A critical review of research on TQM
implementation (process and
achievements) in light of theories of
organizational change
Petter Øgland
Trial Lecture
Oslo, November 27th 2013
Plan for lecture
• Introduction (15 minutes)
– What is general systems theory (GST)?
– What is total quality management (TQM)?
– What is organisational development (OD)?
• The traditional TQM paradigm (20 minutes)
– OD, systems and modernity
– Main review of research on TQM implementation
• The new TQM paradigm (10 minutes)
– OD, complexity and post-modernity
General systems theory (von
Bertalanffy, 1968; Rosen, 1991)
Water circuit
Electric circuit
Analogy (“similar”)
Model (“same”)
( F  P / R)  ( I  V / R)
Scientific management and agricultural
research
Rothamsted Experimental Station,
Harpenden, Hertfordshire, 1920s
Midvale Steel, Pennsylvania, 1890s
Analogy (“similar”)
F.W. Taylor
Industrial engineering
Model (“same”)
Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality
control (W.A. Shewhart, 1939)
R.A. Fisher
Statistical methods
TQM is company-wide use of statistical
process control (SPC)
Plan-do-check-act (PDCA): Shewhart (1933), Ishikawa (1985), Deming (1986)
Total Quality Management (TQM) as
Organisational Development (OD)
Problematic social behaviour
Improved social behaviour
Change
Unfreeze
Freeze
TQM solves the OD problem through
industrial engineering (Wren, 2005)
Problem structuring
methods (PSM)
Old situation
Analyse
Organisational
change
Model
(problem formulation)
Design
New situation
Systems
Engineering (SE)
Model conclusions
(system specification)
Implement
Evaluation
The traditional TQM paradigm (Flood
& Jackson, 1991; Flood, 1993)
Problem structuring
methods (PSM)
Old situation
Analyse
Organisational
change
Model
(problem formulation)
HERMENEUTIC KNOWLEDGE
Design
New situation
EMANCIPATORY KNOWLEDGE
Implement
Systems
Engineering (SE)
Model conclusions
(system specification)
TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE
Evaluation
Habermas (1971)
TQM theory = IE + OD + CT
Industrial Engineering (IE)
Organisational Development (OD)
Critical theory (CT)
Methods of doing
(Taylor, 1911)
Methods of understanding
(Lewin, 1947)
Methods of emancipation
(Marcuse, 1964)
OD classification: System of Systems
Methodology (Jackson & Keys, 1984)
Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)
Systems dimension of context
(increasing complexity)
Simple
Unitary
(Solve problem)
Plural
(Formulate problem)
Coercive
(Evaluate solution)
Operation research
(OR)
Soft Systems
Methodology (SSM)
Critical System
Heuristics (CSH)
System Dynamics
(SD)
?
Complex Viable systems
methodology
(VSM)
Selection of OD methods with relevance for TQM based on Flood & Jackson (1991)
OD classification: System of Systems
Methodology (Jackson & Keys, 1984)
Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)
Systems dimension of context
(increasing complexity)
Simple
Unitary
(Solve problem)
Plural
(Formulate problem)
Coercive
(Evaluate solution)
Operation research
(OR)
Soft Systems
Methodology (SSM)
Critical System
Heuristics (CSH)
System Dynamics
(SD)
?
Complex Viable systems
methodology
(VSM)
Selection of OD methods with relevance for TQM based on Flood & Jackson (1991)
Simple, unitary: TQM & OR
Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)
Systems dimension of context
(increasing complexity)
Simple
Complex
Unitary
(Solve problem)
Plural
(Formulate problem)
Coercive
(Evaluate solution)
Operation research
(OR)
Soft Systems
Methodology (SSM)
Critical System
Heuristics (CSH)
Viable systems
methodology (VSM)
System Dynamics (SD)
?
• Process
– Scientific management
(Taylor, 1911)
• Achievements
– Statistical process control
(SPC), Pareto analysis,
statistical quality control
(SQC), mathematical
models and methods often
described as OR tools
• Challenges
(Churchman,
Ackoff & Arnoff,
1957)
– Fails when it does not see
the big picture
(Churchman, 1968)
Complex, unitary: TQM & VSM
Systems dimension of context
(increasing complexity)
Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)
Unitary
(Solve problem)
Plural
(Formulate problem)
Coercive
(Evaluate solution)
Simple
Operation research
(OR)
Soft Systems
Methodology (SSM)
Critical System
Heuristics (CSH)
Complex
Viable systems
methodology (VSM)
System Dynamics (SD)
?
• Process
– Systems analysis (Hara, 1967),
BPR (Hammer & Champy, 1993),
KM (Davenport & Prusak, 1998),
Six Sigma (Harry & Schroeder,
2000)
• Achievements
– TQC (Feigenbaum, 1961; Juran,
1964; Ishikawa, 1985), Motorola,
Xerox, Ford (Camp, 1989),
General Electric (Welch, 2001),
Chilean government (Beer, 1974)
• Challenges
– Failure if the system to be
controlled is poorly understood
(Checkland, 1981)
(Beer, 1959)
Simple, plural: TQM & SSM
Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)
Systems dimension of context
(increasing complexity)
Simple
Complex
Unitary
(Solve problem)
Plural
(Formulate problem)
Coercive
(Evaluate solution)
Operation research
(OR)
Soft Systems
Methodology (SSM)
Critical System
Heuristics (CSH)
Viable systems
methodology (VSM)
System Dynamics (SD)
?
• Process
– Quality circles, workshops,
training sessions, HR dept.
• Achievements
– Fishbone diagrams (Ishikawa,
1987), group dynamics
(Lewin, 1950), Tavistock (Trist
et al, 1997), STS (Mumford,
1995), SSM (Checkland &
Poulter, 2006)
• Challenges
(Checkland &
Poulter, 2006)
– Shared understanding of
problem and commitment to
action does not mean that
the problem is objectively
understood (Beasley, 2004)
Complex, plural: TQM & SD
Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)
Systems dimension of context
(increasing complexity)
Simple
Complex
Unitary
(Solve problem)
Plural
(Formulate problem)
Coercive
(Evaluate solution)
Operation research
(OR)
Soft Systems
Methodology (SSM)
Critical System
Heuristics (CSH)
Viable systems
methodology (VSM)
System Dynamics (SD)
?
• Process
– Computer simulation, e.g.
DYNAMO (Pugh, 1963)
• Achievements
– Predictive theory needed for
organisational learning (Deming,
1986; Senge 1990), industrial
dynamics, urban dynamics, world
dynamics (Forrester, 1961; 1969;
1971; Meadows et al, 1972)
• Challenges
– Behaviour of complex systems
are difficult to predict, outcome
may be the opposite of what was
planned for (Gleick, 1987)
(Senge, 1990)
Simple, coercive: TQM & CSH
Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)
Systems dimension of context
(increasing complexity)
Simple
Complex
Unitary
(Solve problem)
Plural
(Formulate problem)
Coercive
(Evaluate solution)
Operation research
(OR)
Soft Systems
Methodology (SSM)
Critical System
Heuristics (CSH)
Viable systems
methodology (VSM)
System Dynamics (SD)
?
(Ulrich, 1983)
• Process
– Assessments, Scandinavian
school of IS (Nygaard, 1996)
• Achievements
– Quality maturity models
(Crosby, 1979)
– EFQM model (1992)
Summary of research: Critical Success
Factors (CSF) for TQM implementation
•
•
Management commitment (Beer, 2003; Beckford, 2002; Taylor & Wright, 2003),
but difficult to maintain (Schein, 1987)
Empowerment (French & Bell, 1995; Gatchalian, 1997)
– TQM agents must have statistical education and experience (Deming, 1986), but TQM as a fad
resulted in a market populated by consultants without such background (Cole, 1998)
•
•
•
•
Strategy (customer focus) (Deming, 1986; Taylor & Wright, 2003), but often has to
compete for attention with fads, whims and daily fire-fighting (Mintzberg, 1973)
Supply-chain management (Deming, 1986; Tapiero, 1996)
Internal quality information usage (Taylor & Wright, 2003; Collins, 2003; Hoyle,
2006; Senge, 1990)
TQM results must be viewed as a balanced scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1996)
– Satisfied employees produce better work (Csikszentmihaly, 1990)
– Customer focus (Peters & Waterman, 1982), but innovation comes from process not
customers (Deming, 1986)
– Public image, business ethics, and impact on society is part of quality (Oakland, 1989)
– Quality improvement should impact the bottom line (Juran, 1988; Black & Revere, 2006)
CSF for TQM implementation forms
the basis for the EFQM model
In spite of this knowledge, most TQM
implementations fail (Burnes, 2010)
WHY?
Is there another way of looking at TQM implementation?
The new TQM paradigm (Dooley,
Johnson & Bush, 1995)
The organisation is like a mainframe computer
OLD METAPHOR
The organisation is like a computer network
NEW METAPHOR
OD classification: System of Systems
Methodology (Jackson, 2003)
Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)
Systems dimension of context
(increasing complexity)
Simple
Unitary
(Solve problem)
Plural
(Formulate problem)
Coercive
(Evaluate solution)
Operation research
(OR)
Soft Systems
Methodology (SSM)
Critical System
Heuristics (CSH)
System Dynamics
(SD)
Actor-Network
Theory (ANT)
Complex Viable systems
methodology
(VSM)
Complex adaptive
systems (CAS)
Complex, coercive: TQM & ANT
Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)
Systems dimension of context
(increasing complexity)
Simple
Complex
Unitary
(Solve problem)
Plural
(Formulate problem)
Coercive
(Evaluate solution)
Operation research
(OR)
Soft Systems
Methodology (SSM)
Critical System
Heuristics (CSH)
Viable systems
methodology (VSM)
Complex adaptive
systems (CAS)
System Dynamics (SD)
Actor-Network
Theory (ANT)
• Process
– Ethnography
• Achievements
– Root Cause Analysis
(Ammerman, 1998),
Evaluation of the ARAMIS
failure (Latour, 1993),
“Tragedy of the commons”
(Hardin, 1968)
• Challenges
– Complex explanations
motivate passivity rather
than action (Winner, 1993)
(Legge, 2002)
Complex, unitary: TQM & CAS
Systems dimension of context
(increasing complexity)
Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)
Unitary
(Solve problem)
Plural
(Formulate problem)
Coercive
(Evaluate solution)
Simple
Operation research
(OR)
Soft Systems
Methodology (SSM)
Critical System
Heuristics (CSH)
Complex
Viable systems
methodology (VSM)
Complex adaptive
systems (CAS)
System Dynamics (SD)
Actor-Network Theory
(ANT)
• Process
– Kaizen (Imai, 1987), JIT
(Shingo, 1989), Lean
Production (Womack et
al, 1990)
• Achievements
– Kanban (Ohno, 1978), 5S
(Hiroyuki, 1995), Toyota
Motor Company (Liker,
2004)
(Axelrod &
Cohen, 2000)
Does the new TQM paradigm work?
• Socially important
– The new paradigm creates
problems that were not seen
within the older paradigm (Kuhn,
1970)
– With the new paradigm the
world feels like a “juggernaut out
of control” (Giddens, 1984)
• Scientifically challenging
– Unfalsifiable theory (ideological)
– Anecdotal empirical evidence
– Research based on comparison
of treatments is not possible
• Relevance for research
(Ciborra et al, 2000)
– Important and interesting area
for doing research
Summary of lecture
• Introduction
– Industrial engineering (IE) and organisational development
(OD) are both based on general systems theory (GST)
– Total quality management (TQM) is use of IE for doing OD
• The traditional TQM paradigm
– TQM is GST from the viewpoint of electrical engineering
– Mature science, but 80% TQM implementation failure
• The new TQM paradigm
– TQM is GST from the viewpoint of ecology
– Sociologically convincing, but scientifically immature