MONASH UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF BUSINESS & ECONOMICS / %'^,;

THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF QUALITY MANAGERS

Dianne Waddell

23.mi?.i998' Working Paper 20/98

January 1998

ABSTRACT

This project was an attempt to identify the roles and responsibilities of Quality Managers in Australia. It has been presumed that they are a homogeneous group with identical goals, objectives and methods. This study investigated if this was the case and challenges the assumptions of this perception. Such an exercise had not been attempted in this country nor overseas. Using a questionnaire, the research aim was to investigate whether their perceptions and experience vary and if it is possible to create a profile of the typical Quality Manager.

The research study assessed the education, career progression, job content and reward perceptions of Quality Managers in 1,000 Australian organisations which are registered with the Quality Assurance Services. This was a similar approach as in the study by D'Netto, Sohal and Trevillyan (1996) regarding Production Managers and the results may also be used to compare and contrast the experience of quality managers with those of production/operations managers as identified in their report. The data has been collated and analysed and a managerial role responsibilities framework has been suggested which may represent the complex activities of Quality Managers and which may be used as a valuable database by Human Resources Managers in their strategic planning for continuous improvement.

Such a study is conspicuous by its absence. It is an area that has been overlooked in the push for a competitive advantage but a thorough understanding of the roles and responsibilities of Quality Managers is crucial for successful implementation of quality management.

THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF QUALITY MANAGERS

INTRODUCTION

Although the quality movement has been prominent in Australia for the past decade, no research into the perceptions of Quality Managers, and their role and responsibilities, has been conducted. It has been assumed that Quality Mangers are a homogenous group with identical goals, objectives and methods (Jeffrey, 1992). This investigation challenges this assumption and presents evidence that suggests there is no 'typical' profile of a Quality Manager.

The aim of this research is to assess the education, career progression, job content and responsibilities, and reward perceptions of Quality Managers in Australian organisations which appear in the JAS-ANZ Register of Accredited and Certified Organisations (Standards Australia 1996). One thousand companies were chosen randomly from approximately 15,000 which are listed in the register. Individuals who were designated by their companies as 'Quality Managers' were directly addressed and asked to complete a survey designed to test the investigative parameters. The survey was based on existing literature on the topic, and as an original attempt to elicit a portrait of the roles and responsibilities of Quality Managers from survey responses. A pilot study often companies was initially completed to refine the survey.

The questionnaire included both quantitative and qualitative components, and focused on three main topics. First, the managers' background and career history, including educational qualifications and additional training. Second, their current position and role, including communication, employee management and quality tools employed (Glassop, 1995). Third, their perception of rewards and status when compared with other functional managers within their organisation (Brelin et al. 1994). The managers were also invited to make comments about the future of the company, quality management and their careers.

Eight per cent of surveys were returned unopened with the comment that the addressee was no longer with the company. Two hundred and ninety responses were received and collated which gave a response rate of approximately 31.5%. This is a good response rate given the large sample size and complexity of the questionnaire.

Of those responding:

• 12% of companies were 'small' with employee numbers less than 20, 74% were 'medium' sized with employees numbering between 21 and 500, and 14% were 'large' organisations with over 500 employees;

•

•

there was a wide spread of industry representation but they could be classified as 57% 'manufacturing' based and 43% being 'service' related.

67% had undergone major change in the past two years;

• 68% had Australia as principal ownership;

From the additional data which was collated and analysed, it became evident that a 'typical' Quality Manager has a complex role with diverse responsibilities.

BACKGROUND AND CAREER fflSTORY

The age of the survey group ranged from 21 to 64 (Table 1) and 82% were male. The female Quality Managers were all positioned in the services sector, and none in manufacturing.

Table 1: Age of respondents

Age (years)

No. of Responses

20-29

12%

. 30-39 *

29%

40-49

30%

50-59

24%

60-69 .

5%

Only 16% of respondents had not completed studies subsequent to secondary schooling, and most (57%) had University exposure (Table 2).

Level of Education "

No. of Responses

Table 2

Year 10

6%

: Highest

~ Year 11

3%

formal level of education of respondents

Year 12

7%

TAPE

27%

Undergraduate

30%

Postgraduate

(University)

27%

If post secondary education was attempted, and subsequent courses completed, those taken were as follows:

• TAPE - 34% of responses completed Engineering, 29% Commerce/Management related courses, 17% specified Fitter and Turner/Technician whereas only 9% cited Quality Management;

• Undergraduate - 40% completed a Science degree, 28% an Engineering degree, 18% a Commerce degree and 13% completed an Arts degree;

• Postgraduate - 38% of responses completed a Commerce/Management course, 17% Science, 12% Engineering but only 10% a Quality Management course.

The respondents were asked about training and educational courses provided in the past four years. The most common form of external providers for training and education was specified as QAS at 24% (Table 3). The question was structured as open ended and the replies varied. Hence where they cited 'Australian Organisation for Quality' and 'Specialist Quality Courses', it is most likely they meant QAS or AQC. To be more clear as to the breakdown the vague headings of these categories will have to be clarified. What is of interest, nevertheless, is that 39% are offered by our traditional educational providers, that is TAPE and University. AIM and NATA may also be itemised under Professional and Trade Bodies,

Table 3: External providers of training/education courses completed in the past 4 years

- '-'ik '••- . •^'''^l -ii \-%' ^IC^V^W '

TAPE

University

Aust. Quality Council

Aust. Organisation for Quality

External Auditors/Consultants

QAS

f\^* 20

19

13

5

11

24

I P r o v i d e r ^ : , -?;," .., ,••.•'(:', ];],.'

Professional and Trade Bodies

Specialist Quality Courses

NATA

AIM

Other

%.:

11

11

3

3.5

5

Table 4 identifies internal providers coming from the Human Resource Department and consultants (54%). Once again, the term 'consultants' need further elaboration in the context of internal provider and could be a study in itself Occupational Health and Safety has a relatively high response rate and this area of interest recurs throughout the survey.

Table 4: Internal providers of courses taken in the past 4 years:

V • " ' / ! ; Provider -

Human Resources Dept.

Consultants

Internal Auditor

%

25

29

9

Provider^- ,

Systems/Computer Dept.

Occupational Health and Safety

Other

%:»

14

18

4

Forty-eight per cent were members of a Professional Association and of those, 32% were Engineering based whereas 24% were Quality oriented (ie. 34 respondents out of 290).

Table 5: Membership of Professional Associations

Associations

Engineering

Accounting

AIM

HRM

%

32

4

11

4

Associations

Quality

Science

Education

Other

%

24

11

1

16

Nearly half (46%) have been employed with the company for six years or less, where 83%) of those have held the position of Quality Manager for five years or less (Tables 6 & 7). This appears contrary to the perception that Quality Managers evolved with the organisation and were appointed based on their seniority (Glassop 1995). Further investigations are ongoing involving statistical analysis to identify relationships between the responses.

Table 6: Length of employment with current company

Years

No. of Responses

lr6 •

46%

, 7-n.. 29%

.13^18 :'

12%

' 19-24 \

6%

, 25-30

4%

; 31-41

4%

Table 7:

Years . 'I ['--i'-^- '•'•

No. of Responses

Length of time in current position as Quality Manager

••';;:-''•%' }-&^/''M-'.'y:

83%

•-':flf'}&d%>?^^(ti:

16%

^W^m:im:-]-^''-\'^, 1%

Also it is a suprise that only 17% had a background of Production/Operations Management. Literature suggests that the response rate should be much higher (Muhlemann et al 1992) yet

the background of Australian Quality Managers is quite diverse (Table 8). General Management could include a variety of these functions and is also an area for further

clarification.

Table 8: Functions, other than Quality, worked during career

• .^Functional Are0'

Production/Operations

Finance

Costing

Marketing

Sales

Warehousing

Personnel/HRM

•• ••;§§•:;

17

5

4

7

9

4

6

FmctipnalAreq . •'bf:r.

Purchasing

Research & Development

Management Services

General Management

Design

Other

;..p: . 6

8

5

13

6

9

CURRENT POSITION

Quality Managers are very busy people. Twenty-six per cent have no assistance (Table 9) yet as Table 10 suggests they often have more responsibilities other than quality. Seventy-nine per cent are responsible for other functional areas with Human Resource orientated functions being the majority (24%).

Table 9: Number of people directly responsible to the Quality Manager

No of Employees

No. of Responses

^'b^p- •:

26%

•-•i-s,.':-

44%

< 6-10 V

14%

11-20

9%

2lM 4%

Hl-60

1%

}>60

1%

Table 10: Management responsibilities other than quality

' tv' "^lenctiomlAreasi.,': ::

Accountant/Financial Controller

Sales/Marketing

IT/Systems/Technical/Production

HRM/OH&S/Training/IR

r # ;

9

8

20

24

Fwi(^ianalxAreastH^ -

Customer Service

CEO/Senior Management

Other

j;:%^^-,.-

5

16

18

With regard to the budget responsibilities, 54% have a separate budget for their department but of this only 67% of the respondents had control over it. When respondents were asked to compare their position with managers in other functional departments, they ranked their income, benefits, social interaction, job security, status/recognition to be comparable with other positions. They did suggest, however, that their work variety, work importance and workload were far greater than other functional areas (Table 11).

Table 11: Perception of quality management position compared to other functional units

Income

Benefits

Social Interaction

Job Security

Status/Recognition

Work Variety

Work Importance

Workload

\ Less I

8%

6%

4%

4%

5%

1%

4%

4%

; . ; . ' ' . A . ;

9%

8%

4%

7%

11%

4%

3%

3%

, - y - . '

25%

15%

14%

12%

25%

6%

12%

12%

Simlar

37%

50%

39%

47%

30%

24%

37%

37%

• • ; ; • . ' " - :

11%

9%

18%

16%

13%

22%

19%

19%

• • • ' - • " • ' • ' • .

6%

7%

17%

10%

13%

28%

19%

19%

• Greater

4%

5%

4%

4%

4%

15%

7%

7%

Although 87% stated they had a formal job description, when they were asked to specify their role and responsibilities as Quality Managers, only 51% ranked Quality related functions as being most important. Their responses and priorities were varied and the explanation for this will be investigated in subsequent case studies.

Table 12: Role and Responsibilities of Quality Managers as perceived by the respondents (in percentages):

• :• • '•'•'''" ^•'''','^ •' . '^'V'/ /•'•7^"/;!.'!5-'"

Improving Procedures & Work Instructions

Monitoring Procedures, Results & Performance

Maintaining Accreditation & Certification

Conducting self assessment

Conducting staff feedback/internal audits

Providing advice on quality issues

Liaising with external quality associations

Customer Liaison

OH&S and/or EPA

HRM and/or Training

Sales & Marketing

Accounting

Other

"••Mq^v

4

30

17

3

*

<1

5

3

3

3

24

V'2%

8

24

14

1

7

1

1

7

6

3

4

11

4: - ' , .-i.-'.'./L-

f ji-i

6

20

7

9

<1

2

6

4

2

4

10

v: 'Z--:-

4

4

4

1

6

2

2

3

4

2

2

8

;s^y

2

1

1

<1

3

1

1

1

1

1

<1

4

w *

*

*

1

<1

<1

1

<1

*

*

1

{•?€

<i

*

<i

<i

*

<i

*

*

*

*

*

'• Ijedst

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

not mentioned at this ranking

Most communication within the organisation is done via staff and supervisory meetings (37%) although respondents identified the use of more than one method (Table 13).

Table 13: Communication methods used

•• • ; ; . : • ' ' • . ' ;•-' •:. " ' , ; • • - . ' M e f A b < 3 f e ' .*'•• •

Staff/supervisory meetings

Personal/direct contact

Newsletter

Memo

Email

'•••W^r.

37

12.5

13

13

14

'^M^iiic^'/y •••'':>•: .';•• '/•>;;;

Telephone/fax

Noticeboard

Reports

Other

•Mr.

5

3

1

1

Only 40% of respondents run employee surveys whereas 64% are responsible for employees training needs. How then would Quality Managers who do not conduct employee surveys know what training needs are required? The diverse demands on their expertise is evident when observing the types of training programs. Only 25%i were to do with quality procedures. The balance appeared to be more Human Resource Management focused (Table 14), namely skills, employee development, safety and induction training.

Table 14: Training programs

-K ••'- -i • '.r.,'->. Programsi:

Skills/specific task courses

Employee development

Safety

Quality procedures

' , • # ^ # ^

23

6

11

25

Progrcmtsi • •: .•, •, > ..- , -,. .

Computer training

Induction training

Technical

Other

I % 8

19

5

4

Only 33% of respondents were responsible for customer surveys, including suppliers. This appears to be inconsistent with the fundamental philosophy of Quality Management. Where there are customer surveys, 31% were conducted within 6 months and 52% were between 7 and 12 months.

The quality tools utilised appears to be predominantly control charts, brainstorming or Parento analysis (Table 15). Once again, this was an open ended question and respondents were invited to indicate what method/s they used. It is apparent that these respondents were not fully conversant or proficient in the quality tools available.

Table 15: Quality tools utilised

V • fQuMy^OQl'^'

Control charts

Brainstorming

Parento analysis

Cause and effect

Multinoting

Matrix

Scatter diagrams and histograms

Testing

Probability plots/trend analysis

Team dynamics

i:%

15

20

10

3

<1

1

4

2

5

<1

'^QiMii^ool^'?'y:'l':. •'•--}' •'•J.

Statistical analysis

Run charts

Process improvement groups

System audits

Employee and customer feedback

Fishbone diagram

Flow charts

External consultant

Benchmarking

Other

;:;%

7

2

7

3.5

4

3

3

3

3

8

Most satisfying for respondents was improving quality and efficiency (25%). Product/process development and people interaction also rated well (Table 16).

Table 16: Aspects of work which give most satisfaction:

Aspect .-. -:^ y}

Product/process development

Staff input/development

Improving quality/efficiency

People interaction/feedback

',%l

17

7

25

14

Aspect ', • •;• ., ' • , - '••:. ,•..,/<- -:..

Providing support/advice

Profitability/completing projects

Variety in work

Other

. %:

7

9

6

13

Documentation and procedural writing was least satisfying (39%) but respondents remarked on the negative attitude of employees to quality and lack of senior management support as areas which gave them the least satisfaction (Table 17).

Table 17: Aspects of work which give least satisfaction

Aspect : '•: ,-i.: r-;-; $i-fr ',., .,..-j\;

Auditing, writing procedures

Lack of senior management support

Employees' attitude to quality

Documentation/bureaucracy

:m-::

15

11

16

24

Aspect

Workload/lack of recognition

Office politics

Product/system defects

Other

%: .

12

4

6

11

PERCEPTIONS OF THE FUTURE

When managers were asked about their future, they responded in either the organisational context or personal career interest. Within the company they could see no further development for the role of Quality Manager (32%) whereas in the future they would remain with the company but in another capacity (Table 18).

Table 18: Quality Managers' perceptions of the future

'Position' Future

Tied to market perceptions of quality management

Tied to ISO 9000/other quality certification

Larger job in the future

No change

Smaller/changing to internal consultant

Unknown

%

4

6

9

32

19

6

'Personal'Futtire v

Another role in the firm

Remain at the same level/same position

Move companies

Other

'%

17

5

1

3

Additional comments identified their concern which concentrated on the increasing complexity of products and services and the rapid growth in technological support. They felt that they are not prepared for these changes and once the 'novelty' has faded their position will be restructured and their situation will be modified to encompass any new and immediate demands. Where they have modified and adjusted their style of management to facilitate the quality philosophy, management includes other functional areas which results in a generally failed creation on ongoing climate conducive to constructive change practices.

CONCLUSION

This research has highlighted a divergence between the assumed roles and responsibilities of the Australian Quality Manager and the reality experienced by managers in the workplace. It also indicates that such perceptions and experiences vary across different industries, organisational sizes and structure therefore making it difficult to define or create a profile of a 'typical' Quality Manager. Further research needs to be undertaken to clarify the questions that have arisen as a result of this survey. Five companies will be chosen from the respondents, and case studies will be developed. Nevertheless these survey findings are significant for organisations in designing a conducive work environment for Quality Managers and employees.

REFERENCES

Bounds, G., Yorks, L., Adams, M. and Ranney, G 1994 Total Quality Management. Toward the Emerging Paradigm. Singapore: McGraw Hill.

Brelin, H., Davenport, K., Jennings, L. and Murphy, P. 1994 Focuses Quality. Managing for Results. Florida: St Lucie Press.

Clark, F. 1992 "Quality: the new Holy Grail? Reflections of a management developer". Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 7,1. 6.

D'Netto, B., Sohal, A. and Trevillyan, J. 1996 Education, career progression, job content and reward perceptions of production and operation managers in Australia A study of Australian Organisations Monash University.

Glassop, L. 1995 The Road to Quality. Competitive Edge Management Series, AIM, Australia: Prentice Hall.

Jeffrey, J. 1992 "Making Quality Managers: Redefining Management's Role", Quality. Vol. 31,Iss. 5, May.

Muhlemann, A., Qakland, J. and Lockyer, K. 1992 Production and Operations Management. 6th edition. Pitman, London.

Standards Australia, 1996 The JAS-ANZ Register of Accredited and Certified Organisations May 1996. Melbourne : Standards Australia.

10