5 Steps to Shift from Reactive to Proactive Quality Management
You don’t build a proactive quality culture with one big fix. You do it by shifting small habits, priorities, and conversations.
I recently spoke with Atty Chakraborty, a Quality Systems Engineer at Analog Devices. She was also named Quality Magazine’s 2025 Rookie of the Year.
She shared how she moved her team from reacting to issues as they came up to planning ahead and preventing them.
This shift did not happen through a single mandate, but through six months of getting people on board and talking openly about the goals.
She managed this without overwhelming her team or burning bridges. She taught her team to work through problems instead of handing them answers. That shift made improvements stick.
Here are the steps from our conversation that any quality leader can apply to start making this change.
Step 1: Diagnose the Firefighting Trap
Before any change was possible, Atty Chakraborty had to recognize the patterns of reactive work. Her early days were defined by ad hoc requests and constant interruptions. She described it as a “reactive fire mode where things pop up and they have to be handled immediately.”
This state is familiar with manufacturing quality. It means your team spends its days responding to failures and audits, not preventing them. You facilitate solutions for others instead of building their capability to solve problems themselves.
Several signs indicate you are in this trap. One is resource fluidity. “If you look at the typical Six Sigma process, you would think that it’s easy to get resources and that they would commit before starting the project,” Atty noted. “However, in reality, there is a high chance that it will change. People will get moved into more urgent things.”
Another sign is a focus on compliance over usability. Atty observed processes that “were meeting our compliance needs, but not the best to work with.” When a process is only judged on whether it passes an audit, rather than how it helps engineers do their jobs better, it remains a source of recurring friction. This cycle keeps the quality team in a perpetual firefighting role.
Step 2: Map the Mess with a Quality Plan
Before any change was possible, Atty Chakraborty had to recognize the patterns of reactive work. Her early days were defined by ad hoc requests and constant interruptions. She described it as a “constant scramble to deal with whatever came up next.”
This state is familiar in manufacturing quality. It means your team spends its days responding to failures and audits, not preventing them. You step in to fix problems instead of helping others learn how to do it.
Several signs indicate you are in this trap. One is people being pulled off projects midstream. “If you look at the typical Six Sigma process, you would think that it’s easy to get resources and that they would commit before starting the project,” Atty noted. “However, in reality, there is a high chance that it will change. People will get moved into more urgent things.”
Another red flag: meeting audit requirements while ignoring how the process actually works for the team.
Atty observed processes that “were meeting our compliance needs, but not the best to work with.” If passing an audit is the only measure of success, the process stays clunky and frustrating. That loop traps the quality team in constant reaction mode.
Step 3: Prioritize Ruthlessly Using the Eisenhower Matrix
Without a way to sort them, a long list of issues can freeze progress. Atty Chakraborty introduced the Eisenhower Matrix to her workflow.
This tool categorizes tasks by urgency and importance. She sorted items into what must be done now, what could be scheduled later, and what was simply nice to have.
Laying it out visually helped leaders see what mattered most. Atty presented the categorized matrix to management and stakeholders and asked if they agreed with her assessments. This created a shared understanding of where to focus efforts first.
Tying quality work to business priorities helped justify where resources should go. Atty found that breaking down actions by priority and linking them to specific stakeholder roles strengthened her case.
She said, “If you can break down the actions in your quality plan by priority and identify what role each person has in executing that high-priority task, then it’s much easier to convince management why they should be on your plan instead of doing something else.” It showed how the quality plan pushed company goals forward.
Sorting tasks clearly made it easier for others to trust the plan. With a shared framework, decisions felt less personal and more grounded.
Step 4: Over-Communicate Progress, On Purpose
It’s easy to lose people’s attention. Atty Chakraborty addressed this by scheduling monthly update calls without exception.
These meetings weren’t reserved for major milestones. They happened consistently, even when progress was incremental. That steady cadence helped keep the work in focus.
Staying in touch regularly changes how people see the project. Atty observed that a project’s success is not just about meeting deliverables. It’s also about how engaged people feel with what’s happening.
“A lot of the things of a successful project is actually the impression of it,” she said. Regular updates build a perception of steady momentum, which in turn builds confidence in the initiative.
Just showing up builds trust. Atty found that the only way to maintain engagement was to show steady progress. “You just need to keep them informed and in the loop as you go ahead,” she explained, “so that they don’t feel that the project is stagnating.” Being present shows you’re dependable and open to input, which helps weather delays.
Step 5: Elevate the Standard Through Culture, Not Compliance
The final shift makes quality part of how the team works—not just something checked at the end. Atty Chakraborty saw this happen through the CAPA process.
It shifted from fixing errors to making the product better. She described guiding engineers to “think about uncharted territory, which they’ve not thought about before.”
This turned CAPAs into a chance to build stronger systems. Instead of focusing solely on containment and correction, the investigation spurred preventive thinking.
“When a defect arises, you can think about the other places where it has arisen,” Atty explained. This encourages engineers to proactively identify potential failure points and strengthen the design.
Raising the bar on quality checks helped shift the mindset. Atty gave an example of instituting a “95% defect-free” requirement. That target made people ask why they were aiming higher—and how to meet it.
They stopped asking, “is this just enough to get us out into the market?” to “is this something that is going to make us stand out?” That’s how quality becomes part of the design, not an afterthought.
Driving Better Results with Smarter Workflow Updates
These steps aren’t just tactics to try. They reflect a deeper shift in how teams think about quality. Moving from firefighting to planning depends on that mindset shift.
Atty didn’t wait for a mandate to begin this transformation. She earned trust by staying organized, communicating clearly, and reading the room. Her approach showed that real change happens when processes work for both the people using them and the goals they serve.
For more on how Atty handles the nuances of CAPA culture, stakeholder dynamics, and long-term quality planning, listen to the full episode of the podcast.
