Total Quality Control - A brief look
Analyzing the history of Total Quality Control (TQC) shows that it has its source in Japan, required to rebuild its industrial base after World War II. Japanese began applying the modern techniques of quality control introduced to them by Dr. Edwards Deming. The original concept emerged from a shift of thinking that not only the quality control on the factory floors was important to an overall concern for the entire management. In TQC, all quality efforts are carried out with the purpose of improving the product or service provided as seen by the customer, including internal as well as external. Later on, TQC was included in the development process as well and the tools and methodology gained widespread acceptance because they fit in with the traditional model of problem solving, which is based on reductionism and analysis. TQC embodies both a holistic philosophy about the enterprise of running a business and a set of statistical tools applied in the lowest levels of the organization. Being TQC Driven means creating an environment by advancing continuous improvement at every level of the organization. But to endure, organizational learning must advance on both the operational and conceptual level.
Organizational Learning
All organization learn, whether they consciously choose to or not – it is a fundamental requirement for their sustained existence. Nevertheless, to which extend they do varies greatly.
The way in which an organization learns through individuals is a topic of growing interest but has not yet reached consensus. One of the main dilemmas shared by all who tackle this issue was posed by Chris Argyris and Donald Schön: “There is something paradoxical here. Organizations are not merely collections of individuals, yet there is nor organization without such collections. Similarly, organizational learning is not merely individual learning, yet organizations learn only through the experience and actions of individuals. What, then, are we to make of organizational learning? What is and organization that it may learn?”
Clearly organizations learn through their individual members and, therefore, are affected either directly or indirectly by individual learning. Argyris and Schön present a theory of action perspective in which organizational learning takes place through individual actors whose actions are based on a set of shared models and therefore little learning takes place. The two levels of learning that take place in an organization – operational and conceptual – can be linked to their concept of single-loop and double-loop learning. Another aspect of organizational learning involves the rate of learning. The shorter the cycles of learning become, by reducing delays and inefficiencies, the rate of learning in an organization increases.
As the pace of change in an organization continues to increase, the importance of learning cycles for sustaining competitive advantage grows as well. An organization’s overall rate of learning is not necessarily gated by its slowest link but is determined by the composition of its portfolio of learning rates and the relative importance of each rate.
Systems Thinking
Compared to TQCs emphasis on operational learning, systems thinking’s underpinnings are more conceptual in nature. System thinking approaches problems for the basis of the whole, rather than breaking things up into individual pieces and trying to understand each part. Where TQC focuses on the analysis of the separate parts that make up the whole, systems thinking strives for synthesis of the constituent parts.
Systems thinking helps break through functional walls of isolation by providing a framework for understanding the importance of managing the interconnections among the various functions. It also provides a methodology for thinking about the way in which prevailing mental models may restrict learning, gaining deeper insights into the nature of complex systems, finding high leverage points in the system, and testing one`s assumptions about the efficacy of various policy choices.
Compared to TQC it doesn’t offer simple tools that can be used at the operational level but gives a little guidance for how to accurately measure each of the variables, implement changes and monitor progress.
Systems thinking is quite complex but is subject to the following laws2:
Today's problems come from yesterday's solutions.
The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back.
Behavior grows better before it grows worse.
The easy way out leads back in.
The cure can be worse than the disease.
Faster is slower.
Cause and effect are not always closely related in time and space.
Small changes can produce big results -- but the areas of highest leverage are often the least obvious.
You can have your cake and eat it too -- but not all at once.
Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two small elephants.
There is no blame.
System Thinking uses tools of four categories: Brainstorming Tools, Dynamic Thinking Tools, Structural Thinking Tools, and Computer-Based Tools
Summarized it is important that Managers, employees, the whole organization should be responsible for enhancing the quality of their thinking (Systems Thinking Approach) and not just the quality of their doing (TQC Approach).
Comments