I gave this a read and it was interesting. Reminded me of my college days so many years ago... Comments?
-----snippo-----
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 01:53:38 -0500
From: Johan MAERTENS mineral.maertens wmich.edu
Subject: Quality is not dead.
--------
Thanks to everybody who expressed their concern for the survival of quality (their job).
Based on some recent literature review and your comments I resume:
Quality: Where are we?
There are several visions on the status of quality and they are disparate.
In the review of the 1997 Industry Week Census of manufacturers plant and corporate surveys (Taninecz, 1997), Brady assumed that today 'quality is a given' in order to compete in globally intensive markets. The Industry Week Census survey shows that this may be a false assumption. Over one third of the respondents consider quality programs only as somewhat critical or not critical at all to the achievement of world-class manufacturing. Quality seems not yet a given.
Even more, Stratton (1997) discussed the reduced interest for quality training at universities. They phase out quality minors and have little interest in an education quality system themselves. Companies are downsizing or eliminating quality assurance and quality control departments. The days of massive quality organizations in production facilities or corporate headquarters are outdated. There is still a role for the quality professional but it will be different.
Many view quality as a dying fad that never worked. Quality Progress reader Crystal (Stratton, 1997) fears that the US may be in a situation similar to the period following World War II, when advances in quality fell by the way aside. While quality has become deeply ingrained in some organizations' cultures, others believe it is going away.
In a time with a prosperous US economy, I feel that some companies get (too?) relaxed about quality, without totally forgetting about it. The first priority is getting as much as possible products out of the door. Shareholders fear an economical recession (Asian economical flue) coming to the door and try to get as much as possible wealth in the short term. This increased short-term financial pressure reduces the organizations' focus on quality.
I get support for this from consultant Marino (Quality, 37:8): "Times like now, when economic conditions are good =85 companies have very high profitability and start looking for ways to cut things to increase profitability to a higher level and, more often than not, they will start cutting quality." US manufacturers are letting their quality procedures slip, thinking things are so great that they can coast.
It may not be until we are in a period of economical recession that organizations will rediscover the advantages of quality and embrace them again to improve the bottomline.
Another measure of reduced popularity of quality is the decreasing number of applications for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. They peaked some years ago, but organizations seem to loose interest in quality.
When I take a broader view of quality versus time, I can come up with some views on the status of quality.
1. My first viewpoint is seeing quality as a wave. In this respect, I apply the life cycle approach to the quality movement. Quality is old - compared to the speed and shortlivedness of today's business methodologies - and we may have crossed the maturity phase and be heading now in the final decline phase. Quality is not (yet) dead. We see little developments and just some small variations on a theme.
Spencer (1998) suggests that we became used (immune?) to the quality stimulus. He writes "Over time we have gone from quality as a non-existing but wished for condition, to quality as a source but desired condition, then to quality as an available and anticipated condition and now to quality as a common and accepted condition."
2. My second viewpoint is seeing quality as a diffusion process. Not all organizations adopted quality method at the same time. Some organizations were quick to adopt the new quality concept - Japan in 1950s and 1960s, US in 1970s and 1980s - while others waited and still wait. The Industry Week Census (Taninecz, 1997) shows that over two thirds of the responding organizations have achieved 'some implementation' quality programs. The late majority is now getting into quality and the laggards may be able to keep it off. QS 9000 requirements boost a whole consulting industry for the Big Three automobile manufacturers' suppliers. More and more contractor organizations at various sublevels in the supply ranking get on board of the quality train.
Tamimi and Sebastinelli (1998) report about their survey on Total Quality Management. In 1997, the average period of involvement for a surveyed sample was three years and three months. As Total Quality Management is a long-term process, these efforts can dominate quality at the start of the 21st century. There is also diffusion in the acceptance and implementation of quality throughout the different economies in the world.
3. Another viewpoint suggests that quality is a cyclical approach to management. The cycles are maybe not as short as the market and economic cycles we see in industrial cycles. Instead, such cycles may correlate more to the human generation cycle (Taninecz, 1997). Each generation, in the name of progress, tends to reject some of the ideas of the previous generation. When we assume that quality got foot in the US in the 1970s then one human generation later we arrive in the 1990s. That could be a plausible explanation of what is happening now. We could be in a stage where quality is no longer the 'in' to do for younger managers. Quality is in a decline because it is no longer exciting or failing to produce quick-fix results. Ultimately, only a few new organizations pursue quality today before the arrival of a champion or a new need to revive the approach with a new twist.
In analogy with the business process reengineering methodology, Harrington (1998), the quality project cycle time could be too long in this decade of speed.
2.3 Quality: Where are we going?
The American Society for Quality Control Futures Team identified key forces to forecast life in the year 2010 (Luther, 1996). The drivers of change will be:
- values such as environmentalism, ethnic nationalism and loyalty
- globalization
- a new workforce affected by demographic shifts and contingent
workers
- continuing impact of the information revolution
- customized marketing to meet customer needs
- leadership
- expansion of quality into new sectors
- the embedding of quality in all aspects of work
It is not surprising to find reference to quality twice in the identified drivers of change by the American Society for Quality Control. They seem to believe in a future for quality, and so do I. I think quality is here to stay. However, it will not be the same quality as before.
I will not consider organizations that think quality is a fad or those organizations that lag behind in quality implementation. The companies with management believing in the future of quality (albeit cyclic) are the focus of my forecasts in the rest of this term paper.
In the next century, we can expect organizational structures to change. Modern bureaucratic, static organizations will give away to more flexible, smaller unit structures. These develop swiftly around a particular product demand and dissolve in the declining life cycle phase of the product to create a new structure around a new product. We will even see more cross-functional teamwork to reduce cycle times for product development. Several differently skilled people will work together to a common goal.
Continuous business process reengineering to leaner structures will permanently change the process and the ways to control their quality. Work simplification, automation, reengineered processes and other approaches demand fewer quality professionals and other quality management structures.
This permanent change of structure will be a major challenge for quality management systems. The systems like ISO 9000 are based on static and bureaucratic organization structures. Management and quality people will have to be creative to reorient their quality management systems to keep up with the speed of the ever-changing organizational structures.
Stakeholder expectations will change too. Management should align stakeholder needs with quality management system goals. All stakeholders must be considered, not only customers and suppliers, but also investors, the community and the environment. Radder (1998) points out that intensified competition and development in a turbulent environment necessitate a shift in the quality mindset to also include providing delight to all stakeholders by offering them superior value and satisfaction beyond what is expected.
With quality organizations reduced by costcutting measures, downsizing and rightsizing, the maker of the product is now responsible for the quality of the product (Dedhia, 1997). However, can quality be everyone's responsibility? It is common knowledge that a responsibility assigned to everyone becomes nobody's responsibility. To survive and to achieve long-term quality performance in the future, total quality should not be controlled by everybody (read =A74 below).
In the same line of thought about self-control of quality, I raise two more issues. First, I refer to the previous remark about the reduced number of applications for the Malcolm Baldrige Award. Drensek (1998) thinks more organizations use the criteria for self-assessment. Second, I hear about major companies that are no longer willing to pay large fees for quality audits to their consultants because they do not add value. I believe it is human nature that prevents people from auditing themselves. This is why organizations always have an outside accounting firm audit their financial statements, approvals are required for expense accounts and organizations cannot certify themselves to ISO 9000. These practices do not imply that corporations suspect their own accountants of dishonesty, but are only an acknowledgment that people cannot be totally objective when auditing themselves. Of course, self-auditing is a logical way to prepare for an external audit (Hoerl, 1998). In the next sections, I explore two potential quality management/management quality methods for the future:
1. six sigma: new challenges for organizations advanced in quality management and
2. Total Quality Management: the integration of quality into management. Total Quality Management in the future will redefine quality roles for every organizational member.
My statement implies that Total Quality Management is not buried in the line of past management fads like Management By Objectives or Business Process Reengineering (read below).
next sections: omitted
Johan Maertens
Do you like minerals and other earth treasures?
Visit the MKA homepage at (broken link removed)
-----snippo-----
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 01:53:38 -0500
From: Johan MAERTENS mineral.maertens wmich.edu
Subject: Quality is not dead.
--------
Thanks to everybody who expressed their concern for the survival of quality (their job).
Based on some recent literature review and your comments I resume:
Quality: Where are we?
There are several visions on the status of quality and they are disparate.
In the review of the 1997 Industry Week Census of manufacturers plant and corporate surveys (Taninecz, 1997), Brady assumed that today 'quality is a given' in order to compete in globally intensive markets. The Industry Week Census survey shows that this may be a false assumption. Over one third of the respondents consider quality programs only as somewhat critical or not critical at all to the achievement of world-class manufacturing. Quality seems not yet a given.
Even more, Stratton (1997) discussed the reduced interest for quality training at universities. They phase out quality minors and have little interest in an education quality system themselves. Companies are downsizing or eliminating quality assurance and quality control departments. The days of massive quality organizations in production facilities or corporate headquarters are outdated. There is still a role for the quality professional but it will be different.
Many view quality as a dying fad that never worked. Quality Progress reader Crystal (Stratton, 1997) fears that the US may be in a situation similar to the period following World War II, when advances in quality fell by the way aside. While quality has become deeply ingrained in some organizations' cultures, others believe it is going away.
In a time with a prosperous US economy, I feel that some companies get (too?) relaxed about quality, without totally forgetting about it. The first priority is getting as much as possible products out of the door. Shareholders fear an economical recession (Asian economical flue) coming to the door and try to get as much as possible wealth in the short term. This increased short-term financial pressure reduces the organizations' focus on quality.
I get support for this from consultant Marino (Quality, 37:8): "Times like now, when economic conditions are good =85 companies have very high profitability and start looking for ways to cut things to increase profitability to a higher level and, more often than not, they will start cutting quality." US manufacturers are letting their quality procedures slip, thinking things are so great that they can coast.
It may not be until we are in a period of economical recession that organizations will rediscover the advantages of quality and embrace them again to improve the bottomline.
Another measure of reduced popularity of quality is the decreasing number of applications for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. They peaked some years ago, but organizations seem to loose interest in quality.
When I take a broader view of quality versus time, I can come up with some views on the status of quality.
1. My first viewpoint is seeing quality as a wave. In this respect, I apply the life cycle approach to the quality movement. Quality is old - compared to the speed and shortlivedness of today's business methodologies - and we may have crossed the maturity phase and be heading now in the final decline phase. Quality is not (yet) dead. We see little developments and just some small variations on a theme.
Spencer (1998) suggests that we became used (immune?) to the quality stimulus. He writes "Over time we have gone from quality as a non-existing but wished for condition, to quality as a source but desired condition, then to quality as an available and anticipated condition and now to quality as a common and accepted condition."
2. My second viewpoint is seeing quality as a diffusion process. Not all organizations adopted quality method at the same time. Some organizations were quick to adopt the new quality concept - Japan in 1950s and 1960s, US in 1970s and 1980s - while others waited and still wait. The Industry Week Census (Taninecz, 1997) shows that over two thirds of the responding organizations have achieved 'some implementation' quality programs. The late majority is now getting into quality and the laggards may be able to keep it off. QS 9000 requirements boost a whole consulting industry for the Big Three automobile manufacturers' suppliers. More and more contractor organizations at various sublevels in the supply ranking get on board of the quality train.
Tamimi and Sebastinelli (1998) report about their survey on Total Quality Management. In 1997, the average period of involvement for a surveyed sample was three years and three months. As Total Quality Management is a long-term process, these efforts can dominate quality at the start of the 21st century. There is also diffusion in the acceptance and implementation of quality throughout the different economies in the world.
3. Another viewpoint suggests that quality is a cyclical approach to management. The cycles are maybe not as short as the market and economic cycles we see in industrial cycles. Instead, such cycles may correlate more to the human generation cycle (Taninecz, 1997). Each generation, in the name of progress, tends to reject some of the ideas of the previous generation. When we assume that quality got foot in the US in the 1970s then one human generation later we arrive in the 1990s. That could be a plausible explanation of what is happening now. We could be in a stage where quality is no longer the 'in' to do for younger managers. Quality is in a decline because it is no longer exciting or failing to produce quick-fix results. Ultimately, only a few new organizations pursue quality today before the arrival of a champion or a new need to revive the approach with a new twist.
In analogy with the business process reengineering methodology, Harrington (1998), the quality project cycle time could be too long in this decade of speed.
2.3 Quality: Where are we going?
The American Society for Quality Control Futures Team identified key forces to forecast life in the year 2010 (Luther, 1996). The drivers of change will be:
- values such as environmentalism, ethnic nationalism and loyalty
- globalization
- a new workforce affected by demographic shifts and contingent
workers
- continuing impact of the information revolution
- customized marketing to meet customer needs
- leadership
- expansion of quality into new sectors
- the embedding of quality in all aspects of work
It is not surprising to find reference to quality twice in the identified drivers of change by the American Society for Quality Control. They seem to believe in a future for quality, and so do I. I think quality is here to stay. However, it will not be the same quality as before.
I will not consider organizations that think quality is a fad or those organizations that lag behind in quality implementation. The companies with management believing in the future of quality (albeit cyclic) are the focus of my forecasts in the rest of this term paper.
In the next century, we can expect organizational structures to change. Modern bureaucratic, static organizations will give away to more flexible, smaller unit structures. These develop swiftly around a particular product demand and dissolve in the declining life cycle phase of the product to create a new structure around a new product. We will even see more cross-functional teamwork to reduce cycle times for product development. Several differently skilled people will work together to a common goal.
Continuous business process reengineering to leaner structures will permanently change the process and the ways to control their quality. Work simplification, automation, reengineered processes and other approaches demand fewer quality professionals and other quality management structures.
This permanent change of structure will be a major challenge for quality management systems. The systems like ISO 9000 are based on static and bureaucratic organization structures. Management and quality people will have to be creative to reorient their quality management systems to keep up with the speed of the ever-changing organizational structures.
Stakeholder expectations will change too. Management should align stakeholder needs with quality management system goals. All stakeholders must be considered, not only customers and suppliers, but also investors, the community and the environment. Radder (1998) points out that intensified competition and development in a turbulent environment necessitate a shift in the quality mindset to also include providing delight to all stakeholders by offering them superior value and satisfaction beyond what is expected.
With quality organizations reduced by costcutting measures, downsizing and rightsizing, the maker of the product is now responsible for the quality of the product (Dedhia, 1997). However, can quality be everyone's responsibility? It is common knowledge that a responsibility assigned to everyone becomes nobody's responsibility. To survive and to achieve long-term quality performance in the future, total quality should not be controlled by everybody (read =A74 below).
In the same line of thought about self-control of quality, I raise two more issues. First, I refer to the previous remark about the reduced number of applications for the Malcolm Baldrige Award. Drensek (1998) thinks more organizations use the criteria for self-assessment. Second, I hear about major companies that are no longer willing to pay large fees for quality audits to their consultants because they do not add value. I believe it is human nature that prevents people from auditing themselves. This is why organizations always have an outside accounting firm audit their financial statements, approvals are required for expense accounts and organizations cannot certify themselves to ISO 9000. These practices do not imply that corporations suspect their own accountants of dishonesty, but are only an acknowledgment that people cannot be totally objective when auditing themselves. Of course, self-auditing is a logical way to prepare for an external audit (Hoerl, 1998). In the next sections, I explore two potential quality management/management quality methods for the future:
1. six sigma: new challenges for organizations advanced in quality management and
2. Total Quality Management: the integration of quality into management. Total Quality Management in the future will redefine quality roles for every organizational member.
My statement implies that Total Quality Management is not buried in the line of past management fads like Management By Objectives or Business Process Reengineering (read below).
next sections: omitted
Johan Maertens
Do you like minerals and other earth treasures?
Visit the MKA homepage at (broken link removed)
