Is Total Quality Management Right for Your Organization?

Organizations who implement Total Quality Management change their culture from a reactive to a proactive focus. Customer requirements are clearly understood and met every time. Employees are given tools to find the root cause of problems and techniques to eliminate them forever. The results are: increased customer satisfaction, reduced operating costs, improved employee morale, and greater competitive edge.

How is the Health of Your Organization?

1. Do your people know who their internal suppliers and customers are and know their requirements?
2. Do your people provide clear requirements to their internal suppliers?
3. Do your people demand clear requirements from their internal customers?
4. Are key work processes documented?
5. Do your people measure and track results of key work processes?
6. Do your people use a systematic, fact based analysis to determine root cause of problems?
7. Do your people meet regularly in work groups to address quality problems and continuous improvement opportunities?
8. Do your people consider continuous improvement as part of their job responsibilities?
9. Do your people strive to meet requirements every time and not to accept defects as inevitable?
10. Do your people participate on cross functional teams to resolve organization problems?

A Total Quality Management System Consists of:

1. An organization, run by senior management initially, to manage the implementation of a TQM system including:

o awareness training for all employees,
o measurement of processes out of control and their related cost,
o education of all employees on the tools of TQM,
o a problem elimination system.

A group of six to eight executives meets periodically to measure the progress of the system.

2. Training for all employees on awareness and the tools of TQM. Internal or external trainers can complete this task for a 200 person organization is two months.

Application of the tools and techniques of Quality:

o identifying customer requirements,
o measurement, quantification of the price of non-quality,
o identifying the root cause of problems,
o and problem elimination.

Five one hour sessions are run by your organizations' supervisors.

3. A typical implementation takes six months but is easily tailored to the needs of any organization.

The Benefits of a TQM System are:

1. Your people will know their internal suppliers and customers and what their requirements are. This will improve communication and reduce finger pointing.

2. Since requirements, internal and external, will be clearly understood and documented, your people will be able to deliver defect free products or services. Your training costs will go down and employee morale will rise.

3. All key work processes will be documented and updated as requirements change. Your people will know what to do, when to do it, and how to do their jobs resulting is reduced rework, less turn over and improved morale.

4. The measurement and tracking of errors will help to reduce them by focusing attention on them. What people track they attack.

5. Employees usually know what their problems or hassles are - they just don't have a systematic way to get at the root causes. Once they do, those problems will be fixed forever and your people can focus on continuous process improvement.

6. People don't accept defects in their personal lives and shouldn't at work. Once this attitude is in place, defects will go down along with costs.

7. Some problems are cross functional requiring a team from various departments to do root cause analysis and solution definition. The TQM process provides for techniques to do this effectively.

The Vision of TQM is a brilliant one but implementation can be a real bear. Changing cultures is not easy to do. It requires top management leadership and a proven set of tools and techniques for the organization to achieve success.

Good post. Just ran across it (again) and thought I would add some things (light bulb reminder, so to speak).

Employees are given tools to find the root cause of problems and techniques to eliminate them forever.
Perhaps. However, many organizations would rather delegate this to the ‘quality’ department. Sadly, many do not see root cause analysis as an organizational goal.

Do your people know who their internal suppliers and customers are and know their requirements.
Every person in an organization has a customer. If they do not understand this, they do not understand their job.

Changing cultures is not easy to do.
Agreed. A culture is not something that is easily changed. But, it can be accomplished, with leadership.

Thoughts, anyone?

Regards,
Don

[This message has been edited by Don Winton (edited 04-09-99).]

Don,

I saw this post some time ago as well, which was also about the time I discovered the Nine Questions to Drive TQM Processes by Irwin Weimberg (these are posted at the DEN if anyone is interested). I think the two compliment each other. Our CI Steering Committee thought it would be neat to have managers sit with their staff and ask these 9 questions. Pretty interesting answers.

I really like Question 1 in Marc's post. It really causes one to look up and down stream of their activity. The results of asking this question with our groups, folks easily identified their major suppliers/customers. But the minor ones were easily overlooked. In my experience, once you have concluded that you have determined all of them, one pops up that you haven't thought of.

Now that you have identified 'who' you have to identify the 'what'. What are the requirements? Do they change? Under what circumstances does this occur? Wow! It can get pretty deeply nested! Understanding the requirements is essential. I think of the expression "No news is good news" and I think of how wrong it is. Your customer may never complain to you. They may think it isn't their place to. Any chance for a gain in efficiency is lost. What a pity. All because you either didn't think to ask, or, you were too afraid to. Ultimately everyone loses, including yourself.

In my organization, this is how I would answer the 10 questions (arbitrarily calculated and as an organization, not my own department):

1. Yes, but only about 60-65% make this effort.

2. Yes, but only about 33%

3. Yes, but even fewer, only about 20-25%

4. Yes, 90-95% (the work is never quite done)

5. Yes. Difficult to say, but about 80 % of the Key Business Statistics have measurement and reporting systems that do so quarterly.

6. Yes, 75% of decisions are made on quantitative evidence. The rest...gutt feel.

7. Yes, Monthly CI Steering Committee meetings with side project meetings occurring regularly.

8. Yes, but only about 50% or so. Half or so still believe that Quality is the QC departments battle.

9. Yes, but the Zero Defect clause in our Quality Policy still baffles many.

10. Yes, and perhaps this is one of our strongest assets. We may have learned this portion of our culture from our Swedish parent.

While we can answer 'yes' to all the questions, you can easily see that there is plenty of room for improvement. The reasons for such varying percentages are numerous. I feel that as we remain together as a force, we will begin to understand each other better, and improve overall percentages. It is tough for organizations in a volitile state to be cohesive and create the business rapport that is needed for a TQM organization. In my opinion, this is why TQM is hard to foster in an organization in a dynamic state. Poor communication and understanding of requirements.

I wrote an article for our company rag last month entitled "Who is your Customer?" I will be interested to hear feedback on this from my organization over the next couple of weeks (it was released yesterday with the paychecks). It dealt with Customer/Supplier identification and offered two simple question for each to ask the next person in the chain of events; how is the service and what can I do to make it better? Ultimately, everyone wins in this scenario.

Back to the group...

As with other quality initiatives, I believe that a TQM program will usually do more harm than good. for example;
"TQM; An organization, run by senior management initially.."
So senior management drives it for a while and then walks away. Then, in the nature of things, the next level of management walk away because they are keeping their eye on the ball that their bosses are keeping their eye on. How else will they further their careers?
The junior managers likewise.
Supervisors next.
And the line operators etc are told; 'We haven't time for meetings, discussions, analysis and such, keep the numbers rolling'. And, in the context of the late '90s, that is quite true.
For these and other reasons, the enthusiasm will tail off. There will be no cultural change. Even if the idea is good, the implementation is impractical. The last stage of that organisation will be worse than the first because management and quality will have lost credibility.

Apart from the practicalities, I have grave doubts about the viability and rationale of the concept. We don't want operators to measure, graph, report, analyse, discuss. These are non value adding activities and our goal is not to institutionalise them and perpetuate them, but to eliminate them. We do want alert, interested operators, committed to making an excellent contribution above and beyond the normal expectations. We want them to think about their work and understand what is having a bad impact on their output. But that is as far as it goes.
Instead of expecting them to measure, analyse and manage the operation, we would do better to raise our expectations of engineers, managers and supervisors so that they, in turn, learn how to get the best out of the people and the process.
John C


[This message has been edited by John C (edited 04-13-99).]

As with other quality initiatives, I believe that a TQM program will usually do more harm than good.
initiative: n 1: An introductory step 2: energy or aptitude displayed in initiation of action.

The problem with quality ‘initiatives’ lies in the definition itself. Anyone who institutes a quality ‘initiative’ is, correctly, doomed to failure. Systems management is not an initiative, it is an on-going, continuous improvement effort.

TQM; An organization, run by senior management initially..
Without commitment and leadership from senior management, any program will whither and die on the vine, as John correctly stated. Again, the devil is in the details. When a program is run ‘initially,’ it is doomed to failure.

We don't want operators to measure, graph, report, analyse, discuss. These are non value adding activities…
Well, OK I guess. Perhaps they are non value added is because they are not being implemented with improvement in mind. They are implemented as ‘fluff’ and ‘polish’ without regard to improvement at all. As stated in Marc’s original post, employees are given tools to find the root cause of problems and techniques to eliminate them forever. The key words are ‘root cause’ and ‘eliminate them forever.’ Measuring and plotting every five of 100 widgets and declaring them ‘quality’ is bull*hit, pure and simple.

We want them to think about their work and understand what is having a bad impact on their output. But that is as far as it goes.
Interesting concept, but perhaps that is too linear. Think about their work. Absolutely. Understand what is having a bad impact on their output. Without a doubt. But then what! Every employee does not have to be a quality engineer, but every employee should THINK like one. In these times of ‘lean and mean,’ a quality engineering staff may be a luxury. Could not employees who are given tools to find the root cause of problems supplement this.

Just the ramblings of an old Wizard Warrior.

Regards,

Don

So senior management drives it for a while and then walks away. Then, in the nature of things, the next level of management walk away because they are keeping their eye on the ball that their bosses are keeping their eye on. How else will they further their careers?
The junior managers likewise.
Supervisors next.
And the line operators etc are told; 'We haven't time for meetings, discussions, analysis and such, keep the numbers rolling'. And, in the context of the late '90s, that is quite true.
For these and other reasons, the enthusiasm will tail off. There will be no cultural change. Even if the idea is good, the implementation is impractical. The last stage of that organisation will be worse than the first because management and quality will have lost credibility.
John C, sounds like you have or are having a similar experience with this, as I have. Sadly, this rings true here, also, in ISO I might add.

In these times of ‘lean and mean,’ a quality engineering staff may be a luxury. Could not employees who are given tools to find the root cause of problems supplement this.
Don, I wish and had hoped this would be the case. However, it seems the "mind-set" if you will, is to outsource no matter what the differences may be in relation to cost, efficiency, etc. Caring employees still do their utmost to put out the best quality product, but moral erodes when one sees the "handwriting on the wall", and it isn't Mene', Mene', Tekel as Daniel saw once upon a time. (or is it?)

------------------
Dusty Rhoads
(Chief Dummy)

This message has been edited by Dusty (edited 04-13-99).

Climbing onto a soap box:


" We don't want operators to measure, graph, report, analyse, discuss. These are non value adding activities......."

I would like to point out that there are, in my opinion, three categories that activities fall into. Value Added, Non-value Added but necessary, and Non-value added (commonly called waste). Measuring, charting, graphing, inspection, etc. may fall into the middle category, provided that in lieu of not having these activities performed, processes and product may create the third, waste. This is an important consideration.

Educating the work force with tools that are simple to use and deliver a big bang for the buck (makes plain good sense): QE, floor worker, or otherwise, is a MUST in my opinion. What management lacks is commitment. Period. That is why quality initiatives, or any business initiave for that matter, suffer and die painfully. Management expectations are that the ship will steer itself. Pure 'rubbish' (Don's word is cleaner than mine and less offensive). Leadership must come from the top, no excuses. Constancy of Purpose is managements responsibility.

John correctly points out the results of 'false starts' often lead to bad tastes being left in everyones' mouth. It can do more harm than good. Yet there is nothing wrong with the concept itself (personally speaking, until something better comes along or I learn otherwise, it is the only program/concept worth its weight). Management MUST commit to the program and LEAD! There are just too many "blank-it-e-blank" excuses for me. Management should shut up and do the JOB of managing (by fact, not guessing).

Stepping down now.

Back to the group...

P.S. Thanks for letting me vent there.

…sounds like you have or are having a similar experience with this, as I have.

Yea, been there and done that myself.

Caring employees still do their utmost to put out the best quality product, but moral erodes when one sees the "handwriting on the wall"

Agreed. When employees are constantly bombarded by and exposed to the situation that John describes, the ‘why bother’ syndrome usually sets in, or resumes get sent out, one of the two.

I would like to point out that there are, in my opinion, three categories that activities fall into. Value Added, Non-value Added but necessary, and Non-value added (commonly called waste).

Kevin, I like it! I would equate it something like this.

When operators measure, graph, report, analyze and discuss as a effort towards improvement and optimization, the activities are value added (reduce waste).

When operators measure, graph, report, analyze and discuss as a effort towards monitoring with the potential for improvement, the activities are non-value added but necessary (waste remains constant).

When operators measure, graph, report, analyze and discuss as a effort not towards improvement and optimization, the activities are non-value added (increased waste).

Generally speaking, I always question the purpose of the measure, graph, report, analyze cycle when assessing an organization’s readiness, using the (until now undefined) categories above Kevin kindly provided.

Whaddya think?

Educating the work force with tools that are simple to use and deliver a big bang for the buck (makes plain good sense)

Agreed! Utilizing the workforce as the concepts they are ‘drones,’ just following orders, is outdated AND antiquated. After all, when a potential problem is on the horizon, who is the first one to spot it: the worker. Would it not be nice if they were trained in the concepts of problem solving so, being the first to spot, they are also the first to destroy it.

Management MUST commit to the program and LEAD!

Sadly, many can manage, few can lead. It is good to have an end to journey towards; but it is the journey that matters in the end. To successfully complete this type of journey (TQM or whatever), leadership is needed. Period.

There are just too many "blank-it-e-blank" excuses for me.

To that I can add only this:

“Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.”

James Harvey Robinson

To be open to new concepts and ideas, even if they are foreign to you, should be a goal which everyone should strive for. If more managers would only learn that lesson. Then they may become leaders.

Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior.

Regards,
Don

Just in case anyone thinks that I am being slow to adapt to a new, progressive idea, I feel obliged to point out that ten years ago, I was the staunchest supporter of TQM you could meet. Ten years before that I was starry eyed about the contents of RH Caplin's - "A Practical Approach To Quality Control 3rd edition". Over the years I have learned that quality control techniques are dead easy, getting the thing done right is very difficult, while getting the right thing done is damn near impossible.

Regards the the tools that produce the 'bang for the buck'; If the tools haven't been working for the Quality Department - and they usually aren't, then they won't work for the operators.
A new approach to TQM might be the answer, but it's only good management after all, and that's not new. I suggest the following;
Don't think about TQM until you have a good system, working as intended and producing good results. Introducing TQM into chaos is hardly likely to solve anything.
A lot of the stuff of TQM is excellent. Mostly it's a matter of raising your expectations of the operators/admin operatives and listening to them. Do this with integrity and the way ahead will become obvious. When your expectations are met, then reward them. (Preferably with cash and security. Despite what you hear about motivation, bonuses and golden parachutes are still the preference of the guys at the top - I wonder why.) Don't reward the bad the same as the good - treat them like a herd and they'll act like one.
Don has hit on one very important aspect; 'The initiative'. Give up initiatives. Just start bringing people along. Keep it quiet. Try this and, if it works, try that. Listen to people and ask what their problems are, then give them a hint in fixing them - simple, vital things like adjustments, handling that avoids damage, checking the deliverable as a matter of course - and then leave them to fix them themselves. Never let the supervisor get sidestepped.
Bite the bullet and get into prevention rather than excelling in detection; Direct the engineers into design of experiments and tell the inspectors to pack in what they are doing and help the engineers. This works! Effective analysis is beyond the scope of most quality systems.
Have a bonfire with all the useless data.
When your people are ready, and you're sure it is the right thing at the right time, then you might let them form groups to find out how to move forward into the low hundreds of DPM or into the double figures. It would be an interesting experiment.
Obviously, you'll need saints for managers to maintain this. No problem; Go out and find a bunch of guys who put the long term performance before their short term, personal objectives.
Most of the above is not theory. It's just common sense and good management. Most of what I hear about TQM is theory. Obviously, for TQM to work, it would have to exist in a well managed organisation. Who will come back and tell us they have seen it really working, where the same results or better would not have been achieved by conventional good management and good engineering?
In other words; If you wan't to sell this method, then prove that it is right. Don't rationalise it because, for every positive rationalisation, there's a negative one, plus a lof of painful experience. Can you prove the method works?
rgds, John C

John,

I doubt you are slow. I believe TQM means many different things to many different people. I think that the common thread is that it is a philosophy of Continuous Improvement. This of course can be acheived through a variety of methods and tools, some statistical, some not. In reading your last post, I would agree that the approach, subtle and supportive, is better than having Management come out and state "Tomorrow we start TQM. Any questions?" You will almost always catch more bees with honey than you will with vinegar.

But this is an approach, a style by which an individual may lead. Still, leadership and commitment are essential in achieving results (positive or negative). TQM, or what ever an individual would like to call it, is generally a positive concept (when lead correctly by management). Can I prove the method works? As a matter of personal experience, no. But there are several cases by which we all have read, well documented ones, where the results are virtually indisputable. Once upon a time, they may have convinced you too. Still, as mentioned repeatedly by Don and Marc, labeling a quality program: TQM, ISO, QS or any other is probably pointless. Even more so, trying to live within the guidelines of one without borrowing from the other (especially the good stuff) is also ridiculous. Defining Quality, still more of the same. Quality is what your Customer and you consider it. The 'program' for any organization should be built about these considerations. Adding a label, well, that is up to the individual. For the sake of discussion, labels help to define what it is we speak about. The problem; they are subjective and lead to confusion. Still, open minded folks can reason beyond this haze and make good discussion as we have found here. So, with that said, I will turn it back to the group.

Regards,

Kevin

I will preface this by stating that I also was a proponent of TQM early on. But, over time I began to see cracks in the foundation of this ‘philosophy.’ I believe my particular problem with it was not the concepts or tools, but rather the term itself, particularly ‘quality.’ However, with TQM the label of the times, I rather stuck with that so the everyone would be on the same wavelength. I have since changed my mind, as those who read my stuff know, to a more integrated and systems approach to ‘quality’ management. I even prefer the term ‘quality’ not be used at all. I have evolved, so to speak, but the term TQM itself has not. I came up with a few things like Total Systems Management, An Integrated Approach to Quality and Total Systems Management: An Integrated Approach to Quality. But, even these are somewhat lacking. And besides, it is not the label, but the content that matters. The integrated approach could be said to be hybrid of the current approaches, as I have repeated over and over and Kevin restates above. As such, I am ‘stuck sorta’ with the TQM thing as a label. With that said, on with the show.

Give up initiatives.
I heartily agree. As I stated above, an initiative is an introductory step, a beginning if you will. The problem is that integrated systems management does not have e beginning nor an end. It just ‘is.’

Listen to people and ask what their problems are, then give them a hint in fixing them…
I agree here also. My term for this technique is ‘Teach Them as if You Taught Them Not.’ Rather than state ‘this is how this or that should be done,’ the alternative is to ask ‘What or how do you think a better method is?’ or ‘How did you determine this?’ Through a series of questions in response to prompts from the operators, slowly, surely they develop the techniques they need and they have ownership of it. An example of this process goes something like this (real world):

Operator: This meter is reading off.
Myself: How did you determine this?
Operator: The reading I took on this unit is different than Operator B.
Myself: How many units did you observe this on?
Operator: Just this one.
Myself: Don’t you think that if you collected data on a few more, you might be better able to decide which meter is correct?
Operator: You know, that is probably a good idea.
Myself: Let me know what you find out. I would be interested in the outcome.

My responses above are brief for presentation here. All the while, I am assuring (through verbal prompts and responses) the operator he is indeed on to something that needs to be looked into, the problem has been discovered and should be dealt with. With this one example, I have taught this operator, without his knowledge of, nor with prior experience in statistics, the value of the central limit theorem, common cause variation and simple measurement error analysis. I did not state, “Collect 30 samples of data, bring them to me and I will look into it.” That would be counter-productive. Later on, when he returns with his findings, I will demonstrate these concepts, much in the same fashion, until these three tools are known to him, he knows how to use them and it all is as if he has always known them. For example, I could demonstrate the value of the central limit theorem through the coin toss exercise, and so on. And, he OWNS them. It is his, not mine. Over time, all operators are using these tools, they own them and my firm is better positioned for it.

Effective analysis is beyond the scope of most quality systems.
But not beyond the scope of an integrated approach:

in·te·grat·ed, adj.
1. combining or coordinating separate elements so as to provide a harmonious, interrelated whole: an integrated plot; an integrated course of study.
2. organized or structured so that constituent units function cooperatively: an integrated economy.

…is better than having Management come out and state "Tomorrow we start TQM. Any questions?"
Gads! This really happens? Absolutely! I have seen, up close and personal. A company decides a Quality Management System is needed and decides on the TQM approach. They hire a consultant to train the staff in these concepts. The consultant holds a one-day training session for management and staff. The consultant leaves. Left behind are a bunch of dazed and confused people that have been exposed to YEARS worth of stuff to absorb in one day. The concept failed, miserably. This REALLY happened. It happened to me at a former employer.

Anyway. Enough for now. You guys and gals are probably tired of this by now.

Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior.

Regards,

Don

[This message has been edited by Don Winton (edited 04-14-99).]

A great thread. Within the opinions are experiences. We can all think of the offerings in this thread when we have decisions to make and road maps to define.

When I read through the thread I ask myself what are the commom factors? Common failure modes. Common successes. This thread reinforces again my belief that every company 'has a chance' but success is mostly dependent upon upper management's 'karma'. Benevolent dictatorship comes to mind again and again. But as was mentioned several times, there are many who cannot lead.

How does one 'pilot' a company mixing all the things that each of us are seeking in upper management: Wisdom, common sense, participation. I'm not particularly defending upper management in saying this, but we do ask a lot.

I recall several threads where we have 'come back to these basics' of the role of upper management and how 'they' should act. I can always count Don in to say something to the effect that when continuos improvement is the goal, it is 'worth it' (not Don's words, but essentially this is the idea). I see this as a key as well. When I hear TQM I shudder precisely for the same reason as was pointed out by one of you - each of us sees (defines) TQM differently. Just like Dock Audits in QS9000: One registrar defines it as a complete 100% layout and another simply says you have to show you checked packaging and labeling.

I also use this example as it is when 'upper management' has allowed to pass as a requirement. A simple addition of a statement of the precise expectations (a couple of sentences) would have saved many companies much money and grief. If YOU were responsible for the final OK for QS9000 would YOU have allowed it to be released with consideration to its myriad inconsistencies? Not to mention vision. Look at the lab requirements. DUH. Not enough labs. Not my idea of being perceptive and understanding. To me it's the same as saying "Reduce scrap and implement TQM. Let me know when you're done. Don't ask for time or much money." Umm, well, OK. Be right back.

As far as QS9000 goes (umm, well, this IS QS9000.com), this has been my complaint from the beginning - it has been a "Do this whether it makes sense or not..." approach where this is not well defined (please explain to me again what you want me to do).

But it doesn't stop there. Even expectations and 'knowing what's going on'. I was recently at a QS9000 registered company where a quality engineer told me how his system worked. He said "...the procedure says to do it this way but I have my own way of doing it that's better and faster..." I wonder if the plant manager knows this attitude exists.... This said, it continues to amaze me how many QS9000 registered companies have these personal sub-systems which the people are smart enough to hide when the auditors come. Many of us down below also have our own agenda and often 'fooling the system' becomes as much fun as it is stupid - and this type of failure is not always because the system is unweildy or impossible. Often it is just easier to do it 'our own way'.

To go back a bit I strongly agree with Kevin: Continuous Education of the workforce (to me this is inclusion and the key to empowerment) is essential to success if your definition of success includes workers feeling more like they are in a family with common long term goals rather than an 'employee' whose focus is on whether another company will pay more (constantly looking for a 'way out').

In my opinion, all 'quality' and 'improvement' methodologies offer 'food for thought'. Here is my company. Here are 100 tools. Which ones (sub-set) will I choose to improve the company? Add to that 'attitude' - the part where we start talking about changing the culture. I equate the company 'culture' with top management. They set the tenor to begin with. You can call it changing the culture, but to me it's changing the tenor of upper management and their expectations and their involvement. Don has hit on one very important aspect; 'The initiative'. Give up initiatives. Just start bringing people along. Keep it quiet. Try this and, if it works, try that. Listen to people and ask what their problems are, then give them a hint in fixing them - simple, vital things like adjustments, handling that avoids damage, checking the deliverable as a matter of course - and then leave them to fix them themselves. Never let the supervisor get sidestepped.I see this as very key as well. Might we dare call this Orderly Evolution without scare tactics? BUT - I must also admit I believe many times a 'roll out' is a good idea. I think many times we recall the pain of a 'failed program' and immediately react negatively. We all fail at things in our lives on many different levels. That doesn't mean (at least to me) that we should never try it again. The important thing is that failures are recognized and analyzed (not just by us, but by top management as well) and considered when future 'programs' are 'implemented'. Follow through.

Gotta go grocery store...

How does one 'pilot' a company mixing all the things that each of us are seeking in upper management: Wisdom, common sense, participation.
This is a very good point. All of us here have stated, in one form or another, ‘it has to start at the top’ or something to that effect. But, HOW can it start there? I am not a defender of most management types (even though I am ‘management’ so to speak), but there is a paradox here. How can it come from the top when they do not know. How could they know? Who taught (will teach) them?

While there are some expectations, there are no clear guidelines. How can we (myself included) bash management when they do not know what is expected of them? As for myself, I use the ‘beer and sleep’ analogy. There are those that have had too much beer and not enough sleep and those that have had too much sleep and not enough beer. I (we) have to evaluate and decide which are which and act accordingly.

To me it's the same as saying "Reduce scrap and implement TQM. Let me know when you're done. Don't ask for time or much money." Umm, well, OK. Be right back.
Well, OK indeed! Not just TQM, but ISO and QS also, as you stated. Many (management types) would prefer the ‘just do it’ type of implementation. Sorta sad really. But, as I stated above, how do they know? Someone or something has to change in order for these types to understand! REALLY understand! An extreme paradigm shift is needed. How many of us here have actually REQUIRED upper management of their company to attend a one week course in systems management. I have and it worked! When I started at this firm, my sole task was to register them to ISO 900x and to have them compliant to the FDA’s QSR. Within two months of hire, I required all executive management to attend my one week course and all employees (current and new hires) to attend a two-day introductory course (There are a few examples of my interactive stuff here at the Cove). Attendance was mandatory. They hemmed and hawed, but I insisted. I said, “If you want this, all must understand what is involved.” The ‘Who’s on Trial’ sorta thing, so to speak. Now, they all understand when I state, “Documents shall be approved by the same...,” etc, etc. And, I require a two-day refresher every year for everyone, including executive management.

Now, I realize I am lucky. But, I explained up front (prior to hire) what would be the required method: When it comes to systems management, I would be the last and FINAL word.

Many of us down below also have our own agenda and often 'fooling the system' becomes as much fun as it is stupid - and this type of failure is not always because the system is unwieldy or impossible.
Marc, you have said it, I have said it and many others have said it. Just because a systems management method is needed or required, it does not have to be bureaucratic nor unwieldy. It simply needs to meet the standard’s requirements and the wants and needs of the system. Venn and the Art of Quality, so to speak. When ‘fooling the system’ becomes the norm, it is probably because the implementation is poor. When the implementation is poor, it is probably because those in charge did not understand what was needed (there is a just registered company locally that is a joke. I will expound on that at a later time).

I equate the company 'culture' with top management. They set the tenor to begin with. You can call it changing the culture, but to me it's changing the tenor of upper management and their expectations and their involvement.
Agreed! Management sets the company’s culture. They define the culture, they set the mood, so to speak.

I see this as very key as well. Might we dare call this Orderly Evolution without scare tactics?
That is precisely how I view it. Evolution is the key word. You cannot shock an organization into improving their position. They must be led into the evolution. Possibly through a series of ‘baby’ steps, through leading them by the hand or the ‘teach them as though you taught them not’ type of method. Either would probably work. But, to require an ‘overnight’ change is simply not done and would result in failure.

BUT - I must also admit I believe many times a 'roll out' is a good idea.
Agreed, but only when the roll-out is presented and understood to be an on-going program, not something that would be implemented then forgotten after it becomes too much work, as you presented above.

Gotta go grocery store...
Is it ‘quality’ grocery or ‘compliant’ grocery? :>)

Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior.

Speaking of ramblings, I need an idea for April’s at dWizards Lair. Any suggestions, anyone?

Regards,

Don

When I hear TQM I shudder precisely for the same reason as was pointed out by one of you - each of us sees (defines) TQM differently.

I have re-visited this thread time and again trying to come to some understanding of why these types of things (various interpretations of TQM) exist. Perhaps I am just a little on the phlegmatic side. But yesterday, I had somewhat of an insight, I think, and I thought I would toss it out here for discussion. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is that we do not speak the same language.

When I visit other companies, I ALWAYS see something that appears ‘out of place’ so to speak. Does that mean the company is doing the wrong thing? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps there is a perfectly logical and acceptable reason for this particular area to function as it does. Is it my place to say? There are plenty of times I have pointed out that continuous improvement should be the driving force behind any systems management method. But, what is continuous improvement in their eyes may appear to be a bureaucratic, non-necessary item to mine at the time the observation was made. As I stated above, I am not a supporter of most management types, but I have begun to re-think this issue somewhat. As Marc stated, we do ask a lot and as I stated, how could they know, who taught them?

The insight I mentioned above was this. Yesterday, I happened to be channel surfing and I watched a re-run of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. The episode went something like this:

The episode is titled ‘Darmok.’ Tamarians have been trying to initiate contact with the Federation for years. Once again they initiate contact and the Enterprise is dispatched to try to communicate with the ‘Children of Tama.’ All past attempts at communication so far have failed and the Tamarians have been dubbed ‘incomprehensible.’ When communication again fails, the Tamarians abduct the Enterprise captain, Picard, and along with their own captain, Dathan, maroon them on the planet Eladril, an inhospitable planet that also happens to have a hostile entity as an inhabitant. Faced with a common threat, the two captains pick up from each other and Picard eventually learns enough of the Tamarian language to begin to communicate with them, but at the cost of Dathan’s life.

Another perspective: Quality professionals could be dubbed the Tamarians, isolated and desperate to communicate their ideas and culture to the Federation, dubbed management. All we need is Eladril, a common ground, faced with a common threat. I recommend that quality professionals watch Darmok and see for themselves the barriers involved in getting our ideas and culture across to management, or anyone for that matter.

Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior

Regards,
Don

Don,

I believe common ground is reached when EMERGENCIES exist (the common threat) so speaking the same language (survival) becomes natural. Now the trick: how do groups EMERGE when EMERGENCIES do not force agreement (speaking the same language)?

Now that is what separates the few from the many. This is what I consider to be the "Magic Wand" Marc speaks about now and again. As I see it, senior managers want the wand and ask middle managers (mostly the Quality folks) to find it for them. What hooey! "How could they know? Who taught them?". Deming had it right here. This is why laying blame is less effective than accepting responsiblity, and always easier. Pass the buck, nothing changes. I try to live to this, not laying blame, and it does make it easier to accept things. So how can one be influential enough from the middle to bring about change. So far, the only way I know is the hard way. Like trying to climb a greased pole.

Projection: To lead from the middle, you need to have extreme patience, lots of anedotal stories to speak the multiple 'business' languages, and time. The time factor is the neatest, since in the absence (as forced by an external force) usually brings things and thinking into focus, creating common ground. For each organization, tons of variables enter the formula, and, are different for each. Sorting out the vital few, addressing each in bite sized bits, will make progress provided folks are speaking the same language. Become the linguist, get their attention, make change possible. Why is it so hard? If I knew that (or anything for that matter), I would share it here!

Back to the group...

Don, you may have hit on something. Perhaps quality professionals are really aliens. I know thats how I am treated. http://www.qs9000.com/ubb/smile.gif Also, like the Tamarians, who spoke in simile, metaphor and "kennings," the prelude to modern metaphor, I must be speaking this way. Considering the reactions I get when I say things like continuous improvement, capability, procedures, etc.

Just a silly late night ramble. By the way, the Angle Saxons used kennings to enrich their poetry. The ocean was called a "whale road."

This is why laying blame is less effective than accepting responsibility, and always easier.

To place blame is waste, period. Tribus put it like this, “Those who are the most afraid of sin are those least acquainted with it” or something to that effect. I will probably get hammered for this but, here goes. Are we (myself included) not guilty of the same ‘sin?’ Blaming management for our (myself included) failure to communicate to them a desired objective.

As I stated above, I have been rethinking my position in this area and perhaps I am way off base. If management fails to respond, that is one thing and their responsibility. If they fail to comprehend, that is another issue entirely and the responsibility to assist them in comprehension is ours.

Also, like the Tamarians, who spoke in simile, metaphor and "kennings," the prelude to modern metaphor, I must be speaking this way.

Precisely, Batman. You are speaking in terms that most management types simply do not understand. That was the point I was trying to make. We (quality practitioners) know what the terms mean and how to apply them (hopefully) for improvement; most in management do not know and in some cases simply do not want to learn. This creates the paradox I mentioned. If they do not understand our language and intentions, how can we convince them that the improvements needed are in their best interest? This is what creates the ‘reactions’ you get. They do not understand you! As a beginning to possible solutions to this paradox, I suggest reading Tribus’ CEO Doesn’t Understand and Kerridge’s Worlds of Knowledge, both located at the DEN site.

Everyone agrees that leadership must come from the top. Everyone agrees that a systems management method implemented with the goal of continuous improvement is desirable. And most will agree that most management types are simply not interested (except in the case of Kevin’s Emergency described above). I have presented a plausible theorem as to why they are not interested (maybe). Now, the solution? As Kevin stated, if I had it, I would surely share it.

To lead from the middle, you need to have extreme patience, lots of anecdotal stories to speak the multiple 'business' languages, and time.

To those I would add two more: knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge of the tools and techniques and the wisdom to apply them correctly.

Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior.

Regards,
Don

Don,

You bring up a good point (as usual). Comprehension is our responsibility, especially as a Leader (of our Quality Geek techniques and ideas), you must show folks why. I'll toss this into the mix:

I had an issue with a manager in our facility. She did not want to do the things required in 4.6 of ISO, straight forward and defined. Issues went unresolved for months and months. I had no effect. Letters, memos, senior level involvement, nothing worked. This happen to come out in a meeting I attend with Senior Management. The President was astonished to see how long things went on and on for. After getting all the bits and pieces together, he commented to me that I needed to communicate the need better. Now I sat silent for a moment, the disgust welling up inside of me. I waited for the Senior Managers to comment. None did. Did they comprehend? Did the Purchasing Manager comprehend? I think that both did, not trying to be in the "right" of things either. This was purely a case of not doing it to be spiteful or because they believed they were in the right (with which they had nothing to offer). Now in successful communication, as I have certainly been instructed on, you need a person with a message, the message, and a receiver of the message. Now the message can be distorted in many different ways, I think the term they use is "background noise". For succesful comprehension, both the issuer and receiver of the message must "hear" things the same way, undistorted. Actions taken must meet the actions expected. Is this a case of the 6% striking? Perhaps. But often we make decisions in spite of what is right. What is your excuse for speeding down the highway? Speed limits posted, we can read the signs, yet we speed every day. Why? Was the communication unsuccesful? Should signs include fines as well (some states post signs like these, yet folks don't slow down) help communicate. I don't think so. This is a conscious decision we make.

Now which case do folks have in thier organizations? Senior Managers who don't understand or who know better? When was the last time any of us were invited to a meeting for collaboration? How often are we told or expected to perform in a manner that is set by the Top? Sure, we own a portion of the blame, and Don, you are right that we must take some of that responsibility. We are in a country dominated by the Western Management types (the old philosophy). How do we spread our message in such a lopsided country? Certainly not by complaining (like I just vented). Bear the cross.

So why the divergent thinking between levels? A theory: I think this may go back to Deming's (and Don's) "How could they know? Who showed them?". Business schools in the US specialize in the Western Philosophy. The MBAs learn this method, go into the workplace, and practice what they know. No right or wrong about it. Then along comes the idealistic Quality person, filled with the New Philosophy and a volitile concoction is made. Each tugging in separate ways. Is there Collaboration? Is there Compromise (an awful thought)? Who's communicating here? Now I would like to think that all Quality folks are perfect collaborators and teachers. This is not the case. But on a gut feel (bad, bad, bad I know) and on the content of posts here at the Cove, I think that we are an open-minded group, capable of walking in another shoes. Do you get the impression Senior Managers do (I lumped them all together, which is not the case)? I struggle with that. Too many MBAs (sorry to stereotype again) out there running the show their way, not the collective way. Can't show weakness or that they may in fact, be wrong. Pure vanity! So let's all head down the tubes together. IMHO, if senior managers spent a little more effort on collaborating, communication would improve. So we must go on trying to show folks the alternatives, hope for some help from senior management, and reach common ground (speak the same language without comprimising).

I know I have lumped folks into black and white groups, no grays. We all know that exceptions do exist, so my cynical scrutiny should be considered here.

Well Wizard Warrior, have I pulled my own pants down again?

Regards,

Kevin

Nice vent, Kevin. I like it.

If you haven’t already, read the Tribus paper above. You will like it. If you have read it, read it again after reviewing this post.

Now the message can be distorted in many different ways, I think the term they use is "background noise".

While this true, the biggest communication (or lack thereof) factor I have found is ‘bias.’ Bias from the sender and bias from the receiver. Bias can be minimized if identification of the four basic behavioral styles are recognized prior to the dispatch of the communication. These styles are:

Dominance: May want authority, challenges, prestige, freedom, varied activities, growth assignments, ‘bottom line’ approach, opportunity for advancement. Successful communication may be enhanced by:
Providing direct answers, brief and to the point.
Ask ‘what’ questions, not how.
Outline possibilities for the person to get results, solve problems, be in charge.
Stress logical benefits of featured ideas and approaches.
When in agreement, agree with the facts and ideas rather than the person.
If timeliness or sanctions exist, get these into the open as related to end results and objectives.

Influence: May want social recognition, popularity, people to talk to, freedom from control and detail, favorable working conditions, recognition of abilities, chance to motivate people and inclusion by others. Successful communication may be enhanced by:
Provide a favorable, friendly environment.
Provide a chance for them to verbalize about ideas, people and their intuition.
Offer them ideas and methods for transferring talk into action.
Provide testimonials of others on ideas.
Provide time for stimulating, sociable activities.
Provide detail in writing, but do not dwell on these.
Provide participative relationship.
Provide incentives for taking on tasks.

Compliance: May want personal autonomy, planned change, personal attention, exact job or task description, controlled work environment, reassurance, precise expectations. Successful communication may be enhanced by:
Take time to prepare the case in advance.
Provide straight pros and cons of ideas.
Support ideas with accurate data.
Provide reassurance that no surprises will occur.
Provide exact task description with precise explanation of how it fits in the big picture.
Review recommendations to them in a systematic and comprehensive manner.
If agreeing, be specific.
If disagreeing, disagree with the facts rather than the person.
Be prepared to provide explanations in a patient, persistent, diplomatic manner.

Steadiness: Security of situation, time to adjust, appreciation, identification with the group, repeated work pattern, limited territory, areas of specialization. Successful communication may be enhanced by:
Provide a sincere, personal and agreeable environment.
Provide a sincere interest in them as a person.
Focus on answers to ‘how’ questions to provide them with clarifications.
Be patient and draw out their goals.
Present ideas or departures from current practices in a non-threatening manner, give them a chance to adjust.
Clearly define goals, roles or procedures and their place in the overall plan.
Provide personal assurances of follow-up support.
Emphasize how their actions will minimize risks involved and enhance current practices.

Original source: Carlson Learning Company. Modified somewhat by myself for bias exclusion in communication.

When the sender recognizes which category they are in and which category the receiver is in, using the above descriptions can help minimize bias and noise. I will expound on the interactions of the different types and will make available when finished.

Well Wizard Warrior, have I pulled my own pants down again?

Not at all. I like it.

Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior.

Regards,
Don

Don,

The four types look mighty familiar. I can't place where I saw them (or something similar) but good stuff! Bias is a killer (and most often unintentional). Timely info for the other thread's discussion by the way.

Here is another tid bit. Write for the reader, not for the writer. I learned the lesson later rather than earlier. Still haven't perfected it either, but much improved (so they say).

Regards,

Kevin

This is my favorite stop. Keep up the great posts. Each post has me nodding Yes! Yes!

If this gets any longer, it should be converted into a book! This is certainly a demonstration by insightful experts of how and what and why, with a little who and when and where.

A thought that has bothered me somewhat after reading this particular post for some time...
So, we quality professionals seem to have the answers - at least the approach to getting the answers. Now, how do we get all those folks above us to climb aboard? I have been around a little, but you consultants, how often have you experienced complete success in a quality system implementation? By that I mean complete up-the-ladder-to-the-president success?

And what is the future of the individual quality professional? Could any of us be placed into the president's chair? I have, in my limited experience, seen that the quality professional rises to the level of patience or tolerance of his or her's management. Is that due to the fact that those who do in fact rise to the level of "Upper Management" have the "Western" education? Is there a certain type that stands out, ready to be rewarded by promotion to that stratospheric level? Can we as Quality professionals sway the MBA programs of many schools in the West? Should we? (have you ever studied "Inventory Turns?" It goes into detail about assessing costs and ordering timing and FIFO, but does it ever state that inventory itself costs? That measuring amount of inventory could be a "measureable?")

After hearing for the 11th time that "the Quality department is holding up shipments..." I come to the QS9000.com haven, and my confidence is restored. Keep up the good work.

This is certainly a demonstration by insightful experts of how...

I am not an expert. Just a humble participant (sp). More Thursday. This thread is getting a little long. May start a new one. It is late and I am tired.

Regards,
Don

This is a favorite stop over for me also.

I found the communication tips interesting and helpful. I plan on sharing them in a leadership class I am involved in. I have also found the most success in communicating in writing to gear to a 4th to 6th grade reading level. This has been especially helpful considering the Ohio area proficiency results for the last several years.

Batman
Finally figured that I would need to focus on the next rung of the ladder both upwards and downwards rather than aim straight for the top. Too often the top is inaccessable or there are too many others running interference to get through. Not that I would want to pass on any opening that arises.

Don, I guess I like the word veteran rather than expert. You share the battles with the defeats and the victories.

Anyways, thanks to you all.
Bill

Bill,

Tell me (us) a little about the leadership class you are in. I would be curious to know how it is going i.e. your observations of others, your own realizations, etc.

Regards,

Kevin

Batman,

Thanks for the compliments, but an expert title is a bit beyond me. Besides, you fit well with the mix here and I wouldn't consider myself smarter than you, or anyone else, on the Quality stuff. Besides, the head nodding you do is an indication to me that you have the knowledge. I find myself doing the same here, by the way.

When I beat up on the MBA program here in the States, I sorta lump the group together. A bit unfair, I know. There is value with the program, education is important. The problem as it appears to me is that the curriculum is centered about finance, which in turn generally focuses on the short term profit. IMHO these programs need to be more focused on management philosophies built on the improvement of the Quality of Life, less on $$ (an important item none the less). It all relates to me; folks in and out of an organization, need to make and spend money.

Profit for any organization is important. But it is not the only reason for businesses to exist, nor the most important (again my HO). Upper levels, born and developed under the Western philosophy hold Profit as the single most important factor. The MBA programs tend to solidify this point for them.

Enough of my ramble....your turn.

Regards,

Kevin

A 'Blast from the Past'! Circa 1999.

Where is TQM in your priorities list today?

A 'Blast from the Past'! Circa 1999.

Where is TQM in your priorities list today?

In the closet. Overshadowed by the need to meet customer requirements; Both OEM and Registrars.

Marc,

A terrific blast from the past!!! I might have been smarter back then, I don't know! ;)

I would like to invite folks to revisit the old posts and restart some discussion on this. There are several Covers here that I think have both experience and theory regarding the success of (or lack of) TQM initiatives.

Thanks for digging this one up, Marc. I thoroughly enjoyed rereading the dialogue we generated. Many old names there. I miss their guidance and synergy.

Regards,

Kevin

I agree Kevin, an excellent recycling project.
I have been tasked with generating powerpoint to compare and contrast "TQM" vs. my company's TBO (Team Based Organization) structure. I won't belabor what TBO is (I'll post the powerpoint when I'm done if anyone's interested) but since I'm in it I know what it is. The problem was a definition for TQM, since it's like trucks: everybody's got one and they're all different. Thanks for providing a thread with a comprehensive definition! Here's my take on what you need to do to have "TQM" work for your company:

1 TQM Philosophy so you can answer "yes" to the 10 questions in the first post
1 Handful Customer with requirement for ISO/TS registration
1 Large Training Session for Top Management in ISO9004 best practices
14 Points Deming Philosophy from Out of the Crisis
9001 Standard QMS so that you aren't implementing a "philosophy"

Mix ingredients well over 1 year, with liberal application of project management and assigned responsibilities. Use Handful Customer Requirement to imbed Top Management deeply into Training Session. Whip 14 Points Deming Philosophy until distributed evenly from the top to the bottom of the mixture. Add judicious amounts of "how your business needs to be run to survive", to taste. Register system with 3rd party, providing continuity of purpose during top management changeouts, assuring managed change so that everyone stays with the program, and involving a monetary penalty (we paid fo the cert then lost it!) for failure to stick with it.

Roughly shove mixture into crucible of day-to-day business, adjusting as necessary. Use care to apply data based decisions that continually improve both customer satisfaction AND profit margin.

Understand that this recipe will not work without a team of thoughtful, intelligent cooks. Attempting this recipe using a formula, especially via computer generated reports and robotic systems, will result in a mess.

I hope you enjoy the results, very tasty and rewarding if done correctly! A few posts back, Don Winton mused on the apparent lack of the quality professional to rise in an organization. IMO, this is because MBA's are much better prepared to put a "look how much money I am saving/generating for this company" thesis in front of a CEO, thus assuring their position. Most quality pros I know are very good at actually DOING money saving/generating for the company and very poor at presenting their contribution to management. There's an old book (by Philip B. Crosby) called "Quality is Free". Rubbish. If you want to be VP of Quality and have an influence in your company, you must "out-data" the MBA and prove that your "Quality Is Not Only Free, It's Making Us a Fortune!"

Icy,

I'm going to have to read through your post again to gather a few more thoughts to continue our discussion. I liked your creativity in generating the recipe for success.

I'm short on time today and out tomorrow, so I hope to get back to this on Monday.

Have a great weekend.

Kevin

Kevin,
I eagerly await your feedback. I'll duck after I say this but I think that the greatest value that 3rd party registration (and a customer requirement for it) has for any company is that it provides management with an incentive to stick with a TQM program, even when it gets "hard".

Kevin,
I eagerly await your feedback. I'll duck after I say this but I think that the greatest value that 3rd party registration (and a customer requirement for it) has for any company is that it provides management with an incentive to stick with a TQM program, even when it gets "hard".

Sadly, I disagree. I believe that 3rd party registration (and a customer requirement for it) gives managements every incentive to get the registration with the LEAST amount of adherence to ANY quality program or Standard possible, especially when it gets "hard" to bite the bullet on a short term expense.

Most of the Covers are Quality folk (double entendre intended), but they deal with bosses who don't speak the language of Quality and whose egos rarely let them accept wisdom from any Quality folk.

In my experience, Quality folk are invariably "staff" and rarely line officers with a pathway to the "C" level office suite. The C-level execs ignore the staff people as much as possible. Catch a CEO in an unguarded moment and he'll tell you the expenses involved in registration are an "expense item" and that he figures them the "cost of doing business" the same as getting a liquor license for a tavern. No tavern owner ever made the claim his license brought in new business, only that he'd have no buiness without a license. I doubt you'll ever hear CEOs really say how much money they save. Welch at GE made a lot of claims about 6S saving billions, but somehow those billions never translated to the bottom line to be read in an annual report.

Chris Galvin's dad, Bob, the son of the founder, Paul, of Motorola admitted,
"Motorola acknowledges that they made many mistakes. One of the most serious was to start the training for quality at the bottom of the company. Many workers were unable to understand statistical process controls and other techniques without remedial education, and they couldn’t turn to their untrained bosses for help. Even those who understood the concepts completely were not able to apply them in the unreceptive workplace. Motorola’s director of training and education estimates that Motorola wasted $7 million trying to train from the bottom up. Recognizing their mistake, the company established “Motorola University” and put thousands of Motorola executives through executive training. Bob Galvin himself spent time in the classroom. By 1992 the company was spending $110 million per year on instruction."
Yet, when Chris took over in 1997, the company went back to its previous habits and began to bleed money by making products no one wanted to buy. Now Chris Galvin is falling on his sword and the company is selling off entire divisions rather than embracing the "quality paradigm."

TQM, 6S, even Deming, Crosby, and Juran are all lumped together in the average CEO mind as "BS" and those same CEOs [who privately ridicule Quality initiatives] almost always have an ulterior motive of influencing current or potential customers when they make a big show of embracing one of those initiatives as their own (Jack Welch at GE, Galvin at Motorola, etc.)

Let me ask:
Do any of you guys working at a first or second tier supplier to the automotive industry feel like the primes really consider your company as a partner or whether they think of your company as a schmuck who lets its own profit be squeezed so the primes can make THEIR profit goals? Does anyone think the business model will change much when all the primes follow DaimlerChrysler's lead in implementing TS2 as the requirement for 1st and 2nd tier suppliers? TS2 seems to have a lot of the points listed in Marc's first post about TQM.

A terrific blast from the past!!! I might have been smarter back then, I don't know!
I was asked about my post starting this thread recently in an e-mail. I responded that the post was gleaned from a number of sources. To me it seems back then we were a bit more 'intellectual' in our discussions. I know my interest was, and to some degree still is, in seeding some topics I think are interesting. That is how the beginning post came to be.

As I review the thread it is one of the best here although it is essentially a lot of theory. As I have learned more and more I see TQM tools and aspects as only one of many tools a company can use and many of the tenants are, in my opiniion, as much commmon sense as anything else.

One of the things quality professionals, and others for that matter, have to deal with is the 'business school' effect of MBA programs and such. Upper management typically manages as they have learned. The reality is upper management determines a company personality.

I wrote the person asking about this thread:
I hardly remember back then. What I wrote was paraphrased from several sources but I couldn't tell you now exactly where today. I suggest you credit 'Authors Unknown'.

From the date I had just finished with Motorola and had Anaren and another client or two onboard. Back then I was looking at a number of aspects of quality assurance. A bit more mentally into it if you will. Don Winton was around back then and I valued his input. Kevin was also around back then - he still is. The forums were 'different' back then. It was a bit more academic, if you will. I was pushing for thoughts.

TQM was being promoted and I liked the idea. I had been exposed to a 5-S project during my Motorola implementation and was trying to find the 'grail'. There are a lot of buzz words, like 6 Sigma. All have their valid points and tools. I now view this as really part of a common sense business system approach.

I look at the first 10 questions as basic to an organization. The key is internal communication which is really what the follow up is about. And company personality.

Every company has a personality. That personality determines what the reality will be. For example, data is significant and necessary in TQM, as it is for other tools and 'programs'. Bad personality companies don't use data for one reason or another, or data isn't communicated or other similar failure mode - including no way to get data. I had one client where I could get 3 different scrap reports, each had different numbers, yet were from the same database. Thus the major players were each acting on different numbers and at the same time I could tell none had 'faith' in their own numbers.

Internal communication was bad. Though structured, the people didn't really work as teams. Meetings were missed. Hourly employees were stressed - a recent event was a change from 3 breaks per shift to 2 which, on top of all the cuts over the last couple of years had strained relations so you had a wall between hourly and managerial. The culture can not change because that change has to come from the top and in some industries the pressures for the company to survive cannot overcome the reality. Recently Levi Strauss moved it's last US manufacturing plant out of the country. TQM wouldn't have helped. One can talk TQM or any other 'system', but the reality is each company has unique needs and if the company personality is 'bad' even, for example, 'awareness training' will be essentially useless because the employees don't perceive themselves as a valuable part of the process.

Anyway, this was part of a process I went through on my way to better understanding businesses and how they operate - hence my "One size does NOT fit all" philosophy. My background and college focus was biology. Businesses are like organisms. Same basic guts but each has its own needs and individualities. From Motorola's 20,000 Phoenix employees (circa 1998) to a 12 person chemical blender, each has to be individually addressed.

You say you have a Team Based Organization. All organizations are a series of teams interacting with each other and in which stratification is addressed by inclusion of individuals in multiple teams. If they're communicating well your biggest obstacle is behind you. If I was going to look at you from a TQM standpoint I would want to talk about the tools you're using, discuss their effectiveness and see what data is being collected, how its collected and how it's distilled. But' I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir. As you can see, I'm a bit less idealistic than I was...
So - that's my current 'take' on things. I hear all the buzz words and the proclaimations of the gurus of certain 'programs', such as six sigma, TQM, 5-S, etc., and sometimes I feel like I'm watching commercials for weight reduction products or prevention of hair loss.

Often the real solution is missed as a company embraces a 'program' without understanding their real, total needs.

Most of the Covers are Quality folk (double entendre intended), but they deal with bosses who don't speak the language of Quality and whose egos rarely let them accept wisdom from any Quality folk
Maybe I've just been lucky, or maybe I am just good at explaining the benefits of TQM systems to Cxx's (shameless self-promotion intended). I have learned to out-MBA the MBAs when it comes to demonstrating the positive impact such systems can have on the bottom line when implemented with a commitment from the executives.

For example, at the last company I registered the CFO congratulated me when received our cert. because his liability insurance payout just dropped by $100K per year due to the 9k94 registration. I got it in writing, presented that against the WHOLE cost (consultant, employees' time for training, steering, auditing and implementing, registrar cost, etc.) of registering, gee folks, looks like this project actually saved us money! And will save us this $$ every year.

There is absolutely nothing wrong (in fact, it should be required) in presenting the cost of your quality system in the light of the profits/savings you would not realize without it (especially if a large portion of your sales are to companies that would drop you like a hot rock if you were not registered) and gently reminding your execs what the quality initiates are making/saving them. An MBA would not hesitate to remind everyone how valuable his contribution is to the bottom line (with charts, graphs, and data).

Maybe I've just been lucky, or maybe I am just good at explaining the benefits of TQM systems to Cxx's (shameless self-promotion intended). I have learned to out-MBA the MBAs when it comes to demonstrating the positive impact such systems can have on the bottom line when implemented with a commitment from the executives.... Etc.
Icy:

We have discussed many times in there threads how important it is for us to talk in the CEO's language. Your post made me think of something that might be hindering at least some of us (myself included).

You point out how MBAs can be good at promoting their contributions. But, the nature of the Quality beast, especially from a QA standpoint, tends to make quality people shy away from grabbing too much credit. We realize that the MBA putting themselves out front is exactly the wrong approach to take to enable us to engage the hearts and minds of the masses - the ones who really are going to "pull off" any improvements, especially when they often are not direct reports.

So, we need to promote the QA approach, and let the results speak for that approach, not directly for the geniuses that QA people really are, right?

Or am I off base?

Craig

Or am I off base?
CraigYes, but at least you're leading way off third and attempting to steal home. :vfunny:
I agree wholeheartedly that humility and considering the opinions and interests of others will allow QA types to get much more out of their peers in engineering, production, service, etc. They are smart enough to know what needs fixed and generally are satisfied when things improve such that they can "see" it. Nobody likes scrap, rework or customer complaints coming from their hard-working hands.

What I'm talking about is shameless self-promotion of the QA agenda when it comes to the executive staff. Show them how much you're saving vs. spending, point to the long list of satisfied (or ecstatic) customers, detail the profits added by companies that will not do business with you unless you are registered, JUSTIFY YOUR EXISTENCE! Then ask for a big fat raise and promotion, just like the Operations guy got after he completed his MBA.

Now take that new empowerment and pour it right back into giving "the masses" whatever they need to do the job right, especially if they are not direct reports. What you want to hear is this: "Tell Craig about the problem you are having, he's the guy that can get you whatever you need to fix it."

I think I've digested the TQM recipe: Everyone knows how to fix it, it's getting people to get past the fear of telling you what's wrong, that's the hard part.

Sorry gang, short on time again and on the way out the door (late again). I'll be back!!!

Kev

As with most titles, when you mention the "Q" word in it tends to hide any profit potential. It's all overhead but a necessary evil. QA/QC are the termites that eat the EBIT!
When I first started presenting the graphs for "Cost of Quality" I thought I was standing in front of a bunch of Bobble Head Dolls. No one was thrilled or upset with the information. So I changed the title to "Cost of Non-Quality" and added missed oportunities to the equations. I started to parallel the increase in overtime hours with the increase in rework, the reduction in throughput, missed deliveries, etc. All those items that make up that "hidden factory". It started to sink in.
I believe one of the 1st agenda items, for most system people, is to clean out the tool box! Why maintain 8 sets of specialty tools when you can get a better result with a crescent-hammer and a screw-chisel? The thing is, see which program works for the company, not all apply and not all fit.

Mr. Mountain said:

"Tell Craig about the problem you are having, he's the guy that can get you whatever you need to fix it."

Actually, I do hear this every once in a while, just not often enough, and more important, I don't hear about the roadblocks, problems, etc. often enough, either. I know they are out there...

We are making headway though!

:agree:

What I have to do, then, is move the scorecard up even further on the "to do" list.


Craig

Question 1: Can TQM exist in the presence of a primarily financially motivated management culture?

This, I think, has a great deal to do with the failure of the TQM movement here in the West in the mid and late 80s. We had a different mindset. The mindset today is even more deeply rooted in the financial results of an organization making a transformation to a TQM environment even more difficult, and, more unlikely for financially driven organizations. I would go so far to suggest that organizations like these fail to understand the basic tenets of TQM and foolishly embark on such a venture.

Question 2: What will lead to the abolishment of the financially driven paradigm for management for one based upon Quality principles?

I’m eager to see responses to this question. For me, I’ll just say this: a much larger paradigm shift needs to occur.


Back to the group...

Kevin

Question 1: Can TQM exist in the presence of a primarily financially motivated management culture?

This, I think, has a great deal to do with the failure of the TQM movement here in the West in the mid and late 80s. We had a different mindset. The mindset today is even more deeply rooted in the financial results of an organization making a transformation to a TQM environment even more difficult, and, more unlikely for financially driven organizations. I would go so far to suggest that organizations like these fail to understand the basic tenets of TQM and foolishly embark on such a venture.

Question 2: What will lead to the abolishment of the financially driven paradigm for management for one based upon Quality principles?

I’m eager to see responses to this question. For me, I’ll just say this: a much larger paradigm shift needs to occur.


Back to the group...

Kevin

Kevin:

Interesting questions.

For #1, yes, I do believe that it possible, but as Icy so eloquently stated it, we should be "...gently reminding your execs what the quality initiates are making/saving them." Until the disconnect between quality costs and the bottom line is erased in the minds of C-level execs, though, it is, IMO, impossible for the two approaches to successfully co-exist.

For question #2, I think we may be seeing that start to happen already. Ken Lay and his lothesome ilk have opened many eyes concerning the "$ at any cost" mentality. At the same time, the ways through which upper managers (and boards) are selected and compensated seems to me to be under examination on many fronts. It will be interesting to see if the results of this examination will include any of the TQM tools. Do I think it will? Maybe. It depends on if the usual sources of upper level managers changes. Will we continue with MBAs and finance guys, or will engineering and production be more represented? Will the hiring of outside "experts" continue, or will there be more of a tendancy to bring people up through the ranks?

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the emphasis changes from balance sheet smoke and mirrors to true innovation and competition? Those sitting in the board rooms now, for the most part, IMO, sure don't want to see it. Or, at least they don't see how a change from the status quo could be a benefit to them.

Good questions.

Craig

Paradigm shift? Oh yes indeed.

Question 2: What will lead to the abolishment of the financially driven paradigm for management for one based upon Quality principles?

I’m eager to see responses to this question. For me, I’ll just say this: a much larger paradigm shift needs to occur.


Back to the group...

Kevin

Kevin, My take on what it takes to abolish the financially driven paradigm is a change in philosophy from "What's in it for me?" to "What can I do for you (my customer)?".

You might as well ask "How do we abolish greed?".

I have even set on church boards and witnessed priorities being set based on "finances" versus "what we could or should be doing". [PS: The intent here is NOT to begin a discussion on religion, but merely to emphasize the fact that even organizations that claim to be there to serve others sometimes get locked into the mode of limiting themselves based on the perceived costs.]

My point is that although we should be concerned about financial factors, the driving force for any business should be: Are we meeting our customer's needs/requirements as effectively and efficiently as possible? (i.e. How do we continually improve upon their satisfaction and our internal processes (for efficiency and effectiveness?) Because unless we continually satisfy our customers, and do so in ways that are constantly improving in both efficiency and effectiveness; we will either loose our customer do to their dissatisfaction, or do to competition providing either a better product/service or providing an equal product at lower costs do to better process efficiency/effectiveness. And we have to be willing to take, and pay for, risks (e.g. thoughts of replacement product or better processes that may be totally foriegn to us).

On the other hand if we put most of our concern in the financial aspects, we will find ourselves less willing to take risks or invest in improvements (of product or process). Both of which will utimately lead to less finances being available, and the eventual death of the business.

Maybe I'm being over simplistic, but I believe that many businesses are started with the customer in mind but at some point the leadership starts looking at their success and starts limiting risks and investments to "improve" the bottom line and begins the road to their demise.

Dave, Not meaning to be argumentative here but I don't know of anyone I have ever worked for whose business started with the customer in mind. There may be a consideration of who the customer will be and what does the customer need that I can supply but the bottom line has always been (in the companies I have worked with) "can I make any money on this deal?". At what point can you stop placing the "greed" label on the supplier and start applying it to the customer?
I guess my feeling on this is simply that our customers are squeezing quality/continuous improvement out of the equation. It is difficult, to say the least, to devote resourses to these things when customers are demanding more and more for less and less. Price has become the primary motivator to our customers as evidenced by the number of contracts awarded to non-registered competitors while our certification is being used against us for price reduction ("you are QS-9000 so we want to see at least a 5% reduction in price").
I think I would agree with your statement "Are we meeting our customer's needs/requirements as effectively and efficiently as possible?" as long as you continue it with and still making enough money to make it worth while staying in business.
Simply answered, I don't think you will ever abolish one for the other until those on the top of the mountain stop rolling rocks down the hill. When you ask me to do a job, pay me a realistic price for doing it and don't keep coming back for concessions then when the dust settles, give the contract to someone else to save $20. If we are looking for a place to point the "greed" finger, don't point it down here. There are too many people out of work trying to keep the door open to worry about greed.
All JMHO.
Dave

Hello Craig,

It’s fun posting questions that might stretch a mind or two, but it is the interesting and varied responses that offer the most for me. To answer a few of yours, here is what I think.

MBAs and Finance guys holding coveted positions: Correctly stated in my opinion. As the paradigm shifts, so won’t the usual suspects. Until then, we will continue to see the same disturbing cast (a generalized statement, I know).

Where they come from: I think that the tendency will be to bring people up through the ranks in a TQM organization. Consultants will still serve a vital capacity, as it will be impossible to cover all the questions with the folks on staff. However, TQM orgs will not resort to using Temp Agencies. Why would they: it defies Constancy of Purpose.

Transition for Smoke and Mirrors: yes, it would be a pleasant and welcome change. What is striking is that the genius to innovation is not altogether missing from companies we might consider ‘evil’. Instead, innovation takes on a new face and in general, a new arena of play. This is where people of Good character have to prevail.

Dave,

Bravo! You got my answer to question 2! This indeed is a larger paradigm shift. Greed has consumed us for the most part. Various things/paradigms associated with the Greed Paradigm will be difficult to change. Right now, it seems pretty powerful. However, this shouldn’t discourage us from trying to affect change in a more positive light. People aren’t born greedy, they learn to be. We need as Quality folks and citizens of this planet to promote a better idea than greed (my opinion).

Dave S,

Dave, I haven’t seen you post in a bit. Glad to see you’re still around the Cove. I agree with you in part that folks innovating or entering the market place may not initially have the Customer in heart or mind. Seriously though, I think that sometime shortly after, they realize their importance, especially when there aren’t very many buying their wares. This lends to my theory (a shared theory) that folks in this universe are after VALUE. As we know, Value has many faces and means different things to different parties. Budgets and finance in a business will always be important. I don’t know of a way they couldn’t be. However, the emphasis on money is significantly different in a TQM org. It places fourth or fifth on the Value’s list. That’s significantly different than most business here in the West, where Finances place first. In a Systems Approach, Value statements of all components are recognized and there is an attempt to create some kind of balance. Most MBA and Finance folks only recognize one way: the heck with balance, get all of it! The System struggles and eventually collapses.

Welcome back to the mix!!

Kevin

It boggles my mind that some are rushing to embrace "six sigma" when they have still not grasped, or even heard of, Deming's Out of the Crisis. I firmly believe that you need a documented, controlled feedback system in place (9k2k compliant will do for starters) so that you can manage (control) your continuous improvements and base them on facts. Then you can begin the process of running defects into the 5 and 6 sigma range.
"In God We Trust, All Others Bring Data."
I have seen many Quality Types with a "Quality at all costs" mentality. We must make sure that our continual improvements save money or increase profits! Unfortunately, many do not understand how to gather ever increasing process efficiency under the quality umbrella and use it to their advantage. The 9k2k/TS2 model seems to make it clear that improved process control breeds improved process efficiency, just don't spend $$$$ on the control to get $ increase in efficiency.

What is striking is that the genius to innovation is not altogether missing from companies we might consider ‘evil’. Instead, innovation takes on a new face and in general, a new arena of play.


Kevin:

Brilliant! What you say is true. From a sociolgical sense, people who operate outside of social morals are called "innovators" (besides the afore mentioned business-criminal types, drug dealers and pimps are included in this list). What is different for those types of businesses is exactly what you mentioned - values.

Sure money is important, but to stay in business over the long haul, the things we lump under the quality banner are important, as well. "Quality is Free"? Well, no, you have to spend some, but a properly run system will, over time, save more than it costs, IMO.

As Icy Mountain pointed out, its up to us to capture the numbers and present them so that the MBA and Finance types "see the light". "All others must bring data" applies to us, too.


Craig

Question 1: Can TQM exist in the presence of a primarily financially motivated management culture?

This, I think, has a great deal to do with the failure of the TQM movement here in the West in the mid and late 80s. We had a different mindset. The mindset today is even more deeply rooted in the financial results of an organization making a transformation to a TQM environment even more difficult, and, more unlikely for financially driven organizations. I would go so far to suggest that organizations like these fail to understand the basic tenets of TQM and foolishly embark on such a venture.

Question 2: What will lead to the abolishment of the financially driven paradigm for management for one based upon Quality principles?

I’m eager to see responses to this question. For me, I’ll just say this: a much larger paradigm shift needs to occur.
Kevin
Kevin,
Answer 1: No. Changing management's financial motivation is next to impossible. I am re-reading Out of the Crisis by W. Edwards Deming (everyone here should buy a copy). He maintains that management often does not look at the unknown or unknowable costs. We must get them to do this. For example, in my company the president is forward thinking enough to not consider 100% direct utilization of labor for production to be cost effective. On the Operations team we have a goal of 85%. Vacation, sick time, time for team meetings, 5S, kaizan, etc. are all set aside. Our goal is to maintain that time in control (i.e. to make sure vacations are taken, housekeeping is done, team meetings are attended, etc. while ensuring that the remaining time is spent producing product).

Answer 2: Again, see Out of the Crisis. My president sent me to a leadership training course that is led by a consultant. The president believes that this consultant has the right formula (and I agree). One of his quotes: "Fixing is the wrong work. When you delight your customers profits will be a barking dog at the door waiting to be let inside." We must continually improve our efforts to shift management's perspective. Deming's first point is to create constancy of purpose. There is not a single Cover who works for a business whose purpose is "To meet the next quarter's profit goals". Our business purpose must be to "Help people get what they need or want." The objective that follows on is "to make a profit".