创造价值通过平衡计分卡导向全面质量管理82
617097
(Authors: Dr. Mike C. K. Lam and Mr. Q.S. Ren)
Abstract
This paper tries to solve some of the issues concerning total quality management (TQM). Firstly, what does a TQM (business excellence) conc ept/model look like? Are these TQM concepts/models theoretically sound? Would the judging frameworks and criteria of some quality awards such as Hong Kong Management Association (HKMA) Quality Award be the T QM concepts/models? Secondly, are TQM models related to other manage ment concepts such as the Balanced Scorecard (BSC)? Thirdly could we i ntegrate the TQM concept with BSC framework to form a value-adding c oncept? The main aim of this paper concerns with the processes of buildi ng up the Balanced Scorecard Oriented TQM concept theoretically, for wh ich the bases are conjoining the Kanji’s TQM model and the framework of the BSC with reference to the judging framework and criteria of HKM A Quality Award. Based on the concept of Systems Theory and model bu ilding technique, firstly we triangulated the Kanji’s TQM model and the BSC framework to fit into the Systems Theory. Secondly, we compared t hese triangulated models with reference to the judging framework and crit eria of HKMA Quality Award systematically. Thirdly, after analysis, we pr oposed the BSC-Oriented TQM concept and its concept mapping for refer ence and further testing in the real world. The expected outcomes of this research are solving the above-mentioned research problems. The ultimate aim of this research is to form the conceptual model of BSC-Oriented T QM concept for further testing by practitioners and academics of TQM in order to gain more concrete experiences or the management knowledge o f the world.
Introduction
The original or traditional approaches of quality management were ve ry much process oriented. With the advent of Total Quality Management (TQM), organizations began to focus on the needs (requirements) and wan ts (exceeding the requirements) of customers both externally and internally (Wilkinson, 1992). There is no doubt that the issue of ‘customers’bec omes the foci of all kinds of management tools and concepts. On the oth er hand, one of the basic concepts of TQM is the systems theory (input-process-output). That is to say, the inputs-processes-outputs (activities) of an organization are aiming at the fulfillment of the needs and wants of th e customers such as the concept of ‘To delight customers’, which is t he input or starting point of the whole value-adding chain of business pro cesses so that the outputs are ‘customers’satisfaction/delight’and thus the financial performance. If we accept this simple logic of doing busine sses, we still have to solve, at least, two major issues. Firstly, let us assu me that we know our customers thoroughly. However, in accordance with Ansoff (1984), ‘Strategy is a concept of the firm’s business, which pr ovides a unifying theme for all its activities.’The problem is how could we organize all the activities of an organization under a unifying theme, which is, the strategy of an organization? Secondly, even though an organ ization has strategy, how could we know the implementation of the strate gy is right? The answer of these two issues lies on the strategic manage ment of an organization with the help of the BSC.
According to Kanji and Asher (1995), the ultimate aim of TQM is t o achieve business excellence (company performance) such as financial an d non-financial results/measures. However, from our concrete experience a
nd observation and reflections, the practitioners and academics of TQM ar e facing many problems. To name a few, firstly, what does a TQM conce pt/model look like? Would the judging frameworks and criteria of some q uality awards such as the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (US A) or Hong Kong Quality Management Association Quality Award (hereaf ter we call HKMA Quality Award) be the TQM (business excellence) con cepts/models? Secondly, are these TQM concepts/models theoretically soun d/ based?
Background of the Study
The authors of this paper have been involving the research and the i mplementation of TQM (Lam and Yu, 1999, 2001), and the BSC (Lam 2 002 a, b, c) for ten years (concrete experience). Moreover, the authors ha ve been researching the theoretical bases of some TQM models such as Kanji’s TQM model. Based on the Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle (Please refer to Figure 1), the authors discovered (Observation and Reflect ions) that there are many similarities between the Kanji’s TQM model a nd the basic criteria of various quality awards and the framework of BS C. The authors of this paper attempt to build on the concept of BSC and Kanji’s TQM model, for which, compared to the judging framework an d criteria of HKMA Quality Award to form the BSC-Oriented TQM conc ept (Formation of Abstract Model) for further testing. The driving force o f this research is the notion of ‘value creation or adding’as we observ ed that too many organizations wasted too much resources of using differ ent kinds of management tools or concepts. It would be very much value -adding if we could conjoin few management tools or concepts under one concept or model such as the BSC-Oriented TQM concept we proposed
in this paper. The ultimate aim is to invite practitioners of both the TQM and BSC to test the proposed concept/model and contributing to the man agement knowledge of the world.
Methodology
Based on the simple concept of Systems Theory (Input-Process-Outpu t) and model building technique, firstly we rearranged or triangulated the Kanji’s TQM model and the BSC framework to fit into Systems Theory. Secondly, we theoretically compared these triangulated concepts systemati cally. Thirdly, after analysis, we proposed the BSC-Oriented TQM concept for reference and further testing in the real world.
Literature Review
Systems Theory and/or Model Building
According to Bonini et, al. (1999), real-world problems tend to be en ormously complex such as the problems and the main aim of this researc h paper. There are literally an uncountable number of inherent facts (tacit or implicit knowledge) in any empirical situation. Further, every potential course of action starts a chain of cause-and-effect or input-process-output, and interaction that logically is without end. A model is a simplified rep resentation of an empirical situation. The original aims of researchers are not to construct a model that is as close as possible to reality in every a spect, rather than, researchers want the simplest model that predicts outco mes reasonably well and is consistent with effective action. The technique for describing and relating various variables such as exogenous, endogen ous, intermediate, decision and expected performance variables or outcome
s/measures (as per Figure 2), depends on large extend of the nature of th e variables. The simple form of systems theory and/or model building is as follows:
Total Quality Management (TQM)
TQM has been widely accepted by the business practitioners and aca demics to improve the quality, if not the organization effectiveness, of an organization continuously. However, there are many problems of applying the principles or concepts of TQM to the real world situations. The maj or problem is the ‘standardization’of different TQM models/ concepts t hemselves, if not the ‘unification’of various TQM models/concepts. (T his is one of the areas, which needs further research). There are many fa mous quality gurus such as
Philip. N Crosby (Fourteen steps to quality improvement),
Joseph M Juran (Ten steps to quality improvement), and
Edwards Deming (Fourteen points for management or the famous Pla n–Do–Check–Act / PDCA Cycle).
Strategic Management and the Balanced Scorecard (BSC)
When we analyze the Figure 4, the key problem is how strategy is devised. According to Ansoff (1984), ‘the idea of strategy has received i ncreasing recognition in management literature. There are numerous papers have appeared dealing with corporate strategy (Strategic level), business s trategy, product line strategy (Operational level) and marketing strategy (F unctional level). This interest grew out of a realization that a firm needs a well-defined scope and growth direction, that objectives alone do not m eet this need, and that additional decision rules are required if the firm is to have orderly and profitable growth. Such decision rules and guidelines have been broadly defined as strategy or, sometimes, as the concept of t he firm’s business’.
Having reviewed the literature concerning the TQM concepts, we cou ld find out that the role of leadership and strategic management become more and more important in the development of TQM models/concepts. T herefore, we need to understand the major contents of strategic manageme nt. Using systems theory to explain strategic management (Hofer at.el, 19 84; Limerick, Cunnington and Crowther, 1993 and Johnson and Scholes, 1 999, Kaplan and Norton, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 2000), the authors conc lude that strategic management can be broadly divided into the following areas as per Figure 5:
S1. Management of meaning is the formulation of mission, vision, co re values and goals of an organization. The main aim is to clarify the ov erall purpose of an organization, which is in line with the values and exp ectations of stakeholders and the direction to achieve the purpose. The su ccess of S1 depends on leadership and strategic management. This is one
of the inputs of the first-tier (input-process-output) of the strategic manag ement of Figure 5.
S3. The strategic choice, which is the strategy formulation processes in reference to the customers of a company and other variables of S1 & S2. The commonly used tool is SWOT or TOWS analysis (Weihrich, 198 2,1999). The main aim is to decide which strategies should be pursued or implemented. Moreover, it is extremely important if one can determine h ow the strategies or the outputs can be assessed. With the advent of BSC framework, the issue can solve this issue. (Lam, 2002 b)
S4. The strategic implementation is the processes of implementing the defined strategies. Since the strategies of an organization are devised by S1 to S3, the strategies or the outputs of the prior systems (S1 to S3) be come the inputs of the subsequent systems i.e. strategic implementation (S 4) and strategic control and continuous improvement (S5) of the two-tier systems of strategic management as per Figure 5. The success of S4 depe nds on many elements such as the proficiencies of using management tool s, for example, Business Process Reengineering (BPR) Benchmarking, TQ M and BSC.
S5. Strategic control (the performance) and continuous improvement (feedback) are the outputs as well as the inputs of the whole two-tier sys tems. Strategic implementation (S4) is the processes of the current system s and the strategic control or performance becomes the outcome or output of the total strategic management systems. And then the feedback loop (the continuous improvement of TQM or the learning and innovation of B
SC) becomes the input of the entire strategic management system, which goes on and on.
If the readers of this paper accepted our arguments that the concept of TQM and BSC framework are very important in strategic managemen t, most of the organizations are hierarchical and the responsibilities of sta keholders could be broadly divided into three levels on top of strategic m anagement and leadership are the major responsibilities of leaders or top management, we could summarize the relationships, particularly the chain of inputs-processes-outputs as following Figure 6.
Whilst traditional performance measurement systems are heavily confi ned to financial measures only, the descriptive framework of the BSC pro vides a wider angle for appreciating the problems (empirical situation) aff ecting a company’s performance. It achieves this by viewing a company’s performance from four perspectives: financial (F), customers/market(C), i nternal business process (IBP) and innovation & learning (L&I). It gives us a broader view of the issues of a company’s performance and is not merely confined to financial performance. According to Kaplan & Norton (1992), the traditional financial performance measures worked well for the industrial era, but they are out of step with the skills and competencies companies are trying to master today. They researched twelve companies and derived the BSC, which is not prescriptive, but rather provides a des criptive framework to measure a company’s performance from the four p erspectives. These perspectives are based on the notion that the traditional financial performance measures (the second tier of Figure 5) are inadequ ate for today’s businesses. The descriptive framework divides the perspec
tives into the drivers or leading indicators, namely, L&I and IBP, and the outcomes or lagging indicators, namely, C and thus F.
One of the ways to appreciate the BSC framework is not the criticis m of the logical relationship of the four perspectives as such. The origina l idea or the concept of the BSC (company performance measurement sys tem of the second tier of Figure 5) is helping practitioners not merely fo cus on financial performance; customer satisfaction (customer) is the most important output of the processes (internal business process) prior to fina ncial performance, for which the authors of BSC call them the ‘lagging indicators’. As a matter of fact that it is easy for anyone to think of wh y only four not five or six perspectives such as the human resources. Ho wever, the argument (the cause-and effect relationships) of the framework has been heavily attacked by academics. The major problem or constraint of the BSC framework is its original research aim, which is company pe rformance system itself (the second tier of Figure 5). The original aim w as not finding a TQM management or strategic management model. Altho ugh the authors remedied the issue by publishing the papers and books (Kaplan and Norton, 1993,1994,1996), the problem remains the same such as how a strategy is logically devised is questionable. The major deficie ncy of BSC is “translating a company’s mission/vision directly into stra tegy”without considerations of exogenous (Opportunities and Threats) an d endogenous (Strengths and Weaknesses) variables in their earlier publica tions. According to Lam (2002b), the major deficiency had already been s olved (using SWOT and BSC together in S2). Nevertheless used the simp le concept of systems theory/model building technique to assess or rebuild the relationship of the four perspectives of the whole idea or framework for the sake of this investigation. Therefore, we would like to triangulate the four perspectives into the systems theory as following Figure 7.
Quality Awards
Since the Kanji’s TQM modified model could be fit into systems th eory as per figure 4, therefore, there is no doubt that the HKMA Quality Award can also be fit into the systems theory as well. However, they ha ve to modify systematically.
Analysis and findings
The BSC and the HKMA Quality Award
From the literature review and analyses, the readers of this paper can find that there is a highly correlated relationship between the BSC, Kanj i’s TQM model and the HKMA Quality Award. Owing to the constraints of the length of this paper, we summarize the relationship as following Figure 9.
As we knew, the framework of BSC was research-based concept. Aft er ten years of successful launching (continuous testing/ improvement), it
is being regarded as one of the successful concepts/models of managemen t in last 75 years (See Harvard Review’s Recommendation). Based on ou r research approach (using systems theory), our literature review, discussio ns above and the Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, such as our concret e experience, observation/reflection, we hypothesize that the modified BSC framework and the Kanji’s TQM modified model in reference to the H KMA Quality Award are “similar”as following Figure 10.
Using systems theory as the analytical tool and based on our analyse s, we tried to triangulate the two models/concepts into systems theory tog ether and we call the outcome as the BSC-Oriented TQM concept as per above-mentioned Figure 11.
Concept Mapping
Using the technique of Influence diagram/mapping or strategic mappin g in the terminology of BSC, we tried to put the elements or concepts of figure 11 and Figure 3 into another format as we call it ‘Concept Map ping’or ‘Template’of the BSC-Oriented TQM concept as following Figure 12s
Those readers who are familiar to BSC should find the similarities of the ‘strategic maps’of BSC (Kaplan and Norton, 2000) with the conc ept mapping of the BSC-Oriented TQM concept in figure 12. Let us assu me that our theoretical arguments are based on concrete experience, obser vation & reflection, are sound and established, the BSC-Oriented TQM m odel template are generated which is based on the BSC framework and K anji’s TQM modified model with reference to HKMA Quality Award. We are advocating for further testing in order to complete the Kolb’s exper iential learning cycle. The template itself serves as a guideline for achievi ng Business Excellence with TQM model and BSC framework for which is value-adding or value creation. The simple idea is “why not Both-An d”, a kind of management paradigm shift. That is to say, why not conjoi n both TQM and BSC together in real world.
Application of the BSC-Oriented TQM Concept
Although we have different clients to do different sections of the pro posed concept, we do not have a single case to claim the ecological vali dity of the BSC-Oriented TQM concept. Therefore, we advocate the reade rs, both practitioners and academics, to test the proposed concept in order to contribute to the management knowledge of the world.
Conclusion
Recommendations
From this paper, there are many areas worth further researching and we conclude as follows:
The standardization of various TQM concepts/models under certain fr ameworks for counter-arguments of this paper.
Researching various strategic management models in reference to TQ M concepts. Otherwise, triangulate various concepts under a certain TQM framework.
Carry out the implementations of the BSC-Oriented TQM concepts as case studies in other to contribute to the management knowledge of the world.
References
Ansoff, H.I., (1984), ‘Implementing Strategic Management’, Englew ood Cliffs, NT, Prentice Hall.
Bonini, C. P., Hausman, W., H., Bierman, Jr., H., (1999), ‘Qualitativ e Analysis for Management’, 9th Ed., The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Hofer, C.W., Murray, Jr., E.A., Charan, R., and Pitts, R.A., (1984), ‘Strategic Management-A Casebook in Policy and Planning’Second Edi tion, West Publishing Company.
Johnson, G., and Scholes, K., (1999), ‘Exploring Corporate Strategy’, 5th Edition, Prentice Hall Europe.
Kanji, G.K and Asher, M (1995) “Total Quality Management- A syst ematic Approach”, Madras, Productivity Press.
Kanji, G. K. (1998) “An Innovation Approach to make ISO 9000 St andards more Effective”, Total Quality Management, vol. 9 no. 1, 1998, pp. 67-78.
Kanter, R. M., (1990), ‘How to Compete’, Harvard Business Revie w, May-August.
Kaplan, R.S., and Norton, D., (1992), ‘The Balanced Scorecard-Me asures That Drive Performance’. Harvard Business Review, January-Febru ary, pp.71-79.
Kaplan, R.S., and Norton, D., (1993), ‘Putting the Balanced Scorecar d to Work’, Harvard Business Review, September-October, pp134-147.
Kaplan, R.S., and Norton, D., (1994), ‘Devising a Balanced Scorec ard matched to Business Strategy’. Planning Review, September-October.
Kaplan, R.S., and Norton, D., (1996a), ‘Using the Balanced Scorec ard as a Strategic Management System”: Harvard Business Review, Janua ry-February, pp75-85.
Kaplan, R.S., and Norton, D., (1996b), ‘The Balanced Scorecard: T ranslating Strategy into Action’, Harvard Business School Press.
Kaplan, R.S., and Norton, D., (2000), ‘The Strategy-Focused Organiz ation: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business E nvironment’Harvard Business School Press.
Kolb, Rubin & McIntyre, (1979), extracted from Gill, J., and Johnso n, P., (1997), ‘Research Methods for Managers’, Second Edition, Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Lam, C. K., (2002a), ‘Using the Balanced Scorecard as the diagnost ic framework of the company performance measurement system’Final Re search Paper 1 of Doctor Business Administration program, University of South Australia.
Lam, C. K., (2002b), ‘Case study: Conjoining the concept of Strengt hs, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) matrix with the Balan ced Scorecard as a tool for improving the strategic management process o f a networked small business’, Final Research Paper 2 of Doctor of Busi ness Administration program, University of South Australia.
Lam, C. K., (2002c), ‘Case Study: Building the Concept of a Virtua l Networking and Learning Organization Business Concept Via Application
of the SECI Model through Action Research’, Final Research Pager 3 o f Doctor of Business Administration Program University of South Australi a.
Lam, C. K., and Yu, C. Y., (1999), ‘Faster TQM Organization’. C onference Paper Published in the Eight Hong Kong Quality Management Convention.
Lam, C. K., and Yu, C. Y., (2001), ‘Performance Management- the BSC Approach’. Conference Paper Published in the Ninth Hong Kong Q uality Management Convention.
Laseclles, D.M. and Dale, B.G. (1991), “Leveling Out the Future”The TQM Magazine 3, no. 6: 325-330.
Limerick, D., Cunnington, B., and Crowther, F., (1993), ‘Managing t he New Organization-: Collaboration and Sustainability in the Post Corp orate World’Business & Professional Publishing.
Nonaka, I., and Konno, N., (1998), The Concept of "Ba": Building a Foundation For knowledge Creation, California Management Review, V ol.
40 No.3, spring. Pp.40-54.
Porter, M. E., (1979), “How competitive forces shape strategy,”Har vard Business Review, Mar-Apr 1979, p.141.
Porter, M. E., (1985), “Competitive Advantage –Creating and Sust aining Superior Performance”, Free Press.
Porter, M. E., (1996) ‘What is strategy?’Harvard Business Review, Nov.-Dec., pp.61-78.
Weihrich, H., (1982), ‘The TOWS Matrix-A Tool for Situational Ana lysis’, Long Range Planning, V ol. 15, No 2, pp.54-66.
Weihrich, H., (1999), ‘Analyzing the competitive advantages and dis advantages of Germany with the TOWS Matrix-an alternative to Porter’s Model’, European Business Review, V olume 99. Number 1.pp.9-22 .MCB University Press.
Wilkinson, A., (1992), ‘The Other Side of Quality: ‘Soft’Issues and the Human Resources Dimension’, Total Quality Management, 3, pp. 323-329.