| |
| |
|
Difference between TQM and Quality Management |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
If you have any questions about our Quality Matrix, or wish to make any comments, please feel free to send a message to us at quality@artige.com. |
| |
| |
| |
| Overview |
|
This analysis is just one of many comparisons that are offered as part of the Artige Quality Matrix, which can be seen here in its original form. The definitions that are used in these comparisons are the ones that we at the Artige Company use internally and with our clients, derived from the research that we perform as a matter of due course. These definitions are derived from natural laws of physics and statistics, in order to screen our work from the effects of the business press. The original article where these terms are discussed appears here. In other words, we like to think that this work will withstand the scourges of time and not be categorized as "management du jour". |
| |
| |
| TQM |
|
Definition |
| |
| |
|
This is the foundation of the quality methodologies, as conceived by Deming. However, Deming never wanted to codify quality-oriented practices under a theory. He was more interested in the practice end of things. So that left a vacuum that others have rushed in to fill. This means that there is no true body of TQM theory that will increase the quality of products delivered. Instead, Deming left us with his "14 Points of Management", a toolkit that lists all of the concepts that have to do with quality one must be aware of when designing processes. A description of what a quality organization is, not how to accomplish quality. |
| |
| |
|
Strange though that at face value those fourteen points left by the quality practitioner seem to be more philosophy than a framework or methodology in which one can design a quality business process. Each one of those points can give rise to a framework and practice in themselves, and there is no fixed manner in which those frameworks can be expressed. So it seems that TQM is readily left open to the reader's interpretation. |
| |
| |
|
TQM includes both an empirical component associated with statistics, and an explanatory component that is associated with management, of both people and processes. The terms "hard" and "soft" are commonly used to represent these two components. TQM brought recognition to the fact that tasks can be categorized as value adding or not. The obvious corollary is that non-value adding tasks would be eliminated and the value adding ones improved. Many process design and operation tools have been highlighted in TQM, such as statistical process control, Kanban, and flexible organization, just to name the tip of the iceberg. |
| |
| |
|
Note that at the Artige Company, we have mapped TQM back into the natural laws, of physics, general systems theory, thermodynamics and statistics, in order to provide a reference point to work from. This gives us the theoretical backing that Deming declined to document. So while Deming may have provided businesses with a 14-point philosophy in which processes can be designed, we are now able to approach business process design exercises with a firm determination as to what is feasible. |
| |
| |
| Quality Management |
|
Definition |
| |
| |
|
We like to use this category as a catch-all for the quality methods that are not founded by obvious cause and effect methods. That is, those methods that are driven more by personalities than particulars. We also like to lump in the traditional quality control methods, as it can be shown that the quality management practices are a result of the original "measure and reject" philosophy of quality control. |
| |
| |
|
Quality management is based upon heuristic and ad hoc methods, based on previous experience. Note that there is nothing wrong with that, and it can be deployed very successfully. It is just that certain individuals like a predictable and deterministic methodology, and an ad hoc method does not fit such a constraint. The quality management methodology has its roots in traditional quality control in production, where conformance to requirements is the major point of interest. |
| |
| |
|
We use a waterfall method to explain where quality management comes from, which is based upon quality control and quality assurance. This is described by the three definitions below: |
| |
| QC |
|
The main task that the quality control methodology sets out to accomplish is to insure that only good items were acceptable for further production, and bad parts were rejected. To have the concept of good and bad parts means that standards of some type must be in place, so comparisons can be made. The fact that good and bad parts could exist was not the main concern (and is still not) of quality control. Any activity that is related to measuring product parameters against criteria and passing judgment on whether the product can be used or sold based on meeting the criteria is considered a quality control task. This covers final goods, intermediate work-in-progress or services being delivered. |
| |
| QA |
|
Obviously, a regime of rejection will only get a business so far, and could result in an unprofitable situation if most parts are rejected. So the obvious step to take is to prevent the rejections, which is typically done by assessing the processes that are causing the rejects in the first place. This method is called quality assurance. This practice considers all aspects of production, insuring that raw materials are fit for consumption, equipment is operating as desired, as well as maintained properly, and that all the constraints from customers have been collected, documented and integrated back into the constraints used for production. So, activities related to preventing rejected parts or services would be considered part of a quality assurance practice. |
| |
| QM |
|
The next obvious step for the enterprise that is able to prevent rejections is to tighten the constraints, which should result in better financial performance, owing to the fact that fewer resources are being used, with a resulting drop in costs. This is considered quality improvement, and the practice that handles this would be considered quality management. Whereas the two previous practices of quality control and quality assurance have a cause and effect relationship, the prediction and improvement of defects enters an area that is not amenable to a cause and affect analysis. No one set of rules exists that one can deploy to improve a process. |
| |
| |
|
This category of process design is extremely interesting, in that it is the reason why there are so many other methodologies to handle the process design and quality needs of an enterprise. We cannot emphasize more clearly, "no one set of rules exists that one can deploy to improve a process". All of the methodologies listed in this report are an attempt to overcome this shortcoming. Since there is no cause and effect relationship that can point one in the one and only direction to improve their processes, all of these other processes are acceptable, and can never be proven invalid or unsound in every case. All that one can do is determine which of these processes fits one's way of operating and still be able to meet the criteria set by the customer. |
| |
| |
|
Since this is the methodology that brings up the point that there is no cause-and-effect method to improve processes, we like to use quality management as the moniker to point to the ad hoc and people-oriented methods. That is because as the quality improvement concept advanced, this method would be the first that recognized human intervention was needed to improve process outcome. Most of these process improvement ideas came about in an ad hoc manner, just from trial-and-error and previous experience. Since previous experience is such a great factor in promoting prevention and improvement, the practitioners of quality management will always be focused upon people-oriented methods that pull out best practices from the experienced workers. |
| |
| |
|
Quality management is also where that concept of announcing the company financials to production workers came about in a big way. The idea here is that education and knowledge of the workforce is important, in order for them to understand where their paycheck comes from, and that they have an input in the processes that allow them to maintain their cash flow. This focus on financial measures then proves to the organization membership that ignoring quality holds a price for non-conformance. |
| |
| |
|
Note that the workforce education component is a tricky area. There are two facets to this factor. On one hand one could just announce the data and expect that the workforce will consume the data to everyone's advantage. This also allows certain executives to claim they are open and honest with their workforce. There is another step that is probably necessary. One will need to explain, and even tutor, what the meaning is behind the raw data. In other words, how will the workforce gain knowledge from the financial data? The first option to just announce the data opens the door for misunderstanding and mistrust, which is why the second option is preferred. |
| |
| |
|
All of the above tasks would be categorized as incremental in terms of implementing change. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| The Difference |
|
The Differences and / or Similarities |
| |
| |
|
At first glance, one would think that TQM and Quality Management do not have much in common, other than the fact that they both deal with the topic of quality. One is a philosophy of what makes up a quality organization, and the other is a methodology that one could be applied to encourage improvements to existing processes. As is typical for comparisons to TQM, this instance ends up being a parent-child situation. For those looking solely at the terms being compared, recall that these terms were selected in our BPDA article, and is only happenstance that they share similar names. For whatever reason, two different business process design methodologies are in existence with similar names. |
| |
| |
|
TQM, through its 14 Points, provides guidance that an organization can reference when designing their processes and operations. Quality Management could be deployed as one of those reference points. Specifically, Deming's first point "Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service..." is what the third phase of Quality Management is all about. In addition, Deming's fifth point "Improve constantly and forever ..." applies as well. So this would make Quality Management a subset of TQM, and not a peer concept for comparative purposes. |
| |
| |
|
What is interesting when considering both TQM and Quality Management, as that they both share some of the vagueness that comes with a set of principles instead of a step-by-step program. Note that in the Quality Management methodology the outcome will be an indirect result of deploying the management processes. With its ad hoc basis, there is nothing to mandate what level of quality is expected or desired. |
Legal