[The following text appears in the January 1993
_Quality_Management_Newsletter_ (published by the North Carolina
Quality Center), pages 2 and 6.]

                  WHY QUALITY PROGRAMS DON'T MEASURE UP

     The phrase Total Quality Management (TQM) appears daily in
our newspapers, business journals and television reports. Winners
of the prestigious Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award offer
testimonials, proclamations, and prescriptive cures for our
productivity decline. Government and service sectors resolutely
endorse the concept as a panacea for our current ills. Even with
these endorsements, only 40 percent of the Fortune 1000 companies
have some type of quality efforts underway. Some of these
organizations now report less-than-satisfactory results after a
few months or even years of quality efforts.  

     In October [1992] The Wall Street Journal reported the
findings of an Ernst & Young study which concluded some popular
management tools may be hurting companies rather than helping
them. The report raises striking doubts about several trendy
practices that comprise the growing TQM movement -- such as
worker teams and "benchmarking" (emulating the practices of top
companies). Historically management consultants believed that
most quality improvement practices were beneficial for all
companies. In reality the study finds that companies should
tailor the practices to fit each organization's basic values and
performance. For instance, lower performing companies should
utilize more fundamental tools such as statistical process
control and problem solving. The survey of 584 companies in the
U.S., Canada, Germany, and Japan indicated companies need to
focus their quality programs and determine which quality tools to
use and when.  

     Although individual tools may vary from company to company,
successful quality efforts start with more fundamental issues.
First, it is essential for senior management to understand and
support the quality philosophy to demonstrate corporate
leadership. Management must develop and communicate its plans for
the future success of the organization. As some management gurus
are fond of saying "People are smart; they understand the real
goals and intentions of management." No longer can management
merely expect lower level employees to do as told; they must be
led. Management's sharing of the future and the role of quality
is necessary to gain employee support. Quality cannot be merely
taught; it must be understood, lived, and accepted by all.  

     Another "universal truth" of quality is the perception that
it's just another program rather than an ongoing process.
Historically an organization may have been content to maintain
the status quo if business was OK. Under the new philosophy,
management understands and encourages a continuous review of the
processes and systems which support improved products and
services. Continuous improvement must become an essential part of
the strategic planning process, not an added task.  

     Third, competitiveness is based on an organization's focus
on the systems and processes that make up its daily operations.
The blending of technology and human skills is essential to
ensure that cost-effective operations meet current and future
business requirements. Improving and simplifying production and
development processes requires that both management and line
workers cooperate for the best solutions. To meet these changes
all employees must undergo training and retraining in both the
technical skills and the "soft" people skills.  

     An important aspect of this simplification process is
scrutinizing and shortening "cycle time" -- how long it takes to
get something done. Usually applied only to manufacturing
processes, this emphasis is now being placed to every detail of
satisfying the customer from prompt phone answering to the
shipping department. As the Japanese have proven repeatedly,
"Time to market" is a key success factor for translating customer
wants into usable products and services.  

     The quality movement is not a myth or a fad but a
recognition of new competitive order that exists today. No longer
can American companies expect to dominate markets because of
marketing prowess or raw material sources. The development and
use of knowledge will differentiate successful quality-oriented
companies in the future, whether they be located in the U. S.,
Europe, or the Pacific Rim. With an understanding of the quality
fundamentals, fewer companies will likely experience
disappointing results with future quality efforts. Meanwhile many
companies will wait to see if "this too will pass." At risk are
the jobs and future livelihood of people that work for these
companies. The quality movement may not meet all the expectations
of business leaders, but can we afford the luxury "to wait and
see"?