posted 05 August 1998 12:42 PM               

---------snippo------

Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 10:28:15 -0400
From: CarieL@aol.com
Subject: TQM-Deming/Kaizen??

I'm currently taking a graduate course entitled Managing Quality which encompasses the entire issue of total quality management. I agree with John in that many of the buzzwords we hear today (i.e. benchmarking, quality circles, empowerment, self-directed teams, etc..) are actually a part of the entire quality evolution. Two books we're reading that may be helpful are 1) The Race Without a Finish Line by Warren Schmidt and Jerome Finnigan and 2) Improving Performance by Geary Rummler and Alan Brache.

Following are some points from the book that you may find interesting. Perhaps it would be a great opportunity to discuss some of these together in more detail.

* TQM involves a change of organization culture, with greater emphasis on collaboration and teamwork. TQM is a new way of organizational life. TQM is a new paradigm of management.

* 85% of quality problems in American industry are the fault of management (Deming).

* Basic beliefs that American managers still find hard to accept: 1) it actually costs less to make a high quality product than a product of poor quality, 2) increasing the reliability of a process reduces its cost, 3) the relationship between boss & subordinate is not inherently adversarial, 4) lack of education does not mean lack of intelligence

* Management Theories & Practices Contributing to TQM: 1) Scientific Management: Finding the Best Way to Do a Job, 2) Group Dynamics: Enlisting & Organizing the Power of Group Experience, 3) Training & Development: Investing in Human Capital, 4) Achievement Motivation: People Get Satisfaction from Accomplishment, 5) Employee Involvement: Workers Should Have Some Influence in the Organization, 6) Sociotechnical Systems: Organizations Operate as Open Systems, 7) Organization Development: Helping Organizations to Learn & Change, 8) Corporate Culture: Beliefs, Myths, and Values that Guide the Behavior of People Throughout the Organization, 9) The New Leadership Theory: Inspiring & Empowering Others to Act, 10) The Linking Pin Concept of Organizations: Creating Cross-Functional Teams, 11) Strategic Planning

* Management Theories & Practices Not Compatible with TQM: 1) Bureaucratic Management: Direction from the Boss; Compliance from the Subordinate, 2) Caveat Emptor: Let the Buyer Beware, 3) MBO & MBR, 4) Internal Competition: Encouraging Each Department to be Number 1, 5) The Strategy of Organizational Stability: If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It, 6) Antagonism Toward Union: Workers' Interests are Basically Different from Manager's Interests, 7) Bottom Line Driven: The First Test for Every Decision and Action

* Single Goal of TQM: Customer Satisfaction! Single Focus: A Process that Produces Consistent Quality! The basics of TQM philosophy and process can be stated simply: to design and manage a process that satisfies the customer in an increasingly effective way.

* TQM Manager's 4 Key Responsibilities: 1) provide vision and leadership, 2) document and standardize the processes and empower the workers to carry them out, 3) continuously improve the processes, 4) innovate, introducing substantial changes when necessary and feasible

* 8 Principles Underlying TQManagement: 1) Principle of Customer Satisfaction, 2) Principle of Challenge, 3) Principle of Process, 4) Principle of Continuous Improvement, 5) Principle of Collaboration, 6) Principle of Change, 7) Principle of Measurements, 8) Principle of Persistence

* Critical Behaviors of TQManagers: 1) Give priority attention to customers and their needs, 2) empower rather than control subordinates, 3) emphasize improvement rather than maintenance, 4) emphasize prevention by inspection of the process, 5) encourage collaboration rather than competition, 6) train and coach rather than direct and supervise, 7) learn from problems rather than minimizing them, 8) continually try to improve communication

* Walk the Talk! CEO & executives must walk their talk every day. Their actions, rather than their words, will communicate their level of commitment.

Hope this gives some insight for you!!

Carie Andree Muskegon, MI
CarieL@aol.com

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

Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 10:42:03 -0400 From: CarieL@aol.com Subject: Finance Dept/TQM

As I mentioned in my previous message, a couple of the key principles underlying TQM Management are 1) the Principle of Collaboration and 2) the Principle of Measurements. For your Finance Manager to indicate that you should be focusing your time on some other "bigger" department is a clear sign to me that collaboration is not happening here. In fact, the book I'm reading indicates "no part of an organization is self-sufficient and independent....interdependence is the new cornerstone of the customer-driven organization. Each part (including finance) is privy to the data that the others need to do their job in the most effective and efficient manner."

Further, I would believe that the Principle of Measurement would directly affect your Finance department. The book indicates "the principle of measurements was one of Deming's most important contributions and is at the heart of managing by fact and Kaizen. Goals that cannot be measured are merely slogans...measurable goals not only serve to keep people accurate in their assessment of success but also serve to energize people through feelings of accomplishment and challenge."

What greater opportunity exists for a department that hopefully contains individuals with an analytical mind?? Most often the numbers will paint a picture that is more helpful than anything else! Who is closest to the numbers??? Your Finance Department! I would suggest getting them on board!

posted 13 November 1998 01:32 PM               

Good postings.

Almost a forgotten site I see. Perhaps the fact that ISO is the "latest and greatest thing since sliced bread" eclipses that fact that regardless of what label the Quality System is given--it is just that--a Quality System. Personally speaking, this site interests me much more than any of the ISO or QS forums, but saddly I find myself going to those sites almost exclusively. I realize that I am caught up in the whirl-wind as well, as they are the current mandates for the company I currently work for.

Having read many books and articles on Quality Management Philosophy from many of the notable gurus (Deming, Crosby, Feigenbuam, Juran, etc.) I feel the common stress is on the essence of Quality and not on documentation. While I would agree that ISO, or just about any other Quality System standard, has the potential to unlock the essence of Quality Management, organizations get bogged down with the documentation systems. Perhaps I should have used the term 'overwhelmed' rather than 'bogged down'. Either way the point of the standard is obscured by the mounds of paperwork and perceived work increases. In my experience, most of management will sing high praises to ISO while senior management is around, condemn it to myself or others when they aren't. Major contributing factor to this I feel, Making Money with the Western Management Paradigm. Management of all levels are content on: using antiquated systems, taking on the caretaker role, and planning by the seat of their pants (I steal these thoughts from Deming, Crosby, and Juran). I think they're right. Anyhow, I still hold out some hope that the essence will come through and Quality will emerge.

What is the Plan? The trouble sets in when an organization actually move forward with these antiquated systems, confusing favorable market situations as accomplishments of management. Doing this all without Strategic Quality Planning. Who needs it? Right?

posted 13 November 1998 05:25 PM               

Thanks for the words. You make a good point that the documentation system need not be unbearable. I try to sell the position that ISO in itself is some minor percentage of the Quality System as a whole. But it is still a necessity.

ISO appears to me as a forced set of rules. In itself, it does not do much to foster a Quality Minded culture as does TQM. Interestingly enough, some of the best Management Review material for our organization is directly related to TQM influence, such as internal customer/supplier relationships. Information, such as understanding Production's need for materials, allows Receiving to adjust systems to meet their customer needs. While ISO requires systems to comply and be 'effective', I have noticed that Registrars are less likely to fault your system on effectiveness as long as an Element's bullets are satisfied. Perhaps it is not the Standard itself, but the activities of the Registrar at fault here. Never the less, it is perhaps why ISO carries such a stigma for me. I expect more from the process. Perhaps I am expecting too much.

posted 13 November 1998 07:52 PM               

You have brought up some very valid points, which I for the most part agree. I would like to add my two cents and see if any additional comments pop up.

The statement that ãperhaps the fact that ISO is the Îlatest and greatest thing since sliced breadâä, I believe, hits the nail right on the head. One of the primary problems organizations had (have) when implementing a TQM (or whatever) program were that programs of this type require a change in thinking. It is more of a Îphilosophicalâ type of change. When the ISO 9000 series of standards came along, organizations took a look and immediately said, ãAt last, something I can do now.ä In other words, most modern managers did not want to wait for the improvements TQM would bring and thought ISO 9000 would provide a more immediate return. The only problem was (is), many organizations went about implementing ISO for the wrong reasons. A TQM program, if implemented correctly and effectively, would give real improvements, given time. ISO does NOT, in and of itself. It takes more thought and planning, in most cases. It gives basic requirements for a quality management system, it does not guarantee solutions to quality problems. While elements of TQM are included in the standard, it does not REQUIRE that they be used, although smart companies do.

Perhaps an equivalent scenario might be this: During the TQM fad (I use the word fad because that is how most organizations treated it, not because that is what it was) of the 80âs and early 90âs, Demingâs 14 points were quoted like gospel, but most failed to see that the 14 points were a whole, not a series of parts. Therefore, they would review the points and see ãtrained in statistical techniques.ä Immediately, with something they could actually grasp, SPC training became one of the most popular growth industries in the quality field during this period. Mass training in statistical techniques were conducted, some to the point where EVERY employee had to be trained in SPC, regardless of their responsibilities. What resulted, in a majority of cases, were lots of charts and graphs at work stations, but no improvement effort to make things better. A Îpâ chart that had an average of 5% nonconforming would run for months and months without significant change. An Xbar - R chart would run with process limits that exceeded the specification limits, but still nothing is done. Sure they were in control, therefore no one thought to make improvements. Management by the old paradigm and Îlearned ignoranceâ prevailed.

I guess I could sum this all up with one phrase:

ãMost people would rather live with a problem they cannot solve than accept a solution they cannot understand.ä

posted 16 November 1998 01:19 PM               

Really enjoyed your Summary line! You bring up a very good point regarding Deming's 14 Points. They are a whole. It is funny how management takes parts of the whole and tries to implement them expecting grand results. It may be because they are still too near sighted.

Being a Deming disciple myself (for better or worse), I try to live the 14 points to the fullest extent and try to stay away from the 7 Deadly Sins of Management. I realize that this places me in the minority as far as management philosophy goes, but Deming thought of some pretty basic stuff that still knocks my socks off. So basic, I wonder how it could be overlooked for so long. The philosophy as I understand it tries to create winners out of everyone. What could be wrong with that? A process like this should be an easy sell-through to any organization. So what is the problem? We live in a society based on winners and losers. Too bad.

Fortunately for me, I am able to implement this philosophy in my department, saving my soul a bit. I might add that I have had excellent results. This is also recognized by other managers and some senior managers in the company. Yet seeing the results is not enough for them. Still trapped by the paradigms of old. I don't think it is a training issue, I have spent many hours showing the benefits of statistical thinking. I even brought in notable consultants on the topic. Again, great reviews from everyone. So why haven't we committed to this philosophy? It falls back on the point you make regarding management acting on some of the points and not all of them.

With the recent troubles in Japan's economic structure, many are making correlations with the fact that Japan practices Deming's profound knowledge. I am not sure a correlation exists. These recent troubles confirm with an already skeptical majority that the Japanese aren't doing things correctly. This philosophy hasn't passed the test of time like our tried and true Western Management Philosophy. Right? Logic like this suggests to me that we still have a long way to go. Again, too bad.

Once we have figured out that the world is a big enough place to share and that it doesn't really matter if your organization is #1, just competitive and in business, I think we will have found my favorite point, Constancy of purpose!

posted 16 November 1998 04:15 PM               

In two organizations I have worked for, I am amazed to find that many believe that Japan's failures are directly as a result of the way they do business. The inference here is that their techniques are to blame. Techniques such as JIT, SPC, and Kaizen. This is where I can establish some type of connection. I can only assume they believe that their success was a passing fad as any of the techniques I mentioned.

posted 16 November 1998 07:49 PM               

I also agree with Marc in his assessment of the time frame involved. One to two years is, in my estimate, a minimum for cultural change. As Marc stated, this needs to be explained up-front. If you do not receive a committment, you are wasting time. No amount of time is adequate if top management is not committed, from the start and thru the entire lifetime of the process. Continuous improvement requires this commitment from the start.

Mike, there are such a doable step by step process guides already defined in print. You could do worse than the book ãIntegrated Process Managementä by Roger Slater and the accompanying workbooks. He defines a six step process that consists of:

1) How to Create a Positive Environment
2) How to Develop a Process Model of Key Control Variables
3) How to Develop an Effective Process Control Standard
4) How to Communicate Process Control Standards
5) How to Statistically Monitor the Process
6) How to use Diagnostics to Improve Standards

It is an excellent read for those who believe (as I do) that the key to an effective quality management system is in the PROCESS, not the product. Be advised. Slaterâs book does not improve upon the time frame involved, but rather extends it. But, using his outline, a plan can be prepared, with milestones, to present to an upper management team that may (or may not) be persuasive. I have even used Slaterâs techniques in other ventures such as ISO 9000.

Another good step-by-step guide is ãTotal Quality Management Handbookä by Jack Hradesky. This model is more in-depth and may not be suitable for some operations, altho, IMHO it can be applied to most operations with minimul changes. Hradeskyâs method may also not be suitable for those not very familar with TQM concepts before opening this book.

Marc, your statement that companies must marry the varying quality concepts (ISO, TQP, TPM, TQL, SQC, Kaizen, Poka-Yoke, etc.) is right on target. There is no one ãmagic bullet.ä Take the most applicable of each and apply them in an organized, structured manner.

And for those organizations who are not willing to take the ãlong view.ä They are probably looking at the bottom line, seeing that things are going OK, and do not worry about it. It does not even occur to them that things could be any better.

Kevin, I am glad you enjoyed the summary line. But, it is not mine. That must be attributed to Lloyd S. Nelson. Another line I like to use when trying to bring TQM concepts to the masses is this:

ãYou Must Unlearn What You Have Learned.ä Yoda, Jedi Master

As far as organizations not accepting or understanding the concepts of TQM (or whatever), How could they know. Who taught them?

Regards,
Don

posted 17 November 1998 08:38 AM               

Lloyd S. Nelson...Deming...is there a connections there? But probably not with the Jedi Knight. I believe Deming probably didn't have too much time to read sci-fi novels (busy writing books and papers'n' such) and I heard he watched TV only once (to watch Man walk on the Moon) so he probably did see Star Wars on HBO. All the same, that quote is quite appropriate too.

Thanks for the good words and the leads on the books. Being a book-worm to some degree, I like good book referrals.

Cultural change. A topic in itself. What I would give to have the magic wand on that! It isn't that I am impatient, it just would make the work easier and more enjoyable. Watching and organization trying to adopt an ISO culture was like putting baby shoes on elephant feet! Tough work at first.

What I have found to be a great asset in cultural change, from a middle management perspective, was to hold informal meetings with associates to discuss cultural issues (smaller groups). This environment placed associates on even ground and made it easier to ask "dumb" questions. I had more success here than with a larger audience (more conservative questioning for fear of asking the "dumb" question). I believe it will be easier to develop and ISO environment than it will be for a TQM environment. The basics of ISO can be pushed from the middle, TQM must come from the top. It will be interesting to me to read the first suggested reading to see how the author accomplishes this.

I am fortunate to a large degree that most of senior management here is not a problem in this area. But I still have a hold out or two to still convince. Once they're aboard...well, we'll see.

posted 17 November 1998 02:09 PM               

Take a car. Replace steering wheel with foot pedals (airplane) for steering. Provide another foot pedal for shifting. Provide lever for braking (hand lever), another lever for clutch and a last for acceleration (gas).

How long will it take until you are comfortable driving the vehicle?

posted 21 December 1998 04:21 PM               

Basically, what I'm looking for is 1)advice on how to get "buy in" from all levels and 2)some good recommendations for reference materials (I'm particularly interested in ways that organizations have "married" systems).

posted 21 December 1998 05:17 PM               

Glad you found the Cove. You have come to the right spot for answers and debate. Sorry I don't have time tonight to give you much of either, but rather some direction. The other thread in this forum "Is TQM Dead?" has some good information you might want to run through.

Education is a collection of knowldge and understanding. If you've got that, then you're educated!

ISO9002 in a year, should be plenty of time.

posted 21 December 1998 08:18 PM               

South of Merritt Island must be comfortable this time of year. Lived in Central Florida for 12 years, but do not miss it since moving back here.

War stories? Hang around. There are (is?) plenty here.

I believe the implementation of ISO 9000 (or whatever) should be combined with TQM concepts for maximum benefit, but getting those ãpowers that beä to buy in is most difficult indeed. I posted a parable (Whoâs on Trial) somewhere in this forum as a reminder for those types, but I do not recall where. Look around. Remember that ISO 9000 (or whatever) are standards, not models.

ãNot an educated person:ä Knowledge without wisdom is worse than ignorance alone. School learning is not the better of those available, IMHO.

Gentlemen?: I am certain I do not fall into that category, but others may be more qualified than I to judge that.

Ask away your questions. I am sure all participants herein will be glad to answer.

All for now, and I look forward to your input.

posted 22 December 1998 08:58 AM               

I feel the best way to get buy in on any topic is by selling its importance. The stronger the topic, generally better buy in. ISO and especially TQM in the Quality World are strong topics. So why the tough buy in? Probably has a lot to do with not fully understanding the topic. Your job is to sell, sell, sell the topic. When that doesn't work you should sell, sell, sell again. When that doesn't work, it probably won't. Someone in this group mentioned the "magic wand" (I believe it was Marc). If we had it, we would sure share it. I would look through the management group to see who your potential cheerleaders are, the people who will help you spread the news so to speak. These allies can make the sell much easier and serves both as a place to start and a place to build. There will be tough times ahead, not to worry. Always someone in the group to fall back on to get you over a hurdle.

Recommendations on reading materials to marry concepts: TQM with ISO? Wasn't sure what you were looking for exactly. My answer regardless would be the same. Read as much as you can on different topics (from several authors) and visit the Cove often. Many resources out there, most of which speak to specifics, but the blend of material types and different author presentation will give you good perspective. Marrying topics generally comes for me when I read bunches of material and recognize the connections between topics. I never know when it will hit, but the light bulb comes on. I recently purchased a book on System Re-engineering. Basically a blend of Kaizen and ISO. I have read each topic individually, married them on my own as this recent book does. Don't know if I will learn much from this read, but who knows. Also, when you have good command of the topic, people will recognize this which will help you on your finding good "buy in".

Resources: (books from) Deming, Juran, Feigenbaum on Quality Concepts and Management (Several other authors and topics not mentioned), (Internet, Cove) information, Q & A, ISO Standards including the support documents.

Lots to read, read, read. Then lots to do, do, do. Good Luck!!

posted 22 December 1998 01:54 PM               

You need to be careful not to get a half-baked order to move forward. There's nothing less desireable than finding yourself 6 months down the road with no support. Get support of the executive staff. Give them a plan, and if you find that they are not giving up the resources put it back in their hands.

Show them the money. It is my personal opinion that some sections offer obvious benefit with little up front investment. I am thinking about managment review and auditing. The companies I have worked with/for have all been weak here and the benefits are enormous. Hey a good topic for discussion!!!

This goes for auditing too. Auditors are very helpful for pulling together your first project plan, not to mention the fact that they are a very powerful improvement tool.
Get a group of auditors together, get them trained, and do a gap analysis to get you started. You can develop a list of action items and project plan from here. There are some good posts here about using auditors for improvement.

Dont do this for the certificate. Again, this is my opinion, but ISO can hurt as well as help a company. If you dont have a good audit-corrective action system you will have nothing but a real expensive beaurocracy on your hands. Again-my opinion. Get your money's worth and make sure you are happy with the outcome.

When you start a section, check out the cove. We might have some thoughts that will save you some heartache.

Back to the group....

posted 28 December 1998 10:22 AM               

On the subject of reading materials--I've done some hunting and I've come up with some materials that seem to hit what I'm looking for. I'd like to throw out a few titles and authors and get your opinions. I'm not familiar enough with all of the quality guru's out there, and I don't have a lot of time to waste reading something that's not going to help...here we go---

1. "TQM Trilogy" (Using ISO9000 and the Deming and Baldridge (?) award concepts)
Authors are Francis Mahoney, Carl Thor.

I'm hoping this will give me some ideas on marrying concepts (or at least make the light bulb flicker)

2. "Beyond the BS5750-ISO9000 Certificate-A Bureacracy Buster's Guide to Quality Assurance"
Author: Richard Davis

This particular title interests me because, being a small shop, and a "job shop", I do not want to create a system that will tie our hands completely. One of the things that I need to do is allow us as much flexibility as possible. My target is to allow product to flow through the system as quickly as possible while maintaining strict quality standards. Changes and problems occur frequently due to the nature of our work, and I don't want situations where product is held up unnecessarily.

3. Full Circle Corrective Action
Author: Thomas Cappels

I have repeatedly heard and read about the importance of a robust corrective action system. Ours tends to address the problem without guaranteeing a permanent solution (or at least a road to one)most of the time. I don't think we have a bad system, but I'm going to have my hands full getting full cooperation, especially inter-deparmental CAR's. Maybe this title will offer some insight.

Some authors I'd like to know if any of the group has any opinions on:

Philip Crosby (I know, he's a (the?) guru, but will his concepts work in my shop).

Greg Hutchins
Miles Weaver
Robert Craig

I look forward to hearing everyone's input. I'll be doing more research, so expect more questions.

I have already written our manual. It's been approved to an ISO9000 equivalent(?) system, specifically Boeing's D1-9000A, so the qroundwork is laid. We were audited and approved by Boeing in November of '97. It just needs a little fine tuning, and, like I said originally, I'm not real thrilled with the type of system that it turned out to be. There seems to be a lot of effort put into doing things (documentation, especially) that actually contributes little, if any, to the actual quality of the part produced. I once spent a week at a customer's facility across the country just amending documentation shipped with product to make their QA people happy. The interesting thing is, their people here, as well as government reps, bought off the documentation before here. Needless to say, after a week "dotting I's and crossing T's" I left with a bad taste in my mouth, as we did nothing that affected the quality of the part. This is the type of thing I really want to stay away from, as it only adds cost to the product without improving it.

Anyway, I've rambled on long enough--back to you guys....

posted 28 December 1998 12:42 PM               

Can't say anything about the books or authors you listed. Sorry.

Philip Crosby: I particularly like his ideas on Leadership but mixed on Quality Concepts and Management. As far as if he is "the" guru, for some yes, for me no (Zero Defect concept is a difficult sell throughout the organization, at least in my experience). When time permits, you should read on the authors you do not select in your present time crunch. Broadens knowledge and understanding. May even change your mind.

For me it is Deming as far as getting the concepts of TQM and Quality in general. Fiegenbaum does a nice job of laying out interrelationships between functions within and organization. The same may be said of the "TQM Trilogy" by the description you gave. This book especially peeks my curiosity since it uses to highly recognized Quality Awards were the focus is less on perfect paperwork and on real improvement to systems, product, and customer satisfaction! For me, that's what it's all about!

posted 31 December 1998 09:35 AM               

I also have not read the authors you mentioned. Sorry. But, I am intrigued by the "TQM Trilogy" title mentioned. Perhaps I will check it out.

Kevin's observations regarding Crosby are on target. I also have difficulty accepting some of his concepts. His Zero Defects and conformance to requirements are especially troublesome to me. But, that is another story. As far 'gurus' are concerned, Kevin makes a good sell for Deming, to which I have no argument. I would only add that to use Deming as your guidepost, use what Deming said, not what people have said he said.

Your observation about 'dotting the i's' and 'crossing the t's' I liked. It reminds me of the old 'MIL-I-" environment I was working in prior to my current position. That is part of the reason I like the flexibility of the ISO-9000 system. It allows me to tailor my system to my facility and the standard. Using this flexibility, I am able to design a system that is not top-heavy and use the quality management practices that actually improve upon product/process quality.

It sounds to me that the 'fine tuning' to Boeing's D1-9000A is not within your comfort zone. As Kevin and Steven pointed out, you probably need cheerleaders other than yourself on your side. If you are 'fine tuning' without adding value to your Quality Management System, question it! In the 'MIL-I-" system I was in before, every subcontractor rep and GSA rep wanted to add their "little piece" to the pie. If I had followed all the suggestions received, that system would have been so bureaucratic, it would have served no purpose. I had to fight tooth and nail to maintain compliance to the standard and my Quality Management System. But, I had the support of my top management. For every place they said "it sure would be nice" or "we would like to see" I responded, "Where does it say I HAVE to do this?" Once I convinced them that I had met the intent of the standard, they would normally back off. Sometimes not, to which I eventually had to cave. Perhaps my observations are off base. If so, let me know.

posted 31 December 1998 08:07 PM               

quote:

---

"Where does it say I HAVE to do this?" Once I convinced them that I had met the intent of the standard, they would normally back off.

---

I preach and I preach and I preach this.