Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:08, 31 December 2006

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. TQ

M 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 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 Xerox and Saturn. --Cswrye 01:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

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:

Getting back to Deming

Deming Takes Issue With TQM

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)

== 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? Ehusman 01:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC

TQM in my business

I have recently implemented the tqm philosphy and have been amazed at the improvements

The companies production has gone up 200% The sales of our product have increased dematactly The quality of my product has substantually improved to meet ISO 9001 standards Sexual harasment has reduced stightly my business is sex toys incorparated

Cheers mortem toys and co

Suggestion to combine articles

Do it! Lou Sander 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.Michael412 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You've convinced me. Maybe rename Quality Management as Quality Management Systems, and include some of your insights. Lou Sander 02:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

TQM is a engineiring term which is compleately diffrent from qwuality management its ridiculous that some one 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

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

Freddy07 21:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)freddy07

QUICKSAND OF QUALITY PROCEDURES

Most negative tendencies breed in stagnant conditions when everyone wants to maintain status quo. I am afraid a similar situation is developing in the case of Quality Assurance Managers (QAMs) in services sector who survive on Quality Procedures and Internal Audits. One of the first things they do whenever new QAMs take over in a company is to encourage and coerce their colleagues to go in for newer or additional procedures under the guise of covering as many Business Processes involved in the business as possible. The name of ISO (and even WTO) will be brought in at all times to substantiate their suggestion and impress the colleagues about the absolute necessity of having procedures for anything and everything. But little do the executives realise at that stage that the ‘clever climber’ is preparing noose for hanging them at a not-so-distant future.

In a Quality environment, those who do the real work are the owners of any procedure they make for themselves. And any procedure we make for ourselves is very much dependent upon the various external factors prevalent at that particular point of time. This dependency is much more acute in the case of services than in manufacturing sector. While in a manufacturing environment one deals with machines, in the services sector we are dealing with human beings of various characteristics, capabilities and moods. It is very easy to draw up procedures for dead machines than live humans. The impossible task of standardising human beings and their activities is what is being attempted by way of ISO certification in the services sector. The harm that it brings is much larger than the pleasure one gets by way of watching a team of innovative humans being forced to perform as robots in a uniform manner but in an inefficient way.

Procedural Traps

Any procedure will bring in rigidity and inflexibility. The true meaning of services, be it engineering, education, management or administration, is to provide the right solution to a particular customer in an efficient way as needed. There is absolutely no use in giving services as per a pre-determined procedure but not in tune with the requirements of the customer. The delivery vehicle must be flexible enough to accommodate the changing requirements of the customer and make profit for those who are providing the services. In the modern world when time is money, the single factor that can determine the fate of any services company is its flexibility. Quality certification, procedures and plan are all secondary or tertiary when it comes to clinching a deal and making profit for survival.

Most quality procedures are traps that the so-called owners make for themselves. To make any procedure for any business process, there are assumptions to be made. And it is these very assumptions that turn out to be the stumbling blocks in implementation. No one is against having a pre-determined policy on doing things and giving a prior idea to customer about how the services he require will be provided. And we always used to have them in olden days in the form of method statements or execution plans. But the era of procedures ushered in by the QAMs has changed all that. What we have now in all erstwhile efficient companies are only procedures and policies but no services. Every employee in such companies is handicapped by a set of procedures he or she was coerced to make for his or her work. Fulfilling the requirements of the procedure and not the customer’s requirements has become more important. The net result is loss for the organisation and dissatisfied customers.

ISO Misuse

Misuse of ISO name is becoming rampant in the services sector now. For anything and everything, the QAMs are calling for procedures in the name of ISO requirements. Their only aim is to prolong their existence by periodic internal audits based on these procedures. But does the core policy of ISO insist on such procedures? My own firm opinion is negative in this regard. ISO does not call for detailed written procedures for each and every one of those processes involved in any business. Those who have formulated the basic requirements for ISO certification are not foolish enough to insist on rigid procedures for inherently flexible activities like business development and invoicing. Any business runs on certain unique skills of a single or set of individuals. And none of the activities or processes that depend on those special skills will be amenable to written down procedures applicable at all times. It would be foolish to tie down human creativity to ISO procedures.

Engineering industry is the most hit by the QAMs’ misinterpretation of ISO policies. In many companies we can find procedures for even frivolous activities. The dirty work of an incompetent survivor in the form of QAM in the company will be very much evident in such cases. Under the guise of an ISO requirement, the cheeky QAM will force the vulnerable CEO to go in for procedures in all areas of operation. It is now common knowledge that almost all aspects of Design and Engineering are standardised by the work of several professional bodies and associations. The need for additional ISO procedures to cover these activities is either unwanted or counter productive. Yet many such organisations fall into the trap set by the Quality Assurance brigade and become white elephants in no time.

The whole services sector is flooded with QAMs at present. And many of them are outdated professionals past their expiry date. One quick survey of the average age and health of QAMs in the services sector companies in one metropolis is enough to prove this point. The only way for these hangers-on to survive in the industry is to make procedural cocoons and trap those who are doing the real work. Regular internal audits and making ‘arrangements’ for external auditors are some of the most ‘sophisticated’ exercises they can survive on. The immense damage they are doing to the name of ISO in the industry is something that shouldn’t miss the attention of the ISO office bearers. The sooner ISO come crystal clear about their minimum requirements in the service industry the better for the prestigious organisation. Otherwise, ISO’s would become an unwanted certification very soon, buried deep in the quicksand of unwanted procedures.