Solution Manual For Managing For Quality and Performance Excellence 10th Edition James R Evans William M Lindsay
Solution Manual For Managing For Quality and Performance Excellence 10th Edition James R Evans William M Lindsay
Solution Manual For Managing For Quality and Performance Excellence 10th Edition James R Evans William M Lindsay
encouraged to develop an understanding of the fact that quality is not an "add-on" to organizational
processes, but that it is "a way of doing business."
To define specifications, which are key to the manufacturing perspective, as targets and
tolerances determined by designers of products and services.
To review the evolution of quality from the 12th Century B.C. Zou Dynasty in China,
through the Craftsmanship era in the 1700’s, through the Japanese post-World War II
challenge brought on by attention to quality and international competitiveness, to the
“Quality revolution” in the U.S. and elsewhere in the 1980’s through the early 21st Century.
The “revolution” came about as a result of consumer pressures, technological change,
outmoded managerial thinking, and competitive pressures that changed the way that U.S.
and managers around the world viewed the role of quality. The final evolutionary step (so
far) is to take the broad view that quality can only reach its full potential if management
embraces the concept of performance excellence.
To introduce the concept of quality assurance -- providing consumers with goods and
services of appropriate quality, as a point of reference. Statistical quality control (SQC)
is the application of statistical methods for controlling quality. SQC was vital to military
production during World War II, and grew rapidly in application in the following years.
These definitions are often how the average person thinks of quality, but it requires pointing
out its limitations, as technical, rather than managerial, approaches.
To provide a framework for understanding that the quality movement has influenced not
only product and service improvements, but the way in which organizations are
managed, leading to the concepts of Big Q – managing for quality in all organizational
processes as opposed to simply in manufacturing, referred to as Little Q. In addition,
Introduction to Quality 3
total quality management (TQM), or simply total quality (TQ), developed as a total,
company-wide effort--through full involvement of the entire workforce, and requiring a
focus on continuous improvement – that companies use to achieve customer
satisfaction. TQ evolved from earlier concepts of total quality control and companywide
quality control as practiced in Japan. Additionally, these concepts are supported by the
organizational infrastructure that includes: customer relationship management,
leadership and strategic planning, human resources management, process management,
and data and information management, as well as a set of management practices and
tools.
To show how aligning and integrating quality principles into all fundamental business
activities underlies the concept of performance excellence, characterized by delivery of
ever-improving value to customers and stakeholders, contributing to organizational
sustainability, improvement of overall organizational effectiveness and capabilities, and
organizational and personal learning.
To explore the failures in quality initiatives, usually resulting from managerial mistakes,
and how the Six Sigma approach, supported by traditional lean tools from the Toyota
production system, is revitalizing the focus on quality in the 21st century.
To study the role that quality plays in each component of a manufacturing firm’s
production and business support systems and to show how they are linked together as a
system of processes to support organizational objectives.
To develop the view of a production and service systems that focuses on lateral
relationships, as opposed to the traditional hierarchical view of organizations.
To investigate the future of quality and reinforce the concept that managers must better
prepare and train employees in the philosophy and tools of quality management, and that
business leaders must also take responsibility and be held accountable for quality
outcomes.
To provide quality definitions and terminology to be used throughout the text, including
term such as: specifications, customers and consumers, total quality, processes, continuous
improvement, learning cycles, infrastructure, practices, quality tools.
Introduction to Quality 4
To point out that, today, organizations are asking employees to take more responsibility
for acting as the point of contact between the organization and the customer, to be team
players, and to provide better customer service. Unless quality is internalized at the
personal level, it will never become rooted in the culture of an organization.
The Evolution of Quality at Xerox: From Leadership Through Quality to Lean Six Sigma
Although Xerox has fallen on hard times in the first decade of the 21st Century, that should not
prevent you from using their remarkable turn-around in quality in the 1990’s as a lesson in
management commitment and focus, which is still having an impact. Instructors may want to point
out that Xerox is a prime example of companies that, time after time, have let “other business
issues” blind them to the need for a continued emphasis on quality. Despite thorough training of
managers and workers at every level, Xerox failed to maintain the organizational focus that had
pulled them from the brink of disaster. Several years after the bursting of the “dot-com bubble”
began, and after the prolonged economic downturn of 2008-12, it still remains to be seen whether
the current management team at Xerox, headed by CEO Ursala M. Burns, can turn the company
around, once again, in their rapidly changing technological environment. However, it is not
because the company and its current management are not trying.
1. In the 1980’s, after stumbling badly, Xerox made a remarkable turn-around in quality by
developing principles that were very similar to the core principles in this chapter. They
incorporated the core principles of: 1) a focus on customer satisfaction; 2) striving for
continuous improvement; and 3) encouraging the full involvement of the workforce by
their three objectives of Leadership Through Quality These could be summarized as:
The current Lean Six Sigma endeavor differs from earlier initiatives in that while it still
incorporates the “old” Leadership Through Quality approach, it places a new emphasis on:
1. Customer-focused employees
2. Participation and teamwork to attain speed and agility
3. Alignment of individual goals and plans with corporate objectives and results
Introduction to Quality 5
4. Work processes that are customer-focused and with results built on quality
measurement
5. Communication and knowledge sharing for improvement
One key difference appears to be that the new approaches were not just “handed down”
by management, but required a new commitment and involvement of management. In
addition, there seems to be a new awareness that quality results require alignment with
organizational objectives attained at every level, quality processes based on measurement
are the key to customer satisfaction, and knowledge must be obtained from inside and
outside the organization and shared through communication in order to achieve
continuous improvement.
2. The lessons that are evident in this experience are that excellence in quality requires
excellence in management, that you “can’t take your eye off the ball” if you aspire to
high levels of quality, and that new competitive challenges require new approaches.
In Xerox’s first lesson, a repeat of what happened in the early 1980’s with different
players, there were a number of management problems that occurred at Xerox in the late
1990’s and early 2000’s that distracted them from what was happening with customers,
employees, and the competitive environment. As a result (the second lesson), not much
attention was paid to maintaining, much less improving, quality approaches that had been
so successful several years earlier. Results were spotty, and efforts were pointed toward
“making the bottom line look good.” The third lesson that became painfully clear was
that simply training employees, without management commitment and involvement no
longer worked.
A Business Week article on March 5, 2001 detailed the many woes of Xerox, especially
as it related to top management power struggles and failures to adapt to a rapidly
changing technological environment. If one accepts the premise that changing the
corporate culture is a necessity for TQ to take root in organizations, then it appears to
an outsider that their culture was never really changed, despite their quality successes
in the past. Their succession of CEO’s, from Kearns to Allaire to the recently fired
Thoman, made necessary changes to “fix” problems that were evident at the time, but
none of these senior leaders were successful in changing the culture of the copier
bureaucracy, “the Burox”, as they were called, inside the company. Also, as stated
earlier, it is much easier to build and sustain TQ when management has a clear vision,
a focus on customers and continuous improvement, strong measurement systems, a
cross-functional orientation, and high employee morale. Recently, that has not been the
case at Xerox. Both Allaire, who never made a “clean break” after retiring as CEO, and
Thoman, who was an “outsider” brought in from IBM, were accused of having “their
reach exceed their grasp” when it came to grand strategies that could not be successfully
carried out at an operating level. Can one place blame on its quality management
approaches? Probably not, since the TQ approach was highly successful in helping to
turn the company around in the 1980’s when it was properly implemented. But due to
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
W. Ransom, $4,817.60; B. F. Rice, $3,200; T. J. Robertson,
$4,374.80; F. A. Sawyer, $4,294.40; George E. Spencer, $4,106; W.
Sprague, $4,508; W. M. Stewart, $1,486.40; J. P. Stockton, $4,790;
T. W. Tipton, $3,358; Lyman Trumbull, $3,980; G. Vickers, $4,880;
J. R. West, $2,468 80.
III.—Names of Senators who covered into the Treasury amounts
due them under retroactive provisions of law, with date of such
action.
There is no record in my office showing that any Senator covered
into the Treasury any money to which he was entitled by the
retroactive provisions of either of the acts of September 22, 1789,
March 19, 1816, January 22, 1818, August 16, 1856, or July 28, 1866.
The following Senators covered into the Treasury the amounts due
them under the retroactive provision of the act of March 3, 1873,
namely:
1873.—May 26, H. B. Anthony, $4,497.20; June 23, W. A.
Buckingham, $4,553.60; May 21, R. E. Fenton, $4,184; June 2, F. T.
Frelinghuysen, $4,644.80; May 19, H. Hamlin, $4,136; August 14, O.
P. Morton, $3,922.40; April 9, D. D. Pratt, $4,121.60; August 25, A.
Ramsey, $3,041.40; March 28, C. Schurz, $3,761.60; May 9, John
Scott, $4,733.06; July 11, John Sherman, $4,336.40; May 2, C.
Sumner, $4,445.60; May 22, A. G. Thurman, $4,359.20; March 28,
Henry Wilson, $4,448; September 6, George G. Wright, $3,140 80.
Note.—Several of these Senators, as well as others who have not
either drawn or covered into the Treasury the amounts due them
under the retroactive provision of the act of 1873, expressed to me
their intention to allow the money to lapse into the Treasury by the
ordinary operation of law, which they supposed would occur July 3,
1873. After learning that it could not be covered in, except by their
order, before July 3, 1875, some gave me written instructions to
anticipate the latter date. I am unable to furnish from any
information in my office the names of Senators who themselves paid
into the Treasury salary drawn under the act of 1873 or previous acts.
I have not furnished the names of Senators who have left increased
salary undrawn, as this information was not called for in the
resolution.
IV.—A Comparative Statement.
At the second session of the 42d Congress that body, and the
President as well, were compelled to consider a new question in
connection with politics—an actual conflict of State Governments.
There had always been, in well regulated State governments,
returning boards, but with a view the better to guard the newly
enfranchised citizens of the South from intimidation, the Louisiana
Republicans, under very bold and radical leaders, had greatly
strengthened the powers of her returning boards. It could canvass
the votes, reject the returns in part or as a whole of parishes where
force or fraud had been used, and could declare results after such
revision. The Governor of Louisiana had made several removals and
appointments of State officers for the purpose mainly of making a
friendly majority in the returning board, and this led to the
appointment of two bodies, both claiming to be the legitimate
returning board. There soon followed two State governments and
legislatures, the Democratic headed by Governor John McEnery, the
Republican by Governor Wm. Pitt Kellogg, later in the U. S. Senate.
Kellogg brought suit against the Democratic officers before Judge
Durell, of the Federal District Court, and obtained an order that the
U. S. Marshal (S. B. Packard, afterwards Governor), should seize the
State House and prevent the meetings of the McEnery legislature.
Then both governments were hastily inaugurated, and claimed the
recognition of Congress. The Senate Committee reported that Judge
Durell’s decision was not warranted, but the report refused a decisive
recognition of either government. A bill was introduced declaring the
election of Nov. 4, 1872, on which this condition of affairs was based,
null and void, and providing for a new election, but this bill was
defeated by a close vote. Later on, Louisiana claimed a large share in
National politics. Somewhat similar troubles occurred in Alabama,
Arkansas, and Texas, but they were settled with far greater ease than
those of Louisiana. The correspondence in all of these cases was too
voluminous to reproduce here, and we shall dismiss the subject until
the period of actual hostilities were reached in Louisiana.
The Grangers.
S. M. Cullom,
Speaker House of Representatives.
John Early,
President of the Senate.
John L. Beveridge,
Governor.
The same spirit, if not the same organization, led to many petitions
to Congress for the regulation of inter-state commerce and freight
rates, and to some able reports on the subject. Those which have
commanded most attention were by Senator Windom of Minnesota
and Representative Reagan of Texas, the latter being the author of a
bill which commanded much consideration from Congress in the
sessions of 1878–’80, but which has not yet secured favorable action.
In lieu of such bill Senator Cameron, of Pennsylvania, introduced a
joint resolution for the appointment of a Commission to investigate
and report upon the entire question. Final action has not yet been
taken, and at this writing interest in the subject seems to have
flagged.
The disastrous political action attempted by the Grangers in
Illinois and Wisconsin, led to such general condemnation that
subsequent attempts were abandoned save in isolated cases, and as a
rule the society has passed away. The principle upon which it was
based was wholly unsound, and if strictly carried out, would destroy
all home improvements and enterprise. Parties and societies based
upon a class, and directed or perverted toward political objects, are
very happily short-lived in this Republic of ours. If they could thrive,
the Republic could not long endure.
Supplementary Civil Rights Bill.
“Article —.
SHERIDAN’S REPORT.
New Orleans, January 10, 1875.
P. H. Sheridan,
Lieutenant-General.
JOINT RESOLUTION.
George F. Hoar,
W. A. Wheeler,
W. P. Frye,
Charles Foster,
Clarkson N. Potter,
William Walter Phelps,
Samuel S. Marshall.