Management Sample Paper on Total Quality Management

1.0 Introduction

Quality management developed from the studies of standard gurus and other supporting theories. The American gurus existed in the 1950’s in Japan. Edwards Deming, Joseph Juran, and Armand Feigenbaum extended and developed the early American quality models and ideas (Smith, AK. 2012). The concepts and plan were further developed by American Western gurus Tom Peters and Philip Crosby in the late 1970’s (Dale, B. 2015). Total quality management features suppliers, external and internal clients. Several processes lay at each stage. Organizational commitment to quality, need for communication and right organizational culture is essential for effective quality management (Dale, 2015). The central aspect of quality management lies in understanding the process. Organizations benefit from having an effective and efficient quality leadership system (Dale, B. 2015). Total quality management is described as a holistic approach to prolonged success that views continuous developments in all aspects of the firms, a process and not a periodical goal (Dale, B. 2015). It can also be defined as a structured and comprehensive approach to management that develops the quality of goods and services through developed refinements in response to continuous response (Dobi, S. 2007).




2.0 Company profile and overview

The Roof Gardens is the rooftop venue in High Street Kensington, London – with restaurant, nightclub and spaces to hire for weddings and events. It is an ideal location for events from business meetings to weddings and discos to dinners (Dale, 2015). The Roof Gardens has seven floors with amazing views over Kensington skyline and a Babylon hotel which offers an electric menu and open on all days and weekends. Moreover, it has a glamorous members club opened on Friday and Saturday between 10pm to 2 am. 

3.0Kaizen and quality circle concept

Kaizen is a Japanese term coined to refer continuous improvement. Kaizen is an important principle of quality leadership especially with the methods of lean management and total quality management (Grenier, 2014). The concept of Kaizen was developed and used by Japanese manufacturing and industry n the 1950’s and 60’s. It proceeds to be a successful philosophy and practical concept in specific industries in Japan (Grenier, 2014).

Quality circle can be defined as a individuals who work as a team doing the same task, willingly gathering ones per day during working hours, usually managed by a supervisor and trained to analyze, identify and solve problems emerging within their employees.  They have no difference to Kaizen teams. They are in thelinewith continuous improvement program.  The term circles refer to a group of people (Griffin, 2008). Teams meet to review and analyze working practices with the aim of making suggestions for thedevelopmentof their systems and work. The application of quality circles is in many organizations such as the engineering and manufacturing firms. (Griffin, 2008). However, there exist some differences between total quality control practices in the West and in Japan. In Japan TQM deals with quality of individuals while in the West it deals with quality of goods and services. Moreover, in Japan the responsibility of quality control is on every employee while in the West it is the responsibility of managers to override these policies. (Griffin, 2008).

4.0 Definition and principles of Kaizen

Kaizen refers to improvement, progressive improvement concerning all individuals in the firm from all levels of management. In Japan, the concept of kaizen is intensely practiced by both workers and managers that they do not often realize that they are thinking Kaizen as a client-driven strategy for improvement(Gopal, 2010). This concept holds on the assumption that our way of life must continuously be improved. There are many controversies in the studies as well as the industry as to the significance of Kaizen(Gopal, 2010). Kaizen is a conceptfor process development that was derived from the phrase Kai and Zen which mean to investigate and break apart and improve the existing situation. Kaizen, as defined by the Kaizen Institute, means progressive improvement. It is a concept of never being contemplated on what was accomplished in the past (Dale, 2015).

Improvements begin with the acceptance that every firm has issues, which provide a gap for transformation. It evolves around progressive improvements involving individuals in the firm and mostly depends on teams that can be entrusted to challenge the existing situation (Osmundson, T. 2010).  An importance of the aspect of Kaizen is that individuals perform a certain task so as to gain knowledge about that job. Consequently showing confidence in the capabilities and involving employee’s raises ownership of the concept to agreater level. In addition, the team’s determination encourages change and innovation (Osmundson, T. 2010). Involving all groups of employees, helps erase imaginary barriers to create opportunities for productive improvements. From this approach, Kaizen is not only a concept of manufacturing competitiveness but also the business of every individual in the organization(Osmundson, T. 2010), because it is developed from thefact that every individual has a role in improvement. The premise of a kaizen framework is to make employee’s work easier by taking them apart, studying them and making improvements (Osmundson, T. 2010). The message is spread to everyone in a firm, and thus everyone is a contributor. The kaizen for every employee is an important attitude for continuous improvement (Osmundson, T. 2010). However, an organization is also an important contributorto continuous improvement. Kaizen technique gained fame when Toyota used them to rise to the world automotive leadership (Osmundson, T. 2010). Toyota employees were encouraged to identify any problem. However, small they were and traced their cause, then implement all necessary solutions. Kaizen lays its emphasis that the process is the target and employees can provide developments by understanding how their work fit into the process and transforming it (Osmundson, T. 2010).

4.1Quality circles

Quality circles are said to have emerged from Japan in the 1960’s, though other studies show that the practice originated from United States Army at around 1945. Quality circles are not a replacement for quality improvement but give the necessary top leadership organization, resources, and commitment (Lawler and E. 2002). They support more quality improvement at shop-floor level. A quality circle can be described as a team of employees who often form a congregation to discuss quality related job issues so as to generate solutions to them (Lawler and E. 2002). The circle members are empowered to bring and promote quality improvement through fruition. Thus, the adopting of quality circles leads to social focus, Commitment must come from all levels in the workplace from senior leaders, supervisors and unit management, other staff and the circle members (Lawler and E. 2002).  A team of at least three to nine individuals need to form a group together, to challenge existing methods and assumptions, explore possibilities and examine data. They require professionals to educate and train. The quality circle requires a budget to guide members so that they can be responsible for possible pilots and tests. A knowledgeable team leader is required to oversee the actions of the group(Porter and Parker, 2010).The circle needshaving an excellent approach to analyzing the context issues and its situation defining the situation and the relationship amongst its content parts (Lawler and E. 2002). The causes should be well identified so that solutions developed may face the real problem. Problem definition needs quantitative analysis and a consensus of qualitative judgment (Lawler and E. 2002). Quality objectives to be attained should be well understood, and evaluation of resources should be brought to bear on the issues and possible outcomes. Objectives should entail the solutions to the underlying issues. Operational implementation and detailed planning should then follow. Such planning involves work allocation, the establishment of information monitoring, capacity management and communication(Lawler and E. 2002).Quality improvement teams exist in many public and private sectors organizations. They may be self-directed or management. A well-defined team process, connected with other quality programs can make firms more viable while strengthening individuals to find opportunities and solutions. Leaders should listen to proposals, believe in the quality team process and enable feasible solutions to be developed through pilot stages and into full operation(Yusof and Aspinwall, 2009).

4.2Role of kaizen in The Roof Gardens

Kaizen will be incredibly beneficial to “The Roof Gardens” through the encouragement of teamworkthat contributes to improved interrelations in the workplace. Employees are considered as important assets, and hence their efforts and achievements should be rewarded.The result is the feelings of involvement of all individuals as well as a sense of inclusion within the organization (Paul Brunet and New 2009). Kaizen will be helpful to Roof Gardens by breaking down departmental obstacles, and the path to developmentis centered on the requirements of the clients. By adopting kaizen, “Roof Gardens” will achieve higher levels of innovation and quality (Paul Brunet and New 2009). Employees believe that change and improvement are possible. The firm uses management strategy to implement processes that led to its success.

Despite the advantages that this method would offer to the firm, there are some limitations that the management requires to be aware of. Implementing the concept in Roof Gardens will require a change of the current management system. Once the process has been administered, it can be extremely difficult to return to the priorsystem of management. Moreover, the workload of lower management will have to be increased (Porter, 2010). Another potential barrier is that the firm will requireundergoing acomplete transformation of their current tactics, which can ultimately cause problems to the business. Since employees are an integral part of kaizen, the organization will have to foster an environment where individuals are free to contribute their ideas without fear of being shot down (Porter, 2010).

The initial response to kaizen may be fruitful to the firm, but this enthusiasm can reduce, and the transformation becomes difficult to implement or things return to normalcy. Employees may begin to feel somewhat demolished and may lead to the company losing its initial investments (Porter, 2010).The system presents advantages, and hence it would be of great importance to introduce it in Roof Gardens. Though the system is the best suit for new firms, it does not mean that is impossible for firms with management in place to practice the concept- what is key is that employees should remain focused on the end goal and not give up since they begin to see the changes in the organization.

4.3 Implementation of Kaizen

Fig1. Deming cycle

The process involves six processes which include proof of need, project identification, organization for breakthrough, diagnostic journey, remedial journey and holding the gains.






4.4 Fishbone diagram

Fig 2. Fishbone diagram

Fishbone diagrams are aslo referred to as ishakawa diagrams and they assist in root causes of quality failure.

Several benefits arise from quality circles, which include teamwork, positive attitude, personality advancement and positive working environment (Porter, 2010).Roof Gardens should use the concept of quality circles whereby teamwork will assist in eradication if inter-team conflict and clashes and enhance the concept of team spirit. A positive attitude will be improved where employees work as if it were their job (Porter, 2010).Employees in Roof Gardens will learn new ideas and skills that will enable them to bring the hidden potential ideas. Implementing the concept will improve the organizational working environment and involve employees in every process right from a small decision to a big decision(Porter, 2010). Finally, the concept of circles will increase productivity by assisting in increasing overall productivity of the firm by improvement of work processes and reduce excessive costs. They improve quality, increase operational efficiency and promote innovation (Porter, 2010). Despite their merits, quality circles may fail due to a variety of reasons among them being negative attitude, lack of ability, lack of commitment by management and non-implementation of suggestions. Individuals and at times leaders may have a negative attitude towards the quality circle. Naturally, resistance may arise at the feasible stages (Porter, 2010). The perception of individuals about quality circles should be made right from the beginning. Workers in roof garden may have a low level of education. However, they may lack leadership qualities. To counter this challenge educational program should be introduced to the company. Top leaders may not be committed to the idea of quality circles. The administration should allow employees to hold quality circle meetings regularly during working hours (Porter, 2010). Finally, employees of Roof Gardens may feel disheartened and may lack commitment in their tasks if their suggestions are turned down without any reason. The suggestions of each circle should be considered carefully with their weight (Gupta, 2014).


Quality management developed from the studies of effective theories and their gurus. The American gurus existed in the 1950’s in Japan. Joseph Juran, Armand Feigenbaum and W Edwards Deming extended and developed the early American quality models and ideas (Dobi, 2007). The concept of Kaizen was developed and used by Japanese manufacturing and industry n the 1950’s and 60’s (Dale, B. 2015).  The concept continues to be a success and practical aspect in some of the best-known Japanese firms. Kaizen is an important principle of quality management especially with the methods of lean management and total quality management (Barraza Smith. and Mi Dahlgaard-Park, 2009).Quality circle hasbudget to act as monitoring tools so that members can be responsible for possible pilots and tests. A skilled team leader is required to act as a facilitator of team efforts. Quality circles are similar to Kaizen teams (Barraza Smith. and Mi Dahlgaard-Park, 2009). They are part of any continuous improvement program.  The term circles refer to a team of people.  Quality improvement teams are now in place in many public and private sectors organizations. They may be self-directed or management. Several benefits arise from quality circles, which include teamwork, positive attitude, personality advancement and positive working environment.


Researchers urge that several elements must be included for the success of Kaizen, which includes highly committed top leaders to both new ideas and regular improvement. Facilitators should be well trained in the assessment phase, event, and follow-up stage. Goals and objectives should be well developed and clearly mandated. The team of employees should be disciplined for the concept of kaizen to sustain the momentum (Sureshchandar, G.S. et al., 2001). The team of employees should also behave with professionalism and should be well educated. Roles should be clearly defined and commitment to sustain and follow-up the improvements made.




Abdulmouti, H., 2015, March. The role of Kaizen (continuous improvement) in improving companies’ performance: A case study. In Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM), 2015 International Conference on (pp. 1-6). IEEE.

Bond, T.C., 2010. The role of performance measurement in continuous improvement. International Journal of Operations & Production Management19(12), pp.1318-1334.

Chopra, K., Kadekodi, G.K. and Murty, M.N., 2010. Participatory development: people and common property resources. Sage.

Dale, B., 2015. Total quality management. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dobi, S., 2007, June. The Kaizen and the productivity. In 5th international conference on Management, Enterprises, and Benchmarking.

Elsey, B. and Fujiwara, A., 2010. Kaizen and technology transfer instructors as work-based learning facilitators in overseas transplants: a case study. Journal of Workplace Learning12(8), pp.333-342.

Gordon, D.B., Dahl, J.L., Miaskowski, C., McCarberg, B., Todd, K.H., Paice, J.A., Lipman, A.G., Bookbinder, M., Sanders, S.H., Turk, D.C. and Carr, D.B., 2009. American pain society recommendations for improving the quality of acute and cancer pain management: American Pain Society Quality of Care Task Force. Archives of internal medicine165(14), pp.1574-1580.

Gordon, D.B., Pellino, T.A., Miaskowski, C., McNeill, J.A., Paice, J.A., Laferriere, D. and Bookbinder, M., 2010. A 10-year review of quality improvement monitoring in pain management: recommendations for standardized outcome measures. Pain Management Nursing3(4), pp.116-130.

Grenier, G.J., 2014. Inhuman relations: Quality circles and anti-unionism in American industry. Temple Univ Pr.

Griffin, R.W., 2008. Consequences of quality circles in an industrial setting: A longitudinal assessment. Academy of management Journal31(2), pp.338-358.

Gupta, S. and Jain, S.K., 2014. The 5S and kaizen concept for overall improvement of theorganization: a case study. International Journal of Lean Enterprise Research1(1), pp.22-40.

Guyatt, G., Gutterman, D., Baumann, M.H., Addrizzo-Harris, D., Hylek, E.M., Phillips, B., Raskob, G., Lewis, S.Z. and Schunemann, H., 2010. Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: report from an American College of Chest Physicians task force. CHEST Journal129(1), pp.174-181.

Imai, M., 2012. Gemba Kaizen: A commonsense approach to a continuous improvement strategy. McGraw Hill Professional.

Lawler 3rd, E.E., and Mohrman, S.A., 2007. Quality circles after the fad. Harvard business review63(1), pp.65-71.

Light, J. and Smith, A.K., 2012. Home literacy experiences of preschoolers who use AAC systems and of their nondisabled peers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 9(1), pp.10-25.

Mucha, P.J., Richardson, T., Macon, K., Porter, M.A. and Onnela, J.P., 2010. Community structure in time-dependent, multiscale, and multiplex networks. science, 328(5980), pp.876-878.

Paul Brunet, A. and New, S., 2012. Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management23(12), pp.1426-1446.

Paul Brunet, A. and New, S., 2012. Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management23(12), pp.1426-1446.

Porter, L.J., and Parker, A.J., 2010. Total quality management—the critical success factors. Total quality management4(1), pp.13-22.

Suarez Barraza, M.F., Smith, T. and Mi Dahlgaard-Park, S., 2009. Lean-kaizen public service: an empirical approach in Spanish local governments. The TQM Journal21(2), pp.143-167.

Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Anantharaman, R.N., 2010. A conceptual model for total quality management in service organizations. Total quality management12(3), pp.343-363.

Yusof, S.R.M. and Aspinwall, E., 2009. Total quality management implementation frameworks: comparison and review. Total quality management11(3), pp.281-294.