Today, while wandering around the forum, I accidentally came across a post that was quite worthy of discussion. The post revolved around whether to prioritize rectifying minor issues or major issues after a quality internal audit. This topic instantly piqued my interest and prompted me to put some of my inner thoughts into writing and record them to share with everyone.
As an economic entity, the core goal of a company is self-evident, which is to make profits. Pursuing maximum profit is the dream that every company has harbored since its establishment. Naturally, the improvement and enhancement of quality and quality capability should also be carried out closely around this core goal. When it comes to the pursuit of quality capability, it is not the case that the higher, the better, nor the lower, the better. Either too high or too low quality capability is like a hidden reef for a company, posing considerable potential hazards.
When a company blindly pursues an excessively high quality capability, it may seem that the product quality has been significantly improved, but there is actually a huge cost pressure behind it. In order to meet extremely high quality standards, the company needs to be extremely selective in the choice of raw materials, which will undoubtedly greatly increase the procurement cost of raw materials. During the production process, it may be necessary to invest more manpower for meticulous operations and strict quality control, and the labor cost will also rise accordingly. At the same time, the purchase and maintenance of advanced production equipment and testing instruments are also a considerable expense. As a result, the company's total cost increases significantly, while the selling price of the product may not increase in sync with the increase in cost, which directly leads to a decrease in profit. If this situation continues, the company's burden will become increasingly heavier. Just like a traveler carrying a heavy burden, it will find it extremely difficult to move forward on the road of market competition.
On the contrary, if a company's quality capability is too low and it is difficult to guarantee product quality, it will surely lose its competitiveness in the market. Low - quality products may frequently malfunction and have problems, leading to a sharp decline in customer satisfaction, which in turn affects the company's reputation. Once customers lose confidence in the company's products, they will switch to products of other competitors, and the company's market share will gradually shrink. Moreover, low - quality products often can only stay in the low - end market and have difficulty entering the high - end market to obtain higher profits. This state of stagnation will seriously affect the company's long - term development and may even cause the company to be eliminated in the fierce market competition.
Since neither excessively high nor excessively low quality capabilities are advisable, then what kind of state should the overall quality level of the company be maintained in? Starting from the actual situation, if a suitable level has to be defined for the quality level, I think it is more appropriate to maintain it at a below - medium level. Although such a quality level may not fully meet the requirements of some high - standard goals, it has obvious advantages at this stage. On the one hand, it will not generate a large amount of unnecessary waste and additional costs like pursuing overly high quality. The company can reasonably allocate limited resources to other more needed areas, such as market expansion and technology R & D. On the other hand, the below - medium quality level can also meet the basic needs of most customers to a certain extent, ensuring that the company can maintain a certain market share and business volume. This relatively stable development model is like a ship sailing on a calm sea. Although the speed may not be the fastest, it can steadily sail towards the destination. Of course, my having such a view may not be unrelated to my personal mentality of seeking stability.
The company I'm currently working for is in the development stage after its start-up. At this stage, the company needs to accumulate both funds and experience, and also gradually build its brand image in the market. Maintaining a below-average quality level allows the company to reasonably control costs while ensuring the basic quality of its products, providing a solid economic foundation for the company's further development. Meanwhile, it can also avoid the risks and pressures brought by excessive pursuit of high quality, enabling the company to move forward steadily and gradually enhance its strength and competitiveness.