How to make Quality a Contagion

“Quality” is one of the most frequently used words in the English

language. One reads it in newspapers, books, radio, internet, journals. A
great industry goes on supplying us the idea of what is “quality”. Yet
nobody understands or very rarely somebody understands what is
“quality”?
It can be argued that there are well established definitions of the
term “quality”. There have been many treatises on this concept, many
Gurus who have done great work on the subject. So it would be
worthwhile to ponder over some of the definitions to get an insight.
Prof. J M Juran, arguably one of the finest minds in the field, [also
named as Father of Quality] defines “quality” as “fitness for use”. Is it a
definition or an Indicator? To understand the difference between the two,
when we arrive at Lucknow and see a milestone reading Lucknow = 0 KM,
it is an indicator that we are in Lucknow, it is not a definition of Lucknow.
In fact Lucknow cannot be defined by that milestone in any stretch of
imagination. Similarly, if a product is ‘fit for use’, it only indicates that the
product has something called ‘quality’. It does not define ‘quality’ per se.
ISO defines quality as “degree to which set of inherent characteristics
fulfils requirements”. Notice the terms “degree”, “inherent” &
“requirements”. It would not be difficult to conclude that these words are
random variables depending on numerous factors infused with immense
subjectivities. Similarly, vagueness and subjectivities of other definitions
of quality can be argued with very little scope for disagreement.
It is beyond my intellectual acumen to question the abilities of
beautiful minds referred above, the point which I wanted to drive to, is
the fact that ‘quality’ by its very nature is undefinable. It cannot be
contained in words, much like concepts like ‘Love’ or ‘Compassion’ or
‘Beauty’ which are beyond language. Which are there to be felt and
experienced but any attempt in language to define them would be an
approximation, an indicator at best.

Page 1 of 3
 In my experience, whenever we use the word ‘about’, it roughly
translates to the word ‘around’. When we say we must know about quality,
essentially we keep going round and round in the periphery, we never
touch the core. Quality is not a subject of intellect, it is a subject of heart.
It is not a matter of communication, it is a matter of communion. So it
would be imprudent to ask, how to make quality a contagion? If it is not
contagious, it is not quality. It can be anything, but quality. Quality by its
very nature is contagious. It is impossible to have a true quality system
without the element of contagion.
But we have to ask this question. For the simple reason that our
approaches for quality have so far been compliance driven. It is
unfortunate but true. We create systems to meet requirements. So our
‘quality’ remains a borrowed concept. Our Quality Management System
remains a construct borne out of intellectual entertainment. There is very
little poetry, very little life in our systems. And remember, only living
entities can be contagious. Contagion is in essence a characteristic of life.
But unfortunately the song of life is missing from our systems.
So the real question is not how we will make quality a contagion
construct. The real question is how we can bring life in to our systems.
How can our systems become a song of nature, an essence of our
organisation as a living entity?
Answer to this question requires some soul searching, a meditative
spirit. Here are some of my bits on this:
 Life can be infused in a system with involvement of living
beings only. Structures and Systems have no life of their own.
It is always the individual who brings the change. So my first
bit would be to bring stakeholders on board while making of
the system. There is no point writing beautifully drafted
procedures covering all requirements of the standard when it
does not have the soul curry of the individuals who have to
follow it. It order to make our quality system contagious we
need to speak in the language of our stakeholders. Our
manuals and procedures should be drafted not only with
involvement of the stakeholders but they should also have the

Page 2 of 3
 requisite fluidity to account for the ease of use and
acceptability aspect of the users.
 Secondly, there should be scope for errors and mistakes. Any
system gains intrinsic acceptability only when people deviate
from it and see for themselves the pitfalls of such deviations.
It may look opposed to common sense but don’t we agree
that our swimming/driving skills have matured more by
learning through our mistakes than reading some documents
or procedures.

 Element of infectiousness is borne out of some kind of visible

attraction, for this there should be a robust mechanism to
identify and reward those who stick to the system. The
individual must be attracted toward the system rather than
being forced through coercive measures. Remember in any
compliance driven system, the compliance stops as soon as
the coercion is removed. So such a system will never have the
element of contagiousness.

 Lastly for the intellectual minds, the effect of adherence to the

system should be visible in form of measurable indices which
are easy to grasp and understand. We should be able to
logically prove that compliance of the system is useful for the
individual and the organisation in objective terms. Our
prescriptions should make life easy for the stakeholders and
should not be mere instruments for acquiring some
certifications.

The above looks like an uphill task. But so is making Aircrafts, which
we have been successfully doing for last seven decades or so. Moreover,
the processes are mutually reinforcing. Once we cross a certain threshold
the contagiousness would yield in to an epidemic. I have reasons to
believe, that with the kind of spirited minds, we have in our organisation,
contagious QMS is a natural goal.
************

Page 3 of 3