I'm now studying a master course in Quality management, my lecturer gave us a n interesting question... made me so confuse!! please help me..
the question is "Discuss ISO9000 quality management system, Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, Kaizen and Six Sigma about their role in Total Quality Management."
With my understanding to run TQM in a company, first is to apply kaizen so that to build up a culture of continuous improvement in the company. the ISO 9000 is a guideline and the requirement to meet a certain requirements on the qty system in the company. then can apply six sigma as the employees are prepared for continuous improvement on the existing qty level. As the above tools are base on solving problems or minimize defects which did not involve any finance concern. but with the applied qty systems and finally profits can be increased then it suits the requirements of the Malcolm Award.
Pls comment on my understanding.. thank you very much!!
First, a business system (such as ISO, TQM etc) are "continuous information, management feed-back systems" based on BS5350....a now defunct British system standard, and MIL STD 9858A (also defunct).
TQM is now more a philosophy (or an acronym applicable to maintenance) than it is a viable system approach.
ISO, QS, DS, AS, etc. are systems that, if met, demonstrate that a business has the ability of understanding and meeting customer requirements. That's it. It does not mean the compant can make good parts or satisfy a customer. For the greater part, business pursue these as a means to open the sales and marketing door in the EU rather than as a viable means of meeting customer requirements.
These systems have a paradime: To provide a means of meeting customer requirements, we (the company) have to do things the same way each and every time. Wrong. How many customers, having a concern, willl report to the supplier yet that same supplier will fail to meet the customer requirements in the form of altering its business system? Almost none. This happens when those business are "locked into" a method that is ineffective and, not wanting or willing to change, continue to make the same errors.
Six-sigma is both a philosophy and a means to bettering the business using the DMAIC tools. The forward thinking business identiies its important business activities and improves them NOT for imrovement sake, but because an opportunity, aligned with the strategic business objective, presents itself. It uses quality of conformance, delivery quality, safety, and cost as its major dashboard signals. Anything else that may "get in the way" with these metrics are abandoned or subordinated. After all, it is silly to maximize an area of the business when it is determental to the whole. Six-sigma looks at the whole value stream not just a section of it.
A culture is built when the man in the corner office understands those things that drive the business. Six-sigma provides this.
In the past, a person was selected to implement QS (or ISO or whatever). The general manager didn't want to be bothered with its development, and never could it cost more than 50 dollars to install. In short, he was divorced form his own business. That is why these systems fail (or have very limited success).
Look now at Jack Walsh from GE. He was very interested in, and supportive of, the business culture provided in the framework of Six-sigma. You know a business leader is truely interested when the first questions he asks at his staff meetings are about the (Lean) Six-sigma initative at his company. Those responding do so using the tools and language of a practitioner.
(Lean) Six-sigma provide the vision & tools necessary for a company to be successful. ISO etc. does not. The two are compatible, however.
