Whenever we talk about the first of Philip Crosby’s Absolutes of Quality Management – "quality is conformance to requirements, not goodness", a common question asked is: "Isn’t that just a mediocre performance?" A similar question asked is: "Shouldn’t we be exceeding requirements?"

The questions are legitimate and they reflect the need to be competitive in today’s marketplace. If we were not doing better than our competitors, where would we be? If we were not able to do things better, faster and cheaper, we would be left behind.

The first Absolute is the way quality is defined – as "conformance to requirements". It is not a performance standard.

It is easy to think that this definition can work against an organisation as people may then stop being creative and innovative. People may not do more than what is required and therefore become mediocre and non-competitive.

"Conformance to requirements" as a principle forces us to establish and communicate requirements clearly before we start pouring resources into work. It forces us to answer the fundamental question in all work situations – "what does the customer want?" After that is settled, our responsibility then is to deliver according to what was agreed.

"Exceeding requirements", at first glance, sounds a reasonable thing to do in business. We can be more attractive to our customers if we deliver more than expected. There is, however, a danger in this. When we ‘exceed", we may move away from the "right" requirements. It may not be what the customer wants (eg: extra sugar for a diabetic). It will also increase cost to us as supplier, and therefore less profit.

As for the worker, when should he or she stop "exceeding"? If a thousand workers exceed agreed or expected requirements everyday, what would happen?

Back to the duality in "conformance to requirements". There is the sense of discipline and rigidity on the one hand, as mentioned above. On the other hand, there is a tremendous dynamism in:

Requirements are not static. They change all the time. The requirements you conform to a year ago, a week ago, a day ago or a few hours ago may not be relevant now. We need to review and refresh our requirements regularly, if not constantly. As things become more competitive, we need to create and innovate to get new requirements, and lead the market. The IT industry is all about smashing borders continuously.

We would be considered less than mediocre if we hang on to existing requirements for too long. Sticking to requirements could make us dinosaurs. Success in competition is about working with the "right requirements" – and challenging them all the time.

Dynamism is also found in the way we conform to agreed requirements. That is, how we do things. Imagination, creativity and innovation would be required to determine faster, better, cheaper, and safer ways to achieve conformance to requirements.

We would be mediocre if all we do is unthinkingly conform in the same old ways to requirements that we do not challenge. We may even bring our company down if we collectively work with that attitude. We will also be mediocre if our requirements or the processes we use to meet them are mediocre.

We can shine gloriously in the eyes of the marketplace if we conform in the most economical and the cleverest of ways to the most correct and most attractive of requirements.

However, the DEFINITION of quality remains unchanged – conformance to requirements.