| Revision as of 10:27, 9 January 2014 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,374,382 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Total quality management/Archives/2011. (BOT)← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:14, 13 April 2014 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,374,382 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Total quality management/Archives/2011. (BOT)Next edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| :*p.476 "Incidentally, my use of the term "Total Quality Management" owes nothing in its lineage whatsoever to the Total Quality Control of either Feigenbaum or Ishikawa. I had heard of neither one, nor of their concepts, when I was practicing the Five Pillar variety of TQM successfully—or when I chose the terms Total Quality Management—and TQM—to describe what my quality-focused and decentralization-oriented management style was all about." | :*p.476 "Incidentally, my use of the term "Total Quality Management" owes nothing in its lineage whatsoever to the Total Quality Control of either Feigenbaum or Ishikawa. I had heard of neither one, nor of their concepts, when I was practicing the Five Pillar variety of TQM successfully—or when I chose the terms Total Quality Management—and TQM—to describe what my quality-focused and decentralization-oriented management style was all about." | ||
| ::::-- ] (]) 01:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC) | ::::-- ] (]) 01:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Article cleanup and removal of things that don't make sense == | |||
| I've made significant changes to the article in order to improve the English and writing style, and to remove parts which simply don't make sense. | |||
| Firstly, I've removed both the claim that TQM originated in the late 1980s and the claim that Six Sigma, which originated in 1986, is 'newer', since these contradict each other so at least one must be false. I don't know which, so I'll leave someone to reintroduce one of the claims if they can source it. | |||
| Secondly, I've removed fluff from the first paragraph that didn't add any meaning, and stripped it down to the actual point that TQM is a management strategy which aims to improve the quality of products and processes. In particular: | |||
| * I've removed the point about it being used 'around the world', since this is extremely vague | |||
| * I've removed the point about it being used to 'retain or regain competitiveness in order to acheive customer satisfaction', since businesses (with the rare exceptions of altruistic ones whose primary objective is non-commercial) want to satisfy customers in order to get repeat business in order to be competitive, not the other way around | |||
| * I've removed the irrelevant mentions of increasing competition and the 'era of globalisation' | |||
| * I've removed the description of TQM as an 'integrative philosophy', since that term isn't defined in the article and I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. | |||
| Thirdly, I've condensed the first two sentences of the second paragraph into one sentence which contains all the information that the old two did. | |||
| Fourthly, I've deleted this sentence entirely: "Considering the practices of TQM as discussed in six empirical studies, Cua, McKone, and Schroeder (2001) identified the nine common TQM practices as cross-functional product design, process management, supplier quality management, customer involvement, information and feedback, committed leadership, strategic planning, cross-functional training, and employee involvement." | |||
| I did so because I believe it is too unclear to add anything to the article. It is unclear because: | |||
| * It's not clear what is meant by a 'TQM practice' or a 'practice of TQM' | |||
| * It's not indicated what the 'empirical studies' were of, or how they were used by Cua, McKone, and Schroeder | |||
| * It's not clear how the nine 'practices' listed are related to TQM | |||
| * All of the nine practices listed are incredibly vague, and indeed some are things that are a necessary part of any kind of business anyway, such as 'employee involvement' or 'information and feedback' | |||
| Fifthly, I made several changes to the Six Sigma section: | |||
| * I changed the section about Six Sigma to refer Six Sigma as a 'management strategy', as per the Six Sigma article, rather than as a 'process improvement', which doesn't make sense. | |||
| * I removed 'by metrics measurement' for two reasons. Firstly, 'metrics measurement' is a tautology; a metric is a system of measurement, or a way of measuring something, so 'metrics measurement' literally means 'measuring things that you measure', or indeed simply 'measurement'. Secondly, you can't acheive anything simply by measurement; you need to act on the results of those measurements. So it doesn't make any sense to say that Six Sigma reduces variation by measuring things. | |||
| * I deleted the entire second sentence of the section, because it's an incomprehensible mess. What on earth is 'Applications of the Six Sigma project execution methodology have since expanded to include practices common in Total Quality Management' supposed to mean? | |||
| * I've deleted the final sentence, 'TQM tries to improve quality by ensuring conformance to internal requirements, while Six Sigma focuses on improving quality by reducing the number of defects and impurities', for two reasons. Firstly, 'reducing variation' and 'ensuring conformance' are synonyms, and we've already been told that Six Sigma aims to 'reduce variation', so saying that TQM DIFFERS from Six Sigma because it 'ensures confrmance' appears to be a logical contradiction. Secondly, according to the Six Sigma article, Six Sigma DEFINES quality in terms of the number/rate of defects, so saying that Six Sigma aims to improve quality by reducing the number of defects is again another tautology; you're simply saying that Six Sigma aims to reduce the number of defects by reducing the number of defects. | |||
| :: You've reduced the article to a stub, the article needs to be elaborated, and not the other way around. This is your first edit, and the article was written by many other contributors, your opinion still counts, but that doesn't mean you reduce the article to a stub just because you think it's better this way. Thanks.Pm master 12:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You say I've reduced the article to a stub but I have barely removed any information. The only substantial removal was the bit about Cua, McKone and Schroeder. I wish you had responded to my actual points and said whether you consider them valid, and if not, why not. | |||
| ::: I'm certainly not content to leave the article as it stands because, as explained above, there are parts that are tautological, contradictory, or simply don't make sense. If you think I've gone too far with the previous rewrite, I guess we can compromise and I'll leave in the stuff about Cua, McKone and Schroeder and some of the vaguer details, and leave the writing style alone except to fix grammar. I do think, however, that the following things really NEED to be changed: | |||
| ::: 1) The phrase 'in an attempt to retain or regain competitiveness in order to acheive customer satisfaction' should be removed because customer satisfaction isn't the objective of being competitive, nor does it result from it. '...in the face of increasing competition from around the world in this era of globalization' should be removed since it is irrelevant, and furthermore having that phrase in there suggests that the primary driving force for firms adopting TQM is international competition, which probably isn't true and at any rate needs to be sourced. In addition to the previous points, the references to competitiveness need to be removed because TQM is used not only by competitive commercial enterprises but also by non-commercial organisations such as government departments who are not involved in any kind of competition. Finally, we should remove the reference to 'firms' because TQM is, again, not limited to firms. Combined with point 2 below, this means the entire first sentence needs to be removed, although to ensure no actual content is lost, we can add in a sentence saying 'TQM is used around the world.' since this is the only other piece of info in the first sentence. | |||
| ::: 2) The claim that TQM began in the late 1980s should be removed since later in the article this is contradicted by the claim that it began before 1986 (since it predates Six Sigma). What's more, people have referred in the talk page to sources using the term Total Quality Management decades earlier than this, so clearly it is false. | |||
| ::: 3) 'The Six Sigma process improvement' needs to be changed to 'The Six Sigma management strategy', since Six Sigma is a management strategy, not a 'process improvement'. | |||
| ::: 4) 'through metrics measurement' needs to be removed since you can't improve things through measurement, and 'metrics measurement' is a tautology anyway. | |||
| ::: 5) 'Applications of the Six Sigma project execution methodology have since expanded to include practices common in Total Quality Management and Supply Chain Management, such as increasing customer satisfaction, and developing closer supplier relationships' needs to be removed because it simply doesn't make sense. I mean seriously, lets break that sentence down logically. An application is a use of something. A methodology is a system of methods, so a project execution methodology is a system of methods for carrying out projects. So the sentence literally means 'Ways of using Six Sigma's system of methods for carrying out projects have since expanded to include practices common in TQM, such as increasing customer satisfaction and developing closer supplier relationships'. This is patent nonsense. What can it possibly mean to say that increasing customer satisfaction has become an application of a project execution methodology? | |||
| ::: 6) The final sentence, 'TQM tries to improve quality by ensuring conformance to internal requirements, while Six Sigma focuses on improving quality by reducing the number of defects and impurities', needs to be removed because it contains both a contradiction and a tautology, as I already noted. The contradiction is the claim that Six Sigma differs from TQM because TQM works by 'ensuring conformance' but Six Sigma works by 'minimising variation', when these mean the same thing. The tautology is the claim that 'Six Sigma focuses on improving quality by reducing the number of defects and impurities', since in Six Sigma 'quality' is defined in terms of the number of defects and impurities, so really the sentence says 'Six Sigma focuses on improving quality by improving quality', or 'Six Sigma focuses on reducing the number of defects and impurities by reducing the number of defects and impurities'. | |||
| ::: With this in mind I propose a more restrained rewrite, which only removes things that are demonstrably false, tautological, or nonsense, and makes no changes to the writing style otherwise. It is below. Since the changes here are entirely CORRECTIONS to the article, and not additions, removals, or style changes, I ask that you give clear reasons not to make each individual change if you object to the change. Otherwise, I will implement the new version in a couple of days. | |||
| ::: TQM is an integrative philosophy of ] for continuously improving the ] of products and processes. <ref>Ahire, S. L. 1997. Management Science- Total Quality Management interfaces: An integrative framework. Interfaces 27 (6) 91-105.</ref> It is used around the world. | |||
| ::: TQM functions on the ] that the ] of products and processes is the responsibility of everyone who is involved with the creation or consumption of the products or services offered by an organization. In other words, TQM capitalizes on the involvement of management, workforce, suppliers, and even customers, in order to meet or exceed customer expectations. Considering the practices of TQM as discussed in six empirical studies, Cua, McKone, and Schroeder (2001) identified the nine common TQM practices as cross-functional product design, ], supplier quality management, customer involvement, information and ], committed ], ], cross-functional training, and employee involvement. <ref>Cua, K. O., K. E. McKone, and R. G. Schroeder. 2001. Relationships between implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM and manufacturing performance. Journal of Operations Management 19 (6) 675-694.</ref> | |||
| ::: == TQM and Six Sigma == | |||
| ::: The ] management strategy originated in 1986 from ]’s drive towards reducing defects by minimizing variation in ]. <ref>Anand, G., P. T. Ward, and M. V. Tatikonda. 2010. Role of explicit and tacit knowledge in six sigma projects: An empirical examination of differential project success. Journal of Operations Management 28 (4) 303-315.</ref> | |||
| ::: The main difference between TQM and ] (a newer concept) is the approach.<ref>{{cite web| title=Six Sigma vs. Total Quality Management| url=http://www.pmhut.com/six-sigma-vs-total-quality-management| accessdate= April 19, 2010}}</ref> | |||
| == The BI++ Methodology == | == The BI++ Methodology == | ||
Revision as of 07:14, 13 April 2014
 | Business C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
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. 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. RustySpear 00:44, 11 January 2006
- If that is true, General Creech is self-promoting. The phrase Total Quality Control was used by A. V. Feigenbaum as early as the 1951 publication of his book, Quality Control: Principles, Practice, and Administration.. In any case, Deming was teaching Shewhart'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 rediscover what had been developed here - something that was attributed to Deming, but also included Training Within Industry and the incredible Japanese advancements. Ehusman 01:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- For posterity, Creech simply claims that he invented his own TQM around the same time that the TQM came into existence. Here are the quotes:
- p.6 "I have long used the "Five Pillars" as a way of describing the need for a broad foundation for TQM. In fact, the depiction opposite is of the slide I used in my first speech to a business seeking my advice when I joined the business world (from the Air Force) in early 1985."
- p.6 "I concocted the TQM logo on the book's jacket, and on my speech slides such as this one, back in January 1985, when I gave the first of many speeches to business audiences on the subject. "TQM" wasn't a term in use back then. The literature on the quality approach, such as it was, centered on such overarching descriptors as "Concurrent Engineering," "Design-build Teams," and "Lean Production."
- p.7 "Accordingly, I dubbed what I had done to transform organizations "TQM," and used the Five Pillars as one means of emphasizing the "Total" part of the title."
- p.7 "I'm not staking a claim here as father of the term "TQM." Who cares? I am, however, staking my claim to describing it as I have seen it in action in its most successful form."
- p.476 "Incidentally, my use of the term "Total Quality Management" owes nothing in its lineage whatsoever to the Total Quality Control of either Feigenbaum or Ishikawa. I had heard of neither one, nor of their concepts, when I was practicing the Five Pillar variety of TQM successfully—or when I chose the terms Total Quality Management—and TQM—to describe what my quality-focused and decentralization-oriented management style was all about."
The BI++ Methodology
Does this section look highly suspect? It's uncited and looks suspiciously like self promotion. Only a few salient hits on Google and the text is the same. Lurkazoid (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
TQM and Performance for SMEs
What does "SME" stand for? Small and medium enterprises, Social market economy or something else? Must be clarified in the following paragraph. SV1XV (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Categories: