This is my first visit to this board. Great stuff. I see alot of information and insight on TQM but where did it come from?

Tx, Gary

Where did TQM come from? Kevin Mader or Don Winton could probably answer this better than I, but you could probably start with Deming, Juran, Crosby, and Feigenbaum! You can find the topic discussed earlier than this, but these folks put the "theory" behind it. Of course, nowadays, you can find it discussed almost anywhere with all kinds of flavors and twists. Check out the ASQ catalog.

<font COLOR=BLUE><BLOCKQUOTE>I see a lot of information and insight on TQM but where did it come from?</BLOCKQUOTE></font>

Hummmm. I really do not know the source of the request, but I will answer as best I can (exactly which question do you need answered)?

Personally, TQM is a misnomer that probably should have not been used in the first place. It was, in the 70's, a mis-translation of the Japanese term in use at the time, I believe (but am not sure) that it was taken from Feigenbaum's book title (perhaps Kevin could shed some insight).

Myself, I have a certain philosophy that I think should be followed in business and personally. Those are the thoughts I try to convey here when the opportunity presents itself. Thus, they are my thoughts that may (or may not) be prevalent among others here. I do try to share, and enjoy the feedback.

If you are reading my posts and responses, I assure you they are mine and mine alone. I just hope that if one, just one, has benefited, I am grateful.

Regards,

Don

I don't recall ever seeing a name beside the acronym but the information presented by Roger and Don is in keeping with what I thought might be its derivation.

When I read the question, the first thing that popped into my mind was the information presented in Masaaki Imai's "Kaizen". In his book, he is very deliberate in mentioning TQC (or CWQC) in Japanese thinking is very different than in Western cultures. This is in keeping with Don's recollection. When the Japanese think of Total Quality Control, they are not thinking of things like Inspection Technologies as is often the case here in the States. We relate Quality Control practices with Detection quality practices. Japan correlates TQC with Kaizen. When you read about TQM, they often describe the Seven Statistical Tools. In Japanese Kaizen, these same seven tools (and seven new ones) are described. The philosophy is also the same. IMHO, our definition of TQM is the same as Japan's definition of Kaizen (TQC or CWQC).

The roots of Kaizen as near as I can tell go back to the post WWII days in Japan. Influence of Deming and Juran helped to reshape the Japanese businessman. Sometimes overlooked, Feigenbaum's influence was also quite impactful.

His book Total Quality Control was released in 1951, and in it he details all aspects of Total Quality practices. He does not limit his book to the traditionally thought of Quality Control Practices (I have reread this book several times and find it to be the best source of information, especially for the novice Quality professional). Armand spends a good deal of time dealing with Process related topic and Process Control Engineering. This is definately in keeping with Kaizen.

Imai's book gives a great deal of credit to many notable Japanese figureheads in Quality. My best recollection is that he tended to give Kauru Ishikawa the greatest amount of credit in the TQC push. Ishikawa, a contemporary of Deming, Juran, and Feigenbaum was influenced by these men, and, these men were equally influenced by him. It could be that TQM as we know it was compiled by several great Quality gurus who, knowingly or not, contributed to it.

Well, just some thoughts coming out of my head. I think Don's comments are appropriate. TQM is a misnomer. It is perhaps a Western acronym for Kaizen.

Regards,

Kevin

Those are all pretty good answers. I confess though that I know the answer, but wanted to see what the general knowledge of the genesis of the term TQM. It was actually coined by the Department of Navy(DON). Back in the mid 80's the Chief of Naval Materiel sponsored a research effort at the Naval Personnel Research and Development Center (NPRDC) in San Diego (a DON think tank), focused on determining whether some of the management methods being applied in Japan private companies would have applicability in the DON activities. As part of the effort to pursue quality the Navy sponsored two Deming seminars (my first exposure to quality by the way). NPRDC then developed training based primarily on Deming's System of Profound Knowledge and today they run probably the most comprehensive Quality training facilities in the country as does other major DOD and Federal organizations. Of course there is much more to the story but I just thought you might like a litle peice of American business history.

Gary
Do you now work in Hollywood? I can remember being exposed to the term TQM before the mid eighties. Either that or I'm so old I'm losing my memory

Originally posted by Paul Morrow:
Gary
Do you now work in Hollywood? I can remember being exposed to the term TQM before the mid eighties. Either that or I'm so old I'm losing my memory

I thought mid-80's was about right. I was in school and co-oping when they started the QC circle thing, "EIG" Employee involvement groups and then I remember the TQM acronym. Could be we were behind the times, but I thought that TQM was the jump from "Quality department is responsible for quality" to "Quality is everybody's job"....I must admit, prior to the 80's I wasn't in industry so I don't have a Quality memory prior to about '83.

Laura

I thought mid-80's was about right.

I was actually first 'exposed' to the TQM thing in the mid 70's. Of course, the employer at the time did not have a clue as to what it was or how to deploy the philosophy (needless to say, I did not either). It was not until the mid 80's that my exposure was completed (although in the wrong and most useless way).

These days, my thoughts are my own and I do not much care for the TQM guru's around now. Seems most are only interested in making a name for themselves.

Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior.

Well, I was with one of the Big-3 at the time, and they were usually about 10 years behind....so mid 70's is probably correct!
I'll admit that I was in HS at the time and basically clueless about industry, so it wasn't until the 80's that I really knew anything about the field of Quality!

Deming, like any other human being, had his faults, but he did have the media's attention in a way that no other TQM guru had it (or has it). I agree with Don. TQM is leaderless (or has too many "leaders") on a national level. (Perhaps, the situation is different on an international level.) It is left to those good managers (high-level) who know it's just good business. Deming was able to combine perseverence, good theory, and the ability to market TQM, all in one. Since TQM is a part of good business, it will always have a life of its own. It remains to be seen who makes the next big step in TQM. My bet is that it won't be someone in the U.S. - again.

TQM is leaderless (or has too many "leaders") on a national level.

I agree also, Roger. I am neither impressed with nor tend to agree with these so-called 'quality' gurus of present day. They seem to spend more time trying to reinvent the wheel than pass on tried and true theories. While I disagree with Deming, Juran, Slater and others on some minor points, if you take their theories as a whole, combine and adapt them to your current situation, learn from their example, you should be successful.

To anyone who wishes the 'quality' path, I have a little ditty I use to help separate the wheat from the stalk:

Do not read what people say and interpret of Deming (or the others), read what Deming (and the others) actually said!

It remains to be seen who makes the next big step in TQM. My bet is that it won't be someone in the U.S. - again

My bet is on those developing countries that need innovation and cannot find it. When a world economy is running as this one is, it is those that are in the most need that innovate the best. Just MHO.

Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior.

Anyone have anything to add almost 4 years later? Hmmmm....?????

Woah, Marc, Woah. I feel like I'm playing the pop up gopher game at Chuck E. Cheese. Four threads - all on TQM. I'll have to look at them closer tomorrow. :rolleyes:

Woah, Marc, Woah. I feel like I'm playing the pop up gopher game at Chuck E. Cheese. Four threads - all on TQM. I'll have to look at them closer tomorrow. :rolleyes:
:topic: Right now I have some time on my hands. I'm reviewing hundreds of threads in the forums database. I'm retitling MANY threads so that people can find answers easier through searches. And when perusing the forums individually, I hope people can more easily see what threads may be relevant to their query.

As I go through the threads one by one I often find threads I think might be of interest today which haven't been addressed - some for years.

I'm also stirring up some debate topics and in general trying to 'refresh' some threads and topics. Today's topic is TQM.

And you're invited to jump in today, tomorrow or the day after!

Anyone have anything to add almost 4 years later? Hmmmm....?????Folks wishing to have a comprehensive view of TQM may find it helpful to read
Total Quality Management Handbook by John Hradesky.

This is kind of in the same league as Juran, long on details, short shrift on philosophy. Curiously, this guy (Hradesky) was sometimes a presenter at Deming seminars, but I never saw or heard him in person.

I was always a little uncomfortable with these self-styled gurus who offered their methods as if they were the ONLY way to save a company from bankruptcy.

I venture to say I have probably not opened my copy in four years (except today, when I looked to see if he gave any mention of the origin of the term TQM - he did NOT!)

Hradesky's "tone" was very difficult for me to accept. His track on recognitions and rewards totally turned me off. I felt like he would have thought Orwell's 1984 was an excellent social model.

"The purpose of a recognition and award system is to influence employees' performance by reinforcing desired values and behavior. Organizations which effectively implement TQM try to set up a system which "catches" people in the act of doing the right things from a values or behavior perspective."
I used to be a neighbor of the guy who owned and trained Morris the Cat for pet food commercials. He used exactly the same concept to "train" Morris. Want to feel like a trained animal, anyone?

With writing style and proponents like Hradesky, is it any wonder TQM fell off the radar screen?

Has TQM really feel of the edge of the world or, is it still being practiced in some organizations by the TQM purists?
I performed an audit at an organization @ 3 years ago and, I found that the QM had mapped out his business system using TQM models. I had a great converstaion with him regarding, his views on the need for a standard of compliance such as ISO 9001. He stated that he in reality didn't feel the need for ISO 9001 as an organizational standard due to his use of TQM models.
I spent hours after the audit being presented with his particular TQM model and, it has influenced me to this day.
Wallace.

Has TQM really feel of the edge of the world or, is it still being practiced in some organizations by the TQM purists?
I performed an audit at an organization @ 3 years ago and, I found that the QM had mapped out his business system using TQM models. I had a great converstaion with him regarding, his views on the need for a standard of compliance such as ISO 9001. He stated that he in reality didn't feel the need for ISO 9001 as an organizational standard due to his use of TQM models.
I spent hours after the audit being presented with his particular TQM model and, it has influenced me to this day.
Wallace.No disrespect intended, but I'd sure be interested to know how much alike the model Wallace saw is with the supposed "classic" model of TQM presented by Hradesky. I have a suspicion that system may be a lot less prescriptive than the model Hradesky posits.

Just one example - performance appraisals. Hradesky says:
"Repeat performance appraisals, when effective, will reinforce the attitude of the employee to the company's values."[This is Wes, shuddering, as he rereads some of this tripe.:mg: ]
This stuff is very reminiscent of a running gag on the old Laugh In TV show with a comic[?] Nazi, who said, "You WILL laugh!" :whip: which always led to uncomfortable audience laughter.
I still have trouble understanding how this guy Hradesky ever got on the same dais with Deming!

Wes,
I never heard of Hradesky until your post.
The TQM model I was presented with, did'nt have performance appraisals installed in the system. I do recall, the model was extremely process orienatated.
The process approach is what influenced me and, I should mention, the Q manager was heavily influenced by Deming and Juran.
Wallace.

Wes,
I never heard of Hradesky until your post.
The TQM model I was presented with, did'nt have performance appraisals installed in the system. I do recall, the model was extremely process orienatated.
The process approach is what influenced me and, I should mention, the Q manager was heavily influenced by Deming and Juran.
Wallace.What can I say? The guy is/was moderately famous in Quality circles.
Here's a quick and dirty profile: http://www.sixsigmacalifornia.com/bio.html
(Note it still refers to ASQC - I was a strong advocate of the name change to ASQ) which has a picture of him with Dr. Deming.

When I was struggling with ISO-1994 edition, this guy's name was seemingly everywhere as his book came out in late 1994. Companies were running around like the proverbial decapitated chickens, desperately afraid we would get cut out of all European markets if we didn't climb on the ISO/TQM bandwagons. Fear does strange things. We didn't even contemplate selling in foreign markets, but my company and I were momentarily caught up in the hysteria because our customers and THEIR customers were in a panic.

I bought Hradesky's book, along with about a dozen others, trying to get a handle on what was happening. Ultimately, we decided we only needed to be compliant to a Standard. We liked a systemized approach to our planning. We avoided parroting the language of the Standard and created a plain language QM and written Procedures to match. Our Customers were thrilled with a manual that was readable and which all of our employees were completely familiar with. The customers started coming to us for seminars on "how to do Quality" because they could understand our manual but not their own. We bought into "prevention, not detection" like a religion because it made perfect economic sense. FMEA was something everyone in our organization loved. Mistake proofing became an obsession with everyone. We never worried about automation taking anyone's job, only that it was more fun to tend four automatic machines turning out perfect parts with cpk in the 2.0 range instead of struggling with one manual machine trying to keep cpk above 1.3 and constantly making value judgments on whether a part was "good enough."

We laughed when we heard about 5S (cleanliness), because we kept our shop so clean it looked like a machine tool showroom. We had soundproof enclosures on the machines so you could carry on a normal conversation next to a running machine. We reveled in being able to run the entire third shift as a "lights out" operation.

We computerized and helped everyone learn the system to the point where a customer could phone any hour of the day or night and anyone who answered (from the delivery driver to a part-time security guard) could tap into the network and tell the customer the status of his order in real time - no telephone tag, no callback.

We had an open door policy for all our customers - no notice required. Drop in. If your part was running, you could go watch it and talk to the guy running it - none of our suits held the customer's hand or worried about what the operator might say. You could look at the raw material segregated for your part or count cartons in inventory. Best of all, you never worried about getting your clothes dirty. The air in our shop was as clean as in our office. We had year-round climate control:
better conditions = better health = better productivity