Quality of Management - Case Study Example

Successful management of quality depends more on an organization’s culture, than the application of any particular model or theory Nowadays, many companies are embedded in an dynamic environment in which they face ever increasing competition as well as ever changing and increasing demands of their customers. In a formal management process, work division, planning, organizing, controlling, and evaluating functions may not be sufficient areas to focus and pay attention in organizations. In such an environment, organizations are forced to improve their performance. Nave (2002) argues that organizations are continually searching for innovative ways to enhance competitiveness. In recent years, techniques directed toward improving business processes have received much attention. For the past 25 years, the subject of quality and its management has captured the attention of business and academic communities alike. This is reflected in the rise of publications over this period with an increase in the number of quality-related postgraduate theses and dissertations produced between 1981- 1992. The development of Quality Management as a subject of academic research over this type of timeframe and have identified a relevant body of academic knowledge and contributions to theory (Dale et al., 2000). Kelemen (2002) points out the in the past years, the word quality management has different meanings for different people. For example, total quality management means “a management practice and philosophy of management aimed at satisfying the customer” or “a new way of thinking about the management of organizations” or “a comprehensive way to improve total organizational performance and quality” or “a systematic approach to the practice of management” or “an alternative to 'management by control”. With regard to quality, there are at least five dominant models, which held by some managers and staff in any organization (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994) 1. Status Quo – Quality is not important at our organization. We hire only the best people, and our products are good as anyone else’s; 2. Quality Control – Quality is the process of inspecting and catching mistakes before they get shipped and our customers have to deal with them. We hold people accountable for their actions; 3. Customer Service – “Quality is listening to the customers and solving their problems as quickly as possible at no extra change. Mistakes and bugs can’t be avoided, so we have an 800 number and field service personnel ready to go twenty-four hours a day; 4. Process Improvement – Quality is using statistical process control reengineering, and other quality tools to understand and eliminate unacceptable variation in our process, products, and services. We believe people, particularly in teams, are a resource for learning about inefficiencies and making changes; and 5. Total Quality – Quality is a transformation in the way we think and work together, in what we value and reward, and in the way we measure success. All of us collaborate to design and operate a seamless value-adding system which incorporates quality control, customer service, process improvement, supplier relationships, and good relations with the communities in which we operate – all optimizing our common purpose (p. 445-446). Improving quality of management normally aims at improving business performances. There are many management models and theories which were invented and innovated with an intention to improve management quality in order to yield an improved performance. In the 1990s, much of the attention in the process arena was focused on business process re-engineering (BPR), an approach introduced by Hammer (1990) and The quality management can be traced back to 1980s when the introduction of the new theory of Total Quality Management (TQM) was introduced. Business Process Management (BPM) is a best practice management principle that helps companies sustain competitive advantage. From a process improvement perspective, BPM has become an important topic in the language of many organizations (Hung, 2006). Hammer (2002) claimed that to be successful, performance directed improvement initiatives such as balanced scorecard, supply chain integration, and six-sigma must be implemented under an overall process-management umbrella. Six-sigma is a set of methodologies used to improve quality, primarily through variation reduction, and to reduce costs. Many six sigma projects have been implemented through a management orientation that is analytic rather than creative (Hammer, 2002). Quality management has been contributed by various classical management theories. Their contribution has been to fill the incomplete areas of quality management. The process improvement requires change process. Table 1. Contribution of classical management theories to TQM Theory originator Description TQM contribution Frederick Taylor Scientific management Management by facts, tools and techniques of TQM and problem-solving Henri Fayol Planning and organization Business process management Max Weber Theory of social and economic organization Leadership, empowerment and performance management Alfred Sloan Decentralized mulit-divisional organization Business process management business process re-engineering Elton Mayo Hawthrone experiments Motivation and employee satisfaction Douglas McGregor The human side of enterprise Employee motivation, empowerment, involvement and participation Peter Ducker Decentralization, management leading, focus on results Leadership, goal deployment and process-focus Meredith Belbin Team characteristics Team dynamics and team work Charles Handy Internal culture Culture, values and communication John Adair Leadership Leadership and commitment Henry Mintzberg Leadership, strategic planning and management Leadership, vision, mission and policy deployment Source: Dale et al. (2001) Kelemen (2000) points out how the use of language of total quality management. He argues that in many organizations, the use of total quality management has central focus on the production and consumption total quality management practices. Thus the use of total quality management has important impacts on initiatives for best management practices for quality management. There are problems associated with organizational reality, individual identity and the achievements from total quality management. The reason is that the total quality management results yield only in a temporary. Gravian (1989) argues that the quality improvement takes time. If organizations wish to maintain long lasting results the organization crated long-term commitment to the fundamentals such as working with vendors, educational training provided to employees, installing information system for quality improvement, setting goals and targets for quality improvement, and demonstrating interest and commitment at the highest level of management. Juran (1993) stresses that the CEOs or top management play important and crucial role in successfully implementing quality management programs. First, they must establish the vision and policies. Second, they have to provide training in all hierarchy in organizations. Third, establish the goals to be achieved within a time frame. Fourth, the quality and performance must be seriously measured against profitability. In order to implement any management model of theories in a given organization, it is necessary to introduce new measures and changes in the process. For example, when an organization wishes to apply a management theory, in this case, Frederick Taylor’s management by facts, tools and techniques for quality management and problem-solving, then it has to improve the existing system by introducing new system and management. Then, there is a need for change. When members of organization resist to change, the implementation of new management theory or model for improving performance will not be successful. Therefore, whatever management theory or model is to apply to an organization with an aim of improving quality management, individuals in the organization must commit to change and improve the process. This change can take place when cultural change takes effects in organization. The change in culture can creates commitments from individuals and can increase performance of performance process. Culture is what a group learns over a period of time as that group solves its problems of survival in an external environment and its problems of internal integration. Such learning is simultaneously a behavioral, cognitive, and an emotional process. Extrapolating further from a functionalist anthropological view, the deepest level of culture will be the cognitive in that the perceptions, language, and thought processes that a group comes to share will be the ultimate causal determinant of feelings, attitudes, espoused values, and overt behavior (Schein, 1990). Hammer (2004) argued that "operations can often be the foundation of strategy and the basis for superior performance." Improving processes with the goal of enhancing the firm's competitive position requires an analysis of both construction and performance processes and also a critical assessment of how individual processes contribute to the firm's business model and strategy. At the highest level, a firm's business model is one large process, made up of thousands of smaller interrelated processes. He argues that there is a need to do a deep change in organization in order to improve business process and established quality management. The deep change must deal with the fundamental change including culture, norm, and practices. Thus, any management approach, model, or theory applied for business performance improvement will not be successfully implemented unless the basic fundamental aspect of the culture has not been changed. To successfully implement any management theory or approaches with an aim of improving quality management, cultural change must take place. According to Schein (1990, p. 111), organizational culture refers to “the ‘shared meanings and manifestations’ of organizational behavior and, as such, emphasizes the common beliefs, values and assumptions of organizational members. Organizational culture is learned by individuals and groups as they encounter, work through, and resolve problems and challenges. It is a consequence of commonly accepted assumptions and produces ‘automatic patterns of perceiving, thinking, feeling, and behaving’ that ‘provide meaning, stability, and comfort”. How culture has contributed to the successful implementation of quality management programs was demonstrated with a case study of Japanese companies in the work of Juran (1979). In his study, he conducted a study on Japanese companies. The findings reveal that the culture has significantly contributed to the successful implementation of quality management programs. The cultural contributions are mutual responsibilities, revolution in quality, employees’ participation. First, Japanese has a tradition of lifelong employment. Employees are even fear of layoffs. Seniority always influences in promotion and salaries increases. There are mutual responsibilities for both the company and the employees during the tenure of employment. This kind of culture has contributed to the commitment, even a life long employment. Second, top management have led successful revolution in quality with extensive educational programs. Their learning organization has benefited to every Japanese employee. This has contributed to the quality and performance improvement of all employees in all levels. Third, the union formation is parallel with the organization. The union does not have any adverse impact on the organization. This union formation patterns and participation in the decision making of organization has contributed to the successful implementation of quality management programs. Therefore, the cultural change is needed for management quality no matter whatever management model is chosen for organization. The change in culture will gain commitment form all levels of employees in organization. With such organization wide commitment, such cultural change will yield long-lasting results for quality improvements in organizations. ***** References Dale, B.G. (1992) Total quality management: What are the research challenges? In: R.H. Hollier, R.J. Boaden & S.L. New (Eds) International Operations, Crossing Borders in Manufacturing and Service (London, Elsevier Science). Dale, B.G. (1999): Managing Quality. Blackwell. Oxford Garvin, D.A. (1988): Managing Quality: The Strategic and Competitive Edge. The Free Press. New York Garvin, David A. 1988. Managing quality. McKinsey Quarterly, Summer88 Issue 3, p61-70, 10p Garvin, David A. Harvard Business Review, May/Jun89, Vol. 67 Issue 3, p210, 1p; Hammer, M (2004). Deep change: How operation innovation can transform your company. Harvard Business Review. 82(4), 85-93. Hammer, M. & Champy, J. (1993): Re-engineering the corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. Nicholas Brealey. London Hammer, M. (1990). Re-engineering work: Don't automate, obliterate. Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 104-112. Hammer, M. (1996) Beyond Reengineering: How the Process–Centered Organization is Changing Our Work and Our Lives (New York: Harper Collins). Hammer, M. (2002). Process management and the future of six sigma. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(4), 26-32. Juran, J. M. (1978). Japanese and Western quality: A contrast in methods and results. By: Juran, J.M.. Management Review, Nov78, Vol. 67 Issue 11, p26, 10p Juran, J. M. (1993). Why quality initiatives fall. Journal of Business Strategy, Jul/Aug93, Vol. 14 Issue 4 Juran, J.M. (1989): Juran on Leadership for Quality: An Executive Handbook. The Free Press. New York Kelemen, M. (2005): Managing Quality – Managerial and Critical Perspectives. Sage. London Kelemen, M. (2000). Too much or too little ambiguity: The language of quality management. Journal of Management Studies 37:4 June 2000 Nave. D. (2002). How to compare six sigma, lean, and the theory of constraints. Quality Progress. 35(3), 73-78. Schein, E. H. (1985a). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. H. (1985b). Organizational culture: Skill, defense mechanism or addiction? In E R. Brush & J. B. Overmier (Eds.), Affect, conditioning, and cognition (pp. 315-323). Hilisdale, N J: Edbaum. Schein, E. H. (1990). Organisational culture; American Psychologist; Vol. 45 Issue 1, p109-119, Senge, PM., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Feldbook, Doubleday, New York. ***** Read More