第六十六篇 What is Quality.docx

翻译：275641119What is Quality? David Straker 质量是什么？大卫 思切克This article first appeared Quality World, the journal of the Chartered Quality Institute此篇文章首次于特许质量协会出现质量一词The domain of the quality professional has changed. From its humble beginnings in manufacturing, it is now expected, along with other infrastructure professions, such as IT, HR and finance, to contribute at the organisational level. Unlike those other professions, quality expertise can be hard to define, perhaps because there are many views of what business-level quality means. David Straker considers current definitions of quality and offers a new one, considering its ramifications for the quality profession.质量专业领域发生了变化，从制造业的姗姗来迟开始，它现在随着IT，人力资源和财务等其他基础专业在组织层面上有所贡献而变得有所期望了。不像这些其他职业，质量技能很难去定义，也许因为有很多业务水平所谓的质量观点。大卫 思切克考虑到当前质量的定义，并就质量职业的结果性给出了一个新的定义。At its simplest level, quality answers two questions: What is wanted? and How do we do it? Accordingly, qualitys stomping ground has always been the area of processes. From the bread and butter of ISO 9000, to the heady heights of TQM, quality professionals specify, measure, improve and re-engineer processes to ensure that people get what they want.最初，质量回答了两个问题：“我们要什么？”和“我们怎么做？”。相应地，质量的所处之地总是过程的区域。从ISO9000到全面质量管理，质量专家们制定，测量，提升和重组过程以确保人们所需。So where are we now?所以我们现在在何地？There are as many definitions of quality as there are quality consultants, but commonly accepted variations include: 当有质量顾问时，就有很多关于质量的定义，但是通常被接受的定义包括：conformance to requirements - Crosby 符合要求- 克劳斯比fitness for use - Juran 适合使用-朱兰the totality of characteristics of an entity that bear on its ability to satisfy stated and implied need - ISO 8402:1994 满足预定和潜在的需要的特性实体- ISO 8402:1994quality models for business, including the Deming Prize, the EFQM excellence model and the Baldrige award 商业的质量模范包括戴明奖，EFQM注：欧洲品质管理基金会 (European Foundation for Quality Management，EFQM)卓越奖和鲍德里奇奖国家(美国)质量奖。So what is wrong?到底怎么了？Philip Crosbys definition is easily toppled: if requirements are wrong, then failure is guaranteed. His focus is the domain of QA where, without a specification, quality cannot be measured and thus controlled. You cannot have zero defects if you do not have a standard against which to measure defectiveness. 菲利普克劳斯比的质量定义容易被推翻：如果要求本来就是错误的，那必然导致失效。他的关注点是没有规范的质量保证领域，质量是不可测量和控制。若你没有测量缺陷的标准，那你就不能保证零缺陷。This reflects the early days, where quality was clearly about product. Quality control, and later QA, was our domain - we didnt care about customers; the research and design department was responsible for designing the job and sales and marketing for selling it. But those halcyon days of definitive specifications and jobs for life are long gone. 这折射在质量是关于产品的早期时代。质量控制，之后的质量保证是我们的领域-我们不在乎客户，研发和涉及部门对质量负责，市场和销售负责营销。但是，权威性的规划书和铁饭碗的工作的平静日子一去不复返了。Though Juran takes a step further down the value chain, to the use of the product or service (at which point customers had forced their way into the frame), he still presupposes that we can fully understand how the product will be used, which is a great challenge (and not always possible) . As Deming himself said, some things are unknown and unknowable. 尽管朱兰沿着价值链把产品或服务的使用迈进了一步（在这一点上客户挤进了框架内），他任然预设我们能完全理解产品如何使用，这是一个非常大的挑战（不一定能做到）。正如戴明自己说的那样“有些事物是未知和未定的”ISO 8402 recognises this uncertainty with its implied need. It uses the word entity as opposed to the product or service definition of its earlier (1986) version, indicating a broadening uncertainty. Nonetheless, it suffers again from a simplistic, single-minded focus - all we need to do is to figure out what is wanted and then deliver it. ISO 8402认识到质量潜在的需要的不确定性。相对于1986年版的产品或服务定义，它使用了实体这一词来表示一个更宽泛的不确定性。但是，它又一次遭遇单纯又诚实的关注-我们需要做的就是为了解决我们需要什么然后完成它。The quality models are a step further into broader business. Here, although processes are important, quality is much more about people: customers are there, but so too are stakeholders - employees, partners, suppliers, shareholders and society. Perhaps wisely, the models avoid nailing down a specific definition of quality, leaving us without a definition that encompasses a broader business view.质量范例迈进了更广泛的业务。这里，尽管过程是重要的，质量比人员更重要的多：客户在那，但是股东 员工，合伙人，供应商，股东和社会。也许，这些模型避免了快速做出一个具体的质量定义，留给我们的是一个没有定义的，具有更广阔的业务观点ISO9000:2000 steps in this direction also, talking about customer and other interested parties, but leaves the definition of quality at a rather generalised degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfils requirementsISO9000:2000也在这方向跨了一步，讨论关于客户和相关方，但是给了一个更概括的质量定义：一组固有特性满足要求的程度Initial problems最初的问题Lets face it, quality is difficult to define. We want to be precise, to create a quality definition, yet language is limited. Nor does it help that our domain has expanded from the relatively- constrained factory floor into the open realms of a broader business context, and beyond that, to environmental and social domains. 让我们面对质量很难去定义的现实。我们想更精确去创造一个质量定义，然而，语言是有限的。我们的领域从相对约束工厂现场到更广的业务环境的开放范围，再到环境和社会领域，质量之定义都是苍白无用的。The IQA dallies with all of the above definitions on its website (), demonstrating the difficulty of naming quality. In the end, it plumps for a customer focus of quality that ranges throughout the product/service chain: this is still is not enough. 质量保证协会调侃了在其网站上关于以上所有质量之定义，显示其命名质量之困难。最后，通过产品/服务链，投票选出质量涵盖的客户关注点：这任然是不够的。The perception of quality as almost impossible to define, is not confined to our profession; in The Timeless Way of Building, architect Christopher Alexander calls it the quality without a name. In the same way that we know a good room when we use one, but cannot define exactly what makes it good, we can name its attributes of quality, but cannot define quality itself. One way to find a good definition of anything is to take a broader view. Alexander does this in his definition of a pattern language for architecture, which reduces the whole of building and town design to 252 simple rule-sets. So can we find a new definition for quality by looking at the bigger picture? 几乎不可能去定义的质量观念不限于我们的职业之内 。以建筑永存的方式看，建筑师克里斯托弗亚历山大称之为无名之质量。同理，当我们使用一个房间时，我们知道它是好的，但是不能准确定义房间哪里好，我们能列出质量的属性，但不能定义质量本身。找到一个东西好的定义方式是看远一。亚历山大在他的建筑模式语言定义就是这样做的，这种语言减少建筑和城镇设计之整体到252种简单规则。因此，我们能通过放宽眼界找到质量的全新定义呢？A new beginning 一个新的开始Now for the audacious part: having knocked the existing definitions of quality and acknowledged that definition is not easy, lets try it nonetheless. In the words of Susan Jeffers, we should feel the fear and do it anyway. The focus of our definition will remain in the general business arena. This is where most of us make our living. What if we follow the early quality mandate and ensure that we meet requirements? Of course, we can go out of business by producing goods that do not sell. So, strike the product/requirements-only focus.现在对于大胆之部分：批评质量之现存定义和认为质量定义是不容易的，虽然如此，我们还是尝试去定义它。以苏珊杰佛斯的话说，我们应该感到害怕和立刻执行。我们的定义的关注会停留在一般的 业务活动中。这是我们大部分人生计的地方。如果我们遵循早期的质量定义，保证我们能满足要求,会怎么样？当然，通过生产不能销售出去的物品，我们会破产。因此，抛弃仅仅以产品或要求的关注点。What if we gave customers everything they wanted? What if they were totally delighted? Sounds good. But what if it cost us so much that we failed to make a profit? Again, we would go out of business. We need customers and products and services to satisfy them, but this is not enough. Why are businesses started? - To meet the needs of the people who start them, of course. So we must also meet the needs of the owners of companies, not all of whom are interested solely in money. Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard started HP to make a difference to society while having fun with the electronic engineering that was their passion. But they were aware that they had to make a profit to pay for their higher goals. Public companies are less egalitarian and have to toe the line that analysts and shareholders demand, which means a return on investment. 如果我们满足客户要求的一切会怎么样？客户完全满意会怎么样？很好。但是，成本很高又无利润会怎么样？我他们们再次会停业。我们需要客户，产品和服务来满足客户，但这是远远不够的。我们为什么买卖？- 满足人们的需要，当然，我们必须也满足公司老板的需要，不是所有的老板都只在乎赚钱。比尔休利特和戴夫帕卡德创建惠普来对社会变得不一样，以此同时，对电子工程感兴趣是他们的激情。但是，他们意识到要创造利润来支付他们更高目标。公共公司是很少主动公平的，也不得不听从分析家和股东要求的命令，他们需要投资回报。Effectiveness and efficiency are words we often use to define quality. Effectiveness is about meeting requirements, usually of customers. Efficiency is doing this at a minimal cost, which meets shareholders needs. Could we just focus on these? Skip the carpets and cafeterias; pay people the absolute minimum. Perhaps not, as in these times of hyper-competitiveness and scarce talent, your people are your most important asset. Employees have both needs and legs, and if the former are not met, the latter get into action; when you ask too much of your people, those with get up and go are the first to do just that. We can be effective and efficient and still go out of business as our best employees leave and the rest repay our lack of care for them with a lack of care for us. 效益和效率是我们常常用来定义质量的词汇。效益通常是满足客户要求。效率是以最少的成本来满足股东的要求的行为。我们仅仅关注这些吗？略去基本的生活需要，支付人们最低的工资，也许不，就像在竞争激烈和人才缺乏的年代，你的员工是你最重要的资产。雇员有需要和腿，如果前者没有满足，后者就去做事，当你要求你的员工太多之时，这些有热情的人是第一个吃螃蟹的人。当我们最好的员工离去，我们是有效益和效率的，我们任然会破产。剩下的人们用我们对我们自己的冷漠来偿还我们对他们的冷漠。There are still people who can drive us out of business, from uncooperative suppliers and partners to environmental pressure groups and punitive governments. Where is the common thread? The phrase most commonly heard is going out of business. Deming recognised this when he pointed out that survival is optional. This is all somewhat negative, so lets turn it around and say:任然有能帮助我们走出困境的人们，从不合作的供应商和合伙人到环境压力群体和惩罚性政府。共同的思路在哪里？经常听到词汇“停业”。当戴明指出生产才是硬道理时，他才认识到这个。这多少有点伤感，因此我们委婉地说吧：Testing the definition 验证定义A good definition will withstand all kinds of serious criticism. What about those people who need things? Staying in business means keeping them all reasonably happy, so this works. What about growth? This is an interesting question: why do so many companies seek to grow constantly? If shareholders demand growth, and will take their money elsewhere otherwise, then it is still about staying in business. If our competitors grow, we need to grow to stay in the game.一个好的定义将经得起各种严酷的批评。这些需要东西的人们怎么样？保持营业就是让大家都合情合理的开心，这确实奏效。发展怎么样？这是一个有趣的问题：为什么这么多公司寻求不停地发展？如果股东要求壮大，他们会把他们的钱投资到其他地方，然后，它任然是营业。如果我们的竞争对手成长了，我们需要发展来保持竞争力。Growth can be a management trap: if it leads to over-extension or unmanageable diversity, such that the business fails, this is not a quality situation. To quote Ricardo Semler1: The biggest myth in the corporate world is that every business needs to keep growing to be successful. Thats baloney. The ultimate measure of a business success, I believe, is not how big it gets, but how long it survives. 发展是一个管理陷阱：如果它导致盲目扩张或不可管理的多样性 ，必然业务失败了，这不是一个质量处境，引用里卡多的话：公司的最大神话就是每笔业务需要保持发展很成功。那是无说八道。我相信，一个业务之成功的终极标准，不是公司变得多大规模，而是公司生存多久。One of the frustrations we meet in quality is the focus on longer-term company survival; we know that products containing defects will lead to dissatisfied customers. We know that incomplete customer knowledge impairs our ability to correct external problems and repair internal processes. But we come up constantly against managers who are working on short-term problems, such as getting a delivery out today or pacifying an angry customer on the phone. So who is right, given our new definition of quality? The answer is both. Our perspectives may be different and we can both benefit from sharing one anothers concerns, but we both want to stay in business, which means focusing on both the short- and long-term.在质量方面我们遇到的一个挫折是长久公司生存之关注点.我们知道有缺陷的产品会让客户不满意。我们也知道不完全了解客户也会削弱我们纠正外部问题和内部流程的能力。但是，我们不断地与在短期的经理们接触，比如，今天出货或电话抚慰一个恼怒的客户。因此，处于我们新的质量定义，孰是谁非呢？答案是都对。我们的观点也许不同，我们能从分享客户的忧虑 获得益处，但是，我们都想营业，那就意味着聚焦长期和短期之业务。How do we stay in business?我们如何保持营业或在做买卖呢？If quality means staying in business, how do we do that? Perhaps there is no single, simple answer, but by exploring the issue, including going back-to-basics, we can take a few steps in the right direction.What is business?如果质量意味着保持在做买卖，我们如何做到呢？也许，这没有单一简单的答案，但是提供开发这个问题，包括回到基本的东西上，我们能在正确的方向上前进一步。什么是买卖呢？While we are rushing in where angels fear to tread, perhaps we should scrutinise what we mean by business. At its most fundamental, business is barter: I will swap you two sheep for one cow; I will invest in your business if you give me a good chance of getting rich quicker than the bank. What makes barter work is that we value things differently, for example - I have plenty of sheep but no milk. Business is not so much barter as value exchange.当我们胆大妄为时，也许，我们应该仔细检查我们业务是什么。最基本层面上，买卖就是物物交换：我会用一条牛换你两只羊。如果你给我一个比银行更快更好的赚钱的机会，我会投资。物物交换是我们各自有价值的东西。比如，我有许多羊，但是没有牛奶。当价值变换时，买卖就不仅仅是物物交换了。If business were just about customers and ourselves, it would be easy. We would find what they wanted, make it and sell it to them. But it is not that simple: our problems begin when we find we are at the crossroads of many exchanges of value. There are shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, partners and governments, all engaged in a complex web of value exchange.如果买卖仅仅是关于 客户和我们自己的事，那太容易了。我们会发现他们需要什么，然后就是制造并销售出去。但是不是那么简单：当我们发现我们在很多价值交换的十字路口时，我们的问题出现了。有很多的股东，员工，客户，供应商，合伙人和政府，所有人都参与到价值交换的复杂网络中。To make things worse, we cannot make all of the people happy all the time. With a limited pool of resources, we try to keep customers happy, while being profitable enough for shareholders, while paying our suppliers (eventually), while paying for the new employee rest rooms. Sorry folks, but there is not enough cash to go around. Like any paymaster, we will need to make some tough decisions.更糟的是，我们不能一直使这些人满意。当对股东足够有利可图时，当支付搜吗的供应商时，当支付新员工休息室房钱时，我们用我们有限的资源试图去满足他们。很遗憾，兄弟，但是还是没有多余足够的现金。就像任何发薪人员一样，我们需要下更艰难的决定。Staying in business then, means playing a dynamic balancing game, optimising value exchange, with an awareness of the very real resource limitations with which we work. This gives us a second level of detail we can use for our quality definition: 然而保持在买卖意味着玩一个动态的平衡游戏，意识到我们工作的非常真实有限的资源优化价值交换。这给了我们第二层细节，就是我们能使用我们质量定义：What does this mean for quality?质量是什么呢？Casting a keen quality eye over this revised definition may lead to a certain queasiness. Optimising means making compromises but we have technology: remember Mr Pareto and his law, and Jurans vital few. We are not counting defects but units of value, in terms of value created and of the levels and types of value required to keep each player in the game.对这个改进的定义投去敏锐的质量观点也许会导致某种恶心。优化意味着妥协但是我们有技术：记住帕拉图先生和他的原则， 和朱兰的重要的极少数。就创造的价值和保持彼此处于竞技场要求的类型和水平而言，我们不是数缺陷，而是价值单位A simple conceptual model is to imagine everyone putting coins into a central pot and then taking them out again at a later time. As long as there is money in the pot, and there are people to play, the game continues. Staying in business means keeping the game going.一个简单的概念模型是想象一下大家都把硬币放在一个中心锅里，然后一段时间之后，又取出来。只要在锅内有钱和有人玩，这个游戏就会继续。保持在做买卖就意味着保持游戏进行。A consideration within this game is that some players can easily leave. When they are critical value contributors (as customers often are), they can demand a higher level of value in return. This can lead to low-value customers which many of us tolerate under the customer is always right banner. What we sometimes forget is that if someone is taking too much out of the pot, they can be asked to leave. 在这个游戏之内的考虑是有些玩家能轻易地离开。当他们是关键价值贡献者时（通常是客户）他们要求更多回报这会导致低位价值的客户，他们很多人在“客户永远是对的”的标榜下容忍。如果有人从锅里拿去很多钱，我们有时会忘记的，他们会被踢出局。If quality is making this game work, then quality professionals need to understand the game. It does not mean abandoning our concern for customers and products: far from it. But it does mean optimising the system so that the whole thing continues to operate. Blind quality is what killed TQM in many companies. Why should I map my processes? 如果质量使得这个游戏运作，然后质量专家需要明白这个游戏。它不是意味着抛