From: "mary forck"
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: Re: TQM is too harrrrdddddd....
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:26:02 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews

Interesting.

I differ with your definition of TQM being controlling. The definition of empowerment we use is "giving the employees the authority and knowledge to make decisions that will enable them to do their jobs better".

We are a state government department, obviously not manufacturing. TQM, quality, etc. means throwing out the red tape, allowing employees to develop programs without micro-management, moving away from government and to a private sector model. It means -- the bottom line = the best results possible for citizens; controlling costs, reducing cycle time, getting rid of unnecessary work.

After 6 years, I've not heard one complaint that TQM is controlling. Just the opposite. If a manager moves away from empowerment, there are many complaints from his/her employees. We are gaining a reputation as "one of the best state departments for people to work".

-------------------------------

From: "KTORPE"
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: Re: TQM is too harrrrdddddd....
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:16:09 +0100
Organization: UNI2 Internet Kunde

l skrev i meddelelsen ...
>Jan,
>>
>> I agree with you on your points and agree with some of the feed back you
>> have had, in that reading is important. In my research on Employee
>> Involvement for my MBA paper the TQM drive is purely a control mechanism
>> that holds Taylorist values.

What is this? Are we back to marxism and the objective goals of the working class?:-)

I think that most companies and managers misunderstand the consept of TQM as a tool to improve productivity (results). Maybe that is why you reach the conclusion that TQM is a control mechanism. For me and the people I work with, it is primarely a question of how PEOPLE develops as individuals using their creativity. Our goal is to descripe the creative organisation and then to "walk the talk". Actualy we are doing it by studying children as their minds have not yet been destroyed by to much conventional wisdom. This leads to my question to the group:

Does anyone know how to set up qoals for teamwork? How can the process be evaluated?

regards

Kasper Torpe

-------------------------------------

Reply-To: "Colin Lloyd Williams"
From: "Colin Lloyd Williams"
Subject: Re: TQM is too harrrrdddddd....
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 07:17:26 -0000
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality

I've been looking at the replies to my litter observation as TQM functioning as a controlling mechanism and truly I seem to be in the minority as to the effectiveness of the system.. :-) I guess the best thing is to mix one thing with another and make a hybrid version or the organisation that works. However, the HRM model at Toyota in the UK and the quality framework at the plant is typical of a fast moving production system where truly the process worker is the king.

But like all kings it's structured with ceremony and pageant to the point of chastisement. Let me give you an example, The process of JIT hinges on the Frodist principle of chroicity; where intense work pressure coerces the employee to fully conform to the processes needs with no slack. Tight, up to the second team work is essential as fluctuations in the synchronised flow process causes massive disruption downstream and ultimately threatens all the tenants of the TQM philosophy; at this point the much banded about term "autonomy" and "empowerment" appear to become cosmetic.

Claiming that employees in this process are empowered surely must be misleading to the term empowerment where genuine managers are trying to instil this culture, because to really empower Toyota's people with the true meaning of empowerment would render the system under threat from divergence and set a new non quality standard of Sigma 6M. All jokes aside, how do you empower people who operate in a herringbone process set-up where split second timing is all the creative thought you have, I am amused with organisations such as Toyota who say that they value empowerment and Kanban, but how can it be when you are recruited as a robot in place of a robot and as empowered as a robot.....?

Please give me your thoughts,

Colin...... :-))

mary forck wrote in message
news:sbm7msd8jp139@corp.supernews.com...
> Interesting.
>
> I differ with your definition of TQM being controlling. The definition of
> empowerment we use is "giving the employees the authority and knowledge to
> make decisions that will enable them to do their jobs better".
>
> We are a state government department, obviously not manufacturing. TQM,
> quality, etc. means throwing out the red tape, allowing employees to
develop
> programs without micro-management, moving away from government and to a
> private sector model. It means -- the bottom line = the best results
> possible for citizens; controlling costs, reducing cycle time, getting rid
> of unnecessary work.
>
> After 6 years, I've not heard one complaint that TQM is controlling. Just
> the opposite. If a manager moves away from empowerment, there are many
> complaints from his/her employees. We are gaining a reputation as "one of
> the best state departments for people to work".

-------------------------------------

From: "Jacques D. Vandersleyen"
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: Re: TQM is too harrrrdddddd....
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:50:29 GMT
Organization: Sympatico


KTORPE a Ècrit dans le message :
abSu4.187$Kw5.667@news.get2net.dk...

> What is this? Are we back to marxism and the objective goals of the working
> class?:-)

Should we said Stakhanovism? There is great similitudes between certain way of implementing TQM and "Uncle" Stalin way of management

Or you are completely involved in the TQM revolution or you are a traitor to our cause and must be punished (following Skinner's reinforcement theory). That why, may be most of the authors start talking about re-taylorism on management. Best regards

--
SincËres salutations
Jacques D. Vandersleyen
607, rue des ruisseaux
Pintendre; G6C 1N1
QuÈbec, Canada

Courriel

---------------------------------------

From: "Jacques D. Vandersleyen"
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: Re: TQM is too harrrrdddddd....
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:50:29 GMT
Organization: Sympatico


KTORPE a Ècrit dans le message :
abSu4.187$Kw5.667@news.get2net.dk...

> What is this? Are we back to marxism and the objective goals of the working
> class?:-)

Should we said Stakhanovism? There is great similitudes between certain way of implementing TQM and "Uncle" Stalin way of management.

Or you are completely involved in the TQM revolution or you are a traitor to our cause and must be punished (following Skinner's reinforcement theory). That why, may be most of the authors start talking about re-taylorism on management. Best regards

--
SincËres salutations
Jacques D. Vandersleyen
607, rue des ruisseaux
Pintendre; G6C 1N1
QuÈbec, Canada

Courriel

---------------------------

From: "KTORPE"
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: Re: TQM, why, and why not
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:35:08 +0100
Organization: UNI2 Internet Kunde

The Why's:

1. People: Do it because it will increase the well being of the people in the organisation. That should be the driving force. Let people use their creativity on the workplace and not only in the freetime.

The difficulties starts when you say how?

We have a simple yet very logical approach which we call the creative work method: See - think - plan - do - see (It is not the PDCA circle!) The important fase is the first. To be able to see things as they realy are not letting your personal opinions affect it. We call it facts. Facts should always be the starting point on any dessision making process. People begin to realize, that when they base dessisions on facts, two things happens: A. It is possible to reach consensus in the think-fase (without having someone or something to force it) and B. The result that are achieved are of much higher quality.

When you start to work this way I guarantee you that you will reach the goals whatever they may be.

The Why not:

1. Dont do it because you want to obtain a certificate or an award
2. Dont do it because you want to get more sattisfied customers
3. Dont do it because the tools (Kanban, JIT etc.) looks nifty. If the entire organisation work according to the above work method you will eventualy work out your own tools, that are much more relevant as they again, are based on facts about your organisation, your customers and your environment.

From: "PaulR"
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: Re: Does it really pay?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 02:08:18 GMT

Maybe I'm a burnout case, but here goes:

First, the basic principles of TQM are, IMHO, definately sound. So are the principles of all of the alphabet soup that keeps coming down the pike. SPC, TQM, PxP, 6Sigma, CRM, QFD, BPR, and, for all I know, EIEIO. Not only are they sound, but if you don't interpret any of them too narrowly, they're all the same. They all offer the same potential benefit: higher quality, lower cost, improved customer satisfaction, lower scrap/rework rates, etc. etc.

But every one of these requires management commitment, management investment, and time. Unfortunately, financial management is focused on the next quarter. Managers are focused on keeping short-term costs down (including head-count), and they have the attention span of six year olds. In my company, we've calculated an MTBF (mean-time-between-fads) of about 30 months.

Consider what this means: Every one of these programs has the costs front-loaded, (training, consultants, meetings) with the benefits coming on the back end. A short MTBF means that companies are perpetually standing the costs of these programs and never reaping the benefits. Some managers seem to get tired of the whole thing and go back to traditional inspection quality plans (along with beating up on people when these plans don't work). Others embrace each new Acronym with a religious ferver, hoping that something, ANYTHING, will be THE ANSWER. None of them are willing to make the long term commitments needed to make any of these programs succeed.

Oh yes. The "enablers" are the consultants who promote each of these variants as "the next big thing." After 24 months when consultant-lead training starts to let up, the consultants go back to their trainers for six months. At the end of the 30 month MTBF period, they're back with a new "next big thing."

Ah well. Keep the faith.
Paul R


"JRT" wrote
> It may be the result of the natural evolution of quality sciences. The
> principals of TQM are sound, but now company's must begin to go after the
> meat and potatoes, and tools like six-sigma and Lean Manufacturing and QS
> are taking over.
>
> Just a thought!
>
> JRT
>
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------
> >EDITORIAL
> >
> >A sharp decline in the popularity of TQM has been confirmed by a recent
> >survey of the use of management techniques by companies in the USA and
> >Europe. Are companies being put off by the sheer volume of paperwork
> >generated by the exercise or does this result from serious doubts about the
> >potential value added of quality initiatives?
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Best regards
> >--
> >Jacques D. Vandersleyen
> >607, rue des ruisseaux
> >Pintendre; QuÈbec,
> >G6C 1N1; Canada

Marc,

Probably not dead, but perhaps in hibernation.

Will 6-Sigma, or any other management philosophy do any better? I think that your post has it summed up about right. Essentially, unless Senior Management is ready for fundamental Transformation, one requiring long term focus, all the consultants, software solutions, etc, etc will do not good.

Regards,

Kevin

Originally posted by Marc Smith:

> It may be the result of the natural evolution of quality sciences. The
> principals of TQM are sound, but now company's must begin to go after the
> meat and potatoes, and tools like six-sigma and Lean Manufacturing and QS
> are taking over.[/b]
While at first thought, Paul's comments seem to resonate, I ultimately have to agree more with JRT's.

If you've been in the QA world for long, you know we've made lots of changes for the better. We have gone from using telescopes to microscopes for quality improvement. A number of years ago I was a hero for reducing return rates from 7% to about 2.5%. Now just about any company would kill people for having a 2.5% return rate!

Quality continues to evolve and the "easy" improvements are long since gone.

It isn't easy, but it is a lot better!

I dunno. I think life has been too good in the 90's for most corporations, so TQM (being front-end loaded) goes into hibernation until the going gets tough again and managers start scrambling for ways to be competetive. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll bet the next round of "good TQM" will happen during or at the end of the next recession.

Originally posted by Roger Eastin:

...I'll bet the next round of "good TQM" will happen during or at the end of the next recession.Probably right on the mark.

The use of the phrase TQM certainly appears to be waning. I notice that much more emphasis is being given to 'six sigma' and it seems to be selling to a bottom line nerve to justify itself. Another plus point is the incentives/rewards talked about for reducing variation - greed works or is it MBO fails? Some TQM programmes had been claimed to exploit employees and not share rewards - but then TQ isn't meant to be divisive but uniting. Six sigma also avoids the word quality in its title cunningly and that could help 'total quality' strangely. (aside - can i ask does anyone own the phrase six sigma ; is it free to use by the profession?)

I hope i don't see the use of tqc/cwqc/tqm /tq die because it's such a big part of the modern development of quality. We may need to support it so it isn't flamed as old hat. For me part of its weakness - no one model - will keep the concept strong for the future.

It is a shame that fad and TQM are associated, since the first is fast,short,..style-no-substance, whereas the latter is slower,longer,deeper. Business without total quality? now that won't last!

regards
skyc

Originally posted by Roger Eastin:
I dunno. I think life has been too good in the 90's for most corporations, so TQM (being front-end loaded) goes into hibernation until the going gets tough again and managers start scrambling for ways to be competetive. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll bet the next round of "good TQM" will happen during or at the end of the next recession.

I believe you are right Roger! Recessions are cyclical events, as is the rebirth and waning of quality programs. As you are well aware of, most of the 'new' Quality practices are 40 to 50 years old.

As the success of organizations in the 80's waned ahead of the Recession of the 90's, organizations began to scramble for a new 'fixer'. Enter TQM. As the organization began to emerge from the Recession, TQM began to wane, and ushered in a sad return to the old tried and true practices. Time will tell I suppose, but I believe that Quality programs (or programs in general) 'die' and emerge in a cyclical pattern.

Regards,

Kevin

I agree what is being said about cycles - and history itself is often said to repeat. Certainly when recession hits competition increases. Reasons given for 'quality introductions' often cite using it as a differentiator against the competition. It also becomes associated as a kind of tool to do things better so in-turn reducing costs quickly, hmmm?

But, I do have to disagree that TQM suddenly appeared. This seems to imply it developed for that point-in-time or was created spontaneously. This is not fair or correct. TQM is part of the development of much previous thinking - as has been indicated in the same discussion...perhaps starting 50-60 years past. This is supported for example Feigenbaum published TQC (~40 years ago) And lots of others, East and West, have also argued and contributed to what is the concept commonly known as TQM is the West.

What i'm concerned about is that it's the job of fads to suddenly appear. Ideas like total quality are different because they contain substance from many working hard over time, contributing to the concept that effective 'quality' isn't isolated quality.

kind regards
skyc






[This message has been edited by skyc (edited 08 August 2000).]

Fads are born out of a need for a quick fix. Short term in nature, they do not possess the power to go the long haul. Quality is a long term endeavor. No quick answers, it requires long term thinking and valued contributions.

I feel your concern. Too many folks looking for the quick answers that they leap from one program to the next without consideration of the whole. Doomed to multiple failures and mediocre results. Some are satisfied this way. Amazing! When an organization begins to accept mediocrity, the war has been lost (IMHO)!

Regards,

Kevin

As a "buzz phrase" it is most assuredly dead.

Perhaps its ideological successor today is Six Sigma.

Perhaps tomorrow or next week, the buzz phrase will be "Holistic Systems" or some other attempt at creating a slogan to rally moribund organizations.

What we ought to concentrate on (as Quality Professionals) is erasing the delineations between Quality Management Systems and Business Management Systems.

Deming had something to say about slogans - in short, he was against them.

From: "PaulR"

First, the basic principles of TQM are, IMHO, definately sound. So are the principles of all of the alphabet soup that keeps coming down the pike. SPC, TQM, PxP, 6Sigma, CRM, QFD, BPR, and, for all I know, EIEIO. Not only are they sound, but if you don't interpret any of them too narrowly, they're all the same. They all offer the same potential benefit: higher quality, lower cost, improved customer satisfaction, lower scrap/rework rates, etc. etc.

But every one of these requires management commitment, management investment, and time. Unfortunately, financial management is focused on the next quarter. Managers are focused on keeping short-term costs down (including head-count), and they have the attention span of six year olds. In my company, we've calculated an MTBF (mean-time-between-fads) of about 30 months.

Consider what this means: Every one of these programs has the costs front-loaded, (training, consultants, meetings) with the benefits coming on the back end. A short MTBF means that companies are perpetually standing the costs of these programs and never reaping the benefits. Some managers seem to get tired of the whole thing and go back to traditional inspection quality plans (along with beating up on people when these plans don't work). Others embrace each new Acronym with a religious ferver, hoping that something, ANYTHING, will be THE ANSWER. None of them are willing to make the long term commitments needed to make any of these programs succeed.

Oh yes. The "enablers" are the consultants who promote each of these variants as "the next big thing." After 24 months when consultant-lead training starts to let up, the consultants go back to their trainers for six months. At the end of the 30 month MTBF period, they're back with a new "next big thing."



IMO there is a great deal of wisdom in PaulR's writings from the past. :applause:

Is TQM STILL dead? IMO it actually never died and likely never will in the forseeable future. As Billy S. once wrote (by memory here), a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Fads are born out of a need for a quick fix. Short term in nature, they do not possess the power to go the long haul. Quality is a long term endeavor. No quick answers, it requires long term thinking and valued contributions.

From reading the posts. . . it seems obvious that the original intent (IMHO), has been lost. TQM has not been ingrained as a guiding philosophy and mode of operation. . but has been treated as a Buzz phrase and fad.

True TQM doesn't come and go. . . if implemented right, it stays, grows, and improves. Nothing generates success like successes. Managers (and their bosses) seem to forget "Quality of Decision Making" as a part of the whole picture. . .

I just read section 14 (TQM) of Juran’s Quality Handbook – 5th ed. It just has me shaking my head and saying, “sigh”. :frust:

What differences are there between TQM, 6 Sigma, Malcolm Baldrige, ISO, etc.?
I believe they all have the same components, but with greater or lesser emphasis placed on certain components of them. It is like a kaleidoscope; they all have pieces of the following:

analysis assurance business conformity control customer deployment effectiveness efficiency flow function human improvement information knowledge leadership management planning policy problem-solving process productivity products quality resources standards statistical strategy supplier systems total training values vision

When all of the above are thrown into the cylinder and rotated, certain “facets” show up more predominantly then others, and the arrangement is different. Freeze it, name it, and you have yourself a quality system. Turn it again a little, freeze it, and name it something different.

This is why I prefer looking at our roles as quality professionals via the ASQ Quality Engineer’s Body of Knowledge. We have all the pieces. Our value to our organization is to assemble a system that works for the specific organization we work for (with its own peculiar personality). Name it something if you like, but don’t try to sell it “frozen” to another organization (i.e. unless of course you want to become a consultant and make oodles of money duping the business world with a new fad – and who of us wants that? :lol: ).

I believe we quality practitioners add the most value to our organization by doing the following:

 Developing effective systems & advocating consistent behavior
 Resolving problems analytically; interpreting data
 Educating everyone continually on useful tools
 Researching and benchmarking better methods

Do we have fodder for discussion?

Do we have fodder for discussion?
Discussion, maybe, but IMO not argument. :agree:

Do we have fodder for discussion?As Mike S. says,
Discussion, maybe, but IMO not argument.
Yes, Rob. I think you are "preaching to the choir" here.

Thought I would revive this baby again, seeing as the world we currently live in has changed slightly from when this thread was started and last posted on. Not only is recession now a distinct reality for some, but global competitiveness is now much higher and continues to grow. This competitive shift increases the demand for such an approach to the management of business.

If my current Masters course is anything to go by, TQM, at least the set of principals by that name, is most certainly not "Dead". It is consistently referenced in much of the texts, the course material and I am currently doing a unit titled TQM.

In fact, I am so engrossed in the principals at the moment, I was very surprised not to see a specific forum dedicated to TQM. Maybe I missed it? What about the Business Excellence models and quality awards (EFQM, Baldridge...?)? I thought maybe there would be perhaps a common forum for all of these?

What's every one's take on the current status of TQM. I think we should perhaps steer clear of the name "TQM" and concentrate on the collection of principals widely regarded as part of the model. I agree TQM can cause people to think of it as a package sent to fix problems, but by no means do I see this as a fad, used in times of difficulty and dropped as soon as the roses smell sweet again.

Whilst we are here, I am currently assessing my organisations readiness to adopt TQM, and I want to survey a small group of employees. Does anyone have an example of this kind of survey? I just want to try and ensure my current questions have everything covered. TIA.

It's not dead. It just stopped being the equivalent of an ice cream flavor.

Thought I would revive this baby again, seeing as the world we currently live in has changed slightly from when this thread was started and last posted on. Not only is recession now a distinct reality for some, but global competitiveness is now much higher and continues to grow. This competitive shift increases the demand for such an approach to the management of business.

If my current Masters course is anything to go by, TQM, at least the set of principals by that name, is most certainly not "Dead". It is consistently referenced in much of the texts, the course material and I am currently doing a unit titled TQM.

In fact, I am so engrossed in the principals at the moment, I was very surprised not to see a specific forum dedicated to TQM. Maybe I missed it? What about the Business Excellence models and quality awards (EFQM, Baldridge...?)? I thought maybe there would be perhaps a common forum for all of these?

What's every one's take on the current status of TQM. I think we should perhaps steer clear of the name "TQM" and concentrate on the collection of principals widely regarded as part of the model. I agree TQM can cause people to think of it as a package sent to fix problems, but by no means do I see this as a fad, used in times of difficulty and dropped as soon as the roses smell sweet again.

Whilst we are here, I am currently assessing my organisations readiness to adopt TQM, and I want to survey a small group of employees. Does anyone have an example of this kind of survey? I just want to try and ensure my current questions have everything covered. TIA.

Manix,

Thank you for reviving this old (2000) thread.

I was curious, and decided to google on "Is TQM Dead (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Is+TQM+dead%3F&btnG=Search)?" just to see what the world thinks.

Interesting stuff pops up. There's also a google book review you may want to take a look at.

No, I do not think it's dead, it has just morphed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morph) in new names and flavors...

The desire to get better will never go away and people will continue to look for the magic wand.

Stijloor.

Thought I would revive this baby again, seeing as the world we currently live in has changed slightly from when this thread was started and last posted on. Not only is recession now a distinct reality for some, but global competitiveness is now much higher and continues to grow. This competitive shift increases the demand for such an approach to the management of business.

If my current Masters course is anything to go by, TQM, at least the set of principals by that name, is most certainly not "Dead". It is consistently referenced in much of the texts, the course material and I am currently doing a unit titled TQM.

In fact, I am so engrossed in the principals at the moment, I was very surprised not to see a specific forum dedicated to TQM. Maybe I missed it? What about the Business Excellence models and quality awards (EFQM, Baldridge...?)? I thought maybe there would be perhaps a common forum for all of these?

What's every one's take on the current status of TQM. I think we should perhaps steer clear of the name "TQM" and concentrate on the collection of principals widely regarded as part of the model. I agree TQM can cause people to think of it as a package sent to fix problems, but by no means do I see this as a fad, used in times of difficulty and dropped as soon as the roses smell sweet again.

Whilst we are here, I am currently assessing my organisations readiness to adopt TQM, and I want to survey a small group of employees. Does anyone have an example of this kind of survey? I just want to try and ensure my current questions have everything covered. TIA.

I think that in general, business schools are a bit behind the times, and tend to focus on things that most of us wouldn't recognize as being particularly current or relevant to the "real world." I'm not sure that I ever knew what "TQM" means, other than the idea that quality principles should be applied outside of the quality department.

Manix,

Thank you for reviving this old (2000) thread.

I was curious, and decided to google on "Is TQM Dead (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Is+TQM+dead%3F&btnG=Search)?" just to see what the world thinks.

Interesting stuff pops up. There's also a google book review you may want to take a look at.

No, I do not think it's dead, it has just morphed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morph) in new names and flavors...

The desire to get better will never go away and people will continue to look for the magic wand.

Stijloor.

I agree, morphed into what is called common sense, combined many parts into lean, six sigma, not to mention kaizen...

I agree, morphed into what is called common sense, combined many parts into lean, six sigma, not to mention kaizen...

Though I agree entirely that the approaches with different names borrow heavily from one another and perhaps become less distinguishable, I think it is far too easy to describe the quality principals as "common sense".

I did a quick google:

is what people in common would agree: that which they "sense" in common as their common natural understanding. ...

Surely common sense in one environment would be entirely different from common sense in another? It is the management of this difference that is the key, and TQM (for the sake of names), helps with that management. I certainly don't believe I am doing a Masters Degree in common sense, otherwise, I want my money back.!

Thanks Stijloor for the link, I will check it out.

My boss has an MBA. Received it 3 years ago. Let see he applies about 0% of it to being a quality manager. He has definitely not taught us anything he learned from getting his masters... :D

My boss has an MBA. Received it 3 years ago. Let see he applies about 0% of it to being a quality manager. He has definitely not taught us anything he learned from getting his masters... :D

Mines actually an MSc, so there's science in there somewhere!!!! You don't mention whether the MBA is in a Quality related discipline? If so :confused:, how come he does not use or apply anything he learnt? In fact no, scrub that, whether or not it is in a quality related discipline is irrelevant. Mine is a Strategic Quality Management and I am doing all sorts of things related, like leadership, some basic psychology as well as the usual quality and business related aspects. That for me is the intersting aspect, TQM (which as mentioned earlier does have much of the focus of the course so far) is so diverse and far reaching, it is so much more than a quick fix tool.

I am only 4 months into my masters and I am already applying stuff I am learning, in fact much of my course work is based on analysis of how my current org works and perhaps, should work.

My boss has an MBA. Received it 3 years ago. Let see he applies about 0% of it to being a quality manager. He has definitely not taught us anything he learned from getting his masters... :D

If the MBA curriculum would include rigorous studies about quality and how to make it happen, we would not have many conversations here at The Cove about management's commitment.....:(

Stijloor.

If my current Masters course is anything to go by, TQM, at least the set of principals by that name, is most certainly not "Dead". It is consistently referenced in much of the texts, the course material and I am currently doing a unit titled TQM.

In fact, I am so engrossed in the principals at the moment, I was very surprised not to see a specific forum dedicated to TQM. Maybe I missed it? What about the Business Excellence models and quality awards (EFQM, Baldridge...?)? I thought maybe there would be perhaps a common forum for all of these?

I just taught an Operations Management class last summer at the MBA level. The textbook that I used included a chapter on Quality Management:Focus on Six Sigma. There was a page on Baldrige and a table comparing the philosophies of Deming, Crosby and Juran. Six Sigma was described as the latest approach to TQM. DPMO and DMAIC (described as a more detailed version of PDCA), and the black belt training system were discussed.

The authors also dumped the Shingo System, ISO 9000 and benchmarking into the chapter. In the next chapter, process capability and SPC were discussed and another chapter covered Lean Production.

The impression I had was that the authors acknowledge the past history of TQM and showed Six Sigma and Lean as evolutions of it.

Bill Pflanz

Thanks to all that have replied! An interesting discussion. I think I may make it my life's work, to simplify and eliminate the dressing up of these approaches and the silly naming, to make one overriding approach. I think the most appropriate description of such an approach would be "Business Excellence".

I believe the different approaches, TQM, Six Sigma (a name I truly hate as it does not sufficiently describe the depth of the approach, a constant relationship with statistical analysis, which is of course relevant but not all encompassing!), EFQM, Baldridge, are simply the dressing up of Business Excellence to get management and to some degree, employees excited about something new. It detracts from the essence of Business Excellence and the shear amount of different variations on the same theme simply allows organisations to move from one to the next, dis-crediting each as they go along, not fully understanding the principals behind the approaches.

TQM is an approach to Business Excellence. If TQM is seen a "toolkit", then it is doomed. Mainly because a tool kit allows you to pick and choose what you want to use and when you want to use them. Tools also have specific uses and on the whole don't depend on much else to work. You can use tools to help make TQM work, but TQM is simply not a tool to fix anything. In fact to stay with this analogy:

TQM is the engine, there are many parts, all working together to move the organisation forward and there are various tools and techniques that can help this engine to work and continue to work.

I am also studying (why? I keep asking myself) on the CQI Diploma in Quality course, and they presumably regard TQM as current since this topic is contained in the module I am currently studying and seems to appear regularly in the past 10 examination papers.

There seems to be difficulty or a reluctance to define what is meant by TQM (although I have found a definition in an ISO standard) so I struggled initally to understand the concept, and I kept thinking that it is very similar to what I know about ISO9000 in its' intent and when it is fully implemented. Then I learnt that the one of the sister documents, ISO 9004 'Guide to quality manaqement' is really talking about TQM. So TQM is ISO9000 with bells on!

TQM seems to be such a great, holistic approach - everyone focused and committed to continual improvement, satisfying internal/external customers, improving process efficiency and effectiveness, satisfying all stakeholders, and, of course, needs a documented QMS. You can use Baldridge or EFQM award to measure your TQM success. Is there any other flavor that manages the organisation and all its' stakeholders so well? If there isn't, maybe we need to revive TQM? Or is it's apparent demise just because it was so all embracing?

There seems to be difficulty or a reluctance to define what is meant by TQM (although I have found a definition in an ISO standard) so I struggled initially to understand the concept, and I kept thinking that it is very similar to what I know about ISO9000 in its' intent and when it is fully implemented. Then I learnt that the one of the sister documents, ISO 9004 'Guide to quality manaqement' is really talking about TQM. So TQM is ISO9000 with bells on!

ISO9004 is indeed the "nice to have bits" and is another step towards TQM, but I don't think it is a Total Approach to Quality. It is certainly a large step in the right direction, but we are an ISO/TS16949 company. TS is basically ISO9001 with ISO9004 incorporated. We are no where near being recognised as covering all the principals of TQM. I am currently assessing this as part of my assignment, and will try and publish my findings here as best I can.

TQM seems to be such a great, holistic approach - everyone focused and committed to continual improvement, satisfying internal/external customers, improving process efficiency and effectiveness, satisfying all stakeholders, and, of course, needs a documented QMS. You can use Baldridge or EFQM award to measure your TQM success. Is there any other flavor that manages the organisation and all its' stakeholders so well? If there isn't, maybe we need to revive TQM? Or is it's apparent demise just because it was so all embracing?

TQM does indeed need a well established QMS and one that facilitates the principals identified in such models as EFQM and Baldridge. Be careful though, I believe you have identified one of the very reasons TQM does fail in many organisations........it is seen as a "flavour". Some people like Vanilla, others prefer strawberry, automatically you have a percentage of people who will outwardly reject vanilla and this is not conducive to an environment that TQM promotes. Total and collective dedication to multiple parties and goals.

I don't see TQM as something that needs to be revived, because that would suggest it is a tangible something that can be turned on and off. Perhaps the "promotion of the principals" involved is a better way to term it. Failure of TQM within an organisation is a failure to appreciate and thus accept the need for this to be something that effects everyone and needs commitment from everyone - "Him/Her Upstairs" included! This basic and underlying principal is often the most difficult to change as it requires change to the very culture and fabric of the organisation, which will always be the most difficult to control and change, PEOPLE.

I don't see TQM as something that needs to be revived, because that would suggest it is a tangible something that can be turned on and off.

Is this also not a reason why it fails? You say 'tangible' so maybe one of the reasons some say it is dead or others struggle to implement and maintain TQM, is because it is difficult to define and describe easily methinks.

Is this also not a reason why it fails? You say 'tangible' so maybe one of the reasons some say it is dead or others struggle to implement and maintain TQM, is because it is difficult to define and describe easily methinks.

When a word or term is subject to definition at the discretion of the person using it, it is functionally meaningless. I've referred to George Orwell's 1948 essay Politics and the English Language (http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit) a few times in the past, and it's worth doing so again here. Language in business suffers from the same types of abuse that Orwell was complaining about in politics. Substitute "TQM" for "democracy" in the following passage from the essay and you'll see what I mean:

The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.

Some one is always trying to beat down something good! TQM is wonderful when practiced in it's true form!

Some one is always trying to beat down something good! TQM is wonderful when practiced in it's true form!The point is:
"Who has the authority to say what the 'True Form' is?"

The point is:
"Who has the authority to say what the 'True Form' is?"

I don't think anyone needs to define it's "true form". It will always be unique to the organisation. Perhaps the principals that are so widely published in such models as EFQM and Baldridge should be a starting point as to the form it should take, but by no means are these limiting factors.

With TQM or Business Excellence (however you want to dress it!), we are not just talking about does an organisation do this, or does it do that, that is just part of it. You need to address the culture, how people think, if people do indeed think for themselves, how people act, how people see the world around them, the list goes on. The true form should be defined by the organisation it is implemented in because it will be dependant upon many factors that are perhaps unique to the organisation. You should however, always look at the principals as defined in the above mentioned models, they are a great starting point.

An interesting topic. Dr. Deming himself was asked frequently about TQM, and if you got an answer it was "What's TQM?".

Now, if we define TQM as doing SPC, following Dr. Deming's 14 Points and System of Profound Knowledge, then no it isn't dead. For proof, please see:

http://www.efcog.org/wg/sc/docs/PX-2209%20and%20EFCOG%20Presentation%20Metrics.pdf

and

http://www.efcog.org/wg/sc/docs/EFCOG_SWG_Physical_Security_Subcommittee_Metricsv1.pdf

This should be the opening prototype of doing a fair amount of "TQM" with the US Department of Energy.