Three important issues surface when considering the use of “quality” strategies for organisations.

Firstly, much has already be discussed in this book about the folly of chasing an enabler as an end in itself, rather than using the enabler to achieve a specific desired outcome. Many, if not most, corporations have the concept of a “quality organisation” identified somewhere in either their mission, vision or operating statements and strategies. This implies that they will “chase” quality as a desirable outcome. Quality is expensive of time and resources, generally has a longer-term payback and it carries a risk element. It also compromises in the short-term, other outcomes such as profit, investment, etc.

Secondly, organisations should never chase quality because “it makes management and staff feel good about themselves”. This is never a sufficient justification to adopt any strategy.

The only legitimate reasons for a corporation to embark on a quality path is that quality is (proven to be) the differentiator in the mind of the customer between choosing or not choosing to buy; and quality assists the organisation to satisfy specific shareholder objectives, such as the minimisation of risk (caused by poor product or processes).

Because of the financial and other implications of “quality programs” or “quality accreditation”, such decisions should never be taken lightly nor should it ever be assumed that the pursuit of quality is a “given” in any situation.

It is not suggested however, that companies should be content with shoddy products or processes, but that quality programs have implications and those implications may impact significantly on the organisation’s ability to deliver what it is really there to do - i.e. satisfy shareholder objectives.

Thirdly, having or adhering to a quality program is not a guarantee of success. TQM and other quality programs generally concentrate on the processes within a corporation, on the premise that if all the processes are effective, efficient and of quality; then the outcomes that those processes produce will be of quality.

The unfortunate reality is that an organisation may have superlative quality processes, but still produce a poor product that no-one wants. “Quality” is not a substitute for thinking. Many corporations who have been quality accredited are still not performing against other criteria. Often the cause of this incongruence is that too much faith is placed in the “quality process” as a cure-all, while the basics of running a business are down-played or over-looked.

Although it is never the intention to promote mediocrity over excellence, it must be said that many corporations satisfy their shareholders by providing the market with what it wants; and what it wants may be “less” than what can be achieved. 

From a product perspective, enough “quality” should be build into a product or service to create the necessary sales that will create the necessary and desired benefits to satisfy its owners. Note that the concept of maximisation of quality is not present here.

From an organisational perspective, only sufficient investment in “quality” is needed that will create the necessary processes, environment and outcomes to enable the organisation to satisfy its owners in the timeframes that they consider important. Over this level, any investment in the pursuit of quality is at the expense of shareholders.