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 the theory.
• The results of our statistical research will
only support the theory or fail to support
the 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 the theory is the theoretical glue
that holds the model together.
– Who-Where-When
• The who-where-when aspect place
contextual bounds on the 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 the theoretical model.
© 2001 Prentice-Hall
Transparency 2-11
What is Theory?
Slide 7 of 7
Figure 2.2 Inductive Versus Deductive Reasoning
Induction
Generalization
Data
Deduction
Generalization
© 2001 Prentice-Hall
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 1920s, 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
first place.
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
trust.
© 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
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
supervision of
production workers.
© 2001 Prentice-Hall
Point 8
Drive out fear, so that
everyone may work
effectively
for the company.
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
departments. People in
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 processrelated 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 1950s.
© 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 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
• P51
• 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(P54 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
Descargar

Chapter 05