Quality is in the eye of the beholder: Why perception matters.

What exactly do we mean when we talk about Quality in the workplace?

This question has intrigued and frustrated me in equal measure throughout 20 plus years’ experience of Quality Management.

The concept of quality is fairly straightforward in the context of our personal lives. We use it to describe the extent to which a product or service, a) doesn’t meet our expectations (poor quality), b) does meet our expectations (good quality), or c) exceeds our expectations (excellent quality). This is our default perception of quality (and the ISO 9000 definition).

The obvious problem here is that the observer subjectively attributes the perceived objective condition based on their personal expectations.

Why then, export a problematic concept to the workplace? After all, product either meets specified requirements or it doesn’t. There should be no room for subjectivity. Having said that, the original concept of (statistical) Quality Control was appropriate in the context of high volume production, in so far as it unambiguously related to control of physical product quality.

But Quality Control has evolved into the concept of Quality Management (and its various methodological incarnations), and now relates to the entirety of organisational performance.

And herein lies the problem.

The very use of the term Quality Management enables existing perceptions of quality to create misaligned expectations regarding issues of accountability, with the consequential potential for diminished organisational performance.

For example, ask company employees, including senior leaders, what is the purpose of Quality Management Systems and the Quality Leader (Director, Head, Manager etc.) responsible for their implementation, and the most common response will be along the lines of "to ensure product quality". This is, of course, a flawed perception, given that a poorly performing organisation can obviously still deliver a conforming product.

This flawed perception is perpetuated by organisations demanding the Quality Leader be a product SME. Why does the Quality Leader need comprehensive product knowledge? The role of the Quality Leader is to provide assurance that the BMS is appropriate, effective, and effectively implemented. This position is validated by the fact that product conformity is the logical corollary of appropriate and effective process compliance.

What the Quality Leader does need is a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the scope, purpose, structure, mechanisms, interactions, goals, and objectives of the Business Management System. To be the SME for the BMS.

Demanding the Quality Leader be a product SME, and implying, if not stating, that he/she is responsible for managing product quality, creates a false narrative that muddies the waters with regards to organisational accountability. This has the potential to create a void, if not an avoidance, of responsibility.

This, in turn, has the potential to inhibit organisational performance. Why? Because if we don’t have effective accountability, we don’t have effective learning, and if we don’t learn, we don’t improve.

Isn’t this somewhat ironic, given that the raison d’etre of Quality Management is to provide assurance of continual improvement?