Monday, January 30, 2012

Another lap around Paul's January blog post

About 10 days ago I wrote a response to Paul Barowski's monthly blog that talked about the failings of ASQ Economic Case for Quality program.  One of my fellow Influential Voice bloggers, César Díaz Guevara, carried the Cost of Poor Quality theme further (blog).   The study and the blogs mention the 820:1 figure in two different contexts so I wanted to delve deeper. 

First off, the study talks nothing about Cost of Poor Quality nor ASQ's Economic Case for Quality (yeah, I blew it).  The study seems to prove justification that the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award benefits society at a cost to benefit ratio of 820:1.  Which means that for every dollar that we spend on MBNQA those companies that participate receive up to $820 in benefits versus those companies that do not support MBNQA.  Those benefits do not appear to be hard dollars entirely. Which means that MBNQA, and by extension, those state quality awards that use MBNQA guidelines (the majority) prove a significant value to the program participants.

Which also proves the old adage that you have to spend move to make money.  Quality is an investment not an expense.  You have to spend money now to reap the benefits in the future.  Seems like the same basic values that we try to instill in our families?  Now, if we can only get that type of return from 4-year colleges...
Post a Comment