WARNING: This post takes
a contrary-minded viewpoint on the merits and validity of this U.S. government
program. It is intended to stimulate
necessary discussion that will ultimately lead to necessary changes to be
relevant and applicable to the industry.
Those who approach quality as dogmatic fundamentalists should cease
reading any further, lest their staunch convictions be adulterated with reason
and objective evidence.
The article in the View from the Q poses the question why
after 25 years, the Baldrige program has not been more widely adopted, but in
fact is hovering on the list of endangered government programs. As a Canadian, I read this article with
detached interest, since the mandate of the 1987 Quality Improvement Act is to
aid and support companies of the United States of America. For analysis and evolution of this program, I have identified
the following gaps or “Red Flags” which I believe to be impediments to the adoption
and participation in this government program.
1. Outdated Model: It
has been 25 years since the Quality Improvement Act was ratified. Imagine opening a time capsule from 1987 and
reviewing the business literature of the day.
There have been many changes since that time which have affected
American business and quality, which were not considered in the initial
intentions of the Baldrige program. The
proliferation of technology in software, devices, automation, and individual
connectivity to internet communications has altered every major business model
in that time. The emergence of foreign
economies as service and manufacturing centers with superior opportunities for
cost-saving labor arbitrage (a.k.a. cheaper workers with higher productivity)
has changed business models for companies.
The effects of NAFTA and WTO on trade and commerce have expanded supply
chains and market opportunities.
Finally, the combined effects of increased deficits and debt, multiple
wars on terror, and expansive government bail-outs have bloated the public
debt, necessitating an upcoming “Fiscal cliff” in 2013 which will be
characterized by tax increases and significant spending cuts to non-essential
programs. Baldrige was created to
reflect a bygone era which no longer exists.
2.
Baldrige success does not predict future
prosperity: The premise of the
Quality Improvement act was the affirmation of Tom Peters’ hypothesis in the
book In Search of Excellence: Quality leaders will have sustained
profitability. While the merits of this
argument are sound, the actuality is not universally applied. In two particular examples, Baldrige Award
recipients have encountered severe losses.
General Motors, who won for the efforts of their Cadillac division,
reached a point of distress that required severe government intervention. Motorola, an award winner in multiple categories,
encountered significant financial losses and declines in market share until it
finally was absorbed by Google, where it now operates as a subsidiary.
3.
Program Redundancy: In the detailed account within View from the
Q, there are now 40 concurrent programs in operation within the United States
at the State or Regional level. There
are also approximately 40 similar programs offered internationally, reflective
of the transnational, globalized mode of 21st century business
operations. The underutilized but highly
valued ISO 9004:2009 standard for Quality Management replicates many of the
ideals of quality improvement in a more concise and structured format that aligns
with the other ISO standards for management systems and quality auditing. From this description it would appear that there
is a substantial amount of noise and confusion from the plethora of competing
options and opportunities.
4.
Bureaucratic Layer: The Baldrige program has entrenched
itself as a permanent and indefinite entity of the federal government. The growing number of Baldrige examiners,
duly sanctioned to evaluate and bestow upon worthy organizations the highly
prized seal of Baldrige approval, provides the impression not of a
value-adding program, but a self-serving appendage creating overhead and
financial burden. The justification and
rationalization is that Baldrige is equivalent to quality. As an anecdote, I attended the WCQI in
Anaheim in May 2012, and during my stay had the opportunity to shop at a
convenience store located within a few blocks of the conference. I was shocked SHOCKED to find that, in spite
of having no Baldrige certificate, this store independently managed to keep the
fresh fruit chilled, the beer and white wine cold, the red wine and spirits at
room temperature, and the cigars humidified in the humidor. It doesn’t take a Baldrige examiner to
impart the wisdom to a convenience store operator about the customer dissatisfaction
from warm and mouldy fruit, warm beverages, or dry cigars. If anything, the Baldrige “seal of approval”
can be used to divert attention from poor quality outcomes by forcing the
customer to presume quality and evade direct accountability for day-to-day
events.
5.
Partisan Political Patriotism: By naming the award after Baldrige, this
tags the program as a Republican initiative, which implicitly disconnects
itself with the 45-60% of those who are not card-carrying Republicans. While the late Secretary Baldrige was held
in high personal regard, the overall impression of the Reagan’s second term was
steeped in disruption, controversy and scandal.
Land of Confusion An example of pop culture was the Spitting
Image video to the song Land of Confusion which portrayed a bumbling and
confused Reagan accidentally setting off a nuclear bomb. .
Consider the reaction and willingness to adopt if the award was named
after political figures of similar stature: (i.e. Robert McNamara, Ralph Nader,
Janet Reno). I am personally
uncomfortable with anything that has advocates terming themselves as “zealots”,
which implies irrational levels of inflexibility and objectivity. Zealots are useful in defending fortresses
under siege (i.e. the Alamo, Masada, Chick-Fil-A), but highly inappropriate
within a professional environment.
6.
Public challenge to the Private Sector: Nothing strikes fear in the hearts of those
who prize liberty and freedom more than the phrase “We’re from the government
and we’re here to help you”. Apparently
the bureaucrats within the Beltway don’t believe that the private sector already
faces enough challenges with managing against competitors, appeasing
shareholders and creditors, eliciting productivity from employees and unionized
collective agreements, and dealing with an ever-expanding regulatory
burden. By taking inspiration from
historical figures like Mao and Stalin, the federal bureaucrats have manifested
their own “Great Leap Forward” and “Five Year Plan” to entrench quality
improvement by decree. The “carrot” in
the program is the presentation of the award by a senior government official,
being either the President or the Secretary of Commerce. This reinforces the anti-business sentiment
expressed by President Obama, “You didn’t
build that” by making government pick winners in the marketplace. The European model of mixed economies, which is
proving its worth in places like Italy, Greece, Spain, and France, is
culturally incompatible with the heroic frontier risk-taking, thrill-seeking mentality
of the American mindset.
Having established the reasons why the current incarnation
of Baldrige falls short of its ideals and intentions, I propose six solutions
to address the gaps, and in so doing, restore Quality as a top executive priority.
1.
Unified program with international scope: Instead of having 81 distinct programs with the
same intention, start with the internationally recognized ISO 9004:2009
standard, and rebuild a single robust program that is relevant to global organizations and adopted by all levels of government.
2.
Politically neutral and generic: In this increasingly partisan environment and
separation of convictions, it would be less offensive if a more neutral or
generic nomenclature were used to define this program. By tagging a program with a political
reference (i.e. ObamaCare, Reaganomics), the objectivity and virtues are lost and the
political supporters or opponents rally in support or defiance without regard
to the merits of the respective initiatives.
3.
Emphasize objectivity, simplicity and common
sense: Instead of using bombastic references to galvanize support (i.e. zealots),
impress upon the collective intelligence and respect to build a quality culture
based on objectivity, shared values and reinforced positive outcomes.
4.
Privatize, industrialize, and modernize: By decoupling from the federal
bureaucracy, this program can function and more readily adapt to changes in
order to remain relevant and sustainable.
This will force the program to “walk its talk” by transforming from detached
“examiners” to value-adding partners and collaborators. While this will deprive the worthy
organizations of a photo opportunity with a leading political figure of the
day, the organizations will just have to adjust.
5.
Recognize impact of high-performing
individuals: The advent of
technology has given rise to an Artisan Mentality, where individuals with
specialized skills can affect quality outcomes more profoundly than an
organizational system. This reality
should be addressed and encouraged as an element of overall quality
improvement.
6.
Adaptable and agile: The only constant is change. By anticipating the effects of change, a
program should incorporate a robust change mechanism to continually review and
integrate new developments. For
example, how would a social networking company like Facebook demonstrate their
quality improvement? This is what an
adaptable program must address.
No comments:
Post a Comment