WHERE IS TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT TODAY? Just when you think you understand TQM, along comes TQS. (total quality service) by David C. Davis Almost everyone in American business has heard of Total Quality Management (TQM). In fact, popular and technical literature, not to mention advertising, is literally teeming with "quality" as a password to success. Awards by various groups, most notably the Malcolm Baldrige Award, have become part and parcel of a company's advertising and are often included in bond and credit ratings. Even the Department of Defense (DOD) has embraced TQM. Mr. Frank Carlucci, as Secretary of Defense, declared TQM as the guiding set of principles by which the DOD will operate in the future. Since then the government has used, at first, the Federal Quality Institute criteria, and is now changing to the Malcolm Baldrige Award criteria for quality implementation and evaluation. Regardless of the criteria, one might well wonder: "What is it all about?"; "Where did it come from?"; "Is it something we need to look into?"; "Another fad?"; or "Who cares?" Deming's Model The Total Quality movement is largely attributed to the work of W. Edwards Deming in Japan at the close of World War II. With Japan's devastated industrial base, and a people exhausted and traumatized by the advent of the nuclear age, the phrase "Made in Japan" most certainly did not stand for high quality. Deming's approach to Japan's quality problem, was to build in quality from the start rather than reliance on inspection at the end of production. Emphases was placed on removing barriers to the pride of workmanship, training, breaking down barriers between functional departments, and constantly improving the systems of production and service. This resulted in a consistent overall strategy for quality improvement. His ideas were taken so seriously in Japan, that the most prestigious award in Japanese business is the Deming Prize. In America, however, Deming was virtually ignored. TQM Becomes Global As Japanese cars and consumer electronics began overtaking their American counterparts in the marketplace, ignoring Deming's ideas could only be done at great corporate risk to future competitiveness. Valid questions as to why Japanese products were taking market shares began to surface. There were, of course, allegations of unfair marketing, government assistance, trade barriers, and on and on. Some of the allegations might have been valid, but even if they were completely resolved, the questions of how the quality had improved lingered. As the results of Deming's work became apparent, the quality movement expanded around the world and spawned literally hundreds of books, articles and consultants. TQM training enterprises grew and formed an industry unto themselves. TQM Evolves As TQM has grown over the years, the quality "movement" seems to be splitting into two separate models -- one for manufacturing and one for services. You've probably read and heard a great deal about TQM. Other theories, such as Eliyahu Goldblatt's Theory of Constraints, has taken the original TQM concepts further, augmenting them with scheduling and other systems of thought, to help corporations decide which manufacturing processes to improve to achieve the greatest benefit throughout the system. One of the outgrowths of TQM's evolution is a management model that focuses on services. Why Total Quality Service? The model emerging for services, Total Quality Service (TQS), certainly has a lot in common with the "older" TQM in manufacturing. But people in the service industries -- hotels, for example -- had a hard time comparing room service with assembly lines. Advocates of TQS, such as Ron Zemke, point out numerous differences between TQS and TQM. Because of this many "failed" attempts to implement Total Quality Management may have been caused by the TQM model being applied on a service function -- and it doesn't always fit. Perhaps even more importantly, few products exist in isolation from services any more. You may have invented a better mousetrap, but few people will beat a path to your door without a warranty, environmental impact considerations, safety warnings, compliance with federal, state and local regulations, and advertising. In addition, training in the use of the mousetrap may be required, as well as extensive operator manuals. While we may have viewed them in the past as a necessary evil in sales of products, successful companies are treating these services as profit centers. With that emerging emphasis, TQS came into focus. TQM vs. TQS One of the major differences between TQM and TQS is tangibility. Manufacturing produces a tangible product, usually matching a well-defined specification that all those concerned have agreed will meet customer need. Often the customer writes the specification. In the DOD, for example, several steps in systems acquisition deal directly with system definitions, and later test and evaluation processes that deal directly with how the manufactured products meet those definitions. The product can be measured in a variety of ways with standardized measurement systems. The outcome of the measurement is a defined value that both the manufacturer and the customer can evaluate. In services, measurement of quality deals not with well-defined specifications, but with the perceptions of the customer. Perceptions are slippery things that not only vary from customer-to-customer, but can vary within the same customer at various times. You might even feel hostage to the fact that a customer ate a pastrami sandwich the night before and couldn't sleep, thereby affecting his or her perception of your quality services. Most electronics products, while manufactured, really produce outputs to the end user that are, in essence, services. Take an F-16 for example; altitude, airspeed, a screen image, target acquisition, systems integration or whatever -- they are services provided to the operator. These "services" can be specified in advance, and by so doing the operator's expectations can be defined. In services, the impact of determining customer expectations in advance of producing is even more crucial than in manufacturing, and the vulnerability to that pastrami sandwich is lessened by doing so. Another difference between TQM and TQS is timing. Manufactured products can be demonstrated and produced before demand, and inventories stored in the warehouse. Services, on the other hand, are often produced, sold and consumed simultaneous with demand. The form of the products between TQM and TQS also differ. When striving for quality in manufacturing, companies strive for absolute standardization and conformance, or at least strive for some sort of uniformity. . . like food at your favorite fast food chain. Things are made to fit that specification identified earlier. Within the Department of Defense, for example, "form, fit & function" articulates that kind of uniformity. Services, on the other hand, strive for diversity in meeting highly variable customer expectations. . . those slippery perceptions, again. For example, your idea of adequate room service for the price might differ significantly from co-workers. Service customers are also in a position to experience the process of producing the outcome, even if there is a manufactured product associated with it. How Are TQM and TQS the Same? In the fast-paced electronics industries, customers play greater roles in both product and services outcomes. Many customers may prefer higher priced products if the services that accompany it are perceived (there it is again]) to be advantageous. In development efforts, determining what the customer wants the product to do is the guiding goal of both product and service development. Also, in both manufacturing and services, companies must go to greater lengths to shape the customer's expectations through various forms of advertising, ranging from various media methods to word-of-mouth. Warranties and TQM/TQS Warranties are often the key to success in TQM/TQS. No responsible company will offer a warranty on a manufactured product without a capacity to replace or repair the product. The same is true for services, a company needs to make things right should customer expectations not be met. If there is no plan to "right" the service failure, then the company has a difficult problem -- the perception the company doesn't care about the product or the customer. Perceptions are closely linked to the human emotions. Being disappointed in the service is one thing, to ask "How did you enjoy our (whatever service)" without having a recovery plan moves the experience of being annoyed to being downright angry... not a good thing for a positive word-of-mouth advertising campaign. If a company can't correct a service malfunction, they might even be better off not asking. Pitfalls and Dangers There are many things typical to both TQM and TQS in the implementation of quality improvement. Focus on the customer, analysis of processes, continuous improvement, breaking of mind-sets, and changing the work culture are common to both TQM and TQS. Unfortunately, so are paying lip-service to long range planning, searching for the omniscient guru or golden bullet, and trying to find examples to clone rather than synergistic solutions drawn from examples, intuition and hard work. Many of the frustrations associated with trying to implement quality improvement have been the result of trying to use a manufacturing concept in a service context. Thinking we must choose between one model of quality improvement over the other is a false dilemma. A real danger lies in trying to fit a TQM or TQS model on the other's turf. For example, employing the TQM's drive for uniformity in situations calling for diversity in meeting customer expectations will probably not work. Worse, attempting to apply the wrong model to a situation feeds the feeling that "this quality stuff won't work," "it's just a fad," and so on. Resistance to change is not only strengthened, but even justified when the results are less than stellar or even detrimental to the enterprise. TQM successes, as applied to manufacturing, are well documented. TQS also has its place and should be considered for use along side TQM. As with any philosophy both models must be evaluated as the "proper tool for the proper time." Knowing a little bit about each may help quality improvement efforts more than being a wizard on only one, while avoiding the trap of implementing a wrong concept. The old saying is, "If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail." [This article was published in _Defense_Electronics _, February, 1993.]