Framework on concepts of quality sec- 11 mar2011

Topics in the Document

Evolution of the concept of Quality (Industrial Revolution)

Need for Quality

Definitions of Quality

Dimensions of Quality

Quality Control Tools

Measurement of Quality

Factors Influencing Quality

Methods to Assure Quality

Framework on Concepts of Quality 15MAR2011

Prepared By: Kranthi of 61

Evolution of the concept of Quality



With the basics of changes in the activities of human to fulfill their basic needs (Food, Clothing, and

Shelter); we have two remarkable revolutions in history. They are:

Neolithic Revolution: The Neolithic revolution can be defined as a transition of the human race from

a food gathering society into a food producing society. The Neolithic revolution is thought to have

taken place in the period between 8000 and 6000 B.C. During this period humans settled down in

particular areas to cultivate food crops rather than traveling from place to place gathering what they

required. Many social, political and economic changes happened during this period.The Neolithic

Revolution is the first agricultural revolution—the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture

and settlement.

Industrial Revolution: The Industrial Revolution was a transformation of human life circumstances

that occurred in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (roughly 1760 to 1840) in Britain,

the United States, and Western Europe due in large measure to advances in the technologies of

industry. The Industrial Revolution was characterized by a complex interplay of changes in

technology, society, medicine, economy, education, and culture in which multiple technological

innovations replaced human labor with mechanical work, replaced vegetable sources like wood with

mineral sources like coal and iron, freed mechanical power from being tied to a fixed running water

source, and supported the injection of capitalist practices, methods, and principles into what had been

an agrarian society.

Evolution of the concept of Quality:

There was a time, not so long ago in the 1940‘s when the concept of quality was almost non-existent.

The quality movement took almost four decades to become a strong force. It is only now that

adherence to quality is believed to yield tangible benefits like reduced costs or increased customers.

During the Second World War, a number of bombs exploded in factories during assembly. As a result,

factories were required to document their procedures and to provide records to show that they were

followed. They were then inspected to prove conformity to defined procedures.

Juran is the founder of Juran Institute and Juran Foundation (presently known as Juran Centre at the

University of Minnesota in U.S) and brain behind starting the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality

Award. He also developed many statistical tools for quality, which are widely in use.

J.M. Juran visited Japan for the first time in 1954. It was a time when there were very few buildings in

Tokyo and bicycles the primary means of transportation.

Japan was then perceived as a country, which produced and sold poor quality products. Americans

and Europeans looked down on Japanese products since they were convinced that Japanese

products were replicas of American and Western design products.

However, Juran observed the seeds of revolution, which would engulf Japan- a revolution that would

change the very face of Japan.



Juran had gone to conduct lectures and plant visits. One thing he noticed among the participants of

his lectures was the resolve to bring about quality in all their business activities and to produce top

class quality products. Their determination was evident from the participation of top industrial

managers and CEOs in Juran‘s lectures.

These managers and CEOs invested in training their employees on quality and its tools. They also

ascertained that the lower level of management like the foreman, frontline personnel were involved

too. The management also sent some of the teams to visit foreign countries. They would be required

to study the approaches followed by other companies globally.

Most of the existing books on quality were written in other languages. A lot of this literature was being

translated into Japanese to enable everyone to read and understand them.

The role of Dr. Deming and Japanese Union of Science and Engineers (JUSE) in initiating this interest

in Quality in Japan cannot be denied. Deming was a famous statistician who extended the statistical

methodology to introduce the PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) cycle to improve quality. In 1947 the

American section of industrialists in Japan invited him to share his views on quality. His ideologies

and thoughts became so popular in Japan that he was asked to return for more lectures. Apart from

Deming, many other coordinators from JUSE (Japanese Union of Science and Engineers) conducted

various seminars and courses. They made the Japanese aware of the various quality control tools

and principles.

Some key observations

Some observations made in Japan by Juran during this period are.

1. Focus on quality control tools: Juran observed that the Japanese focused more on the use of

statistical quality control tools and less on the managerial tools for quality control. So did other nations

when they began their journey of quality and quality control.

2. Lack of automation: Juran noticed that most of the Japanese industries lacked proper technology

and mechanization. He attributed this situation to Japan‘s economic condition after the Second World

War. Automation was a costly investment for the Japanese manufacturers in those days. Moreover,

the supply of such advanced technology was very limited. Another important reason why Japan did

not go for automation was that it had plenty of cheap labor to sustain production.

3. Lifetime commitment: Juran was quite surprised that Japanese workers worked at a faster pace

(than those in the west). This was despite the poor working conditions in many of the plants. This

commitment and motivation was traced back to the philosophy of lifelong employment prevailing in

Japanese companies.

4. Lack of Educational Institutions: In those days Japan had the ignominy of being a country, which

copied designs and products produced in other countries. This was because Japan lacked the

institutions where people could study about the latest developments in technology and design. This in



turn resulted in lack of personnel who were capable of designing new products or applying technology

for new product development. Within a decade later the situation reversed.

Juran‟s visit

Juran visited Japan at the end of 1960. During the six years gap Japan had witnessed a sea change.

Japan‘s real estate was beginning to take off with several high-rise buildings, residential complexes

and plants.

The standard of living saw a marked increase and Japan was beginning to look like an industrialized

nation. Automated equipment was gradually but surely replacing manually operated machines.

Quality too had improved in Japan. Earlier the Japanese laid great emphasis on statistical tools. Now

they were beginning to look quality from a bigger perspective. The management of quality was being

given great importance.

All levels of management were being trained. Training in quality was not only being offered through

seminars but was also being broadcast through the media (radio and television). Another important

development Juran witnessed was the Deming‘s prize. Companies were beginning to implement

principles on which Deming‘s award was built. Several nation wide standards were being created not

just in terms of product quality and specifications but also the application of quality tools and

techniques.

Another development that Juran noticed was the birth of the concept of the company wide

involvement in quality. In the western world quality was a prerogative of quality department. In Japan

however it was the responsibility of everyone. The top management demonstrated their involvement

by conducting and reviewing yearly quality performance. The lower level workforce were made

responsible for quality and trained to ensure it. This organization wide involvement in quality

eventually led to the birth of quality circles.

Quality circles

The quality circles movement began in Japan in the year 1962. A quality circle would consist of

workers/employees from the same company/unit. Headed by a foreman or a manager they meet

periodically to discuss various issues relating to quality.

The main objectives of the quality circles are,

• Chalking out measures that enhance the unit/organization‘s performance.

• Protecting human relations and creating a working environment that fosters creativity.

• Leveraging human capabilities to improve organizational and individual performance.



Juran had heard about this concept even before his visit to Japan in the 60‘s. However at that time he

had failed to understand either its value or its principles. It was during his second visit that he could

see the circle phenomenon operating in many Japanese companies.

Realizing the benefits of quality circles, Juran decided to make foreign countries aware of it. Juran

started introducing the concept and its benefits during various national and international conferences.

The concept was also promoted through various publications in paper, courses, seminars and

lectures.

The Japanese perception of goods eventually changed. While earlier Japanese goods were looked

down upon for their poor quality, now they were beginning to be recognized for their better quality.

Their adherence to quality and its principles helped gain a better market share for their products.

In certain industries, Japan was actually giving companies in other parts of the world a run for their

money. The impact of the quality revolution in Japan was also seen in different forms, some of which

are explained below.

Rather than facing the Japanese business counterparts as rivals, few foreign competitors collaborated

with the Japanese companies. This helped the Japanese get better access to foreign markets and

trends. The collaboration also helped the Japanese adapt various best practices and systems that

these foreign companies followed.

Similarly, foreign countries also became aware of the quality control movement in Japan. They began

understanding the Japanese quality control revolution by attending the various seminars and lectures

in Japan. They were so impressed with the results that they initiated certain activities that would help

implement quality control principles in their industries.

Quality changed everything

The 60‘s is thus considered a golden decade for the Japanese quality control. It was during this period

that Japan began experiencing the benefits of the quality movement.

Decade of troubles

During the 70‘s, Japan and most other developing nations faced several problems. Japan was facing

a major crisis because of the limited supply of energy and other natural resources.

Juran realized that the situation in Japan was quite similar to what the British faced some two hundred

years ago during the industrial revolution. At that time Britain and its surrounding islands were getting

highly populated. The resources that were available were consumed rapidly. This led to a crisis.

These similarities apart there were also some differences the process of industrialization in Japan and

that of Britain. Britain‘s colonial system helped it acquire many foreign markets and materials through

conquest. However, this colonist system was absent during Japan‘s rise of industrialization. The



Japanese explored and conducted trade in foreign countries by meeting all the rules regulations and

other trade policies of the home country.

During that period, Japan also faced other issues related to growing nationalism. Generally, when

nations begin developing they prefer not to have any foreign control or dominance. In Japan too, the

rising nationalism made it further difficult for foreign suppliers to have easy access into the Japanese

markets. They had to meet various trade policies and adhere to various rules to enter the Japanese

market to conduct their business.

Quality challenges

Japan‘s predicament with regard to quality issues in the 70‘s was quite different. The 50‘s and the

60‘s saw Japan emphasizing more on the quality of the products so as to sell its products worldwide.

However, the 70‘s brought in the challenge of sustaining quality and tackling related issues.

Some of the challenges it faced include:

1. Managing and motivating people

The 70‘s brought in the need for Japanese companies to effectively manage the workforce to sustain

quality at their workplace. Some of the issues to be considered were:

a. Job satisfaction.

b. Defining job responsibilities

c. Developing systems to ensure quality

d. Encouraging its employees to accept job rotation

2. Consumer communication

Until the 70‘s, Japanese companies focused on producing quality products and selling them. Now

they had to address consumer issues related to:

a. Providing sufficient information regarding product through labeling and packaging

b. Guiding users in product usage

c. Minimizing pollution and health related issues arising due to use of products

3. Safety and legal responsibility

The Japanese companies had to look into designing safety into products, encouraging safe work

practices, setting standards for minimizing pollution, and tackling legal issues.

4. After-sales service

In the 70‘s Japanese had to focus on developing an effective after sales service network. They also

had to ensure sufficient spare parts inventory and minimize the customer‘s cost of ownership of

product. In short, the Japanese were tackling the next level of quality issues in the 70‘s.



Change of guard

In the 1950‘s there were many Japanese leaders who helped in setting Japan on the path of quality

and industrialization. They helped in providing the direction and impetus that motivated Japan to

create better quality output. Some of these famous leaders include the Kenichi Koyanagi and

Ishikawa, both associated with JUSE.

Sustaining the quality principles

The quality control revolution helped the Japanese in achieving good quality results. The close of the

70‘s established the need for the Japanese to continue to value their quality journey. It needed a new

generation of leaders and engineers who would take Japan to new levels of quality. These leaders

need to foresee plausible problems lest they should lose out to their competitors.

To lay due emphasis on these new problems, the Japanese needed good leaders who could convince

the people of the new issues resolved. They had to therefore initiate programs that would motivate the

economy to fully utilize various resources. Thereby they would be able to achieve their new goals and

resolve new problems.

Younger generation

Juran happened to interact with the younger generation of Japanese quality leaders during his visit in

the 70‘s. He was glad to observe that the younger generation was enthusiastic in improving the

economy and its quality. Juran hoped that this enthusiasm and commitment of the younger leaders

would lead Japan to becoming a developed nation.

The journey continues

Japan has come a long way from being a nation of copiers to a nation that epitomizes quality. Its

journey to success though has not been easy. It was the commitment from consecutive generations of

Japanese quality and business leaders that helped Japan transform so drastically. Today Japan is

considered one of the leading industrial super powers in the world. Japan owes it all to the quality

movement and other revolutions. This expedition of Japan, which led to its quality evolution, should

serve as an important lesson for other developing nations.

In the 1970s some major organizations such as the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Ford developed

their own 'quality' management standards which and required their suppliers to define how they

operated and provide evidence that they 'conformed' to the defined procedures - with an implied

quality of product as an outcome.

In 1979, BS5750 was developed as a national standard on what constituted a quality system. In the

1980s, the International Organization for Standardization was persuaded by the British government to

adopt BS 5750 as an international standard, and it became ISO 9000.



ISO 9000:1987 had the same structure as BS 5750, with three 'models' for quality management

systems:

ISO 9001:1987 Model for quality assurance in design, development, production, installation, and

servicing

ISO 9002:1987 Model for quality assurance in production, installation, and servicing

ISO 9003:1987 Model for quality assurance in final inspection and test

Other relevant standards during this period included the DEF STAN 05/20 series (MoD). DEF STAN

05/21 covered the design, production and service of hardware functions and was broadly equivalent

to the 1969 NATO quality management specifications (AQAP). The US did not impose AQAP

specifications for their defence contractors but introduced MIL-Q-9858 in its place.

The emphasis of ISO 9000:1987 remained on inspection to ensure conformance with procedures. ISO

9000:1994 emphasized quality assurance by means of preventive actions instead of 'just' checking

the final product, but it still required evidence of compliance with documented procedures. So

companies still created volumes of procedure manuals which at times made it more difficult to change

and improve.

ISO 9001:2000 was a more significant update, combining 9001, 9002, and 9003 into one standard. It

also introduced the concept of 'process management'. TC176, the ISO 9001 technical committee is

currently drafting the next release (ISO 9001:2008), which is not expected to have substantial

changes.

You can see that the old concept is reactive, designed to correct quality problems after they occur.

The new concept is proactive, designed to build quality into the product and process design.



Unsatisfied customer - Satisfied Customer

Business Loss - Profit

Employee Dissatisfaction - Satisfaction

Costly Product - Economical Product

Need for Quality



Many definitions have been given for Quality and these are derived from the real time experiences

and expressions of the people. The need for quality can be derived from those definitions and some of

the definitions are given below:

Webster: ―That which makes something what it is; characteristic element; basic nature, kind; the

degree of excellence of a thing; excellence, superiority.‖

ANSI/ASQ: ―The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bears on it, ability

to satisfy given needs.‖

Garvin‟s Five Definitions:

Transcendent Definition (Relative Quality) Quality is universally recognizable; it is related to a

comparison of features and characteristics of products.

Product- Based Definition Quality is a precise and measurable variable. Differences in quality reflect

differences in quantity of some product attribute.

User- Based Definition Quality is “fitness for intended use”

Manufacturing Based Definition Quality is “Conformance to specifications.”

Value-Based Definition Quality is defined in terms of costs and prices. A quality product is one

that provides performance at an acceptable price or conformance at an acceptable cost.

Modern Definition: Quality is meeting or exceeding customer expectations

Who is the customer?

External Customers: Recipient of an output but are not part of the organization supplying it.

Internal Customers: Recipients of another person‘s or department‘s output within an organization.

Five Ways of Looking at Quality Definitions

David M. Dilts, Professor of the Faculty of Science at the Universität of Waterloo, Waterloo Ontario,

Canada made a list of quotations according to 5 different targets:

1. Customer - based

"Quality consists of the capacity to satisfy wants."(C.D. Edwards, "The Meaning of Quality", in

Quality Progress Oct.1968)

"Quality is fitness for use." (J.M. Juran, ed. Quality Control Handbook 1988)

2. Manufacturing - based



"Quality is the degree to which a specific product conforms to a design or specification" (H.L.

Gilmore: Product Conformance Cost. Quality progress June 1974)

"Quality [means] conformance to requirements." (P.B. Crosby: Quality Is Free)

3. Product - based

"Quality refers to the amount of the unpriced attributes contained in each unit of the priced

attribute." (K. B. Leifler: Ambiguous Changes in Product Quality,

American Economic Review Dec.1982)

4. Value - based

"Quality is the degree of excellence at an acceptable price and the control of variability at an

acceptable cost." (R. A. Broh: Managing Quality for Higher Profits, 1982)

5. Transcendent

"Quality is neither mind nor matter, but a third entity independent of the two, even though

Quality cannot be defined, you know what it is." (R. M. Pirsig: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle

Maintenance)

Quality in different areas of society

Area Examples

Airlines On-time, comfortable, low-cost service

Health Care Correct diagnosis, minimum wait time, lower cost, security

Food Services Good product, fast delivery, good environment

Postal Services fast delivery, correct delivery, cost containment

Academia Proper preparation for future, on-time knowledge delivery

Consumer Products Properly made, defect-free, cost effective

Insurance Payoff on time, reasonable cost

Military Rapid deployment, decreased wages, no graft

Automotive Defect-free

Communications Clearer, faster, cheaper service

Definitions from Quality Gurus



Juran "Quality is fitness for use."

Crosby ―Conformance to requirements‖

Deming ―Meeting or exceeding customer expectations"

Quality Means:

Understand what your customer expects from you

Decide what you can reasonably give in your product

Agree with your customer what you can give

Deliver product to your customer as promised

Quality is the core task of a business. It is not optional.

It is essential for survival

Customer Satisfaction is Ultimate

Give product/service meeting to customer requirements

Keep the price of your product competitive

Deliver product/service to your customer within agreed time

After delivery of the product you should be willing to resolve customer complaint if any, in time

Results of Poor Quality

Your time & effort lost in first making a product with errors and then for re-processing the

same

Your time and effort lost in recalling your product from customer

Your time and effort lost in resolving customer complaints, if any

You may lose future business if your customer remains dissatisfied

Cost of Rectifying Error

0x: Producing right first time

1x: If process owner detects error & rectifies

10x: If error is detected by next process & rectified

100x: If error is detected by Customer (out side the org.)

‗x‘ is cost of rectification of defect

„A stitch in time saves nine‟



The reason quality has gained such prominence is that organizations have gained an understanding

of the high cost of poor quality. Quality affects all aspects of the organization and has dramatic cost

implications. The most obvious consequence occurs when poor quality creates dissatisfied customers

and eventually leads to loss of business.

However, quality has many other costs, which can be divided into two categories. The first category

consists of costs necessary for achieving high quality, which are called quality control costs. These

are of two types: prevention costs and appraisal costs. The second category consists of the cost

consequences of poor quality, which are called quality failure costs. These include external failure

costs and internal failure costs. The first two costs (Prevention and Appraisal Costs) are incurred in

the hope of preventing the second two.

Prevention costs are all costs incurred in the process of preventing poor quality from occurring. They

include quality planning costs, such as the costs of developing and implementing a quality plan. Also

included are the costs of product and process design, from collecting customer information to

designing processes that achieve conformance to specifications. Employee training in quality

measurement is included as part of this cost, as well as the costs of maintaining records of

information and data related to quality.

Appraisal costs are incurred in the process of uncovering defects. They include the cost of quality

inspections, product testing, and performing audits to make sure that quality standards are being met.

Also included in this category are the costs of worker time spent measuring quality and the cost of

equipment used for quality appraisal.

Internal failure costs are associated with discovering poor product quality before the product

reaches the customer site. One type of internal failure cost is rework, which is the cost of correcting



the defective item. Sometimes the item is so defective that it cannot be corrected and must be thrown

away. This is called scrap, and its costs include all the material, labor, and machine cost spent in

producing the defective product. Other types of internal failure costs include the cost of machine

downtime due to failures in the process and the costs of discounting defective items for salvage value.

External failure costs are associated with quality problems that occur at the customer site. These

costs can be particularly damaging because customer faith and loyalty can be difficult to regain. They

include everything from customer complaints, product returns, and repairs, to warranty claims, recalls,

and even litigation costs resulting from product liability issues. A final component of this cost is lost

sales and lost customers. For example, manufacturers of lunch meats and hot dogs whose products

have been recalled due to bacterial contamination have had to struggle to regain consumer

confidence. Other examples include auto manufacturers whose products have been recalled due to

major malfunctions such as problematic braking systems and airlines that have experienced a crash

with many fatalities. External failure can sometimes put a company out of business almost overnight.

Companies that consider quality important invest heavily in prevention and appraisal costs in order to

prevent internal and external failure costs. The earlier defects are found, the less costly they are to

correct. For example, detecting and correcting defects during product design and product production

is considerably less expensive than when the defects are found at the customer site. External failure

costs tend to be particularly high for service organizations. The reason is that with a service the

customer spends much time in the service delivery system, and there are fewer opportunities to

correct defects than there are in manufacturing. Examples of external failure in services include an

airline that has overbooked flights, long delays in airline service, and lost luggage.

Prevention costs. Costs of preparing and implementing a quality plan.

Appraisal costs. Costs of testing, evaluating, and inspecting quality.

Internal failure costs. Costs of scrap, rework, and material losses.

External failure costs. Costs of failure at customer site, including returns, repairs, and recalls.

A product that satisfies their needs is the basic need of customers and to provide a product that

satisfies the needs is the responsibility of the supplier.

Genichi Taguchi Dr. Genichi Taguchi is a Japanese quality expert known for his work in the area of

product design. He estimates that as much as 80 percent of all defective items are caused

by poor product design. Taguchi stresses that companies should focus their quality efforts on the

design stage, as it is much cheaper and easier to make changes during the product design stage than

later during the production process. Taguchi is known for applying a concept called design of

experiment to product design.

This method is an engineering approach that is based on developing robust design, a design that

results in products that can perform over a wide range of conditions.



Taguchi‘s philosophy is based on the idea that it is easier to design a product that can perform over a

wide range of environmental conditions than it is to control the environmental conditions. Taguchi has

also had a large impact on today‘s view of the costs of quality. He pointed out that the traditional view

of costs of conformance to specifications is incorrect, and proposed a different way to look at these

costs. Let‘s briefly look at Dr. Taguchi‘s view of quality costs.

Recall that conformance to specification specifies a target value for the product with specified

tolerances, say 5.00 +/- 0.20. According to the traditional view of conformance to specifications,

losses in terms of cost occur if the product dimensions fall outside of the specified limits. This is

shown in Figure. However, Dr. Taguchi noted that from the customer‘s view there is little difference

whether a product falls just outside or just inside the control limits. He pointed out that there is a much

greater difference in the quality of the product between making the target and being near the control

limit. He also stated that the smaller the variation around the target, the better the quality. Based on

this he proposed the following: as conformance values move away from the target, loss increases as

a quadratic function. This is called the

Taguchi loss function and is shown in Figure. According to the function, smaller differences from the

target result in smaller costs: the larger the differences, the larger the cost. The Taguchi loss function

has had a significant impact in changing the view of quality cost.

Figure 1 Traditional View of Cost of Non- Conformance



Figure 2 Taguchi View of Cost of Non Conformance- Taguchi loss function



Dimensions of Quality



Product Quality

Service Quality

Process Quality

Garvin‟s 8 Dimensions of Product Quality

Performance, Features, Reliability, Conformance, Durability, Serviceability, Aesthetics, Perceived

Quality

Dimension 1: Performance

Does the product or service do what it is supposed to do, within its defined tolerances?

Performance is often a source of contention between customers and suppliers, particularly

when deliverables are not adequately defined within specifications.

The performance of a product often influences profitability or reputation of the end-user. As such,

many contracts or specifications include damages related to inadequate performance.

Dimension 2: Features

Does the product or services possess all of the features specified, or required for its intended

purpose?

While this dimension may seem obvious, performance specifications rarely define the features

required in a product. Thus, it’s important that suppliers designing product or services from

performance specifications are familiar with its intended uses, and maintain close

relationships with the end-users.

Dimension 3: Reliability

Will the product consistently perform within specifications?

Reliability may be closely related to performance. For instance, a product specification may define

parameters for up-time, or acceptable failure rates.

Reliability is a major contributor to brand or company image, and is considered a fundamental

dimension of quality by most end-users.

Dimension 4: Conformance

Does the product or service conform to the specification?

If it’s developed based on a performance specification, does it perform as specified? If it’s

developed based on a design specification, does it possess all of the features defined?



Dimension 5: Durability

How long will the product perform or last, and under what conditions?

Durability is closely related to warranty. Requirements for product durability are often included

within procurement contracts and specifications.

For instance, fighter aircraft procured to operate from aircraft carriers include design criteria intended

to improve their durability in the demanding naval environment.

Dimension 6: Serviceability

Is the product relatively easy to maintain and repair?

As end users become more focused on Total Cost of Ownership than simple procurement costs,

serviceability (as well as reliability) is becoming an increasingly important dimension of quality and

criteria for product selection.

Dimension 7: Aesthetics

The way a product looks is important to end-users. The aesthetic properties of a product contribute to

a company‘s or brand‘s identity. Faults or defects in a product that diminish its aesthetic

properties, even those that do not reduce or alter other dimensions of quality, are often cause

for rejection.

Dimension 8: Perception

Perception is reality. The product or service may possess adequate or even superior dimensions of

quality, but still fall victim to negative customer or public perceptions.

As an example, a high quality product may get the reputation for being low quality based on poor

service by installation or field technicians. If the product is not installed or maintained properly,

and fails as a result, the failure is often associated with the product’s quality rather than the

quality of the service it receives.

Summary

It should be obvious from the discussion above that the individual dimensions of quality are not

necessarily distinct. Depending on the industry, situation, and type of contract or specification several

or all of the above dimensions may be interdependent.

When designing, developing or manufacturing a product (or delivering a service) the interactions

between the dimensions of quality must be understood and taken into account.



Dimension Description

1. Performance It is the primary operating characteristics, which determines-how well the

product or service performs the intended function.

Example: Durability of batteries, fuel economy of cars, BHP of an engine,

etc.

2. Features These are special features (secondary) which appeal to customers.

Example: Design of seats in a car, look and color of a refrigerator, etc.

3. Durability It is the time duration or amount of use before being replaced or

repaired.

4. Reliability Likelihood of breakdown, repair or expected time of fault-free operation.

5. Serviceability Convenience and cost of repair and maintenance and is related to ease

in resolving the customer complains.

6. Appearance/

Aesthetics

Look, taste, smell, sound or any other effect which is felt by human

senses.

Example: Noise of a refrigerator.

7. Uniformity Limited variations among different products of same type.

8. Consistency and

Conformance

Conformance with standard, matching with documentation, being on-

time, etc.

9. Safety Harmless from health and environment point of view

10. Time Waiting time, completion time for a service.

11. Customer Service After sales service, treatment received during or before sales

12. Compatibility Compatibility of the product/services with existing or standard interfaces,

peripherals or other attachments, power source, etc.

Dimensions of Service Quality:

Reliability - perform promised service dependably and accurately

Responsiveness - willingness/readiness to provide prompt service

Competence - possess knowledge and skill to perform the service

Access - approachability and ease of contact of service personnel

Courtesy - politeness, consideration, and friendliness of service personnel

Communication - keeping customers informed; listening to customers, understandable to the

customer

Credibility - trustworthy, believable, honest

Security - freedom from danger, risk, or doubt

Understanding/knowing customer - knowing customer's needs

Tangibles - physical evidence of service

Empathy: adopting the customer‘s viewpoint



The 5 major service quality dimensions-- Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Tangibles, and

Empathy

Dimensions of Process Quality

In operations management it has been emphasized that these controllable internal quality aspects of

a business process ultimately determine the external quality perception of goods and services created

by the process [1]. In this section we acknowledge that quality of a business process builds on the

quality of its functions. In essence there are two levels of granularity at which the quality of functions

can be analyzed: for the function as a whole, or by looking into the entities related to it.

Function Input/ Output Non- Human Resource Human Resource

Suitability Accuracy Suitability Domain Knowledge

Accuracy Objectivity Accuracy Qualification

Security Believability Security Certification

Reliability Reputation Reliability Experience

Understandability Accessibility Time Efficiency Time Management

Learnability Security Resource Utilization Communication Skills

Time Efficiency Relevancy Effectiveness

Resource Utilization Value-added Safety

Effectiveness Timeliness User Satisfaction

Productivity Completeness Robustness

Safety Amount of Data Availability

User Satisfaction

Robustness



Quality Control Tools



You can see that TQM places a great deal of responsibility on all workers. If employees are to identify

and correct quality problems, they need proper training. They need to understand how to assess

quality by using a variety of quality control tools, how to interpret findings, and how to correct

problems. In this section we look at seven different quality tools. These are often called the seven

tools of quality control they are easy to understand, yet extremely useful in identifying and analyzing

quality problems. Sometimes workers use only one tool at a time, but often a combination of tools is

most helpful.

Cause-and-Effect Diagrams Cause-and-effect diagrams are charts that identify potential causes

for particular quality problems. They are often called fishbone diagrams because they look like the

bones of a fish. A general cause-and-effect diagram is shown in figure. The ―head‖ of the fish is the

quality problem, such as damaged zippers on a garment or broken valves on a tire. The diagram is

drawn so that the ―spine‖ of the fish connects the ―head‖ to the possible cause of the problem. These

causes could be related to the machines, workers, measurement, suppliers, materials, and many

other aspects of the production process. Each of these possible causes can then have smaller

―bones‖ that address specific issues that relate to each cause. For example, a problem with machines

could be due to a need for adjustment, old equipment, or tooling problems. Similarly, a problem with

workers could be related to lack of training, poor supervision, or fatigue. Cause-and-effect diagrams

are problem-solving tools commonly used by quality control teams. Specific causes of problems can

be explored through brainstorming.

The development of a cause-and-effect diagram requires the team to think through all the possible

causes of poor quality.

Flowcharts A flowchart is a schematic diagram of the sequence of steps involved in an operation or

process. It provides a visual tool that is easy to use and understand. By seeing the steps involved in

an operation or process, everyone develops a clear picture of how the operation works and where

problems could arise.



Checklists A checklist is a list of common defects and the number of observed occurrences of these

defects. It is a simple yet effective fact-finding tool that allows the worker to collect specific information

regarding the defects observed. The checklist in Figure 5-7 shows four defects and the number of

times they have been observed. It is clear that the biggest problem is ripped material. This means that

the plant needs to focus on this specific problem—for example, by going to the source of supply or

seeing whether the material rips during a particular production process. A checklist can also be used

to focus on other dimensions, such as location or time. For example, if a defect is being observed

frequently, a checklist can be developed that measures the number of occurrences per shift, per

machine, or per operator. In this fashion we can isolate the location of the particular defect and then

focus on correcting the problem.

Control Charts Control charts are a very important quality control tool. We will study the use of

control charts at great length in the next chapter. These charts are used to evaluate whether a

process is operating within expectations relative to some measured value such as weight, width, or

volume. For example, we could measure the weight of a sack of flour, the width of a tire, or the

volume of a bottle of soft drink. When the production process is operating within expectations, we say

that it is ―in control.‖

To evaluate whether or not a process is in control, we regularly measure the variable of interest and

plot it on a control chart. The chart has a line down the center representing the average value of the

variable we are measuring. Above and below the center line are two lines, called the upper control

limit (UCL) and the lower control limit (LCL). As long as the observed values fall within the upper and

lower control limits, the process is in control and there is no problem with quality. When a measured

observation falls outside of these limits, there is a problem.



Scatter Diagrams Scatter diagrams are graphs that show how two variables are related to one

another. They are particularly useful in detecting the amount of correlation, or the degree of linear

relationship, between two variables. For example, increased production speed and number of defects

could be correlated positively; as production speed increases, so does the number of defects. Two

variables could also be correlated negatively, so that an increase in one of the variables is associated

with a decrease in the other. For example, increased worker training might be associated with a

decrease in the number of defects observed.

The greater the degrees of correlation, the more linear are the observations in the scatter diagram. On

the other hand, the more scattered the observations in the diagram, the less correlation exists

between the variables. Of course, other types of relationships can also be observed on a scatter

diagram, such as an inverted _. This may be the case when one is observing the relationship between

two variables such as oven temperature and number of defects, since temperatures below and above

the ideal could lead to defects.

Pareto Analysis Pareto analysis is a technique used to identify quality problems based on their

degree of importance. The logic behind Pareto analysis is that only a few quality problems are

important, whereas many others are not critical. The technique was named after Vilfredo Pareto, a

nineteenth-century Italian economist who determined that only a small percentage of people

controlled most of the wealth. This concept has often been called the 80–20 rule and has been



extended to many areas. In quality management the logic behind Pareto‘s principle is that most

quality problems are a result of only a few causes. The trick is to identify these causes.

One way to use Pareto analysis is to develop a chart that ranks the causes of poor quality in

decreasing order based on the percentage of defects each has caused. For example, a tally can be

made of the number of defects that result from different causes, such as operator error, defective

parts, or inaccurate machine calibrations. Percentages of defects can be computed from the tally and

placed in a chart like those shown in Figure .We generally tend to find that a few causes account for

most of the defects.

Histograms A histogram is a chart that shows the frequency distribution of observed values of a

variable. We can see from the plot what type of distribution a particular variable displays, such as

whether it has a normal distribution and whether the distribution is symmetrical.

In the food service industry the use of quality control tools is important in identifying quality problems.

Grocery store chains, such as Kroger and Meijer, must record and monitor the quality of incoming

produce, such as tomatoes and lettuce. Quality tools can be used to evaluate the acceptability of

product quality and to monitor product quality from individual suppliers. They can also be used to

evaluate causes of quality problems, such as long transit time or poor refrigeration. Similarly,

restaurants use quality control tools to evaluate and monitor the quality of delivered goods, such as

meats, produce, or baked goods.



Factors Influencing Quality



Factors Affecting Quality

Quality depends upon a number of factors. According Ivancevich et al. (2003) – Quality is the function

of policy, information, engineering and design, materials, equipment, people, and field support. Thus,

an integrated quality control system must focus on these factors.

1. Policy: Management establishes policies concerning product quality. These policies specify the

standards or levels of quality to be achieved in a product or service; they can be an important

precontrol and concurrent control means for ensuring quality. Management considers three factors in

determining its policy for quality: the product‘s or service‘s market, its competition, and image.

2. Information: Information plays a vital role in setting policy and ensuring that quality standards are

achieved. Concerning policy, accurate information must be obtained about customer preferences and

expectations and about competitor quality standards and costs.

3. Engineering and design: Once management has formulated a policy concerning quality, it is the

engineer or designer who must translate the policy into an actual product or service. The

engineer/designer must create a product that will appeal to customers and that can be produced at a

reasonable cost and provide competitive quality.

4. Materials: A growing number of organizations are realizing that a finished product is only as good

as materials used to produce it. Thus, many manufacturing companies these days are implementing

newer and aggressive type of precontrol mechanisms with material

5. Equipment: The ability of equipment, tools, and machinery to accurately and reliably produce

desired outputs is important, especially in manufacturing industries. If the equipment can meet

acceptable tolerances, at competitive costs and quality, an organization will have the opportunity to

compete in the marketplace.

6. People: It is the people who make everything in organizations. It is the people who make policies

for quality assurance; design product and determine process; handle materials, equipment, and

information; and provide services to customers and other stakeholders. The valuable input of people

is very important particularly in service organizations where in many ways, the quality of employee is

the quality of service.

7. Field support: Often, the field support provided by the supplier determines a product‘s quality

image (perceived quality). IBM, General Electric, and Sears Roebuck have reputations for providing

strong field support for their products. Many customers select IBM computers, General Electric

refrigerators, and Sears Roebuck dishwashers because field support of these firms is considered

excellent.

http://bizcovering.com/business/factors-affecting-quality/







Measurement of Quality



The three parts of measurement of quality are Measurement of product quality, Measurement of

service quality, Measurement of process quality. This is because we have defined the definition of

quality also the dimensions of quality product from an organization has these three constituents i.e.

Product, Process, Service.

‘When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers, you know

something about it’. -Kelvin

‘You cannot manage what you cannot measure’.-Anon

Cost of quality measurement

The cost of doing a quality job, conducting quality improvements and achieving goals must be

carefully managed, so that the long-term effect of quality on the organization is a desirable one. These

costs must be a true measure of the quality effort, and are best determined from an analysis of the

costs of quality.

Such an analysis provides:

• A method of assessing the effectiveness of the management of quality

• A means of determining problem areas, opportunities, savings and action priorities

Cost of quality is also an important communication tool. Crosby demonstrated what a powerful tool it

could be to raise awareness of the importance of quality. He referred to the measure as the “Price of

Nonconformance”, and argued that organizations chose to pay for poor quality.

Quality-related activities that will incur costs may be split into prevention costs, appraisal costs and

failure costs.

Prevention costs are associated with the design, implementation and maintenance of the TQM

system.

They are planned and incurred before actual operation, and could include:

• Product or service requirements – setting specifications for incoming materials, processes, finished

products/ services

• Quality planning – creation of plans for quality, reliability, operational, production, inspection

• Quality assurance – creation and maintenance of the quality system

• Training – development, preparation and maintenance of programmes

Appraisal costs are associated with the suppliers‘ and customers‘ evaluation of purchased materials,

processes, products and services to ensure they conform to specifications. They could include:



• Verification – checking of incoming material, process set-up, products against agreed specifications

• Quality audits – check that the quality system is functioning correctly

• Vendor rating – assessment and approval of suppliers, for products and services

Failure costs can be split into those resulting from internal and external failure.

Internal failure costs occur when the results of work fail to reach designed quality standards and are

detected before they are transferred to the customer. They could include:

• Waste – doing unnecessary work or holding stocks as a result of errors, poor organization or

Communication

• Scrap – defective product or material that cannot be repaired, used or sold

• Rework or rectification – the correction of defective material or errors

• Failure analysis – activity required to establish the causes of internal product or service failure

External failure costs occur when the products or services fail to reach design quality standards, but

are not detected until after transfer to the customer. They could include:

• Repairs and servicing – of returned products or those in the field

• Warranty claims – failed product that are replaced or services re-performed under a guarantee

• Complaints – all work and costs associated with handling and servicing customers‘ complaints

• Returns – handling and investigation of rejected or recalled products, including transport costs

The relationship between the quality-related costs of prevention, appraisal and failure (the P-A-F

model) and increasing quality awareness and improvement in the organization is shown graphically

as:



Expenditure on prevention and improvement activities is an investment from which a return is

expected.

Effective quality improvements should result in a future stream of benefits, such as:

• Reduced failure costs

• Lower appraisal costs

• Increased market share

• Increased customer base

• More productive workforce

Many organizations will have true quality related costs as high as 15% of their sales revenue, and

effective quality improvement programmes can reduce this substantially, thus making a direct

contribution to profits.

An alternative to the P-A-F model is the Process Cost Model, which categorizes the cost of quality

(COQ) into the cost of conformance (COC) and the cost of non-conformance (CONC), where:



COC is the process cost of providing products/services to the required standards, by a given specified

process in the most effective manner.

CONC is the failure cost associated with a process not being operated to the requirements, or the

cost due to the variability of the process.

To identify, understand and reap the cost benefits of quality improvement activities the following

fundamental steps should be included in the approach:

• Management commitment to finding the true costs of quality

• A quality costing system to identify, report and analyze quality related cost

• A quality related cost management team responsible for direction and co-ordination of

the quality costing system

• The inclusion of quality costing training to enable everyone to understand the

financial implications of quality improvement

• The presentation of significant costs of quality to all personnel to promote the

approach

• Introduction of schemes to achieve maximum participation of all employees

The system, once established, should become dynamic and have a positive impact on the

achievement of the organization‘s mission, goals and objectives.

A simple performance measurement framework

A good performance measurement framework will focus on the customer and measure the right

things.

Performance measures must be:

• Meaningful, unambiguous and widely understood

• Owned and managed by the teams within the organization

• Based on a high level of data integrity

• Such that data collection is embedded within the normal procedures

• Able to drive improvement



• Linked to critical goals and key drivers of the organization

There are four key steps in a performance measurement framework - the strategic objectives of the

organization are converted into desired standards of performance, metrics are developed to compare

the desired performance with the actual achieved standards, gaps are identified, and improvement

actions initiated. These steps are continuously implemented and reviewed:

Initially, focus on a few key goals that are critical to the success of the organization or business, and

ensure they are SMART, i.e.:

Specific

Measurable

Achievable

Relevant

Timely

To assist in the development of these goals, consider the use of a balanced scorecard, as discussed

in the following section.

Once the goals have been defined, the next step in developing a performance measurement

framework is to define the outcome metrics - what has to be measured to determine if these goals

are being achieved.

If it is difficult to define outcome metrics for a particular goal, it is possible that the goal is either not

―SMART‖ or critical to the success of the business.

For each outcome metric, brainstorm candidate drivers by answering the question, “What

measurable factors influence this outcome?” Once the list is complete, select those with greatest

impact, and these, the most important drivers, should have driver metrics, and be put in place first.

Driver metrics at one level will be outcome metrics at the next level down.

An organization needs to evolve its own set of metrics, using any existing metrics as a starting point in

understanding current performance. To ensure they trigger the improvement cycle, they should be in

three main areas:



This is about the process output, and doing what you said you would do. The effectiveness metrics

should reflect whether the desired results are being achieved, the right things being accomplished.

Metrics could include quality, e.g., grade of product or level of service, quantity, e.g., tonnes,

timeliness, e.g., speed of response, and cost/price, e.g., unit cost.

This is about the process input, e.g., labor, staff, equipment, materials, and measures the

performance of the process system management. It is possible to use resources efficiently, but

ineffectively.

Simple ratios, e.g., tonnes per person-hour, computer output per operator day, are used.

Next, design a data collection/reporting process using the following steps:

• Set up a system for collecting and reporting data

• Write clear definitions

• Agree method for establishing current performance (if not already determined)

• List resources required to support the design

• Agree data formats and classifications for aggregation and consolidation

• Identify possible sources of benchmark data

• Set reporting calendar

• Establish roles and responsibilities

• Detail training requirements

• Validate with process stakeholders

The gap between current and desired performance now has to be measured. Some of the metrics

already exist and their current performance data must be collected, as well as data for new metrics.



Once all the data has been collected to identify the current performance, the target level of

performance for the medium- and long-term must be decided. These performance levels must be

achievable, and should be broken down into targets for discrete short-term intervals, e.g., the next

three quarters.

To implement the performance measurement framework, a plan with timescales and designated

responsibilities is needed. Once the plan has been implemented and data collected, new baselines

can be set, comparisons made and new standards/targets set.

The metrics, targets and improvement activities must be cascaded down through the organization,

involving people and teamwork in the development of new metrics, data collection and improvement

activities.

Improvement can be initiated by examining the gaps between current and target performance of the

driver metrics at each level. A minimum, achievable set of actions is determined, with plans, assigned

responsibilities and owners.

The critical elements of a good performance measurement activity are very similar to those required

for a total quality improvement activity:

• Leadership and commitment

• Good planning and a sound implementation strategy

• Appropriate employee involvement

• Simple measurement and evaluation

• Control and improvement

The balanced scorecard approach

First developed by Kaplan and Norton, a balanced scorecard recognizes the limitations of purely

financial measurement of an organization, which is normally short-term measurement.



A scorecard has several measurement perspectives, with the original scorecard having financial,

customer, internal business and innovation and learning perspectives. Balanced scorecards are

normally a key output from the strategy formulation process.

The key goals that are identified as being critical to the success of the business, as part of a

performance measurement framework, can also be considered in the context of a balanced

scorecard.

A balanced scorecard derived from the EFQM Excellence Model® (discussed in the Excellence

section) would include financial and non-financial results, customer results, employee results and

societal results.



Origin of Quality Problems:

Due to incorrect specifications / design - 40%

Due to poor quality of purchased material - 30%

Due to poor controls on production floor - 30%

(This is how Japanese look at quality related problems)

Hurdles for Quality:

You remain satisfied with the way your process is running

You agree on deadlines with your customers which you are not sure you can meet

You believe that defective products can be sorted by inspection instead of preventing

defects to happen

Your processes and system may be unreliable

You believe in person-dependency

You believe in fighting the problem every time as it comes up



Methods to assure Quality



The ultimate method to assure Quality is the satisfied Customer. The other way of assurance is

through certification

Product Certification

Management System Certification

Product certification or product qualification is the process of certifying that a certain product has

passed performance and quality assurance tests or qualification requirements stipulated in regulations

such as a building code and nationally accredited test standards, or that it complies with a set of

regulations governing quality and minimum performance requirements.

VDE Testing and Certification Institute

Mark Description

VDE Mark for appliances as technical equipment

according to the Appliance Safety Law (GSG), for Medical

Device Law (MPG), components and installation materials.

The VDE Mark indicates conformity with the VDE standards or

European or internationally harmonized standards resp. and

confirms compliance with protective requirements of the

applicable EC Directive(s). The VDE Mark is a symbol for

electrical, mechanical, thermal, toxic, radiological and other

hazards.

For appliances as technical equipment according to the

GSG. For ready-to-use equipment, the license holder may

chose to affix the VDE Mark or the VDE GS Mark.

For products certified on the basis of harmonized

certification agreements. Testing is based on harmonized

European standards listed in the ENEC Agreement. Products

(at present luminaries and related components, energy saving

lamps, IT equipment, transformers, switches for appliances,

electrical controls, certain types of capacitors and EMI

suppression components) tested to tested to the listed

standards may be marked with the ENEC Mark of the VDE.

The approval of any other body participating in the ENEC

Agreement is not required.

http://www.vde.de/

http://www.enec.com/



For appliances in compliance with standards for

electromagnetic compatibility. The VDE EMC Mark

expresses the conformity of a product with applicable

standards for electromagnetic compatibility. The reliable

function of the product in its electromagnetic environment is

also included. The requirements for granting this mark

comprise automatically and without restriction the compliance

with applicable standards.

For cables, insulated cords, installation conduits and

ducts, the VDE Cable Mark is applicable.

For cables and cords, the VDE Identification Thread may be

used.

VDE-HARmonization Marking

The VDE HARmonization Marking or VDE HARmonization

Thread resp. for cables and insulated cords according to

harmonized certification procedures. Testing is based on

the Harmonization Documents (HD) listed in the HAR

Agreement. Products (harmonized power cables) tested and

found in compliance with the requirements of the mentioned

standards may be marked with the VDE HARmonization

Marking. Further information is available from the Laboratory

for Cables and Cords, Materials and Special Tests.

The VDE Component Mark may be used for electronic

components.

The CECC Mark for electronic components according to

CECC Specifications. For electronic components according

to CECC Specifications (CECC: CENELEC Electronic

Components Committee) the CECC Mark may be used.

VDE-Reg.-Nr. XXXXX

VDE-Reg.-Nr. (VDE Certificate of Conformity in

conjunction with factory surveillance)This mark is used in

two cases: firstly, for products in compliance with applicable

clauses of VDE standards in the absence of a fully applicable



VDE standard, and secondly, if a product, e.g. a sub-

assembly, requires the fulfillment of additional conditions when

incorporated into complete equipment. For cables and

insulated cords, the VDE-Reg.-Nr. or the relevant mark resp. is

applicable in absence of special regulations for products which

were tested on the basis other standards. Special

constructions and all variations of non-harmonized cables and

insulated cords belong to this category of products.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

Mark Description

UL Listing Mark

This is one of the most common UL Marks. If a product carries

this Mark, it means UL found that samples of this product met

UL's safety requirements. These requirements are primarily

based on UL's own published Standards for Safety. This type

of Mark is seen commonly on appliances and computer

equipment, furnaces and heaters, fuses, electrical panel

boards, smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, fire

extinguishers and sprinkler systems, personal flotation devices

like life jackets and life preservers, bullet resistant glass, and

thousands of other products.

C-UL Listing Mark

This mark is applied to products for the Canadian market. The

products with this type of mark have been evaluated to

Canadian safety requirements, which may be somewhat

different from U.S. safety requirements. You will see this type

of Mark on appliances and computer equipment, vending

machines, household burglar alarm systems, lighting fixtures,

and many other types of products.

C-UL US Listing Mark

UL introduced this new Listing Mark in early 1998. It indicates

compliance with both Canadian and U.S. requirements. The

Canada/U.S. UL Mark is optional. UL encourages those

manufacturers with products certified for both countries to use

this new, combined Mark, but they may continue using

separate UL Marks for the United States and Canada.

http://www.ul.com/



Classification Mark

This mark appears on products which UL has also evaluated.

Products carrying this mark have been evaluated for specific

properties, a limited range of hazards, or suitability for use

under limited or special conditions. Typically, products

Classified by UL fall into the general categories of building

materials and industrial equipment. Examples of types of

equipment Classified by UL include immersion suits, fire doors,

protective gear for fire fighters and industrial trucks.

C-UL Classification Mark

This Classification marking is used for products intended for

the Canadian marketplace. It indicates that UL has used

Canadian standards to evaluate the product for specific

hazards or properties. Examples of C-UL Classified products

include air filter units, fire stop devices, certain types of roofing

systems, and others.

C-UL US Classification Mark

UL introduced this new Classification Mark in early 1998. It

indicates compliance with both Canadian and U.S.

requirements. The Canada/U.S. UL Mark is optional. UL

encourages those manufacturers with products certified for

both countries to use this new, combined Mark, but they may

continue using separate UL Marks for the United States and

Canada.

Recognized Component Mark and Canadian Recognized

Component Mark

These are marks consumers rarely see because they are

specifically used on component parts that are part of a larger

product or system. These components may have restrictions

on their performance or may be incomplete in construction.

The Component Recognition marking is found on a wide range

of products, including some switches, power supplies, printed

wiring boards, some kinds of industrial control equipment and

thousands of other products. Products intended for Canada

carry the Recognized Component mark "C."

Recognized Component Mark for Canada and the United

States



This new UL Recognized Component Mark, which became

effective April 1, 1998, may be used on components certified

by UL to both Canadian and U.S. requirements. Although UL

had not originally planned to introduce a combined

Recognized Component Mark, the popularity of the

Canada/U.S. Listing and Classification Marks among clients

with UL certifications for both Canada and the United States

has led to the new Mark.

International "emc-Mark"

The International "emc-Mark" appears on products meeting the

electromagnetic compatibility requirements of Europe, the

United States, Japan, Australia, or any combination of the four.

In the United States, some types of products can't be sold

without proof of compliance to U.S. electromagnetic

compatibility requirements. The types of products that are

subject to EMC testing include medical and dental equipment,

computers, microwave ovens, televisions, radios, transmitters,

and radio-controlled equipment.

EPH Product Mark

The UL EPH mark appear on products that have been

evaluated to Environmental and Public Health Standards. The

"Classified" version is used for products complying with

ANSI/NSF Standards and other food equipment hygiene codes

and requirements. Examples include Food Service and Meat

and Poultry Plant Equipment and Drinking Water Additives.

The "Listed" version is typically used for products complying

with UL's own published EPH Standards for Safety.

Food Service Product Certification Mark

The UL Food Service Product Certification Mark is UL's

Classification Mark with specific reference to the appropriate

NSF International standard. In addition, at the manufacturer's

option, a supplemental Mark can be applied as shown.

Equipment bearing the Mark is not limited to electrical

products, but also includes gas appliances and non-powered

equipment. These products are commonly found in

commercial food establishments, institutional food services

and other locations.



Field Evaluated Product Mark

A Field Evaluated Product Mark is applied to a product that is

thoroughly evaluated in the field instead of UL's laboratories or

the manufacturer's facility. If a product has been significantly

modified since its manufacture or the product doesn't bear any

third-party certification mark, a building owner, a regulatory

authority, or anyone else directly involved with the product can

request that UL conduct tests in the field on the specific piece

of equipment. Products that meet appropriate safety

requirements are labeled with a tamper-resistant Field

Evaluated Product Mark.

Facility Registration Mark

The UL Registered Firm Mark is a mark you will never see on

a product. Instead, it indicates that a particular facility has

passed UL's evaluation to quality assurance standards and is

used in promotion and marketing by companies with quality

assessment programs audited by UL. The standards UL uses

are the ISO 9000 series of quality assurance standards; QS-

9000, the quality standards developed by the Big Three U.S.

automakers for their suppliers; and ISO 14001, the standard

covering environmental management systems.

Marine Mark

The UL Marine mark appears on products which have been

evaluated specifically for marine use. Products bearing this

Mark have been evaluated to UL's published Marine Safety

Standards and other applicable standards and codes. These

requirements address hazards that can occur as a result of

exposure to harsh marine environments such as vibration,

shock (impact), ignition protection, water ingress and salt

spray corrosion common on pleasure craft and boats.

Examples of the type of equipment suitable for the UL Marine

Mark include alternators, battery chargers/power inverters,

navigation lights, and fuel tanks, filters and pumps.

AR-UL Mark Used in conjunction with the mandatory "S" Mark

of Argentina's National Office of Internal Commerce (Direccion

Nacional de Comercio Interior, or DNCI), the "AR-UL" Mark

indicates a product's compliance with Phase III of Argentina's

Resolution 92/98. Most electrical and electronic products



entering Argentina will have to display the "S" Mark adjacent to

the Mark of an accredited and Recognized third-party

certification organization such as UL de Argentina, S.R.L.

CSA International

Mark Description

The CSA mark may appear alone or with indicators. If it

appears alone, it means that the product is certified for the

Canadian market, to the applicable Canadian standards.

If the CSA mark appears with the indicator "US" or "NRTL" it

means that the product is certified for the U.S. market, to the

applicable U.S. standards.

If this Mark appears with the indicator "C and US" or "NRTL/C"

it means that the product is certified for both the U.S. and

Canadian markets, to the applicable U.S. and Canadian

standards.

CGA "Script"

The Canadian Gas Association (CGA) "Script" for components

of gas appliances and other liquid petroleum products

indicates certification to applicable Canadian standards.

A.G.A. Blue Star

The American Gas Association (A.G.A.) "Blue Star" mark for

gas appliances and other liquid petroleum products indicates

certification to applicable U.S. standards.

CSA Blue Star

The CSA Blue Star Mark for gas appliances and other liquid

petroleum products indicates certification to applicable U.S.

standards.

http://www.csa-international.org/



CGA Blue Flame

The Canadian Gas Association (CGA) "Blue Flame" mark for

gas appliances and other liquid petroleum products indicates

certification to applicable Canadian standards.

CSA Blue Flame

The CSA Blue Flame Mark for gas appliances and other liquid

petroleum products indicates certification to applicable

Canadian standards.

A.G.A. "Script"

The American Gas Association (A.G.A.) "Script" for

components of gas appliances and other liquid petroleum

products indicates certification to applicable U.S. standards.

NEMKO

Mark Description

Shows that the product is Safety Certified and when relevant,

that the product is also compliant with the EMC Directive.

The well-known N-mark is a certification mark based on

Nemko's own testing or results from testing performed by often

laboratory according to multi-national or bi-lateral agreement

or by otherwise Nemko accepted laboratories including all

authorized manufacturers. The mark itself signifies that Nemko

has tested or certified the product according to national

standards official safety regulations in Norway. (which in

principle are equivalent to those of the other European

EU/EEA states)

Shows that the product is tested and certified as above, but

signifies clearly that the product is certified for both safety and

EMC by Nemko or by a Nemko authorized laboratory. In

addition this mark confirms that the product also covers the

EMC Directive, tested by Nemko or Nemko authorized

laboratories.

http://www.nemko.no/



The product is only certified for EMC by Nemko.

Products certified by Nemko may if desired be tagged with the

unique "Nemko Approved" label for use as advertising, shows,

displays packages and also on the actual products.

DEMKO

Mark Description

DEMKO's D-Mark represents electrical product safety for a

great majority of consumers.

The D-Mark demonstrates that, from a safety point of view, the

tested product complies with:

Harmonized standards, e.g. EN/HD

International standards, e.g. IEC

National standards, e.g. DS

Other national standards e.g. American National or UL

Standards

Other relevant parts of the above-mentioned

standards which form part of the basis for certification

e.g. National Deviations.

DEMKO is the Competent Body for the EMC Directive and

performs testing under the EMC Directive. An EMC test, in

addition to an LVD test, at DEMKO gives you the right to use

DEMKO's EMC Mark. The accompanying report can be used

as documentation for CE Marking of your product in

accordance with the EMC Directive. Safety related EMC tests

under the Low Voltage and Machinery Directives should

always be performed either before, or in connection with, EMC

testing under the EMC Directive in order to avoid expensive

double work. EMC testing at DEMKO can be monitored by the

manufacturer so that any problems arising can be dealt with

immediately, or DEMKO can, by agreement with the

manufacturer, make any necessary changes and retest the

http://www.demko.dk/



product.

European EMC Mark

A mark for EMC has been introduced in the 15 most

recognized certification bodies in Europe.

The CCA EMC Mark gives you the possibility to

document that EMC requirement, which can often be

difficult to handle, have been complied with.

The CCA EMC Mark is recognized by the certification

bodies in the 15 countries that recognize each other's

results. Full European recognition is hereby achieved.

The EMC Certificate is always documented by an

accompanying EMC test report.

The EMC Mark can be used together with national

safety marks as well as with the CE Mark.

FIMKO

Mark Description

The SGS Fimko FI mark is a well-known and respected

impartial certification mark indicating the safety and quality of a

product. The FI mark can only be used on products that have a

valid FI certificate granted by FIMKO.

The FI mark can appear on the certified product, in the User‘s

Manual and Installation Guide, in product catalogues and, for

example in newspaper, TV and radio advertisements. Below

the FI mark our slogan ‗safe quality‘ can be used to strengthen

and enhance the value of the mark (see figure). More

information about the use of the FI mark can be found in

FIMKO‘s FI handbook and on a diskette which can be obtained

free of charge.

An EMC certificate issued by FIMKO is a powerful way of

demonstrating the EMC conformity of the product for

international markets. SGS Fimko‘s EMC mark gives added

value and can be used in marketing, for example on the

packaging, in brochures and price lists. EMC certified products

can be browsed on SGS Fimko‘s website under the FI register,

http://www.fimko.com/



product lists. The EMC certificate granted by SGS Fimko

requires that testing is carried out according to European

standards or in a testing laboratory assessed and approved by

SGS Fimko.

SGS Fimko‘s EMC mark can be granted to all products which

are in accordance with European standards, for example

household appliances, switches for household appliances,

lighting fittings, measurement instruments, electro medical

equipment, IT equipment, office machines, hand-held tools

and consumer electronics.

SEMKO

Mark Description

The S marking, which is voluntary today, means that SEMKO

as an impartial testing laboratory certifies that the product

fulfils valid safety requirements.

The safety requirements include checking of e.g.

electrical safety

fire protection

mechanical hazards

radiation risks, e.g. of CD players and solaria

VARIOUS

Mark Description

The CE-marking is the manufacturer's statement to the EU

authorities that his product complies with all relevant CE-

marking Directives. It is important to emphasize that the CE-

marking is not a quality mark or a guarantee to consumers in

EU.

The manufacturer is always responsible - within or outside EU

- for CE-marking. If the manufacturer is not located in EU, he

can authorize a representative located in EU who thus

becomes responsible for CE-marking. The representative's

duties and responsibilities must be agreed in writing. Importers

not authorized by the manufacturer must keep his

documentation in safekeeping in EU for ten years after the last

http://www.semko.se/



production date. Please bear in mind, that the importer may

always be held responsible for the documentation.

ENEC is an abbreviation for "European Norms Electrical

Certification". These four letters are part of the registered trade

mark that demonstrates that a product has been certified by

one of the national certification institutes in Europe. Today,

there are 18 certification institutes who are signatories to the

agreement. Apart from the ENEC Mark itself, there is also a

two digit number that indicates which certification body has

issued the ENEC Certificate.

The ENEC Agreement was originally (in 1991 under the name,

the LUM Agreement) started with a view to providing

manufacturers of luminaries with a joint European certification

mark to replace all the different national marks. In 1999, the

agreement was expanded to include:

Lighting

Components for lamp holders

IT

Electric office equipment

Safety isolating transformers

Isolating transformers and separating transformers

Power supply units

Switches

The GS-Mark is the German national mark that demonstrates

that a product has been tested and found to comply with the

standards for the product. The GS-Mark is to Germans what

the Danish D-Mark is to Danes. The GS-Mark is very well

recognized by German consumers; so well recognized that

certain products are nearly impossible to sell without the GS-

Mark.

For manufacturers and importers wishing to sell their electrical

products in Germany, it is a good idea to have a GS-Mark.



There are three particular areas where a GS-Mark is nearly a

necessity: tools, IT equipment and electro medical equipment.

Manufacturers of tools often have a hard, if not impossible,

time selling their products in Germany without a GS-Mark

because such marking is supported by consumers and the

trade unions. IT equipment is also affected by the requirement

for GS-Marking; the mark is a requirement if you wish to sell

major companies or institutions.

The third area where the GS-Mark is particularly important is

electro medicine because a GS-Mark is a prerequisite for a

grant to the institution in question from the German authorities.

Keymark is a European safety mark identical to the well-known

systems on which the existing European CCA system is built.

Some of the most important criteria for testing products under

the CCA rules are: factory inspection, random sample

supervision and testing performed by testing institutes of equal

standing. Market supervision is performed, i.e. products are

periodically sampled from the market for examination in

accordance with the procedures applied by the individual

countries' national bodies. The testing institute responsible for

issuing the Keymark is identified by means of a numerical

code which constitutes part of the Keymark itself.

Institute für Software, Elektronik, Bhantechnik

The NOM Mark is the Mexican product safety mark. Our

Mexico City laboratory is an accredited SECOFI laboratory -

however, you can receive testing from any one of our

laboratories to receive this certification.

Warnock Mark represents compliance to United States and/or

Canadian product safety standards. The Warnock Hersey

Mark can be found mainly on fire doors, sealed insulated

glass, building materials and gas and oil fired products, like

hearth products.

http://www.iseb.com/



The GOST R certification mark is part of the mandatory

Russian Certification system.

ETL Listed Mark

ETL Listed Mark represents compliance to United States

and/or Canadian product safety standards. You will find the

ETL Listed Mark on electrical- gas-or oil- fired products.

For the United States, we are recognized by Occupational

Safety Hazards Association (OSHA) as a National Recognized

Testing Laboratory (NRTL). Click on the NRTL link to view the

scope of recognition (the list of standards, sites, and programs

that OSHA has recognized us for). In Canada, we are

accredited by the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) as a

Testing Organization and a Certification Organization.

ENERGY STAR is the symbol for energy efficiency. It's a label

-- created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and

the U.S. Department of Energy -- to help consumers save

money and prevent air pollution.

An appliance or product with the ENERGY STAR label means

that it's in the top of its class for energy efficiency. Products

that meet EPA and Department of Energy efficiency criteria

qualify as ENERGY STAR. Consumers save money with

ENERGY STAR products because they use less energy than

conventional products and cost less to operate. ENERGY

STAR products also offer the same or often better

performance and features as conventional products

Management System Certification

There are several approaches to improve the system in terms of quality, time, cost and resources

spent which are the key factors influencing customer satisfaction and Business. Some of them are

presented here.

Six Sigma: Structures data driven methodology for eliminating defects, waste and QC problems in

manufacturing, service delivery and management incorporating DMAIC process Define, Improve,

Measure, Control, Analyze, Standardize.

http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl





Total Quality Management: An approach for effective management of an enterprise through focus

on people and processes for customer driven leadership. The foundation of TQM being continuous

improvement, it incorporates the concept of Product Quality, Process Control, Quality Assurance and

Quality Improvement.

Kaizen: Revolutionary Japanese concept of ongoing continuous improvement involving all members

of team. This is an investment turn around maverick a panacea for bringing about change through

continuous improvement.

BPR: Business process Re- engineering a fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business

process to achieve dramatical improvements in critical measures of performance including cost quality

services and speed.

TPM: Total Productive Maintenance is series of methods to ensure that every machine in a production

process is always able to perform to required tasks so that production is never interrupted.

Quality Circles and 5S Implementation: Work Place Improvement through a small group of people

from the same work area bringing about structures problem solving deploying 7QC tools and 7 New

QC tools with practice of 5S concept and PDCA Process.

Lean Manufacturing: Philosophy of efficiency aimed at shortening the time between order and

delivery by eliminating waste.

JIT: Just-in Time, a system for producing and delivering the right items at the right time in the right

amounts.

Kanban: One of the primary tools of JIT system. It signals a cycle of replenishment for production and

material through effective visual control.

QFD: Quality Function Deployment a visual decision marking procedure for multi- Skilled project

teams which develops a common understanding of the voice of the customer and a consensus on the

final engineering specifications of the product.

Waste Elimination: Seven Type of Mudas (Waste) Overproduction Waiting Unnecessary Transport

Over Processing Inventories More than the Absolute Minimum, Unnecessary Movement, Production

of Defective arts. Identification & Elimination of these Mudas.

TAKT Time: Time synchronization on customer demand

SMED: Single Minute Exchange of Dies

Poke Yoke: Way to ensure mistake proofing to prevent reoccurrences of defect.



Lean Six Sigma: is a business improvement methodology which combines (as the name implies)

tools from both Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma. Lean manufacturing focuses on speed and

traditional Six Sigma focuses on quality. By combining the two, the result is better quality faster.

FMEA, EVA, Balance Score Card, SWOT Analysis, Strategic Business Planning, Benchmarking

Studies, Climate Surveys.

Country Specific National Standard Institutes

National standards organizations

Algeria - IANOR - Institut Algerien de Normalisation

Argentina - IRAM - Instituto Argentino de Normalizacion

Armenia - SARM - National Institute of Standards and Quality

Australia - SAI - Standards Australia International

Austria - ON - Austrian Standards Institute

Bangladesh - BSTI - Bangladesh Standards and Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institutio

Belarus - BELST - Committee for Standardization, Metrology and Certification of Belarus

Belgium - IBN - The Belgian Institution for Standardization

Bolivia - IBNORCA - Instituto Boliviano de Normalizacien y Calidad

Bosnia and Herzegovina - BASMP - Institute for Standards, Metrology and Intellectual

Property of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Brazil - ABNT - Associao Brasileira de Normas Tecnicas

Brunei Darussalam - CPRU - Construction Planning and Research Unit, Ministry of

Development

Bulgaria - BDS - Bulgarian Institute for Standardization

http://www.ianor.org.dz/

http://www.iram.com.ar/

http://www.sarm.am/

http://www.standards.com.au/

http://www.on-norm.at/

http://www.bstibd.org/

http://www.gosstandart.gov.by/

http://www.ibn.be/

http://www.ibnorca.org/

http://www.basmp.gov.ba/

http://www.basmp.gov.ba/

http://www.abnt.org.br/

http://www.mod.gov.bn/

http://www.mod.gov.bn/

http://www.bds-bg.org/



Canada - SCC - Standards Council of Canada

Chile - INN - Instituto Nacional de Normalizacion

China - SAC - Standardization Administration of China

China - CSSN - China Standards Information Center

Colombia - ICONTEC - Instituto Colombiano de Normas Tecnicas y Certificacion

Costa Rica - INTECO - Instituto de Normas Tecnicas de Costa Rica

Croatia - DZNM - State Office for Standardization and Metrology

Cuba - NC - Oficina Nacional de Normalizacion

Czech Republic - CSNI - Czech Standards Institute

Denmark - DS - Dansk Standard

Ecuador - INEN - Instituto Ecuatoriano de Normalizacion

Egypt - EO - Egyptian Organization for Standardization and Quality Control

El Salvador - CONACYT - Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia

Estonia - EVS - Eesti Standardikeskus

Ethiopia - QSAE - Quality and Standards Authority of Ethiopia

Finland - SFS - Finnish Standards Association

France - AFNOR - Association Francaise de Normalisation

Germany - DIN - Deutsches Institut für Normung

Greece - ELOT - Hellenic Organization for Standardization

Grenada - GDBS - Grenada Bureau of Standards

Guatemala - COGUANOR - Comision Guatemalteca de Normas

Guyana - GNBS - Guyana National Bureau of Standards

Hong Kong - ITCHKSAR - Innovation and Technology Commission

Hungary - MSZT - Magyar Szabvnygyi Testlet

Iceland - IST - Icelandic Council for Standardization

http://www.scc.ca/

http://www.inn.cl/

http://www.sac.gov.cn/

http://www.cssn.net.cn/

http://www.icontec.org.co/

http://www.inteco.or.cr/

http://www.dznm.hr/

http://www.nc.cubaindustria.cu/

http://www.csni.cz/

http://www.ds.dk/

http://www.inen.gov.ec/

http://www.eos.org.eg/

http://www.conacyt.gob.sv/

http://www.evs.ee/

http://www.qsae.org/

http://www.sfs.fi/english.html

http://www.afnor.fr/

http://www2.din.de/

http://www.elot.gr/

http://www.spiceisle.com/homepages/gdbs/

http://www.mineco.gob.gt/

http://www.sdnp.org.gy/gnbs/

http://www.info.gov.hk/itc/

http://www.mszt.hu/

http://www.stadlar.is/



India - BIS - Bureau of Indian Standards

Indonesia - BSN - Badan Standardisasi Nasional

Iran - ISIRI - Institute of Standards and Industrial Research of Iran

Ireland - NSAI - National Standards Authority of Ireland

Israel - SII - The Standards Institution of Israel

Italy - UNI - Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione

Jamaica - JBS - Bureau of Standards, Jamaica

Japan - JISC - Japan Industrial Standards Committee

Jordan - JISM - Jordan Institution for Standards and Metrology

Kazakstan - KAZMEMST - Committee for Standardization, Metrology and Certification

Kenya - KEBS - Kenya Bureau of Standards

Republic of Korea - KATS - Korean Agency for Technology and Standards

Kuwait - KOWSMD - Public Authority for Industry, Standards and Industrial Services Affairs

Kyrgyzstan - KYRGYZST - State Inspection for Standardization and Metrology

Latvia - LVS - Latvian Standard

Lebanon - LIBNOR - Lebanese Standards Institution

Lithuania - LST - Lithuanian Standards Board

Luxembourg - SEE - Service de l'Energie de l'Etat, Organisme Luxembourgeois de

Normalisation

Malaysia - DSM - Department of Standards Malaysia

Malta - MSA - Malta Standards Authority

Mauritius - MSB - Mauritius Standards Bureau

Mexico - DGN - Direccion General de Normas

Moldova - MOLDST - Department of Standardization and Metrology

Morocco - SNIMA - Service de Normalisation Industrielle Marocaine

http://www.bis.org.in/

http://www.isiri.org/

http://www.isiri.org/

http://www.nsai.ie/

http://www.sii.org.il/

http://www.uni.com/

http://www.jbs.org.jm/

http://www.jisc.go.jp/

http://www.jism.gov.jo/

http://www.memst.kz/

http://www.kebs.org/

http://www.ats.go.kr/

http://www.pai.gov.kw/

http://www.kmc.gov.kg/

http://www.lvs.lv/

http://www.libnor.org/

http://www.lsd.lt/

http://www.see.lu/

http://www.see.lu/

http://www.dsm.gov.my/

http://www.msa.org.mt/

http://msb.intnet.mu/

http://www.economia.gob.mx/

http://www.ournet.md/

http://www.mcinet.gov.ma/snima/



Netherlands - NEN - Nederlandse Norm, maintained by the Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut

(NNI)

New Zealand - SNZ - Standards New Zealand

Nicaragua - DTNM - Direccion de Tecnologia, Normalizacion y Metrologia

Nigeria - SON - Standards Organisation of Nigeria

Norway - NSF - Norges Standardiseringsforbund

Oman - DGSM - Directorate General for Specifications and Measurements

Pakistan - PSQCA - Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority

Palestine - PSI - Palestine Standards Institution

Panama - COPANIT - Comision Panameoa de Normas Industriales y Tecnicas

Papua New Guinea - NISIT - National Institute of Standards and Industrial Technology

Peru - INDECOPI - Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y de la Proteccion de la

Propiedad Intelectual

Philippines - BPS - Bureau of Product Standards

Poland - PKN - Polish Committee for Standardization

Portugal - IPQ - Instituto Portuguis da Qualidade

Romania - ASRO - Asociatia de Standardizare din Romania

Russian Federation - GOST-R - State Committee of the Russian Federation for

Standardization, Metrology and Certification

Saudi Arabia - SASO - Saudi Arabian Standards Organization

Serbia and Montenegro - ISSM -Institution for Standardization of Serbia and Montenegro

Seychelles - SBS - Seychelles Bureau of Standards

Singapore - SPRING SG - Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board

Slovakia - SUTN - Slovak Standards Institute

Slovenia - SIST - Slovenian Institute for Standardization

South Africa - SABS - South African Bureau of Standards

http://www.nen.nl/

http://www.nen.nl/

http://www.standards.co.nz/

http://www.mific.gob.ni/

http://www.sononline-ng.org/

http://www.standard.no/nsf/

http://www.mocioman.gov.om/english/index1.asp

http://www.psqca.com.pk/

http://www.psi.gov.ps/

http://www.mici.gob.pa/

http://www.nisit.gov.pg/

http://www.indecopi.gob.pe/

http://www.indecopi.gob.pe/

http://www.bps.dti.gov.ph/

http://www.pkn.pl/

http://www.ipq.pt/

http://www.asro.ro/

http://www.gost.ru/

http://www.gost.ru/

http://www.saso.org.sa/

http://www.jus.org.yu/

http://www.seychelles.net/sbsorg/

http://www.spring.gov.sg/

http://www.sutn.gov.sk/

http://www.sist.si/

http://www.sabs.co.za/



Spain - AENOR - Asociacion Espanola de Normalizacion y Certificacion

Sri Lanka - SLSI - Sri Lanka Standards Institution

Sweden - SIS - Swedish Standards Institute

Switzerland - SNV - Swiss Association for Standardization

Syrian Arab Republic - SASMO - The Syrian Arab Organization for Standardization and

Metrology

Taiwan - BSMI - The Bureau of Standards, Metrology and Inspection

Tanzania - TBS - Tanzania Bureau of Standards

Thailand - TISI - Thai Industrial Standards Institute

Trinidad and Tobago - TTBS - Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Standards

Turkey - TSE - Trk Standardlari Enstits

Uganda - UNBS - Uganda National Bureau of Standards

Ukraine - DSSU - State Committee on Technical Regulation and Consumer Policy of Ukraine

United Kingdom - BSI - British Standards Institute

Uruguay - UNIT - Instituto Uruguayo de Normas Tecnicas

USA - ANSI - American National Standards Institute

USA - NIST - National Institute of Standards and Technology

Venezuela - FONDONORMA - Fondo para la Normalizacion y Certificacion de la Calidad

Viet Nam - TCVN - Directorate for Standards and Quality

Some transnational and continental standards organizations:

CEN - European Committee for Standardization

CENELEC - European Committee for Electro technical Standardization

ETSI - European Telecommunications Standards Institute

Some international standards organizations:

IEC - International Electro technical Commission

http://www.aenor.es/

http://www.naresa.ac.lk/slsi/

http://www.sis.se/

http://www.snv.ch/

http://www.sasmo.org/

http://www.sasmo.org/

http://www.bsmi.gov.tw/

http://www.tbs-tz.org/

http://www.tisi.go.th/

http://www.ttbs.org.tt/

http://www.tse.org.tr/

http://www.unbs.org/

http://www.dstu.gov.ua/

http://www.bsi-global.com/

http://www.unit.org.uy/

http://www.ansi.org/

http://www.nist.gov/

http://www.fondonorma.org.ve/

http://tcvn.gov.vn/

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/cen-d_1087.html

http://www.cenelec.org/

http://www.etsi.org/

http://www.iec.ch/



IEEE - Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers

IETF - Internet Engineering Task Force

ISO - International Organization for Standardization

ITU - The International Telecommunication Union

ITU-R - ITU Radio communications Sector (CCIR)

ITU-T - ITU Telecommunications Sector (CCITT)

IUPAC - International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry

OASIS - Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards

SI - Systéme International d'Unit's (International System of Units)

W3C - World Wide Web Consortium

Accellera - Accellera Organization

http://www.ieee.org/

http://www.ietf.org/

http://www.iso.org/

http://www.itu.int/

http://www.itu.int/

http://www.itu.int/

http://www.iupac.org/

http://www.oasis-open.org/

http://www.bipm.fr/en/si/

http://www.w3.org/

http://www.accellera.org/

Framework on concepts of quality sec- 11 mar2011

Leadership & Management

Transcript of Framework on concepts of quality sec- 11 mar2011