Is QA Certification just more red tape?

by Onno van Ewyk

When Alf Brown, General Manager of a medium sized computer service company, received an official looking letter from his largest customer informing him that he would have to prove his company had an "adequate quality assurance system" if it was to remain on their "approved suppliers list", his first question was "why?". As far as he was aware the customer was more than happy with the quality of his products and services and, besides, surely the systems he used in his company were his business and nobody else's.

As he delved more deeply into what it would mean to create an "adequate quality assurance system" he became even more concerned. He would have to comply with a complex code published by the International Organisation for Standards called the ISO 9000 series (also published by Standards Australia as the AS 3900 series). This meant hiring consultants to help interpret the ten or so documents making up the series, tying up valuable employee time to write down all the company's procedures, and paying external auditors to inspect the procedures before issuing a certificate. He had no room to accommodate these demands in his tight operating budgets.

Alf's predicament is shared by thousands of Australian company managers. Large companies and Government agencies are increasingly using Quality Assurance (QA) Certification as their basic strategy for managing supplier relationships. Alf's reaction, also shared by many others, is that these requirements simply add a thick layer of red tape to his already difficult job with no readily identifiable benefits. Why not simply continue to rely on good healthy competition to select suppliers?

The reason for not simply trusting in competition, and the key to identifying the benefits of QA Certification, lie in the word "reliability". Reliability is the assurance that the quality achieved today can be supplied well into the future. Reliability cannot be demonstrated by providing a sample of current products or even by pointing to a history of satisfactory supply. What if key staff are lost or products are redesigned or corners cut in production? Reliability can only be demonstrated by pointing to the systems (the policies, methods, processes and procedures) used to underpin quality, and by making a commitment to maintaining these. This is what QA Certification is really about.

The ISO 9000/AS 3900 standards describe a model for such systems; they are check-lists of what issues should be addressed and how. The existence of these standards actually gives companies a head start because without them they would have to devise and justify their own standards; a much more difficult and complex task.

If customers now choose your company on the basis of the systems you use (as quality assurance implies) then it follows that they must have some objective way of verifying that the right systems are actually used. They cannot simply rely on your word. This is what makes external audits audits by an independent body necessary. The issue of a certificate provides proof to all your customers, current and potential, and means that you need have only one audit program to satisfy them all.

The advantages of QA Certification for your customers are obvious. They can rely on the quality of your products well into the future so long as you maintain your systems. This allows them to make long term purchase commitments and avoid the costs of unexpected future quality problems.

But what are the advantages for your company? First, you get the same benefits from better quality reliability as your customer. Fewer unexpected quality problems means fewer warranty claims, less waste and re-work, fewer customer complaints, and generally less business "firefighting". A recent study of law firms in Sydney revealed that administrative support costs alone were 50% lower on average for the firms with QA systems in place.

Second, by looking for QA Certification, customers are making a genuine commitment to putting quality ahead of price in their purchase decisions. This means competing on the basis of the strength of your company's systems and not simply on your ability to match today's "best deal".


------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is one of a series of articles written by Phil Cohen and Onno van Ewyk, HCi . Most of the articles were also published in the Australian Financial Review. This article may be reproduced only with the permission of HCi Consulting (email HCi ). Copyright HCi, 1993-1998.