QUALITY MANAGEMENT

Professor Paulette Williams

Introduction

The notions and ideals behind the establishment of systems used to analyze and implement quality control and improvement procedures is an ever evolving process. According to the American Society for Quality (n.d.) – a provider of professional certification and knowledge base for the quality community – “Continuous improvement, sometimes called continual improvement, is the ongoing improvement of products, services or processes through incremental and breakthrough improvements”. Essentially, the processes behind quality improvements are mobile and ephemeral, and should never be utilized or implemented under the auspices of a static use program. The constant changes of societal norms, and the fast-paced evolution of technologies, demand managerial attention of controls to ensure the proper levels of quality are maintained and expanded across all levels of the company. This need for continuous improvement is especially vital within the Service Industry sector where the delivery of the highest quality service is the principle reason for the businesses existence.

Within the hospitality industry there is a constant drive to create a service culture focused upon the customers which seek the services provided by them. In order to achieve the highest level of quality and ensure every employee is engaged in the process, there needs to be active standard operating procedures in place to measure and ensure the quality of every product and service provided (Woods & King, 2010). In order to properly introduce and manage quality improvement procedures it is vitally important to identify the multiple management processes and tailor them to meet the needs of the organization. The purpose of this paper is to first identify two separate quality improvement processes and compare and contrast their similarities and differences. Next, I will introduce a hospitality sector scenario which will provide a background and description of the issue. Finally, I will conduct an analysis of which process is best suited for the scenario to include three applicable points from W. Edwards Deming’s quality management model

Quality Improvement Processes

The first quality improvement process I will cover is The Shewhart Model of Quality Assurance. Developed by a former Bell Telephone Labs employee named Walter Shewhart, he fully understood the requirement of adapting current procedures and processes in order to create a business environment that was both functional and profitable for the business and its consumers. The Shewhart model consist of four continuous management steps: Plan, Do, Check and Act (commonly known as PDCA). Simplistic in its approach, the model underscores the necessity of constant observation and evaluation of management practices to ensure total quality. However, in order for the model to be successful, management must be open for the consideration of new ideas and procedures, and be willing to support and incorporate them (SkyMark, 2017). Management and personnel must also be open to observation, in that, should the original plan not succeed, they must restart the cycle with lessons learned and begin the cycle again. This essentially “close-loops” the process and reinforces the scientific method of the process.

The second quality improvement model is the IDEAL model. IDEAL is an acronym of the five phases of organizational improvement: Initiating, Diagnosing, Establishing, Acting and Learning/Leveraging. Developed originally by the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon Research University, and based on the Shewhart model of Quality Assurance, this Software Process Improvement (SPI) initiative was used to “guide development of a long-range, integrated plan for initiating and managing a SPI program” (McFeeley, 1996). The IDEAL model, used successfully within the programming world was then adapted for use for the business world where it house found success as a process improvement model.

Both process and quality assurance models are similar in the fact that the IDEAL model used the Shewhart model as the basis for its design. Both models begin with the notion of identifying a process issue, however where the Shewhart model begin with identify, recognizing, and planning based on deficiencies in the process, the IDEAL model ventures much more in depth by ensuring you have proper sponsorship and backing for the change proposal. Ultimately, both process improvement models arrive at the same outcome. Where the purpose of conducting the cycle finalizes and the team dedicated to quality improvement must decide whether or not the change recommend will be implemented or abandoned. If accepted the change will be sanctioned across the board. If not, then the cycle starts again with newer recommendations for study and testing.

Quality Improvement Scenario

Recently, a beach resort/hotel complex in Charleston, South Carolina went through an acquisition and management changeover from a privately held organization to a larger multi-national branded hospitality group. As with all mergers and acquisitions there were issues and procedures which required updating, and many areas required restructuring and re-staffing in the eyes of the new owners. Many of the career mid-level managers which had been with the hotel since inception were transferred to other departments or were let go all together. This situation created unnecessary strife and contention with many workers as apprehension grew towards their futures, and furthered apathy towards new management. Though corporate is thus far please with the transition process, the Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) was concerned as to how deeply the changes in ownership and staff restructuring were affecting both internal and external marketing, and affect the overall climate and quality of the resort. Since the initial announcement of the take-over, he has seen a marked drop in overall guest satisfaction surveys, as well as a significant drop in customer-contact employee attitude. In order to get out in front of this building issue, the CMO has coordinated a Department Head suggestion and decision meeting with representatives from Operations and Human Resources to develop and implement a course of action.

The results of the brainstorming session reveal several deficiencies within management in the way the transition process has been handled. First and foremost, department heads and supervisors will conduct a weekly meeting with all section employees to give a status update on the transition, brief them on upcoming events, and provide the opportunity for employees to report problems and provide suggestions to improving the work environment. Secondly, All staff members (whether they are contact employees or not) will be empowered and required to assist any and all guests even if it is not there area of responsibility. Employees shall be publicly commended – not reprimanded – for assisting a guest with and issue or complaint. Finally, each department head will be required to conduct training for all charges in regards to employee and supervisors rights and responsibilities. This should include corporate expectations and guidelines, ethics, departmental procedures, and establish the parameters of rebuilding the hotels service culture.

Analysis

This scenario is representative of a worst case scenario for any hotel operation. Markedly, the most important aspect of any hospitality organization, and arguably its soul, is its employees. Because ultimately, the hospitality industry is unique in the simple aspect that employees are part of the product and services offered. In this scenario the most viable option for process improvement would be the Shewhart model of Quality Assurance. This is due in part to the rapid nature in which the process improvements must be planned, tested, implemented and observed. The IDEAL model, though similar, requires much more in-depth planning and requires more time to implement. This most important aspect to rectify in this situation is the confusion and apathy felt by the employees towards management and the transition process. This requires a management team with the ability to not only direct, but to listen. By identifying a deficiency and coordinating a plan to reverse the current trend, the CMO is demonstrating a need create constancy of purpose within the organization (point 1of Deming’s Points for management) (as cited in Woods & King, 2010).

In regards to the courses of action adopted by the session to reinstitute a culture of service at the hotel, the empowering of employees to solve guests issues without reprisal is a first step in breaking down barriers between departments, and allows a sense of pride in ownership as part of the service process (Point 9 of Deming’s Points for Management). This process improvement in-and-of itself can be a very powerful proposition for workers knowing that have played a vital role in the operation of the hotel. Finally, by instituting organizational training for all staff members conducted by the Department Heads, he is removing all barriers to leadership and allowing staff members to directly interact with an executive at a training level (Point 7 of Deming’s Points for Management). This key step essentially placing a face with a name and instituting proactive style of leadership vice directive (as cited in Woods & Kings, 2010).

References

American Society for Quality. (n.d.). Continuous Improvement Model - Learning Resources| ASQ. Retrieved from http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/continuous-improvement/overview/overview.html

McFeeley, B. (1996). IDEAL: A user's guide for software process improvement (CMU/SEI-96-HB-001). Retrieved from Defense Technical Information Center website: http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/Handbook/1996_002_001_16433.pdf

SkyMark. (n.d.). Walter Shewhart- The Grandfather of Total Quality Management. Retrieved June 13, 2017, from http://www.skymark.com/resources/leaders/shewart.asp

Woods, R. H., & King, J. Z. (2010). The quest for quality. In Quality leadership and management in the hospitality industry (3rd ed., pp. 75-93). Retrieved from http://media.pearsoncmg.com/pcp/pls_21271697041/1256853666_chapters/ch03.pdf