품질분임조(QC) 및 6시그마 제도의 공존 - K공사 사례 - (Co-existence of Quality Circle and 6 Sigma Practices - A Case Study from the K Public Enterprise -)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국생산성학회
· 수록지 정보 : 생산성연구: 국제융합학술지 / 29권 / 2호 / 277 ~ 325페이지
· 저자명 : 이정현

초록

The purpose of this study is to examine how the two practices regarding product quality improvement, quality circle and 6 sigma, are operated in workplace level and how both practices affect each other. For the purpose, this study is based on the case study on the Korean K manufacturing public enterprise in which quality issue is at the heart of the business.
Quality Circle(QC) is a well-known quality control practice to enhance product quality which was designed by American scholars conceptually and which had been developed in Japan practically. The practice in Korean manufacturing firms has a long history since it was introduced from Japan in the late 1960s and early 1970s. QC emphasizes voluntary participation of workplace blue-collar employees and symbolic compensation for the participation. Thus QC is a practice for workplace level. Different from the QC practice, 6 sigma practice has a short history which was created in late 1980s in America and had been introduced mid or late 1990s and had been enacted in the 2000s in Korean firms.
The practice of 6 sigma is based on the CEO leadership and professional staffs in the position of quality control. Strong incentive system is another feature of 6 sigma.
It is revealed that the relationship between the two practices seems conflictive interaction, even though both practice share the same goal to enhance quality level and the similarity to adopt statistical tools. The case of K public enterprise shows that it was easier for employees to understand the tenets and statistical contents of 6 sigma, thanks to QC. In terms of incentive system, both practice are competitive in that there are limited incentive resources to be distributed among employee groups in the firm. In terms of industrial relation, trade unions may favor quality circle than 6 sigma because union members participate into QC than 6 sigma. In terms of CEO leadership in the firm, 6 sigma may be more attractive practice because it is the latest management fad and it may provide social legitimacy to CEO. It is not clear that the experience of QC operation in the K public firm from 1977 help 6 sigma practice to be well-rooted in the firm.
This study shows how it is difficult for the two quality practices to co-exist at the same time in a firm and how it is important to analyze the context around and to prepare carefully introduction of any quality-related practice when a similar practice is already operated.

영어초록

The purpose of this study is to examine how the two practices regarding product quality improvement, quality circle and 6 sigma, are operated in workplace level and how both practices affect each other. For the purpose, this study is based on the case study on the Korean K manufacturing public enterprise in which quality issue is at the heart of the business.
Quality Circle(QC) is a well-known quality control practice to enhance product quality which was designed by American scholars conceptually and which had been developed in Japan practically. The practice in Korean manufacturing firms has a long history since it was introduced from Japan in the late 1960s and early 1970s. QC emphasizes voluntary participation of workplace blue-collar employees and symbolic compensation for the participation. Thus QC is a practice for workplace level. Different from the QC practice, 6 sigma practice has a short history which was created in late 1980s in America and had been introduced mid or late 1990s and had been enacted in the 2000s in Korean firms.
The practice of 6 sigma is based on the CEO leadership and professional staffs in the position of quality control. Strong incentive system is another feature of 6 sigma.
It is revealed that the relationship between the two practices seems conflictive interaction, even though both practice share the same goal to enhance quality level and the similarity to adopt statistical tools. The case of K public enterprise shows that it was easier for employees to understand the tenets and statistical contents of 6 sigma, thanks to QC. In terms of incentive system, both practice are competitive in that there are limited incentive resources to be distributed among employee groups in the firm. In terms of industrial relation, trade unions may favor quality circle than 6 sigma because union members participate into QC than 6 sigma. In terms of CEO leadership in the firm, 6 sigma may be more attractive practice because it is the latest management fad and it may provide social legitimacy to CEO. It is not clear that the experience of QC operation in the K public firm from 1977 help 6 sigma practice to be well-rooted in the firm.
This study shows how it is difficult for the two quality practices to co-exist at the same time in a firm and how it is important to analyze the context around and to prepare carefully introduction of any quality-related practice when a similar practice is already operated.

참고자료

· 없음