TQM (Total Quality Management) Thoughts
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:[email protected]...
> 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 :
[email protected]...
> 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 :
[email protected]...
> 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: "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:[email protected]...
> 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 :
[email protected]...
> 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 :
[email protected]...
> 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.