Different names but same destination. Situational Leadership?

 

Point to Ponder: “TQM, Zero Defects, Six Sigma…Different destinations, or milestones on a roadmap called GBP?”
 
 

Story Line:

The presentation with above title was made in January 1993. Since then, the business world has seen many new programs - such as BPR, BPO, Six Sigma, OpX, LEAN, LEAN Six Sigma ... and after the recent Toyota episode, the field is ripe for a brand new program about quality. Of course, with some new eye-catching name different from the ones used in past.

Sometimes it helps to revisit the past in order to shape the future. So here is the content of the presentation:

 
Over the last fifteen years, the term “Quality” has gone through a major evolution. In the early days, AQL (Acceptable Quality Level) and LTPD (Lot Tolerance Percentage Defective) were the most popular quality terms used by “Quality Experts”, who would carry a sampling table attached to their identification badge or inside their wallets.

Today, the field of quality is crowded with many terms and acronyms, and an almost unlimited supply of associated experts of every imaginable type. Let us take a short journey through time to understand this evolutionary process:

AQL and LTPD sampling techniques, simply put, said that with a certain level of confidence, a certain percentage of the material being shipped would be defective. One of them was called “Producer’s Risk” and the other “Consumer’s Risk.” WOW! We accepted such “Risks” with confidence. In reality, there was a risk all the way - because either technique created some waste in materials, manpower and processes.

Then, in the late 70’s, Philip Crosby’s “Quality is Free” and its basic 14 point method highlighted a systematic approach and tools for quality improvement. In this author’s belief, it is still one of the best investments one can make in “Quality” ($4.95 US, $5.95 Canadian - the 1993 price).

In the second half of the '80s, the evolution process went into mid-gear - and so came TQC, TQM, Motorola Six Sigma, QML (Military Version and Commercial Version) etc. - all of which were essentially the teachings of Crosby and Deming tailored to fit your particular industry.  The seminar business flourished and so did experts making a career out of such things. (In between, when time permitted, people went to attend Dr. Deming’s seminars, but for whatever reasons, most of them returned to their corporations and reverted to the old fashioned ways.)

Today, we are in high gear for Quality. The field is crowded with numerous programs and many interpreters for these programs. TQM, Six Sigma, Concurrent Engineering, ISO 9000, Baldrige etc. are the buzzwords for the 1990’s. But as Robert Miller (my boss at that time) puts it, "These are just terms and measurements to determine how efficiently we focus our corporate systems and resources to achieve, in the shortest possible time, goods and services that result in Total Customer Satisfaction"

These programs rest on common ground. Most of them are merely a subset of one or the other, and they advocate some fundamental Good Business Practices (GBP) - of doing things faster, better and cheaper that lead to not only customer satisfaction, but also to the continuous success of the enterprise.

The intent here is not to start another program/acronym called GBP, but to present different ideas for doing things faster, better and cheaper and generate a dialogue.

In this author’s view, the term “Quality” is tied to some measurable performance indices used to track the progress of the corporation. These performance indices are linked to some objectives and plans. Based on plans, company needs to optimize development and/or utilization of systems and resources and execute to achieve the performance indices.

Applications of the concepts of cycle time, yields, cost, customer service are not limited to just manufacturing processes, but to all business processes

So, the fundamentals of Good Business Practices (GBP) are:

1. Effective utilization of resources (reduction of waste and variability, cost)

2. Speed of Execution (Cycle time, cost) 

... and the most important one:

3. Improvements consistent with customer expectations (Customer Satisfaction)

Reflection:

The presentation went a little further by showing the applications of above practices in areas beyond manufacturing processes - to transportation, communication, service and data storage and retrieval processes.

At least some people in the audience got the key message, which was: instead of jumping on every new program that comes along and turning corporate resources upside down, keep focus on GBP items in: Planning, Organizing and improving systems, tools and resources, Executing the plan and Monitoring the performance.

Comments

[Ramon]

Those who never learn from history are forever condemned to repeat it.

[Robbie]

http://gawker.com/5138017/the-creepy-corporate-cult-behind-last-nights-30-rock

[Cheok]

Here is the brand new program you are referring to: Affordable Quality (:-

[Yasmin]

"In reality, there was a risk all the way - because either technique created some waste in materials, manpower and processes."

You missed to highlight the most important risk in above sentence: Customer still will get some defective parts "With Confidence"

[Black Belt]

I am Black Belt and let me tell you GE Six Sigma is not just another quality program. The results prove it's success.

[Chew D]

10 most admired companies for quality:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/fortune/1002/gallery.mostadmired_product_quality.fortune/index.html

[micro CEO]

I've been involved in TQM, TPM, Six Sigma, and more...enjoyed learning from each one (for as long as it lasted).

The business of quality consulting reminds me a lot of the business of English conversations schools in Japan. Many pay in, not so many reach their ultimate goal. (This makes it a very profitable and sustainable business in both cases. :-)
Why don't more Japanese get their money's worth? On average, I would say they aren't truely intent on working hard enough to reap the benefits. As Isaac Asimov once said, "“Self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is”...

I think quality programs are also akin to religions. Everyone believes his or hers is the best way to salvation or enlightenment. Most of the paths are positive and will point one in the right direction. In the end, key principles appear similar and it comes down to dedication to purpose and execution for excellence. This may sound jaded (maybe even arrogant?), but I do believe that any decent quality program (or any decent religion/philosophy) can work wonders if we stick to them with tenacity and perseverence.

[Chen]

When one takes the eyes off the ball (what matters most), and constantly looking for new things while not focusing on core, then need Programs of the Year to divert attention.

[Takahashi]

Interesting why question not asked to management who look for new program why current program not sufficient to deliver and what gaps? Easier to fix gaps by using some new tool or need noise about more programs...Starting new program require new structure and not be Lean way of doing. So create big inefficiency with restructure related and then many projects to show efficiency. Many time do not make sense

[ExRabbleRouser]

I always read “quality” issues with keen interests. They are the best argument for consulting job, management seminars, promotion opportunities, etc. The irony is simple; defect/waste is unavoidable and customer is only “confident” with risk of defect as long as he is NOT the unlucky one, in a 12 sigma program, getting hit by a meteoroid. Look at the 10 most admired quality companies (Chew): people got killed in the park; floating point errors; packages got damaged; flaming note book computers; toxic syndrome; products that killed and still killing people; returned dirty panties sold as new. Should I go on?

Setting fancy names aside; marketing gimmicks, cost cutting (corner), raising profits, etc., are just way of life in business (ultimate GBP). Often time, it is not the quality of product that is in question, it is Crisis Management that needs work. It is only human to feel invincible when you are in a roll. Tylenol scare, Processors recall, Lead laden Barbie dolls, and now Toyota are classic examples: “It can’t happen to my Company and our customers understand”. Right on Ramon; “those who never learn from history are forever condemned to repeat it”, particularly in Crisis Management. Looks like we need more consultants to teach Crisis Management than consultants to teach Quality as most top managers are clueless about Crisis Management.

[Sam]

To me quality discussion reminds me of discussions related to living healthy. We all know it is important,but only a few are really committed towards it. Thats why there are a number of marketing campaigns (aka diets and programs) which are designed to help the rest of us. However, due to a number of factors, most of us are not willing to work towards the goal in a long sustaining manner. I dont want to put the blame for the lack of success to the program as much to human behaviors and the external factors (fast pace life, lots of fast food stores etc).

[Ramesh Tripathi]

Reflecting on your previous Reflection
Game of Consultants September 24th, 2009
"Good consultants tell you (in other words, help you see) what you think you know, in a way that you understand (to take action and gain value).
Because if you really knew what you think you knew, then (hopefully) you would have done something about it."

http://fridayreflections.typepad.com/weblog/2009/09/many-people-call-a-doctor-when-all-they-want-is-an-audience-the-game-of-consultants.html

[JR]

ExRabblerouser has a point
You can’t guarantee a perfect product. Even if you think it is perfect, the customer may not agree. So, crisis management is critical in helping the company save face. In addition to this, expectations need to be aligned throughout the process and the messaging needs to align to the expectations.

In the case of Toyota, I’m convinced that they got hurt by consumer expectations being much higher for Toyota than for others. Then, when MGMT’s response was not aligned with high expectations, they lost the PR cycle. If their response had been more robust and better aligned to what we expected from Toyota, they would have not suffered so much pain. This was the crisis MGMT piece and they failed poorly on this just as Intel did with the initial floating point error response