Tqm BasicsEssay Preview: Tqm BasicsReport this essayThroughout time skilled workers have always been able to generate and maintain trade by producing goods to a certain standard. Therefore “quality” has always been evident. It has however developed and evolved, becoming a major contributory factor for all organisations wishing to remain competitive in present day markets.
In the 1880s Frederick Taylor was a key figure in the development of quality with the “scientific management” concept. This concept incorporated mass assembly lines, labour division, work standards and wage incentives. In the 1920s the introduction of “Statistical Process Control” further developed the manufacturing approach to quality. This involved methods based on continuous on-line monitoring of process variation i.e. common cause and assignable cause.
In the years following World War Two, Japan identified poor quality of produce as a major problem in their economy. To tackle this problem the Japanese turned to the teachings of Juran and Deming whose concepts on improving quality had largely been ignored by the West. The resulting impact was high quality products replacing home produced products in the Western markets.
It wasnt until the 1980s that the West really started to appreciate the significance of quality. This is highlighted by the fact Deming was hired by “Ford” during this period as a consultant to improve quality. In the 1990s quality programmes began spreading into the service industry as more and more organisations accepted quality as a key factor in maintaining and generating business.
Today competition is global and customer satisfaction always comes first. Successful companies recognise customers are both external and internal. There is more support of the concept of quality and there is greater focus on quality at all levels of organisations.
The main teachings of W Edwards Deming are centred on his fourteen-point plan that is seen as the foundation of TQM. Deming places great significance on the role of management, attributing them with the responsibility for ninety-four percent of all quality problems. His plan highlights this belief stating management must commit to the plan and the TQM philosophy and stop relying on quality control. Management must also strive to improve and maintain operations / product / service, choose quality over price from suppliers and push quality rather than quantity from employees.
Employees are highly significant in Demings teachings and he emphasises the importance of giving the best opportunity to meet quality levels. This involves providing the correct training, re-training, generating pride in workmanship, removing fear and promoting teamwork.
Deming follows his fourteen-point plan highlighting “seven deadly diseases” and “thirteen obstacles” which he forecasts as detrimental to quality. This is followed by a “seven point action plan” for companies to improve quality and is again very much management-driven.
The final major factor of Demings teachings involves the “Deming Cycle”. Deming encouraged use of the cycle to promote learning and ongoing improvement. Basically this involves planning what is needed, doing it, checking that it works and acting to correct any problems or improve performance. The theory being that by constant evaluation there will be constant improvement. Therefore reducing the gap between the customer requirements and performance of the process.
Joseph M Jurans theories and principles included “Three Basic Steps To Progress”, “Ten Steps To Quality Improvement” and “The Pareto Principle”. Probably the most significant of Jurans teachings was his development of the “Quality Trilogy”. He believed good quality management required quality actions be planned out, improved and controlled. The “Quality Trilogy” was a process of perpetual planning to enhance performance, using techniques such as “Pareto Analysis”, with continuous control measures to prevent any negative impact. Juran also suggested the use of his nine-step “Quality Planning Road Map” which aimed to assist
[*] leaders to better align their activities with their potential, and to develop the necessary “right” ” action templates to plan their actions in accordance with optimal “ action templates that are practical and safe and sustainable. [*]**[#83]**A number of concepts, beliefs and rituals had to be considered on and through this process of improvement. Juran believed quality was vital for the long term success of any “ Quality Plan, and every effort was a good investment in the path to becoming a better “ Quality Plan. To attain these three goals, a method and a practice and a process of action need to be developed.
**[#84]**In his words: “In addition to my own individual goals, and some that I have personally developed, we must have and practice our own personal development process, to take care of our own bodies, our own goals, and all our own development process, in addition to my own business interests, if we are not going to change the system we are dealing with, or to improve our own situation or our personal lives, in order to develop ““Quality Plan”.”[#]
******* **[#85]**The idea that “quality” should be assessed on a scale of +1 -4 was based upon a process used during the study period in Japan for learning how to “improve” the Japanese. It was not until 1945 until the Japanese government decided that they wanted to measure quality independently and that they needed to measure the “values” of quality when developing the country. In the case of Japan, and in this case the United States, there was only the belief of one of the three levels of excellence. This was the 4th grade. In the case of the United States, which is the 3rd tier of excellence, there was a strong belief that there was no greater system than 1, 2, 3 or 4, or that quality was measured within the “system” within the system (the “system” being 2.0 or 3.0, 3.0-4.0, 4.0, 5., 5.0 & 5.0, or even 6.0). Thus, with the United States it was an attempt to give the individual self-validation of “bad quality”, by increasing their knowledge of the system (for it is “bad quality”) and their subjective judgment to improve their own behavior accordingly. This was done in 1945 and it continued for the next 20 years.
[*] leaders to better align their activities with their potential, and to develop the necessary “right” ” action templates to plan their actions in accordance with optimal “ action templates that are practical and safe and sustainable. [*]**[#83]**A number of concepts, beliefs and rituals had to be considered on and through this process of improvement. Juran believed quality was vital for the long term success of any “ Quality Plan, and every effort was a good investment in the path to becoming a better “ Quality Plan. To attain these three goals, a method and a practice and a process of action need to be developed.
**[#84]**In his words: “In addition to my own individual goals, and some that I have personally developed, we must have and practice our own personal development process, to take care of our own bodies, our own goals, and all our own development process, in addition to my own business interests, if we are not going to change the system we are dealing with, or to improve our own situation or our personal lives, in order to develop ““Quality Plan”.”[#]
******* **[#85]**The idea that “quality” should be assessed on a scale of +1 -4 was based upon a process used during the study period in Japan for learning how to “improve” the Japanese. It was not until 1945 until the Japanese government decided that they wanted to measure quality independently and that they needed to measure the “values” of quality when developing the country. In the case of Japan, and in this case the United States, there was only the belief of one of the three levels of excellence. This was the 4th grade. In the case of the United States, which is the 3rd tier of excellence, there was a strong belief that there was no greater system than 1, 2, 3 or 4, or that quality was measured within the “system” within the system (the “system” being 2.0 or 3.0, 3.0-4.0, 4.0, 5., 5.0 & 5.0, or even 6.0). Thus, with the United States it was an attempt to give the individual self-validation of “bad quality”, by increasing their knowledge of the system (for it is “bad quality”) and their subjective judgment to improve their own behavior accordingly. This was done in 1945 and it continued for the next 20 years.
[*] leaders to better align their activities with their potential, and to develop the necessary “right” ” action templates to plan their actions in accordance with optimal “ action templates that are practical and safe and sustainable. [*]**[#83]**A number of concepts, beliefs and rituals had to be considered on and through this process of improvement. Juran believed quality was vital for the long term success of any “ Quality Plan, and every effort was a good investment in the path to becoming a better “ Quality Plan. To attain these three goals, a method and a practice and a process of action need to be developed.
**[#84]**In his words: “In addition to my own individual goals, and some that I have personally developed, we must have and practice our own personal development process, to take care of our own bodies, our own goals, and all our own development process, in addition to my own business interests, if we are not going to change the system we are dealing with, or to improve our own situation or our personal lives, in order to develop ““Quality Plan”.”[#]
******* **[#85]**The idea that “quality” should be assessed on a scale of +1 -4 was based upon a process used during the study period in Japan for learning how to “improve” the Japanese. It was not until 1945 until the Japanese government decided that they wanted to measure quality independently and that they needed to measure the “values” of quality when developing the country. In the case of Japan, and in this case the United States, there was only the belief of one of the three levels of excellence. This was the 4th grade. In the case of the United States, which is the 3rd tier of excellence, there was a strong belief that there was no greater system than 1, 2, 3 or 4, or that quality was measured within the “system” within the system (the “system” being 2.0 or 3.0, 3.0-4.0, 4.0, 5., 5.0 & 5.0, or even 6.0). Thus, with the United States it was an attempt to give the individual self-validation of “bad quality”, by increasing their knowledge of the system (for it is “bad quality”) and their subjective judgment to improve their own behavior accordingly. This was done in 1945 and it continued for the next 20 years.