TQM It’s Alive!!!

Yes, total quality management (TQM) is still around. TQM is simply quality in every aspect of an organization, so it can morph easily. In order to look at this in detail, we have to take two approaches: pragmatic and psychological.

Let’s first look at TQM psychology. I know you don’t want to hear all this soft and fuzzy mumbo jumbo stuff; you want some tools and techniques that you can use to make improvements. I’ll get to that but there are also many books and articles that address those tangible issues. First, I want to talk about the psychology because all the tools and techniques in the world won’t be of much help if you don’t have the mindset to sustain the effort resulting in the program of the month club. There isn’t any pixie dust that you can sprinkle to make everything perfect. Plug and play is also another concept that doesn’t work. Failure to adopt and adapt the psychological aspects of quality processes is the primary reason why quality initiatives do not have lasting success and get an undeserved bad rap. The psychology is the invisible glue that keeps operations functioning successfully for the duration, and this begins with mutual trust and understanding of the psychological dynamics that moves the workforce.

As a maintenance supervisor for a major airline, I had a manager tell me that I think like a mechanic. He meant it as an insult but I took it as a compliment. If you lose connection with your workers at their level, you have also lost obtaining any connection in obtaining their cooperation. The command and control management style, popular in the early 20th century, is no longer applicable today but still exists. In the words of W. Edwards Deming, “You can beat horses to run faster — for a while.” This methodology achieves short-term results at the expense of long-term negative consequences. Understanding goes deeper than merely knowing the personalities of the individuals; you must know the personality of the group as well.

A company has its own collective personality. Within many variations such as the geographical differentiations, there is also a shift, departmental and work specialty personalities. You have to ask what reason your workforce would have to cooperate with a quality system, or for that matter, any initiative. Helping the company is an inadequate answer if your work group’s personalities are polarized. Fear, competition and resource scarcity all breed polarization. In any workforce of any size you will never get everyone to cooperate, so you have to concentrate on the key players. If you don’t know your workers, you will not be able to identify your key players. Going back to the question, ‘what reason would your workforce have to cooperate?’ has to do with risk/reward and normative theory. A full study of these models is too lengthy for this article. However, and in a nutshell, groups can be divided into those that are open and receptive, those that are neutral and those that are closed and hostile. People seek a safety and they will gravitate to the group they perceive as providing a safer environment. What benefit would your workers get out of the quality program you are trying to initiate? If they see a benefit you will get buy in from some but not all. “It will save your jobs,” is a fear tactic and might work only once. The days of company loyalty are gone; all that is left is professional loyalty. Attempting to use this tactic more than once will change the perception from risk avoidance into a threat, resulting in loss of trust and belief in management, and will be met with resistance. That is the condensed version of risk/reward theory. If you can get the majority of your key players to buy in, the remaining key players will cooperate. If the majority of your workforce is in the neutral category you might get some of them to buy in. The neutral group will make a judgment to whether there is any value to joining and buying in or simply going along with the program and not causing interference. Normative theory says we tend to want to belong or at least not buck the system. You don’t want to alienate this group, the best you can do is get them to not be opposed. Unfortunately, some organizations have molded their workforce so the majority is in the closed and hostile group.

Now for the nuts and bolts. TQM is an umbrella concept that has at its core a loosely-connected series of quality tools, techniques and criteria. Academically, TQM is used as an introductory course to quality in general. TQM, as the name implies, is all encompassing, infusing quality into every aspect of an organization. The makeup of what forms TQM is diffuse and in constant flux, including other processes that are considered quality concepts on their own, such as Six-Sigma, Lean, Baldrige, ISO, etc. Since there are numerous books, articles and training courses on the specifics of this subject, I will only briefly look into the tools, techniques and criteria.

There are seven classical and seven modern quality tools associated with TQM and each can be an article on its own.

Some of these you recognize and have probably used but maybe you don’t call them by the names I have listed. Being in aviation maintenance, you have definitely used check sheets in engine run/taxi and maintenance progressive signoffs. You see tree diagrams and process decision program charts in troubleshooting manuals. Others you have used unconsciously in making everyday decisions, like cause and effect and affinity diagrams. You use others such as activity network diagrams and flow charts inherently because you know the flow of processes and the systems that utilize those processes. However, when you put this on paper you can detect duplications and gaps. Staying with the spirit of continual improvement, new tools are being developed almost on a daily basis, so it is hard to keep up.

The techniques used are also being developed continually and range from the popular alpha/numeric variety: 5S, 5 why and 8D, to brainstorming, storyboarding, nominal group technique, benchmarking, mistake proofing and process analysis. Talking quality today is not possible without throwing in some Japanese terms. It does nothing to endear quality with the American worker and is used to show that the presenter has studied Japanese techniques — plug and play at its zenith. Here are some of the Japanese techniques: Kaizen, Poka-Yoke, Ishikawa and Kanban. Are you sufficiently impressed? You shouldn’t be. Kaizen is continual improvement; Poka-Yoke is mistake proofing; Ishikawa is not a technique but a person more associated with the cause-and-effect diagram tool; and Kanban is simply a story board. Because these Japanese terms have been thrown around without understanding, they are used, misused and force fit. I had trouble learning a foreign language in college and envy those who could, so I have a built-in bias in this forced Japanization of the American quality systems. This is a prime example of how we have adopted a technique and used plug and play, but failed to adapt it to our culture and climate. When I mention climate, I don’t mean the weather but the collective consciousness. We fail to recognize that those fabulous Japanese quality techniques were garnered from American precepts. They are successful in Japan because the Japanese took them adopted the principles and adapted them to their culture and climate.

Here is an interesting aside story about executives from Ford who went to Japan to learn firsthand how the Japanese auto manufacturers were so successful. Whenever the Ford executives asked the Japanese executives where they learned these techniques, they were told from ‘the book’. Finally they had to ask what ‘the book’ was and they were handed “My Life and Work” by Henry Ford. Whether this is a true story is unclear, but if it is, it can be viewed as either a slap in the face by the Japanese or an ironic twist. Do we have to keep reinventing the wheel?

Criteria can be termed as a prescriptive process or a standard. ISO is a standard that has been around for a while and is as much a marketing impetus as a quality criterion because it has international recognition. Most are under the misconception that ISO stands for the International Organization of Standardization. If so, then wouldn’t it be IOS? In reality, it was decided that because every language would have a different term, the Central Secretary in Geneva Switzerland used a derivative of the Greek word ‘isos’ meaning ‘equal’ so ISO would be understood internationally. ISO, recognizing that one size does not fit all, has expanded to include specific standards designed to meet the variances of certain industries such as the AS90XX series for aviation. Another more encompassing criterion is Baldrige. Although the Malcolm Baldrige National Award is a national program and has limited award capabilities, there are a number of state programs that mirror Baldrige. One should view Baldrige, or its state equivalent, as a template and journey toward business excellence with the award being the mark of years of achievement and improvement but not construed as the final destination. A hot criteria today is Six-Sigma which has morphed from a quality tool, Control Charts, to become a process of its own with its own acronyms in support (e.g., DMAIC and DMADV). Six-Sigma has grown within itself and also by marrying with other processes to become Lean Six-Sigma. Lean is modeled from the time and motion studies of the 1950s fitted with a new dress and modified with the name change to protect the innocent. As long as Lean Six-Sigma remains popular, it will continue to grow until a shiny new process comes along that catches the corporate eye and Lean Six-Sigma will be abandoned.

I am the consummate skeptic and I don’t paint a pretty picture for any sustaining effort in quality effort. It’s part of the animal that we in quality have created. We preach continual improvement, and that pertains not only to the organization but also to quality concepts in general. Continual improvement involves change but change for the sake of change is not improvement. TQM has been around for a long time and it will continue to evolve, ensuring its survivability. For all the quality efforts that are initiated and discarded, something has to stick. However, a recent survey has shown that the neutral group is growing. The big drawback is that you could push your neutral work group into becoming disillusioned and join those that are closed and hostile. If that becomes the case, then you have to look at this differently and initiate a 12-step recovery program for management.

Keep in mind that the customer determines quality, not the organization. The organization’s task is to meet those customer demands. TQM or any quality process is not about staying in business. Quality processes are about being effective and efficient while you are in business and meeting customer needs; quality will not guarantee business success. However, failure is almost assured without it. All the books and training on concepts, management style, and success techniques can be condensed into two words: mutual trust.

Keep the faith.

Patrick Kinane is an FAA-certificated A&P with IA and commercial pilot with instrument rating. He has 50 years of experience in aviation maintenance. He is an ASQ senior member with quality auditor and quality systems/organizational excellence manager certifications. He is an RABQSA-certified AS9100 and AS9110 aerospace industry experienced auditor and ISO9001 business improvement/quality management systems auditor. He earned a bachelor of science degree in aviation maintenance management, a master’s of science degree in education, and a Ph.D. in organizational psychology. Kinane is presently a senior quality management systems auditor for AAR CORP and a professor of organizational behavior at DeVry University.