Zinsmeister ASQ Article-1

COMING
TOGETHER
Case studies illustrate
intersections of quality and
sustainability
best practices
by Daniel Zinsmeister
In 50 Words
Or Less
• Although quality initia-
tives have been under-
taken longer than social
responsibility (SR) ones,
there are opportunities
to merge the two.
• A study of 10 enter-
prises—five leaders in
quality and five leaders
in SR—show quality and
sustainability best prac-
tices overlap, reinforcing
that quality tools apply
to SR efforts.

August 2015 • QP 27
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
AS RECENTLY AS as 2012, ASQ completed
research on the roles of quality and social responsi-
bility (SR) initiatives in organizational success. This
international study examined the parallels between
the drivers of quality and corporate SR.
According to the report, the links between quality,
customer satisfaction and profitability occur within
quality initiatives. The report further suggests SR ini-
tiatives also may contribute to organizational success
through a broader use of sustainability initiatives:
Quality and SR are complementary strategies for improving the
current and future outcomes of organizations and people. The first
provides a conceptual approach and supporting tools for analyzing
the nature of and behavior of the world. The latter outlines a universal
structure for creating a sustainable future.1

QP • www.qualityprogress.com28
The report concludes by discussing the substantial
opportunities inherent in merging the efforts of qual-
ity and sustainability professionals. Furthermore, the
knowledge and skills required to address quality and
sustainability overlap significantly. Could collabora-
tion between quality and sustainability initiatives,
therefore, lead to greater organizational success? The
report suggests a strengthening of the alliances will
require an exchange of information and practices be-
tween quality and sustainability professionals.
Additional research is available to support this ex-
change. In the fall of 2012, ASQ’s Madison (WI) section,
supported a qualitative research project that aimed to
further identify the intersections of quality and sustain-
ability best practices in Wisconsin enterprises. These
best practices focused on planning, organizing and de-
ploying quality and sustainability initiatives.
Descriptive case studies were conducted with 10
major Wisconsin enterprises (see Table 1)—five lead-
ers in the area of quality best practices and five leaders
in sustainability best practices—across five economic
sectors: manufacturing, healthcare, service, education
and government.
Through field studies, the Wisconsin research ex-
amined the extent to which quality and sustainability
best practices are complementary. It described themes
that continue to surface each time quality and sus-
tainability initiatives are examined. The information
shared by leading quality and sustainability organiza-
tions is instructive to any organization on the quality
and sustainability journey.
Study method and results
The Wisconsin study examined the intersections be-
tween quality and sustainability best practices in organiz-
ing, planning and deploying initiatives. The study partner
responses were compiled as anonymous aggregate data.
Data were gathered through four main methods:
1. Leaders were asked closed-ended questions in
four categories. Each study partner answered the
same questions with either the words “quality” or
“sustainability” chosen with respect to the organi-
zation’s initiative. The closed-ended questions were
organized in four categories: optimizing quality
and sustainability in organizational structure and
culture; identifying, implementing and maintaining
quality and sustainability methods in operations; us-
ing quality and sustainability tools and metrics for
decision making; and using quality and sustainabil-
ity processes for performance excellence.
2. Researchers conducted face-to-face interviews with
leaders within each organization.
3. Leaders were asked to rank quality and sustainabil-
ity best practices based on importance to their orga-
nization.
Sustainability study partners Quality study partners
Gundersen Lutheran Health Systems,
La Crosse
St. Mary’s Hospital, Madison
Webcrafters Inc., Madison Springs Window Fashions,
Middleton
City of Oconomowoc, Oconomowoc City of Madison
Northeast Wisconsin Technical College,
Green Bay
University of Wisconsin-Stout,
Menominee
Myron Construction, Appleton Johnson Health Technology,
Cottage Grove
Organizations participating as
study partners in the Wisconsin
case studies / TABLE 1
Best practice categories
Quality
leaders
Sustainability
leaders
Senior management aligns quality and
sustainability with mission, vision and
values to be industry leader
1 2
Strategic planning includes quality and
sustainability as core objectives
2 3
Organization understands customer needs 3 4
Organization structure and culture linked
to policy, training and education on quality
and sustainability
4 1
Operation metrics in energy, water, air,
solid waste and toxicity
5 5
Management deploys systemswide
thinking and employee engagement
6 6
Management of quality and sustainability
uses cycle time, reduced product material,
recyclable content, product take-back, life
cycle assessment and life cycle cost
7 7
Supply chain management and
relationships
8 8
Quality and sustainability best
practice categories: ranking of
importance / TABLE 2

4. Organizations provided a timeline for quality and
sustainability best practice deployment.
The results of the Wisconsin study can be summa-
rized into these major areas:
• Similar findings from ASQ research and the Wiscon-
sin study.
• Parallels between quality and sustainability best
practices.
• Differences between quality and sustainability best
practices.
• Staging plans to achieve quality or sustainability
best practices (see Figure 1).
Similar findings
When examining the major findings of the 2012 ASQ
report on quality and SR, a number of themes were re-
inforced by the Wisconsin study.
First, both studies found the two most-listed drivers
for organizations deploying SR or sustainability initia-
tives are community involvement and organizational
mission and values. Interestingly, lowering costs and
creating new markets were not highly rated as drivers
for either SR or sustainability initiatives.
Second, an increase in employee engagement was
a benefit of SR, which was echoed in the quality and
sustainability initiatives in Wisconsin.
Third, nearly two-thirds of the organizations sur-
veyed by ASQ developed their own codes and princi-
ples for use in SR initiatives. It was found that all of the
sustainability initiatives in the Wisconsin study also
developed their own best practices.
Finally, positioning SR programs as a business strat-
egy is the most important predictor of organizational
success, according to the ASQ study. This also was evi-
denced in the Wisconsin study for quality and sustain-
ability initiatives.
Parallels in best practices
The Wisconsin study also identified several commonal-
ities between quality and sustainability best practices,
the most significant being senior management playing
a critical role in all of the quality and sustainability ini-
tiatives.
Quality and sustainability initiatives use awards and
recognition programs in their initiative development.
Each quality and sustainability initiative started with
10 to 20% employee engagement and showed a 10 to
20% increase in employee engagement over time. A
Staging plans to achieve quality and sustainability
best practices / FIGURE 1
Rethinking, education
and training rated
a high priority for
sustainability
leaders, a medium
priority for
quality leaders.
Supply chain
continuous quality
improvement and
sustainability with
third-party relationships
was not a priority for
quality or sustainability
leaders.
Determining value by
voice of the customer
was ranked very high
by quality partners
and sustainability
leaders in service and
government sectors.
Product planning and
development using
reusable components
ranked low priority
by quality and
sustainability leaders.
Promote best
practices within
industry and
community was
ranked higher
by sustainability
leaders than by
quality leaders.
Growth and expansion
of initiatives was
ranked higher
by sustainability
organizations than by
quality organizations.
Shifting to a pull
marketing system
was ranked lowest
priority by quality
and sustainability
organizations.
Operational
effectiveness for
all participating
organizations
was rated a very
high priority.
Innovation was rated
a medium priority
for quality and
Quality and
sustainability
organizations ranked
standardized metrics
a medium priority.
Evaluate and improve
best practices
was ranked very
high—second only
to operational
effectiveness—
by quality and

wide range⎯11 to 75% or greater⎯of employees are in-
volved in ongoing training for quality and sustainability
best practices.
Quality and sustainability initiatives created a com-
mon understanding and common language around best
practices. Both initiatives used return on investment and
benefit-cost analysis as best practice methods. Similar
barriers to deploying best practices in quality and sus-
tainability initiatives occurred when setting priorities for
funding and allocating staff. Cost savings due to reduc-
tion in waste (materials, energy, scrap and excess inven-
tory) from quality and sustainable best practices ranged
1. Optimize structure and culture Quality Sustainability
Commonalities Differences Commonalities Differences
Management: Quality and sustainability
organizations have senior management
support and leadership
Senior management
support
Broad base
deployment
Senior management
support
Project-by-project
deployment
Awards and
recognition programs
Awards and
recognition programs
Communication: Multiple lines of
communication used by quality and
sustainability organizations
Feedback, email,
employee meetings,
training
Education well
established
Feedback, email,
employee meetings,
training
Early stages of
development—
education
especially used
across organization
Training: Established regular
organizationwide training on policy
and goals
11 to 75% or greater
with employees in
ongoing training for
best practices
50 to 75% or greater
in ongoing training for
best practices
Percentage of employee engagement:
Start-up initiative began with part-time or
full-time employees
Started with 10 to 20%
employees or more on
a part-time or full-time
basis
Started with 10 to 20%
employees or more on
a part-time or full-time
basis
Increased number of
employees in best practices
Showed 10 to 20% or
greater increase in
employee engagement
over time
Showed 10 to 20% or
greater increase in
employee involvement
over time
2. Implementing processes and
methods
Quality Sustainability
Differences Differences
Opportunities: Reflects the maturity of
the respective initiatives; quality being
established while sustainability in the
early stages.
Budgeted through established departments
and project teams organizationwide
deployment
Funded by project proposal and project
tested in the organization
Metrics: Quality and sustainability
organizations use metrics at least 50%
and some more than 75% of the time.
Percentage of defined roles reflects a
difference in maturity of initiatives.
Quality leaders have 11 to 50% of employees
in clearly defined roles for best practices
No more than 5% of employees with clearly
defined roles in sustainability best practices
Implementation: In quality and
sustainability initiatives, one best
practice leads to another with one
guiding the next.
Best practices were more often implemented
many at once. Timeframe for establishing
best practices was 12 to 24 months
More likely to implement one best practice
at a time and one could lead to another.
Projects are on a six to 12-month timeframe
to establish best practices
Larger framework used: Quality leaders
indicated a larger quality management
system (QMS) developed because of best
practice success; sustainability leaders
were more likely to adopt their own
sustainability system.
Larger QMS developed because of best
practice success, such as lean Six Sigma,
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, ISO
9000 or a QMS
More likely to establish proprietary
environmental management system. Use
outside industry-sector standards as guide
for goal setting
Best practice intersections by leading quality and
sustainability organizations in Wisconsin / TABLE 3

3. Strategic decision
making
Ability to implement best
practices
26 to 74% had sufficient
knowledge and skills to
implement best practices—
particularly in the
manufacturing sector
26 to 49% had sufficient
knowledge and skills to
implement sustainability
best practices
Decision tools Use return on
investment (ROI),
benefit-cost analysis
Use ROI, benefit-cost
analysis and payback
period
How best practices were
used
Improved brand image,
market share, stakeholder
involvement
Improved stakeholder
involvement, social
responsibility, market share
Short-term objectives:
Percentage of best practices
as tactical projects.
26 to 50% are short-term
tactical projects
10 to 25% of best practices
are short-term tactical
projects
Long-term objectives 26 to 50% are long-term
objectives
50% are long-term
objectives
Most important industry
drivers: for quality/
sustainability best practices
Competition, community
stakeholders, customer
needs and compliance
Community stakeholders,
customer needs, less
emphasis on compliance,
competition
Barriers to best practices Priority of funds,
lack of staff, and
education/training
Priority of funds,
lack of staff
Low ROI
Level of understanding:
Common language
developed around best
practices
Medium level of
understanding and
common language
developed around
quality best practices
Medium-to-high level
of understanding and
common language
developed around
sustainability best
practices
sustainability organizations in Wisconsin / TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)
from unknown to greater than 25%.
In addition, when quality and sustainability organiza-
tions ranked the importance of eight best practices cat-
egories, uniformity was astonishing (see Table 2, p. 28)
given the fact that the enterprises represented five differ-
ent economic sectors.
Differences in best practices
There also were several differences found between qual-
ity and sustainability best practices in the Wisconsin
study.
First, it’s important to keep in mind that quality ini-
tiatives have been in practice longer than sustainability
initiatives. The quality initiatives surveyed in this study
averaged 11 to 19 years or more of experience. The sus-
tainability initiatives averaged four to 10 years.
Second, quality initiatives budget and deploy best
practices organizationwide, while sustainability initia-
tives budget and deploy project-by-project. Because sus-
tainability initiatives are still in an early stage of devel-
opment, they particularly use education to communicate
best practices across their organizations.
Third, quality initiatives have 11 to 50% of employees
in clearly defined roles for best practices, while sustain-
ability initiatives currently have no more than 5%.
Fourth, many quality best practices are often imple-
mented all at once, while sustainability initiatives are
likely to be implemented one best practice at a time, with
one leading to another.
In addition, larger quality management systems de-
velop because of best practices, while sustainability
initiatives are more likely to establish proprietary best
(Table 3 continues on p. 32)

4. Performance
improvement and
excellence
Cost savings: Due to best
practices, such as reduction
in wastes (materials, energy,
scrap, excess inventory)
Cost savings ranged
from unknown to
25%
Costs savings
ranged from
unknown to 11
to 25%
Internal audit performed On each project
or yearly
On each project
or yearly
Calculated cost of quality/
sustainability
External costs, internal
costs, preventive costs and
appraisal costs
Avoided internal costs and
used preventive costs with
sustainable best practices
Use of benchmarks:
Quality and sustainability
leaders indicated less
than 25% of their best
practices were guided by
other organizations’ best
practices.
Used benchmarks from
outside the organization to
develop best practices at
least 26 to 50% of the time,
sometimes more than 50%
Used benchmarks less than
25% of the time to develop
best practices. Indicated that
25 to 75% of time they develop
in-house best practices from
outside guidelines
Years of experience in
initiatives
11 to 19 years of
experience
Four to 10 years of experience
Improvement: Improved
speed and innovation in
organization
All areas (process
efficiencies, product/service
quality, cost savings and
proactive employees)
Costs savings, employee
engagement and some
improved process efficiencies,
product/service and quality
sustainability organizations in Wisconsin / TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)
practices. Quality initiatives have more confidence,
knowledge and skills for best practices than do sustain-
ability initiatives. Sustainability initiatives have more
long-range objectives than do quality initiatives. More-
over, sustainability initiatives are driven less by competi-
tion and compliance.
Finally, quality initiatives use benchmarks from out-
side their organizations to develop best practices, while
sustainability initiatives use in-house best practices
based on outside guidelines. Quality best practices im-
proved speed and innovation in all areas: process ef-
ficiencies, product and service quality, cost savings and
proactive employees. Sustainability initiatives realized
costs savings, increased employee engagement, and led
to some product and service efficiencies (see Table 3, pp.
30-32).
Quality-sustainability partnership
The Wisconsin field studies show quality and sustain-
ability initiatives share many best practices. Quality best
practices have developed a substantial foundation lead-
ing to organizational success, while sustainability best
practices, although early in development, are incremen-
tally serving a greater role in organizations.
Could quality tools and methods support and move
sustainability efforts forward? Absolutely. What will it
require of quality and sustainability professionals? Will
the parallels serve as an invitation to share knowledge,
skills and goals? These are the questions organizations
should explore.
Quality as the mature partner is a great match for
sustainability innovation: There is no need to reinvent
the wheel. The quality toolbox is there, waiting to be
used to help create a universal structure for a sustain-
able future. QP
REFERENCES
1. ASQ and IBM, “Quality and Social Responsibility: A Key Business Strategy for
Enhancing Competitive Position,” 2012, http://bit.ly/1UGhNsk.
DANIEL ZINSMEISTER is a university adjunct at Concor-
dia University in Madison, WI. He has a master’s degree
in quality management from Edgewood College in
Madison. Zinsmeister is a member of ASQ and an ASQ-
certified manager of quality/organizational excellence.
He also is a Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED)-accredited professional in operations
and maintenance from the U.S. Green Building Council.

Zinsmeister ASQ Article-1

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (12)

Ähnlich wie Zinsmeister ASQ Article-1

Ähnlich wie Zinsmeister ASQ Article-1 (20)

Zinsmeister ASQ Article-1