TQM-What Is It?

- A Brief Synopsis
.

TQM-What Is It? 

If you are reading this book, it is likely that you already

know what we mean when we use the term Total Quality

Management. Still, it's a good idea to define the term, and

provide a brief overview. 

Certainly TQM can be defined in a number of ways, and the

details of different approaches can vary somewhat.

However, a good starting definition, drawn from Capezio &

Morehouse is: 

"Total Quality management refers to a management

process and set of disciplines that are coordinated to

ensure that the organization consistently meets and

exceeds customer requirements. TQM engages all

divisions, departments and levels of the organization. Top

management organizes all of its strategy and operations

around customer needs and develops a culture with high

employee participation. TQM companies are focused on the

systematic management of data of all processes and

practices to eliminate waste and pursue continuous

improvement. " 

Perhaps a better way of understanding TQM is to compare

a "TQM organization with what we might call a "traditional

organizations". tet's look at a number of differences. 

1. Customer-Driven vs. Company-Driven 

Traditional organizations tend to make their decisions

based on what is most convenient for them, rather than

what is wanted and expected by their customers. Being

customer-based means gatf7ering information from

customers/clients and modifying services and processes to

meet those needs as well as possible. In government, this

is not always easy, due to the conflicting responsibilities of

a department, and the multiple customers/stakeholders

involved in government situations. However, in many

cases moving to a customer-driven organization can yield

many positive results for government departments. 

2. Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation 

Traditional organizations tend to think and plan with

respect to short term outcomes, white TQM organizations

tend to think in much larger time spans. A typical example

might be that a TQM organization would look at downsizing

as having effects over a decade or two, while a traditional

organization would look only at the immediate budgetary

issues, letting future chips fall where they may. 

Also, successful TQM organizations make a long term

commitment to the principles of TQM, rather than looking

at TQM as a program; something with a beginning and

end. This means patience. 

3. Data-Driven vs. Opinion-Driven 

Traditional organizations tend to be managed by gut feel,

or by opinion. They guess at what their customers want,

and guess at the costs of waste, etc. TQM organizations

base their decisions on data they collect; on customer

needs, on waste, on costs, and on the sources of

problems. While judgment is always involved in any

decision, TQM organizations begin with the data, not with

the solution. 

4. Elimination of Waste vs. Tolerance of Waste 

Most organizations operate with a high degree of waste

and inefficiency. Traditional organizations consider waste,

whether it be in time, materials, etc, as a normal part of

their operation. TQM organizations are very active in

identifying wasteful activities, and eliminating them. 

5. Continuous Improvement vs, Fire Fighting 

Traditional organizations tend to address problems with

the way they do things only when there is a major problem

or crisis. The watchword in traditional organizations is: "if

it ain't broke, don't fix it", except that often it IS broke,

but nobody is paying any attention . 

TQM organizations are always looking for improvement,

and are constantly engaged in problem-solving to make

things better. 

6. Prevention vs, Inspection 

Traditional organizations tend to fix problems after the

fact. Rather than trying to prevent problems, they catch

them after the fact, which is very costly. TQM

organizations work to prevent problems and errors, rather

than simply fixing them. 

7. Cross-Function Teams vs. Fortressed

Departments 

Traditional organizations tend to have sub-units that work

autonomously and with little communication or

involvement with other units. For example, personnel may

have only limited interaction with other departments. Or,

on a local level, administrative staff may have little

communication with other staff in a government branch,

and have a different reporting structure. 

In TQM organizations, there is more use of cross-functional

teams; teams convened for a particular purpose or

purposes, with representation from a number of units or

levels in the organization. The use of cross-functional

teams means that input is gained from parts of the

organization that need to be involved. 

8. High Employee Participation vs. Top-Down

Hierarchy 

Traditional organizations tend to have very restricted

communication and decision- making patterns. Employees

are told what to do, rather than being inctuded in figuring

out what to do. Information tends to flow from top to

bottom. 

In TQM organizations, employees are much more actively

involved in both the decision-making and communication

processes. Information flows both top to bottom and

bottom to top. For that matter, information also flows

sideways. 

9. Problem-Solving vs, Blame 

Traditional organizations tend to look to affix blame for

things that go wrong. TQM organizations attack the

problems in their organizations rather than the people.

They fix things. 

10. Systems Thinking Vs. Isolation 

Traditiona~ organizations tend to see the parts and

processes of their organization as single things, unretated

to other part of the organization. TQM organizations tend

to recognize that most often, probtems arise as a result of

multiple causes, and that sub- units are interdependent.

TQM organizations tend to see problems as a result of the

entire system. 

11. Leadership vs. Management 

Traditional organizations tend to see people as objects to

be managed; told what to do, disciplined, tracked, etc.

TQM organizations exhibit more confidence in staff and

 more trust, and expect MORE from them, not less. 

That's a good starting point. There are probably a number

of other comparisons to be made, but that gives us some

common ground for discussion. 

The Three Quality Gurus 

While TQM may seem to be a new development to many, it

has been around since the 1940's. One of the reasons why

TQM seems to be the newest fad was that it was not

embraced by North Americans, but it did find a home in

post-WWII Japan. 

Your work success hint!

We respect the privacy of our visitors. Click here for info

Business process can be defined as "a set of logically related tasks performed to achieve a
defined business outcome." It is "a structured, measured set of activities designed to produce
a specified output for a particular customer or market." Improving business processes is
important for businesses to stay ahead of competition in today's marketplace. Over the last 10
to 15 years, companies have been forced to improve their business processes because
customers are demanding better products and services. Many companies begin business
process improvement with a continuous improvement model. The BPR methodology
comprises of developing the business vision and process objectives, identifying the processes
to be redesigned, understanding and measuring the existing processes, identifying IT levers
and designing and building a prototype of the new process. In this context it can be
mentioned that, some of the biggest obstacles faced by reengineering are lack of sustained
management commitment and leadership, unrealistic scope and expectations, and resistance
to change.

Business Process Reengineering (BPR) and Total Quality Management (TQM)

Total Quality Management and BPR share a cross-functional relationship. Quality specialists
tend to focus on incremental change and gradual improvement of processes, while proponents
of reengineering often seek radical redesign and drastic improvement of processes. Quality
management, often referred to as TQM or continuous improvement, means programs and
initiatives, which emphasize incremental improvement in work processes, and outputs over
an open-ended period of time. In contrast, reengineering, also known as business process
redesign or process innovation, refers to prudent initiatives intended to achieve radically
redesigned and improved work processes in a specific time frame. In contrast to continuous
improvement, BPR relies on a different school of thought. The extreme difference between
continuous process improvement and business process reengineering lies in where you start
from and also the magnitude and rate of resulting changes. In course of time, many
derivatives of radical, breakthrough improvement and continuous improvement have emerged
to address the difficulties of implementing major changes in corporations. Leadership is
really important for effective BPR deployment, and successful leaders use leadership styles to
suit the particular situation and perform their tasks, giving due importance to both people and
work. Business process is essentially value engineering applied to the system to bring forth,
and sustain the product with an emphasis on information flow. By mapping the functions of
the business process, low value functions can be identified and eliminated, thus reducing cost.
Alternatively, a new and less costly process, which implements the function of the current
process can be developed to replace the present one.

The role of executive leadership or top management in business process reengineering cannot
be disregarded. They should provide the needed resources to the team, demonstrate their
active support for the project, set the stage for reengineering by determining core business
processes, and by defining the project scope and objectives. The management should also
take care to provide adequate funding, set new standards as well as encourage others to be
open to innovative approaches. Many reengineering projects fail to be completed or do not
achieve bottom-line business results. For this reason alone, business process reengineering
'success factors' has become an important area of study. Success factors are a collection of
lessons learnt from previous projects. It is useful to think of your team structure in 3 levels:
stakeholders, core team, and extended team.

The stakeholders are key business leaders ultimately accountable for the success of the
project. Their role is to provide high-level guidance to the team, help remove barriers, and
provide funding. The core team is the group responsible for the design and implementation of
the solution. Your extended team includes other people in the organization contributing to the
project on an as-needed basis. These extended-team members include subject-matter experts.
A well-rounded team includes a mix of people and skills. Such a team may include
individuals who thoroughly understand the current process, who actively use the process and
also work closely with customers, technical experts, and consultants, if necessary. But the
main criterion is that the entire team should work together for the project to succeed.

The Role of Consultants in BPR projects

New reengineering teams typically employ the assistance of a consultant for their project.
Consultants can play a valuable role in BPR projects. They are objective and immune to
internal politics. Having followed the processes before, they provide valuable information
and best practices from a wide range of experience. Consultants can also serve as good
communication bridge between the team and management, write project documentation, lead
the project and facilitate meetings, make presentations to stakeholders and associates, and last
but not the least, contribute subject-matter expertise in your organization's work processes.
BPR and Information Technology

Business Process Re-engineering has rapidly developed towards a new management

philosophy. The inherent business process orientation changes the perspective of
international management from a structural to that of a process view. The re-engineering of
business processes is only one aspect of the management of business processes. In particular,
the re-engineering of international business processes needs special attention, because the
multi-faceted structure of multinational corporations increases the complexity of business
processes, there by influencing the options for redesign. Business Process Re-engineering has
rapidly developed towards a new management philosophy based upon predecessors like Total
Quality Management, Overhead Value Analysis, Kanban or Just-In-Time-Management.
Business processes can be re-engineered by redesigning the steps, by changing the logical
and temporal sequence of the steps, or by changing any other characteristics of the process.
The role of IT is discussed in contradictory way. Advocates of information systems favor the
view that the new technology is an enabler of process re-engineering. IT has to be monitored
constantly to determine whether it can generate new process designs or contribute to the
performance of a business process. The breakthrough of BPR is closely connected with IT,
which opens new dimensions of process reorganization. Moreover, those who take the
initiative in process improvement/redesign, influence the role of IT. If the data processing
department initiates the process change, then IT will have more of a generator function for
new process redesigns. If on the other hand, the top management sets off the change process,
then the process will be first restructured and later optimized