Management by facts: The common ground between total quality management and evidence-based management

Abstract

It is widely agreed that, whenever possible, managers should base their decisions on scientific knowledge rather than gut feelings or intuitions. There are two main sources of scientific knowledge available to managers: external and internal. External knowledge comes from studies conducted outside the company and it is mainly generated by researchers at universities and business schools; a recent trend, under the name of evidence-based management, tries to potentiate it, despite the fact that as a source of scientific knowledge for management, it has two problems: it is difficult to generate and it is problematic to disseminate among managers. On the other hand, internal knowledge comes from studies conducted on the company's process on which decisions have to be made and by the very same managers that have to make them. The paper argues that this kind of knowledge is easier to generate and use and thus that it has to be potentiated as the main source for scientific decisions; the idea is not new as it is one of the pillars of total quality management and there are methods and techniques of proved efficiency to put it into practice.

Notes

The 2010 version of the EFQM model has changed the principle to just: managing by processes. However, its definition states: excellent organisations are managed through structured and strategically aligned processes using fact-based decision-making to create balanced and sustained results.

Juran's decision cycle and Deming's emphasis on data-based decision-making and variability reduction show clearly that internal EBMgt was at the heart of TQM from the very beginning.

It is taken from the quality movement where sometimes big Q is used to refer to manage quality in all company activities (TQM) and small q to manage the product/service quality.

To be distinguished from the comparison of KPIs that is also called benchmarking.

He is a Six Sigma Master Black Belt and is the author of several books on the subject.

Phil Rosenzweig claims (and we think he is right) that the specialization of university departments on one hand and journals on the other provokes a bias in the appreciation of the scientific results. A marketing professor reviewing a marketing article concluding that marketing is very important for a marketing magazine will almost surely arrive at the conclusion that the article is right and is good science!