Search results

Deming (1986) was quite adamant that any attempt to reward the individual for supposed personal contribution in the workplace was wrong. This flies in the face of the belief that it is right and proper to reward a person for work well done. It is totally counter‐intuitive to a boss who is trying to motivate his or her people. Of course we must reward our high achievers. Even Harrington (1998), warning that “this is worse than taking the Lord’s name in vain”, felt that Deming had probably got it wrong.  However, Deming, building on the work of Taylor and Shewhart, realised just how little influence most of us have on the final business result. Deming argued that for most people, most of the time, the final result is beyond their control and thus their influence. Rewarding them for success or punishing them for failure is neither fair nor logical. This article examines the basis of Deming’s unequivocal views and concludes, painful as it might be, that Deming had it right – at least most (99.75 per cent) of the time.

Describes a well‐tested, simple visual aid for determining where a company stands in its TQM implementation process. Provides an example of the “process‐matrix”, discussing the basic elements for quality in terms of commitment, organization, training, system mapping, projects, quality assurance certification, customers and writing work instructions.

Suggests that the basic faith‐driven religion of TQM is not enough, but what is necessary is the back‐up of understanding gained from the TQM equivalent of the theory of evolution. Discusses the shortcomings of three commonly used approaches to setting up and distributing internal services and posits solutions to the problems.

Explains how concept mapping taken from the educational world, can help clarify the mess. Asserts that combining this tool with a preliminary step goes a long way towards creating the consensus and harmony essential to the production of acceptable practical solutions. Contends concept maps provide a firm structure for carrying out discussions, negotiations and agreements. Concludes, when trying to achieve a quality improvement, all variables in multitudinous combinations are open for effecting the improvement. A concept map can do much to help visualize the tangle.

Argues that a TQM programme can reduce the COPQ (cost of poor quality) by between 20% and 40 per cent. Suggests benchmarking is the first step to estimate an organisation′s minimum level of waste by comparing itself with the market leader in its sector, then to examine long‐term performance indicators, bringing in intangibles such as training and skills. Uses graphs to portray the evolution of the window of opportunity for TQM and examines the consequences of non‐optimum strategies. In a series of relatively complex examples, it concludes that waste is waiting to be retrieved by a quality programme.

Successful total quality management (TQM) is dependent on first class problem solving. Numerous techniques have been created to help the TQM practitioner along the problem solving journey. However, it can be very difficult to decide which of these techniques should or could be used at any point in the journey and in particular to see how the different approaches are related to each other. As a result, most people use only a small number of these techniques and tend to cling to their own limited toolbox. Three of the strongest groups of tools are “the seven simple tools of TQM”, “the four thinking models of Kepner‐Tregoe” and “root cause analysis”. This article argues that all three are complementary to each other and provides a flow chart to help navigate between them. This is particularly relevant for programmes aimed at implementing total productive manufacturing/maintenance (TPM).

Explains a mathematical solution ‐ catastrophe theory ‐ may help to shed light on the pitfalls of reorganisation. Argues that organisational failures are not always the result of human failures and goes on to demonstrate that there can be far more complex reasons. Provides a number of useful applications of catastrophe theory that could aid the future development of an effective improvement strategy.