| |
| |
|
Difference between Kaizen Theory and Quality Management |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
If you have any questions about our Quality Matrix, or wish to make any comments, please feel free to send a message to us at quality@artige.com. |
| |
| |
| |
| Overview |
|
This analysis is just one of many comparisons that are offered as part of the Artige Quality Matrix, which can be seen here in its original form. The definitions that are used in these comparisons are the ones that we at the Artige Company use internally and with our clients, derived from the research that we perform as a matter of due course. These definitions are derived from natural laws of physics and statistics, in order to screen our work from the effects of the business press. The original article where these terms are discussed appears here. In other words, we like to think that this work will withstand the scourges of time and not be categorized as "management du jour". |
| |
| |
| Kaizen Theory |
|
Definition |
| |
| |
|
One translation of the term Kaizen from Japanese is "to take apart and put back together in a better way". One will immediate recognize that we have a term that relates to quality, as Kaizen relates directly to improvement. This definition even comes with a recommendation on how to accomplish the improvement. Note that the definition does not have a subject, which means that it can be applied to any matter, such as processes, resources or people. |
| |
| (Continuous Improvement) |
|
For all intents and purposes, Kaizen is most often associated with continuous improvement. This is the improvement methodology where small steps are taken in an attempt to improve an existing process. Feedback is collected, and then these results are analyzed. If the review of the outcome proves successful (based on predetermined metrics), the small step change is accepted. Otherwise the process is rolled back to its previous state. This is not a radical methodology. Rather, many small steps are taken to produce desired process improvements instead of one big overhaul. Kaizen is seen by many business people to be a safe way to implement quality. |
| |
| |
|
Thanks to the folks at Toyota, the term Kaizen has been applied in a quality context to refer to a human based approach that requires feedback from the people that are familiar with the process and interact with it. The idea here is that the workers experience and knowledge includes both positive and negative aspects of the operation and would be best to know what changes could potentially work or not. There are both advantages and disadvantages to this line of thought, which is why Kaizen is applicable in certain instances. Obviously, the presence of workers with experience is a requirement, which means high turnover facilities will not be a good candidate. It is also well positioned for manual tasks, especially in the service sector. |
| |
| |
|
Another offshoot of Kaizen is the thorough use of the employee suggestion box. The Kaizen effort relies upon employee suggestions and cross-functional teams, where empowered employees are encouraged to speak up. Without human intervention, there can be no process improvement using Kaizen. As such, employees are expected to make suggestions in order to raise the quality of the processes they are responsible for. |
| |
| |
| Quality Management |
|
Definition |
| |
| |
|
We like to use this category as a catch-all for the quality methods that are not founded by obvious cause and effect methods. That is, those methods that are driven more by personalities than particulars. We also like to lump in the traditional quality control methods, as it can be shown that the quality management practices are a result of the original "measure and reject" philosophy of quality control. |
| |
| |
|
Quality management is based upon heuristic and ad hoc methods, based on previous experience. Note that there is nothing wrong with that, and it can be deployed very successfully. It is just that certain individuals like a predictable and deterministic methodology, and an ad hoc method does not fit such a constraint. The quality management methodology has its roots in traditional quality control in production, where conformance to requirements is the major point of interest. |
| |
| |
|
We use a waterfall method to explain where quality management comes from, which is based upon quality control and quality assurance. This is described by the three definitions below: |
| |
| QC |
|
The main task that the quality control methodology sets out to accomplish is to insure that only good items were acceptable for further production, and bad parts were rejected. To have the concept of good and bad parts means that standards of some type must be in place, so comparisons can be made. The fact that good and bad parts could exist was not the main concern (and is still not) of quality control. Any activity that is related to measuring product parameters against criteria and passing judgment on whether the product can be used or sold based on meeting the criteria is considered a quality control task. This covers final goods, intermediate work-in-progress or services being delivered. |
| |
| QA |
|
Obviously, a regime of rejection will only get a business so far, and could result in an unprofitable situation if most parts are rejected. So the obvious step to take is to prevent the rejections, which is typically done by assessing the processes that are causing the rejects in the first place. This method is called quality assurance. This practice considers all aspects of production, insuring that raw materials are fit for consumption, equipment is operating as desired, as well as maintained properly, and that all the constraints from customers have been collected, documented and integrated back into the constraints used for production. So, activities related to preventing rejected parts or services would be considered part of a quality assurance practice. |
| |
| QM |
|
The next obvious step for the enterprise that is able to prevent rejections is to tighten the constraints, which should result in better financial performance, owing to the fact that fewer resources are being used, with a resulting drop in costs. This is considered quality improvement, and the practice that handles this would be considered quality management. Whereas the two previous practices of quality control and quality assurance have a cause and effect relationship, the prediction and improvement of defects enters an area that is not amenable to a cause and affect analysis. No one set of rules exists that one can deploy to improve a process. |
| |
| |
|
This category of process design is extremely interesting, in that it is the reason why there are so many other methodologies to handle the process design and quality needs of an enterprise. We cannot emphasize more clearly, "no one set of rules exists that one can deploy to improve a process". All of the methodologies listed in this report are an attempt to overcome this shortcoming. Since there is no cause and effect relationship that can point one in the one and only direction to improve their processes, all of these other processes are acceptable, and can never be proven invalid or unsound in every case. All that one can do is determine which of these processes fits one's way of operating and still be able to meet the criteria set by the customer. |
| |
| |
|
Since this is the methodology that brings up the point that there is no cause-and-effect method to improve processes, we like to use quality management as the moniker to point to the ad hoc and people-oriented methods. That is because as the quality improvement concept advanced, this method would be the first that recognized human intervention was needed to improve process outcome. Most of these process improvement ideas came about in an ad hoc manner, just from trial-and-error and previous experience. Since previous experience is such a great factor in promoting prevention and improvement, the practitioners of quality management will always be focused upon people-oriented methods that pull out best practices from the experienced workers. |
| |
| |
|
Quality management is also where that concept of announcing the company financials to production workers came about in a big way. The idea here is that education and knowledge of the workforce is important, in order for them to understand where their paycheck comes from, and that they have an input in the processes that allow them to maintain their cash flow. This focus on financial measures then proves to the organization membership that ignoring quality holds a price for non-conformance. |
| |
| |
|
Note that the workforce education component is a tricky area. There are two facets to this factor. On one hand one could just announce the data and expect that the workforce will consume the data to everyone's advantage. This also allows certain executives to claim they are open and honest with their workforce. There is another step that is probably necessary. One will need to explain, and even tutor, what the meaning is behind the raw data. In other words, how will the workforce gain knowledge from the financial data? The first option to just announce the data opens the door for misunderstanding and mistrust, which is why the second option is preferred. |
| |
| |
|
All of the above tasks would be categorized as incremental in terms of implementing change. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| The Difference |
|
The Differences and / or Similarities |
| |
| |
|
At first glance, one would think that Kaizen and Quality Management have a few things in common, in addition to the fact that they both deal with the topic of quality. They are both methodologies that can be used to implement some sort of regime which could potentially instill or improve quality in a firm's offerings, plus both sanction the use of continuous improvement. However, these two methodologies take different approaches in their implementation of continuous improvement, resulting in different outcomes. |
| |
| |
|
Kaizen offers a somewhat direct approach to improving an existing system, through the application of continuous improvement, using a human based approach. Kaizen does not provide details to every specific situation, just the call for repetitive small improvements, as they are necessary to ensure continuous improvements that grow over time. So it then offers the optimism that an organization will operate better if process improvements are continuously attempted and applied. One could consider this method a direct attempt at improving the lot of an organization. |
| |
| |
|
On the other hand, Quality Management takes an indirect approach to improving the quality of an organization. It is based upon the premise that deploying Quality Control, and then regulating the Quality Control regime with a Quality Assurance regime, plus improving the Quality Assurance principles with a Quality Management process will instill an environment of quality in the enterprise. The latter relies solely on the experience and knowledge of the enterprise workers to drive the process changes and improvements. The more knowledgeable the workers, the better the chance to improve quality. |
| |
| |
|
There is some overlap between Kaizen and Quality Management, in that they both rely upon continuous improvement, driven by human intervention. Kaizen seeks to make a science out of the continuous improvement process, while Quality Management is an ad hoc methodology, driven by what works best based upon previous trial and error experience. Quality Management does have some formal methods that are derived from its basis of Quality Control and Quality Assurance. |
| |
| |
|
So on one hand with Kaizen we have a methodology that brings us improvement ideas that are related more towards the people running the processes, and allowing them input into the design and improvement of those processes. There are no firm directives that can be followed, only that many small improvements should always be put into service. On the other hand, Quality Management must first deploy a Quality Control, and then a Quality Assurance regime, and finally prepare them for continuous improvement by putting into place a management regime to oversee the quality activities. Process improvement using Kaizen Theory may be simpler to implement and at a lower cost than Quality Management, as some Kaizen principles are a subset of the Quality Management regime. |
| |
| |
|
Note that in the Quality Management methodology the outcome will be an indirect result of deploying the management processes. With its ad hoc basis, there is nothing to mandate what level of quality is expected or desired. An interesting side note for the Kaizen and Quality Management methodologies, Quality Control is typically present in both methodologies. However, it is not required in Kaizen. Just so happens in practice that Quality Control has been oftentimes deployed before Kaizen is considered as a quality improvement process. |
| |
| |
|
In summary, Quality Management uses indirect methods to maintain and possibly improve the quality of business processes. Kaizen and its continuous improvement methodologies offer a direct method that has a fighting chance to improve quality of business processes. Both methodologies should result in changes to the underlying operating processes, and they are both open ended as to what processes could be monitored and improved upon. |
Legal