I was a Quality Manager in a large Government department for a while over a decade ago, so I have an interest whenever Governments start making noises about renewed efforts to drive out public sector inefficiency. I’ve heard it all before, of course, but this time it’s seems to be different. This time failure seems like its not an option

The old obstacles are still there, though. The main one being that the systems are not actually designed to be efficient. That is no comment on the will, commitment or talent of the people who work there, you understand, but just on the way the system is set up. It is unintentionally designed to resist efficiency. I will elaborate

There are significant features of public sector systems that make them resist efficiency

• The way budgets are set up and managed
• The system is designed to try and protect its own equilibrium

Budget underspend is a problem not an achievement

As a manager I had a budget. I was given that budget at the start of the year and told to make it last. So I did. I knew that I’d be in trouble if I overspent. I also knew I’d cause myself a headache if I underspent. So I did neither. I, like all of my peers, made it last. This was generally achieved by a combination of two quarters of cautionary spending, followed by two quarters of progressively care-free spending (depending on how much I had left and how quickly I had to get rid of it). If I didn’t spend my budget I knew I’d get less next year, and I didn’t want that if I could avoid it, especially as there was no reward in it for me for giving anything back, and it would only give my staff a harder time next year. So why would I try and save? Who would?

The status quo is the safest option

Every two or three months I would be asked by the Chief Executive (via his secretary of course) for some “words on quality” for his ministerial briefing. It was my job to make sure he had plenty to talk about, so we did a lot of things on Investors in People, EFQM, Chartermark etc. I don’t want to sound big-headed, but I have a way with words and I could make these activities sound pretty impressive – I knew what they wanted to hear. No-one ever asked me to justify anything or put numbers on anything (god forbid), so the “quality improvements” it could have been argued, were almost entirely cosmetic – smoke and mirrors. And that, at the time, was good enough. No-one really wanted any of these improvement projects to put anyone’s nose out of joint, so we were channeled towards safe territory. We redesigned forms, we moved photocopiers to reduce travel time, that type of thing. We never did anything like ask “You see that fellow over there? What does he get paid? More to the point, what does he actually do?”  I’ve since heard it called “the elephant in the room” syndrome. Things like identifying underloaded jobs, or over-staffed departments would cause managerial problems and we didn’t need go round creating any of those. Provided we showed a bit of willing, we’d be left alone. That meant the equilibrium of the system was not upset. No-one lost their jobs, had their budgets cut or anything like that. So no-one complained. Then after a while the Government as usual got distracted by something else and we were completely off the hook for a while. You could buy a lot of time with great anecdotes …

Things might be different this time round. I get the impression that this time words will be no good. They’ll need deeds, and deeds with numbers attached. Governments are spent up and need to make some savings to off-set all of those so-called “financial stimuli”. Consequently the option of cosmetic improvement may well be removed this time round, and kicking things into the long grass may prove more difficult

That made me think. If I was a manager in the public sector right now, what would I do? It’s a fair bet that “quality improvement” and “efficiencies” may well become the buzz-words once again, but would I try to steal a march right now and put myself ahead of the game? Score some early points maybe? I’m not sure I would

It could actually work against me. I could end up with the worst of both worlds if I made my savings before I was asked. The big risk would be that I’d make my command a lot leaner, but then this new “lean” position would be used as my starting baseline and I could be asked to deliver yet more on top of that, with no credit being given for my earlier voluntary endeavors. Better I sat and waited till I was ordered to do it, I might decide. That way I’d have more scope to find improvements with it being in its current inefficient state

Now all of those features and quirks I’ve described might sound just plain wrong, immoral even, considering its public money we’re dealing with. But that is the way the system is set up. Don’t blame the people. You would do exactly as they do in the same position – I guarantee that. It will be interesting to see if the new reality acknowledges that the way systems behave are generally down to the way they are designed

——————————————–

Post from: Capable People Blog

Public Sector Quality Improvement

How many people really understand “root cause”? How many people really make a serious attempt to apply clause 8.5.2c of ISO 9001 in the correct spirit? How many auditors (presumably for a quiet life) are quite prepared to be complicit in this charade?

These questions and more are considered by Mike Mickelwright in this funny little video clip. We ALL know what he is talking about, right?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Post from: Capable People Blog

Top Ten Unacceptable Corrective Actions

Many people use the word “efficiency” without really understanding what the term means. Even fewer understand how efficiency works – the dynamics of efficiency, if you will. So here’s a crash course. You can thank me later

In an earlier post I outlined the difference between efficiency and economy. An economy is spending less money (making a cut, in other words, which often results in doing less in order to make ends meet) whereas efficiency is the ratio of productive output in relation to the inputs to the system. An efficiency could therefore mean producing a similar quantity of productive output with a reduced input, or it could even mean doing more for less – which is more difficult. Anyhow, that’s what it is. Now to talk about how it works, because I worry that some people don’t understand some simple facts of efficiency life

Efficiency and the simple facts of life

There is one golden rule to appreciate if you are to fully understand the dynamics of efficiency

Efficiency never happens by accident or without a reason

What I mean by that is that systems are NEVER accidentally or naturally efficient. A system will ALWAYS gravitate (given the choice) to the easiest possible life. Efficiencies will never fall out of the sky and on to your lap. You have to go and find them and drag them kicking and screaming from their hiding places. Systems generally resist efficiency because it means a hard life. That means that you seldom find real efficiency in uncompetitive markets, and the most efficient systems you will find will always have competitors just half a step behind them snapping at their heals

My eureka moment

I was once at an event where a man called David was describing a recent and dramatic turnaround where his company managed to rescue itself from a seemingly terminal decline. In the Q&A that followed a member of the audience asked “How did you deal with resistance? How did you manage to get staff buy in? That is usually very difficult”. David paused for a moment and then responded “There was no resistance. We did not give them the option. Nothing polarises your strategy more than a lack of alternatives”. As I write this, I heard those words 7 years ago and it was a eureka moment. Maybe my biggest eureka moment. In that instant I understood how efficiency worked. I realised it was not about culture change models or quality management tools, it was more like an evolutionary event, obeying very simple evolutionary rules. A certain set of circumstances existed that allowed survival under certain conditions, and you either found a way of meeting those conditions, or you die. David’s company accurately assessed their options and found they only had one option remaining. So they followed it, and anyone who didn’t like it was told they could lump it.  They learned, and they lived to pass on their wisdom. Others are not so fortunate

Anyway, to cut a long story short, if you are a quality manager with a passion for your job, tearing your remaining hair out asking yourself how your system can be so inefficient, and why other people can be so ambivalent towards it, I give you this word of comfort. It isn’t your fault. There may not be that much you or anybody can do about it. The simple fact is that your system is most probably the way it is, and your people are the way they are, because they can be. The real fun will only start when that option ceases to be available – when things get tougher

So be careful what you wish for

Post from: Capable People Blog

A crash course in efficiency

I have just returned from the Ninth Annual IRCA Conference, held in Yokohama, Japan. It was a great privilege being invited to speak at such a prestigious and high profile event, and to be among such interesting and distinguished company

The theme of the event was “Auditing for Effectiveness” and I guess that I was invited because I have been quite vocal on the subject over the past year or so. I still find it hugely flattering whenever I realise that someone is listening

Auditing for Effectiveness: The CPD Workshop

Anyway, prior to the event I ran a 2 day CPD workshop for a number of individuals who wanted to explore the concepts in more depth. I had put together a 2 day program earlier in the year, and I must pass on my gratitude to the people of Gloucestershire College for allowing my to test out the new materials on them in May. The feedback I received from that trial run was extremely valuable and helped me refine elements of the workshop to the extent that it received excellent feedback

The workshop explored ways in which the EFQM RADAR assessment mechanism could be incorporated into more general QMS audits to add depth and rigour to the process. Here’s a group shot of the workshop delegates

The 9th Annual Conference

The annual conference was something of a daunting affair. It was held in the very grand surroundings of the Pacifico Yokohama Conference Centre, with over 300 delegates attending. I had a one hour slot mid-afternoon, the other speakers included:

• Simon Feary, Director of the IRCA and Chief Executive of the CQI
• Masakuzu Ikoma, JAB (Japan Accreditation Bureau)
• Noriyuki Hishino, Technical Advisor of LRQA in Japan
• Ashihiko Aoki, Cannon
• Paul Palmes, Business Standards Architects Inc
• Ian Nield, Investors in Excellence Ltd

All in all the delegates all received good value for money, and it appeared that the general consensus was that third party certification could not carry on drifting in its current direction, and decisive action to protect the integrity of the system was required. This would clearly involve improvements in both technique and governance

Free stuff for my blog readers

If anyone is interested in receiving copies of the powerpoint slides I used during my 1 hour presentation on the topic of “Auditing for Effectiveness” you can download them from the Members Area of this blog. You’ll need a password which you can request via the contact form on our main site – MAKE SURE YOU TYPE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS IN PROPERLY – otherwise I can’t send it

We love japan

Finally I need to thank everyone we met while we were in Japan. When I say “we” I mean me and Mrs Shaun, who tagged along for the experience. The people and the county are quite lovely, and we have never encountered such kindness in all our lives. Particular thanks go to the IRCA team in Japan, Masayo, Miho and Yuki, who looked after us so well. I’d also like to nod in the direction of Ian Nield from Investors in Excellence. His operation may well be worthwhile checking out – they have some interesting ideas

Post from: Capable People Blog

9th Annual IRCA Conference: Yokohama 2010

This topic has taken on somewhat of a scary feel for me lately. In June I will be presenting to several hundred representatives from the third party certification industry in Japan, at the IRCA 2010 Conference in Yokohama. This is my topic

I think I know why I was asked. I’ve had a lot to say about weaknesses in third party audit systems on this blog and a few other places, and I have expressed strong views on the need for modernisation of traditional and (dare I say it) out-dated conformity focussed approaches. It may be that the industry is starting to agree with some of the things I have been saying. I hope …

Anyway, I really need to start constructing something. An argument. Something that is challenging enough to make people think differently, but engaging enough not to turn people off and create a defensive response. A dilemma and no mistake

Fortunately I have been able to review a JIBDEC/JAB action document, so I know a little about where they are coming from. That document talks about the need for a balanced effectiveness/conformity assessment. Not so much “does it work to its own procedures?” more like “does it do what the customer wants it to?” The JIBDEC/JAB document also talks about how the audit needs to add value. It is this second aspect that has got me thinking. What do we mean when we say we want the third party audit to “add value?”

Third party audits – adding value for whom?

When we talk about “value adding” third party audits are we really suggesting that a third party auditor, without performing any meaningful research or necessarily having any great expertise in the sector, should be able to go into an established company for a couple of days and tell them much that they did not already know? Come on, let’s take a trip to planet earth for a second, is that realistic?  I think anyone who thinks that a third party audit is going to yield a treasure trove of hitherto unknown and valuable management information is living in a dream world. It is not going to happen. The good news, though, is that it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter because third party certification schemes were never designed or intended to do that in the first place. Its just that somehow over the years we’ve lost sight of what the primary purpose actually is, and for whose benefit they exist. Third party certification schemes exist primarily to provide information not to the audited organisation, but to customer organisations. It is these organisations that we really should be thinking about. What do CUSTOMER organisations want from third party certifications? How can we improve third party certifications to increase value for CUSTOMER organisations?

It’s the customer, stupid

How could we be so blind? The reason the vast majority of companies seek registration is not because they want it for some intrinsic reason (although I accept one or two may do), nor is it because they believe the CB will send along a kind of Tom Peters to sort out all their problems and tell them how to conquer the world. It isn’t these companies we should be focussing on. We must think about the external value of certification and what that is supposed to mean in the public domain. When we think about adding value we should be asking questions like

• What is it supposed to say about a company that has certification?
• How high are the standards?
• Dare we trust the certification?
• Is it consistently applied?

What if every hotel was rated 5 star?

Maybe we need to start thinking about it in the same way that we think about star rating systems on hotels, because the same principle applies. When we choose a hotel for a family holiday we look at the hotel’s star rating and this adds value to us as customers. The ratings are extremely useful so long as we feel we can trust them. They give us information and help us to reduce the risk of choosing a hotel that might not suit our needs

But what would happen if we lost faith in the integrity of the star rating system? Well, for a start, we’d pay no attention to it. We would not use it as a selection tool, hotels would stop going through the rating process and the scheme would soon fall into disuse. Pretty soon there would be no more pointless star ratings. That is what would happen if the integrity was lost

I think it is this parallel we need to consider when we talk about breathing new life and credibility into third party management system certification. Above all else the system has to be consistent, trusted and enforced to a level that means something to prospective CUSTOMER organisations. We need to be clear about what the badge means and go back to basics to a certain extent. Maybe there needs to be more fails too. Think about it. Should it be our aim to get everyone certified? Great for CBs in the short-term, lots of fees, but in fact it is the last thing we should ever want if we think about it properly. All differentiation would effectively be lost

The day everyone achieves certification is the day that nobody needs it any more

Post from: Capable People Blog

Value adding third party audits

ISO 9001, that part of the ISO 9000 series that defines the quality management system requirements, clearly means many things to many people. There are certainly people with a vested interest in promoting its virtues and (sometimes) overstating its merits in the process. There are also some very vociferous opponents, including some career critics who have made a good living from slagging it off. But let’s try to be objective, (whilst simultaneously declaring an obvious interest in the its continued existence)

Why do people seek registration?
Check out this thread for some contributions. The simple inarguable truth is that most registered organisations seek registration to meet the requirements of an important customer, or an important prospect. It basically allows the company to bid for work they would otherwise be excluded from, as the customer has defined it as a condition to supply. Is this right? Well, we’ve talked about this in the past. The customer is king, if he says “jump!” we should all say “how high?”

Interestingly, when the benefits of ISO 9001 registration are debated, most people launch into often unquantified justifications revolving around control, conformity and efficiency themes, almost as if doing it mainly because the customer wants it is somehow something to be ashamed of. The fact that it opens doors economically is often overlooked. This obvious economic advantage of offering access to more contracts has to be a major benefit, and “quality guys” should not be afraid of recognising it

Is it a mark of excellence?
Some people might claim that it is but they are just plain wrong. There may well be a decent set of good business practices woven into that clumsy and badly written document, but the requirements set out in ISO 9001 are no more than a base line. Successful certification indicates that the bones of a documented QMS is in place, it is auditable and it is supported by a basic set of management processes and, if we’re lucky, a PDCA theme running through it. The company may be a million miles from world class and may even be going steadily out of business at the same time. So I’m saying, in quality terms, it’s no more than our starter for ten

Why the confusion then?
The ten thousand dollar question, but I can offer a personal opinion. From my own personal experience I find that quality guys don’t speak the language of business, and business guys don’t speak the jargon of quality. That means strategic, commercial and quality people often have parallel agendas and, because the communication and transparency are poor within the processes (the principle that we should all be seeking the same end result, a successful business), is lost in the ensuing conflict and battle for resources. How often do we hear the QA department moaning about poor top management commitment to quality? Time for a common language and a clear focus on what is important to the business and the customer, whichever way we want to badge it up

A business approach to managing quality
Another favourite theme, but let’s expand on it a little this time by exploring the cost of quality in economic terms. Quality, generally, is defined as “the degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfills requirements” or “conformity to requirements” or a variation on that theme. Often “quality” is stated only in product conformity terms, as if that was the only thing that mattered to the customer and, as a consequence, the lower the level of functional defects, the better things are. However there comes a point at which investing in conformity related improvements does not yield any economic benefits. Eventually we reach a point at which (at the current price) we offer the customer a tolerable level of defect, a lower rate of defect may come at a price that the customer is not prepared to pay. So “better quality” (in this situation) increases the chances the customer will seek a cheaper provider, possibly one with an inferior defect rate. So examining the likelihood of repeat business only from a conformity and defect rate perspective is a dangerous mistake to make. Customers care about lots of things. Once the level of defects is tolerable they start to care more about other things. After sales service, response times, ease of dealing with, user-friendliness of contact systems, flexibility, image even. If these are important to the customer, then they become the new conformity

Post from: Capable People Blog

The real benefits of ISO 9001 certification

When its a cut!

What’s eating Shaun today? I’ll tell you what. It’s efficiency savings. Here’s an example of a political ding-dong where the major parties criticise each others’ projections for “efficiency savings”. The thing that is annoying me is the misuse of terminology – and I’m NOT being pedantic!

To understand my argument, you first need to understand what “efficiency” actually means. So if you don’t, and you want to follow the argument, you’ll find it helpful to read this first

Now I don’t have a problem with efficiency savings. Getting things working well, reducing waste and re-work, its all good. But the problem is that this is NOT what the political parties are talking about. What they are talking about is “CUTS” or, to put it in economic terms, economies

Efficiency savings and cuts – what’s the difference?

Well, if we were to achieve something that we can justifiably call an “efficiency saving”, we’d have to be able to outline a circumstance where we have identified ways of achieving a similar level of productive output for a lower input cost. What the political parties are actually describing is a circumstance where they will simply reduce the inputs (budgets) and see what happens next. This is an economy or a cut

Now it could be that an economy (cut) could lead to an efficiency. In fact this technique is commonly used in the automotive supply chain, where the value of the supply contract is reduced a little year on year, and the supplier simply has to find ways of preserving its margin. But is that likely to happen here? In the UK Public Sector? I’m not so sure. Already we’re hearing departments, councils and unions describing what the implications are likely to be if their budgets are cut, and they aren’t talking about efficiencies. In actual fact they are predicting that they will square the economic circle by reducing the outputs. That is, not by reducing waste, being more efficient and producing a similar output on a reduced budget, but by operating more or less at the same rate of efficiency, but producing less

The only way that the politicians would be able to be technically correct with their use of the term “efficiency saving” would be if they were to construct a system where the budgets would be cut but the productive output protected or guaranteed. Until we hear something like this, what we’re actually dealing with are CUTS

Post from: Capable People Blog

When is an efficiency saving not an efficiency saving?

You’ve got to see the BIG picture

In some of my recent posts I have suggested that some people who work in the quality field might not have the most holistic or balanced view in the world. I get the impression many just can’t see the totality of business dynamics, relationships and motivators that make up the giddy world that is a functioning and functional organisation. I have also had reason to doubt whether the concept of efficiency is properly understood

Public sector pains

Yesterday I found myself reflecting on efficiency in the public sector. There are a lot of unhappy people in the public sector at the moment, no doubt worried about what the current economic problems will mean for them and their jobs. Whilst I fully sympathise with anyone who is worried about their job, fundamentally I do believe that a public sector organisation should never be allowed to think more about itself than its outputs. Public sector bodies exist purely to do a job, to deliver a set of outputs, hopefully in an efficient way. As soon as it starts shifting too much of its focus away from the number one objective and towards its own intrinsic needs, then I think problems are inevitable

Customer Focus is not an absolute concept

All that might not be such an earth shattering concept. An organisation should be customer focussed, that’s a universal truth isn’t it? Well, I’ve started to think more deeply about this. The thing is, whilst a public sector organisation may exist solely for the benefit of its customers, that is just not true of a commercial operation. Commercial operations exist primarily to achieve their own financial goals. satisfying the customer is a means to an end, but not an end in itself. Making a margin is goal number 1, and in some ways the only thing that matters. Senior managers realise this, but I’m not sure that all quality departments do. Let’s face it, if money was no object, satisfying the customer would be a piece of cake, but we just can’t run a sustainable business on those terms. All organisations need a balanced and transparent range of metrics, otherwise we run the risk of our priorities lurching one way then the other. One year we get our “quality” and customer satisfaction right – but our margins are poor. Next year our margins improve, but customer satisfaction drops. Balance and transparency is needed. Quality departments need to understand basic economic principles

This is one area where the EFQM Model is superior to ISO 9001. It focusses the organisation on a much broader range of financial and non-financial measures, plus it allocates “weighting” to different metrics to emphasise the relative priority and importance of each. I’m not too sure ISO 9001 considers the interests of critical stakeholder groups other than the end customer at all in fact. That can’t be right can it?

Anyway, to summarise, I think I’ve discovered a new business mantra

“A public sector company should never be allowed to care more about itself than its customers. A commercial company often has to“

Post from: Capable People Blog

Understanding Customer Focus

ISO 9001 is a generic, one size fits all standard. Designed to be equally applicable to a service organisation as to a manufacturing organisation. That’s the claim anyway, but it’s not quite right. Whilst it may be applicable to service organisations, the claim that this is a significant “design” consideration doesn’t quite ring true. Anyone who has skimmed ISO 9001 once will twig that pretty quickly. It’s literally peppered with manufacturing terminology from start to end. If it is to be applied effectively in a service organisation, some nifty interpretation and common-sense application is called for. Here are a couple of pointers around some “classic” trouble spots

Section 7: Product Realisation
Now here’s a term that’s not even in heavy use in manufacturing. Ask someone to tell you about their “Planning of Product Realisation (clause 7.1)” and more often than not you’ll get nothing more than a vacant expression and maybe some mutterings suggesting you’d better talk to QA about it. Ask them to talk to you about their approach to production planning on the other hand … Ahhhhh! Production planning!

With a service organisation it’s not quite so straightforward, but the solution is the same – just a simple case of word substitution. Here’s the trick – wherever you see the words “Product Realisation” (Yuk) – just substitute the term “Service Delivery” and hey presto! It works. That means clause 7.1 becomes “Planning of Service Delivery” and it covers our deliveries, shift patterns, hours of work, scheduling of work, roles and responsibilities etc etc. And so it carries on throughout section 7. Easy

Clause 8.3 Control of non-conforming product
This term is lifted straight from its manufacturing origin where it still makes perfect sense, but it translates less easily (surprise surprise) when we attempt to apply it to foreign territory – service industries

In order to understand it better, we need to be clear about what it means historically. Basically in manufacturing applications you make things and every now and again you’ll identify through your product inspections and tests that you’ve made a wrong ‘un. Clearly we don’t want this defective item boxed and packed off to the customer, so we need some sort of procedure by which we identify it and put it safely to one side while we decide if it can be salvaged, or if we have to scrap it. This is commonly known as the “Quarantine Procedure”. All manufacturing facilities will have something akin to a “Quarantine Area” which, at various times will be populated by sorry items waiting to learn their fate. So let’s be clear about one thing. Clause 8.3 is not a procedure for “control of non-conformities” – it is a procedure for a special type of non-conformity where we need to apply some sort of isolation or STOP! to the process. Not all non-conformities require a STOP! as such. For example complaints may require corrective action, but they may not initiate any sort of isolation activity, so we need a broader “Corrective Action” procedure (or procedures) to define what we do with other kinds of problems

So what happens if you don’t make “stuff”? You can’t isolate something that is intangible like a service. Well, yes you can, just not in the same way. If you are a service provider, your product is your service – you may provide financial or legal advice for instance – and these services need to be fit for purpose and do what they’re supposed to. Now it could be that somehow we discover that our service is not doing what it’s supposed to – our financial advice may be out of date and it could fail to take into consideration some new piece of legislation for instance. In that instance we’ve got to take that service off-line till we sort it out. That would be our “quarantine procedure”

It takes some thinking through in some cases, but think it through we must, as I’m sure many of you old hands will have spotted, it’s one of those areas where a procedure is MANDATORY

Lesson over. Hope this helps

Post from: Capable People Blog

The application of ISO 9001 to service organisations

Today I have had a eureka moment. Something has become clear to me, and I feel compelled to let you all in on it

About a month ago I published an article on this blog entitled “Why doesn’t the quality community get it?”. The article was subsequently re-published by the Chartered Quality Institute (CQI) on their site, to a mixed reception it has to be said. The article was provocative to say the least. In it I suggested that the reason so many “quality professionals” struggle to obtain the elusive “top management commitment” was because they make little attempt to meet management half-way and understand basic business dynamics and realities. I suggested that many within the “quality community” could do worse than to take a look at themselves as a starting point if they wanted to change the situation

You only have to take a look at some of the comments on the CQI site to note how quickly denial kicked in. I was running a serious risk of rubbing the old guard up the wrong way, but those of you know know me well will understand that the possibility of that was never going to bother me

Anyway, time has moved on, and today I have been involved in an on-line discussion that was originally centred on comparing ISO 9001 with TQM. The discussion somehow evolved into one about efficiency and effectiveness, and this was where I had my epiphany. During the course of the discussion two things became apparent

1. Many practitioners considered that efficiency had little, if anything, to do with ISO 9001, and consequently was outside of the remit of the quality department

2. A lot of quality people did not even understand what the term “efficiency” actually means

To illustrate my second point I’ll use the example that one contributor stated that efficiency was about “doings things right”. Well it isn’t. That is closer to the definition of effectiveness. Efficiency and effectiveness are not the same thing

What is efficiency?

The term efficiency has meaning in a range of contexts, not just quality. Here are a couple of definitions from the worlds of physics, economics and lastly from quality

Efficiency in physics

“The ratio of the effective output compared to the total input within a system”

Efficiency in economics

“Situation in which it is impossible to generate a larger total from the available resources”

Efficiency in ISO 9000

“Relationship between the result achieved and the resources used”

All of these definitions say more or less the same thing, that a state of efficiency compares what you get out to what you put in. A highly efficient system, therefore, is one that produces the most conforming output items for a given input

Efficiency is NOT about “doing it right”

When politicians claim that a public sector department is inefficient, they are not claiming that they can’t do their job. They are suggesting that the department costs more to run than it should. They are claiming that there is too much waste in the system. That if the department was more efficient, then we’d be getting a similar output, but we’d not need to spend so much to get it

Now, there are two things that amaze me when it comes to some “quality” people

1. Just how few appear to have grasped this fairly simple and fundamental concept

2. Many quality professionals do not see “efficiency” as part of their brief in any way

Understanding this has been my eureka, my blinding flash. Now everything is clear to me. Now I understand why many quality professionals fail to engage senior management and turn them on to quality. The fact is that if senior management were to try and run a business using the narrow view of quality adopted by many quality types, we’d be closing the doors in no time

Businesses have to be efficient. If they are inefficient, they become uncompetitive. They may be able to produce conforming and functioning goods, but they can’t make any money in the process. Call me obtuse, but if I was a senior manager and I had a quality manager that had not grasped that basic concept, and had not looked at how his “quality strategy” could help me make a decent margin, I’d not have much time for the guy either

When Philip Crosby suggested that quality people needed to speak the language of the boardroom in order to be effective, he wasn’t throwing in a disposable sound bite, he was succinctly making an incredibly important point. In fact if I was a CEO who had a quality manager who did not think that efficiency was part of his job, I’d be looking for a new quality manager within five minutes

Post from: Capable People Blog

Quality and efficiency