Six Sigma and Beyond: Design for Six Sigma, Volume VI

Strategic Quality Management (SQM) or Total Quality Management (TQM), as defined by J.M. Juran, W. Edwards Deming and others, consists of a systematic approach for setting and meeting quality goals throughout a company. Just as companies have set out to achieve financial goals through a process of corporate business planning, so also can companies achieve quality goals by SQM or TQM or six sigma.

An overly simplified definition of TQM is "Doing the right thing, right the first time, on time, all the time; always striving for improvement, and always satisfying the customer." This requires a focus on customer needs, people, systems and process, and a supportive cultural environment. But this really is not any different from what the six sigma methodology proposes. The essential steps of the quality management process consist of:

Quality planning

Quality control

Quality improvement

It is important to note that the process:

The following are very closely linked:

The classical approach to benchmarking viewed as process ” which has become the de facto process ” has the following characteristics:

Top management commitment

Obsession with excellence

Organization is customer satisfaction driven

Supplier involvement

Continuous learning

Employee involvement

Use of incentives

Use of tools

The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award encapsulates the essential elements of Strategic Quality Management. The key attributes considered when making this award are listed below. Many agree that the criteria provide the blueprint for a better company. The urgency to win the award can accelerate change within an organization. Some companies have told their suppliers to compete or else. These are the criteria:

Achievement of the award requires extensive top management effort and support. All of the Quality Award winners have been in highly competitive industries and either had to improve or get out of the business. On a scale of 10 (best) to 1 (poor), how would you rate your company on each of these attributes? If you find yourself on the low end, there may be a need for benchmarking.

BENCHMARKING AND SIX SIGMA

Within the information and analysis part of the examination or survey, the practitioners of benchmarking look specifically at competitive comparisons and benchmarks. It has been reported in the literature that many companies do not do enough in the way of benchmarking. They compare themselves against other manufacturers but do not make comparisons with outside businesses or even "true" best-in-class companies.

A six sigma company is expected to describe the company's approach to selecting quality-related competitive comparisons and world-class benchmarks to support quality planning, evaluation, and improvement. The specific areas to address are:

Specific uses of benchmarking are to assist in:

A closer review of the criteria indicates several factors that are essential for effective quality excellence and benchmarking activities within a company, including:

Customer-driven quality

Continual improvement

Fast response

Actions based on facts, data and analysis

NATIONAL QUALITY AWARD WINNERS AND BENCHMARKING

Example ” Cadillac

To show the strong relationship between National Quality Award winners and benchmarking, we provide a historical perspective. The first example comes to us from Cadillac's approach to excellence. (Cadillac was the 1990 winner of the National Quality Award.) The brief case study that follows indicates the integration of business planning, excellent quality management, and benchmarking.

The Business Plan was the Quality Plan. The plan was designed to ensure that Cadillac is the "Standard of the World" in all measurable areas of quality and customer service.

The major components of the plan were:

For each objective, the following issues were addressed:

Action plans

A Second Example ” Xerox

In the early 1980s, Xerox realized that Japanese competition was selling products for less than the Xerox cost. Many of the required reforms focused on Xerox suppliers because the cost of purchases amounted to 80% of the copiers cost of goods sold.

Xerox asked suppliers to restate their company performance data so that the supplier could be compared with the best of class Xerox could find anywhere in the world. Some of the benchmarks Xerox used to measure operations proficiency included:

Xerox reduced its number of suppliers from 5,000 in 1980 to 300 by 1986 based on performance data and attitude. Suppliers were classified as: (a) does not think improvement is necessary, (b) slow to accept or manage change, and (c) willing to go for it and strong enough to be a survivor . Xerox reallocated its internal efforts to concentrate on the companies in the third group. Xerox provided extensive training to these companies, and defect rates in incoming materials dropped 90 percent in three years .

In addition to performance improvement, the suppliers were asked to participate in copier design, as early in the concept phase as possible, and to make suggestions so that overall quality could be improved and costs reduced. When this information was used, the cost of purchased material dropped by 50 percent.

Third Example ” IBM Rochester

IBM Rochester describes its quality journey as follows:

1981

Vision

Goal

Product reliability

Zero defects

1984

Vision

Goal

Process effectiveness and efficiency

All process rated

1986

Vision

Goals

Customer and supplier partnerships

Competitive and functional benchmarks

Best of competition

Over 350 benchmarking teams are in place; scores of benchmarking studies have been completed; strategic targets are derived from the comprehensive benchmarking process

1989

Vision

Goal

Market-driven customer satisfaction

Total business process focus

Closed loop quality management system

Total customer satisfaction

1990 “1994

Vision

Goal

Customer ” the final arbiter

Quality ” excellence in execution

Products and services ” first with the best

People ” enabled, empowered, excited, rewarded

Undisputed leadership in customer satisfaction

Results:

Fourth Example ” Motorola

Each of the firm's six major groups and sectors have "benchmarking" programs that analyze all aspects of a competitor's products to assess their manufacturability, reliability, manufacturing cost, and performance. Motorola has measured the products of some 125 companies against its own standards, verifying that many Motorola products rank as "best in their class." (It is imperative for the reader to understand that the result of a benchmarking study may indeed provide the researcher with data to support the assertion that the current practices of your own organization are the "best in class.")

BENCHMARKING AND THE DEMING MANAGEMENT METHOD

There is a very close relationship between the approach of W. Edwards Deming and that specified by the requirements of the National Quality Award. The potential role of benchmarking to implement certain aspects of the Deming approach is apparent.

Deming's fourteen points are summarized below:

  1. Create constancy of purpose for the improvement of product and services.

  2. Adopt the new philosophy that quality is critical for the competitive survival of a company.

  3. Cease dependence on mass inspection, and create the processes that build a quality product from the start.

  4. End the practice of awarding business based on price alone, and take into consideration the quality of products and services received.

  5. Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service. This begins with product design and goes through every phase of business operations.

  6. Institute training and retraining .

  7. Provide leadership and the resources required to get the job done.

  8. Drive out the fear of admitting problems and suggesting new and different ways of doing things. Get around the not invented here syndrome.

  9. Break down interdepartmental barriers so that all departments can work toward the common objective of satisfying the customer.

  10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations , and targets for the workforce without providing the ways and means for accomplishment. Do not tell people what to do without telling them how to do it and providing the systems and support necessary.

  11. Eliminate numerical quotas. These often promote poor quality. Instead analyze the process to determine the systemic changes required to enable superior performance.

  12. Remove barriers to pride in workmanship by providing the training, communication, and facilities required.

  13. Institute a vigorous program of education and retraining. Help people to improve every day.

  14. Take action to accomplish the transformation required.

BENCHMARKING AND THE SHEWHART CYCLE OR DEMING WHEEL

Plan

Study a process to determine what changes might be made to improve it. What type of performance is achieved by the best of the best? What do they do that we are not doing? What results do they achieve? What changes would we have to make? What does the customer expect? What is the customer level of satisfaction? Is the change economically justified?

Do

Determine the specific plan for improvement and implement it. This involves the development of creative alternatives by work teams and the conscious choice of a strategy to be followed. This may require internal or external benchmarking.

Study ” Observe the Effects

Was the root cause of the problem identified and corrected? Will the problem recur? Are the expected results being achieved?

Act

Study the results and repeat the process. Was the plan a good one? What was learned?

This approach amounts to the application of the scientific method to the solution of business problems. It is the basis of organizational learning.

WHY DO PEOPLE BUY?

Differentiation and quality management both focus on the need to meet customer needs, wants, and expectations. Why does a person buy a particular product?

How can we define quality? This is a very critical question and may indeed prove the most important question in pursuing benchmarking. The importance of this question is that it will focus the research on "best" in a very customized fashion from the organization's perspective. This is a question that must be addressed as early as possible.

ALTERNATIVE DEFINITIONS OF QUALITY

People buy a combination of products and services for a price that depends upon the perception of the value received. In order to conduct benchmarking studies relative to quality, it is important to define the elusive term "quality." Garvin (1988) and Stamatis (1996, 1997) provide various definitions of quality as follows:

Garvin's eight dimensions of product quality are:

Stamatis, on the other hand, has introduced a modified version of the above points with some additional points ” especially for service organizations. They are:

To be effective and efficient, the following characteristics must be present:

What is interesting about these two lists is the fact that both Garvin and Stamatis recognize that design for optimum customer satisfaction is a design issue. Design, indeed, is the integrating factor. The designer has to make the tough trade-offs. Concurrent engineering and Quality Function Deployment suggest that the product designer, the manufacturing engineer, and the purchasing specialist work jointly during the product design phase to build quality in from the start. The focus, of course, is to design all the above characteristics as a bundle of utility for the customer. That bundle must address in holistic approach the following:

Image

Performance

Value

To come up with reasonable definitions and actions for the above characteristics, a team must be in place and team dynamics at work. A very good approach for this portion of benchmarking that we recommend is the nominal group process:

The process features are as follows:

The discussion and direction of the nominal process must not focus on price alone because that is a very narrow point of view. Some examples of non-price reasons to buy are:

Product non-price reasons to buy

Service and image non-price reasons to buy

The service and image features define the "augmented product." They answer the questions:

In order to focus benchmarking efforts, it is critical to define the unique selling proposition or the product concept. A statement of product concept requires the definition of both attribute(s) and benefit(s). Attributes consist of both form and features (specific product or service characteristics) and technology (how they are to be provided). For example, a new brewing technique brings a double-strength beer to add to your enjoyment by capturing the taste of the 1800s (technology, form, benefit).

So what do you expect to get out of this team effort and integration? Simply put, you should get the answers to some very fundamental questions about your organization and the product/service you offer. Some typical questions are:

For example, here are some non-price reasons to buy that might apply to a supermarket :

None of these, in itself, is earth-shaking. But they could make the difference in an industry that operates with a profit margin of less than 1%.

We cannot pass up the opportunity to address non-price issues for the WALMart corporation, which allegedly spends 1% of 100 details in the following items:

DETERMINING THE CUSTOMERS PERCEPTION OF QUALITY

Differentiation is uniqueness in the eyes of the customer. Quality is meeting the unique needs, wants, and expectations of the customer in terms of the non-price reasons to buy. But who is the customer? Depending on (a) defining the customer for multiple channels of distribution or (b) identifying the multiple buying influences in a business-to-business sale, the customer may be:

Who is the competitor? Assume for example a recreation environment. Here are some questions you might ask that would help you to determine who the competitors are:

What is the desire I want to satisfy ? (Desire competitor)

What kind of recreation do I enjoy? (Generic competitor)

What kind of boating? (Form competitor)

What brand boat? (Brand competitor)

Once these questions have been addressed, now we are ready to do the competitive evaluation in the following stages:

Survey design

Approaches to making the survey

Groups to be surveyed

Survey frequency

Comparison of company internal view versus the customer view

QUALITY, PRICING AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI) ” THE PIMS RESULTS

Being perceived as being the best or having the product with the highest quality can have significant bottom line results. Buzzell and Gale (1987) introduced the PIMS (Profit Impact of Marketing Strategies) system, which is an elaborate benchmarking database developed by the Strategic Planning Institute in Cambridge, Mass. The database contains information for over 450 companies and over 3000 business experience pools in a wide variety of industries, including manufacturers, raw material producers , service companies, distributors , and durable and non-durable consumer products. Data are collected for independent business units, each with a defined served market.

The objectives of the Strategic Planning Institute and benchmarking are to help organizations in the process of becoming excellent organizations. How do they do it? By:

  1. Using the statistical analysis and modeling of business experience

  2. Isolating the key factors that determine return on investment (ROI)

ROI equals net income before interest and taxes divided by the total of working capital and fixed capital.

As a result the Institute can help organizations with:

of their own organization's behavior and their own products and services.

Of course, the choice of strategy depends upon several factors, including but not limited to:

Категории