CENTER FORQUALITY OF MANAGEMENTJOURNAL© Copyright 19

CENTER FOR
QUALITY 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 classroom
use 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 full
citation 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 USA
Telephone: (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 2
David Walden

HP’s Quality Maturity System:
CEO Roundtable Report Page 3
Thomas E. Abell and Dawn Dougherty Fitzgerald
Applying 7-Steps as a Personal PDCA Method Page 5
Cliff Scott
Systems Archetypes as a Diagnostic Tool:
A Field-based Study of TQM Implementations Page 15
Gary Burchill and Daniel H. Kim
Application of Concept Engineering on the
Bose Enchilada Project Page 23
Erik Anderson and Jim Sanchez
Summer 1993 5
Cliff Scott
Applying 7-Steps As a Personal PDCA
Method
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 was
spent, (b) using a hypothesis and test model to
improve my behavior and (c) establishing a pro-
cedure to maintain the improvements. Through
this effort I not only improved my effectiveness
but also learned how untested assumptions can
drive our behavior and keep us from seeing use-
ful solutions. I hope this account may serve as a

useful model for personal PDCA for others.
I began this effort after participating in
Teradyne Corporation’s internal “TQM for Man-
agers” course taught by Professor Shoji Shiba.2
This course encouraged participants to apply the
7-Steps as the means of personal improvement.
The notion of personally applied PDCA is
clearly timely. Robert Galvin, both in an address
to The Center for Quality Management’s 1992
Annual Conference3 and in his foreword to Harry
Roberts and Bernard Sergesketter’s work4 on the
use of personal checklists, challenged managers
to take personal responsibility for quality. Galvin
espouses this personal responsibility as the
means to provide leadership and develop the in-
sight needed to change companies profoundly
for improved competitive performance. And, of
course, Roberts and Sergesketter’s work itself
presents a compelling case and method for per-
sonally applied continuous improvement. A per-
sonal PDCA strategy also fits within the context
of the current TQM implementation at my com-
pany (Bolt Beranek and Newman). By adopting
a plan for personal continuous improvement, I
could apply PDCA not just to special projects
but to my whole job.
Problem Statement
As a corporate staff person in the TQM office, I
was responsible for supporting the implementa-
tion of 7-Steps throughout the company’s four
divisions, 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) causal
analysis to discover the root cause to confirm and focus the
problem; (4) solution planning and implementation; (5)
evaluation
to confirm the solution works; (6) standardization to implement
the
solution permanently ; (7) reflection to improve the use of the
method 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 to
the principles and techniques of continuous improvement and
did
not wait to accomplish this through a random assignment to an
improvement team. In a rapidly changing work environment,
this
approach more predictably develops the individual’s skills as a
learner and problem solver, increasing the likelihood of adding
value 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
Total
Quality Management”, Selected Paper No. 73, University of
Chicago Graduate School of Business.
often wondered where my time went and why
there was no time for many important things. I
realized that in order to be more effective in
helping my company implement TQM, I would

have to improve significantly my use of time at
work. I would have to follow the hypothesis and
test method inherent in PDCA and collect a lot of
data about how I spent my time.
Thus, I started out with what seemed a fairly
straightforward goal: Discover where there is in-
efficiency, remove the inefficiency, and have
more time for important work. Like many Qual-
ity Improvement Teams using PDCA methodol-
ogy, however, I discovered that data collection
gave me new insight and an awareness of the
complexity of the problem that I hadn’t sus-
pected.
Step 1: Theme Selection
I gathered initial data indicating that my work
fell into eight basic categories of time spent:
1. Learning. By attending a training session
or by reading and researching.
2. Facilitation. Preparing and conducting
training or facilitating for a QI team of
which I am not a member. QI training fo-
cuses on teams, organized at the depart-
ment level, to improve some local
process.
4. Communication. Communicating via e-
mail, phonemail, and memos.
5. One-on-one. Consulting or meeting ad
hoc to discuss work.
6. QIT. Any improvement work (e.g., analy-

Cliff Scott was
responsible for
helping with
BBN’s company-
wide implement-
ation of the
7-Steps and TQM
in general. He is
currently working
with the Charter
Oak consulting
company.
6 Summer 1993
sis or planning) that I am responsible for
as a team member, whether in team meet-
ings or on my own. This work focused pri-
marily on improving the implementation
of TQM companywide.
7. Informational meetings. Participating in
staff or interest group meetings for status
updates.
8. Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA). Working on
this personal PDCA project.
9. Administration. Doing office tasks and
special projects not accounted for above.
A Pareto graph (figure 1, below) of my time
spent over approximately three weeks indicates

proportion of time per category of task.
This data represented some important things
about my work. The most important things I do
fall into two basic areas of endeavor: (1) provid-
ing direct service to “customers” (members of
my company) and (2) increasing my skills to
provide those services. The tasks in the first area
consist of facilitating, one-on-one meetings, and
my own QIT work, with occasional administra-
tive activities. These are the tasks where I add
value for my customers by helping them achieve
their goals.
The tasks in the second area consist of learn-
ing, informational meetings, and PDCA activi-
ties. I realized that only one of these primary
activities, facilitating, was among the top three
time 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%
P
e
rc
e
n
t
o
f
T
o
ta
l H
o
u
rs

S
p
e
n
t
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
H
o
u
rs
s
p
e
n
t
Time Spent by Category
9/10 - 9/30, 76.5 hours total

Figure 1
Summer 1993 7
learning consumed a significant slice of time, I
decided not to analyze the learning category, be-
cause I felt that it was all germane to work either
in facilitating or in my QITs.5
Communicating caught my attention. This
was the one category that I did not see as clearly
falling into either area of work. Some communi-
cating was supportive of direct service and some
was 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 my
time in communicating, time saved here might
allow more time for adding value in the “provid-
ing services” category. I decided to track exactly
what I was doing in communicating; I began re-
cording separately the amount of time I spent on
the phone, using e-mail, and writing memos.
After monitoring three more weeks of data, I
ran into a dead end. Only 8.2 percent of my time
was 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 mindful
of possible wasted effort cut down my time spent
on the phone and e-mail. It no longer seemed

useful to analyze how I spent time communicat-
ing. In spite of the percentage improvement, I
was saving less than three hours per week. I felt I
needed more improvement than this.
I was left frustrated. Where should I turn to
find inefficiency and improve my work?
The need to “Jump Up”
I knew that I needed to increase time available
for providing services to others, but what was the
most important way for me spend that time? Un-
til now I had not done something quite important
and necessary to answering the above question.
What I had neglected is what Professor Shoji
Shiba refers to as “jumping up”. Jumping up is a
matter of going up a level conceptually to exam-
ine the context of improvement, asking “what is
the purpose of my job” before homing in on a
specific area for improvement (known as “se-
lecting a theme”). When I jumped up, I saw that
my original assumption was that I just needed to
improve efficiency by spending more time in the
providing services area. But this assumption did
not take into account what my customers might
want and therefore was not validly addressing
the 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 with
some 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. I
also recognized that the time I spent learning
would be quickly “capitalized” as input to these

three activities.
I began to examine my customers’ needs, es-
sentially asking: “If I discontinued one of the
eight activities on the Pareto chart, who would
care?” What was immediately apparent was that
QIT activity was the one area of my work di-
rectly supporting my manager’s concerns. For
instance, QIT work took place on teams that my
manager participated in, whereas my facilitating
a team, or consulting one-on-one in one of the
company’s divisions, was not reported to him.
I then analyzed the various elements of my
work, using the first three of the 7 Fundamental
Questions.6 The two areas about which I gained
the most insight were QIT work and facilitating,
as indicated by figure 2 (see next page).
I recognized that QIT work and facilitating
had the following consequences:
Consequences of QIT work:
• Work here addresses improvement oppor-
tunities affecting the whole company’s
TQM implementation effort.
• The work has high leverage because of the
team membership and the visibility to the
CEO—a critical set of customers to my
job.
• The research I do for QIT work is on such
things as building infrastructure for
change 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 in
touch 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 feel
pressured 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
not
demonstrate through analysis that my assumption about learning
was correct. While this realization came too late for me to act
upon
it in the course of this effort, it is a very important lesson for
me.
6 These are basic questions which, when answered, guide and
focus
improvement efforts. (1) Who are my customers? (2) What are
my
products? (3) What are my customers’ needs? (4) What are my
customers’ measures and expectations for how I meet those
needs?
(5) Do my products meet or exceed their needs? (6) What is my
process for satisfying their needs? (7) What actions are needed
to
improve my process?

8 Summer 1993
Fundamental Questions Chart
Figure 2
Figure 3
9/10 - 10/14, 124 hours total
Customer Product Needs
VP Corporate Quality,
directly
(indirectly,
Companywide
Quality Committee,
CEO)
QIT output:
recommendations to
improve the TQM
implementation,
mobilization of
improvement teams, and
utilization of improvement
methods
1. Positive impact upon the
whole company's TQM
implementation
2. A knowledgeable
resource for issues of
leadership effectiveness and

cultural change
Teams, directly
(indirectly,
sponsors, team
leaders)
Facilitation: help for teams
in getting through a step or
in using a particular tool
1. A knowledgeable
resource about tools
2. Group process skills
3. Knowledge of the team's
context
Summer 1993 9
• I am engaging in activity that others are
also trained to perform (a redundancy).
• I affect only a small subset of all those
implementing TQM.
While I had other insights about other activi-
ties on the Pareto, I had come to believe that the
highest value-added work I could do was in my
QIT efforts.7 Whatever activities consumed a
greater percentage of my time than QIT work
were candidates for improvement reduction until
QIT work became my number one activity. I now
turned my attention to collecting data on time
spent in facilitating. I reasoned that while facili-

tation was not a bad thing, it detracted from
higher-leverage work and therefore was a “de-
fect” in this context.
Step 2. Data Collection
Over the next couple of weeks I continued to col-
lect data. Because I had now added a significant
number of hours to my data, the Pareto showing
the 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 much
time facilitating teams in the divisions if I
wanted to increase the amount of time for QIT
efforts. My time spent communicating was drop-
ping. Time spent learning had actually risen and
was quite high, but this was a temporary result of
participation in an activity I knew was not part of
my ongoing schedule. In the future I would need
to 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 in
facilitation, I would see increases in the QIT col-
umn. My revised problem statement or theme be-
came: “Reduce the amount of time spent
facilitating by 50 percent by 12/13/92.”
I hoped also to increase time spent in QIT
work by 50 percent and to increase my reading/
research activity. I translated my Pareto into
some straightforward statistics:
1. Facilitation averaged 6.8 hours/week

2. QIT work averaged 3.0 hours/week
I therefore expected the facilitating to drop to
about 3.4 hours and QIT work to rise to about 4.5
hours per week. I also decided to show at least 2
hours per week devoted to reading/research.
Step 3. Causal Analysis
I now felt ready to analyze the causes for why I
spent too much time facilitating. My first
thought 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
continuing
the 7 Fundamental Questions exercise to show how my
customers
measured whether I met their needs. This would have provided a
clearer confirmation of whether the customers for my QIT work
were being satisfied. I did not do this, I think, because the
importance of my QIT customers’ needs seemed self-evident
and,
again, because it was difficult to recognize failures in
objectivity
when 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 topics
20 books dealing with TQM
13 articles dealing with TQM
1 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 focus
on roles are also familiar as a technique called
role mapping.9) I chose this method because the
issue I am exploring is my own behavior and is
more about the role I play in the company than
about 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?”, I
determined the following:
Relations Diagram/Role Map
Figure 4
Sponsors of teamsTeam members
Team
leaders
TQM/T&D
department
members
Divisional
TQM
directors
Senior management
ME
Facilitator
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
O
O
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 lots
of facilitator assignments,
- because I respond to this as a perceived
norm.
Team Leaders, Team Sponsors and Team Mem-

bers:
• Because they call me for help and expect
me to be responsive (my assumption),
- because they do not recognize their own
divisional resources
Divisional TQM Directors10 and Senior Manage-
ment:
• Because I need to be very up to speed on
how things are going in their division by
spending time with their teams (my as-
sumption),
- because they ask for feedback on some
aspect 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 (my
assumption).
ME (the major contributor to my role):
• Because one of my primary roles, given
the assignment to initiate 7-Steps at BBN
over the last 18 months, has been that of a
trainer/facilitator and it is difficult to
break the mold,
- because 7-Steps and how QITs are doing
is important at BBN.

• And because I like the process of facilitat-
ing,
- Because it is important for me to feel
that 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 of
me are true.
As I sought to verify the root causes of me as the
primary role sender, I determined the following:
• It is true that 7-Step process is important
and that I have had a role as a facilitator in
its implementation in the past.
• It is also true that I like to facilitate and to
feel I am making a contribution in a vis-
ible/tangible way, since these are motivat-
ing for me.
• My assumptions about the other role
senders’ expectations are testable and are
probably the strongest root cause.
Therefore I decided to test my assumptions by
interviewing divisional TQM directors. These
people have an excellent overview of the 7-Step
implementation issues that are common to many
of the role senders. I felt they would provide a
valid perspective on my assumptions about the
expectations of senior managers, facilitators, and
team sponsors and leaders.

When I interviewed two key members of this
group I learned surprising things. Not only did
they not expect me to be knowledgeable about
the status of teams in their divisions, they felt
that my being responsive to requests to facilitate
would deprive their divisions of the opportunity
to rely on and strengthen their own resources.
These TQM directors felt it would make more
sense for me to turn requests for help back to
them. They, in turn, would call on me if they felt
that the nature of the request was something that
would be well served by my involvement. So I
verified that what my “role senders” expected of
me was not consistent with my assumptions–and
at the same time discovered an opportunity to be
supportive in a better way.
Step 4:
Solution
Planning and
Implementation
To implement a solution, I needed to reverse the
primary root cause of my time problem: accept-
ing facilitation assignments on the basis of un-
tested assumptions. I decided to formulate a new
basis for accepting assignments:

Accept only those facilitation requests that
come from the divisional TQM directors or se-
nior managers, up to a target of 4.5 hours/week
average.
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 explicit
request. Routing the request through the TQM
directors 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 to
other role senders (see figure 4, previous page)
that there was a new mechanism for them to get a
good response within their own divisions.
10 Divisional TQM directors are line managers who are
assigned the
role of facilitating divisional senior management’s efforts to
implement TQM methods. They hold this role either full time or
simultaneous with their line assignment.
Summer 1993 11

Step 5. Evaluation
I collected data over four more weeks, encom-
passing the same number of hours as my first
sample in Step 2 (figure 3, page 8). The data is
displayed in a Pareto (figure 5, below).
While I improved relative to my theme (“Re-
duce time spent facilitating by 50 percent”), I
had not succeeded uniformly in the ancillary im-
provements I had targeted: I did not spend much
more time reading. Although the time I spent in
QIT work exceeded my target, it was eclipsed by
administrative work. Ironically, I had failed to
predict the amount of time necessary to complete
a project that was the bulk of the administrative
category. My time spent communicating dropped
with no apparent change in my work process.
And learning activity as a whole dropped a little
because of nonrecurring training in the first data
11/5 - 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 the
critical categories of time spent for both before
and after data sets. It is instructive that my per-
sonal 7-Steps effort helped me achieve a robust
enough improvement to exceed the targeted time
for QIT work in spite of changing work require-
ments.
Step 6. Standardization
Based on the success of the pilot period, I deter-
mined to maintain my new guideline for accept-
ing facilitation assignments. To standardize I
needed to communicate the new process to my
manager, to my co-workers, and to the divisional
TQM 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)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16

18
20
22
24
26
28
30
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 hold
the gains. An example of the run chart is shown
(figure 7, facing page). I track the time I spend in
communication, because just tracking it seems to
create the awareness I need to control this activ-
ity. I track the time I spend facilitating to ensure
that I remain at my target level and that my solu-
tion continues to work. I track the time I spend in
reading/research, because this is the one area
where I am below my goal. I track the time I
spend in QIT work because I need to be sure I
remain at or above my goal.
Step 7. Reflection
I have captured the strengths and weaknesses of
this improvement effort below (figure 8).
Some General Observations
I 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 knew
that any problem solving that forces you to get a
clear picture of a process (in this case my own

way of prioritizing time) inevitably proves hard
for 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 Weaknesses
1 Used a well-defined and data-driven
method to ensure that I was working on a
real problem and seeing the problem as
objectively as possible.
Did not jump up to ask what is the
purpose of my work as a first step.
Did not determine my products,
customers, and their needs until far into
data collection.
2 Kept very accurate information. Did not keep records that
would allow
me to disaggregate information (e.g., what

proportion of my time in learning activities
was reading/research).
3 Surfaced my assumptions about my role
which were powerful drivers and hitherto
invisible to me.
Discussed my assumptions about my
role with those I identified as “role
senders”.
Unloaded “baggage” of wrong
assumptions, creating a more realistic
foundation for work relationships.
Did not collect any data from my
manager to verify my assumptions about
how I had crafted my role.
4 Used simple solution that addressed the
root cause directly.
5 Tracked equivalent number of hours for
before-and-after comparison.

Was unable to compare time spent in
reading/research activity though this data
was collected in pilot.
6 Came to enjoy the objective view of
what I spend my time doing that record-
keeping gives me; am not likely to give it
up.
Did not make a formal change in how I
would proceed with accepting facilitation
assignments with all of my customers,
only the primary ones.
7 Developed an in-depth case of my
personal change effort.
Will work on improving time spent on
reading/research as the next turn of
personal PDCA wheel.
Took longer than expected
documenting this change effort because of
lack of a good model format.

Figure 8
painstakingly and studied with as few precon-
ceived assumptions as possible. Where there are
assumptions, these need to be tested, as I did
when I finally began to see that my time spent fa-
cilitating was largely determined by my own as-
sumptions about my role. Failure to test
assumptions may prevent you from understand-
ing the data. Thus, I spent three weeks staring at
how my hours were spent without understanding
what 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 time
so as to improve it. This was an illumination for
me. Perhaps it should have been obvious, but
now that I have a clear understanding of how I
spend 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 of
developing any lasting understanding. In my

case, only when I write my observations and in-
sights down for (or as if for) others to understand
does it become clear what I have really experi-
enced. This perception is similar to the notion
that “in order really to learn a thing, you must
teach it”. The last thought is that the value of
14 Summer 1993
analysis and planning for improvement is not
that things work out as predicted but that I am
more prepared to cope with change and still
achieve my most important objective: to spend
my 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 member
in the very inspiring course that started me down
the road of “personal PDCA”. I also want to
thank Jeff Mayersohn and Deborah Melone at

BBN and Ted Walls at the CQM for helping me
make my very subjective experience more reader
friendly.
Jo
u
rn
al
O
n
-L
in
e
The Center for Quality of Management Journal is a forum for
disseminating the
experience of organizations learning to implement modern
management practices. It
seeks to capture experiences and ideas that may be useful to

others working to create
customer-driven, continuously improving organizations.
The CQM Journal is refereed. However, it is not an academic
publication. Experiences
and ideas will be published if they seem likely to be useful to
others seeking to improve
their organizations.
Send to:
The Center for Quality of Management Journal
Editorial Department
One Alewife Center, Suite 450
Cambridge, MA 02140
Tel. 617-873-8950 Fax 617-873-8980
E-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. Text

should include all the elements listed below. Generally, The
CQM Journal follows the
editorial principles of The Chicago Manual of Style. We
strongly prefer submissions in
eletronic 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 if
you 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, short
communication, 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 of
the 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. Figures
should be composed to conform to one of two widths: 3 1/8 or 6
1/2 inches. The
maximum height for any figure is 9 3/8 inches. Text within
figures should not be
smaller than 5 points and lines not less than 1/4 point at the
figure’s final size. Figures
should labeled with the figure number underneath and title on
top. Be sure that the text
mentions each figure or table.
Please retain separate PICT or TIFF files of figures generated in
drawing programs and a
file with the text only for final submission.
Editorial Board
David Walden, Chairman
Center for Quality of Management

Stephen Graves
Professor & LFM Co-Director
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Ted Walls
Boston College
Robert Chapman Wood
Writer
Alan Graham
Consultant
Pugh-Roberts Associates
Shoji Shiba
Tokiwa University
Production Team
Eric Bergemann
Publisher
Kevin M. Young
Design & Production

Jay Howland
Copy Editing
CQM Officers
Ray Stata
Chairman
Gary Burchill
President
Thomas H. Lee
Treasurer and President Emeritus
William Wise
Clerk
CENTER FOR QUALITY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL

CENTER FORQUALITY OF MANAGEMENTJOURNAL© Copyright 19

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to CENTER FORQUALITY OF MANAGEMENTJOURNAL© Copyright 19

Similar to CENTER FORQUALITY OF MANAGEMENTJOURNAL© Copyright 19 (20)

More from MaximaSheffield592

More from MaximaSheffield592 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CENTER FORQUALITY OF MANAGEMENTJOURNAL© Copyright 19