It seem the Quality Industry cranks out program after program. Over the years, a pattern has become visible:

1. Management Rollout - A lot of bucks, everyone gets on the bandwagon or else.

2. Grand and glorious "success stories", usually presented by people that want to increase their station. Accountants are not invited to check numbers.

3. Grassroots resistance. Cynicism takes over. People are afraid and only express themselves around coffee, after work and at internet forums. Workers secretly try to scuttle the program. Articles are written in "Quality Progress" about the merits of the program.

4. Program gets cut back. Attempts are made to combine it with other programs.

5. Go to step 1, with a new program.

I've probably left out a lot details. I would like people to jump in and add to it.

Tom

It seem the Quality Industry cranks out program after program. Over the years, a pattern has become visible:

1. Management Rollout - A lot of bucks, everyone gets on the bandwagon or else.

2. Grand and glorious "success stories", usually presented by people that want to increase their station. Accountants are not invited to check numbers.

3. Grassroots resistance. Cynicism takes over. People are afraid and only express themselves around coffee, after work and at internet forums. Workers secretly try to scuttle the program. Articles are written in "Quality Progress" about the merits of the program.

4. Program gets cut back. Attempts are made to combine it with other programs.

5. Go to step 1, with a new program.

I've probably left out a lot details. I would like people to jump in and add to it.

Tom

Nice try Tom, but you forgot the most important step-----------

Hire a consultant! :mg:

Nice try Tom, but you forgot the most important step-----------

Hire a consultant! :mg:


ABSOLUTELY!!!! YES!!!! :applause:

ya got my vote on that one. . .

Nice try Tom, but you forgot the most important step-----------
Hire a consultant! Not to mention the second most important step, usually found between steps 3 and 4: Blaim the consultant:whip: (after he's left, of course). :lol:

/Claes

Thanks for the feedback about consultants. It would be good to know how the consultant plays in all this.

I forgot to mention in my original post that I am serious about this. If there is a lifecycle, then it is likely this process will continue. If this is a process then it should be managed at some level. Is it being managed but not visible to us?

Thanks again,

Tom

Thanks for the feedback about consultants. It would be good to know how the consultant plays in all this.

I forgot to mention in my original post that I am serious about this. If there is a lifecycle, then it is likely this process will continue. If this is a process then it should be managed at some level. Is it being managed but not visible to us?

Thanks again,

Tom

Sorry for leading us astray, Tom. I have a bit of trouble taking anything seriously, and thought your post was tongue-in-cheek. :o

Okay, on a serious note. If this cycle is true, then we can use it to help identify what programs are true, and what ones fall into the program of the day category. We can also use this information to break the cycle. Which leads to a separate question. How do we break the cycle? Is is in better program identification? Perhaps in making sure a program is truly necessary before implementation. Like 6S or not, the first step (Define), could be used to tell what we really need, and what is just a fad (I guess)

wow, this is very interesting. I wish I knew enough to add to this discussion

the really sweet thing would be to manage the process at a higher level once you had learned the failure modes of the programs.

what are all the goals of these programs? to establish a culture? to provide the necessary tools and insight into the problems? to make a measureable difference?

:agree1:I agree with the need to recognize and manage the life cycle of "programs"; However, I would add the need to distinguish between "programs" and fundamentally sound practices.
For example, the use of sound analytical tools and thought processes to improve technical & business problems and the philosophy that the extremely high quality levels that are achieved via those tools (As opposed to inspection) can be profit generating are both worthy of our use. However, when these practices are packaged and sold as a Program (which implies a beginning and an end) then you have the abomination that has become "Six Sigma". Many of our most celebrated, then ridiculed & abandoned practices were done in by Programming them. This is a shame. (baby with the bathwater, and all that!)

I forgot to mention in my original post that I am serious about this. If there is a lifecycle, then it is likely this process will continue. If this is a process then it should be managed at some level. Is it being managed but not visible to us?Don't worry Tom, we did take your post seriously even though we trew a couple of laughs in. Anyway: I could not help noticing a couple of connections between this this subject the thread
Does Lean hold the key to success? Is Lean the ideal vehicle for moving forward? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8295)

And yes: I do think there is a life cycle of sorts. Any process, project, product and particularly organisation (see Understanding Business Organizations (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4515&highlight=Life+span)) has one, imo. They are born, they develop, they age and in the end they pass away...

/Claes

Complementing Tom’s view, I would say that these Quality Programs usually follow a “hype-cycle” structure. The “hype-cycle” is a tool that the Gartner Group uses from the 90’s to study emerging technologies. Here I will replace the word “technology” to the word “Quality Program” in the description of the hype cycle.

The tool shows how new quality programs are overhyped when they are launched, only to disappoint everybody before finally maturing and being wisely and widely adopted.
Usually there is an inverse relationship between publicity and the level of usage. In the beginning, there is a lot of exposure and publicity, the press writes wonderful stories; the consultants begin to promote it, etc. This time of the “hype cycle” is called “Technology Trigger”.
The cycle continues as the Program enters into the phase of “peak of inflated expectations”; when it is considered as the Panacea and the solution for all the problems in the world.
Predictably, the next step is called “Through of disillusionment”, when the huge expectations do not materialize and the feeling of disappointment diffuses throughout the practitioners.
But always (as Bev remarked) there are sound analytical tools and good practices arising from the program when they are wisely applied, so the next step is called “slope of enlightenment” with a slowly increase of use until the last phase is reached, called “plateau of productivity”. This last phase is when the program maturity reaches its height.

I adapted this description from the following article:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/07/1049567604685.html