Jan 022013
 

I was just reading a really interesting article by Matthew Littlefield called Cost of Quality Definition.  I applaud the article for several reasons.  It is straightforward, clear, and short.  I especially like that Matthew acknowledged that Cost of Quality is not only in negative things that are avoided (warranties, recalls, scrap, etc.), but also that there are costs to prevent these negative consequences (cost of appraisal and prevention).

This sounds like a trivial thing, but I remember living through the 1990’s where some academics and practitioners had a cultic obsession with quality.  They would hammer you with the idea of cost of ‘poor’ quality.   As a university student and engineer I would say, “Well, yes, but obviously you pay something to ensure good quality and avoid recalls, customer satisfaction loss, etc., right?  I mean, there is a level of quality that is not worth while attaining, because the customer does not value it and will not pay for it.”  The quality obsessed would look at me like I had just uttered vile heresy and inform me that having good quality NEVER cost the organization anything – only poor quality did.  Mr. Littlefield’s definition makes a lot more sense.

What does not make sense is Mr. Littlefield’s engaging, but definitionless graph in the article.  The axes are not labeled, either with specific financial units, or with general conceptual terms.  Furthermore, in the paragraphs before and after, his discussion is about the trade-off needed to find the minimum between Cost of Good Quality and Cost of Poor Quality… but the graph has three axes?    Maybe on axis Total Cost and the others are Cost of Good Quality and Cost of Poor Quality?

Can  someone explain?

Share
Skip to toolbar