Implementing TQM

TQM has been around for many years, however, organisations have not found it so easy to implement and to achieve the expected benefits. This paper identifies some key influencing factors on the implementation process. The aim is to provide practitioners with some guidelines on areas to consider prior to and during implementation of a full TQM program.

TQM follows a planned top down approach to change and is a widely used strategy for enhancing organisational flexibility and increasing employee commitment to change. TQM programmes typically involve continuous problemsolving activity involving workplace teams, a quality organisation or structure (to focus the process, usually through steering teams), statistical control and measurement of quality, identification of customers (internal and external) and extensive training.

In general terms a company would expect certain benefits to accrue from TQM, and some of these include improved quality levels and more competitive costs. The general theory is;

introduce TQM

increase competitiveness

improve performance

There will be factors however which will influence the link between TQM and performance, and how an individual organisation responds to the pressure to adopt TQM. Figure 1 opposite details how the various factors identified in the original research can influence the TQM implementation process. Analysis suggests that the process of implementation will be conditioned by incentive, receptivity and ability, which may have a positive or negative effect on the TQM initiative.

Figure 1 shows that the process of implementing change is influenced by the factors described, namely Receptivity, Incentive, Ability. It also shows that the special factors, which can influence ability, can also indirectly influence performance. For example, changes in the market conditions (expanding or contracting) may increase or reduce an organisation's performance levels, this in turn may indirectly influence an organisation's incentive to introduce a change program or if already introduced, its ability to commit to the full program. An organisation which is experiencing market success and high profit levels may not feel it needs to change, equally so an organisation which is losing market share and profits, may see a change initiative as a potential lifeline to recovery. The variability of these influencing factors will determine how the change process operates and the impact on performance levels.

We now consider each of the main influencing factors and the sub-factors contained within them.

Incentive

Incentive refers to the perceived pay-off to the organisation from effective implementation, eg a poorly performing organisation may have more incentive than one which is performing well. The incentive to introduce change is defined as comprising four elements namely, business performance, senior management pressure, customer influence, and the bandwagon effect, (see figure 2).

Consideration will be given to each of these in turn.

Business performance: one hypothesis is that companies which have experienced poor business performance, ie low profits or reducing market share, have more incentive to try and do something about it by reviewing their organisational strategy and policies. Conversely companies which are experiencing high levels of business performance may be less interested in changing the way they do things, since any significant change might affect their present success.

Senior management pressure: can be exerted through strategy and goal directives, and the development of measures and reporting systems that force a plant to adhere to the directives. This senior management pressure can result from different perspectives; firstly, 'new people at the top' - new appointments made at senior level can result in new initiatives / programs being pursued. Secondly, 'felt need'- business results may be good, but management may feel that in order to remain competitive they need to advance their knowledge, systems, and products.

Customer influence: customers who have already implemented a change program often look towards transferring the philosophy to their suppliers. The rationale for this is that where an organisation has developed confidence in its own management control systems, focus of work organisation, and quality control, it will feel more secure in its dealing with suppliers, if their systems are harmonised to those of the customer. In some cases the move by the customer may be in the way of an open offer to provide assistance if the supplier is interested, with no implied pressure to conform. In other cases customers can exert pressure on suppliers to conform eg through the vehicle of supplier audits.

The bandwagon effect: suggests that companies adopt change programs, because of a pressure caused by the number of organisations that have adopted change and not because they have evaluated their benefits. These bandwagon effects have been attributed to two main reasons; firstly, institutional pressure, whereby non adopters fear appearing different from adopters. Even where many organisations have adopted a new idea and yet the idea has not been fully evaluated by any one organisation, then this appears to give the idea credibility and makes its use acceptable to organisations.[3] Secondly competitive pressure, whereby non adopters fear below average performance if their competitors are gaining from the adoption of such programs.

Receptivity

Receptivity describes a set of variables that reflect an organisation's environment and its priorities. Some organisations may be more receptive than others and the expectation would be that more receptive organisations would show greater performance improvement. Receptivity describes the various factors which render an organisation or plant more receptive towards the implementation of a particular change program. The receptive factors can comprise hard and soft issues, eg organisation structure, (hard), and people, policies, and industrial relations, (soft). Five key sub factors were identified from the research. These were: previous initiatives; industrial relations climate; workforce profile; organisation structure; and organisation policies (see figure 3).

Previous experience considers that organisations and plants which have had previous experience of successful change initiatives could be better placed for future change, since their experience might make them more flexible, adaptable and more inclined to accept more change, particularly if they have experienced some benefits from previous change programs.

Future change programs might also be viewed as a natural extension or follow on to the original initiative, thus producing less stress and anxiety about the change.

The Industrial relations climate could affect an organisation's receptivity in many ways, eg the relationship between management and shopfloor will have a bearing on the level of cooperation, and without good relations the introduction of change programs may be very difficult.

Management/union relations are of equal importance due to the influence the union may have over the shopfloor employees. Other factors which can affect the IR climate include the levels, style and methods of communication between management and employees and unions, eg are there regular two way communication briefs? Indicators of the industrial relations climate comprise; grievance/ disputes, discipline cases, absence, labour turnover, workforce morale.

Workforce profile refers to the make up of the employees, eg age, skills, flexibility, attitude towards management. It is hypothesized that a fairly young skilled workforce which is flexible and has good relations with management, will be adaptable and more receptive to change programs. Conversely, an older less skilled and less flexible workforce might prove more difficult to win over.

Organisation structure, with reference to management levels, reporting lines, and responsibilities might be expected to have a bearing on how well the organisation is able to implement a change program, eg too many management levels could make communication difficult and exposed to errors and misinterpretation as it filters down through the ranks.

Organisation policies adopted by an organisation may influence change programs. For example, policies which encourage and support employee involvement, two way communication and cooperation, are likely to aid the transition and change in behaviour, and work practices required to successfully implement a change program.

Ability Ability reflects the preparedness of management and the workforce for the change program. Ability factors are considered under the following three subfactors: human resource management; resources; and management ability (see figure 4).

Human resource management (HRM) centres on people issues and as such should play a key role in any TQM program. The proponents of change make a number of assumptions about the sort of practices that a new initiative requires. Most assert the importance of HR issues and refer to the need for education, training, recognition and change culture.[4]

An organisation's HR function can have a significant influence on any change program, if they are actively involved and visible in the program, eg seen by employees, `walking the talk'. Low involvement from the HRM function could signal lack of overall management commitment to a change program and result in reducing employee participation levels.

Resources are also required to support any change program. Without them the initiative is weakened; resources may include funds, facilities, and time allocations for additional meetings and training, and trainers who have the skills and experience to train people and act as advisers / facilitators.

Management ability considers whether the management team is able to coordinate and implement a program on their own, and whether they possess the experience, knowledge and skills to see the program through to the end. They also need to be aware of their weaknesses and be willing and able to correct them. Areas to consider are; management style, behaviour, commitment and leadership (a torch bearer), and management perceptions, as to where their organisation is currently placed regarding the changes required.

Performance

Performance - considers how well the selective performance criteria respond to the new initiative. The original research selected three areas, cost of quality, customer service levels and customer complaints, based on a quality initiative. However, these criteria can be substituted by any other performance measures considered relevant to the specific change program. Current performance may also affect incentive to introduce a new initiative (fig 1) ie poor performance may push a company to consider something new in an attempt to reverse fortunes, equally a good performance may reduce incentive to try something new and unknown.

Process

Process - refers to the way in which the change program is implemented. It cannot be assumed that all organisations have the same standard of implementation. The original research focused on a planned topdown approach to change however, the model described can also cater for bottom up approaches.

Special Factors

Special Factors - may take an internal or external form. The internal factors might be changes in management personnel, take-overs, whereas the external factors might be, new legislation or market conditions which may deflect management's attention away from a new change initiative. These factors may also affect performance independent of the change initiative. In the case study research it was found that business growth and new technology were the major diversions involved.

The combined effect of all the factors described can make or break the chances of a change initiative being successful or not. The results of this study suggested that failure to address the key factors of incentive, receptivity and ability will reduce the chances of success. In essence it is argued that unless you pay attention to these factors, follow up through the recipes for change on TQM will not produce the desired results except by chance.

Summary

The factors described in this article were considered relevant for the case study organisation involving a quality initiative. And indications from follow-on research suggest that it will also accommodate other change initiatives with only minor alterations to the sub-factors.

The model provides managers with an idea of the type and direction of influencing factors on a new change initiative. Another important point is that the level of influence among the factors can vary, ie in the case study, for incentive, some plants experienced a greater effect from customer influence while for others senior management pressure was more influential.

The original research found that in the majority of cases a plant which experienced favourable influencing factors also experienced a good implementation of its change program and subsequent performance results, and vice versa. The results suggested that failure to address the key factors of incentive, receptivity and ability will reduce the chances of success. In essence it is argued that unless you pay attention to these factors, follow up through the recipes for change will not produce the desired results except by chance.

The model described in this article is currently being used in further research within the case study organisation for a health and safety initiative. Some of the sub factors will change however. This additional research by the Health and Safety officer should help test out the model for possible use in a more generic capacity.