Scheduled, periodic review of progress by upper managers is an essential part of maintaining annu-al quannu-ality improvement. Activities that do not receive such review cannot compete for priority with activities that do receive such review. Subordinates understandably give top priority to matters that are reviewed regularly by their superiors.
Review of Results. Results take multiple forms, and these are reflected in the design of the review process. Certain projects are of such importance individually that the upper managers want to follow them closely. The remaining projects receive their reviews at lower levels. However, for the
purpose of upper management review, they are summarized to be reviewed collectively by upper management.
There is also a need for regular review of the quality improvement process. This is done through audits that may extend to all aspects of managing for quality. (Refer to Section 11, ISO 9000 Family of Standards.)
Inputs to Progress Review. Much of the database for progress review comes from the reports issued by the project teams. However, it takes added work to analyze these reports and to pre-pare the summaries needed by upper managers. Usually this added work is done by the secretary of the quality council with the aid of the facilitators, the team leaders, and other sources such as finance.
As companies gain experience, they design standardized reporting formats to make it easy to summarize reports by groups of projects, by product lines, by business units, by divisions, and for the corporation. One such format, used by a large European company, determines for each project
The original estimated amount of chronic waste
The original estimated reduction in cost if the project were to be successful The actual cost reduction achieved
The capital investment The net cost reduction
The summaries are reviewed at various levels. The corporate summary is reviewed quarterly at the chairman’s staff meeting (personal communication to the author).
Evaluation of Performance. One of the objectives of progress review is evaluation of per-formance. This evaluation extends to individuals as well as to projects. Evaluation of individual performance on improvement projects runs into the complication that the results are achieved by teams. The problem then becomes one of evaluating individual contribution to team efforts. This new problem has as yet no scientific solution. Thus each supervisor is left to judge subordinates’
contributions based on inputs from all available sources.
At higher levels of organization, the evaluations extend to judging the performance of supervi-sors and managers. Such evaluations necessarily must consider results achieved on multiple projects.
This has led to evolution of measurement (metrics) to evaluate managers’ performance on projects collectively. These metrics include
Numbers of improvement projects: initiated, in progress, completed, and aborted
Value of completed projects in terms of improvement in product performance, reduction in costs, and return on investment
Percentage of subordinates active on project teams
Superiors then judge their subordinates based on these and other inputs.
RECOGNITION
“Recognition” as used here means “public acknowledgment of superior performance.” (Superior per-formance deserves public acknowledgment.) Recognition tells recipients that their efforts are appre-ciated. It adds to their self-respect and to the respect received from others.
Most companies are quite effective at providing recognition. They enlist the ingenuity of those with special skills in communication—Human Relations, Marketing, Advertising—as well as the line managers. The numerous forms of recognition reflect this ingenuity:
Certificates, plaques, and such are awarded for serving on project teams, serving as facilitator, and completing training courses.
Project teams present their final report in the office of the ranking local manager.
Project summaries are published in the company news media, along with team pictures. Some companies create news supplements or special newsletters devoted to quality improvement.
Published accounts of successful projects not only provide recognition, they also serve as case materials for training purposes and as powerful stimulators to all.
Dinners are held to honor project teams.
Medals or prizes may be awarded to teams judged to have completed the best projects during some designated time period. The measure of success always includes the extent of results achieved and sometimes includes the methods used to achieve the results. [For an account of the annual competition sponsored by Motorola, see Feder (1993); see also Motorola’s Team Competition (1992).]
REWARDS
As used here, “rewards” refers to salaries, salary increases, bonuses, promotions, and so on resulting from the annual review of employee performance. This review has in the past focused on meeting goals for traditional parameters: costs, productivity, schedule, and quality. Now a new parameter—
quality improvement—must be added to recognize that quality improvement is to become a part of the job description.
Note that reward differs sharply from recognition. The crucial difference lies in whether the work is voluntary or mandatory.
Recognition is given for superior performance, which is voluntary. (People can hold their jobs by giving adequate performance.)
Rewards are given for mandated performance—doing the work defined in the job description.
Willful failure to do this work is a violation of the employment contract and is a form of insubordination.
The new parameter—quality improvement—is time-consuming. It adds a new function. It invades the cultural pattern. Yet it is critical to the company’s ability to remain competitive. This is why the parameter of quality improvement must enter the job descriptions and the reward system.
Failing this, employees will continue to be judged on their performance against traditional goals, and quality improvement will suffer due to lack of priority.
One well-known company had added the parameter “performance on quality improvement” to its annual review system. All personnel in the managerial hierarchy are then rated into one of three classes: more than satisfactory, satisfactory, or less than satisfactory. Those who fall into the low-est class are barred from advancement for the following 12 months (personal communication to the author).
(For additional discussion, see Section 15, Human Resources and Quality.)
TRAINING
Throughout this section there have been numerous observations on the needs for training. These needs are extensive because quality improvement is a new function in the company that assigns new responsibility to all. To carry out these new responsibilities requires extensive training. Some details of this training have been discussed here and there in this section. (For additional discussion, see Section 16, Training for Quality.)