Microsoft Word - 05 Fitzsimmons.doc

6252 IJPQM 03.Reid.qxp 29/11/2005 20:57 Page^2\626Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2, 2006Operations Management, Anderson Schools of Management, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131 Fax: (505) 277-7108 E-mail: reid@mgt.unm.eduProductivity and quality improvement: an implementation frameworkRichard A. Reid

Abstract: Most managers realise that their success is directly related to effective and continual implementation of process improvements in their organisations. A major managerial problem has been the inability to successfully implement change in many firms. Research shows that the effective application of team-oriented and data-focused total quality (TQ) improvement tools is not sufficient to assure the efficacious implementation of change. Nor were teams that utilised solely the logic tools of the theory of constraints (TOC) totally successful in implementing change in their organisations. Firms were more likely to achieve their improvement goals when they used a structured and repeatable method, rather than an ad hoc approach, for continuous improvement (CI). Viewing the situation from an operations management perspective, this paper presents a logical and well-structured framework for implementing the CI managerial philosophy to improve the productivity and quality of the organisation as a whole, as well as its work-performing processes.Keywords: continuous improvement; operations management; P-D-S-A cycle; structured framework; TOC five-step focusing process.Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Reid, R.A. (2006) Productivity and quality improvement: an implementation framework, Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2, pp.26-36.Biographical note: Richard A. Reid teaches operations research, operations management, and systems thinking in the Anderson School of Management, University of New Mexico. He received a BSME from Case Western Reserve University, and an MBA and PhD in Systems Research from Ohio State University. Dr Reid enjoys applying conceptual frameworks such as Demings P-D-S-A and Goldratts TOC to performance improvement opportunities in both the manufacturing and service sectors with students in the classroom and when consulting with organisational managers. He has written one book, three chapters in other books, and has published over 120 articles in refereed national and international journals.1 IntroductionOrganisations are evolving at a greater rate than at any time in recorded history. Since organisations are dynamic entities and since they reside in an ever-changing environment, most are in a constant state of flux. This highly competitive, constant changing, environment offers significant managerial opportunities as well as challenges. ToCopyright 2006 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.6252 IJPQM 03.Reid.qxp 29/11/2005 20:57 Page^2\7Productivity and quality improvement: an implementation framework27effectively address this situation, many managers have embraced the management philosophy of kaizen or continuous improvement (Deming, 1995).

The philosophy of continuous improvement (CI) embraces the fundamental idea that whatever success an organisation may have had in the past, in terms of customer satisfaction, it has not reached its final destination. Because the needs and wants of their customers are in a constant state of flux, organisations are never able to fully attain their ultimate goal. Competition and continuously increasing standards of customer satisfaction have proven to be endless drivers of organisational performance improvements. The CI approach constantly seeks to identify and implement ongoing enhancements in a firms products, services and processes. During the past two decades, the quality movement has provided managers with a broad collection of methods and tools to accelerate the process of improving organisational performance. These data-driven and team-based total quality (TQ) tools have promoted the operationalisation of the CI philosophy through empowering an organisations associates.

It is necessary for organisational managers to realise that these TQ techniques are valuable because they aid in team learning. However, the effective application of the TQ tools to help analyse data collected or to facilitate team-based interaction is only part of a teams ongoing learning experience. Of equal importance, however, is the realisation that the use of TQ tools should unfold in a natural sequence as teams apply them in perfecting the performance of a process. In other words, it is noteworthy that approaching problem solving and process improvement in a rational and orderly fashion usually produces an improved situational understanding and often elicits a high level of collaboration and contribution from each of the CI team members.

The purpose of this paper is to present a structured framework for implementing the CI philosophy in improving the productivity and quality of work performing processes in organisations. This methodology illustrates the operations managers role as a facilitator of indigenous workplace teams using TQ tools in a logical and orderly fashion within the guise of systematically improving processes. First, an overview of the basic structure and enabling processes required for CI is considered. Next, detailed descriptions and illustrations are presented for each of the three stages of the CI framework. In particular, Stage 1 provides an explanation of how the current system performance is assessed from an operations management perspective; Stage 2 describes how to evaluate these results within a comparative framework; and Stage 3 presents two structured approaches for designing and implementing a process improvement plan. Finally, the overall approach is summarised and some conclusions for the operations manager are presented.

2 An application-orientated CI framework2.1 The basic processThe framework for applying the CI philosophy is designed to provide operations managers with an integrated, systematic and repeatable process for carrying out their basic responsibilities within an organisation. To be strategically effective, it is imperative that CI is directed toward satisfying the needs of the customers and addressing challenges from competitors. Moreover, it must build on the organisations internal capacities and capabilities while being woven into the fabric of everyday work for all employees. This means that there is a commitment to constantly improve organisational productivity and quality.6252 IJPQM 03.Reid.qxp 29/11/2005 20:57 Page^2\828

R.A. Reid

As shown in Figure 1, the approach begins with the premise that the manager is working in an existing manufacturing or service system that has embraced continuous improvement as a fundamental operations strategy. The cycle has three major stages:

ascertain current system performance evaluate performance through comparative frame of reference apply CI principles to design and implement an improvement plan.Upon completion of these three stages, the approach returns to the first stage to continue the ongoing, never-ending, commitment to performance enhancement. This section describes and illustrates these three stages.

Figure 1 An implementation framework for improving productivity and quality

6252 IJPQM 03.Reid.qxp 29/11/2005 20:57 Page^2\9

Productivity and quality improvement: an implementation framework292.1.1 Stage 1 ascertain current system performanceThe rationale underlying this stage is the classic management principle that management begins with measurement. (Drucker, 1965) Improvement begins with the operations manager determining the current performance level of the work processes that comprise the system. Ascertaining current performance status is a data-driven effort. The manager focuses on collecting and summarising data to allow meaningful productivity and quality metrics to be computed for critical operations as well as the organisation as a whole. The emphasis on system level measures of performance is designed to minimise the possibility of optimising individual process operation to the detriment of total organisational performance. For these purposes, data should be aggregated by an appropriate time interval, such as the most recent month or quarter.

2.1.1.1Productivity metricsThe operations manager needs to collect and summarise data for computing a variety of productivity performance measures. In particular, several single factor and multi-factor productivity measures as well as a measure of total productivity are suggested. The purpose underlying the determination of various types of productivity measures is to help identify those problem areas in need of improvement. For example, stable total productivities in a service firm may hide the fact that while labour productivity may be increasing, supplies productivity may be deteriorating. Measuring productivity in manufacturing firms can be challenging as they seek to increase their capacities to meet growing demand in the marketplace. For example, as manufacturers develop additional capacity through incorporating automation through increasing investments in production equipment or computers and information support systems, the substitution of capital for labour is often manifested as an increase in labour productivity and a decrease in capital productivity. The multi-factor productivity measure of labour plus capital reveals the degree of substitution that is occurring between the two types of resources, as well as whether or not they are making an overall performance contribution by exploiting potential synergies and producing an improved measure of total productivity.

2.1.1.2Quality metricsIn regard to measuring quality, two focuses are suggested. First, from an internal perspective, the operations manager needs to ascertain the degree to which the work performing processes are able to produce goods and services that conform to predetermined specifications. Secondly, from an external perspective, the quality focus is directed toward achieving desired levels of customer satisfaction, or better yet, being able to delight the customer with products and services being produced by the organisation. The linking relationship between these two perspectives of quality occurs in the design process. In particular, the design team translates customer requirements into product and/or service specifications and then designs the processes to be used to create and deliver output from the firm to the customers so that they are capable of meeting or exceeding those requirements. From an operations management viewpoint, both subjective and objective data are gathered and summarised to identify the current state of quality dimension in an organisation. To monitor customer satisfaction levels, managers often use subjective data in the form of customer opinions and attitudes along with objective performance measures, such as the type and frequencies of customer complaints. In contrast, more objective data6252 IJPQM 03.Reid.qxp 29/11/2005 20:57 Page^30

30R.A. Reidis often used to measure deviations from specifications for products and/or services to determine the extent of variability existing in work performing processes.Although the Demings (1986) chain reaction has debunked traditional thinking in which improved quality was thought to be directly related to higher costs, and hence, lower productivity, many organisations prefer to create performance indices that combine productivity and quality metrics. One of these indices, the Quality-Productivity Ratio (Russell and Taylor, 2006), merges two types of cost components related to productivity with a single measure of quality to provide a simple and easily understood performance measure. Other, more comprehensive indices incorporate multiple dimensions of productivity and quality in a weighted fashion to create a more all-inclusive overall performance index for an organisation (Felix and Riggs, 1983; Reid, 2002). Since productivity and quality are the cornerstones of successful operations management, consideration should be given to using one or another of these integrated indices.

The determination of current performance metrics allows managers to identify the present status of their organisation along a variety of productivity and quality dimensions. The right number of performance dimensions to monitor depends on the type and nature of the organisation as well as the domain of a particular operations managers responsibility. Recent developments in measuring total organisational performance suggest that a balanced scorecard approach (Kaplan and Norton, 2001, 2004) should be considered. In this framework, measures of overall organisational financial performance are balanced with a relatively small set of measures of customer satisfaction; internal business processes; organisational learning and growth. Because managers need to know their current state of performance before they can establish the type and nature of change, if any, that will be necessary to move their organisation toward a more desirable future state, the quantitative documentation of the current performance is the appropriate initial step in applying the CI philosophy.

2.1.2 Stage 2 evaluate performance through a comparative frame of referenceOnly a few measures of performance can be evaluated in an absolute sense. One example is total productivity, which can be defined as total dollar sales divided by total cost of goods and/or services sold. For this metric, values greater than 1.00 are necessary to sustain a for-profit organisation in the long run. However, many measures of productivity and quality cannot be meaningfully evaluated in an absolute sense. A major reason for this is that it makes sense to assess an organisation relative to some type or measure of expectation. Consequently, in and of itself, a singular value of most performance measures is often meaningless. Numerical performance measures usually have to be considered within a comparative framework. This type of comparison provides an appropriate perspective for evaluating the effectiveness of past, present, and proposed managerial action. There are four basic types of possible comparisons: historical accomplishments; pre-established goals; competitor performance; industrial leaders.

2.1.2.1 Historical accomplishmentsComparisons of current performance with prior indicators of achievement allow operations managers to determine if current policies and decisions are supporting improvements in desired directions. Since managers always want to improve productivity and quality, improvements in any and all of these metrics are always being sought. As a

V316252 IJPQM 03.Reid.qxp 29/11/2005 20:57 Page 31Productivity and quality improvement: an implementation framework31result, time-series data are often used to record various the values of selected indices. For example, it is desirable to see decreasing rates of product defects as well as lower levels of variability in key physical attributes as a result of a recent machine-operator training programme that was focused on improving product consistency. As a further illustration, it may be appropriate to account for seasonal fluctuations in demand for services by comparing current third quarter levels of performance with the third quarter achievements of the past fiscal year.

2.1.2.2Pre-established goalsAs part of the process for initiating change in an organisation, specific goals or target performance levels are often established prior to implementing plans for improvement. In these situations, it is meaningful to compare current results with the pre-specified performance indicators. If performance results indicate that the firm is moving in the right direction, it may be proper to fine-tune or to slightly increase the intensity of the existing efforts to meet the established goals in the near future. On the other hand, if there is a significant gap between targeted and current performance, then operations managers will probably consider more pronounced changes in the existing plans or in the approach taken to their implementation.

2.1.2.3Competitor performanceMonitoring the performance of competitors is commonplace amongst all types of organisations. In order to know whether your organisation is maintaining or gaining a competitive advantage, it is desirable to continually compare your current achievements with those of your primary competitors. While it is not always possible to obtain current information on every performance dimension directly about your competitors, it is often easier to acquire comparative indicators than most managers imagine. In service organisations, comparison and mystery shoppers are excellent sources for obtaining comparative data, whereas manufacturing organisations often use reverse engineering to monitor improvements in product quality. Moreover, trade institutes and/or professional societies often collect performance data from their constituents and re-package and distribute it back to their constituents.

2.1.2.4 Industrial leadersBenchmarking is the search for and implementation of best practices (Camp, 1995). The purpose is to learn from other organisations by seeking out, studying, and emulating their best practices in order to enhance current organisational performance. Rather than just copying these procedures, benchmarking requires understanding the underlying principles and then being able to adapt them to productive use in a new organisational environment. Moreover, it may involve examining outstanding performers in other industrial sectors. For example, if an organisation wants to improve its order-filling process and if excellence in filling customer orders quickly and accurately resides within a different industry sector such as catalogue sales, then operations managers should benchmark with a well-known firm in that sector.

It is noteworthy that certain frames of reference are more appropriate for particular types of comparisons than others. For example, it is logical to compare the performance of an organisations core competency against world-class performers regardless of whereV326252 IJPQM 03.Reid.qxp 29/11/2005 20:57 Page 3232R.A. Reidthey may physically located. If, on the other hand, the vast majority of business is local, then comparisons with regional competitors seem reasonable. In general, managerial understanding improves and organisational effectiveness accelerates with increasing numbers of comparisons among differing frames of reference. Thus, it may be informative to evaluate current labour productivity with comparable values from the past, a pre-established target, and competitor performance.

2.1.3 Stage 3 - apply CI principles to design and implement an improvement planThe overall objective of this stage is to create and implement an action plan that will eliminate the underlying cause of significant gaps between the current and desired performance levels. This stage has four major components or steps:

design an improvement plan determine performance gaps establish future performance goals implement organisational improvements.

The first step requires the operations manager to determine the gaps that exist between current performance levels and suitable comparative measures. Usually, some of the gaps between actual achievements (Stage 1) and desired performance levels (Stage 2) are insignificant or just reflect random and/or inconsequential perturbations around an acceptable performance value or index. However, other gaps may reflect serious problems and/or the continuation of an undesirable trend. It is not unusual to find that several of the major performance gaps result from one or two underlying core problems or root causes. This small set of core problems becomes the focus of attention for the operations manager.After performing a gap analysis and assessing the overall situation, the manager will identify a selected set of important performance measures to concentrate on during the next iteration of the CI structured approach. This focusing effort involves establishing some tentative goals or targets for a significant portion of the under-performing metrics. At this juncture in the improvement process, it is premature to commit to achieving specific numerical goals or targets because the underlying cause(s) for the poorly performing metrics have not been determined. Therefore, the specification of a set of quantifiable goals to be achieved during this stage will be delayed until a better understanding of all of the factors involved and the relationships between the factors responsible for the less than desirable current performance and their root cause has been determined.The design and implementation of the improvement plan is pursued through employing either of two approaches, namely, total quality management (TQM) or the theory of constraints (TOC). While there are many structures and principles in use for creating and executing plans to upgrade an organisations operational performance, most are adaptations of one or both of these two structures. Both approaches advocate the concept that problems reside in an organisations work-performing processes, and therefore, to effectively address a problem, it is necessary to understand the relationships between the steps within a process. Moreover, both subscribe to the systems thinking paradigm and hence, subscribe to the idea of interdependencies existing between process steps. This means that a change in one step in a sequence of dependent steps will create aV336252 IJPQM 03.Reid.qxp 29/11/2005 20:57 Page 33Productivity and quality improvement: an implementation framework

33

cascading effect throughout their entire process with the very real potential of some negative or unwanted effects occurring. Each of these two approaches has its unique structure for developing and implementing improvements.

2.1.3.1 The TQM approach to improvementAlthough there are several standard approaches for implementing the TQM methodology, one of the more widely used methodologies is the Deming (or Shewhart) Wheel or the Plan-Do-Study-Act (P-D-S-A) Cycle (Deming, 1986, 1995). Each stage in the cycle is structured in such a way as to direct the improvement teams efforts towards the goal of improving a firms performance and at the same time increasing customer satisfaction. Using the P-D-S-A cycle will provide teams with the knowledge they need to correct or eliminate any defect with the design of a product or service or address any obstacle to total customer satisfaction that may be embedded in a work performing process.

The P-D-S-A cycle is also known as the seven-step model or method. This structured methodology provides a repeatable set of steps, involves a series of team-based actions, and uses various TQ tools in pursuit of iterating through the Deming Cycle. A brief description of each step follows (GOAL/QPC, 2000):

Step 1 - define the problem: the objective is to assemble the right team, reduce the projects focus, and finalise the problem statement. Step 2 - describe the current process: the teams responsibility is to create and validate a flowchart of the current process and verify the current performance with process owners and internal customers. Step 3 - identify and verify the root cause(s) of the problem: using various sequences of TQ tools, the team investigates cause-effect relationships associated with the study process and its current level of performance. Step 4 - develop an action plan to implement the preferred solution: before constructing a detailed action plan for eliminating the root cause(s), the team generates, evaluates, and selects the best approach from among the potential solutions and then establishes specific performance target values to be achieved. Step 5 - implement the solution: on a pilot basis, the plan is implemented with the team documenting any necessary changes, measuring progress, and documenting results. Step 6 - review and evaluate results. If the planned changes meet the pre-established numerical goals, and thus, were successful in eliminating the root cause(s), then the problems symptoms will have greatly diminished and the improvements need to be standardised within the organisation. If, on the other hand, the implemented changes did not meet the pre-determined numerical performance goals, then the team will have to revisit, as appropriate, steps 3, 4, or 5 to re-determine the root cause, re-design a new, more effective, action plan, or re-deploy the original action plan, respectively. Step 7 - reflect and act on this experience: the team standardises successful improvements, reflects on the effectiveness of the utilised methodology and initiates any appropriate changes, celebrates their success, and continues the improvement process by returning to step 1.6252 IJPQM 03.Reid.qxp 29/11/2005 20:57 Page^3434R.A. ReidIt is noteworthy that the first four steps are incorporated in the Plan Stage of Demings Cycle while the last three steps correspond directly with the Cycles last three stages, namely, Do, Study, and Act. Reid et al. (2000) provide more detailed information on each step in the seven-step method and document a case study that required three iterations through the Deming Cycle before the improvement project was able to be successfully completed.Empirical-based research (Ghobadian and Gallear, 1996) has shown that the use of a structured approach, such as TQM, to guide the team-based efforts in improving operations is more effective than an unstructured or ad hoc approach. In addition to providing direction for an improvement effort, the underlying TQM structure helps the operations manager facilitate team involvement and effectiveness through a methodology that uses common sequences of TQ tools. These TQ tools can be partitioned into two types: result-oriented tools that are data-focused and consequently used to gather, summarise, and display problem-oriented data resulting from investigative and measurement initiatives

team facilitation tools that provide guidance to efficaciously conducting team-based activities (Brassard and Ritter, 1994).

Reid (1999) provides additional information on applying the TQ tools in a productive sequence within the P-D-S-A Cycle and documents their application in improving performance levels at a small independent bakery.

2.1.3.2 The TOC approach to improvementTOC is a management philosophy that operationalises systems thinking through the use of an iterative five-step process of ongoing improvement. This process is designed to focus managements attention on leveraging managements efforts at a few key resources that constrain the performance of the organisation as a whole. The rationale underlying the effectiveness of this approach is that every system has at least one constraint that prevents it from achieving its goal, and if managed properly, additional throughput will be forthcoming. Assuming the initial constraint exists within the organisation, a brief description of each step in the five-step focusing process follows (Goldratt, 1990; Scheinkopf, 1999):

Step 2 - decide how to exploit the system constraint: the team institutes changes in managing the constraining resource so that it is operating as efficiently as possible.

Step 4 - elevate the system constraint: the current capacity of the constraint is

increased to allow more throughput to be generated and thus, breaking the constraint. Step 1 - identify the system constraint: the team locates the one resource that, if they had more of it, would increase organisational throughput. Step 3 - subordinate all other activities: the team takes action in managing all non-constraint operations and resources to facilitate the effectiveness of the constraint. Step 5 - go back to step 1 and find the new constraint: the team must also re-align any policies changed in steps 2 and 3, above, to reflect the new organisational configuration.V"356252 IJPQM 03.Reid.qxp 29/11/2005 20:57 Page 35Productivity and quality improvement: an implementation framework35Often insightful adjustments of policies can be used to manage the constraint resource as well as the non-constraint resources via steps 2 and 3, respectively, and improvement teams are able to increase an organisations throughput with little, if any, out-of-pocket expenses. With these actions, it is possible to break the constraint before having to spend significant funds to increase its capacity in step 4. It is not unusual to break an internal constraint, only to find that the system constraint has become external and moved outside of the organisation to the marketplace. Koljonen and Reid (2000) have developed a flowchart to help guide practitioners in applying the five-step focusing process.

Many companies have successfully implemented and continue to innovate based upon the TOC five-step focusing process (Mabin and Balderstone, 2000; Noreen et al., 1995). Goldratt (1994) has developed a set of logic trees or cause-effect diagrams that are collectively known as the TOC Thinking Processes (TP). Starting with a set of undesirable effects or symptoms, cause-effect reasoning is used to deduce the underlying cause (s) or core problem (s). Other logic trees and systemic-based analyses are then used to identify and refine solutions that eliminate or neutralise the underlying cause (s) and replace the undesirable with desirable effects. Finally, a third set of logic diagrams is used to construct step-by-step implementation plans. This generic tool kit (Cox et al, 2003; Schragenheim and Dettmer, 2001) can be used to help the team understand the system so that the application of the five-step focusing process is successful. In addition, it is possible, and even desirable, to use the TQ tools in conjunction with the TOC/TP logic-based tools.

3 Summary and conclusionsCI in organisations is the essence of operations management. Firstly, the improvement team must determine the organisations current status through collecting and analysing performance data; particularly relevant are metrics that reflect the status of achievements in productivity and quality. Secondly, based on a variety of relevant comparisons, gaps between actual and targeted performance levels are identified. Thirdly, attention is directed toward determining problems associated with poor performance and since problems are embedded in processes, focus is redirected toward improving the relevant work-performing processes within the study organisation.

In his/her role as team coach, the operations manager guides the improvement team in selecting one of two alternative approaches to conducting an improvement project. The TQM approach is directed toward identifying the root cause of the poorly performing process. The TOC approach focuses on improving the performance of the system resource that prevents the organisations goal from being achieved. Since both approaches provide a viable structure for conducting a team-based improvement project, it may be advantageous to use planning and analysis tools from one approach to supplement or validate results generated by tools in the other approach. Because the approaches are complementary rather than competing, it is possible, and perhaps even desirable, to integrate their use within your CI efforts. Finally, it is critical to remember that improving the performance of an organisation as a whole can only occur if the goals of organisationally-based work performing processes remain aligned with those goals of the total organisation.6252 IJPQM 03.Reid.qxp 29/11/2005 20:57 Page^3x6

36R.A. ReidReferencesBrassard, M. and Ritter, D. (1994) The Memory Jogger II, Methuen, MA: GOAL/QPC.Camp, R.C. (1995) Business Process Benchmarking, Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Press.Cox, J.F., Blackstone, J.H. and Schleier, J.G. (2003) Managing Operations: A Focus on Excellence, Two Volume Set, Great Barrington, MA: North River Press.Deming, W.E. (1986) Out of the Crisis, Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Studies.Deming, W.E. (1995) The New Economics for Industry Government, and Education, 2nd Edition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Drucker, P.F. (1965) Managing for Results, New York, NY: Harper and Row.Felix, G.H. and Riggs, J.C. (1983) Productivity measurements by objectives, National Productivity Review, Vol. 2, No. 4, (Autumn), pp.386-393.Ghobadian, A. and Gallear, D. (1996) Total quality management in SMEs, Omega, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.83-100.GOAL/QPC. (2000) The Problem Solving Memory Jogger: Seven Steps to Improved Processes, Salem, NH: GOAL/QPC.Goldratt, E.M. (1990) Theory of Constraints, Croton-on-Hudson, NY: North River Press.Goldratt, E.M. (1994) Its Not Luck, Great Barrington, MA: North River Press.Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001) Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurements to strategic management: part 1, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 15, No.1, (March), pp.87-104.Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2004) Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes, Boston, MS: Harvard Business School Press.Koljonen, E.L. and Reid, R.A. (2000) Applying the three Ps constraint framework in a service organisation, Constraint Management Symposium Proceedings, APICS, Alexandria, VA, pp.91-96.Mabin, V.J. and Balderstone, S.J. (2000) The World of the Theory of Constraints, Boca Raton, FL: St Lucie Press.Noreen, E., Smith, D. and Mackey, J.T. (1995) The Theory of Constraints and Its Implications for Managerial Accounting, Great Barrington, MA: North River Press.Reid, R.A. (1999) TQM principles and tools provide structure for process improvement: a smallbusiness perspective, Journal of Business & Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.1-25.Reid, R.A. (2002) An integrated operations performance metric, Quality Progress, Vol. 35, No. 11, pp.51-55.Reid, R.A., Koljonen, E.L. and Buell, J.B. (2000) Applying a structured approach to industrial emission reduction, Environmental Quality Management, Vol. 9, No. 3, (Spring), pp.11-20.Russell, R.S. and Taylor, B.W. (2006) Operations Management, 5th edition, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Scheinkopf, L.J. (1999) Thinking for a Change, Boca Raton, FL: St Lucie Press.Schragenheim, E. and Dettmer, H.W. (2001) Manufacturing at Warp Speed, Boca Raton, FL: St Locie Press.