Total Quality Management

Spot on and so much more succinct than I would have put it.
Bravo my bouncing buddy.
I got stitched up during a TQM debacle which was run by a consultant who happened to be the CEO's chum, go figure...
It was the start of the rot which led to my leaving.
Del

Every firm has some do-nothing-but-criticise characters on a payroll. They have to justify their keep to the owner's board. They are accountable for major dis functions to the board to justify their keep. The need to formulate the firm's dis function, otherwise they would have to mend it - which they never can.

Some other duded, Dr. Snake Oil dudes, identify this as genuine market share, and join in for a buck of their oil.

The two meet, exchange favours, usually in the form of consultancy fee in return to some "analysis" (brief of company dis function pressed against the sieve of Dr. Snake Oil's General Formula) - and a few weeks later some lower management level head, roll.

Usually, both are MBA.

Those who CAN will engineer, produce, or manage. Those who CAN'T will get tasked for TQM, Safety, or middle management.

Good answer

Indeed, it points out the problem which is by definition at the top.
Those at the top will never fire themselves and will always blame those below them. Same as with the banking crisis, those in charge of the money are never going to cut their own bonuses even when they have made a loss and bankrupted the rest off us.

Cynical? Moi?
Del

Hello Del the Cat,

That's right. The top understand nothing but they suggest most of the final bankruptcies. See GMC!

We have to understand the theory behind that. It like an umbrella. The CEO is protecting itself under it. If the umbrelle leeks who is wrong? The umbrelle, for sure. And , who is the umbrella in every company? Not the CEO, the rest. So, the rest is blamable but not the CEO. For this case, GM CEO gets millions of perks and other bonuses and the workers who made the cars are fired!

One thing is wrong. Don't bail out these guys, the CEOs and the companies. It's our money and they will be bankrupted again within another 3, 5 or 7 years on the road.

Good waiting time for everyone, including me, Gil.

Hi Janissaries,

Finally, I found someone who can write more than I. Excellent desrciption of what's happening in the American manufacturing area. Wall Street pushes companies to make more, sell more at any price because by Wall Street, growth is the way of life in business. Not every company is WalMart.

When a manufacturer understands that customers' need is to fill out to make business, this manufacturer will survive and have a profitable outcome.

Also, in North-America, we are individualist compared to Japanese people that live together for each other. We have no discipline as Japanese have and money is not everything. Better have a good healthy life and being not a billionair, proven by Rogers, building a huge and profitable business and died at 65 before he enjoyed the accumulations.

I think when you have a goal, stick to it, try it, if it works, "just do it".

Again, it was a pleasure to read it, Gil.

TQM, CQI, etc., etc. It boils down to one more way for people who do not know how to manage, BS their way to thinking that you will think that they are geniuses for coming up with a new way for you to manage yourself while they take credit for it.

There is no particular "standard" for your industry or any industry, for that matter.

You have my deepest sympathy. Sounds like it is time to brush up the old resume.

I was involved in a company that was "convinced" to implement (sold) TQM and parted with lots of cash. It ended up being a T)otal Q)uintessential M)ess.

I think TQM was resurrected from the old "Zero Defects". "Zero Defects" ran it's course in the '60s and had to be renamed when it had milked it's quota of suckers.

Zero Defects in any commercial human endeavor is a non-entity. It simply is a un-unachievable goal.

The mere concept preys on the unsuspected fool looking for human relations, made with a bunch of individuals completely void of conflict of interests.

Non-realistic idealism has always been sought after in high-level management of big organisations - I cannot see why

Hi Yuval,

When you are the CEO of an important company you have to deliver in you inaugural speech a new, different, and sometimes revolutionary idea. TQM and other b... s... was born that way. This is their job. When the business univers understand that you don't need a CEO, everyone needs to work, so let people work and don't create words to define one person's chair. Eliminate chairs, except in the cantine or eatery.

Satisfy your customers needs, solve their problems, and you have a business, Gil.

My point exactly:

Those who know - do

Those who doesn't know how to do - teach

Those who doesn't know how to do or teach - manage

Having been through this a couple or three times already, the usual mistakes made to this well-meaning concept are made at upper management levels. It's the people on the floor who generally know best what is required to get the best product out the door with the least hassle. It's these same people who, if they're consulted at all, are consulted last, and then routinely ignored if it happens to inconvenience management.

Absolutely.

I forgot to make clear in #10 that the way to "write down what you're doing" is to get the people doing it to do so. The last 2 firms I've worked at did exactly this early in the process and that's why the systems work.

As Del comments, senior management are usually the biggest hindrance to the long term running of the system (along with salesmen). That is not a quality issue (unless you're talking quality of management rather than mangement of quality )

And I stand by my assertion that you only do what makes sense (money) for your company - KISS.

Yawn...yeah yeah yeah,
I've just been co-opted into doing quality audits as we are short of design work.
At the last audit I raised half a dozen action request forms on various people.
Of course everyone has done 'em.... except the two most senior people!...
Draw your on conclusions about paying lip service to quality.
Anther classic...
Salesmen were sending out replacement units for field failures without filling in the appropriate fault form.
What's the solution?
Bollock the salesmen?
No... Create another different form/system which people can ignore....arrrgghh. Beam me up.
Del

Yup - all wrong actions. But is the sytem at fault or the people?

And why is it that salesmen never get bollocked? No matter what they do ? One of life's mysteries.

You are right of course, ISO9000 is fine, but people will insist on creating systems for the sake of it instead of systems to control the reality.
If customers won't send 'Return Authorisation Forms' back with the reject goods, either don't credit them or change the system to reflect reality.
Del
_{(Oh and Salesmen never get bollocked 'cos they are so cute and loveable, they smile and shake hands and stuff like that...personally I'd rather have a grumpy dour Yorkshire installation engineer who tells you the truth...but hey that's just me)}

I favour not paying 'em, since I have a damn good reason** for wanting an RAF (who thought that one up!), but I'm just 'orrid like that. Must be why they don't let me near customers - I demand respect from customers*. After all, I'm worth it.

_{^{And no, it's not just you}}

*They're paying me to provide a product that works, not to lick their a...boots and grovel. If they want that, it's extra, in cash, out of office hours . Maybe that's why Salesmen always have cash to flash....

**And if I don't, then it should go.

There is a type of employee that feed very well off of new business models that ape what is being done. They're the same people that revel in focus-groups and anything else that doesn't mean doing the job at hand.

Hi English Rose,

Yes, you are absolutely right. First, customers get my respects because they pay the bills. Second, the workers around me, get my respects because they make all my customers happy. Sorry, I supposed to start with my mother who gived me all life. My father? Wait, I have to check our DNAs to do so. Ah, you have too? The most and very important in business is the customers and the relationship you build with them. They have problems without solutions and we have to supply those solutions to fill out our goal, BUSINESS, Gil.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I insist that my customers respect me. Yeah, I have to earn that respect, but I don't deal well with customers who tug my chain - and I don't deal well with co-workers who think that you have to let customers shaft you. Business is about what works for both parties - it's a contract and contracts have two sides. Sometimes the right response is to refuse to deal with a customer.

Equally, I don't abuse my customers, that would be wrong on all sorts of levels and I aim to give the best service I can. Mutual respect, honesty and integrity. Oh, what's that...?

.

.

.

.

<oink, flap, oink, flap>

I'm going for a lie down.

Hello again English Rose,

Because I have no ego I respect all my customers and I have 53 years experience and extremely few, I don't regret the separation from them, respected my products, the work everyone put in, and enjoyed the satisfaction to their problem. The world is not perfectly round, no one is perfect, so time to time we have some differences but we pass over and continue in the same road to get mutual satisfaction. If my solution works for the customer I am happy and I don't have contracts I have hand-shakes and we are happy with that. Also, there are no good or bad answers to customers, there are only solutions to customers. Same with my workers, if I recognize, in front of everyone, his contribution to the business, he will be happy, and I am already. This my TQM and other b... s...! However, I have big respect for Edward Deming, and other JUran and company. They initiated good things but they were misunderstood by many and distorded by the most. I said to my-self longtimes ago, if the Japanese can do it, i can do it too, and I did a few times. I thank you for your understanding and collaboration, for both or for one of them or for no one but I am hungry and it's important to eat to be able to respond to you again, Gil.

Once again, "and if we all believe in faries..."

Look, at every company that's done TQI, TQM, even Six Sigma, all of that crap is already being done. That's why the company exists. When this stuff gets implemented, one has to do the exact same thing that was done before, except stuffed into a "canned template" that may or may not fit!

So, for the next six months-plus, people are learning how to do what they were already doing instead of their actual jobs; in the meantime, the company has a major competitive hiccup that costs the company, the employees, and the shareholders nothing except a butt-load of money.

As far as ISO is concerned, let me enlighten you on the US reality of ISO. Here comes your manager in a panic. "You guys! Read this shit and when the ISO auditor gets here answer the questions the way we want you to." Here comes the ISO auditor to ask his questions. We parrot what we've been told to say, and the auditor goes away happy... Know what? Even the auditor doesn't really give a rip--because everything is working the way it is.

Here's another little data-point that might shed some light on why this crap is taken seriously... Years ago I knew a guy that was an attorney for a company I worked for. One day, we got to talking. It turned out that he used to be a "troubleshooter" for companies with problems. He was paid big bucks to tell CEO's why their company was having problems. I was like "Wow! you must have made a shit-load of money!" So I asked him why he stopped. He replied that he grew tired of telling CEO's that all the problems with their company came from one layer of management below the CEO. They didn't like the answer, and he'd had enough of fight to get his money.

Consider American car companies... Some engineer says "If we want it to work correctly, we need to do it this way." Some executive says "That will cost too much do it the other way." So that's the way it gets done. RECALL!!! Meanwhile, the CEO wants to find the reason on the factory floor why the recall occurred.

Your a Brit. Don't tell us Americans how to f*** up a business!!! We invented f***ng up businesses!!!

As I said, don't buy into the alphabet craze - it's not rocket science. But the "Plan - Do - Study - Act" principle can be used to improve your business, or product or whatever. Nothing we do is perfect first time.

Don't use the "canned templates" - do what works for your business...and as per (purr) Del's example, if a form ain't being used, revise or revoke it.

My point was, you're not changing what people are doing (not in most cases), you're recording what they are doing...and then looking for improvements. Like where Dept A produces a report in Word from data they collect in Excel and send it to Dept B who copy the data into Excel, resort it and send it to Dept C. Or when Dept D and Dept E are collecting the same data and reporting it to Depts E and F, only one of which needs it.

Yes, I've met several of those managers. If what he gives me is truthful, I'll say it, if not I won't - I've not actually been in the position where that's got me into trouble, but since I'm congenitally unable to lie, I do run the risk. I can handle not volunteering information to the auditor about issues I'm aware of, but if asked point blank, I'd have to tell the truth.

Equally, I've stood up to managers who want to buck the system and I've stopped lines for quality reasons. I'd not be doing my job if I didn't (and yes, I'm still working here).

Your penultimate and pre-penultimate paragraphs are repeated the world over...because, perhaps, we're run by salesmen ? And they reinforce my point that it's not the system that's the problem, it's the nuts in senior/upper management and the Snake Oil salesmen.

As for f^cking up a business, you Yanks (and Confeds) can get in line - we've got a whole economy that's f^cked up ! (but not that pic you sent ! )

Hello Vermin,

I tel you why the CEO of the American car company wants to know why they have recalls? Each car was made on the shop floor. Who can make some error? The shop floor workers. It's simple and without error. The workers on the shop floor are responsible for everything and the CEO collect practically everything and the shop floor mworkers get the left-overs. It's good, isn't it? TQM and other b... s... never specified the CEO is responsible for a car build by the shop floor workers, Gil.

An old classic from my Dad, he told a Ministry of Defence top brass guy that he had a choice.
"You can have a torpedo that works, or a room full of paper explaining why it doesn't"

He eventually got pushed sideways for pointing out the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes.
There was an interminable 'safety and arming' meeting...he told 'em they were arguing about a six inch nail and a piece of string.

There are too few people actually doing stuff and too many hangers on talking about it, measuring it, justifying it, costing it and auditing it, that's why I like building my bows on my own in my garage, no paperwork, no schedule, no mission statement, just me and a piece of wood deciding amongs ourselves how we are going to turn out.
As they say up North 'You don't fatten a pig by weighing it'
Del

Hi Baytoe,

After my understanding of these different management styles, Total Quality Management is one and continuous improvement of quality or Kamban is another story. The first establishes what quality is necessary to do the most profitable business and everyone is involved in the company to achieve the final goal. The second, take care about the quality produced every single day and create ambiance to improve it every day. The theory is that better is best than good. Now, what is your operation, service or production or both, you have to establish what you need to achieve your goal. Go to the library and you find 100 and 100 of good and bad books about TQM and other management style from Deming to Juran to Cosby to Scheckenbacher, and many others. Think what's the best for your organization and let us know your goal(s) and how to do. Interesting! During decades, everyone talked about and very few did something. See the car industry in North-America. Agian, I would like to know how you succeed, Gil.

My understanding is that TQM starts by demanding price, quality and delivery. Then it ends when they realize that you can have any two!

Good morning LG Dave,

Are you sure this is the correct order, Price, Quality, and Delivery? It is not DQ and P? I want to say: Delivery of the best Quality for the cheapest Price. Only two to deliver? Yo have to understand that high Quality at lower Price is delivered by the Delivery of the organization. So, we delivered only two because we cannot deliver all three. This is proven and we all catched dave. Sorry for TQM and others, these capital letters are confusing everyone, starting with all CEOs. If those capital letters are confusing to CEOs, smart and well educated people, how confusing could be for us, and particularly for me, being old from another worlds. However, those confusing letters will create new ideas to CEOs and it's working well for the business, Gil.

Hello LG Dave,

I visit all and my comments, and discover that in our conversation we forget to separate PRICE and QUALITY. Quality is asked by the customer and the producer supply or not what's asked. Price is adjusted by the supplier with certain revenue and profits to be able to supply again and it's accepted or refused by the customer. DELIVERY is only to displace the quality-price tagged object or subject (Product/Service) to the customer. What's happening when the customer pick-up. There is no delivery and there is no cost to add. So, delivery is not the third factor. Can be MAKING it, VALUEd by one or another, FINANCING, QUANTITY asked, also ESTHETIC or another CHARACTERISTICS, ABILITY. Probably we can deliver all three factors with or without of all original advantages when one or two factors are concidered.

Wish you and all yours a "Happy and Healthy Year" and continue to comment, Gil.

Delivery in this instance refers to having a specific quantity available to the customer at a specific time. This in order to support the customer's JIT (Just-In-Time) paradigm that keeps their on-hand inventory down to whatever they're making at the moment. Good for rigidly structured, stable, predictive manufacturing environments. Not good for most of us where the orders are taken and acted upon as they come in, regardless of what product the order is for.

Happy New Year To you Jerry,

I agree with you for many cases but not all the time. For example, in my case, I receive an order for one gallon of "waterbourne stain". I don't have in stock because the colour could be different for each order. I disperse my pigments (buy one bag of 50 lbs of each) with a small disperser made spicifically for my demand, in quantity of 15 to 25 pounds, depending of colour containing my selected additives. I also buy two drums (45 gallon) of special water based resins, which I blend, and many other additives in pail size. From these ingredients I mix to make a gallon. At the moment of reception of the order, I specify to my customer that I need 2 or 3 hours to be able to supply his order. I have to shake my pigment dispersions, mix the resins, weigh each ingredient exactly as on the formulation. When all ingredients at the right amount are in the gallon, shake for a certain time to make perfectly homogeneous, check the colour of the stain, and when all things are right, I can confirm pick-up time and give the product to my customer. This operation or manufacturing takes "time, materials, machines, manpower, and method" to accomplish. My customer comes, pick-up the gallon within 2 or 3 hours, and gives me a cheque to compensate for my efforts. This is an established manufacturing process and most be managed and respected in strictly ways. When I established my business I decided to have certain materials and equipment that could or must be used in practically all occasions in my finished goods. I don't want to use wood, metal, and plastic to create something. Choose and control what you want but be sure that all ingredients or parts are used all the time, and maintain a minimum inventory of each.

Every manufacturing operation must be in a predictive area. I don't accept an order from no one for a "wooden table". I don't make tables and I don't want to sell tables. I want to stay in my areas of making "waterbourne stains and sealers", which is said in the name of my small company, Gil's Stains and Sealers Inc. However, my background is 45 years in the paint manufacturing area but I choose the stains because it takes less and easier to work and control. I make what I love, can, and want to make. I am happy with it and all my customers are happy what I make for them. Please, Jerry let me know more about non rigidly structured, unstable, and unpredictive businesses that must be operate differently than I do. All the best, Gil.

Automotive would be the best example I can cite.

In order to keep the production lines at Hampster Wheel Motors running, you have promised to make 6,000,000 fardingle knobs a year, with a delivery schedule of 115,385 per week. You have dedicated machinery and manpower to this product. The unobtainium that this is made from is ordered weekly to arrive JIT to process it into finished product and have that finished product ready for delivery at week's end.

Your entire operation runs like this for 6 to 100 customers. That's great for keeping inventory and your tax liabilities down.

Any break in the chain; material, mechanical, or labor, will put you behind.

So if someone walks in the door with a set of prints and asks to have the parts manufactured, he's going to be waiting a long time.

The TQM in all of this is supposed to fail-safe the system. The production manager shouldn't need to be talked out of jumping out a window just because the material is late in arriving.

Most of us practice as you do, which gives us great versatility.

Hi Jerry New Hampshire,

Please, don't take my answer as a critic or something else. Your note is interesting and I would like to know more about. I have a few questions and if you can filled the unknowns, I will appraciate fully. Sorry, I don't know what fardingle knob by itself is but it's not important. It's a item of assembled pieces.

First, I want to know the number of type of knobs or how many models they make?

Second, why there are 6 or 100 customers buying those knobs?

Third, do you are the sole manufacturer of each piece? How many pieces need to make a knob? Also, how many different material goes in each knob?

Forth, for example the materials are metal, iron, aluminum, plastic(s), or other?

Also, every manufacturing process has a bottle-neck, the slowest point of the operation, which dictate the whole process of making knobs. Also, equipment brokages and manpower absences are critical but every production manager have the opportunity to have those inconveniences without disturbing too much the productivity of a production line. If it does, time management is necessary. I think profitability is very low or the competition is too high, workers need to perform at optimum level every day, every hour or all the time, which is hard to get.

I give an example, by making paint we filled paint (after my opinion the filling machine was and still the bottle-neck) and we respected to work 45 minutes in an hour and 6 hours in a day of 8 working hours. So, one filling head fills let say 14 gallons per minute, we have 14x45x6=3780 gallon per day, and we have batches of just short of 4,000 gallons.

Jerry, in your case, I don't know all parametres and equipment, flow of the process to make knobs from start to finish but think about reviewing the floor, adjust the place of each machine, and allocate workers for certain duties and/or make everything by the same worker from start to finish.

It is possible to eliminate pressure on the production people, machines, or the whole organization. Have just a few distributors or buyers of your products so you get orders that are easy to fill.

I just jump in with my ideas but every process must be improved by eliminating, simplifying, modifying, and/or improving its operations by better training or by filling with better and more knowledgeable people.

If temptation is yours, let me know, Gil.

No problem, I'll be happy to elaborate.

The example I gave was an artificial construct intended to point out the extremes of lean manufacturing in a real-world scenario. The fardingle knobs are just one product of many produced for numerous customers. It's not that everyone is buying fardingle knobs, but that every job in the shop is run under the same paradigm. The material used is immaterial, the basic premise remains the same; the process used to make the item had better be bullet-proof (TQM), or it all collapses when one of the 3 legs fails.

I picked automotive because they are the driving force behind many of these initiatives. Automotive suppliers are not always the sole source for a particular item, but they frequently are. Automotive manufacturers expect best price because they buy items by the millions and tens of millions. They measure defect rates in parts per million (PPM). Should defective items make it to the customer, count on doing a lot of sorting. If it keeps happening, count on hiring an outside inspection service to double inspect your product until you're off "Containment". Your automotive customers want no recalls and no lawsuits. Delivery will be on time.

Profit margins are a couple of percent or less (generally much less), so anything that adds cost had better be essential. To operate like this profitably, manufacturers have resorted to Lean Manufacturing; no extra people, no extra inventory, and any extra machine capacity will likely be "Use In Case of Emergency Only".

Enter TQM. The proposed product and the methodology to produce it within the acceptance limits are studied ad-nauseam. From the time the proposal is opened, everyone involved is looking at ways to find the best, cheapest material that can be reliably had, the machinery that will most economically perform the sundry operations, the processes which will allow the widest window to variation that won't adversely affect the end product, and the most convenient way to verify that the product is good.

The projects I have been involved with stretched into years before the product was in regular production.

Hello Jerry,

Thanks for the explications! Again, two things to tell.

First, when you need to make a few ppm defects, controlling, measuring, and having people to do it, is absolutely unnecessary and unaffordable (couple of percent as profits).

Second, I personally not a believer of "the lean manufacturing". They start to talk about money and they never get off from it. In manufacturing you have investment (equipment and expenses as people, their training and others. Lean manufacturing is promoted by accountant or other financial people and high quality producers in anything need technically smart people who create expenses to produce things the way should be done. Where is the father of the lean manufacturing?

I visited lean paint makers all around the world (Canada, the State, and China). They all make huge volumes of paint per year but when you check the quality, you are crying.

I suggest a good exersize: Buy two paint the same as tells the label but with two different batch numbers. Let say a quart of white "eggshell" finish, water or solvent based at choice. Apply with a drww-down blade, 3 or 6 mils wet thickness as white and tint with blue or black tinter or colourant, apply again, and check the tinting strength, sheen, and hiding of white and tinted draw-downs. I guarantee that you find visual and inacceptable differences in all three characteristics. When you want to paint a wall, you cannot stop on the middle of the wall because the differences. Contractor painters mix two pails to get 10 gallons of homogeneous colour to paint two or three houses without trouble.

These manufacturers use the so called "lean manufacturing" but every batch is off grade. I talking about the biggest companies. I worked for them. They all use second hand or outdated machineries. They change raw materials when supplier comes and proposes half of a cent lower price. They change supplier to save few dollars but make different paint with the new products. Why? Because the business is ran by buyers and accountants. Technicians don't have other things to do is to adapt the new product to the old formula. It doesn't work. No two manufacturers of TiO2 make the same product, they make two different pigments!

When we talk TQM, Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma, we use only words but there si no reality behind. Very and very few company can prove that they are able to do for long period of time.

Jerry, we talk about the same things! We have to see elsewhere where someone makes good products and we have to forget the talkers.

Wish you a good evening, Gil.

I wasn't trying to defend the theory of Lean, only explain it. I do like TQM when it is actually practiced to get the best you can consistently. You can't inspect quality into anything. That's why the process must be so "robust". Inspection is only a spot check to verify the results of your process.

I have worked in places where only one or two dimensions / attributes were measured on five parts every two hours; thousands were made in those two hours.

You are building "Rolls Royce" stains. The mass marketers are building Chevrolets. There is a big difference in outlook.

When my parents had their house built, my sister and I picked the colors for our rooms. The paint was bought at a small factory. Those walls didn't get painted again for more than twenty years and still looked good. The stain on the windows was never redone on the inside.

You are doing due diligence in TQM. The difference is that while others try to maximise profits while staying within a broad spec, you try to minimize the drift within your spec while staying within budgeted costs.

Happy New Year Jerry,

One thing, I was the chemist and production manager for over seven years in one company where I ruled and described what and how to do. The profits made by the owner with the products I created allowed me to do what I wanted. This was a unique situation, and happened only once in my life. I wish the same to everyone who need to develop and apply one of the talked theories.

I can show you the quality control book, the last two (2) years I only have. One paint, our Eggshell White was around 450,000 gallons on total of 1.5 million gallon a year. The viscosity was 3 Krebbs units in variation. The sheen level was only 2 degrees at 60 degree measurement, which is exceptional including me. The tinting strenght (with addition of blue colourant) did not produced any visual difference or was not present or percievable by eye for over 110 batches. Our batch size was 4,000 gallon, made within 7 hours of production from start to put in a truck for delivery. I guarantee that major paint manufacturers cannot show you the same results.

During this period of seven years, we bought only the same raw materials, using the same equipment, and have the same motivated and well paid people.

In plus, I can guarantee you that my waterbourne stains and sealers are only different from others and made to fit to the customers needs, nothing else. If my production is multiplied by thousand, I or people working at my place, will produce each time exactly the same products without any or unperceptive variations. Today, with limited volume of production my customers ask: How I can make the colours, and I have around 150 active colours, identical batch after batch?

My theory is that customers pay the bills, so customers need to have the desired product for the proposed solution without any deviation. Business is simply customer satisfaction! After over 50 years in this industry you have the opportunity to learn what and how to do, and I maintained my eyes and ears as open as possible. I never said to someone: This is no good or I cannot do it! I asked more explanation and if the proposal was someway good, and is most of the time, I tried and eventually adopted when it presented an improvement. What I make today was already done by someone else at least once.

Wish you a happy and healthy year! Gil.

Quality is always important but TQM it is out of time.
If you are looking for Continues Improvements go to Lean (TPS- Toyota Production System) this will be more efficient.

"Quality is like a apple pie, each people have different tastes."

I never got the chance to use this TQM, I am sure it falls in the category of all the other role playing, money wasting piles of trash that have been marketed for the last 50 or so years.

My company tried six sigma, when I heard that we were going to have actual positions, filled by grown men with the titles green belt and black belt I came very close to losing my breakfast.

True to my expectations the program was modified from it's original intent to another pain in the ass bunch of requirements that some oaf who didn't have a lot to do generated. And like all the other efforts of this sort I watched the ingenious ways that "management" could figure out how to appear to be in full compliance and agreement with the new brainchild of whoever came up with this. Of course the compliance and agreement portion of this foolishness had to tie up valuable people in time consuming bulls!!t.

I have never seen quite as much money wasted in such a short time in the fifty odd years I have been involved in business.

Happy New Year Otha,

I understand your frustration and disappointment when collaborators are managers and accountants. W.E. Deming has no success in the US because the CEOs and other bosses wanted to impose their wants and needs without understanding the realities of the business they were in. For the senate and the parliament, he, Deming, suggested to have for voting three (3) lights. One red, one yellow, and one green to pushing the bottom of one to say agree, don't vote or be absent for the second, and against the proposal with the third. At place of having voting time for five (5) hours or more, within 5 to 10 minutes could be done. It was rejected by 99.99% of the delegates. Politicians are efficient! A North-American boss never accept that a worker tells what to do to improve an operation, a process, or the company's well-being. She/he says: I pay you, so work well and shut up! The Japanese culture allows the voice of everyone. Deming went to Japan and told bosses what to do to be successful, and they understood immediately and well. This is the major difference between success of the Japanese, mainly car industry or other high volume, repetitive businesses and the complete failure of the "big three". Japanese will make all American cars, it's question of time, as they do already televisions and many other items.

Try to find a boss who allows you and others to implement what you elaborated as the best for the company, and do it for him with him but never tolerate that one person, the boss and its team, change, modify or eliminate what was said at the start. It's hard, very hard! In 40 years as manager or responsible of operations, only one time I have the possibility to do. It was successful and profitable but the son destroyed within a year when he became the boss of the company. I resigned in the second month of his tenure.

I was in China, and I can say that many Chinese company accept the Japanese way to develop their businesses because they understood rapidly what was the case. It is Asian cultural acceptance that let operate Deming's theories.

Hi all my friends,

I really thanks to all of you. Thank you very much!

Now, I can understand which model/sample for my company in specific situation...I got it basically...

Thanks again English Rose, Gil Becker, Janissaries, Bill, Vermin, Ramorrison1 and....

TQM is coming from W Edwards Deming, he is the one who commented the industry, workshop and developement in USA will fall, this due to Quality is not there, and he is the one send by US government to develope japan country after WWII.

Understanding the root cause, creating guideline and standard is TQM is all about, most of company, management, enterprise company, workshop, car manufacturer and etc. fall because of process, whereby 94% failure is process and 6% is human error. Rules 80 over 20 also applicable to this situations.

TQM devided into 9 steps, where starting from title of the TQM project, find the root cause, why and why (use open question), analysis, creating guidelines, creating standards, implemented the guidelines or standard, training and monitoring and/or evaluate the process.

I should have added:

All the systems can be distilled to:

PLAN - DO - STUDY - ACT

• Decide what you're going to do and what you want out of it
• Get it done
• Check it all went to plan
• Improve where required

Not so applicable in a 1 off environment but vital in repetative industries.

All the miriad of forms and stuff they'll try to sell you are tools - some useful to you, some not. Pick and chose wisely.

Good luck!

Well, after reading lots of White papers written by PhD candidates regarding the TQM and ISO certification, I'm under the impression that TQM is something that the company needs to implement in the first place led by the top level management down to the assembly line. and then, once the TQM has been adopted in the daily chore, the company can certainly apply for ISO 9001 or even ISO 16949 easily to gain competitive advantage.

I agree it has to start from the top executives. Everyone has to climb on board and commit to the program. If you have one manager, who is a loose cannon, the program will fail and the company will fall back on it's old habits. Changes to operating procedures is given to the employees to recognize and make and implement any changes, this is empowerment and gives them ownership of the program by making them part of the decision making process.

That is right Jan,

I feel that the Japanese leadership culture is suitable for this type of TQM implementation due to one of the principal of Deming 14 points (http://leanandkanban.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/demings-14-points/)

Point #8 : Drive out fear, therefore the employee feels loved by the company thus making more contribution towards the company goal and vision.

Deming introduced his 14 points to US manufacturers first and was rejected because they know how to run a company and who was Deming to tell them how to run their company.

The Japanese were considered second rate manufactures and wanted to rise above that stigma. Deming introduced the 14 points to them and they climbed on board. The Japanese manufacturers that were doubtful of the 14 points didn't want to take a chance of getting left behind so they climbed on board as well. As a result, everyone wanted to buy Japanese because US made products were crap.

In 1980 a journalist wondered what happened to Deming and found him and interviewed him. During that interview he said, "If the Japanese can do it, why can't the we?" GM and Ford CEO's watched that interview and hired Deming as a consultant and started implementing the 14 points in their operations and it helped pull them out of going under, both were in financial trouble at the time.

Toyota is a great example of the Total Quality Management success. I've read comments made by Toyota employees stating that the quality processes practiced by Japan are easy to follow once you get accustomed to them and they have no problems with it.

It is an American Idea and the Japanese more than proved it's value and success. Yet we still have too many people in the USA that think they know better and too many managers that think it is ok for them to be loose cannons.

I work for a French company, we don't even had SOPs, they tell you 'ya ya ya, that's a good idea lets do it." Then do as they please and complain about losing money.

Yes, that does make sense Jan.

Ah, yes! Honorable rank-and-file worker, we were not lying when we said "We are family." and "What you think matters." But now we don't have time or money to listen to you, and you've been disinherited. So kindly leave by that door... Yes, same door your job used to go to China.