Search results

The importance of quality costs and benefits is sometimes not recognised by industrial managers. Quality costs money but the benefits which accrue are elusive and hard to quantify. The way in which quality costs have been regarded in the past are reviewed and the old basis challenged. A new basis for recognising and exploiting quality benefits is proposed.

This paper aims to present a survey of published literature about various quality costing approaches and reports of their success in order to provide a better understanding of cost of quality (CoQ) methods.

The paper's approach is a literature review and discussion of the issues surrounding quality costing approaches.

Even though the literature review shows an interest by the academic community, a CoQ approach is not utilized in most quality management programs. The evidence presented shows that companies that do adopt CoQ methods are successful in reducing quality costs and improving quality for their customers. The survey shows that the method most commonly implemented is the classical prevention‐appraisal‐failure model; however, other quality cost models are used with success as well.

The paper shows that the selected CoQ model must suit the situation, the environment, the purpose and the needs of the company in order to have a chance to become a successful systematic tool in a quality management program.

Cantilever. In this experiment a mild steel cantilever beam is arranged so that it cannot be over‐strained. The end travel is limited by contact with the base of the apparatus when fully deflected, see Figure 1.

Thick cylinder. This experiment is designed to confirm the usual Lamé theory for thick cylinders subjected to internal pressure.

THE USE of electrical resistance strain gauges is becoming standard practice in a number of industries, and their introduction into engineering courses is increasing.

The main purpose of this study is to investigate Ishikawa’s statement that “95% of problems in processes can be accomplished using the 7 Quality Control (QC) tools” and explore its validity within the health-care sector. The study will analyze the usage of the 7 QC tools in the health-care service sector and the benefits, challenges and critical success factors (CSFs) for the application of the 7 QC tools in this sector.

In order to evaluate Ishikawa’s statement and how valid his statement is for the health-care sector, an online survey instrument was developed, and data collection was performed utilizing a stratified random sampling strategy. The main strata/clusters were formed by health-care professionals working in all aspects of health-care organizations and functions. A total of 168 participants from European health-care facilities responded to the survey.

The main finding of this study is that 62% of respondents were trained in the 7 QC tools. Only 3% of participants in the health-care sector perceived that the seven tools of QC can solve above 90% of quality problems as originally claimed by Dr Ishikawa. Another relevant finding presented in this paper is that Histograms, Cause and Effect diagrams and check sheets are the most used tools in the health-care sector. The least used tools are Stratification and Scatter diagrams. This paper also revealed that the 7 QC tools proposed by Dr Ishikawa were most used in hospital wards and in administration functions. This work also presents a list of CSFs required for the proper application of the 7 QC tools in healthcare.

This research was carried out in European health-care facilities – and there is an opportunity to expand the study across global health-care facilities. There is also an opportunity to study the use of the tools and their impact on hospital performance using the Action Research methodology in a health-care organization.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the very first research within the health-care sector that focused on investigating the usage of all the 7 basic tools and challenging Dr Ishikawa’s statement: “95% of problems in processes can be accomplished using the 7 Quality Control (QC) tools” from his book “What is Quality Control?” The results of this study represent an important first step toward a full understanding of the applicability of these tools in the health-care sector.

The main purpose of this study is to revisit Ishikawa's statement: “95% of problems in processes can be accomplished using the original 7 Quality Control (QC) tools”. The paper critically investigates the validity of this statement in higher education institutions (HEIs). It involves analysis of the usage of the 7 QC tools and identifying the barriers, benefits, challenges and critical success factors (CSFs) for the application of the 7 QC tools in a HEI setting.

An online survey instrument was developed, and as this is a global study, survey participants were contacted via social networks such as LinkedIn. Target respondents were HEIs educators or professionals who are knowledgeable about the 7 QC tools promulgated by Dr Ishikawa. Professionals who work in administrative sectors, such as libraries, information technology and human resources were included in the study. A number of academics who teach the 7 basic tools of QC were also included in the study. The survey link was sent to over 200 educators and professionals and 76 complete responses were obtained.

The primary finding of this study shows that the diffusion of seven QC tools is not widespread in the context of HEIs. Less than 8% of the respondents believe that more than 90% of process problems can be solved by applying the 7 QC tools. These numbers show that modern-quality problems may need more than the 7 basic QC basic tools and there may be a need to revisit the role and contribution of these tools to solve problems in the higher education sector. Tools such as Pareto chart and cause and effect diagram have been widely used in the context of HEIs. The most important barriers highlighted are related to the lack of knowledge about the benefits and about how and when to apply these tools. Among the challenges are the “lack of knowledge of the tools and their applications” and “lack of training in the use of the tools”. The main benefits mentioned by the respondents were “the identification of areas for improvement, problem definition, measurement, and analysis”. According to this study, the most important factors critical for the success of the initiative were “management support”, “widespread training” and “having a continuous improvement program in place”.

The exploratory study provides an initial understanding about the 7 QC tools application in HEIs, and their benefits, challenges and critical success factors, which can act as guidelines for implementation in HEIs. Surveys alone cannot provide deeper insights into the status of the application of 7 QC tools in HEIs, and therefore qualitative studies in the form of semi-structured interviews should be carried out in the future.

This article contributes with an exploratory empirical study on the extent of the use of 7 QC tools in the university processes. The authors claim that this is the first empirical study looking into the use of the 7 QC tools in the university sector.

The purpose of this paper is to describe an investigation into collection and measurement of cost of quality, explaining how this information was presented and used for business improvement in a footwear company.

An action research methodology was adopted. The research involved: review of available COQ literature; identification of cost categories; adoption and trial of cost collection systems.

Quality costing can only be used as a management tool if the data presented is both accurate and valid. This is limited by availability of required information and necessary expertise and resources to gather and analyse such information. Careful development of the cost model and a transparent, agreed methodology for employing it is essential.

The methodology applied was appropriate, generating data to facilitate discussion and draw specific conclusions from. A perceived limitation is the single case approach; however, this can be enough to add to the body of knowledge.

Guidelines for quality cost collection and analysis are presented. The methodology developed is being used elsewhere within the same corporate group.

The paper describes how one company effectively used COQ to produce focused data for decision making. It demonstrates that COQ can focus efforts to improve business performance.

The main purpose of this study is to revisit Dr. Ishikawa's statement: “95% of problems in processes can be accomplished using the seven quality control (QC) tools” from his book “What is Quality Control?”. The authors are interested in critically investigating if this statement is still valid nowadays. It involves the analysis of the usage of the seven QC tools in the manufacturing and service sectors and the benefits, challenges and critical success factors (CSFs) for the application of the seven QC tools.

In order to evaluate Kaoru Ishikawa's statement and how valid his statement is for manufacturing and service industries nowadays, an online survey instrument was developed, and data collection was performed utilising a stratified random sampling strategy. The main strata/clusters were formed by senior quality professionals working in operational excellence, quality consultants, quality directors, quality engineers, quality managers and quality supervisors working in both manufacturing and service sectors from South American companies. A total of 97 participants from different countries in South America responded to the survey.

The main finding of this study is that only about 20% of respondents felt that the original seven basic tools of QC can solve above 80% of quality related problems in their businesses. This is quite different from the findings reported by Dr Ishikawa in his work in between 1970 and 1980s. Another relevant finding presented in this paper is that Pareto analysis, histograms and cause and effect analysis are the most used tools in both manufacturing and service sectors. This paper also revealed that the seven QC tools proposed by Dr. Ishikawa were least used by human resources (HR), information technology (IT) and finance functions. This work presents a list of critical success factors required for the proper application of the seven QC tools.

All data collected in the pilot survey came from professionals working for South American companies. So, this paper does present limitations in terms of generalisation of the results. Also, data were collected at an individual level, so parameters such as the inter reliability of judgements on a particular survey item could not be evaluated. It is important to highlight that n = 97 is a low sample size, enough for a preliminary survey but reinforcing the limitation in terms of generalisation of the results.

Authors understand that this is the very first research focused on challenging Dr. Ishikawa's statement: “95% of problems in processes can be accomplished using the seven quality control (QC) tools” from his book “What is Quality Control?”. The results of this study represent an important first step towards a full understanding of the applicability of these tools in manufacturing and service industries in a global scale.