| Revision as of 05:28, 25 July 2008 editVanished user kijsdion3i4jf (talk | contribs)2,569 edits →Discussion: another example← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:36, 5 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,474 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (63 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
<!-- industrial engineering --> |
|
== Scope of TQM == |
|
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
{{move|Total quality management}} |
|
|
|
|archiveprefix=Talk:Total quality management/Archives/ |
|
TQM article refers to its use in government, but where & when has it been used and where can these reports/articles be found? |
|
|
|
|format=Y |
|
|
|
|
|
|age=26298 |
|
:TQM is not limited in its application |
|
|
|
|index=yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|archivebox=yes |
|
What does this mean? And who makes this claim? |
|
|
|
|box-advert=yes |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
And while we're at it, is "total quality management" a generic term like "]", or is it "Total Quality Management" (proper noun)? If it's the latter, then who developed it? Who espouses / promotes it? How much does it cost? |
|
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|
How is TQM different from "]"? |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Business|importance=High}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Engineering|importance=Mid}} |
|
Most of all, what evidence is there that this is not just another industry ]? We're trying to run an encyclopedia here, and people who want to know what TQM is, apart from the hype, will come '''here''' to find out. ] 13:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
:TQM is management philosophy, much like ], administrative management, and ] management. It describes the principles that managers use to run an organization or unit. ] generally refers to a function of an organization. TQ |
|
|
M is a generic term, but it is usually capitalized. I'm not sure why, other than just tradition. Note that ] is usually capitalized in spite of also being a generic term. TQM is usually credited with being started by ], although h |
|
|
e based the principles of TQM off of what he learned from others. |
|
|
:I don't think that he came up with the name "Total Quality Management", but he did use it in the later part of his career (after he came to the U.S.). I think that it has enough credibility to be more than just a buzzword. It's been around in Japan since the 1950s, and it's been in use in the U.S. since the 1980s. It's hard to say what companies have used it since it is a philosophy of operations rather than a specific product. From my understanding, it is quite common in Japan. I know that some well-known U.S. companies that have been credited as using TQM principles have been ] and ]. --] 01:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC). |
|
|
] (]) 12:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC) what is TQM exactly? |
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Deming reacted very strongly in a negative manner when anyone attempted to link him with TQM. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Dr. Deming meets the interpreted Deming... I recall one particular seminar held in California about five years ago. The audience had participated in group discussions and some members of the audience were asked to report on their groups' work in a discussion session. Dr. Deming was sitting on the platform listening to the discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
One man began to talk about his organization's total quality management (TQM) program. At one point, he referred to Dr. Deming as the "father of TQM." In reaction to the man's description of TQM, Dr. Deming said, "Where did you hear that? You didn't hear it here!" After repeated comments from Dr. Deming, the man finally realized that he should leave the talking to someone else." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please see the following sources: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
==Origin of TQM name== |
|
|
Retired United States Air Force (Tactical Air Command) General Bill Creech claim in his book that he coined the term "Total Quality Management," in early 1980's. (page 6 of ''The Five Pillars of TQM'', Bill Creech, Trumen Talley Books , New York 1995, ISBN 0-452-27102-9 ). At the time Japanese automobile manufactures were grabbing a greater share of the American market with cars of higher quality then American cars. Creech claim he created TQM without knowing of Deming's or Juran's works. He devised the term from a ''total'' approach to put ''quality'' in every aspect of ''management''. The name then spread throughout the United States Department of Defense. |
|
|
|
|
|
TQM was popular from about 1985 to 1995. It has since been replaced by other methods (such as ]). TQM was a group of techniques used to improve an organization. It typically included: |
|
|
|
|
|
* Company wide quality control ("TQM is not limited in its application" |
|
|
|
|
|
* Continuous quality improvement |
|
|
* Total customer satisfaction or service |
|
|
* Total employee involvement |
|
|
* Integrated process management |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(See ''The Quality Book'', by Greg Hutchins, published by QPE, Portland OR. 199 |
|
|
|
|
|
Although based on sound principles TQM ultimately faded away. It began to be thought of as a fad or hype that did not produce results. The reason for TQM's failure are discussed in Hutchins' book and in Juan's book, ''Juran on Quality by Design'', J.M. Juran, The Free Press, 1992, ISBN 0-02-916683 |
|
|
7. Reason include the long time needed to see result (it can take up to six years, not a quick fx), poor definition the |
|
|
goals, lack of top management buy-in, vague plans, fear (will I engineer myself out of a job?), confusion (TQM uses a mixture of techniques and principle that managers may not understand), and poor definition of responsibilities. ] 00:44, 11 January 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
:: If that is true, General Creech is self-promoting. The phrase Total Quality Control was used by ] as early as the 1951 publication of his book, ''Quality Control: Principles, Practice, and Administration''.. In any case, Deming was teaching ]'s principles, and even he attributed much to Shewhart. Deming was a popularizer and probably better known than other pioneers because the Japanese quality revolution forced Americans to ''re''discover what had been developed here - something that was attributed to Deming, but also included ] and the incredible Japanese advancements. ] 01:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Spam or necessary? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone else see the attributions and '''two''' links to John Stark as useful or link spam? After all, why is an unknown consultant used as the definition reference? ] 01:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Suggestion to combine articles == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do it! ] 15:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. The article on Quality Management is actually mainly about Quality Management Systems (QMSs) such as the ISO9000 family. These are related to "quality" in the TQM sense of the word in the same way that meat is related to a healthy balanced diet - i.e. a QMS can form a useful component of achieving quality, but will not do it on its own and can certainly be omitted altogether. The cleverest idea behind QMS was the name, as it promises much more than these systems actually deliver - if ISO9000 had been called "Implementing management systems for encouraging consistent production and rigorous audit" it might not have propagated industry at quite the same rate. (Always remember that ISO operates by inventing standards and then marketing them - that is its raison d'être.) TQM, on the other hand, is indeed very much about promoting quality in the sense that the average Joe understands it. For these articles to be combined in the world's leading encyclopedia IMHO would merely demonstrate the power of marketing over reason.] 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You've convinced me. Maybe rename Quality Management as Quality Management Systems, and include some of your insights. ] 02:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
TQM is a engineiring term which is completely different from quality management; it's ridiculous that someone would suggest merging them. |
|
|
|
|
|
Don't agree with combining them. Quality management is the broad, generic term. TQM is a specific technique for quality management. There are plenty of other techniques, and to suggest they are synonymous is incorrect. They aren't. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
: This article should link to Quality Management Systems, Quality Control, Quality Assurance, but should retain its own identity. ] 17:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== TQM Tools == |
|
|
|
|
|
So now that we know what TQM is, shouldn't we include some of the TQM tools used to empower employees and implement this concept? Some techniques particularly helpful in the TQM effort are: |
|
|
|
|
|
a) Tools for Generating Ideas: Check Sheet, Scatter Diagram, Cause and Effect Diagram, |
|
|
b) Tools to Organize the Data: Pareto Charts, Flow Charts (Process Diagram), and |
|
|
c) Tools for Identifying Problems: Histogram, Statistical Process Control Chart |
|
|
|
|
|
] 21:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)freddy07 |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move == |
|
|
|
|
|
Per ], replace two capitals with lowercase characters. -- ] <font color="Blue"><span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>] </sup></span></font> 20:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Below, the disagreement with the proposal boils down to the definition of proper noun. A proper noun has the quality to distinguish one individual (material or immaterial) among a species. The proponents of Total Quality Management would like the reader to believe that TQM is a sharply defined doctrine – it’s ''not'', according to the skeptics. (Skeptics are not necessarily opponents.) With the article’s title undoubtedly remaining as it is, Misplaced Pages violates ]. Never mind. -- ] <font color="Blue"><span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>] </sup></span></font> 17:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. Although at first glance this proposal would seem to be in accord with ], there is an exception where "the title is almost always capitalized in English" and I believe that applies in this case. TQM is the name of a specific business management philosophy popular especially in the 1980s and 90s (in the U.S.) and is more a akin to a proper noun than a descriptive phrase. It seems to be almost always capitalized in the relevant professional literature. Ex: "The term “Total Quality Management” has lost favor in the United States in recent years: “Quality management” is commonly substituted." "In the 1980s to the 1990s, a new phase of quality control and management began. This became known as Total Quality Management (TQM)." Also ] (]) 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. TQM is always capitalized. ] (]) 19:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. Agree that it should be capitalised, in terms of the MOS. ] (]) 01:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. The term refers to the title of a particular doctrine. It is not to be read by taking the ordinary meaning of each of the words. It's like a proper noun; it's the name of something. - ] (]) 05:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion=== |
|
|
|
|
|
From the extended nomination above... |
|
|
|
|
|
''the disagreement with the proposal boils down to the definition of proper noun''... Well, sort of, but not entirely. But we're here to build an encyclopedia, and splitting hairs on definitions is (sometimes but) rarely productive. My question is, what best describes the article subject, in terms of ]? If our ''definition'' of a ''proper noun'' doesn't support this, then it's the policy etc that should change. But personally, I still think the definitions etc we're using support the use of caps here. |
|
|
|
|
|
''With the article’s title undoubtedly remaining as it is, Misplaced Pages violates ].'' Disagree. I share your skepticism of TQM, having been trained in it and many other similar methodologies over the years. The motivation was great, the facilitators were great (and expensive), the exercises were great, but frankly the team could have used many different methodologies to get the same returns. TQM didn't get too badly in the way and provided a short-term focus to get us working together, and whether the theory had any validity at all didn't affect its success one way or another. It did have some, but it wasn't my place to criticise it, or even to evaluate it. I was being paid (also quite well) just to implement it, and I made it work in my areas of responsibility, as did most of the organisation, and so the bottom line grew for as long as we did. |
|
|
|
|
|
But that's my POV. I shouldn't now express this POV by trying to bend the naming conventions to reduce the value of this Misplaced Pages coverage to TQM promoters. ] (]) 20:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
PS Personally I'd call the article ], which was its name until 2003, it was the term used in the earliest texts and their titles, and the only one I've heard used except in affected and dramatised contexts. We don't spell out ], do we? ] (]) 21:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I can find myself in much of what you write. Funny as it may look at first sight, I'm perfectly happy using the ''symbol'' TQM for "total quality management," and it would seem perfectly alright to use the symbol for the name of the article. Cheers. -- ] <font color="Blue"><span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>] </sup></span></font> 21:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Another example of a term in lower case characters that produces an uppercase symbol used for an article name is deoxyribonucleic acid > DNA. -- ] <font color="Blue"><span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>] </sup></span></font> 05:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
