The concept of Quality 4.0 has been a topic of discussion for evaluating the effectiveness of applying digitization in Industry 4.0 processes. Digitization has been recognized as a practical concept related to various forms of data gathering, data analysis, and data based process implementation, evolving through the past decade. It is interesting that now that we are more than 10 years into the practical data focused concept of Industry 4.0, a needed working definition and applicable body of knowledge formally recognized as Quality 4.0 has failed to be developed.

My involvement with the challenge of defining a Quality 4.0 body of knowledge began nearly four years ago. The research I performed has yielded interesting information about Quality 4.0. There is an industry consensus that Quality 4.0 does exist, but when tasked with providing a clear explanation, differing perspectives emerge. In this article, I am sharing an update of my progress on this quest to develop a practical Quality 4.0 body of knowledge.

The suffix of 4.0 was first introduced in relation to Industry 4.0. It is intended to communicate the current state of the functional area of industry. Since this inception, other functional areas such as IT, HR, and even sub functions such as nondestructive testing have focused on their current practical applications with the suffix 4.0. For this article, these 4.0 concepts are only noted. They have not been thoroughly examined in depth for any common elements. Identifying a body of knowledge for Quality 4.0 remains my sole challenge.

The draft of a practical Quality 4.0 working definition has undergone several iterations. Even after years of development, the macro approach to this topic has recently been revised to approach Quality 4.0 the perspective of “innovation.” ASQ has taken the lead in approaching this topic from the perspective of innovation. I hesitate to include a Quality 4.0 definition in this article because there are currently several in existence and there will most likely be additional revised definitions soon.

Leadership

Although the definitions of Quality 4.0 continue to evolve, there are a couple of basic concepts which remain constant. These concepts are leadership and people. These two critical elements of a Quality 4.0 management system need to be examined in detail.

Through the evolution of Quality, especially Quality 3.0, where the major quality revolution began in the 1980’s, leadership remained first and foremost for a successful quality management system. Leaders in the Quality 3.0 era had the advantage of contemporary go-to sources for advice. These go-to sources consisted of two world leaders, for management there was Peter Drucker and for quality, W. Edwards Deming. They were available to share their wisdom and provide advice as leadership encountered problems with quality system implementation.

With the passing of Deming and Drucker, a new generation of recognized subject matter experts evolved. This second generation of experts emerged at the in the first decade of the new millennium. They consisted of Peter Senge and his book “The Fifth Discipline,” Jim Collins’s “Good to Great,” and Steven Covey’s “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.” These authors helped to support the maturation of Quality 3.0 from a production process only focused on quality to a cross-functional application which includes all processes of the entire organization.

Industry 4.0 emerged in the second decade of the new millennium. After a full decade, a leader for the Quality 4.0 era has yet to materialize. The Quality 4.0 concept is developing in many diverse subject areas, such as IT where the approach is very technology focused and the concepts are not generally applicable to every industry. Many of the service industries continue to rely to a large degree on effective human interactions. Deming and Druker both believed in the value and contribution of the human element to any process and their thoughts related to human capital today would be appreciated by 2024 leadership.

The primary reason for this failure to establish a practical Quality 4.0 body of knowledge from this Industry 4.0 perspective resides with us, the quality professionals. We have not been effective in making our business case known and visible to leadership. Quality has always been a reactive practice to solve problems and improve processes, when necessary, not as an everyday activity. We need to make the business case for the value quality can provide clear to leadership. This is easier said than done. It must begin somewhere. Industry 4.0 is taking business processes into new and undefined areas. Opportunities for quality to apply creativity and innovation to establish new processes with a foundation for continuous improvement exist. When the value of quality can be explained as bottom line profits, leadership will listen. This concept of bottom-line profit was not well communicated as Quality 3.0 reached its maturity.

People

The second basic concept for success in Industry 4.0, people, was also critical to success in Industry 3.0. There is a significant amount of published literature currently addressing the topic of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its interaction with people. These two topics are frequently addressed together as AI continues to replace repetitive processes. ASQ has identified AI as a new “tool” of quality. Recently a world recognized entrepreneur stated that AI will soon replace humans for all the manufacturing and repetitive service industry jobs.

As I continue to gather information on this topic of AI, many aspects of the developing approaches are troublesome. Several recent quality focused webinars and papers discussed differing perspectives of AI. The presenters have a consensus that AI will not replace all the human elements for repetitive service and manufacturing jobs. Published research data is not currently available to back these anecdotal comments from subject matter experts. If Deming and Drucker were alive today, what would their perspective be related to AI and the human element? Would they be willing to change their position of the value of the human element in processes? I don’t want to speak for them, but my thoughts are that they would be issuing us a caution to not be over relying on AI for solving problems and process improvement. Deming might be viewing AI as a substitution for the concept of management, the area 40 years ago where he identified that most problems in processes reside.

Recognizing AI as a tool can be problematic and a topic for debate. Is AI a tool? Or is it a methodology? This perception is like discussions that took place in the 1990s about Six Sigma. Is Six Sigma a tool? Or is it a methodology? The Six Sigma sessions I attended on this topic were very informative and thought provoking.

AI has yet to produce much in the way of new information. There exist volumes of data which are history. This past data can be accurately collected, and basic analytics can be performed by computers, but the development of completely new concepts or ideas from this data still requires human interactions for applying creativity and innovation. The billionaire entrepreneur that made the statement about AI replacing all service and manufacturing jobs should do a self-evaluation. He would not have a billion-dollar business if he relied on existing AI to make his business decisions.

Quality 4.0 is not a simple concept or idea. There is more to it than can be briefly discussed in a single article. Each organization should perform a self-evaluation of where they are in relation to their products or services and their customers. The traditional quality tools that have been in place, along with proven quality methodologies, such as PDCA, can begin this journey of self-discovery. Leadership is necessary to set these activities in motion and provide visible support for people to make this journey a success.

Leadership is not possible without people following. They require being motivated by a human leader. Leading a team of computers is not a definition of leadership. Computers will only react as they are programmed and evaluate what data is made available to them.   The human element has no structured boundaries. The human element is limitless with effective motivation by leaders. Quality 4.0 requires organizations to have leadership in place with a vision of the future. These leaders need to utilize the human capital to develop tactics for achieving these objectives. Quality 4.0 is not all that mysterious and complex if basic quality planning concepts are applied.