Having studied the use of quality management by European organisations, researchers at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST) Quality Management Centre identified the existence of six levels of adoption. These levels are shown in Fig. 7.1. As can be seen from the diagram, the first three levels ± uncommitted, drifters and tool-pushers ± are on the horizontal part of the curve. This is deliberate. As the labels suggest, these levels of quality management adoption are unlikely to lead to improvement.
7.2.1 Level one: the uncommitted
The first level, theuncommitted, are organisations which, according to Lascelles and Dale, are characterised by very little effort dedi- cated to `improvement activities' (Lascelles & Dale, 1993: p. 286). As a consequence, Lascelles and Dale argue, this sort of organisation will find it increasingly difficult to survive.
7.2.2 Level two: drifters
The second level, drifters, are organisations which, according to Lascelles and Dale, are characterised by short-term approaches to the implementation of quality management initiatives (Lascelles &
Dale, 1993: p. 287). As they suggest, the belief that short-term results can be produced quickly tends to lead to disillusionment, and therefore, a tendency to try something else. The consequence of
Permanency of total quality implementation
Levels of adoption
World class Award winners Improvers Tool- pushers Uncommitted Drifters
Fig. 7.1 The UMIST model of TQ adoption.
engaging in this behaviour will, they assert, result in any initiatives being unsuccessful.
7.2.3 Level three: tool-pushers
The third level,tool-pushers, are organisations which, according to Lascelles and Dale, are characterised by the use of a range of quality improvement tools that are being used in a `superficial manner' (Lascelles & Dale, 1993: p. 289). As they contend, this superficiality is caused by a lack of awareness among senior managers that there must be a long-term strategy for attempting improvement. As they explain, until this happens:
This type of organisation will find it very difficult to sustain the momentum of its improvement initiatives . . . [it] gives the right kind of signals, and presents the requisite image to its customers and suppliers, but under the surface is still a `fire-fighting' culture. (Lascelles & Dale, 1993: p. 291)
7.2.4 Level four: improvers
Therefore, according to Lascelles and Dale, if an organisation wishes to produce change that is likely to be beneficial both to itself, and more particularly to its customers, it must adopt an approach to the implementation of quality management which, at the very least, is characteristic of level four. As a minimum it must attempt to be an improver. As they suggest, the senior managers of such an organisation will `understand that Total Quality involves long-term cultural change and have recognised the importance of continuous quality improvement' (Lascelles & Dale, 1993). Additionally, the following characteristics will be in evidence:
. A `robust and proactive quality system'
. `A high degree of closed-loop error prevention'
. Long-term education and training will be commonplace
. Every person will be engaged in personal and organisational improvement activities
. The importance of people is accepted as an essential element of improvement
. There is a strongly committed culture of leadership in existence, and there is at least one `quality champion' (as Chapter 4 suggests, this person is usually the quality manager)
. `Benchmarking studies will have been initiated, and the data used to facilitate improvement activities'
However, as Fig. 7.1 indicates, and Lascelles and Dale believe, even though an organisation may have achieved enough to be regarded as an improver, this is not enough. As they argue, there is a danger that the process of improvement may not be `self- sustaining . . . they are still vulnerable to short-term pressures and unexpected difficulties' (Lascelles & Dale, 1993: p. 292) As a consequence of this, they contend, it is necessary for organisations to achieve levels of adoption of quality management consistent with levels five and six.
7.2.5 Level five: award winners
What an award for quality management typically entails is described in a subsequent section (7.6 of Chapter 7). However, for an organisation to be able to even consider itself capable of entering for an award, it will have done certain things that allow it to consider itself as being at least as good as, and potentially better than, any other organisation that has also submitted an application for the same award.53 What is important to note about this statement is that if an organisation has reached this stage of self- confidence about its abilities, it will also be certain that a `quality improvement culture' will have become, to quote Lascelles and Dale, `deep rooted' (Lascelles & Dale, 1993: p. 293). In fact, as they point out, even though winning an award is a very public mani- festation of success in achieving excellence, having reached a stage where it considers itself capable, will be a major feat. Lascelles and Dale believe that an organisation that is at this level will have developed the following attributes:
. A culture of leadership that is absolutely committed to improvement in every aspect of the business
. There has been a shift to `a participative organisational culture'54 . There is a commitment from every person to continuous
improvement in every aspect of what they do
. Measurement (benchmarking) of the impact of improvement is occurring on a consistent basis
. There is an obsession by every member of the organisation with doing everything possible to `satisfy and delight customers' (internal and external)
Using a sporting metaphor is a useful way of considering how to evaluate those organisations that are the best. However, as anyone who supports a particular team, individual, or even themselves, will know, not winning first prize can be considered to be failure.
Frequently, the cliche `it's not the winning that is important, it's the taking part that counts' is expressed. Usually, this is of little comfort to those who do not win. However, in the case of attempting to win a quality award, this cliche is true. As will be described in more detail below, when an organisation submits an application to be considered, the process includes feedback by those who assess it as to what can be improved. Clearly, if a subsequent submission is made, this will provide extremely useful information as to how to improve the chances of winning in the future. Moreover, this feedback may truly represent ways to improve the way the organisation carries out its business. As such, this information (which comes from expert assessors) will enable the organisation to become more commercially successful in the future. An example of precisely this situation is quoted by Bruce Woolpert, as President of Granite Rock Company (the first American construction aggregates company to win the Baldrige quality award):
The Baldrige application process is an investment in future success that every American company should be making. We have applied four consecutive years. Every feedback report that we received contained many suggestions. In fact, one year's report identified 116 areas for improvement. After careful review and discussion, we began working on over 100 of these ideas immediately. Our hard work and improvements were then reflected in the application the following year. (Cited in Porter &
Tanner, 1996: p. 252)
This sentiment is precisely what benchmarking involves: the search for continuous improvement which, in this case, comes from those who have assessed an application for a quality award. As the description of the last level of quality adoption indicates, it is to be noted that organisations that are of Japanese origin have, until recently, been dominant in constituting what is regarded to be world class. In such organisations, the search for excellence becomes more than standard practice; it literally becomes an obsession.
7.2.6 Level six: world class
In order to be world class, an organisation must be recognised as being dominant in their field in terms of excellence. As a consequence, these organisations are usually regarded by customers as producing `the best that one can buy'. Whilst this may mean that their products or services may be more expensive than those provided by competitors, this is not always the case. For instance, in electronics and automotive products, there are produ- cers who consciously serve the luxury, specialist or niche part of markets (examples being, in electronic and automotive markets respectively, Bang and Olufsen, Ferrari and Bentley). If customers could afford the prices that these companies charge, they might be happy to buy `the best'. Luckily, despite not being able to afford to buy from these companies, people can purchase what are excellent but less expensive alternatives. In the case of electronic products, it is likely that they will have been manufactured by Japanese companies such as Sony or Awai. In the case of cars, even though the vehicle may not actually have been manufactured by a Japanese company, it is widely recognised that the high standards that are nowbeing achieved owe a great deal to the influence of the likes of Toyota and Honda. These companies, like the producers of elec- tronic products, have demonstrated that by applying management techniques which Deming and Juran recommended, it is possible to mass produce cheaply to a standard which, hitherto, had been thought to be impossible.
It should come as no surprise to learn that, traditionally, Japanese companies have tended to be those most associated with being world class. Indeed, Williams and Bersch claimed that in 1989, only ten companies could be regarded as being world class throughout the globe, and all of these were Japanese (Williams & Bersch, 1989).
Even though this figure has gone up, the presence of Japanese companies is still notable. As Lascelles and Dale explain, in order to become world class, an organisation will `be continuously searching to identify more product and/or service factors or characteristics which will increase customer satisfaction through all its networks of process streams' (Lascelles & Dale, 1993: p. 294). As they also explain, such organisations will dedicate their efforts to `enhancing competitive advantage by [continuously developing] the custo- mer's perception of the company and the attractiveness of the product and service'. This constant dedication to creating excellence in every aspect of what is provided, is called by the Japanese Miryokuteki Hinshitsu, which means `quality that fascinates'. As
those who examine Japanese products discover, every aspect of the product and the service that accompanies it will be carried out in such as way as to be better than anything else available.55
Whilst it is tempting to think that the potential to become world class only applies to a small number of organisations which operate on a global basis, the features that characterise such organisations can provide inspiration to all. Lascelles and Dale suggest that becoming world class is possible for any organisation that dedicates itself to achieving the following characteristics:
At this stage the organisation is very close to the goal of TQI [Total Quality Improvement]; where the customer's desires and business goals, growth and strategies are inseparable; where Total Quality is the integrative and self-evident organisational truth; where the vision of the entire organisation is aligned to the voice of the customer. In fact, where Total Quality has become the single constant in a dynamic business environment ± it is a way of life, a way of doing business. (Lascelles & Dale, 1993: p. 295) This approach to doing business is identical to the paradigm shift for customer value strategy that Boundset al. (1994: p. 29) suggest is essential, and which was described in Chapter 6. As Boundset al.
also believe, unless organisations are prepared to engage in such behaviour, they will find that there are others who will, and that customers will find the products or services that these organisations provide, far more attractive. As is increasingly seen in the business press, the price of failing to heed this advice can, potentially, be very high.