Dear Paranitharan

Yes possible... Who will 'Bell the Cat'? Nobody... Because each one of the segment is surviving by capitalising the terms as 'Jorgen'...

But Industry cleverly uses what it needs at every stage of it.

Cheers

LR

Dear Paranitharan,

Yes, all are possible.. and they have the same common principle in terms of continuous improvement. Perhaps what you need to know and understand is when to use the principles. The right choice of when to use the one and the others.

I give you example,  if your dealing with variation you can use SIX SIGMA, if its value stream mapping then you can use LEAN, regarding SMED you can use TPM.

I would say that there's some commonality between these approaches, but Lean Production provides the most useful holistic approach. Combining any or all of these just causes complexity without adding any useful elements.

Harry S. Whiting II, PE

No!

Because, all (TPM+LEAN+Agile+Six Sigma (DMAIC) + Sustainable mfg) except TQM are tools, but TQM is a philosophy.

Each tool has a motif of Quality Improvement. Methods are different, objectives too are varied. But being Capable and Competent (capatent) is a unanimous vision.

Dr. P Thareja,  CE(I), CLSSBB

A company is already a professional team, and the slogan is alway "one team, one goal", which is always right in any company over the world.

Each department is actually a "team member", who is professional in its own field(s) or job responsibility area(s), with all their own professional tools whatever needed or new ones if in need later (for both managements and technologies), which is led and supervised by professional department head(s).

So, the key points of the successuful and effective quality approaches are how to best utilize all those resources inside the company, or say how to best "integrate" different functions of the different departments, by a certain organizing approach, say: the quality management systems (which can be enhanced on to a very high automation level), beside the manual managements of the top boss upon different experiences or styles unstably. One of the common practices is form and run some of the small "cross-function" teams, with team members from different departments.

There are 2 motivations driving the teams (big or small) to maintain or enhance the quality level, one is the "responsibility" (with pleasure more or less), the one is the "pressure" (with displeasure more or less). However, the first one is studied more, and the second one is studied less.

The quality management systems (based upon ISO 9001 or TS 169494) generate a little pressures to every departments occasionally, but it is far from "enough". As all know, a "driving license" (certification) will not help a driver (company) to win any others in any "racing car" (business competition), because the 2 things require different “driving skills” (different management systems). While, many companies (including all their competitors) are ISO 9001 / TS 16949 certified, dreaming to win the others, or to avoid losing, in the business competitions.

A special reminder: it is easy to understand that, all the quality methodologies (and the tools) are actually helpless, if the quality teams are weak technically to find out the root causes (the failure mechanisms), or to develop new pratical solutions...

For more details, please see: http://lnkd.in/bmHZJZe

Good Michael:  "A company is already a professional team, and the slogan is alway "one team, one goal", "

I my post I intentionally said "NO", because until I said yes, we would have generated the answer as that ou yours.

I believe in total  "Integration" with INNOVATION, and that is how we all become a team.

But if we all thought alike, then where were the scope of innovations? If we have to innovate then  several teams, one goal   is the option.  Say, many tools, one objective.

Michael, You also agree with my stipulation : TEAM  "who is professional in its own field(s)". With such specialisation,  the knowledge domain gets shrunk. 

So. One Objective.... [ many paths ]..

My post has the foundation of two papers: a TQM model:  AUM model.  and another paper TQM in Temple.

Thareja

Before to discuss all different ideas any further, and avoid confusing all, we must be very clear in mind what are the differences between the basic principle of quality management system (based upon ISO 9001 or similar ones) and the basic priciple of TQM (or similar ones), when organizing people for quality purposes in a company.

And, if necessary, we must also be very clear in mind what does the word "quality" mean basically, or what we expect it is in a real company actually, before trying to tell any differences in theoretical concept:

1. the quality of the products (including all the related raw materials)?

2. the quality of the operations managements and their KPI performances?

3. the quality of the financial controls to assure and/or increase the profit rates?

4. the quality of the HR to select (or support to select) people in key positions?

5. the quality of the maintenances of complicated machines (hardware/software)?

6. the quality of the products safety/reliability, and the environment protections?

7. the quality of the foods for lunch to keep employees healthy in the long term?

8. the quality of the relationship between people built up by the company culture?

9. and even, the quality to use all different quality tools (old and new) professionally? (for example, the GR&R statistical methodology is still used wrong by many people, when trying to avoid "false rejection / acceptance" in dimantional measurements or electric tests, against customer's strict specifications, before shipments).

And more... 

Very interesting discussion. I would pose different opinion based several angles in looking at the issue. From the practical or managerial perspective, I strongly agree with Prayavrat and Micheal as Quality initiatives should be chosen and implemented by stages and the within specified scope depending on the organization's goals and capabilities. Meanwhile, if it is for academic research exercise, as far as we can justify the inclusion of the factors or elements, it is possible to study the feasibility and effectiveness of any of those Quality management initiatives or tools to various organizational context.

Agreed Noor. Research(es) contemplate.. "to study the feasibility and effectiveness of any of those Quality management initiatives or tools". And this is aligned with the objectives.

Fundamentally, it is the goal; or solicited Quality management initiatives. The tools are all facilitators.

Like you wanna open a nit (bolt) Use a plier, or a wrench, or spanner keys,  or a welded rod. use a hexagonal template used in graphics. I wiuld oprn even with a screw driver.

The question of efficiencies and effectiveness.

I think if I might have explained in another way, the points would possibly be easier to understand.

Suppose the tools discussed are just purely for such a "quality" meaning as above #1 "the quality of the products (including all the related raw materials)", then the best (or the simplest) way for a company to do, is not to try any right tool (or any integrtion of tools) "academically" in headache, but just to throw away all the defective products (or raw materials), and to pay refunds for all the defective products if found in any customers.

If it is really costly to do in this way, then the best (or the simplest) way for a company to do, is still not to try any right tool (or any integrtion of tools) "academically" in headache, but just to raise the product's prices a little, if there is no, or little, presures externally (say: the business competitions generated by other companies or similar products) or internally (say: the profit rates expected by the investors or the top managements).

It is easy to understand or imagine the real situation is somewhat like that: the higher pressure in financy, the higher pressure to try and use quality tools (or to develop new ones if the old ones are really with too many troubles in using, or are too weak for finding root causes or finding practical solutions).

* Conclution #1: financy is really a key element in the meaning of the word "quality", and no quality tools (old and new) would work well in practices, if they do not have it involved in - this is the fact, especially in small conpanies (99.99% of all companies in numbers).

And also, according to my experiences, all those tools mentioned may have been too old already (much less effective or applicable in actual practices). For me personally, I would perfer the research approaches (can they be called "new tools", also?), since the "steps" are more professional than the old ones, for example:

Step 1 - select a research subject that is possible to conquer, or to make some new progresses forward, after some research efforts.

Step 2 - study all the related research papers in literature, or some reports from other researchers (in the same or similar field), to better understand the background or get enlightening by some new ideas.

Step 3 - attend some other related science and technology classes in some other departments (if in a university), either basic or advanced.

Step 4 - make experiment plan in details, review it with other professionals, before implementations.

Step 5 - change or modify the direction of the research efforts, with the new findings or further understanding (unexpected as per the experiment plan), again and again.

Step 6 - summarize how the achievement is made in what a new interesting logic, which is not simply an integration of all the existing research papers in literature.

* Conclusion #2: if every (existing) tool cannot help to find root cause or to find practical solution after tried, one by one, then an integration of them cannot help, neither.

For more details, please see: http://lnkd.in/bmHZJZe

Thanks everybody for takepart in discussion and it  clarifies how i bring through the research in new interesting logic for integration of manufacturing management concept

One  approach could be to follow a value-based management path.  I am not sure if you have seen this approach. An example is mentioned below.

Take a look.

Article Total value management - A knowledge management concept for ...

As much time as those concepts and methodologies have a lot of similar points, it can be possible to integrate it. But, the organizational culture is very important for the implementation of each of them apart … not speaking about the implementation of the simultaneous approach …

LM