We often talk about the right tool for the right job. In manufacturing and quality, as well as a host of other areas, it is imperative to have the right approach, the right techniques, and the right equipment to help ensure the result we are looking for. 

The same can be said for language. The words we choose and how we use them can go a long way to getting the desired response. 

This seemed quite evident during a conversation at this year’s ASQ Measurement Division event in Michigan in September. Heather Wade was describing her discussions with clients and others, trying to convey the idea that quality is not something to be avoided and dreaded as an additional effort that needs to be undertaken, an additional cost that needs to be incurred, but rather a necessity to cost savings, to throwing away defective parts, to not having to go back and do things again. In other words, eliminating scrap and rework. 

We use the terms scrap and rework quite often, but we also frequently use the term “cost of quality.” And Heather’s description immediately got me thinking about the phrase “cost of quality” and what might happen if we changed it. We may have heard it expressed as cost of “poor” quality (closer), but what if we said, “savings of quality”? Would that help us get where Heather was/is trying to go? A change in mindset set forth by a change in language. It seemed to me that it would lead to a better understanding of what is trying to be conveyed, to clients and to the manufacturing industry. A more positive look and understanding of what quality offers. 

It also reminds me of a project, if you will, from a few years ago, spearheaded by Tracy Owens of ASQ. I sat in on his presentation, one similar to the presentations at the measurement division conference described above, at an ASQ Inspection Division event. He was, in brief, experimenting with changing the way we approach failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). The suggestion was, in essence, to change the word “failure” to “success.” Although simple, seemingly inconsequential, it changes the tone of the process and the psyche of those who may be dreading that process. It turns it into something undertaken to evoke positive engagement, rather than negative avoidance. If you will, a gold star for success, as opposed to a frowny face and a kick in the gut for failure. 

While you contemplate these examples and the way we use language, you can also return to thinking about the right tool for the right job with “When All You Have Is a Hammer: Key Considerations When Evaluating Appropriate Tools for Quality Inspections” by Glenn Rees and everything else Quality has to offer this month.  

Enjoy and thanks for reading!