Be All That You Can Be! This is much more than just a U.S. Army slogan. This is what Total Quality Management (TQM) really is. As most of us know, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of books and articles published on TQM. These publications will vary from short articles on description to ongoing dissertations of how-to. However, most everything you read is philosophical. It sounds great, and under the ideal conditions, could come true.
What I want to discuss is the practical side of TQM and how to know if you are on the right path or just giving it lip service to satisfy the boss. Too many times, particularly with defense contractors, it is just lip service. The government has stated that if you are to do business with them, then you must have a TQM program in place. To emphasize this, take a look at a defense contractor's walls: you will see slogans and signage everywhere promoting TQM. However, all the promotional signage in the world will do nothing to improve quality if the heart of the organization is not in it.
First I want to talk about the history of TQM and some of its key elements. Hopefully, I can keep it non-philosophical.
History and Purpose of TQM
The real impetus for TQM started in the 1980s. It was recognized that productivity and quality had declined in the United States and, if something was not done, would continue to decline to a dangerous state.
The problems causing the decline in U.S. productivity and quality started right after World War II. Between the overall shortage of consumer goods in the United States, the Marshall Plan in Europe, and the restructuring of Japan, U.S. products were at a tremendous demand worldwide. Anything that could be built or produced would be bought. This caused a significant complacency in our industrial environment, which led to a decline in productivity and quality in U.S. manufacturing. At the same time, the United States was encouraging both Europe and Japan to increase productivity and quality. It was not difficult for the Europeans and Japanese to see the need for quality; and since they were starting from scratch (figuratively speaking) it was easier for them to be quality conscious. However, it should be noted that Japan did not take the lead for many years. TQM gurus W. Edwards Deming and Joseph M. Juran both spent many years in Japan teaching and consulting on the subject. It took the Japanese approximately 30 years to reach a suitable degree of quality to compete with the United States. This is about the same time that it became apparent in the United States that something had to be done.
President Ronald Reagan kicked off the push for TQM with the establishment of the Baldrige Award. The core of the Baldrige Award is continuous improvement. As contained in the published brochure, the stated purposes of the award are to:
- Help stimulate American companies to improve quality and productivity for the pride of recognition while obtaining a competitive edge through increased profits.
- Recognize the achievement of those companies that improve the quality of their goods and services and provide an example to others.
- Establish guidelines and criteria that can be used by business, industrial, governmental, and other enterprises in evaluating their own quality improvement efforts.
- Provide specific guidance for other American enterprises that wish to learn how to manage for high quality by making available detailed information on how winning enterprises were able to change their cultures and achieve eminence.
The primary focus in TQM is the elimination of waste of all types. This includes waste in the form of scrap, time, effort, resources, etc. This is accomplished through several elements that can perhaps best be described by looking at some of the fundamentals of TQM.
To discuss all the fundamentals of TQM would require volumes of information. Plenty of literature is available, with long lists of fundamentals. Good references can be found by the greatest authors on the subject, such as Deming, Juran, and Philip B. Crosby. For this article I have chosen six basic fundamentals that I consider the most important:
- Customer-defined quality
- Interdependent processes
- Measurement by statistical processing controls (SPC)
- Continuous improvement targets
- Teamwork
- Benchmarking.
To ensure that we are all thinking in the same frame, I will briefly describe my interpretation of each of these fundamentals.
“Quality” can be defined in many ways, but probably the best method is by customer satisfaction and, to quote Juran, fitness for use. The customer can be the end user or can be the next step in a process. Either way, customer satisfaction is the best way to define the actual meaning of quality. There can be many other facets of quality, such as meeting specifications and requirements, but these facets would ultimately be included in those of customer satisfaction.
Interdependent processes is the beginning of teamwork for TQM. In TQM, there is only one process, so to speak, in the development of a product. That process begins when the basic requirement for the product is developed. The process should include all parts of the development, design, manufacturing, and delivery systems. Each of the systems should take part in the plans and production, thereby creating an interdependent process.
Measurement by SPC is the best method of truly measuring the quality of the product during the process rather than having to wait until the final product is completed and measuring by inspection. All members in the process should be familiar with various parts of the statistical measurement processes to enable them to use whichever tools that may be applicable for their system. This will allow built-in quality.
Continuous improvement is TQM. This is what makes TQM work and what causes total quality management. Continuous improvement is not just changes in the large scale, but includes small incremental changes as best for the final product. A key element involved in continuous improvement is empowerment. The team or the workers must be empowered to make certain decisions in order for continuous improvement to work. If a small change in the process is necessary for better quality, then the people working that process should be empowered to make it.
Teamwork is a distinct requirement for TQM. TQM is a methodology, philosophy or culture, whichever you prefer, that cannot exist without teamwork. And this team must be realistic. It must be more than just lines drawn on an organization chart (as happens way too many times). The team should be comprised of members from all functional organizations that are involved in the process. And the team must be empowered to take the action they deem necessary for continuous improvement and quality management. Although I do not personally believe in totally autonomous teams, they have to feel free to be honest and not afraid to make a few reasonable mistakes. Teams can take many forms, such as design review teams, steering committees, quality improvement circles, or cross-functional teams. Whatever the type of team, to be effective they must be somewhat self-managed and empowered to make decisions at their level.
Benchmarking is the impetus for quality improvement. Benchmarking could be described by paraphrasing Thomas Peters in that it is In Search of Excellence. It is a search to determine the best in a process or function, and it helps a company identify its strengths and weaknesses. This is a tool to assist in setting goals and can provide an initial objective. However, one must be careful not to get complacent once that initial level has been reached; you must continue to further benchmark and continue to improve.
Figure 1. Traditional versus TQM Organizational Structures
Management Styles
Try as I may, there is still some philosophical discussion in the above section. But now we can get down to the real practical application area. That is the area of actual differences in the management styles if TQM is to be real and effective.
There are many differences between traditional management practices and practices used in Total Quality Management. Some of the key differences in management style are:
- Strategic planning and management
- Changing relationships with customers and suppliers
- Organizational structure
- Organizational change
- Teamwork
- Motivation and job design
- Management and leadership.
The most significant difference in strategic planning is in the emphasis. Traditionally, management focuses on financial and market issues in the long-term plans. The bottom line always being profit. While profit is a necessity for a business to remain viable, in a TQM environment the major planning emphasis must be on quality and continuous improvement. The belief in the TQM environment is that if there is quality, then market share and profit will follow. Which path a company is on is easily identifiable. Where is the real emphasis in the company? Does management spend more time talking about money or quality? TQM must start here. If the CEO and top management are not truly behind the TQM move, then you can stop your hunt. Everything else is pure lip service. TQM cannot come from the bottom up as some people like to think. Likewise, there cannot be a partial implementation. Granted, you can have a few people attempt to improve their product or process as it fits in the scheme of things, but sooner or later (and you can bet it will be sooner), they will get cut off at the knees if their process improvements cost money!
The second area of practical discussion is the relationship between customers and suppliers. This relationship traditionally has been one of a friendly relationship, but always as outsiders. Neither the customer nor supplier is part of the clique. However, in TQM, both customer and supplier are part of the team effort. The customer will in fact define the quality of the product, while the supplier must work as part of the team and have the same quality goals as the company. Traditionally, the supplier is short-term and generally the cheapest bidder; in TQM, the supplier is a semi-partner with a long-term relationship based on a quality product. A true TQM manager knows well that the lowest bidder may not be the least expensive producer or supplier for the total cost of the product.
Organizational structure is generally somewhat different in a TQM environment than in a traditional management scheme. Traditionally, management is somewhat of a stovepipe organization with the functional groups managed separately. A TQM environment requires a much flatter organization and extensive cross-functional operations. The actual organization can remain functional, so long as teams can be formed and can operate as a cross-functional element. These organizational structures are depicted in Figure 1.
I would like to note here that the organization in a TQM environment is still a vertical organization. Recently there has been a lot written about the virtues of the flatter, so-called horizontal organizations. Although several top companies profess that they have converted to a horizontal-type structure, I take exception to that and will go on record as saying that they cannot and will not work in the long run. First, I really do not think any such thing even exists. The concept of the horizontal corporation is confusing the use of teams with organizational structures and hierarchy. An article published in Business Week [December 20, 1993, pp. 76–81] on the subject of horizontal corporations listed seven elements that implied the corporation was horizontal. These were: organize around the process; flatten the hierarchy; use teams to manage everything; let customers drive performance; reward team performance; maximize supplier and customer contact; inform and train all employees. All these elements are qualities of TQM. None of them imply any change in the real management hierarchy or the structure of the company.
A horizontal corporation is a buzzword that many people think sounds good. A true horizontal organization would be a “ship without a rudder.” If there is a boss above anyone, then the organization is not horizontal, but vertical. I will be the first to profess the use of teams and their effectiveness. But I will also tell you that every team must have a leader (boss). Whenever there are two or more people involved in any single activity, a leader (boss) will emerge and take over. Without this phenomena, there would and could only be chaos. I believe the structure on the right in Figure 1 is as close as you can get to a horizontal organization that wants to stay in business.
Organizational change is inevitable in a TQM environment. Traditionally, management has a tendency to maintain the status quo—if it ain't broke, don't fix it. In TQM, continuous improvement requires constant change. In life, there is very little that cannot be improved on. Management must facilitate these constant changes in the TQM environment. For a true TQM environment, there must be a culture change in most organizations in order to realize the total objectives. Just looking at Figure 1 emphasizes the nature of cultural change that must occur for TQM to be effective.
Teamwork can best be described as the required organization and culture in both structure and management that must exist in the TQM environment. This is not the case in traditional management. As discussed above, traditionally companies are set up and organized in functional areas and managed as such. Each operates within itself, almost as a separate organization. Most everything done in the traditional environment is sub-optimized for that area only. Whereas in the TQM environment, the team works together toward a common goal and end that is optimized for the total product. There can be several different type of teams, such as steering committees, departmental problem solving teams and cross-functional work teams. Each team should be self-managed to some degree (managed from within) and empowered for decision making as appropriate.
Motivation and job design in a traditional environment is very individualistic. Most areas, from training and appraisals to punishment, is oriented toward the individual. The individual is encouraged to be competitive and strive for individual recognition. In the TQM environment this is oriented toward total team effort. Although some competition and individual efforts are necessary and contribute to team effort, the overall orientation is toward the team concept. Plus a much more holistic approach is taken in the team area for job training, design, and appraisals.
Management and leadership differs between the two approaches. In theory, one could say that management is concerned over what needs to be done, whereas leadership is concerned over how something is to be done. In the traditional area, management is theoretically more important, whereas in TQM, leadership is by far more important. Management is traditionally a stoic individual position that looks at the enterprise and the separate entities as they exist. Leadership in TQM is a personable coaching/facilitating effort to ensure a high-quality, smooth-flowing process toward a common goal; emphasizing continuous improvement and progress.
One area I find to be profound is the difference in attitude toward the cost of quality. Traditionally, quality is considered a cost above and beyond that of production. Consequently, a separate quality assurance or control organization is established at the least cost possible and this group attempts to inspect quality in (or defects out). These groups will sometimes establish acceptable quality levels (AQL) giving them the feeling they have a quality product. The fact that imposing AQL on a product is actually counter to quality improvement is never considered. In contrast to this, in a TQM environment, quality is built into the product through the process and subsequently is actually less expensive. Although a true zero-defect process may not be realistic, a six sigma process is. Very seldom is a product looked at in traditional management with consideration to life-cycle cost. Things like inventory and scrap are considered part of production rather than part of quality. In the TQM environment, these are considered waste and are to be eliminated, not tolerated.
Another significant distinction between the two management environments is the optimization approaches. Traditionally, management says to optimize under the existing constraints and produce the best product you can. With TQM, management says optimize the product and if necessary change the constraints. This falls in line with the old method or thought process of if you need to increase output, then you must hire more people, and conversely, when you want to cut cost, then have a layoff. Neither of these actions may be necessary; and both could lead to severe personnel problems in both short and long terms. Optimization of the process could solve the production problem and simultaneously cause cost reduction.
Obvious in this area is the tremendous difference in management/leadership attitudes in the environment. Traditionally, management works under the auspices that people are only a resource to be moved, traded, or discarded if not required; in TQM, leadership is personable, inventive and creative, and people are the mainstay of quality. The former style creates a fear in employees and uses the basic Theory X management; whereas in TQM, Theory Y is emphasized and trust and security are developed, both of which are an absolute necessity for success in a TQM environment.
Summary
The difference between the two types of environment is very significant. A conversion from traditional management to total quality management is a time-consuming process. It normally requires a complete change in the corporate culture and procedures of how a company does business. But the benefits from the TQM environment outweigh the traditional environment to such an extent that in general most companies should be striving toward TQM as a goal. This must start at the top, with the culture developed using true leadership skills: gaining trust, providing security for the employees, etc. True quality is not in a product, it is in people!
The latest buzzwords, downsizing, right-sizing, re-engineering, out-sourcing all can and will effect total quality management. In many cases they are counter to the concept. A feature of TQM that is seldom, if ever, discussed is loyalty. Without
The intent of this article is not to tell you how to implement TQM. There are hundreds of experts out there waiting to do that. The aim is to bring to your attention that TQM is more than just a buzzword. Using the guidelines described here, look around you—are you on the track to total quality management, or are you only providing lip service?
Today's quality environment faces a potentially significant and dangerous problem of management-by-airline-magazine (a term used by W.A. Humphries at the spring 1994 symposium on Total Quality Management at Embry-Riddle University, Austin, Texas). The airline magazines are a tremendous source of the latest trends and commonly referenced terminology. The tragedy is that too many times the managers reading these magazines only learn the words and do not really research the significance of them. Total Quality Management could very well be one of these buzzwords!
Be All That You Can Be—but be sure you know what you are going after when you start. Don't go after something that you cannot commit to. it, TQM cannot be developed. Loyalty is a two-way street and it must be earned through respect, trust, and security. ■