How Software Quality Engineering and Design Quality Are Similar
REFLECTION: FOR STUDENTS: If your education looks as if it may lead to a point where you have interactions that involve a QMS, be sure to pursue at least a basic understanding of software, as that understanding will be gold in all future industry employment.
FOR ACADEMICS: AI and ML are coming, but it will be a while before any doctors or engineers are actively replaced, but it would be wise to teach your students how to think for yourself, not just rely upon the computer. Teach students to be the person who writes the program or qualifies the program, not the person who is told by the computer what to do.
FOR PROFESSIONALS/PRACTITIONERS: Learn all you can about the software world if you have not yet. If you are purely a Software Quality Engineer, get as much exposure to other quality systems to help open your mind up to different problem-solving pathways. Always be a lifelong learner.
Definition of Quality
There is no single definition of quality that has ever or likely ever will be agreed upon even in a single company, much less an entire industry or across industries, but the ISO/IEC/IEEE Systems and Software Engineering-Vocabulary (ISO/IEC/IEEE, 2010)
provides an excellent layout of every aspect of defining quality.
- The degree to which a system, component, or process meets specified requirements
- The ability of a product, service, system, component, or process to meet customer or user needs
- The totality of characteristics of an entity that bears on its ability to satisfy stated and implied needs
- Conformity to user expectations, conformity to user requirements, customer satisfaction, reliability, and level of defects present
- The degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfills requirements
Each organization must decide what quality is, however, only a world-class organization will always be using the feedback from all stakeholders to evolve the organization’s definition of quality so that stakeholders are satisfied at every level.
Changes Are Coming
I have written a couple of posts about how Quality 4.0 and Industry 4.0 are here. However, based upon the fact that the Quality industry is in many areas still building the foundations of a Quality culture that will support Quality 4.0, there are likely to be many quality professionals who fall into one of three major groups.
Some may be in a state of denial or unawareness of the exponential growth level of the emerging technology and believe things will stay the same as they have for all these years. The next group is made up of those who are fully aware of the changes that are coming. The members of this group and are getting ready for the inevitable change. The last, and most likely smallest group (though I have no formal data, shame on me), would be those who know what is coming but actively do not want the change to occur.
The reason I believe that would be the smallest group would be the fact that the vast majority of quality professionals are problem solvers, change agents, and not comfortable with things just staying as they are. The old “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it” axiom is the antithesis of the Quality mindset.
Software Quality Engineering
In the past few years, I have witnessed the medical device industry evolve rapidly. A few years ago, I saw DHFs (Design History File), DMRs (Device Master Record), and DHRs (Device History Record), all kept on paper in files in a locked room and carefully controlled. Quickly the entire paradigm shifted to Cloud storage of these documents with ultra-tight security, in addition to management of routing of document approvals moving from physical signatures to electronic signatures. I also witnessed software become officially regulated as medical devices (SaMD).
Software Quality Engineering is- The study and systematic application of scientific technology, economic, social, and practical knowledge, and empirically proven methods, to the analysis and continuous improvement of all stages of the software life cycle to maximize the quality of software processes and practices, and the products they produce. Generally, increasing the quality of software means reducing the number of defects in the software and in the processes used to develop/maintain that software (WestFall, 2016). Software development usually uses an Agile project management approach. Agile project management seems to draw heavily from the Lean philosophy, which focuses on creating better customer value while minimizing waste. Both philosophies emphasize fast deliverables. The emphasis of Lean is on reducing waste and unnecessary steps; however, Agile emphasizes breaking large tasks into small ones and delivering in short sprints. Both Lean and Agile use some sort of an action loop. In Lean, this is the build-measure-learn cycle, while Agile’s scrum methodology uses an iterative sprint approach (L. Allison Jones-Farmer, 2016).
The iterative steps used as part of the Agile Scrum methodology help prevent excessive costs. When a defect is not caught early in the development of software, the defect can impact many more aspects of the software. The later in the life cycle the defect is detected, the more effort (and therefore expense) it will take to isolate and correct defects. A single defect in the requirement phase may have a “butterfly effect” and cause exponential levels of cost as the defect goes undetected.
At the end of each iteration, the goal would be to have a working example demonstratable for stakeholder review and feedback so that any issues with correctness or quality can be addressed in the next iteration (WestFall, 2016).
Traditional Design Quality
Design Quality from the manufacturing perspective aligns closer to Crosby’s viewpoint of the need for a well-defined specification against which to measure quality. One of the things about the fast-changing Quality world is that software is less about the reproducibility to spec and more about innovation. As the manufacturing world has found itself thrown into a massive acceleration in the last few decades, traditional design perspectives have been re-evaluated. Engineering tools like TRIZ have been employed to help spur innovation in design and problem-solving. Design For Six Sigma (DFSS) shifted product design away from just doing it right the first time toward robustly employing QFD to obtain the voice of the customer. The best DFSS process for a new design (in my opinion) would be the IDOV method- Identity (obtain VOC & CTQs), Design, Optimize, Validate. At the Validate stage, a prototype is tested and validated, with risks thoroughly analyzed (and as required, sent back to an earlier stage if validation is not accepted) (Kubiak, 2017). I have seen more and more manufacturing operations learning to use agile methods for design, frequently combining Agile with Lean, Six Sigma, or Lean Six Sigma depending upon the culture and knowledge base. It is clear that as software, apps, and AI become integral parts of product and production, the pace at which innovation must occur to meet customer requirements will continue to grow, perhaps eventually leading to a permanent fusion of Agile, Lean, and Six Sigma.
Conclusion
There are many other methodologies out there, like the waterfall mythology, which has lost a bit of popularity over the past few years to Agile methods, as well as CMMI, which I have heard conflicting reports on how compatible CMMI is with Agile. I would appreciate input from those in the software industry who can tell me firsthand how well CMMI and Agile work together. Software DevOps is effectively designing a product for stakeholders from ideation to operational release and monitoring/maintenance. Designing a physical item to sell on the market based upon the VOC using a QFD may be slower and use a more thorough investigation of the requirements and desired outputs (since you are addressing something tangible rather than an idea for a program). An idea that can provide value (software) is much harder to define in a neat specification box. Still, just like a DOE, you keep adjusting your settings and continue trying until you determine what factors are critical. Then you optimize the settings for your critical factors to obtain the best outcome based upon cost, functionality, and VOC. If you are worried about the coming changes, do not be worried, embrace the change, and be part of the change. Yes, in 20 years, we will all be behind a computer console writing code (if AI has not replaced al the Quality Engineers), but as long as you are looking forward, you will be moving in the right direction.
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
Try Amazon Prime 30-Day Free Trial
Bibliography
ISO/IEC/IEEE. (2010). ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765 Systems and Software Engineering. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO New York, NY.
Kubiak, T. a. (2017). The Certified Six Sigma Black Belt Handbook Third Edition. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press.
L. Allison Jones-Farmer, P. T. (2016, 10). asqstatdiv.org. Retrieved from ASQ: http://asq.org/statistics/2016/10/agile-teams-a-look-at-agile-project-management-methods.pdf
WestFall, L. (2016). The Certified Software Quality Engineer Handbook 2nd Edition. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.
The Deming Chain Reaction
REFLECTION: FOR STUDENTS: How can you weave Quality into all Management endeavors to help sustain what you are managing?
FOR ACADEMICS: How can I incorporate MORE quality concepts into class/classroom management?
FOR PROFESSIONALS/PRACTITIONERS: Do you operate in a firefighting mode, preventive mode, or risk management mode? Are those quality decisions ever made by the front line operators, or is it managers who solve the problems?
The “Whats” of Quality Culture
During my 20 years of experience as a Quality Professional I have witnessed a similar pattern emerge constantly. One book I read (Angle, 2019) captured the essence of what happens with just three observations, that I can firmly attest to as the three most impactful “Whats” that I have seen.
-The First “What” was: Sustainable Corrective Actions were not properly enacted to address noted quality failures. Pencil whipping corrective actions to meet a deadline or going after the immediate surface problem only allows the eventual recurrence of the issue.
-The second “What” was how curiously common it was for a company to not understand the power of Quality from the highest ranks, deep into the culture, and how critical not understanding the need to monitor the existence and state of the Culture of Quality was to the company. Reactive measures are firefighting tasks brought on by the need for a quick fix. A culture that chooses to ignore quality and go for the non-sustainable path will imprint those same values across the entire organization. When the organization is short term focused, so are it’s employees, so quality and profit fall over the long term.
-The third and final “What” is far more common: There may be no true strategy for Quality. No strategy for Continuous Improvement, Change Management, or Strategic Alignment that is truly Quality Driven. Too often Quality is a department that measures and inspects, and any other decision is financially driven. Pure financial drive leads to non-measurement of quality costs, impacts, and ramifications (the infamous Hidden Factory), which tends exclude Quality from risk/based business decisions not related to regulated industries. ISO claims that “over a million” companies have been certified, so if I add, let us say, 9 million other companies with various other certified QMS systems (and I am being generous) then, (using the top 15 GDP countries for the low estimate and population extrapolation for high) out of the approximately 60-100 million companies in the world the % of companies with a certified QMS is 10% to 16%. **NOTE: [Not verified numbers, just estimates to convey the current state of quality in the business world based upon available data and the numbers are always in flux.] Certification only helps push a company toward a viable QMS. Though minding your P’s and Q’s helps, a viable QMS is in no way guaranteed by a certificate.
How a Culture of Quality Impacts the World
The end result of a company allowing any one of these “Whats” to manifest beyond the level of “I’m new to this quality thing” stage of an employee’s professional development is usually to the detriment of the company’s reputation, customer retention, and the company’s ability to obtain the best ROI. Those who argue for quick and dirty quality are selling snake oil. Quick and Dirty is the Challenger disaster management mentality of “I’m in charge! NASA expects this bird in orbit! I don’t care if all the engineers in the world are telling me that it might be too big a risk!”
Human nature is to break the rules, and it takes a true Quality Culture of excellence to hold an organization to a consistent level of excellence beyond that of normal human nature. Evan a well-designed system is useless if it can be overridden by customer demand, time constraints or public pressure that might jeopardize public safety, of the safety of even one human (Bombardier Business Aircraft, 2018).
Overcoming the tendency of humans to take the path of least resistance (especially in management) is a topic for another post, but The work of quality gurus such as W. Edwards Deming, Joseph M. Juran and Armand V. Feigenbaum helped enlighten Japan beginning in the 1950’s, and Japan took off with their teachings and enriched the concept, until Japan had risen from a country decimated by war to a major economic power. In the 1970’s America began to wake up to what was happening, and the work of Deming, Juran, Feigenbaum and then Philip B. Crosby, Taiichi Ohno, and Eiji Toyoda were recognized and the path was actively pursued in the West. All looked at the philosophy a little different, but they all understood how costly it was to ignore quality (especially from competitors). Eventually the economic result of a strong quality culture (that can still be seen in Toyota) was described by Deming as a Chain Reaction (ASQ, n.d.).
Basically: improve quality →decrease costs →improve productivity → increase market share with better quality, lower price → stay in business → provide more jobs, and now Toyota is (at this time) the most profitable automaker in the world (about twice GM’s profitability).
Improve quality can relate to every kind of buzzword, but the main goals are to reduce waste, reduce variation, and provide value to the customer (for which the customer would be willing to pay). Waste, Defects, Rework, Delays, all decrease, OEE goes up, Costs drop and productivity goes up, and you then have lots of higher quality and more desirable items on the market available at a lower price. Competitors can flood the market with cheap items, but quality lasts if it is not too expensive for the market, so your market share expands due to the ability to sell a higher quality product at a more affordable price. You stay in business and your company provides more jobs as they expand market share (Victor E. Sower, 2016).
Conclusion
Culture is king. Without a proper Quality Culture, the customer will never be properly served. The Voice of the Customer guides you, but the Culture is your company’s heart. If your heart is tainted with pure desire for profit, then you are not serving the customer, but yourself. The initial investment required to improve internally can be framed as non-customer focused by some, but always remember, that inward looking improvement of the company from management to the front line worker, across every department, and every process can only benefit the customer in the end. Due to the Pareto effect, the relatively vital few companies with a viable QMS and honest Culture of Quality do clearly have a significant economic impact on our world, and all companies should ask themselves: Do they want to be one of the Vital Few or Trivial Many?
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
Bibliography
Angle, A. S. (2019). Unleash Quality. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press.
ASQ. (n.d.). The History of Quality. Retrieved from https://asq.org/quality-resources/history-of-quality
Victor E. Sower, K. W. (2016, 07). Retrieved from Quality Progress: http://asq.org/quality-progress/2016/07/basic-quality/dead-or-alive.pdf
Bombardier Business Aircraft. (2018, June 1). The Normalization of Excellence. Retrieved from https://safetystanddown.com/en/normalization-excellence
Try Amazon Prime 30-Day Free Trial
Quality Concepts Matter 