|
Author
|
Topic: Is TQM Dead?
|
Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:
|
posted 01 August 2000 07:53 PM
   
From: "PaulR"
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: Re: Does it really pay?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 02:08:18 GMTMaybe 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 in message
news:P44h5.39648$qS3.81136@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> It may be the result of the natural evolution of quality sciences. The
> principals of TQM are sound, but now company's must begin to go after the
> meat and potatoes, and tools like six-sigma and Lean Manufacturing and QS
> are taking over.
>
> Just a thought!
>
> JRT
>
> . wrote in message ...
> >Found at Emerald web site:
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------
> >EDITORIAL
> >
> >A sharp decline in the popularity of TQM has been confirmed by a recent
> >survey of the use of management techniques by companies in the USA and
> >Europe. Are companies being put off by the sheer volume of paperwork
> >generated by the exercise or does this result from serious doubts about the
> >potential value added of quality initiatives?
> >
> >Read the editorial at: http://www.mcb.co.uk/emrld/now/editorial.htm
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Best regards
> >--
> >Jacques D. Vandersleyen
> >607, rue des ruisseaux
> >Pintendre; Québec,
> >G6C 1N1; Canada
> >Courriel: jvds@sympatico.ca
IP: Logged |
Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98
|
posted 02 August 2000 01:54 PM
Marc,Probably not dead, but perhaps in hibernation. Will 6-Sigma, or any other management philosophy do any better? I think that your post has it summed up about right. Essentially, unless Senior Management is ready for fundamental Transformation, one requiring long term focus, all the consultants, software solutions, etc, etc will do not good. Regards, Kevin IP: Logged |
BWoods
Forum Contributor Posts: 44
From:Britton, SD, USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 02 August 2000 02:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Marc Smith:
From: "PaulR"
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: Re: Does it really pay?"JRT" wrote in message
news:P44h5.39648$qS3.81136@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> 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.>> >
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! IP: Logged |
Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:
|
posted 02 August 2000 03:29 PM
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.IP: Logged |
Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:
|
posted 03 August 2000 05:42 AM
quote:
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.IP: Logged |
skyc
Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 6
From:uk
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 06 August 2000 08:05 PM
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 IP: Logged |
Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98
|
posted 07 August 2000 11:19 PM
quote:
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
IP: Logged |
skyc
Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 6
From:uk
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 08 August 2000 08:05 AM
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).] IP: Logged |
Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98
|
posted 08 August 2000 01:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by skyc:
...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. [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 IP: Logged |
The Old Elsmar Cove Forums
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
Main Site Search 
