The Quality paradigm has emerged as a significant competitor to the Financial paradigm.  The Financial paradigm says that organizational results are best delivered through the sum of individual rational decisions focused on incremental costs and benefits.  The Quality paradigm agrees that costs and benefits matter, but focuses on the underlying process as the primary driver of minimizing inputs (costs) to produce a given output (benefits).  The Quality paradigm has evolved from the “scientific management” studies of “time and motion”.  It has a process engineering focus, aiming to optimize the relationship between inputs and outputs.  Improvements are inherently valuable, without tallying financial valuations.

The Quality paradigm made progress because its effectiveness in Japanese manufacturing became apparent by the 1970’s.  It also gained favor because Western organizations, relying on the financial decision-making tools, were clearly not delivering optimal results. 

The Quality advocates made five major criticisms of the existing practices.   The practices greatly underestimated the total cost of poor quality at 1-2%, while the total costs ranged from 5-10%.  The financial approach often created a cost reduction mindset when greater opportunities existed for improved revenues and margins through quality products and customer service.   The marginal approach overlooked less material cost reduction opportunities that were very significant in the long-run.  It optimized individual functions, while ignoring connection costs.  It underutilized the assets of workers who could make improvements.  While some of criticisms were misplaced or exaggerated, the Quality Paradigm presented a compelling story that lead to changes.  The new, process-based approach was delivering value that the old approach had missed.

The Quality paradigm delivered several insights that could be repeatedly applied to reduce costs, reduce defects, increase volumes, increase timeliness and better meet customer needs.  First, a controlled system inherently reduces errors and risks and leads to improvements.  Second, examining a whole process in terms of well-defined desired outputs focuses staff on the greatest improvement opportunities.  Third, the key to understanding process failures is through understanding the drivers of variability.  Fourth, variability naturally accumulates through a process, leading to greater defects and costs.  Fifth, inventory of time and goods hides current performance and improvement opportunities.  Sixth, there is no practical limit to the improvements possible in reducing variation, reducing defects or improving input/output ratios.  Seventh, a quantum leap process break-through is usually possible.  Eighth, in the long-run quality improvements usually have a net benefit, rather than a net cost.

In the last two decades the Quality paradigm has come to complement the Financial paradigm, leading to a balanced scorecard approach to strategic planning with both financial and operations measures in the performance dashboard.  Finance continues to emphasize costs and benefits while Quality focuses on the underlying processes.  This combination approach is delivering more valuable results for most firms today.