Top 11 reason behind for TQM Fails?

If you are reading this book, it is likely that you already know what we mean when we use the term Total Quality Management. Still, it's a good idea to define the term, and provide a brief overview. Certainly TQM can be defined in a number of ways, and the details of different approaches can vary somewhat. However, a good starting definition, drawn from Capezio & Morehouse is: "Total Quality management refers to a management process and set of disciplines that are coordinated to ensure that the organization consistently meets and exceeds customer requirements. TQM engages all divisions, departments and levels of the organization. Top management organizes all of its strategy and operations around customer needs and develops a culture with high employee participation. TQM companies are focused on the systematic management of data of all processes and practices to eliminate waste and pursue continuous improvement. " Perhaps a better way of understanding TQM is to compare a "TQM organization with what we might call a "traditional organizations". tet's look at a number of differences. 1. Customer-Driven vs. Company-Driven Traditional organizations tend to make their decisions based on what is most convenient for them, rather than what is wanted and expected by their customers. Being customer-based means gatf7ering information from customers/clients and modifying services and processes to meet those needs as well as possible. In government, this is not always easy, due to the conflicting responsibilities of a department, and the multiple customers/stakeholders involved in government situations. However, in many cases moving to a customer-driven organization can yield many positive results for government departments. 2. Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation Traditional organizations tend to think and plan with respect to short term outcomes, white TQM organizations tend to think in much larger time spans. A typical example might be that a TQM organization would look at downsizing as having effects over a decade or two, while a traditional organization would look only at the immediate budgetary issues, letting future chips fall where they may. Also, successful TQM organizations make a long term commitment to the principles of TQM, rather than looking at TQM as a program; something with a beginning and end. This means patience.

3. Data-Driven vs. Opinion-Driven Traditional organizations tend to be managed by gut feel, or by opinion. They guess at what their customers want, and guess at the costs of waste, etc. TQM organizations base their decisions on data

they collect; on customer needs, on waste, on costs, and on the sources of problems. While judgment is always involved in any decision, TQM organizations begin with the data, not with the solution. 4. Elimination of Waste vs. Tolerance of Waste Most organizations operate with a high degree of waste and inefficiency. Traditional organizations consider waste, whether it be in time, materials, etc, as a normal part of their operation. TQM organizations are very active in identifying wasteful activities, and eliminating them. 5. Continuous Improvement vs, Fire Fighting Traditional organizations tend to address problems with the way they do things only when there is a major problem or crisis. The watchword in traditional organizations is: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", except that often it IS broke, but nobody is paying any attention . TQM organizations are always looking for improvement, and are constantly engaged in problem-solving to make things better. 6. Prevention vs, Inspection Traditional organizations tend to fix problems after the fact. Rather than trying to prevent problems, they catch them after the fact, which is very costly. TQM organizations work to prevent problems and errors, rather than simply fixing them. 7. Cross Function Teams vs. Fortressed Departments Traditional organizations tend to have sub-units that work autonomously and with little communication or involvement with other units. For example, personnel may have only limited interaction with other departments. Or, on a local level, administrative staff may have little communication with other staff in a government branch, and have a different reporting structure. In TQM organizations, there is more use of cross-functional teams; teams convened for a particular purpose or purposes, with representation from a number of units or levels in the organization. The use of cross-functional teams means that input is gained from parts of the organization that need to be involved. 8. High Employee Participation vs. Top-Down Hierarchy Traditional organizations tend to have very restricted communication and decision- making patterns. Employees are told what to do, rather than being inctuded in figuring out what to do. Information tends to flow from top to bottom. In TQM organizations, employees are much more actively involved in both the decision-making and communication processes. Information flows both top to bottom and bottom to top. For that matter, information also flows sideways.

9. Problem-Solving vs, Blame Traditional organizations tend to look to affix blame for things that go wrong. TQM organizations attack the problems in their organizations rather than the people. They fix things. 10. Systems Thinking Vs. Isolation Traditiona~ organizations tend to see the parts and processes of their organization as single things, unretated to other part of the organization. TQM organizations tend to recognize that most often, probtems arise as a result of multiple causes, and that sub- units are interdependent. TQM organizations tend to see problems as a result of the entire system. 11. Leadership vs. Management Traditional organizations tend to see people as objects to be managed; told what to do, disciplined, tracked, etc. TQM organizations exhibit more confidence in staff and more trust, and expect MORE from them, not less.

Why TQM Fails?

Yes, Total Quality Management fails. We don't hear too much about those. When it does not bring about improvement in the workplace, it is usually a result of faulty implementation rather than anything intrinsically wrong with the concepts.

Reason #1: Improper Planning

Organizations tend to be so anxious to begin doing "something", that they start off being unclear as to what they are trying to accomplish and how to get there. There is a time to jump to action and a time to insure that the actions are properly planned and considered. Jumping in too early creates chaos, and cynicism as expectations are frustrated.

Reason #2: Management Confusion

Managers need to lead the organization to quality processes. Too often managers have not considered what this means on a day to day level. Many managers will need some coaching on what their roles might be, and how to carry them out, but quite frequently, managers are not prepared for the tasks they face.

Reason #3: Inadequate Support To Managers

So far, there has been a tendency to hire TQM consultants to visit for a half-day or so to start the process. This puts incredible pressure on managers since they have little ongoing access to the

expert help they need to make this work. Also, some activities that are part of TQM are best carried out by "outsiders" who bring a different kind of objectivity to the process.

Reason #4: Partial Implementation (Hedging)

Many organizations jump in by implementing only one piece of TQM, usually focussing on the customer, or collecting information from employees. Customer service is only one part of the puzzle, and empowering employees is not likely to bring about change unless other issues are addressed.

Reason #5: Inadequate Marketing

There is considerable cynicism in the public sector these days. Employees have seen management fads come and go without impact. TQM programs that do not communicate the TQM principles, and management intent usually fail. TQM must be explained in ways which show how it will benefit all members of the organization. Then management must lead by example.

Reason #6: Impatience

Any organization change requires perseverance and patience. Management that is not willing to work at it over an extended time will start backing off the principles and become inconsistent in their actions. That destroys their own credibility, and the credibility of organization change in general.