Pssst! Brad!
RUN!!!!!! HIDE!!!!!!
Just some free advise from a software engineer trapped somewhere in the mid-west, buried in a quagmire of TQM processes, forms, meetings, process improvement reviews. Who watches helplessly as innovative ideas of fellow engineers die a tedious and slow death because they don't fit within the TQM framework imposed upon them (i.e. you have to rewrite too many TQM documents to implement them).
Ack! the TQM auditor's caught me posting this!
Noooooo!
You actually bring up some very good points. I think there is a risk that firms can implement TQM poorly. If the principles of TQM aren't implemented properly then they can definitely strangle innovation, and even make the firm less efficient.
For me, I think the greatest benefit of TQM comes from emphasis that is placed on the individual employee. One important principle that TQM emphasizes is that it is the individual employee that knows the most about his job and role, rather than the manager above him. How many times have we all been in a work environment where we are micromanaged by our managers, yet they clearly know less about our particular job than we do. So, what I like about TQM is it seems to be a complete revolt against Taylorist management philosophy, which states that there is a single exact process that every employee should follow to the letter, and management should make sure everyone follows that process. TQM on the other hand says the individual employee at the lowest level knows more about his particular work environment then any layer of management above him. Under TQM it is not the role of management to dictate a process for the employee to follow, nor to micromanage the employee, but to work collaboratively with the employee where both are seen as equal partners.
Here is an excellent article, which I think illustrates your point though: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1321
One point, though, that I think many firms miss when attempting to implement TQM is that they make the mistake of only looking at Quality of the end product. However, it is not Quality that is most important, it is Total Quality - and this encompasses everything from the overall efficiency of the firm, quality of the end product, quality in improving and refining existing technologies and processes, AND quality in innovating new processes and technologies. I think the one thing that is missing from many firms when they attempt to implement TQM is that they don't include innovation as a component of Total Quality.
Lets take Six Sigma for example, and I'll use a quote from the article I referenced above.
Six Sigma started at Motorola and gained popularity in the mid-1990s largely because of GE's visible efforts. The goal is to improve a company's quality to only three defects per million through systematic incremental change in processes and careful statistical measurement of outcomes.
This is one reason why I'm not a particular fan of Six Sigma, because it only allows a firm to improve and refine an already existing process, technology, or product. However, I find it difficult to see how any kind of disruptive technology would come out of Six Sigma practices. Under Six Sigma you may develop PCs that become faster and more reliable, but you would probably never innovate and create a Tablet. In this way Six Sigma tends to straight jacket itself.
Here's another issue I have with Six Sigma
Six Sigma is similar to TQM in its focus on techniques for solving problems and using statistical methods to improve processes. But whereas TQM emphasizes employee involvement organization-wide, the Six Sigma approach is to train experts (known as green belts and black belts) who work on solving important problems while they teach others in the company.
Six Sigma takes creative control away from the individual employee, and once again places it in the hands of a few, ignoring once again that it is the individual employee that knows the most about their individual area.
Another issue I have with Six-Sigma is that a Six-Sigma type of system can emerge naturally out of TQM as a base. However, while Six Sigma may have its utility in one area of a firm, I think it would only strangle the firm if implement across the company as a whole.
Of course you were talking directly about TQM, not Six Sigma. One of the major goals of TQM is to allow every individual employee's feedback to play a role in shaping the entire firm. In that regard it seems like the company you work for has botched the implementation of TQM. The fact that you said you have to watch as innovative ideas die because they don't fit the TQM framework suggests that your company has failed in implementing TQM properly. Under TQM there would be feedback between the employees and managers. Employees would say, "Hey look, our current processes are stifling innovation." If there is consensus in your department on that proposition then your manager would send the feedback up to the next level of management and ultimately the system would be refined to not stifle innovation. Again, though, innovation must be defined as a component of Total Quality.
Also, I think another issue is that, while SPC (Statistical Process Controls) are an important tool in TQM, they are just a tool and not the overall framework, they are just a piece.
So, I will end with a few quotes from Deming:
"Innovation comes from the producer - not from the customer."
"If you do not know how to ask the right question, you discover nothing."
“A system is a network of interdependent components that work together to try to accomplish the aim of the system. A system must have an aim. Without the aim, there is no system.”
With those quotes I would ask is your company asking the right questions? Is innovation a component of the aim of your system (the company you work for)?
EDIT: I just wanted to add that the PDSA cycle is an excellent tool that can be used to test an innovative idea from an employee. Its PDSA (Plan - Do - Study - Act) can also be looked at as:
Hypothesis: new innovative idea
Test: put the new idea into action
Study: analyze the results - is it a better technology? Is it a better process?
Implement: Put the new idea to large scale use.