Better Together

Four decades ago, process improvement was in the doldrums. A global bright spot was Japan, which contributed an impressive menu of original, borrowed, and adapted concepts and practices to quality thinking.

One set of practices, grouped under the quality umbrella, has gone by evolving labels, including statistical process control (SPC), total quality control (TQC), companywide quality control, total quality management and Six Sigma.

A second improvement regime, focusing on process flow, migrated westward in the early 1980s as just-in-time (JIT) production and was later renamed lean manufacturing. Its scope expanded and it became known as lean management. Early on, JIT was commonly linked as JIT/TQC and then much later as lean Six Sigma.1

Despite the merging that has taken place, two largely distinct core methods remain: the quality sciences on one hand and flow methods on the other, each with its own separate community of professionals.
In critically examining a previous case study that focused only on quality methods,2 this article supports the idea that separation into quality and flow camps can—and often does—lead to suboptimal results. For the sake of more effective process improvement, each camp needs to broaden its skill sets to be adept at understanding and fixing processes through quality and flow methods combined.

Flow and the pursuit of quality

The flow solutions discussed in this article have quicker stage-to-stage flows as a dominant objective and result. Equally important, quick flow minimizes the number of process variables, thus reducing process variation, simplifying quality trace-back and minimizing the number of product items in the total flow and, therefore, the damage when a product disaster occurs.
As applied to the meat and other fresh-food sectors, such quickness translates as greater product freshness and longer shelf-life availability.

A further advantage is obtained from flow’s mandate for right-sized equipment. That means:
• Small—for small batches.
• In multiples—for each of the product models.
• Slow—each model-dedicated equipment unit running close to the product’s market use rate.
• Simple—in number of components and controls because of being narrowly product-focused.
• Easy—to operate, maintain and ensure quality.

Considering the contention that process improvement might be encumbered by the tendency of many organizations to separate champions of quality and advocates of flow:
1. The way reported in the case study, in which impressive quality-science methods considerably improved festering quality deficiencies.
2. The other, likely to yield even better results, by using best-practice solutions in flow management.
It would seem, however, that the best course of action should have included both approaches, but for optimal results, perhaps flow should have had precedence. Being implemented first, the flow solutions would have resolved many of the most serious root causes, while simplifying conditions for application of the kinds of quality-science methods presented in the case study.
While there could be a principle here—flow solutions before quality sciences—one case study is not convincing evidence. It seems safe to say, however, that for the majority of severe quality problems, corrective action should include flow solutions and not just quality science.
For that to happen, organizations must put more effort into merging the two disciplines, and the professionals in each camp must broaden themselves so that rather than working separately, they can engage as members of a team for maximum process improvement. QP
________________________________________
References and note
1. Lean and JIT have been around long enough to have taken on various meanings or interpretations. Flow has emerged as an alternative term that has the advantage of providing a mental image of the desired movement along the value chains.
2. Venkateswarlu Pulakanam, "Responsibility for Product Quality Problems in Sequential Manufacturing: A Case Study From the Meat Industry," Quality Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 7-22.

Article Reference: Quality Progress