MANAGEMENT

Quality circles at work in an electricalengineering/electronic environment

B.G. Dale, M.Sc. Ph.D., C.Eng., M.I.Mech.E., M.I.Prod.E.

Indexing terms: Engineering administration and management

Abstract: The paper presents an analysis of quality circle questionnaire surveys for organisations in the electri-cal engineering and electronic sector. The findings indicate that there are few major differences on the setting upand operation of circles in this sector when compared to other industries. The main differences centre around aseemingly greater awareness of the contribution of circles as part of the specific long-term company com-mitment to quality, and a larger number of white collar or staff circles in this industry than in any other studied.It is shown that the introduction of circles must be thorough, enthusiastic with positive commitment fromtop decision makers, and that rigid rules cannot be applied; the concept must be tailored to suit the philosophyand culture of the respective company. The issues relating to circle failure are also discussed, with the mainreasons for failure being labour turnover, redundancies and/or restructuring, lack of co-operation from middlemanagement and circle leaders lacking the time to organise meetings.

1 Introduction

Since 1982, the Department of Management Sciences atUMIST have been carrying out postal questionnairesurveys of the state of the art of circle programmes and theextent and reasons for quality circle failures in manufac-turing companies located in Britain. The full results of thiswork has been reported by References 1-4. The industriesof mechanical engineering and electrical engineering andelectronics have taken the lead in implementing circleprogrammes in the UK. They are the most highly rep-resented industries in the sample of 132 and 127 companiesin the respective state of the art and failure surveys,accounting for some 50% of all circle programme adop-tions.

In general, companies in the electrical engineering andelectronics sector have growth rates above the nationallevel and are using advanced technology to supply pro-ducts of a high innovative level in markets characterisedby reliability as the essential fitness for purpose criteria.This together with their relatively high population ofquality circles make the industry a favourable one forseparate study. There were 33 companies involving some454 circles in the state of the art survey and 34 companiesin the failure study. This paper discusses the survey find-ings on issues of implementation, operational and failure.

2 Implementation issues

2.1 Introduction of a circle programmeThe main source for companies learning about qualitycircles was by a seminar on the subject and from a journalor magazine article on circles.

Management should be quite clear from the outset as towhy they are introducing a quality circle programme andwhat they want from it, they should only do it if everybodywants it — it will not succeed if imposed. Quality circlesintroduced to specifically solve a quality, communicationsor industrial relations problem will only be short lived.The factory culture has got to be right as circles will notsurvive in a wilderness. At the outset management expecta-

Paper 4304 A (M4), received 9th July 1985

The author is with the Department of Management Sciences, UMIST, PO BoxManchester M60 1QD, United Kingdom

tions of circles are often outrageous, and, if transmitted tocircles, can be disastrous for their long-term well being.

When asked to list the four main reasons for intro-ducing quality circles, all but one company indicated 'toimprove quality'. The importance attached to quality as acore motivator for establishing the programme should notbe interpreted that the companies had a problem withquality, but rather as a recognition that quality is every-body's business and through circle activities getting morepeople seriously thinking about it. Experience with UKquality circle programmes indicates that circles will notwork on their own and work best in organisations who arecommitted to both total quality management or company-wide quality control and worker involvement and openmanagement. It is vital that the concepts of quality man-agement are fully understood and a cost-effective qualitysystem established, before an organisation launches qualitycircles. Without such an underpinning and backdrop, acircle programme will only have a transient effect and willnot flourish. Quality circles were introduced in Japanduring 1962, primarily to assist with improving productquality, but by then their quality revolution was already anumber of years old and were viewed as just one part oftheir total approach to quality, circles are often termed 'themissing corner of the quality page'. The success of the Jap-anese approach to quality is unquestionable and has beenthe main contribution to them capturing more than 50%of world trade in 31 different product groups [5].

Other main goals for introducing circles are improve-ments in communications (27 companies) and employeesjob satisfaction (26 companies), and the development ofemployees (25 companies). A relatively less important goalwas to make cost savings (11 companies). Companies whohave achieved a national reputation for the longevity oftheir programmes and good circle practice did not intro-duce circles for this reason, and have resisted the temp-tation to push their circles for quick results. They startedcircles with the longer-term aim of fostering attitudechanges by developing and involving their employees.Such changes have the potential for greater cost savingsthan the more readily measurable benefits. A goodexample of this is improved housekeeping. In areas wherecircles are in operation, housekeeping is invariably better,and this has a direct spin-off on both quality and alwaysimpresses potential customers. However, this is not to say

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 133, Pt. A, No. 1, JANUARY 1986 65

that such companies are not interested in cost savings,often large savings have resulted from circle projects, eventhough they were not identified as a primary goal forintroducing circles.

A consultant was used in 28 (85%) organisations toassist with the introduction of a circle programme, but in13 cases it was in conjunction with company personnel.The evidence suggests that high-tech companies, typifiedby the industry under study, are more relaxed in usingconsultants than other industries where the respectivefigure was 77%.

3 Management and trade union attitudes

In six companies management objected to the introductionof a circle programme, the main reason being scepticismthat circles were just the latest new management fad orcraze.

Fifteen of the companies were nonunionised, and, ofthose with trade-union representation, in only two organ-isations did such representatives raise initial objections.Before circles were introduced, briefings only took place insix organisations with local full-time union officials, butbriefings were given to shop stewards in all but three cases.

4 Setting up of quality circles

The literature stresses the need for establishing a steeringcommittee for the quality circle programme. In general, thecommittee is comprised of representatives (managementand union) from the main departments within an organis-ation. The steering committee sets operational guidelines,objectives and goals for circles, and gives continuity andstructure to the programme, ensuring that circles do notbecome too dependent on one person (e.g. the facilitator)for their survival. It is vital that the steering committee isactive and seen to have some real 'clout'. Twenty four(71%) companies had established such a committee; thispercentage was also the average across all industries.Collard and Dale [6] make the point that setting up asteering committee is very much dependent on the cultureand attitudes prevailing within an organisation, andwhether or not the opportunity exists for discussing circleprogramme progress between interested parties at othermeetings (e.g. joint works committee).

A favourite phase used in the circle literature is 'thesuccess of the circle programme is proportional to theability and enthusiasm of the facilitator'. Only one organis-ation did not appoint a facilitator and in twelve (36%)organisations the position was full-time. These figures indi-cate that companies in the industry under study are recog-nising the importance of the facilitators role. The qualitydepartment was the most popular area (12 organisations)from which the facilitator was recruited.

A pilot programme is regarded by many circle prota-gonists as a prerequisite for the successful full-scale launchof a circle programme. Such a programme enables anorganisation to gather data on factors such as: the likelybenefits, potential obstacles, whether circles are suitable forthe factory culture and reactions from all levels to circles.Fifteen (46%) organisations did not use a pilot pro-gramme, which is higher than the average figure of 38%for all industries.

5 Operating issues

5.1 Circle leadershipIn just over 50% of circles, the supervisor was the leaderand 31% were led by a manager reflecting the relatively

large number of white-collar circles (e.g. design,purchasing) in this type of industry. Anybody can lead acircle, but what usually happens in the first place is asupervisor from the area from which the circles is formedassumes the leadership role. After the circle has becomeestablished, a member of the circle is identified to be theirdeputy taking over the leadership role as necessary, and,after they have acquired experience and been trained inleadership skills, eventually taking over the circle leadersrole. This person would probably emerge as the naturalleader of the circle. Experience with UK programmes indi-cates that the circle will have a better chance of success ifthe supervisor is the leader at the outset. They have moreexperience in issues such as chairmanship, knowledge andunderstanding of the protocol and workings of the organ-isation, and approaching people for data. People below thelevel of the supervisor more often than not have not gotthese skills and, if thrust into the leadership role too earlyin the circle's life, could cause premature failure of thecircle. Another difficulty encountered when a leader is notthe natural supervisor is they have to ask the supervisorfor permission to hold a circle meeting. I found [2] in ananalysis of data from 40 companies over an interval of 12months that there was a clear trend for circle leadershippassing from the supervisor to shopfloor workers.

5.2 Circle projectsA quality circle should have complete freedom to selecttheir own projects, and this is reflected by the fact that94% of projects are selected by circle members. Onerespondent company who has established a national repu-tation for its good circle practice have been operatingcircles for over 5 years, and a number of their well estab-lished circles welcome suggestions for circle projects frommanagement. The members invite the manager into thecircle at the problem selection phase, who is requested todescribe current problems in the department and outlinewhat are his priorities. The circle still maintains the powerto select the problem it is going to work on.

Quality circles undertake a wide range of activitieswhich can be grouped into 14 areas, of which the mostpopular issues dealt with are:

(i) quality — 29.7% of projects undertaken(ii) cost reduction — 21.3% of projects undertaken(iii) wastage — 7.6% of projects undertaken(iv) productivity improvement — 6.8% of projects

undertaken(v) production processes — 6.7% of projects under-

taken.

These top three activities are also the same for the com-bined results of all industries, although in the one understudy there is a greater concentration of effort on qualityand cost reduction projects. Individual circles often com-mence their activities on projects such as work layout andthe working environment, but there is an inevitable drift totaking up projects associated with product quality. A suc-cessful circle is analagous to an organisation with acompany-wide approach to quality; everything it does isrelated to quality whether it be the product or the qualityof working life.

Examining the areas of activities which quality circlesshould not undertake, the following common factorsemerge:

(a) pay, status, terms and conditions of employment(b) career paths of individuals and private matters(c) where existing trade-union rights are established,

union agreements must not get wrapped in quality circles.

66 IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 133, Pt. A, No. 1, JANUARY 1986

5.3 Frequency and duration of circle meetingsThe most popular meeting frequency is once a week, forone hour in company time. The frequency and duration ofcircle meetings should be decided by circle members, andkept flexible to cater for special circumstances. Forexample, in one of the respondent companies, a sales circle,because of the extreme locations from which its membersare drawn, meets every 6 weeks for around 4 hours. Whencircles meet outside of normal working hours, if they arepaid, it is usually at overtime rates. Some respondents saidthey normally provided refreshments for the circle whenengaged in such out-of-work activities.

5.4 Areas in which circles operateThe three most popular blue-collar and white-collar areasin which quality circles have been introduced are:

manufacturing 162 circlesassembly 143 circlesproduction engineering/technical/laboratory 31 circlesgeneral office 30 circlesdata processing 21 circlestest 19 circles

The industry under study has a higher population ofwhite-collar circles than any other. Twenty-three com-panies have introduced circles in such areas and only fourbelieved there were major differences between circles inwhite-collar areas and those in blue-collar or 'shopfloor'areas. The reasons given relate to (i) a lack of suitable pro-jects, (ii) circles are nonclassical; formed of employees fromdifferent departments or sections, professions and levels inthe organisation hierarchy which often means that theproject selected for study is not common to all the circlemembers, (iii) white-collar circles are less easy to convincethan those in blue-collar areas that they have the necessary'clout' to make changes, (iv) they are prone to worry aboutreprisals from middle managers for recommendations putforward, and (v) the final point refers to some respondentsfeeling that white-collar circles had more difficulty inorganising data collection. Research is currently pro-ceeding at UMIST to investigate what, if any, are themajor differences in the operating characteristics of blue-and white-collar circles.

6 Obstacles and benefits

Table 1 highlights the obstacles experienced in the intro-duction and operation of a quality circle programme, theranking of obstacles is virtually identical to the pictureacross all industries. Inspection of the Table reveals that a

Table 1 : Obstacles in the introduction and operation ofquality circles

Type of obstacle

Over ambitious projectsSuspicionLack of support from managementDelay by management in responding tocircle recommendationsQuality circles spread over too widea work areaTiming of the introduction of qualitycirclesClosed style of managementUnilateral action of circle membersInadequate training of circle leadersand membersNo recognition

Percentage ofprogrammesexperiencingthe obstacle

16.714.814.8

13.9

11.1

7.46.55.6

4.64.6

number of obstacles are of management's making. Experi-ence suggests that top management rarely impede circleactivities, their biggest failing is a lack of visible supportoutside of circle presentations. Active support from topmanagement is vital and helps to encourage a more posi-tive attitude from doubtful middle managers, such mana-gers need convincing that quality circle work is just asimportant as other types of activity. It is middle managerswho create the barriers or obstacles outlined in Table 1.When their attitudes to circles are described they are oftenclassed as the 'frozen layer'. Ralpha Barra [7] speaking atthe third national conference of the National Society ofQuality Circles described middle managers in terms ofcircles as 'the mess in the middle'. Reference 6 describes insome detail the reasons for some middle managers contin-uing to resist quality circles. Whatever the reasons, middlemanagers need to be enlightened and given theopportunity to contribute to the quality circle activitieswithin an organisation.

The top four benefits of circles to both members and thecompany are illustrated in Table 2. The primary purpose

Table 2: The main benefits of quality circles

a Circle members

Type of benefit

Better teamwork within the departmentAn opportunity to become involvedIncreased job satisfactionTo relieve frustration by ensuring thatsomething is done to cure a bad situation

b Company

Type of benefit

Percentage of programmesexperiencing the benefit

14.812.812.3

10.3

Percentage of programmesexperiencing the benefit

Increased involvement of employees 25.0Improvement of communications betweenshopfloor and management 21.4Improvement of quality and productivity 20.6Reduction in barriers between managementand the shop floor 12.2

of circles is to uncover problems which would otherwisehave gone unnoticed; consequently members become moreinvolved with the business and feel they have some realinfluence over what goes on in their work area. Involve-ment in problem solving gives satisfaction to circlemembers and is a welcome diversion for a short period oftime each week, from a mundane and often boring job.Benefits such as increased understanding of other people'sjobs, breaking down interdepartmental barriers, buildingup better departmental working relationships etc. all spinoff from having a more involved and interested workforce.

Just over 50% of organisations measured the benefits,this was carried out by means of quality and productivitysavings and/or company-wide attitude surveys. The esti-mated benefit cost ratio was 2/3:1. If an organisation iskeen to measure the cost effectiveness of circle activities, itis recommended that they carry out a regular audit ofchanges put forward by circles, to ensure that papersavings are converted into a bottom-line monetary figure.

Eight (24%) organisations believed that the benefits ofcircles would decline as the novelty aspect wore off, thiswas a slightly more pessimistic view than that taken acrossall industrial sectors where the respective figure was 19%.The two main reasons for this relate to a decrease in theavailability of suitable circle projects and a lack of patiencefrom both the circle and management, with each of themwanting to see improvements made on a regular basis,and, when it takes time for things to happen, then this lackof action affects the benefits. Management should take the

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 133, Pt. A, No. 1, JANUARY 1986 67

lead here and not expect a fast return on investment (onehour per week is not much time), the circle should be giventime to develop.

7 Failure issues

The UMIST quality circle failure research study first com-menced in 1983 by Hay ward [8], who identified the fol-lowing three categories of failure:

(a) The failure to implement a quality circle programmeafter carrying out an initial feasibility study and/or under-taking some of the tasks associated with implementation

(b) The failure of the complete quality circle programme(c) The failure of individual circles but the circle pro-

gramme is still operational.Data is available from 34 companies in this industrialsector who have experienced failure in one of these cate-gories. Two companies responded to say they have a suc-cessful programme, and have experienced no failure ofindividual circles.

7.1 Failure to implementFive organisations had given consideration to and/ortaken steps towards implementing a programme, but failedto do so. One of these commented that the circle concepthad not been rejected and was still being considered, butrather 'put on ice' due to other pressing matters facingthem at the time. All five propose to consider the possi-bility of implementing a circle programme sometime in thefuture.

Inhouse presentations by consultants was the favouritemethod (3 organisations) for explaining to the Board andsenior management the objectives and philosophy ofquality circles. All the organisations carried out briefingsand discussions with middle management, indicating thatthey are aware of problems with this level of managementand were taking steps to involve them from the outset. TheTUC guidelines [9] on circles stresses the importance ofconsulting with trade-union representatives before takingsteps towards introducing a circle programme. Althoughfour of the organisations were unionised, only two of themundertook such briefings with shop stewards. Trade-unionrepresentatives react when they feel they are being pushedto one side, and there is a need to convince shop stewardsin briefings on circles that they are not an exercise inpower. In addition to the three organisations bringing in aconsultant for advice and assistance, two companies hadappointed a facilitator and given training to potentialcircle leaders. Failure to implement a programme aftertaking such steps can be viewed as a waste of time andresources and is often a cause of disappointment to thoseinvolved.

The failure to implement a quality circle programmecan be attributed to:

(a) Trade-union representatives opposing introduction;2 organisations:

Primary reasons— undermines the role of shop stewards— due to an outstanding pay dispute or other grievanceSecondary reasons— circles challenge existing trade-union power, machin-

ery and practices— scepticism about the merits of circles being the latest

in a series of vogue management techniques(b) Circles rejected by senior mangement; 2 organis-

ations. In both organisations it was a combination offactors. For example in one of the companies:

(i) difficulties were experienced in appointing key per-sonnel

(ii) quality circle training was delayed(iii) undermanning during the summer months caused a

loss of momentum in introducing the circle programme.

7.2 Circle programme failureFive organisations had experienced complete failure oftheir circle programme. The programme lasted for between12 to 18 months, and the number of circles in each pro-gramme varied between 1 and 16. In three companies theprogramme failed after a full-scale launch, and all but oneundertook a pilot programme.

Table 3 illustrates the main aspects included in therespondents circle programme, the most serious omissionbeing the failure to appoint a facilitator in 2 organisations.

Table 3: Aspects included in quality circle programmes

Circle programme aspect

Consultant employed toassist implementationPilot programme utilisedFacilitator appointedSteering committee formedTraining given to thefacilitatorTraining given to circleleadersTraining given to circlemembersSolutions presented totop managementResults publicised withinthe companyVoluntary participation

Number of organisationswhere the programmehas failed/V = 5

2_32

3

5

5

4

55

Number oforganisationsexperiencingindividualcirclefailures butwhose programmeis stilloperational/V = 24

12172416

21

24

24

21

2023

Table 4: The main reasons why companies suspended theirquality circle programme

Reason Weighting(Companieswere askedto give notmore than4 reasonsfor suspension.The mostimportantreason wasgiven aweighting of4, the seconda weightingof 3 and so on.)

Management saw little advantage in continuing tooperate a programme 15Economic situation caused redundancies and/orcompany restructuring 15Management support collapsed after the primemotivator(s) left the company 4A lack of commitment from the Board of Directors 4Individual circles met with varying problems/obstacles, causing all, or most, circles toeventually break down 3

Table 4 shows the reasons for programme failure. Themost common reason in this small sample of five com-panies was the economic situation causing redundanciesand/or company restructuring. Company reorganisation

68 IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 133, Pt. A, No. 1, JANUARY 1986

and especially the spectre of redundancy makes any plansopen to doubt, and the resulting uncertainty means thatcircle members are often unwilling to meet, as they feelthat even if they started a project they might not get thechance to complete it, and, although a satisfactory solutioncould be reached, it would not get implemented if otherchanges were going on. An added complication of anyreorganisation is the splitting up of existing work groupsand the transfer of employees. Thus, in such a situation,very little can be done to maintain quality circles.

The other main reason for suspending the programmewas management believing that little or no advantagewould accrue from them continuing with circles. Otherreasons ranked of less importance related to a lack ofmiddle-management support. Experience with qualitycircles indicates that results take time, and managementmust be patient and wait for ideas to come to fruition.Senior management must be clear about this from theoutset, otherwise the programme is doomed. If a pro-gramme is to be successful, quality circles must become anaccepted way of working within an organisation. For thisto occur, there must be a minimum of resistance and onlyconstructive criticism, which can only be achieved byunderstanding overtime.

Three of the organisations are proposing to reintroducea programme in the future, one was unsure, and, in theremaining company, the answer was an emphatic no. Thefollowing gleaned from respondents are some commonguidelines on how organisations are proposing to relaunchtheir respective programmes:

(a) Wait for an improved economic climate{b) Analyse the effects of organisation changes, while

preparing for a relaunch(c) Determine how many ex-circle leaders and members

are still employed within the organisation, and gauge theirwillingness to participate in circles

(d) Ensure that top management communicate effec-tively their commitment to resumption of the programme

(e) Check the aspects to be included in the circle pro-gramme against the circle programme guidelines of theNSQC [10]

(/) Restate the company policy on quality circles(g) Give assurances that all proposals will be seriously

considered. Management must develop a reputation foraccepting the findings of quality circles

(h) Guarantee circle meeting times(i) Ensure that the steering committee has authority and

is really active(/) Ensure that circle members will get the opportunity

to meet and discuss their experiences, not only with eachother inside the company but at outside events

(k) Confirm that retraining will be carried out.

7.3 Failure of individual circlesIn 24 organisations a programme was still in operation,but they had each experienced the failure of individualcircles. At the time of the respective surveys, the pro-grammes had been in existence for between 1 to 4 yearswith an average of around 2.5 years.

A total of 161 individual failures were reported com-pared with 490 circles still in operation. Thus, 24.7% of allcircles implemented have failed. The failure rate percompany ranged from 4.5% to 75%, with an average of28.2%. The respective failure rates taken across allindustries are 25.1% and 31.6%. The average life of afailed circle is 9.7 months, compared to 9.4 months for allindustries, and 94.8% of failed circles collapsed within thefirst 18 months.

Companies were asked to identify no more than fourmain reasons for each individual circle failure, and the topten reasons are shown in Table 5, this is a similar ranking

Table 5: Top ten reasons for individual circle failure

Reason for failure

Labour turnover (transfers, promotions.retirements etc.)Redundancies and/or restructuring causedby the economic situationLack of co-operation from middle managementCircle leader lacked time to organisemeetingsLack of co-operation from first-linesupervisionCircle members disillusioned with the circlephilosophyCircles ran out of projects to tackleDelay in responding to circle recommendationsLack of recognitionOver-ambitious projects tackled

Circles

51

4636

32

25

2117151411

Companies

15

1313

10

5

87555

to the results achieved across all the industrial sectors. Inthis type of industry, circle failures are almost inevitabledue to the frequent restructuring of positions andresponsibilities resulting from the fast moving technologyand rapid growth.

Only one organisation felt that circle failures wereoccurring at a rate which would lead to the eventualfailure of the complete programme. All but three com-panies propose to revive circles in the work areas wherethey have failed. The following are the common strands ofthought on how organisations were proposing to go aboutthis task:

(a) Investigate the reasons behind failure and correctthem if possible

(b) Rebrief the areas in which it is proposed to relaunchcircles; presentations from other circles can assist in thismatter

(c) Explain what actions have been taken to resolve theproblems that caused circles to fail

(d) Ensure more active and visible senior- and middle-management support

(e) Establish a continual dialogue with ex-circle leadersand members; experience suggests that encouraging suchpeople to take part in future circle activities is more fruitfulthan approaching people less familiar with the circleconcept

(/) Publicise on a continuous basis circle benefits andareas of investigation.

8 Concluding remarks

The characteristics of quality circles in electrical/electronicorganisations show few major differences to those in otherindustries. The results suggest that such organisations aremore conscious of the contribution which circles can maketo quality than those in other industrial sectors. Qualitycircles are not an island, and work best in organisationswhere quality is the number one priority and circles areseen as an integral part of an overall quality programme.One might speculate that the slightly lower failure ratesand longer life prior to failure appear to support thispremise.

The industry has a greater preponderance of circles inwhite-collar or staff areas than in other industries. Pre-vious research at UMIST has indicated that such circlesare more difficult to operate and sustain than those inblue-collar or shopfioor areas, indicating perhaps an areato be monitored. Current research at UMIST is testing outthis hypothesis.

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 133, Pi. A, No. 1, JANUARY 1986 69

There is little doubt from analysis of the surveyresponses that the greatest single aspect in getting a circleprogramme started is an unequivocal belief in circles, andvisible support and direction from top decision makers inthe company. As with the general acceptance of any newidea, total commitment is vital. Circles require a consider-able amount of time and effort to operate on the part ofmanagement and they should be aware of this from theoutset. Such support and commitment from the top canthen be cascaded down to all levels in the organisationhierarchy. The responses also indicated that, while the wellaccepted circle rules, for example NSQC [10] circle pro-gramme guidelines, should be followed, companies havingaccepted the philosophy should tailor it to fit their ownfactory culture. At all costs, the temptation to implantsomeone else's system should be avoided.

Two divergent views emerged on circle failure. Oneopinion expressed was that circles only have a limited lifeand should be allowed to fade and die; nothing can bedone to prevent failure. While others believed that everyeffort should be made to sustain circles which are floun-dering. Perhaps a more realistic stance is somewherebetween the two. The circle programme facilitator shouldmonitor, on a continuous basis, the mood of respectivecircles and be in a position to take a decision, along withthe circle members, on whether to apply corrective actionto sustain it, grant a rest period or allow the circle to die.The circle should also be trained on how to spot problemslikely to lead to premature failure and guidelines providedon how to overcome problems encountered. A goodexample of such guides are those produced by Barlow [11]at Mullard.

There are a number of danger points in the life of acircle when it is likely to run out of steam, and the facili-tator should be alert to them. For example:

(i) when a project has just been completed(ii) during the early stages when they need a lot of

support and assistance(iii) at particular points in the problem solving process

when deciding on the next steps(iv) at the 18 month barrier.

More often than not, if a circle passes through these painbarriers and becomes a 'veteran', it will become self gener-ating with the confidence to overcome most obstacles.What constitutes a circle failure or success is open to ques-tion and a number of the issues are discussed in Reference12.

All the evidence points to quality circles having passedfrom this year's nostrum to becoming an established partof British manufacturing working practice.

9 Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Theresa Ball, Mark Frazerand Selwyn Hayward for allowing their questionnairesurvey results to be used in this paper.

10 References

1 DALE, B.G., and BALL, T.S.: 'A study of quality circles in UKmanufacturing organisations'. Occasional paper 8306, Department ofManagement Sciences, UMIST, 1983

2 DALE, B.G.: 'Quality circles in UK manufacturing industry — a stateof the art picture and respective trends'. Occasional paper 8402,Department of Management Sciences, UMIST, 1984

3 DALE, B.G., and HAYWARD, S.G.: 'A study of quality circle fail-ures'. Occasional paper 8403, Department of Management Sciences,UMIST, 1984

4 FRAZER, V.C.M., and DALE, B.G.: 'Quality circle failures — anupdate'. Occasional paper 8501, Department of Management Sci-ences, UMIST, 1985

5 'Pacific Basin Study Mission'. Department of Trade and Industry,London, 1985

6 COLLARD, R., and DALE, B.G.: 'Personnel management in Britain'(Basil Blackwell, 1986), Chap. 16

7 BARRA, R.: 'Putting quality circles to work' (McGraw Hill, 1983)8 HAYWARD, S.G.: 'An investigation as to why quality circles fail'.

M.Sc. Dissertation, Department of Management Sciences, UMIST,1983

9 'Quality Circles'. Trades Union Congress Circular 311, Trades UnionCongress, 1981

10 'Circle programme guidelines'. National Society of Quality Circles,London,1984

11 BARLOW, E.: 'A management guide to circles and circle healthguide' (Mullard Hazel Grove, 1983)

12 DALE, B.G., and LEES, J.: 'Factors which influence the success ofquality circle programmes in the United Kingdom', Int. J. Oper. &Prod. Manage., 1985, 5, (4), pp. 43-54

70 IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 133, Pt. A, No. I, JANUARY 1986