Quality Management Philosophies

Reading Assignment:

W. Edwards Deming is best known for helping to lead
the Japanese manufacturing sector out of the ruins of World War II to becoming
a major presence in the world market. The highest quality award in Japan,
The Deming Prize, is named in his honor. He is also known for his 14 points
(a new philosophy for competing on the basis of quality), for the Deming
Chain Reaction, and for the Theory of Profound Knowledge.  He also
modified the Shewart cycle (Plan, Do, Check, Act) to what is now referred
to as the Deming Cycle (Plan, Do, Study, Act).  Beginning in the early
1980s he finally came to prominance in the United States and played a major
role in quality becoming a major competitive issue in American industry. 
His book, Out of the Crisis (1986), is considered a quality classic.
Read more about Dr. Deming and his philosophy at the W.
Edwards Deming Institute Home Page.

Joseph Juran also assisted the Japanese in their reconstruction.
Juran first became well known in the quality field in the U.S. as the editor
of the Quality Control Handbook (1951) and later for his paper introducing
the quality trilogy.  While Deming’s approach is revolutionary in
nature (i.e. throw out your old system and “adopt the new philosophy” of
his 14 points), Juran’s approach is more evolutionary (i.e. we can work
to improve your current system).  Deming refers to statistics as being
the language of business while Juran says that money is the language of
business and quality efforts must be communicated to management in their
language.  Read more about Dr. Juran and his philosophy at the Juran
Institute web site.

Phillip Crosby came to national prominence with the publication
of his book, Quality is Free. He established the Absolutes of Quality
Management which includes “the only performance standard (that makes any
sense) is Zero Defects,” and the Basic Elements of Improvement.

Armand Feigenbaum is credited with the creation of the idea of
total quality control in his 1951 book, Quality Control–Principles,
Practice, and Administration and in his 1956 article, “Total Quality
Control.” The Japanese adopted this concept and renamed it Company-Wide
Quality Control, while it has evolved into Total Quality Management (TQM)
in the U.S.

There are other major contributors to the quality field as we know it
today. The list of major contributors would include W. Shewhart, S.
Shingo, G. Taguchi, K. Ishikawa, and D. Garvin among others.

Six Sigma Quality is defined as “a programme aimed at the near-elimination
of defects from every product, process and transaction.”  Developed
at Motorola, Six Sigma quality programs have been adopted at many major
corporations including GE, Dow Chemical, and AlliedSignal.  When used
as a metric, Six Sigma means doing things right > 99.9996% of the time
(3.4 defects per million opportunities).  A process performing at
six sigma is classified by Harry [“Six Sigma:  A Breakthrough Strategy
for Profitability,” Quality progress, v. 31, no. 5 (May 1998), pp.
60-64] as “World Class.”  Harry defines the “Industry Average” as
being at four sigma producing 6,210 defects per million opportunities (<
99.4% good parts).

    Six Sigma is a disciplined approach for improvement
of defined metrics through the application of a process known as MAIC: 
Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control.  Some (e.g. DuPont) add a first
step, Define, to the process so that it becomes DMAIC.  Read
more about the Six Sigma approach to quality at the iSixSigma
web site and the Six Sigma Academy
web site.

    Don Linsenmann, DuPont Corp.’s Six Sigma Champion,
describes Six Sigma as a triangle [McCoy, M., “Six Sigma Gaining as Improvement
Method,” Chemical & Engineering News, v. 77, no. 45 (November
8, 1999), pp. 11-12.].  The triangle’s base is the statistical and
problem-solving tools for analyzing the root causes of defects.  One
side of the triangle is the DMAIC methodology that helps companies use
these tools in individual, sharply focused, defect-reducing projects. 
The third side of the triangle is the management infrasturcture required
to spread the process throughout the company.

    Six Sigma programs are credited with substantial
improvements.  GE claims that Six Sigma saved it $750 million in 1998
and forecasts a $1.5 billion savings in 1999.  Allied Signal reports
savings of more than $500 million in 1998 as a result of its Six Sigma
program [McCoy, 1999].

    Kathleen Bader, Dow Chemical’s Corporate Vice President
for Quality and Business Excellence, is in charge of Dow’s Six Sigma initiative. 
The Dow approach to Six Sigma attempts to “focus on the determinants of
customer satisfaction and drive them back to the businesses they touch.”
[McCoy, 1999].  Dow is starting the process from the top, focusing
on major projects and breakthrough goals, and establishing those goals
in Six Sigma metrics.

    Great Lakes Chemical’s Mark Bulriss cautions that
“change can’t be imposed on a company that’s not ready for it.” [McCoy,
1999].  Critics of Six Sigma suggest that it doesn’t go far enough. 
According to Thomas Pyzdek [“Why Six Sigma is Not Enough,” Quality Digest,
(November 1999), p. 26.] Six Sigma programs focus on nonconformances and
defects which can only result in a “not dissatisfied” customer.  Six
Sigma progams must be adapted (such as the Dow approach) to focus on “critical
to quality (CTQ)” characteristics which can create satisfied customers. 
But Pyzdek claims that customer satisfaction is not enough.  Perfection
in the CTQ will not assure the viability of the firm in the long run. 
He suggests that Six Sigma progams can result in a less creative organization. 
To overcome this possible consequence of Six Sigma he suggests that organizations
should celebrate failure (i.e. value valient innovative efforts that fail),
create quality time (i.e. time for creative activity, not routine work–3M
provides 15% of an employees time for creative activity), reduce procedure
protocols (overcontrol and rigid standardization can inhibit experimentation
and innovation), provide mass education in design of experiments, and utilize
undesigned experiments (while DOE is the method of choice, much can be
learned from ad hoc changes to processes).