United States-English

The Strategic View

Quality as a Value

Published 21 October 2007, 01:36 PM

We all use word “Quality”, but what does it mean? There’re a lot of descriptions we can find on the web, and this fact stresses that it is not a simple term.

Let us guess that the meaning of the word may depend on the context, and on the position and personality of “appraiser”. Statements about “high quality” or “low quality” may mean nothing to you if you do not understand matters being told about. Consumers used to look for and desire “high quality” and suppliers used to base their competitive advantage on the Quality as one of major distinctions of their products, services and corporate culture. But the good question is - do end user, the customers, need that quality being focused on by suppliers (e.g. do ISO certificates automatically mean that output production is of appropriate Quality as perceived by customers)?

If we would look to the theories of Quality and their applications, we will see that they penetrate all the aspects of our lives: from fully applied for technology products to more sophisticated for services and business management. Another theoretical model in wide use is Quality-gaps model (see p. 10). However, words are nothing if they do not work – thus let’s look at how Quality is articulated and implemented at HP.

At its web site, HP states it is “providing products, services and solutions of the highest quality”. Does quality apply to products, services and solutions only, or is it just an apex of iceberg we are told to look at? To understand, let’s look deeper to the history of HP.

“This Old House” story narrates that Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard were identifying name of HP with Quality, articulating it as one of Values the company is built on. Another source is legendary book “The HP Way” (pp. 121-125). It states that quality of products was essential from the beginning simply because HP was producing testing equipment used to test and benchmark another equipment, thus by default HP had to make products of extraordinary quality, otherwise it would not be able to compete and win DOD’s contracts.

Let’s think for a minute – is quality appears by itself in the output products? No – good quality products can only be built in environment when quality is everywhere, in input materials, in design, in production processes, and in people.

There’re 7 HP Shared Values; they cover many aspects of the work and life of HP employees, as well and other individuals and organizations HP having relationships with. All these values are historically the integral part of The HP Way, which was founded and fostered by Bill and Dave and was recognised as the novel way to manage people and enterprise. These Values underpin current organizational competitive advantage.

Let me please make an attempt and draw on the picture below how I see Quality is penetrating the background of each Value.

The HP Compass
Figure 1. The HP Compass

I have put HP Quality in the center. This is symbolical that after merger with Compaq Computer HP is having NYSE symbol of “HPQ” – I interpret it as “HP Quality”. Thus what Quality means if valuing what is depicted?

Value Quality is delivered through…
Passion for Customers Recognition of business needs, and providing best products and services in terms of reliability and availability
Trust and Respect for Individuals Building and maintaining trust within community of employees, with partners and customers, as well as other stakeholders, and respecting their interests and needs
Achievement and Contribution Processes and procedures allowing involvement of individuals and organizations to contribute and achieve joint success
Results through Teamwork Ability to work in the teams building up and supporting interpersonal relationships with colleagues, subordinates, bosses internally and relatives, friends, customers etc outside the organization
Speed and Agility Doing things proactively: if there is a problem identified – prioritize and start solving it as early as possible; if there is an opportunity – take it now!
Meaningful Innovation Improving things around you, inventing and innovating to your benefit and to the benefit of people around you: do not wait for opportunities to come your way – create them!
Uncompromising Integrity Being the kind personality, and playing the game by lofty standards. Not many individuals and organizations can allow themselves to be honest, and refuse to compromise integrity pursuing easy gains. Respect yourself!

You may have another vision of application of Quality to the life, IT market, and specific organization, and you are welcome to put your thoughts into the comments.


For your further research: many hi-tech companies explicitly emphasize their commitment to quality – internally and externally – Intel, Microsoft, IBM, SAP.

Post of Sep 5, 2007

Posted By Eugeny Brychkov | 5 Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink


Comments

Eugeny, First time to your blog. Sorry I am a little late to comment on this entry. I agree with what you are saying and would like to add to it. What you have done here is taken a conceptual level value and you have begun to unpack it. When organizations are designed correctly, the conceptual values written at the executive level are translated and broken more and more concrete descriptions until they play out at the procedure-driven, face-to-customer level. The problem is when organizations are poorly designed the translation chain either gets bogged down or broken. And the quality you receive at the face-to-the-customer level does not match the aspiring conceptual level value. I blogged about this on my site if you'd like to take a look: http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/exceptional-customer-service-flows-from-sound-organization-design Regards, Michelle Malay Carter
# Friday, November 09, 2007 08:35 PM by Michelle Malay Carter
Hello Michelle,

thank you so much for your comment. I fully agree with your identification of what I am doing in this post. Let me please ask you what do you mean "correctly designed organization"? There're different approaches about thinking of organizational design: mechanistic (formal structure+system) and socio-technical (integration of informal relationships into the formal structure and systems, balancing needs of operation with needs of those working in it).

The approach when executives create concepts at the top and then send them down is the historical and the simplest one, but the question can be raised which "raw material" executives will be using when creating vision and values? Executives may consider the process of gathering opinions of (selected) employees throughout the organization on what they value and how they see it. And this brings valuable "internal material" to executives to use when creating or altering top level statements and rules of the business (defining internals and re-defining externals). This material also can bring ideas on how to translate statements and how to create mission statements and visions top-down of the organization.

Main idea is strategic fit between organization and its environment, but executives are able to fit those items they know and understand. Before going to affect environment, we need to understand ourselves and our organizations. You may object that it is not so simple to do down-to-top. Yes, this is correct, and it easily works in small organizations. Like when HP was small firm, a very limited number of employees agreed on the mission, vision, values and objectives, and all following employees had to agree (and even to add), or leave because of mis-fit. And what is a problem in current giant organizations? It is hard to alter stuff at fundamental level and ensure most of employee comply and commit. Simply because of huge investment and time needed. And this phenomenon as I understand is one of attributes of organizational "inertia" when they are simply unable to respond to changes in environment by re-fitting and leveraging its internal resources.

I want to conclude here that top-down is fast and cheapest, but prone to involve points of view of specific individuals. There should be additional way in the process, down-to-top, which would supply seniors and executives with the information and triggers of events to re-evaluate the fit and re-align organizational design.

Eugeny
# Sunday, November 11, 2007 11:56 AM by Eugeny Brychkov
Eugeny, I believe using stratified systems theory as a basis for organizational design is the way to go. Basically the theory proposes that work can be stratified into discreet layers. Therefore, all roles can be classified into a layer. When you are designing an organization, all roles need to report to a role in the next higher layer. If a role is reporting to a role in the same layer, the manager will not add value. If a role is reporting two layers up, the manager will talk at too high a level. That's my best try at a succinct explanation. Strategy should drive structure. Decide on strategy and then design and staff functions accordingly while keeping in mind the non-negotiable rule regarding reporting chains that I mentioned earlier. Regards, Michelle Malay Carter
# Sunday, November 11, 2007 08:39 PM by Michelle Malay Carter
Michelle,

I fully agree with your approach to vertical integration meaning having systems and processes to ensure effective linkages between corporate goals, departmental objectives, and individual target setting in place. How do you think about horizontal integration, when primary functions are to be supported by supporting activities of value chain (for example, HR) and when these primary functions need to interact with each other?

Eugeny
# Monday, November 12, 2007 10:50 AM by Eugeny Brychkov
Eugeny, You're right. Cross functional alignment along with explicit cross functional accountabilities and authorities is another key piece of organization design. With HR roles, for example, it should be clarified if the HR person has advisory authority, monitoring authority, auditing authority or prescribing authority. Each has a different definition and carries a different level of authority. When these issues are explicit up front, manager A knows exactly his accountability and authority when HR person B interacts with him. Regards, Michelle
# Wednesday, November 14, 2007 07:37 PM by Michelle Malay Carter

Leave a Comment

(required)  
(optional)
(required)  


Type the digits above:
Information disclosed in this community becomes public. Exercise caution when deciding to disclose your personal information. HP reserves the right, but is not obligated to, edit or remove your comment if it contains personally identifiable information or other content HP deems unacceptable.  Opinions expressed are your personal opinions or those of the original authors, and not of HP. Please see HP's web Terms of Use for more details.