When I hear someone is a Quality Manager, or a
member of the QA/QC department of a company, I tend to assume they are
conservative and were unable to better position themselves in more
productive and creative work. I say that, and yet I find myself with
the albatross of a title: "Total Quality Manager."
How did I end up here?
I
don't quite fit in. And, yes, I am risk adverse. So quality is a
pretty nice backwater swirl to end up in. Fortunately, there have been a
few very intelligent people in quality over the years and their
thoughts are applicable throughout all of society.
Unfortunately,
quality is nearly always perceived as an obstacle to creativity. And,
as much as I preach generalities such as: we need notes for there to be music, or we need
color for there to be paintings, it still winds up at the same
question: "why do I have to do it that way?"
Why do I have to do it that way in just three "Why's":
1 - Why is the way you propose better?
2 - Why has your way not been proposed in the past?
3 - Why will your descendants agree to do it your way?
Of
course, this works in a system where the current "way" was designed
with intent. It will fail in a system where the current way of doing
things is "because we have always done it that" Which is never true, by
the way. Frequently, the "always" is a subset or adulterated portion of
what was originally intended. The short cuts that the people that
didn't understand the process were willing to continue to do so they
wouldn't be blamed if something went wrong.
It also fails in a system without discipline.
more later.
