Case Study 1 TQM

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 8

TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

BMT1022 D1

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

FACULTY NAME: Prof. B. MURALI MANOHAR, Ph. D

Case Study: The Human side of introducing Total Quality


Management
- Ron Edwards and Amrik S. Sohal,
Department of Management, Monash University, Caulfield East, Australia

https://mmunsoed27.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/1-human-side-australia.pdf

BY
C. KAVYA SREE SOMESH J C. MANOSH S. HAJA SHAREEF
19BBA0072 19BBA0074 19BBA0078 19BBA0080
-INTRODUCTION-

This analysis is all about the reasons why businesses (MetalFab, SteelCo),
having adopted total quality management (TQM), fail to sustain their reforms
over time. This analysis is done after thoroughly reading the case study. The
case study indicates that a lack of attention to the human element of change,
especially inconsistent senior management support, a lack of involvement of
supervisors and middle managers in planning for change, and lack of attention
to groups of staff affected negatively by the changes, are the reasons why TQM
programs are not sustaining in the companies like MetalFab and SteelCo. In this
analysis, the problems for the failure of sustaining TQM programs are found
and the solutions & recommendations are given to sustain TQM programs in
MetalFab & SteelCo.

-BACKGROUND-

When it comes to TQM, Sustainability, however, is not solely concerned with


the “age” of the TQM programme, but more importantly, its role in supporting
organisational competitiveness. The given case study focuses on several key
issues concerning the implementation of TQM programmes, particularly
involving the human resource management side of implementation, which need
consideration. In the case study, it is mentioned that, Training is the second
most commonly used practice in implementing TQM, with the content being
primarily focused on interpersonal skills, quality improvement processes,
problem solving, teamwork, statistical analysis, and benchmarking.
However, the results also identified a key concern, the lack of resources to
implement the knowledge gained from the training. The underlying principle is
that all employees must participate in, and be responsible for, the quality
assurance of their work as well as continuously searching to improve the
process. Employees will be willing to participate in TQM if their views on the
benefits of TQM are positive, and will withdraw their participation if they
perceive the opposite.
The two companies that were chosen are relatively large, have relatively
sophisticated technology applied across a breadth of production processes, have

2|Page
international corporate linkages and markets, and enjoy access to resources to
implement change. Commitments to confidentiality, the two companies were
referred to as MetalFab and SteelCo in the case study. Both companies had
entered the 1990s with a weakened competitive position and had chosen
Deming’s total quality management philosophy as the basis of their reform
programme.
 MetalFab, an affiliate of a large Japanese multinational corporation,
commenced operations in Australia in the mid-1960s. The company
produces large, metal-based consumer goods. In the early 1990s it employed
1,700 workers. Seven trade unions represented the workforce, which was
mostly made up of migrants from non-English speaking backgrounds. The
working environment at the plant was far from pleasant. Work was
continuous, noisy and dusty.
 SteelCo is a subsidiary of a large Australian company that was established in
the early 1970s to add value to the output of other subsidiaries of the same
parent. In the early 1990s, it employed 1,500 workers on a very large site in
a rural area. Three trade unions represented the workforce that comprised
mainly Australian or English-born people. The plant is a relatively modern,
clean, but noisy, workplace, divided into a series of production lines, each in
its own building. The production process is highly automated and work
mainly comprises controlling the production process through the use of
computerised control panels.

-PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE CASE-

Three major reasons for TQM failure in MetalFab and SteelCo are:
1. Opposition from middle management
2. Dissatisfaction with employee participation
3. The inappropriate design of training programmes.
To a large extent, all of these factors reflect a failure of the human factor in the
introduction or implementation of TQM.

1. Opposition from middle management

3|Page
A common feature at MetalFab and SteelCo was the opposition of certain
groups to the introduction of TQM. Managers outside the HRM sections were
often excluded from the discussions over TQM. At MetalFab, managers
complained that they were the last to hear about plans and agreements. Less
training took place at SteelCo than had been agreed because management would
not release people to undertake the training. This was because “production
demands gave no headroom”. Managers at SteelCo opposed job rotation,
preferring to leave the best person doing their job. This strategy protected
production but sacrificed employee progress and labour flexibility targets.
Managers considered that their role was being taken over by their subordinates.
They placed administrative barriers against the full implementation of the
reforms. Similar problems faced supervisors who were in a very difficult
position at both plants. Their support of, and participation in, the
implementation of reforms was essential but they had the most to lose from
them.
In summary, the lack of recognition of the central role of supervisors in
implementing change was a major stumbling block. Being the first line
managers, supervisors had a major bearing on the attitudes of production
workers towards their work and the changes to it. The fact that they were left
out of the negotiating process, had no new role defined for them, and lost status
compared to the new team leaders, caused them to oppose the reforms.

2. Dissatisfaction with employee participation


Shop-floor employees believed that the authority of the participatory meetings
had been overstated and that they were, in fact, obliged to accept a
“management agenda”. Managers felt that operators were being asked to
contribute to areas that they did not understand. In their view, the meetings were
a waste of time and frequently “degraded” into discussion of industrial relations
matters.
Management at each plant indicated that they had too readily accepted notions
of industrial democracy and had therefore misled themselves and production
workers. Subsequently, they were forced to redefine “employee participation”
less ambitiously. Too many people had been “taken in” by concepts like
“empowerment” without understanding the implications. When workers saw
that the initial concept was not going to be delivered, they became frustrated
and cynical. A MetalFab manager enclosed the new interpretation of

4|Page
participation at both plants when he said “involvement does not mean
endorsement”. At SteelCo the equivalent revelation was “participation does not
mean consensus”.
The participation, in practice, is one sided, with management only accepting
those recommendations that generate productivity growth, ignoring those that
improve working conditions.
In summary, there was little sustained commitment by management to engage in
genuine consultation at each plant. One-way, one-sided information exchange,
together with confusion over the meaning of “participation”, caused the reform
to fail and to be abandoned.

3. Inappropriate design of Training programmes


Experience at both plants demonstrates that training is not necessarily the
solution to introduce “cultural” change. Demarcations had applied within, as
well as between, unions, reflecting past corporate policies on specialisation and
the division of labour. SteelCo found that it had overestimated the potential of
training to affect change.
Senior management at SteelCo, and to a lesser extent at MetalFab, felt that little
productivity had resulted from the resources invested in training. The poor
educational standard of production workers, especially those with little
knowledge of English at MetalFab, was seen as a major barrier. However,
others, particularly union officials or management staff close to employees and
unions, tended to say that senior management was unrealistic in the time frame
they set for a productivity outcome.
In summary, training and skill-based career structures did not prove to be the
democratising forces as predicted by their advocates. Nor did they supply an
observable improvement in productivity, even if shop-floor flexibility was
enhanced. They did prove extremely expensive, particularly at SteelCo where
ambitious plans to “transform” the workforce proved to be unrealistic. By
contrast, MetalFab’s relatively modest “on-the-job” training programme was
better appreciated, mainly because it provided some relief from the most
monotonous jobs.

-SOLUTIONS FOR THE CASE-


» All the supervisors and middle level managers must also be given training.

5|Page
» MetalFab implemented four elements called Teams, Skills based structure,
new quality assurance system, a renewed focus on production to improve
TQM.
» SteelCo focused on Employee participation, skill-based career structure,
Augmentation to improve TQM programme in their company.
» Job security should be given so that supervisors and managers won’t feel
threatened of losing their jobs to their subordinates.
» Enhancing productivity through education or consultative decision making
needed to be seen as a long-term aim.
» “Production first” must be demolished because it reduces the time given for
the quality checks which is a barrier to follow TQM.
» Senior management must understand that training is not the only way to
improve productivity.
» Employees or workers must be provided with good working conditions as
they asked.
» “Throwing some training” at a problem is not a solution. If the superior says
one thing and the trainer says another, workers would go with their superior.
So, it is important that all levels of management at the company stands on
one line in improving TQM.
» Senior management should focus not only on production but also the
implementation of TQM.
» Senior management should practice TQM, demand it from people who
report to them and supply training so they can comply.
» Providing the training will not create the need. It should come from top level
management. “If it does not flow down from the top it will never flow up.”

-CONCLUSION-
In the early 1990s, faced by severe competition, SteelCo and MetalFab resolved
to improve quality and productivity by introducing total quality management.
Each company enjoyed some significant savings and productivity improvement.
These originated mainly from work intensification for management, especially
supervisors, and a degree of greater flexibility among shop-floor workers. Shop-
floor employees achieved improved access to training which led to pay rises
through reclassification. Supervision became somewhat more humane.

6|Page
However, attempts at changing the philosophy of management, as understood in
total quality management, were unsuccessful and were not sustained.
The primary factor explaining the lack of success was the lack of attention to
the human element in change. The implementation of TQM focused on
structures, such as teams and training schemes, rather than the values or
attitudes of the people involved. Importantly, the reforms were introduced
without sufficient explanation, or the involvement of middle managers or
supervisors, which caused these groups to oppose the reforms. They lost status,
security, and career prospects through TQM, but were expected to play key
roles in its implementation. They responded with passive resistance (“playing
dead”), leaving elements of TQM either partially implemented, unresourced, or
isolated.
The new structures were superimposed on the two organisations, leaving the
existing structures to continue. Having attempted to introduce total quality
management without accounting for the human element, the reform could not be
sustained.

-REFERENCES-
Case Study Links:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/01437720310491080/full
/html
https://mmunsoed27.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/1-human-side-australia.pdf

Raine Isaksson, Uppsala University (September 2006), “Total quality


management for sustainable development: Process based system models” -
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235315388_Total_quality_manageme
nt_for_sustainable_development_Process_based_system_models

7|Page
THANK YOU

8|Page

You might also like