International Review of Business Research Papers
Vol. 2. No. 1 May 2006, Pp. 100 - 114
Japan & TQM: The Learning Experience
Jamal Abdul Nassir Shaari*
Osamu Nariai**
Conventional wisdom view Total Quality Management (TQM)
and Japanese Management System (JMS) as two-sided coin. Both
complement each other. The relationship between Total Quality
Management and Japanese Management System have been so close
that some have the understanding that TQM could only be successful
in Japanese culture. Current socio-economic situation of Japan has
created new ways of perceiving Japan competitiveness. JMS, which
stand on the idea of long-term employment, is now seen as not
relevant in todays fast pace business world. When JMS is collapsing,
TQM has lost its half; thus, being labeled as outdated management
system. The heart of TQM, continuous improvement is being accused
as the mental block hindering innovative thinking for the Japanese
and thus affecting Japan’s competitiveness. The authors disagree!
The authors believe that the relationship of JMS and TQM is moving
to a new era where there are much more to learn from the Japanese
experience.
Field of Research: Total Quality Management
1. Introduction
Much was written on the golden era of Japan during the post-WWII. Katzner (2001, p. 304)
wrote that, “Japan, it seemed, had redefined the notions of competition, the organization of
production, and economic progress and development…Japan Inc. had become so efficient that
it was taking over the world, and the only way to compete with the Japanese was to join the
bandwagon and adopt their methods”. This era of tremendous achievement was famously
labeled as the Miracle of Japan Economic Recovery. Japanese products were well known and
synonym to quality products. In this era quality became the main concern for competition.
The wave of Total Quality Management (TQM) started to spread and became one of the major
cited contributors to Japan’s success. Japan’s way of adapting the management philosophy
taught to them by Americans, namely Deming and Juran was so successful that it later turned
into a new management model being copied by other nations. Japanese manufacturing sector
were such a success that some even claimed they had nothing more to learn from the West
(Fujimoto, 2004b, p 20).
* Jamal Abdul Nassir Shaari, The International School of Economics and Business
Administration, Reitaku University, Japan. Email: jshaari@cs.reitaku-u.ac.jp
** Professor Osamu Nariai, The International School of Economics and Business
Administration, Reitaku University, Japan
Shaari & Nariai
101
Nevertheless, when Japan economic bubble burst in the late 80’s, the pendulum swung against
them. What once being praised are now being condemned. Literatures poured in. Various
reasons were created. The adopted TQM became the scapegoat; accused as the culprit for
business failures. Some anyway who probably have seen how TQM can actually performs and
still have faith in it, have different opinions. They claimed that the fact for business failures
were not due to the TQM, but for the poor implementations by people themselves (Evans,
1995; Dale et. al, 2000; Nwabueze, 2001).
Ihara (2004, p. 2) stated that “the mythological age of the Japanese Management Systems has
ended, and its reality is being disputed among scholars”. So does with the trend of criticizing
TQM, still being scrutinized. The pointing fingers yet to stop. Making things worse, some are
still confuse on the relations of weakened Japan’s competitiveness, Japanese Management
Systems and the success/failure of TQM implementation.
Japan today is moving to a new era. Shibata (2002) and Watanabe (2000) as cited in Brunet
and New (2003, p. 1444) asserts, “as employment systems and socio-political contexts
change, so will the practice of operations management…as Japanese employment systems
evolve, we should expect quality and production practices to change too”. As such, the authors
believe that Japan’s past and present is still of significance to focus on. Malaysia is among the
nations that vowed to emulate Japan’s success, with the Look East Policy launched back in late
1981. This paper is authors’ preliminary studies on lesson that Malaysia can learn (or continue
to learn) from Japan’s experience in adopting TQM.
Therefore, it us to authors’ intention of designing this paper to lay out the foundation of
explaining how TQM and JMS affect Japan’s competitiveness. This theoretical paper will review
and discuss past literatures to streamline them into a pattern offering insight of what could be
learned from Japan’s experience. Thus, the objective of this paper is to look into the concepts
of Total Quality Management, Japanese Management System, and their relationship to Japan’s
competitiveness; and later to suggest a model on how these intertwining concepts could
actually be of contribution as a guideline for organizations embarking on quality journey.
In achieving the above objective, this paper is divided into five sections. The next section
explores the concept of Total Quality Management, follows by the third section to discuss on
issues of Japanese Management System. Section four dwells on how TQM and JMS factors
internally and externally affect Japan’s competitiveness in past and present days. The final
section is devoted to illustrate author’s view on the evolution of TQM in Japan. In this section
also, the authors propose the AFC’S model developed based on lesson learnt from Japan’s
TQM-JMS experience.
2. Total Quality Management.
2.1 TQM with Various Definitions.
The Naval Air System Command is believed to be the first to coin the term Total Quality
Management in describing its Japanese style management approach to quality improvement.
The term TQM was later made popular by academician and practitioners giving various kinds of
meaning and definition to it.
Oakland (1989) as quoted in Nwabueze (2001b, p. 506) stated, “the fundamental message
of the quality gurus is essentially the same, although they might use different dialects”. This
Shaari & Nariai
102
variety of definitions anyway, are somehow being turned into another excused for critiques to
bombard TQM (Zairi, 1994).
Nwabueze (2001b) recognized the varieties teachings of TQM gurus such as Crosby, Deming,
and Juran; but further claimed that the barriers to TQM implementation could best be
removed through adherence to the new model rather than by following the prescriptions of the
quality gurus (p.504). In fact, this is the true philosophy of TQM; it lies on the basis of
continuous improvement, constantly looking for new ways to improve.
Lorente, Dewhurst & Dale (1999, p. 15) affirm, “companies should not look at TQM as a
static set of recommendations that are going to be valid for ever; just as TQM is about
challenging the status quo, this also applies to the TQM dimensions”. That is what makes TQM
different from other management processes, the concentrated focus on continuous
improvement (Hsu & Shen, 2005, p.356). It is about journey to continue to improve with
time and situations. Dawson (1994, p. 53) stresses, “part of its attractiveness stems from its
ambiguity – in meaning different things to different people”. In fact, if one could accept this
idea, the arguments against TQM for having various definitions and/or being outdated do not
even have to exist!
Dale et al. (2000) argue on the move by the European Foundation for Quality Management
for distancing itself from TQM as a term (p. 4) by introducing the new concept of excellence
when the Japanese were on the other part decided to further focus on ways to adapt “TQM
for creating new Japanese” (p. 4). They describe it as an ironic move, taking into consideration
that one of the factors for the early establishment of EFQM was due to the fact that Japanese
products have superior quality than Americans and Europeans; and that fact has not yet
changes (see Dale et al., 2000).
To conclude, Zairi (1994, p. 8) affirms that, “there is nothing wrong with the terminology
TQM… it is more important to understand how it works as a philosophy…and be inspired by
the Japanese who after all have made it work”.
2.1 Kaizen the Continuous Improvement Culture.
Total Quality Management stands on the concept of continuous improvement, which is
translated from Japanese word kaizen. Brunet and New (2003, p. 1427) identified three
features of kaizen that were mostly quoted by numerous researchers. Kaizen is:
1. Continuous, nature that it is a never-ending journey for quality and efficiency.
2. Usually incremental in nature, to always improve instead of reorganizing or
reinstallation.
3. Participative, requiring the workforce involvement and intelligence.
Imai (1986) stressed that the essence of kaizen is simple and straightforward. It means
improvement. He further explained that “the KAIZEN philosophy assumes that our way of life
– be it our working life, our social life, or our home life – deserves to be constantly improved”
(p. 3). This idea is so “deeply ingrained in the minds of both managers and workers (Japanese)
that they often do not even realize that they are thinking kaizen” (Brunet & New, 2003, p.
1428). This in fact explains author’s personal experience with some Japanese. They disagreed
when certain practices were being associated with TQM practices; they rather have the
practices to be recognized as just ‘normal way of doing things’. This experience actually reflects
the difference in understanding the idea of kaizen, which stemmed from difference working,
social and education background.
Shaari & Nariai
103
Kanji (1997) cited in Kanji (2000, p. S979) gave his definition of TQM as:
“Total Quality Management is the culture of an organization committed to
customer satisfaction through continuous improvement. This culture varies both
from one country to another and between different industries, but has certain
essential principles which can be implemented to secure greater market share,
increased profits and reduced costs.”
Nwabueze (2001b) claimed that it is not surprising for various models introduced by some of
the previous researchers failed to address issues of how to actually do it in contrast to “what to
do” (p.508). It is in deed something that the authors feel not to be surprised of. Different
situations call for different techniques. A prescription is not for all kind of treatments.
We should not forget that Total Quality Management is originated by the Americans and only
made popular by the Japanese because their success of adapting it. In fact, Japanese original
term of TQM is Hinshitsu Kanri meanings Total Quality Control. The concept of TQM came
from the concept of Ishikawa’s Company-Wide Quality Control (CWQC). Thus, unless the
concept of kaizen as a total application is fully adopted or precisely, adapted into own
organizational culture, journey for quality is vulnerable for failure.
Sohail and Morrison (1995) argue that most TQM efforts undertaken had never reached the
stage where people’s behaviors have been modified and new working arrangements and culture
were established. One lesson to learn from the Japanese then is that as TQM is viewed as a way
of doing business, they ensure that this quality control education is for all, employees and
managers (Westbrook, 1994). The real beauty behind the Japanese way of embracing TQM
lies on this culture of educating all members, to seek for knowledge—to continuously improve.
Learning TQM is all about learning to learn. Zairi (1994, p. 7) writes, “well-educated people
can contribute more effectively because they raise their creative potential,” and TQM
contributes in these contexts of training and education (Lorente, Dewhurst & Dale, 1999;
Zairi, 1994).
Rob Evans (1995, p. 5) summarizes on the issues of TQM; people need to understand that:
•
•
•
•
•
TQM is part of what is needed to run a good business; it is not the whole.
TQM balance the diverse elements of a business (customers, employees,
work processes and shareholders), and then aligning them to achieve
strategic organizational goals.
TQM facilitates the correct culture by helping company to learn what to
learn and provides framework for tying together things that matter to a
business; thus…
TQM helps employees to understand how to do the right things right.
Problems are with the implementation, not the TQM itself.
3. Japanese Management System
3.1 Efficiency
Katzner (2001) in his article, “Explaining the Japanese Economic Miracle”, argues that by
western standards, Japanese economy at the period of the miracle was not even efficient. He
further explained that the rapid economic growth of that time was made possible to achieve
due to the availability of significant offsetting effects specifically, two:
Shaari & Nariai
•
•
104
First, Japanese employees willingness to accept low payment (2/3 of what
their counterpart in pure capitalist firm receiving, by taking the
consideration of the long working hours spent by the Japanese) when the
inefficiency of hiring excessive labors occurred.
Second, the employer willingness to sacrifice potential maximum profit for
reasons such as social and customs instead of making economic action
based on profit maximization.
Katzner (2001) later clarifies that what had worked for Japan during the recovery had not
worked after the ‘90s as the real economic world had changed, and thus had contributed as
one major reason why Japan has slump to the lost decade. This article is one example of an
effort to explain the Japanese Management System (JMS) and its contribution towards Japan
competitiveness during the economic recovery era. But what is indeed JMS?
Ihara (2004) pointed out that the Japanese Management System is actually a general term
created by European and American scholars in recognizing Japan economic miracle recovery
after World War II. The term became famous in 70’s and 80’s due to Japan’s rapid growth
after overcoming the two oil crises. The JMS stands on three sacred treasures of Life-time
Employment, Seniority System, and Enterprise Union; which branched out to other
characteristics of One-time Recruitment, In-house Education, Bottom-up Decision Making or
Ringi System, Employee Welfare Programs, and Collective or Family –oriented Culture (please
see details in Ihara, 2004). Ihara stresses that each factor in the Japanese Management Systems
work as a unit, and if one stumbled, the whole could collapse. He draws The Diamond of
Japanese Management System (see Figure 1) to show the relationships and reiterates (p. 8)
that:
All of the characteristics work effectively on the condition of lifetime
employment. Seniority system is based on the assumption that employees’
ability will increase along with the length of service and experience. In-house
education also depends on the lifelong employment because the company gains
the benefit of education only when employees work for a long time.
Enterprise union is necessary when people work for only one company. Onetime recruitment is the other side of lifetime employment. The importance of
employee welfare programs is obvious if the employee works within a
company for a longtime. The other characteristics such as bottom-up decision
making system and family-oriented management are the results of lifetime
employment.
Shaari & Nariai
105
Figure 1: The Diamond of Japanese Management System
Source: Ihara (2004)
3.2 Effectiveness
Katzner’s argument on the inefficiencies of JMS during Japan’s economic miracle does have its
basis, but what author prefers to look at is the effectiveness of JMS. It is the matter of
effectiveness versus efficiency. Fujimoto (2004b, p.8) asserts that the teamwork characterized
in JMS is a product of particular historical circumstances. It is the logical thing to do at the
time of post WWII, to hold to the culture of long-term employment (Fujimoto, 2004a, p. 22)
when labor is at scarce. In other words, that is the most effective thing to do given the
circumstances.
Notwithstanding the contribution of JMS, given that it is the right thing to do during the postwar era; now that situation in Japan has changed, the efficacy could also have altered. Ihara
(2004, p. 2) stresses that “Japanese Management System has both merits and demerits, and
the strengths of the Japanese Management System can be weaknesses when economic
conditions changed”. And today, with the new generation of Japanese who are more open to
the outside world, their loyalty, motivation, and target in life have also change. For that,
lifetime employment, the pillar of JMS is not really valid as a whole. As a result, the
effectiveness of JMS is no longer as strong as before.
Table I summarizes the changing situation from past JMS’s success to current questionable
existence, and their consequences:
Table I.
Post WWII - JMS Reasons for Success
Present - Transformation of JMS
Factor: Expansion of total market
• Low unemployment ratio
• Limited outside labor market
Economic change: Recession
Result:
• Effective one-time recruitment
• Life-time Employment is necessary
Result:
• Difficulty to maintain number for
promotions
Shaari & Nariai
•
In-house education could be more
flexible
Factor: Increase in population
Result:
• Total labor cost is held down as
younger employees joining in
•
106
Increased labor cost due to seniority
wage
Social change: Aging society &
Decreasing birth ratio*.
Result:
• Difficulty in hiring new employees
• Increased labor cost due to seniority
wage.
• Affected employees’ motivation
Factor: Large company in secondary
Cultural change: Value and life style
Result:
• JMS works effectively with
“priority production system”.
Result:
• Younger generation likes to change
job.
• Outside labor market increasing.
Industry
Adapted from Ihara (2004)
* Japan’s fertility rate, falling as low as 1.31 by 2007 (Nariai, 2004).
Katzner (2001, p. 318) concluded his article with two important points worth to be directly
quoted:
i)
Efficiency in the western sense (i.e. technological, input-mix, and
output-level efficiencies, and optimal resource allocation) may be
partly sufficient, but it certainly is not necessary for strong economic
performance and development.
ii)
Different (i.e. nonwestern) cultural and social norms and traditions,
then, need not necessarily relegate an economy to permanently
undeveloped state.
Reconciling these two points, and as it is always rule of the thumb that effectiveness comes
before efficiency, authors’ argument in the context of successful TQM adoption is that one
need to ensure that any initiative taken is to first be adapted into one own culture. TQM is
proven successful as it can and had guided corporations to efficient way in doing business
activities. The adaptation into one’s corporate culture will decide the success and the failure of
one’s operation. TQM works well in Japan’s context because Japanese were successful to
assimilate the foreign-knowledge of American at that time with the economic and social
circumstances of post-war, which later had created Japanese Management System.
On another matter, Fingleton (1995) cited in Nwabueze (2001a), argues that the success of
Deming in Japan was only made possible due to the compatibility of quality initiatives with the
Japanese value and culture. This could lead to two different ways of interpretation--Does this
means that quality initiatives are exclusively for the Japanese culture? Or rather the quality
initiatives were made to be compatible to the Japanese value and culture (or possibly the other
way around, molding culture to fit quality initiatives)? Looking on successful stories and cases
of TQM implementation in other reported countries, the authors favor the latter view. Thus,
Shaari & Nariai
107
the remaining issue here is to ensure that quality initiatives and the value or culture are
compatible to each other.
Odaka (2001, p. 59) suggests that Japanese “system of management shared common root
with the U.S., which was modified to suit the social and economic environment of a latecomer
to industrialization”. He further argues that even the ‘prototype for Japanese-style’ cooperation between blue-collar workers and production engineers was originated from the roles
played by foreign engineers brought to Japan since the Meiji Restoration.
Transformation of JMS as summarized in Table I, suggest that the time has come with new
challenges for Japanese to find a new fit for TQM in matching the new Japanese Management
Style. This compatibility will ensure the continuity of the synergic TQM-JMS relationship in
upholding Japan’s competitiveness.
4. Japan’s Competitiveness
The quote from Katzner (2001) at the beginning of this paper was describing the competitive
edge Japan was having at the golden era of post World War II. Japan Inc. was due to the
achievement by Japanese companies and Japan as a nation. It was result for the perfect
combination of:
i.
ii.
Adaptation of quality initiatives (lesson from American quality gurus and also
innovation of westerns’ products available at the time) making TQM works
sensationally for Japanese.
Japan socio-economic condition giving birth to the JMS.
Competitiveness is constructed on internal and external factors. Japan’s competitiveness during
that era was due to the positive reaction of TQM-JMS to domestic and international conditions.
4.1 Internal Factor
Domestically, it was the people-- the Japanese. These motivated people were driven by loyalty
to their nation; by the eastern culture to save face; “and for their children to live as well as
Americans do” (Hayashi 1986; 1997, 374 as cited in Valdes, 2003, p. 73). These people
had created the JMS. Working long hours, committed, and loyal to company. These are among
common traits for Japanese those days, significantly named salaryman in Japan, but labeled as
workaholic by outsiders. This vital internal factor gave employers easier task to make quality
efforts successful as it has created a suitable working culture for TQM implementation.
Nevertheless, as of today, long term employment that had being efficient in providing loyal
workers are in questioned of its effectiveness due to the lacking in its supporting conditions;
predominance young work force and fast pace of Japan’s growth (Nariai, 2004), (please refer
Table I).
4.1 External Factor
Internationally, the best example for Japan’s competitiveness probably would be the decisive
move by Japanese carmakers in producing small, compact and fuel-efficient cars at low cost
during the oil-crisis period. This was possible due to technical expertise and superior
management produced by TQM-JMS factors. Japan at this era, was undisputedly unchallenged.
Shaari & Nariai
108
Nonetheless, just as domestic issues modify JMS, international issues also affects TQM
contributions; and of course Japan’s competitiveness. Japanese Management System was
naturally created to fit with the idea of Total Quality Management at the time it was borrowed
from a western country. As the world is changing, so does the Japanese. Japanese companies
today not only has to deal with the changes inside Japan but also outside Japan in order to
ensure that their companies able to compete domestically and also internationally. Just as other
nations once have to adapt to their method, the Japanese also need to find new strategies to fit
their management system to host countries they are operating in.
4.3 Strategy and Innovation, the End of Quality Era?
Poh and Abdul Hamid (2001), cited in Sohail and Hoong (2003, p.37) asserts that loss of
market shares to the Japanese and other emerging competitors has sparked the interest in Total
Quality Management (TQM) for American and European firms.
Porter, Takeuchi & Sakakibara (2000) in their book Can Japan Compete? argue the slip in the
competitiveness is due to the fact that Japanese companies are competing solely on operational
effectiveness. They explain that being efficient and reducing cost of producing products has
help Japanese companies to improve their market share; but without clear strategy to
differentiate, and when every company is doing the same, the profit is not there for them to
reap. Therefore Japan must move beyond just quality competition to compete on strategy and
innovation (Porter, Takeuchi & Sakakibara, 2000, p. 190). Nevertheless, it does not mean
that one must put aside the contribution of TQM or operational effectiveness just to chase
‘strategy and innovation’. That would be the same mistake discussed before--misunderstanding
of terminology.
On another subject, competitiveness has rather a vague definition to deal with. One needs to
be clear on what aspect one is looking at. Counter arguing the negative views of some on
‘Japanese way of doing things’, which being proclaimed as contributing to the fall down of
Japan economics; Fujimoto (2004a, 2004b) introduced a concept he named as Organizational
Capabilities for Manufacturing. Fujimoto (2004a, p.21) defines competitiveness as “the ability
of an enterprise to survive in a competitive marketplace by offering products or services that
attract and satisfy customers”.
However, competitiveness is not only the end-result of the product or services which could
lured one for its lowest price tag in town; seduced by the appealing brand name; or delighted
by the fast delivery. These are among the categories that Fujimoto (2004a; 2004b) refers as
visible competitiveness. Notwithstanding the importance of profit, which can directly be linked
to the visible competitiveness, the invisible competitiveness or what Fujimoto (2004a; 2004b)
referred, as ‘behind the scenes effort’ should never be taken lightly. These are the areas where
the ability of a company to implement TQM successfully or not will later lead to the end result.
The ability to improve the elements for behind-the-scenes competitiveness and/or the ability to
successfully implement the company-wide quality control (TQM in international context) will
build one’s ‘organizational capabilities for manufacturing’.
Porter, Takeuchi & Sakakibara (2000) urge for Japan to learn on choosing ground for
competition by focusing on strategy--having vision of where to compete and innovation-knowing how to compete; which actually brought us back to comparative advantage (in
product architecture) era (Fujimoto, 2004a, p. 23). Japan should not be competing on every
turf. Fujimoto (2004a) calls for one to look at own capability-building competition (Fujimoto,
2004a, p. 8; 2004b, p. 21), the capability to compete with rivals in the area invisible to the
customers before choosing the battlefield. It is actually looking for the strength within, or what
business managers might call core competitiveness, before decided where to compete.
Shaari & Nariai
109
Understanding TQM as the philosophy can actually helps in whole process. TQM in fact, can
support and work for strategy and innovation (Lorente, Dewhurst & Dale, 1999; Samaha
1996; Bessant et al., 1994). Japanese Management System that has been contributing much
to the successful implementation of TQM in Japan also has its roles here. Porter, Takeuchi &
Sakakibara (2000, p. 179) advised, “good features of the Japanese corporate model should be
retained–a long time horizon, treating employees as assets, close relationships with suppliers,
aggressive investment to improve technology, continuous improvement in manufacturing
productivity”.
As mentioned earlier, we must not get carried away with names. Innovation by definition;
there are several forms and kinds of innovations cited by researchers: products; services;
production processes and management systems, which could also be categorized into drastic
and progressive (Lorente, Dewhurst, and Dale, 1999, Imai, 1986). Lorente, Dewhurst, and
Dale (1999, p.12) defined business innovation as innovation in management thinking with the
purpose to create new value and wealth for all stakeholders and thereby increase economic
prospects. They also claimed that it is motivated by changes in external and internal
environmental condition (p. 12); which lead us back to the concepts of TQM and JMS
discussed before.
Jonas, Kikuo and Tadashi (2002) wrote that the dropped of Japan’s position in the World
Competitiveness Yearbook from 3rd position in 1993 to 26th in 2001 had alarmed business
managers to analyze the effectiveness of TQM in their business practices. By far, this does not
necessarily means that there is something wrong with TQM; but it is more on the matter of
finding new ways in re-putting TQM into effects, with the back up of new Japanese
Management System. What once work for Japan’s competitiveness, having the right application
of TQM by molding the correct culture of JMS is in need of revision for a new style of
relationship. All the same, the essence of TQM shall prevail.
5. Lesson to learn.
In Japan, quality is embedded as a way of doing business where customer come first, second is
employee and last is the shareholders (Zairi, 1994). One cannot assume what works in Japan
can also work in other place. Successful stories of TQM implementation demonstrate various
form of cultural transformation, making the point that there is no one set path for TQM
(Choppin, 1995); but the pattern should be similar.
Below is authors’ illustration and brief description on the evolution of Japan’s TQM-JMS
synergic relation. The lesson taken from the historical events were developed into the AFC’S
model to serve as a guideline for those who are interested to embark on quality journey with
Japan’s experience as the guideline.
Shaari & Nariai
The Evolution of Japan’s TQM-JMS Relationship.
TQ C
JAPANESE
CO .
JM S
•
Foreign soft technology transfers, TQM
being introduced; lesson from the West.
•
TQM tools adapted into Japanese
working culture, later known as Total
Quality Control.
•
TQC usage widely adopted and become
synonym with Japanese Management
System.
Quality Lessons from
Western
JM S
JAPAN
CW Q C INC.
JM S
CW Q C
JAPANESE
CO.
•
A whole of JMS-TQC became the
philosophical Company Wide Quality
Control (TQM in western).
•
CWQC, the essence within JMS being
embraced by Japanese companies.
•
TQM activities match with JMS
•
Era of Japan-Quality, Japan Inc.
•
Present scenario of collapsing
Japanese Management System.
•
Efficiency of the tools being affected
as the effectiveness in the JMS-TQC
synergic relationship cracking.
•
Japanese Companies need to find
new suitable method/practices that
will suit the new Japanese generation.
110
Shaari & Nariai
111
Proposed AFC’S Model – based on Japan’s TQM-JMS Evolution.
ACC ESS
FILTER
CHO ICE
SYNERGY
Access
Filter
Choices
Synergy
Japan
Lessons on quality initiatives from
countries.
JMS
TQM
Japan Inc. / Japanese Organization
Current Organization
foreign
Sources for learning.
Stakeholders
Process and People
Philosophy
Synergy is the main lesson learnt from Japan’s experience. TQM implementation was once
made successful by merging the efficiency of TQM initiatives to the effectiveness of Japanese
Management System. As for today’s organization, full understanding of organization’s concept
or philosophy is vital to ensure that other factors are in line for synergic relationship to
produce the optimum result. Quality programs or practices that are not supported by
understanding and commitment of the people would only invite disaster.
Choices of process, be it quality initiatives or daily activities is important to match to people’s
ability. This ability is founded on motivational factors such as needs and wants that will lead to
understanding and commitment. Vise versa, chosen employees and suppliers have to be
educated and trained to familiarize them to the selected process deemed suitable to be
adopted/adapted for practice.
JMS was the Filter in sorting out the right TQM initiatives that suit the Japanese. But in
today’s complex world, stakeholders with various issues such as immigrants, diversity, EEO, etc.
is the filter for opportunities and threats. Any issues affecting the stakeholders should be of
concern to the organization as it could directly or indirectly jeopardize the build-up synergic
relationship.
Access is what organizations need to look into for their sources of input and knowledge; and
with today’s business world where companies having aims to be learning organization,
management need to be aware of which knowledge could give them the value added they seek
for. Malhotra (2003, p. 68) gave a very brief yet meaningful definition, “knowledge is the
ultimate competitive advantage only if understood from an action-oriented perspective”.
Shaari & Nariai
112
Spending time, money, or energy for lesson that is not necessary would be of waste to the
organization.
The dotted dual pointing arrows symbolize the need for transparence initiatives of joining all
factors together for synergic relationship.
6. Conclusion
Japanese Management System has always been viewed as exemplarily unique; but for Japanese,
it is only another way of how they lead their ordinary daily life. Porter, Takeuchi & Sakakibara
(2000, p. 187) stressed, “many argue that culture is the hardest thing to change…yet much
of economic culture is learned…lifetime employment…is a creature of post-WWII labor strife”.
TQM was such a success in Japan is because Japanese work hard to fit it into their culture; and
for that JMS was born. The failure of TQM implementations claimed by some, are probably
due to direct adoption of TQM without understanding the real philosophy of kaizen behind it.
The lesson is that TQM not only requires us to continuously improve, but first to improve the
TQM elements it self, and to absorb it into our own economic culture.
On another aspect, the current changing socio-economic factors in Japan are affecting the
Lifetime Employment, which is the heart of JMS. This has given undesirable impacts on the
effectiveness of TQM implementation, which is directly hurting Japan’s competitiveness.
Therefore, the challenge for Japanese (and also for us) is to again re-finding the right matches
of quality initiatives and a new style of management system.
At the final stage of this paper, the authors propose a preliminary model, AFC’S model
developed based on the lesson learnt from Japan’s experience in implementing TQM. The
future directions of this research is to further develop the suggested model, and as per time
being the authors are currently working on another paper aiming to elaborate the proposed
model in further details, with a Malaysian company as the case study.
Shaari & Nariai
113
References
Valdes, B. 2003, ‘An application of convergence theory to Japan's post-WWII economic
"miracle"’ Journal of Economic Education’, Winter, Vol. 34, Iss. 1; pp. 61-81.
Brunet, A.P. & New, S. 2003, ‘Kaizen in Japan: an Empirical Study’, International Journal of
Operation & Production Management, vol. 3, no. 12, pp. 1426-1446.
Chan, T.H. and Quazi, H.A. 2002, ‘Overview of Quality Management Practices in Selected
Asian Countries’, The Quality Management Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 23-49.
Choppin, J. 1995, ‘TQM-What Isn’t It?’, Training for Quality, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 5-8.
Dale, B.G., Zairi, M., Van der Wiele, A. & Williams, A.R.T. 2000, ‘Quality is Dead in
Europe-Long Live Excellence: True or False?’, Measuring Business Excellence, vol. 4, no. 3, pp.
4-10.
Dawson, P. 1994, ‘Quality management: Beyond the Japanese Model’, International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 51-59.
Evans, R. 1995, ‘In Defence of TQM’, The TQM Magazine, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 5-6.
Fujimoto, T. 2004a, ‘A twenty-first Century Strategy for Japanese Manufacturing’, Japan
Echo, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 20-25.
Fujimoto, T. 2004b, ‘The Toyota Phenomenon’, Japan Echo, vol.31, no. 3, pp. 8-12.
Hill, F.M. 1996, ‘Organizational Learning for TQM Through Quality Circles’, The TQM
Magazine, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 53-57.
Hsu, S.H., & Shen, H.P. 2005, ‘Knowledge Management and its Relationship With TQM’,
Total Quality Management, vol. 16, no. 13, pp. 351-361.
Ihara, H. 2004, ‘Reexamination of Japanese Management System’, Management Japan, vol.36.
Imai, M. 1986, Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, Random House Business
Division, New York.
Jonas, G.S., Kikuo, N. and Tadashi, O. 2002, ‘Evaluation of TQM in Japanese Industries and
Validation of a Self-Assessment Questionnaire’, The TQM Magazine, vol.14, no. 5, pp.
318-328.
Kanji, K.G. & Wallace, W. 2000, ‘Business Excellence Through Customer Satisfaction’, Total
Quality Management, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. S979-S998.
Katzner, D.W. 2001, ‘Explaining the Japanese Economic Miracle’, Japan and The World
Economy, vol.13, no.3, pp. 303-319.
Lorente, A.R.M., Dewhurst, F., & Dale, B.G. 1999, ‘TQM and Business Innovation’,
European Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 12-19
Shaari & Nariai
114
Malhotra, Y. 2003, ‘Is knowledge the Ultimate Competitive advantage?’, Business
Management Asia, Q 3 No. 4, pp. 66-69.
Nariai, O. 2004. ‘Positive Perspectives on Japanese Business’, Japan Echo, vol. 31, no. 1, pp.
17-19.
Nwabueze, U. 2001a, ‘An Industry Betrayed: The Case of Total Quality Management in
Manufacturing’, The TQM Magazine, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 400-408.
Nwabueze, U. 2001b, ‘How The Mighty Have Fallen: The Naked Truth About TQM’,
Managerial Auditing Journal, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 504-513.
Odaka, K. 2001, ‘American Factory-Japanese Factory’, Social Science Japan Journal, vol. 4,
no. 1, pp. 59-75.
Porter, M.E., Takeuchi, H. & Sakakibara, M. 2000, Can Japan Compete? Macmillan Press
Limited, London.
Sohail, M.S. & Hoong, T.B. 2003, ‘TQM Practices and Organizational Performances of SMEs
in Malaysia’, Benchmarking, vol.10, no. 1, pp. 37-53.
Sohal, A. & Morrison, M. 1995, ‘TQM and the Learning Organization’, Managing Service
Quality, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 32-34.
Westbrook, R. 1995, ‘Organizing for Total Quality: Case Research from Japan’, International
journal of Quality & Reliability Management, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 8-25.
Zairi, M. 1994, ‘TQM: What is Wrong with the Terminology?’, The TQM Magazine, vol. 6,
no. 4, pp. 6-8.