deploying total qualitymanagement in russia

028 Total quality management European Quality • Volume 11 Number 2

Deploying Total QualityManagement in Russia

Today’s arsenal of improvement tools is robust and continues to grow with

the addition of new approaches: Six Sigma, BS EN ISO 9001:2000,

Balanced Scorecard, Quality Function Deployment (QFD), Failure Mode and

Effect Analysis (FMEA) and various Self-assessment models. The majority

of offered approaches are based on the principles of Total Quality

Management, but for the majority of Russian managers TQM remains a

mystery. Thus, research has been undertaken specifically focused upon

Russian businesses to find an approach to quality adoption that is

understandable and deployable. The developed Management Functional

Assessment Model is currently being implemented and the process

monitored. This article examines progress to date.

Professor Paul Watson, & Mr Nicholas Chileshe, Sheffield Hallam

University,Dr. Dmitry Maslow, Ivanov Power University, Russia

European Quality • Volume 11 Number 2 Total quality management 029

The struggle to satisfy clients in ser-

vices and manufacturing within

Russia has forced senior managers to

search for new appropriate approaches to con-

duct business practices. Within Russia supply

and demand has historically been the func-

tion of an administrative command system

and was subject to state planning. The con-

cept and application of competition between

manufacturers and service providers was

absent (Yasin, 2003). Customers could not opt

for purchasing one product or service as

opposed to another or as noted in Russia ‘vote

by rouble’, as no choice existed.

This artificial market did not promote a

positive attitude towards quality or its impor-

tance in a global competitive market place. A

sea change has been necessary to move from

this over-managed (by central government)

system to a more westernised approach.

Although this change has been evolutionary,

Russia has been able to build upon the accu-

mulated experience of eastern and western

experiences. In short, Russia is now behind

the West in its understanding and application


Total quality management in Russia

Title City Year Comments

Zero-defects manufacturing of products(BIP - Russian abbreviation)

Saratov 1955 The first time in Russian practice that a newmeasure of production quality is introduced.

Quality, Reliability, Resource from the firstitems (KANARSPI)

Gorky 1958 Relying on a products design stage for theelimination of defects before production.

Zero-defects operation system (SBT) Lvov 1961 Calculation of a complex index of operationquality with allowance for individual featuresthat influence the operation quality of variousdivisions and separate workers.

Scientific organisation of operations onincreasing motor-resource of drives (NORM)

Yaroslavl 1964 Acceptance of criteria for quality and thetechnical parameter, direct purpose of thesystem, control of a level of a motor-resourceand its sequential increase on the base rises ofreliability of details.

Complex control for the management ofquality (KSUKP)

Lvov 1975 The system has united all previous experienceof quality systems, development of anorganisational, technical base of the system onthe basis of enterprise standards.

Complex system of production efficiencyenhance (KSPEP)

Krasnodar 1980 Co-ordination of quality improvements ofproduction, with production efficiencyenhanced.

Table 1: Quality Systems Development in the USSR

of TQM. This gap is now being greatly

reduced and this paper will contribute to

enhancing the deployment TQM in Russia.

Quality Deployment Russia ExperiencesIt should be noted that there has been some

systematic activity in applying quality

improvement concepts but that each develop-

ment has tended to be of a regional nature in

the USSR. The main developments are pre-

sented in Table 1. Upon inspection of Table 1

it is possible to identify that before the 1980’s

developments really did take place, however,

many of these innovations were used mainly

for the Russian military industry. There were

few quality activities in the provision of con-

sumer goods manufacturing or services.

The Soviet system has specific problems in

trying to engender a TQM philosophy, the

main ones being:

• A limited sphere of influence from the

early approaches of quality development

due to the bureaucratic system.

• The absence of a customer focus.

• An economic environment that is not sup-

portive of an enterprise culture built on a

quality approach.

• Later systems have had an unsystematic

application.

(Mazur & Shapiro 2003)

The Soviet school of quality experts are

descended from military or engineering back-

grounds. These experts have designed and are

responsible for most quality developments in

Russia. Their framework is a standards

approach to quality, i.e. one of installing a set

of standards/procedures. They have no real

managerial experience or any concept of the

importance of people management, contrast

this with the modern management approach

to quality which fully embraces statistics,

knowledge of economics and customer

requirements embraced within a culture of

empowerment. Russia has to move from its

current approach to quality which is one of

concentrating on limiting the quantity of

defects and increasing reliability. This is not

to say that these are unimportant, they are.

The problem is that it has instilled a culture of

‘Quality Control’ rather than ‘Assurance’ or

even ‘TQM’.

The future strategy forattaining qualityimprovements in Russia is tostress the importance ofeconomics and management

The necessity to train new managers in the

field of quality and instill a more western

view was recognised in 1999 by the Ministry

of Education of Russia (Dickenson et al 2000).

However, most quality managers are educated

within technical departments. Even in

Russian high schools with economic faculties,

quality managers are part of material-support,

goods - support and standardisation depart-



ments. The future strategy for attaining qual-

ity improvements in Russia is to stress the

importance of economics and management

and this is to be part of graduate education

programmes and its success monitored in

companies who employ graduates.

Russia has not fully employed TQM but

some Russian businesses have implemented

BS EN ISO 9001:2000, benchmarking and self

assessment strategies. The problem is that

managers of western companies accept the

concept of customer focus, continuous

improvement, process approach, quality

management, involving employees, social

responsibility of businesses, all as an integral

part of quality improvement. In Russia these

business concepts are alien; therefore adopt-

ing TQM is a most problematic activity. Key

issues that have to be addressed are engaging

with a change philosophy, a lack of knowl-

edge, resistance to change and a lack of senior

management support.

Within Europe an approach to TQM

deployment has been developed by the

European Foundation for Quality

Management in the form of an Excellence

Model. The Excellence Model defines and

describes TQM in a way that can be more eas-

ily understood by senior managers (Vander

Wiele et al 2000).

EFQM EM forms the basis of the Russian

National Quality Award, which was estab-

lished in 1996. Over the past seven years more

than 800 applications from 67 subjects of the

Russian Federation have taken part in the

competition, 65 of these organisations have

been successful. (Secretariat of National

Quality Award of Russia 2004). The award

however for most companies does not pro-

vide a true improvement tool, its potential for

self-assessment linked to continuous

improvement has not been fully realised.

Further the best practice of leading organisa-

tions has not been successfully disseminated

to other less able businesses. The self-assess-

ment aspect linked to internal and external

benchmarking is a vital activity of EFQM EM,

but this aspect has been only partially realised

by Russian firms (Conti 2003).

there still exists a fear ofdisclosure; this is based upon many years of nonperformance being associated with sanctions

Russian managers do not appreciate the

value of self-assessment unless it is linked to

some kind of financial analysis. This is

because there is an absence of Key

Performance Indicators (KPI’s) and available

self-assessment techniques. Within Russia

there still exists a fear of disclosure; this is

based upon many years of non performance


being associated with sanctions. Self-assess-

ment leading to improvement requires the

identification of problematic issues along

with the development of advocated solutions

and corrective actions. However, one must

remember that until recently there existed a

culture of reluctance to identify errors or mis-

takes and showing initiative was not always

well received. This situation provides a true

hindrance to objective of implementing self-

assessment techniques. Senior managers of

large companies entrust all quality activities

to appropriate sub-divisions; in small and

medium enterprises (SME’s) a culture exists

where the chief executive always knows best

and therefore there is no need to engage in

activities requiring the support of other staff,

such as benchmarking or self-assessment. In

their view this would be a waste of valuable

resources. Very few organisations use bench-

marking in Russia, the ones that do are repre-

sentatives of large businesses having contracts

with foreign partners. For most SME’s ‘bench-

marking’ is an unfamiliar word and bench-

marking is not accepted as a valid manage-

ment technique. Its deployment is further

hindered by the secretive and complex nature

of Russian domestic business practices.

Analysis of the deployment of improve-

ment tools inevitably leads to the conclusion

that a lack of a quality focused culture does

hinder the effective and efficient deployment

and application of the said tools and tech-

niques. Building a quality approach based

upon a procedural system without the under-

pinning morphogenic culture is bound to fail.

In order to address the above noted issues

a Functional Assessment Mode has been

developed from research conducted within

Russia (Maslov, Belokorovin 2003).

Corporate excellence is measured by an

organisation’s ability to both achieve and sus-

tain a competitive advantage through satisfy-

ing its stakeholders. This can only be achieved

by the efficient and effective utilisation of all

corporate resources which include the 5M’s:

The 5M’s have to be treated as a holistic

whole and the model provided within this

paper provides a means for setting corporate

objectives that link with all stakeholder

expectations/needs. The advocated model

empowers organisations to monitor and

benchmark their performance and further

enables them to score their performance in

key operational areas.

By adopting a holistic approach to cus-

tomer requirements, building on stakeholder

contribution not only can ‘added value’ be

attained but it can also be measured. Once

measured the benchmark can be set for

engaging in the continued drive for organisa-

tional excellence.

Competitive AdvantageThe model presented is a ‘Functional

Assessment Model’. However, the functional

assessment model forms part of ‘competitive-

orientated management’. This is a system of



management designed to gain and sustain a

competitive corporate advantage by way of

continued internal and external self assess-

ment and an improvement driven agenda.

The concept of competitive-orientated

management may be represented as a tetrahe-

dron (as in Figure 1). It is based upon three

principles of competitive achievement, lead-

ership, personnel and development. The

emphasis should be placed on the attainment

of a ‘Sustainable Competitive Advantage’.

Leadership

The role of senior management is critical to

the success of any change process and leader-

ship has to be demonstrated. All employees

have to be given the time and skills to make a

useful contribution towards the drive for a

sustainable competitive advantage.

Personnel

Employers have to be motivated to engage in

a corporate culture directed at stakeholder sat-

isfaction. Senior management must not forget

that employees are also stakeholders. Thus

they should remember to engage in ‘consulta-

tion’ before ‘implementation’ in corporate

plans. This aspect allows staff to contribute to

the decision making process. Culture is a vital

aspect for consideration and a morphogenic

culture should be the aim of senior manage-

ment.

Development

The development of an organisation requires

the consideration of both business processes

and environmental issues/aspects. Therefore

environmental scanning has to be deployed

in order to establish external influences and

may be done by SWOT and PEST analysis.

This should be linked to the RADAR concept

for the techniques to be effective.

Management Functional Assessment Model(MFAM)The MFAM is based upon six functions of

management:

• forecasting and planning

• organising

• motivation


Figure 1

Competitive-Orientated Management Core

Concept Constituent parts of the tetrahedron

• control

• co-ordination

• communication

The first five functions are encapsulated

within a framework of an effective and effi-

cient system of communication (see Fig 2).

The MFAM has been designed to aid con-

struction managers in determining the key

activities to be addressed in order

to improve corporate efficiency and

effectiveness.

1. Forecasting Planning

This criterion is concerned with determining

the shape of future strategy; its function is to

answer three questions:

• where is the company now in terms of its

vision and mission?

• where does it want to be as part of its

future corporate plans?

• how is the company to achieve set aims

based upon forecasts?

The planning criterion contains five basic

categories:

1.1 Setting the objectives and strategic plan-

ning process in motion.

1.2 Gathering and analysing information

related to both clients and the markets

(all stakeholders).

1.3 Detailing business-processes (who, what,

where and why).

1.4 Gathering and analysing information

relating to competitors and

benchmarking.

1.5 Resources planning (5M’s).

2. Organising

The main managerial tasks here are to

organise business-processes with a concen-

tration on maximising effectiveness and

efficiency.

The organising criterion contains five basic

categories:

2.1 Creating an appropriate organisational

structure

2.2 Establishing authority and responsibility

for all personnel

2.3 Creating a self-learning organisational

culture (morphogenic)

2.4 Developing a value system based upon

enhancing performance

2.5 Deployment of new technology linked

to corporate enhancement


Figure 2

Management Functional-Assessment Model

(MFAM) incorporating the ‘RADAR’ concept


3. Motivation

It has to be noted that motivation has many

aspects both intrinsic and extrinsic.

The motivation criterion contains five

basic categories:

3.1 Developing a co-operative culture based

on stakeholder satisfaction.

3.2 Ensuring staff have the skills and com-

petences to perform set tasks.

3.3 A consideration of personnel needs

linked to self-actualisation.

3.4 Involvement in processes, increase areas

of responsibility and self-monitoring

(empowerment).

3.5 Results satisfaction - feedback on perfor-

mance in a timely manner linked to

‘RADAR’.

4. Control

Control is dependent upon constant feedback

from each stage of business-process, checking

against quality and measuring performance

indicators. A correct monitoring system

allows for an increase in the efficiency and

effectiveness of organisational activity.

Organisations must consider feeding forward

of information for effective control. This can

only be fully achieved by deploying ‘RADAR’

incorporating a plan, do, check and act cycle.

The control criterion contains five basic

categories:

4.1 A monitoring system for each key stage

of business-processes.

4.2 Measuring performance levels (with an

internal and external perspective).

4.3 Determining customer satisfaction

levels.

4.4 Determining the efficiency and effec-

tiveness of resource utilisation linked to

corporate aims.

4.5 Conducting a comparative analysis

between set targets and actual results,

leading to appropriate actions (RADAR).

5. Co-ordination

The analysis of deviations on business-

processes and updating of the current plans in

a holistic manner based on feedback is a criti-

cal point in co-ordination management.

Again this can only be fully attained by

‘RADAR’ application.

The co-ordination criterion contains five

basic categories:

5.1 Unity of all the other functions.

5.2 Establishing effective communications.

5.3 Developing a conflict solving culture

linked to enhancement.

5.4 Updating of deviations: revision and

possible reco-ordination of resources.

5.5 Information management - information

has to be timely and in sufficient detail

to inform corrective actions (RADAR).

6. Communication

This is the link and the life blood of corpo-


rate activity and its effectiveness is measured

within the context of the five other functions.

RADARControl is concerned with the efficient and

effective utilisation of resources in the attain-

ment of previously determined objectives,

contained within a specific plan, the plan

being the method to be deployed in order to

achieve the pre-determined objectives.

Control is exercised by the feedback and

feeding forward of information on actual per-


Criteria Assessment category Max Score

1. Forecasting/Planning

1.1 Setting the objective and strategic planning process in motion1.2 Gathering and analysing information related to clients and markets1.3 Detailing business-processes1.4 Gathering and analysing information related to competitors and

benchmarking1.5 Resources planningCriterion total

444

420

2. Organising 2.1 Creating the correct organisational structure2.2 Establishing authority and the responsibility for all personnel2.3 Creating a self-learning organisational culture2.4 Developing a value system based on enhancing performance2.5 Deployment of new technology linked to corporate enhancement Criterion estimation

4444420

3. Motivation 3.1 Developing a co-operative culture based upon stakeholder satisfaction3.2 Ensuring staff have the skills, resources and competences to perform set tasks3.3 A consideration of personal needs linked to self-actualisation3.4 Engagement in processes, increase areas of responsibility and self-monitoring3.5 Results satisfaction - feedback on performance in a timely mannerCriterion estimation

4444420

4. Control 4.1 A monitoring system for each key stage of business-process4.2 Measuring performance levels4.3 Determining customer satisfaction levels4.4 Determine the efficiency and effectiveness of resource utilisation4.5 Conduct a comparative analysis between set targets and actual results,

leading to appropriate actionsCriterion estimation

44444

20

5. Coordinating 5.1 Unity of all other functions5.2 Establishing effective internal communications5.3 Developing a conflict solving system5.4 Updating of deviations: revision and possible reco-ordination of other resources5.5 Ensure effective Information managementCriterion estimation

4444420

Total management estimation 100

Table 2 Marking criteria for MFAM

Complete the score card based on organisational performance following the scoring criteria in Table 3.


formance when compared with the pre-deter-

mined plan, therefore planning and control

are very closely linked. Control is concerned

with the establishment of deviations from

planned activities/objectives and initiating

effective and efficient corrective actions.

These assessments may also establish areas of

best practice to be disseminated throughout

the organisation.

RADAR logic explainedThe RADAR logic states that an organisation

needs to:

• determine the Results the organisation is

aiming for as part of its policy and strategy

making processes. These include the per-

formance of the organisation, both finan-

cially and operationally, and the percep-

tion of its stakeholders

• plan and develop an integrated set of

sound Approaches to deliver the required

results


Table 3 Summary of Results for MFAM

The total management estimation helps to define a level of Management Maturity

In scoring 0 - 4 the following criteria as shown in Table 3, should be used.

Table 4 Scoring criteria

Level Total Score Assessment

I (0~20) ∑ No methodology or system, management purposes are not defined. For further development it is necessaryto reconsider core business principles.

II (21~40) ∑ Management has the potential for development. Managers should develop their leadership skills, defineorganisational purposes clearly and develop a strategy based on TQM principles.

III (41~60) ∑ Management systems are in evidence. It is necessary to pay attention to the optimisation of businessprocesses and improvement of quality at each stage. Perfecting a control system and taking into account theimportance of stakeholders.

IV (61~80) ∑ Constant quality checks within the management system take place. Utilisation of external benchmarking inorder to improve corporate performance.

V (81~100) ∑ The maximum outcomes in all areas of corporate activity are reached; the management system isbenchmarked and monitored in a drive for continuous improvement.

Score Criteria for Scoring

0 No activity demonstrated

1 Activity not consistently utilised

2 Activity utilised but dependent upon the situation

3 The activity is deployed permanently and systematically

4 The activity is deployed permanently and systematically, monitored and reviewed via benchmarking for improvement

Both the ‘Results’ and ‘Approaches’ ele-

ments related to the Plan stage of Deming’s

control cycle, see Figure 3. Matching of Plan,

Do, Check and Act Cycle with RADAR

• Deploy the approaches in a systematic way

to ensure full implementation. The

deployment is the ‘Act’ stage of Deming’s

Cycle.

• Assess and Review the approaches followed

based on monitoring and analysis of the

results achieved utilising ongoing learning

activities. Based on this assessment, com-

panies should identify, prioritise, plan and

implement improvements where needed.

(European Foundation for Quality

Management, 1999).

‘Assess’ and ‘Review’ cover the ‘check’ and

‘act’ components of Deming’s Cycle.

The basic premise of both BS EN ISO

9001:2000 and the European Foundation for

Quality Excellence Model is the concept of

control as depicted in Figure 5.

One must remember it is not possible to

have retrospective effective corrective actions.

Therefore, timeliness of data is a key compo-

nent of the control function.

Corporate excellence ismeasured by an organisation’sability to both achieve andsustain outstanding results for its stakeholders

Linking RADAR and the Management

Functional Assessment Model (MFAM).

Figure 2: The Management Functional

Assessment Model incorporating RADAR

encapsulates the facility for organisations to

fully engage in a drive for continuous improve-

ment. Thus, every time the MFAM is imple-

mented and the scoring process applied RADAR

is embodied within the model. In this way fore-

casts and plans linked to deployment strategies

are evaluated and appropriate actions deter-

mined via assessment and review. Only by

employing this approach can the full benefits

of MFAM deployment be attained.

ConclusionThe model (MFA) recognises that sustain-

able excellence in all aspects of performance


Figure 3

Matching of Plan, Do, Check and Act Cycle

with RADAR


is based on the management functions of

forecasting/planning, organising, co-ordinat-

ing, motivating, control and communication.

The application of the MFAM will address the

key deployment issues and empower the

resulting benefits.

A truly empoweredorganisation employs both a top down and bottom upapproach to managing itsactivities within the context of aiming to fully satisfy allstakeholders

Excellence is dependent upon balancing

and satisfying the needs of all relevant

stakeholders (this includes people

employed, customers, suppliers and society

in general, as well as those with financial

interests in the organisation). The customer

is the final judge of product and service

quality and customer loyalty, retention and

market share gain are best optimised

through a clear focus on the needs of cur-

rent and potential stakeholders.

The behaviour of an organisation’s lead-

ers creates a clarity and unity of purpose

within the organisation and an environ-

ment in which the organisation and its peo-

ple can excel. A truly empowered organisa-

tion employs both a top down and bottom

up approach to managing its activities with-

in the context of aiming to fully satisfy all

stakeholders.

Organisations perform more effectively

and efficiently when all interrelated activi-

ties are understood and systematically man-

aged and decisions concerning current oper-

ations and planned improvements are made

using reliable information that includes

stakeholder perceptions. The full potential

of an organisation’s people is best released

through shared values and a culture of trust

and empowerment. This necessitates a holis-

tic approach to people and their operational

systems and organisational structure.

Performance is maximised when based on

management and sharing of knowledge

within a culture of continuous learning,

innovation and improvement. An organisa-

tion works more effectively when it has

mutually beneficial relationships built on

trust, the sharing of knowledge and integra-

tion with its partners.

Corporate excellence is measured by an

organisation’s ability to both achieve and

sustain outstanding results for its stakehold-

ers, thus MFAM linked to RADAR has been

developed. It is essential if a truly holistic

control mechanism is to be attained.

References• European Foundation for Quality Management


(1999) Radar and the EFQM Excellence Model, EFQM

Press Releases & Announcements, [on line] last

accessed on 12 June 2000 at URL:www.efqm.org/

• Conti,T., (2003), "Pochemu ne polnostyu ispolsuetsya

potencial samoocenki?" (Why the potential of a self-

assessment is not used?), Standarty i Kachestvo, No. 3.

Dickenson, R. P., Campbell, D. R., and Azarov, V. N.,

(2000), "Quality management implementation in

Russian Strategies for change", International

Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol.

17 No. 1, pp. 66-81.

• Maslov D. , Belokorovin, E. (2003), ‘Malyi business:

puti razvitia,’ (Small Business, routes of

development), M’art, Archangelsk

• Mazur, I. I., & Shapiro, V. D., (2003) "Upravleniye

kachestvom: uchebnoye posobie" (Quality

management: the Guidebook), Vysshaya shkola,

Moskva.

•Secretariat of National Quality Award of Russia

(2002, 2003), Russian National Quality Award, All-

Russian Scientific and Research Institute for

Certification, www.vniis.ru

• Van der Wiele, A., Dale, B., and Williams, R., (2000),

"ISO 9000 series and excellence models: fad to

fashion to fit", Journal of General Management,Vol.

25 No. 3, Spring, pp. 50-66.

• Yasin, E.G., (2003), "Rossiyskaya ekonomika. Istoki i

panorama rynochnych reform: Kurs lekciy" (The

Russian economy. Sources and panorama of market

reforms: Course of lectures), 2-e izd, GU VshE, Moskva.

For further information, contact:

Dmitry Maslow: [email protected]


deploying total qualitymanagement in russia

Documents

quality adoption

russia european quality

management ofquality

russia voteby rouble

russia supplyand demand

complex control

theelimination of defects

new appropriate approaches