INTRODUCTION TO TQM

QUALITY

The meaning of the word quality has evolved over a period of time. Quality has been defined as :

Conformance to Specifications - Phil Crosby
Fitness for use - Joseph Juran

The totality of features and characteristics of a product or services that bear on its ability to meet stated or implied needs - ISO 8402

Noriaki Kano and others have proposed the concept of two dimensional quality “must be quality” and “attractive quality”.

MUST BE QUALITY:

Must be quality is that aspect of a product or service that a customer expects. This is the minimum acceptable standard which if not available in the product the customer will be extremely dissatisfied.

ATTRACTIVE QUALITY:

Attractive quality is that aspect of a product of service that goes beyond current needs. The special features which will thrill the customer are examples of attractive quality.

A well designed product or service should have both dimensions of quality. These can strongly influence the customers buying decision.

It can be seen that a definition of quality has expanded over a period of time to incorporate more and more aspects of quality of a product or service.

TYPES OF QUALITY

Quality is classified in several ways such as

Hardware Quality and Software Quality
Quality of Design and Quality of Manufacture
Product Quality & Process Quality

1. HARDWARE QUALITY & SOFTWARE QUALITY

Hard Quality relates to tangible aspects of Quality such as size, weight, functions, reliability, packing, delivery, cost and payment conditions, customer support, etc.
Software Quality related to the intangible attributes of the quality of the product or service such as courtesy, security, reception, hospitality, correspondence, meetings, etc.

2. QUALITY OF DESIGN & QUALITY OF MANUFACTURE

Quality of Design relates to a high technology product or service with a lot of features and attributes. This type of quality, calls for a high level of investment in R&D and upgradation to manufacturing/delivery technology. This is a technology intensive quality, e.g., A TV with a large number of features such as a large number of channels, good picture and sound characteristics, etc.
Quality of manufacture, on the other hand, concerns itself with reduction of defects in the manufacturing process/system to produce a product/service which is highly reliable in operation. A product may have a high Quality of Design but if it fails too often, then its Quality of manufacture is low

This type of quality is not capital intensive and relies on small and continuous improvements in the process to reduce defects.

3. PRODUCT QUALITY & PROCESS QUALITY

The Product Quality relies on measurement of product characteristics such as size, weight, specifications, etc., as a means to ensure that a good quality product reaches the customer.

The concept is synonymous with the Inspection concept where the product characteristics are measured at the end of each process and this is used as a feedback to correct the process.

The BIS Standards of various products such as steel, concrete insulators, etc., are examples of product standards.
Process Quality on the other hand relies on control of process characteristics such as speed, depth of cut, temperature, pressure, etc., to ensure Product Quality.

The basic philosophy being “If the Process is right the Product will be right”.

This concept is synonymous with the Quality Assurance Concept wherein Process Control ensures suitability of design (to meet requirement), selection and use of the right process, raw material, control of the production and delivery process, etc., to ensure the right quality product reaches the customer.

The ISO 9000 (IS-14000) series of Standards are oriented towards Process Quality, as the focus of ensuring the Quality of the overall Management System (Process), is to ensure the Product Quality

EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF QUALITY

The concept of quality has evolved over a period of time. This period has also seen a sea change in the perception of quality both by suppliers of products and services and also customers.

Quality before the 1920 was associated with inspection. Inspection was seen as a means of comparing actual performance against a specification to sort out the good and the bad. The only solution for the bad quality product was to reject, rework or to scrap. The disadvantages of inspection is that it is costly as the defective product is identified only after it has been produced. Another disadvantage is that no inspection is fool proof.

The pioneering efforts of Dr.Walter A Shewhart at Bell Telephone Laboratories changed this perception of quality and laid the foundation for the quality control concept. This involved the use of process performance data for improving the process, self inspection, product testing and use of basic statistics to improve the process.

Development of quality manuals and basic quality planning are essential features of Quality Control.

This concept was further expanded to include non-production departments, systematic quality audits, use of various statistical tools etc., by the quality gurus such as Deming, Juran, Crosby etc. Since this assures the quality of the product at each stage , it was called Quality Assurance.

The concept of total quality management (TQM) was a improvement on Quality Assurance and lays emphasis on continuous improvement, involvement of suppliers and customers, involvement of all operations in the organization, performance appraisal, team work and employee involvement.

TQM DEFINITION

TQM is a integrated organizational approach in delighting customers (both internal and external) by meeting their expectations on a continuous basis through everyone involved with the Organization working on continuous improvement in all products/processes along with a proper problem solving methodology.

The Asian Productivity Organization (APO) describes TQM as:

Total quality management (TQM) is more than a concept; it is a philosophy by itself. TQM is defined as a management strategy for an organization, centered on awareness of quality in all organizational processes. According to the American Society for Quality, the term "total quality management" was first used by the US Naval Air Systems Command "to describe its Japanese-style management approach to quality improvement." The TQM management strategy is based on the participation of all members and aiming at long-term success through customer satisfaction and benefits to all members of the organization and society. TQM relies on all necessary quality management tools to achieve and maintain the desired level of quality in everyday operations, allowing for continual improvement of operations and meeting changing customer expectations.

UNDERSTANDING TQM

Total Quality Management (TQM) involves the management of at least five (5) quality check points. These check points are :

Quality Checkpoint-1:

Selection and management of upstream systems (i.e., suppliers, vendors, customers-internal or external). This includes the development and maintenance of standards, specifications, requirements - open communication channels with the organizational systems from which your organization receives inputs.

Quality Checkpoint-2:

Incoming quality assurance the assurance that you are getting what you wanted, needed, expected, requested on time and within specifications.

Quality Checkpoint-3:

In-process quality management and assurance-assuring that key transformation processes (value-adding processes) are effective, efficient and “building” quality into the goods and/or services.

Quality Checkpoint-4:

Outgoing quality assurance-the assurance that your organizational system is producing the desired goods and/or services on-time and within specifications.

Quality Checkpoint-5:

The proactive assurance that your organizational system is meeting or exceeding

If an organizational system (i.e., a work group, section, branch, division, department, school, plant, firm, etc.) successful manages (operational defines, measures, controls, improves) each of these five checkpoints, it will manage quality totally.

Deming, Juran, Ishikawa, Garvin, Crosby, and others have suggested that we should cease to use inspection as the sole mechanism for ensuring quality. They have implied that moving emphasis (time, money, energy) from Q2 and Q4 to Q1, Q3 and Q5 will cause : (1) total quality to improve; (2) total quality costs (cost of quality) to go down; and, (3) you to dominate your market-place and successfully accomplish your long-range desired outcomes.

Foundational Concepts and Principles of TQM

TQM is customer oriented.
TQM involves a long-term commitment to the continuous improvement of all processes (implies checkpoint 3 only; however, it is clear that all checkpoints must be addressed).
TQM success demands top management leadership and continuous involvement.
Products and services are the result of processes, and all processes are subject to inherent variation.
Much of the knowledge needed to improve a process resides in the workforce and with the customer(s); however, only management can make many of the necessary changes happen.
Responsibility for establishment and improvement of processes lies with management.
Managers are responsible for the quality of supplier products and services received (quality checkpoints 1 and 2 issue).
TQM is a strategy for continuously improving performance at every level and in all areas of responsibility.
TQM aims at achieving broad, unending objective - continuous improvement of products and services.
Successful TQM implementation depends on establishing a nuturing, encouraging environment, a disciplined organizational goal-setting methodology,and a formal,structured process -improvement methodology.

These ten points are the major foundational concepts that are called for in the TQM plans. They are probably not comprehensive; they are probably, as written, subject to dispute; however, the fact that they have been put down or paper as a part of a systematic plan to improve performance is the important point to be made. If your organization is to address TQM, a strategy will have to be developed, and foundational concepts and principles will have to be spelled out.

We could add Dr.Deming’s fourteen points to our list of foundational concepts; for that matter, we could add issues addressed by Juran, Ishikawa, Crosby, Garvin, Pirsig, and many others.

The right approach to TQM is not the Deming approach or the Crosby approach or the Juran approach; the three wise men are indeed wise, but the “right answer” lies in the integration of a number of views to quality. Ultimately, the best approach is your approach, which must be an integration of everything the “masters” directing your efforts are able to crystallize and communicate with conviction and clarity. Ultimately, the most important foundational concepts and principles are the ones that your leadership has accepted as those right for your organization. The broader the search you do, the better job you do with your homework of understanding TQM, the more likely it is that your TQM effort will be successful.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF TQM

The concept of total quality management (TQM) also known as Total Quality Control (TQC) or Company Wide Quality Control (CWQC) has been practiced in several organizations in the World particularly, in Japan. Organizations such as Toyota, Canon, Hewlett Packard, Suzuki, etc., have made a phenomenal impact on the international market by implementing the processes of TQM in their organizations. These have resulted in several benefits which include

Higher employee morale.
More efficient processes
Higher productivity
Less fire fighting resulting in more time for innovation and creativity
Improved quality of products and services
Increased market share
Lower cost
Increased customer satisfaction
Higher profits

Apart from this, there have been several other benefits for organizations which have implemented TQM.

TQM as implemented in these organizations is seen to have the following essential elements.

1)CUSTOMER ORIENTATION

Any organization that is serious about quality and customers must take a systematic approach to ensure a customer oriented work force. A committed and educated work force is a good start but it also must have the right tools. The organization’s response towards the customer can be classified as reactive and proactive. The necessary tools are:

RE-ACTIVE :-

A system to manage and resolve customer complaints.
Customer satisfaction surveys and follow up corrective action.
Collection of product and service failure data, analysis and follow up corrective action.

PRO-ACTIVE :-

Competitive bench marking to learn from world class companies
Capturing the customers voice or needs for new products and services through systematic processes such as QFD, market surveys, etc.
Constant interaction with the customer to know their views and need.

The re-active approach is necessary to understand and resolve problems arising from current products and services. The pro-active approach is essential to help influence and create new products and services.

2) THE PLANNING PROCESS:

TQM implementation in an organization should be planned and should function within the over all strategic plan of the organization. The process of planning for TQM would involve a long range plan which is prepared for a period of 3-5 years and short range plan which is drawn up for a shorter period of time such as six months one year. This plan should form the basis for planning by the various divisions, departments, groups, etc., within the organization. The ZOPP method is recommended for drawing the long range plan and/or the short range plan. Once the objectives and priorities are identified, this shall form the basis for drawing the lower level plans. This has been discussed in detail in chapter No.4.

3) THE IMPROVEMENT CYCLE:

One of the basic need of TQM is continuous improvement. In today’s environment if you did not improve your competitor will and in addition it will take away your market share. This has been the case with European Electrical and Electronic companies and American Automobile manufacturers who have seen Japanese competitors eating into their market share. The planning process helps to identify areas for improvement. It along with process management and employee suggestions helps to identify areas for improvement to continuously improve our processes, products and services. An ideal tool is the well known PDCA cycle. The essential elements of PDCA cycle are :-

I. PLAN :

A. Select the Theme or Project

Project background and reasons for selection
Set a target
Prepare a schedule of activities

B. Grasp the Current Status

C. Analyze the Cause and Document the Corrective Action

Prepare cause and effect diagram
Prepare a hypothesis and verify most likely cause
Document the corrective action

II. DO:

A. Implement the Corrective Action

Prepare instructions and flow charts for complicated procedures
Adequate training must be provided
Follow the plan exactly
Record any division from plan and collect the data on results

III. CHECK:

A. Check the Effect of Corrective Action

Compare over all result
Analyze failure to achieve results (in case of failure)
Results achieved

IV. ACT:

A. Check Appropriate Action

Documentation, Standardization & Control
Training

B. Decide On Future Plans

The well known seven Quality Control tools may be used in this process.

4) DAILY PROCESS MANAGEMENT:

Well managed process can be leading indicators that predict good results for an organization. Well managed process that are company standards will allow the management to focus its energies in strategic areas. Key processes to be managed, have to be identified in design, procurement, manufacture, sales, installation, servicing etc., to help improved efficiency, productivity and quality in an organization. These processes must be managed well on a day-to-day basis - hence the term “Daily Process Management”. Daily Process Management means defining and monitoring a key process, ensuring it meets a target, discovering abnormalities and preventing their recurrence. Tools such as QFD (in the process of product development), setting design standards, design reviews,FMEA, design evaluation, design validation, supplier management, project post-mortem (in new product development), production process control, analysis of sales results (sales post-mortem) aid in Daily Process Management.

5) EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION:

An effective TQM effort will require the participation of every person in an organization. Though the worth of an individual has been grossly under estimated, organizations which have implemented TQM have benefited by creating an environment in which individuals have contributed to the organizations success. There are several methods to harness the potential of every person. Quality circles, employee suggestion schemes, employee education and training, and recognition are essential elements in ensuring employee participation. No TQM effort can be effective without employees’ contribution to improving products and processes. Employee participation also ensures high morale, productivity and increased customer and employee satisfaction.

WHY TQM EFFORTS FAIL ?

The success of the Japanese companies and later organizations such as 3-M, xerox, ICI, etc., in the west spurred several thousands of organizations throughout the world to initiate Quality Improvement Programmes (TQM Programmes). Not all however, have met with the same measure of success.

Apart from the success stories, it is also necessary for us to learn from the experiences of those organizations that have failed so as to ensure the success of our TQM efforts. Some of the most common causes of failure are as follows:

1. Lack of Management Commitment:

The most frequent reason advanced for the comparative failure of quality initiatives is a lack of management commitment to see the process through. Quality had been seen as the `flavour of the year’ and now the organization had a new flavour. In other words, quality improvement had been treated as a short term programme rather than as a never ending process. In reality this is a too simplistic excuse and does not go the root cause of failure. It was not commitment but comprehension that was lacking.

The real issue is that management generally had little understanding as to what they were supposed to be committed to. At any stage of the programme the management would have considered themselves committed to quality and been delighted to have made another rabble-rousing speech to demonstrate their commitment. Too often managers launch into quality programmes with no real comprehension of the destination, let alone the vicissitudes to be met on the way.

2. Lack of Vision and Planning:

W.Edwards Deming, the American quality guru, has always demanded constancy of purpose rather than commitment from management. The profound knowledge which lies at the heart of this statement is that management must first have a purpose to which to remain constant. The failure to provide this purpose and to provide a plan to achieve it is the real cause of disappointment in many quality initiatives.

The executive or leader of the organization has to have a very clear idea of TQM and then communicate it very clearly to all in the organization.

3. Satisfaction with the Quick fix:

To day most executives realize that quality of service is important to their customers. Naturally they want to do something to improve quality within their own organization. However, few comprehend that the lack of quality that they detect in their own company could be the result of their own behavior or actions.

They are also imbued with the Western philosophy that if they turn their attention to the problem it can be quickly fixed. Consequently, the laudable desire to improve customer satisfaction and the image of the organization is often crudely translated into another urge `to beat up on the workers’. The language actually used is more likely to be `motivating workforce’, or `providing our people with a customer orientation’.

The three most common examples of the `quick fix’ mentality in attempting to improve quality in Western service organizations are:

The introduction of Quality Circles.
Customer Care Programmes.
Empowering the People.

Each of these approaches is valid and indeed they can be powerful contributors to an overall process, but only if the operating environment is conducive to their success - in other words, if the executives have first created a new environment in which traditional management behavior patterns have demonstrably changed. Without the cultural change each of the above become one-off programmes. They also delude management into believing that they have dealt with the quality issue and that they can now turn their minds to more important `real business issues’. Even the most progressive companies can fall into the quick fix trap. Immediate application of the band-aid can hide the hemorraging in the body of the organization.

The Packaged Solution:

A different variant of the quick fix approach can also be seen in the organization that is determined to implement every element of TQM. They have recognized the need to change and naturally do not want to waste too much time in implementing a quality ethos. They are also wise enough to comprehend that they are going to need outside help and therefore they approach TQM consultants. At this stage they can easily fall prey to the complete `packaged’ methodology and a complete `packaged’ educational system.

It is difficult to criticise the executive who decides to follow this prescribed route. Many of these packaged solutions are directly, or by inference, linked to the teachings of one or other of the quality gurus. Yet, despite the undoubted credibility of the guru, these packaged solutions will ignore the unique culture of the organization and create barriers to communication throughout the work force.

Apart from the issue of communicating across cultures there is a tendency for this approach to be limited to training alone. In that sense the executive decision has unwittingly fallen for a quick fix solution.

4. The Process became Tool Bound:

A substantial armoury of tools has been developed over the years to support all involved in the quality improvement process. They range from relatively simple measurement and process analysis tools, through a series of problem-solving techniques, to very sophisticated use of statistical concepts. Many of these tools and techniques will actually assist the mind set change and are therefore an integral part of the improvement strategy. Others have their use in specific situations.

Some organizations become so obsessed with the tools themselves that they forget that tools are there only for a purpose. Trying to measure every element of a process from the outset will drown the organization with facts that it cannot use or take action on. When measurement charts are being used as an alternative to wall paper it is a reasonable bet that nothing much will change. Some people spend so much time filling in charts and collecting statistics that there is little time left to complete their real work.

Many proponents of Statistical Process Control (SPC) seem to believe that the use of this undoubtedly powerful tool is all that is needed to achieve TQM. Of course SPC contains a range of measurement tools which need careful selection to meet given circumstances. They are all designed to assist in the control of work processes, which is the central core of continuous improvement. Nevertheless, control is not the only factor in looking at or managing the human element of work.

Dr.Tanner, mentioned previously, describes an experience which aptly sums up the tool-bound trap. He then worked for a major car manufacturer which was, ostensibly, very committed to SPC. The UK plants were being continually admonished on the efficiency of their colleagues in the Continental European plants and one example cited by management was their use of SPC. So on a visit to their Belgian plant he naturally looked for evidence of this vaunted use of SPC to take back to the UK. To his surprise, as he was shown around the plant, he noted that many of the SPC control charts indicated that the processes being measured were `out of control’. He questioned the Quality Control Superintendent, who quickly agreed with him that this was the case, but added that it didn’t really matter. The important thing was that the charts were displayed line-side so that senior management thought that the production unit were doing a good job. The production and quality management were gambling, correctly, that senior management could not understand SPC so all they were looking for was evidence that charts were being displayed and filled in. Dr.Deming may wail that management is inadequately trained and does not understand statistics but to insist on a tool-bound route will only perpetuate the senseless fog.

Too many organizations go through the task of certification to such systems for marketing reasons alone: in other words, as suppliers to other organizations they

need such certification to remain in business. They will improve but unless they see the wider ramifications of quality they will not achieve what they might have expected. These systems can become another form of management cop-out: ‘Good, now we have been certified we have dealt with quality’.

5. Quality too Constraining:

Too few executives see quality as a strategic imperative. They are more likely to see it as a task to be delegated to a quality department and in any case as an expense item to be controlled. They rarely see it as permeating everything that happens in the organization. When quality does find a place on their agenda and they want to take action they are likely to adopt the quick fix route.

Competition has led many organizations to elevate quality to the strategic level. But here again the work `quality’ imposes constraints. They may agree with Philip Crosby that quality should be equal to revenue, cost and schedule but still see each of those elements as separate functions or fortresses. In some ways this attitude is the more disappointing. Having seen the light, it is then dissipated. Tremendous energy is thrown into the quality improvement process and everyone in the organization is enthused but there is no real and lasting change. This level of comprehension will often lead to quality improvement becoming institutionalized into a self-perpetuating bureaucracy.

The need to improve is first recognized through the competitive market need to provide quality services. That need will not be wholly met if quality is constrained by lack of comprehension of what is now meant by that word. Quality should be viewed as the outcome rather than the process.

6. Culture Change Vs. Project Approach:

Increasingly the overall philosophy of quality management is being artificially divided into two distinct and competing implementation strategies. The two approaches are categorized as the `overall culture change route’ and the `project by project approach’. This dangerous dichotomy is being fostered largely by consultants striving to find their own unique selling point. Some of them even quote or misinterpret other gurus (without their consent) to support their distinct methodology or package. The proponents of either, as competing rather than as integral implementation philosophies, are leading their clients into very dangerous waters.

The culture change route is based largely on cascading education and training for everyone in the organization. This process is designed to lead everyone to recognise the need to change and provide them with the competence to analyze and improve work processes. there is nothing wrong in this approach - indeed it is an essential element in quality improvement. The danger lies in the organizational tendency for everyone to wait until the educational process is complete before tackling the major problems discovered on the way. By then they will have forgotten much that was learnt. This is a particular danger for middle management. At its worst it can be likened to insisting that everyone stays on the fire prevention course while the east wing burns down.

The opposing `project by project’ approach is more pragmatic and is argued to be more practical. The fashionable `business process re-engineering’ (BPR) exhibits some of these tendencies. In essence a series of key issues, processes or opportunities for improvement are identified and then task forces or project teams are established to work on the issues, processes or opportunities for improvement are identified and then task forces or project teams are established to work on the issues. Of course, each team is educated and trained in techniques to accomplish their allotted task. To some extent a culture change does take place by the very nature of the activity. The danger is that the education, training and experience is not common and many functions such as clerical and secretarial are not wholly involved. There is also a tendency to create a large supporting quality organization of full-time trainers and facilitators. In the broadest sense the new way of working does not enter the overall fabric of the organization.

The real answer lies in both the culture change required and the immediate key success factors. the plan should then address an implementation strategy that ensures that both approaches are integral rather than competing.

7. Quality Management became Institutionalized:

Using TQM as a process does require some initial facilitative organization to plan and support the process of change. However, that organization should never be seen as responsible for quality; that is the responsibility of the normal structure of management and people working together. To emphasise that important concept the initial TQM organization should plan the timing of its own extinction right from the outset.

Unfortunately, in many organizations fully committed to quality improvement a proliferation of quality improvement teams, facilitators and coordinators establish a permanent ownership of quality. Another fortress has been created and the normal structure of the organization is soon throwing its quality problems over the wall to the `quality people’.

This abiding sin of quality initiatives usually stems from a generalized and packaged methodology. Large sums of money are spent on this generic education or methodology and then even larger sums are expended over long periods of time on a semi-permanent TQM bureaucracy. This tendency is very prevalent in large companies or public organization. Their culture inherently encourages empire- building (or at least until the next pruning exercise) and they have a natural tendency to purchase what they are led to believe are `tired and proven methodologies’.

8. Lack of Real Business Measurables:

A central tenet of TQM can be summed up in the phrase `what you cannot measure, you cannot manage’, to which could be added `what you do not measure, you are probably not managing’. Yet all too many total quality management processes are not measured in a meaningful way. Some companies mistakenly believe they are measuring the process by techniques such as the Cost of Quality but few apply real business measurables as the criteria for success.

Cost of Quality reigned supreme for over a decade as the real measure of the quality process. This was largely due to the teaching of Philip Crosby, who defined it as one of the four absolutes of quality improvement. COQ can be a powerful tool to identify need and to establish priorities for corrective action but it has demonstrable weaknesses when used as an overall measure of the whole process.

The regular measurement of COQ done properly across the whole organization is a costly diversion of resource. Interestingly, it is akin to inspection and its cost could be added to the original estimate of wasted resource.
As the comprehension of what really constitutes a non-conformance grows so does the perceived value of COQ. In other words, the original measure goes up rather than down over the first year.
Non-conformance are often caused in another operative department than those in which they are found, and opportunities for improvement differ across the organization. The COQ process is often incorrectly used as a measure of departmental performance which can be grossly unjust and thus set up resistance to the whole quality process.
In real operational practice managers who control budgets can manipulate COQ estimates to appear to be what they want them to be.

It is of interest that one of the successful pioneers in quality management (3M) who originally used COQ as the overall measure decided to stop using it a few years ago.

The original reason most companies invest in quality management is the competitive need to improve the quality of their products and services. At that stage COQ is a powerful tool to help their understanding that they will not achieve their aims by just increasing inspection or merely motivating their workforce. But the original deficiencies that must be improved are still present and

should therefore be the basis for measuring improvement. For example, if the initial assessment stage in an insurance company shows that the turnaround time from proposal to issue of a completed policy is twenty days and the competitive need is to reduce this to five days then that is the measure. Milestones can be set for a staged reduction from twenty to five days over a given time frame. Achieving those milestones would be a real business measurable. Every organization can establish a number of such criteria which can be used as the real measure of success.

However, in addition to the business measurables (which should be defined I the original plan) there are additional measures which can be established to assist those managing the TQM process. TQM should be viewed as a business process in its own right. In other words, it will have inputs and outputs which should be related to requirements. These can be used as measures by those directly involved in managing the process of change. These measures will support progress or otherwise for the executives measuring the business parameters.