Quality management case study
Introduction
In this case study, the laboratory of Cooke and Lewis provide a calibration and testing system for industry. The system they made enable companies meet the quality at each stage in processes. With the diverse development of business, Cooke and Lewis were not able to satisfy the demands of those organisations. Two attempts were made for the company, top-down approach and multi-disciplinary approach. The employee involving approach showed the internal customer satisfaction and a high level of enthusiasm while the top-down approach failed.
1.two approaches
The top-down approach is the decision made by owner or top managers who determine the objectives and how the business will work to accomplish those objectives. Further more, this approach is defined as a hierarchical and autocratic style. In this case, only senior manager took part in the quality improvement program while the understanding employees were excluded from the entire program. By contrast, the multi-disciplinary approach means members of different professions and positions to solve issues and get a new understanding.
Carrier & Kendall(1995) state multi-disciplinary as :”implying a willingness to share and indeed give up exclusive claims to specialist knowledge and authority, if the needs of clients can be met more effectively by other professional groups”. In this case, the company reconsidered and re-launched their initiative of quality management system. From the director, trained facilitator to the volunteers of employee, all of whom were made up a quality steering committee.
In one word, the biggest difference between top-down approach and multi-disciplinary approach is who make the decision. For the top-down approach none of the employees have the right to join into the decision make. Specifically, top-down approach is more like a leadership style; multi-disciplinary approach is groups from diverse disciplines to implement solutions.
The top-down approach is able to let
In this case study, the laboratory of Cooke and Lewis provide a calibration and testing system for industry. The system they made enable companies meet the quality at each stage in processes. With the diverse development of business, Cooke and Lewis were not able to satisfy the demands of those organisations. Two attempts were made for the company, top-down approach and multi-disciplinary approach. The employee involving approach showed the internal customer satisfaction and a high level of enthusiasm while the top-down approach failed.
1.two approaches
The top-down approach is the decision made by owner or top managers who determine the objectives and how the business will work to accomplish those objectives. Further more, this approach is defined as a hierarchical and autocratic style. In this case, only senior manager took part in the quality improvement program while the understanding employees were excluded from the entire program. By contrast, the multi-disciplinary approach means members of different professions and positions to solve issues and get a new understanding.
Carrier & Kendall(1995) state multi-disciplinary as :”implying a willingness to share and indeed give up exclusive claims to specialist knowledge and authority, if the needs of clients can be met more effectively by other professional groups”. In this case, the company reconsidered and re-launched their initiative of quality management system. From the director, trained facilitator to the volunteers of employee, all of whom were made up a quality steering committee.
In one word, the biggest difference between top-down approach and multi-disciplinary approach is who make the decision. For the top-down approach none of the employees have the right to join into the decision make. Specifically, top-down approach is more like a leadership style; multi-disciplinary approach is groups from diverse disciplines to implement solutions.
The top-down approach is able to let
References: Hill, S. Wilkinson, A. (1995) “In search of TQM “Journal of Employee Relations, 17 (3) (1995), 8–25 Jung, J Sun, H. (2002) “Comparing Reasons, Practices and Effects of ISO 9000 Certification and TQM Implementation in Norwegian SMEs and Large Firms” I Journal of nternational Small Business 20 (4), 421-442 Magd, H Neves, J.S., Nakhai, B. (1993), "The Baldrige award framework for teaching total quality management", Journal of Education for Business, 69 (2).121-125. Oakland, J.S. (1991), "The European centre for total quality management", Total Quality Management, 2 (3), 305-308. Oakland, J. (2003) Statistical Process Control. 5th edn. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Oakland, J. (2003) “Text with Cases” 3rd edn Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Prajogo, D.I., Sohal, A.S. (2001)“TQM and innovation: a literature review and research framework” Journal of Technovation 21(9), 539-558. Available from< http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497200000705> [24 NOV 2013]. Kanji, G (1995) Total Quality Management Proceedings of the first world congress. 1st edn. London: Chapman & Hall.