Late Night Discussions
Number 6

by Dr. Eliyahu M. Goldratt

"Jonah, why is progress so slow and painful?"

Jonah raises his eyes from his book, looks at me, puffs once or twice on his cigar, and says, "I think it's mainly due to inertia."

"Declaring it as inertia, is not clarifying anything," I brush his suggestion aside, "it's just putting a label on it. So let's go back to my question. Why is there so much resistance to change? Why does it take so long before people accept new ideas? Why do they initially fight it so bitterly?"

Jonah puts his book aside, puffs again on his cigar, and says, "Alex, I still claim that it's inertia. But not the inertia of the people that you are talking about, it's the inertia of the inventors. The inertia that prohibits them from doing a thorough and fully complete logical job. That, I think, is the real obstacle. The phenomena that you are alluding to are already unavoidable responses."

"You've lost me. I don't know what you're talking about," I say, quite confused.

"Alex, maybe the best way to clarify the issue would be to relate it to a specific example. Allow me to guess that when you asked your question you had something more specific in mind. Why don't you put it on the table?"

"What I have in mind," I say, "is the movement toward Total Quality Management. I think that today there's a full consensus that this is the thing to do. It's not an overnight fashion, it's something serious and very needed. But look, look at how difficult it is to introduce it into companies. The results come so painfully slow, and in so many companies this movement has already stagnated into, let's face it, just lip-service."

"Fine," says Jonah, "this is a very nice example. But Alex, if you listen to what you just said, can you really complain about resistance to change? When was Total Quality Management introduced to Western industry? When was the first time you yourself heard about it?"

"Around '85, if you mean being aware of more than just the title."

"So what you are describing," Jonah continues, "is a movement - quite a radical one you must admit - that in five years has succeeded to be fully accepted. What were the words that you yourself used? 'Today there is a full consensus that this is the thing to do.' You're bringing this as an example of resisting change? I think that this is a startling example of the Western world's openness to new ideas!"

After a short pause he continues. "At the same time I must agree with you that the expected results are not coming at the speed and magnitude one would expect. And I'm afraid that you are also right in your observation that in too many places the implementation has stagnated to be nothing more than lip-service. Why? That should be the real question. Why?

"Alex, forget any preconceived notions and analyze it objectively. What do you think is the main message of Total Quality Management, what is the theme that really distinguishes it?"

Jonah has succeeded once again to throw me off balance. In less than five minutes not only has he shattered my main argument, but I'm having severe difficulty in answering his question. What is actually the theme of the quality movement? It can't be just to improve quality since we always wanted to improve quality. Could it be that the only difference is in the zealousness? This looks much too superficial.

I slowly pour myself a glass of brandy and take my time straightening out my thoughts. Jonah doesn't press, he waits patiently. Probably the brandy serves as a lubricating oil for my mind since before long I'm ready to continue.

"The main message of Total Quality Management," I say confidently, "is that, ultimately, the customers of an organization are the ones who pay the salaries of everybody in the organization. That's why this movement doesn't just stress improvement of product quality, but everything that should please the customers - better customer service, higher reliability, improved due-date performance, faster response to client's needs, etc."

I empty my glass and summarize, "Total Quality Management induced a real revelation to Western industry. It shattered the fixation of saving nickels and dimes and brought the industry back to its senses. The goal of the company is not to save money but to make money, and making money you can do only through pleased customers. In short, the power of Total Quality Management stems from the fact that it set a new direction, or more precisely I should say that, it rediscovered the old direction"

"Yes," says Jonah, "no wonder that the expectations from implementing Total Quality Management are rightfully high, the base is solid. So why, do you think, the results are falling short of the expectations?"

"The only explanation is," I conclude, "that there must be something wrong in the implementation."

"Not so fast," Jonah smiles. "Implementation of what?"

"Of the techniques that Total Quality Management has developed. Oh, I see, maybe the mistake is in the techniques themselves?"

"Not necessarily. It might even be that these techniques are flawless. The question is whether or not the most needed techniques are missing. Maybe the techniques that Total Quality has developed are not the most important ones that had to be developed in light of its suggested change in direction?"

"Sorry Jonah, but you've lost me again. What do you expect besides techniques that deal with improved quality, customer service and the such?"

"Alex, let's go back to the basics. Saving money you can do everywhere in the organization, thus having this frame of mind forces us to view our complex organizations as merely composed out of many links. What change is implied in this view if you adopt the new direction set by Total Quality Management?"

"Making money you can do only at the end of the pipe, through the customer," I hesitantly start. "This means that the desired outcome will be achieved only through the synchronized efforts of many resources. Yes, of course. This new direction implies that we should view our organizations not as a mere pile of links but as a chain. One function doesn't do its job and the end result is jeopardized. But that is just what they say 'team work is essential'."

"They also say 'eliminate the use of slogans'. Carry on logically. You have already concluded that the message that 'the customer is the king' implies that we must look on our organization as if it is a chain. Let me ask you, what determines the strength of a chain?"

"The weakest link of course."

"So if you want to improve the chain, what must be your first step?"

"What is this Jonah, trivial pursuit? My first step should be to find the weakest link."

"Fine. How are you going to do it?" he comes down with a blast. "What is the technique that management can use for that purpose? Remember, usually the weakest link is not a machine or a particular process, it is a policy that was derived according to the previous direction, a policy that by now has been cast into behavioral patterns. How are you going to identify it? By some statistical method? Be serious."

"And what about the vast majority of the links, the ones that are not the weakest?" I jump on the bandwagon. "How should we manage them according to the realization that we are dealing with a chain? We can no longer treat them as isolated links. I see Jonah, the inertia of looking on the company as disconnected links impaired the creativity. Total Quality Management came up not only with a very important message, being practical, it also came up with a large bag of powerful techniques."

"And since the more important techniques were not provided by Total Quality Management what do you expect the results to be?"

"Exactly what they are," I reply. "Since we don't know how to focus our local efforts to improve the links, the unavoidable result is a very slow improvement in the performance of the chain. Moreover, after a while, when people realize that many of their efforts are not leading to real improvement in the performance of the company, they start to shy away, to give it no more than lip-service. I see now why you blamed the inertia of the inventors rather than the inertia of the implementers."

"Alex, don't stop here. We haven't finished yet. Let's deal with the damage that results from the notion of people's resistance to change."

"People's resistance to change will definitely slow down the implementation of such a drastic shift in overall direction."

"No, no Alex. I am talking about the impact that this notion has on the inventors. And don't tell me that I've lost you again. How would somebody behave if he is concerned about people's resistance to change?"

"Such a person will be very careful not to provoke resistance and thus he will limit himself from coming up with anything that is too radical. That's obvious. But what does this have to do with Total Quality Management?"

"Don't you see? What did you just say? That the main message of this movement is to shy away from penny and nickel pinching and to start to concentrate on what really counts, the customer. How many of the policies governing the behavior of an organization stem from the old ways of trying to save?"

"Almost everything, I would say. Marketing strategies, product development, sales and production techniques, performance measurements are all dominated by this view. You don't have to tell me to what extent cost accounting was ruling our lives."

"Thank you. Now, let me ask you, how many of the policies stemming from cost accounting does Total Quality Management attack?"

That stuns me for awhile. Improving quality is definitely not against any rule of the cost world. Eliminate scrap - excellent, we save some nickels. The mere fact that we try to do it in order to improve sales does not clash with the savings notion. Quality at the source - even better, we can eliminate some quality control people. Come to think about it, this movement was very careful to dance between the drops.

"Jonah?" I say at last. "What you're trying to tell me is that Total Quality Management is not radical enough? That in order to not provoke resistance it tried to shy away from the major changes it should have recommended?"

"Alex, I don't know anything about radical. I know only about logical. Besides, I cannot respect the claims that people are stubborn and dumb, that people will resist something that is coherent, logical and beneficial, just because it is new. What is your opinion?"

This "Late Night Discussion" is Copyright © 1991 Dr. Eliyahu M. Goldratt