The cost of poor quality is a technique that has been developed to identify the need and opportunities for quality improvements in a language we all understand ... money.
When to use it
The cost of poor quality indicates 'how it is today' and in particular it can be used:
To size problems and focus attention for need for improvement:
Prevention - is any activity aimed at preventing getting things wrong ... eg. training, planning and analysis data for improvement purposes.
Appraisal - is checking that the requirements have been met, for example, such as verification, inspection and audit..
Failure - is any activity created as a result of not meeting the requirements first time ... eg. scrap, correcting, customer complaints, lost opportunities and exceeding requirements
To size problems and focus attention for need for improvement:
- As a useful tool in Step 1 of the Problem Solving Process
- As an output from step 4 of Department Purpose Analysis
- As a source of improvement/project opportunities
What does it achieve?
The immediate benefits of conducting a cost of poor quality exercise will be:- A greater degree of awareness of quality problems
- The association of day to day failure with costs and in consequence a desire to improve
- The identification of improvement opportunities
- To give manages a new set of 'mental tools' and perspective to get underneath the realities of their operations
Summary:
Basic work - is as it suggests, the essential/unavoidable activities required to do a job of work.Prevention - is any activity aimed at preventing getting things wrong ... eg. training, planning and analysis data for improvement purposes.
Appraisal - is checking that the requirements have been met, for example, such as verification, inspection and audit..
Failure - is any activity created as a result of not meeting the requirements first time ... eg. scrap, correcting, customer complaints, lost opportunities and exceeding requirements
The cost of poor quality = appraisal costs + failure costs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete