An evaluative framework for TQM dynamics in organisations - CiteSeerX

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

IJOPM 23,6

652

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm

An evaluative framework for TQM dynamics in organisations Denis Leonard University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, and

Rodney McAdam School of Business, Organisation and Management, University of Ulster, Jordanstown, UK Keywords Total quality management, Organizations, Model, Evaluation Abstract Aims is to analyse the dynamics of total quality management (TQM) within organisations by using Leonard’s Grounded Theory evaluative framework for TQM. There are a number of quality models which are used to analyse the effects of TQM on organisations, however all of these models are used mainly in an auditing role. There is a paucity of models, which seek to evaluate the dynamic effects of TQM in organisations. Develops an evaluative framework for the dynamics of TQM in organisations is developed. This was established from Grounded Theory and is used to analysis TQM dynamics within a multiple case analysis consisting of 57 cases. Data were obtained from multiple semi-structured interviews, organisation and archive materials. The results show the complex non-sequential and dynamic effects of TQM present in the cases. Also finds that TQM can have a dynamic role in strategy formulation, in addition to the more tactical role of strategy application and deployment.

International Journal of Operations & Production Management Vol. 23 No. 6, 2003 pp. 652-677 q MCB UP Limited 0144-3577 DOI 10.1108/01443570310476663

Introduction There are a number of models, which are used to analyse the effects of total quality management (TQM) on organisations. Typical examples are the Business Excellence Model (BEM), Baldrige Model and the Deming Model (Dale, 1999). However, all of these models are used mainly in an auditing role, performing an evaluation at a given point in time, similar to traditional accounting practice. There is a paucity of models, which seek to evaluate the dynamic effects of TQM. If models are to address the dynamic issues involved in TQM organisational applications, then some key issues must be addressed. What are the environmental influences and how can changes in this area be evaluated? The literature refers to TQM at strategic, tactical and operational levels. What are the dynamics within and across these levels? Is there a definable pattern of TQM lifecycle dynamics? How can understanding in this area be used to reenergise TQM in organisations? A fuller understanding of the dynamics of TQM in organisations, using suitable models, will enable organisations to evaluate and predict the current and potential business benefits from TQM applications. Also, methods of reenergising and directing TQM efforts will be more specific and accurate.

Furthermore, there is a paucity of research literature in this area. Thus, appropriate research studies will add to the body of knowledge. The aim of this study is to analyse the dynamics of TQM within a group of case study organisations by using Leonard’s (2000) Grounded Theory evaluative framework for TQM. First, there is a brief critique of TQM evaluative models and frameworks. Second, the current evaluate framework and its derivation is described. Third, the research methodology based on multiple case analysis is covered. Finally, the analysis and conclusions are presented. TQM evaluative models and frameworks The BEM and the other three major evaluative TQM award models (the Baldrige, Deming and Australian) are each based on a perceived definition and model of TQM. These models are applied by using self-assessment-based evaluative frameworks. The models do not exclusively focus on product or service quality, as in the case of ISO, but consider a wide range of organisational activities. The models are very similar in scoring procedures; the main differences are in the method of evaluation (Ghobadian and Woo, 1996, p. 11). These models are used extensively throughout the world by leading companies and thus can be used for international benchmarking comparisons (Hendricks and Singhal, 1999). They have also helped to develop TQM in defining tangible and intangible benefits and conceptualising TQM in a graphical manner (Tai and Przasnyski, 1999). Garvin (1991, p. 80) considered that the Baldrige Award was the “most important catalyst for transforming American Business” and that it “more than any other initiative has reshaped management’s thinking and behaviour”. Juran (1994, p. 48), one of the “quality gurus” is also a supporter of the quality models and has discussed the rewards of the Baldrige Award. More currently Kaye and Dyason (1999) and Savolainen (2000) support these views. However, opinion on the models among the gurus and current literature is divided. In Deming’s final interview when discussing the Baldrige Model and companies striving for the award he was asked if the award process equated to a mission to improve quality. His response was: no, nothing could be worse. The evil effect of the Baldrige guidelines on American business can never be measured (Deming in Stevens (1994, p. 21)).

Crosby (in Simms, 1991, p. 127) stated that: the Baldrige criteria have trivialised the quality crusade, perhaps beyond help. One day this do-it-yourself kit may be recognised as the cause of a permanent decline in product and service quality management.

Furthermore, McAdam and O’Neill (1999) and Bester (2000) question the dominance of the BEM and other quality models in TQM efforts. Gallear et al.

An evaluative framework for TQM dynamics 653

IJOPM 23,6

654

(2000) and Orr (1999) explore a number of questions. One such question is: can the BEM be used at corporate strategic level in the manner that the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM, 2001) itself proposed it to be and assume it to be? With regard to using quality models as the basis of a business or as a strategic model Garvin (1991) points out (referring to the Baldrige Model) that it clearly omits marketing, organisational design and crucially strategic positioning. This view has also been expressed regarding the BEM. The: EQA’s [BEM] model has its shortcomings. One may argue that key determinants of success (for example, innovation, strategic positioning, marketing penchant and R&D) are missing from the model. Despite possible flaws the model is useful. This is because it provides organisations with: an implementable total quality management model (Ghobadian and Woo, 1996, p. 16).

Neither the BEM nor any of the other quality award models are generic business models or corporate strategic blueprints for success. To put it simply they are in “no way a complete award for corporate excellence” (Garvin, 1991, p. 84). A sentiment echoed by Simms et al. (1991, p. 129). Another undermining issue of the BEM’ s role as a model for business or organisational excellence and a model for corporate strategy would be the fact that the BEM is updated every two years and so it is essentially one to two years out of date when used. The new BEM was launched in 2000. Thus any application of the model is at best a snapshot with no dynamic analysis with regard to the future. The BEM criteria, concerned with policy and strategy, does not focus on how effective is the corporate strategy or how dynamic is the strategy planning, rather it considers how aspects of TQM have been incorporated in the strategic processes. The operational-strategic divide is one of the primary characteristics that define the understanding, interpretation and application of the BEM in organisational practice: The pursuit of operational effectiveness is seductive because it is concrete and actionable. Caught up in the race for operational effectiveness, many managers simply do not understand the need to have a strategy (Porter, 1996, p. 75).

This corresponds with the results of a study by Zairi et al. (1994, p. 43) that stated that: TQM merely offers companies the opportunity to carry out improvements and focuses on getting closer to customers. It is only a license to practice. Companies must still have the right strategies.

A further reflection of the “strategic-operational divide” can be seen in the conclusions of a European survey on self-assessment in 1994: What appears to be happening with many business units in the large companies is that the CEO dictates that self-assessment will happen. This then forces business unit management to learn about self-assessment and implement (Van der Wiele et al., 1995, p. 17).

TQM should provide an active environmental sensor for the gathering of environmental data to provide fast, dynamic strategic positioning and highlighting emergent strategies. However, it is more often passive and rather than managers having been aware of new market forces and emergent strategies, they are simply reacting to the situation:

An evaluative framework for TQM dynamics

Managers are constantly tempted to take incremental steps that surpass those limits but blur a company’s strategic position (Porter, 1996, p. 75).

655

If this operational stance is taken and TQM is not used strategically, then emergent strategies are not discovered and cannot be speedily used to advantage. Rather, strategies are reacted to in a passive stance due to, as Porter (1996) termed it, a pressure or market saturation that eventually meant that it could not be ignored. If the BEM does not provide a dynamic corporate impetus or fulfil an environmental sensor it is not a corporate strategic framework nor can it predict the future. If the BEM is not used at strategic level, if it is not seen as useful at strategic level then the organisation will not be active in terms of dynamic strategic thinking and taking that information back up to strategic level and using it. The problem with the BEM is “managers do all of that”, where does it actually help to map out strategy? An organisation will be able to observe what it has achieved annually in comparison to the previous year but the BEM cannot help in terms of looking into the future and creating visions. This process is the true essence of corporate strategy and strategic thinking. Strategic thinking is about synthesising learning, intuition and creativity into “a vision of the direction that the business should pursue” (Mintzberg, 1994, p. 104). In summary, the BEM and other similar quality models have beneficial applications in organisations. However, they do not adequately address the dynamic issues present within TQM applications in organisations. Furthermore, these dynamic issues, as manifest in strategic and operational applications of TQM, are not represented by models that primarily address operations and the implementation of strategy, as opposed to the formulation of strategy. The current evaluative framework In an attempt to move beyond the auditing role of TQM evaluative models, such as BEM, Baldrige and Deming, Leonard (2000) carried out Grounded Theory research based on multiple longitudinal case studies. The objective was a theory building exercise to establish the dynamics of TQM development within organisations, as opposed to a static audit at a given point in time. The Grounded Theory research and analysis (Leonard and McAdam, 2001) resulted in a number of key issues being uncovered which explain and relate the various strategic applications and dynamics of TQM. These are summarised by a five-model framework developed during the analysis:

IJOPM 23,6

656

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

the key points of TQM application; the strategic drivers; TQM profiles; the TQM environment; the TQM lifecycle.

These models provide a rich and complex representation of TQM. The models are inter-related as they were developed through a natural progression of analysis using a grounded approach (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). These models represent the “real world” models of what the quality managers and CEOs use in practice: Each manager’s unique knowledge about the world ultimately gets filtered into their rhetoric and actions; it is incorporated into everything she says and does in the organisation . . . these models . . . make sense of their environment by constructing meanings to which they attend, and these constructions in turn guide action (Eccles and Nohria, 1992, p. 174).

The models created from this research provide what Eccles and Nohria (1992) considered to be what managers need. Namely, simple but robust concepts, models, frameworks, diagrams, words and stories that reflect practice, represent their world and experiences in their language and provide knowledge that can be applied to their circumstances to create action. When each of the models is used interactively and recursively, their inter-relationship provides a full multi-faceted picture of TQM. Each model in its own right helps to articulate the dynamics of TQM. By viewing and considering each of the models together a more explanatory picture of TQM dynamics and its relationship with corporate strategy is provided. The five models derived from the grounded analysis (Leonard, 2000; Leonard and McAdam, 2001) are shown in the evaluative framework in Figure 1. The framework is called the “strategic dynamics of TQM framework”. This framework provides an overview of TQM dynamics in regard to quality awards, corporate strategy and the wider business environment, down to the detailed considerations of the selection of quality tools and techniques and the measurement of improvement activities. A brief description of each model is given as follows: Key points of TQM application model This model (Figure 2) shows where organisations have first introduced TQM and resulting implications. The key points of entry are at customer focus, strategic formulation, catalyst (strategy deployment) or operational levels. The key point of TQM application is determined having taken into consideration the corporate strategic process and assessing the strategic importance and role of TQM. TQM will then fall into one of four roles associated with the above four points of entry. As a

An evaluative framework for TQM dynamics 657

Figure 1. The strategic dynamics of TQM framework

Figure 2. The points of TQM application model

IJOPM 23,6

658

Figure 3. The TQM strategic drivers model

method of improving operational effectiveness through the provision of tools and techniques, as a catalyst for change, or in leading the formation and characteristics of the corporate strategy by focusing on the customer. The tactical role of TQM is in the translation of the corporate goals into achievable action plans. Strategic drivers model The strategic drivers model (Figure 3) shows the current positioning and drivers of TQM within the organisation. At the strategic level the strategic drivers are the predominant factors that motivate and influence corporate decision making. They could be profits, shareholder satisfaction or market dominance for example. These ultimately influence the strategic decision-making process and operation of the organisation at all levels. Furthermore, these need to be identified and their influence understood with regard to strategic functioning and TQM decision making. The tactical role includes the strategic-operational split (Figure 3) that may exist in translating strategy and the appreciation of the degree to which TQM dictates or influences the corporate strategy. For example, the degree to which vision and philosophy dictate the practice of day-to-day operations and decision making or influence in creating strategic intent. The TQM profile quickly reflects the degree to which each of these levels is given precedence. This can provide a realisation of the application of TQM and can prompt a revaluation by senior management. Therefore, there are direct associations

relating to the key points of TQM application and the issues it highlights. The operational level drivers are based mainly on improving operational and functional efficiency. By comparing an analysis of Figure 1 and Figure 2 the projected dynamics and direction of TQM can be predicted. TQM profiles model This model (Figure 4) is composed of four distinct profiles or scenarios: (1) In this scenario TQM is not considered a strategic issue, is delegated to middle management at the tactical level and has its greatest application and impact at the operational level. (2) In this case senior managers are aware of TQM’s strategic impact potential and have yet to have it fully implemented. (3) Here senior management and staff are committed to TQM and have benefited from its impact but difficulties at the tactical level exist due to communication problems and middle management’s negative reaction to change. (4) Represents motivated middle management hampered in their efforts to create impacts from TQM by non committed senior managers, which ultimately limits operational and strategic impacts.

An evaluative framework for TQM dynamics 659

This model (Figure 4) developed naturally during the grounded progress of the interviewing stage, it was verified during the analysis of the transcripts and so each aspect of it was discussed in detail above with regard to the strategic impact and application of TQM (Leonard, 2000). It also parallels the key issues and themes developed in the “point of TQM Application model’ in which the managers provided the graphical representation of the positioning of TQM. This model also runs from strategic through to operational and covers the issues of TQM as a catalyst, the issue of TQM’s position in strategic objective forming and formulation and as an operational tool. In this case the “tactical” role can be clearly seen, consistent with that of Bergstrom (1995). The model

Figure 4. The TQM profiles model

IJOPM 23,6

660

Figure 5. The TQM environment model

analysis gives a deeper insight into managerial roles, influences and problems and issues in the dynamics of TQM within the organisation. TQM environment model The TQM environment model (Figure 5) shows four key issues involved in relating TQM to an organisational setting. First, the founding principles need to be reflected on. These relate directly to the philosophical issues underpinning TQM approaches and the organisational culture to be engendered. Essentially, the key principles an organisation will use to base strategic decisions, such as employee welfare or customer loyalty. Second, each organisation needs to consider what its corporate strategy is, its aims and objectives; its strategic intent. Senior managers need to be clear in regard to what they want the organisation to achieve, based on the corporate mission and philosophy. For example, is the ultimate aim increased profit or is there a willingness to temper this aim to take into consideration the job security of employees or the price of the end product or service to the customer. These key strategic drivers need to be established. If such an awareness of the elements of the TQM environment and the true intent of the organisation are not clearly established and used to determine the appropriate mix of TQM, then the true aim of the organisation will be obscure. Third, when the founding issues have been considered and reconciled, the tools and techniques of TQM can be reviewed and selected. These are problem-solving tools, ISO 9000 and any appropriate techniques that will create continuous improvement as part of an overall strategy. Fourth, TQM philosophy will in every case be different,

resulting from the nature of the industry, the company culture and its immediate, medium and long-term goals the adopting of quality tools and techniques, and the views of senior management towards award models. TQM lifecycle model There is a need for strategic thinking in regard to what is best for the organisation, what TQM can offer and the unique pattern of TQM, which will be adopted in any given organisation. This non-sequential nature of TQM also needs to be appreciated in order to understand that one tool or technique will not necessarily lead sequentially to another. As the TQM lifecycle (Figure 6) shows, a number of tools and techniques or initiatives will always be operating in different stages of achievement or maturity. Each of these will have its own lifecycle, that is its own start and projected completion or achievement date or goal that is a direct consequence of the strategic goals of the organisation. The need for the regeneration (updating and continuing) or the ending of these initiatives or techniques is directly and constantly related to the degree to which the corporate strategy is being attained and the degree to which the tools or philosophies are influencing the formation of these strategies. Once this dynamic non-sequential nature of TQM is understood and used in tandem with the understanding of the TQM environment, then the strategic structure of TQM will begin to form. This insight will allow the nature of TQM to be understood, the ideal form of TQM to be chosen for an organisational context and the position and degree of success of the various tools and techniques mapped and positioned.

An evaluative framework for TQM dynamics 661

Figure 6. The TQM lifecycle

IJOPM 23,6

662

Framework summary When these five models are considered interactively and recursively the strategic dynamics of TQM can be represented and considered. The viewing of all of the models together allows the impacts and consequences of one decision on another to be more obvious. Not only does this provide means by which the introduction of TQM can be considered graphically and strategically, but also TQM can be plotted in a longitudinal manner, providing a picture of its progress and development. This also provides a mechanism, which can create discussion and provide a clarity of understanding of where TQM fits. This approach not only within the wider business and theoretical environments where TQM’s meaning, influence and definition are of importance, but also in regard to its profile within the organisational environment. The models are not prescriptive rather they show characteristics and behaviours displayed by organisations while using TQM. The models also provide an accurate picture of the dynamics of TQM as reflected by the practitioner, they provide a means of visualising and understanding TQM using the language of the practitioner (Buckley and Chapman, 1997). They emphasise the need for a strategic understanding of TQM and its dynamics and the need for a strategic thinking approach to its management and impact. It is this characteristic of the models that allow them to be used to reflect upon the potential impact of changes before their introduction, and how they could be achieved, implemented and then recorded on the models. The strategic dynamics of TQM can then be used to aid the understanding of how changes and manipulations of TQM and strategy can be made to the ultimate advantage. Research methodology The research method chosen was that of explanatory multiple case studies (Eisenhardt, 1989). In this approach “how” and “why” questions in relation to the evaluative framework, as applied to multiple cases are covered. This approach enables theoretical constructs of the evaluative framework (established from Grounded Theory – theory building) to be rigorously tested as a suitable means for analysing TQM in organisations. This approach enables deep rich data to be obtained by using multiple case replication (Larson and Sinha, 1995) and convergent saturation of case data around key constructs (Yin, 1994). First, 57 (both small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and large) private sector organisations were chosen for the study based on their involvement in TQM over a wide time frame (i.e. years of involvement) and willingness to participate in the study. Yin’s (1994) replication logic was used in a rolling selection of the organisations. Second, the data-gathering exercise included multiple semi-structured interviews (each lasting between two and four hours (see Appendix for interview format)) and organisation and archive material (as

suggested by Easterby-Smyth et al., 1993). The interviewees were the quality directors or those responsible for TQM. Third, the qualitative data were then coded from the transcripts, first by the researchers, then by colleagues not involved in the research as a check (Remenyi et al., 1998; Easterby-Smyth et al., 1993), into the key categories of the models. Case analysis Each of the models within the framework are discussed individually and then collectively with regard to the framework. Key points of TQM application model As already discussed this model is used to show the level at which the organisations initially applied TQM, namely the level at which they considered TQM most suited within their organisations. The findings are summarised in Table I. The majority of the organisations introduced TQM at operational level. The interviews and analysis revealed that the managers responsible for this introduction had been influenced by other organisations and TQM literature. This predominantly operational approach was found to have a twofold effect, first, the effectiveness of TQM was greatly undervalued, second, dynamic progression upwards from operational to strategic is extremely difficult once mindsets of employees and managers have been conditioned. The number of organisations starting with a customer focus approach to TQM exceeded those who started at strategy formulation level. It was found that this customer focus did not result in TQM being used at a strategic level. Rather, it was later mainly used to improve strategy implementation. A small number of the organisations introduced TQM as a catalyst for improving strategy implementation. However, it was found that using TQM exclusively in this role limited its potential as a company-wide initiative. In summary, the model findings show that the dynamics involved in TQM becoming a major strategic influencer in the organisations is limited by initially introducing TQM at an operational level. Strategic drivers model The strategic driver’s model shows where the organisations are currently using TQM. Table II shows that the majority of the organisations are using TQM as an operational level driver. The interviews revealed that much of the TQM activity in these organisations was at a tool and technique level, which was very effective in improving operational efficiency. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 3, TQM at this level was used mainly to drive function based improvement efforts, as distinct from cross-functional business process based activity. Comparing Table I and Table II it is seen that most of the organisations who started TQM

An evaluative framework for TQM dynamics 663

IJOPM 23,6

664

Table I. The key points of TQM application model analysis

Company (nos 1-57) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Customer focus

Key points of TQM application Strategic form Catalyst

Operational

U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U (continued)

Company (nos 1-57) 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 T

Customer focus

Key points of TQM application Strategic form Catalyst

Operational

An evaluative framework for TQM dynamics

U U U U U U U U U U 11

6

U 8

32

at an operational level, remain at this level in terms of driving TQM, despite in some cases many years of TQM application (Table III). These findings confirm the difficulty in having an “upward” dynamic for TQM from a low level starting point. This finding questions the effectiveness of “bottom-up change”. A smaller number of organisations (Table II) used TQM as a strategic driver within the organisation. These organisations were all found to integrate TQM into their mission, vision and strategy formulation processes. A number of these organisations (Tables I and II) had initially started TQM at the strategic formulation level. Thus, the dynamics of driving and developing TQM throughout the organisations appears to be more achievable if commenced from a combined TQM/strategic position. There were two groupings (Table II) that currently applied TQM as a tactical driver. First, those which used TQM in the tactical role of strategy deployment and implementation. Second, those, which combined TQM within strategy formulation and deployment. Taken together the results of Table I and Table II from models 1 and 2, show a clear strategic-operational divide in the dynamics of applying TQM in organisations (Figure 2). This divide is a reflection of organisational praxis (Savolainen, 2000). Those applying TQM must question this divide if TQM is to be used to transform organisations. TQM profiles model The TQM profiles model (Figure 4) analysis helps in showing the level of people involved in TQM within the organisations. The results shown in Table IV show that the profile showing a lack of senior management involvement was the one most readily identified by the interviewees. Comparing Tables I, II and IV shows that in the main these organisations had introduced and continued TQM only at operational and tactical levels. The main involvement was found to be by middle managers and quality and

665

Table I.

IJOPM 23,6

666

Table II. The TQM drivers model analysis

Company (nos 1-57) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Strategic

Level Tactical

Operational U U U U U U U U

U U U U U U U U U U U U U

U U U U U

U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U (continued)

Company (nos 1-57) 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 T

Strategic

Level Tactical

Operational

An evaluative framework for TQM dynamics

U U U U U U

667

U U U 7

13

U U 36

operations managers, with some isolated examples of champions at higher levels. A small number of organisations identified with the lack of operational management profile. In these organisations the lack of TQM deployment was caused by a number of factors. These included allowing the TQM impetus to decline and lack of regeneration effort (Figure 6, Table V) and an overall lack of implementation effort. Those interviewed questioned the resolve of senior management in this respect. Those organisations, which exhibited an “ineffective tactical translation”, were found to be in two categories. First, those whose senior managers found their efforts to translate TQM downwards frustrated by middle management resistance (caused by both ineffective communication and potential loss of power). Thus the dynamic activity with TQM in these organisations reached an impasse. Second, operational managers attempting to raise the profile of TQM were also found to be hindered by middle management resistance and a lack of belief in TQM as a tactical or strategic driver. Some interviewees selected the “middle management isolation” profile as middle managers in these organisations, which supported greater tactical TQM implementation, were seen as being isolated. This isolation was found to come from a number of sources; other cynical middle managers, senior managers who were non-committal and the dichotomy of the strategic-operational divide present in these organisations. The TQM environment model The TQM environment model looks at the philosophy and practice of TQM within an organisation, outlining four key areas of investigation (Figure 5). As shown in Table VI a small number of the cases had exhibited TQM activity consistent with all areas of the model. These organisations were found to have a sound philosophical basis for TQM. Also, TQM was practised at both strategic and operational levels.

Table II.

IJOPM 23,6

668

Table III. Case information

Company (nos 1-57) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

No. of employees 1,000 25,000 200 90 250 145 362 10 8,000 2,000 150 300 100 200 20 500 12 100 510 100 150 150 1,000 6,000 400 500 6,500 1,800 150 850 50 2,000 1,100 80 30 750 78 100 200 100 1000 50 650 60,00 100 600 2,000

ISO/QS 9000

U

U

U U

U U

U U

U

U U

U

Years of TQM 2 3 5 3 2 3 20 10 20 12 5 6 4 13 1 14 2 4 2 10 10 10 5 2 5 15 13 10 4 7 5 10 10 10 20 5 7 3 2 2 3 6 20 30 1 5 5

Sector S M E E M S T S M S S S M M F F F M T M S S M S M M S S S S S S M F S S M M M S S S M M M M M (continued)

Company (nos 1-57) 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 T

No. of employees 3,000 200 2,000 700 500 1,500 100 630 5,500 500

ISO/QS 9000

U U

U U U U 18

Years of TQM

Sector

16 5 5 4 10 3 7 5 20 7

S M M S M M M M M

Notes: S ¼ Service, M ¼ Manufacturing, F ¼ Fishing/forestry, T ¼ Training/consultancy, E ¼ Electronics/computing

Quality models were used (mainly Baldrige with some BEM) in both operational and strategic roles. All of these organisations would be in the “best practice” category (Dale, 1999). Those using the BEM had scores of 650 plus. The large number of organisations using tools and techniques as oppose to the wide quality models is indicative of the inability on the part of many to use TQM as a driver above the operational-strategic divide in the organisations. The TQM environment model (Figure 6) shows four key issues involved in relating TQM to an organisational setting. First the founding principles need to be reflected on. These relate directly to the philosophical issues underpinning TQM approaches and the organisational culture to be engendered. Essentially, these are the key principles an organisation will use to base strategic decisions, such as employee welfare or customer loyalty. The majority of the organisations, which used TQM as a strategic driver, had also addressed the philosophical and cultural issues of TQM (Table VI). The interviews revealed that these organisations had a strong dynamic present. This dynamic involved the continuing questioning, adaptation and reconciliation of the underpinning philosophy of TQM in the organisation and TQM used as a strategic driver. Examples given were people emancipation through TQM being balanced with market growth and reward and recognition being made consistent with strategic cost reduction. The TQM lifecycle model The TQM lifecycle model enables the overall direction of TQM in an organisation to be evaluated. The dynamics and strategy associated with TQM can be evaluated at a program level (Figure 6). By taking a lifecycle approach to TQM both the sequential and non-sequential nature of TQM in organisations can be examined. As expected the results, summarised in Table V, show that all of the organisations have adopted TQM to at least some degree.

An evaluative framework for TQM dynamics 669

Table III.

IJOPM 23,6 Company (nos 1-57)

670

Table IV. The TQM profiles model analysis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Lack of senior involvement

TQM profile Lack of operational Ineffective tactical impact translation

Middle management isolation

U U U U U

U

U

U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U

U U U U U U U U U U

(continued)

TQM profile Company (nos 1-57) 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 T

Lack of senior involvement

Lack of operational impact

Ineffective tactical translation

Middle management isolation

An evaluative framework for TQM dynamics 671

U U U U U U U U U 21

5

U 13

7

The numbers in the “reenergise” row in Table V show the number of main TQM reenergising efforts that have been implemented in these organisations. The maximum number of TQM elements reenergised was four for an organisation. These reenergising efforts were found to include mainly company wide communication of new TQM approaches (where TQM is used in the wide philosophical sense of the word), rebranding and relabelling and communication of market and business imperatives on which TQM can make an impact. There was no direct comparison between the number of reenergising efforts and the length of time involved in TQM. Further investigation showed that the timing of large market changes was more likely to be followed by a TQM reenergising effort. Overall, effective reenergising efforts were found to prolong the overall effectiveness of TQM, however, these efforts did not usually result in a move from operational to strategic impact for those organisations which commenced TQM at an operational level. A comparison of the “maturity” and “regenerate” rows in Table V shows that some of the organisations whose various TQM efforts have reached maturity go on to start new TQM efforts and hence go through a dynamic of regeneration. Regeneration was found to be associated with new and emergent TQM philosophy and applications, e.g. six-sigma, creativity and innovation and knowledge management. Thus, rather than having sequential elements within TQM efforts, these organisations were found to display dynamics associated with different stages of the lifecycle shown in Figure 6. These dynamic effects are not covered in most current quality models. The final row on Table V shows the decline of elements of TQM programmes within some of the organisations. The interviews revealed that

Table IV.

IJOPM 23,6

672

Table V. The TQM lifecycle model analysis

TQM lifecycle Company (nos 1-57) Adoption no. Reenergise no. Maturity no. Regenerate no. Decline no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2

2

2

2 2 2 4 2 2

3 3 2 2

2 2 2 2

2 4

3 2 2

2 4 2 3 2 2 2

3

2 3 2 4 4 3 2

2 4 4 2 3 2

2 2 2

2

2 2

3 2

3

2 2

3 (continued)

TQM lifecycle Company (nos 1-57) Adoption no. Reenergise no. Maturity no. Regenerate no. Decline no. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 T

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2

3 4

3

3

2

An evaluative framework for TQM dynamics 673

2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3

this decline was caused by a number of factors, namely: lack of commitment, replacement by newer and more appropriate TQM approaches and specific organisational requirements caused by market changes. In summary, the TQM lifecycle model shows that TQM in organisations has both sequential and non-sequential elements. It is very dynamic and requires an overall strategic understanding if the current practice and positioning of TQM in an organisation is to be understood. Conclusions The Grounded Theory evaluative framework (Leonard, 2000; Leonard and McAdam, 2001) used in the analysis of TQM in the case study organisations was found to give both a dynamic and strategic view. This perspective is not present in any of the quality award models and frameworks, which adopt a more “auditing”-based approach. By applying each of the five models within the framework a comprehensive picture of the past, present and future state of TQM in organisations is established. The key points of TQM application model revealed that most of the organisations initially started their TQM efforts at an operational level. Those which started at this level subsequently found it difficult to transform their efforts to a tactical or strategic level. Of those who initially started at the strategic and tactical levels, some used TQM to translate or implement strategy. Very few of the organisations initially started TQM at a strategic formulation level. The strategic drivers model (Figure 3), consistent with the previous model (Figure 2) revealed the current drivers for TQM in the organisations. These drivers were mainly operational and based on efficiency improvements. Those using TQM at a tactical level experienced the effect of the strategic-operational divide present in most of the organisations. This divide created difficulties

Table V.

IJOPM 23,6

674

Table VI. The TQM environment model analysis

Company (nos 1-57) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Strategic driver

U U

TQM environment Philosophy/culture Tools and techniques

U U U U

U U U U U U U U U U U U U U

Models

U

U U U

U U

U

U U

U

U U U

U U

U

U U

U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U

U

U

U

U U U

U

(continued)

Company (nos 1-57) 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 T

Strategic driver

TQM environment Philosophy/culture Tools and techniques U U

8

U U 16

Models

U U U U U U U U U U U 56

when attempting to devise strategic drivers for TQM programmes previously rooted in operational activity. The TQM profiles model (Figure 4) enabled the underlying problems in terms of management involvement in the organisations to be evaluated. Middle management was found to operate in two modes. First, as an obstacle and second as an isolated group trying to implement TQM in a tactical role, i.e. using TQM to implement strategy. Lack of operational impact in some organisations was caused by lack of senior management commitment in deploying resources. The lack of senior management commitment in a large number of companies was caused by TQM having initially been portrayed as an operational improvement programme. The approaches used in the TQM efforts were investigated using the TQM environment model (Figure 5). The findings indicated that some “best practice” organisations successfully integrate all aspects of this model. In particular there was a strong dynamic present in terms of integrating the philosphy of TQM and the application of TQM as a strategic driver in a small number of the organisations leading to effective deployment of TQM throughout the organisation. Considerably more organisations were found to use tools and techniques than quality models reflecting the operational emphasis on TQM in most of the organisations. The overall direction of TQM in the organisations was evaluated using the TQM lifecycle model (Figure 6). This model enabled both the overall dynamic and strategic effects of TQM to be evaluated. The results indicated some of the organisations had effectively deployed new TQM elements and methods as other elements of their programmes reached maturity and decline. Also, the effectiveness of some elements of TQM in some of the organisations was successfully prolonged by applying approaches to reenergising. The lifecycle approach as applied to different elements of TQM within an organisation revealed that TQM is both sequential and non-sequential and highly dynamic.

An evaluative framework for TQM dynamics 675

Table VI.

IJOPM 23,6

676

The implications for praxis are that summative and static TQM assessments are obstructing the development of strategic and dynamic development of TQM in organisations. It is at this level that significant gains can be made from TQM. Overall, it can be concluded that the evaluative framework used gives a useful insight into the complexity and dynamics associated with TQM in organisations. Furthermore, the framework enables the strategic tactical and operational roles of TQM to be more fully understood. There is a need for further research to develop TQM dynamics models further in theory and practice.

References Bergstrom, R.Y. (1995), “Measures to shape the future through quality”, Production, Vol. 107 No. 8, pp. 50-2. Bester, Y. (2000), “Analysing the quality strategy for the 2000s”, Proceedings of the ASQC Quality Congress, Milwaukee, USA, pp. 460-466. Buckley, P.J. and Chapman, M. (1997), “The use of native categories in management research”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 283-99. Dale, B. (1999), Managing Quality, Blackwell, London. Easterby-Smyth, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (1993), Management Research: an Introduction, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Eccles, R.G. and Nohria, N. (1992), Beyond the Hype, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Eisenhardt, K. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 532-50. European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) (2001), The Business Excellence Model, EFQM, Brussels. Gallear, D., Ghobadian, A., Liu, J. and Woo, H. (2000), “Quality and business process synergy: key strategies promoting longevity”, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, Vol. 2 No. 7, pp. 983-93. Garvin, D.A. (1991), “How the Baldrige Award really works”, Harvard Business Review, November-December, pp. 80-93. Ghobadian, A. and Woo, H.S. (1996), “Characteristics, benefits and shortcomings of four major quality awards”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 10-14. Hendricks, K.B. and Singhal, V.R. (1999), “Don’t count TQM out evidence shows implementation pays off in a big way”, Quality Progress, April, pp. 35-42. Juran, J. (1994), Juran on the Reward of Awards, European Quality, EQA Edition, p. 48. Kaye, M. and Dyason, D. (1999), “Achieving a competitive focus through self-assessment”, Journal of Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 373-90. Larson, P.D. and Sinha, A. (1995), “The TQM impact: a study of manager’s perception”, Quality Management Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 53-66. Leonard, D. (2000), “The strategic dynamics of TQM”, PhD thesis, University of Ulster. Leonard, D. and McAdam, R. (2001), “Grounded theory methodology and practitioner reflexivity in TQM research”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 180-94.

McAdam, R. and O’Neill, E. (1999), “Taking a critical perspective to the European Business Excellence Model using a balanced scorecard approach: a case study in the service sector”, Journal of Managing Service Quality, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 191-8. Mintzberg, H. (1994), “The fall and rise of strategic planning”, Harvard Business Review, January–February, pp. 107-44. Orr, S. (1999), “The role of quality management in manufacturing strategy: experiences from the Australian wine industry”, Journal of Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 271-9. Porter, M.E. (1996), “What is strategy?”, Harvard Business Review, November-December, pp. 61-78. Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A. and Swartz, E. (1998), Research in Business and Management, Sage, London. Savolainen, T. (2000), “Leadership strategies for gaining business excellence through total quality management: a Finnish case study”, Journal of Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 211-26. Simms, A.C., Bowles, J., Crosby, P.B., Gale, B.T., Garvin, D., Hammond, J., Reimann, C.W., Edwards Deming, W., Crawford-Mason, C., Clausing, D., Galvin, R.W., Kearns-Hockman, K., Pifer, P., Cooper, G.E., Leach, K.E., McKeown, K., Peck, D., Shiba, S., Peterson, D.E., Irwin, B.M., Rocjard, M.E. and d’Arbelogg, A. (1991), “Does the Baldrige Award really work?”, Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 126-47. Stevens, T. (1994), “Dr Deming: management today does not know what its job is”, Industry Week, January, pp. 21-8. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Tai, L.S. and Przasnyski, Z.H. (1999), “Baldrige Award winners beat the S&P 5000”, Quality Progress, April, pp. 45-51. Van der Wiele, T., Dale, B., Williams, R., Kolb, F., Moreno Luzon, D., Schmidt, A. and Wallace, M. (1995), “State-of-the-art study on self-assessment”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 13-17. Yin, R. (1994), Case Study Research, Sage, London. Zairi, M., Letza, S.R. and Oakland, J.S. (1994), “Does TQM impact on bottom-line results?”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 38-43. Appendix. Semi-structured interview format: key areas covered (1) Background organisation knowledge and information. (2) History of change and development. (3) Organisational strategy and operational plans. (4) Development of TQM in the organisations. (5) Summative aspects of TQM. (6) Formative and dynamic aspects of TQM (with rudimentary models in subsequent interviews). (7) Strategic TQM.

An evaluative framework for TQM dynamics 677