پیاده سازی مدیریت کیفیت به شیوه دمینگ: مطالعه تحقیق عملی در یک شرکت پلاستیک
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|4391||2006||18 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||10166 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Production Economics, Volume 103, Issue 1, September 2006, Pages 131–148
Using seven constructs and four propositions to describe relationships among the constructs, Anderson et al. [1994. A theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method. Academy of Management Review 19(3), 472–509] articulated a theory underlying Deming's style of quality management (Deming's 14 points). Subsequently, two studies, Anderson et al. [1995. A path analytic model of a theory of quality management underlying the deming management method: preliminary empirical findings. Decision Sciences 26(5), 637–658] and Rungtusanatham et al. [1998. A replication study of a theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method: insights from an Italian context. Journal of Operations Management 17, 77–95], examined the four propositions underlying the theory, and provided a strong support to the theory. To date no one has examined if there is a gap between theory and practice of Deming's style of quality management. This action research describes how Deming's style of quality management is implemented in a plastics company. In doing so, we find that the theory appears to be generally applicable in describing the implementation experience. We provide qualitative explanation and support to two propositions, one of which was only partially supported by both Anderson et al.  and Rungtusanatham et al.  studies. We also find some evidence of new relationship between the two constructs and discover the limiting nature of one of the constructs.
Anderson et al. (1994) articulated a theory underlying Deming's style of quality management. In developing the theory, their study identified seven constructs underlying Deming's 14 points. The constructs are: Visionary Leadership, Internal and External Cooperation, Learning, Process Management, Continuous Improvement, Employee Fulfillment, and Customer Service. Using the constructs, they specified four propositions to show the relationships among the constructs. To explain the effectiveness arising from adopting Deming's approach, Anderson et al. (1994, pp. 479–480) succinctly stated the essence of the propositions as: … leadership efforts toward the simultaneous creation of a cooperative and learning organization to facilitate the implementation of process-management practices, which, when implemented, support customer satisfaction and organizational survival through sustained employee fulfillment and continuous improvement of processes, products, and services. Continuing the theory development process, two studies, Anderson et al. (1995) and Rungtusanatham et al. (1998), examined the four propositions and provided strong support to the theory underlying the Deming's style of quality management. To date, no one has examined a possible gap between theory and practice of Deming's style of quality management. In other words, the difference in what this model describes and what actually happens when Deming's style of quality management is implemented in a real world setting. The purpose of this research is to describe how Deming's style of quality management is implemented in a plastics company. In doing so, we find that the theory is generally applicable in describing the implementation experience. We provide qualitative explanation and support to two propositions, one of which was only partially supported by both Anderson et al. (1995) and Rungtusanatham et al. (1998) studies. We also find some evidence of new relationship between Internal and External Cooperation and Learning constructs, and discover the limiting nature of the Internal and External Cooperation constructs. It is important to note that this research is not a formal test of the theory; however, the implementation experience provides an empirical basis to further the theory development process started by Anderson et al. (1994). In the next section, we present Deming's 14 points and the seven constructs of the theory underlying the14 points, including four propositions describing the relationships among the constructs. In Section 3, we discuss the methodology of the study. In Section 4, we organize our implementation experience around two of the four propositions. Lastly, we provide conclusions from our implementation experience and discuss implications for the theory including direction for future research.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This action research study described and classified the issues involved in implementing Deming's style of quality management in a Plastics Company. Using content analysis and detailed examples of how problems were recognized and solutions implemented, we discuss how Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 are supported in our study. While several previous studies have found strong support for Proposition 1, we detail the relationship between leadership and process improvement. In doing so, we discuss how the GM's leadership led to the creation of an organizational system which was cooperative in nature and willing to engage in learning. The GM enabled the creation of the FOCUS group and six subordinate teams to gather and classify problems and potential solutions in the organization. With the visual support of the GM, the group and the teams facilitated a cooperative and learning environment, which facilitated process improvement initiatives. The measure of improvement was found in several subjective measures and the subjective opinions summarized in Table 4 and Table 5: column 5. The majority of the participants believed that cooperation was accomplished by driving out fear, removing barriers, and by eliminating slogans. Driving out fear eliminated the need for supervisory abuse and retaliation and created a level of trust between workers and managers. Removing barriers to pride of workmanship among workers and managers led to reduced down-time and changeover time, by virtue of process improvements, and inter-departmental cooperation to guide other improvements. Eliminating slogan campaigns, which were viewed by workers as meaningless, gave the improvement efforts, and specifically the GM and the FOCUS group, a heightened level of credibility. Learning was facilitated by providing adequate training, promoting and documenting improvements, and instituting continuous improvement. Instituting adequate training improved the rate of operator response time to quality defects and reduced the number of worker injuries. Organizational learning efforts allowed information to be shared among all plants, thereby reducing many duplicate efforts and promoting problem solving. Continuous improvement efforts allowed for the formal review of employee suggestions and the implementation of the best ideas. This implementation has three implications for the Anderson et al. (1994) theory underlying Deming's style of quality management. First, the theory appears to be generally applicable in describing the implementation experience and causal relationships suggested in Table 4 and Table 5. Specifically, while other previous studies have provided strong support for Proposition 1 we have provided a detailed explanation and insight into how Proposition 1 actually occurs in a real-world firm. In addition, we have found full support for Proposition 2, which previous studies have not, and have described the phenomenon in detail. We also found that process improvement efforts led to an increase in continuous improvement initiatives and in employee fulfillment in terms of pride of workmanship. Since this study reports only 9 months of the implementation, we feel that sufficient evidence was not available to support Proposition 3. Several months into the implementation, QC audits revealed that process improvements had decreased the scrap rate by 30%. However, the FOCUS group did not know how this affected customer satisfaction. Without access to detailed records, the group could not verify an increase in sales. In spite of increased productivity, the group did observe a significant reduction in protective finished goods inventory several months into the implementation. The group believed that the plant's effort to continuously improve and take pride in workmanship led to an increase in customer satisfaction, but sufficient evidence was not available to support Proposition 4. The need for future research to examine these two propositions, as well as the relevance of using an action research approach to provide qualitative observations of them cannot be over-emphasized. Second, neither study Anderson et al. (1995) or Rungtusanatham et al. (1998) found evidence that Learning led to the improvement of Process Management practices. This may be because of a reciprocal relationship between Internal and External Cooperation and Learning. In other words, Internal and External Cooperation facilitates Learning, which, in turn, facilitates greater Internal and External Cooperation. We found evidence of this reciprocal relationship in our implementation experience. For example, solutions proposed in Table 4 reduced fear between managers and workers and led to documented training and many inter-plant visitations. As a result of a visit to another plant of the company, the workers learned about a new raw material delivery system that was significantly more reliable than the one they were using. As a result, the plant purchased the new system for its facility. In gratitude, the plant reciprocated by loaning some spare parts, in short supply, back to the other Plant. The increase in learning through the solutions in Table 5, prompted the sharing of knowledge and promoted further cooperation. Based on our implementation experience, we believe that there may be other, perhaps non-recursive, relationships among the constructs. Future research needs to explore the possibilities of other relationships among the constructs. Third, although the Internal and External Cooperation construct includes trust as a definitional element, in our implementation experience, we found that the construct is limiting in the sense that it does not explicitly include the worker (or employee) trust of management and other co-workers (or co-employees) as a definitional element. Deming (1990b) expressly stated that, “management is prediction… the enemy of accurate prediction is variation… one major cause of variation in human behavior is fear… therefore, drive out fear”. In this plant's case, the source of fear was the distrust among managers and workers. Fear was prevalent because the workers did not trust managers to make the right decisions and felt managers were unconcerned about their welfare, as evidenced in Table 4. The FOCUS group relied heavily on the trust component in order to reduce the adversarial relationship between workers and managers. Once the group involved all plant employees in the improvement processes, the workers became willing to listen and consider Deming's approach. It was through this trust relationship initiated by the GM that cooperation and learning was promoted. Based on our implementation experience, we believe that the possibility exists to enhance the Internal and External Cooperation construct to include the worker (or employee) trust of management and other co-workers (co-employees) as a definitional element. Of course, more research is necessary before these changes are introduced. We urge that future researchers conduct studies to establish that the constructs have all the essential definitional elements. Such studies would contribute to the science and the practice of Deming's style of quality management.