TQM has become an umbrella for Six Sigma and other tools (Harnesk and Abrahamsson, 2007). Financial savings It tracks cost savings on a project by project level (Schroeder et al., 2008). It has more financial focus (Kwak and Anbari, 2004) It has an organisation-wide cost of quality calculation (organisational level tracking) (Schroeder et al., 2008). Incentives It has less challenge to have incentives to pursue improvement (Terziovski, 2006). There is less incentives and less career development focus in TQM (Upton and Cox, 2008). Strategic link It provides better alignment with organisational strategic business objectives (Antony, 2006). A CEO considers TQM as quality slogan carried without translated goals to implementable initiatives (George, 2002). Project selection Project selection rights reside with management to ensure financial and strategic implications are considered (Schroeder et al., 2008). There is no clear way of prioritising projects that are carried out irrespective of cost to operation (Banuelas and Antony, 2002; Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005). The link between economy and project selection was missed in most TQM implementations (George, 2002). Projects can be selected by bottom-up approach which is often based on convenience (Schroeder et al., 2008).
Six Sigma and TQM 243Table 2 Comparison and relationship of Six Sigma and TQM (continued) Dimension Six Sigma TQM Training focus It is a structured training focused on Belts or levels (Basu, 2004) that create an infrastructure for implementation (Terziovski, 2006) without focus on wide team participation (Schroeder et al., 2008). It is a comprehensive approach that involves everyone (Ricondo and Viles, 2005; Anderson et al., 2006) using improvement teams that are sometimes in the form of a quality department (Schroeder et al., 2008). Functional team It uses an intra-organisational cross-functional improvement team (Cheng, 2008). It uses an inter-organisational improvement team (Cheng, 2008). Criticised for It is criticised for not focusing on all people and culture (Linderman et al., 2005). However, it is less difficult to re-engineer, restructure and evaluate breakup of an organisation using Six Sigma as the team is more independent of the processes under consideration (Hwang, 2006). Terziovski (2006) indicated that Snee claims TQM does not integrate human elements of improvement like team work as good as in Six Sigma. Change Six Sigma is focused on the belts leading the projects along with the involvement of the team members. TQM and Six Sigma use training and organisation-wide support as levers of change (Buch and Tolentino, 2006). Training intensity There is more intensity in the training of full-time improvement individuals (Schroeder et al., 2008). TQM uses shorter length for training (i.e. 1 week) but targets all people in the plant (Schroeder et al., 2008). Approach to design Itsdesignprocessismoreprescriptive in nature (Schroeder et al., 2008) as it uses the DMADV approach.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 14 pages?