Barriers Of Tqm k373t

Overcoming the Barriers to TQM’s Success

T A road map of potential hazards along the TQM journey

by Robert J. Masters

HE BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING TOTAL

quality management (TQM) know no limits; they show up in all sectors—manufacturing, services, government, and education. Therefore, it is important for all organizations to understand and avoid these barriers both before and during TQM implementation. An extensive literature review has found 15 distinct barriers to TQM that are common to all types of organizations and within all management levels. This list of barriers is shown in Table 1. The eight that plague organizations most often are discussed here in detail.

Lack of management commitment All types of organizations, including schools, manufacturing companies, health care organizations, and public organizations, experience low employee participation and interest in their TQM programs when management commitment is missing at any level. Missing or even minimal from the chief executive officer and s can hinder TQM’s successful implementation. For example, TQM will not succeed if upper management is only motivated by outside pressures, such as needing to please the board of directors or meet an accrediting agency’s standards. If employees see discrepancies in what management says and what it actually does, they will lose interest and faith in TQM. For successful implementation, the istrative team must have a clearly communicated purpose for adopting TQM, be consistent in its application of TQM principles, and not treat it as the latest management fad.

Inability to change organizational culture Many have found that changing a company’s culture to reflect TQM is difficult and requires a lot of time; W. Edwards Deming has stated that it takes three to five years to fully implement TQM into an organization.1 First, the fear of change must be removed from the organization, poor labor-management relations must be resolved, and the company’s focus must change from the status quo. Unfortunately, in the United States, organizations are impatient and often focus on the quick fix

for obtaining results. For an organization’s culture to change, the effort must be targeted and continuous, s must be committed to it and all change efforts, and TQM principles must be consistently used so they become an integral part of how the organization works. Upper management must identify and deal with inconsistencies in the organization and focus on adhering to the principles of the new organization. Managers must each other. Open, nonthreatening communication is critical as everyone works to implement TQM principles. It is useless for management to sell TQM to the staff and then revert to its old way of doing business.

Improper planning Another barrier is created by a lack of clarity in the implementation plan and the failure to promote open dialogue among the participants. Many implementation problems can be overcome with proper planning. Three components of a successful TQM plan are: • Obtaining companywide commitment • Communicating company vision, mission, and goals • Providing open communication about the company’s new focus The board of directors or other controlling group must be involved from the beginning. A time frame, such as a Gantt chart, should be developed and posted in public areas so that everyone remains focused on TQM. The plan should remain flexible, however, so that adjustments and improvements can be made as the culture evolves.

Lack of continuous training and education Training and education is an ongoing process that facilitates continuous quality improvement in any organization. Leaders involved in the TQM implementation should identify the educational needs of the organization and be creative in meeting those needs efficiently and cost-effectively. Training and education should be both formal and informal. One health care organization, for example, used a leading consulting group to train its vice presidents to be trainers for the rest of the organization. This approach demonstrates manage-

/

Quality Progress May 1996

53

Table 1. The Top 15 Barriers to TQM Implementation The following barriers were most frequently cited in the literature review. References to related works are cited with each barrier; organizations implementing TQM can find more information on these barriers by examining these resources. Barrier

Reference

1. Lack of management commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16 2. Inadequate knowledge or understanding of TQM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11, 12, 15 3. Inability to change organizational culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17 4. Improper planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 5. Lack of continuous training and education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16 6. Inability to build a learning organization that provides for continuous improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6, 10 7. Incompatible organizational structure and isolated individuals and departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3, 7, 9, 11, 17 8. Insufficient resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11, 12, 14, 16 9. Inappropriate reward system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4, 10, 11, 13 10. Use of a prepackaged program or inappropriately adapting TQM to the organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6, 16 11. Ineffective measurement techniques and lack of access to data and results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 14, 15, 16 12. Short-term focus or using a Band-Aid solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4, 5, 14 13. Paying inadequate attention to internal and external customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 17 14. Inappropriate conditions for implementing TQM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7, 17 15. Inadequate use of empowerment and teamwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16 References 1. W. Edwards Deming, Out of the Crisis (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1986). 2. Eugene H. Fram and Robert C. Camp, “Finding and Implementing Best Practices in Higher Education,” Quality Progress, February 1995, pp. 69-73. 3. Paul Froiland, “TQM Invades Business Schools,” Training, July 1993, pp. 52-56. 4. K.N. Gopalakrishnan and Barry E. McIntrye, “Hurdles to Quality Health Care,” Quality Progress, April 1992, pp. 93-95. 5. John A. Goodman, Gary F. Bargatze, and Cynthia Grimm, “The Key Problem With TQM,” Quality Progress, January 1994, pp. 93-95. 6. Robert H. Hayes and Gary P. Pisano, “Beyond World-Class: The New Manufacturing Strategy,” Harvard Business Review, January 1994, pp. 78-81. 7. A.C. Hyde, “Barriers in Implementing Quality Management,” The Public Manager, Spring 1994, pp. 33-37. 8. Robert W. Laza and Perry L. Wheaton, “Recognizing the Pitfalls of Total Quality Management,” Public Utilities Fortnightly, April 12, 1990, pp. 17-20. 9. H. Gary Pehrson, “Give It Time,” Healthcare Forum Journal, July/August 1994, pp. 34-39. 10. James F. Rand, “Learning Comes Before Ownership,” Journal of Quality and Participation, July/August 1994, pp. 64-68. 11. Carol A. Reeves and David A. Bednar, “What Prevents TQM Implementation in Health Care Organizations,” Quality Progress, April 1993, pp. 41-43. 12. Laura Rubach, “Total Quality Forum VI Speakers Focus on Change,” Quality Progress, February 1995, pp. 40-47. 13. David P. Stevens, “Avoiding Failure With Total Quality,” Quality, December 1993, pp. 18-22. 14. L. David Weller and Sylvia A. Hartley, “Why Are Educators Stonewalling TQM?” The TQM Magazine, March 1994, pp. 23-28. 15. Steve Wernick, “Self-Directed Work Teams and Empowerment,” Journal of Quality and Participation, July/August 1994, pp. 34-36. 16. M.J. Whalen and M.A. Rahim, “Common Barriers to Implementation and Development of a TQM Program,” Total Quality Management, March/April 1994, pp. 19-21. 17. Stan Zetie, John Sparrow, Alan Woodfield, and Tom Kilmartin, “The Tyrannical Chef: A Barrier to TQM?” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, January/February 1994, pp. 42-45.

ment’s commitment to TQM and ensures the principles are consistently taught to all employees. The vice presidents also continually learn the principles as they teach them. Informal training could include circulating articles on TQM or displaying information about TQM on company bulletin boards.

Incompatible organizational structure and isolated individuals and departments Autocratic organizational structure and management policies can lead to TQM implementation problems. If organizational structure is a problem, part of the planning process should be restructuring with a defined purpose and explicit expected outcomes. When TQM principles are used, the isolation of individ54

/

Quality Progress May 1996

uals and departments will dissolve over time. Teamwork is an essential part of the TQM environment, and some success has been realized by managers who used TQM principles to resolve some of the most longstanding turf battles that prevailed in their organizations. Tools such as brainstorming, fishbone diagrams, and workflow diagrams can be successful in identifying the discrepancies and misinterpretations that are often the root cause of such feuds.

Ineffective measurement techniques and lack of access to data and results Having no measurement process or ineffective measurement techniques, failing to maintain accurate and reliable data, and

failing to provide sufficient access to data run counter to TQM principles. Data are critical to decision making in a TQM culture. Key quality characteristics should be measured consistently so that reliable, comparative data are produced over time. Data must be credible and reliable, or decision makers will be unable to make appropriate and proper decisions. Quick, easy access to data is important; data retrieval must be efficient, not time consuming or labor intensive. Decision makers must also receive training in data analysis and interpretation so that the measurement system will serve its intended purpose.

Paying inadequate attention to internal and external customers Organizations must pay attention to both their internal and external customers so that they can understand the needs and expectations of both types of customers from both perspectives. Too often, managers assume they know what customers need and expect, which results in misdirected efforts and investments. An astute organization makes a high priority of understanding all customers’ changing needs and expectations.

Inadequate use of empowerment and teamwork Complacency in teams will inhibit TQM progress. Ineffective teams that fail to stay focused or complete their tasks are a big expense to organizations. To be effective, teams need trained facilitators, a mission or purpose, a time frame for completing projects, who represent the functional areas of the process to be improved, and ability. The mission of the team must not be overwhelming; some tasks might need to be broken down into manageable phases so this is not the case. Whenever possible, teams’ recommendations and solutions should be implemented; this sends a powerful, positive message to employees about the importance of empowerment and teamwork.

Avoid TQM barriers by understanding them While these barriers occur to varying degrees and with varying frequency, there is little doubt that they exist in every orga-

nization. Management must understand that they do exist and should not only deal with them in the implementation process but plan for them as well. The list of barriers in Table 1 can be used in the planning or early implementation phases of TQM to increase awareness and understanding of the principles. It can be used by organizations that have been involved in TQM for some time to evaluate progress and to improve existing systems. Awareness of these barriers should be emphasized when training organizations in TQM concepts and methods. If these potential problems are understood and prepared for, plans can be made to counter them. Any organization can benefit from a better understanding and knowledge of TQM.

Reference 1. W. Edwards Deming, Out of the Crisis (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 153. Robert J. Masters is dean of the School of Business at Southeastern Oklahoma State University in Durant. He has a doctorate in higher education istration from Purdue University in West Lafayette, IN. Masters is a member of ASQC.

What did you think about this article? Quality Progress needs your . On the postage-paid reader service card inserted toward the back of this magazine, please circle the number that corresponds with your opinion of the preceding article.

Excellent

Circle #329

Good

Circle #330

Fair

Circle #331

Poor

Circle #332

/

Quality Progress May 1996

55