A critical review of research on TQM implementation (process and achievements) in light of theories of organizational change

Petter ØglandTrial 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

Model (“same”)

Analogy (“similar”)

)/()/( RVIRPF

Scientific management and agricultural research

Midvale Steel, Pennsylvania, 1890sRothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, 1920s

Model (“same”)

Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control (W.A. Shewhart, 1939)

Analogy (“similar”)

F.W. TaylorIndustrial engineering

R.A. FisherStatistical 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)

Unfreeze Freeze

Change

Problematic social behaviour Improved social behaviour

TQM solves the OD problem through industrial engineering (Wren, 2005)

Old situation Model(problem formulation)

Model conclusions(system specification)

New situation

Analyse

Design

Implement

Evaluation

Organisational change

Systems Engineering (SE)

Problem structuring methods (PSM)

The traditional TQM paradigm (Flood & Jackson, 1991; Flood, 1993)

Old situation Model(problem formulation)HERMENEUTIC KNOWLEDGE

Model conclusions(system specification)TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE

New situationEMANCIPATORY KNOWLEDGE

Analyse

Design

Implement

Evaluation

Organisational change

Systems Engineering (SE)

Problem structuring methods (PSM)

Habermas (1971)

TQM theory = IE + OD + CT

Industrial Engineering (IE)

Methods of doing(Taylor, 1911)

Organisational Development (OD)

Methods of understanding(Lewin, 1947)

Critical theory (CT)

Methods of emancipation(Marcuse, 1964)

OD classification: System of Systems Methodology (Jackson & Keys, 1984)

Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)

Unitary(Solve problem)

Plural(Formulate problem)

Coercive(Evaluate solution)

Systems

dimension

of conte

xt (increasing complexity

)

Simple Operation research (OR)

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)

Critical System Heuristics (CSH)

Complex Viable systems methodology (VSM)

System Dynamics (SD)

?

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)

Unitary(Solve problem)

Plural(Formulate problem)

Coercive(Evaluate solution)

Systems

dimension

of conte

xt (increasing complexity

)

Simple Operation research (OR)

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)

Critical System Heuristics (CSH)

Complex Viable systems methodology (VSM)

System Dynamics (SD)

?

Selection of OD methods with relevance for TQM based on Flood & Jackson (1991)

Simple, unitary: TQM & OR

(Churchman, Ackoff & Arnoff, 1957)

• 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– Fails when it does not see the

big picture (Churchman, 1968)

Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)

Unitary(Solve problem)

Plural(Formulate problem)

Coercive(Evaluate solution)

System

s dimension of

context (increasing co

mplexity)

Simple Operation research (OR)

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)

Critical System Heuristics (CSH)

Complex Viable systems methodology (VSM)

System Dynamics (SD) ?

Complex, unitary: TQM & VSM

(Beer, 1959)

• 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)

Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)

Unitary(Solve problem)

Plural(Formulate problem)

Coercive(Evaluate solution)

System

s dimension of

context (increasing co

mplexity)

Simple Operation research (OR)

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)

Critical System Heuristics (CSH)

Complex Viable systems methodology (VSM)

System Dynamics (SD) ?

Simple, plural: TQM & SSM

(Checkland & Poulter, 2006)

• 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– Shared understanding of problem

and commitment to action does not mean that the problem is objectively understood (Beasley, 2004)

Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)

Unitary(Solve problem)

Plural(Formulate problem)

Coercive(Evaluate solution)

System

s dimension of

context (increasing co

mplexity)

Simple Operation research (OR)

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)

Critical System Heuristics (CSH)

Complex Viable systems methodology (VSM)

System Dynamics (SD) ?

Complex, plural: TQM & SD

(Senge, 1990)

• 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)

Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)

Unitary(Solve problem)

Plural(Formulate problem)

Coercive(Evaluate solution)

System

s dimension of

context (increasing co

mplexity)

Simple Operation research (OR)

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)

Critical System Heuristics (CSH)

Complex Viable systems methodology (VSM)

System Dynamics (SD) ?

Simple, coercive: TQM & CSH

(Ulrich, 1983)

• Process– Assessments, Scandinavian

school of IS (Nygaard, 1996)• Achievements

– Quality maturity models (Crosby, 1979)

– EFQM model (1992)

Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)

Unitary(Solve problem)

Plural(Formulate problem)

Coercive(Evaluate solution)

System

s dimension of

context (increasing co

mplexity)

Simple Operation research (OR)

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)

Critical System Heuristics (CSH)

Complex Viable systems methodology (VSM)

System Dynamics (SD) ?

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 computerOLD METAPHOR

The organisation is like a computer networkNEW METAPHOR

OD classification: System of Systems Methodology (Jackson, 2003)

Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)

Unitary(Solve problem)

Plural(Formulate problem)

Coercive(Evaluate solution)

Systems

dimension

of conte

xt (increasing complexity

)

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)

Complex, coercive: TQM & ANT

(Legge, 2002)

• 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)

Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)

Unitary(Solve problem)

Plural(Formulate problem)

Coercive(Evaluate solution)

System

s dimension of

context (increasing co

mplexity)

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)

Complex, unitary: TQM & CAS

(Axelrod & Cohen, 2000)

• 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)

Participants dimension of context (increasing diversity of values)

Unitary(Solve problem)

Plural(Formulate problem)

Coercive(Evaluate solution)

System

s dimension of

context (increasing co

mplexity)

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)

Does the new TQM paradigm work?

(Ciborra et al, 2000)

• 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

– 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