what 

happens if we type these here

Common Reasons Quality Programs Fail

The quality revolution has spread to virtually every business sector, including the technical consulting profession. Some consulting firms have enthusiastically embraced TQM-type programs. Others have reluctantly installed loosely structured efforts at the behest of clients or because their competition is doing it.

And like industry at large, consultants have found the results of their quality programs largely disappointing. I suspect the primary reason is lack of real commitment. But for those firms that have made an honest effort, the list below may prove insightful. I’ve drawn the following reasons for quality program failure (which I’ve seen in my own experience with quality programs) from a recent article by Oren Harari:

u Focusing on internal processes rather that external results. This is a common mistake, no doubt perpetuated because it’s easier to address internal issues than to enlist the involvement of clients. But, of course, clients ultimately define good quality and service. So internally-driven performance enhancements may improve efficiency without achieving any meaningful change from the client’s perspective. On the contrary, market-driven effectiveness must be the primary goal.

u Defining quality based on minimum standards. Eliminating errors and meeting budgets and schedules are laudable goals, but do not constitute quality in the eyes of your clients. Rather, these are the expected norm. Quality that makes a difference goes beyond meeting minimum performance standards to adding value to your services. It should be what distinguishes you from your competitors, not what makes you equal to them.

u Creation of additional bureaucracy. For many companies, a quality program manifests itself in little more than added forms to fill out and more centralized control. These firms attempt to add quality to existing processes rather than reinvent them. Bureaucratic programs impose more order and predictability, but fail to inspire the creativity and spontaneity that leads to real quality and service improvement.

u Failure to spread responsibility across the entire organization. Harari says it best: “Quality can’t be delegated. It must be assumed and lived by everyone on the payroll. It must be central to company strategy, operations, and individual job roles.” He goes on to explain that a successful quality program must involve people at three levels: (1) your rank-and-file employees must own it, (2) your clients must be active participants, and (3) your management must be truly committed to it.

u Lack of radical organizational reform. One can hardly expect dramatic improvement from tweaking processes, standardizing procedures, and intensifying reviews. Yet that’s all most consulting firms have the stomach for. Real gains in quality and service usually require revising organizational structures and functions. Decision making is decentralized, “functional foxholes” are broken down, and clients, vendors, and subcontractors are woven into the fabric of your operations. It’s not easy. Consequently, it’s not often done.

u Management compensation not tied to improvements. Given that meaningful progress in quality and service requires taking risks and mobilizing change, many consulting firm managers—who tend to be conservative—are not inclined to lead the way. Yet management commitment, as noted earlier, is vital to the success of quality programs. Firms which are serious about better quality need to get their managers behind it, which probably necessitates offering tangible incentives.

u Inclination to look for quick fixes. It’s an interesting paradox: Most of us avoid making radical changes in our lives, then complain about the rut we’re caught in. It’s the same with technical consulting firms, whether the issue is quality management, business development, or operations. Despite the criticisms leveled here, don’t be too quick to label your quality program a failure. Even the most ambitious programs yield mostly small incremental improvements. It’s the sum of these changes over time that reveals the program’s success. Constantly remind your staff of their achievements and reward even modest, if hard fought, gains.

u Stifled entrepreneurship and innovation. There’s a fundamental tension present in every quality program—the competing goals of standardization and continuous improvement. Technical consultants have a tendency to lean towards consistency and predictability, often at the cost of innovation. The balance is found in staying close to your clients, understanding and responding to their ever-changing needs.

Copyright © 1997, The Business Edge, all rights reserved (from the newsletter The Consultant Communicator); Source: Harari, “Ten Reasons TQM Doesn’t Work,” Management Review, January 1997.

Home    |    Experience    |    Articles    |    Links    |    Contact