the balance sheet.
The basic step s involved in force-field analysis are:
1. Discu ss and com e to agreem ent w ith a grou p (u su ally five to seven
p eop le) on the cu rrent situ ation and the goal
2. Write this situ ation on a flip chart
3. Brainstorm the “d riving” and “restraining” forces
4. Driving forces are things (actions, skills, equ ip m ent, p roced u res, cu ltu re,
p eop le, and so forth) that help m ove tow ard the goal
5. Restraining forces are things that can inhibit reaching the goal
6. Prioritize the d riving and restraining forces
7. Discu ss action strategies to elim inate the restraining forces and to
cap italize on the d riving forces
To create an FFA d iagram , start by d raw ing a large letter T on a p iece of p ap er.
Write the issu e at hand at the top of the p ap er (see Figu re 9.8). As a grou p , d escribe
the id eal situ ation, and w rite the resolu tion in the u p p er right-hand corner of the
p ap er.
H ave a facilitator w ork w ith the grou p to brainstorm forces lead ing to or p re-
venting the id eal situ ation. These forces m ay be internal or external. List p ositive
forces on the left sid e of the T and , on the right sid e, forces restraining m ovem ent
tow ard the id eal state.
As in any p lanning activity, the team shou ld id entify p otential obstacles that
cou ld affect the su ccessfu l com p letion of a task. It shou ld id entify both p ositive and
negative forces affecting the task.
Once all p ositive and negative forces are listed , p rioritize the forces that need
to be strengthened or id entify the restraining forces that need to be m inim ized to
accom p lish the goal—for instance, increased test scores. This p rovid es a p ositive
Issue: School improvement

Ideal state: An effective
learning environment
+ Driving Forces Restraining Forces –
Parental interest
Lack of time to help
children with studies
Government involvement
Budget cuts
Faculty commitment
Large classes
Increased test scores
Pressure for results
Student desire
Too many
distractions
Figur e 9.8 Force-field analysis diagram.
stru ctu re and rem oves the negative force of increased p ressu re on stu d ents to p er-
form . The facilitator keep s d iscu ssion going am ong the p articip ants u ntil consen-
su s is reached on each im p ed im ent to increasing stu d ent test scores. Arrow lines
are u sed to ind icate the relative p riority of restraining and d riving forces. Users of
FFA often vary the length of the horizontal arrow lines to ind icate the relative
strength of each of the forces.
Force-field analysis encou rages team m em bers to raise qu estions and concerns
throu ghou t the p rocess. These concerns and qu estions shou ld n’t be consid ered ob-
stacles to su ccessfu l p lanning that need to be rejected , bu t shou ld instead be val-
u ed . The p rocess of op enly consid ering ind ivid u al id eas encou rages d iversity in
the p lanning p rocess.
Force-field analysis is a p ow erfu l tool that encou rages com m u nication at all
levels of m anagem ent.4 By creating a stru ctu red environm ent for p roblem solving,
it m inim izes feelings of d efensiveness. There is a feeling of op enness abou t p rob-
lem solving becau se all m em bers of the grou p are focu sed on the issu e rather than
p ersonal agend as. FFA inhibits hierarchical or trad itional p ow er stru ctu res that are
likely to restrict the flow of creative id eas.
GANTT CHART
The Gantt chart is a typ e of bar chart u sed by p roject m anagers and others in p lan-
ning and control to d isp lay p lanned w ork and targets as w ell as w ork that has been
com p leted . A Gantt chart/ action p lan is a grap hic rep resentation of a p roject’s
sched u le, show ing the sequ ence of critical tasks in relation to tim e. The chart ind i-
cates w hich tasks can be p erform ed sim u ltaneou sly. The chart/ p lan can be u sed for
an entire p roject or for a key p hase of a p roject. It allow s a team to avoid u nrealis-
tic tim etables and sched u le exp ectations, to help id entify and shorten tasks that act
as bottlenecks, and to focu s attention on the m ost critical tasks. By ad d ing m ile-
18-Month ISO 9001 Quality Management System Implementation Project
Task Weeks 1–13 Weeks 14–26 Weeks 27–39 Weeks 40–52 Weeks 53–65 Weeks 66–78
Select consultant
Conduct briefing
Gap analysis
Form steering comm.
Q. system procedures
Q. policy, objectives
Work instructions
Employee kickoff
Evaluate registrars
Train internal auditors
Implement QSPs
Select registrar
Conduct internal audits
Q. system manual
Audit prep meeting
Preassessment
Corrective actions
Final assessment
Pass and celebrate
Figur e 9.9 Gantt chart.
stones (interim checkp oints) and com p letion ind icators, the Gantt chart becom es a
tool for ongoing m onitoring of p rogress.
Becau se they are p rim arily p roject m anagem ent tools, Gantt charts/ action
p lans are m ost u sefu l for p lanning and tracking entire p rojects or for sched u ling
and tracking the im p lem entation p hase of a p lanning or im p rovem ent effort.
A Gantt chart is u sed to:
• Id entify critical tasks or p roject com p onents
• Id entify the first task that m u st be com p leted
• Id entify any other tasks that can be started sim u ltaneou sly w ith task 1
• Id entify the next task that m u st be com p leted
• Id entify any other tasks that can be started sim u ltaneou sly w ith task 2
• Continu e this p rocess u ntil all com p onent tasks are sequ enced
• Id entify task d u rations
• Monitor p rogress
Read ers shou ld refer to a p roject m anagem ent text for fu rther inform ation. Most
com m ercially available p roject m anagem ent softw are w ill rou tinely generate a
Gantt chart/ action p lan, sim ilar to the exam p le show n in Figu re 9.9.
HISTOGRAM
A histogram is a grap hic rep resentation (bar chart) u sed to p lot the frequ ency w ith
w hich d ifferent valu es of a given variable occu r. H istogram s are u sed to exam ine
existing p atterns, id entify the range of variables, and su ggest a central tend ency in
variables.
An exam p le w ou ld be to line u p , by height, a grou p of p eop le in a class. N or-
m ally, one w ou ld be the tallest, one w ou ld be the shortest, and there w ou ld be a
clu ster of p eop le arou nd an average height. H ence the p hrase normal distribution.
This tool help s id entify the cau se of p roblem s in a p rocess by the shap e of the d is-
tribu tion as w ell as the w id th of the d istribu tion.
The histogram evolved to m eet the need to evalu ate d ata that occu rs at a cer-
tain frequ ency. This is p ossible becau se it allow s for a concise p ortrayal of infor-
m ation in a bar-grap h form at. This tool clearly p ortrays inform ation on location,
sp read , and shap e, w hich enables the u ser to p erceive su btleties regard ing the
fu nctioning of the p hysical p rocess that is generating the d ata. It can also help su g-
gest both the natu re of and p ossible im p rovem ents for the p hysical m echanism s at
w ork in the p rocess. When com bined w ith the concep t of the norm al cu rve and
know led ge of a p articu lar p rocess, the histogram becom es an effective, p ractical
w orking tool to u se in the early stages of d ata analysis. A histogram m ay be inter-
p reted by asking three qu estions:
• Is the p rocess p erform ing w ithin sp ecification lim its?
• Does the p rocess seem to exhibit w id e variation?
• If action need s to be taken on the p rocess, w hat action is ap p rop riate?
The answ ers to these three qu estions lie in analyzing three characteristics of the
histogram . H ow w ell is the histogram centered ? The centering of the d ata p rovid es
inform ation on the p rocess aim abou t som e m ean or nom inal valu e. H ow w id e is
the histogram ? Looking at histogram w id th d efines the variability of the p rocess
abou t the target valu e. What is the shap e of the histogram ? Rem em ber that the d ata
is exp ected to form a norm al or bell-shap ed cu rve. Any significant change or anom -
aly u su ally ind icates that there is som ething going on in the p rocess cau sing the
qu ality p roblem .
Figu re 9.10 show s a histogram w ith an abnorm al d istribu tion. H istogram s are
bu ilt to exam ine characteristics of variation and p rovid e an excellent visu alization
tool for varying d ata. The u tility of histogram s is in gaining a rap id look at how the
d ata collected from a p rocess are d istribu ted .
The basic step s involved in d evelop ing a histogram are as follow s:
1. Determ ine the typ e of d ata you w ant to collect.
2. Be su re that the d ata are m easu rable (for exam p le, tim e, length, and
sp eed ).
3. Collect as m any m easu rable d ata p oints as p ossible.
4. Collect d ata on one p aram eter at a tim e.
5. Cou nt the total nu m ber of p oints you have collected .
6. Determ ine the nu m ber of intervals requ ired .
7. Determ ine the range. To d o this, su btract the sm allest valu e in the d ataset
from the largest. This valu e is the range of you r d ataset.
8. Determ ine the interval w id th. To d o this, d ivid e the range by the nu m ber
of intervals.
70 One-pound bags of flour—production run #437 (385 bags)

65
60
55
50
45
Quantity
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
14.95 15.25 15.55 15.85 16.15 16.45 16.75 17.05 17.35 17.65 17.95 18.25
Weight (in Ounces)
Figur e 9.10 Histogram.
9. Determ ine the starting p oint of each interval.

10. Draw horizontal (x) and vertical (y) axis lines.
11. Label the horizontal axis to ind icate w hat is being d isp layed and m ark
the u nit of m easu re (sm allest to largest valu es).
12. Label the vertical axis to ind icate w hat is being m easu red and m ark the
u nit of m easu re (sm allest to largest valu es).
13. Plot the d ata. Constru ct vertical bars for each of the valu es, w ith the
height corresp ond ing to the frequ ency of occu rrence of each valu e.
MATRIX ANALYSIS
The matrix analysis m ethod qu antifies and arranges m atrix d iagram d ata so that the
inform ation is easy to visu alize and com p rehend . The relationship s betw een the el-
em ents show n in a m atrix d iagram are qu antified by obtaining nu m erical d ata for
intersecting cells.
The m atrix d ata analysis m ethod can be u sed to:
• Analyze p rod u ction p rocesses in w hich factors are com p lexly intertw ined
• Analyze cau ses of nonconform ities that involve a large volu m e of d ata
• Grasp the d esired qu ality level ind icated by the resu lts of a m arket su rvey
• Classify sensory characteristics system atically
• Accom p lish com p lex qu ality evalu ations

• Analyze cu rvilinear d ata
MATRIX DIAGRAM
The matrix diagram m ethod clarifies p roblem atic sp ots throu gh m u ltid im ensional
thinking. This m ethod id entifies corresp ond ing elem ents involved in a p roblem
situ ation or event. These elem ents are arranged in row s and colu m ns on a chart
that show s the p resence or absence of relationship s am ong collected p airs of
elem ents.
Matrix d iagram s can be u sed to:
• Establish id eas and concep ts for the d evelop m ent and im p rovem ent of
system p rod u cts
• Achieve qu ality d ep loym ent in p rod u ct m aterials
• Establish and strengthen the qu ality assu rance system by linking certified
levels of qu ality w ith variou s control fu nctions
• Reinforce and im p rove the efficiency of the qu ality evalu ation system
• Pu rsu e the cau ses of nonconform ities in the m anu factu ring p rocess
• Establish strategies for the m ix of p rod u cts to send to m arket by evalu ating
the relationship s betw een the p rod u cts and m arket cond itions
• Plan the allocation of resou rces (see the Resou rce Allocation Matrix
su bsection on p age 140)
MULTIVOTING
Multivoting is a qu ick and easy w ay for a grou p to id entify the item s of the highest
p riority in a list. This techniqu e help s a team to:
• Prioritize a large list w ithou t creating a w in-lose situ ation in the grou p that
generated the list
• Sep arate the “vital few ” item s from the “u sefu l m any” on a large list
The basic step s involved in m u ltivoting are as follow s:
1. Give each team m em ber a nu m ber of votes equ al to ap p roxim ately half
the nu m ber of item s on the list (for exam p le, 10 votes for a 20-item list).
2. H ave the m em bers vote ind ivid u ally for the item s they believe have high
p riority. Voters can “sp end ” their votes as they w ish, even giving all to
one item .
3. Com p ile the votes given to each item and record the qu antity of votes
besid e each item .
4. Select the fou r to six item s receiving the highest nu m ber of votes.
5. Discu ss and p rioritize the selected item s relative to each other. If there is
d ifficu lty in reaching agreem ent, rem ove the item s that received the
few est votes from the list and then cond u ct another vote.
Mu ltivoting is best su ited for u se w ith large grou p s and long lists. Its sim p licity
m akes it very qu ick and easy to u se.
NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE

The nominal group technique (N GT) is a stru ctu red p rocess that id entifies and ranks
m ajor p roblem s or issu es that need ad d ressing. It can be u sed to id entify the m ajor
strengths of a d ep artm ent/ u nit/ institu tion or to m ake d ecisions by consensu s
w hen selecting p roblem solu tions in a bu siness. This techniqu e p rovid es each p ar-
ticip ant w ith an equ al voice.
The basic step s involved in u sing N GT are:
1. Requ est that all p articip ants (u su ally 5 to 10 p ersons) w rite or say w hich
p roblem or issu e they feel is m ost im p ortant.
2. Record all the p roblem s or issu es.
3. Develop a m aster list of the p roblem s or issu es.
4. Generate and d istribu te to each p articip ant a form that nu m bers the
p roblem s or issu es in no p articu lar ord er.
5. Requ est that each p articip ant rank the top five p roblem s or issu es by
assigning five p oints to their m ost im p ortant p erceived p roblem and one
p oint to the least im p ortant of their top five.
6. Tally the resu lts by ad d ing the p oints for each p roblem or issu e.
7. The p roblem or issu e w ith the highest nu m ber is the m ost im p ortant one
for the team as a w hole.
8. Discu ss the resu lts and generate a final ranked list for p rocess
im p rovem ent action p lanning.
PARETO CHART
A Pareto chart is a grap hic rep resentation of the frequ ency w ith w hich certain
events occu r. It is a rank-ord er chart that d isp lays the relative im p ortance of vari-
ables in a d ataset and m ay be u sed to set p riorities regard ing op p ortu nities for im -
p rovem ent. Pareto charts are bar charts, p rioritized in d escend ing ord er from left
to right, u sed to id entify the vital few op p ortu nities for im p rovem ent. It show s
w here to p u t you r initial effort to get the m ost gain. The tool is nam ed after Vilfred o
Pareto, an Italian sociologist and econom ist, w ho invented this m ethod of infor-
m ation p resentation tow ard the end of the 19th centu ry.
Figu re 9.11 is an exam p le of a Pareto chart. The chart ap p ears m u ch the sam e
as a histogram or bar chart. The bars are arranged in d ecreasing ord er of m agni-
tu d e from left to right along the x-axis, excep ting an “other” category. The fu nd a-
m ental u se of the Pareto chart in qu ality im p rovem ent is the ord ering of factors that
contribu te to a qu ality d eficiency. The p u rp ose of the chart is to id entify w hich of
the p roblem s shou ld be w orked on first and how m u ch of the total p roblem cor-
recting one or m ore of the id entified p roblem s w ill solve. The Pareto chart is u se-
fu l in su m m arizing inform ation and in p red icting how m u ch of a p roblem can be
corrected by attacking any sp ecific p art of the p roblem .
n = 32 Customer Complaints
32 100%
28 94% 90%
91%
88%
80%
24 78%
70%
69%
20 60%
59%
16 50% 50%
12 40%
38%
30%
8 7 22%
5 20%
4
4 3 3 3 3
2 10%
1 1
0 0%
03 11 01 16 19 02 12 04 05 99
Complaint Codes
Figur e 9.11 Pareto chart.
The Pareto chart w as d erived from Vilfred o Pareto’s 80/ 20 ru le. Pareto noticed
that 80 p ercent of the w ealth in Italy w as held by 20 p ercent of the p eop le. Later,
Josep h Ju ran, a lead ing qu ality exp ert, noticed that this ru le cou ld also be ap p lied
to the cau ses of d efects: 80 p ercent of d efects are d u e to only 20 p ercent of cau ses.
Therefore, by m inim izing 20 p ercent of the cau ses, w e can elim inate 80 p ercent of
the p roblem s. The 20 p ercent of the p roblem s are the “vital few,” and the rem ain-
ing p roblem s are the “u sefu l m any.” A Pareto chart can help organizations to:
• Sep arate the few m ajor p roblem s from the m any p ossible p roblem s in
ord er to focu s im p rovem ent efforts
• Arrange d ata accord ing to p riority or im p ortance
• Determ ine w hich p roblem s are the m ost im p ortant u sing d ata, not
p ercep tion
The basic step s involved in constru cting a Pareto chart are as follow s:
1. Define the m easu rem ent scale for the p otential cau ses. (This is u su ally
the frequ ency of occu rrence or cost.)
2. Define the tim e p eriod d u ring w hich to collect d ata abou t the p otential
cau ses (d ays, w eeks, or as m u ch tim e as is requ ired to observe a
significant nu m ber of occu rrences).
3. Collect and tally d ata for each p otential cau se.
4. Label the horizontal (x) axis w ith all the p ossible root cau ses in
d escend ing ord er of valu e.
5. Label the m easu rem ent scale on the vertical (y) axis.
6. Draw one bar for each p ossible cau se to rep resent the valu e of the
m easu rem ent.
7. If d esired , ad d a vertical (y) axis on the right sid e of the chart to rep resent
cu m u lative p ercentage valu es.
8. Draw a line to show the cu m u lative p ercentage from left to right as each
cau se is ad d ed to the chart.
Pareto charts are u sed to:
• Id entify the m ost im p ortant p roblem s u sing d ifferent m easu rem ent scales
• Point ou t that m ost frequ ent m ay not alw ays m ean m ost costly
• Analyze d ifferent grou p s of d ata
• Measu re the im p act of changes m ad e in the p rocess before and after
• Break d ow n broad cau ses into m ore sp ecific p arts
PLAN—DO—CHECK—ACT (PDCA) OR PLAN—

DO—STUDY—ACT (PDSA)
The key step s involved in the im p lem entation and evalu ation of qu ality im p rove-
m ent efforts are sym bolized by the PDCA/ PDSA cycle (see Chap ter 7, Figu re 7.2).
The goal is to engage in a continu ou s end eavor to learn abou t all asp ects of a
p rocess and then u se this know led ge to change the p rocess to red u ce variation and
com p lexity and to im p rove the level of p rocess p erform ance. Process im p rovem ent
begins by u nd erstand ing how cu stom ers d efine qu ality, how p rocesses w ork, and
how u nd erstand ing the variation in those p rocesses can lead to w ise m anagem ent
action. The m ajor p rocess im p rovem ent techniqu es and tools are d iscu ssed
throu ghou t this chap ter.
POKA-YOKE
The term poka-yoke is a hybrid w ord created by Jap anese m anu factu ring engineer
Shigeo Shingo. It com es from the w ord s yokeru (“to avoid ”) and poka (“inad ver-
tent error”). H ence, the com bination w ord m eans avoiding inadvertent errors. The
term can be fu rther anglicized as m istake p roofing, or m aking it im p ossible to d o
a task incorrectly. It involves creating p rocesses that p revent the m aking of m is-
takes. As an exam p le, if a p art m u st fit into an assem bly in only one orientation,
the p art is d esigned so that it is p hysically im p ossible to p lace the p art in any other
orientation.
PROCESS DECISION PROGRAM CHART (PDPC)

The process decision program chart (PDPC) m ethod help s d eterm ine w hich p rocesses
to u se to obtain the d esired resu lts by evalu ating the p rogress of events and the va-
riety of conceivable ou tcom es. Im p lem entation p lans d o not alw ays p rogress as an-
ticip ated . When p roblem s, technical or otherw ise, arise, solu tions are frequ ently
not ap p arent. The PDPC m ethod , in resp onse to these kind s of p roblem s, antici-
p ates p ossible ou tcom es and p rep ares cou nterm easu res that w ill lead to the best
Space Funding?
available?
Build addition?
Facility Space not Discontinue?

available? Displace a unit?
Consolidate?
Purchase new?
Establish
new cardiac Acquire
Equipment equipment?
Funding?
treatment Purchase
unit reconditioned?
Staff not Hire? Funding?

available?
Staff
Staff
Reassign?
available?
Funding?
Training?
Figur e 9.12 Process decision program chart (PDPC).
p ossible solu tions. Figu re 9.12 charts the d ecisions need ed to establish a card iac
treatm ent u nit in a sm all, u nd erfu nd ed hosp ital.
The PDPC m ethod can be u sed to:
• Establish an im p lem entation p lan for m anagem ent by objectives
• Establish an im p lem entation p lan for technology-d evelop m ent them es
• Establish a p olicy of forecasting and resp ond ing in ad vance to m ajor
events p red icted in the system
• Im p lem ent cou nterm easu res to m inim ize nonconform ities in the
m anu factu ring p rocess
• Set u p and select m easu res for p rocess im p rovem ents
The PDPC d iagram is a sim p le grap hic tool that can be u sed to m itigate risk in vir-
tu ally any u nd ertaking.
QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT (QFD)

Quality function deployment (QFD) is a p lanning p rocess that u ses m u ltifu nctional
team s to transform the voice of the cu stom er into d esign sp ecifications. User re-
qu irem ents and p references are d efined and categorized as u ser attribu tes, w hich
are then w eighted based on their im p ortance to the u ser. Users are then asked to
com p are how their requ irem ents are being m et now by a cu rrent p rod u ct d esign
versu s a new d esign. QFD p rovid es the d esign team w ith an u nd erstand ing of cu s-
tom er d esires (in clear-text langu age), forces the cu stom er to p rioritize those d e-
sires, and com p ares/ benchm arks one d esign ap p roach against another. Each
cu stom er attribu te is then satisfied by at least one technical solu tion. Valu es for
Correlations
Critical characteristics of our

process that meet customersʼ
needs—“Voice of the Company”
Customer wants and needs—
relative to your competitors

Customersʼ perceptions
“Voice of the Customer”
Importance weighting
Relationships
and strength
of items
Importance rating—summary
Targets—ranking by technical importance
Figur e 9.13 Quality function deployment (QFD) matrix “house

of quality.”
those technical solu tions are d eterm ined and again rated am ong comp eting d esigns.
Finally, the technical solutions are evaluated against each other to id entify conflicts.
A convenient form for view ing the u ltim ate p rod u ct is the “hou se of quality”
graphic, which should help the d esign team translate cu stom er attribute inform ation
into firm op erating or engineering goals as well as id entify key m anufacturing char-
acteristics. Figu re 9.13 show s the basic fram ew ork of the QFD matrix. QFD is also
called the “house of quality” becau se of its resem blance to a house.
RELATIONS DIAGRAM (INTERRELATIONSHIP DIGRAPH)

The relations diagramming m ethod is a techniqu e d evelop ed to clarify intertw ined
cau sal relationship s in a com p lex situ ation in ord er to find an ap p rop riate solu tion.
Relations d iagram s can be u sed to:
• Determ ine and d evelop qu ality assu rance p olicies
• Establish p rom otional p lans for total qu ality control introd u ction
Library
Facility
upgrade
expansion
proposal
Hi-speed
Teacher
Internet
search
access
Add to
Curriculum
music
assessment
program
Cap on
school
budget
Figur e 9.14 Interrelationship digraph.
• Design step s to cou nter m arket com p laints

• Im p rove qu ality in the m anu factu ring p rocess (esp ecially in p lanning to
elim inate latent d efects)
• Prom ote qu ality control in p u rchased or ord ered item s
• Provid e m easu res against trou bles related to p aym ent and p rocess control
• Prom ote sm all grou p activities effectively
• Reform ad m inistrative and bu siness d ep artm ents
The d igrap h in Figu re 9.14 show s som e of the interrelating factors p ertaining to on-
going and p rop osed p rojects.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION MATRIX

A m atrix chart is u sefu l in p lanning the allocation of resou rces (su ch as p ersonnel,
equ ipm ent, facilities, and fu nd s). It is frequ ently u sed in p lanning larger p rojects.
The m atrix enables p lanners to see w here p otential conflicts m ay arise in u tilizing
resou rces for a project that are alread y com m itted to ongoing operations. Figure 9.15
show s a m atrix for allocation of five typ es of p ersonnel requ ired for a p roject.
RUN CHART
A run chart is a line grap h that show s d ata p oints p lotted in the ord er in w hich they
occu r. This typ e of chart is u sed to reveal trend s and shifts in a p rocess over tim e,
to show variation over tim e, or to id entify d ecline or im p rovem ent in a p rocess
over tim e. It can be u sed to exam ine both variables and attribu te d ata.
Project Delta Team—Personnel Requirements—October through May
(Days)
Data Entry Design Systems Computer Production

Task Operator Engineer Analyst Operator Planner Total
Build test data file Nov. 15.0 Oct.–Nov. 5.5 Oct. 3.5 Oct. 6.25 30.25
Run desk check of data Nov. 3.0 Nov. 2.0 Nov. 1.25 6.25
Modify test data Dec. 1.5 Dec. 1.0 Dec. 1.0 Dec. 2.0 5.50
Run computer test Dec. 8.0 8.00
Analyze test results Dec.–Jan. 15.0 Dec.–Jan. 15.0 Dec.–Jan. 5.0 35.00
Make modifications Jan.–Feb. 25.0 Jan.–Feb. 12.0 Jan.–Feb. 3.0 40.00
Prepare first month data Mar. 6.0 Mar. 1.0 Mar. 3.0 10.00
Prepare second month data Apr. 5.0 Apr. .5 Apr. 1.0 6.50
Prepare third month data May 5.0 May .5 May .5 6.00
Run full-scale production May 1.5 May .75 2.25
Analyze results May 3.0 3.00
32.5 52.5 35.5 31.5 .75 152.75
Figur e 9.15 Resource allocation matrix.

Diameter Run Chart

0.753
0.752
Avg. = 0.75075
0.751
Measured Value
0.75
0.749
0.748
0.747
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Lot Number
Figur e 9.16 Run Chart.
The d ata m u st be collected in a chronological or sequ ential form starting from

and end ing at any p oint. For best resu lts, 25 or m ore sam p les m u st be taken in or-
d er to get an accu rate ru n chart.
The chart in Figu re 9.16 p lots the average rod d iam eter of each of 10 lots of
rod s. A lot is one d ay’s total ru n.
Ru n charts can help an organization to:
• Recognize p atterns of p erform ance in a p rocess
• Docu m ent changes over tim e
A ru n chart show s the history and p attern of variation. It is help fu l to ind icate on
the chart w hether u p is good or d ow n is good .
Ru n charts can be u sed to:
• Su m m arize occu rrences of a p articu lar situ ation
• Disp lay m easu rem ent resu lts over tim e
• Id entify trend s, flu ctu ations, or u nu su al events
• Determ ine com m on cau se versu s sp ecial cau se variation
The basic step s involved in constru cting a ru n chart are as follow s:
1. Constru ct a horizontal (x) axis line and a vertical (y) axis line.
2. The horizontal axis rep resents tim e.
3. The vertical axis rep resents the valu es of m easu rem ent or the frequ ency
at w hich an event occu rs.
4. Collect d ata for an ap p rop riate nu m ber of tim e p eriod s, in accord ance
w ith you r d ata collection strategy.
5. Plot a p oint for each tim e a m easu rem ent is taken.

6. Connect the p oints w ith a line.
7. Id entify qu estions that the d ata shou ld answ er abou t the p rocess. Record
any qu estions or observations that can be m ad e as a resu lt of the d ata.
8. Com p u te the average for su bsequ ent blocks of tim e, or after a significant
change has occu rred .
Keep ing in m ind the p rocess, interp ret the chart. Possible signals that the p rocess
has significantly changed are:
• Six p oints in a row that stead ily increase or d ecrease
• N ine p oints in a row that are on the sam e sid e of the average
• Other p atterns su ch as significant shifts in levels, cyclical p atterns, and
bu nching of d ata p oints
Ru n charts p rovid e inform ation that help s to:
• Id entify trend s in w hich m ore p oints are above or below the average. We
shou ld find an equ al nu m ber of p oints above and below the average.
When a larger nu m ber of p oints lie either above or below the average, this
ind icates that there has been an u nu su al event and that the average has
changed . Su ch changes shou ld be investigated .
• Id entify trend s in w hich several p oints stead ily increase or d ecrease w ith
no reversals. N either p attern w ou ld be exp ected to hap p en based on
rand om chance. This w ou ld likely ind icate an im p ortant change and the
need to investigate.
• Id entify com m on and sp ecial cau se variation w ithin a p rocess.
SCATTER DIAGRAM
A scatter diagram is a chart in w hich one variable is p lotted against another to d e-
term ine w hether there is a correlation betw een the tw o variables. These d iagram s
are u sed to p lot the d istribu tion of inform ation in tw o d im ensions. Scatter d ia-
gram s are u sefu l in rap id ly screening for a relationship betw een tw o variables.
A scatter d iagram show s the p attern of relationship betw een tw o variables that
are thou ght to be related . For exam p le, is there a relationship betw een ou tsid e tem -
p eratu re and cases of the com m on cold ? As tem p eratu res d rop , d o cold s increase?
The m ore closely the p oints hu g a d iagonal line, the m ore closely there is a one-to-
one relationship .
The p u rp ose of the scatter d iagram is to d isp lay w hat hap p ens to one variable
w hen another variable is changed . The d iagram is u sed to test a theory that the tw o
variables are related . The slop e of the d iagram ind icates the typ e of relationship
that exists.
Figu re 9.17 show s a p lot of tw o variables—in this exam p le, p red icted valu es
versu s observed valu es. As the p red icted valu e increases, so d oes the actu al m eas-
u red valu e. These variables are said to be p ositively correlated ; that is, if one in-
creases, so d oes the other. The line p lotted is a “regression” line, w hich show s the
average linear relationship betw een the variables. If the line in a scatter d iagram
Weight Gain by Food Intake

n = 14
1.8
1.6
1.4
Weight gained
1.2 y = mx + b
Weight Gained
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Calorie Intake
Figur e 9.17 Scatter diagram.
has a negative slop e, the variables are negatively correlated ; that is, w hen one in-
creases, the other d ecreases, and vice versa. When no regression line can be p lot-
ted and the scatter d iagram ap p ears to sim p ly be a ball of d iffu se p oints, then the
variables are said to be u ncorrelated .
The u tility of the scatter d iagram for qu ality assessm ent lies in its m easu rem ent
of variables in a p rocess to see w hether any tw o or m ore variables are correlated or
u ncorrelated . The sp ecific u tility of find ing correlations is to infer cau sal relation-
ship s am ong variables and u ltim ately to find the root cau ses of p roblem s.
The basic step s involved in constru cting a scatter d iagram are as follow s:
1. Define the x variable on a grap h p ap er scatter d iagram form . This
variable is often thou ght of as the cau se variable and is typ ically p lotted
on the horizontal axis.
2. Define the y variable on the d iagram . This variable is often thou ght of as
the effect variable and is typ ically p lotted on the vertical axis.
3. N u m ber the p airs of x and y variable m easu rem ents consecu tively.
Record each p air of m easu res for x and y in the ap p rop riate colu m ns.
Make su re that the x m easu res and the corresp ond ing y m easu res rem ain
p aired so that the d ata are accu rate.
. Plot the x and y d ata p airs on the d iagram . Locate the x valu e on the
horizontal axis, and then locate the y valu e on the vertical axis. Place a
p oint on the grap h w here these tw o intersect.
5. Stu d y the shap e that is form ed by the series of d ata p oints p lotted . In
general, conclu sions can be m ad e abou t the association betw een tw o
variables (referred to as x and y) based on the shap e of the scatter

d iagram . Scatter d iagram s that d isp lay associations betw een tw o
variables tend to look like ellip tical sp heres or even straight lines.
6. Scatter d iagram s on w hich the p lotted p oints ap p ear in a circu lar fashion
show little or no correlation betw een x and y.
7. Scatter d iagram s on w hich the p oints form a p attern of increasing valu es
for both variables show a p ositive correlation; as valu es of x increase, so
d o valu es of y. The m ore tightly the p oints are clu stered in a linear
fashion, the stronger the p ositive correlation, or the association betw een
the tw o variables.
8. Scatter d iagram s on w hich one variable increases in valu e w hile the
second variable d ecreases in valu e show a negative correlation betw een x
and y. Again, the m ore tightly the p oints are clu stered in a linear fashion,
the stronger the association betw een the tw o variables.
If there ap p ears to be a relationship betw een tw o variables, they are said to be cor-
related . Both negative and p ositive correlations are u sefu l for continu ou s p rocess
im p rovem ent.
Scatter d iagram s show only that a relationship exists, not that one variable
cau ses the other. Fu rther analysis u sing ad vanced statistical techniqu es can qu an-
tify how strong the relationship is betw een tw o variables.
STRATIFICATION
A techniqu e called stratification is often very u sefu l in analyzing d ata in ord er to
find im p rovem ent op p ortu nities. Stratification help s analyze cases in w hich d ata
actu ally m ask the real facts. This often hap p ens w hen the record ed d ata are from
m any sou rces bu t are treated as one nu m ber.
The basic id ea in stratification is that d ata that are exam ined m ay be secu red
from sou rces w ith d ifferent statistical characteristics. For exam p le, consid er that
tw o d ifferent m achines, su ch as a cu tting m achine and a p olishing m achine, m ay
influ ence the m easu rem ent of the w id th of a p articu lar p art in a m anu factu ring as-
sem bly. Each m achine w ill contribu te to variations in the w id th of the final p rod -
u ct, bu t w ith p otentially d ifferent statistical variations.
Data on com p laints m ay be record ed as a single figu re (either rising or falling).
H ow ever, that nu m ber is actu ally the su m total of com p laints (inclu d ing those, for
exam p le, abou t office staff, field nu rses, hom e health aid es, and so forth). Stratifi-
cation breaks d ow n single nu m bers into m eaningfu l categories or classifications in
ord er to focu s corrective action.
TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT (TQM)

Total quality management is an ap p roach to qu ality m anagem ent that em p hasizes a
thorou gh u nd erstand ing by all m em bers of an organization of the need s and d e-
sires of the u ltim ate p rod u ct/ service recip ient, a view p oint of w ishing to p rovid e
w orld -class p rod u cts/ services to internal and external cu stom ers, and a know l-
ed ge of how to u se sp ecific d ata-related techniqu es and p rocess im p rovem ent tools
to assess and im p rove the qu ality of all organizational ou tp u ts.
Vision Tree Diagram
Long Term Annual Measures Targets

Reduce 50%
Faster cycle time Cycle time reduction
Reduce 50%
repair time Repair time reduction
Vision
Reduce 50%
Improved operations Better defects % defective reduction
Reduce 50%
rework % rework reduction
Reduce cost 50%

Cheaper of failure % waste reduction
50%
% rework reduction
Reduce cost 50%

of inspection % inspection reduction
Optimize cost
of prevention % prevention 10% of costs
Figur e 9.18 Tree diagram.
TREE DIAGRAM
A tree diagram is a grap hic rep resentation of the sep aration of broad , general infor-
m ation into increasing levels of d etail. The tool ensu res that action p lans rem ain
visibly linked to overall goals, that actions flow logically from id entified goals, and
that the tru e level of a p roject’s com p lexity w ill be fu lly u nd erstood . The goal to es-
tablish objectives for im p roving op erations is d iagram m ed in Figu re 9.18.
Tree d iagram s are u sed in the qu ality p lanning p rocess. The d iagram begins
w ith a generalized goal (the tree tru nk) and then id entifies p rogressively finer lev-
els of actions (the branches) need ed to accom p lish the goal. As p art of p rocess im -
p rovem ent, it can be u sed to help id entify root cau ses of trou ble. The tool is
esp ecially u sefu l in d esigning new p rod u cts or services and in creating an im p le-
m entation p lan to rem ed y id entified p rocess p roblem s. In ord er for the d iagram to
accu rately reflect the p roject, it is essential that the team u sing it have a d etailed u n-
d erstand ing of the tasks requ ired .
The step s involved in generating a tree d iagram are as follow s:

1. Identify the goal statement or primary objective. This shou ld be a clear,
action-oriented statem ent to w hich the entire team agrees. Su ch
statem ents m ay com e from the root cau se/ d river id entified in an
interrelationship d igrap h or from the head ings of an affinity d iagram .
Write this goal on the extrem e left of the chart.
2. Subdivide the goal statement into major secondary categories. These branches
shou ld rep resent goals, activities, or events that d irectly lead to the
p rim ary objective or that are d irectly requ ired to achieve the overall goal.
The team shou ld continu ally ask, “What is requ ired to m eet this
cond ition?” “What hap p ens next?” and “What need s to be ad d ressed ?”
Write the second ary categories to the right of the goal statem ent. Using
sticky-back notes at this stage m akes later changes easier to accom p lish.
3. Break each major heading into greater detail. As you m ove from left to right
in the tree, the tasks and activities shou ld becom e m ore and m ore
sp ecific. Stop the breakd ow n of each level once there are assignable
tasks. If the team d oes not have enou gh know led ge to continu e at som e
p oint, id entify the ind ivid u als w ho can su p p ly the inform ation and
continu e the breakd ow n later w ith those ind ivid u als p resent.
4. Review the diagram for logic and completeness. Make su re that each
su bhead ing and p ath has a d irect cau se-and -effect relationship w ith the
one before. Exam ine the p aths to ensu re that no obviou s step s have been
left ou t. Also ensu re that the com p letion of listed actions w ill ind eed lead
to the anticip ated resu lts.
SUMMARY OF QUALITY IMPROVEMENT TOOLS

AND TECHNIQUES
The qu ality im p rovem ent tools and techniqu es d escribed in this chap ter p rovid e a
sim p le yet p ow erfu l set of m ethod ologies for collecting, analyzing, and visu alizing
inform ation from d ifferent p ersp ectives. The p roblem w ith the m ethod ologies is
the lack of their u se by organizations. An organization cannot solve its ow n p rob-
lem s w ithou t u nd erstand ing the w ay these m ethod ologies op erate and how they
can assist the organization in u nd erstand ing and im p roving its p rocesses.
Many of the tools and techniqu es m entioned in this chap ter are d iscu ssed in
greater d ep th in the reference m aterials cited in Ap p end ix D. The Memory Jogger II
is su ggested as an essential “toolbox.” 5 For the m ore ad ventu rou s, Improving Per-
formance through Statistical Thinking is a good read for gaining u sefu l insight into
the valu e of statistics in qu ality im p rovem ent.6 For m ore on Qu ality Fu nction De-
p loym ent (QFD), see Beecroft et al.7 Cost of qu ality is d iscu ssed in greater d etail in
Principles of Quality Costs.8
Notes
1. Mu ch of the inform ation in this section is ad ap ted from the U.S. Navy Handbook for
Basic Process Improvement and the U.S. Air Force Quality Institute Process Improvement
Guide, 2nd ed . (1994).
2. In m ore recent tim es, the ru n chart has been d rop p ed from the list and the check sheet
has been ad d ed , m aintaining the basic cou nt of seven tools.
3. The term audit is grad u ally being rep laced by the term assessment in relation to
m anagem ent system s, w here the em p hasis is less on strict conform ance to
sp ecifications than on the effectiveness of the m anagem ent p rocess. Accred ited ISO
9000 registrars “assess” qu ality m anagem ent system s p rior to granting a certificate.
The Bald rige N ational Qu ality Program u ses volu nteer “assessors” to cond u ct
“assessm ents” of organizations ap p lying for the aw ard .
4. Bau er, J. E., G. L. Du ffy, and J. W. Moran. Solve p roblem s w ith op en com m u nication.
Quality Progress (Ju ly 2001): 160.
5. Brassard , M., and D. Ritter. The memory jogger II: A pocket guide of tools for continuous
improvement and effective planning. (Methu en, MA: GOAL/ QPC, 1994).
6. ASQ Statistics Division. Improving performance through statistical thinking. (Milw au kee,
7. Beecroft, G. Dennis, Grace L. Du ffy, and John W. Moran, ed s. The executive guide to
8. Cam p anella, Jack, ed . Principles of quality costs (3rd ed .). (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality
Press, 1999).
Chapter 10
E. Cu stom er–Su p p lier Relation sh ip s
I do not consider a sale complete until the goods are worn out and the
customer is still satisfied.
Leon Leonwood Bean, founder of L. L. Bean
There is only one boss—the customer. And he can fire everybody in the company
from the chairman on down simply by spending his money somewhere else.
Sam Walton, founder of Wal-M art
Anyone who thinks customers aren’t important should try doing without
them for 90 days.
Anonymous
1. INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL CUSTOMERS
Know how customers are defined.

Understand the importance of working
with customers to improve processes and
services, and how customers influence
organizational processes. Know how to
distinguish between different external
customer types (consumers and end-users).
(Understand)
CQIA BoK 2006
149
Internal Customers
Internal cu stom ers are those w ithin the organization. The term next operation as cus-
tomer is often u sed to d escribe the relationship of internal p rovid er to internal re-
ceiver.1 Every fu nction and w ork grou p in an organization is both a receiver of
services and / or p rod u cts from internal and / or external sou rces and a p rovid er of
services and / or p rod u cts to internal and / or external cu stom ers. These interfaces
betw een p rovid er and receiver m ay be one to one, one to m any, m any to one, or
m any to m any. Each receiver has need s and requ irem ents. Whether the d elivered
service or p rod u ct m eets the need s and requ irem ents of the receiver it im p acts the
effectiveness and qu ality of services and / or p rod u cts to their cu stom ers, and so on.
Follow ing are som e exam p les of internal cu stom er situ ations:
• If A d elivers p art X to B one hou r late, B m ay have to ap p ly extra effort and

cost to m ake u p the tim e or else p erp etu ate the d elay by d elivering late to
the next cu stom er.
• Engineering d esigns a p rod u ct based on a salesp erson’s u nd erstand ing of
the external cu stom er ’s need . Prod u ction p rod u ces the p rod u ct, exp end ing
resou rces. The external cu stom er rejects the p rod u ct becau se it fails to m eet
the cu stom er ’s need s. The p rovid er reengineers the p rod u ct and
p rod u ction m akes a new one, w hich the cu stom er accep ts beyond the
original requ ired d elivery d ate. The resu lt is w aste and p ossibly no fu rther
ord ers from this cu stom er.
• Inform ation technology (IT) d elivers cop ies of a p rod u ction cost rep ort
(w hich averages 50 p ages of fine p rint p er w eek) to six internal cu stom ers.
IT has established elaborate qu ality control of the accu racy, tim eliness, and
p hysical qu ality of the rep ort. H ow ever, of the six rep ort receivers, only
tw o still need inform ation of this typ e. N either of these find s the rep ort
d irectly u sable for their cu rrent need s. Each has assigned clerical p eop le to
m anu ally extract p ertinent d ata for their sp ecific u se. All six ad m it that
they d iligently store the rep orts for the p rescribed retention p eriod .
• Prod u ction tickets, com p u ter-p rinted on light card stock, are attached by
rem ovable tap e to m od u les. When each m od u le reaches the p aint shop , it
is given an acid bath, a rinse, high-tem p eratu re d rying, p ainting, and high-
tem p eratu re baking. Very few tickets su rvive intact and read able. The
op eration follow ing the p aint shop requ ires attaching other p arts to the
p ainted m od u les, based on inform ation contained on the tickets. Op erators
d ep end on their exp erience to gu ess w hich goes w ith w hat. Abou t
95 p ercent of the m od u les em erge from this p rocess correctly, excep t w hen
a p rod u ct variation is ord ered or w hen an exp erienced op erator is absent.
The step s to im p rove p rocess and services are as follow s:

1. Id entify internal cu stom er interfaces (p rovid ers of services/ p rod u cts and
receivers of their services/ p rod u cts).
2. Establish internal cu stom ers’ service/ p rod u ct need s and requ irem ents.
3. Ensu re that the internal cu stom er requ irem ents are consistent w ith and
su p p ortive of external cu stom er requ irem ents.
Chapt er 10: E. Cust omer —Suppl ier Rel at ionships 151
4. Docu m ent service-level agreem ents betw een p rovid ers and receivers.2
5. Establish im p rovem ent goals and m easu rem ents.
6. Im p lem ent system s for tracking and rep orting p erform ance and for
su p p orting the continu ou s im p rovem ent of the p rocess.
Effect of Treatment of Internal Customers

on That of External Customers
Care-less behavior of m anagem ent (and m anagem ent’s system s) tow ard internal
cu stom ers (p oor tools and equ ip m ent, d efective or late m aterial from a p reviou s
op eration, incorrect/ incom p lete instru ctions, ineligible w ork ord ers or p rints, cir-
cu m vention of w orker safety p roced u res and p ractices, u nhealthy w ork environ-
m ent, lack of interest in internal com p laints, d isregard for external cu stom er
feed back, and so forth) m ay engend er care-less or ind ifferent treatm ent of external
cu stom ers. Continu ed , this ind ifference m ay generate a d ow nw ard sp iral that
cou ld ad versely affect an organization’s bu siness. Ignoring the need s of internal
cu stom ers m akes it very d ifficu lt to instill a d esire to care for the need s of external
cu stom ers.
So m any organizations fail to learn, or ignore, the internal cu stom ers’ need s
and w ond er w hy their m anagem ent’s exhortations fail to stim u late internal cu s-
tom ers to care abou t w hat they d o for external cu stom ers and how they d o it. The
su rly and u ncoop erative sales rep resentative, w aitp erson, hou sekeep ing em -
p loyee, health-care p rovid er, d elivery p erson, and cu stom er service rep resentative
often reflect a lack of caring for internal cu stom ers.
Organizations m u st w ork constantly to ad d ress the internal cu stom ers’
lam ent: “H ow d o you exp ect m e to care abou t the next op erator, or external cu s-
tom er, w hen no one cares w hether I get w hat I need to d o m y job right?”
External Customers
External customers are those w ho are served by or w ho receive p rod u cts from the
su p p lier organization. There are m any typ es of external cu stom ers:
1. Consu m ers/ end u sers
• Retail buyer of products. The retail bu yer influ ences the d esign and
u sability of p rod u ct featu res and accessories based on the volu m e
p u rchased . Consu m er p rod u ct “w atch” organizations w arn
p u rchasers of p otential p roblem s. For exam p le:
In the late 1990s, a fake fat substance was introduced in a number of food
products as a boon to weight-conscious people. These products didn’t taste
good and were found to have harmful side effects. Many consumers stopped
buying the products.
The factors im p ortant to this typ e of bu yer, d ep end ing on the typ e
of p rod u ct, are: reasonable p rice, ease of u se, p erform ance, safety,
aesthetics, and d u rability. Other influ ences on p rod u ct offerings
inclu d e: easy p u rchase p rocess, installation, instru ctions for u se,
p ostp u rchase service, w arranty p eriod , p ackaging, friend liness of
seller ’s p ersonnel, and brand nam e.
• Discount buyer. The d iscou nt bu yer shop s p rim arily for p rice, is
m ore w illing to accep t less-w ell-know n brand s, and is w illing to
bu y qu antities in excess of im m ed iate need s. These bu yers have
relatively little influ ence on the p rod u cts, excep t for, p erhap s,
creating a m arket for off-brand s, p rod u ction su rp lu ses, and
d iscontinu ed item s.
• Employee buyer. The em p loyee bu yer p u rchases the em p loyer ’s
p rod u cts, u su ally at a d eep d iscou nt. Often being fam iliar w ith or
even a contribu tor to the p rod u cts bou ght, this bu yer can p rovid e
valu able feed back to the em p loyer (both d irectly, throu gh su rveys,
and ind irectly, throu gh volu m e and item s p u rchased ).
• Service buyer. The bu yer of services (su ch as TV rep air, d ental w ork,
and tax p rep aration) often bu ys by w ord -of-m ou th. Word of good
or p oor service sp read s rap id ly and influ ences the continu ance of
the service p rovid er ’s bu siness.
• Service user. The cap tive service u ser (su ch as the u ser of electricity,
gas, w ater, m u nicip al services, and schools) generally has little
choice as to from w hich su p p lier they receive services. Until
com p etition is introd u ced , there is little incentive for p rovid ers to
vary their services. Recent d eregu lation has resu lted in a m ore
com p etitive m arketp lace for som e u tilities.
• Organization buyer. Bu yers for organizations that u se a p rod u ct or
service in the cou rse of their bu siness or activity can have a
significant influ ence on the typ es of p rod u cts offered them as w ell
as on the organization from w hich they bu y. Raw m aterials or
d evices that becom e p art of a m anu factu red p rod u ct are esp ecially
critical in su staining qu ality and com p etitiveness for the bu yer ’s
organization (inclu d ing p erform ance, serviceability, p rice, ease of
u se, d u rability, sim p licity of d esign, safety, and ease of d isp osal).
Other factors inclu d e: flexibility in d elivery, d iscou nts, allow ances
for retu rned m aterial, extraord inary gu arantees, and so forth.
Factors that p articu larly p ertain to p u rchased services are the
rep u tation and cred ibility of the p rovid er, range of services
offered , d egree of cu stom ization offered , tim eliness, fee stru ctu re,
and so forth.
2. Interm ed iate cu stom ers
• Wholesale buyer. Wholesalers bu y w hat they exp ect they can sell.
They typ ically bu y in large qu antities. They m ay have little d irect
influ ence on p rod u ct d esign and m anu factu re, bu t they d o
influ ence the p rovid ers’ p rod u ction sched u les, p ricing p olicies,
w arehou sing and d elivery arrangem ents, retu rn p olicies for
u nsold m erchand ise, and so forth.
• Distributor. Distribu tors are sim ilar to w holesalers in som e w ays
bu t d iffer in the fact that they m ay stock a w id er variety of
p rod u cts from a w id e range of p rod u cers. What they stock is
d irectly influ enced by their cu stom ers’ d em and s and need s. Their
cu stom ers’ ord ers are often sm all and m ay consist of a m ix of
p rod u cts. The d istribu tors’ forte is stocking thou sand s of catalog
item s that can be “p icked ” and ship p ed on short notice, at an
attractive p rice. Cu stom ers seeking an ind u stry level of qu ality, at
a good p rice, and im m ed iately available m ainly influ ence
d istribu tors stocking com m od ity-typ e item s, su ch as sheet m etal,
constru ction m aterials, m ineral p rod u cts, and stationary item s.
“Blanket-ord ers” for a yearly qu antity d elivered at sp ecified
intervals are p revalent for som e m aterials.
• Retail chain buyer. Bu yers for large retail chains, becau se of the size
of their ord ers, p lace m ajor d em and s on their p rovid ers, su ch as
p ricing concessions, very flexible d eliveries, requ irem ents that the
p rovid ers assu m e w arehou sing costs for alread y-p u rchased
p rod u cts, sp ecial p ackaging requ irem ents, no-cost retu rn p olicy,
and requ irem ents that the p rovid ers be able to accep t
electronically sent ord ers.
• Other volume buyers. Governm ent entities, ed u cational institu tions,
health-care organizations, transp ortation com p anies, p u blic
u tilities, cru ise lines, hotel chains, and restau rant chains all
rep resent large-volu m e bu yers that p rovid e services to cu stom ers.
Su ch organizations have regu lations governing their services. Each
requ ires a w id e range of p rod u cts, m aterials, and external services
in d elivering its services, m u ch of w hich is transp arent to the
consu m er. Each requ ires high qu ality and each has tight
lim itations on w hat it can p ay (for exam p le, based on
ap p rop riations, cost-control m and ates, tariffs, or heavy
com p etition). Each su ch bu yer d em and s m u ch for its m oney bu t
m ay offer long-term contracts for fixed qu antities. The bu ying
organizations’ internal cu stom ers frequ ently generate the
influ ences on the p rod u cts requ ired .
• Service providers. The d iversity of service p rovid ers bu ying
p rod u cts and services from other p rovid ers is m ind -boggling.
These bu yers inclu d e p lu m bers, p u blic accou ntants, d entists,
d octors, bu ild ing contractors, cleaning services, com p u ter
p rogram m ers, Web site d esigners, consu ltants, m anu factu rer ’s
rep s, actors, and taxi d rivers, am ong m any others. This typ e of
bu yer, often self-em p loyed , bu ys very sm all qu antities, shop s for
valu e, bu ys only w hen the p rod u ct or service is need ed (w hen the
bu yer has a job, p atient, or client), and relies on high qu ality of
p u rchases to m aintain cu stom ers’ satisfaction. Influ ences on
p rod u cts or services for this typ e of bu yer range from having the
p rovid er be able to fu rnish service and / or rep lacem ent p arts for
old or obsolete equ ip m ent, be able to su p p ly extrem ely sm all
qu antities of an extrem ely large nu m ber of p rod u cts (su ch as those
su p p lied by a hard w are store, constru ction m aterials d ep ot, or
m ed ical p rod u cts su p p ly hou se), and have p rod u ct know led ge
that extend s to know ing how the p rod u ct is to be u sed .
A sim p lified hyp othetical p rod u ct/ service flow throu gh several typ es of cu s-
tom ers for a consu m er p rod u ct sold via an Internet Web p age w ou ld be as follow s:
a. A consu m er (external cu stom er) accesses the Web throu gh an external
Internet service p rovid er (ISP).
b. The consu m er searches for a p articu lar book at the low est p rice available,
accessing variou s p rod u ct sellers (the ISP is an external service p rovid er
to the variou s sellers).
c. The consu m er selects a seller and p laces an ord er via the seller ’s
Web p age.
d . The seller forw ard s the ord er to a selected p u blisher ’s ord er service (the
seller is an external cu stom er of the p u blisher).
e. The ord er service d ep artm ent of the p u blisher notifies the seller, w ho
notifies the consu m er that the book ord er has been p laced .
f. The p u blisher ’s ord er service d ep artm ent forw ard s a “p ick” ord er to the
w arehou se, w hich p icks the book from inventory and send s the book to
ship p ing (the w arehou se is an internal cu stom er of the ord er service
d ep artm ent, and ship p ing is an internal cu stom er of the w arehou se).
g. Ship p ing p ackages and send s the book via Package Delivery Service
(PDS) d irectly to the consu m er, notifying the p u blisher ’s ord er service
and billing d ep artm ents and the seller that ship m ent has taken p lace
(PDS is a service p rovid er to the p u blisher, and the billing d ep artm ent is
an internal cu stom er of ship p ing).
h. The p u blisher ’s billing d ep artm ent ad d s the ship m ent to the am ou nt to
be billed to the seller at m onth end .
i. PDS d elivers the book to the consu m er.
j. The seller bills the consu m er (the consu m er is an external cu stom er of the
seller ’s billing d ep artm ent).
With som e excep tions (su ch as very sm all organizations), m ost organizations seg-
m ent their cu stom er base in ord er to better serve the need s of d ifferent typ es of cu s-
tom ers. Provid ing one p rod u ct or service to every typ e of cu stom er is no longer
feasible.
Henry Ford is reported to have said, “People can have the Model T in any
color—so long as it’s black.” (Black was the only color of paint available that
dried fast enough to allow Ford’s assembly-line approach to work.)
Cu stom ers sharing p articu lar w ants or need s m ay be segm ented by:
• Pu rchase volu m e
• Profitability (to the selling organization)
• Ind u stry classification
• Geograp hic factors (su ch as m u nicip alities, regions, states, cou ntries, and
continents)
• Dem ograp hic factors (su ch as age, incom e, m arital statu s, ed u cation, and
gend er)
• Psychograp hic factors (su ch as valu es, beliefs, and attitu d es)
An organization m u st d ecid e w hether it is interested in sim p ly p u rsu ing m ore cu s-
tom ers (or contribu tors, in the case of a not-for-p rofit fu nd -raiser) or in targeting
the right cu stom ers. It is not u nu su al for an organization, after segm enting its cu s-
tom er base, to find that it is not econom ically feasible to continu e to serve a p artic-
u lar segm ent. Conversely, an organization m ay find that it is u niqu ely cap able of
fu rther p enetrating a p articu lar m arket segm ent or m ay even d iscover a niche not
p resently served by other organizations.
Deploying the Voice of the Customer

In becom ing a cu stom er-focu sed organization it is im p ortant that the requ irem ents
and exp ectations of the cu stom er p erm eate every fu nction w ithin the organization.
One tool for d ep loying (cascad ing) the voice of the cu stom er d ow nw ard throu gh-
ou t the organization is quality function deployment (QFD). QFD consists of a series
of interlocking m atrices, ou tlined in Figu re 10.1. In this exam p le, cu stom er re-
qu irem ents are aligned w ith internal d esign requ irem ents, d esign requ irem ents
are aligned w ith p arts requ irem ents, p arts requ irem ents w ith p rocess requ ire-
m ents, and p rocess requ irem ents w ith p rod u ction requ irem ents—to p rod u ce a
p rod u ct that m eets the cu stom er ’s requ irem ents and exp ectations.
A focus group is both a m eans for cap tu ring insightfu l inform ation abou t cu s-
tom ers’ exp ectations before a p rod u ct or service is d esigned and lau nched as w ell
as a m eans for gathering cu stom ers’ satisfaction w ith p rod u cts or services
p u rchased .
Design
requirements
Parts
requirements
requirements
Customer
Process
requirements
requirements
Design
Production
requirements
requirements
Parts
requirements
Process
Customer requirements Customer satisfaction
Figur e 10.1 Voice of the customer deployed.

2. CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
Know the different types of customer

feedback (e.g., surveys, complaints) and
understand the value in using the data to
drive continuous improvement activities.
(Understand)
CQIA BoK 2006
Customer relationship management (CRM), also referred to as relationship marketing or

one-to-one marketing (serving the u niqu e need s of each cu stom er), is receiving em -
p hasis in the fast-p aced , ever-changing environm ent in w hich organizations m u st
su rvive and p rosp er. CRM relates less to the p rod u ct or service p rovid ed and m ore
to the w ay bu siness is cond u cted . In a cu stom er-focu sed organization, the thru st is
u su ally m ore tow ard nu rtu ring the existing cu stom ers than a d rive to attract new
cu stom ers. A key p rincip le of good cu stom er relations is d eterm ining and ensu r-
ing cu stom er satisfaction.
Percep tions of cu stom er satisfaction need to be corroborated or rejected
throu gh sou nd m eans for collecting, analyzing, and acting u p on cu stom er feed -
back. Effective system s for u tilizing cu stom er feed back involve several elem ents:
• There are form al p rocesses for collecting, m easu ring, and analyzing
cu stom er d ata and for com m u nicating resu lts to the ap p rop riate bu siness
fu nctions for action.
• Feed back m echanism s are in p lace to d eterm ine how w ell an organization
is m eeting cu stom ers’ requ irem ents.
• Most organizations choose a com bination of m ethod s to get a m ore
com p lete p ictu re. Once cu stom er satisfaction d ata have been gathered ,
sop histicated techniqu es can be u sed to analyze the d ata and target areas
for im p rovem ent.
• Data are stored ap p rop riately and m ad e available to those w ho need it.
Som e exam p les of the origins of cu stom er d ata that can be u sefu l in d eterm ining
cu stom er need s and satisfaction are:
Da t a from w it hin t he orga niza t ion
• Cu stom er com p laints, w hen logged and tracked
• Past record s of claim resolu tions
• Prod u ct w arranty registration card s and gu arantee u sage
• Service record s—p rod u ct failu re, p rod u ct m aintenance
• Inp u t from cu stom er contact p ersonnel
• Cu stom er satisfaction su rveys
• Transaction d ata
• Data from established “listening p osts”
• Lost-cu stom er analysis
• Market research
Da t a from out side t he orga niza t ion
• Data abou t com p etitors’ cu stom ers
• Research: m agazine and new sp ap er articles, trad e jou rnal inform ation
• Pu blic inform ation, for exam p le, cu stom ers’ and com p etitors’ annu al
rep orts
• Ad vertising m ed ia: brochu res, TV, rad io, Web sites
• Ind u stry m arket research
Product Warranty Registration Cards

Often these are fou nd in the p ackages of new p rod u cts. These card s p rovid e som e
basic cu stom er d ata that can help the seller better u nd erstand bu yers’ need s w hen
the consu m er com p letes the card and send s it in. The real valu e, how ever, lies in
analyzing the cu stom er ’s p u rchasing d ecision (by the typ es of qu estions asked on
the card s) and d eterm ining w hether and , later, w hen the consu m er files a claim
w ithin the w arranty p eriod .
Complaints
Com p laint d ata, w hen ap p rop riately cap tu red and analyzed , p rovid es a w ealth of
inform ation abou t cu stom ers’ satisfaction. H ow ever, it m u st be realized that the
d ata d o not constitu te a valid statistical sam p le: Many cu stom ers find it a bu rd en
to com p lain u nless there is a very seriou s p roblem , and the m ajority of cu stom ers
have no d iscernable com p laint to register.
Many organizations op enly solicit com p laints—think of the restau rant w ait-
p erson w ho inqu ires abou t you r satisfaction w ith you r food , the organization that
serves m ail-ord er cu stom ers and inclu d es a self-ad d ressed , stam p ed rep ly card ,
and the hotel that seeks feed back on you r satisfaction w ith you r stay at its facility.
It has been p roven that a bu yer ’s satisfaction is often greatly im p roved w hen a
com p laint is qu ickly resolved . Research by the U.S. Office of Consu m er
Affairs/ Technical Assistance Research Program s (TARP) show s that the sp eed of
com p laint resolu tion also affects rep u rchase intent, w hich is significantly higher
w hen resolu tion is achieved qu ickly.
Customer Surveys
Many organizations solicit cu stom er feed back w ith form al cu stom er su rveys. The
aim s of a su rvey are to get as high a resp onse rate as p ossible so as to obtain the
m ost rep resentative sam p ling of the cu stom er p op u lation su rveyed and as m u ch
u sefu l d ata as p ossible. Designing su rveys and analyzing the d ata received are
p rocesses involving m u ch exp ertise and know led ge. Ad m inistering the su rvey
p rocess is exp ensive. Misinterp retation and inap p rop riate u se of the d ata can be
even m ore exp ensive.
Method s of ad m inistering su rveys inclu d e:

• Mail
• Electronic (e-m ail or throu gh a Web site)
• Telep hone
• In p erson, one-to-one
• In p erson, grou p
• In p erson, p anel
Each m ethod has its ad vantages and d isad vantages. The relative effectiveness of
one over another also d ep end s on the p u rp ose of the su rvey, the p op u lation to be
su rveyed , and the benefit-to-cost ratio of cond u cting the su rvey. For exam p le, one-
to-one interview s can generally only reach a sm all nu m ber of p ersons and are ex-
p ensive to cond u ct, bu t the p ersonal contact involved often yield s great insights.
The m ailed su rvey has its costs bu t can reach u nlim ited nu m bers of p otential re-
sp ond ents. The resp onse rate can be low and the typ es of cu stom ers resp ond ing
m ay not rep resent a reasonable sam p le, bu t this m ethod is far less exp ensive than
one-to-one su rveys. Electronic su rveys are relatively inexp ensive w hen integrated
w ith other Web site m aterial, bu t they can yield very low resp onse rates and m ay
p rod u ce resp onses from only the w ild ly d elighted , the highly d issatisfied cu s-
tom ers, and the “loyal” cu stom ers w illing to help .
Som e of the m istakes to avoid in u sing su rveys are:
• Using an annoying m ethod ology, p oor su rvey d esign, an overall
u nap p ealing p resentation, or qu estions that seem silly, w ithou t reason, or
not p ertinent gives the cu stom er a reason to d ecline to resp ond .
• The organization shou ld not form u late its qu estions based solely on w hat
it thinks the cu stom er w ou ld w ant to answ er. Good su rvey d esign calls for
the cu stom ers to be asked w hat is m ost im p ortant to them and w hat they
w ant to have inclu d ed on the su rvey.
• Another com m on error is selecting cu stom ers that are neither rand om nor
rep resentative, resu lting in resp onses that are not statistically valid . This
can also hap p en w hen a low qu antity of resp onses is analyzed . The
analysis ignores the fact that cu stom ers at the extrem es of satisfaction and
d issatisfaction tend to resp ond to su rveys m ore frequ ently than those w ho
are neu tral.
• Resu lts from inep t or m isd irected qu estions can cau se the organization to
focu s on the w rong or least-im p ortant im p rovem ent effort.
• Designing qu estions that force an answ er w here none of the choices are
ap p licable to the cu stom er is u naccep table.
• Another qu estion d esign flaw is failu re to w rite at a level that the cu stom er
can u nd erstand . Su rvey valid ity m ay be com p rom ised .
• Som e organizations cond u ct su rveys and then fail to u se the resu lts in their
strategic p lanning and continu ou s im p rovem ent efforts.
Transaction Data
Many organizations collect a w ealth of d ata abou t their cu stom ers throu gh d irect
transactions w ith them . Exam p les inclu d e d ata collected on consu m er bu ying
habits throu gh the u se of store-issu ed id entification card s (the u se of the card s is
su p p orted by d iscou nt incentives) and throu gh the analysis of “hits” and “bu ys”
from u sers of Web sites.
ED I: Electronic d ata interchange (EDI) is the p ap erless electronic transm ission
of a cu stom er ’s ord er d ata (requ irem ents) to the su p p lier ’s internal ord er fu lfill-
m ent system . In som e fu lly au tom ated system s, the EDI d ata transm itted m ay trig-
ger the ord er entry, p rod u ction of the p rod u ct, ship p ing, d elivery, and billing—
w ith m inim u m hu m an intervention. EDI is becom ing a contractu al requ irem ent
from m any cu stom ers.
Another w ay to gather transaction d ata is to engage external “m ystery shop -
p ers” to m ake p u rchases of you r p rod u ct and p rovid e feed back to you r organiza-
tion abou t the exp erience. (The sam e ap p roach is also u sed to “shop ” the
com p etitors and check ou t their ap p roaches.)
Data from Established “ Listening Posts”

Organizations have m any p eop le w ithin them w ho p eriod ically or occasionally in-
teract w ith cu stom ers: engineer to engineer, salesp erson to salesp erson, CEO to
CEO, and d elivery p erson to cu stom er ’s receiving p erson, am ong others. In a m a-
jority of these interactions (face-to-face, telep hone, fax, e-m ail, and so forth), the
cu stom ers’ p eop le exp ress op inions, su ggestions, com p laints, or com p lim ents
abou t the su p p lier ’s organization, the qu ality of its p rod u cts/ services, d elivery,
p rice—even abou t the p ersonal attention they receive (or d on’t receive). Excep ting
severe negative exp ressions, these com m ents, casu ally and inform ally m ad e, are
seld om cap tu red . By not having a form al p rocess for collecting and analyzing these
d ata (for exam p le, trend ing), an organization is u nable to sp ot the early stages of
an eventu al cu stom er p roblem . It also m isses com p lim ents that shou ld get back to
the resp onsible p eop le as p ositive feed back.3
Jan Carlzon, president of Scandinavian Airlines, in his book Mom ents of

Tru th, discusses the often-unrecognized opportunities all employees have for
gathering customer data. A “moment of truth” is any contact a customer has
with an organization.
Lost-Customer Analysis
This m ethod involves creating a rating scale for the reasons an organization loses
its cu stom ers, ap p lying the rating to cu stom ers lost, d evelop ing a Pareto ch art for
qu an tity lost in each rating category, and creatin g a trend ch art show ing the
losses by category over tim e. Preventive action is in itiated to d ecrease losses.
Cu stom er satisfaction d ata are analyzed to im p rove cu stom er satisfaction an d
retain cu stom ers. Retaining cu stom ers costs m oney bu t is still m u ch less exp en-
sive th an seeking new cu stom ers. Table 10.1 p resen ts anoth er w ay to view you r
cu stom ers.
Table 10.1 Levels of customer satisfaction.
Level Is You r Cu stom er: Th en You r Cu stom er:

1 d issatisfied ? has p robably d ep arted forever.
2 m arginally satisfied ? is casu al (any su p p lier w ill d o).
3 basically satisfied ? is bord erline, u ncom m itted .
4 d elighted ? is a retu rn cu stom er (retained ).
5 a com m itted ad vocate? is loyal, ap p reciates w hat you d o,
and tells others.
Reprinted w ith perm ission of R. T. Westcott & Associates
Tracking, Measuring, and Reporting Customer Satisfaction

Prod u cing tabu lations of cu stom er satisfaction d ata, trend charts, and so forth is of
m inim al valu e u nless there is an established objective against w hich to com p are.
To m ake sense of the tim e and energy involved in collecting the d ata, there m u st
be a target. To ju stify the p reventive action that m ay be ind icated by the analyzed
d ata, there need s to be a basis for estim ating the anticip ated gain to be achieved by
the action, a m eans for tracking p rogress tow ard achieving the objective, and a ba-
sis for evalu ating the effectiveness of the action taken.
Tracking, m easu ring, and rep orting on a real-d ollar basis is u su ally m ore
m eaningfu l than d oing so on the basis of p ercentages or qu antities alone. Know -
ing w hat it now costs to lose a cu stom er is a good p lace to start. Im p rovem ent in
cu stom er retention has the p otential for a su bstantive d ollar p ayoff. The figu res
have a d irect im p act on the p rofit or cost-containm ent goals of the organization.
Sim p lified step s for d eterm ining w hat it is w orth to retain cu stom ers are as
follow s:
1. Segm ent the cu stom er base by typ es of p rod u cts or services sold to each
segm ent.
2. Select an ap p rop riate tim e p eriod : for exam p le, for cu stom ers bu ying
consu m er p rod u cts, p erhap s 2 years, for hom eow ner insu rance bu yers,
m aybe 30 years.
3. Com p u te the average annu al p rofit each segm ent of cu stom ers p rod u ces.
As an example, for the home computer buyer segment, the average initial
purchase price (including a three-year service contract) plus the average
price of add-ons purchased within the three years, divided by three, times
the number of customers in this segment equals the annual value of this
segment.
4. Com p u te the w orth to retain the cu stom er:

To the value of an individual customer in this segment, add the dollar value
of upgrading the customer to a new computer at the end of the three-year
period. Determine how many customers’ upgrades represent a challenging
but possible goal. Multiply the individual customer’s figure by this number
of upgrades. This is what it is worth to retain your customers through their
first upgrade.
5. Determ ine w hat actions are need ed , based on you r cu stom er satisfaction
d ata, to retain you r p resent cu stom ers and estim ate the cost of these
actions.
6. Com p u te the estim ated net gain from cu stom er retention efforts: w orth
of cu stom ers m inu s cost to retain the cu stom ers.4
7. Do this for each segm ent. N ote: N ot all segm ents m ay be w orth ad d ed
retention effort. You m ay also d iscover a segm ent of cu stom ers for w hich
even initial efforts to sell to them m ay not be econom ically w ise.
A supermarket, the only large chain present in a small town, estimates that
its customers spend an average of $70 a week at the store ($3,640 a year)
and that the average customer stays with the store for seven years (total
average customer worth equals $25,480). Data analysis shows that
customer satisfaction, in addition to the number of retained buyers, is at or
above the industry norm for this type of location and store. Great! But the
store does lose customers. At an average value of $25,480, it’s worth
exploring why the losses are occurring and what it would be worth to add
efforts to retain more of these lost customers. And, as the town grows, the
area is attracting other interested store chains. Action now to improve and
sustain retention may be wise.
Kano Model
In an organization’s efforts to increase cu stom er satisfaction, it is critical to u nd er-
stand w hat satisfies cu stom ers, w hat d oes not, and w hat new or im p roved p rod -
u cts and services cou ld excite cu stom ers. Jap anese p rofessor N oriaki Kano d evised
a m od el that d escribes the interrelationship am ong three p rod u ct qu alities: those
qu alities that m u st be p resent, those that are “d elighters” or “exciters,” and those
that are “one-d im ensional.” A “m u st be” qu ality is a d issatisfier w hen absent and
is accep table (and often not consciou sly noticed ) w hen p resent. A “d elighter” is u n-
exp ected and is a satisfier. H ow ever, over tim e, a “d elighter” becom es a “m u st be,”
as in the case of the rem ote TV controller. A “one-d im ensional” qu ality affects sat-
isfaction in d irect relationship to its p resence; for exam p le, as the p rice of gasoline
goes d ow n, satisfaction increases. Cu stom er research is often u sed to d eterm ine
d issatisfiers, satisfiers, and p otential d elighters. Problem s d o arise w hen an orga-
nization “thinks” it know s w hat its cu stom ers need and w ant w ithou t having d one
ad equ ate testing w ithin the variou s m arket segm ents it p u rp orts to serve. See
Figu re 10.2.
Satisfaction
+
One-
Delighters
dimensional
Service
Service
fully
dysfunctional
functional
Must be
–
Dissatisfaction
Figur e 10.2 The Kano model.
3. INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SUPPLIERS
Understand the value in communicating

expectations and the impact of supplier
performance. Understand the value of
working with suppliers to improve
products, processes, or services.
(Understand)
CQIA BoK 2006
Internal Suppliers
These are the “p rovid ers” d iscu ssed in the earlier section on internal cu stom ers. In-
ternal suppliers inclu d e not only those p rovid ers d irectly involved in p rod u cing the
p rod u cts/ services, bu t also su p p ort fu nctions, su ch as tariff checkers in a tru cking
com p any, m aterials m anagem ent and cost accou nting fu nctions in m anu factu ring,
facility m aintenance in a school, the p harm acy in a hosp ital, the m otor p ool in a
governm ent agency, and m arket research.
In m any organizations, internal su p p liers establish service-level agreements

(SLAs) w ith their cu stom ers. These agreem ents, u su ally for p rim ary p rocesses or
su bp rocesses, p rovid e the requ irem ents that m u st be m et by the su p p lier and al-
low for qu antitative m easu rem ent of resu lts. Internal d ata p rocessing and infor-
m ation technology grou p s have u sed SLAs for m any years to m u tu ally establish
cu stom er requ irem ents and m easu re p erform ance to requ irem ents.5
External Suppliers
Com m u nicating stated exp ectations and requ irem ents betw een cu stom er and su p -
p lier is frequ ently a p roblem . Becau se of the p ressu res to get and keep bu siness,
su p p liers often accep t p oorly com m u nicated requ irem ents. Consid er the ram ifica-
tions of the follow ing incom ing p hone call:
”This is Acme. Joe, send me 150 more of those things you sold me last week.
Goodbye.”
Exaggerated? Maybe, but it frequently happens like this. Look at the
potential for error. The supplier may have more than one customer called
“Acme.” The caller ’s company received two shipments over the last seven
working days. These last two shipments were for different products. Each
shipment required different delivery methods: one went UPS, and the customer
picked the other up. One order was for parts costing Joe’s company $5 each to
make. The other order was for parts costing $50 each to make. Though the parts
looked similar, the more expensive part was made to a more stringent
government specification. Does Joe’s company take a guess as to what to make
and ship for this telephone order? Unfortunately, the guess prevails all too often.
Joe’s past experience with the customer causes him to guess that the customer
needs the more expensive part (which turns out not to be so). The consequences
can be that the customer is satisfied to get what was expected or that the
customer is frantic about having received the wrong parts and having to wait for
the correct parts to be made and shipped. Joe’s company has lost $7,500 in
material and manufacturing costs for the wrong parts, the cost of shipping, and
the cost of upsetting scheduling in order to get the replacement parts produced
and shipped on an emergency basis. Who’s to blame? Joe’s company assumes the
burden of clarifying the customer’s requirements, up front, and the consequences
of not doing so.
Often, a sm aller organization fears losing bu siness by antagonizing a large cu s-
tom er, and p erhap s m ajor cu stom er, w ith m ore extensive p robing as to w hat the
cu stom er really need s. In som e situ ations, this m ay m ean asking the cu stom er
m ore abou t how and w here the su p p lier ’s p rod u ct w ill be u sed (u su ally im p era-
tive in m ed ical d evice m anu factu ring). A com m only u sed international stand ard
for qu ality m anagem ent system s requ ires review ing contracts and clarifying cu s-
tom ers’ requ irem ents before accep ting an ord er.
Given the am bigu ou s call Joe received , Joe’s com p any shou ld have had a p ol-
icy of confirm ing the ord er in w riting (by fax or e-m ail) to requ est cu stom er ap -
p roval before accep ting the ord er. Short of that, Joe shou ld have called back w ith
w hat he u nd erstood to be the requ irem ent and to get an oral confirm ation.
Many organizations are changing their ap p roach to their external su p p liers
from the trad itional ad versarial relationship to a collaborative relationship . In p ast
tim es, a su p p lier (m ore often called a “vend or”) w as consid ered an entity beneath
the statu s of the bu ying organization. The “p u rchasing agent” of old w ou ld seek
to p ressu re vend ors u ntil the low est p rice w as obtained . Often the bu ying organi-
zation w as significantly larger than the vend or ’s organization and w ield ed the
p ow er of offering p otentially large ord ers. Price and d elivery w ere the p rim ary d ri-
vers in the vend or selection p rocess. If qu ality becam e a p roblem , an ord er w as
canceled and another vend or selected .
Increasingly, bu ying and selling organizations are form ing qu asi-p artnership s
and alliances to collaborate on im p roving the bu yer–seller relationship as w ell as
the qu ality of the p rod u cts or services being p u rchased . Bu ying organizations have
been able to su bstantially red u ce the nu m ber of su p p liers for any given p rod u ct or
service and cu t costs throu gh im p roved qu ality. It is not u ncom m on now for the
bu ying organization to assist a su p p lier w ith training to u se qu ality tools, m aterial
hand ling and stocking p ractices, and so forth. In this collaboration, the bu ying or-
ganization exp ects that the established qu ality and service levels w ill be consistent
w ith its need s, that the su p p lier ’s p ractices w ill be continu ou sly im p roved , and
that low er p rices w ill resu lt. The su p p lier often receives assu rance of longer-term
contracts, assistance in m aking im p rovem ents, and som etim es certification as a
p referred su p p lier.
4. SUPPLIER FEEDBACK
Know the different types of supplier

feedback (e.g., surveys, complaints,
ratings) and understand the value in using
the data to drive continuous improvement
activities. (Understand)
CQIA BoK 2006
Su p p liers need to know how they are p erform ing. This m eans that for su p p liers
p rovid ing p rod u cts or services vital to qu ality, the cu stom er m u st have a form al
p rocess for collecting, analyzing, and rep orting su p p lier p erform ance. Som e com -
m on assessm ent and m easu rem ent tools for su p p lier p erform ance are d escribed
next.
Questionnaires/ Assessments
Su p p liers m ay be asked to com p lete a su rvey abou t how their qu ality system s are
d esigned and w hat p lans for im p rovem ent have been d evelop ed . The cu stom er
m ay also cond u ct on-site assessm ents.
Su rvey qu estionnaires are u su ally m ailed . They m ay be u sed to assess p rosp ec-
tive or new su p p liers or to reassess existing su p p liers on a p eriod ic basis. Use of
qu estionnaires is one of the w ays su p p liers are “qu alified ” for the cu stom er ’s qu al-
ified su p p lier list. The sam e d esign com m ents and cau tions that ap p ly to cu stom er
su rveys p ertain here as w ell. The d ifference betw een su p p lier qu estionnaires and
cu stom er qu estionnaires is that the cu stom er exp ects a 100 p ercent resp onse from
su p p liers. Many su p p liers begru d gingly fill ou t the qu estionnaires becau se not to
d o so w ou ld m ean loss of bu siness. Large cu stom ers som etim es requ ire lengthy
qu estionnaires of even their sm allest su p p liers, w ithou t consid ering the bu rd en
p laced on the su p p liers.
Product Data
Su p p liers m ay be requ ested to p rovid e p rod u ct qu ality d ata from the p ertinent
p rod u ction ru n w ith each d elivery, w hich is u sed in p lace of form al verification by
the cu stom er. The cu stom er m ay then analyze the d ata for com p liance to sp ecifi-
cation as w ell as p rocess stability and cap ability.
Delivery Performance
Su p p lier p erform ance against d elivery requ irem ents (for exam p le, total nu m ber of
d ays early and total late) is typ ically tracked and com p ared against ord er requ ire-
m ents.
Complaints
Tracking and rep orting com p laints abou t su p p lier p erform ance is necessary in or-
d er to m aintain su p p liers’ statu s on the qu alified su p p lier list. An u naccep table
nu m ber of com p laints m ay resu lt in a su p p lier ’s being su sp end ed from the list,
p laced on p robation, or totally rem oved . Usu ally a hierarchy of categories (typ es
of reasons) is d evised for u se in cod ing com p laints. The accep tance tolerance for
nu m bers of com p laints m ay vary d ep end ing u p on the category.
Corrective Actions
When a p roblem is rep orted to a su p p lier w ith a form al requ est for corrective ac-
tion, this requ ires a tracking p rocess for ensu ring that the su p p lier resp ond s. These
record s shou ld be analyzed to d eterm ine w hether the su p p lier has been tim ely in
its resp onses as w ell as effective w ith its corrective actions. Withou t good follow -
u p by the cu stom er, som e su p p liers w ill tend to ignore corrective action requ ests.
Making su p p lier action m and atory throu gh contracts is a w ay to resolve this situ -
ation.
Product Price and Total Cost

Organizations continu ally try to red u ce the cost of raw m aterials and services, or
at least to m inim ize increases. The ability of su p p liers to continu ally show p rogress
in this arena is encou raged and tracked .
Reporting of Supplier Performance

This is u su ally d one on a regu lar basis (su ch as qu arterly). Typ ical ind ices u sed in
tracking su p p lier p erform ance are:
• Past p erform ance ind ex (PPI)
• Su p p lier p erform ance ind ex (SPI)
• Com m od ity p erform ance ind ex (CPI)
• Qu ality p erform ance ind ex (QPI)

• Delivery p erform ance ind ex (DPI)
Certification and Supplier Rating

Som e cu stom ers have p rogram s for “certifying” qu alified su p p liers. Typ ically, cer-
tified su p p liers have d em onstrated their ability to consistently m eet the cu stom er ’s
requ irem ents over a p eriod of tim e. Su p p liers are rated on a p red eterm ined scale
that m ay inclu d e m ost of the m easu rem ents alread y noted , as w ell as others. As the
su p p lier fu lfills the tim e and rating requ irem ents, the su p p lier m oves u p throu gh
a tw o- or three-p hase p lan to fu ll recognition as a certified su p p lier. The cu stom er
u su ally p rovid es concessions to the certified su p p lier, su ch as no incom ing insp ec-
tion requ irem ent, arrangem ents to ship d irectly to stock, a long-term p u rchasing
contract, and “p referred su p p lier” statu s.
Value in Using Supplier Performance Data

in Driving Continuous Improvement
Material and services from su p p liers, w hen they are d irect inp u ts to the p rod u ct re-
alization p rocess, can su bstantially im p act the qu ality of the p rod u ct, cu stom ers’
satisfaction, and p rofitability. Efforts to im p rove incom ing m aterial and services
from su p p liers (inclu d ing their correctness, com p leteness, accu racy, tim eliness,
and ap p earance) are often given less attention by the cu stom er than the cu stom er ’s
ow n internal p rocesses. It shou ld be noted , thou gh, that d efective m aterial and in-
ad equ ate services ju st received have not yet incu rred the ad d ed costs of the p ro-
d u ction p rocess. When a p rod u ct is rejected at any stage u p to and inclu d ing its u se
by an end u ser, costs have been added at each stage in the cycle. At any stage, inclu d ing
the failu re of a p rod u ct u nd er w arranty, the qu ality of the incom ing m aterial or
services cou ld be the real root cau se of failu re. The tend ency of som e cu stom ers to
“w ork arou nd ” su p p lier d eficiencies is no longer accep table.
Initiatives to continu ally im p rove su p p liers’ p erform ance are critical to bu ild
and su stain cu stom ers’ confid ence. As m entioned earlier, the em erging trend of
greater collaboration betw een cu stom ers and their su p p liers is op ening new op -
p ortu nities for im p rovem ent, often d evelop ing into p artnership s and alliances.
Cycle for Improving Customer–Supplier Relationships

Plan A strategic plan addressing customer focus, a customer satisfaction feedback
process design, and customer satisfaction improvement objectives constitute
the ” plan.”
Do Administration of the plan and collection of the data are the “ do.”
Check Analysis of customer satisfaction data and supplier data, measurement against
objectives, and identification of areas for improvement constitute the “ check.”
Act Development of improvement action plans, implementation of the
improvements, and assimilation of the improvements into daily operations
is the “ act.”
When a customer complains, consider getting down on your knees to offer

profuse gratitude because that person has just provided you with priceless
advice—free of charge.
Owen Harari, Management Review
Notes
1. Concep t initiated by Dr. Kaoru Ishikaw a.
2. Westcott, R. T. Qu ality level agreem ents for clarity of exp ectations. Stepping up to ISO
9004:2000. (Chico, CA: Paton Press, 2003), ap p end ix C.
3. Westcott, R. T. Tap p ing the cu stom er ’s m any voices. Stepping up to ISO 9004:2000.
(Chico, CA: Paton Press, 2003), ap p end ix B. Article d escribes the ”LCALI” (listen,
cap tu re, analyze, learn, and im p rove) p rocess for establishing listening p osts and
u sing the d ata collected .
4. F. Reicheld , and C. Fornell p resent a m ore sop histicated ap p roach to d eterm ining the
w orth of retaining cu stom ers in ”What’s a Loyal Cu stom er Worth?” Fortune
(Decem ber 1995).
5. Westcott, R. T. Qu ality-Level Agreem ents.
Allen, D., and T. R. Rao. Analysis of customer satisfaction data. (Milw au kee: ASQ Qu ality
Press, 2000).
Barlow, J., and C. Moller. A complaint is a gift. (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Pu blishers,
1996).
Bell, C. R. Customers as partners. (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Pu blishers, 1994).
Berry, L. L. On great service. (N ew York: The Free Press, 1995).
Bossert, J. L., ed . The supplier management handbook (6th ed .). (Milw au kee: ASQ Qu ality
Press, 2004).
Ju ran, J. M., and A. B. God frey, ed s. Juran’s quality handbook (5th ed .). (N ew York: McGraw -
H ill, 1999).
Poirier, C. C., and W. F. H ou ser. Business partnering for continuous improvement: How to forge
enduring alliances among employees, suppliers, and customers. (San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler Pu blishers, 1993).
Vavra, T. G. Improving your measurement of customer satisfaction: A guide to creating,
conducting, analyzing, and reporting customer satisfaction measurement programs.
(Milw au kee: ASQ Qu ality Press, 1997).
Westcott, Ru ssell T., ed . The certified manager of quality/organizational excellence handbook
(3rd ed .). (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2006), chap ters 16–18.
Wood ru ff, R. B., and S. F. Gard ial. Know your customer: New approaches to understanding
customer value and satisfaction. (Cam brid ge, MA: Blackw ell Pu blishers, 1996).
Appendix A
BO D Y O F KN O WLED G E:
ASQ Certified Q u ality
Im p rovem en t Associate
(100 Questions—3 H ou r Test)
T
he top ics in this Bod y of Know led ge inclu d e su btext exp lanations and the
cognitive level at w hich the qu estions w ill be w ritten. This inform ation w ill
p rovid e u sefu l gu id ance for both the Exam Develop m ent Com m ittee and the
cand id ate p rep aring to take the exam . The su btext is not intend ed to lim it the su b-
ject m atter or be all-inclu sive of that m aterial that w ill be covered in the exam . It is
m eant to clarify the typ e of content that w ill be inclu d ed on the exam . The d e-
scrip tor in p arentheses at the end of each entry refers to the m axim u m cognitive
level at w hich the top ic w ill be tested . A com p lete d escrip tion of cognitive levels is
p rovid ed at the end of this d ocu m ent.
I. Qu ality Basics (25 Qu estions)
A. Term s, Concep ts, and Princip les
1. Q u ality
Define and know how to u se this term correctly. (Ap p ly)
2. Q u ality p lan n in g
Und erstand a qu ality p lan and its p u rp ose for the organization
as a w hole and w ho in the organization contribu tes to its
d evelop m ent. (Und erstand )
3. Th e im p ortan ce of em p loyees
Und erstand em p loyee involvem ent and em p loyee
em p ow erm ent, and u nd erstand the benefits of both concep ts;
d istingu ish betw een involvem ent and em p ow erm ent.
(Und erstand )
4. System s an d p rocesses
Define a system and a p rocess; d istingu ish betw een a system and
a p rocess; u nd erstand the interrelationship betw een p rocess and
system ; and know how the com p onents of a system (su p p lier,
169
170 Appendix A: Body of Knowledge
inp u t, p rocess, ou tp u t, cu stom er, and feed back) im p act the

system as a w hole. (Analyze)
5. Variation
Und erstand the concep t of variation and com m on and sp ecial
cau se variation. (Und erstand )
B. Benefits of Qu ality
Und erstand how im p roved p rocess, p rod u ct, and / or service qu ality
w ill benefit any fu nction, area of an organization, or ind u stry.
Und erstand how each stakehold er (e.g., em p loyees, organization,
cu stom ers, su p p liers, com m u nity) benefits from qu ality and how the
benefits m ay d iffer for each typ e of stakehold er. (Und erstand )
C. Qu ality Philosop hies
Und erstand each of these p hilosop hies and how they d iffer from one
another. (Rem em ber)
1. Dem ing (14 p oints)
2. Ju ran (Trilogy)
3. Crosby (Zero d efects)
II. Team s (25 Qu estions)

A. Und erstand ing Team s
1. Pu rp ose
Und erstand the d efinition of a team , w hen to u se a team , and for
how long. (Ap p ly)
2. Ch aracteristics an d typ es
Recognize characteristics and typ es of team s and how they are
stru ctu red ; know how team s d iffer and how they are sim ilar;
know w hich typ e of team to u se in a given situ ation. (Ap p ly)
3. Valu e
Und erstand how a team ’s w ork relates to the organization’s key
strategies and the valu e of u sing d ifferent typ es of team s.
(Und erstand )
B. Roles and Resp onsibilities
Id entify m ajor team roles and the attribu tes of good role p erform ance
for cham p ions, sp onsors, lead ers, facilitators, tim ekeep ers, and
m em bers. (Und erstand )
C. Team Form ation and Grou p Dynam ics
1. In itiatin g team s
Ap p ly the elem ents of lau nching a team : clear p u rp ose, goals,
com m itm ent, grou nd ru les, sched u les, su p p ort from
m anagem ent, and team em p ow erm ent. (Ap p ly)
2. Selectin g team m em b ers
Know how to select team m em bers w ho have ap p rop riate skill
sets and know led ge (e.g., nu m ber of m em bers, exp ertise, and
rep resentation). (Ap p ly)
3. Team stages
Describe the classic stages of team evolu tion (form ing, storm ing,
norm ing, and p erform ing). (Und erstand )
Appendix A: Body of Knowl edge 171
4. Team b arriers
Und erstand the valu e of conflict, know how to resolve team
conflict, d efine and recognize grou p think and how to overcom e
it, u nd erstand how p oor logistics and agend as as w ell as lack of
training becom e barriers to a team . (Analyze)
5. D ecision m ak in g
Und erstand and ap p ly d ifferent d ecision m od els (voting,
consensu s, etc.). (Ap p ly)
III. Continu ou s Im p rovem ent (50 Qu estions)

A. Increm ental and Breakthrou gh Im p rovem ent
Und erstand how p rocess im p rovem ent can id entify w aste and non-
valu e-ad d ed activities. Und erstand how both increm ental and
breakthrou gh im p rovem ent p rocesses achieve resu lts. Know the step s
requ ired for both typ es of im p rovem ent. Recognize w hich typ e of
im p rovem ent ap p roach is being u sed in sp ecific situ ations. Know the
sim ilarities and d ifferences betw een the tw o ap p roaches.
(Und erstand )
B. Im p rovem ent Cycles
Define variou s im p rovem ent cycle p hases (e.g., PDCA, PDSA) and
u se them ap p rop riately. (Analyze)
C. Problem -Solving Process
Ap p ly the basic p roblem -solving step s: u nd erstand the p roblem ,
d eterm ine the root cau se, d evelop / im p lem ent solu tions, and verify
effectiveness. (Ap p ly)
D. Im p rovem ent Tools
Use, interp ret, and exp lain flow charts, histogram s, Pareto charts,
scatter d iagram s, ru n charts, cau se-and -effect d iagram s, checklists
(check sheets), affinity d iagram s, cost of qu ality, benchm arking,
brainstorm ing, and au d its as im p rovem ent tools. Und erstand control
chart concep ts (e.g., centerlines, control lim its, ou t-of-control
cond itions), and recognize w hen control charts shou ld be u sed .
(Ap p ly)
E. Cu stom er-Su p p lier Relationship s
1. In tern al an d extern al cu stom ers
Know how cu stom ers are d efined . Und erstand the im p ortance
of w orking w ith cu stom ers to im p rove p rocesses and services,
and how cu stom ers influ ence organizational p rocesses. Know
how to d istingu ish betw een d ifferent external cu stom er typ es
(consu m ers and end -u sers). (Und erstand )
2. Cu stom er feed b ack
Know the d ifferent typ es of cu stom er feed back (e.g., su rveys,
com p laints) and u nd erstand the valu e in u sing the d ata to d rive
continu ou s im p rovem ent activities. (Und erstand )
3. In tern al an d extern al su p p liers
Und erstand the valu e in com m u nicating exp ectations and the
im p act of su p p lier p erform ance. Und erstand the valu e of
172 Appendix A: Body of Knowledge
w orking w ith su p p liers to im p rove p rod u cts, p rocesses, or

services. (Und erstand )
4. Su p p lier feed b ack
Know the d ifferent typ es of su p p lier feed back (e.g., su rveys,
com p laints, ratings) and u nd erstand the valu e in u sing the d ata
to d rive continu ou s im p rovem ent activities (Und erstand )
Levels of Cognition
based on Bloom’s Taxonomy—Revised (2001)
In ad d ition to con ten t sp ecifics, the su btext for each top ic in this BOK also ind icates
the intend ed com p lexity level of the test qu estions for that top ic. These levels are
based on “Levels of Cognition” (from Bloom ’s Taxonom y—Revised , 2001) and are
p resented below in rank ord er, from least com p lex to m ost com p lex.
Remember (Know ledge Level). Recall or recognize term s, d efinitions, facts, id eas,
m aterials, p atterns, sequ ences, m ethod s, p rincip les, and so on.
Underst a nd (Comprehension Level). Read and u nd erstand d escrip tions,
com m u nications, rep orts, tables, d iagram s, d irections, regu lations, and so on.
Apply (Applica t ion Level). Know w hen and how to u se id eas, p roced u res,
m ethod s, form u las, p rincip les, theories, and so on.
Ana lyze (Ana lysis Level). Break d ow n inform ation into its constitu ent p arts and
recognize their relationship to one another and how they are organized ; id entify
su blevel factors or salient d ata from a com p lex scenario.
Eva lua t e (Eva lua t ion Level). Make ju d gm ents abou t the valu e of p rop osed id eas,
solu tions, and so on, by com p aring the p rop osal to sp ecific criteria or stand ard s.
Crea t e (Synt hesis Level). Pu t p arts or elem ents together in su ch a w ay as to
reveal a p attern or stru ctu re not clearly there before; id entify w hich d ata or
inform ation from a com p lex set is ap p rop riate to exam ine fu rther or from w hich
su p p orted conclu sions can be d raw n.
Appendix B
ASQ Cod e of Eth ics
Funda ment a l P rinciples

ASQ requ ires its m em bers and certification hold ers to cond u ct them selves ethi-
cally by:
I. Being honest and im p artial in serving the p u blic, their em p loyers,
cu stom ers, and clients.
II. Striving to increase the com p etence and p restige of the qu ality
p rofession, and
III. Using their know led ge and skill for the enhancem ent of hu m an w elfare.
Mem bers and certification hold ers are requ ired to observe the tenets set forth
below :
Rela t ions Wit h t he P ublic
Article 1—H old p aram ou nt the safety, health, and w elfare of the p u blic in the
p erform ance of their p rofessional d u ties.
Rela t ions Wit h Employers a nd Client s
Article 2—Perform services only in their areas of com p etence.
Article 3—Continu e their p rofessional d evelop m ent throu ghou t their careers
and p rovid e op p ortu nities for the p rofessional and ethical d evelop m ent of
others.
Article 4—Act in a p rofessional m anner in d ealings w ith ASQ staff and each
em p loyer, cu stom er, or client.
Article 5—Act as faithfu l agents or tru stees and avoid conflict of interest and
the ap p earance of conflicts of interest.
173
174 Appendix B: ASQ Code of Ethics
Rela t ions Wit h P eers

Article 6—Bu ild their p rofessional rep u tation on the m erit of their services
and not com p ete u nfairly w ith others.
Article 7—Assu re that cred it for the w ork of others is given to those to w hom
it is d u e.
174
Appendix C
Q u ality G lossary
A
accep tab le q u ality level (AQ L)—When a continu ing series of lots is consid ered ,
a qu ality level that, for the p u rp oses of sam p ling insp ection, is the lim it of a
satisfactory p rocess average.
accep tan ce sam p lin g—Insp ection of a sam p le from a lot to d ecid e w hether to
accep t or not accep t that lot. There are tw o typ es: attribu tes sam p ling and
variables sam p ling. In attribu tes sam p ling, the p resence or absence of a
characteristic is noted in each of the u nits insp ected . In variables sam p ling, the
nu m erical m agnitu d e of a characteristic is m easu red and record ed for each
insp ected u nit; this involves reference to a continu ou s scale of som e kind .
accu racy—A characteristic of m easu rem ent that ad d resses how close an observed
valu e is to the tru e valu e. It answ ers the qu estion, “Is it right?”
ACSI—The Am erican Cu stom er Satisfaction Ind ex, released for the first tim e in
October 1994, is a new econom ic ind icator, a cross-ind u stry m easu re of the
satisfaction of U.S. hou sehold cu stom ers w ith the qu ality of the good s and
services available to them —both those good s and services p rod u ced w ithin
the United States and those p rovid ed as im p orts from foreign firm s that have
su bstantial m arket shares or d ollar sales. The ACSI is cosp onsored by the
University of Michigan Bu siness School and the Am erican Society for Qu ality
(ASQ).
action p lan —The d etailed p lan to im p lem ent the actions need ed to achieve
strategic goals and objectives (sim ilar to, bu t not as com p rehensive as, a
p roject p lan).
activity n etw ork d iagram (AN D )—See arrow d iagram .
ad h oc team —See tem p orary team .
175
176 Appendix C: Quality Glossary
affin ity d iagram —A m anagem ent and p lanning tool u sed to organize id eas into
natu ral grou p ings in a w ay that stim u lates new, creative id eas. Also know n as
the “KJ” m ethod .
align m en t—The actions taken to ensu re that a p rocess or activity su p p orts the
organization’s strategy, goals, and objectives.
allian ce—See p artnership / alliance.
alp h a risk —See p rod u cer ’s risk.
an alysis of varian ce (AN O VA)—A basic statistical techniqu e for analyzing
exp erim ental d ata. It su bd ivid es the total variation of a d ata set into
m eaningfu l com p onent p arts associated w ith sp ecific sou rces of variation in
ord er to test a hyp othesis on the p aram eters of the m od el or to estim ate
variance com p onents. There are three m od els: fixed , rand om , and m ixed .
AN SI—Am erican N ational Stand ard s Institu te.
AO Q —Average ou tgoing qu ality.
ap p raisal costs—The costs associated w ith m easu ring, evalu ating, or au d iting
p rod u cts or services to assu re conform ance to qu ality stand ard s and
p erform ance requ irem ents.
AQ L—Accep table qu ality level.
arrow d iagram —A m anagem ent and p lanning tool u sed to d evelop the best
p ossible sched u le and ap p rop riate controls to accom p lish the sched u le; the
critical p ath m ethod (CPM) and the p rogram evalu ation review techniqu e
(PERT) exp and the u se of arrow d iagram s.
assessm en t—An estim ate or d eterm ination of the significance, im p ortance, or
valu e of som ething.
assign ab le cau se—See sp ecial cau ses.
attrib u te d ata—Go/ no-go inform ation. The control charts based on attribu te
d ata inclu d e fraction d efective chart, nu m ber of affected u nits chart, cou nt
chart, cou nt-p er-u nit chart, qu ality score chart, and d em erit chart.
au d it—A p lanned , ind ep end ent, and d ocu m ented assessm ent to d eterm ine
w hether agreed -u p on requ irem ents are being m et.
au d it p rogram —The organized stru ctu re, com m itm ent, and d ocu m ented
m ethod s u sed to p lan and p erform au d its.
au d it team —The grou p of trained ind ivid u als cond u cting an au d it u nd er the
d irection of a team lead er, relevant to a p articu lar p rod u ct, p rocess, service,
contract, or p roject.
au d itee—The ind ivid u al or organization being au d ited .
au d itor—An ind ivid u al or organization carrying ou t an au d it.
average—See m ean.
average ou tgoin g q u ality (AO Q )—The exp ected average qu ality level of
ou tgoing p rod u ct or service for a given valu e of incom ing p rod u ct or service
qu ality.
Appendix C: Qual it y Gl ossar y 177
B
b alan ced scorecard —Translates an organization’s m ission and strategy into a
com p rehensive set of p erform ance m easu res to p rovid e a basis for strategic
m easu rem ent and m anagem ent, typ ically u sing fou r balanced view s: financial,
cu stom ers, internal bu siness p rocesses, and learning and grow th.
Bald rige N ation al Q u ality Program (BN Q P)—An aw ard established by
Congress in 1987 to raise aw areness of qu ality m anagem ent and to recognize
U.S. com p anies that have im p lem ented su ccessfu l qu ality m anagem ent
system s. The accom p anying Criteria for Performance Excellence is p u blished
each year. Three aw ard s m ay be given annu ally in each of five categories:
m anu factu ring bu sinesses, service bu sinesses, sm all bu sinesses, ed u cation
institu tions, and health-care organizations. The aw ard is nam ed after the late
Secretary of Com m erce Malcolm Bald rige, a p rop onent of qu ality
m anagem ent. The U.S. Com m erce Dep artm ent’s N ational Institu te of
Stand ard s and Technology m anages the aw ard , and ASQ ad m inisters it. The
m ajor em p hasis in d eterm ining su ccess is achieving resu lts.
b aselin e m easu rem en t—The beginning p oint, based on an evalu ation of the
ou tp u t over a p eriod of tim e, u sed to d eterm ine the p rocess p aram eters p rior
to any im p rovem ent effort; the basis against w hich change is m easu red .
b en ch m ark in g—An im p rovem ent p rocess in w hich a com p any m easu res its
p erform ance against that of best-in-class com p anies (or others w ho are good
p erform ers), d eterm ines how those com p anies achieved their p erform ance
levels, and u ses the inform ation to im p rove its ow n p erform ance. The areas
that can be benchm arked inclu d e strategies, op erations, p rocesses, and
p roced u res.
b en efit-cost an alysis—Collection of the d ollar valu e of benefits d erived from an
initiative and the associated costs incu rred and com p u ting the ratio of benefits
to cost.
b eta risk —See consu m er ’s risk.
b ias—Generally, an effect that cau ses a statistical resu lt to be d istorted ; that is,
there is a d ifference betw een the tru e valu e and the observed valu e.
Big Q , little q —Term s u sed to contrast the d ifference betw een m anaging for
qu ality in all bu siness p rocesses and p rod u cts (Big Q) and m anaging for
qu ality in a lim ited cap acity, trad itionally in only factory p rod u cts and
p rocesses (little q).
Bloom ’s Taxon om y (levels of cogn ition )—See Ap p end ix A.
b rain storm in g—A p roblem -solving tool that team s u se to generate as m any
id eas as p ossible related to a p articu lar su bject. Team m em bers begin by
offering all their id eas; the id eas are not d iscu ssed or review ed u ntil after the
brainstorm ing session.
b reak th rou gh im p rovem en t—A m ethod of solving chronic p roblem s that resu lts
from the effective execu tion of a strategy d esigned to reach the next level of
qu ality. Contrasted w ith increm ental im p rovem ent, a breakthrou gh
im p rovem ent is a one-tim e m ajor reengineering of change that m ay cross

m any interorganizational bou nd aries. Su ch change often requ ires a p arad igm
shift w ithin the organization.
b u sin ess p artn erin g—The creation of coop erative bu siness alliances betw een
constitu encies w ithin an organization or betw een an organization and its
cu stom ers or su p p liers. Partnering occu rs throu gh a p ooling of resou rces in a
tru sting atm osp here focu sed on continu ou s, m u tu al im p rovem ent (see also
cu stom er–su p p lier p artnership ).
b u sin ess p rocesses—Processes that focu s on w hat the organization d oes as a
bu siness and how it goes abou t d oing it. A bu siness has fu nctional p rocesses
(generating ou tp u t w ithin a single d ep artm ent) and cross-fu nctional p rocesses
(generating ou tp u t across several fu nctions or d ep artm ents).
C
c ch art—Cou nt chart.
calib ration —The com p arison of a m easu rem ent instru m ent or system of
u nverified accu racy to a m easu rem ent instru m ent or system of a know n
accu racy to d etect any variation from the tru e valu e.
cap ab ility—The natu ral tolerance of a m achine or p rocess generally d efined to
inclu d e 99.7 p ercent of all p op u lation valu es.
cap ab le p rocess—A p rocess is said to be cap able if the p rod u ct or ou tp u t of the
p rocess alw ays conform s to the sp ecified sp ecifications of the cu stom er—that
is, 100 p ercent conform ance to the cu stom er requ irem ents.
cascad in g train in g—Training im p lem ented in an organization from the top
d ow n, w here each level acts as trainers to those below.
cau se-an d -effect d iagram —A tool for analyzing p rocess variables. It is also
referred to as the Ishikaw a d iagram , becau se Kaoru Ishikaw a d evelop ed it,
and also the fishbone d iagram , becau se the com p lete d iagram resem bles a fish
skeleton. The d iagram illu strates the m ain cau ses and su bcau ses lead ing to an
effect (sym p tom ). The cau se-and -effect d iagram is one of the seven tools of
qu ality.
cen terlin e—A line on a grap h that rep resents the overall average (m ean)
op erating level of the p rocess charted .
cen tral ten d en cy—The p rop ensity of d ata collected on a p rocess to concentrate
arou nd a valu e situ ated som ew here m id w ay betw een the low est and highest
valu e.
certification —The receip t of a d ocu m ent from an au thorized sou rce stating that a
d evice, p rocess, or op erator has been certified to a know n stand ard .
ch ain reaction —A series of interacting events d escribed by W. Ed w ard s Dem ing:
im p rove qu ality → d ecrease costs → im p rove p rod u ctivity → increase m arket
share w ith better qu ality and low er p rice → stay in bu siness, p rovid e jobs, and
p rovid e m ore jobs.
ch am p ion —An ind ivid u al w ho has accou ntability and resp onsibility for m any
p rocesses or w ho is involved in m aking strategic-level d ecisions for the
organization. The cham p ion ensu res ongoing d ed ication of p roject resou rces
and m onitors strategic alignm ent (m ay also be referred to as a sponsor).
ch an ge agen t—The p erson, from insid e or from ou tsid e the organization, w ho

facilitates change w ithin the organization. May not be the initiator of the
change effort.
ch aracteristic—A p rop erty that help s to id entify or to d ifferentiate betw een
entities and that can be d escribed or m easu red to d eterm ine conform ance or
nonconform ance to requ irem ents.
ch arter—A d ocu m ented statem ent officially initiating the form ation of a
com m ittee, team , p roject, or other effort in w hich a clearly stated p u rp ose and
ap p roval is conferred .
ch eck sh eet—A sim p le d ata-record ing d evice. The check sheet is cu stom -
d esigned for the p articu lar u se, allow ing ease in interp reting the resu lts. The
check sheet is one of the seven tools of qu ality. Check sheets shou ld not be
confu sed w ith d ata sheets and checklists.
ch eck list—A tool for organizing and ensu ring that all im p ortant step s or actions
in an op eration have been taken. Checklists contain item s that are im p ortant
or relevant to an issu e or situ ation. Checklists shou ld not be confu sed w ith
check sheets and d ata sheets.
coach in g—A continu al im p rovem ent techniqu e by w hich p eop le receive one-to-
one learning throu gh d em onstration and p ractice and that is characterized by
im m ed iate feed back and correction.
cod e of con d u ct—The exp ected behavior that has been m u tu ally d evelop ed and
agreed u p on by an organization or a team .
com m on cau ses of variation —Cau ses that are inherent in any p rocess all the
tim e. A p rocess that has only com m on cau ses of variation is said to be stable,
p red ictable, or in control. Also called chance causes.
com p eten ce—Refers to a p erson’s ability to learn and p erform a p articu lar
activity. Com p etence consists of know led ge, exp erience, skills, ap titu d e, and
attitu d e com p onents (KESAA factors).
com p lain t h an d lin g—The p rocess and p ractices involved in receiving and
resolving com p laints from cu stom ers.
com p lian ce—An affirm ative ind ication or ju d gm ent that the su p p lier of a
p rod u ct or service has m et the requ irem ents of the relevant sp ecifications,
contract, or regu lation; also the state of m eeting the requ irem ents.
con flict resolu tion —A p rocess for resolving d isagreem ents in a m anner
accep table to all p arties.
con form an ce—An affirm ative ind ication or ju d gm ent that a p rod u ct or service
has m et the requ irem ents of a relevant sp ecification, contract, or regu lation.
con sen su s—Find ing a p rop osal accep table enou gh that all team m em bers can
su p p ort the d ecision and no m em ber op p oses it.
con su m er m ark et cu stom ers—End u sers of a p rod u ct or service.
con su m er ’s risk —For a sam p ling p lan, refers to the p robability of accep tance of a
lot, the qu ality of w hich has a d esignated nu m erical valu e rep resenting a level
that is seld om d esirable. Usu ally the d esignated valu e w ill be the lot tolerance
p ercent d efective (LPTD). Also called beta risk or type 2 error.
con tin u al p rocess im p rovem en t—Inclu d es the actions taken throu ghou t an
organization to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of activities and
p rocesses in ord er to p rovid e ad d ed benefits to the cu stom er and organization.

It is consid ered a su bset of total qu ality m anagem ent and op erates accord ing
to the p rem ise that organizations can alw ays m ake im p rovem ents. Continu al
im p rovem ent can also be equ ated w ith red u cing p rocess variation.
con trol ch art—A basic tool that consists of a chart w ith u p p er and low er control
lim its on w hich valu es of som e statistical m easu re for a series of sam p les or
su bgrou p s are p lotted . It frequ ently show s a central line to help d etect a trend
of p lotted valu es tow ard either control lim it. It is u sed to m onitor and analyze
variation from a p rocess to see w hether the p rocess is in statistical control.
con trol lim its—The natu ral bou nd aries of a p rocess w ithin sp ecified confid ence
levels, exp ressed as the u p p er control lim it (UCL) and the low er control lim it
(LCL).
con trol p lan —A d ocu m ent, or d ocu m ents, that m ay inclu d e the characteristics
for qu ality of a p rod u ct or service, m easu rem ents, and m ethod s of control.
core com p eten cy—Pertains to the u niqu e featu res and characteristics of an
organization’s overall cap ability.
corrective action —The im p lem entation of solu tions resu lting in the red u ction or
elim ination of an id entified p roblem .
corrective action —Action taken to elim inate the root cau se(s) and sym p tom (s) of
an existing d eviation or nonconform ity to p revent recu rrence.
correlation —Refers to the m easu re of the relationship betw een tw o sets of
nu m bers or variables.
cost of p oor q u ality (CO PQ )—The costs associated w ith the p rod u ction of
nonconform ing m aterial.
cost-b en efit an alysis—See benefit-cost analysis.
cost of q u ality (CO Q )—The total costs incu rred relating to the qu ality of a
p rod u ct or service. There are fou r categories of qu ality costs: internal failu re
costs; external failu re costs; ap p raisal costs; and p revention costs (see
ind ivid u al entries).
cou n t ch art—A control chart for evalu ating the stability of a p rocess in term s of
the cou nt of events of a given classification occu rring in a sam p le.
Cp —A w id ely u sed p rocess cap ability ind ex. It is exp ressed as Cp (u p p er
sp ecification lim it low er sp ecification lim it) d ivid ed by 6s.
Cp k —A w id ely u sed p rocess cap ability ind ex. It is exp ressed as the ratio w ith
sm allest answ er:
u p p er sp ecification lim it X-bar X-bar low er sp ecification lim it
or
3 3
criterion —A stand ard , ru le, or test u p on w hich a d ecision can be based .
critical-to-q u ality (CTQ )—Characteristics that, from a cu stom er ’s p ercep tion of
qu ality, are critical to the achievem ent of qu ality goals, objectives, stand ard s,
and / or sp ecifications.
cross-fu n ction al team —A grou p consisting of m em bers from m ore than one
d ep artm ent or w ork u nit that is organized to accom p lish a p roject.
cu ltu re—See organization cu ltu re.

cu m u lative su m con trol ch art—A control chart on w hich the p lotted valu e is the
cu m u lative su m of d eviations of su ccessive sam p les from a target valu e. The
ord inate of each p lotted p oint rep resents the algebraic su m of the p reviou s
ord inate and the m ost recent d eviations from the target.
cu stom er—Recip ient of a p rod u ct or service p rovid ed by a su p p lier (see also
external cu stom er and internal cu stom er).
cu stom er cou n cil—A grou p u su ally com p osed of rep resentatives from an
organization’s largest cu stom ers w ho m eet to d iscu ss com m on issu es.
cu stom er d eligh t—The resu lt achieved w hen cu stom er requ irem ents are
exceed ed in u nexp ected w ays the cu stom er find s valu able.
cu stom er exp ectation s—Cu stom ers’ p ercep tions of the valu e they w ill receive
from the p u rchase of a p rod u ct or exp erience w ith a service. Cu stom ers form
exp ectations by analyzing available inform ation, w hich m ay inclu d e
exp erience, w ord -of-m ou th, and ad vertising and sales p rom ises.
cu stom er loyalty/reten tion —The resu lt of an organization’s p lans, p rocesses,
p ractices, and efforts d esigned to d eliver its services or p rod u cts in w ays that
create retained and com m itted cu stom ers.
cu stom er-orien ted organ ization —An organization w hose m ission, p u rp ose, and
actions are d ed icated to serving and satisfying cu stom ers.
cu stom er relation sh ip m an agem en t (CRM )—Refers to an organization’s
know led ge of its cu stom ers’ u niqu e requ irem ents and exp ectations, and u se of
that inform ation to d evelop a closer and m ore p rofitable link to bu siness
p rocesses and strategies.
cu stom er req u irem en ts—Sp ecific characteristics of p rod u cts and services
d eterm ined by cu stom ers’ need s or w ants.
cu stom er satisfaction —The resu lt of d elivering a p rod u ct or service that m eets
cu stom er requ irem ents, need s, and exp ectations.
cu stom er segm en tation —Refers to the p rocess of d ifferentiating cu stom ers based
on one or m ore d im ensions for the p u rp ose of d evelop ing a m arketing
strategy to ad d ress sp ecific segm ents.
cu stom er service—The activities of d ealing w ith cu stom er qu estions; also
som etim es the d ep artm ent that takes cu stom er ord ers or p rovid es
p ostd elivery services.
cu stom er–su p p lier p artn ersh ip —A long-term relationship betw een a bu yer and
su p p lier characterized by team w ork and m u tu al confid ence. The su p p lier is
consid ered an extension of the bu yer ’s organization. The p artnership is based
on several com m itm ents. The bu yer p rovid es long-term contracts and u ses
few er su p p liers. The su p p lier im p lem ents qu ality assu rance p rocesses so that
incom ing insp ection can be m inim ized . The su p p lier also help s the bu yer
red u ce costs and im p rove p rod u ct and p rocess d esigns.
cycle tim e—Refers to the tim e that it takes to com p lete a p rocess from beginning
to end .
D
d ch art—Dem erit chart.
d ata—Qu antitative or qu alitative facts p resented in d escrip tive, nu m eric, or
grap hic form . There are tw o kind s of nu m erical d ata: m easu red or variable
d ata, su ch as “16 ou nces,” “4 m iles,” and “.075 inches”; and cou nted or
attribu te d ata, su ch as “162 d efects.” Data m ay also be nonnu m eric, exp ressed
as w ord s or sym bols.
d ecision m atrix—A m atrix u sed by team s to evalu ate p roblem s or p ossible
solu tions. After a m atrix is d raw n to evalu ate p ossible solu tions, for exam p le,
the team lists them in the far-left vertical colu m n. N ext, the team selects
criteria to rate the p ossible solu tions, w riting them across the top row. Third ,
each p ossible solu tion is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 for each criterion and the
rating record ed in the corresp ond ing grid . Finally, the ratings of all the criteria
for each p ossible solu tion are ad d ed to d eterm ine its total score. The total score
is then u sed to help d ecid e w hich solu tion d eserves the m ost attention.
d efect—A p rod u ct or service’s nonfu lfillm ent of an intend ed requ irem ent or
reasonable exp ectation for u se, inclu d ing safety consid erations. They are often
classified , su ch as:
• Class 1, Critical, lead s d irectly to severe inju ry or catastrop hic econom ic loss
• Class 2, Seriou s, lead s d irectly to significant inju ry or significant econom ic
loss
• Class 3, Major, is related to m ajor p roblem s w ith resp ect to intend ed norm al
or reasonably foreseeable u se
• Class 4, Minor, is related to m inor p roblem s w ith resp ect to intend ed norm al
or reasonably foreseeable u se (see also blem ish, im p erfection, and
nonconform ity).
d efective—A p rod u ct that contains one or m ore d efects relative to the qu ality
characteristics being m easu red .
d eficien cies—Units of p rod u ct are consid ered to have d efects. Errors or flaw s in
a p rocess are d escribed in a hosp ital setting as “d eficiencies.” Med ical
p roced u res, job tasks, or d ocu m ented p rocesses, for exam p le, m ay have
d eficiencies that red u ce their ability to satisfy the p atient, p hysician, or other
stakehold er in the organization.
D em in g cycle—See Plan—Do—Check—Act cycle.
d ep en d ab ility—The d egree to w hich a p rod u ct or service is op erable and
cap able of p erform ing its requ ired fu nction at any rand om ly chosen tim e
d u ring its sp ecified op erating tim e, p rovid ed that the p rod u ct or service is
available at the start of that p eriod . (N onop eration-related influ ences are not
inclu d ed .) Dep end ability can be exp ressed by the ratio: tim e available d ivid ed
by (tim e available tim e requ ired ).
d ep loym en t—(to sp read ou t) Used in strategic p lanning to d escribe the p rocess
of cascad ing goals, objectives, and p lans throu ghou t an organization.
d esign of exp erim en ts (D O E)—A branch of ap p lied statistics d ealing w ith
p lanning, cond u cting, analyzing, and interp reting controlled tests to evalu ate
the factors that control the valu e of a p aram eter or grou p of p aram eters.
d eviation —A nonconform ance or d ep artu re of a characteristic from sp ecified

p rod u ct, p rocess, or system requ irem ents.
d iagn ostic jou rn ey an d rem ed ial jou rn ey—A tw o-p hase investigation u sed by
team s to solve chronic qu ality p roblem s. In the first p hase, the d iagnostic
jou rney, the team m oves from the sym p tom of a p roblem to its cau se. In the
second p hase, the rem ed ial jou rney, the team m oves from the cau se to a
rem ed y.
D iSC—A p rofiling instru m ent that m easu res characteristic w ays in w hich a
p erson behaves in a p articu lar environm ent. Fou r d im ensions m easu red are:
dominance, influence, steadiness, and conscientiousness.
d iscrete d ata—Data w here all p ossible ou tcom es can be d istinctly id entified as
integers (fractional valu es are not p ossible). Exam p les: fam ily size, good / bad ,
SAT scores, etc. Som etim es know n as attributes data.
d iscrim in ation —The ability of a m easu ring instru m ent to resp ond to sm all
changes in the valu e of the m aterials.
d issatisfiers—Those featu res or fu nctions that the cu stom er or em p loyee has
com e to exp ect and that, if they w ere no longer p resent, w ou ld resu lt in
d issatisfaction.
d istrib u tion —Describes the am ou nt of p otential variation in ou tpu ts of a p rocess;
it is u su ally d escribed in term s of its shap e, average, and stand ard d eviation.
D M AIC—Pertains to a m ethod ology u sed in the Six Sigm a ap p roach: Define,
Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control.
d rivers of q u ality—Inclu d e cu stom ers, p rod u cts/ services, em p loyee satisfaction,
and total organizational focu s.
E
effect—That w hich resu lts after an action has been taken. The exp ected or
p red icted im p act w hen an action is to be taken or is p rop osed .
effectiven ess—The state of having p rod u ced a d ecid ed -u p on or d esired effect.
Increased cu stom er satisfaction, increased em p loyee satisfaction, im p roved
su p p lier relations, cost red u ction, increased efficiency, im p roved tim eliness,
greater accu racy, and com p leteness are all contribu tors to effectiveness.
efficien cy—The ratio of the ou tp u t to the total inp u t in a p rocess.
efficien t—A term d escribing a p rocess that op erates effectively w hile consu m ing
the m inim u m am ou nt of resou rces (su ch as labor and tim e).
eigh ty/tw en ty (80/20) ru le—A term referring to the Pareto p rincip le, w hich
su ggests that m ost effects com e from relatively few cau ses; that is, 80 p ercent
of the effects com e from 20 p ercent of the p ossible cau ses.
electron ic d ata in terch an ge (ED I)—The electronic exchange of d ata betw een
cu stom ers and su p p liers and vice versa; for exam p le, u sing a d ed icated high-
sp eed line, a cu stom er p laces an ord er d irectly w ith a su p p lier, and the
su p p lier acknow led ges receip t of the ord er w ith confirm ation of p rice and
ship p ing d ate. Som e large cu stom ers sp ecify that their su p p liers m u st have
this cap ability in ord er to qu alify as ap p roved su p p liers.
em p loyee in volvem en t—The p ractice of involving em p loyees in d ecisions

p ertaining to p rocesses, u su ally w ithin their w ork u nits. Su ch d ecisions m ay
inclu d e su ggestions for im p roving the p rocess, p lanning, setting objectives,
and tracking p erform ance. N atu ral (w ork u nit) team s, p rocess im p rovem ent
team s, cross-fu nctional team s, task forces, qu ality circles, and other vehicles
for involvem ent m ay be u sed . Usu ally p articip ation in d ecisions related to
legal and / or p ersonnel m atters is exclu d ed .
em p ow erm en t—A cond ition w hereby em p loyees have the au thority to m ake
d ecisions and take action in their w ork areas, w ithin stated bou nd s, w ithou t
p rior ap p roval. For exam p le, an op erator can stop a p rod u ction p rocess u p on
d etecting a p roblem , or a cu stom er service rep resentative can send ou t a
rep lacem ent p rod u ct if a cu stom er calls w ith a p roblem .
en d u sers—External cu stom ers w ho p u rchase p rod u cts/ services for their ow n
u se.
error—The d egree of variability betw een estim ates of the sam e characteristic
over rep eated sam p les taken u nd er sim ilar cond itions.
eth ics—An ind ivid u al or an organization’s ad herence to a belief or d ocu m ented
cod e of cond u ct that is based on m oral p rincip les, and that tries to balance
w hat is fair for ind ivid u als w ith w hat is right for society.
even t—The starting or end ing p oint for a task or grou p of tasks.
excited q u ality—The ad d itional benefit a cu stom er receives w hen a p rod u ct or
service goes beyond basic exp ectations. Excited qu ality “w ow s” the cu stom er
and d istingu ishes the p rovid er from the com p etition. If m issing, the cu stom er
w ill still be satisfied .
exp ected q u ality—Also know n as basic quality, the m inim u m benefit or valu e a
cu stom er exp ects to receive from a p rod u ct or service.
exp ectation s—Cu stom er p ercep tions abou t how an organization’s p rod u cts and
services w ill m eet their sp ecific need s and requ irem ents. Exp ectations for a
p rod u ct or service are shap ed by m any factors, inclu d ing:
• The sp ecific u se the cu stom er intend s to m ake of it
• Prior exp erience w ith a sim ilar p rod u ct or service
• Rep resentations and com m itm ents (m arketing and ad vertising d escrip tions)
extern al cu stom er—A p erson or organization w ho receives a p rod u ct, a service,
or inform ation bu t is not p art of the organization su p p lying it (see also internal
cu stom er).
extern al failu re costs—Costs occu rring after d elivery or ship m ent of the p rod u ct,
or d u ring or after fu rnishing of a service, to the cu stom er.
F
facilitator—An ind ivid u al w ho is resp onsible for creating favorable cond itions
that w ill enable a team to reach its p u rp ose or achieve its goals by bringing
together the necessary tools, inform ation, and resou rces to get the job d one. A
facilitator ad d resses the p rocesses a team u ses to achieve its p u rp ose. Sp ecially
trained , the facilitator fu nctions as a teacher, coach, and m od erator.
failu re—The inability of an item , p rod u ct, or service to p erform requ ired
fu nctions on d em and d u e to one or m ore d efects.
failu re cost—The costs resu lting from p rod u cts or services not conform ing to
requ irem ents or cu stom er/ u ser need s—that is, the costs resu lting from p oor
qu ality.
failu re m od e an alysis (FM A)—A p roced u re to d eterm ine w hich m alfu nction
sym p tom s ap p ear im m ed iately before or after a failu re of a critical p aram eter
in a system . After all the p ossible cau ses are listed for each sym p tom , the
p rod u ct or p roced u re is d esigned to elim inate the p roblem s.
failu re m od e effects an alysis (FM EA)—A p roced u re in w hich each p otential
failu re m od e in every su bitem of an item or p rocess is analyzed to d eterm ine
its effect on other su bitem s and on the requ ired fu nction of the item or p rocess.
failu re m od e effects an d criticality an alysis (FM ECA)—A p roced u re that is
p erform ed after a failu re m od e effects analysis to classify each p otential failu re
effect accord ing to its severity and p robability of occu rrence.
fau lt tree an alysis—A top -d ow n techniqu e for d eterm ining the set of
com p onents that cou ld cau se a failu re in a p rocess. Sp ecifically accou nts for
both single and m u ltip le cau ses.
feed b ack —The resp onse to inform ation received in interp ersonal
com m u nication (w ritten or oral); it m ay be based on fact or feeling and help s
the p arty w ho is receiving the inform ation ju d ge how w ell the other p arty is
u nd erstand ing him or her. More generally, feed back is inform ation abou t a
p rocess or p erform ance and is u sed to m ake d ecisions that are d irected tow ard
im p roving or ad ju sting the p rocess or p erform ance as necessary.
fish b on e d iagram —See cau se-and -effect d iagram .
fitn ess for u se—A term u sed to ind icate that a p rod u ct or service fits the
cu stom er ’s d efined p u rp ose for that p rod u ct or service.
five w h ys—A rep etitive qu estioning techniqu e to p robe d eep er in ord er to
su rface the root cau se of a p roblem .
flow ch art—A grap hical rep resentation of the step s in a p rocess. Flow charts are
d raw n to better u nd erstand p rocesses. The flow chart is one of the seven basic
tools of qu ality.
focu s grou p —A qu alitative d iscu ssion grou p consisting of 8 to 10 p articip ants,
invited from a segm ent of the cu stom er base to d iscu ss an existing or p lanned
p rod u ct or service, led by a facilitator w orking from p red eterm ined qu estions
(focu s grou p s m ay also be u sed to gather inform ation in a context other than
cu stom ers).
force-field an alysis—A techniqu e for analyzing the forces that aid or hind er an
organization in reaching an objective. An arrow p ointing to an objective is
d raw n d ow n the m id d le of a p iece of p ap er. The factors that w ill aid the
objective’s achievem ent, called the d riving forces, are listed on the left sid e of
the arrow. The factors that w ill hind er its achievem ent, called the restraining
forces, are listed on the right sid e of the arrow.
fou rteen p oin ts—W. Ed w ard Dem ing’s 14 m anagem ent p ractices to help
com p anies increase their qu ality and p rod u ctivity: (1) create constancy of
p u rp ose for im p roving p rod u cts and services; (2) ad op t the new p hilosop hy;
(3) cease d ep end ence on insp ection to achieve qu ality; (4) end the p ractice of
aw ard ing bu siness on p rice alone, and instead m inim ize total cost by w orking
w ith a single su p p lier; (5) im p rove constantly and forever every p rocess for
p lanning, p rod u ction, and service; (6) institu te training on the job; (7) ad op t
and institu te lead ership ; (8) d rive ou t fear; (9) break d ow n barriers betw een
staff areas; (10) elim inate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the w orkforce;
(11) elim inate nu m erical qu otas for the w orkforce and nu m erical goals for
m anagem ent; (12) rem ove barriers that rob p eop le of p rid e in w orkm anship
and elim inate the annu al rating or m erit system ; (13) institu te a vigorou s
p rogram of ed u cation and self-im p rovem ent for everyone; and (14) p u t
everybod y in the com p any to w ork to accom p lish the transform ation.
freq u en cy d istrib u tion (statistical)—A table that grap hically p resents a large
volu m e of d ata so that the central tend ency (su ch as the average or m ean) and
d istribu tion are clearly d isp layed .
fu n ction al organ ization —An organization organized by d iscrete fu nctions, for
exam p le, m arketing/ sales, engineering, p rod u ction, finance, hu m an resou rces.
G
gage—An instru m ent or system for testing.
gage rep eatab ility an d rep rod u cib ility (G R&R)—The evalu ation of a gaging
instru m ent’s accu racy by d eterm ining w hether the m easu rem ents taken w ith
it are rep eatable (i.e., there is close agreem ent am ong a nu m ber of consecu tive
m easu rem ents of the ou tp u t for the sam e valu e of the inp u t u nd er the sam e
op erating cond itions) and rep rod u cible (i.e., there is close agreem ent am ong
rep eated m easu rem ents of the ou tp u t for the sam e valu e of inp u t m ad e u nd er
the sam e op erating cond itions over a p eriod of tim e).
gain sh arin g—A typ e of p rogram that rew ard s ind ivid u als financially on the
basis of organizational p erform ance.
G an tt ch art—A typ e of bar chart u sed in p rocess/ p roject p lanning and control to
d isp lay p lanned w ork and finished w ork in relation to tim e. Also called a
milestone chart w hen interim checkp oints are ad d ed .
gap an alysis—A techniqu e that com p ares a com p any’s existing state to its
d esired state (as exp ressed by its long-term p lans) to help d eterm ine w hat
need s to be d one to rem ove or m inim ize the gap .
gatek eep in g—The role of an ind ivid u al (often a facilitator) in a grou p m eeting in
help ing ensu re effective interp ersonal interactions (for exam p le, som eone’s
id eas are not ignored d u e to the team m oving on to the next top ic too qu ickly).
goal—A statem ent of general intent, aim , or d esire; it is the p oint tow ard w hich
m anagem ent d irects its efforts and resou rces; goals are u su ally
nonqu antitative and are m easu red via su p p orting objectives.
grou p d yn am ics—The interaction (behavior) of ind ivid u als w ithin a team
m eeting.
grou p th in k —Occu rs w hen m ost or all team m em bers coalesce in su p p orting an
id ea or d ecision that hasn’t been fu lly exp lored , or w hen som e m em bers
secretly d isagree bu t go along w ith the other m em bers in ap p arent su p p ort.
H
H aw th orn e effect—The concep t that every change resu lts (initially, at least) in
increased p rod u ctivity.
h istogram —A grap hic su m m ary of variation in a set of d ata. The p ictorial natu re
of the histogram lets p eop le see p atterns that are d ifficu lt to see in a sim p le
table of nu m bers. The histogram is one of the seven tools of qu ality.
h ou se of q u ality—A d iagram (nam ed for its hou se-shap ed ap p earance) that
clarifies the relationship betw een cu stom er need s and p rod u ct featu res. It
help s correlate m arket or cu stom er requ irem ents and analysis of com p etitive
p rod u cts w ith higher-level technical and p rod u ct characteristics and m akes it
p ossible to bring several factors into a single figu re. Also know n as quality
function deployment (QFD).
I
im agin eerin g—Develop ing in the m ind ’s eye a p rocess w ithou t w aste.
im p rovem en t—The p ositive effect of a p rocess change effort. Im p rovem ent m ay
resu lt from increm ental changes or from a m ajor breakthrou gh.
in con trol—A term that d escribes a situ ation in w hich the variations w ithin a
p rocess occu r only betw een the com p u ted u p p er and low er control lim its. The
p rocess is consid ered to be stable and therefore p red ictable. A p rocess in w hich
the statistical m easu re being evalu ated is in a state of statistical control; that is,
the variations am ong the observed sam p ling resu lts can be attribu ted to a
constant system of chance/ com m on cau ses (see also ou t-of-control p rocess).
in crem en tal im p rovem en t—Im p rovem ents that are im p lem ented on a continu al
basis. These im p rovem ents are typ ically sm all step s w ithin the p art of an
overall p rocess contained w ithin a given w ork u nit.
in d icators—Pred eterm ined m easu res u sed to m easu re how w ell an organization
is m eeting its cu stom ers’ need s and its op erational and financial p erform ance
objectives. Su ch ind icators can be either leading or lagging ind icators.
Ind icators are also d evices u sed to m easu re p hysical objects.
in form ation —Data transform ed into an ord ered form at that m akes it u sable and
allow s one to d raw conclu sions.
in form ation system —Technology-based system s u sed to su p p ort op erations, aid
d ay-to-d ay d ecision m aking, and su p p ort strategic analysis (other nam es often
u sed inclu d e: m anagem ent inform ation system , d ecision system , inform ation
technology [IT], d ata p rocessing).
in p u t—Material, p rod u ct, or service that is obtained from an u p stream internal
p rovid er or an external su p p lier and is u sed to p rod u ce an ou tp u t.
in sp ection —Measu ring, exam ining, testing, and gaging one or m ore
characteristics of a p rod u ct or service and com p aring the resu lts w ith sp ecified
requ irem ents to d eterm ine w hether conform ity is achieved for each
characteristic.
in sp ection cost—The cost associated w ith insp ecting the p rod u ct to ensu re that it
m eets the (internal or external) cu stom er ’s need s and requ irem ents; an
ap p raisal cost.
in term ed iate cu stom ers—Distribu tors, d ealers, or brokers w ho m ake p rod u cts
and services available to the end u ser by rep airing, rep ackaging, reselling, or
creating finished good s from com p onents or su bassem blies.
in tern al au d it—An au d it cond u cted w ithin an organization by m em bers of the
organization to m easu re its strengths or w eaknesses against its ow n
p roced u res and / or external stand ard s—a “first-p arty au d it.”
in tern al cu stom er—The recip ient, p erson, or d ep artm ent of another p erson or
d ep artm ent’s ou tp u t (p rod u ct, service, or inform ation) w ithin an organization
(see also external cu stom er).
in tern al failu re costs—Costs occu rring p rior to d elivery or ship m ent of the
p rod u ct, or the fu rnishing of a service, to the cu stom er.
in terrelation sh ip d igrap h —A m anagem ent and p lanning tool that d isp lays the
relationship betw een factors in a com p lex situ ation. It id entifies m eaningfu l
categories from a m ass of id eas and is u sefu l w hen relationship s are d ifficu lt to
d eterm ine.
in terven tion —An action taken by a lead er or a facilitator to su p p ort the effective
fu nctioning of a team or w ork grou p .
Ish ik aw a d iagram —See cau se-and -effect d iagram .
ISO —“equ al” (Greek). A p refix for a series of stand ard s p u blished by the
International Organization for Stand ard ization.
ISO 9000 series stan d ard s—A set of ind ivid u al bu t related international
stand ard s and gu id elines on qu ality m anagem ent and qu ality assu rance
d evelop ed to help com p anies effectively d ocu m ent the qu ality system
elem ents to be im p lem ented to m aintain an efficient qu ality system . The
stand ard s, initially p u blished in 1987, revised in 1994 and 2000, are not sp ecific
to any p articu lar ind u stry, p rod u ct, or service. The stand ard s w ere d evelop ed
by the International Organization for Stand ard ization, a sp ecialized
international agency for stand ard ization com p osed of the national stand ard s
bod ies of nearly 100 cou ntries.
ISO /TS 16949—A set of requ irem ents p ertaining to the ap p lication of ISO 9001
for au tom otive p rod u ction and organizations that m anu factu re related p arts.
It is based on ISO 9001, bu t it also contains requ irem ents sp ecific to the
au tom otive ind u stry.
J
JCAH O —Joint Com m ission on Accred itation of H ealthcare Organizations.
Ju ran ’s trilogy—See qu ality trilogy.
ju st-in -tim e m an u factu rin g (JIT)—An op tim al m aterial requ irem ent p lanning
system for a m anu factu ring p rocess in w hich there is little or no
m anu factu ring m aterial inventory on hand at the m anu factu ring site and little
or no incom ing insp ection.
ju st-in -tim e-train in g—Provid ing job training coincid ental w ith, or im m ed iately
p rior to, an em p loyee’s assignm ent to a new or exp and ed job.
K
k aizen —Increm ental im p rovem ent; a Jap anese term that m eans grad u al
u nend ing im p rovem ent by d oing little things better and setting and achieving
increasingly higher stand ard s. Masaaki Im ai m ad e the term fam ou s in his
book Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success.
k aizen b litz/even t—An intense, short-tim e-fram e (typ ically 3–5 consecu tive
d ays) team ap p roach to em p loy the concep ts and techniqu es of continu al
im p rovem ent (for exam p le, to red u ce cycle tim e, increase throu ghp u t).
k an b an —A m ethod for p rovid ing m aterial/ p rod u ct to a su cceed ing op eration by
signaling the p reced ing op eration w hen m ore m aterial/ p rod u ct is need ed .
This “p u ll” typ e of p rocess control em p loys a kanban, a card or signboard ,
attached to a lot of m aterial/ p rod u ct in a p rod u ction line signifying the
d elivery of a given qu antity. When all of the m aterial/ p rod u ct has been
p rocessed , the card / sign is retu rned to its sou rce, w here it becom es an ord er to
rep lenish. The key ad vantages of this m ethod are that u nnecessary bu ild u p of
w ork-in-p rocess inventory is elim inated , sp ace is saved , and the risk of loss
d u e to d efective m aterial/ p rod u ct is d ecreased (less w ork-in-p rocess
inventory is p rod u ced before a d efect is d etected ).
Kan o m od el—Three classes of cu stom er requ irem ents as d escribed by Dr.
N oriaki Kano: satisfiers—w hat cu stom ers say they w ant; d issatisfiers—w hat
cu stom ers exp ect and w hat resu lts in d issatisfaction w hen not p resent;
d elighters/ exciters—new or u nexp ected featu res that cu stom ers d o not
exp ect. It is observed that w hat a cu stom er originally p erceives as a d elighter
w ill becom e a d issatisfier if no longer available.
KESAA factors—See com p etence.
k ey p rocess—A m ajor system -level p rocess that su p p orts the m ission and
satisfies m ajor cu stom er requ irem ents. The id entification of key p rocesses
allow s the organization to focu s its resou rces on w hat is im p ortant to the
cu stom er.
k ey resu lt area (KRA)—A m ajor category of cu stom er requ irem ents that is
critical for the organization’s su ccess.
k ey su ccess factors (KSF)—Those factors that p oint tow ard answ ers to key
qu estions, su ch as “H ow w ill w e know if w e’re su ccessfu l?” “H ow w ill w e
know w hen w e’re head ing for trou ble?” and “If w e are m oving aw ay from ou r
organizational strategy and targets, w hat corrections shou ld w e m ake?” KSFs
are selected to m easu re w hat is tru ly im p ortant to an organization: cu stom er
satisfaction, em p loyee satisfaction, financial stability, and im p ortant
op erational factors.
KJ m eth od —See affinity d iagram .
k n ow led ge m an agem en t—Involves transform ing d ata into inform ation, the
acqu isition or creation of know led ge, as w ell as the p rocesses and technology
em p loyed in id entifying, categorizing, storing, retrieving, d issem inating, and
u sing inform ation and know led ge for the p u rp oses of im p roving d ecisions
and p lans.
L
LCALI—A p rocess for op erating a listening-p ost system for cap tu ring and u sing
form erly u navailable cu stom er d ata (“listen,” “cap tu re,” “analyze,” “learn,”
“im p rove”).1
lead er—An ind ivid u al, recognized by others, as the p erson to lead an effort. One
cannot be a “lead er” w ithou t one or m ore “follow ers.” The term is often u sed
interchangeably w ith “m anager” (see m anager). A “lead er” m ay or m ay not
hold an officially d esignated m anagem ent-typ e p osition.
lead ersh ip —An essential p art of a qu ality im p rovem ent effort. Organization
lead ers m u st establish a vision, com m u nicate that vision to those in the
organization, and p rovid e the tools, know led ge, and m otivation necessary to
accom p lish the vision.
life cycle—A p rod u ct life cycle is the total tim e fram e from p rod u ct concep t to the
end of its intend ed u se; a p roject life cycle is typ ically d ivid ed into five stages:
concep t, p lanning, d esign, im p lem entation, and evalu ation and close-ou t.
listen in g p ost—An ind ivid u al w ho, by virtu e of her or his p otential for having
contact w ith cu stom ers, is d esignated to collect, d ocu m ent, and transm it
p ertinent feed back to a central collection au thority w ithin the organization.
Su ch feed back is analyzed for em erging trend s or recu rring p roblem s, w hich
are rep orted to m anagem ent. Preventive actions are taken w hen the
inform ation ind icates the need . Positive feed back is p assed on to the
organizational fu nction or p erson resp onsible for a cu stom er ’s exp ression of
satisfaction.
listen in g-p ost d ata—Cu stom er d ata and inform ation gathered from d esignated
“listening p osts.”
lot—A d efined qu antity of p rod u ct accu m u lated u nd er cond itions that are
consid ered u niform for sam p ling p u rp oses.
low er con trol lim it (LCL)—Control lim it for p oints below the central line in a
control chart.
M
m ain tain ab ility—The p robability that a given m aintenance action for an item
u nd er given u sage cond itions can be p erform ed w ithin a stated tim e interval
w hen the m aintenance is p erform ed u nd er stated cond itions u sing stated
p roced u res and resou rces. Maintainability has tw o categories: serviceability,
the ease of cond u cting sched u led insp ections and servicing, and rep airability,
the ease of restoring service after a failu re.
m an agem en t b y fact—A bu siness p hilosop hy that d ecisions shou ld be based on
d ata.
m an agem en t b y w alk in g arou n d (M BWA)—A m anager ’s p lanned , bu t u su ally
u nannou nced , w alk-throu gh of the organization to gather inform ation from
em p loyees and m ake observations; m ay be view ed in a p ositive light by virtu e
of giving em p loyees the op p ortu nity to interact w ith top m anagem ent; has the
p otential of being view ed negatively if p u nitive action is taken as a resu lt of

inform ation gathered .
m an agem en t review —Form al evalu ation by top m anagem ent of the statu s and
ad equ acy of the qu ality m anagem ent system in relation to the ap p licable
stand ard s, and the organization’s qu ality p olicy and objectives.
m an ager—An ind ivid u al w ho m anages and is resp onsible for resou rces (p eop le,
m aterial, m oney, tim e). A p erson officially d esignated w ith a m anagem ent-
typ e p osition title. A m anager is granted au thority from above, w hereas a
lead er ’s role is d erived by virtu e of having follow ers. H ow ever, the term s
manager and leader are often u sed interchangeably.
m atrix ch art/d iagram —A m anagem ent and p lanning tool that show s the
relationship s am ong variou s grou p s of d ata; it yield s inform ation abou t the
relationship s and the im p ortance of task/ m ethod elem ents of the su bjects.
m ean —A m easu re of central tend ency; the arithm etic average of all
m easu rem ents in a d ata set.
m ean tim e b etw een failu res (M TBF)—The average tim e interval betw een
failu res for rep airable p rod u ct or service for a d efined u nit of m easu re, for
exam p le, op erating hou rs, cycles, m iles.
m easu re—The criteria, m etric, or m eans to w hich a com p arison is m ad e w ith
ou tp u t.
m easu rem en t—Refers to the reference stand ard or sam p le u sed for the
com p arison of p rop erties.
m ed ian —The m id d le nu m ber or center valu e of a set of d ata w hen all the d ata
are arranged in an increasing sequ ence.
m etric—A stand ard of m easu rem ent or evalu ation.
m etrology—Science and p ractice of m easu rem ents.
M IL-STD —A m ilitary stand ard .
m ission statem en t—An exp lanation of p u rp ose or reasons for existing as an
organization; it p rovid es the focu s for the organization and d efines its scop e of
bu siness.
m od e—The valu e that occu rs m ost frequ ently in a d ataset.
m om en t-of-tru th (M O T)—A MOT w as d escribed by Jan Carlzon, form er CEO of
Scand inavian Air Services, in the 1980s as: “Any ep isod e w here a cu stom er
com es into contact w ith any asp ect of you r com p any, no m atter how d istant,
and by this contact, has an op p ortu nity to form an op inion abou t you r
com p any.”
m otivation —Tw o typ es of m otivation are extrinsic and intrinsic.
m u ltivotin g—A d ecision-m aking tool that enables a grou p to sort throu gh a long
list of id eas to id entify p riorities.
M yers-Briggs Typ e In d icator/M BTI—A m ethod and instru m ent for id entifying a
p erson’s “typ e” based on Carl Ju ng’s theory of p ersonality p references.
N
n —Sam p le size (the nu m ber of u nits in a sam p le).
n atu ral team —A team of ind ivid u als d raw n from a single w ork grou p ; sim ilar to
a p rocess im p rovem ent team excep t that it is not cross-fu nctional in
com p osition and it is not u su ally tem p orary.
n ext op eration as cu stom er (N O AC)—Concep t that the organization is
com p rised of service/ p rod u ct p rovid ers and service/ p rod u ct receivers or
“internal cu stom ers.”
N IST—N ational Institu te of Stand ard s and Technology.
n om in al d ata—Data u sed for classifying inform ation w ithou t an im p lied ord er
or u se of nu m bers for id entification p u rp oses.
n om in al grou p tech n iq u e (N G T)—A techniqu e, sim ilar to brainstorm ing, u sed
by team s to generate id eas on a p articu lar su bject. Team m em bers are asked to
silently com e u p w ith as m any id eas as p ossible, w riting them d ow n. Each
m em ber is then asked to share one id ea, w hich is record ed . After all the id eas
are record ed , they are d iscu ssed and p rioritized by the grou p .
n on con form ity—The resu lt of nonfu lfillm ent of a sp ecified requ irem ent (see also
blem ish, d efect, and im p erfection).
n on d estru ctive testin g an d evalu ation (N D T)—Testing and evalu ation m ethod s
that d o not d am age or d estroy the p rod u ct being tested .
n on -valu e-ad d ed —Refers to tasks or activities that can be elim inated w ith no
d eterioration in p rod u ct or service fu nctionality, p erform ance, or qu ality in the
eyes of the cu stom er.
n orm al d istrib u tion —A bell-shap ed d istribu tion for continu ou s d ata w here m ost
of the d ata are concentrated arou nd the average, and it is equ ally likely that an
observation w ill occu r above or below the average.
n orm s—Behavioral exp ectations, m u tu ally agreed -u p on ru les of cond u ct,
p rotocols to be follow ed , and social p ractice.
n orm al d istrib u tion (statistical)—The charting of a d ataset in w hich m ost of the
d ata p oints are concentrated arou nd the average (m ean), thu s form ing a bell-
shap ed cu rve.
n u m b er of affected u n its ch art (n p ch art)—A control chart for evalu ating the
stability of a p rocess in term s of the total nu m ber of u nits in a sam p le in w hich
an event of a given classification occu rs.
O
ob jective—A statem ent of fu tu re exp ectations and an ind ication of w hen the
exp ectations shou ld be achieved ; it flow s from goals and clarifies w hat p eop le
m u st accom p lish. An objective inclu d es m easu rable end resu lts to be
accom p lished by sp ecific team s or ind ivid u als w ithin tim e lim its. It is the
“how, w hen, and w ho” for achieving a goal. (see also S.M.A.R.T. W.A.Y.).
on -th e-job -train in g (O JT)—Training cond u cted u su ally at the w orkstation,
typ ically d one one-on-one.
ord in al d ata—Qu antitative d ata u sed to p u t d ata into ord er bu t w here the size of
the nu m bers is not im p ortant.
organ ization cu ltu re—Refers to the collective beliefs, valu es, attitu d es, m anners,
cu stom s, behaviors, and artifacts u niqu e to an organization.
ou tcom e—The m easu rable result of a project, a quality initiative, an imp rovem ent,
and so on. Usu ally, som e tim e p asses betw een the com p letion of the action and
the realization of the ou tcom e.
ou tlier—An observation extrem ely d ifferent in som e resp ect from the other
observations in a set of d ata. More loosely, any extrem ely d ifferent or u nu su al
event.
ou t-of-con trol p rocess—A p rocess in w hich the statistical m easu re being
evalu ated is not in a state of statistical control (that is, the variations am ong
the observed sam p ling resu lts cannot all be attribu ted to a constant system of
chance cau ses; sp ecial or assignable cau ses exist (see also in-control p rocess).
ou tp u t—The d eliverables resu lting from a p roject, a qu ality initiative, an
im p rovem ent, and so on. Ou tp u ts inclu d e d ata, inform ation, d ocu m ents,
d ecisions and tangible prod u cts. Ou tp u ts are generated both from the p lanning
and m anagem ent of the activity (e.g., p roject) and the d elivered p rod u ct,
service, p rogram , and so on. Ou tp u t is the item , d ocu m ent, or m aterial
d elivered by an internal p rovid er/ su p p lier to an internal receiver/ cu stom er.
P
Pareto ch art—A basic tool u sed to grap hically rank cau ses from m ost significant
to least significant. It u tilizes a vertical bar grap h in w hich the bar height
reflects the frequ ency or im p act of cau ses.
p artn ersh ip /allian ce—A strategy lead ing to a relationship w ith su p p liers or
cu stom ers aim ed at red u cing costs of ow nership , m aintenance of m inim u m
stocks, ju st-in-tim e d eliveries, joint p articip ation in d esign, exchange of
inform ation on m aterials and technologies, new p rod u ction m ethod s, qu ality
im p rovem ent strategies, and the exp loitation of m arket synergy.
p ercen t ch art—A control chart for evalu ating the stability of a p rocess in term s of
the p ercent of the total nu m ber of u nits in a sam p le in w hich an event of a
given classification occu rs. The p ercent chart is also referred to as a proportion
chart.
Plan —D o—Ch eck —Act cycle (PD CA)—A fou r-step p rocess for qu ality
im p rovem ent. In the first step (p lan), a p lan to effect im p rovem ent is
d evelop ed . In the second step (d o), the p lan is carried ou t, p referably on a
sm all scale. In the third step (check), the effects of the p lan are observed . In the
last step (act), the resu lts are stu d ied to d eterm ine w hat w as learned and w hat
can be p red icted . The PDCA cycle is som etim es referred to as the Shew hart
cycle becau se Walter A. Shew hart d iscu ssed the concep t in his book Statistical
Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control, and as the Dem ing cycle becau se
W. Ed w ard s Dem ing introd u ced the concep t in Jap an. The Jap anese
su bsequ ently called it the Dem ing cycle. Som etim es referred to as Plan—Do—
Study—Act (PDSA).
p ok a-yok e—(Jap anese) A term that m eans to m istake-proof a p rocess by bu ild ing
safegu ard s into the system that avoid or im m ed iately find errors. It com es from
poka, w hich m eans “inad vertent error,”and yokeru, w hich m eans, “to avoid .”
p olicy—An overarching p lan (d irection) for achieving an organization’s goals.

p op u lation —A collection or set of ind ivid u als, objects, or m easu rem ents w hose
p rop erties or characteristics are to be analyzed . So, if w e w ant to know the
p rop ortion of all television view ers w ho w atched the World Series, then the
p op u lation is all television view ers.
Pp —The ratio of the sp ecification range d ivid ed by the natu ral tolerance range of
the p rocess w hen the p rocess m ay or m ay not be in a state of statistical control.
Pp k —The d ifference betw een the p rocess average and the closer sp ecification
lim it d ivid ed by one-half the natu ral tolerance range of the p rocess w hen the
p rocess m ay or m ay not be in a state of statistical control.
p p m —Parts p er m illion.
p recision —A characteristic of m easu rem ent that ad d resses the consistency or
rep eatability of a m easu rem ent system w hen the id entical item is m easu red a
nu m ber of tim es.
p reven tion costs—The costs of activities sp ecifically d esigned to p revent p oor
qu ality in p rod u cts or services.
p reven tion vs. d etection —A term u sed to contrast tw o typ es of qu ality activities.
Prevention refers to those activities d esigned to p revent nonconform ances in
p rod u cts and services. Detection refers to those activities d esigned to d etect
nonconform ances alread y in p rod u cts and services. Another term u sed to
d escribe this d istinction is “d esigning in qu ality vs. insp ecting in qu ality.”
p reven tive action —Action taken to elim inate the p otential cau ses of a
nonconform ity, d efect, or other u nd esirable situ ation in ord er to p revent
fu rther occu rrences.
p rob ab ility—Refers to the likelihood of occu rrence.
p rob lem solvin g—A rational p rocess for id entifying, d escribing, analyzing, and
resolving situ ations in w hich som ething has gone w rong w ithou t exp lanation.
p roced u re—The step s to be taken in a p rocess. A d ocu m ent that answ ers the
qu estions: What has to be d one? Where is it to be d one? When is it to be d one?
Who is to d o it? Why d o it? (contrasted w ith a w ork instru ction, w hich
answ ers: H ow is it to be d one? With w hat m aterials and tools is it to be d one?);
in the absence of a w ork instru ction, the instru ctions m ay be em bed d ed in the
p roced u re.
p rocess—An activity or grou p of activities that takes an inp u t, ad d s valu e to it,
and p rovid es an ou tp u t to an internal or external cu stom er; a p lanned and
rep etitive sequ ence of step s by w hich a d efined p rod u ct or service is d elivered .
p rocess cap ab ility—A statistical m easu re of the inherent p rocess variability for a
given characteristic.
p rocess con trol—The m ethod ology for keep ing a p rocess w ithin bou nd aries;
m inim izing the variation of a p rocess.
p rocess d ecision p rogram ch art (PD PC)—A m anagem ent and p lanning tool that
id entifies all events that can go w rong and the ap p rop riate cou nterm easu res
for these events. It grap hically rep resents all sequ ences that lead to a d esirable
effect.
p rocess im p rovem en t—Refers to the act of changing a p rocess to red u ce
variability and cycle tim e and m ake the p rocess m ore effective, efficient, and
p rod u ctive.
p rocess im p rovem en t team (PIT)—A natu ral w ork grou p or cross-fu nctional
team w hose resp onsibility is to achieve need ed im p rovem ents in existing
p rocesses. The life sp an of the team is based on the com p letion of the team
p u rp ose and sp ecific goals.
p rocess m an agem en t—The collection of p ractices u sed to im p lem ent and
im p rove p rocess effectiveness; it focu ses on hold ing the gains achieved
throu gh p rocess im p rovem ent and assu ring p rocess integrity.
p rocess m ap p in g—The flow charting of a w ork p rocess in d etail, inclu d ing key
m easu rem ents.
p rocess ow n er—The p erson w ho coord inates the variou s fu nctions and w ork
activities at all levels of a p rocess, has the au thority or ability to m ake changes
in the p rocess as requ ired , and m anages the entire p rocess cycle so as to ensu re
p erform ance effectiveness.
p rocess reen gin eerin g—See reengineering.
p rod u cer ’s risk —For a sam p ling p lan, refers to the p robability of not accep ting a
lot, the qu ality of w hich has a d esignated nu m erical valu e rep resenting a level
that is generally d esirable. Usu ally the d esignated valu e w ill be the accep table
qu ality level (also called alpha risk and type 1 error).
p rod u ct or service liab ility—The obligation of a com p any to m ake restitu tion for
loss related to p ersonal inju ry, p rop erty d am age, or other harm cau sed by its
p rod u ct or service.
p rod u ct w arran ty—The organization’s stated p olicy that it w ill rep lace, rep air, or
reim bu rse a cu stom er for a d efective p rod u ct p rovid ing the p rod u ct d efect
occu rs u nd er certain cond itions and w ithin a stated p eriod of tim e.
p rofou n d k n ow led ge, system of—As d efined by W. Ed w ard s Dem ing, states
that learning cannot be based on exp erience only; it requ ires com p arisons of
resu lts to a p red iction, p lan, or an exp ression of theory. Pred icting w hy
som ething hap p ens is essential to u nd erstand resu lts and to continu ally
im p rove. The fou r com p onents of the system of p rofou nd know led ge are:
ap p reciation for a system , know led ge of variation, theory of know led ge, and
u nd erstand ing of p sychology.
p roject life cycle—Refers to five sequ ential p hases of p roject m anagem ent:
concep t, p lanning, d esign, im p lem entation, and evalu ation.
p roject m an agem en t—Refers to the m anagem ent of activities and events
involved throu ghou t a p roject’s life cycle.
p roject team —A d esignated grou p of p eop le w orking together to p rod u ce a
p lanned p roject’s ou tp u ts and ou tcom e.
p u ll system —See kanban.
Q
q u alitative variab les—Describes the sam p le you collected and m easu res m ore
abstract things. Variables w hose valu es are categories su ch as m an, w om an,
and child ; red , green, and blu e; Dem ocrat, Rep u blican, Liberal, Conservative,
and ind ep end ent.
q u ality—A su bjective term for w hich each p erson has his or her ow n d efinition.
In technical u sage, qu ality can have tw o m eanings: (1) the characteristics of a
p rod u ct or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or im p lied need s,
and (2) a p rod u ct or service free of d eficiencies.
• Crosby d efined qu ality as “conform ance to requ irem ents.”
• Dem ing stated , “Qu ality shou ld be aim ed at the need s of the consu m er,
p resent and fu tu re. Qu ality begins w ith intent, w hich is fixed by
m anagem ent . . . translated . . . into p lans, sp ecifications, tests, p rod u ction.”
• Ju ran d efined qu ality as “fitness for u se.”
• Garvin exp and s the d efinition to inclu d e eight d im ensions: p erform ance,
featu res, reliability, conform ance, d u rability, serviceability, aesthetics, and
p erceived qu ality.2
• Cu stom ers d efine qu ality as “w hat I exp ect” and “I’ll know it w hen I see it.”
q u ality assessm en t—The p rocess of id entifying bu siness p ractices, attitu d es, and
activities that are enhancing or inhibiting the achievem ent of qu ality
im p rovem ent in an organization.
q u ality assu ran ce/q u ality con trol (Q A/Q C)—Tw o term s that have m any
interp retations becau se of the m u ltip le d efinitions for the w ord s assurance and
control. For exam p le, assu rance can m ean the act of giving confid ence, the state
of being certain, or the act of m aking certain; control can m ean an evalu ation
to ind icate need ed corrective resp onses, the act of gu id ing, or the state of a
p rocess in w hich the variability is attribu table to a constant system of chance
cau ses. (For a d etailed d iscu ssion on the m u ltip le d efinitions, see
AN SI/ ISO/ ASQC A35342, Statistics—Vocabu lary and Sym bols—Statistical
Qu ality Control.) One d efinition of qu ality assu rance is: all the p lanned and
system atic activities im p lem ented w ithin the qu ality system that can be
d em onstrated to p rovid e confid ence that a p rod u ct or service w ill fu lfill
requ irem ents for qu ality. One d efinition for qu ality control is: the op erational
techniqu es and activities u sed to fu lfill requ irem ents for qu ality. Often,
how ever, quality assurance and quality control are u sed interchangeably,
referring to the actions p erform ed to ensu re the qu ality of a p rod u ct, service,
or p rocess.
q u ality au d it—A system atic, ind ep end ent exam ination and review to d eterm ine
w hether qu ality activities and related resu lts com p ly w ith p lanned
arrangem ents and w hether these arrangem ents are im p lem ented effectively
and are su itable to achieve the objectives.
q u ality ch aracteristics—The u niqu e characteristics of p rod u cts and of services
by w hich cu stom ers evalu ate their p ercep tion of qu ality.
q u ality circles—Qu ality im p rovem ent or self-im p rovem ent stu d y grou p s
com p osed of a sm all nu m ber of em p loyees—10 or few er—and their
su p ervisor, w ho m eet regu larly w ith an aim to im p rove a p rocess.
q u ality costs—See cost of qu ality (COQ)
q u ality fu n ction —The entire sp ectru m of activities throu gh w hich an
organization achieves its qu ality goals and objectives, no m atter w here these
activities are p erform ed .
q u ality fu n ction d ep loym en t (Q FD )—A m u ltifaceted m atrix in w hich cu stom er
requ irem ents are translated into ap p rop riate technical requ irem ents for each
stage of p rod u ct d evelop m ent and p rod u ction. The QFD p rocess is often
referred to as listening to the voice of the cu stom er. Also called house of quality.
q u ality loss fu n ction —A p arabolic ap p roxim ation of the qu ality loss that occu rs
w hen a qu ality characteristic d eviates from its target valu e. The qu ality loss
fu nction is exp ressed in m onetary u nits: the cost of d eviating from the target
increases qu ad ratically the farther the qu ality characteristic m oves from the
target. The form u la u sed to com p u te the qu ality loss fu nction d ep end s on the
typ e of qu ality characteristic being u sed . Genichi Tagu chi first introd u ced the
qu ality loss fu nction in this form .
q u ality m an agem en t—All activities of the overall m anagem ent fu nction that
d eterm ines the qu ality p olicy, objectives, and resp onsibilities, and im p lem ents
them by m eans su ch as qu ality p lanning, qu ality control, qu ality assu rance,
and qu ality im p rovem ent w ithin the qu ality system .
q u ality m an agem en t system (Q M S)—The organizational stru ctu re, p rocesses,
p roced u res, and resou rces need ed to im p lem ent, m aintain, and continu ally
im p rove qu ality m anagem ent.
q u ality p lan —The d ocu m ent, or d ocu m ents, setting ou t the sp ecific qu ality
p ractices, resou rces, sp ecifications, and sequ ence of activities relevant to a
p articu lar p rod u ct, p roject, or contract.
q u ality p lan n in g—The activity of establishing qu ality objectives and qu ality
requ irem ents.
q u ality p olicy—An organization’s form ally stated beliefs abou t qu ality, how it
w ill occu r, and the exp ected resu lt.
q u ality p rin cip les—Ru les, gu id elines, or concep ts that an organization believes
in collectively. The p rincip les are form u lated by senior m anagem ent w ith
inp u t from others and are com m u nicated and u nd erstood at every level of the
organization.
q u ality score ch art (Q ch art)—A control chart for evalu ating the stability of a
p rocess in term s of a qu ality score. The qu ality score is the w eighted su m of
the cou nt of events of variou s classifications, w here each classification is
assigned a w eight.
q u ality tool—An instru m ent or techniqu e that is u sed to su p p ort and / or
im p rove the activities of p rocess qu ality m anagem ent and im p rovem ent.
q u ality trilogy—A three-stage ap p roach to m anaging for qu ality. The three
stages are qu ality p lanning (d evelop ing the p rod u cts and p rocesses requ ired
to m eet cu stom er need s), qu ality control (m eeting p rod u ct and p rocess goals),
and qu ality im p rovem ent (achieving u np reced ented levels of p erform ance).
Attribu ted to Josep h M. Ju ran.
q u an titative variab les—Variables w hose valu es are nu m bers.
q u in cu n x—A tool that creates frequ ency d istribu tions. Bead s tu m ble over
nu m erou s horizontal row s of p ins, w hich force the bead s to the right or left.
After a rand om jou rney, the bead s are d rop p ed into vertical slots. After m any
bead s are d rop p ed , a frequ ency d istribu tion resu lts. In the classroom ,
qu incu nxes are often u sed to sim u late a m anu factu ring p rocess. English
scientist Francis Galton invented the qu incu nx in the 1890s.
R
RABQ SA In tern ation al—A board that evalu ates the com p etency and reliability
of registrars (organizations that assess and register com p anies to the
ap p rop riate ISO 9000 series stand ard s). The Registrar Accred itation Board ,
form ed in 1989 by ASQ, is governed by a board of d irectors from ind u stry,
acad em ia, and qu ality m anagem ent consu lting firm s. This bod y m erged w ith
QSA International of Au stralia in 2004 and continu es to co-locate its U.S.
head qu arters in the Am erican Society for Qu ality bu ild ing in Milw au kee,
Wisconsin.
ran d om cau se—A cau se of variation d u e to chance and not assignable to any
factor.
ran d om sam p lin g—A com m only u sed sam p ling techniqu e in w hich sam p le
u nits are selected in su ch a m anner that all com binations of n u nits u nd er
consid eration have an equ al chance of being selected as the sam p le.
ran d om variation —Flu ctu ations cau sed by m any ind ivid u ally u nim p ortant
factors that cannot be feasibly d etected , id entified , or elim inated . The
variability of a p rocess w hen op erating w ithin its natu ral lim its, that is, u nd er
a stable system of chance cau ses.
ran ge—The m easu re of d ispersion in a d ataset; highest valu e m inu s low est valu e.
ran ge ch art (R ch art)—A control chart in w hich the su bgrou p range, R, is u sed to
evalu ate the stability of the variability w ithin a p rocess.
red b ead exp erim en t—An exp erim ent d evelop ed by W. Ed w ard s Dem ing to
illu strate that it is im p ossible to p u t em p loyees in rank ord er of p erform ance
for the com ing year based on their p erform ance d u ring the p ast year becau se
p erform ance d ifferences m u st be attribu ted to the system , not to em p loyees.
Fou r thou sand red and w hite bead s, 20 p ercent red , in a jar and six p eop le are
need ed for the exp erim ent. The p articip ants’ goal is to p rod u ce w hite bead s
becau se the cu stom er w ill not accep t red bead s. One p erson begins by stirring
the bead s and then, blind fold ed , selects a sam p le of 50 bead s. That p erson
hand s the jar to the next p erson, w ho rep eats the p rocess, and so on. When
everyone has his or her sam p le, the nu m ber of red bead s for each is cou nted .
The lim its of variation betw een em p loyees that can be attribu ted to the system
are calcu lated . Everyone w ill fall w ithin the calcu lated lim its of variation that
cou ld arise from the system . The calcu lations w ill show that there is no
evid ence one p erson w ill be a better p erform er than another in the fu tu re. The
exp erim ent show s that it w ou ld be a w aste of m anagem ent’s tim e to try to
find ou t w hy, say, John p rod u ced 4 red bead s and Jane p rod u ced 15; instead ,
m anagem ent shou ld im p rove the system , m aking it p ossible for everyone to
p rod u ce m ore w hite bead s.
reen gin eerin g—Com p letely red esigning or restru ctu ring a w hole organization,
an organizational com p onent, or a com p lete p rocess. It’s a “start all over again
from the beginning” ap p roach, som etim es called a “breakthrou gh.” In term s
of im p rovem ent ap p roaches, reengineering is contrasted w ith increm ental
im p rovem ent (kaizen).
referen ce m aterial—Material or su bstance one or m ore of w hose p rop erty valu es

are su fficiently hom ogeneou s and w ell established to be u sed for the
calibration of an ap p aratu s, the assessm ent of a m easu rem ent m ethod , or for
assigning valu es to m aterials.
registration —The act of inclu d ing an organization, p rod u ct, service, or p rocess in
a com p ilation of those having the sam e or sim ilar attribu tes. Som etim es
incorrectly u sed interchangeably w ith the term certification. A qu ality
m anagem ent system for an organization m ay be “certified ” and the
organization “registered ” in a listing of organizations having achieved ISO
9001 certification. The resp ective term s for the d ocu m ents involved are
certificate and register.
regression an alysis—A statistical techniqu e for d eterm ining the best
m athem atical exp ression d escribing the fu nctional relationship betw een one
resp onse and one or m ore ind ep end ent variables.
reliab ility—In m easu rem ent system analysis, refers to the ability of an
instru m ent to p rod u ce the sam e resu lts over rep eated ad m inistration—to
m easu re consistently. In reliability engineering it is the p robability of a
p rod u ct p erform ing its intend ed fu nction u nd er stated cond itions for a given
p eriod of tim e (see also m ean tim e betw een failu res).
rep eatab ility—Precision u nd er rep eatability cond itions, that is, cond itions w here
ind ep end ent test resu lts are obtained w ith the sam e m ethod on id entical test
item s by the sam e op erator u sing the sam e equ ip m ent w ithin short intervals
of tim e.
rep resen tative sam p le—A sam p le that contains the characteristics of the
corresp ond ing p op u lation.
rep rod u cib ility—Precision u nd er rep rod u cibility cond itions, that is, cond itions
w here test resu lts are obtained w ith the sam e m ethod on id entical test item s
w ith d ifferent technicians u sing the sam e equ ip m ent or p roced u re.
resou rce req u irem en ts m atrix—A tool to relate the resou rces requ ired to the
p roject tasks requ iring them (u sed to ind icate typ es of ind ivid u als need ed ,
m aterial need ed , su bcontractors, etc.).
righ t th e first tim e—A term u sed to convey the concep t that it is beneficial and
m ore cost-effective to take the necessary step s u p front to ensu re a p rod u ct or
service m eets its requ irem ents than to p rovid e a p rod u ct or service that w ill
need rew ork or not m eet cu stom ers’ need s. In other w ord s, an organization
shou ld engage in d efect p revention rather than d efect d etection.
rob u stn ess—The cond ition of a p rod u ct or p rocess d esign that rem ains relatively
stable w ith a m inim u m of variation even thou gh factors that influ ence
op erations or u sage, su ch as environm ent and w ear, are constantly changing.
root cau se an alysis—A qu ality tool u sed to d istingu ish the sou rce of d efects or
p roblem s. It is a stru ctu red ap p roach that focu ses on the d ecisive or original
cau se of a p roblem or cond ition.
ru n ch art—A line grap h show ing d ata collected d u ring a ru n or an u ninterru p ted
sequ ence of events. A trend is ind icated w hen the series of collected d ata
p oints head u p or d ow n.
S
sam p le—A finite nu m ber of item s of a sim ilar typ e taken from a p op u lation for
the p u rp ose of exam ination to d eterm ine w hether all m em bers of the
p op u lation w ou ld conform to qu ality requ irem ents or sp ecifications.
sam p le size—Refers to the nu m ber of u nits in a sam p le chosen from the
p op u lation.
sam p le stan d ard d eviation ch art (s ch art)—A control chart in w hich the
su bgrou p stand ard d eviation, s, is u sed to evalu ate the stability of the
variability w ithin a p rocess.
sam p lin g—The p rocess of d raw ing conclu sions abou t the p op u lation based on a
p art of the p op u lation.
satisfier—The term u sed to d escribe the qu ality level received by a cu stom er
w hen a p rod u ct or service m eets exp ectations.
scatter d iagram —A grap hical techniqu e to analyze the relationship betw een tw o
variables. Tw o sets of d ata are p lotted on a grap h, w ith the y-axis being u sed
for the variable to be p red icted and the x-axis being u sed for the variable to
m ake the p red iction. The grap h w ill show p ossible relationship s (althou gh
tw o variables m ight ap p ear to be related , they m ight not be; those w ho know
m ost abou t the variables m u st m ake that evalu ation). The scatter d iagram is
one of the seven tools of qu ality.
scien tific m an agem en t—Aim ed at find ing the one best w ay to p erform a task so
as to increase p rod u ctivity and efficiency.
self-m an aged team —A team that requ ires little su p ervision and m anages itself
and the d ay-to-d ay w ork it d oes; self-d irected team s are resp onsible for w hole
w ork p rocesses, w ith each ind ivid u al p erform ing m u ltip le tasks.
service—Work p erform ed for others. Services m ay be internal, su ch as su p p ort
services inclu d ing p ayroll, engineering, m aintenance, hiring, and training, or
external, su ch as legal services, rep air services, and training.
set—Collection of objects, su ch as p eop le or p rod u cts, d escribed by listing its
m em bers. Any p ortion of a set m ay itself be a set. Sets that are w holly
contained in other sets are know n as subsets.
setu p tim e—The tim e taken to change over a p rocess to ru n a d ifferent p rod u ct
or service.
seven b asic tools of q u ality—Tools that help organizations u nd erstand their
p rocesses in ord er to im p rove them . The tools are the cau se-and -effect
d iagram , check sheet, control chart, flow chart, histogram , Pareto chart, and
scatter d iagram (see ind ivid u al entries).
seven m an agem en t tools of q u ality—The tools u sed p rim arily for p lanning and
m anaging are activity netw ork d iagram (AN D) or arrow d iagram , affinity
d iagram (KJ m ethod ), interrelationship d igrap h, m atrix d iagram , p riorities
m atrix, p rocess d ecision p rogram chart (PDPC), and tree d iagram .
Sh ew h art cycle—see Plan—Do—Check—Act cycle.
sigm a—Greek letter (σ) that stand s for the stand ard d eviation of a p rocess.
SIPO C—A m acro-level analysis of the su p p liers, inp u ts, p rocesses, ou tp u ts, and
cu stom ers.
Six Sigm a ap p roach —A qu ality p hilosop hy; a collection of techniqu es and tools
for u se in red u cing variation; a p rocess of im p rovem ent.
Six Sigm a q u ality—A term u sed generally to ind icate that a p rocess is w ell
controlled , that is, p rocess lim its ±3σ from the centerline in a control chart, and
requ irem ents/ tolerance lim its ±6σ from the centerline. The term w as initiated
by Motorola.
S.M .A.R.T. W.A.Y.—A gu id e for setting objectives: Sp ecific, Measu red ,
Achievable, Realistic, Tim e-based , Worth d oing, Assigned , Yield s resu lts.3
sp ecial cau ses—Cau ses of variation that arise becau se of sp ecial circu m stances.
They are not an inherent p art of a p rocess. Sp ecial cau ses are also referred to as
assignable causes (see also com m on cau ses of variation).
sp ecification —The engineering requ irem ent u sed for ju d ging the accep tability of
a p articu lar p rod u ct/ service based on p rod u ct characteristics, su ch as
ap p earance, p erform ance, and size. In statistical analysis, sp ecifications refer
to the d ocu m ent that p rescribes the requ irem ents w ith w hich the p rod u ct or
service has to p erform .
sp on sor—The p erson w ho su p p orts a team ’s p lans, activities, and ou tcom es; the
team ’s “backer.” The sp onsor p rovid es resou rces and help s d efine the m ission
and scop e to set lim its. The sp onsor m ay be the sam e ind ivid u al as the
“cham p ion.”
stages of team grow th —Team s typ ically m ove throu gh fou r stages as they
d evelop m atu rity over tim e: form ing, storm ing, norm ing, and p erform ing.
stak eh old er—Peop le, d ep artm ents, and organizations that have an investm ent
or interest in the su ccess or actions taken by the organization.
stan d ard —A statem ent, sp ecification, or qu antity of m aterial against w hich
m easu red ou tp u ts from a p rocess m ay be ju d ged as accep table or
u naccep table.
stan d ard d eviation —A calcu lated m easu re of variability that show s how m u ch
the d ata are sp read arou nd the m ean.
statistical p rocess con trol (SPC)—The ap p lication of statistical techniqu es to
control a p rocess.
statistical q u ality con trol (SQ C)—The ap p lication of statistical techniqu es to
control qu ality. Often the term statistical process control is u sed interchangeably
w ith statistical quality control, althou gh statistical qu ality control inclu d es
accep tance sam p ling as w ell as statistical p rocess control.
statistics—Descrip tive: A field that involves the tabu lating, d ep icting, and
d escribing of d ata sets. Inferential: A form alized bod y of techniqu es
characteristically involving attem p ts to infer the p rop erties of a large collection
of d ata from insp ection of a sam p le of the collection.
statistical th in k in g—A p hilosop hy of learning and action based on fu nd am ental
p rincip les:
• All w ork occu rs in a system of interconnected p rocesses.
• Variation exists in all p rocesses.
• Und erstand ing and red u cing variation are vital to im p rovem ent.
steerin g com m ittee—A sp ecial grou p established to gu id e and track initiatives or

p rojects.
storyb oard in g—A techniqu e that visu ally d isp lays thou ghts and id eas and
grou p s them into categories, m aking all asp ects of a p rocess visible at once.
Often u sed to com m u nicate to others the activities p erform ed by a team as
they im p roved a p rocess.
strategic p lan n in g—A p rocess to set an organization’s long-range goals and
id entify the objectives and actions need ed to reach the goals.
stratified sam p lin g—Typ e of rand om sam p ling. It is a techniqu e that can be u sed
w hen the p op u lation is not hom ogeneou s. The ap p roach is to d ivid e the
p op u lation into strata or su bgrou p s, each of w hich is m ore or less
hom ogeneou s, and then take a rep resentative sam p le from each grou p .
stru ctu ral variation —Variation cau sed by regu lar, system atic changes in ou tp u t,
su ch as seasonal p atterns and long-term trend s.
su p p lier—Any p rovid er w hose good s and services m ay be u sed at any stage in
the p rod u ction, d esign, d elivery, and u se of another com p any’s p rod u cts and
services. Su p p liers inclu d e bu sinesses, su ch as d istribu tors, d ealers, w arranty
rep air services, transp ortation contractors, and franchises, and service
su p p liers, su ch as health care, training, and ed u cation. Internal su p p liers
p rovid e m aterials or services to internal cu stom ers.
su p p lier q u ality assu ran ce—Confid ence that a su p p lier ’s p rod u ct or service w ill
fu lfill its cu stom ers’ need s. This confid ence is achieved by creating a
relationship betw een the cu stom er and su p p lier that ensu res the p rod u ct or
service w ill be fit for u se w ith m inim al corrective action and insp ection.
Accord ing to J. M. Ju ran, there are nine p rim ary activities need ed : (1) d efine
p rod u ct and p rogram qu ality requ irem ents, (2) evalu ate alternative su p p liers,
(3) select su p p liers, (4) cond u ct joint qu ality p lanning, (5) coop erate w ith the
su p p lier d u ring the execu tion of the contract, (6) obtain p roof of conform ance
to requ irem ents, (7) certify qu alified su p p liers, (8) cond u ct qu ality
im p rovem ent p rogram s as requ ired , and (9) create and u se su p p lier qu ality
ratings.
su p p ly ch ain —The series of p rocesses and / or organizations that are involved in
p rod u cing and d elivering a p rod u ct to the final u ser.
su p p ly ch ain m an agem en t—The p rocess of effectively integrating and m anaging
com p onents of the su p p ly chain.
su p p ort system s—Starting w ith top -m anagem ent com m itm ent and visible
involvem ent, su p p ort system s are a cascad ing series of interrelated p ractices
or actions aim ed at bu ild ing and su staining su p p ort for continu ou s qu ality
im p rovem ent. Su ch p ractices/ actions m ay inclu d e: m ission statem ent,
transform ation of com p any cu ltu re, p olicies, em p loym ent p ractices,
com p ensation, recognition and rew ard s, em p loyee involvem ent, ru les and
p roced u res, qu ality-level agreem ents, training, em p ow erm ent, m ethod s and
tools for im p roving qu ality, tracking-m easu ring-evalu ating-rep orting system s,
and so on.
su rveillan ce—Continu al m onitoring of a p rocess.
su rvey—An exam ination for som e sp ecific p u rp ose; to insp ect or consid er
carefu lly; to review in d etail (survey im p lies the inclu sion of m atters not
covered by agreed -u p on criteria). Also, a stru ctu red series of qu estions
d esigned to elicit a p red eterm ined range of resp onses covering a p reselected
area of interest. May be ad m inistered orally by a su rvey-taker, by p ap er and
p encil, or by com p u ter. Resp onses are tabu lated and analyzed to su rface
significant areas for change.
SWO T an alysis—An assessm ent of an organization’s key strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats. It consid ers factors su ch as the organization’s
ind u stry, the com p etitive p osition, fu nctional areas, and m anagem ent.
sym p tom —An ind ication of a p roblem or op p ortu nity.
system —A netw ork of connecting p rocesses and p eop le that together p erform a
com m on m ission.
system atic sam p lin g—Typ e of rand om sam p ling. The p roced u re requ ires that
every kth item is selected after p icking a starting p oint at rand om .
system of p rofou n d k n ow led ge (SoPK)—see p rofou nd know led ge.
system s ap p roach to m an agem en t—A m anagem ent theory that view s the
organization as a u nified , p u rp osefu l com bination of interrelated p arts;
m anagers m u st look at the organization as a w hole and u nd erstand that
activity in one p art of the organization affects all p arts of the organization
(also know n as systems thinking).
T
Tagu ch i m eth od —Tagu chi m ethod ology is a p rototyp ing m ethod that enables
the engineer or d esigner to id entify the op tim al settings to p rod u ce a robu st
p rod u ct that can su rvive m anu factu ring tim e after tim e, p iece after p iece, in
ord er to p rovid e the fu nctionality requ ired by the cu stom er.
tam p erin g—Action taken to com p ensate for variation w ithin the control lim its of
a stable system . Tam p ering increases rather than d ecreases variation, as
evid enced in the fu nnel exp erim ent.
task —A sp ecific, d efinable activity to p erform an assigned fu nction, u su ally
w ithin a sp ecified tim e fram e.
team —A grou p of tw o or m ore p eop le w ho are equ ally accou ntable for the
accom p lishm ent of a p u rp ose and sp ecific p erform ance goals; it is also d efined
as a sm all nu m ber of p eop le w ith com p lem entary skills w ho are com m itted to
a com m on p u rp ose.
team b u ild in g/d evelop m en t—The p rocess of transform ing a grou p of p eop le
into a team and d evelop ing the team to achieve its p u rp ose.
team d yn am ics—The interactions that occu r am ong team m em bers u nd er
d ifferent cond itions.
team facilitation —Deals w ith both the role of the facilitator on the team and the
techniqu es and tools for facilitating the team .
team lead er—A p erson d esignated to be resp onsible for the ongoing su ccess of
the team ; keep s the team focu sed on the task assigned .
team p erform an ce evalu ation , rew ard s, an d recogn ition —Sp ecial m etrics are
need ed to evalu ate the w ork of a team (to avoid focu s on any ind ivid u al on
the team ) and as a basis for rew ard s and recognition for team achievem ents.
tem p orary/ad h oc team —A team , u su ally sm all, form ed to ad d ress a short-term
m ission or em ergency situ ation.
toleran ce—The variability of a p aram eter p erm itted and tolerated above or
below a nom inal valu e.
top m an agem en t com m itm en t—Particip ation of the highest-level officials in
their organization’s qu ality im p rovem ent efforts. Their p articip ation inclu d es
establishing and serving on a qu ality com m ittee, establishing qu ality p olicies
and goals, d ep loying those goals to low er levels of the organization, p rovid ing
the resou rces and training that the low er levels need to achieve the goals,
p articip ating in qu ality im p rovem ent team s, review ing p rogress organization-
w id e, recognizing those w ho have p erform ed w ell, and revising the cu rrent
rew ard system to reflect the im p ortance of achieving the qu ality goals.
Com m itm ent is top m anagem ent’s visible, p ersonal involvem ent as seen by
others in the organization.
total q u ality m an agem en t (TQ M )—A term initially coined by the N aval Air
System s Com m and to d escribe its m anagem ent ap p roach to qu ality
im p rovem ent. Total qu ality m anagem ent (TQM) has taken on m any m eanings.
Sim p ly p u t, TQM is a m anagem ent ap p roach to long-term su ccess throu gh
cu stom er satisfaction. TQM is based on the p articip ation of all m em bers of an
organization in im p roving p rocesses, p rod u cts, services, and the cu ltu re they
w ork in. TQM benefits all organization m em bers and society. The m ethod s for
im p lem enting this ap p roach are fou nd in the teachings of su ch qu ality lead ers
as Philip B. Crosby, W. Ed w ard s Dem ing, Arm and V. Feigenbau m , Kaoru
Ishikaw a, J. M. Ju ran, and others.
tree d iagram —A m anagem ent and p lanning tool that show s the com p lete range
of su btasks requ ired to achieve an objective. A p roblem -solving m ethod can be
id entified from this analysis.
tren d an alysis—Refers to the charting of d ata over tim e to id entify a tend ency or
d irection.
typ e 1 error—An incorrect d ecision to reject som ething (su ch as a statistical
hyp othesis or a lot of p rod u cts) w hen it is accep table. Also know n as producer’s
risk and alpha risk.
typ e 2 error—An incorrect d ecision to accep t som ething w hen it is u naccep table.
Also know n as consumer ’s risk and beta risk.
U
u ch art—Cou nt p er u nit chart.
u p p er con trol lim it (UCL)—Control lim it for p oints above the central line in a
control chart.
V
valid ation —Confirm ation by exam ination of objective evid ence that sp ecific
requ irem ents and / or a sp ecified intend ed u se are m et.
valid ity—Refers to the ability of a feed back instru m ent to m easu re w hat it is
intend ed to m easu re.
valu e-ad d ed —Refers to tasks or activities that convert resou rces into p rod u cts or
services consistent w ith cu stom er requ irem ents. The cu stom er can be internal
or external to the organization.
valu e an alysis, valu e en gin eerin g, an d valu e research —Valu e analysis assu m es
that a p rocess, p roced u re, p rod u ct, or service is of no valu e u nless p roven
otherw ise. It assigns a p rice to every step of a p rocess and then com p u tes the
w orth-to-cost ratio of that step . Valu e engineering p oints the w ay to
elim ination and reengineering. Valu e research, related to valu e engineering,
for given featu res of the service/ p rod u ct help s d eterm ine the cu stom ers’
strongest “likes” and “d islikes” and those for w hich cu stom ers are neu tral.
Focu ses attention on strong d islikes and enables id entified “neu trals” to be
consid ered for cost red u ctions.
valu es—Statem ents that clarify the behaviors that the organization exp ects in
ord er to m ove tow ard its vision and m ission. Valu es reflect an organization’s
p ersonality and cu ltu re.
variab le d ata—Data resu lting from the m easu rem ent of a p aram eter or a
variable. Contrast w ith attribute data.
varian ce—The d ifference betw een a p lanned am ou nt (u su ally m oney or tim e)
and the actu al am ou nt. (Math) the m easu re of d isp ersion on observations
based on the m ean of the squ ared d eviations from the arithm etic m ean. The
squ are of the stand ard d eviation, given by form u la.
variation —A change in d ata, a characteristic, or a fu nction that is cau sed by one
of fou r factors: sp ecial cau ses, com m on cau ses, tam p ering, or stru ctu ral
variation (see ind ivid u al entries).
verification —The act of review ing, insp ecting, testing, checking, au d iting, or
otherw ise establishing and d ocu m enting w hether item s, p rocesses, services, or
d ocu m ents conform to sp ecified requ irem ents.
virtu al team —A bou nd aryless team fu nctioning w ithou t a com m only shared
p hysical stru ctu re or p hysical contact, u sing technology to link the team
m em bers.
vision —A statem ent that exp lains w hat the com p any w ants to becom e and w hat
it hop es to achieve.
vital few, u sefu l m an y—A term u sed by J. M. Ju ran to d escribe his u se of the
Pareto p rincip le, w hich he first d efined in 1950. (The p rincip le w as u sed m u ch
earlier in econom ics and inventory control m ethod ologies.) The p rincip le
su ggests that m ost effects com e from relatively few cau ses; that is, 80 p ercent
of the effects com e from 20 p ercent of the p ossible cau ses. The 20 p ercent of
the p ossible cau ses are referred to as the “vital few ”; the rem aining cau ses are
referred to as the “u sefu l m any.” When Ju ran first d efined this p rincip le, he
referred to the rem aining cau ses as the “trivial m any,” bu t realizing that no
p roblem s are trivial in qu ality assu rance, he changed it to “u sefu l m any.”
voice of th e cu stom er—An organization’s efforts to u nd erstand the cu stom ers’
need s and exp ectations (“voice”) and to p rovid e p rod u cts and services that
tru ly m eet su ch need s and exp ectations.
W
w alk th e talk —Means not only talking abou t w hat one believes in bu t also being
observed acting ou t those beliefs. Em p loyees’ bu y-in of the TOM concep t is
m ore likely w hen m anagem ent is seen involved in the p rocess, every d ay.
w aste—Activities that consu m e resou rces bu t ad d no valu e; visible w aste (for
exam p le, scrap , rew ork, d ow ntim e) and invisible w aste (for exam p le,
inefficient setu p s, w ait tim es of p eop le and m achines, inventory).
w ork grou p —A grou p com p osed of p eop le from one fu nctional area w ho w ork
together on a d aily basis and w hose goal is to im p rove the p rocesses of their
fu nction.
w ork in g stan d ard —Stand ard that is u sed rou tinely to calibrate or check m aterial
m easu res, m easu ring instru m ents, or reference m aterials.
X, Y, Z
X-b ar ch art—Average chart.
zero d efects—A p erform ance stand ard p op u larized by Philip B. Crosby to
ad d ress a d u al attitu d e in the w orkp lace: Peop le are w illing to accep t
im p erfection in som e areas, w hereas in other areas, they exp ect the nu m ber of
d efects to be zero. This d u al attitu d e d evelop ed becau se p eop le are hu m an
and hu m ans m ake m istakes. H ow ever, the zero-d efects m ethod ology states
that if p eop le com m it them selves to w atching d etails and avoid ing errors, they
can m ove closer to the goal of zero.
Notes
1. Defined by Ru ssell T. Westcott in The certified manager of quality/organizational excellence
handbook (3rd ed .). (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2006).
2. D. A. Garvin, associate p rofessor of bu siness ad m inistration, H arvard Bu siness
School, in a p ap er p u blished in the Harvard Business Review in 1987.
3. Westcott, The certified manager.
Appendix D
Ad d ition al Read in g
T
he follow ing p ages list ad d itional resou rces for read ers w ishing to gain m ore
know led ge abou t m any of the top ics covered in this hand book. The books
have been selected from the hu nd red s of books available. In no w ay is it im -
p lied that any of the books on this list are requ ired read ing.
Note: Many of the cited texts are available throu gh ASQ. Call 1-800-248-1946 to
requ est a cu rrent catalog, or visit its online store at http :// qu alityp ress.asq.org.
Basic Reference Material

ASQ. Certified quality improvement associate (brochu re). (Milw au kee: ASQ).
Dem ing, W. Ed w ard s. Out of the crisis. (Cam brid ge, MA: MIT Center for Ad vanced
Engineering Stu d y, 1986).
Evans, Jam es R., and William M. Lind say. The management and control of quality (6th ed .).
(Cincinnati, OH : Sou th-Western College Pu blishing, 2005).
Ju ran, Josep h M., and A. Blanton God frey, ed s. Juran’s quality handbook (5th ed .). (N ew
York: McGraw -H ill, 1999).
Scholtes, Peter R. The team handbook (2nd ed ., rev.). (Mad ison, WI: Joiner Associates, 1996).
Assessments and Auditing

Arter, Dennis R. Quality audits for improved performance (3rd ed .). (Milw au kee: ASQ Qu ality
Press, 2003).
Ru ssell, J. P., ed . The ASQ auditing handbook (3rd ed .). (Milw au kee: ASQ Qu ality Press,
2006).
———. Continual improvement assessment guide: Promoting and sustaining business results.
207
208 Appendix D: Additional Reading
Baldrige Award
Blaze, Mark L. Insights to performance excellence 2006: An inside look at the 2006 Baldrige
Award criteria. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2006).
N IST. Baldrige National Quality Program: Criteria for performance excellence. (Criteria for:
Bu siness, H ealth Care, or Ed u cation). Bald rige N ational Qu ality Program , N ational
Institu te of Stand ard s and Technology, Technology Ad m inistration, United States
Dep artm ent of Com m erce, Ad m inistration Bu ild ing, Room A600, 100 Bu reau Drive,
Stop 1020, Gaithersbu rg, MD 20899-1020. Telep hone: 301-975-2036, Fax: 301-948-3716,
e-m ail: nqp@nist.gov, Web site: http://www.baldrige.nist.gov. One cop y of the criteria
ap p rop riate to you r organization is available free.
Benchmarking
Cam p , Robert C. Business process benchmarking: Finding and implementing best practices.
(Milw au kee: ASQ Qu ality Press, 1995).
Sp end olini, Michael J. The benchmarking book. (N ew York: Am acom , 1992).
Certification—ASQ
Benbow, Donald W., and T. M. Ku biak. The certified Six Sigma Black Belt handbook.
Benbow, Donald W., Roger W. Berger, Ahm ad K. Elshennaw y, and H . Fred Walker, ed s.
The certified quality engineer handbook. (Milw au kee: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2001).
———. The certified quality technician handbook. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2003).
Dau ghtrey, Taz, ed . Fundamental concepts for the software quality engineer. (Milw au kee: ASQ
Qu ality Press, 2002).
Continuous and Breakthrough Improvement

And ersen, Bjo/ rn. Business process improvement toolbox. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press,
1999).
And ersen, Bjo/ rn, and Tom Fagerhau g. Root cause analysis: Simplified tools and techniques.
(2nd ed .) (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2006).
ASQ Statistics Division. Improving performance through statistical thinking. (Milw au kee, WI:
ASQ Qu ality Press, 2000).
Brassard , Michael, and Diane Ritter. Memory jogger II. (Methu en, MA: GOAL/ QPC, 1994).
Dettm er, H . William . Goldratt’s theory of constraints: A systems approach to continuous
improvement. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 1997).
Escoe, Ad rienne. The practical guide to people-friendly documentation. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ
Gallow ay, Dianne. Mapping work processes. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 1994).
GOAL/ QPC. The problem solving memory jogger. (Metheu n, MA: GOAL/ QPC, 2000).
Gold ratt, Eliyahu M., and Jeff Cox. The goal (2nd ed ., rev.). (Croton-on-H u d son, N Y: N orth
River Press, 1992).
H arry, Mikel, and Richard Schroed er. Six Sigma: The breakthrough management strategy
revolutionizing the world’s top corporations. (N ew York: Cu rrency, 2000).
H u tton, David W. From Baldrige to the bottom line: A road map for organizational change and
improvement. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2000).
Im ai, Masaaki. Kaizen: The key to Japan’s competitive success. (N ew York: Rand om H ou se,
1986).
N KS/ Factory Magazine, ed . Poka-yoke: Improving product quality by preventing defects.
(Cam brid ge, MA: Prod u ctivity Press, 1989).
Appendix D: Addit ional Reading 209
ReVelle, Jack B. Quality essentials: A reference guide from a to z. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ
ReVelle, Jack B., ed . Manufacturing handbook of best practices: An innovation, productivity, and
quality focus. (Boca Raton, FL: St. Lu cie Press, 2002).
Ritter, Diane, and Michael Brassard . The creativity tools memory jogger. (Methu en, MA:
GOAL/ QPC, 1998).
Siebels, Don. The quality improvement glossary. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2004).
Tagu e, N ancy R. The quality toolbox (2nd ed .). (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2005).
Wom ack, Jam es P., and Daniel T. Jones. Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your
corporation. (N ew York: Sim on & Schu ster, 1996).
Customers
Gale, Brad ley T. Managing customer value. (N ew York: The Free Press, 1994).
Good m an, Gary S. Monitoring, measuring, and managing customer service. (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 2000).
Kessler, Sheila. Measuring and managing customer satisfaction: Going for the gold. (Milw au kee,
N au m ann, Earl, and Steven H . H oisington. Customer-centered Six Sigma: Linking customers,
process improvement, and financial results. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2001).
Education
Alexand er, William F., and Richard W. Seriass. Futuring tools for strategic quality planning in
education. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 1999).
ASQ. Successful applications of quality systems in K–12 schools. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality
Ed u cation Foru m / Division, 2003).
Jenkins, Lee. Improving student learning: Applying Deming’s quality principles in the classroom
(2nd ed ). (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2003).
Healthcare—Medical
Am erican College of Med ical Qu ality. Core curriculum for medical quality management.
(Su d bu ry, MA: Jones and Bartlett Pu blishers, 2005).
H arnack, Gord on. Mastering and managing the FDA maze: Medical device overview.
McLau ghlin, Cu rtis P., and Arnold D. Kalu zny. Continuous quality improvement in health
care: Theory implementation and applications (2nd ed .). (N ew York: Asp en Pu blishers,
1999).
Ransom , Scott B., Mau lik Joshi, and David N ash. The healthcare quality book: Vision, strategy,
and tools. (Chicago, IL: H ealth Ad m inistration Press, 2005).
ISO 9000
ASQ. ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9000-2000 Quality management systems—fundamentals and
vocabulary. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ, 2000).
ASQ. ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9001-2000 Quality management systems—requirements. (Milw au kee,
WI: ASQ, 2000).
ASQ. ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9004-2000 Quality management systems—guidelines for performance
improvements. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ, 2000).
ASQ Chem ical and Process Ind u stries Division. ISO 9001:2000 Guidelines for the chemical
and process industries (3rd ed .). (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2002).
Cianfrani, Charles, Josep h J. Tsiakals, and John E. West. The ASQ ISO 9000-2000 handbook.
GOAL/ QPC. Memory jogger 9000/2000. (Methu en, MA: GOAL/ QPC, 2000).
Levinson, William A. ISO 9000 at the front line. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2000).
Monnich, H erbert C., Jr. ISO 9001:2000 for small and medium-sized businesses. (Milw au kee,
West, John E., and Charles A. Cianfrani. Unlocking the power of your QMS: Keys to business
performance improvement. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2005).
Westcott, Ru ssell T. Stepping up to ISO 9004:2000. (Chico, CA: Paton Press, 2003).
Leadership and Management—General

And ersen, Bjo/ rn. Bringing business ethics to life: Achieving corporate social responsibility.
Barker, Tom . Leadership for results: Removing barriers to success for people, projects, and
processes. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 2006).
Bellm an, Geoffrey. Getting things done when you are not in charge. (San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler Pu blisher, 2001).
Cartin, Thom as J. Principles and practices of organizational performance excellence.
H arris, Philip R., and Robert T. Moran. Managing cultural differences: Leadership strategies for
a new world of business. (H ou ston, TX: Gu lf Pu blishing, 2000).
Miller, Ken. The change agent’s guide to radical improvement. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality
Press, 2002).
Project Management
Fram e, J. David son. The new project management (2nd ed .). (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
2002).
Greer, Michael. Manager’s pocket guide to project management. (Am herst, MA: H RD Press,
1999).
H arrington, H . Jam es, and Tom McN ellis. The e-business project manager. (N ew York:
Kezsbom , Deborah S., and Katherine A. Ed w ard . The new dynamic project management:
Winning through the competitive advantage. (N ew York: John Wiley & Sons, 2001).
Lew is, Jam es P. Project planning, scheduling and control (3rd ed .). (N ew York: McGraw -H ill,
2001).
Low enthal, Jeffrey N . Six Sigma project management: A pocket guide. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ
Thom sett, Michael C. The little black book of project management (2nd ed .). (N ew York:
AMACOM, 2002).
Westcott, Ru ssell T. Simplified project management for the quality professional. (Milw au kee,
Quality Costs
ASQ Qu ality Costs Com m ittee, Jack Cam p anella, ed . Principles of quality costs (3rd ed .).
Atkinson, H aw ley, John H am bu rg, and Christop her Ittner. Linking quality to profits.
Software Quality
Dau ghtrey, Taz, ed . Fundamental concepts for the software engineer. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ
Appendix D: Addit ional Reading 211
Statistics
ASQ Statistics Division. Improving performance through statistical thinking. (Milw au kee, WI:
ASQ Qu ality Press, 2000).
Crossley, Mark L. The desk reference of statistical quality methods. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ
Roberts, Lon. SPC for right-brain thinkers: Process control for non-statisticians. (Milw au kee,
Strategic Management
Chang, Richard Y., and Mark W. Morgan. Performance scorecards: Measuring the right things
in the real world. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000).
Cow ley, Michael, and Ellen Dom b. Beyond strategic vision: Effective corporate action with
hoshin planning. (Boston, MA: Bu tterw orth-H einem ann, 1997).
H aines, Step hen G. Manager’s pocket guide to strategic and business planning. (Am herst, MA:
H RD Press, 1999).
Kap lan, Robert S., and David P. N orton. Balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action.
(Boston, MA: H arvard Bu siness School Press, 1996).
Supplier Quality
Bossert, Jam es L., ed . The supplier management handbook (6th ed .). (Milw au kee, WI: ASA
H oover, Bill, Eero Eloranta, Kati H u ttu nen, and Jan H olm strom . Managing the demand
chain: Value innovations for supplier excellence. (N ew York: John Wiley & Sons, 2001).
Teams
Bens, Ingrid . Facilitation at a glance! (Methu en, MA: GOAL/ QPC, 1999).
GOAL/ QPC-Joiner. The team memory jogger. (Methu en, MA: GOAL/ QPC, 1995).
Total Quality Management

ASQ Food , Dru g, and Cosm etic Division. Food process industry quality system guidelines.
Berk, Josep h, and Su san Berk. Quality management for the technology sector. (N ew nes:
Bu tterw orth-H einem ann, 2000).
Besterfield , Dale H . Quality control (6th ed .). (N ew York: Prentice-H all, 2000).
Crosby, Philip B. Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. (N ew York: McGraw -H ill,
1979).
Dem ing, W. Ed w ard s. The new economics: For industry, government, and education.
(Massachu setts Institu te of Technology, 1994).
Dobyns, Lloyd , and Clare Craw ford -Mason. Quality or else: The revolution in world business.
(Boston, MA: H ou ghton-Mifflin Com p any, 1991).
Feigenbau m , Arm and V. Total quality control (3rd ed .). (N ew York: McGraw -H ill, 1991).
Gryna, Frank, Richard C. H . Chu a, and Josep h A. DeFeo. Quality planning and analysis for
enterprise quality (5th ed .). (N ew York: McGraw -H ill, 2007).
H u tton, David W. The change agents’ handbook: A survival guide for quality improvement
champions. (Milw au kee, WI: ASQ Qu ality Press, 1994).
Ishikaw a, Kaoru . Guide to quality control. (White Plains, N Y: Qu ality Resou rces, 1986).
Ju ran, J. M. Juran on leadership for quality: An executive handbook. (N ew York: The Free Press,
1989).
———. Juran on planning for quality. (N ew York: The Free Press, 1988).
———. Juran on quality by design: The new steps for planning quality into goods and services.
(N ew York: The Free Press, 1992).
Index
A chance causes, 12
check sheet, 118–119
ACSI, 18
coaching, 53–54
action plan, 104, 105–106
comm on cause variation, 12
action planning, 6 comp etitive benchm arking, 114
active listening, 64
complaints
affinity d iagram , 110–111, 112
custom er, 157
agend a, 66 supplier, 165
alignm ent w ith organization strategy, 46
comp lex problem s, 100
Am erican custom er satisfaction ind ex (ACSI), 18 conflict, 63–65
ANSI/ ISO/ ASQ Q9000-2000 quality m anagem ent consensus, 67, 119–120
system s principles, 5
consultative decision-m aking style, 67
ap praisal costs, 123 consum ers/ end users, 151–152
Aristotle, 1
continuous qu ality im provement (CQI), 120
arrow diagram , 111–112, 113
control chart, 93, 120–122
assignable cau ses, 12 cost of quality, 26, 122–124
au dit, 112–113
CQI, 120
Aurelius, Marcus, 1
CRM, 156
Crosby, Philip B., 25–27, 124
B Crosby’s 14 steps to quality im provem ent, 26–27
Baldrige, Malcolm , 32–36 Crosby’s four absolutes of quality m anagem ent, 27
Baldrige National Quality Program , 3–5, 32–36 cross-functional team , 43–44
basic process im provem ent m odel, 82–83. See also custom er, 149–162
PDCA/ PDSA cycle external, 151–155
Bean, Leon Leonwood , 149 feedback, 156–162
benchm arking, 114–115 im proving relationship s, 166
benefits of quality, 16–20 internal, 150–151
com m unity, 19 quality, and , 18
custom ers, 18 voice of cu stom er deployed , 155
em ployees, 16–17 custom er comp laints, 157
organization, 17–18 custom er feedback, 156–162
society, 19–20 custom er relationship m anagem ent (CRM), 156
su ppliers, 18–19 custom er retention, 160–161
Berra, Yogi, 71 custom er satisfaction, 18, 160
blanket order, 153 custom er survey, 157–158
brainstorm ing, 115–116
breaking a set, 102 D
breakthrough, 75
deadly d iseases, 22
breakthrough im provem ent, 75–78
decision m aking, 66–68, 108
Building on Baldridge: American Quality for the 21st
decision-m aking p rocess, 67
Century, 33
decision-m aking styles, 67
business processes, 10
delegation, 67
Dem ing, W. Ed w ard s, 15, 21–23, 109, 120
C
Dem ing chain reaction, 22, 23
Carlzon, Jan, 159 Dem ing cycle, 22. See also PDCA/ PDSA cycle
cause-and -effect d iagram , 116–118 Dem ing’s system of profound knowledge, 22
certification and supplier rating, 166 deploym ent flow chart, 128
chain reaction philosop hy, 22, 23 design of experim ents (DOE), 124–125
213
214 Index
Design of Experiments (Taguchi), 29–30 im provem ent team , 42–43

DiSC profiling instrum ent, 60 im provem ent tools, 109–148
d iscount buyer, 152 affinity d iagram , 110–111, 112
d istributor, 152–153 arrow d iagram , 111–112, 113
d o it right the first tim e, 27 aud it, 112–113
DOE, 124–125 benchmarking, 114–115
d ow ntim e, 78 brainstorm ing, 115–116
Drucker, Peter E., 102 cause-and -effect d iagram , 116–118
check sheet, 118–119
E consensus, 119–120
control chart, 120–122
Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product
(Shew hart), 31 cost of quality, 122–124
EDI, 159 CQI, 120
DOE, 124–125
80/ 20 ru le, 136
85/ 15 ru le, 13 FFA, 129–130
electronic d ata interchange (EDI), 159 five w hys, 125
flowchart, 125–129
em ployee bu yer, 152
em ployee involvem ent, 8 focus group, 129
em ployees, 8–9, 16–17 Gantt chart, 130–131
histogram , 131–133
em pow erm ent, 8
engineering changes, 79 matrix analysis, 133–134
matrix d iagram , 134
external cu stom er, 151–155
external failure costs, 123–124 mu ltivoting, 134–135
external suppliers, 163–164 NGT, 135
Pareto chart, 135–137
F PDCA/ PDSA cycle, 137. See also PDCA/ PDSA
cycle
fact-finding, 68 PDPC, 137–138
feasibility analysis, 103 poka-yoke, 137
feed back, 11 QFD, 138–139
Feigenbaum , Arm and V., 27–28 reference materials, 147
FFA, 129–130 relations d iagram, 139–140
fishbone diagram , 116 resou rce allocation m atrix, 140, 141
Fisher, R. A., 29 ru n chart, 140–143
five w hys, 125 scatter d iagram , 143–145
fixing a problem , 100 stratification, 145
flow chart, 90–91, 125–129 TQM, 145
flow chart symbols, 127 tree diagram , 146–147
focu s group, 129, 155 Improving Performance through Statistical
force-field analysis (FFA), 129–130 Thinking, 147
form ing stage of team d evelopm ent, 61–62 increm ental improvem ent, 73–74
free-form brainstorm ing, 115 inefficient setu ps, 78
fu nctional benchm arking, 114 interm ediate customers, 152–153
internal custom er, 150–151
G internal failure costs, 123
Gantt chart, 130–131 internal sup pliers, 162–163
Goizueta, Roberto, 71 international workshop agreem ent (IWA), 38
groupthink, 65 interrelationship d igraph, 139–140
Guide to Quality Control (Ishikawa), 29 inventory, 78
invisible w aste, 78–79
H Ishikaw a, Kaoru, 28–29, 109, 116
Ishikaw a diagram , 116
H arari, Ow en, 166 ISO 9000 series, 36–38
H arrington, H . James, 71
ISO 9001 stand ard, 36–37
hid d en agend as, 66 ISO 9000:2000 fam ily of quality managem ent
histogram, 94, 131–133 system standard s, 5
ISO 9000:2000, Quality management systems -
I
Fundamentals and vocabulary, 36
Im ai, Masaaki, 71 ISO 9001:2000, Quality management systems -
imp rovem ent cycle, 80. See also PDCA/ PDSA cycle Requirements, 36
Index 215
ISO 9004:2000, Quality management systems - Out of the Crisis (Dem ing), 21, 22
Guidelines for performance improvements, 36 overproduction, 78–79
IWA, 38
J P
job enlargem ent, 8–9 Pareto, Vilfred o, 136

job enrichment, 8–9 Pareto chart, 135–137
PDCA/ PDSA cycle, 81–99
Ju ng, Carl, 60
Ju ran, Joseph M., 23–25, 136 step 1 (select process), 86–89
step 2 (team ), 88–90
Juran Quality Control Handbook, 24, 25
step 3 (flowchart), 90–91
K step 5 (d ata collection plan/ collect baseline
data), 92–93
kaizen, 73 step 4 (sim plify process/ m ake changes), 91–92
kaizen blitz, 73 step 6 (process - stable?), 93–94
Kano, N oriaki, 161 step 7 (process - capable?), 94–95
Kano m od el, 161, 162 step 8 (causes of lack of capability), 95
KESAA factors analysis, 60 step 9 (plan to im plem ent change), 95–96
Kipling, Rud yard , 103 step 10 (m od ify d ata collection plan), 96
know led ge/ skill vs. performance issues, 107 step 11 (test change/ collect d ata), 96–97
step 12 (m od ified process - stable?), 97
L step 13 (d id process im prove?), 97–98
LCL, 121 step 14 (stand ard ize process/ redu ce frequency
of data collection), 98–99
listening posts, 159
logistics, 65 steps in process, 85–86
lost-custom er analysis, 159 PDPC, 137–138
people perform ance p roblem s, 104, 107
low er control lim it (LCL), 121
perform ance benchm arking, 114
M perform ing stage of team developm ent, 62–63
philosophy, 20. See also qu ality philosophy
Malcolm Bald rige National Qu ality Award , 3–5, PIT, 42–43
32–36 plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, 84. See also PDCA/ PDSA
Management by Total Results (Tagu chi), 30 cycle
m anagers, 8 Planning for Quality, 24
Marston, William , 60 poka-yoke, 137
m atrix analysis, 133–134 prevention costs, 123
m atrix d iagram , 134 Principles of Quality Costs (Cam panella), 147
MBTI, 60 proactive consultative decision-m aking style, 67
m easles chart, 118 problem -solving, 100–108
m eetings, 79 benefits of, 107
Memory Jogger II, 147 decision m aking, contrasted , 108
m ovem ent of m aterial, 78 step 1 (problem d efinition), 102–103
m ultivoting, 134–135 step 2 (root cause), 103
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), 60 step 3 (possible solutions), 103
step 4 (select best solution), 103–104
N step 5 (action p lan), 104, 105–106
natural team , 42 step 6 (im plem ent solution), 104
New Economics for Industry, Government, and step 7 (evaluate results), 104
steps in process, 101
Education, The (Dem ing), 22
nom inal grou p technique (NGT), 135 process, 9, 10
norm ing stage of team d evelop ment, 62 process approach, 11
process approach to m anagement, 9–10
O process benchm arking, 114
process d ecision program chart (PDPC), 137–138
one-at-a-tim e brainstorm ing, 115 process d ocum entation, 10
one-to-one m arketing, 156 process flow chart, 128
Opel, John R., 15 process im provem ent, 80–84. See also PDCA/ PDSA
operational planning, 6 cycle
organization buyer, 152 process im provem ent objective, 87
out-of-spec incom ing m aterial, 78 process im provem ent team (PIT), 42–43
216 Index
process managem ent, 9 service u ser, 152

process reengineering, 72, 75 setu p inefficiencies, 78
prod uct rework, 78 Shepherd , Mark, 39
prod uct/ service d evelopm ent processes, 10 Shew hart, Walter A., 29, 30–31, 109, 120
prod uct/ service prod uction processes, 10 Shingo, Shigeo, 137
prod uct warranty registration card s, 157 silent brainstorm ing, 115
project planning, 6 SIPOC analysis, 11–12
project team , 44 SIPOC diagram , 11
6 Rs of team leadership, 52–54
Q SLA, 163
S.M.A.R.T. W.A.Y., 87
QFD, 138–139, 155
solving problem s, 100–108. See also
qu ality, 2–5. See also benefits of quality
problem –solving
qu ality aud it, 112
SPC, 13
qu ality circle, 28
special cause variation, 12
qu ality control, 28
stages of team developm ent, 61–63
qu ality function d eploym ent (QFD), 138–139, 155
standalone team , 60
Quality Is Free (Crosby), 26
Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality
qu ality loss, 30
Control (Shew hart), 31
qu ality loss function, 30
statistical p rocess control (SPC), 13
qu ality m anagem ent principle, 5
storm ing stage of team d evelopm ent, 62
qu ality m anagem ent system mod els, 3–5, 32–38
strategic benchm arking, 114
qu ality philosophy, 20–31
strategic planning, 6
Crosby, Philip B., 25–27
stratification, 145
d efined , 20
stru ctured brainstorm ing, 115
Dem ing, W. Ed w ard s, 21–23
supplier com plaints, 165
Feigenbaum , Arm and V., 27–28
supplier feed back, 164–166
Ishikawa, Kaoru , 28–29
suppliers, 162–166
Ju ran, Joseph M., 23–25
external, 163–164
Shew hart, Walter A., 30–31
feedback, 164–166
Tagu chi, Genichi, 29–30
im proving relationship s, 166
qu ality planning, 6–7
internal, 162–163
qu ality trilogy, 25
quality, and , 18–19
Quality Without Tears (Crosby), 26
system , 9
qu eue times, 78
system cau ses, 12
system of processes, 11
R
system of profound knowledge, 22
reality check, 103 system s and processes, 9–12
relations d iagram , 139–140
relationship marketing, 156 T
reliable process, 13
tactical planning, 6
resource allocation m atrix, 140, 141
Taguchi, Genichi, 29–30
retail buyer of prod ucts, 151
tam pering, 12–13
retail chain buyer, 153
Tannenbaum , R., 64
reversing the p roblem , 102
team, 39–69
risk analysis, 104
autonom ous vs. ad junct, 60
round-robin brainstorm ing, 115
barriers to su ccess, 63–66
run chart, 93, 140–143
charter, 90
conflict, 63–65
S
decision m aking, 66–68
scatter d iagram , 143–145 defined, 40–41
Schmid t, W., 64 discretion, 41–42
scrap, 78 effectiveness/ success, 55–56
second -party aud it, 113 formation of, 57–61
self-d irected team , 45 group think, 65
service buyer, 152 lead er, 52–54
service-level agreem ent (SLA), 163 meetings, 51–52
service provider, 154 PDCA/ PDSA cycle, 88–90
Index 217
perils/ pitfalls, 54–55 unneed ed reports, 79

purpose/ m ission, 46 unstru ctured brainstorm ing, 115
roles/ responsibilities, 47–50 upper control lim it (UCL), 121
selecting m embers, 58–61
size, 51 V
stages of d evelopm ent, 61–63
variation, 12–13
training, 66
vend ors. See Suppliers
types, 42–45
virtual team , 45
w hen initiated , 41
visible w aste, 78
team barriers, 63–66
voice of custom er deployed , 155
team charter, 90
volum e buyers, 153–154
team form ation, 57–61
voting (decision-m aking style), 67
team lead er, 52–54
team m eeting, 51–52
W
team size, 51
team stages, 61–63 wait tim e, 78
Thatcher, Margaret, 1 Walton, Sam , 149
third -party assessm ent, 113 waste, 78–79
Thom as-Kilm ann Conflict Mod e Instrum ent, 64 What is Total Quality Control: The Japanese Way
tools, 109. See also im provement tools (Ishikaw a), 29
top-down d ecision-making style, 67 wholesale buyer, 152–153
Total Quality Control (Feigenbau m ), 27 write-it-d ow n brainstorm ing, 115
total quality managem ent (TQM), 145
TQM, 145 Z
tree diagram , 146–147
zero d efects, 27
U
UCL, 121
unnecessary m otion, 78
Appendix E.1
Q u ality Im p rovem en t Associate
Sam p le Test
Directions: Each of the qu estions or incom p lete statem ents below is follow ed by
fou r su ggested answ ers or com p letions. Select the one that is best in each case.
1. A com p any that strives to red u ce toxic em issions from its vehicles is
d irectly ad d ressing the need s of w hich cu stom er grou p ? (2001.I028)
a. su p p liers
b. cred itors
c. com m u nity
d . sharehold ers
2. A call center has recently im p lem ented self-m anaged team s am ong its
cu stom er service rep resentatives (CSRs). The op erations m anager m u st set
a coverage sched u le for the CSRs for the u p com ing Mem orial Day
w eekend . Which of the follow ing is the m ost ap p rop riate ap p roach for the
op erations m anager to take? (2001.I030)
a. Facilitate a brainstorm ing m eeting w ith the CSRs to id entify the m ost
effective sched u le.
b. Create a d raft w eekend sched u le and rou te to the CSRs for review and
consensu s.
c. Call a m eeting of her p eer call center m anagers to create a m u tu ally
accep table sched u le.
d . Exp lain the criteria for coverage to the team and ask them to establish a
sched u le.
1
2 Appendix E.1: Quality Improvement Associate Sample Test
3. Dem ing observed that higher levels of ________ lead to higher levels of
______. (2001.I002)
a. costs, qu ality
b. qu ality, p rod u ctivity
c. m arket share, p rofits
d . qu ality, inventory
4. When a system is affected only by com m on cau se variation, that system :
(2001.I006)
a. is op tim ized .
b. is affected by external sou rces.
c. m eets a cu stom er ’s qu ality sp ecifications.
d . is stable.
5. A ru n chart is a line grap h in w hich the vertical axis rep resents the _______
and the horizontal axis rep resents the ________. (2001.I039)
a. tim e scale, m easu rem ent
b. cau se, effect
c. frequ ency, tim e scale
d . m easu rem ent, tim e scale
Qu estions 6 and 7 refer to the follow ing situ ation: The team lead er for an im p rove-
m ent team charged w ith u p grad ing the version of sp read sheet softw are in her com -
p any d ivision has been told by p u rchasing that a bu d get freeze has ju st been
im p lem ented and no p u rchase ord ers can be issu ed u ntil the new fiscal year.
6. To w hich of the follow ing shou ld the team lead er sp eak to free u p financial
resou rces for the requ ired softw are u p grad es? (2001.I062)
a. team facilitator
b. p roject sp onsor
c. d ep artm ent m anager
d . p u rchasing d irector
7. If resou rces cannot be fou nd to p u rchase the softw are u p grad es in a tim ely
fashion, w hat tool shou ld the team u se to help id entify alternate p roject
solu tions? (2001.I088)
a. cau se-and -effect d iagram
b. PERT chart
c. force-field analysis
d . brainstorm ing
Appendix E.1: Qual it y Impr ovement Associat e Sampl e Test 3
8. In w hich of the follow ing environm ents is the ap p lication of qu ality

p rincip les m ost im p ortant? (2006.I011)
a. w ithin the d esign and d evelop m ent fu nctions of a m anu factu ring
organization
b. as p art of the cu stom er service fu nction of a call center
c. throu ghou t the entire organization, irresp ective of ind u stry
d . am ong all m em bers of the su p p lier–cu stom er d istribu tion chain
9. Which of the follow ing is a step in Dem ing’s chain reaction? (2006.I053)
a. red efine the p roblem
b. stay in bu siness
c. zero d efects
d . involve senior m anagem ent
10. One of the things a team lead er shou ld d o in a team ’s first m eeting is:
(2001.I044)
a. Set p roject d ead lines and rep orting.
b. Train team m em bers on qu ality tools.
c. Flow chart the organizational p rocess.
d . Develop and d iscu ss a w ork p lan.
11. The benefits of effective qu ality m anagem ent p ractices are visible in:
(2001.I017)
a. op erational im p rovem ents bu t not financial im p rovem ents.
b. financial im p rovem ents bu t not op erational im p rovem ents.
c. both op erational and financial im p rovem ents.
d . neither op erational nor financial im p rovem ents.
12. Crosby consid ers the cost of qu ality to be: (2001.I007)
a. an exp ense of nonconform ance.
b. external costs.
c. an u nknow able valu e.
d . ap p raisal.
13. Disney World m anagem ent asking how Disney World cou ld im p rove
attend ees’ exp erience w ou ld be an exam p le of: (2006.I018)
a. com p laint m anagem ent.
b. su p p lier selection.
c. cu stom er research.
d . p rocess d esign.
14. Final insp ection and test is consid ered to be in w hich cost-of-qu ality
category? (2001.I019)
a. p revention
b. internal failu re
c. w arranty service
d . ap p raisal
15. The Dem ing cycle is based on the p rem ise that im p rovem ent com es from :
(2006.I037)
a. the d evelop m ent of know led ge.
b. red u cing the cost of qu ality.
c. the accu m u lation of d ata.
d . clearly d efined nu m erical p erform ance goals.
16. Which of the follow ing is a techniqu e for gathering and organizing large
nu m bers of id eas or facts? (2001.I026)
a. scatter p lot
b. com m ent card
c. focu s d iagram
d . affinity d iagram
17. Com p laining abou t the organization and observing barriers to the
assigned task are a sym p tom of the _____ stage of team grow th.
(2001.I047)
a. storm ing
b. p erform ing
c. form ing
d . norm ing
18. A d octor p rescribes a generic d ru g at a cost of $15.00 instead of the
p op u lar brand -nam e d ru g that sells for $30.00. The p hysician feels that
there is no d ifference in qu ality betw een the generic and brand -nam e d ru g.
This choice illu strates w hich of the follow ing d efinitions of qu ality?
(2001.I012)
a. u ser-based
b. m anu factu ring-based
c. p rod u ct-based
d . valu e-based
19. Which of the follow ing ap p roaches to exp laining the benefits of qu ality is
m ost attractive to execu tive m anagem ent? (2001.I054)
a. the Dem ing Cycle
b. reengineering
c. cost of qu ality
d . statistical p rocess control
20. A qu ality circle (QC) has been m eeting for one hou r every w eek for the
p ast seven m onths. Managem ent is now d ictating that the QC shou ld be
d iscontinu ed becau se nothing tangible has resu lted . What is the m ost
likely m ajor cau se of the ap p arent lack of resu lts? (2001.I029)
a. Attend ance at the m eetings is sp otty.
b. The QC has been bogged d ow n in attem p ting to resolve a p ersonnel
issu e w ithin its w ork u nit.
c. Until now, m anagem ent has taken no interest in w hat the QC has been
d oing.
d . The su p ervisor, acting as the team lead er, has d ifficu lty keep ing the
team focu sed on the p roblem at hand .
21. A p roject w ith a su p p lier to cod evelop a new end u ser p rod u ct is an
exam p le of: (2006.I023)
a. an internal alliance.
b. a third -p arty au d it.
c. an external p artnership .
d . cu stom er satisfaction.
22. An organization searching for ind u stry’s best p ractices lead ing to su p erior
p erform ance is engaged in w hich of the follow ing activities? (2001.I032)
a. kaizen
b. statistical p rocess control
c. cu stom er–su p p lier review s
d . benchm arking
23. Which of the follow ing is an effective assessm ent tool for su p p lier
p erform ance? (2006.I077)
a. cu stom er focu s grou p s
b. w arranty retu rns from end u sers
c. su p p lier qu ality m anu al
d . su p p ly chain cost red u ction
24. Flow charts are m ost effectively d evelop ed by: (2001.I034)

a. ou tsid e consu ltants w ithou t com p any bias.
b. u p p er m anagem ent resp onsible for the p rocess.
c. ind u strial engineers w ith training in grap hics.
d . p eop le involved in the p rocess being stu d ied .
25. The w ritings of W. Ed w ard s Dem ing focu s on im p rovem ents in p rod u ct
and service qu ality by: (2001.I001)
a. 100 p ercent insp ection.
b. id entifying cu stom er requ irem ents.
c. red u cing u ncertainty and variability.
d . sep arating the p lanning and execu tion fu nctions of m anagem ent.
26. Prod u ction is the p rocess of converting available resou rces into:
(2001.I014)
a. w ork-in-p rocess inventory.
b. good s and services.
c. raw m aterials.
d . ship p ing ord ers.
27. In the sp ecification: “0.514 p lu s or m inu s 0.037,” the “p lu s or m inu s 0.037”
is referred to as the: (2001.I036)
a. tolerance.
b. nom inal.
c. range.
d . goal.
28. The Kano m od el su ggests three classes of cu stom er requ irem ents. They
are: (2001.I024)
a. satisfiers, d issatisfiers, and exciters/ d elighters.
b. p ositives, hygiene factors, and negatives.
c. voice of the cu stom er, focu s grou p s, and QFD.
d . m om ents of tru th, d irect su rveys, and com p laint m anagem ent.
29. A team lead er m ay need to intervene in a conflict if team m em bers cannot
m anage it them selves. Which of the follow ing w ou ld be a recom m end ed
tactic for conflict intervention? (2006.I099)
a. d elegate the resolu tion to a p eer team m em ber
b. clearly take the sid e of one m em ber
c. m anage the tim e for d iscu ssion of the conflict
d . ignore the conflict by changing the su bject
30. Dem ing u sed his “chain reaction” of qu ality w ith the Jap anese to illu strate
w hich of the follow ing concep ts? (2001.I005)
a. team w ork
b. globalization
c. p rod u ctivity
d . cost of qu ality
31. The p erson w ho u su ally cond u cts team training on brainstorm ing and
p roblem -solving tools is the team : (2001.I060)
a. facilitator.
b. sp onsor.
c. lead er.
d . cham p ion.
32. Which of the follow ing tools is m ost u sefu l for view ing the frequ ency or
nu m ber of observations of a sp ecific set of d ata? (2006.I040)
b. histogram
c. fishbone d iagram
d . scatter d iagram
33. In reference to p rocess m anagem ent, rem oving the cau ses of an abnorm al
cond ition refers to _____ , w hereas ______ m eans changing the
p erform ance to a new level. (2001.I033)
a. p erform ance, innovation
b. control, im p rovem ent
c. insp ection, innovation
d . variation, breakthrou gh
34. Which of the follow ing is a grap hical com p onent of regression analysis?
(2001.I041)
a. qu ality fu nction d ep loym ent
b. scatter d iagram
c. stand ard d eviation
d . interrelationship d igrap h
35. Which of the follow ing is the m ost effective w ay to choose p roject team
m em bers? (2001.I070)
a. Select all em p loyees w ho can contribu te som ething w orthw hile to the
im p rovem ent p roject.
b. Inclu d e only sp ecialists w ho are exp erienced in d etails sp ecific to the
p roject being initiated .
c. Assign a com bination of senior-level m anagem ent and op erations
p ersonnel to ensu re top m anagem ent com m itm ent.
d . Inclu d e a sm all nu m ber of em p loyees chosen from each area and
w orker level affected by the im p rovem ent.
36. Which of the follow ing is an exam p le of qu ality as d efined by Philip B.
Crosby? (2001.I004)
a. Prod u cing the very best p rod u ct or service p ossible consid ering
available technology.
b. Consistently p rovid ing a p rod u ct or service w ithin the m easu rem ents
of p rocess cap ability.
c. Provid ing a p rod u ct or service w ith the fu ll sp ectru m of ap p licable
featu res for that ind u stry.
d . Delivering a p rod u ct or service that exactly m eets the requ irem ents
sp ecified .
37. Which of the follow ing is tru e regard ing control charts? (2006.I042)
a. Control charts can be u sed to m onitor a p rocess for the existence of
com m on cau se variation.
b. The m ajor com p onents of a control chart are the low er sp ec lim its, the
centerline, and the u p p er sp ec lim its.
c. Control charts are sim ilar to ru n charts to w hich tw o horizontal lines
have been ad d ed .
d . Control charts alone can d eterm ine the sou rce of p roblem s.
Qu estions (38) and (39) refer to the follow ing situ ation:
The team m em bers of the “Winner ’s Circle” im p rovem ent team are p rou d of their
new team lead er, Carol. Carol is w ell know n in the com p any, has lots of contacts,
and is u su ally invited to social events w ith the corp orate senior m anagem ent.
Carol is p rop osing a change to their cu stom er service p rocess that several team
m em bers know w ill alienate one of their m ajor client execu tives.
38. In the team m eeting w hen Carol su ggests her change to the cu stom er
service p rocess, no one raises objections to her p rop osal. In fact, m em bers
ru sh to id entify p otential benefits of this new change. This resp onse to
Carol’s su ggestion by team m em bers is know n as: (2001.I069)
a. consensu s.
b. em p ow erm ent.
c. cu stom er focu s.
d . grou p think.
39. Which of the follow ing w ou ld be the m ost effective w ay for the “Winner ’s
Circle” team to id entify a m ore effective im p rovem ent to the cu stom er
service p rocess? (2001.I089)
a. Interview com p any m anagem ent w ho w ork d irectly w ith client
execu tives.
b. Stu d y p ast cu stom er com p laint rep orts and service w arranty form s.
c. Brainstorm id eas w ith a cross-fu nctional team trained in qu ality tools.
d . Im p lem ent Carol’s su ggestion w hile gathering sp ecific m easu rem ents
on cu stom er satisfaction.
40. The concep t of increasing p rod u ctivity by red u cing sp ecial cau ses of
variation w as d evelop ed by: (2001.I003)
a. Shew hart.
b. Taylor.
c. Dem ing.
d . Ju ran.
41. Which of the follow ing flow chart form ats is u sed to show m ajor step s in a
p rocess and occasionally the next level of su bstep s? (2001.I091)
a. d ep loym ent
b. top -d ow n
c. op p ortu nity
d . horizontal
42. In a fast-food restau rant, w hich of the follow ing grou p s best rep resents the
organization to the cu stom er? (2001.I065)
a. su p ervisors
b. su p p liers
c. front-line w orkers
d . senior m anagem ent
43. A cau se-and -effect d iagram is also know n as a: (2001.I043)

a. histogram .
b. ru n chart.
c. Gantt chart.
d . fishbone d iagram .
44. Which of the follow ing control chart p atterns is cau sed by sp ecial sou rces
of variation that grad u ally affect the qu ality characteristics of a p rod u ct or
service? (2001.I064)
a. cycle
b. shift
c. trend
d . m ixtu re
45. The _______ criteria is based on the p resu m p tion that qu ality is
d eterm ined by w hat a cu stom er w ants. (2001.I013)
a. p rod u ct-based
b. ju d gm ental-based
c. m anu factu ring-based
d . u ser-based
46. Accord ing to Ju ran’s qu ality trilogy, w hich of the follow ing p rocesses
w ou ld be ap p lied first in m eeting the need s of a cu stom er? (2001.I008)
a. qu ality assu rance
b. qu ality control
c. qu ality p lanning
d . qu ality im p rovem ent
47. Com p any ABC has ju st p artnered w ith Com p any H AL to p rovid e a new
online inform ation service. Which of the follow ing w ou ld be the best team
stru ctu re to assu re su ccess? (2001.I058)
a. im p rovem ent
b. d ep artm ental
c. cross-fu nctional
d . virtu al
48. Which of the follow ing tools is com m only u sed in realizing an
im p rovem ent objective? (2006.I066)
a. qu ality fu nction d ep loym ent
b. activity-based costing
c. benchm arking
d . force-field analysis
49. In a 300-p erson au to insu rance organization form ing a p roject team to
d eterm ine w ays to red u ce the cycle-tim e for p rocessing p olicyhold er
claim s, w hich of the follow ing choices m ay rep resent the m ost effective
size and com p osition of the p roject team ? (2001.I071)
a. 4 p ersons, all from the head qu arter ’s claim s-p rocessing fu nction
b. 3 p ersons from head qu arter ’s claim s p rocessing (one from each of the
three claim s-p rocessing su bfu nctions) p lu s 2 p ersons rep resenting field
claim s ad ju sters
c. all 15 p ersons from the head qu arter ’s claim s-p rocessing fu nction w ho
have d irect contact w ith p olicyhold ers
d . 1 m anagem ent rep resentative from each of the 11 d ep artm ents in the
organization
50. Which of the follow ing ind icate on a control chart w hat a p rocess shou ld
be cap able of d oing? (2001.I080)
a. stand ard d erivation
b. control lim its
c. sp ecification lim its
d . variance
51. Du ring a su p p lier focu s grou p session, the facilitator shou ld u se w hich of
the follow ing techniqu es? (2006.I078)
a. focu sing on content rather than d elivery
b. focu sing on p ercep tions rather than facts
c. targeting on a sp ecific ou tcom e
d . p resent facilitator ’s d esired solu tion first
52. Which of the follow ing is one of Dem ing’s seven d ead ly d iseases?
(2001.I045)
a. low tu rnover of com p any m anagem ent
b. evalu ation of p erform ance by annu al review
c. em p hasis on long-term thinking
d . ap p lication of p rofou nd know led ge
53. The concep t of ______ involves increasing a w orker ’s level of

resp onsibility so as to p rovid e the w orker m ore au tonom y and au thority
on the job. (2001.I031)
a. job sharing
b. job enlargem ent
c. job rotation
d . job enrichm ent
54. The facilitator of a brainstorm ing session shou ld d o w hich of the
follow ing? (2001.I081)
a. Assign content resp onsibilities to m em bers.
b. Select the best id eas to be rep orted to m anagem ent.
c. Solicit involvem ent from grou p m em bers.
d . Critiqu e new id eas as p resented d u ring the session.
55. Another term for the centerline of a control chart is the: (2001.I092)
a. m ed ian.
b. m ean.
c. m od e.
d . m argin.
56. Which of the follow ing is an initial qu estion to be asked w hen establishing
a team ? (2006.I073)
a. What are the goals of this p roject?
b. What is to be the final solu tion?
c. When are the interim tasks to be com p leted ?
d . What typ e of control charts w ill be u sed to analyze the d ata?
57. Which of the follow ing tools is m ost effective for d eterm ining how
p u rchase ord ers are hand led and w ho shou ld hand le them ? (2001.I083)
a. a Pareto chart
b. a Gantt chart
c. a w orkflow d iagram
d . a d ep loym ent flow chart
58. Ju ran teaches that qu ality im p rovem ents cou ld best be d elivered :
(2001.I009)
a. throu gh m anagem ent su p p ort.
b. p roject-by-p roject.
c. by im p lem enting cost controls.
d . throu gh inform ation technology.
59. Which of the follow ing tools facilitates the stu d y of observed d ata for
trend s or p atterns over a sp ecified p eriod of tim e? (2001.I084)
a. scatter d iagram
b. ru n chart
c. affinity d iagram
d . histogram
60. The p hrase “qu ality is free” is attribu ted to: (2001.I016)
a. Dem ing.
b. Crosby.
c. Ju ran.
d . Ishikaw a.
61. An im p rovem ent team has collected d ata on d efects for fou r of their
p rod u ct lines. The cou nt of d efects for each line for the last d ata gathering
cycle is:
Prod u ct Defect Cou nt
I 3
II 2
III 8
IV 5
Which p rod u ct d efect cou nt w ou ld m ost likely be grap hed in the right-m ost
colu m n of a Pareto d iagram rep resenting this d ata? (2001.I085)
a. I
b. II
c. III
d . IV
62. Which of the follow ing is a norm al behavior d u ring the storm ing stage of
team grow th? (2001.I048)
a. establishing u nrealistic goals, concern abou t excessive w ork
b. ability to p revent or w ork throu gh grou p p roblem s
c. d iscu ssions of sym p tom s or p roblem s not relevant to the task
d . attem p ts to d eterm ine accep table grou p behavior and have to d eal w ith
grou p p roblem s
63. In w hich stage of the Dem ing cycle is a p lan im p lem ented on a trial basis?
(2001.I038)
a. stu d y
b. test
c. d o
d . act
64. Which of the follow ing tools w ou ld be u sed to categorize the ou tcom e of a
brainstorm ing session? (2001.I086)
a. fishbone d iagram
b. histogram
c. interrelationship d igrap h
d . affinity d iagram
65. An ad vantage of focu s grou p s is: (2001.I025)
a. lim ited d irect cu stom er contact.
b. high cost.
c. access to d irect voice of the cu stom er.
d . inability to control the m em bership of the p anel.
66. An accom p lishm ent of any im p rovem ent that takes an organization to
u np reced ented levels of p erform ance is called a: (2001.I035)
a. w orld -class achievem ent.
b. breakthrou gh.
c. benchm ark.
d . su ccess story.
67. A cond ition in w hich a team has the know led ge, skills, au thority, and
d esire to d ecid e and act w ithin p rescribed lim its is: (2006.I051)
a. em p ow erm ent.
b. team w ork.
c. m anagem ent.
d . statistical control.
68. Which of the follow ing rep resents one of the step s classified by Ju ran
u nd er “qu ality p lanning”? (2001.I010)
a. insp ection and test
b. d evelop the p rocess
c. statistical p rocess control
d . choose control su bject
69. A w ork team has been assigned the resp onsibility of collecting the nu m ber
of blem ishes on cabinets in a laboratory sched u led for refu rbishing. Which
of the follow ing tools w ou ld be m ost effective for this assignm ent?
(2001.I087)
a. scatter d iagram
b. C chart
c. U chart
d . check sheet
70. When focu sing on qu ality im p rovem ent, a team m ight first u se qu ality
fu nction d ep loym ent to consid er the need s of w hich of the follow ing
stakehold ers? (2006.I020)
a. sharehold ers
b. cred itors
c. em p loyees
d . cu stom ers
71. Which of the follow ing stakehold ers w ou ld be m ost d irectly affected by a
red u ction of internal failu res in a rental car call center? (2006.I055)
a. stockhold ers
b. em p loyees
c. consu m ers
d . su p p liers
72. The p attern reflected in a histogram w hen d ata valu es are su bject to a
natu ral lim it is: (2006.I093)
a. skew ed .
b. bim od al.
c. bell-shap ed .
d . sym m etrical.
73. An internal au d it is m ost effective in w hich of the follow ing situ ations?
(2001.I097)
a. im p roving interd ep artm ental p rocesses
b. id entifying new m arket segm ents
c. establishing cu stom er–su p p lier relationship s
d . verifying the accu racy of incom ing ship m ents
74. Which of the follow ing typ es of team stru ctu res involves the m ost com p lex
or ad vanced concep t? (2001.I059)
a. im p rovem ent
b. self-d irected
c. qu ality circles
d . ad hoc
75. Which of the follow ing is an exam p le of attribu te d ata? (2001.I090)
a. length
b. tensile strength
c. w eight
d . cleanliness
76. The ABC Com p any is exp eriencing p roblem s in integrating a nu m ber of
d ifferent activities. Each activity has been tested and ru ns p erfectly on its
ow n. This situ ation is m ost likely attribu ted to w hich of the follow ing typ e
of p roblem ? (2001.I015)
a. p rocess
b. im p rovem ent
c. system
d . p rod u ction
77. Team s are generally form ed in organizational settings by d irection from a
m anager, lead er, or: (2006.I061)
a. qu ality circle.
b. governing bod y.
c. board of d irectors.
d . au d it com m ittee.
78. The typ e of benchm arking that id entifies the m ost effective p ractices in
com p anies that p erform sim ilar fu nctions is called : (2001.I094)
a. com p etitive.
b. p erform ance.
c. strategic.
d . p rocess.
79. Com p any ABC p u rchases com p onents from Com p any QRS and
incorp orates them into Com p any ABC’s w id get m achines. The w id get
m achines are then sold to retail com p anies for sale to the p u blic.
Com p any QRS is a(n) ________ of Com p any ABC. (2001.I046)
a. internal cu stom er
b. end u ser
c. su p p lier
d . com p etitor
80. The stru ctu ral p rocess that is u sed to d evelop good s and services that
ensu res cu stom er need s are m et is: (2001.I052)
a. qu ality assu rance.
b. strategic p lanning.
c. bu siness p rocess reengineering.
d . qu ality p lanning.
81. Which of the follow ing w ou ld be the best tool to u se in d escribing the
effects of p oor service to senior m anagem ent? (2001.I095)
a. statistical p rocess control
b. the Shew hart cycle
c. cost of qu ality
d . qu ality fu nction d ep loym ent
82. Ju ran cred its Jap anese m anagers’ fu ll u se of the know led ge and creativity
of ______ as one of the reasons for Jap an’s rap id qu ality achievem ent.
(2001.I022)
a. p roject m anagem ent
b. total em p loyee p articip ation
c. com p u ter sim u lation
d . cu stom er–su p p lier relations
83. Which of the follow ing events in the 1970s led U.S. consu m ers to consid er
qu ality as a m ore im p ortant factor in their p u rchasing d ecisions?
(2006.I056)
a. ap p earance of higher-qu ality foreign good s
b. the teachings of W. Ed w ard s Dem ing
c. the establishm ent of w orld w id e ISO stand ard s
d . the increase in U.S. p ersonal savings
84. Which of the follow ing are resp onsibilities of a natu ral team ? (2001.I063)
a. set bu d gets, m anage resou rces, and sched u le w ork
b. rep ort to the sam e m anager, share com m on goals, m eet regu larly
c. assess other team s’ w ork p rod u cts and w ork closely w ith team
m em bers ou tsid e their d ep artm ent
d . m ake d ecisions affecting m u ltip le d ep artm ents and recom m end new
strategic initiatives
85. When consid ering the im p act of p rojects over tim e, the ______ ______
create grad u al im p rovem ent, w hile the ______ ______ contribu te the bu lk
of total im p rovem ent. (2001.I074)
a. cu stom er-oriented , em p loyee-oriented
b. internally focu sed , externally focu sed
c. u sefu l m any, vital few
d . em p loyee-oriented , cu stom er-oriented
86. Which of the follow ing is an ap p rop riate ind ication that it is tim e to bring
closu re to a team p roject? (2006.I100)
a. w hen there is a change of m anagem ent
b. w hen significant conflicts occu r am ong team m em bers
c. w hen increm ental p rogress has been m ad e bu t m ore im p rovem ent
requ ires a breakthrou gh effort
d . w hen the cu rrent bu d get cycle is com p leted
87. Which of the follow ing d ifferentiates qu ality assu rance from qu ality
control in an organization? (2001.I021)
a. Provid e verification and evalu ation of requ ired p erform ance.
b. Com p are actu al qu ality w ith the qu ality goal.
c. Stim u late corrective action as need ed .
d . Regu late cu rrent p rod u ction op erations.
88. Which of the follow ing is characteristic of su ccessfu l team s? (2006.I068)
a. annu al p erform ance ap p raisals
b. total agreem ent on issu es
c. established grou nd ru les
d . high m em ber tu rnover
89. Ju ran’s u niversal sequ ence for qu ality im p rovem ent inclu d es w hich of the
follow ing? (2001.I075)
a. d iagnostic jou rney, rem ed ial jou rney
b. qu ality p lanning, qu ality im p rovem ent
c. cost of qu ality, hold ing the gains
d . p lanning, im p lem entation, and evalu ation
90. A m ajor tool for gu ard ing against d eterioration of a control system is a
(an): (2001.I098)
a. focu s grou p .
b. p eriod ic au d it.
c. cu stom er su rvey.
d . interrelationship d igrap h.
91. Which of the follow ing qu estions is m ost critical w hen d evelop ing a
cu stom er satisfaction m easu rem ent p rogram ? (2001.I027)
a. What is the bu d get for the p rogram ?
b. H ow w ill the p rogram be m easu red ?
c. Which d ep artm ent has resp onsibility for the p rogram ?
d . Who is the cu stom er?
92. Which of the follow ing is a characteristic of an effective p roject team
m em ber? (2006.I067)
a. is ind ep end ent of the d ep artm ent affected
b. p refers to w ork on tasks ind ep end ently
c. accep ts resp onsibility for task assignm ents
d . hold s strongly to p ersonal op inions
93. Which of the follow ing strategies have su ccessfu l com p anies u sed to
increase qu ality in their organizations? (2006.I057)
a. frequ ent d ow nsizing
b. 100 p ercent p rod u ct insp ection
c. low est-cost p rod u cer
d . cu stom er focu s
94. Du ring the first stage of a team ’s grow th, the m ost ap p rop riate lead ership
style for the team lead er is: (2006.I082)
a. p rovid e clear d irection and p u rp ose.
b. resolve issu es of p ow er and au thority.
c. m onitor p rogress and celebrate achievem ents.
d . fu lly u tilize team m em bers’ skills.
95. Rank ord er, from first to last, the follow ing activities for breakthrou gh
im p rovem ent. (2001.I076)
1. p roject id entification
2. hold ing the gains
3. organization for breakthrou gh
4. p roof of the need
a. 1, 2, 3, 4
b. 3, 1, 2, 4
c. 4, 1, 2, 3
d . 4, 1, 3, 2
96. Which of the follow ing is a com m on action exhibited d u ring the norm ing
stage of team grow th? (2001.I049)
a. d iagnosing and solving p roblem s
b. becom ing im p atient w ith the lack of p rogress
c. testing the lead er ’s gu id ance
d . reconciling com p eting loyalties and resp onsibilities
97. Qu antitative m easu rem ents can be gained from w hich of the follow ing
inform ation gathered by a com p any’s su p p lier relations d ep artm ent?
(2006.I079)
a. p ersonal interview s w ith su p p lier p ersonnel
b. verbal feed back from the p u rchasing agent
c. resu lts from form al, ongoing su p p lier su rveys
d . e-m ail com m ents from local d istribu tors
98. The MegaCom p any w ants to establish a sp ecial im p rovem ent team to
ad d ress errors in a new softw are ap p lication p rogram . Which of the
follow ing w ou ld be the m ost effective w ay to choose m em bers for this
team ? (2001.I072)
a. Issu e an internal annou ncem ent asking for volu nteers to join the team
from variou s areas of the organization.
b. Ask the team lead er and p roject sp onsor to select a few em p loyees
exp erienced in this softw are ap p lication.
c. Requ est that the Qu ality Cou ncil m eet to id entify m em bers w ho are
alread y trained in qu ality tools.
d . Assign the p roject to the softw are ap p lication d ep artm ent as a total
w ork team .
99. Which of the follow ing is the m ost u su al p rogression throu gh the fou r
stages of team grow th? (2001.I050)
a. The team generally sp end s longer in form ing, then qu ickly p rogresses
throu gh storm ing, and alternates betw een norm ing and p erform ing.
b. The team m oves qu ickly throu gh form ing to storm ing and norm ing,
then achieves and rem ains in the p erform ing stage.
c. The p attern for each team is d ifferent throu gh the fou r stages of team
grow th.
d . The team m oves qu ickly from form ing and storm ing to norm ing and
only rarely achieves the fu ll p erform ing stage.
100. Which of the follow ing tools is m ost effective in analyzing d ata collected
on check sheets? (2001.I096)
b. w ork flow d iagram
c. affinity d iagram
d . Pareto d iagram
ANSWER KEY
1. C 21. C 41. B 61. B 81. C
2. D 22. D 42. C 62. A 82. B
3. B 23. D 43. D 63. C 83. A
4. D 24. D 44. C 64. D 84. B
5. D 25. C 45. D 65. C 85. C
6. B 26. B 46. C 66. B 86. C

7. D 27. A 47. C 67. A 87. A
8. D 28. A 48. C 68. B 88. C
9. B 29. C 49. B 69. D 89. A
10. D 30. C 50. B 70. D 90. B
11. C 31. A 51. A 71. A 91. D

12. A 32. B 52. B 72. A 92. C
13. C 33. B 53. D 73. A 93. D
14. D 34. B 54. C 74. B 94. A
15. A 35. D 55. B 75. D 95. D
16. D 36. D 56. A 76. C 96. D

17. C 37. C 57. D 77. B 97. C
18. D 38. D 58. B 78. D 98. B
19. C 39. A 59. B 79. C 99. C
20. C 40. A 60. B 80. D 100. D
22 Appendix E.2: Quality Improvement Associate Sample Questions
Appendix E.2
Q UALITY IM PRO VEM EN T ASSO CIATE
Sam p le Q u estion s
Cross-Referen ced to BoK
Sorted b y Item N u m b er
N u m b er Q u estion ID An sw er BoK Category
1 2006.I028 C III.E.1
2 2006.I030 D II.A.2
3 2001.I002 B I.C.1
4 2006.I006 D I.A.5
5 2006.I039 D III.D
6 2001.I062 B II.B
7 2001.I088 D III.D
8 2006.I011 D I.A.1
9 2006.I053 B I.B
10 2001.I044 D II.C.1
11 2001.I017 C III.A
12 2006.I007 A III.D
13 2006.I018 C III.E.2
14 2001.I019 D III.D
15 2006.I037 A III.B
16 2006.I026 D III.D
17 2001.I047 C II.C.3
18 2006.I012 D I.A.1
19 2001.I054 C I.B
20 2006.I029 C II.A.3
21 2006.I023 C III.E.3
22 2006.I032 D III.D
23 2006.I077 D III.E.4
24 2006.I034 D III.D
Appendix E.2: Qual it y Impr ovement Associat e Sampl e Quest ions 23

25 2001.I001 C I.C.1
26 2001.I014 B I.A.4
27 2006.I036 A III.D
28 2006.I024 A III.E.1
29 2006.I099 C II.C.4
30 2001.I005 C I.C.1
31 2006.I060 A II.B
32 2006.I040 B III.D
33 2006.I033 B III.A
34 2006.I041 B III.D
35 2001.I070 D II.C.2
36 2006.I004 D I.C.3
37 2006.I042 C III.D
38 2001.I069 D II.C.4
39 2006.I089 A III.E.2
40 2001.I003 A I.A.5
41 2001.I091 B III.D
42 2006.I065 C III.E.1
43 2006.I043 D III.D
44 2006.I064 C III.D
45 2006.I013 D I.A.1
46 2001.I008 C I.C.2
47 2006.I058 C II.A.2
48 2006.I066 C III.D
49 2001.I071 B II.C.2
50 2001.I080 B III.D
51 2006.I078 A III.E.4
52 2001.I045 B I.C.1
53 2006.I031 D I.A.3
54 2006.I081 C III.D
55 2006.I092 B III.D
56 2006.I073 A II.C.1
57 2001.I083 D III.D
58 2001.I009 B I.C.2

59 2006.I084 B III.D
60 2006.I016 B I.C.3
61 2006.I085 B III.C
62 2001.I048 A II.C.3
63 2006.I038 C III.B
64 2006.I086 D III.D
65 2006.I025 C III.E.2
66 2006.I035 B III.A
67 2006.I051 A II.C.1
68 2001.I010 B I.C.2
69 2006.I087 D III.D
70 2006.I020 D II.C.5
71 2006.I055 A I.B
72 2006.I093 A III.D
73 2001.I097 A III.D
74 2006.I059 B II.A.2
75 2001.I090 D III.D
76 2006.I015 C I.A.4
77 2006.I061 B II.B
78 2006.I094 D III.D
79 2001.I046 C III.E.3
80 2001.I052 D I.A.2
81 2001.I095 C III.D
82 2001.I022 B I.C.2
83 2006.I056 A I.B
84 2001.I063 B II.B
85 2001.I074 C III.A
86 2006.I100 C II.A.1
87 2001.I021 A I.A.4
88 2006.I068 C II.C.1
89 2001.I075 A III.B
90 2001.I098 B III.D
91 2006.I027 D III.E.1
92 2006.I067 C II.B

93 2006.I057 D I.B
94 2006.I082 A II.C.1
95 2006.I076 D III.B
96 2001.I049 D II.C.3
97 2006.I079 C III.E.4
98 2006.I072 B II.C.2
99 2001.I050 C II.C.3
100 2006.I096 D III.D
Appendix E.3
Sam p le Q u estion s
Cross-Referen ced to BoK
Sorted b y BoK Category

8 2006.I011 D I.A.1
18 2006.I012 D I.A.1
45 2006.I013 D I.A.1
80 2001.I052 D I.A.2
53 2006.I031 D I.A.3
26 2001.I014 B I.A.4
76 2006.I015 C I.A.4
87 2001.I021 A I.A.4
4 2006.I006 D I.A.5
40 2001.I003 A I.A.5
9 2006.I053 B I.B
19 2001.I054 C I.B
71 2006.I055 A I.B
83 2006.I056 A I.B
93 2006.I057 D I.B
3 2001.I002 B I.C.1
25 2001.I001 C I.C.1
30 2001.I005 C I.C.1
52 2001.I045 B I.C.1
46 2001.I008 C I.C.2
58 2001.I009 B I.C.2
68 2001.I010 B I.C.2
82 2001.I022 B I.C.2

36 2006.I004 D I.C.3
60 2006.I016 B I.C.3
86 2006.I100 C II.A.1
2 2006.I030 D II.A.2
47 2006.I058 C II.A.2
74 2006.I059 B II.A.2
20 2006.I029 C II.A.3
6 2001.I062 B II.B
31 2006.I060 A II.B
77 2006.I061 B II.B
84 2001.I063 B II.B
92 2006.I067 C II.B
10 2001.I044 D II.C.1
56 2006.I073 A II.C.1
67 2006.I051 A II.C.1
88 2006.I068 C II.C.1
94 2006.I082 A II.C.1
35 2001.I070 D II.C.2
49 2001.I071 B II.C.2
98 2006.I072 B II.C.2
62 2001.I048 A II.C.3
96 2001.I049 D II.C.3
99 2001.I050 C II.C.3
17 2001.I047 C II.C.3
29 2006.I099 C II.C.4
38 2001.I069 D II.C.4
70 2006.I020 D II.C.5
11 2001.I017 C III.A
33 2006.I033 B III.A
66 2006.I035 B III.A
85 2001.I074 C III.A
15 2006.I037 A III.B
63 2006.I038 C III.B
89 2001.I075 A III.B
95 2006.I076 D III.B

61 2006.I085 B III.C
5 2006.I039 D III.D
7 2001.I088 D III.D
12 2006.I007 A III.D
14 2001.I019 D III.D
16 2006.I026 D III.D
22 2006.I032 D III.D
24 2006.I034 D III.D
27 2006.I036 A III.D
32 2006.I040 B III.D
34 2006.I041 B III.D
37 2006.I042 C III.D
41 2001.I091 B III.D
43 2006.I043 D III.D
44 2006.I064 C III.D
48 2006.I066 C III.D
50 2001.I080 B III.D
54 2006.I081 C III.D
55 2006.I092 B III.D
57 2001.I083 D III.D
59 2006.I084 B III.D
64 2006.I086 D III.D
69 2006.I087 D III.D
72 2006.I093 A III.D
73 2001.I097 A III.D
75 2001.I090 D III.D
78 2006.I094 D III.D
81 2001.I095 C III.D
90 2001.I098 B III.D
100 2006.I096 D III.D
1 2006.I028 C III.E.1
28 2006.I024 A III.E.1
42 2006.I065 C III.E.1

91 2006.I027 D III.E.1
13 2006.I018 C III.E.2
39 2006.I089 A III.E.2
65 2006.I025 C III.E.2
21 2006.I023 C III.E.3
79 2001.I046 C III.E.3
23 2006.I077 D III.E.4
51 2006.I078 A III.E.4
97 2006.I079 C III.E.4
Appendix E.4
Sam p le Q u estion s Cross-Referen ced to
Su ggested Referen ce M aterial
BoK Cogn itive N u m b er of Q uestion s Referen ce
Category Level Title & Q u estion ID Page
I. QUALITY BASICS 25 questions
I. A. Term s, Concep ts, and 10 qu estions
Princip les
I.A.1 App ly Qu ality 2006.I011 3, p 2.4
2006.I012 2, p 13
2006.I013 2, p 13
I.A.2 Und erstand Qu ality Planning 2001.I052 3, p 3.2
I.A.3 Und erstand The Im p ortance 2006.I031 2, p 275
of Em p loyees
I.A.4 Analyze System s and Processes 2001.I014 1, p 5
2006.I015 2, p 95
2001.I021 3, p 4.3
I.A.5 Und erstand Variation 2001.I003 1, p 88
2006.I006 2, p 519
I.B Und erstand Benefits of Qu ality 5 qu estions
2006.I053 1, p 3
2001.I054 3, p 8.2
2006.I055 3, p 8.4
2006.I056 2, p 83
2006.I057 3, p 2.16,
2.17
I.C Rem em ber Qu ality Philosop hies 10 questions
1 Dem ing, W. Edw ards. Out of the crisis. (Cambrid ge, MA: MIT Press, 1986).
2 Evans, Jam es R., and William M. Lind say. The management and control of quality (6th ed .).
(Cincinnati, OH : Sou th-Western College Publishing, 2005). ISBN 0-324-2-0224-5
3 Ju ran, Joseph M. Juran’s quality handbook (5th ed .). (N ew York: McGraw -H ill Publishing Co., 1999).
4 Scholtes, Peter R. The team handbook (2nd ed .), rev. (Mad ison, WI: Joiner Associates, 1996).

I.C.1 Dem ing 2001.I001 1, p 3
2001.I002 1, p 2
2001.I005 1, p 3
2001.I045 1, pp 97,
98
I.C.2 Ju ran 2001.I008 3, p 2.5
2001.I009 3, p 5.8
2001.I010 3, p 3.3
2001.I022 3, p 41.3
I.C.3 Crosby 2006.I004 2, p 108
2006.I016 2, p 108
II. TEAMS 25 questions
II.A Und erstand ing Team s 5 qu estions
II.A.1 Ap p ly Pu rp ose 2006.I100 4, p p 4–49
II.A.2 Ap p ly Characteristics of Team s 2006.I030 2, p 263
2006.I058 2, p 264
2006.I059 2, p 263
II.A.3 Und erstand Valu e 2006.I029 2, p 263
II.B Und erstand Roles and Resp onsibilities 5 qu estions
2006.I060 2, p 270
2006.I061 2, p 266
2001.I062 4, p 3-3
2001.I063 3, p 15.12
2006.I067 4, p 3-21
II.C Team Form ation and 15 questions
Grou p Dynam ics
II.C.1 Ap p ly Initiating Team s 2001.I044 4, p 4-39
2006.I051 3, p 15.2
2006.I068 4, p 6-10
2006.I073 4, p 3.12
2006.I082 4, p 6-4 to
6-7

II.C.2 Ap p ly Selecting Team Mem bers 2001.I070 4, p 3-11
2001.I071 4, p 3-11
2006.I072 4, p 3-10
II.C.3 Und erstand Team Stages 2001.I047 4, p 6-4
2001.I048 4, p 6-5
2001.I049 4, p 6-6
2001.I050 4, p 6-9
II.C.4 Analyze Team Barriers 2001.I069 4, p 7-3
2006.I099 4, p 7-11,
7-12
II.C.5 Ap p ly Decision Making 2006.I020 2, p 569
III. CON TIN UOUS 50 questions
IMPROVEMEN T
III.A Und erstand Increm ental and Break- 4 qu estions
throu gh Im p rovem ent
2001.I017 3, p 11.8
Table 11.3
2006.I033 2, p 317
2006.I035 2, p 486
2001.I074 3, p 5.28
III.B Analyze Im p rovem ent Cycles 4 qu estions
2006.I037 2, p 638
2006.I038 2, p 639
2001.I075 3, p 5.39
2006.I076 2, p 640
III.C Ap ply Problem -Solving Process 1 qu estion
2006.I085 2, p 651
III.D Ap ply Im p rovem ent Tools 29 questions
2006.I007 2, p 109
2001.I019 3, p 8.7
2006.I026 2, p 166
2006.I032 2, p 350

2006.I034 2, p 642
2006.I036 2, p 580
2006.I039 2, p 644
2006.I040 2, p 649
2006.I041 2, p 654
2006.I042 2, p 646
2006.I043 2, p 654
2006.I064 2, p 701
2006.I066 2, p 350
2001.I080 4, p 2-22
2006.I081 2, p 490
2001.I083 4, p 2-18
2006.I084 2, p 646
2006.I086 2, p 166
2006.I087 2, p 648
2001.I088 4, p 4-14
2001.I090 3, p 45.12
2001.I091 4, p 2-17
2006.I092 2, p 694
2006.I093 2, p 608
2006.I094 2, p 351
2001.I095 3, p 8.2
2006.I096 2, p 652
2001.I097 3, p 26.10
2001.I098 3, p 4.27
III.E Cu stom er–Su p p lier 12 questions
Relationship s
III.E.1 Und erstand Internal and External 2006.I024 2, p 164
Cu stom ers
2006.I027 2, p 175
2006.I028 2, p 161
2006.I065 2, p 169

III.E.2 Und erstand Cu stom er Feed back 2006.I018 2, p 176
2006.I025 2, p 176
2006.I089 2, p 175
III.E.3 Und erstand Internal and External 2006.I023 3, p 29.9
Su p p liers
2001.I046 4, p 2-4
III.E.4 Und erstand Su p p lier Feed back 2006.I077 3, p 21.22-
21.25
2006.I078 3, p 18.13
2006.I079 2, p 372

ASQ Six Sigma

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ASQ Six Sigma

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

John E. Bauer, Grace L.

List of Figu res an d Tab les . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Part I Q u ality Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Ch ap ter 2 B. Ben efits of Q u ality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Ch ap ter 4 B. Roles an d Resp on sib ilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Part III Con tin u ou s Im p rovem en t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Ch ap ter 8 C. Prob lem -Solvin g Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Ap p en d ix A Bod y of Kn ow led ge ASQ : Certified Q u ality Im p rovem en t

A BRIEF HISTORY OF QUALITY1

STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK

ADDITIONAL PRACTICE SUPPLEMENT—APPENDIX E

AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

Define and know how to use this term

There are m any d efinitions of qu ality, su ch as the follow ing:

In ad d ition to these variou s m eanings, qu ality m ay also be view ed from several

2006 Baldrige National Quality Program: Criteria for Performance

4 Mea surement , Ana lysis, a nd Know ledge Ma na gement

ANSI/ ISO/ ASQ Q9000:2000 Quality Management Systems Principles

Understand a quality plan and its purpose

3. THE IMPORTANCE OF EMPLOYEES

Understand employee involvement and

CQIA BoK 2006

In addition to staffing a customer-transaction window, a bank teller’s job is

A waitperson’s job is increased in scope to include helping the cook in deciding

4. SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES

Define a system and a process; distinguish

CQIA BoK 2006

A system can be d efined as a set of interrelated or interacting p rocesses. A p rocess

Processes can be d ivid ed into variou s categories:

Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers

• Troubleshooting guides • Repaired auto

Figur e 1.1 SIPOC diagram.

on the left sid e. Once this fu nd am ental p rocess d iagram is d evelop ed , tw o ad d i-

Understand the concept of variation and

d u e to u nnecessary changes being m ad e to a stable p rocess becau se of a p erceived

Quality is not the exclusive province of engineering, manufacturing, or, for

People work in the system. Management creates the system.

Understand how improved process,

• Op en sharing of organization and su p p lier qu ality inform ation

QUALITY BENEFITSTO SOCIETY AS A WHOLE

C. Q u ality Ph ilosop h ies

Understand each of these philosophies

CQIA BoK 2006

Philosophy is d efined in Webster ’s Dictionary as “a critical exam ination of the

• Which of the cu rrently available qu ality tools shou ld be u sed in

1. DR. W. EDWARDS DEMING

follow ing year, he w as aw ard ed the N ational Med al of Technology in Am erica.

Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge

The Deming Chain Reaction

Adapted from Out Of The Crisis,

Provide Jobs &

Figur e 2.1 Deming’s “Chain Reaction.”

2. DR. JOSEPH M. JURAN

The Points, or Steps to Quality Improvement

The Four Absolutes of Quality Management

DR. ARMAND V. FEIGENBAUM

DR. KAORU ISHIKAWA

DR. GENICHI TAGUCHI

DR. WALTER A. SHEWHART

The Baldrige Quality Award Program

Table 2.1 Comparisons of Baldrige Award Criteria.

Bald rige N ation al Q uality Program —2006 Criteria Categories

2. Strategic Planning 2. Strategic Planning 2. Strategic Planning

Bald rige N ation al Q u ality Program —2006 Criteria Categories