CENTER FORQUALITY OF MANAGEMENT
JOURNAL
© Copyright 1993,1999 The Center for Quality of Management, Inc. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroomuse is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the fullcitation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post to servers, or to redistribute to lists requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.Copying is by permission of The Center for Quality of Management, Inc. • One Alewife Center, Suite 450 • Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140 USATelephone: (617) 873-8950 • Email: [email protected] The Center for Quality of Management Authors retain rights for re-publication of their articles.
ISSN: 1072-5296
REPRINT NUMBER:
RP02400
Volume 2, Number 3 Summer 1993
From the Chairman of the Editorial Board Page 2David Walden
HP’s Quality Maturity System:CEO Roundtable Report Page 3Thomas E. Abell and Dawn Dougherty Fitzgerald
Applying 7-Steps as a Personal PDCA Method Page 5Cliff Scott
Systems Archetypes as a Diagnostic Tool:A Field-based Study of TQM Implementations Page 15Gary Burchill and Daniel H. Kim
Application of Concept Engineering on theBose Enchilada Project Page 23Erik Anderson and Jim Sanchez
Summer 1993 5
Cliff Scott
Applying 7-Steps As a Personal PDCAMethod
This article describes how I followed the con-tinuous improvement method known as the 7-Steps1 to improve the way I use my time at work.The Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) process in-cluded (a) collecting data on how my time wasspent, (b) using a hypothesis and test model toimprove my behavior and (c) establishing a pro-cedure to maintain the improvements. Throughthis effort I not only improved my effectivenessbut also learned how untested assumptions candrive our behavior and keep us from seeing use-ful solutions. I hope this account may serve as auseful model for personal PDCA for others.
I began this effort after participating inTeradyne Corporation’s internal “TQM for Man-agers” course taught by Professor Shoji Shiba.2
This course encouraged participants to apply the7-Steps as the means of personal improvement.The notion of personally applied PDCA isclearly timely. Robert Galvin, both in an addressto The Center for Quality Management’s 1992Annual Conference3 and in his foreword to HarryRoberts and Bernard Sergesketter’s work4 on theuse of personal checklists, challenged managersto take personal responsibility for quality. Galvinespouses this personal responsibility as themeans to provide leadership and develop the in-sight needed to change companies profoundlyfor improved competitive performance. And, ofcourse, Roberts and Sergesketter’s work itselfpresents a compelling case and method for per-sonally applied continuous improvement. A per-sonal PDCA strategy also fits within the contextof the current TQM implementation at my com-pany (Bolt Beranek and Newman). By adoptinga plan for personal continuous improvement, Icould apply PDCA not just to special projectsbut to my whole job.
Problem StatementAs a corporate staff person in the TQM office, Iwas responsible for supporting the implementa-tion of 7-Steps throughout the company’s fourdivisions, for identifying and understanding/de-veloping new TQM methods, and for participat-ing in efforts to improve the TQM implement-ation companywide. But like a lot of people, I
1 A fact-based improvement methodology encompassing (1)selection of a theme (problem); (2) data collection; (3) causalanalysis to discover the root cause to confirm and focus theproblem; (4) solution planning and implementation; (5) evaluationto confirm the solution works; (6) standardization to implement thesolution permanently ; (7) reflection to improve the use of themethod itself and select the next problem.2 By assigning the participants in the course the task of applying 7-Steps personally, Teradyne ensured that each person was exposed tothe principles and techniques of continuous improvement and didnot wait to accomplish this through a random assignment to animprovement team. In a rapidly changing work environment, thisapproach more predictably develops the individual’s skills as alearner and problem solver, increasing the likelihood of addingvalue to the company.3 Galvin, Robert, “Quality: A Personal Responsibility for Execu-tives,” The Center for Quality Management Journal, Spring 1993.4 Harry V. Roberts., “Using Personal Checklists to Facilitate TotalQuality Management”, Selected Paper No. 73, University ofChicago Graduate School of Business.
often wondered where my time went and whythere was no time for many important things. Irealized that in order to be more effective inhelping my company implement TQM, I wouldhave to improve significantly my use of time atwork. I would have to follow the hypothesis andtest method inherent in PDCA and collect a lot ofdata about how I spent my time.
Thus, I started out with what seemed a fairlystraightforward goal: Discover where there is in-efficiency, remove the inefficiency, and havemore time for important work. Like many Qual-ity Improvement Teams using PDCA methodol-ogy, however, I discovered that data collectiongave me new insight and an awareness of thecomplexity of the problem that I hadn’t sus-pected.
Step 1: Theme SelectionI gathered initial data indicating that my workfell into eight basic categories of time spent:
1. Learning. By attending a training sessionor by reading and researching.
2. Facilitation. Preparing and conductingtraining or facilitating for a QI team ofwhich I am not a member. QI training fo-cuses on teams, organized at the depart-ment level, to improve some localprocess.
4. Communication. Communicating via e-mail, phonemail, and memos.
5. One-on-one. Consulting or meeting adhoc to discuss work.
6. QIT. Any improvement work (e.g., analy-
Cliff Scott wasresponsible forhelping withBBN’s company-wide implement-ation of the7-Steps and TQMin general. He iscurrently workingwith the CharterOak consultingcompany.
6 Summer 1993
sis or planning) that I am responsible foras a team member, whether in team meet-ings or on my own. This work focused pri-marily on improving the implementationof TQM companywide.
7. Informational meetings. Participating instaff or interest group meetings for statusupdates.
8. Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA). Working onthis personal PDCA project.
9. Administration. Doing office tasks andspecial projects not accounted for above.
A Pareto graph (figure 1, below) of my timespent over approximately three weeks indicatesproportion of time per category of task.
This data represented some important thingsabout my work. The most important things I dofall into two basic areas of endeavor: (1) provid-ing direct service to “customers” (members ofmy company) and (2) increasing my skills toprovide those services. The tasks in the first areaconsist of facilitating, one-on-one meetings, andmy own QIT work, with occasional administra-tive activities. These are the tasks where I addvalue for my customers by helping them achievetheir goals.
The tasks in the second area consist of learn-ing, informational meetings, and PDCA activi-ties. I realized that only one of these primaryactivities, facilitating, was among the top threetime categories shown in figure 1. Even though
Categories of Hours Spent
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Facil 21.5 (28%)
Comm 14
(18%)
Learn 10
(13%)
1 / 1 9
(12%)
QIT 8.5
(11%)
Info 5.5 (8%)
PDCA 5
(6%)
Admin 3
(4%)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Pe
rce
nt
of
To
tal H
ou
rs S
pe
nt
Nu
mb
er
of
Ho
urs
sp
en
t
Time Spent by Category9/10 – 9/30, 76.5 hours total
Figure 1
Summer 1993 7
learning consumed a significant slice of time, Idecided not to analyze the learning category, be-cause I felt that it was all germane to work eitherin facilitating or in my QITs.5
Communicating caught my attention. Thiswas the one category that I did not see as clearlyfalling into either area of work. Some communi-cating was supportive of direct service and somewas related to incidental administrative things(e.g., scheduling). I reasoned that while commu-nicating may be the glue holding other work to-gether, not all communicating may add value.Since I spent approximately 18 percent of mytime in communicating, time saved here mightallow more time for adding value in the “provid-ing services” category. I decided to track exactlywhat I was doing in communicating; I began re-cording separately the amount of time I spent onthe phone, using e-mail, and writing memos.
After monitoring three more weeks of data, Iran into a dead end. Only 8.2 percent of my timewas now spent in all communicating activities,down from the 18 percent average of the previ-ous period. I’m going to call this a kind of self-generated halo effect—that is, just being mindfulof possible wasted effort cut down my time spenton the phone and e-mail. It no longer seemeduseful to analyze how I spent time communicat-ing. In spite of the percentage improvement, Iwas saving less than three hours per week. I felt Ineeded more improvement than this.
I was left frustrated. Where should I turn tofind inefficiency and improve my work?
The need to “Jump Up”I knew that I needed to increase time availablefor providing services to others, but what was themost important way for me spend that time? Un-til now I had not done something quite importantand necessary to answering the above question.What I had neglected is what Professor ShojiShiba refers to as “jumping up”. Jumping up is amatter of going up a level conceptually to exam-ine the context of improvement, asking “what isthe purpose of my job” before homing in on aspecific area for improvement (known as “se-lecting a theme”). When I jumped up, I saw thatmy original assumption was that I just needed toimprove efficiency by spending more time in theproviding services area. But this assumption didnot take into account what my customers mightwant and therefore was not validly addressingthe question “what is the purpose of my job?”
I knew that facilitating and one-on-one meet-ings were the places where I was in contact withsome of my customers, helping them. I recog-
nized that QIT work was where I worked on con-textual issues of concern to all my customers. Ialso recognized that the time I spent learningwould be quickly “capitalized” as input to thesethree activities.
I began to examine my customers’ needs, es-sentially asking: “If I discontinued one of theeight activities on the Pareto chart, who wouldcare?” What was immediately apparent was thatQIT activity was the one area of my work di-rectly supporting my manager’s concerns. Forinstance, QIT work took place on teams that mymanager participated in, whereas my facilitatinga team, or consulting one-on-one in one of thecompany’s divisions, was not reported to him.
I then analyzed the various elements of mywork, using the first three of the 7 FundamentalQuestions.6 The two areas about which I gainedthe most insight were QIT work and facilitating,as indicated by figure 2 (see next page).
I recognized that QIT work and facilitatinghad the following consequences:
Consequences of QIT work:
• Work here addresses improvement oppor-tunities affecting the whole company’sTQM implementation effort.
• The work has high leverage because of theteam membership and the visibility to theCEO—a critical set of customers to myjob.
• The research I do for QIT work is on suchthings as building infrastructure forchange rather than on specific tools for fa-cilitating.
Consequences of facilitation work:
• When I facilitate, I not only help indi-vidual teams that are stuck but keep intouch with the realities of applying 7-Steps in the divisions.
• I become more familiar with the applica-tion of the various 7-Steps tools and feelpressured to focus my research on under-standing them.
5 It has since become clear to me that such self-referential assump-tions can divert attention from potentially important data. I did notdemonstrate through analysis that my assumption about learningwas correct. While this realization came too late for me to act uponit in the course of this effort, it is a very important lesson for me.6 These are basic questions which, when answered, guide and focusimprovement efforts. (1) Who are my customers? (2) What are myproducts? (3) What are my customers’ needs? (4) What are mycustomers’ measures and expectations for how I meet those needs?(5) Do my products meet or exceed their needs? (6) What is myprocess for satisfying their needs? (7) What actions are needed toimprove my process?
8 Summer 1993
Fundamental Questions Chart
Figure 2
Figure 3
Time Spent by Category9/10 – 10/14, 124 hours total
Customer Product NeedsVP Corporate Quality,directly
(indirectly, Companywide Quality Committee, CEO)
QIT output: recommendations toimprove the TQMimplementation,mobilization ofimprovement teams, andutilization of improvementmethods
1. Positive impact upon thewhole company's TQMimplementation2. A knowledgeableresource for issues ofleadership effectiveness andcultural change
Teams, directly(indirectly, sponsors, team leaders)
Facilitation: help for teamsin getting through a step orin using a particular tool
1. A knowledgeableresource about tools2. Group process skills3. Knowledge of the team'scontext
Summer 1993 9
• I am engaging in activity that others arealso trained to perform (a redundancy).
• I affect only a small subset of all thoseimplementing TQM.
While I had other insights about other activi-ties on the Pareto, I had come to believe that thehighest value-added work I could do was in myQIT efforts.7 Whatever activities consumed agreater percentage of my time than QIT workwere candidates for improvement reduction untilQIT work became my number one activity. I nowturned my attention to collecting data on timespent in facilitating. I reasoned that while facili-tation was not a bad thing, it detracted fromhigher-leverage work and therefore was a “de-fect” in this context.
Step 2. Data CollectionOver the next couple of weeks I continued to col-lect data. Because I had now added a significantnumber of hours to my data, the Pareto showingthe pattern of my time spent became more accu-rate (figure 3, facing page).
My new Pareto graph confirmed a “defect”in the first column: I was spending too muchtime facilitating teams in the divisions if Iwanted to increase the amount of time for QITefforts. My time spent communicating was drop-ping. Time spent learning had actually risen andwas quite high, but this was a temporary result ofparticipation in an activity I knew was not part ofmy ongoing schedule. In the future I would needto do only enough focused reading and research-ing to prepare for QIT efforts.8
I now felt that if I could implement some be-havioral changes to reduce my involvement infacilitation, I would see increases in the QIT col-umn. My revised problem statement or theme be-came: “Reduce the amount of time spentfacilitating by 50 percent by 12/13/92.”
I hoped also to increase time spent in QITwork by 50 percent and to increase my reading/research activity. I translated my Pareto intosome straightforward statistics:
1. Facilitation averaged 6.8 hours/week2. QIT work averaged 3.0 hours/week
I therefore expected the facilitating to drop toabout 3.4 hours and QIT work to rise to about 4.5hours per week. I also decided to show at least 2hours per week devoted to reading/research.
Step 3. Causal AnalysisI now felt ready to analyze the causes for why Ispent too much time facilitating. My firstthought was that I would do an Ishikawa cause-and-effect diagram. In the end I decided upon a
7 In retrospect, I might have strengthened my analysis by continuingthe 7 Fundamental Questions exercise to show how my customersmeasured whether I met their needs. This would have provided aclearer confirmation of whether the customers for my QIT workwere being satisfied. I did not do this, I think, because theimportance of my QIT customers’ needs seemed self-evident and,again, because it was difficult to recognize failures in objectivitywhen working in an “auto” 7-Steps exercise.8 I did a little “side analysis” of my reading backlog and found:
12 books dealing with organizational development topics20 books dealing with TQM13 articles dealing with TQM1 TQM course revision recommendation
9 “Stakeholder/Role Mapping”. Edgar Schein, MIT 1992 (unpub-lished)
Relations Diagram to map the various causes(figure 4, below). (Relations Diagrams that focuson roles are also familiar as a technique calledrole mapping.9) I chose this method because theissue I am exploring is my own behavior and ismore about the role I play in the company thanabout a wide range of possible causes.
The players shown in figure 4 contribute as“senders” to my role. When I asked myself,“why do these senders contribute to my role?”, Idetermined the following:
Relations Diagram/Role Map
Figure 4
Sponsors of teamsTeam members
Teamleaders
TQM/T&Ddepartmentmembers
Divisional TQMdirectors
Senior management
MEFacilitator
Role
= impact created by my assumptions about the real interests/needs of these role senders
= sources (or role senders) of messages supportive of my role as a facilitator
Other facilitators
= overload or uncontrolled source of messages to fulfill facilitator role
O
O
OO
Why do I spend an average of nearly 7 hours/week facilitating?
10 Summer 1993
The TQM office:• Because other members of the work group
model similar behavior by accepting lotsof facilitator assignments,- because I respond to this as a perceivednorm.
Team Leaders, Team Sponsors and Team Mem-bers:
• Because they call me for help and expectme to be responsive (my assumption),- because they do not recognize their owndivisional resources
Divisional TQM Directors10 and Senior Manage-ment:
• Because I need to be very up to speed onhow things are going in their division byspending time with their teams (my as-sumption),- because they ask for feedback on someaspect of their implementation efforts.
• And because they expect me to be avail-able to facilitate (my assumption).
Other divisional facilitators:• Because I trained many of them and they
feel I am committed to support them (myassumption).
ME (the major contributor to my role):• Because one of my primary roles, given
the assignment to initiate 7-Steps at BBNover the last 18 months, has been that of atrainer/facilitator and it is difficult tobreak the mold,- because 7-Steps and how QITs are doingis important at BBN.
• And because I like the process of facilitat-ing,- Because it is important for me to feelthat I am making a visible/tangible con-tribution; facilitating accomplishes this.
• And because I operate as if my assump-tions about other role senders’ (specifi-cally the TQM directors’) expectations ofme are true.
As I sought to verify the root causes of me as theprimary role sender, I determined the following:
• It is true that 7-Step process is importantand that I have had a role as a facilitator inits implementation in the past.
• It is also true that I like to facilitate and tofeel I am making a contribution in a vis-
ible/tangible way, since these are motivat-ing for me.
• My assumptions about the other rolesenders’ expectations are testable and areprobably the strongest root cause.
Therefore I decided to test my assumptions byinterviewing divisional TQM directors. Thesepeople have an excellent overview of the 7-Stepimplementation issues that are common to manyof the role senders. I felt they would provide avalid perspective on my assumptions about theexpectations of senior managers, facilitators, andteam sponsors and leaders.
When I interviewed two key members of thisgroup I learned surprising things. Not only didthey not expect me to be knowledgeable aboutthe status of teams in their divisions, they feltthat my being responsive to requests to facilitatewould deprive their divisions of the opportunityto rely on and strengthen their own resources.These TQM directors felt it would make moresense for me to turn requests for help back tothem. They, in turn, would call on me if they feltthat the nature of the request was something thatwould be well served by my involvement. So Iverified that what my “role senders” expected ofme was not consistent with my assumptions–andat the same time discovered an opportunity to besupportive in a better way.
Step 4: Solution Planning andImplementationTo implement a solution, I needed to reverse theprimary root cause of my time problem: accept-ing facilitation assignments on the basis of un-tested assumptions. I decided to formulate a newbasis for accepting assignments:
Accept only those facilitation requests thatcome from the divisional TQM directors or se-nior managers, up to a target of 4.5 hours/weekaverage.
That is, from now on I would accept a facili-tation assignment not on the basis of my own as-sumptions but in response to an actual explicitrequest. Routing the request through the TQMdirectors also had an impact on other root causes.It helped break the mold of my image as a pri-mary resource for facilitation. It also signaled toother role senders (see figure 4, previous page)that there was a new mechanism for them to get agood response within their own divisions.
10 Divisional TQM directors are line managers who are assigned therole of facilitating divisional senior management’s efforts toimplement TQM methods. They hold this role either full time orsimultaneous with their line assignment.
Summer 1993 11
Step 5. EvaluationI collected data over four more weeks, encom-passing the same number of hours as my firstsample in Step 2 (figure 3, page 8). The data isdisplayed in a Pareto (figure 5, below).
While I improved relative to my theme (“Re-duce time spent facilitating by 50 percent”), Ihad not succeeded uniformly in the ancillary im-provements I had targeted: I did not spend muchmore time reading. Although the time I spent inQIT work exceeded my target, it was eclipsed byadministrative work. Ironically, I had failed topredict the amount of time necessary to completea project that was the bulk of the administrativecategory. My time spent communicating droppedwith no apparent change in my work process.And learning activity as a whole dropped a littlebecause of nonrecurring training in the first data
Time Spent by Category11/5 – 12/1, 124 hours total
Figure 5
collection period.For a before/after comparison refer to figure
6 (next page), in which I have displayed only thecritical categories of time spent for both beforeand after data sets. It is instructive that my per-
sonal 7-Steps effort helped me achieve a robustenough improvement to exceed the targeted timefor QIT work in spite of changing work require-ments.
Step 6. StandardizationBased on the success of the pilot period, I deter-mined to maintain my new guideline for accept-ing facilitation assignments. To standardize Ineeded to communicate the new process to mymanager, to my co-workers, and to the divisionalTQM directors–the critical players.
I also decided to monitor myself by using a
12 Summer 1993
Figure 6
Run Chart of Time Spent
Figure 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Goal: Facil ≤ 3.4 hours/week avg. (act. = 3.86) Comm ≤ 3.0 hours/week avg. (act.= 2.11) QIT ≥ 4.5 hours/week avg. (act.= 3.9) R/R ≥ 2.0 hours/week avg. (act.= 3.37)
02468
1012141618202224262830
Hours
beginning week of 2/28/93
QIT
Comm
Facil.
R/R
Weeks
Summer 1993 13
run chart of time spent in facilitating, QIT, read-ing/research (R/R) and communicating to holdthe gains. An example of the run chart is shown(figure 7, facing page). I track the time I spend incommunication, because just tracking it seems tocreate the awareness I need to control this activ-ity. I track the time I spend facilitating to ensurethat I remain at my target level and that my solu-tion continues to work. I track the time I spend inreading/research, because this is the one areawhere I am below my goal. I track the time Ispend in QIT work because I need to be sure Iremain at or above my goal.
Step 7. ReflectionI have captured the strengths and weaknesses ofthis improvement effort below (figure 8).
Some General ObservationsI have found that working on improving my effi-ciency has been a longer, harder, and less clear-cut process than I expected. Yet I already knewthat any problem solving that forces you to get aclear picture of a process (in this case my ownway of prioritizing time) inevitably proves hardfor the individual or team pursuing improve-ment. So I don’t know why I was surprised.
I have learned that data must be gathered
Reflection on Personal PDCA Strengths/Weaknesses
Step Strengths Weaknesses1 Used a well-defined and data-driven
method to ensure that I was working on areal problem and seeing the problem asobjectively as possible.
Did not jump up to ask what is thepurpose of my work as a first step.
Did not determine my products,customers, and their needs until far intodata collection.
2 Kept very accurate information. Did not keep records that would allowme to disaggregate information (e.g., whatproportion of my time in learning activitieswas reading/research).
3 Surfaced my assumptions about my rolewhich were powerful drivers and hithertoinvisible to me.
Discussed my assumptions about myrole with those I identified as “rolesenders”.
Unloaded “baggage” of wrongassumptions, creating a more realisticfoundation for work relationships.
Did not collect any data from mymanager to verify my assumptions abouthow I had crafted my role.
4 Used simple solution that addressed theroot cause directly.
5 Tracked equivalent number of hours forbefore-and-after comparison.
Was unable to compare time spent inreading/research activity though this datawas collected in pilot.
6 Came to enjoy the objective view ofwhat I spend my time doing that record-keeping gives me; am not likely to give itup.
Did not make a formal change in how Iwould proceed with accepting facilitationassignments with all of my customers,only the primary ones.
7 Developed an in-depth case of mypersonal change effort.
Will work on improving time spent onreading/research as the next turn ofpersonal PDCA wheel.
Took longer than expecteddocumenting this change effort because oflack of a good model format.
Figure 8
painstakingly and studied with as few precon-ceived assumptions as possible. Where there areassumptions, these need to be tested, as I didwhen I finally began to see that my time spent fa-cilitating was largely determined by my own as-sumptions about my role. Failure to testassumptions may prevent you from understand-ing the data. Thus, I spent three weeks staring athow my hours were spent without understandingwhat I was looking at.
I had three last thoughts about this improve-ment work. The first is that I will have to con-tinue collecting data about my allocation of timeso as to improve it. This was an illumination forme. Perhaps it should have been obvious, butnow that I have a clear understanding of how Ispend time, I continue to see avenues for im-
proving the way I use it. This will require a dedi-cated effort. The second thought is that the re-flection step is necessary and must be a part ofdeveloping any lasting understanding. In mycase, only when I write my observations and in-sights down for (or as if for) others to understanddoes it become clear what I have really experi-enced. This perception is similar to the notionthat “in order really to learn a thing, you mustteach it”. The last thought is that the value of
14 Summer 1993
analysis and planning for improvement is notthat things work out as predicted but that I ammore prepared to cope with change and stillachieve my most important objective: to spendmy time in a way that adds value for my custom-ers.
Acknowledgments
I want to thank Teradyne Corporation for the in-vitation to participate as a fellow CQM memberin the very inspiring course that started me downthe road of “personal PDCA”. I also want tothank Jeff Mayersohn and Deborah Melone atBBN and Ted Walls at the CQM for helping memake my very subjective experience more readerfriendly.
Jou
rnal
On
-Lin
e
The Center for Quality of Management Journal is a forum for disseminating theexperience of organizations learning to implement modern management practices. Itseeks to capture experiences and ideas that may be useful to others working to createcustomer-driven, continuously improving organizations.
The CQM Journal is refereed. However, it is not an academic publication. Experiencesand ideas will be published if they seem likely to be useful to others seeking to improvetheir organizations.
Send to:
The Center for Quality of Management JournalEditorial DepartmentOne Alewife Center, Suite 450Cambridge, MA 02140Tel. 617-873-8950 Fax 617-873-8980E-mail: [email protected]
If you have thoughts for a paper and you would like to discuss it with us, please write,call or submit an outline. We welcome your ideas.
Final Manuscript Requirements:
Entire manuscript should be double-spaced, including footnotes, references, etc. Textshould include all the elements listed below. Generally, The CQM Journal follows theeditorial principles of The Chicago Manual of Style. We strongly prefer submissions ineletronic format for all text and as many of the figures as possible. IBM-based software(particularly Microsoft Word for Windows) is preferable to Macintosh-based software ifyou have a choice, but is by no means a requirement.
Please include:
1. Title page, stating the type of article (e.g., 7-Step case study, research paper, shortcommunication, letter to the editor, etc.), main title, subtitle, and authors’ full name(s),affiliation(s), and the address/phone/fax of the submitting author;
2. All needed figures, tables, and photographs (see below);
3. Footnotes (if appropriate), numbered consecutively from the beginning to the end ofthe article;
4. Reference list, if appropriate.
Figures, Tables and Photographs:
If you can, insert each figure or table into the text where you would like it to fall. Figuresshould be composed to conform to one of two widths: 3 1/8 or 6 1/2 inches. Themaximum height for any figure is 9 3/8 inches. Text within figures should not besmaller than 5 points and lines not less than 1/4 point at the figure’s final size. Figuresshould labeled with the figure number underneath and title on top. Be sure that the textmentions each figure or table.
Please retain separate PICT or TIFF files of figures generated in drawing programs and afile with the text only for final submission.
Editorial Board
David Walden, ChairmanCenter for Quality of Management
Stephen GravesProfessor & LFM Co-DirectorMassachusetts Institute of Technology
Ted WallsBoston College
Robert Chapman WoodWriter
Alan GrahamConsultantPugh-Roberts Associates
Shoji ShibaTokiwa University
Production Team
Eric BergemannPublisher
Kevin M. YoungDesign & Production
Jay HowlandCopy Editing
CQM Officers
Ray StataChairman
Gary BurchillPresident
Thomas H. LeeTreasurer and President Emeritus
William WiseClerk
CENTER FOR QUALITY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL
