Total "Quality" Management

TQM -- Total Quality Management -- is almost past its use-by date. Like a lot of management fads, it has been superseded by today's buzzwords, by today's newly-minted feel-good pay-now-gain-later sure-fire consultant offerings. Or has it?

The concepts of TQM still exist. TQM itself, however, has been updated: by back-to-the Japanese-source-of-all-quality Kaizen, by GE-is-so-big-it-must-be-right Six Sigma, by we-are-a-big-name-consulting-firm Our Methodology... Yet the central concepts of TQM are still there.

And at the heart of TQM -- and of its successors -- is "Quality".

The other day, I was browsing a library book on TQM: Understanding Total Quality Management in a week, by John Macdonald. Not a bad little book. Good for an experienced manager. Like an MBA: teaches you just enough to know when to talk with an expert. The book also reminded me of the source of much confusion, amongst managers who attempt to implement "quality processes".

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

The book gives three possible definitions of quality:

• Fitness for purpose
  
• Conformance to requirements
  
• Delighting the customer by continuously meeting, and improving upon, agreed requirements
  

The problems is, that quality "experts" seem to think that all three definitions are equally applicable. That we can implement "quality" processes that provide "quality" under each of the three definitions. Those experts who do not think at all, believe that each definition of quality is somehow equivalent.

Which all leads to a serious problem: we will be attempting to implement quality processes with contradictory aims.

A quality question

In my first ever "quality" workshop, the instructor gave an example, to explain the meaning of quality:

"Suppose you own a lawnmowing round. You need a new vehicle, to tow your trailer-load of lawnmowing gear, from lawn to lawn. What sort of vehicle do you choose?"

Several of the students settled on an old but well-maintained Range Rover.

"Wrong," said the instructor. "An old ute would be better. It would do the job, at minimum cost. You should not waste money on a Range Rover, even if it is old and cheap..."

Let's consider that idea, in light of the three definitions of quality.

Fitness for purpose

An old ute would be fit for the purpose, if the purpose were wholly and solely to tow a loaded trailer from lawn to lawn. As long as all lawns are beside the road, that none are on the other side of a vacant, sandy block. As long as -- in the days before dual cab -- as long as the lawnmowing is done by no more than two people.

The "fitness for purpose" definition is saying, it may be rubbish, but as long as it can do just this one job, that's fine.

Conformance to requirements

Let's guess that this refers to, Conformance to customer requirements...

Is the "customer" the lawnmowing contractor, the person buying the vehicle? If so, is this person willing to use the ute only for lawnmowing? Or is there some expectation that it will also be used to take the family to the beach, on weekends? Then there are the other possible "customers": the people whose lawns are being mown... Are they happy when a battered old ute rolls up at their front door? Or would they prefer to see a Range Rover... Or do they even care?

The main thrust of this definition of quality is, don't ask us -- ask the customer! That is, Whatever you -- the customer -- say, we will deliver. Does it work? Who cares -- don't blame us -- you asked for it!

Delighting the customer ...

... by continuously meeting, and improving upon, agreed requirements

Under this definition, the Range Rover would be preferred. Preferably a brand new Range Rover. Either a ute or a Range Rover will do the job -- but the Range Rover will delight the customer! Well, it will if it costs the same, and if it fits the entire family plus luggage, and if it looks good on the street while the lawns are being mown...

But this definition is a direct contradiction of each of the first two...

It depends on agreed requirements. No matter whether or not it is "fit for purpose", as long as the customer has defined these requirements. Back to, all care but no responsibility. Though you could try to get a reasonable definition by extending the definition: "... agreed requirements which are fit for purpose."

Does the definition expect that you will conform to requirements? No... you are expected to improve upon requirements. Don't give the customer what they asked for -- give them more! Too bad if they did not want more, we'll give it to them anyway. And they will be delighted, if they know what we say is good for them...

So what is "quality"?

Pick a definition; they are all quite good -- in their own way.

But be absolutely clear that you know which definition of quality you are using. Know what that definition means about quality. In simple terms:

• It's cheap but it will work, or...
  
• You'll get what you ask for, no more, no less, or...
  
• Leave it to us, we know what we're doing
  

Select one definition of quality. Understand that definition. Follow that definition. And use TQM as the basis for processes which support your definition of quality.

TQM can work. But only if you understand what it is that you're trying to do.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com