Implementation – a key issue?
Dr Alex Douglas’ editorial in the previous issue of TQM Magazinemade reference to Tom Peters who said that the “soft” side of TQM is hard with regards to implementing TQM successfully. This led me to think about the issue of implementation.
I am sure that we have all heard detractors of TQM say that TQM “does not work” because they have witnessed its failure to produce their expected benefits (failure rates for implementation quoted in research papers vary between 30 and 80 per cent). Conversely, it is difficult to find people who do not agree that the fundamental concepts of TQM seem like commonsense and that the tools of TQM have practical value to organisations who want to improve the way they operate. As long ago as 1994 Spector and Beer (1994)discussed the dichotomy that they found between the overwhelming support expressed in organisations for TQM principles coupled with overwhelming failure in implementation. They contended that this suggests that organisations needed to become more expert at implementing the “sweeping organisational transformation that lies at the core of TQM”. It appears that the detractors have reached the conclusion that because TQM has “not worked”then it is the concepts and tools of TQM that are “wrong”. This is flawed logic. It is just as likely that TQM may have “failed” because of flaws in the process by which it has been implemented and not because of any inherent faults in the fundamental concepts or tools.
Although it is encouraging to see that some research papers on TQM in recent years have explored the issue of implementation (e.g. Bugdol, 2005; Rad, 2005; Yasin et al., 2004), few get down to the root causes of implementation failures or successes. Researchers have largely been effective in exploring conceptual issues in TQM and the use of specific quality tools, however the multi-disciplinary area of implementation has not received the same level of attention. Case studies of implementation are often based on high-profile organisations with perceived success in the use of TQM. It is rare to see an examination of the reasons for failure in TQM implementation. Clearly it is important that these reasons be surfaced if organisations are to avoid similar failures. Equally it is important that contextual and cultural issues are taken into account in this type of research to ensure that Peters’ “soft”side is properly addressed. Without this researchers are likely to fall into the trap of producing prescriptive “one size fits all” models for successful implementation.
Unless we can gain a better understanding of implementation factors, the concepts and tools of TQM will remain under attack from the detractors and successful implementation will remain elusive. It would appear that roles exist for researchers (to explore these issues) and practitioners (to open up “failures”in implementation to examination) to help TQM to remain “alive and well”by discovering ways to aid its implementation.
John DaviesSenior Lecturer in Quality Management, Business School, University of Salford, UK
