wk2-1

For some reason, the word theory conjures negative thoughts among many students and businesspeople. There is a supposition that an emphasis on theory will somehow distance us from the real world and what “really works.” However, theories form the basis for much of what happens around us, and most of us use them every day without knowing it. For instance, mechanical theories are at work when you drive your car. When you turn on a light, theories are at work harnessing the power of electricity. The airplanes overhead benefit by Bernoulli’s theory. The organizations we work for are based on theories proposed by generations of organizational theorists. The money we spend is managed by macroeconomic theory. Because there can be no understanding of the phenomena that surround us without theory, shouldn’t there be a general theory of quality management? In other words, is there a model that explains how organizations such as Federal Express, Motorola, and Dell have achieved such high levels of quality within the past generation?

There are several theories on quality improvement in practice currently. In this chapter we learn about the experts in this field, their theories, and how these theories have been used by various organizations.

The term theory is often misused. Generally, theory is a “coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.” 2 For example, it might have been observed that many companies that have implemented quality improvement have experienced improved worker morale. Therefore, a theoretical model of quality and worker morale might be developed as shown in Figure 2-1.

2 Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1996), p. 1,384.

The model in Figure 2-1 has two variables: quality improvement and worker morale. The arrow implies causality. Because the head of the arrow points to worker morale, this is the dependent variable, with quality improvement being the independent variable. Thus we can see that our small theoretical model is testable. To test our model, we formulate a hypothesis, gather data under controlled conditions, and analyze the data. There is no way to prove the theory. The results of our statistical research will only support the theory or fail to support the theory.

For a theory to be complete, it must have four elements 3 : what, how, why, and who-where-when. The what of the theory involves which variables or factors are included in the model. The variables in Figure 2-1 are the what of that model.

3Dubin, R., Theory Development (New York: Free Press, 1978).

The how of a theoretical model involves the nature, direction, and extent of the relationship among the variables. For example, in our simple quality/morale model, we posited that quality improvement positively influences worker morale. This is represented by the plus sign in the model.

The why of the theory is the theoretical glue that holds the model together. For example, what are the psychological dynamics that could cause quality improvement to increase worker morale? Suppose we theorize that organizations using quality improvement are more organic in nature, stressing worker empowerment. Suppose further that worker empowerment lifts worker self-esteem by stressing increased decision making and control over his or her own job. Finally, we pose that this increase in self-esteem results in improved worker morale.

The who-where-when aspects place contextual bounds on the theory. For example, we might add a condition to our model stating that morale is improved only in companies that receive strong leadership by top management to implement quality improvement.

As is shown in Figure 2-2, theories are established in one of two ways. A theory that is generated by observation and description is said to have been developed by the process of induction. The process of induction is useful but is also subject to observer bias and misperception. Suppose we developed our quality/morale theory after visiting a series of Chicago, Illinois, firms that had implemented quality improvement. During our site visits, we found that employee morale was high in all the sites we visited. Our inductive observations of quality influencing morale might be correct. However, as committed researchers, we are so enthralled by our discovery that we fail to notice that the Cubs (the Chicago baseball franchise) just won the World Series of baseball. Therefore, our inductively produced model of quality/morale might have been confounded by an intervening variable (the glorious win by the Cubs).

The more common theoretical approach used by researchers is deduction. Using deduction, researchers propose a model based on prior research and design an experiment to test the theoretical model. These studies follow the scientific method discussed in Chapter 1.

Many of the concepts and models proposed in this chapter are developed by induction. Therefore, when considering concepts put forth by experts such as Deming, Juran, and Crosby, you should note that their principles are based on years of experience with a wide variety of firms that have improved quality. Their models and principles are also laden with personal biases, judgments, and values. This is fine, as long as you recognize these limitations to their models.

As yet, there is not a unified theory explaining quality improvement in the supply chain that is widely accepted by the quality community. In fact, as we saw in Chapter 1, the literature concerning quality is contradictory and somewhat confusing. Different theories have been proposed by practitioners and researchers. Some of these theories have been drawn from organizational theory, behavioral theory, and statistical theory.

The differing approaches to quality improvement represent competing philosophies that have sought their places in the marketplace of ideas. Practicing quality managers must become familiar with these philosophies and apply those that are appropriate to their particular situations.

The diversity of approaches to quality contributes to variability in the approaches used by companies and increases the chance for failure in organizations. Some of these approaches are proven and others aren’t. This has spawned myriad consulting firms and consultants. As shown in A Closer Look at Quality 2-1, some of these are legitimate and some are in it for profit only. From the 1980s to the present, there has been an explosion of consulting firms around the world that taught a variety of means for achieving quality. In the following sections we discuss the problem of the fragmentation of the quality message from a managerial point of view.

Please read INSTRUCTORS instructions carefully and completely all are important

No plagiarism in own words

Will run through a plagiarism checker

Will not accept if after due date will dispute

Please cite and reference

References and citation page must include a valid URL to take the reader to the electronic copy of each source.

If cannot complete with the given instructions do not reply

Please contact me if you have questions

Write as a discussion of this part of the chapter with another student

Make a question out of the response, or I found the material interesting, or what do you think

I may ask to change some areas at later date

100 to 200 word count each, can be longer if needed

Please write with question first followed by answer

Please write clearly simplify

I am in the U.S.

No charts or graphs

Needs to be like a discussion in class or post

Make the minimum 4 post for discussion