Total quality management (TQM) consists of organization-wide efforts to install and make permanent a

climate in which an organization continuously improves its ability to deliver high-quality products and services
to customers. While there is no widely agreed-upon approach, TQM efforts typically draw heavily on the
previously developed tools and techniques of quality control. TQM enjoyed widespread attention during the
late 1980s and early 1990s before being overshadowed by ISO 9000, Lean manufacturing, and Six Sigma.

History
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the developed countries of North America and Western Europe suffered
economically in the face of stiff competition from Japan's ability to produce high-quality goods at competitive
cost. For the first time since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the United Kingdom became a net importer
of finished goods. The United States undertook its own soul-searching, expressed most pointedly in the
television broadcast of If Japan Can... Why Can't We? Firms began reexamining the techniques of quality
controlinvented over the past 50 years and how those techniques had been so successfully employed by the
Japanese. It was in the midst of this economic turmoil that TQM took root.
The exact origin of the term "total quality management" is uncertain.[1] It is almost certainly inspired
by Armand V. Feigenbaum's multi-edition book Total Quality Control(OCLC 299383303) and Kaoru
Ishikawa's What Is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way (OCLC 11467749). It may have been first
coined in the United Kingdom by the Department of Trade and Industry during its 1983 "National Quality
Campaign".[1] Or it may have been first coined in the United States by the Naval Air Systems Command to
describe its quality-improvement efforts in 1985.[1]

Development in the United States

In the spring of 1984, an arm of the United States Navy asked some of its civilian researchers to
assess statistical process control and the work of several prominent quality consultants and to make
recommendations as to how to apply their approaches to improve the Navy's operational effectiveness.[2] The
recommendation was to adopt the teachings of W. Edwards Deming.[2][3] The Navy branded the effort "Total
Quality Management" in 1985.[2][Note 1]
From the Navy, TQM spread throughout the US Federal Government, resulting in the following:

 The creation of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in August 1987
 The creation of the Federal Quality Institute in June 1988
 The adoption of TQM by many elements of government and the armed forces, including the United States
Department of Defense,[4] United States Army,[5] and United States Coast Guard[6]
The private sector followed suit, flocking to TQM principles not only as a means to recapture market share
from the Japanese, but also to remain competitive when bidding for contracts from the Federal
Government[7] since "total quality" requires involving suppliers, not just employees, in process improvement
efforts.

Features
There is no widespread agreement as to what TQM is and what actions it requires of
organizations,[8][9][10] however a review of the original United States Navy effort gives a rough understanding of
what is involved in TQM.
The key concepts in the TQM effort undertaken by the Navy in the 1980s include:[11]

 "Quality is defined by customers' requirements."

 "Top management has direct responsibility for quality improvement."
 "Increased quality comes from systematic analysis and improvement of work processes."
 "Quality improvement is a continuous effort and conducted throughout the organization."
The Navy used the following tools and techniques:

 The PDCA cycle to drive issues to resolution

 Ad hoc cross-functional teams (similar to quality circles) responsible for addressing immediate process
issues
 Standing cross-functional teams responsible for the improvement of processes over the long term
 Active management participation through steering committees
 Use of the Seven Basic Tools of Quality to analyze quality-related issues

KINDS OF CUSTOMERS
Customers play the most significant part in business. In fact the customer is the actual boss in a deal and
is responsible for the actually profit for the organization. Customer is the one who uses the products and
services and judges the quality of those products and services. Hence it’s important for an organization to
retain customers or make new customers and flourish business. To manage customers, organizations
should follow some sort of approaches like segmentation or division of customers into groups because
each customer has to be considered valuable and profitable.

Customers can be of following types:

1. Loyal Customers- These types of customers are less in numbers but promote more sales and
profit as compared to other customers as these are the ones which are completely satisfied. These
customers revisit the organization over times hence it is crucial to interact and keep in touch with
them on a regular basis and invest much time and effort with them. Loyal customers want
individual attention and that demands polite and respectful responses from supplier.
2. Discount Customers- Discount customers are also frequent visitors but they are only a part of
business when offered with discounts on regular products and brands or they buy only low cost
products. More is the discount the more they tend towards buying. These customers are mostly
related to small industries or the industries that focus on low or marginal investments on products.
Focus on these types of customers is also important as they also promote distinguished part of
profit into business.
3. Impulsive Customers- These customers are difficult to convince as they want to do the business
in urge or caprice. They don’t have any specific item into their product list but urge to buy what
they find good and productive at that point of time. Handling these customers is a challenge as
they are not particularly looking for a product and want the supplier to display all the useful
products they have in their tally in front of them so that they can buy what they like from that
display. If impulsive customers are treated accordingly then there is high probability that these
customers could be a responsible for high percentage of selling.
4. Need Based Customers- These customers are product specific and only tend to buy items only to
which they are habitual or have a specific need for them. These are frequent customers but do not
become a part of buying most of the times so it is difficult to satisfy them. These customers
should be handled positively by showing them ways and reasons to switch to other similar
products and brands and initiating them to buy these. These customers could possibly be lost if
not tackled efficiently with positive interaction.
5. Wandering Customers- These are the least profitable customers as sometimes they themselves
are not sure what to buy. These customers are normally new in industry and most of the times
visit suppliers only for confirming their needs on products. They investigate features of most
prominent products in the market but do not buy any of those or show least interest in buying. To
 grab such customers they should be properly informed about the various positive features of the
products so that they develop a sense of interest.

An organization should always focus on loyal customers and should expand or multiply the product range
to leverage impulsive customers. For other types of customers strategies should be renovated and
enhanced for turning out these customers to satisfy their needs and modify these types of customers to let
them fall under loyal and impulsive category.

History[edit]
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the developed countries of North America and Western Europe suffered
economically in the face of stiff competition from Japan's ability to produce high-quality goods at competitive
cost. For the first time since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the United Kingdom became a net importer
of finished goods. The United States undertook its own soul-searching, expressed most pointedly in the
television broadcast of If Japan Can... Why Can't We? Firms began reexamining the techniques of quality
controlinvented over the past 50 years and how those techniques had been so successfully employed by the
Japanese. It was in the midst of this economic turmoil that TQM took root.
The exact origin of the term "total quality management" is uncertain.[1] It is almost certainly inspired
by Armand V. Feigenbaum's multi-edition book Total Quality Control(OCLC 299383303) and Kaoru
Ishikawa's What Is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way (OCLC 11467749). It may have been first
coined in the United Kingdom by the Department of Trade and Industry during its 1983 "National Quality
Campaign".[1] Or it may have been first coined in the United States by the Naval Air Systems Command to
describe its quality-improvement efforts in 1985.[1]

Development in the United States[edit]

In the spring of 1984, an arm of the United States Navy asked some of its civilian researchers to
assess statistical process control and the work of several prominent quality consultants and to make
recommendations as to how to apply their approaches to improve the Navy's operational effectiveness.[2] The
recommendation was to adopt the teachings of W. Edwards Deming.[2][3] The Navy branded the effort "Total
Quality Management" in 1985.[2][Note 1]
From the Navy, TQM spread throughout the US Federal Government, resulting in the following:

 The creation of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in August 1987
 The creation of the Federal Quality Institute in June 1988
 The adoption of TQM by many elements of government and the armed forces, including the United States
Department of Defense,[4] United States Army,[5] and United States Coast Guard[6]
The private sector followed suit, flocking to TQM principles not only as a means to recapture market share
from the Japanese, but also to remain competitive when bidding for contracts from the Federal
Government[7] since "total quality" requires involving suppliers, not just employees, in process improvement
efforts.

Features[edit]
There is no widespread agreement as to what TQM is and what actions it requires of
organizations,[8][9][10] however a review of the original United States Navy effort gives a rough understanding of
what is involved in TQM.
The key concepts in the TQM effort undertaken by the Navy in the 1980s include:[11]

 "Quality is defined by customers' requirements."

 "Top management has direct responsibility for quality improvement."
 "Increased quality comes from systematic analysis and improvement of work processes."
 "Quality improvement is a continuous effort and conducted throughout the organization."
The Navy used the following tools and techniques:

 The PDCA cycle to drive issues to resolution

 Ad hoc cross-functional teams (similar to quality circles) responsible for addressing immediate process
issues
 Standing cross-functional teams responsible for the improvement of processes over the long term
 Active management participation through steering committees
 Use of the Seven Basic Tools of Quality to analyze quality-related issues

SIX QUALITY PERSPECTIVE

Judgmental or Transcendent Perspective: The judgmental perspective is also known as transcendent
perspective and philosophical perspective. According to Shewhart, this perspective of quality is absolute and
globally recognizes an uncompromising point of standards and high achievement. Judgmental perspective is
the basis from which all other perspectives of quality are derived which includes, Pirsig's quality as the
Buddha, Deming's 14 steps, Shewhart's quality as mentioned before as goodness and eventually Taguchi's
clear consideration of societal welfare. It is easily estimated by looking at the product and there is no
subjective judgment needed. According to Peter, quality has become an important cultural worth and a societal
value. Ishikawa and Lu also sustained the cultural phenomenon of quality. They evaluate the interconnection in
terms of, education, religion and social class and reimbursement system in Japanese culture. By following this
perspective of quality, today's developing economic indicators of many countries like, Japan, Sweden and the
U.S. has become an important cultural and social issue of customer satisfaction at the national level.
Product-based Perspective: It is the combination of a precise, quantifiable variable and those distinctions in
quality is imitating variance in magnitude of several product characteristics. For instance: Quality of a product
and price perceived relationship of product.
User-based Perspective: In user- based approach quality is elaborated as fitness for planned utilization.
People have different needs, desires and wants thus distinguish quality values. For instance: Nissan is
producing 'dud' car models in American marketplaces from the trade name of Datson that the American
consumers didn't like.
In user-based approach of quality, the quality of a product is indentified by the satisfaction of human needs and
wants. Deming emphasizes on the user-based approach by saying that a product is never completely be
considered as qualified until it fulfill both the concealed and external wants.
The user-based perspective doesn't discard the manufacturing quality as a strategic objective but offer
framework for it. It is most popular with people in the field of marketing which believe that quality exists in
the mind of observer or the user of the product rather than the manufacturer who set standards for the product.
Value-based Perspective: This perspective of quality place the quality of a product in the line of competing
products but try to sold the product at lesser price. Value-based perspective identifies the relationship between
the product quality and the product cost. In a laymen term, a product is classified as a high value product when
it exhibits a high level of compliance and low production cost.
Manufacturing-based Perspective: This approach to quality defines in a way that is the expected effect of a
manufacturing and engineering practices otherwise compliance to specification. In simple words engineering
specification of products are vital.
Garvin proposed that the manufacturing-based approach of quality have relevance to a product's amount of
obedience to design and manufacturing specifications. In growing international market places, manufacturing-
based classification of quality have to go beyond culture, involving that goods of excellent industrialized
quality in Japan should also have the features of elevated quality in Germany. The Quality which is base on
conformity does not require that the product should fulfill consumer wants but it basically make it clear that
the product satisfies or outshine design and engineering standards.
Managers try to ensure the desire specification of product quality by reducing and stabilizing variations.
Shewhart emphasizes on the manufacturing process that it can be studied through statistical data which can
improve the control of quality. Such improvements will lead to less scrap, fewer defects and eventually low
cost.
Social-loss Perspective: This is the alternative perspective of quality which was developed by Taguchi. It
suggest that quality is a great loss to society by the product after being transported and other loss causes by its
built-in functions. The effects of losses are either the harmful side effects of the product or the inconsistency in
product functions.