Quality Classics


Note: Clicking on a title will take you to that classic!

1. "Quality Classics Introduction"
2. "The Hawthorne Effect,"Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 6 #1
(Jul-Aug-Sep 1998)
3. "The Pareto Optimum," Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 6 #2
(Oct-Nov-Dec 1998)
4. "The Shewhart Cycle," Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 6 #3
(Jan-Feb-Mar 1999)
5. "The Cost of Quality," Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 6 #4
(Apr-May-Jun 1999)
6. "Continuous Improvement," Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 7 #1
(Jul-Aug-Sep 1999)
7. "Variation," Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 7 #2
(Oct-Nov-Dec 1999)
8. "Benchmarking," Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 7 #4
(Apr-May-Jun 2000)
9. "Employee Involvement & Empowerment" Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 8 #4
(Apr-May-Jun 2001)
10. "Process" (1) Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 9 #3
(Jan-Feb-Mar 2002)
11. "Systems" Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 9 #4
(Apr-May-Jun 2002),
12. "Quality Thinking" Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 10 #1
(Jul-Aug-Sep 2002)
13. "
Quality Policymaking" Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 10 #2
(Oct-Nov-Dec 2002)
14. "
Productivity" Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 11 #3
(Jan-Feb-Mar 2003)
15. "Surveying for Systems Improvements" Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 11 #4
(Apr-May-Jun 2003)
16. "
Fun Method to Teach The Seven Tools of Quality"
Ron Villanueva,
(ASQ Presentation on March 19, 2003)
17. "Cost Benefit Analysis" Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 11 #2
(Oct-Nov-Dec 2003)
18. "Learning" Dr. Bob Krone
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 11 #3
(Jan-Feb-Mar 2004)
19. "Leadership" Dr. Bob Krone
Inland Empire Quality,
Vol. 12, Issue 1
(Jul-Aug-Sep 2004)
20. "Cooperation vs Competition" Dr. Bob Krone
Inland Empire Quality,
Vol. 12, Issue 2
(Oct-Nov-Dec 2004)
21. "Morality" Dr. Bob Krone
Inland Empire Quality,
Vol. 12, Issue 3
(Jan-Feb-Mar 2005)
22. "Knowledge" Dr. Bob Krone
Inland Empire Quality,
Vol. 12, Issue 4
(Apr-May-Jun 2005)
23. "Space" Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 13, Issue 1
(Jul-Aug-Sep 2005)
24. "Management by Objectives" Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 13, Issue 2
(Oct-Nov-Dec 2005)
25. "Zero Defects
" Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 13 Issue 3
(Jan-Feb-Mar 2006)
26. "Standards" Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 13 Issue 4
(Apr-May-Jun 2006)
27. "Teamwork" Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 14 Issue 2
(Oct-Nov-Dec 2006)
28. "Projects: Juran to Six SigmaDr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 14 Issue 4
(Apr-May-Jun 2007)
29. "Purpose" Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 16 Issue 1
(Jul-Aug-Sep 2007)
30. "Building/DestroyingJeff Croddy & Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 16 Issue 3
(Jan-Feb-Mar 2008)
31. "Quality Over Time"Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 17 Issue 1
(Jul-Aug-Sep 2008)
32. "System Integration" Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 17 Issue 2
(Oct-Nov-Dec 2008)
33. "Pitch, Roll and Yaw" Dr. Bob Krone,
Inland Empire Quality, Vol. 17 Issue 3
(Jan-Feb-Mar 2009)


"Quality Classics" is a project of the ASQ Inland Empire Section 0711. All Section members are encouraged to submit their own Quality Classic essay for inclusion in the data base. When we have reached a critical mass of contributions we will seek publication. Submissions accepted may also be published in one of our quarterly INLAND EMPIRE QUALITY Newsletters. The guidelines for submitting a Quality Classic are:

1. It must be a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility.

2. The originator need not necessarily have been an acknowledged Quality Pioneer, but the selected quality classic must have made a sustained and generally recognized positive contribution to the improvement of quality.

3. The essay should be no longer than one single-spaced page.

4. Submissions should be sent to:

Dr. Bob Krone, Newsletter Editor
ASQ Inland Empire Section
E-mail - [email protected]
(760) 451-8515 (Phone or Fax)

5. If you reproduce "Quality Classics" for any use you must provide author accreditation and our newsletter and Web Site publication citations.

Back to Top

"The Hawthorne Effect"

Few experiments in the world of work have proven as valid over time as the Western Electric Company experiment to determine the effect on production output of illumination on work conducted by Elton Mayo (the "Father of Human Relations") in 1929.

On major lesson learned, that "The more workers are observed the better will be their performance" has remained a solid finding throughout the 20th Century. Other findings of those studies, such as "Management must be concerned with the organization of teamwork and the development of cooperation among employees" have also been fully validated over time. The story is well documented: A competent group of Western Electric engineers conducted a scientific experiment comparing a normal work environment with an experiment control room where changes in the working environment could be introduced one at a time while holding all other conditions constant. The results were perplexing to the engineers at the time - performance went up on both the working environments equally. It was the attention paid to the workers, not the changes in work environment, that drove productivity improvement.

The Hawthorne Effect works everywhere: in business; in government; in education; in non-profit organizations; in the family; and for personal productivity. If you still have doubts . . try your own Hawthorne Effect experiment.

 Back to Top

"The Pareto Optimum"

The life’s work of Vilfredo Pareto (1848 - 1923), Italian scientist, sociologist and economist, influenced the direction of economic, management and sociological theory. Oversimplifying his contribution there are two concepts that are perpetuated in management as classics. The first is the Pareto Formula which states that 80% of system results flow from the efforts of 20% of the participants or inputs. Quality sciences uses Pareto Charts which more often than not continue to validate the 20% - 80% findings represented by the formula. The Pareto Formula was intended to be descriptive of what happens in organizations, not necessarily what should happen.

The Pareto Optimum is a normative, or prescriptive, concept - one which should be adopted and has more powerful implications than Pareto’s Formula. A Pareto Optimum is achieved when a policy, intervention, plan, or program results in making many people better off, and none worse off. I consistently present the Pareto Optimum to students and clients as a "golden strategic rule" for policymaking. The Pareto Optimum is very difficult to achieve in any public, private or non-profit organization. The greatest majority of policies require change that helps some and hurts others. But that does not negate the value of keeping it in your sights during policy formulation, and Vilfredo Pareto, realizing that "optimum" characteristic, advised leadership to pursue the Pareto Optimum only as long as it was economically feasible to do so.

To the degree that the quality of your policymaking or strategic planning approaches a Pareto Optimum you will achieve the following benefits for your organization:

1. The feasibility of acceptance of your recommendations will rise, because:

2. With many benefiting, consensus for approval of the policy is high; and

3. With no, or few, people perceiving themselves as worse off, the numbers objecting to the policy, or undermining its implementation, will be small or zero.

Philosophically, sociologically, politically, and even theologically, the Pareto Optimum is consistent with some long-held views of preferable communities and societies. Many people being better off matches the political theory of "The General Good. " Philosophically and sociologically it matches with the values of inclusion, of anti-discrimination, and of Community in Diversity. And the vision of heaven (or perfection) in most religions is of a place of peace, harmony, love, and happiness where there is consensus that everyone is better off than they were suffering the uncertainties, injustices, sins, and pain of life on earth as it has so often been for so many to date.

For all of those reasons, The Pareto Optimum, merits inclusion in your list of Quality Classics.

 Back to Top

"The Shewhart Cycle"

Pretty simply, isn’t it? "Plan, Do, Check, Act - Repeat the Cycle." That’s the abbreviated 4-step cycle for improvement invented by Walter A. Shewhart in 1939. It was named "The Shewhart Cycle" by Dr. W. Edwards Deming in Japan in 1950. Since then it has been called both "The Deming Cycle" and "The Shewhart Cycle." Dr. Deming incorporated into his "14 Steps for the Transformation of Management" and also found it useful "….as a procedure for finding a special cause detected by a statistical signal."

In application the Shewhart Cycle can get very complicated when alternate ensembles of tools are employed during the four cycles and as those cycles are repeated over time; data is aggregated, and evaluated; and the learning process proceeds. It was the richness of those potential ensembles that led the cycle into an entirely different intellectual stream from Quality Control or Quality Management. That stream was Action Research.

Action Research (or "Action Learning") has found a more receptive environment in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand than in the United States to date. Action Research developed from theories of experiential learning, cognitive processes, psychology and strong motivations to break people and groups out of their unchallenged belief systems and to be sensitized to new ways of thinking and to paradigm shifts. Although some scholars attribute the origin of Action Research to J.L. Moreno in Austria as early as 1913, American Social Psychologist Kurt Lewin (1890-1947) is generally acknowledged as coining the term Action Research.

The Action Research cycle is: "Plan, Act, Observe, Reflect, . . . then: Revised Plan, Act, Observe, Reflect - Repeat the cycle." The Shewhart Cycle for Quality Control relied heavily on quantitative evidence while the Action Research cycle relied more on qualitative evidence. The significant similarity between Action Research and Quality Management is the emphasis on PROCESS as distinct from previous analytical models that concentrated on content or outputs. Both streams of intellectual activities have improved performance as goals, but use different means to achieve better performance.

The Shewhart Cycle is an example of a Quality Classic concept that originated from the need for repetitive research-based learning and which has made sustained and validated positive contributions to Quality; and in areas which have their roots in disciplines not generally linked to quality control, auditing, or management. Bringing it up to date, the ASQ Education Division is planning a three-day program devoted to quality in K-12 education for the 53rd Annual Quality Congress, May 24-26, 1999 in Anaheim, California - and, "….the presenters’ topics will be organized around the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle."

It may be called something else in your company or organization, but I would bet that what happens is "Plan, Do, Check, Act - Repeat the Cycle."

 Back to Top

"The Cost Of Quality"

Time was when the conventional wisdom of the American world of work was that, if you want to raise quality of a product or service, you must invest or spend more money. Dr. W. Edwards Deming and Dr. Joseph Juran began to challenge that conventional wisdom in the 1950s. Dr. Genichi Taguchi’s research and writings in Japan subsequently destroyed forever the idea that only by throwing money at a process can you improve it.

Taguchi defined the costs relating to quality as (paraphrased):

"The cost of quality is the cost to individuals,
organizations, or societies of the cost of poor quality"

Taguchi, therefore, turned around for ever the concept of what should be measured when determining quality. You measure results from existing poor or failed quality. Faulty product returns are measurable. Costs of inspection versus including quality into design can be measured. Company or user repair costs for labor and parts can be measured. Production line downtime can be measured. Customers losses due to poor service can be measured. Enrollment drops in a university can be measured. Investment in failure prevention can be costed. Results of Six Sigma programs can be compared with processes that have not adopted Six Sigma. Profits after ISO certification can be compared with those before certification. Costs of quality programs can be compared with revenues over time and with returns on investment prior to implementation of those quality programs. Publication of quality programs, cost figures and productivity figures stimulate cost reductions and competition internally and externally. The costs of poor quality policymaking can be measured in human suffering.

In Dr. Deming’s "Out of the Crisis" he states that using Taguchi’s model: "leads to lower and lower costs as quality improved." The Juran Institute has done extensive research and documentation into Quality Costs. The controversy of the 1970's in the United States over whether "Quality Costs or Quality Pays" has been resolved - QUALITY PAYS. Quality pioneers, quality institutes, The American Society for Quality (ASQ), quality degree programs in colleges and universities, the spread of international quality standards, increasing profits of companies which have adopted quality programs, and the global adoption of the United States Government Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award Criteria (27 nations by 1999) are all testimony to the overwhelming evidence that quality pays in the cost benefit sense. Deming, Juran, Feigenbaum, and Crosby all taught that it would. The Taguchi definition has given the world indisputable proof.

 Back to Top

"Continuous Improvement"

"It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place", the Queen said to Alice in Lewis Carroll’s THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS. Hosting the 1997 National Quality Month Satellite Download program, the CEO of Ford Motor Company stated it somewhat differently: "If your not getting better, you’re getting behind." And a Chinese proverb says: "Learning is like rowing in a river, if you are not advancing, you are regressing."

Those are three ways, out of thousands, of describing. Continuous Improvement.

Improvement is a very old idea. St. Luke in the New Testament (Luke 6: 1-20) tells of Jesus improving the lives of the afflicted, crippled and poor on the Sabbath. Sir Francis Bacon, in essay on Riches (1596), wrote: "The improvement of the ground is the most natural obtaining of riches." Governor Bradford, in his written design for building Plymouth Plantation, wrote: "They might be kept close together, both for more saftie and defence, and ye better improvements of ye generail employments." The United States Congress for over 100 years has appropriated funds for the improvement of harbors, rivers, highways and similar works.

However, the idea that "Continuous Improvement" should be a formal component and goal of business and management strategy came only with the teachings of Deming, Juran and other Quality Sciences pioneers after World War II. Think about our basics in Quality Management: The Shewhart Cycle, Statistical Processing Control, Points #1 and #5 of Deming’s 14 Points, Juran’s Quality Improvement Projects, Crosby’s "Zero Defects," The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Criteria, ISO development of standards, Koality Kid, ASQ’s certification programs, and Six Sigma. Continuous Improvement is imbedded in each one.

As we look at world problems today there seems no ending for the need for applications of continuous improvement. It is a ubiquitous principle of the last 50 years with roots into antiquity. Has your company, school, church, agency or organization successfully integrated it? Can we improve forever? Do we know the complete system costs and benefits of attempting to do so? What might be beyond Six Sigma? Can we create formal continuous improvement evaluation systems for Leadership and Policymaking?

Joseph Juran in 1998 stated that the 21st Century, not the 20th, will be remembered as the century of quality. Continuous Improvement is a classic idea with more profound impacts for future work, play and society.

 Back to Top


Variation is easily defended as the most classic concept of the Quality Movement. Walter A. Shewhart prophesied in his 1931 book that quality would improve as variation in production is reduced. W. Edwards Deming in 1950 taught that to Japanese corporate leadership who, in turn, made it a way of life for post World War II Japanese industrial recovery. The logic was: Reduce waste and rework – costs decrease with fewer mistakes and better use of time and equipment – productivity improves – workers’ improved performance gives them pride and increases motivation - better quality and lower prices keeps the company in business and capture the market - more jobs created.

By the 1980s that logic had given Japan 30% of the American car market and shocked United States leadership into adopting the same logic to compete. The change was based in measuring variation in processes, products and services and establishing continuing goals of reducing those variations while also raising the quality standards of the goals. It meant that statistical theory, statistical thinking, tools and experimentation based on probability had replaced dollars from sales as the primary evidence of success. Documenting the reduction of the costs of processes, products and services became the yellow brick road to continual quality improvement. Finding and removing common and special causes of variability replaced inspection. Quality paid in more dollars but dollars became only one of a number of different ends flowing from quality based means.

Variation is the statistically measured and documented difference between a desired goal and achievement of the work generated to meet the goal. Part of the quality paradigm change was that customers increasingly dictated the goals rather than corporate or agency leadership. Statistical thinking involves examining the process view, seeking sources of variation, and designing and executing a sequence of experiments to identify and quantify their contribution to inefficiency.

In 1998 Dr. Joseph Juran stated: "The 21st Century, not the 20th, will be remembered as the century of quality. "If Juran is right an optimum shared positive vision for the future for quality professionals could include reducing the variance of:

1) Global waste and defective products and services;

2) Incapacity to govern by political leaders who have a narrow definition of who their customers are;

3) Goals for elimination of poverty, hunger, homelessness and hopelessness;

4) Goals for the elimination of war.

Century 21 might have a Six Sigma vision for variance from human goals that is not as Utopian as that new sounds as we reflect on the 20th Century. The challenge for each of us as quality professionals will be to continually move our systems in ways consistent with six sigma variance. The most important variable for achieving that vision will be the quality of policymaking and management in every business, in every government, in every hospital, school and church.

 Back to Top


Stars have always been the benchmarks of the universe. Invention of the sexton helped humans know where they were on our planet and improved their chances of navigating to where they wanted to go.

Merriam-Webster defines benchmarking as: "A point of reference from which to measure. Something that serves as a standard." As the Quality Movement early in its development adopted Benchmarking as one of its classics, a more technical definition emerged as: "Benchmarking is a semi-quantitative tool for establishing position within a marketplace for all key, competitive parameters. More simply, benchmarking is learning about other successful systems for performance comparison with our own. It’s a continuous process of measuring one’s products, services and practices against the best practices anywhere in the world.

The answer to the question "What should be benchmarked?" is: every process that describes the health, productivity and vitality of a business. What is learned contributes to: 1) Strategic reassessment of customer needs; 2) Refocus the business strategy; 3) Realign the organization structure; 4) Develop an unbiased understanding of competitive position; or 5) Really understand the best-in-class.2

Make your benchmarking strategy a part of your quality plan. Make both parts of your strategic business plan. Make it an integrated component of the job. Stop thinking your operation is different with no suitable others to benchmark. Benchmarking can produce leapfrog performance improvement. It will help you avoid inadequacies and mistakes that others have made; capitalize on the successes of others; reduce your cost of quality; raise customer satisfaction; and give you lead time for implementing improvements you would not otherwise have discovered. Begin with the 20% of the variables that control 80% of the enterprise.

 Back to Top

"Employee Involvement & Empowerment"

Dr. C.C. Crawford knew it in the 1920s. Walter Shewhart knew it in the 1930s. Edward Deming and Joseph Juran knew it in the 1940s and taught it to the Japanese after World War II. Japanese industry integrated it into their design and production processes in the 1960s and 1970s. By the 1980s Japan had captured 30% of the U.S. automobile market. The principle is simple: "Ask the people who do the work . . . they knew where the problems lurk and usually how to fix them." It took the economic shock of Japan’s Quality Control movement to change American corporate leadership from top-down hierarchies to flatter organizations that captured the know-how of workers to make continuous improvement effective.

Methods to capture employee know-how and empower them to impact the decision making system began with Dr. C.C. Crawford’s 1926 invention of his "Crawford Slip Method" to simultaneously capture the written judgments, problems, concerns, ideas and recommendations of a group. Brainstorming was invented in New York by advertiser Alex F. Osborn in 1942. Charles H. Clark, a young partner wrote the Brainstorming book that sold millions in seven languages. In 1984 he admitted to me that "Dr. Crawford’s method saved Brainstorming." Charlie still consults in Ohio with a mix of Crawford Slip and traditional Brainstorming routines. I brought Dr. Crawford back to USC in 1981 (he had retired in 1956). We set up "The USC Productivity Network" based exclusively on teaching, consulting and writing with Crawford’s Method. I began computer applications in 1985 which led to Ideas UnlimitedÔ in 1996. My masters and doctoral candidates find it a powerful research tool.

As the tempo of business, government and life continues to accelerate in the 21st Century the Employee Involvement & Empowerment Quality Classic will continue as one critical variable for quality improvement.

Back to Top 


Process Tracking; Process Management; Process Action Teams; Process Measurement; Statistical Process Control (SPC); and Process Variation are terms created after Quality Management pioneers identified process concentration and analysis to be a critical variable in achieving quality in products and services.
Dr. W. Edwards Deming's "14 Principles for Transformation of Western Management" formed the basis for his lessons for top management in Japan in 1950(2) and for his teaching and consulting over 50 years until his death in 1993. His Point #5, "Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service," includes the theme that quality must be built-in at the design and process stages.
(3) His 14 Points evolved into "The Deming System of Profound Knowledge (tm)."
Dr. Joseph Juran's classic Handbook has a full page of process subjects in the index covering process capability, control, development, tools, industries, specifications, measurement, automation, improvement and variables.(4)
Quality pioneer Philip B. Crosby, who died 18 August 2001, is known for his "Four Absolutes of Quality Management." (5) His second Absolute was "The system for causing quality is prevention, not appraisal." He amplified it to say that the first step toward defect and error prevention is to understand the process by which the product is produced.
Process fits our criterion for this Quality Classics series by being a "? concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility." (6) Evidence supports process continuing to be an indispensable quality variable for the next 50 years.

(1) This essay was first published in INLAND EMPIRE QUALITY, Vol 9, Issue #3 (Jan-Feb-Mar 2001), the Newsletter of the Inland Empire Section of the American Society for Quality (ASQ).
(2) W. Edwards Deming, OUT OF THE CRISIS (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1982 and 1986), p.23. See the Deming Institute Web Site at http://www.deming.org.
(3) Ibid, pg 49-52.
(4) J.M. Juran, Editor in Chief and Frank M. Gryna, Associate Editor, JURAN'S QUALITY CONTROL HANDBOOK, 4th Edition (McGraw-Hill Book Company: 1988, first published in 1951.
(5) Philip B. Crosby, QUALITY WITHOUT TEARS: THE ART OF HASSLE-FREE MANAGEMENT," 1984 www.philipcrosby.com .
(6) Click the QUALITY button on the ASQ Inland Empire Section 711 web site at http://www.asq711.org.

 Back to Top


Dr. W. Edwards Deming taught that the first question a quality consultant should ask of any client is "Is there a system?" In the 1950s he created the first quality focused system for the transformation of American management with his "Profound Knowledge" theory based on his 14 Points and Seven Diseases that stand in the way of the transformation. Although the original Deming package is rarely taught as a unit now (in 2002) the essence of those 14 points and seven diseases can found in Quality Management theories and tools which have emerged since then.

A system is a complex set of interacting elements. The Systems Approach is a scientific paradigm embracing concepts of wholeness, interdependence, organized complexity and learning through feedback and crossfeed. The basic parts of any complex system in business and management are: environment, boundaries, inputs, people, process, outputs, feedback (i.e. learning from the system) and crossfeed (learning by comparing with other systems). Because of those characteristics, systems thinking became formalized in the 20th Century as fundamental to achieving quality products, services and/or policy. While global traveling in the 1950s and 1960s I surveyed phone books in major cities for the word "Systems." It was rare to find it listed. Now you will not find a phone book anywhere in the world, in any language, which does not have multiple systems business and organizations listings. We live in a world of natural and human-designed systems.

Not all quality problems require the systems approach for their solution. But, the significance to Quality Managers in the 21st Century is that attacking problems without considering the alternative of systems thinking can plant the seeds of failure. One of the pioneer philosophers, scholars and writers about the systems approach, C. West Churchman at the University of California in Berkeley, ended his 1968 book with the final statement: "The systems approach is not a bad idea." That now stands as one of the classic understatements in scholarly literature.

This essay first published in INLAND EMPIRE QUALITY, Vol. 9, #4 (Apr-May-Jun 2002), the Newsletter of the Inland Empire Section of the America Society for Quality (ASQ). For the complete Quality Classics series see: http://www..asq711.org.
2 W. Edwards Deming, OUT OF THE CRISIS (Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering, 1982).
4 C. West Churchman, THE SYSTEMS APPROACH (New York: Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1968), p. 232.

 Back to Top

"Quality Thinking"

Have you thought about what began the quality movement? It was quality thinking. Philosopher Socrates (470 - 399 .B.C.) received the order from the Athenian Forum to end his life by drinking hemlock because his quality thinking exposed false logic in their thinking which they considered heretical. His student Plato (428 - 347 B.C.) preserved his thinking for all posterity. Aristotle (384 - 322 B.C.), Plato’s student, identified quality as one of his highest genera (categories) and distinguished it absolutely from substance, quantity, and relation, as well as from place, time, action, passion, habit, and posture. He further identified quality as something which has a contrary, which admits of degree, and which is an important variable in comparing and guessing the differences among people and things.

Dr. W. Edwards Deming and Dr. Joseph Juran changed post-World War II Japanese industry leadership thinking to formally begin the Quality Movement. Phillip Crosby, in the 1960s, challenged American business with the radical thinking that Zero Defects should be the goal. By the 1990s 6 Sigma had been the quality tool that allowed Motorola to essentially achieve zero defects.

In 1999 Juran predicted that the 21st Century would be "The Century of Quality." As that century now begins we see global evidence that Juran was right.
GE sustained double-digit growth through a recession and the aftermath of 11 September 2001 because of Quality Management. In Thailand huge banners proudly announce "ISO CertiƒOed." Quality methods and tools employed for the largest construction project in history – Hong Kong’s 10-year creation of the Chep Lok Kok Airport – has convinced Chinese Civil Aviation leadership that they can build a similarly complex new Beijing airport in three years. Two recent events, China’s joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) and winning the hosting of the 2008 Olympics, were strong catalysts for that goal.

Thinking has, throughout history, been the capability of humans that made them distinct from all other living things on our earth. In 2002, Charles W. McCoy, Jr., Judge on the Los Angeles Superior Court and Adjunct Professor at the Pepperdine University School of Law, published a milestone book on quality thinking (1) in which his career of legal decision making has produced critical questions and thinking skills for problem solving. My own hope is that the quality thinking that produced the global Quality Movement, and improved products and services over the past 50 years, can, in the 21st Century, be focused additionally on the clear need for improving the quality of policymaking (2). The American Society for Quality (ASQ), which has been the consistent professional catalyst for the quality movement, would be a logical leader for increasing quality thinking to solve problems negatively impacting global people and societies.


"Quality Classics" is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711. This Quality Classic was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 10, Issue 1 (July-Aug-Sep 2002). Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Queen Elizabeth II stated in her 30 April 2002 "Golden Jubilee Address" that "Only the passing of time makes the distinction between the ephemeral and the permanent."

1. Charles W. McCoy, Jr., Why Didn’t I Think of That: Think the Unthinkable and Achieve Creative Greatness (Prentice Hall Press, 2002).

2. For a brilliant analysis of the need to improve policymaking by the scholar widely regarded as the world’s foremost pioneer of modern public policy studies, see Yehezkel Dror, Capacity to Govern (Frank Cass Publishers, 2001).

 Back to Top

"Quality Policymaking"

Over the past fifty years ASQC/ASQ (the American Society for Quality) developed into the preeminent catalyst for the improvement of processes, products and services. It has been a remarkable success story of growth from the first consulting and teaching by quality pioneers in the 1950s to a professional society recognized as the global authority and resource for quality control, assurance, auditing, certification and management.

When Dr. W. Edwards Deming was asked during one of his seminars: "What shall we do when leadership will not listen?", he answered with a smile, "Fire them." It has been known throughout the Quality Movement that an emphasis on leadership is essential for businesses, government agencies, schools, hospitals, multi-national entities or non-profit organizations to successfully implement quality programs. Resources are required. Leadership controls resources and policy. The number one category of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award is Leadership. And leadership creates the policymaking system.

In spite of this leadership-to-quality link throughout the history of the Quality Movement there is still no formal focus on Quality Policymaking within ASQ. Products and Services are the two major categories. It is not that policy issues have been ignored by professionals – quite the contrary. Deming’s 14 Points, the writings of Juran, Crosby, Feigenbaum, Taguchi and most other quality professionals all consider the policy implications of their quality improvement recommendations. Organizational culture cannot be changed without the work of decision makers. The message of this essay is that it is time now, in the year 2002, for ASQ to formally create a Quality Policymaking research, writing and consulting entity.

Why do it? The gap between needed quality of policymaking and existing quality has been increasing for centuries. In spite of important exceptions to that assertion – mostly in business and the military – reality testing will show that Yehezkel Dror’s "Second Dror Law," published in 1971, remains valid. Dror is the scholar widely regarded as the world’s foremost pioneer of modern public policy studies (1). His "Second Dror Law" is:

"While human capacities to shape their environment, society, and human beings are rapidly increasing, policymaking capabilities to use those capacities remain the same."

Our 21st Millennium is beginning with so many policymaking failures captured daily by global media that I need not try to itemize them here. Policy choices will impact ever larger numbers of people as corporations continue to grow to be mega-groups, as national systems intertwine increasingly with regional and global systems, as global problems like terrorism emerge, as populations grow, pollution increases and finite resources are consumed. As complexity increases more policy decisions will be irreversible once made. We cannot reverse the historical legacies of huge costs of poor quality, of wasteful competition and catastrophic conflict throughout the 20th Century and already now in the 21st , and of public and private systems failures resulting from poor policymaking. "Pushing quality up the organization," is an idea now spreading by necessity.

Both the Quality Sciences and the Policy Sciences began formally in the 1950s and have developed with too little interaction. It’s time to accelerate the merger for increasing quality thinking to solve policymaking system problems negatively impacting people and societies globally.

"Quality Classics" is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711. This Quality Classic was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 10, Issue 2 (Oct-Nov-Dec, 2002). Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Readers can access the entire series of Quality Classics at: http://www.asq711.org.

1. For a brilliant and modern classic analysis of the need to improve policymaking see Yehezkel Dror, 2001. Capacity to Govern: Report to the Club of Rome (Frank Cass Publishers).

 Back to Top


It’s clear that the original motivation for origin of the Quality Sciences by Walter A. Shewhart, in the 1930s was "Doing better with less," or, "Showing that productivity does indeed improve as variation is reduced" (Shewhart, 1931). The title of Dr. W. Edwards Deming’s first chapter in his classic book Out of the Crisis is "Chain Reaction: Quality, Productivity, Lower Costs, Capture the Market" (Deming, 1982, 1986).

Productivity is the ratio of output to input where input consists of labor, material, capital and services and outputs are measurements of results in products or services (Juran and Gryna, 1988, 8.20).

Productivity increases have remained a consistent fundamental for the quality movement over the past fifty years. The quality theories developed by the pioneers all have productivity improvement as goals. Any new quality control or management tool that failed to achieve increased productivity has faded from use. The #7, and final, category of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) criteria over the years has always been Results and has increased in weighting for the total 1,000 points score to 480 or 48% of the scoring to earn the award. Results are productivity and quality improvements. Data on industrial and national productivity are widely compiled and published. They get the attention of economists, industrial leaders, university business professors and political leaders.

The conclusion in the year 2003 is that the Quality Sciences and Quality Management have become the leading catalysts for better resource management. Productivity increases insure against failure, guarantee profitability, and meet stakeholders return-on-investment (ROI) and competition goals as well as conserve valuable resources. All of that leads to success in business, government, health care, schools, foundations, or non-profit entities. But productivity is only one measurable component that determines quality and not always associated with quality depending on how the system is defined. Significant productivity differences among nations and regions can lead to unemployment and social trauma in some, which is one of the outcomes of unregulated globalization.

Productivity increases across a nation produce economic, social and military advantages. The avoidance of serious recession by the United States from the events beginning in the year 1997 in Asia and accelerating after the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 is largely attributable to the ever increasing productivity achieved by quality engineering, control, auditing, and management that occurred beginning in the 1960s and increased exponentially with the technology of the digital age in the 1990s. Similar increases have not been achieved globally, which has contributed to the rich-poor gap increase among nations over the past twenty years.

What about the future? A mind-jolting projection is that the continued convergence of quality, science and technology, especially nanotechnology and automation, over the next 50 years, will produce productivity increases that dwarf the ones of the last 50 years. But there is an overriding question about ever increasing productivity. That question is "Productivity for what?"

Let me take you back 42 years to 1961. As a United States Air Force officer I was fortunate to be a member of the Naval War College student body when, on 3 October 1961, Dwight Eisenhower was the speaker. It was nine months after President Eisenhower had transferred the title of Commander-in-Chief to John F. Kennedy. He spoke under the traditional "privileged" sanctuary of the Naval War College and knew that his comments would not appear in the following morning’s newspapers. The predominantly military audience included Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, U.S. Navy (retired), and Vice Admiral Bernard L. Austin, President of the Naval War College.

Ike discussed the military-industrial complex and what he had meant a few months earlier when he coined the phrase. He talked of dissent within the military; of the race to the moon and national priorities; of the components of national interest; of the meaning of representative government; and the role of religion, morale, and freedom in the American way of life. He elaborated his views on strategy toward Communism, on decision-making in a democracy, on leadership and responsibility, and on the problem of classified information in a free society. He mused on the problems he faced in coordination of a joint unified military command, on the structure of the military services, and he gave us his ideas concerning political integration in Western Europe (Krone, 1971). Even Ike did not predict the expansion of NATO to 26 nations, including members of the Cold War Warsaw Pact, as has occurred recently.

Ike addressed productivity in his answer to the question "General Eisenhower, do you consider the Russian economic growth a serious challenge to the United States?" Ike answered:

"We are far more productive than the Russians, but since they started from a very low point their rate of growth is quite good. The big danger is this: they, by their dictatorial methods, can direct all their productivity toward the particular things that they want to use. It is interesting, for example, to talk to a Russian about automobiles. I think that they produced about 100,000 last year, we produced 6 ½ million. I took Mr. Kruschev for a chopper ride around Washington, and he was amazed at the number of big roads running out of the city. He said "We don’t need roads like this." And I said, "How do your people get around?" and he said, "They don’t want to travel." …You can be sure that the things toward which they are directing their productivity are those things which they think will frighten us, that will tend to divide us from our allies, or that they can use in uncommitted countries. … if they finally get us to responding so much to every threat that we hysterically raise our spending and spend ourselves into bankruptcy—this will be the biggest victory they will ever need, and they can stack arms. … the use you make of the productivity really does pose a problem. We must accept only those things we know we need and we must look at every other dollar of expenditure and ask. "Was this dollar necessary?" (Krone, 1971, p.24)

Tremendous changes have occurred since Ike made these comments in 1961. But his point that the question "Productivity for what?" is critical should remain basic to Quality Managers as well as national leaders.

"Quality Classics" is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711. This Quality Classic was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 10, Issue 3 (Jan-Feb-Mar, 2003). Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Readers can access the entire series of Quality Classics at: http://www.asq711.org.

Deming, W. Edwards. 1982, 1985. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study. Juran, J.M. Editor in Chief and Frank M. Gyrna, Associate Editor. Juran’s Quality Handbook, 4th Edition . McGraw-Hill Book Company. Krone, Robert M. 1971. "Eisenhower at the Naval War College," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol 97, # 2/820 (June 1971), pp. 18-24. Shewhart, Walter A. 1931. Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product. Van Nostrand, American society for Quality Control, 1980.

 Back to Top

"Surveying for Systems Improvements"

If you want to find out what’s wrong, and how to fix it ….. ask those who do the work. That is a lesson learned centuries ago by the apprentice system in Europe, the family business systems in Asia and by business and management practitioners and scholars in the Americas. I was fortunate to be involved in the first and most prestigious academic program in Systems Management. It was the University of Southern California’s Master of Science in Systems Management (the MSSM). It began from a 1963 RFP by the United States Air Force to provide a new masters program for Department of Defense professionals that would take to the global field advanced education in Management, Psychology, Systems, Computers and Innovation. By 1987 the program had grown to 70 locations in the Pacific, throughout the U.S. and Germany and enrolled over 2000 students (in and out of DOD) simultaneously. Although the curriculum was cross-disciplinary one basic goal propelled it to being the most successful of its kind: the Systems Improvement Fundamental. I helped integrate Quality Management into that program in the 1980s as well as the Crawford Slip Method for Surveying Groups (See #6 and #9 in this Quality Classics series). Continuous improvement is a classic of Quality Management as well as the principle of those survey methods that survive to be classics. There is a simple reason for the survival of successful concepts and tools for all the fields (public or private) of Business & Management. That reason is that there is always the need to: a) identify problems; b) find solutions; and c) improve the system.

It was the March 2003 issue of The American Society for Quality’s journal, Quality Progress that was the catalyst for me to add this classic to our series. See in it the article by John Cravenho and Bill Sandvig (pp. 63-68) titled, "Survey for Action, Not Satisfaction." Cravenho and Sandvig put their analysis on the weak point of Customer Satisfaction by stating (p. 63):

"Organizations must stop asking what customers like about what’s been done in the past and move to a process that clearly identifies what action must be taken to improve."

I agree. The tendency to place 100% of efforts on customer satisfaction has bothered me as it has grown. Customer Satisfaction is a useful independent variable in our analyses. But the dependent variable is always Systems Improvement. Those survey tools that only aggregate or count attitudes should not, in my opinion, be deterministic for strategy or policy. They may be very useful for marketing and production planning. The survey tools, like Ideas Unlimited™, that are based in gathering recommendations for improvement will continue to be the essential ones used as the Quality Sciences and Management Sciences progress over the next 50 years. Look at the last 50 years for evidence.

"Quality Classics" is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711, in California. This Quality Classic was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 10, Issue 4 (April – May – June 2003). Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Management Movement begun in the 1950s.

 Back to Top

"Fun Method to Teach The Seven Tools of Quality"

By: Ron Villanueva, ASQ CQE, CQA
Section Membership Chair
Quality Engineer, La-Z-Boy West-Redlands

Click here to see a pdf file of the above presentation!

 Back to Top

“Cost Benefit Analysis”

Cost-Benefit Analysis existed long before the Quality Movement. Too many failures costing too much was one of the motivations for the emergence of Quality Control after World War II. And the need to improve the benefits and reduce the costs immediately became one of the formal goals in the 1950s.

The concept is simple and uncomplicated. The complexity of applying cost-benefit analysis is in answering the questions: what are the costs to be measured and what are the benefits to be measured and over what period of time will the comparisons be made? The answers to those questions vary widely across industries, organizations, cultures and systems.

While teaching Systems Analysis for the University of Southern California in the 1970s I became dissatisfied with the assumption that “Unless there is an economic or quantitative model your analysis is not Systems Analysis.” That assumption left out a huge number of critically important qualitative variables that in my, and others’, judgment should be in the cost-benefit analysis.

Those qualitative variables can be found in the Policy Sciences, Social Sciences and Behavioral Sciences and have always played roles in determining the quality outputs of systems just as do variables in the Mathematical, Financial, Statistical, Accounting and Economics disciplines.

The time variable for determining cost-benefit outcomes varies widely. Industry has reduced the time from design to production for major products like automobiles. But education remains a more difcult analysis when costs are in dollars, time, energy, emotional stresses and opportunity costs over years compared to benefits in job opportunities and income and social status gained at uncertain futures.

One inescapable conclusion is that cost-benefit analysis remains a fundamental tool in Quality Management and in Life. It is a Quality Classic.

This essay rst published in INLAND EMPIRE QUALITY, Vol 11, #2 (Oct-Nov-Dec 2003), the Newsletter of the Inland Empire Section of the America Society for Quality (ASQ). For the complete Quality Classics series see: http://www..asq711.org.
2 And was the catalyst for Robert M. Krone, Systems Analysis and Policy Sciences: Theory and Practice (Wiley, 1980).

 Back to Top


“Learning is the only thing the mind never exhausts, never fears, and never regrets.
It is one thing that will never fail us.”
Leonardo da Vinci (1452 – 1519)

Learning is a universal component of every Quality Management pioneer’s concepts since the movement began in the 1950s by Dr. W. Edwards Deming and Dr. Joseph Juran. Dr. Deming’s 13th Principle for Transformation of Western Management was: “13. Encourage education and self-improvement for everyone.” (1) He amplified on that principle by writing: “What an organization needs is not just good people; it needs people that are improving with education…Management must go through new learning.” Dr. Juran documented “Lessons Learned” and “The Learning Curve” as basic quality tools. (2)

So learning is clearly a Quality Classic. And “Continuous Learning for Improvement” is a 20th Century Quality Movement contribution to business, government and society. But the benefits to individuals and to society of learning have been recognized for thousands of years before Quality Control formally kicked off in Japan after World War II. Aristotle believed the purpose of learning was to make people virtuous and argued that education was the State’s highest duty. Some Medieval theologians saw learning as purifying the soul while others, and many military and political leaders, saw education of the populace as a threat to their power bases. During the 18th Century Enlightenment thinkers like Locke and Rousseau considered learning as the media for understanding self and society. Universal public school systems emerged in the 19th and 20th Centuries.

Now, in the 21st Century learning is one concept that has no global enemies. There are no anti-quality protest groups in the streets, no political controversy or debate over the value of quality programs, and no grassroots societal criticisms. There is now conviction that only through quality performance, learning and education will individuals succeed, businesses remain viable, governments create the capacity to respond to increasing expectations of its citizens, hospitals keep up with changing health care challenges, churches sustain membership, and schools meet the needs of students to function in our era’s environments characterized by novelty, uncertainty, adversity and complexity.

The merging of quality theory and tools with technology advances over the past fi fty years has been a much more powerful positive impact than generally recognized. Probably the most important quality contribution has been to increase productivity. Learning how to accomplish more with fewer material and human resources combined with the exponential implementation of international quality standards (the ISO phenomenon) has, in my judgment, avoided global depression which would have otherwise resulted from the combination of the Asian Financial Crisis beginning in 1997, the subsequent U.S. recession, the September 11, 2001 aftermath of required Homeland Security, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and the SARS economic impacts. United States technology, led by Bill Gates, whose breakthrough software permitted computers to communicate with each other followed in 1995 by the Internet global takeoff were the catalysts for globalization of trade and commerce. Those two factors, “Quality + Technology,” produced a paradigm shift in productivity. A 15 December 2003 online search through ProQuest on the American society for Quality (ASQ) Quality Progress professional journal publications from 1990 to 2003 revealed 127,980 publications that included “Learning.”

The fundamental quality tools of statistical analysis, cost of quality, process mapping, defects and failure quantification, root cause analysis, continuous improvement and learning from the organizational bottom-up (i.e.
from those who do the work), rather than exclusively from the top-down, have permanently changed the world of work for the better. The quality professionals around the world who created, expanded, and implemented the Quality Sciences and Management Movement over the past 50 years can take pride in the economic, industrial, social, defense, environmental , healthcare and education advances which are clearly results of that movement. The fact that the United States has progressed in those fifty years to be the clear super-power in the world has the quality movement as one of its key success factors.

So what quality learning is still needed? The most critical need relates to the fact that the quality of life for too much of earth’s humanity is low (3). The achievements of the Quality Sciences have to date been with the quality of products and services. Healthcare and education have only been formally added in the last few years. Quality Policymaking remains an area outside of the scope of the Quality Movement up to now (see the “Quality Policymaking” essay in this Quality Classics series). Productivity improvements have actually contributed to an increasing “Rich-Poor Gap” in the world since the developed nations were the first to capitalize on quality. That gap contributes to major economic, social, political and military problems yet to be solved. Malnutrition, starvation, homelessness, illiteracy, poor quality healthcare, crime, drugs, terrorism, mass-killing weapons, auto fatalities, national transportation infrastructure planning are only some of the problems needing higher quality thinking and programs.

We can take pride in the first 50 years of the Quality Movement. But it is too early for complacency. Let’s avoid taking another 50 years to make quality breakthroughs in those areas not adequately addressed as of 2004. We have much learning still to do.
“Quality Classics” is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711. This Quality Classic was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 11, Issue 3 (Jan-Feb-Mar 2004). Quality Classics meets the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Readers can access the entire series of Quality Classics at: http://www.asq711.org.

1 W. Edwards Deming. 1982. Out of the Crisis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., p. 86.

2. J.M. Juran, Editor in Chief. 1951. Juran’s Quality Control. McGraw-Hill, Inc., Section 6.28 and 13.12.

3. For expanded analysis on this point see Yehezkel Dror. 1994. The Capacity to Govern: A Report to the Club of Rome
Frank Cass, Portland, OR; and Robert M.

4. Krone. 2003.”Science and Technology for What?”
http:/ www.lasierra.edu/schools/sbm/researchguidelines/index.html

 Back to Top


Leadership is probably the one component that exists in every Quality Control, Quality Management and Quality Science theory, program, concept or approach invented since the field began in the 1950s.

Dr. Deming stated in his classic Out of the Crisis book (1): “..... most of this book is involved with leadership.” And his definition of the aim of leadership was:

“The aim of leadership should be to improve the performance of people and machines, to improve quality, to increase output, and simultaneously to bring pride of workmanship to people. Put in a negative way, the aim of leadership is not merely to find and record failures, but to remove the causes of failure: to help people do a better job with less effort....... The leader also has responsibility to improve the system—i.e. to make it possible, on a continuing basis, for everybody to do a better job with greater satisfaction”

Since the implementation of every quality program requires that changes be made in existing organizational culture, policies, practices and procedures inherent is the involvement of decision makers. When our ASQ Section 0711 sponsored a data gathering Six Sigma Workshop on 10 April 2001 the report from the 311 responses to the question “How to create the necessary corporate culture for six Sigma?” identified Leadership Commitment as the most critical variable (2).

The quality program that has achieved the greatest global universality is the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA). Originating in the United States in 1987 it has spread to Europe, Asia, The Pacific and North and South America as the preferred set of criteria for performance excellence for business, health care and education to use in creating and evaluating the quality of their products and services (3). The criteria from its original design in 1987 has been divided into seven major categories with Leadership always being prominent.

The subject of leadership has been a focus in groups and societies to pre-historic times. The definition of “Leader” in the 1900 The Century Dictionary was:

“One who leads, guides, conducts, directs or controls; one who us first or most prominent in any relation; one who takes precedence by virtue of superior qualification or influence.”

My personal view after a career in the United States Air Force and two more careers on university faculties in the field of Business & Management is that Leadership is the most important variable for the success or failure of any organization – public or private – and that Moral Leadership is the most important variable of Leadership (4).

Read any study related to the Quality Sciences by quality pioneers or current professionals and you will find leaders and leadership included. Leadership deserves a leading place in our series of Quality Classics.


"Quality Classics" is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711. This Quality Classic was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 12, Issue 1 (Jul-Aug-Sep 2004). Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Readers can access the entire series of Quality Classics at: http://www.asq711.org.

W. Edwards Deming. 1982. Out of the Crisis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., p. 248.
“How to Manage a Six Sigma Corporate Culture,” Dr. Bob Krone, Editor, Inland Empire Quality, Vol 9, #1 (Jul-Aug-Sep 2001) and www.asq711.org.
See the U.S. National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST) official web site at http://www.nist.gov/
Bob Krone, “Building a Foundation for Moral Leadership,” October 2003,

 Back to Top

"Cooperation vs Competition": The Challenge for Decision-Makers

The idea that teamwork is essential to achieve quality products and services goes back to the beginnings of Quality Control, Quality Management and Quality Sciences. An observation we have all made is that it is very hard -- perhaps impossible -- for one person to create, design and implement a change for the better. It takes people working together in cooperative ways.

But Dr. Deming, Dr. Juran & Frank Gyrna, Philip Crosby, Feigenbaum, Taguchi, other quality pioneers and almost every Quality Improvement Tool – including the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Criteria -- has the goal of improvement to make your company, agency, organization, school, hospital excel. In other words we implement quality tools to improve our competitiveness in the market place and in society. Japan improved its automobile industry and successfully competed with the United States.

Where do we find the answer to the question: “Where should cooperation stop if competition is required to grow and survive?” and the corollary question: “If cooperation is so good, why not cooperate with everyone everywhere?” We don’t have a formula in the Quality Sciences to help leadership answer those questions for their responsibilities; but leadership faces those questions almost daily.

One of the most effective, and humorous, quality presentations I experienced was by Jim McIngvale, President Gallery Furniture, to the Eighth NASA Contractors Conference and 1991 National Symposium on Quality and Productivity in Houston. His title was: “Cooperation Works - Competition Doesn’t.” His story told of his sales strategy of merit pay, quotas and commissions that had been used for years and the wild swings of revenue and poor customer satisfaction that it had produced. Then he attend a Dr. Deming seminar and took the “risky leap” to eliminate quotas, commissions and merit pay and institute teamwork and cooperation within the sales department. Everyone shared in profits and everyone worked together to please customers. There was dramatic and permanent increase in revenue, decrease in employee turn-over, internal fighting stopped, and Gallery Furniture successes and growth went up exponentially.

America’s aerospace industry is an even larger example. The Aerospace Technology Working Group (ATWG) was formed in 1989. NASA sponsored it. Representatives from every NASA Center, from the aerospace companies and from universities with aerospace and space programs met every six months. The main reason for starting ATWG and its primary mission was to facilitate interaction of aerospace professionals. Legislative constraints existed to prevent companies from cooperation that would produce price-fixing. Competition was the culture for aerospace in America. But America was beginning to have competitive losses to the European and Asian aerospace programs. That combined with an economic recession reduced the number of aerospace companies in America from 22 to 5 over a ten year period. Competition was a major problem and ATWG continues today to facilitate cooperation. The current, September 2004, focus for ATWG is to answer the question: “How to implement the space vision of President Bush in his January 2004 address - to create a replacement system for the Shuttle and build a sustained presence on the moon which will facilitate Solar space exploration?” It is apparent that global cooperation will be needed for our next space exploration and habitation era.

Competition is fundamental to a free economy. But cooperation is increasingly needed as globalized industry, international problems, and the needs of earth’s humanity increase in ways where sub-optimized and competitive solutions do not produce quality outcomes. Both Cooperation and Competition are quality classic concepts. But, the Cooperation – Competition challenge exists everywhere regardless of the size and scope of the activity from local to global, from public to private. We are solving the challenge incrementally, spasmodically, temporarily or not at all. The challenge calls for more thinking, discussion, documentation, research and theory.


Beyond Earth: The Future of Humans in Space, Dr. Bob Krone, Editor, is scheduled for publication by CGPublishing, Inc, Apogee Space Press in 2006.

Bob Krone will chair a panel on that subject. Interested ASQ members can e-mail him at [email protected]

"Quality Classics" is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711. This Quality Classic was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 12, Issue 2 (Oct-Nov-Dec, 2004). Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Readers can access the entire series of Quality Classics at: http://www.asq711.org.

 Back to Top



Morality is the set of rules for right conduct. Ethical study investigates the nature and constituency of human character and formulation of rules of moral behavior. It is the science of right conduct and character. Ethics is a branch of philosophy which concentrates on morality, its benefits, and its problems. Ethical study through history has created differing doctrine as foundation for the duties of individuals regarding the rights of others.

Moral behavior recognizes the obligation in society to treat others as we would be treated; that there exists in people the desire for peace, security, and freedom in their lives. People want to avoid the fear that bad, or evil, things will happen to them or their families or friends. When people are not treated ethically and morally negative things happen. Sorrow comes into their lives. Virtue and vice are voluntary and people and organizations are responsible for which we choose. When vice or crime or unethical acts, which violate the lives of others, are chosen, stable and productive lives are damaged and environments become destructive rather than constructive.

Ethical goals and conduct reflect a commitment to a higher purpose than our own self-serving ends. Moral people believe that good should triumph over evil and want to promote the good to improve the human condition. They have a desire to be examples for the next generation and do not wish to be known as the ones who harmed others or sowed the seeds for future suffering. Needed is leadership with ethical and moral behavior ingrained in its values system.

Can quality be achieved or sustained in an immoral , corrupt or dishonest system?

I’m convinced that if that question were submitted to any population or group of quality professionals there would be a 99% “NO” response. So Moral Leadership is a quality classic meeting the definition used for this series of essays. The need for honesty, integrity, business ethics, fairness, dependability, transparency, trustfulness and character in leadership has had famous advocates throughout history:

* 2,500 years ago Confucius taught it in his “Way of Life.” Buddha’s “Eight-Fold Path” included it. Moses received the Ten Commandments from Yahweh on Mt. Sinai during the Exodus. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle taught justice and “The Highest Good is in man’s most perfect likeness to God.” The Stoics (Epicurus and Zeno) taught that the highest good is to practice virtue for its own sake.

* 2,000 years ago Jesus Christ gave the world a moral compass.

* 1,400 year ago Mohammed began the Islam faith captured in the Koran which defined moral life for Muslims.

* 800 years ago St. Thomas of Aquinas taught that moral ethics and moral philosophy would be built on one another.

* 500 years ago John Calvin taught that God’s power through Jesus Christ is able to empower souls toward moral righteousness.

* 200 years ago John Stuart Mill taught that moral law, human rights, reason and theology must be evaluated by the principle of utility toward quality of life.

* The 20th Century experienced tragic examples of immoral national leadership. Adolph Hitler, Cambodia’s Khymer Rouge, and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein are just three of the killing fields examples.

* Within the last 50 years:

- Dr. Albert Schweitzer gave us the definition:

“Ethics is the name we give to our concern for good behavior, We feel an obligation to consider not only our own personal well-being, but also that of others and of human society as a whole.”

- Peter Drucker gave us the most concise ethical principle for which leadership is responsible: “Above all, do no harm.”

* Over the last 10 years, high profile business leaders became convicted criminals and respected financial institutions have been found guilty of massive fraud. Religion saw moral failures among the clergy. Terrorism against innocent civilians is immoral.

* 5 years ago one of the worlds leading Policy Scientists, Professor Yehezkel Dror of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem wrote in his classic CAPACITY TO GOVERN book, that a critical variable for credibility in public organizations and even for humanity’s long-term survival is moral leadership:

“The qualities demanded of senior politicians and governance elites should be radically revised, with emphasis on virtues and character. These requirements should become a basic canon of democratic theory and political culture.”

The list of Moral Leadership failures from Enron, to Sudan’s political leadership to the United Nations over the past decade provides repeated evidence of huge cost of quality (in the Taguchi sense of “Cost of Poor Quality”) happening throughout the world.


- Neither Dr. W. Edwards Deming nor Dr. Joseph Juran, who pioneered the quality movement, formally prioritized in their early teachings and writings the requirement for honesty, integrity ethics and morality in business leadership. Awareness for the need has increased steadily since the 1950s.

As we begin the 21st Century, the sad truth is that there are too few national or global quality standards concentrating on improving the Moral Leadership of those in either public offices or holding private corporate authority. The U.S. Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 in response to the Watergate scandal of 1973-1974 that caused President Nixon to resign. On 30 July 2002, President George W. Bush signed a Business Reform Law with the most far-reaching business reforms since the 1930s Depression.

“Codes of Ethics” are becoming more common in public and private systems. And there are legal and cultural constraints that act to deter or punish dishonesty, greed, unethical or immoral conduct. But existing national quality award performance criteria do not place adequate rating on the formal analysis or evaluation of leadership’s moral and ethical behavior.

The United States 2005 Baldrige National Quality Program, “Criteria for Performance Excellence” has three words on the title page - Ethics, Leadership and Competitiveness (www.quality,nist.gov/pdf_files/2005_criteria.pdf). However the scoring system to calculate winners for 2005 gives a max of 50 points for Leadership Governance and Social Responsibilities (Criteria, p.9, 1.2) out of a total of 1,000 possible points. Business Results are rated nine times higher at 450 points. So the 2005 MBNQA Criteria for Performance Excellence rates Morality and Ethics at 5% of total performance.

Huge costs and damage to people continues to occur because leadership too frequently uses its power to exercise greed and dishonesty for self-serving purposes that disregard the harm created for others. The need for moral leadership continues to increase with the ever increasing human and material costs of its failure. It’s a United States and global necessity. ASQ should take the lead to raise formal performance standards for Morality.


"Quality Classics" is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711. This Quality Classic was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 12, Issue 3 (Jan-Feb-Mar, 2005). Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Readers can access the entire series of Quality Classics at: http://www.asq711.org.

 Back to Top


The most fundamental and pervasive key word throughout the Quality Management movement has been “KNOWLEDGE.”

Pioneers who used statistics to measure and analyze performance in the workplace, particularly Dr. W. Edwards Deming, concluded correctly that statistical variation and statistical process control would be an improved system for capturing and applying knowledge. And later when Deming created his “Principles for the Transformation of Western Management” he later gave it the shorter title of “Profound Knowledge.” (1)

Every theory, concept, model, tool and technique that has been invented within the Quality Sciences has been built on the assumption that it could improve the creation, documentation and application of knowledge to accomplish production or services faster, cheaper or better. Deming identified it as being “.... for the improvement of quality, productivity, and competitive position.” (1:p.19) In the 1950s Deming saw statistical theory and technique as a necessary paradigm shift for Western Management. History has proven him right.

The study of the nature, origin and limits of human knowledge is Epistemology. The word is derived from the Greek episteme (knowledge) and logos (reason). Searching for knowledge is known to have occurred in pre-Socratic Greece (Socrates lived 469 – 399 BCE) and can be assumed to have been a characteristic of humans before recorded history. Knowledge has been used for both good and evil and there have been pessimistic views about the increase of knowledge. Ecclesiastes, one of the three “Books of Wisdom” of the Old Testament, attributed to David, King of Jerusalem, includes the two ideas that “He who increases knowledge increases sorrow (or pain);” and “I saw that wisdom excels folly as light excels darkness” (Ecclesiastes 2:13).

Let’s keep those two ideas in mind as we restrict our thinking here to the ASQC/ASQ focus over the last half-century seeking for the application of knowledge to increase the quality of products and services. One of the profound differences today compared with all of history is the speed at which knowledge from humans globally is captured and made readily available. On 21 March 2005 I searched with Google for the word “Knowledge” and in one-third of a second I saw that in global web sites there were 117,000,000 hits mentioning knowledge. Then I asked Google for “Knowledge and Quality” and found 26,100,000 references in one-third of a second. We are now in the nanosecond information age where computers can create actions in one-billionth of a second. Hypothetically 5 billion people on earth could add something to “knowledge” on the internet simultaneously in a second or two. The implications of that capability are beyond our current imagination.

And thinking about the Ecclesiastes point that the increase of knowledge increases pain leads us to the conclusion that the issue of the Quality of Knowledge and Information being increased at more than exponential rates is one we quality professionals need to formally address. For some time I have been suggesting that “Quality Policymaking” be added to ASQ’s overall categories of quality for products and services.(2). New knowledge producing pain is a recognized phenomena and is one of the reasons that history is filled with intolerance and abuses of those who create the new knowledge. It also accounts for the slowness of new ideas being implemented. Usually many visualize themselves as becoming worse off from the adoption of new knowledge.

The Information Age that humans will live in for ever more leads to the unavoidable conclusion for quality professionals that more attention is needed on the Quality and Morality of Knowledge being applied to organizations, to communities, to societies, to hospitals, to churches, to nations and to international entities. (3)


W. Edwards Deming, OUT OF THE CRISIS (Cambridge, MA., Massachusetts Institute

of Technology, 1982).

2. See the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter of ASQ Section 0711, Vol 10 #2

(Oct-Nov-Dec 2002). www.asq711.org/Quality Classic #13.
3. For the Quality Classic on “Morality” see the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter of ASQ

Section 0711, Vol 12 #3 (Jan-Feb-Mar 2005). www.asq711.org/Quality Classic #21.


* "Quality Classics" is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711. This Quality Classic was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 12, Issue 4 (Apr-May-Jun, 2005). Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Readers can access the entire series of Quality Classics at: http://www.asq711.org.

 Back to Top



“The aeroplane, as an object for the thinker, holds a unique place,
in that it is a materialization of the most persistent dream which
has haunted the human species; and is, as well, the most thorough
and excellent embodiment of any dream.”

Prosper Buranelli, “The Will to Fly in Literature,”
Aeronautics, Vol XVI, No. 7, June 15, 1915, p.100

The quote, above, was written twelve years after Orville and Wilbur Wright made the first manned flight in 1903, forty-six years before U.S. Astronaut Alan Shepard became the first American in space in 1961, and fifty-four years before astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins flew Apollo 11 to the first manned landing on the Moon.

From the beginning of America’s manned space program quality has been a primary concern for space planners, programmers and leaders. There have been three consistent reasons:

Astronaut safety
Program reliability and predictability
Documentation and learning
In January 2004, President George W. Bush became the first President since John F. Kennedy announced to Congress on 25 May 1961 that U.S. astronauts would go to the Moon by 1970 to formally announce a new vision to “Return to the moon by 2020, with robotic exploration be 2008, extended human missions as early as 2015” (1). The Human Permanence in Our Solar System Era is now being planned (2).

Civil and military aerospace was the first industry to merge the Quality Sciences, Quality Engineering, Quality Control and Quality Management on a systems-wide basis.

That merger began in the 1950s when Deming and Juran were pioneering the movement in Japan. Now, in 2005, the extent of that merger can be easily appreciated by taking a civil flight anywhere on earth to searching the internet for “Quality – Aerospace” where national and international foundations, institutes, university programs, aerospace companies, NASA Space Centers and non-profit research entities can be found throughout the world. “The most persistent dream that has haunted the human species” will place humans permanently in our Solar System on the basic assumption that the benefits for humanity are huge, but yet to be fully achieved.

The “Quality Management for Space Missions” practiced by NASA over the past forty-five years, and with international cooperation beginning with the International Space Station (ISS), will expand into “Quality Management for the Future of Humans in Space.” The Inland Empire ASQ Section 0711 will begin to focus the thinking of quality professionals on that subject at the Quality Management Division’s Annual Meeting at Irvine, California in February 2006 (3).

Some questions that will need to be addressed are:

  • Should ASQ create a “Quality for Space Division” with a set of space certifications and ratings?
  • What formal organizational linkages should ASQ make with NASA and other global international space agencies and commercial entities?
  • What planning does ASQ need to do to expand its professional leadership for Quality on Earth to Quality for Space and Earth?

The unavoidable conclusion is that “Quality for Space Programs and Missions” is already a Quality Classic. The issue to be addressed is “How should ASQ plan for the future of work and service as the human breakout into space occurs?”


1. www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/bush_vision.html

2. Beyond Earth: The Future of Humans in Space, Dr. Bob Krone, Editor, is scheduled for publication by CGPublishing, Inc, Apogee Space Press in 2006.

3. Bob Krone will chair a panel on that subject. Interested ASQ members can e-mail him at [email protected]

* "Quality Classics" is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711. This Quality Classic was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 13, Issue 1 (Jul-Aug-Sep, 2005). Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Readers can access the entire series of Quality Classics at: http://www.asq711.org.

Back to Top

"Management by Objectives":
A Controversial Classic By Bob Krone, PhD

Long before Peter Drucker formalized Management by Objectives (MBO) in 1954[1] the idea existed that goals need to be included in thinking and planning. Drucker’s reason for putting MBO into management theory was that evidence showed that over time the main purposes or objectives of an organization were detrimentally forgotten or replaced without analysis or justification. Drucker’s theory expanded the idea of a few top-managers being responsibile to goals to all managers, supervisors and even employees being both responsible and accountable for identifying and achieving goals. What followed in many business and government situations was that personnel performance evaluation was based on how well the goals were met.

At this point in stepped quality pioneer W. Edwards Deming with his Theory of Profound Knowledge[2] which blasted MBO as a barrier to quality improvement. Dr. Deming felt so strongly about it that he made “Eliminate management by Objectives” as the 11th Point of his 14 Point Program to Increase United States manufacturing quality to save the U.S. from industrial defeat due to Japanese dramatic creation of quality products at acceptable costs after World War II. Deming,s statistically based teachings to the Japanese had been the major stimulus for that industrial quality improvement. And when American industrial leadership saw the U.S. markets declining due to Japan’s quality control and management achievements the Quality Movement took hold in America.

At Deming’s seminars around the United States during the 1980s he was invariably asked “What’s wrong with MBO?” I have heard his response, often made in a caustic and sarcastic tone, of “MBO insures mediocrity and stiffles innovation.” The Drucker-Deming opposing views on MBO continued until Deming’s death in 1993. But the issue remains today as one of the controversial classics of Quality Management.

On September 8, 2005 I asked Google to search for “Management by Objectives.” The anwser in 0.16 seconds was “about 97,400,000 hits.” Why didn’t Deming’s long critique of MBO kill it? The answer follows the logic of “An unidentified goal can never be met.” Deming’s critiques were valid of many MBO processes that filled employee’s working days with measuring progress toward systems-wide detailed goals. And Deming was correct in his observation that

when leadership formally evaluates subordinates’ performance using measurement of goals reached, those subordinates will design goals in the MBO process that they know are feasible to achieve. That fails to inspire innovation and creativity to achieve continual improvement.

But 97 millions MBO internet hits in 2005 is evidence that there is no casket needed for MBO yet, and maybe never will be needed. The age old concept that “If you don’t have a destination, you are sure to get there” remains valid. The management truth that “What you do is terribly important; but how you do it is equally important” remains. The conclusion must be that MBO done right will improve quality.

How do you do MBO right? Following are fundamentals I suggest:

1. Establish goals after first doing strategic planning that formally identifies the philosophy and the values reached by consensus in the organization.

2. Frequently challenge those goals as things change.

3. Use Quality Management tools and methods to make continual improvement, and even paradigm change, principles that manage the goals. Know if the goals are changing the principles.

4. Have personnel evaluation based on a more sophisticated package of variables than MBO measurements. Include human needs and emotions as well as diverse individual career goals.

  1. Use Deming’s definition of CUSTOMER, “Anyone who gets your work.”

6. Prevent technology or processes becoming the goal.

7. When objectives are achieved review the structure, processes and people used to meet the objectives and ask “Do we still need them?”


"Quality Classics" is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711. This Quality Classic was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 13, Issue 2 (Oct-Nov-Dec 2005). Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Readers can access the entire series of Quality Classics at: http://www.asq711.org

1] Peter Drucker, 1954. The Practice of Management. Harper and Row, New York.
[2] W. Edwards Deming, 1982. Out of the Crisis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambride, Mass).

 Back to Top


"Zero Defects"

By Bob Krone, PhD ASQ Fellow Member

Twenty-five years ago, 1980, Philip B. Crosby published Quality Is Free. When Deming, Juran, and Ishikawa had been focusing on the highly technical aspects of quality measurement and control, Crosby brought a simple but powerful message: “Quality is much too important to be left to the quality control department; senior management must commit to quality if things are to change; and doing things right the first time adds absolutely nothing to the cost of a product or service; a defect that is never created cannot be missed. Identifying and eliminating the causes of problems reduces rework, warranty costs, and inspection.” Crosby emphasized that doing things wrong makes costs skyrocket. And he agreed with Deming and Juran that management was the root cause of these problems.

The book gave corporate thinking new directions. It shifted the responsibility for the quality of goods and services from the quality control department to the corporate boardroom, attacked the entrenched notions of ‘good enough’ and Acceptable Quality Levels (AQL), and introduced Zero Defects as the only acceptable performance standard, setting the stage for the Six Sigma movement that has continued to teach defect reduction.

The Zero Defects concept earned much criticism in the 1980s and has not achieved universal acceptance by 2005. Critics claimed that Zero Defects in production and services was not possible to achieve and that unusual efforts to do so would actually decrease productivity by over engineering and applying energies to an infeasible goal.

But a Google search for “Zero Defects” on 15 December 2005 produced 2,710,000 hits and 12,500 pages in published books. Crosby International remains active globally in sixteen countries and there are ISO registered companies using the Zero Defects in their titles. Zero Defects is a classic concept that gains momentum as science and technology advance.

In my “Space” Quality Classic (Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol. 13, Issue 1, Jul-Aug-Sep 2005) I identified the issue of “How should ASQ plan for the future of work and service as the human breakout into space occurs?” (1). As time goes by the degree of non-productivity, waste, dangers and destruction associated with defects rises. Zero Defects should be one of the top criteria for the planning of the next great human adventure – into Outer Space.

Like many creative thinkers, Phillip Crosby was way ahead of environments and situations where his thinking was a perfect match. Zero Defects now has a permanent role in Quality Classics.


(1) See Bob Krone, Ph.D. Editor, Beyond Earth: The Future of Humans in Space (CGPublishing, Inc, 2006, forthcoming). The subject will also be on the agenda for the 18th Annual Quality Management Conference at Irvine, California, 1-3 March 2006.

"Quality Classics" is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711. This Quality Classic was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 13, Issue 4 (Jan-Feb-Mar 2006). Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Readers can access the entire series of Quality Classics at: http://www.asq711.org.

Back to Top



By Bob Krone, PhD ASQ Fellow Member

The voluntary standards program in the United States was launched by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover on 29 October 1921 (1). Industrial standards helped form the origin of the Quality Management movement. Chapter 10 of Dr. Deming’s classic Out of the Crisis is “Standards and Regulations.” (2). Dr. Juran’s Quality Control Handbook documents standards in assembly industries, for executive reports, for inspection costs, measurements standards, for product auditing and compliance and under government regulations. (3). Since then ASQ has become one of the world’s leading standards developer, but not the only one.

For instance, China’s Guofia Biazhun (GB) Standards system has over 13,000 standards over subjects like: Material Sciences, Health Care Technology, Metrology, Electronics, Jewelry, Road Vehicles, Shipbuilding, Wood, Petroleum and Military Engineering, just as illustrative examples.

Standards are accounting, far more than generally recognized, for productivity increases around the world. Just two major examples are civilian airlines and personal computers. Because of international standards millions fly around the world daily and the personal computers of hundreds of millions of people communicate daily. Compare that with the standards development in 1950 and speculate to 2050.

Three major standards web sites are:

• National Institute of Statistics and Technologies (www.nist.gov)

• American National Standards Institute (www.ansi.org)

• ISO International Standards Organization (www.iso.org)

On March 3, 2006 at the 18th Annual Quality Management Division Conference in Irvine, California Paul C. Palmes, Quality Assurance Director, Northern Pipe Products, Inc, North Dakota, described the past three years of development by a group of global experts of a new international ISO Guidance Standard -- ISO 10014. The purpose of that standard will be to help quality professionals and top managers to realize financial and economic benefits. And that goal is linked to the relatively new focus within ASQ on the Economic Case for Quality (4). This is a 2006 example of the fifty-year progression of the Quality Movement from products to services to strategy and policy. In the case of ISO 10014, as with many international standards, there will be national and international economic, social and political spin-offs.

Standards clearly fit the Quality Classic criteria.


(1) W. Edwards Deming, 1986. Out of the Crisis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 297.
(2) op.cit. p.297.
(3) J.M. Juran and Frank M. Gryna, Editors, 1951 First Edition, 1988 Edition. McGraw-Hill, Index, p.46.
(4) See The Quality Management Forum, Winter 2006. a publication of the Quality Management Division of ASQ.
* "Quality Classics" is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711 begun in July 1998. This is the 26th Quality Classic essay in the series. It was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 13, Issue 4 (Apr-May-June 2006). Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Readers can access the entire series of Quality Classics at: http://www.asq711.org.

Back to Top



By Bob Krone, PhD ASQ Fellow Member

“You have seen a great effort by a truly great NASA Team.”

Mike Griffin, NASA Administrator, Atlantis Space Shuttle
Post-Mission Briefing, NASA TV, 22 September 2006

The most complex teamwork in today’s world is for space missions.

ASQ presents twenty-four types of Annual Quality Awards (Quality Progress, August 2006, p.41-43). Although many of them are awarded to individuals, none of them could have been won without teamwork. The truth is that it is impossible for one person to achieve results in the public or the private spheres completely on their own. One person may have an innovative idea or concept that earns support from colleagues; but implementing that idea takes many working as a team.

Phillip Crosby wrote that the purpose of teams goes way beyond “the methodical creation of procedures and actions…..the real learning comes from the experiences that the team members themselves have…. Every person who spends time on a quality improvement management team will grow in his or her value to the company—and to himself or herself” (1)

Almost twenty years ago Peter R. Scholtes, et al, wrote: “The main agenda of quality projects is to improve a work process that managers have identified as important to change. The team studies this process methodically to find permanent solutions to problems.”(2) W. Edwards Deming wrote: “The aim of a team is to improve the input and the output of any stage (in the Shewhart Cycle).” (3) ASQ’s International Team Excellence Award Process (www.asq.org) has five pages of Scoring Guidelines for evaluating team experiences.

We can assume that humans learned to team up to meet their needs even before they developed language. Teamwork is a classic activity leadership has used in war and peace throughout history. Pioneers and practitioners of the Quality Sciences and Quality Management all recognized teamwork as essential for improving the quality of any system’s performance.

Teamwork is a solid component of our Quality Classics.


1. Phillip B. Crosby, Quality Without Tears: The Art of Hassle-Free Management, (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984), pp. 107-108.

2. Peter R. Scholtes, The Team Handbook: How to Use Teams to Improve Quality (Joiner Associates, Inc. 1988), p. 117.

3. W. Edwards Deming, Out of the Crisis (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1986), p. 89.


* "Quality Classics" is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711. This Quality Classic was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 14, Issue 2 (Oct-Nov-Dec, 2006). Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Readers can access the entire series of Quality Classics at: http://www.asq711.org.

Back to Top


"Projects: Juran to Six Sigma"

By Bob Krone, PhD ASQ Fellow Member

The two most influential Quality Sciences pioneers were Dr. W. Edwards Deming and Dr. Joseph Juran. They both consulted industry in Japan after World War II and spent their long professional lives creating Quality Control and Management tools that were fundamental to the development of Quality Sciences that are globally accepted in 2007.

But Deming and Juran approached the world of work with two quite different approached. Deming was the theorist. His Deming-Shewhart Cycle of Continual Improvement (PDCA); his Flow Diagram he taught the Japanese in 1950 and his later 14 Points for Transfer of Management were paradigm changes which have survived to today. In Dr. Deming’s seminars he would tell participants “Always ask first if there is a system in place.” For Deming the validated theory insures quality improvement. He fully understood the statistically based tools but he designed them to implement his deductive and theoretical models.

Dr. Juran took the more inductive approach. He was a Project Manager. He was less concerned about macro theory than Deming. Juran’s definition of a project was “... a problem scheduled for solution.”1 He invented a three component strategy for solving problems with projects. He called it “The Juran Trilogy for Quality Processes.” It was analogous to Financial Management. The three parts were: 1) Quality Planning; 2) Quality Control; and 3) Quality Improvement. Each of those major steps has several sub-steps.2

The Six Sigma approach to Quality has not ignored the Deming theories but has concentrated on Juran’s project orientation. To achieve a Black Belt requires a large set of successful project analyses and solutions.

Projects are Quality Classics which can be predicted to apply to the world of work in perpetuity.

  1. J.M. Juran, Editor in Chief, Juran’s Quality Control Handbook , 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1988, p. 22.31.
  2. This Trilogy he summarized in a video titled: ”Juran on Quality Leadership.”


"Quality Classics" is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711. This Quality Classic was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 14, Issue 4 (Apr-May-Jun, 2007). Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Readers can access the entire series of Quality Classics at: http://www.asq711.org.

 Back to Top



By Bob Krone, PhD ASQ Fellow Member

Purpose has been a driving force for people and organizations for millenniums. Quality Sciences and Quality Management pioneers formalized purpose for the analysis and improvement of organizations. When W. Edwards Deming was creating his “Principles for Transformation of Western Management” he did it for the following purpose:

“Western style of management must change to halt the decline of Western Industry.”[1]

Deming’s first point of his “14 Points for Management” was: “Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with the aim to become competitive and to stay in business, and to provide jobs.”

Purpose is something one intends to get or do; intention; aim; resolution; determination; the object for which something exists or is done; an end in view (Webster’s New World Dictionary). Socrates claimed that the purpose of philosophy is to enable the gain of self-knowledge. Plato believed the purpose of philosophy was to discover reality or absolute truth. Hegel said that the philosophy’s purpose is to discover the absolute truth in absolute form. Helen Keller wrote that happiness comes from fidelity to a worthy purpose. Modern spiritual philosophy sees the purpose of life in improving the environment and world condition for all beings.

Christian author Rick Warren published The Purpose Driven Life in 2002. It was the best selling book in the world for 2003, 2004 and 2005 and has been translated into more than fifty languages. The University of Minnesota’s Center for Spirituality and Healing researches the ways in which purpose dramatically affects aging. And the Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada conducts a “Purpose of Life” essay competition. (Info on each of the above can be found with a Google search).

The last three years of my University of Southern California work (1989-1992) I was the Worldwide Chair for USC’s delivery of the Master of Science for Systems Management (the MSSM Degree). University faculty hardly ever agree completely on a subject; but we had 300 faculty teaching 2,200 masters degree candidates at 70 locations around the world; and they all agreed that the overall purpose of Systems Management was the improvement of private and public organizations.

Purpose can be for good or evil. Hitler’s purpose for the Final Solution was annihilation of Jews as competition for the Aryan Race. I worked with forty-one career space professionals to create the 2006 book, Beyond Earth: The Future of Humans in Space[2]. There was complete agreement that the purpose of creating human settlements in space is to improve humanity, and its environments, on earth and in space.

An essential action to sustain and improve the quality of anything – from an individual life through business, industry, government, education, religion, entertainment, media or medicine – is to accomplish values analysis to obtain consensus for what is preferred for the future. Purpose is inherent in preferences. When you, as a leader, can create consensus for a purpose, the probabilities of future successes will be high.

Purpose of decision makers has been the most influential variable in human history. It will always be a Quality Classic.


"Quality Classics” is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711. This Quality Classic was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 15, Issue 1 (Jul-Aug-Sep 2007). Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Readers can access the entire series of Quality Classics at: http://www.asq711.org.
1] W, Edwards Deming, Out of the Crisis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1982. pg. 23.
2] Bob Krone, Ph.D., Editor, Beyond Earth: The Future of Humans in Space, CGPublishing, Apogee Space Press, 2006.

 Back to Top



By: Jeffrey Croddy, Quality Assurance, ALCOA By: Bob Krone, PhD, ASQ Fellow Member

We stretch our Quality Classics criteria for this essay. We observe that Quality Professionals have always been concerned with building. From Deming and Juran in the 1950s forward the goal of continual improvement has been consistently found throughout Quality Assurance and Management methods and tools. Attention focused on the reduction and elimination of waste and destructive processes is also classic and the basis of, for example, Zero Defects, Six Sigma and Lean.

Our recommendation with this essay is to insert into the Quality Sciences a macro formula for quantitative and qualitative measurement of trends of relationships between system positive building and negative destroying. That ratio formula is:

The Quality Improvement Ratio = Building Divided by Destroying

That formula refers to a much larger societal scope than the Quality Movement. It represents a universal concept for progress. When the denominator exceeds the numerator (i.e. the ratio equals less than “1”) progress is in reverse. In physics entropy is a measure of energy in a system. As entropy increases energy decreases to zero. Negative entropy represents increasing energy. The relationship is found in theology with good and evil; and in philosophy with ethical or unethical behavior. In management it is linked to leadership taking optimistic or pessimistic attitudes toward people and work. Macro Economics tracks the gains or losses of money in business and government. This relationship also impacts business decisions based on personal or economic ownership and change relationship issues of maintaining or releasing hierarchical beliefs. Personal growth and organizational successes are firmly linked to positive Building/Destroying ratios. Applications are universal.

Our conclusion is that calculating and tracking over time the Building/Destroying Ratio could be a universal measurement valuable addition to the Malcolm Baldrige Award Criteria and to Quality Auditing. A drop in the ratio’s trend would be an alert for leadership to search for needed changes or challenging changes made. We welcome views from any reader.

Jeff Croddy & Bob Krone
January 2008


* "Quality Classics" is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711 which began in 1998. This Quality Classic was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 15, Issue 3 (Jan-Feb-Mar 2008). Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Readers can access the entire series of Quality Classics at: http://www.asq711.org.

 Back to Top


"Quality Over Time"

By: Bob Krone, PhD, ASQ Fellow Member, Colonel, USAF (Ret)*

Quality demonstrated over time provides strong evidence to establish a Quality Classic. The B-17 Flying Fortress story is a perfect American Aviation Industry example. The B-17 four-engine super bomber first model was designed in the early 1930s, made its first flight in 1935, put into production as the Y1B-17 in 1937 and ten years later 8,680 Flying Fortresses, the last model B-17G, had been manufactured. Between 1935 and 1945 12,732 B-17s were produced. It was one of the most modern aircraft in the U.S. inventory during Word War II. It had a crew of ten, a ceiling of 35,600 feet, cruised at 263 mph, had thirteen M-2 50 caliber machine guns, and its bomb load could go as high as 17,600 pounds. It flew mostly over Europe where 1000 B-17s could be assembled for mass combat missions, and 4,735 were lost on combat missions (www.b17.org).

On 4 April 2008, seventy-three years after its first flight, thirteen B-17s were still flying. Our Son, Don Parker, booked Sue and me on a B-17G flight out of Gillespie Field Airport, near San Diego, to celebrate my 78th birthday.

The quality lessons learned from the B-17 seventy-three year history go far beyond the Boeing quality design, production, improvements and maintenance that kept the Flying Fortress operational and effective. Here was a quality performance that played a major role in defeating Hitler’s Third Reich and terminated his vision of his Aryan-race world domination. Without the quality performance of the B-17 Americans might be speaking German today.

Quality over time of a national security system can have profound military, political and social implications. I recommend that the American Society for Quality (ASQ) increase its historical analysis of the evolution of Quality Control and Sciences since 1950s using this perspective. In this case, the quality of the B-17G changed history.

Bob Krone & B-17 Gillespie Field Airport, CA

Sue Krone, Don Parker & Bob Krone, 4-4-08

B-17 Nose Bombardier’s Compartment


"Quality Classics" is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711. This 31st Quality Classic in the series was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 16, Issue 1 (Jul-Aug-Sep 2008). Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Readers can access the entire series of Quality Classics at: http://www.asq711.org. Bob Krone is a member of the National Board of Directors of the Distinguished Flying Cross Society (dfcsociety.org).

 Back to Top


"System Integration"

By: Bob Krone, PhD, ASQ Fellow Member

When Dr. W. Edwards Deming, one of the Fathers of Quality Sciences, was asked during his seminars in the 1970s and 1980s "What is the first question you ask of corporate leadership?", his answer always was "Is there a system in place?"

I started teaching and administering in the University of Southern California’s Master of Science in Systems Management Degree Program (the MSSM) in 1976. In traveling through Asia and Europe I used to check telephone books yellow pages for "Systems" in major cities. In the late 1970s there was typically a sprinkling of companies with a System or Systems in their titles. Today in 2008 when you search Google for "Systems" you get 67,200,000 hits. Over the past fifty years the Systems Approach has penetrated every nation on Earth. Systems are now an integral past of society as well as a Quality Classic.

In 1995 Mr. Raymond Tse, of Hong Kong, was joined with me, as a Ph.D. doctoral candidate super-visor for the International School of Business at the University of South Australia. His thesis subject was Quality Management for the Hong Kong Aviation Department. He was the manager for the construction of computer systems for the Chep Lok Kok Airport in Hong Kong -- at that time the largest construction project in the world. Mr. Tse managed the creation of the most integrated civil airport aviation computer systems in the 1990s. In one of our meetings in Hong Kong in 1996 he made the statement: "If systems are not integrated, failures will occur."

Leap forward ten years to America’s space program. Systems integration is a well established practice in the International Space Station construction missions. Over the past several years I have been working with professionals in the space community.1 But space and global aviation are at the forefront of systems integration as the 21st Century begins. The past failures caused by poor systems integration could fill a library and are occurring globally with increasing frequency.

There is a principle invented by W. Ross Ashby that explains the failures. Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety2 states that the solution to a problem must have an equivalent set of variables as the problem. Ashby created his law for cybernetics with an aircraft autopilot as one example. For every possible change in the airplanes environment the autopilot sensors need to create a response. My favorite air-plane was the F-105D Thunderchief. It’s autopilot was so sophisticated that I could engage it in close formation flying with other F-105Ds. It followed Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety perfectly.

At the 17 September 2008 Inland Empire ASQ Section 0711 meeting in Riverside, California, Quality Manager Paul Dougherty commented: "An airliner can land safely without a pilot, but there is no way to stop two trains on a collision course." It wasn’t a hypothetical statement. He was referring to the head-on collision of a metrolink commuter train with a Union Pacific freight train in Chatsworth, California on 12 September 2008. Twenty-five people died and 135 were injured in the worst light rail accident in United States history. A rail safety professional was also at that meeting – Mr. John Schulz. I asked Paul and John "Was poor systems integration a contributing cause of the accident?" There occurred an interesting discussion about the differences between the United Kingdom and US rail safety systems but the bottom line was "Yes, a lack of systems integration was a contributing factor in the Chatsworth accident."

The difficulty in meeting Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety increases with the complexity of the problem. And that is precisely at the root of global problems today. The problems of global energy needs have no equivalent set of solutions. Huge requirements for the capacity of governance is failing to meet the increasing needs of nations and international organizationS.3 At the time I am writing this Quality Classic, there is a financial crisis in the United States caused by failures of the Fannie Mae and the Freddie Mac government sponsored mortgage organizations that together account for 50% of the over nine trillion dollar debt of the United States. The spin-off impacted the stock market, caused bank and financial institutions failures and spread internationally. Warren Buffett called those who precipitated this crisis "instruments of mass financial destruction." Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety was never even strategically considered. The result is that millions will suffer in the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Systems thinking clearly meets Quality Classic standards. If Systems Integration does not become a classic of the 21st Century human progress may reverse.


* "Quality Classics" is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711. This Quality Clas-sic was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 17, Issue 2 (Oct-Nov-Dec 2008) and is Number 32 in the series. Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Readers can access the entire series of Quality Classics at: http://www.asq711.org

1 Bob Krone, Ph.D. Editor (2006). Beyond Earth: The Future of Humans in Space. Apogee Space Press.
2 W. Ross Ashby, (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hail.
3 Professor Yehezkel Dror, Hebrew University, Jerusalem and Father of the Policy Sciences, has convincingly documented this fact in (2001) The Capacity to Govern. London: Frank Cass Publishers. See also Dror (1986). Policymaking Under Adversity. New Jersey, Transaction, Inc.

Back to Top


 Pitch, Roll & Yaw

By Bob Krone, PhD, ASQ Fellow Member

“Isn’t it astonishing that all these secrets have been preserved for so long so that we can discover them?”

Orville Wright, Kitty Hawk, 17 December 1903

The secrets that Wilber and Orville uncovered in their four years of glider and manned flight research and experimentation at Kitty Hawk, Outer Banks, North Carolina were Pitch, Roll and Yaw.

Pitch is the aviation term for the nose of an aircraft going up or down. The Wrights designed elevators that controlled the longitudinal axis. Roll is the term for the aircraft rotating around its horizontal axis to make turns. The French word ailerons describe the controls for roll. And Yaw is the term for the nose of the aircraft rotating around its verticle axis. Orville and Wilbur built rudders on their Wright Flyer to achieve needed yaw. Their invention of this fundamental “Three-axle control” enabling a pilot to steer the aircraft in equilibrium was their historic breakthrough that overcame the flying problem.

For the one hundred and six years, since Wilbur and Orville flew 120 feet in 12 seconds on the first manned aircraft flight, every airplane, glider, missile and space ship has been designed around the need for controlling pitch, roll and yaw to fly successfully. Fifty years after the Wright’s historic flight I made my first flight at Marana, Arizona in a propeller driven Air Force T-6G Texan basic trainer. My Flight Instructor made sure I fully understood pitch, roll and yaw before he cleared me for solo flight on 8 January 1953.

How astonishing it is that these secrets of human flight remained undiscovered for centuries of humans dreaming of flight from the Greek mythology of Daedalus to Michelangelo (1475-1564) and to 19th Century failed flight attempts. Pitch, Roll and Yaw are the quality classics of flight proven in 1903. They will remain essential forever.

What is the lesson of the Wright’s discoveries for the Quality Sciences? Are there still secrets to be discovered? Since the Quality Control pioneers began the movement after World War II quality has gone global, has revolutionized manufacturing and much of management. The Inland Empire, Riverside, California ASQ Section 0711 web site, has a summary of the classic approaches and tools that did it (www.asq711.org). A Google search on 23 December 2008 for “Quality Control” produced 73,200,000 hits, for “Quality Management” 79,100,000 hits and for “Quality Sciences” 20,500,000 hits. After 50 years ASQ is now the Global authority for doing more with less. An impressive story? Yes.

But the story is not over. There is increasing evidence that the quality of life for humans on Earth has huge variance. It is not necessarily on a continual improvement track. There exits in 2009 a deep crevasse between those areas where Quality has become imbedded to those areas where ignorance, need and want are the stepping stones to future catastrophes. There may not be another 50 years to solve the problems of continual war and global poverty undermining progress (since the 2000 millennium world military expenditures have risen annually from 800 billion to 1.2 trillion dollars) , of energy needs outstripping current projections, of the pollution of Earth’s environment, of terrorist killings, of hundreds of millions of people without clean drinking water, of disease pandemics, of continued population rise, and of poor or ideological-based education. The stability and sustainability of global civilization is threatened. Our 100,000 ASQ members are the logical ones to lead in uncovering the secrets to solve those problems.

I submit that there are three quality secrets waiting discovery and implementation. They are:

  1. Fixing the existing incapacity to create ethical Governance.

  2. Reducing the increasing high percentage of World military expenditures which creates the potential for mass killing
    or even human extinction and consumes resources for other needs.

  3. Creating Social Responsibility within global communities for people’s needs.

Just how these three secrets can be discovered and implemented remains a challenge for the increasingly international scope of the American Society for Quality (ASQ).


* "Quality Classics" is a project of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Inland Empire Section 0711. This Quality Classic was published in the Inland Empire Quality Newsletter, Vol 16, Issue 3 (Jan-Feb-Mar 2009) and is Number 33 in the series. Quality Classics meet the criterion of documenting a concept, model, tool, formula or algorithm that has 50 years or more validated utility in the Quality Movement begun in the 1950s. Readers can access the entire series of Quality Classics at: http://www.asq711.org.

Back to Top