TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

QUALITY AND SAFETY: PARTNERS IN PRODUCTIVITY

It's important to think of safety as an important aspect of both product and process quality in the workplace. In this course, we'll address those concepts and principles that apply safety specifically to process safety.

Let's take a brief look at how product and process safety differ.

Product quality is elusive. The only way you know you have it is by asking those who define it: The customer.

All the company can do is to try hard to produce a product that fits the customer's definition of quality. When the product is designed to prevent injury or illness, the customer will define the product as safe. As we all know, customer perceptions about product safety are very important these days. Unfortunately, some companies do not take safety into consideration when designing their products. Consequently they may unintentionally design unsafe or unhealthful features into their products.

Process quality and safety are very closely related. Process quality may be considered error-free work, and safety, as one element of process, can be thought of as injury-free work. When an injury occurs, the "event" increases the number of unnecessary and wasted steps in the production process. How does safety fit into the continuous quality improvement philosophy?

WHAT IS TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT (TQM)?

Total Quality Management is a strategic approach to management that takes advantage of all corporate resources to continually improve performance and processes so that they may ultimately be error free. The result is a product or service that greatly exceeds customer expectations.

The champions of Total Quality Safety Management

Dr. W. Edwards Deming is considered by most to be the father of Total Quality Safety Management. He was probably more responsible than any other person for Japan's meteoric rise in manufacturing. He believed that statistics hold the key to improving processes, and that management must take responsibility for quality in the workplace because management controls the processes. This discussion will take a look at his 14 Points of Total Quality Safety Management as they relate to safety.

Joseph M. Juran was a contemporary of Deming, and a second great contributor to the success of Japan's management revolution of the 40's and 50's. He viewed quality problems as 80% the result of weaknesses in the management system and 20% attributable to workers. He would have, no doubt, the same opinion about the causes of workplace injuries and illness. Like Deming, he admonished managers to avoid campaigns and slogans to motivate the workforce to solve the company's quality problems. He favored the use of quality circles because they improved communications between management and labor, and would have surely improved of the idea of management-labor safety committees which have been established for the same purpose.

Philip B. Crosby, a quality expert, was responsible for quality for the Pershing missile project at Martin Corporation, was director of quality for ITT, and in 1979 formed Philip Crosby Associates. He defines quality as "Conformance to requirements, ...which can only be measured by the cost of nonconformance." He might consider safety as the "conformance to injury- and illness-free work practices, ... which can be measured only by average industry costs." Like Deming, he developed 14 steps to quality improvement.

You'll find more about each of these contributors to continuous quality improvement by reading the texts listed at the beginning of this session.

DEEMING'S 14 POIINTS APPLIED TO TOTAL QUALTY SAFETY

Deming's 14 Points form some of the most important concepts and approaches to continuous quality improvement philosophy. The focus of this module is to better understand and apply each of Deming's 14 points to workplace safety. So, let's examine what he says about quality, and how it can be applied to safety.

Point 1. Create a constant purpose to improve the product and service, with the aim to be competitive, stay in business, and provide jobs.

Deming spoke about the "problems of today and the problems of tomorrow," and that management in America today tends to focus only on today's problems when it should be placing increased, if not most emphasis on tomorrow's threats and opportunities to improve competitive position. Management should be focused constantly on improving the safety of materials, equipment, workplace environment, and work practices today so that it can remain successful tomorrow. The objective of continually working toward a safe and healthful workplace today, so that fewer injuries and illnesses occur in the future fits well with Deming's constancy of purpose. If management successfully communicates the clear, consistent message over the years that workplace safety is a core value (as stated in the mission statement), that there are "no excuses" for accidents, the company can be successful in developing a world-class safety culture. If a company considers safety only a priority that may be changed when convenient, constancy of purpose is not communicated.

Point 2. Adopt a new philosophy. We are in a new economic age. Western management must awaken to the challenge, must learn their responsibilities, and take on leadership for a change.

We continually teach that management must step outside itself to reflect, to take a new look at what its purpose is, long term. Safety can never be understood or properly appreciated if only the short term view is taken by management. Quick fix programs to "impose" change will not work. Only understanding of the long term benefits will give management the vision to properly and consistently send and act on the message of workplace safety.

The old philosophy accepts as fact that a certain level of injury and illness will result from a given process, and that the associated costs should represent one of many costs of doing business.

The new safety philosophy strives to:

􀂃 Prevent injuries and illnesses by continually analyzing and improving upstream factors such as work practices, equipment design, materials, and the workplace physical and cultural environment through education, training and recognition.

􀂃 Improve product safety for the benefit of the customer.

Point 3. Cease dependence on mass inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place.

Deming was referring to the practice of inspecting every piece of product at the end of an assembly line to separate out the defects. Instead, he encouraged improving the quality of the process to decrease the defects, thus eliminating the need for mass inspection. When we apply this to safety, Deming might consider relying on the results (defects) as measuring our success solely by counting the number of accidents (also) that occur. No consideration is given to measuring employee and management-level safety activities.

In safety, evaluating only results statistics is like driving a car down the road and trying to stay in your lane by looking through a rear-view mirror. All you can do is react, after the fact. When we only analyze accident rates, we can only react to the number. Accident rates tell us nothing about why the accidents are happening. The old safety philosophy we discussed in above measures primarily injury and illness rates (defects) which represent the end results of the safety component of the process. Incident rates, accident rates, MOD rates, etc. all measure the end point, and since these measures are inherently not predictive, these statistics provide little useful information about the surface and root causes (upstream) for injuries and illnesses.

The new philosophy emphasizes measurement along the entire production process, primarily:

􀂃 Measurement of management/supervisor safety activities;

􀂃 Employee safety education and training;

􀂃 Individual worker behaviors; and

􀂃 Materials and equipment design prior to purchase.

Credited to my friend and mentor:

Steve Geigle

THE ROLE OF RESILIENCE IN RISK MANAGEMENT

As consultants to diverse organizations we encounter dedicated leaders and the nonprofits they serve at various stages of their respective risk management journeys. On one day we may consult with the board of a nonprofit considering the risks and rewards of a significant change in governance or structure (e.g., a merger with another group). Later in the week we may find ourselves advising the leadership team of a nonprofit that is trying to protect its reputation and staff morale in the aftermath of allegations of misconduct by a long-time volunteer. Wherever we find a particular organization, we always remind our clients that sound risk management requires more than the ability to imagine a wide range of future scenarios; it requires planning to survive the circumstances that no one (including an experienced risk management consultant!) is able to predict with absolute precision.

The October 3, 2009 edition of The Economist features a provocative look at world economic conditions in a special report titled “The Long Climb.” The report, authored by Simon Cox, offers several lessons about risk taking that can be applied to the world of nonprofit risk management. I’ve selected two concepts from the article and a third from the work of author David Apgar and offer my interpretations below.

STRING THEORY!

Cox reminds the reader of the work of Milton Friedman, whose theories included the idea that “in America deep recessions are generally followed by strong recoveries.” This economic theory likens market behavior to a piece of stretched string… the greater the force in plucking the string the more it snaps back. Cox reminds us however, that the snap back may well be less than Friedman led us to suspect. There may be no return to normal, as normal has changed! And any change may well be an opportunity to rebound to well beyond “normal.”

The discussion of the string theory and the world economy got me thinking about nonprofits that have and will be again in the future tested to the limit. Although an effective governance structure and strong financial management framework are widely viewed as important goals in a nonprofit, weaknesses in these elements of your operations may not be visible to every stakeholder group. And the willingness to spend financial and other resources to shore up the foundation of your nonprofit may wane when resources for service delivery are under pressure.

I recently experienced this first hand when a client nonprofit elected to delay board training due to the press of programmatic priorities. Within weeks after the decision was made a member of the board took action that suggests a violation of the duty of loyalty. Upon hearing of the crisis caused by the board member’s action it occurred to me that the board training that was regarded as a luxury was actually an unrecognized necessity. The programmatic success of this particular nonprofit will continue to be hampered by the lack of a clear understanding of the board’s basic legal duties.

Enlightened leaders recognize that fortifying the foundation of the organization—its governance, financial management, risk management, and personnel practices—injects strength and elasticity into the nonprofit that it will no doubt require in a crisis. Not every organization will survive or thrive after being tested by a financial, reputation or other crisis. It is the Center’s view that organizations that recognize the importance of a solid foundation and commit to improving governance and management processes are in the best possible position to make effective mid-course corrections when circumstances force the organization off the road and onto the rumble strips.

RUBBER COATING MAY BE PREFERABLE TO A CRYSTAL BALL
In the final section of the special report in The Economist, Cox reminds the reader of the work of author Aaron Wildavesky, who wrote that resilience was sometimes a greater virtue than prescience. Cox writes, “Not every danger can be foreseen, and even if it can be predicted it cannot always be averted." This is, of course, a vital truism in the world of nonprofit risk management, and as my colleague Felix Kloman contends, the “very soul of the risk management discipline”—the ability to bounce back from the unexpected without breaking. Or in the world of nonprofit service delivery, to rebound from the unexpected without letting client needs slip through the cracks or the mission and reputation of the nonprofit go unattended.

THE MYTH OF ABSOLUTE RISKS
Leaders of nonprofit organizations will never be in position to imagine every danger that lies in the immediate or distant paths of their organizations. This concept is explored by author David Apgar who cautions us against obsession with identifying each and every risk we face in his writing on “the myth of absolute risks.” Apgar reminds us that there is no fixed set of discoverable risks. No amount of brainstorming or help from an experienced consultant will unearth a complete set of risks facing a community-serving nonprofit. Why? The risks facing an organization are like a constantly adapting organism; while attention is paid to one issue the measure of the likelihood, consequences and timing of some future event or situation may be changing. Risk changes as our knowledge changes, others react to their own measures and as new information surfaces.

In some cases the very effort to predict the future sets the dangerous illusory process in motion, arguably diminishing our ability to recover (bounce) from the risks that will materialize. "Too much faith in foresight," argues Simon Cox, leads us to "neglect the simpler quality of resilience."

I concur with my colleague Felix Kloman who argues that “the proper goal of risk management is to build and maintain the confidence of stakeholders.” As Felix aptly points out, “that combined confidence and trust is often translated into much-needed support, financial and otherwise, when surprise inevitably hits. It is the essence of resilience.”

Culled from:
Melanie Lockwood Herman's webminar articles
(Non-profit Risk Management Centre)

LET'S STOP RACISM, IT DOES NO GOOD

I'm sure many of you watched the recent taping of the Oprah Winfrey

Show where her guest was Tommy Hilfiger. On the show, she asked him if

the statements about race he was accused of saying were true.

Statements like'...'If I'd known African-Americans, Hispanics, Jewish and Asians would buy my clothes, I WOULD NOT have made them so nice. I wish these people would *NOT* buy my clothes, as they are made for upper class white people'

His answer to Oprah was a simple 'YES'.

Where after she immediately asked him to leave her show.

My suggestion? Don't buy your next shirt or perfume from Tommy Hilfiger.

Let's give him what he asked for. Let's not buy his clothes, let's put

Him in a financial state where he himself will not be able to afford the

ridiculous prices he puts on his clothes. BOYCOTT.

PLEASE SEND THIS MESSAGE TO ANYONE YOU KNOW.

Then send it to the whole community that's not white people and see the result. We have to see the result of unity.

Let's find out if Non-whites really play such a small part in the world. Stop buying any range of their (Tommy H etc) product, perfume, cosmetics, clothes, bags, etc.

Scene 2
This one took place on a British Airways flight between Johannesburg and London .

A White woman, about 50 years old, was seated next to a black man.

Obviously disturbed by this, she called the air Hostess..

'Madam, what is the matter,' the hostess asked. '

You obviously do not see it then?' she responded. '

You placed me next to a black man.

I do not agree to sit next to someone from such a repugnant group.
Give me an alternative seat.'

'Be calm please,' the hostess replied.

'Almost all the places on this Flight is taken.

I will go to see if another place is available.' The Hostess went

away and t hen came back a few minutes later. 'Madam, Just as I thought, there are no other available seats in the economy class. I spoke to the captain and he informed me that there is a seat in the business class.

All the same, we still have one place in the first class.' Before the woman  could say anything, the hostess continued: 'It is not Usual for our company to permit someone from the economy class to sit in the first

class. However, given the circumstances, the captain feels that it would be scandalous to make someone sit next to someone so disgusting.' She turned to the black guy, and said, 'Therefore, Sir, if you would like to, please collect your hand luggage, a seat awaits you in first class.'

At that moment, the other passengers who were shocked by what they had just witnessed stood up and applauded.

Both the above are true stories. If you are against racism, please send this message to all your friends. In God there is neither, white nor black, we are all equally boound together in one love which is our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The world can only be Healed if we all see our selves as brothers irrespective of colour, tribe and creed.