A comparison of Deming, Juran, and Crosby.doc

7/30/2019 A comparison of Deming, Juran, and Crosby.doc

1/5

Similarities and different between William Edward Deming, JosephM. Juran and Philips P.Crosby

Similaritieso Quality requires a strong upper management commitmento Quality saves moneyo Responsibility is placed on managers, not workers

o Quality is a never-ending processo Customer-orientationo Requires a shift in cultureo Quality arises from reducing variance

Nature of Organizationso Deming: Social Responsibility and moral conduct; the

problems with industry are problems with societyo Juran: Focused on parts of the organization, not wholeo Crosby: Organization-wide, team building approach

Implementation Processeso Deming: no roadmap is available; nowhere to start; no

stepso Juran and Crosby: Very user friendly; prescriptive; obvious

starting points

Ability to do piecemealo Crosby and Deming: approach is holistic. Deming requires

a radical shift in valueso Juran: can be done piecemeal in isolated parts of the

organization

Ability to handle resistanceo Deming: very dogmatic and uncompromising; depends on

facts, however, not gospelo Crosby and Juran: resistance is normal and need not be an

obstacle. Depend on facts to unseat criticism.

Initial acceptance by managemento Deming: a threat to most managers. Requires an

admission of incompetence.o Juran: since focus is largely on shop floor with support,

managers are very comfortableo Crosby: requires very little shift in view

of workers and managerial roles.

View of Workers


2/5

o Deming: variance is largely unaffected by workersactivities. Organization exists in large part to develop andprovide for workers.

o Juran: workers are important because of being close to theactivities impacting quality.

o Crosby: workers can be motivated to improve quality and

not produce defects.

Final Comments

No one pathway is ideal for a company. Most companies create their own unique pathway

Many companies evolve from Crosby to Juran toDeming

o The reason: Crosby is not definitiveabout improvement methods; Juranis not sufficiently comprehensive

Each of the three hated each other.

o Deming and Juran would hardly speak to one another,probably because of egos and who got credit for savingJapan.

o Deming and Juran agreed that Crosby

was a superficial charlatan; referredto his organization as The Universityof Hot Air

Demings approach is very, very difficult fororganizations to embrace; the changes requiredare immense.

Demings approach is regarded as ideal by mostquality experts, if ever instituted properly.

No US company has yet to institute a

Deming system completely.


3/5

Table 1 - A comparison of Deming, Juran, and Crosby

W. Deming J.M. Juran P. Crosby

Basicorientationtoward quality

Technical Process Motivational

What is quality? Nonfaulty systems Fitness for use;freedom fromtrouble

Conformance torequirements

Who isresponsible forquality?

Management Management Management

Importance ofcustomerrequirementsas standard

Very important Very important;customers ateach step ofproduct lifecycle

Very important

Goal of quality Meet/exceedcustomer needs;continuousimprovement

Pleasecustomer;continuousimprovement

Continuousimprovement;zero defects

Methods forachievingquality

Statistical;constancy ofpurpose; continualimprovement;cooperationbetween functions

Cost of quality;quality trilogy:planning,control,improvement

14-pointframework;

Chief elementsofimplementation

14-point program Breakthroughprojects; qualitycouncil; qualityteams

14-stepprogram; cost ofquality; qualitymanagement"maturity grid"

Role of training Very important formanagers andworkers

Very importantfor managersand employees

Very importantfor managersand employees

For additionaldetails, see

web site:

The W. EdwardsDeming Institute

Juran Institute Philip CrosbyAssociates II
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0399550003/tantarassoftwarehttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/007034003X/tantarassoftwarehttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0451625854/tantarassoftwarehttp://www-caes.mit.edu/products/deming/14-points.htmlhttp://dtiinfo1.dti.gov.uk/mbp/bpgt/m9ja00001/m9ja0000114.htmlhttp://dtiinfo1.dti.gov.uk/mbp/bpgt/m9ja00001/m9ja0000114.htmlhttp://www.deming.org/http://www.deming.org/http://www.juran.com/http://www.philipcrosby.com/main.htmhttp://www.philipcrosby.com/main.htmhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/007034003X/tantarassoftwarehttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0451625854/tantarassoftwarehttp://www-caes.mit.edu/products/deming/14-points.htmlhttp://dtiinfo1.dti.gov.uk/mbp/bpgt/m9ja00001/m9ja0000114.htmlhttp://dtiinfo1.dti.gov.uk/mbp/bpgt/m9ja00001/m9ja0000114.htmlhttp://www.deming.org/http://www.deming.org/http://www.juran.com/http://www.philipcrosby.com/main.htmhttp://www.philipcrosby.com/main.htmhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0399550003/tantarassoftware


4/5

Table 2 - A comparison of Garvin, Felgenbaum, and Taguchi

D. GarvinA.V.

FelgenbaumG. Taguchi

Basicorientationtoward quality

Strategic,academic Total, systemic Technical, proactive

What isquality?

Competitiveopportunity

What customersays it is

Customer'sperformancerequirements

Who isresponsible forquality?

Management Everyone Engineers

Importance ofcustomerrequirementsas standard

Very important Very important Very important

Goal of quality Pleasingcustomers;continuousimprovement

Meet customerneeds;continuousimprovement

Meet customerrequirements;continuousimprovement

Methods forachievingquality

Identifyingquality niches

Total qualitycontrol (TQC);excellence-driven rather

than defect-driven

Statistical methodssuch as Loss Function;eliminating variationsof design

characteristics and"noise" through robustdesign and processes

Chief elementsofimplementation

Eightdimensions ofproduct quality:performance,features,reliability,conformance,durability,serviceability,aesthetics,perceivedquality

Statistical andengineeringmethods acrossthe company

Statistical design ofexperiments; qualityteams

Role of training Important butnot clearlydefined

Very importantfor managersand

Important but notdefined
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0029113806/tantarassoftwarehttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070203547/tantarassoftwarehttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070203547/tantarassoftwarehttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/087263468X/tantarassoftwarehttp://mijuno.larc.nasa.gov/dfc/tqc.htmlhttp://mijuno.larc.nasa.gov/dfc/tqc.htmlhttp://web.usfca.edu/~villegas/classes/984-307/307ch03/sld003.htmhttp://web.usfca.edu/~villegas/classes/984-307/307ch03/sld003.htmhttp://web.usfca.edu/~villegas/classes/984-307/307ch03/sld003.htmhttp://www.norwich.net/koterbad/Taguchi_Design_of_Experiments.htmhttp://www.norwich.net/koterbad/Taguchi_Design_of_Experiments.htmhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0029113806/tantarassoftwarehttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070203547/tantarassoftwarehttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070203547/tantarassoftwarehttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/087263468X/tantarassoftwarehttp://mijuno.larc.nasa.gov/dfc/tqc.htmlhttp://mijuno.larc.nasa.gov/dfc/tqc.htmlhttp://web.usfca.edu/~villegas/classes/984-307/307ch03/sld003.htmhttp://web.usfca.edu/~villegas/classes/984-307/307ch03/sld003.htmhttp://web.usfca.edu/~villegas/classes/984-307/307ch03/sld003.htmhttp://www.norwich.net/koterbad/Taguchi_Design_of_Experiments.htmhttp://www.norwich.net/koterbad/Taguchi_Design_of_Experiments.htm


5/5

supervisors

For additionaldetails, seeweb site:

--- --- ---

Documents

A comparison of Deming, Juran, and Crosby.doc