Q: TQM application has its limitations. Do you agree with this statement? Justify your answer giving examples.
Ans. There is an increasing awareness that knowledge is becoming the key factor in improving productivity and creating growth. "Knowledge now has become the real capital of a developed economy". This shift may place new demands on how organisations should be designed and controlled. Total Quality Management (TQM) in various forms has for decades proved successful in improving productivity; continuous improvement and learning being essential tools.
There are a number of definitions of quality:
Philip Crosby: Quality is conformance to requirements.
Joseph M. Juran: Quality is fitness for use.
Interestingly W. Edwards Deming does not define quality, except indirectly on statements such as: "It will not suffice to have a customer that is merely satisfied".
The groundwork for TQM was done by American consultants assisting in the rebuilding of Japan
Problem solving teams, Training as a change effort, Top-down implementation, Development of relations with suppliers, Collecting customer information.
Does TQM work?
The rationalists are often accused of proposing an idealist vision which over-emphasizes processes to the detriment of results. Rationalist approaches are also criticized for confusing ends and means, allowing managers to hide behind an anticipated long-term performance improvement so as to avoid having to explain difficulties encountered and the absence of tangible results.
Moreover, data concerning alleged TQM failure rates and the description of particular cases have given rise to a new debate: did the companies which experienced failure really adopt a TQM approach? According to some observers, businesses which met with success were those which had adopted a "true" TQM approach, while those who experienced failure had either not adopted TQM or had poorly implemented it.
The failures of TQM (and the disillusionment of the workforce) are often attributed to a lack of top management commitment, a lack of rigor during implementation (which leads to a failure to develop a quality-oriented culture), or a lack of understanding of the "real" nature of TQM.
Is TQM scientifically sound?
Generally speaking, the rationalists criticize TQM advocates because of the purely prescriptive nature of the approaches they propose, their lack of nuance with respect to difficulties in the implementation of change, and the absence of any reference to management theory.
TQM, generally associated with an organic management model, could in some way be brought closer to the mechanistic model and the cultural model. The TQM literature has been criticized for its failure to take into account the presence of different interest groups within the organization, social issues, and the problem of industrial relations.
The critiques above raise the issue of the universality of TQM's concepts. The total quality discourse typically suggests, or explicitly claims, that the implementation of TQM is both desirable and feasible in any and all public or private services or industrial organizations.
Does TQM lie?
First, while TQM rhetoric advocates autonomy and worker empowerment, the fact is that its implementation is generally accompanied by an increase in control.
Second, TQM is supposed to be a collective effort in pursuit of a common cause. Yet the concept of an internal customer on which it is often based inherently conveys the other side of any market relations: exploitation based on power.
Finally, TQM promotes worker participation, their personal involvement in the organization's success, and the possibility of improving their working conditions and their chances for advancement by initiating a true "meritocracy".
However, critics believe that TQM implementation is often undertaken within the framework of massive streamlining, accompanied by a flattening of hierarchical structures, which reduce chances for advancement.
In the 1980s, however, TQM became a "product" to be sold, borne by the popularity of the concepts of competitiveness and excellence. In order for TQM to be even more attractive to the company heads for whom it was intended, market share and profitability were emphasized.
Limitations of TQM
Both middle managers and elected officials may resist the total quality management culture change because it devolves supervisory and decision-making power to TQM teams and committees. While middle managers and elected officials are formally involved in several levels of the TQM program, they are absent from the executive committees, and have understandably been more resistant to the process. Middle managers may also fear for their jobs.
Another limitation of total quality management as a tool for restructuring is its internal focus. The difficulty in identifying the "customer" for public sector goods and services and the focus on internal work processes make it hard to truly involve citizens in these TQM efforts. Companies seek to identify external customer needs with surveys and include elected representatives on committees, but they don’t include citizens on committees.
Firms seem to focus more attention on internal customers, (through surveys and participation in labor-management committees), in the belief that process improvements will result in product and service improvements. This is not an unreasonable assumption, though it can be difficult to document. Customer satisfaction surveys in various industries indicate external customers are generally satisfied with service improvements generated by total quality management programs.
The substantial cost of total quality management training and implementation as well as the time required to reap benefits are also limitations of total quality management as a tool for local government restructuring.
Finally, because total quality management focuses primarily on internal work processes, policy about external factors is outside its purview. The inability to address broader policy issues may limit the ultimate impact of investments in total quality management.
Conclusion
With its focus on continuous improvement, management by fact, training and education, appreciation of the organisational members’ motivation and learning style, TQM is as facilitating for exploitative learning as an organisational philosophy can possibly get.
However, questions can be raised concerning TQM's innovative capability. Its machine bureaucracy configuration, continually improving the processes already mastered well by reducing variation, may hinder innovation.
Employee involvement in improving work-processes may be two-edged: It has proven to give productive results, not least because of the enthusiastic implementation support the changes are likely to get from the involved employees. But what happens if there is a drastic change in the environment (new technology, substitute product arriving on the marketplace, dramatic increase in prices of purchased goods)? The very feeling of process ownership by the employees may obstruct a radical redesign of processes. Also, the TQM focus on employee satisfaction may be counterproductive; hindering the identification of fundamental problems and their solutions.
One might wonder whether in trying to achieve "total" quality, "plain" quality is neglected. "Plain" quality refers to the simple quality of the product or service which corresponds to the legitimate expectations of the purchaser and should fulfill the producer's promises.
TQM became the symbol of sound management, as illustrated by the following: "total quality is simply, and somewhat astonishingly, not really about quality at all! . . . [It's about improved organizational Performance]"
No comments:
Post a Comment