I’ve been thinking about it for some time. My conclusion is quite simple. Here’s the checklist:
- Define the go-to guy’s in the most common situations, and one to take care of everything else.
- Hire only the very, very best.
It all comes down to people, obviously. It’s with the right people that one can achieve quality. Real, subjective, unquantifiable quality.
Tradicional, process-oriented quality management is for companies to big or to inefficient to communicate well. It’s great for big corporate productivity, but demands to little from people. They develop less in the little things. That results on inneffective meetings, inneffective communication, inneffective trivial things. When every mundane task is defined, why bother to think if you are doing the most effective and right way?
However if retaining know-how is a key feature, and most of the times is, then quality management still has a key part in small companys. But should be called documentation, user or project support. A compilation of not so obvious methods or details learned the hard-way by the organization. Not defined by the management. In the process, it gives a big picture of how things work in an organization, allowing to quickly integrate new players.
That’s not rules. That’s knowledge.
It’s the same thing with different vision, diferent words. But the right word goes a long way.
And what really is the definition of quality?