What forms of formalism exist in quality management?

Every boss says quality must be valued, but when quality conflicts with production, efficiency, or benefits, quality is often the first to be sacrificed. Verbal quality and empty, exaggerated quality claims are rampant.

Leaders, your quality management is becoming a mere formality, yet you remain complacent. Is this really right?

Formalism One: One-sided reliance on post-event inspection

The phenomenon of one-sided reliance on post-event inspection is widespread. The quality department is merely a quality inspection department, only performing inspection functions without maintaining the quality management system, let alone improving and perfecting it. The quality department only handles inspection and ignores other processes of the quality management system, while no other department takes responsibility for maintaining the system, relying entirely on inspection for product quality.

Whenever product quality issues arise, only the inspection department is held accountable, not the production department, and no effort is made to investigate causes in the production process or management procedures.

A large amount of manpower, material resources, and energy are invested in quality inspection and handling nonconforming products, while no resources are allocated to maintaining, improving, and perfecting the quality management system.

Pre-planning is not implemented, in-process control is inadequate, and only post-event accountability for nonconformities is known. The result of one-sided reliance on post-event inspection and neglecting comprehensive, systematic control of the quality management system is that the nonconformity rate does not decrease, quality levels do not improve, defect costs remain high, and quality benefits cannot be enhanced.

Formalism Two: Ignoring scientific measures and methods

The main manifestation of quality management ignoring scientific measures and methods is relying entirely on personal experience and preferences, dominated by human factors, with management actions being highly subjective and arbitrary, disregarding the documented quality management system and neglecting the scientific and rational nature of quality management measures and methods.

Compared with the scientific principle of modern quality management to "first identify the 'right things' and then find the 'right methods' to do the 'right things'," ignoring scientific measures and methods is like treating symptoms without addressing causes and aimlessly dispersing resources and energy on uncertain matters.

Therefore, quality management that ignores scientific measures and methods lacks effectiveness and naturally will not achieve obvious results, resulting in wasted effort or even futility.

Formalism Three: Neglecting the construction and improvement of the quality management system

Overemphasizing individual employee quality improvement while neglecting the construction and improvement of the quality management system ignores the influence of the system environment on individual awareness and capability, failing to recognize their complementary relationship.

When quality problems occur, only individual employees are held responsible, without identifying systemic loopholes and defects in the quality management system.

Demanding employees to improve personal awareness and skills while neglecting to create conditions for such improvement, failing to provide training resources, management system guarantees, and incentives for improvement.

Trapped in dealing with specific quality problems and nonconforming products, only knowing to bury oneself in the endless vicious cycle of "finding problems - solving problems - finding problems again," blaming employees' personal qualities for the issues, holding them accountable for nonconformities, while ignoring systemic loopholes and defects in the management system that cause these quality problems.

Formalism Four: Treating symptoms rather than root causes of poor quality phenomena

Treating nonconforming product quality issues symptomatically is like addressing environmental pollution by only cleaning pollutants without blocking the source, resulting in an endless cycle of "pollution - cleaning - re-pollution."

For nonconformities, only corrective actions are taken without corrective measures, only eliminating the nonconformity itself without tracing and eliminating the root causes.

For causes of poor quality phenomena, there is no root cause analysis, only superficial and symptomatic treatment, like "treating the headache and the foot pain" and focusing on surface-level reasons.

For poor quality phenomena involving uncontrollable objective factors, all causes are attributed to these uncontrollable factors, without seeking controllable subjective factors within oneself.

Managing poor quality phenomena is like weeding crops; if only the surface weeds are cut without removing roots, the weeds will inevitably regrow. Therefore, poor quality phenomena must be treated both symptomatically and fundamentally.

Formalism Five: Lack of data-driven decision making

One common quality management drawback is relying solely on experience and intuition. Typical cases include having only subjective concepts and general evaluations of quality without accurate and detailed basic data to explain clearly and precisely.

Acting only on subjective experience or feelings, quality issues are analyzed qualitatively without quantitative analysis, and "close enough" is the standard for judgment.

Quality goals are set only with general qualitative requirements, without measurable quantitative data indicators.

How is the quality management level? What is the technical basis of quality? What are the key factors affecting product quality? What problems and defects exist in the process? What targeted quality improvement measures should be taken? To solve these questions, data analysis is essential.

Formalism Six: Being content with the status quo

Being complacent, not thinking about improvement, believing that once quality management reaches a certain level, quality issues no longer need concern.

After passing quality management system certification and obtaining registration, there is a phenomenon of no further improvement, thinking certification means no worries, system documents are shelved, "swords put away, horses rest on the southern mountain," and quality management levels are worse than before certification.

Failing to implement continuous improvement, management reviews are perfunctory, customer satisfaction, system operation, process and product monitoring and measurement are formalities, and data analysis, nonconformity control, corrective and preventive actions are handled perfunctorily.

When major changes occur in the quality management system (e.g., major organizational adjustments, significant business changes), system documents (e.g., procedures, policies) remain unchanged and have not been revised or updated for a long time.

No innovation, no encouragement of innovation, no innovation mechanism, even suppressing innovation.

Regardless of the external environment of an organization or individual, it is constantly developing and changing, generally requiring organizations or individuals to continuously enhance their survival capabilities. Only through continuous improvement and relentless enhancement of survival ability can one continue to survive and develop in this ever-changing environment.

Falling behind means being eliminated; only continuous improvement can keep up with development. This is an eternal and unchanging law and principle.

Formalism Seven: Failure to establish the concept of win-win cooperation with suppliers

In supplier quality management, failing to establish the concept of win-win cooperation with suppliers, the erroneous thinking of "single win" or "one-sided" is the main cause of damage to supplier quality.

In supplier management, "replacing management with contracts" or "replacing management with cards" mistakenly assumes that "contracts" or "cards" constitute management.

Failing to recognize that the organization itself and the supplier have a "win-win cooperation" relationship, treating suppliers as subordinates, inferiors, or even underlings, acting arrogantly and bossily.

Only emphasizing the organization's own profit while ignoring the reasonable interests of suppliers; only emphasizing suppliers to improve quality without providing reasonable and necessary assistance and support to help them improve quality.

"Single win" or "one-sided" supplier management inevitably leads to supplier non-cooperation, resentment, and resistance, naturally damaging their quality, which in turn harms the organization's own quality.

Formalism Eight: Insufficient prior quality planning

The principle of the "process approach" in quality management requires managing activities or processes as processes to achieve the desired results more efficiently.

Specifically for quality planning, the content includes: quality objectives, required activities and resources (including documents), criteria or standards for quality verification, and quality records that need to be created.

Formalism Nine: Incorrect role positioning of the quality department

The essence and core of modern quality management is prevention. Treating the quality department as "firefighters" or "emergency responders," becoming purely a quality inspection department while abandoning daily fire prevention and hazard elimination, and neglecting other key quality management system processes, clearly violates the prevention principle.

Willing to pay a high price for "fire alarms" and "emergencies" but unwilling to allocate relatively fewer resources for daily fire prevention and hazard elimination is clearly inconsistent with the principle of economic efficiency; it is putting the cart before the horse and unwise. The correct view, as Crosby said, is that the role of the quality system is prevention, not inspection.

Formalism Ten: Absence of top management

Situations where top management is absent in quality management mainly include: not participating in the formulation, evaluation, and revision of quality policies and objectives.

Not providing necessary resources to maintain the normal operation of the quality management system, long-term neglect of the needs for the normal operation of the quality management system, or treating it as dispensable. Not organizing management reviews properly, conducting them as a formality or going through the motions, or even not participating in management reviews.

Not participating in the formulation, evaluation, and revision of quality policies and objectives.

Not providing necessary resources to maintain the normal operation of the quality management system, long-term neglect of the needs for the normal operation of the quality management system, or treating it as dispensable.

Not organizing management reviews properly, conducting them as a formality or going through the motions, or even not participating in management reviews.

Shirking responsibility for major quality management decisions that should be made, delegating decision-making to other departments that are powerless or unable to bear responsibility for the decision outcomes.

Unclear allocation of responsibilities and authorities for the quality management system of internal departments and positions, or assigning responsibilities far beyond the granted authorities, even assigning responsibilities without granting authority.

Long-term neglect of learning modern scientific quality concepts and scientific methods and tools of quality management, supporting quality management without science, blindly directing with enthusiasm, "doing harm with good intentions," or pretending to support.

Top management is the soul of the enterprise. Only when they recognize the value of quality management, actively participate and commit first, organize professional management departments to vigorously implement quality control plans, reward achievers, and continuously execute and improve to face the unpredictable external environment, can quality management truly be implemented rather than just a formality.