Chapter 2 Quality Theory S Thomas Foster Jr

Chapter 2 Quality Theory S. Thomas Foster, Jr. Boise State University Slides Prepared by Bruce R. Barringer University of Central Florida © 2001 Prentice-Hall

Chapter Overview Slide 1 of 2 • What is Theory? • Leading Contributors to Quality Theory – W. Edwards Deming, Joseph M. Juran, Kaoru Ishikawa, Armand Feigenbaum, Philip Crosby, Genichi Taguchi, The Rest of the Pack • Viewing Quality Theory From a Contingency Perspective © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -2

Chapter Overview Slide 2 of 2 • Resolving the Differences in Quality Approaches, An Integrative View • Theoretical Framework for Quality Management © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -3

What is Theory? • Theories form the basis for much of what happens around us, and most of us use them every day without knowing it. • The organizations we work for are based on theories proposed by generations of organizational theorists. • There are several theories on quality improvement in practice currently. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -4

What is Theory? Slide 1 of 7 • Theory Defined – Theory is a “coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. ” • Illustration of a Theory – For example, it might have been observed that many companies that have implemented quality improvements have experienced improved worker morale. (See next slide, Figure 2. 1) © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -5

What is Theory? Slide 2 of 7 Figure 2. 1 Testable Theoretical Model Independent Variable Quality Improvements © 2001 Prentice-Hall Dependent Variable Causality Worker Morale Transparency 2 -6

What is Theory? • There is no way to prove theory. • The results of our statistical research will only support theory or fail to support theory. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -7

What is Theory? Slide 3 of 7 • Four Elements of a Theory – What • The what of a theory involves which variables or factors are included in the model. – How • The how of a theoretical model involves the nature, direction, and extent of the relationship between the variables © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -8

What is Theory? Slide 4 of 7 • Four Elements of a Theory (continued) – Why • The why of theory is theoretical glue that holds the model together. – Who-Where-When • The who-where-when aspect place contextual bounds on theory. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -9

What is Theory? Slide 5 of 7 For Elements of a Complete Theory What Why Where Who-wherewhen © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -10

What is Theory? Slide 6 of 7 • Two Ways to Establish a Theory – Induction ( please see Figure 2. 2) • The process of induction is useful but is also subject to observer bias and misperception. – Deduction • Using deduction, researchers propose a model based on prior research and design an experiment to test theoretical model. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -11

What is Theory? Slide 7 of 7 Figure 2. 2 Inductive Versus Deductive Reasoning Data Generalization © 2001 Prentice-Hall Induction Deduction Generalization Supported by Data Transparency 2 -12

What is Theory? • Many of the concepts and models proposed in this chapter are developed by induction. • When considering concepts put forth by experts such as Deming, Juran, Crosby, you should note that their principles are based on years of experience with a wide variety of firms that have improved quality. • Their models and principles are also laden with personal biases, judgments, and values. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -13

Is There A Theory of Quality Management? Slide 1 of 3 • No Unified Theory – As yet, there is not a unified theory explaining quality improvement that is widely accepted by the quality community – Different theories have been proposed by practitioners and researchers. – Some of these theories have been drawn from organizational theory, behavioral theory, and statistical theory. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -14

Is There A Theory of Quality Management? • Differing Approaches – The differing approaches to quality improvement represent competing philosophies that have sought their places in the marketplace of ideas. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -15

Is There A Theory of Quality Management? Slide 2 of 3 • Managers Must Apply What Fits – As a result of the availability of competing philosophies of quality management, practicing quality managers must become familiar with these philosophies and apply those that are applicable to their particular situation. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -16

Is There A Theory of Quality Management? Slide 3 of 3 • The Most Successful Companies – The most successful companies have put their own stamp on quality campaigns, mounting their own massive training efforts internally. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -17

A Closer Look at Quality 2. 1 • As shown in A Close Look at Quality 2. 1, some of these approach are legitimate and some are in it for profit only. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -18

W. Edwards Deming Slide 1 of 9 • Preeminent Authority – W. Edwards Deming was widely accepted as the world’s preeminent authority on quality management prior to he death on December 24, 1994. – Deming gained credibility because of his influence on Japanese and American industry. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -19

W. Edwards Deming • Although Deming is best known for his emphasis on the management of a system for improving quality, his thinking was based on the use of statistics for continual improvement. • In the 1920 s, he came to know Walter Shewhart who influenced his thinking about improving quality through the use of statistics. • After the war, Deming was sent to Japan by the U. S. Secretary of War to work on a population census. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -20

W. Edwards Deming • While in Japan, Deming became impressed by the precision and single-mindedness with which the Japanese pursued quality improvement. • When the United States discovered that it was lagging the Japanese in quality, large corporation such as General Motors and Fords hired Deming to help them develop quality management programs. • However, many American firms lacked the longterm commitment exhibited by the Japanese. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -21

W. Edwards Deming • Deming stressed that consumers were well served by insisting that service and product providers deliver high quality. • He believed that the more consumers demanded high quality products and services, the more firms would continually aspire to higher levels of performance. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -22

W. Edwards Deming • Deming’s mantra was “continual never-ending improvement. ” • The goal of higher levels of quality would perhaps never be completely met, but firms would continually exercise themselves to get better and better. • This is why quality improvement is often referred to as a journey where the elusive destination is never reached. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -23

W. Edwards Deming Slide 2 of 9 • Deming’s 14 Points for Management – While Deming espoused the belief that theory was important to the understanding of quality improvement, the closest be ever came to expounding a theory was in his 14 points for management. – Poor quality was not the fault of labor; it resulted from poor management of the system for continual improvement. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -24

W. Edwards Deming • Deming’s 14 Points for Management – Taken as a whole, the 14 points for management (see Table 2. 1) represent many of the key principles that provide the basis for quality management in many organizations. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -25

W. Edwards Deming Table 2. 1 Deming’s 14 points 1. Create constancy of purpose. 2. Adopt a new philosophy. 3. Cease mass inspection. 4. End awarding business on the basis of price tag. 5. Constantly improve the system. 6. Institute training on the job. 7. Improve leadership. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -26

W. Edwards Deming Table 2. 1 Deming’s 14 points 8. Drive out fear. 9. Break down barriers between departments. 10. Eliminate slogans. 11. Eliminate work standards. 12. Remove barriers to pride. 13. Institute education and self-improvement. 14. Put everybody to work. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -27

W. Edwards Deming Slide 3 of 9 Point 1 Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service with the aim to become competitive and stay in business, and to provide jobs. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Point 2 Adopt a new philosophy. We are in a new economic age. Western management must awaken to the challenge, must learn its responsibilities, and take on leadership of change. Transparency 2 -28

W. Edwards Deming • In point 1. • Constancy of purpose means that management commits resources – over the long haul – to see that the quality job is completed. • In recent years, more people have come to realize that U. S. management is too short-term oriented in its thinking. • Unfortunately, quality improvement requires time to be effective. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -29

W. Edwards Deming • In point 2. • Western management must awaken to the challenge, must learn its responsibilities, and take on leadership of change. • More and more, goals for reduction of defects are being replaced by goals of improvement in customer satisfaction. • Similarly, specification measurements are being replaced by customer service metrics as the important measures of quality. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -30

W. Edwards Deming Slide 4 of 9 Point 3 Point 4 Cease dependence on mass inspection to improve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the f i r s t p l a c e. End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag alone. Instead, minimize total cost. Move toward a single supplier for any one item, based on a long-term relationship of loyalty and t r u s t. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -31

W. Edwards Deming • In point 3. • In many companies, the responsibility for quality lies with the quality department. • However, by the time the quality department inspect the product, either the quality is built in or it is not built in. • At this point, it is too late to add quality. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -32

W. Edwards Deming • In point 3. • Deming’s alternative is quality at the source. • This means that all workers are responsible for their own work and perform needed inspections at each stage of the process to maintain process control. • Of course, this is possible only if management trusts and trains its workers properly. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -33

W. Edwards Deming • In point 4. • In reality, the existence of many suppliers caused an overemphasis on cost and an increase in variability. • The alternative used by many firms is just-intime (JIT) purchasing. • As shown in Table 2. 2, this approach minimizes the number of suppliers used resulting in decreased variability. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -34

W. Edwards Deming • JIT Purchasing vs. U. S. Purchasing (Table 2. 2) © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -35

W. Edwards Deming • In point 4. • Long-tern contracts are used that result in the ability to develop and certify suppliers. • Often these certifications are based on quality standards such as MBNQA or the ISO 9000. • In other cases, supplier certification is based on an internally developed standard. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -36

W. Edwards Deming Slide 5 of 9 Point 5 Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease cost. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Point 6 Institute training on the job. Transparency 2 -37

W. Edwards Deming • In point 5. • Management is responsible for most of the system design elements as it is management that has the authority and the budget to implement systems. • The worker can be held responsible only for their inputs to the system. • Mediocre or poor performance of a system is most often the result of the poor performance of management. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -38

W. Edwards Deming • In point 6. • It should be noted that training, although a necessary condition for improvement, is not sufficient to guarantee successful implementation of quality management. • The design of effective training is important to quality improvement. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -39

W. Edwards Deming Slide 6 of 9 Point 7 Point 8 Improve leadership. The Aim of supervision should be to help people, machines , and gadgets to do a better job. Supervision of management is in need of overhaul as well as s u p e r v i s i o n o f production workers. Drive out fear, so that everyone may work e f f e c t i v e l y for the company. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -40

W. Edwards Deming • In point 7. • All quality experts agree that leadership is key to improving quality. • This improvement can occur only within the realm of influence of the employee. • For wide-ranging improvements to occur, upper management must be involved. • Without management support and leadership, quality improvement efforts will fail. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -41

W. Edwards Deming • In point 8. • At times, employees who surface problems and seek to create change are considered troublemaker or dissatisfied. • Some fear comes from making recommendations for improvement and having those recommendations ignored. • Another type of fear should be recognized by top managers who desire to improve quality. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -42

W. Edwards Deming • In point 8. • Many employees view process improvement efforts as disguised excuses for major layoffs. • The company has lost the ability to be creative and really improve its ability to increase value to the customer. • “No layoffs will result from productivity or quality improvement projects or efforts” – stated by a major mid-western defense contractor. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -43

W. Edwards Deming Slide 7 of 9 Point 9 Break down barriers between d e p a r t m e n t s. P e o p l e i n research, design, sales, and production must work as a team to foresee problems of production and use that may be encountered with the product or service. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Point 10 Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the workforce asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exportations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the workforce. Transparency 2 -44

W. Edwards Deming • In point 9. • In many companies, the time it takes to get design and marketing concepts to market is extremely long. • In the new competitive environment, such delays in design can jeopardize a company’s ability to compete. • One reason for slow design cycles was the sequential or departmental approach to design. • The alternative is parallel processing in focused teams who work simultaneously on design. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -45

W. Edwards Deming • In point 10. • In Deming’s view, exhortations to “ get it right the first time, ” and “ zero defects forever, ” can have the opposite of the intended effect. • If system or means for achieving these higher levels of performance are not provided, workers can become jaded and discouraged. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -46

W. Edwards Deming Slide 8 of 9 Point 11 Eliminate work standards on the factory floor. Substitute leadership. Eliminate management by objectives. Eliminate management by numbers and numeric goals. Substitute leadership. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Point 12 Remove barriers to rob workers of their right to pride of workmanship. The responsibility of supervisors must be changed from sheer numbers to quality. Transparency 2 -47

W. Edwards Deming • In point 11. • Deming was very much opposed to work measurement standards on the shop floor. • Often work standards are implemented improperly. • It is obvious that if quantity becomes the overriding concern, then quality suffers. • If work standards are in place, employees who perform at high levels might lose the impetus to continually improve because they already will have satisfied standards. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -48

W. Edwards Deming • In point 12. • Unskilled managers often add to the problems by reinforcing the fact that employees cannot be trusted with decisions and self-determination. • The upside is that after seeing the results of selfdirected teams, this same manager became one of the biggest allies of the process of employee empowerment. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -49

W. Edwards Deming Slide 9 of 9 Point 13 Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Point 14 Put everybody in the company to work to accomplish the transformation. The transformation is everybody’s job. Transparency 2 -50

W. Edwards Deming • In point 13. • Learning in an organization to institutionalize the lessons learned over time. • This is difficult firms that have high employee turnover. • Organizational learning requires a structure that reinforces and rewards learning. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -51

W. Edwards Deming • In point 14. • It reinforces that everyone in the organization is responsible for improving quality. • It reinforces the fact that a total system for improving quality is needed including all the people in the organization. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -52

The Deadly Diseases • Deming outlined deadly diseases that he felt would keep the United States or any other country from achieving top quality and competitiveness in a world market. • These deadly diseases are shown in Table 2. 3. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -53

The Deadly Diseases Table 2. 3 Deming’s Deadly Diseases 1. Lack of constancy of purpose. 2. Emphasis on short-term profits. 3. Evaluation of performance, merit rating, or annual review. 4. Mobility of management. 5. Running a company on visible figures alone. 6. Excessive medical costs for employee health care. 7. Excessive costs of warrantees. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -54

A Theory Underlying the Deming Method • Anderson, Rungtusanatham, and Schroeder propose a theoretical causal model underlying the Deming management method. • Using a Delphi-based process, these University of Minnesota researchers developed the model in Figure 2. 4. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -55

Theoretical Model Underlying the Deming Method © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -56

Theoretical Model Underlying the Deming Method • The importance of this theoretical model is that it can provide a basis for researchers to better understand quality improvement. • The researchers can help managers understand what is necessary for quality improvement. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -57

Joseph M. Juran Slide 1 of 5 • Juran’s Approach – Juran tends to take a more strategic and planning approach to improvement than does Deming. – Juran promotes the view that organizational quality problems are largely the result of insufficient and ineffective planning for quality. – The means proposed by Juran establish specific goals to be reached and plans for reaching those goals. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -58

Joseph M. Juran Slide 2 of 5 The Juran Trilogy: Three basic processes that are essential for managing to improve quality. Quality Planning Quality Improvement Quality Control © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -59

The Juran Trilogy • It all begins with quality planning. • The purpose of quality is to provide the operating forces with the means of producing products that can meet the customer’s needs. • Once planning is completed, the plan is turned over to the operating forces. • We see that the process is deficient: 20% of the operating force is wasted, as the work must be redone due to quality deficiencies. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -60

The Juran Trilogy • The waste then becomes chronic because of quality deficiencies. • What they do instead is carry out quality control to prevent things from getting worse. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -61

Joseph M. Juran Slide 3 of 5 • Control verses Breakthrough – Another important Juran concept is control versus breakthrough. – According to Juran, control is a process-related activity that ensures processes are stable and provides a relatively consistent outcome. – Control involves gathering data about a process to ensure that the process is consistent. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -62

Joseph M. Juran • Control verses Breakthrough - Breakthrough improvement implies that the process has been studied and that some major improvement has resulted in large, nonrandom improvement to the process. - It is important to understand that control and breakthrough-related activities should occur simultaneously. - The optimal set of improvement activities probably involves some mix continuous improvement and breakthrough improvement activities. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -63

Joseph M. Juran Slide 4 of 5 • Project-by-Project Improvement – Juran teaches that improvement in organizations is accomplished on a project-byproject basis “and in no other way. ” – The project-by-project approach advocated by Juran is a planning-based approach to quality improvement. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -64

Joseph M. Juran • Juran states that managers must prioritize which projects will be undertaken first. • Organizations involve a hierarchy of languages, see Figure 2. 6. • The work that is done operationally at the lowest level is performed by analysts who speak in the language of thing. • The technical people must use the language of management, that is, money. • Projects that are identified for possible adoption are prioritized based on financial return. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -65

Joseph M. Juran Figure 2. 6 The Hierarchy of Languages Management: The Language of Money Workers: The Language of Things © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -66

Joseph M. Juran • Joseph Juran has had a very profound impact on the practice of quality management worldwide. • A Closer Look at Quality 2. 2 ( page 44 ) discusses Mr. Juran further. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -67

Joseph M. Juran Slide 5 of 5 • Pareto Analysis – Joseph Juran identified an economic concept that he applied to quality problems. – The economic concept is called Pareto’s law or the 80/20 rule. – Using Pareto’s law, we see that the majority of quality problems are caused by relatively few causes. – Juran dichotomizes the population of causes of quality problems as the vital few and the trivial, but useful, many ( see chapter 10). © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -68

Kaoru Ishikawa Slide 1 of 2 • Ishikawa’s Primary Contributions – Perhaps Ishikawa’s greatest achievement was the development and dissemination of the basic seven tools of quality. – As the developer of these tools, Ishikawa is credited with democratizing statistics. – Ishikawa felt that to be successful, firms must make everyone responsible for statistical analysis and interpretation. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -69

Kaoru Ishikawa • The major theoretical contribution of Ishikawa is his emphasis on total involvement of the operating employees in improving quality. • Ishikawa is credited for coining the term company-wide quality control (CWQC) in Japan. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -70

Kaoru Ishikawa Slide 2 of 2 • Ishikawa’s Quality Philosophy – Ishikawa spent his life working to improve quality in Japan. – His ideas were synthesized into 11 points that made up his quality philosophy. ( see Table 2. 4) – Ishikawa is often overlooked in the U. S. ; however, every firm that pursues quality improvement will use his tools. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -71

Ishikawa’s Quality Philosophy • Table 2. 4 Ishikawa’s 11 Points © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -72

Armand Feigenbaum • During the years when quality was overlooked as a major competitive factor in the United States, two books were used by most every quality professional. • These two books were Statistical Quality Control by Eugene Grant and Richard Leavenworth, and Total Quality Control by Armand Feigenbaum. • Feigenbaum’s book studied quality in the context of the business organization. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -73

Armand Feigenbaum • Feigenbaum’s Primary Contributions – Feigenbaum’s primary contribution to quality thinking in America was his assertion that the entire organization should be involved in improving quality. – He was the first in the U. S. to move quality from the offices of the specialists back to operating workers. This occurred in the 1950 s. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -74

Armand Feigenbaum Slide 2 of 4 Feigenbaum proposes a three-step process to improving quality Quality Leadership Motivated by leadership © 2001 Prentice-Hall Quality Technology Organizational Commitment Includes statistics Includes everyone and machinery that in the quality can improve quality struggle Transparency 2 -75

Armand Feigenbaum Slide 3 of 4 • Major Impediments to Improving Quality – Four Deadly Sins • Hothouse quality refers to those quality programs that receive a lot of hoopla and no follow-through. • Wishful thinking occurs with those who would pursue protectionism to keep American firms from having to compete on quality. • Producing overseas is a panacea sometimes undertaken by managers who wish that out of sight, out of mind could solve quality related problems. • Confining quality to the factory means that quality has historically just been viewed as a shop floor concern. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -76

Armand Feigenbaum • Table 2. 5 shows Feigenbaum’s 19 steps of TQC. • It outline his approach to the total quality control system, which emphasize organizational involvement in improving quality. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -77

The 19 Steps of TQC • Table 2. 5 Feigenbaum’s 19 Steps © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -78

Philip Crosby • Crosby’s Primary Contributions – Crosby became very well known for his authorship of the book Quality is Free. • The primary thesis of this book was that quality, as a managed process, can be a source of profit for an organization. – Crosby specifies a quality improvement program consisting of fourteen steps. (see Table 2. 6) • These steps underlie the Crosby zero defects approach to quality improvement. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -79

Philip Crosby • Table 2. 6 Crosby’s 14 steps © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -80

Philip Crosby • His approach also emphasizes the behavioral and motivational aspects of quality improvement rather than statistical approaches. • Although he prescribes quality teams consisting of department heads, Crosby does not promote the same kind of strategic planning proposed by Deming and Juran. • Crosby adopts a human resources approach similar to Deming in that worker input is valued and is encouraged as central to the quality improvement program. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -81

Genichi Taguchi Slide 1 of 4 • Taguchi Primary Contributions – The Taguchi method was first introduced by Dr. Genichi Taguchi to AT&T Bell Labs in the U. S. in 1980. – Due to its increased acceptance and utilization, the Taguchi method for improving quality is now commonly viewed to be comparable in importance to the Deming approach, and the Ishikawa concept of total quality management. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -82

Genichi Taguchi • Taguchi’s method is a continuation of the work in quality improvement that began with Shewhart’s work in statistical quality control and Deming’s work in improving quality. • Objectives of the Taguchi method are synopsized in Table 2. 7. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -83

Genichi Taguchi Slide 2 of 4 Table 2. 7 The Taguchi Method 1. A basis for determining the functional relationship between controllable product or service design factors and the outcomes of a process. 2. A method for adjusting the mean of a process by optimizing controllable variables and 3. A procedure for examining the relationship between random noise in the process and product or service variability. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -84

Genichi Taguchi Slide 3 of 4 • Unique Aspects of the Taguchi Method – Definition of Quality • In Taguchi’s terms, “ideal quality” refers to a reference point for determining the quality level of a product or service. • In service quality, ideal quality is a function of customer perceptions and satisfaction. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -85

Genichi Taguchi • Unique Aspects of the Taguchi Method – Quality Loss Function • Taguchi doesn’t agree with traditional quality thought as it relates to specifications. • Normally, when specifications are set, a target is specified with some allowance for variation. Taguchi states that any deviation from target specs results in loss to society produced. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -86

Genichi Taguchi Slide 4 of 4 • Unique Aspects of the Taguchi Method – Robust Design • The Taguchi concept of robust design states that products and services should be designed so that they are inherently defect free and of high quality. • Taguchi devised a three-stage process that achieves robust design through what he terms concept design, parameter design, and tolerance design. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -87

The Rest of the Pack Slide 1 of 4 • Robert C. Camp – The principle pioneer of benchmarking. – Benchmarking is the sharing of information between companies to that both can improve. – Benchmarking is now a very important, proven practice used worldwide. – Camp’s best selling book, Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices That Lead to Superior Performance is an outstanding handbook. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -88

The Rest of the Pack • Tom Peters – Tom Peters is a noted author, consultant, and speaker who is widely recognized. Peters coauthored the book In Search of Excellence. – The research for the book involved a case study of several firms and resulted in eight basic practices found in excellent firms. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -89

Tom Peter’s 8 Practices 1. A bias for action 2. Getting close to the customer 3. Promoting entrepreneurship 4. Productivity through people 5. Value-driven management 6. Sticking to the core competencies 7. Lean staff 8. Implementing appropriate amounts of supervision and empowerment © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -90

The Rest of the Pack Slide 3 of 4 • Michael Hammer and James Champy – Promoted the concept of reengineering, which has unfortunately resulted in unfortunate consequences for many companies. – The underlying precept of reengineering is that firms can become inflexible and resistant to change and must be able to change in order to become competitive. – The problem in the process they promoted in the book Reengineering the Corporation. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -91

The Rest of the Pack Slide 4 of 4 • Michael Hammer and James Champy – This process involves the CEO of the corporation developing a business case followed by a set of recommendations. He or she then charges others with rapidly implementing the recommendations without further study or analysis. – Hammer and Champy have been surprisingly candid about the failings of reengineering, admitting to 70% or higher failure rate. (see A Closer Look at Quality 2. 3) © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -92

A Closer Look at Quality 2. 3 • P 51 • Hammer Recants ( sort of ), or In Search of the Lost Product to Sell • The objective should not be to adopt whatever tool is currently “hot”. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -93

The Rest of the Pack • Michael Hammer and James Champy - Hammer and Champy led many firms to make radical changes that have led to major failures. - If there is a lesson to be learned from the reengineering failures it is this: Some quality and performance improvement approaches are brain-children. Others have been observed to work in a number of organizations, in a variety of cultures, and in a number of economic sectors. Avoid the former until they become the latter. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -94

Viewing Quality From a Contingency Perspective By now you might be asking, with all of this disagreement about how to approach quality improvement, how should I proceed? Perhaps now you have gained more empathy for CEOs and business leaders who are distrustful of quality management as a field. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -95

Viewing Quality From a Contingency Perspective • Because a variety of approaches can work to improve quality, it is best to focus on fundamental questions such as: - What are our strengths? - Where are our competencies? - In what areas do we need to improve? - What are our competitors doing to improve? - What is our organizational structure? © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -96

Viewing Quality From a Contingency Perspective • As has already been stated, Baldrige winners and other firms well known for quality do not adopt only one quality philosophy. • The successful firms adopt aspects of each of the various approaches that help them improve. • This is called the contingency perspective. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -97

Viewing Quality From a Contingency Perspective • The keys to the contingency approach are an understanding of quality approaches, an understanding of the business, and the creative application of these approaches to the business. • Thus, the optimal strategy will apply quality philosophies and approaches to business on a contingency basis. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -98

Resolving the Differences in Quality Approaches, An Integrative View • Resolving the Differences – There are many differences between the approaches to quality management espoused by the experts mentioned in this chapter. – However, rather than focusing on differences, it is instructional to review the literature to identify common themes and messages. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -99

Resolving the Differences in Quality Approaches, An Integrative View • Resolving the Differences - Table 2. 8 provides a list of variables that are addressed by Deming, Juran, Crosby, Taguchi, Ishikawa, and Feigenbaum, also included is the services approach to quality by Parasuraman, Zeithamel, and Berry (PZB), cited in chapters 1 and 6. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -100

A Categorization of Quality Management Content Variables © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -101

A Categorization of Quality Management Content Variables • The target in Figure 2. 7 shows the variables that are at the core of quality improvement and those variables that, although important, are less widely supported. • These are variables that firms should address when seeking to improve performance. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -102

A Categorization of Quality Management Content Variables(P 54 Figure 2. 7) Outer Ring Environmental or Infrastructure Quality Breakthrough Inner Ring Information Analysis Strategic Planning Core Leadership Employee Improvement Quality Assurance Customer Focus Quality Philosophy Focus of the Quality Department Team Approach © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -103

Core Quality Variables Slide 1 of 6 • Leadership – The role of the leader in being the champion and major force behind quality improvement is critical. • Employee Involvement – Once the leader is enlightened and motivated to go forward in the quality effort, employees must be trained and developed. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -104

Core Quality Variables Slide 2 of 6 • Quality Assurance – Quality experts agree that quality can be assured only during the design phase. Therefore, effort must be invested in designing products, services, and processes so that they are consistently of high quality. • Customer Focus – An understanding of the customer is key to quality management efforts. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -105

Core Quality Variables Slide 3 of 6 • Quality Philosophy – Adoption of a philosophy toward quality improvement is also important. • Information Analysis – Fact-based improvement refers to an approach that favors information gathering and analysis • Strategic Planning – Juran supported the notion that quality improvement should be strategically planned © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -106

Core Quality Variables Slide 4 of 6 • Environment or Infrastructure – Quality environment or infrastructure must be created that supports quality management efforts. • Team Approach – One of the contemporary approaches to quality management learned from the Japanese is teamwork. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -107

Core Quality Variables Slide 5 of 6 • Focus of the Quality Department – As a result of the dispersion of responsibility for quality, the role of the quality department has changed significantly. – Rather than performing the policing function, these departments are filling more of a coaching role. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -108

Core Quality Variables Slide 6 of 6 • Quality Breakthrough – The need to make large improvements is not precluded by continuous improvement. – Firms must find ways to achieve radical improvements. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -109

Theoretical Framework for Quality Management • Many variables build the framework for a quality management theory (see Figure 2. 8). • The outer boxes in Figure 2. 8 refer to activities and processes that help to improve the core systems relating to people. © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -110

Theoretical Framework for Quality Management © 2001 Prentice-Hall Transparency 2 -111