TQM Help

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.