| Revision as of 00:44, 11 January 2006 editRustySpear (talk | contribs)2,402 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:24, 17 January 2006 edit undoPiedras grandes (talk | contribs)296 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| 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 fix), 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 (UTC) | 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 fix), 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 (UTC) | ||
| This article seems just fine to me {{good}}--] 20:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:24, 17 January 2006
- ;
I've been comparing this article to Bergman & Klefsjö (2001), Kvalitet - från behov till användning, ISBN 91-44-01917-3, Studentlitteratur: Sweden, Lund and I've found several differences (the book is available in English: Bergman & Klefsjö, Quality - from Customer Needs to Customer Satisfaction, ISBN 91-44-04166-7, Studentlitteratur: Sweden, Lund). The authors also point out that it is not clear who came up with TQM. They refer to the Naval Aviation Logistics Command (NALC) when they in 1984 tried to implement Ishikawa's “Total Management Control” but didn't like the word “Control”. One of the members, Nancy Warren, suggested replacing the word with “Management”.
So I'm wondering whether my facts are wrong or not? Foremost on NALC and Ishikawa's “TQC”. I have changed and added that the origin is not clear with some poeple's views.
Scope of application
Cut from intro:
- TQM is not limited in its application
What does this mean? And who makes this claim?
And while we're at it, is "total quality management" a generic term like "software development", 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?
How is TQM different from "quality control"?
Most of all, what evidence is there that this is not just another industry buzzword? 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. Uncle Ed 13:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- TQM is management philosophy, much like scientific management, administrative management, and human relations management. It describes the principles that managers use to run an organization or unit. Quality control generally refers to a function of an organization. TQM is a generic term, but it is usually capitalized. I'm not sure why, other than just tradition. Note that Management by objectives is usually capitalized in spite of also being a generic term. TQM is usually credited with being started by W. Edwards Deming, although he 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 use TQM principles have been Xerox and Saturn. --Chad S. Wrye 01:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
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 Six Sigma). 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. 1996)
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 fix), 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. RustySpear 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
This article seems just fine to me style="background: #BFD; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="yes2 table-yes2"| Good--Piedras grandes 20:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)