Introduction To Quality Management

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Abstract

This paper was researched and written about quality management. Quality Management has evolved with time to become a process that creates an end product to the satisfaction of the customer. The process has also changed to empower and involve the employee engaged in the creation process to be part of the quality control and suggestion changes based on what they see and learn during the process. This paper also looks at a specific company, The Boeing Company, and how they embraced the modern quality control management techniques but failed to produce a quality product that satisfied their customers. The conclusion surmises that when the goal is something other than quality, the outcome will be something other than a quality product.

Introduction to Quality Management

Quality management can be given a general definition but it is more likely an evolving process that is made up of many components. This paper will discuss the origins of quality management, its components and how it has changed through the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote "The reward of a thing well done is to have done it" (Emerson, 2009). The presumption is to have done it well; having it done it with quality.

History of Quality Management

Quality management can be traced to the medieval Europe where craftsman would organize guilds to oversee the quality of goods made by the laborers. This continued until the 19th century when the industrial revolution took a foothold. It would follow the craftsmanship model in the factories with an emphasis on product inspection. In the early 20th century, manufacturers created quality processes that became every day practice. (ASQ, 2013)

World War II was a turning point in the quality movement. Ammunition manufactured in a different location than the weapons had to consistently work when used on the warfront. The quality control went from inspecting every unit to a sampling of the units to speeding the process of getting the product to the front lines without compromising safety. (ASQ)

Total quality began to move forward with momentum after World War II when Japan’s quality control improved the end result of their products. Edward Deming taught statistical methods and Joseph M. Juran taught quality management techniques to the Japanese. As a result, the automobile and electronic sectors in America were overrun by the high-quality product Japan was providing. North American manufacturers could not complete with both the quality and low price of products that was flooding the markets and capturing the dollar of every American. (Broughton)

Total Quality Management

The Japanese Total Quality Control philosophy was so popular the United States Naval Air System adopted the process and renamed it Total Quality Management or TQM. Once the USNAS showed success with TQM, companies in the United States began to adopt the quality process and saw significant gains in productivity. Not everyone reaped the benefits of TQM during its United States inception in the 1980’s. Some companies that were unwilling to change started the program but failed. TQM is initially change management in order to succeed with quality management. (Broughton)

Boeing and Total Quality Management

The Boeing Company has been involved in making aeronautical machines for almost one hundred years. They have been successful with their endeavors from the first war training aircraft in World War I, to the first fighter jets. They made the crop dusters to supersonic jets. They have made luxury airliners to missiles. This has been a successful company. When they adapted the Total Quality Management process in the late 1980’s it improved the aeronautical product they were selling to airlines and governments. (Boeing's History, 2013)

The Boeing Company embraced the Total Quality Management program and has further pursued other quality management programs to advance the quality of the product they deliver. Based on the programs they implemented, they utilized suppliers that were part of a quality management program.

Boeing and ISO 9000 / AS 9100

Boeing moved from the Total Quality Management program to ISO 9000 – Quality Management in 1991. This move was to ensure that their products and services consistently met their customer’s requirements and that quality was consistently being improved.

ISO 9000:2008 helped ensure that customers get quality products and services on a consistent basis. ISO 9000:2008 determines the requirements for a quality management system. An organization would need to consistently provide products that meet both customer and statutory and regulatory requirements. It is also in a continual improvement process to conform to customer needs and regulatory requirements.

The increased business built a positive reputation for Boeing. The vital part of ISO 9000:2008 is the audit system. Internal audits are performed to guarantee the quality management system is working. On occasion, an independent outside auditor is invited to validate the quality management program even though this is not a requirement of ISO 9000:2008. (Standardization, 2013)

As part of the ISO 9000 program, Boeing requires its suppliers to be part of the AS9100. The AS9100 requires the supplier to abide by some of the same stringent guidelines that Boeing follows, be involved in a constant process improvement plus have their product and processes audited on a regular basis to ensure quality. The current version of AS9100 aligns the standard with ISO 9001:2008 and has extra requirements regarding Regulatory Compliance and the following aerospace-sector specific requirements:

Configuration management

Design phase, design verification, validation and testing processes

Reliability, maintainability and safety

Approval and review of subcontractor performance

Verification of purchased product

Product identification throughout the product’s life cycle

Product documentation

Control of production process changes

Control of production equipment, tools and numerical control machine programs

Control of work performed outside the supplier’s facilities

Special processes

Inspection and testing procedures

Methods, resources and recording

Corrective action

Expansion of the internal audit requirements in ISO 9001:2008

First article inspection

Servicing, including collecting and analyzing data, delivery, investigation and reporting and control of technical documentation

Review of disposition of non-conforming product

(Quality Management Systems - Requirements for Aviation, 2009)

The aerospace industry, the manufacturers and their suppliers are more successful going into the twenty first century with the ISO 9000 standards along with government regulations. (Standardization, 2013)

Boeing Quality Management System

Based on the Total Quality Management plus the ISO 9000, Boeing designed their own Quality Management System (BQMS) for their suppliers to use. The BQMS system takes thirteen different international quality systems and combines them into one compatible system so Boeing will be compliant with FAA regulations in addition to the regulations from various transportation boards internationally. It compiles this information into a Quality Management System and an Inspection and Test Quality System that is designed on the basis of ISO 9000. An Advanced Quality System and Software Quality System integrate with the ISO 9000 that is designed on the basis of the AS9100. (BQMS Benefits, 2001)

All Boeing suppliers are required to use the BQMS and input data as it pertains to the design and development of parts and supplies used in building any type of aeronautical aircraft or equipment. The data is audited and at any time a visual audit can be requested.

The benefits to both Boeing and the Supplier are outlined below:

SUPPLIER

Based upon ISO 9001, the recognized international quality standard

Supplemented by AS9100, the international quality standard for the aerospace industry

Allows Boeing audit results to be shared with other customers

Non-prescriptive, allowing suppliers to implement best practices

Encourages continuous improvement

May allow Boeing to use the results of other customer audits to validate system compliance

Consistent set of expectations from all Boeing sites and groups resulting in a single quality system validation

Single Boeing voice to supplier

Consistent with the requests of the Aerospace

Industry Association (AIA) Supplier Management committee

Consistent with the standard practices of the International Aerospace Quality Group and the

Americas Aerospace Quality Group (BQMS Benefits, 2001)

BOEING

Facilitates product to be designed anywhere and built anywhere within Boeing

Consistent set of expectations for all Boeing sites

Allows use of a common quality manual, with supplementation required only for site-unique activity

Quality system training can be shared

Facilitates adoption of best practices

Accelerates orientation of employees that are transferred within the company

Reduces costs associated with 3rd -party registration

Minimizes Boeing’s costs associated with quality system assessment costs at suppliers

Meets customer and Civil Aviation Authority expectations

Allows Boeing to use the results of other prime contractors in performing quality system validation audits (BQMS Benefits, 2001)

The Boeing Company is moving to implement common standards for quality systems, processes and approvals in concert with all members of the aerospace industry. Suppliers to Boeing have the opportunity to help their company take full advantage of the drive towards standardization by working together with Boeing on three key initiatives, including the Boeing quality management system, first article inspection, and digital product definition. (Luther, et al., 2002)

The Boeing Company had to give special permission if a supplier was to deviate from the BQMS system in any way. Authorized departures from BQMS are managed under Boeing’s Limited Approval process and placed in the supplier’s profile. (Livingston, et al., 2011)

Boeing Quality Management Failures

Boeing has experienced very few missteps before the commitment to design a Sonic Cruiser jet. Before the design phase even began, in December 2002, the airline industry provided feedback they wanted a jumbo jet that was fuel efficient. A Sonic Cruiser jet could not be fuel efficient so the ideas were scrapped and new ideas went to the drawing board on how to create the jumbo jet that was fuel efficient. (Turim & Gates, 2009)

The fuel efficient jumbo jet would be made of composite materials, avionics and advanced engine technology. By June of 2003 the name Dreamliner won a "Name Your Plane competition. Soon the announcement was made that the Dreamliner would be built in Washington State. (Turim & Gates, 2009)

The following July of 2004 Japan’s Nippon Airways announced they would purchase 50 Dreamliner’s. The sales continue but not at the pace Boeing had hoped. Boeing continued with the design work to completion and sends the design work to its global partners. The global partners will manufacture critical parts, build to completion and ship to Washington State for assembly. During the manufacturing of critical fuselage and wing parts, the wiring and ducting is pre-installed. The only part built in Washington State is the tail fin. The global partners subcontract critical work out to their global partners. (Stewart, 2013)

The production of the 787 Dreamliner was plagued with gaps in joints between nose and cockpit, labor issues and relocating assembly to another state. At one point, a decision was made to do the wiring and duct work at the Boeing assembly plant to keep production moving. The first deliveries of the 787 were promised by May 2008, the delays kept the 787 from having its first plane delivered until mid-year 2012. (Stewart, 2013)

Soon after the 787 began carrying passengers there were onboard smoke and fire issues that were happening at different intervals. After the third incident the FAA grounded the Dreamliner fleet in the United States and other transportation authorities in other countries followed their guidance. (Stewart, 2013)

An investigation began to determine the cause of the smoke and fire originating in the lithium battery compartments. The lithium ion batteries were made by a Japanese firm named GS Yuasa. It is not well known in the aeronautical industry for batteries the way Saft Group of France are known. AirBus is using Saft Group for its newer jumbo jets. The Japanese transportation investigators are looking at quality control issues at the GS Yuasa Corporation plant in Japan that manufactured the batteries. FAA is looking to make sure the contract was not awarded to GS Yuasa Corporation as a favor to Japan. GS Yuasa Corporation received subsidies from Japan after they were awarded the Boeing battery contract. The World Trade Organization Agreement that both the United States and Japan signed states that contracts are awarded on price, quality and delivery. (Pasztor, Takahashi, & Koh, 2013)

The lithium ion battery is one of the most important components to the Dreamliner. It is lightweight and increases fuel efficiency. Japan is known for their respect for engineering expertise. While this is still under investigation, the battery is the leading suspect. The design of the lithium ion battery made by GS Yuasa is the only battery that can go into the Dreamliner. It another battery is placed in the 787; it would have to be re-wired. (Stewart, 2013)

Boeing’s attempt to maintain their stature as the world’s supplier of superior aircraft created the environment for them to neglect their own quality standards. For recognizing a quality issue would mean creating delays or starting over in the design process. The desire to sell more aircraft than AirBus and make more money may turn on them in the end. (Stewart, 2013)

Conclusion to Quality Management

History has proven that quality management has been with mankind for hundreds, if not thousands of years. The impact on a customer is what drives quality. The management of quality as we have read has evolved from inspecting the finished product to becoming actively involved and empowering employees to drive the quality process. Once the end game moves from creating a superior product to obtaining power and wealth, the quality management process has been lost.