|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums
|
The New Elsmar Cove Forums
|
The New Elsmar Cove Forums
![]() TQM - Total Quality Management
![]() Is Your Company Ready?
|
| next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Is Your Company Ready? |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
Is Total Quality Management Right for Your Organization? Organizations who implement Total Quality Management change their culture from a reactive to a proactive focus. Customer requirements are clearly understood and met every time. Employees are given tools to find the root cause of problems and techniques to eliminate them forever. The results are: increased customer satisfaction, reduced operating costs, improved employee morale, and greater competitive edge. How is the Health of Your Organization? 1. Do your people know who their internal suppliers and customers are and know their requirements? 2. Do your people provide clear requirements to their internal suppliers? 3. Do your people demand clear requirements from their internal customers? 4. Are key work processes documented? 5. Do your people measure and track results of key work processes? 6. Do your people use a systematic, fact based analysis to determine root cause of problems? 7. Do your people meet regularly in work groups to address quality problems and continuous improvement opportunities? 8. Do your people consider continuous improvement as part of their job responsibilities? 9. Do your people strive to meet requirements every time and not to accept defects as inevitable? 10. Do your people participate on cross functional teams to resolve organization problems? If you answered 9 or 10 questions, yes, you have a healthy organization - keep up the good work! Otherwise, you may need a Total Quality Management system, now! A Total Quality Management System Consists of: 1. An organization, run by senior management initially, to manage the implementation of a TQM system including: o awareness training for all employees,
A group of six to eight executives meets periodically to measure the progress of the system. 2. Training for all employees on awareness and the tools of TQM. Internal or external trainers can complete this task for a 200 person organization is two months. Application of the tools and techniques of Quality: o identifying customer requirements,
Five one hour sessions are run by your organizations' supervisors. 3. A typical implementation takes six months but is easily tailored to the needs of any organization. The Benefits of a TQM System are: 1. Your people will know their internal suppliers and customers and what their requirements are. This will improve communication and reduce finger pointing. 2. Since requirements, internal and external, will be clearly understood and documented, your people will be able to deliver defect free products or services. Your training costs will go down and employee morale will rise. 3. All key work processes will be documented and updated as requirements change. Your people will know what to do, when to do it, and how to do their jobs resulting is reduced rework, less turn over and improved morale. 4. The measurement and tracking of errors will help to reduce them by focusing attention on them. What people track they attack. 5. Employees usually know what their problems or hassles are - they just don't have a systematic way to get at the root causes. Once they do, those problems will be fixed forever and your people can focus on continuous process improvement. 6. People don't accept defects in their personal lives and shouldn't at work. Once this attitude is in place, defects will go down along with costs. 7. Some problems are cross functional requiring a team from various departments to do root cause analysis and solution definition. The TQM process provides for techniques to do this effectively. The Vision of TQM is a brilliant one but implementation can be a real bear. Changing cultures is not easy to do. It requires top management leadership and a proven set of tools and techniques for the organization to achieve success. IP: Logged |
|
Don Winton Forum Contributor Posts: 498 |
Good post. Just ran across it (again) and thought I would add some things (light bulb reminder, so to speak).
quote: Perhaps. However, many organizations would rather delegate this to the Îqualityâ department. Sadly, many do not see root cause analysis as an organizational goal.
quote: Every person in an organization has a customer. If they do not understand this, they do not understand their job.
quote: Agreed. A culture is not something that is easily changed. But, it can be accomplished, with leadership. Thoughts, anyone? Regards, ------------------ [This message has been edited by Don Winton (edited 04-09-99).] IP: Logged |
|
Kevin Mader Forum Wizard Posts: 575 |
Don, I saw this post some time ago as well, which was also about the time I discovered the Nine Questions to Drive TQM Processes by Irwin Weimberg (these are posted at the DEN if anyone is interested). I think the two compliment each other. Our CI Steering Committee thought it would be neat to have managers sit with their staff and ask these 9 questions. Pretty interesting answers. I really like Question 1 in Marc's post. It really causes one to look up and down stream of their activity. The results of asking this question with our groups, folks easily identified their major suppliers/customers. But the minor ones were easily overlooked. In my experience, once you have concluded that you have determined all of them, one pops up that you haven't thought of. Now that you have identified 'who' you have to identify the 'what'. What are the requirements? Do they change? Under what circumstances does this occur? Wow! It can get pretty deeply nested! Understanding the requirements is essential. I think of the expression "No news is good news" and I think of how wrong it is. Your customer may never complain to you. They may think it isn't their place to. Any chance for a gain in efficiency is lost. What a pity. All because you either didn't think to ask, or, you were too afraid to. Ultimately everyone loses, including yourself. In my organization, this is how I would answer the 10 questions (arbitrarily calculated and as an organization, not my own department): 1. Yes, but only about 60-65% make this effort. 2. Yes, but only about 33% 3. Yes, but even fewer, only about 20-25% 4. Yes, 90-95% (the work is never quite done) 5. Yes. Difficult to say, but about 80 % of the Key Business Statistics have measurement and reporting systems that do so quarterly. 6. Yes, 75% of decisions are made on quantitative evidence. The rest...gutt feel. 7. Yes, Monthly CI Steering Committee meetings with side project meetings occurring regularly. 8. Yes, but only about 50% or so. Half or so still believe that Quality is the QC departments battle. 9. Yes, but the Zero Defect clause in our Quality Policy still baffles many. 10. Yes, and perhaps this is one of our strongest assets. We may have learned this portion of our culture from our Swedish parent. While we can answer 'yes' to all the questions, you can easily see that there is plenty of room for improvement. The reasons for such varying percentages are numerous. I feel that as we remain together as a force, we will begin to understand each other better, and improve overall percentages. It is tough for organizations in a volitile state to be cohesive and create the business rapport that is needed for a TQM organization. In my opinion, this is why TQM is hard to foster in an organization in a dynamic state. Poor communication and understanding of requirements. I wrote an article for our company rag last month entitled "Who is your Customer?" I will be interested to hear feedback on this from my organization over the next couple of weeks (it was released yesterday with the paychecks). It dealt with Customer/Supplier identification and offered two simple question for each to ask the next person in the chain of events; how is the service and what can I do to make it better? Ultimately, everyone wins in this scenario. Back to the group... IP: Logged |
|
John C Forum Contributor Posts: 134 |
As with other quality initiatives, I believe that a TQM program will usually do more harm than good. for example; "TQM; An organization, run by senior management initially.." So senior management drives it for a while and then walks away. Then, in the nature of things, the next level of management walk away because they are keeping their eye on the ball that their bosses are keeping their eye on. How else will they further their careers? The junior managers likewise. Supervisors next. And the line operators etc are told; 'We haven't time for meetings, discussions, analysis and such, keep the numbers rolling'. And, in the context of the late '90s, that is quite true. For these and other reasons, the enthusiasm will tail off. There will be no cultural change. Even if the idea is good, the implementation is impractical. The last stage of that organisation will be worse than the first because management and quality will have lost credibility. Apart from the practicalities, I have grave doubts about the viability and rationale of the concept. We don't want operators to measure, graph, report, analyse, discuss. These are non value adding activities and our goal is not to institutionalise them and perpetuate them, but to eliminate them. We do want alert, interested operators, committed to making an excellent contribution above and beyond the normal expectations. We want them to think about their work and understand what is having a bad impact on their output. But that is as far as it goes. [This message has been edited by John C (edited 04-13-99).] IP: Logged |
|
Don Winton Forum Contributor Posts: 498 |
quote: initiative: n 1: An introductory step 2: energy or aptitude displayed in initiation of action. The problem with quality Îinitiativesâ lies in the definition itself. Anyone who institutes a quality Îinitiativeâ is, correctly, doomed to failure. Systems management is not an initiative, it is an on-going, continuous improvement effort.
quote: Without commitment and leadership from senior management, any program will whither and die on the vine, as John correctly stated. Again, the devil is in the details. When a program is run Îinitially,â it is doomed to failure.
quote: Well, OK I guess. Perhaps they are non value added is because they are not being implemented with improvement in mind. They are implemented as Îfluffâ and Îpolishâ without regard to improvement at all. As stated in Marcâs original post, employees are given tools to find the root cause of problems and techniques to eliminate them forever. The key words are Îroot causeâ and Îeliminate them forever.â Measuring and plotting every five of 100 widgets and declaring them Îqualityâ is bull*hit, pure and simple.
quote: Interesting concept, but perhaps that is too linear. Think about their work. Absolutely. Understand what is having a bad impact on their output. Without a doubt. But then what! Every employee does not have to be a quality engineer, but every employee should THINK like one. In these times of Îlean and mean,â a quality engineering staff may be a luxury. Could not employees who are given tools to find the root cause of problems supplement this. Just the ramblings of an old Wizard Warrior. Regards, ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Dusty Forum Contributor Posts: 14 |
quote: John C, sounds like you have or are having a similar experience with this, as I have. Sadly, this rings true here, also, in ISO I might add.
quote: Don, I wish and had hoped this would be the case. However, it seems the "mind-set" if you will, is to outsource no matter what the differences may be in relation to cost, efficiency, etc. Caring employees still do their utmost to put out the best quality product, but moral erodes when one sees the "handwriting on the wall", and it isn't Mene', Mene', Tekel as Daniel saw once upon a time. (or is it? )------------------ [This message has been edited by Dusty (edited 04-13-99).] IP: Logged |
|
Kevin Mader Forum Wizard Posts: 575 |
Climbing onto a soap box:
I would like to point out that there are, in my opinion, three categories that activities fall into. Value Added, Non-value Added but necessary, and Non-value added (commonly called waste). Measuring, charting, graphing, inspection, etc. may fall into the middle category, provided that in lieu of not having these activities performed, processes and product may create the third, waste. This is an important consideration. Educating the work force with tools that are simple to use and deliver a big bang for the buck (makes plain good sense): QE, floor worker, or otherwise, is a MUST in my opinion. What management lacks is commitment. Period. That is why quality initiatives, or any business initiave for that matter, suffer and die painfully. Management expectations are that the ship will steer itself. Pure 'rubbish' (Don's word is cleaner than mine and less offensive). Leadership must come from the top, no excuses. Constancy of Purpose is managements responsibility. John correctly points out the results of 'false starts' often lead to bad tastes being left in everyones' mouth. It can do more harm than good. Yet there is nothing wrong with the concept itself (personally speaking, until something better comes along or I learn otherwise, it is the only program/concept worth its weight). Management MUST commit to the program and LEAD! There are just too many "blank-it-e-blank" excuses for me. Management should shut up and do the JOB of managing (by fact, not guessing). Stepping down now. Back to the group... P.S. Thanks for letting me vent there. IP: Logged |
|
Don Winton Forum Contributor Posts: 498 |
quote: Yea, been there and done that myself.
quote: Agreed. When employees are constantly bombarded by and exposed to the situation that John describes, the Îwhy botherâ syndrome usually sets in, or resumes get sent out, one of the two.
quote: Kevin, I like it! I would equate it something like this. When operators measure, graph, report, analyze and discuss as a effort towards improvement and optimization, the activities are value added (reduce waste). When operators measure, graph, report, analyze and discuss as a effort towards monitoring with the potential for improvement, the activities are non-value added but necessary (waste remains constant). When operators measure, graph, report, analyze and discuss as a effort not towards improvement and optimization, the activities are non-value added (increased waste). Generally speaking, I always question the purpose of the measure, graph, report, analyze cycle when assessing an organizationâs readiness, using the (until now undefined) categories above Kevin kindly provided. Whaddya think?
quote: Agreed! Utilizing the workforce as the concepts they are Îdrones,â just following orders, is outdated AND antiquated. After all, when a potential problem is on the horizon, who is the first one to spot it: the worker. Would it not be nice if they were trained in the concepts of problem solving so, being the first to spot, they are also the first to destroy it.
quote: Sadly, many can manage, few can lead. It is good to have an end to journey towards; but it is the journey that matters in the end. To successfully complete this type of journey (TQM or whatever), leadership is needed. Period.
quote: To that I can add only this: ãMost of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.ä James Harvey Robinson To be open to new concepts and ideas, even if they are foreign to you, should be a goal which everyone should strive for. If more managers would only learn that lesson. Then they may become leaders. Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior. Regards, ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
John C Forum Contributor Posts: 134 |
Just in case anyone thinks that I am being slow to adapt to a new, progressive idea, I feel obliged to point out that ten years ago, I was the staunchest supporter of TQM you could meet. Ten years before that I was starry eyed about the contents of RH Caplin's - "A Practical Approach To Quality Control 3rd edition". Over the years I have learned that quality control techniques are dead easy, getting the thing done right is very difficult, while getting the right thing done is damn near impossible. Regards the the tools that produce the 'bang for the buck'; If the tools haven't been working for the Quality Department - and they usually aren't, then they won't work for the operators. IP: Logged |
|
Kevin Mader Forum Wizard Posts: 575 |
John, I doubt you are slow. I believe TQM means many different things to many different people. I think that the common thread is that it is a philosophy of Continuous Improvement. This of course can be acheived through a variety of methods and tools, some statistical, some not. In reading your last post, I would agree that the approach, subtle and supportive, is better than having Management come out and state "Tomorrow we start TQM. Any questions?" You will almost always catch more bees with honey than you will with vinegar. But this is an approach, a style by which an individual may lead. Still, leadership and commitment are essential in achieving results (positive or negative). TQM, or what ever an individual would like to call it, is generally a positive concept (when lead correctly by management). Can I prove the method works? As a matter of personal experience, no. But there are several cases by which we all have read, well documented ones, where the results are virtually indisputable. Once upon a time, they may have convinced you too. Still, as mentioned repeatedly by Don and Marc, labeling a quality program: TQM, ISO, QS or any other is probably pointless. Even more so, trying to live within the guidelines of one without borrowing from the other (especially the good stuff) is also ridiculous. Defining Quality, still more of the same. Quality is what your Customer and you consider it. The 'program' for any organization should be built about these considerations. Adding a label, well, that is up to the individual. For the sake of discussion, labels help to define what it is we speak about. The problem; they are subjective and lead to confusion. Still, open minded folks can reason beyond this haze and make good discussion as we have found here. So, with that said, I will turn it back to the group. Regards, Kevin IP: Logged |
|
Don Winton Forum Contributor Posts: 498 |
I will preface this by stating that I also was a proponent of TQM early on. But, over time I began to see cracks in the foundation of this Îphilosophy.â I believe my particular problem with it was not the concepts or tools, but rather the term itself, particularly Îquality.â However, with TQM the label of the times, I rather stuck with that so the everyone would be on the same wavelength. I have since changed my mind, as those who read my stuff know, to a more integrated and systems approach to Îqualityâ management. I even prefer the term Îqualityâ not be used at all. I have evolved, so to speak, but the term TQM itself has not. I came up with a few things like Total Systems Management, An Integrated Approach to Quality and Total Systems Management: An Integrated Approach to Quality. But, even these are somewhat lacking. And besides, it is not the label, but the content that matters. The integrated approach could be said to be hybrid of the current approaches, as I have repeated over and over and Kevin restates above. As such, I am Îstuck sortaâ with the TQM thing as a label. With that said, on with the show.
quote: I heartily agree. As I stated above, an initiative is an introductory step, a beginning if you will. The problem is that integrated systems management does not have e beginning nor an end. It just Îis.â
quote: I agree here also. My term for this technique is ÎTeach Them as if You Taught Them Not.â Rather than state Îthis is how this or that should be done,â the alternative is to ask ÎWhat or how do you think a better method is?â or ÎHow did you determine this?â Through a series of questions in response to prompts from the operators, slowly, surely they develop the techniques they need and they have ownership of it. An example of this process goes something like this (real world): Operator: This meter is reading off. My responses above are brief for presentation here. All the while, I am assuring (through verbal prompts and responses) the operator he is indeed on to something that needs to be looked into, the problem has been discovered and should be dealt with. With this one example, I have taught this operator, without his knowledge of, nor with prior experience in statistics, the value of the central limit theorem, common cause variation and simple measurement error analysis. I did not state, ãCollect 30 samples of data, bring them to me and I will look into it.ä That would be counter-productive. Later on, when he returns with his findings, I will demonstrate these concepts, much in the same fashion, until these three tools are known to him, he knows how to use them and it all is as if he has always known them. For example, I could demonstrate the value of the central limit theorem through the coin toss exercise, and so on. And, he OWNS them. It is his, not mine. Over time, all operators are using these tools, they own them and my firm is better positioned for it. quote: But not beyond the scope of an integrated approach: ináteágratáed, adj. quote: Gads! This really happens? Absolutely! I have seen, up close and personal. A company decides a Quality Management System is needed and decides on the TQM approach. They hire a consultant to train the staff in these concepts. The consultant holds a one-day training session for management and staff. The consultant leaves. Left behind are a bunch of dazed and confused people that have been exposed to YEARS worth of stuff to absorb in one day. The concept failed, miserably. This REALLY happened. It happened to me at a former employer. Anyway. Enough for now. You guys and gals are probably tired of this by now. Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior. Regards, ------------------ [This message has been edited by Don Winton (edited 04-14-99).] [This message has been edited by Don Winton (edited 04-14-99).] IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
A great thread. Within the opinions are experiences. We can all think of the offerings in this thread when we have decisions to make and road maps to define. When I read through the thread I ask myself what are the commom factors? Common failure modes. Common successes. This thread reinforces again my belief that every company 'has a chance' but success is mostly dependent upon upper management's 'karma'. Benevolent dictatorship comes to mind again and again. But as was mentioned several times, there are many who cannot lead. How does one 'pilot' a company mixing all the things that each of us are seeking in upper management: Wisdom, common sense, participation. I'm not particularly defending upper management in saying this, but we do ask a lot. I recall several threads where we have 'come back to these basics' of the role of upper management and how 'they' should act. I can always count Don in to say something to the effect that when continuos improvement is the goal, it is 'worth it' (not Don's words, but essentially this is the idea). I see this as a key as well. When I hear TQM I shudder precisely for the same reason as was pointed out by one of you - each of us sees (defines) TQM differently. Just like Dock Audits in QS9000: One registrar defines it as a complete 100% layout and another simply says you have to show you checked packaging and labeling. I also use this example as it is when 'upper management' has allowed to pass as a requirement. A simple addition of a statement of the precise expectations (a couple of sentences) would have saved many companies much money and grief. If YOU were responsible for the final OK for QS9000 would YOU have allowed it to be released with consideration to its myriad inconsistencies? Not to mention vision. Look at the lab requirements. DUH. Not enough labs. Not my idea of being perceptive and understanding. To me it's the same as saying "Reduce scrap and implement TQM. Let me know when you're done. Don't ask for time or much money." Umm, well, OK. Be right back. As far as QS9000 goes (umm, well, this IS Elsmar.com), this has been my complaint from the beginning - it has been a "Do this whether it makes sense or not..." approach where this is not well defined (please explain to me again what you want me to do). But it doesn't stop there. Even expectations and 'knowing what's going on'. I was recently at a QS9000 registered company where a quality engineer told me how his system worked. He said "...the procedure says to do it this way but I have my own way of doing it that's better and faster..." I wonder if the plant manager knows this attitude exists.... This said, it continues to amaze me how many QS9000 registered companies have these personal sub-systems which the people are smart enough to hide when the auditors come. Many of us down below also have our own agenda and often 'fooling the system' becomes as much fun as it is stupid - and this type of failure is not always because the system is unweildy or impossible. Often it is just easier to do it 'our own way'. To go back a bit I strongly agree with Kevin: Continuous Education of the workforce (to me this is inclusion and the key to empowerment) is essential to success if your definition of success includes workers feeling more like they are in a family with common long term goals rather than an 'employee' whose focus is on whether another company will pay more (constantly looking for a 'way out'). In my opinion, all 'quality' and 'improvement' methodologies offer 'food for thought'. Here is my company. Here are 100 tools. Which ones (sub-set) will I choose to improve the company? Add to that 'attitude' - the part where we start talking about changing the culture. I equate the company 'culture' with top management. They set the tenor to begin with. You can call it changing the culture, but to me it's changing the tenor of upper management and their expectations and their involvement. quote:I see this as very key as well. Might we dare call this Orderly Evolution without scare tactics? BUT - I must also admit I believe many times a 'roll out' is a good idea. I think many times we recall the pain of a 'failed program' and immediately react negatively. We all fail at things in our lives on many different levels. That doesn't mean (at least to me) that we should never try it again. The important thing is that failures are recognized and analyzed (not just by us, but by top management as well) and considered when future 'programs' are 'implemented'. Follow through. Gotta go grocery store... IP: Logged |
|
Don Winton Forum Contributor Posts: 498 |
quote: This is a very good point. All of us here have stated, in one form or another, Îit has to start at the topâ or something to that effect. But, HOW can it start there? I am not a defender of most management types (even though I am Îmanagementâ so to speak), but there is a paradox here. How can it come from the top when they do not know. How could they know? Who taught (will teach) them? While there are some expectations, there are no clear guidelines. How can we (myself included) bash management when they do not know what is expected of them? As for myself, I use the Îbeer and sleepâ analogy. There are those that have had too much beer and not enough sleep and those that have had too much sleep and not enough beer. I (we) have to evaluate and decide which are which and act accordingly.
quote: Well, OK indeed! Not just TQM, but ISO and QS also, as you stated. Many (management types) would prefer the Îjust do itâ type of implementation. Sorta sad really. But, as I stated above, how do they know? Someone or something has to change in order for these types to understand! REALLY understand! An extreme paradigm shift is needed. How many of us here have actually REQUIRED upper management of their company to attend a one week course in systems management. I have and it worked! When I started at this firm, my sole task was to register them to ISO 9000 and to have them compliant to the FDAâs QSR. Within two months of hire, I required all executive management to attend my one week course and all employees (current and new hires) to attend a two-day introductory course (There are a few examples of my interactive stuff here at the Cove). Attendance was mandatory. They hemmed and hawed, but I insisted. I said, ãIf you want this, all must understand what is involved.ä The ÎWhoâs on Trialâ sorta thing, so to speak. Now, they all understand when I state, ãDocuments shall be approved by the same...,ä etc, etc. And, I require a two-day refresher every year for everyone, including executive management. Now, I realize I am lucky. But, I explained up front (prior to hire) what would be the required method: When it comes to systems management, I would be the last and FINAL word.
quote: Marc, you have said it, I have said it and many others have said it. Just because a systems management method is needed or required, it does not have to be bureaucratic nor unwieldy. It simply needs to meet the standardâs requirements and the wants and needs of the system. Venn and the Art of Quality, so to speak. When Îfooling the systemâ becomes the norm, it is probably because the implementation is poor. When the implementation is poor, it is probably because those in charge did not understand what was needed (there is a just registered company locally that is a joke. I will expound on that at a later time).
quote: Agreed! Management sets the companyâs culture. They define the culture, they set the mood, so to speak.
quote: That is precisely how I view it. Evolution is the key word. You cannot shock an organization into improving their position. They must be led into the evolution. Possibly through a series of Îbabyâ steps, through leading them by the hand or the Îteach them as though you taught them notâ type of method. Either would probably work. But, to require an Îovernightâ change is simply not done and would result in failure.
quote: Agreed, but only when the roll-out is presented and understood to be an on-going program, not something that would be implemented then forgotten after it becomes too much work, as you presented above.
quote: Is it Îqualityâ grocery or Îcompliantâ grocery? :>) Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior. Speaking of ramblings, I need an idea for Aprilâs at dWizards Lair. Any suggestions, anyone? Regards, ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Don Winton Forum Contributor Posts: 498 |
quote: I have re-visited this thread time and again trying to come to some understanding of why these types of things (various interpretations of TQM) exist. Perhaps I am just a little on the phlegmatic side. But yesterday, I had somewhat of an insight, I think, and I thought I would toss it out here for discussion. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is that we do not speak the same language. When I visit other companies, I ALWAYS see something that appears Îout of placeâ so to speak. Does that mean the company is doing the wrong thing? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps there is a perfectly logical and acceptable reason for this particular area to function as it does. Is it my place to say? There are plenty of times I have pointed out that continuous improvement should be the driving force behind any systems management method. But, what is continuous improvement in their eyes may appear to be a bureaucratic, non-necessary item to mine at the time the observation was made. As I stated above, I am not a supporter of most management types, but I have begun to re-think this issue somewhat. As Marc stated, we do ask a lot and as I stated, how could they know, who taught them? The insight I mentioned above was this. Yesterday, I happened to be channel surfing and I watched a re-run of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. The episode went something like this: The episode is titled ÎDarmok.â Tamarians have been trying to initiate contact with the Federation for years. Once again they initiate contact and the Enterprise is dispatched to try to communicate with the ÎChildren of Tama.â All past attempts at communication so far have failed and the Tamarians have been dubbed Îincomprehensible.â When communication again fails, the Tamarians abduct the Enterprise captain, Picard, and along with their own captain, Dathan, maroon them on the planet Eladril, an inhospitable planet that also happens to have a hostile entity as an inhabitant. Faced with a common threat, the two captains pick up from each other and Picard eventually learns enough of the Tamarian language to begin to communicate with them, but at the cost of Dathanâs life. Another perspective: Quality professionals could be dubbed the Tamarians, isolated and desperate to communicate their ideas and culture to the Federation, dubbed management. All we need is Eladril, a common ground, faced with a common threat. I recommend that quality professionals watch Darmok and see for themselves the barriers involved in getting our ideas and culture across to management, or anyone for that matter. Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior Regards, IP: Logged |
|
Kevin Mader Forum Wizard Posts: 575 |
Don, I believe common ground is reached when EMERGENCIES exist (the common threat) so speaking the same language (survival) becomes natural. Now the trick: how do groups EMERGE when EMERGENCIES do not force agreement (speaking the same language)? Now that is what separates the few from the many. This is what I consider to be the "Magic Wand" Marc speaks about now and again. As I see it, senior managers want the wand and ask middle managers (mostly the Quality folks) to find it for them. What hooey! "How could they know? Who taught them?". Deming had it right here. This is why laying blame is less effective than accepting responsiblity, and always easier. Pass the buck, nothing changes. I try to live to this, not laying blame, and it does make it easier to accept things. So how can one be influential enough from the middle to bring about change. So far, the only way I know is the hard way. Like trying to climb a greased pole. Projection: To lead from the middle, you need to have extreme patience, lots of anedotal stories to speak the multiple 'business' languages, and time. The time factor is the neatest, since in the absence (as forced by an external force) usually brings things and thinking into focus, creating common ground. For each organization, tons of variables enter the formula, and, are different for each. Sorting out the vital few, addressing each in bite sized bits, will make progress provided folks are speaking the same language. Become the linguist, get their attention, make change possible. Why is it so hard? If I knew that (or anything for that matter), I would share it here! Back to the group... IP: Logged |
|
Batman Forum Contributor Posts: 111 |
Don, you may have hit on something. Perhaps quality professionals are really aliens. I know thats how I am treated. Also, like the Tamarians, who spoke in simile, metaphor and "kennings," the prelude to modern metaphor, I must be speaking this way. Considering the reactions I get when I say things like continuous improvement, capability, procedures, etc.Just a silly late night ramble. By the way, the Angle Saxons used kennings to enrich their poetry. The ocean was called a "whale road." IP: Logged |
|
Don Winton Forum Contributor Posts: 498 |
quote: To place blame is waste, period. Tribus put it like this, ãThose who are the most afraid of sin are those least acquainted with itä or something to that effect. I will probably get hammered for this but, here goes. Are we (myself included) not guilty of the same Îsin?â Blaming management for our (myself included) failure to communicate to them a desired objective. As I stated above, I have been rethinking my position in this area and perhaps I am way off base. If management fails to respond, that is one thing and their responsibility. If they fail to comprehend, that is another issue entirely and the responsibility to assist them in comprehension is ours.
quote: Precisely, Batman. You are speaking in terms that most management types simply do not understand. That was the point I was trying to make. We (quality practitioners) know what the terms mean and how to apply them (hopefully) for improvement; most in management do not know and in some cases simply do not want to learn. This creates the paradox I mentioned. If they do not understand our language and intentions, how can we convince them that the improvements needed are in their best interest? This is what creates the Îreactionsâ you get. They do not understand you! As a beginning to possible solutions to this paradox, I suggest reading Tribusâ CEO Doesnât Understand and Kerridgeâs Worlds of Knowledge, both located at the DEN site. Everyone agrees that leadership must come from the top. Everyone agrees that a systems management method implemented with the goal of continuous improvement is desirable. And most will agree that most management types are simply not interested (except in the case of Kevinâs Emergency described above). I have presented a plausible theorem as to why they are not interested (maybe). Now, the solution? As Kevin stated, if I had it, I would surely share it.
quote: To those I would add two more: knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge of the tools and techniques and the wisdom to apply them correctly. Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior. Regards, IP: Logged |
|
Kevin Mader Forum Wizard Posts: 575 |
Don, You bring up a good point (as usual). Comprehension is our responsibility, especially as a Leader (of our Quality Geek techniques and ideas), you must show folks why. I'll toss this into the mix: I had an issue with a manager in our facility. She did not want to do the things required in 4.6 of ISO, straight forward and defined. Issues went unresolved for months and months. I had no effect. Letters, memos, senior level involvement, nothing worked. This happen to come out in a meeting I attend with Senior Management. The President was astonished to see how long things went on and on for. After getting all the bits and pieces together, he commented to me that I needed to communicate the need better. Now I sat silent for a moment, the disgust welling up inside of me. I waited for the Senior Managers to comment. None did. Did they comprehend? Did the Purchasing Manager comprehend? I think that both did, not trying to be in the "right" of things either. This was purely a case of not doing it to be spiteful or because they believed they were in the right (with which they had nothing to offer). Now in successful communication, as I have certainly been instructed on, you need a person with a message, the message, and a receiver of the message. Now the message can be distorted in many different ways, I think the term they use is "background noise". For succesful comprehension, both the issuer and receiver of the message must "hear" things the same way, undistorted. Actions taken must meet the actions expected. Is this a case of the 6% striking? Perhaps. But often we make decisions in spite of what is right. What is your excuse for speeding down the highway? Speed limits posted, we can read the signs, yet we speed every day. Why? Was the communication unsuccesful? Should signs include fines as well (some states post signs like these, yet folks don't slow down) help communicate. I don't think so. This is a conscious decision we make. Now which case do folks have in thier organizations? Senior Managers who don't understand or who know better? When was the last time any of us were invited to a meeting for collaboration? How often are we told or expected to perform in a manner that is set by the Top? Sure, we own a portion of the blame, and Don, you are right that we must take some of that responsibility. We are in a country dominated by the Western Management types (the old philosophy). How do we spread our message in such a lopsided country? Certainly not by complaining (like I just vented). Bear the cross. So why the divergent thinking between levels? A theory: I think this may go back to Deming's (and Don's) "How could they know? Who showed them?". Business schools in the US specialize in the Western Philosophy. The MBAs learn this method, go into the workplace, and practice what they know. No right or wrong about it. Then along comes the idealistic Quality person, filled with the New Philosophy and a volitile concoction is made. Each tugging in separate ways. Is there Collaboration? Is there Compromise (an awful thought)? Who's communicating here? Now I would like to think that all Quality folks are perfect collaborators and teachers. This is not the case. But on a gut feel (bad, bad, bad I know) and on the content of posts here at the Cove, I think that we are an open-minded group, capable of walking in another shoes. Do you get the impression Senior Managers do (I lumped them all together, which is not the case)? I struggle with that. Too many MBAs (sorry to stereotype again) out there running the show their way, not the collective way. Can't show weakness or that they may in fact, be wrong. Pure vanity! So let's all head down the tubes together. IMHO, if senior managers spent a little more effort on collaborating, communication would improve. So we must go on trying to show folks the alternatives, hope for some help from senior management, and reach common ground (speak the same language without comprimising). I know I have lumped folks into black and white groups, no grays. We all know that exceptions do exist, so my cynical scrutiny should be considered here. Well Wizard Warrior, have I pulled my own pants down again? Regards, Kevin IP: Logged |
|
Don Winton Forum Contributor Posts: 498 |
Nice vent, Kevin. I like it. If you havenât already, read the Tribus paper above. You will like it. If you have read it, read it again after reviewing this post.
quote: While this true, the biggest communication (or lack thereof) factor I have found is Îbias.â Bias from the sender and bias from the receiver. Bias can be minimized if identification of the four basic behavioral styles are recognized prior to the dispatch of the communication. These styles are: Dominance: May want authority, challenges, prestige, freedom, varied activities, growth assignments, Îbottom lineâ approach, opportunity for advancement. Successful communication may be enhanced by: Influence: May want social recognition, popularity, people to talk to, freedom from control and detail, favorable working conditions, recognition of abilities, chance to motivate people and inclusion by others. Successful communication may be enhanced by: Compliance: May want personal autonomy, planned change, personal attention, exact job or task description, controlled work environment, reassurance, precise expectations. Successful communication may be enhanced by: Steadiness: Security of situation, time to adjust, appreciation, identification with the group, repeated work pattern, limited territory, areas of specialization. Successful communication may be enhanced by: Original source: Carlson Learning Company. Modified somewhat by myself for bias exclusion in communication. When the sender recognizes which category they are in and which category the receiver is in, using the above descriptions can help minimize bias and noise. I will expound on the interactions of the different types and will make available when finished.
quote: Not at all. I like it. Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior. Regards, IP: Logged |
|
Kevin Mader Forum Wizard Posts: 575 |
Don, The four types look mighty familiar. I can't place where I saw them (or something similar) but good stuff! Bias is a killer (and most often unintentional). Timely info for the other thread's discussion by the way. Here is another tid bit. Write for the reader, not for the writer. I learned the lesson later rather than earlier. Still haven't perfected it either, but much improved (so they say). Regards, Kevin IP: Logged |
|
Batman Forum Contributor Posts: 111 |
This is my favorite stop. Keep up the great posts. Each post has me nodding Yes! Yes! If this gets any longer, it should be converted into a book! This is certainly a demonstration by insightful experts of how and what and why, with a little who and when and where. A thought that has bothered me somewhat after reading this particular post for some time... And what is the future of the individual quality professional? Could any of us be placed into the president's chair? I have, in my limited experience, seen that the quality professional rises to the level of patience or tolerance of his or her's management. Is that due to the fact that those who do in fact rise to the level of "Upper Management" have the "Western" education? Is there a certain type that stands out, ready to be rewarded by promotion to that stratospheric level? Can we as Quality professionals sway the MBA programs of many schools in the West? Should we? (have you ever studied "Inventory Turns?" It goes into detail about assessing costs and ordering timing and FIFO, but does it ever state that inventory itself costs? That measuring amount of inventory could be a "measureable?") After hearing for the 11th time that "the Quality department is holding up shipments..." I come to the Elsmar.com haven, and my confidence is restored. Keep up the good work. IP: Logged |
|
Don Winton Forum Contributor Posts: 498 |
quote: I am not an expert. Just a humble participant (sp). More Thursday. This thread is getting a little long. May start a new one. It is late and I am tired. Regards, IP: Logged |
|
waberens Forum Contributor Posts: 17 |
This is a favorite stop over for me also. I found the communication tips interesting and helpful. I plan on sharing them in a leadership class I am involved in. I have also found the most success in communicating in writing to gear to a 4th to 6th grade reading level. This has been especially helpful considering the Ohio area proficiency results for the last several years. Batman Don, I guess I like the word veteran rather than expert. You share the battles with the defeats and the victories. Anyways, thanks to you all. IP: Logged |
|
Kevin Mader Forum Wizard Posts: 575 |
Bill, Tell me (us) a little about the leadership class you are in. I would be curious to know how it is going i.e. your observations of others, your own realizations, etc. Regards, Kevin IP: Logged |
|
Kevin Mader Forum Wizard Posts: 575 |
Batman, Thanks for the compliments, but an expert title is a bit beyond me. Besides, you fit well with the mix here and I wouldn't consider myself smarter than you, or anyone else, on the Quality stuff. Besides, the head nodding you do is an indication to me that you have the knowledge. I find myself doing the same here, by the way. When I beat up on the MBA program here in the States, I sorta lump the group together. A bit unfair, I know. There is value with the program, education is important. The problem as it appears to me is that the curriculum is centered about finance, which in turn generally focuses on the short term profit. IMHO these programs need to be more focused on management philosophies built on the improvement of the Quality of Life, less on $$ (an important item none the less). It all relates to me; folks in and out of an organization, need to make and spend money. Profit for any organization is important. But it is not the only reason for businesses to exist, nor the most important (again my HO). Upper levels, born and developed under the Western philosophy hold Profit as the single most important factor. The MBA programs tend to solidify this point for them. Enough of my ramble....your turn. Regards, Kevin IP: Logged |
|
Don Winton Forum Contributor Posts: 498 |
For additional details of the four behavioral styles above, see: *** Dead Link Removed *** Regards, ------------------ Check Out dWizard's Lair: IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
![]() |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
