Professional Documents
Culture Documents
• 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.
• 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,
total quality management (TQM), or simply total quality (TQ), developed as a total,
company-wide effort--through full involvement of the entire workforce and 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
Introduction to Quality 3
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.
• 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
Introduction to Quality 4
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 early 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 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. Eight years after the burst of the “dot-com bubble” began, and in the midst of the
prolonged economic downturn of 2008-12, it still remains to be seen whether the new management
team at Xerox 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
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
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
upon. Geo. W. Johnson was chosen Governor. Legislative Council
were: Willis B. Machen, John W. Crockett, James P. Bates, Jas. S.
Chrisman, Phil. B. Thompson, J. P. Burnside, H. W. Bruce, J. W.
Moore, E. M. Bruce, Geo. B. Hodge.
MARYLAND.
Nov. 27th, 1860. Gov. Hicks declined to call a special session of the
Legislature, in response to a request for such convening from
Thomas G. Pratt, Sprigg Harwood, J. S. Franklin, N. H. Green,
Llewellyn Boyle, and J. Pinkney.
December 19th. Gov. Hicks replied to A. H. Handy, Commissioner
from Mississippi, declining to accept the programme of Secession.
20th. Wm. H. Collins, Esq., of Baltimore, issued an address to the
people, in favor of the Union, and in March a second address.
31st. The “Clipper” denied the existence of an organization in
Maryland to prevent the inauguration of President Lincoln.
A. H. Handy of Mississippi addressed citizens of Baltimore in favor
of disunion.
January 3d, 1861. Henry Winter Davis issued an address in favor
of the Union.
3d. Numerous Union meetings in various part of the State. Gov.
Hicks issued an address to the people against secession.
11th. John C. Legrand in a letter to Hon. Reverdy Johnson replied
to the Union speech of the latter.
14th. James Carroll, former Democratic candidate for Governor,
announced his desire to go with the seceding States.
16th. Wm. A. Spencer, in a letter to Walter S. Cox, Esq., declared
against the right of Secession but for a Convention.
16. Marshal Kane, in a letter to Mayor Berrett, denied that any
organization exists to prevent the inauguration of President Lincoln,
and said that the President elect would need no armed escort in
passing through or sojourning within the limits of Baltimore and
Maryland.
24th. Coleman Yellott declared for a Convention.
30th. Messrs. John B. Brooke, President of the Senate, and E. G.
Kilbourn, Speaker of the House of Delegates, asked the Governor to
convene the Legislature in response to public meetings. Senator
Kennedy published his opinion that Maryland must go with Virginia.
February 18th. State Conference Convention held, and insisted
upon a meeting of the Legislature. At a meeting in Howard Co.,
which Speaker E. G. Kilbourn addressed, a resolution was adopted
that “immediate steps ought to be taken for the establishment of a
Southern Confederacy, by consultation and co-operation with such
other Southern and Slave States as may be ready therefor.”
April 21st. Gov. Hicks wrote to Gen. Butler, advising that he do not
land his troops at Annapolis. Butler replied that he intended to land
there and march thence to Washington. Gov. Hicks protested against
this and also against his having taken forcible possession of the
Annapolis and Elkridge railroad.
24th. A special election of ten delegates to the Legislature took
place at Baltimore. The total vote cast in all the wards was 9,249. The
total vote cast at the Presidential election in November, 1860, was
30,148.
26th. Legislature reassembled at Frederick, Annapolis being
occupied by Union troops.
29th. Gov. Hicks sent a message to the Legislature communicating
to them the correspondence between himself and Gen. Butler and
the Secretary of War relative to the landing of troops at Annapolis.
The House of Delegates voted against Secession, 53 to 13. Senate
unanimously.
May 2d. The Committee on Federal Relations, “in view of the
seizure of the railroads by the General Government and the erection
of fortifications,” presented resolutions appointing Commissioners to
the President to ascertain whether any becoming arrangements with
the General Government are practicable, for the maintenance of the
peace and honor of the State and the security of its inhabitants. The
report was adopted, and Otho Scott, Robt. M. McLane, and Wm. J.
Ross were appointed such Commissioners.
Mr. Yellott in the Senate introduced a bill to appoint a Board of
Public Safety. The powers given to the Board included the
expenditure of the two millions of dollars proposed by Mr. Brune for
the defence of the State, and the entire control of the military,
including the removal and appointment of commissioned officers. It
was ordered to a second reading by a vote of 14 to 8. The Board was
to consist of Ezekiel F. Chambers, Enoch Louis Lowe, John V. L.
MacMahon, Thomas G. Pratt, Walter Mitchell, and Thomas Winans.
Gov. Hicks was made ex-officio a member of the Board. This
measure was strongly pressed by the Disunionists for a long time,
but they were finally compelled to give way, and the bill never
passed.
6th. The Commissioners reported the result of their interview with
the President, and expressed the opinion that some modification of
the course of the General Government towards Maryland ought to be
expected.
10th. The House of Delegates passed a series of resolutions
reported by the Committee on Federal Relations by a vote of 43 to 12.
The resolutions declare that Maryland protests against the war, and
does earnestly beseech and implore the President of the United
States to make peace with the “Confederate” States; also, that “the
State of Maryland desires the peaceful and immediate recognition of
the independence of the Confederate States.” Those who voted in the
negative are Messrs. Medders, Lawson, Keene, Routzahn, Naill,
Wilson of Harford, Bayless, McCoy, Fiery, Stake, McCleary, and
Gorsuch.
13th. Both Houses adopted a resolution providing for a committee
of eight members, (four from each House) to visit the President of
the United States and the President of the Southern Confederacy.
The committee to visit President Davis were instructed to convey the
assurance that Maryland sympathizes with the Confederate States,
and that the people of Maryland are enlisted with their whole hearts
on the side of reconciliation and peace.
June 11th. Messrs. McKaig, Yellott and Harding, Commissioners to
visit President Davis, presented their report; accompanying which is
a letter from Jefferson Davis, expressing his gratification to hear that
the State of Maryland was in sympathy with themselves, was enlisted
on the side of peace and reconciliation, and avowing his perfect
willingness for a cessation of hostilities, and a readiness to receive
any proposition for peace from the United States Government.
20th. The House of Delegates, and June 22d, the Senate adopted
resolutions unqualifiedly protesting against the arrest of Ross
Winans and sundry other citizens of Maryland, as an “oppressive and
tyrannical assertion and exercise of military jurisdiction within the
limits of Maryland, over the persons and property of her citizens, by
the Government of the United States.”
MISSOURI.
South Carolina.
To Alabama, A. P. Calhoun.
To Georgia, James L. Orr, Ex-M. C.
To Florida, L. W. Spratt.
To Mississippi, M. L. Bonham, Ex-M. C.
To Louisiana, J. L. Manning.
To Arkansas, A. C. Spain.
To Texas, J. B. Kershaw.
To Virginia, John S. Preston.
Alabama.
Georgia.
Mississippi.
South Carolina.
Alabama.
W. P. Chilton.
Stephen F. Hale.
David P. Lewis.
Thomas Fearn.
Richard W. Walker.
Robert H. Smith.
Colin J. McRae.
John Gill Shorter.
J. L. M. Curry, Ex-M. C.
Florida.
Mississippi.
W. S. Wilson.
Wiley P. Harris, Ex-M. C.
James T. Harrison.
Walter Brooke, Ex-U. S. Senator.
William S. Barry, Ex-M. C.
A. M. Clayton.
Georgia.
Louisiana.
Duncan F. Kenner.
Charles M. Conrad, Ex-U. S. Senator.
Henry Marshall.
John Perkins, jr.
G. E. Sparrow.
E. De Clouet.
Texas.