The contribution of measurement and information infrastructure to TQM success - Article Example

Review of “The contribution of measurement and information infrastructure to TQM success” Taylor and Wright (2006) posit that it is not clear and that it is debatable whether Total Quality Management (TQM) contributes to improve performance. Their research obtained data from a longitudinal study and they claim that the outcome of the research contributes to the debate. Taylor and Wright had a sample of 67 firms using TQM. Their central hypothesis was, “…that measurement of key TQM practices and performance outcomes is essential for TQM success”. They examined the measurement practices of these companies and reported the changes in their measurement behavior over time. They analyzed seven dimensions of measurement relating to customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, process performance, impact of TQM on costs, impact of TQM on sales, self-assessment, and benchmarking. They calculated a measurement-intensity score for all of the firms based on the seven parameters and they demonstrated that the increased measurement intensity is highly associated with the perceived TQM success. Using a multivariate discriminant analysis a 90% of accuracy was found in eight variables. They concluded, that the firms needed to engage in measurements of self-assessment practices and benchmarking, however, their data suggested that a measurement framework needed to go beforehand. Introduction According to Taylor and Wright (2006), this article is about a longitudinal study of tracking TQM implementations in 67 firms that started in 1992. The purpose focused on the measurement practices these firms had and on the relationship between measurement behavior and perceived TQM success. Their hypothesis was based on the measurement and management of TQM. It was based on the gathered information from the companies on: Customer satisfaction; employee satisfaction; and, process performance. It was assumed that given these parameters the companies would exhibit higher levels of success with TQM. In the first study in 1992, they had 113 firms which gathered very little information to make judgments of the business impact of TQM. They questioned the importance of TQM on the basis of measurement and customer focus absence and suggested the need for organizational awareness of performance through the practices of benchmarking and self-assessment. During the second part of the study, they found 37% of the participating companies had discontinued TQM in favor of ISO9000. Of these 113 firms only 67 remained in the study. Out of the 67 firms only 17 were classified as very successful compared to 25 that reported less success than it was thought of. They identified five factors being related to the level of success. These were: The length of time of TQM adoption; The understanding of the meaning and purpose of TQM (focusing on the customer); Understanding the relationship between TQM and ISO9000; Treating TQM as a strategy instead of an operational business item; and, Having senior management involvement. They reiterated that the size of the cohorts was a factor and that they found support based on the literature. They were not able to establish, “…whether measuring the effects of TQM is associated with higher levels of success.” So they revisited, “…the extent of the measurement practices”, “to identify whether there was any noticeable change in measurement intensity over time.” They had three objectives: Identify changes in measurement practice to ascertain whether they were or were not measuring key dimensions of TQM; Explore the relationship between the intensity of measurement practice and TQM Success; and, Identify the measurement that had the most impact on TQM success and what was the influence of the five factors. Brief description of investigated areas Taylor and Wright (2006) stated Fuchs´ emphasis of the lack of measurement as one of the obstacles for the implementation progress of TQM. They mentioned that Voss reiterated that there was a need to measure. It was found in the literature review that 50% of the firms had no instrument to measure its effects on performance. According to their findings, measurement is a core principle of TQM to evaluate the customers´ needs and expectations, to improve, and to empower employees. They ascertained that, “…to excel with TQM, firms need to develop framework of measurement, data and analysis, enabling ´informed management´ and decision-making.” They state their sources to sustain these criteria. They reiterated the importance of TQM measurements and linking these to customers´ and employees´ satisfaction and that executive commitment has to be present along with open organization and employee empowerment “rather than benchmarking, process analysis or performance measurement.” The authors state Powell´s study as giving the holistic approach, the combination of practices and synergistic effects to obtain superior outcomes. They mention that Samson and Terziovski found three softer TQM practices, leadership, human resources management, and customer focus as being stronger predictors of performance than were the “…analytically-based dimensions of information and analysis, strategic planning and process analysis”. Taylor and Wright found discrepancies from the literature review concerning whether or not TQM factors contribute to improved performance. Key leaning points Taylor and Wright found: A positive and significant association between measurement and success (p < 0.001). A positive and significant relationship between TQM success and the level of adoption of all seven measurement practices (p < 0.001). Based on empirical findings softer TQM practices lead to most benefits. According to Rahman and Bullock soft and hard practices should co-exist. They found that the intensity of measurement behavior is significantly associated with TQM success. Critical analysis and discussion Taylor and Wright (2006) affirm that their research produced five contributions to the literature. Concerning the first research question they manifest that “…this work remains one of a few longitudinal studies of TQM implementation, and shows how measurement behavior has changed over time”. They continue that for the cohort of the 67 firms it showed their “propensity to measure key dimensions of TQM implementation has increased significantly.” They assert that “…many of the firms continue to avoid measuring many of these parameters…” while 24% do not measure the impact of TQM on cost efficiency and 55% do not measure employee satisfaction. They also mention that in a small number of cases the measurement had discontinued due to the perception of cost/effectiveness of data collection. The authors state that the absence of measurement lead to possibly discontinuing TQM programs due to “lack of tangible results. For the second question, that there would be a positive relationship between the extent of measurement and TQM success, it was found that the measures are associated with higher levels of TQM success. They make the distinction that it does not mean that by measuring it leads to more success but that measures are important factors between activities and achievements so that employees may correct their behavior without management intervention. The third question related to TQM practices and their impact on TQM success. With the discriminant analysis they established a relative contribution of each measurement practice to the success of the TQM program. With the five variables they were able to distinguish between the ´hard´ and ´soft´ TQM practices. They found that the discriminant functions classified the cases almost to a 90% of accuracy. Taylor and Wright (2006) identified the following six factors to “differentiate quite successful from unsuccessful or disappointing TQM initiatives”. They ranked them in the order of significance: Measurement of the impact of TQM implementation on cost efficiency; Measurement of customer effectiveness; Measurement of employee satisfaction; Measurement of process performance; and, Senior management leadership and objectives in the strategic planning process. Practical implications The authors state that they have produced five contributions. They reiterate that this longitudinal study remains one of the few studies of the TQM implementation and that they demonstrate how the measured behaviors have changed. They specify that within the 67 firms an increase of using TQM measurement keys of dimension had increased significantly, but, that many of the firms avoid using many of the parameters based on cost/effectiveness at 24% and not measuring employees´ satisfaction at, 55%. In a smaller amount of cases they mentioned that the measurement had been discontinued due to the high cost of data collection in relationship to the benefits. They continue to reinforce that there might be a possibility of discontinuing the TQM programs for a lack of tangible results. For the second research question they predicated that there would be a positive relationship between the extent of measurement and TQM success. They posited that measuring seems to be an important element for the first step process between activities and achievements, by employees practice self-assessment without managements´ intervention. The third research question had the most impact in TQM practices. The discriminant functions purported 90% accuracy on the ´hard´ and ´soft´ TQM practices. The fourth contribution was the relationship between TQM and ISO9000. TQM had no impact on the cohort´s sales. The first three of the variables were found to be significantly associated with TQM success. The authors reiterated that the lack of influence on the sales could be due to measuring customer satisfaction. The implications on practicing for managers are measuring TQM activity, its progress, and the results through systematic self-assessment. Conclusion Taylor and Wright state that they made a contribution to the TQM instruments of measurement used in the workforce. They mentioned that in some areas it was more effective than in others. They state that the use of TQM was inconclusive, mentioning other researchers, and giving reasons based on cohorts for their discontinued use. They basically referred to the amount of time needed and its lack of cost/effectiveness. Recommendations Based on Taylor and Wright´s longitudinal study with a cohort of 67 firms and their findings they make several suggestions. These are as follows: To use the ´soft´ and ´hard´ measurement practices since they bring in different elements that may be used to gather clear-cut data. To capture some of the benefits from TQM without subscribing to it entirely. To measure key components of TQM activities on an ongoing basis and gather results through a systematic self-assessment. Self-assessment and benchmarking should not be regarded as optional extras. Self-assessment should be understood to obtain higher levels of TQM success. Self-assessment and benchmarking should not be considered in the early stages. To use TQM there should be a level of experience and development before adopting self-assessment and benchmarking. To continue researching this area with the cohorts using most measures, to understand approaches and infrastructure. To measure customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, and process performance. To provide feedback on performance gaps, to remove blindness about the customers´ needs and expectations, on customer satisfaction levels, and business performance relative to competitors. To increase self-knowledge about employee satisfaction and process performance. To have a larger sample. To disaggregate the dimensions of many variables. To investigate current less successful TQM programs to identify obstacles. Taylor and Wright state they will continue research in this area. It may be inferred they will follow these suggestions. Read More