Globalization and marketplace competition has made product quality a high factor in competitive advantage. At continental levels, certain variations and similarities exist in quality management. The distinct but yet similar award models reveal the approaches that countries and regions use in quality management. Some factors are responsible for the differences and similarities in quality management across the globe. Historical dimensions explain cultural differences among nations and these differences influence their approaches to quality. For example, in the 1940s, the international perception of Japanese’s products was that the Japanese products had poor quality. These perceptions have changed over the years. Also, in some parts of Europe, quality assurance and total quality management is differentiated from each other. A good example is Britain, where the two demonstrate different approaches (Juran, 1999). Quality management has gone through phases of evolution. It has developed from inspection to quality, quality control, and now total quality management (TQM). The goal of quality is to improve standardization, sustainability, profitability, and customer satisfaction. What follows is a comparative analysis and synthesis of the quality management approaches of America, Europe, and Japan. In the present global marketplace environment, quality extends beyond goods and services but includes an entire organization.
In Europe, quality is a cultural priority in organizations and consideration of the production process as critical to quality management. Customer satisfaction is the primary driver of quality management in Europe with a 20% emphasis. The body responsible for quality in Europe is the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) formed in 1988. In 1991, it developed an award model for organizations and businesses. The framework in Europe is based on quality enablers and results inclination. The enablers include leadership, managers, processes, resources, and policy and strategy teams. The effectiveness generated by enablers reflects on the result categories composed of customer satisfaction, people, societal impact, and business results (Boulter, Bendell, & Dahlgaard, 2013). Technical and qualitative interests reflect on the prices of goods and services. Business results, processes and leadership respectively follow customer focus.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The quality will most likely reflect on the pricing of a product. In Europe, there was inspection of the quality systems in the supply chain. Standards were set by organizations and agencies by which compliance and improvement was focused on production and business processes. Organizational structure in Europe is complex; it is highly hierarchical with differentiation and specializations (Warner, 1997). The middle class is the group with quality management functions. Organizational structure is that of decentralization and flexibility. It has industrial fair play with a focus on competencies. Standards and certification are priorities in European approach to quality. There is a strong differentiation between skilled and unskilled labor in Europe such that the skilled workers are involved in quality management. Guilds legacies are common features of European quality management.
In the 1950s, Japanese improved its quality control and management policies and implementation efforts. In the year 1951, a body was constituted called the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE) that established the Deming Prize as their award model in honor of an American, W. Edwards Deming, a renown in quality control. The Japanese approach is on a ten-point evaluation of quality. These include organization, information, policies, improvement, standardization, quality assurance, human resources, maintenance, effects and plans. Training is essential in Japan’s quality management. The Japanese approach to quality management is not as segmented as it is in other parts of the world. It involves everyone, from the lower rung of unskilled workers to the top management. Thus, for product manufacturers the approach is companywide quality control. Improvement and process control is a high priority in the Japanese system (Beckford, 1998). In addition, comparatively, market knowledge and customers get the least attention. However, the quality management approach of Japan applies the same weight on its ten-point areas of focus. Quality circles in Japan reinforce the companywide approach to quality management.
The American quality management approach places leadership as its primary enabling instrument of the system and results come at the end. Thus, it has two triads, the leadership and the results. The leadership triad involves the leaders, strategic planning team, and the customers and market focus aspect. The result involves the human resources, process management, and business result aspects of quality management. Business processes is key in America quality management (Hermel, 2010). The approach is according to the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Improvement Act of 1987 that created an award model, for American organizations and businesses. Quality management in America emphasized business results above all else, having 45% against other parameters. In the U.S leadership, human resources, and process management respectively follow business result.
Thus, the American quality management is similar to the European with little differences such as customer satisfaction. The percentage of emphasis on certain areas of focus shows some differences. In leadership, America and Europe concentrate on hierarchy while Japan focus on organization, policy, and supervision. American, Japan, and Europe have within their quality control and management approaches components of planning, employees, customers, production processes, suppliers, and business results. In planning, Europe and Japan have similar approach based on policy while America focuses on strategic direction and performance tracking of the planning aspect of quality management. Business result is a commonality in the two nations and the region. However, Japan differ from America in its companywide quality management, process control and management, market knowledge and customer considerations. The European system is more on customers’ satisfaction, management and leadership, and policy.
References
Beckford, J. (1998). Quality, a Critical Introduction . London New York, Routledge.
Boulter, L., Bendell, T., & Dahlgaard, J. (2013). Total quality beyond North America: A comparative analysis of the performance of European Excellence Award winners. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 33 Issue: 2, pp.197-215, https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571311295635
Hermel, Philippe. (2010).The new faces of total quality in Europe and the US. Total Quality Management, Volume 8, 1997 - Issue 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0954412979578.
Juran, J.M., Godfrey, B. (1999). Juran’s quality handbook . McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Warner, M. (1997). Comparative management: critical perspectives on business and management. London and New York: Routledge.
