Japan and its manufacturers have been synonymous with Quality and Reliability for quite some time now. This is unlike the 1950s and 60s when Japanese goods were notorious for being cheap and of poor quality. It is only due to the concerted efforts of industrial majors in this country assisted by quality champions like Deming and Juran that the situation witnessed a complete turn-around; from the 1970s onwards, Japanese products achieved high standards of quality. In fact, it is most ironical that the quality initiatives invented by the Japanese are today respected and practiced by the same western countries that once derided Japanese methods.
It is against this background that two of the country’s and the world’s leading automobile manufacturers – Toyota and Honda – announced the recall of millions of vehicles on account of various problems reported. The recall in itself is just the tip of the iceberg; the problems go way deeper – safety risks to and suspicions of the drivers of these vehicles, legal action against the auto companies, global and local impacts of the crisis across different markets, different cultures, the domino impact on suppliers and the overall Japanese economy…the list is endless. But there is probably nothing more damaging that the black mark that this incident has inflicted across these motor giants that were till yesterday set apart from competition and revered as quality pioneers. As IHS Global Insight analyst Carlos Da Silva “It’s not that their vehicles are worse than the others, (the recalls are) just showing maybe that their vehicles are like the others”, the situation is nothing short of the loss of the differentiation factor that took decades to build! Such an event in itself compounded by its size and scale only begs the question “Could it be that the race to cut costs and sell more is so fierce that even the mighty Japanese cannot be trusted any more?” Never realized that a case of quality mismanagement can have this huge an effect now, did we?
It is an accepted fact that quality assurance is a vital component of any initiative – small or big. Whether it is the construction of a building, institution of a new car model or the launch of a space craft, the slightest let up in this area can cause a ripple effect across businesses and countries. As a result, we can never be too sure, too complacent. This incident of vehicle recall suggests that despite man’s humongous technical advancement, we can still not guarantee that every system we design, every product that we launch will be cent percent anything and everything proof. Neither can we confidently state that so-and-so company has rolled out quality products so far and hence will continue to do so till eternity; even quality elephants hit a rough patch. No matter how many lines and lines of software programs we develop that can achieve feats that were hitherto difficult or time consuming, there is always a possibility of one small defect bringing the whole system crashing down. Call me old-fashioned or a paranoid skeptic, but I feel that the more we rely on technology and machinations, the more complications we add to our lives and the more unsafe we make ourselves and our fellow human beings. So technical advancement does not actually mean that our products are error free; on the contrary, they establish the need for greater monitoring and control.
Okay, so quality management is crucial in every project, in every industry and in every era. But how often do we arrive at the complete definition of quality. I am not referring to the “definition” as expounded in text-books, rather I am looking at the total delineation of the quality of a product. I am looking at the inter-relation between quality management and risk management. The process of risk management is normally carried out thus – “there is a 20% chance that so and so event will occur, if it does, the impact is so much and this is what we need to do to handle it.” Likewise quality assurance guidelines specify “the product should meet so and so standards.” Nothing wrong with these maybe, but have we ever asked ourselves “So what? What if the product does not meet the standard? What is the risk that a quality failure can engender? What is the bigger picture that we are simply not seeing?” This is crucial, if you ask me; one defect in a product can translate to a risk to loss in revenues, loss of face, loss of life even! The PMBOK postulates that the different knowledge areas are inter-related. Why is it then that we ignore this vital link instead of analyzing it with the attention that it deserves?
An honest and responsible attitude is any day better compared to silence which can easily be interpreted as “I don’t care what happens to you”. It is not enough to accept that there has been a defect, it is important that this is accepted on time. As children and young adults, we are groomed to share good news with anyone and everyone but shy away from delivering bad news. It is high time that we shrugged off this approach and adopted an upfront and upright method of communication with regard to quality. And mind you, the communication needs to be logical and feasible, it needs to address the problem. There is no point in saying that “the brakes will work if you push on it a bit”. I, for one, would want a machine to behave as it is supposed to within the purview of the laws of science; a brake pedal is supposed to stop a car when applied and it better do just that and do it every time I step on it. Telling me to keep pushing it until it works is, to me, an unscientific, unsafe and downright retrogressive approach.
The truth is that despite our best efforts, many a time, we are unable to deliver a fool-proof quality product. It is in such situations, that we are forced to handle product recalls, just as Honda and Toyota are now having to deal with. One can only hope that these giants realize that even this initiative is a full-fledged project and approach it with the careful and responsible attitude that it calls for. Unlike regular launch projects, the key success factor of this project will be largely based on softer aspects such as communication and people management. I am sure the owners would not mind if the vehicles are repaired and delivered later, but delivered with absolutely no faults. Likewise the makers would be eager to salvage their reputation by not faltering on the quality this time, even if it means any additional investments.
