Adapting TQM to Government
Other factors would also make adapting TQM to the public sector difficult. First, there was the argument that TQM was mostly used by manufacturing organizations. Critics were quick to point out that Japanese government agencies didn't use TQM.
Questions were also raised about who were government's "customers"-citizens, interest groups, members of Congress or other stakeholders? Government had to serve too many competing groups to be truly customer-focused, or so the argument went.
Despite such roadblocks, TQM began to make considerable inroads into government in the late 1980s. The Reagan administration created a Federal Quality Institute and a quality award for agencies--the President's Quality Award--using a modified version of the Baldrige Award criteria.
But partly because of the less-than-enthusiastic agency response to President Reagan's productivity improvement initiative, there would be no executive order requiring the adoption of TQM. Quality would be accomplished by example and promoted by success stories.
Many of those examples would come from the Defense Department, which saw TQM in much the same light as did its contractors--as a valuable management philosophy and a set of quantitative tools and techniques that should be widely disseminated.
DOD committed the resources and internal expertise in the late 1980s to provide management directives and guidance, self-assessment processes and training materials to DOD organizations wanting to start down the TQM path.
NASA did much the same, focusing on creating a high-profile management commitment to quality that encouraged contractors to be certified practitioners of TQM.
Quality circle programs have three objectives: task improvement leading to a better work process or product, employee development based on training, and team-building through participative problem-solving. The underlying assumption of QCs is that those directly involved in work have untapped potential to improve existing procedures (Blair and Whitehead, 1984: 20). (6)
The distinctive features of QCs include how employees are involved and the objective of that participation. Further, their uniqueness stems from the involvement of human as well as physical resources, including a willingness to train rank and file employees and then to delegate power to them. Joseph M. Juran (1967: 21), one of the reputed American fathers of Japanese management, believes that quality circles are sufficiently different from other programs to be regarded as a new organizational form.
U.S. management, however, cannot expect to simply introduce QCs into any organization and expect them to succeed. Instead they should be integrated into the organization, not merely added on to it. In Japan, they evolved over the period of many years and were nurtured by small group traditions, cooperative labor-management relations, strong management authority, lifetime employment, and economic growth. It follows that Americans may need to adapt their management practices to accommodate quality circles.
There are at least three problem areas - which stem from the very popularity of QCs - likely to be encountered in this process: program fads, organizational philosophy, and labor relations. A diagnosis of these problems can assist in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of quality circles in Florida and elsewhere.
Other factors would also make adapting TQM to the public sector difficult. First, there was the argument that TQM was mostly used by manufacturing organizations. Critics were quick to point out that Japanese government agencies didn't use TQM.
Questions were also raised about who were government's "customers"-citizens, interest groups, members of Congress or other stakeholders? Government had to serve too many competing groups to be truly customer-focused, or so the argument went.
Despite such roadblocks, TQM began to make considerable inroads into government in the late 1980s. The Reagan administration created a Federal Quality Institute and a quality award for agencies--the President's Quality Award--using a modified version of the Baldrige Award criteria.
But partly because of the less-than-enthusiastic agency response to President Reagan's productivity improvement initiative, there would be no executive order requiring the adoption of TQM. Quality would be accomplished by example and promoted by success stories.
Many of those examples would come from the Defense Department, which saw TQM in much the same light as did its contractors--as a valuable management philosophy and a set of quantitative tools and techniques that should be widely disseminated.
DOD committed the resources and internal expertise in the late 1980s to provide management directives and guidance, self-assessment processes and training materials to DOD organizations wanting to start down the TQM path.
NASA did much the same, focusing on creating a high-profile management commitment to quality that encouraged contractors to be certified practitioners of TQM.
Quality circle programs have three objectives: task improvement leading to a better work process or product, employee development based on training, and team-building through participative problem-solving. The underlying assumption of QCs is that those directly involved in work have untapped potential to improve existing procedures (Blair and Whitehead, 1984: 20). (6)
The distinctive features of QCs include how employees are involved and the objective of that participation. Further, their uniqueness stems from the involvement of human as well as physical resources, including a willingness to train rank and file employees and then to delegate power to them. Joseph M. Juran (1967: 21), one of the reputed American fathers of Japanese management, believes that quality circles are sufficiently different from other programs to be regarded as a new organizational form.
U.S. management, however, cannot expect to simply introduce QCs into any organization and expect them to succeed. Instead they should be integrated into the organization, not merely added on to it. In Japan, they evolved over the period of many years and were nurtured by small group traditions, cooperative labor-management relations, strong management authority, lifetime employment, and economic growth. It follows that Americans may need to adapt their management practices to accommodate quality circles.
There are at least three problem areas - which stem from the very popularity of QCs - likely to be encountered in this process: program fads, organizational philosophy, and labor relations. A diagnosis of these problems can assist in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of quality circles in Florida and elsewhere.