Quality is a company’s top priority. WRONG!

You probably thought that your company’s mission statement highlighting ‘exceeding customer expectations’ and ‘striving for world-class quality’ was defining the company’s actual priorities. Wrong!
Quality performance has historically been a major differentiator in a company’s performance (sales, customer satisfaction) and for many decades took a great deal of attention from top management to achieve it. As quality levels have improved over time in many industries, strong quality performance is no longer a customer delighter but now only “table stakes” for a company to maintain their market position. Quality performance becomes visible only when you fail. For this reason, companies have fallen into a trap – the have put their quality system on ‘cruise control’. This puts them at high risk.
When you look “behind the curtain”, the reality is often quite different than the company priority statements. Start digging deeper. Take a close look at monthly management review agendas. Is quality the first topic you find? Likely not. Look at the Key Process Indicators (KPIs) and other high-level company metrics. Do you see more than token quality measures, or even any quality measures at all? Often not!
If you do see quality performance represented loudly and clearly: high in management agendas and prominently among KPI’s, congratulations - you work for a quality-focused company. If you don’t, a higher priority is front and center of the attention of top leadership. Financial performance, shareholder value, and/or top-line growth are the priorities of most companies. (Of course, those are the outcomes that keep a company alive, so this should come as no surprise.) That said, a company without the dedication and a robust system to achieve world class quality can also easily fail!
High quality is a prerequisite for businesses these days. For long-term success, it is imperative to set up a system that pushes quality performance to ever-higher levels. However, this does not mean quality is a higher (or even equal) priority compared to financial results - don’t let them tell you it is. Quality performance is quite often a secondary (or lower) priority that most top leadership “want handled” by a different group. Don’t think that top leadership speaking about quality and setting quality initiatives by a defined group pushes it to top priority for the company. It doesn’t. It may be just a side initiative to handle the mess called “quality”.
Spotting the difference between putting quality on cruise control vs. seeing it as a real priority is easy. Your company is REALLY prioritizing quality performance when you see all of these indicators:
1) The top-level company priorities and measures include quality performance
2) A clear quality improvement plan is visible to all employees
3) Management is proactively monitoring quality performance with KPIs
4) Management is swiftly addressing quality excursions (internal and external)
5) Resources are added in areas that address quality, not only financial gain
6) Problems are not only fixed but the deficient systems behind them are corrected
7) Performance in quality is visible to the entire company
If you don’t see nearly all of these things, your company is at risk. A competitor who is truly quality focused will come along and “eat your lunch”. There are ways to combat this reality. CӔDENCE can help you achieve world-class quality, set up a thriving quality system, and push through the typical corporate roadblocks to success. In a future post, we will explore how a top-notch company approaches strategic quality improvement.

Over the years we’ve been exposed to Six Sigma, Juran, Deming PDCA, 8D, Dale Carnegie, A3, Shainin, and more. Each technique works pretty well, and has been demonstrated many times in a wide variety of industries and circumstances. At the core they are all essentially the same!
Each approach relies on an underlying logical flow that goes like this: [a] make sure the problem is clearly defined; [b] be open to all sources of information; [c] vet the information for relevance and accuracy; [d] use the process of elimination to narrow down all possible causes to the most likely few; [e] prove which of the suspects is really the cause of the issue; [f] generate a number of potential solutions; [g] evaluate the effectiveness, feasibility and risk of the potential solutions; [h] implement the winning solution(s); and [i] take steps to make sure your solution(s) don’t unravel in the future.
The differences between the paradigms resides in supplementary steps and toolkits. For example, 8D contains the important “In

Your primary role as a manager is to ensure your team’s success. Internalize this. Make sure your team members know this. Build an environment of trust and collaboration. A direct report of mine would frequently leave me out of the loop as problems escalated, preferring instead to “work harder”. It was clear that he felt uncomfortable delivering bad news to me (his boss) when things were not going according to plan. Let me tell you the rest of the story.

I was struggling to get updates from my regional project management directors. Sensing my frustration at having to constantly repeat my (apparently futile) requests to the team to provide their updates consistently, my boss suggested, “If you want something done, schedule it.” He meant that if updates are needed at a specific time, actually schedule them directly on people's calendars, making the expectation and reminder "automatic" each month, and emphasizing the importance of the updates by turning them into meetings – people tend not to show up empty handed to meetings where they're expected to present. Scheduling removed a bit of "friction" and created a sense of urgency that resulted in real progress. Amazingly, they didn’t miss any updates after that point!

One of the best bits of advice I received when I first became a manager was to “delegate a task when your team member is 70% as good at it as you are, not 99%.” Many times, people are promoted to management positions because of their strong performance as individual contributors, but then they’re shocked to learn that a whole separate set of skills is required to succeed in their new role. Delegation is high on this list of new skills. Delegation means handing off tasks for someone else to do them. A common mistake is to only hand off a task when the team member is as good as you are at it. This is a trap! While it may seem like a good idea to protect the quality of the task, it doesn’t work in practice.

Don’t be fooled by the latest fad in project management, Agile. Agile is pitched as a revolutionary method, but the fact is, it simply DOES NOT GET THE RESULTS that visual waterfall approaches do. Period.
We see team after team fail using Agile methods, for very specific reasons. Let’s look at the 6 painful TRUTHs of using Agile methods. You don't need the latest fad, you need to use the best practices to manage a project to completion.

Problem-solving methods haven’t changed in over 20 years, and some methods have been around for 30-50 years without significant improvement. CAEDENCE has released a novel improvement to problem-solving that overcomes shortfalls in existing methods.
Applicable to all structured problem-solving approaches, Visual 8D™ enables teams to execute the familiar problem-solving steps (with no additional effort), while capturing plans and progress in easy-to-follow diagrams. Visual 8D™ puts teams in the position of providing answers to management and customer questions before being asked, resulting in improved control of the situation and minimizing time wasted on extraneous actions.

Being action-oriented is a good thing, right? Well, yes and no. There's a big difference between learning and adjusting quickly ("failing fast") and wasting time and resources by "rushing off half cocked".
Executives and teams alike are eager to be (and be seen) "doing something", but they often fail to recognize the distinction between 'activity' and 'progress'. As a result, they act upon the first reasonable idea that comes along. The trouble with acting on the first reasonable idea is twofold. First, there might have been much better ideas, and second, once you start working on the first idea, you stop looking for the better ones. Outcomes are often sub-optimal – problems not solved, product not launched, etc.
Want to dramatically improve your team's odds of achieving consistently strong outcomes? Next time everyone's ready to run with the first reasonable idea, set aside just 30 minutes and challenge the group with this 3-step process.