The Inextricable Connection Between Product Quality and Culture

By C. Richard Panico, President & CEO, Integrated Project Management Company, Inc.

Like safety, consistent high quality cannot be achieved without addressing and shaping the culture to enable and sustain it. I can make this statement with great confidence backed by 50 years of experience in engineering, operations, maintenance, and consulting across industries. Research findings agree: Gallop recently reported that companies with high employee engagement had 61 percent fewer safety incidents and 41 fewer quality defects than those with low engagement.

There is no arguing that advanced automation with integrated process controls and feedback systems have gone a long way to improve quality. However, human intervention and attitude still exert a major and often determining influence.

Sweat the Small Stuff

Having been in the position many times throughout my career to address operational performance issues, my initial focus was to understand and characterize the environment. It is astonishingly simple to gain a preliminary understanding of the quality, performance, and output of an organization readily apparent through the level of organization and housekeeping within the environment. Organization, housekeeping, and personnel disposition set the stage for quality expectations. And these are directly attributable to executive management disposition and their ability to make the small stuff important.

Early in my career with Johnson & Johnson, I was told a story about General Johnson (J&J founder Robert Wood Johnson) visiting the plant in Chicago. At the time I joined J&J, this was one of the three major manufacturing plants in North America. There was always a tremendous amount of effort exerted whenever a C-level executive planned to visit. This occasion was no different. Walls were touched up, floors were resealed, equipment was shined up, and safety placards, poles, guard rails, and aisles were all prominently on display. As the story goes, General Johnson flew over the plant in a helicopter and saw the roof had been used as a temporary storage facility. He flew back to New Jersey and told the Chicago plant manager he would be back when the roof was cleared. I only wish I had been there to validate this story. However, enough “old timers” recalled and cited it for me and other newcomers to believe it. I was never told what happened to the plant manager. The focus to order, cleanliness, and pursuit of high standards permeated the facility and was embedded in the culture. It impacted attitudes and, without a doubt, our passion for producing high quality products.

When Culture Inhibits Quality

When I read about the challenges facing Boeing, I could not help but wonder how much consideration is applied to understanding the cultural influences that impact quality. I would bet with some level of assurance that all the focus and corrective actions are on evaluating processes, identifying potential risk contributors, and executing corrective process changes. Taking these steps is critically important and cannot be overlooked. Nonetheless, I would argue that even with a totally automated process, there is a dependence on human intervention (data analyses, troubleshooting, maintenance, changeovers, etc.).

If there is some level of human intervention required, then how do we ensure high-quality intervention? One way is by offering effective training, and there are plenty of good firms and information to structure comprehensive programs. Any effort to ensure sustainable high-quality human intervention must address personnel disposition, or attitude. The disposition and caring that determine personnel engagement and commitment to responsibilities are enabled or defeated by the environment or culture. And the culture is shaped by the displayed behaviors, values, and decisions of leadership.

Change Must Consider Culture

Years ago, IPM was called upon by a major manufacturer of beauty products to help with the startup of a state-of-the-art integrated manufacturing line. The line startup was falling significantly short of achieving expected volume (throughput) and experiencing significant quality rejection rates. We had installed the first line the prior year and it was performing as planned; they decided to install the second on their own. After failing attempts to improve productivity post-startup over a three-month period, the company called us in to help. Of course, we went through the typical evaluation of materials, methodologies, manpower, and machinery (4-M analysis) and made adjustments according to our findings. Upon re-startup, the line performed at the targeted efficiency and throughput and was achieving product quality specifications.

I am convinced, through this and many other similar experiences, that our most impactful contribution to achieving the established performance objectives was our ability to create a microculture around our engagement. This required incorporating a disciplined change management approach that incorporated critical feedback and suggestions from operating and other support personnel. We could not have been successful without the support of those who would be responsible for sustaining performance of the line upon our departure. While the plant’s executive management had communicated the priority of this project on the company’s ability to launch a new product, this was never further supported by an authentic “personal touch.” There were no visits to the manufacturing floor to speak with operators and other support personnel. Quite frankly, it was even rare to see middle management on the manufacturing floor. This did not go unnoticed by those most critical to the success of the project. When it was time for us to move on, many of the operators, maintenance staff, and other personnel shared that they hated to see us go. We had simply exhibited a deep caring and respect that they acknowledged and returned. It drove engagement. I was later asked to address the entire engineering organization to explain what we had done so it could be replicated. There was no “magic bullet.” We had created a microculture around the project and operation that positively impacted attitudes.

Since then, our approach to understanding the organizational cultures in which we deliver our consulting services has become more pronounced and sophisticated, especially as virtual environments have produced even more complex cultures. While we do and should focus on the manufacturing environment, the impact of culture on quality and performance in any organization should never be underestimated.

Service: Manufacturing Improvement
Industries: Consumer Products, Industrial Products

— Published March 12, 2024