From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers
Subject: Re: The Baldridge award (was "AT&T Universal Card (tm? by AT&T)")
Keywords: AT&T UNIVERSAL CREDIT CARD VISA
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:19:49 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly) writes:

}> U.S. companies
}> are _already_ in a competition with the rest of the world.  Why
}> hasn't that been sufficient to spur them on to higher levels of
}> quality?

}Because they didn't understand the concept.  Because American
}management's fixation with quarterly profits destroys any
}consistent effort for the long term.  Because until recently
}American industry dominated the world and never had to deal
}with serious competition, and so its organizational principles
}are the very antithesis of what is needed for quality.  The
}Baldrige was designed to help fix those things, or at least
}to clearly point out the problems and means to overcome them.

I hope you didn't intend it this way, but the above sure sounds like
an apologist for American companies.

}> Now, mind you, I'm not really arguing with results; if
}> the Baldridge has contributed to improved quality of U.S.
}> companies, then it's clearly a good thing.  It's also a very sad
}> commentary on the short-sighted mindset of those who run U.S.
}> companies that such an award was thought necessary. 

}Both winners and losers will tell you that using the Baldrige has
}helped them.  As for the mindset, it was a far-sighted one
}which produced the exam, a vision of something like Japan's
}Deming Prize (the first of which was awarded in 1951!), which could
}help guide quality improvement for the long haul.  It came out of
}Congress, btw, not industry.  And it (or something with a similar
}purpose) *is* necessary to guide the rebuilding of our ruined economy.
}If not, well, how would *you* do it?

I knew that the award came out of Congress.  I was remarking on how
sad it is that U.S. businesses are so short-sighted that our government
felt it necessary to create this award in order to give companies a REASON
to improve their quality; it's sad that competition with the rest of the
world STILL isn't sufficient reason for those who run our companies to
get off their fat butts and start competing.  How would I do it?  I have
answered that already:  I would not have created this incentive in terms
of a prize that companies can choose to "go for".  The reward for improving
quality is more customers, or better satisfied customers, or lower costs
or better products.  That is the message that I would send out.  I would
have the Baldridge people going out looking for quality, and the first
place I'd have them start is Japan.  You know the story of the mule that
you have to hit on the head with a two-by-four to get its attention before
it will listen to you?  Well, I think that U.S. companies still aren't
really paying attention.  Someone needs to really rub their noses in the
fact that companies in other countries are BETTER.  As long as we still
blindly hold on to this romantic notion that American business is the
best, nothing will change.

--James Preston

From: mik@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Mik Butler)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:18:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: dangerous pet birds?
Organization: HP Software Engineering Systems UK