TQM and Six Sigma

While Six Sigma is definitely succeeding in creating some impressive results and culture changes in some influential organizations, it is certainly not yet a widespread success. Total Quality Management (TQM) seems less visible in many businesses than it was in the early 1990s. However, many companies are still engaged in improvement efforts based on the principles and tools of TQM. It appears at least in Korea that Six Sigma is succeeding while TQM is losing its momentum.
One of the problems that plagued many of the early TQM initiatives was the preeminence placed on quality at the expense of all other aspects of the business. Some organizations experienced severe financial consequences in the rush to make quality “first among equals.” The disconnection between management systems designed to measure customer satisfaction and those designed to measure provider profitability often led to unwise investments in quality, which has been often practiced in TQM. Ronald Snee (1999) points out that although some people believe it is nothing new, Six Sigma is unique in its approach and deployment. He defines Six Sigma as a strategic business improvement approach that seeks to increase both customer satisfaction and an organization’s financial health. Snee goes on to claim that the following eight characteristics account for Six Sigma’s increasing bottom-line (net income or profit) success and popularity with executives.
• Bottom-line results expected and delivered
• Senior management leadership
• A disciplined approach (DMAIC)
• Rapid (3–6 months) project completion
• Clearly defined measures of success
• Infrastructure roles for Six Sigma practitioners and leadership
• Focus on customers and processes
• A sound statistical approach to improvement
Other quality initiatives including TQM have laid claim to a subset of these characteristics, but only Six Sigma attributes its success to the simultaneous application of all eight. Six Sigma is regarded as a vigorous rebirth of quality ideals and methods, as these are applied with even greater passion and commitment than often was the case in the past. Six Sigma is revealing a potential for success that goes beyond the levels of improvement achieved through the many TQM efforts. Some of the mistakes of yesterday’s TQM efforts certainly might be repeated in a Six Sigma initiative if we are not careful.
A review of some of the major TQM pitfalls, as well as hints on how the Six Sigma system can keep them from derailing our efforts is listed below.
1. Links to the business and bottom-line success:
In TQM, quality often was a “sidebar” activity, separated from the key issues of business strategy and performance. The link to the business and bottom-line success was undermined, despite the term “total” quality, since the effort actually was limited to product and manufacturing functions. Six Sigma emphasizes reduction of costs, thereby contributing to the bottom-line, and participation of three major areas: manufacturing, R&D and service parts.
2. Top-level management leadership:
In many TQM efforts, top-level management’s skepticism has been apparent, or their willingness to drive quality ideas has been weak. Passion for and belief in Six Sigma at the very summit of the business is unquestioned in companies like
Motorola, GE, Allied Signal (now Honeywell), LG and Samsung. In fact, top-level management involvement is the beginning of Six Sigma.
3. Clear and simple message:
The fuzziness of TQM started with the word “quality” itself. It is a familiar term with many shades of meaning. In many companies, Quality was an existing department with specific responsibilities for “quality control” or “quality assurance,” where the discipline tended to focus more on stabilizing rather than improving processes. Also TQM does not provide a clear goal at which to aim. The concept of Six Sigma is clear and simple. It is a business system for achieving and sustaining success through customer focus, process management and improvement, and the wise use of facts and data. A clear goal (3. 4 DPMO or 6s quality level) is the centerpiece of Six Sigma.
4. Effective training:
TQM training was ineffective in the sense that the training program was not so systematic. Six Sigma divides all the employees into five groups (WB, GB, BB, MBB and Champion), and it sets very demanding standards for learning, backing them up with the necessary investment in time and money to help people meet those standards.
5. Internal barriers:
TQM was a mostly “departmentalized” activity in many companies, and it seemed that TQM failed to break down internal barriers among departments. Six Sigma places priority on cross-functional process management, and cross-functional project teams are created, which eventually breaks down internal barriers.
6. Project team activities:
TQM utilized many “quality circles” of blue-collar operators and workers, and not many “task force teams” of white-collar engineers even if they are needed. Six Sigma demands a lot of project teams of BBs and GBs, and the project team activities are one of the major sources of bottom-line and top-line success.
3. Clear and simple message:
The fuzziness of TQM started with the word “quality” itself. It is a familiar term with many shades of meaning. In many companies, Quality was an existing department with specific responsibilities for “quality control” or “quality assurance,” where the discipline tended to focus more on stabilizing rather than improving processes. Also TQM does not provide a clear goal at which to aim. The concept of Six Sigma is clear and simple. It is a business system for achieving and sustaining success through customer focus, process management and improvement, and the wise use of facts and data. A clear goal (3. 4 DPMO or 6s quality level) is the centerpiece of Six Sigma.

4. Effective training:
TQM training was ineffective in the sense that the training program was not so systematic. Six Sigma divides all the employees into five groups (WB, GB, BB, MBB and Champion), and it sets very demanding standards for learning, backing them up with the necessary investment in time and money
to help people meet those standards.

5. Internal barriers:
TQM was a mostly “departmentalized” activity in many companies, and it seemed that TQM failed to break down internal barriers among departments. Six Sigma places priority on cross-functional process management, and cross-functional project teams are created, which eventually breaks down internal barriers.

6. Project team activities:
TQM utilized many “quality circles” of blue-collar operators and workers, and not many “task force teams” of white-collar engineers even if they are needed. Six Sigma demands a lot of project teams of BBs and GBs, and the project team activities are one of the major sources of bottom-line and top-line success.