Viewpoint: static and dynamic quality

Citation

Peters, J. (2003), "Viewpoint: static and dynamic quality", Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 7 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/mbe.2003.26707cab.002

Viewpoint: static and dynamic quality

John Peters formerly consulted on quality and related issues. He is currently Director: Research and Author Relations at Emerald.

We can distinguish between two structures of quality management – the static and the dynamic. Static quality is what keeps us in the game. Dynamic quality allows us to win it.

The two systems are antithetical but symbiotic. They support each other – one cannot sustain without the other – but they are fundamentally opposed in philosophy. Static systems are dead – they control and maintain. Dynamic systems are creative, but anarchic. They do not endure.

Static quality management alone creates process or product orientation, internal focus, paranoia, getting out of step with customer requirements, rigidity, bureaucracy.

Anyone who says "we can't afford to get a quality system right now as it would get in the way of our business" is talking about typically rigid and unyielding static quality systems.

Dynamic quality management alone creates anarchy, unreliability, fast track bankruptcy.

Static quality hates dynamic quality as it is by definition a non-conformance. Dynamic quality has to arise anew requisite to every situation, and is therefore almost unpredictable. Static systems try to drive out dynamic systems as they present a risk to their very existence. When static systems are destroyed or changed, it is usually through some dynamic quality challenge.

Dynamic quality hates static quality. Static systems are rigid, overpowering, take no notice of the reality of the situation. They have to preserve the status quo at all costs and are therefore inflexible. Dynamic quality tries to destroy static systems; unless a chink in them appears, dynamic quality can never emerge.

Static quality systems in the organization are like the unconscious muscles which make the heart beat and the lungs function. Unless they are in place, the organism cannot continue to live. Some people go to great lengths – and we think of them as insane lengths – to ensure that there is no risk to themselves as an organism. They stay indoors, as crossing the street is too dangerous. They disinfect everything in the house three times a day. They avoid any contact with the outside world which might challenge the belief system which keeps them living this type of life.

This is quality control gone insane. An organization going to such lengths to "preserve" itself will sooner or later die, as its inflexibility, bureaucracy and adherence to rules and systems distances it from the needs of its customers. In seeking control, it loses quality, just as our obsessive paranoia has no "quality of life".

Dynamic quality is the thrill of the new or the dangerous. It is climbing a mountain, driving fast, falling in love. To replicate the thrill, the dynamism, we soon build up a tolerance, so we have to climb tougher, more dangerous mountains, drive faster still, fall in love more obsessively, seek more thrills. Eventually, unless tempered by static quality controls, the thrill-seeker will find death or insanity in pushing the limits ever further.

An organization which throws out its controls may briefly blaze, but will soon be consumed by bankruptcy.

In the airline industry, the basic "heart and lungs" of the business is that the plane will not crash. To that end, there is no room for creativity. If the wing falls off mid-flight, no amount of dynamic quality empathy with customers will make the flight a pleasurable one. This is the bottom of the hierarchy to which every decision must eventually default. If placed in a decision situation between being friendly to a customer and averting a crash – avert the crash.

But, this is not quality as seen and valued by the customer. It is a level necessary to stay in the game. No customer judges a quality flight as one which did not crash!

At a next level, we can look at basic systems of customer service – getting the right baggage on and off the right flight, making sure the toilets are clean and the seats work.

Again, it must be assured, because the absence of these factors is liable to result in a perception of low quality. But alone, it does not constitute quality. By and large these are still static systems, aimed at guarding against negative quality.

Now consider this example. Two families fly from London to Sydney on the same airplane. Both have small children. One of the children becomes fractious, and will not settle. The family with this child become increasingly frustrated. Then, a cabin attendant picks up and carries the fractious child around the airplane for a while. She smiles and plays with the baby. It quietens; the parents relax, smile, watch fondly, and enjoy the few minutes of peace.

The flight is on time, the food is edible, the toilets are clean. The parents of the child that the cabin attendant has played with for a while look back on the flight as a high quality experience, and recommend the airline to others. The other family forget the flight as uneventful and adequate.

Is the job of the quality manager therefore to devise systems to assure aspects such as timeliness, cleanliness and safety; or is it to encourage spontaneous acts of kindness and human interaction? If dynamic quality creates "delight", what part can a quality manager play in the notion of "delighting" a customer?