How quality control circlesenhance work safety: a case study

Salaheldin I. Salaheldin and Mohamed ZainDepartment of Management and Marketing, College of Business and Economics,

University of Qatar, Doha, Qatar

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore how quality control circles (QCCs) enhance worksafety in a manufacturing firm in a developing country environment of the Middle East.

Design/methodology/approach – This paper is an exploratory investigation into the role of QCCsin enhancing work safety based on a case study method. This includes: a comprehensive scrutiny ofthe relevant literature; and an analysis of a case study of QCCs implementation for enhancing worksafety in Direct Reduction Furnace Zone at Qasco, a steel mill in the State of Qatar.

Findings – At the outset, the QCC team identified three specific targets for them to achieve in order toensure a safe work environment for its workers. After having identified the causes of the problems, theteam members were able to analyze the problems, generate alternative solutions, and eventuallyimplement the best solutions. Consequently, the members were able to achieve all their targets.

Research limitations/implications – There is a need to empirically test and refine the criticalfactors affecting the successful implementation of QCCs and to explore the most important barriersthat might impede the success of their implementation.

Practical implications – The findings of this study can be considered as a roadmap for successfulimplementation of QCCs in all the subsidiaries of Industries Qatar, the parent company of Qasco, andperhaps in all other organizations in the different sectors and industries but with a similar workingenvironment to that of Qasco.

Originality/value – Generally, the results of this research should enhance the current practices ofQCCs implementation, which mostly follow narrowly-focused approaches. In essence, the results ofthis research will help management in making crucial decisions and in resource allocations that arerequired to make the QCCs implementation a success.

Keywords Performance measures, Quality control, Quality circles, Safety, Qatar

Paper type Case study

IntroductionQuality control circles (QCCs) were defined by Ishikawa (1985) as “small group ofworkers, from the same work place, who meet together on a regular, voluntary basis toperform quality control activities and engage in self and mutual development”. A QCCis a team of up to 12 people who usually work together and who meet voluntarily on aregular basis “to identify, investigate, analyze and solve their work-related problems”(Department of Trade and Industry (UK), 1992, in Millson and Kirk-Smith, 1996). Thesepeople are trained to structure problem identification, evaluation, solution andpresentation stages and to use associated techniques such as Ishikawa’s seven tools –

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0954-478X.htm

The authors would like to thank the Qasco’s QCC members at the Direct Reduction Plant,particularly Eng. Ahmed Sabt (Manager of the Engineering Department), Eng. Adil Al-husseini(Manager of the Technical Department), and Eng. Wakeel Ahmed, also from the TechnicalDepartment, for their valuable support in order for them to complete with this research paper.

Quality controlcircles

229

The TQM MagazineVol. 19 No. 3, 2007

pp. 229-244q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0954-478XDOI 10.1108/09544780710745658

process flowcharting, histograms, check sheets, Pareto analysis, cause and effectdiagrams and control charts (Ishikawa, 1976).

The main purpose of the regular meetings among the team members is to achievecustomer (internal and external) satisfaction through continuous improvement andteamwork (Goh, 2000). To achieve this result it is important for the members to have agood understanding of the role of customer and the involvement and commitment ofemployees throughout the organization (Besterfield, 1994). In other words, to besuccessful the initiative requires intense focus on customers and on business processes,a strong spirit of continuous improvement, coordinated teamwork, and proactiveemployee participation (Harris, 1995).

Moreover, QCC represent groups of employees who meet on a regular basis todiscuss work related problems and provide solutions to them. These groups are calleda variety of names including employee-involvement teams, problem-solving groupsand process-improvement teams (Olberding, 1998). In order for these groups to besuccessful, the approach used must be compatible with the firm’s managementphilosophy on how to relate to employees. The groups also depend on managementbeing supportive and involved (French, 1998). An example of the initiative to involveemployees is seen at the Ford Motor Company. Ford claims that QCC were successfulin improving product quality and reducing production costs as well as absenteeism(French, 1998).

More importantly, the literature review reveals that workers safety is one of themost basic issues in job design. Therefore, worker safety problems impede theeffectiveness of operations within manufacturing firms (Slack et al., 2003; Stevenson,2005).

However, an extensive literature review revealed that there has not been anyreported cases of the role of QCCs in enhancing work safety within manufacturingfirms. Accordingly, this paper attempts to highlight how a major steel manufacturingfirm in Qatar (Qasco) has undergone a successful journey in using QCCs to enhancework safety in its operations.

The case study begins with the importance of this paper. Next, the case presents aliterature review of the implementation of QCC within organizations. Following this,the case describes the role of QCC in eliminating unsafe situation in the DirectReduction plant of Qasco and evaluates its role towards that aim. Finally, the casestudy closes with some concluding remarks.

Literature reviewA considerable number of literature on QCCs has developed over the past three decadessince the first time the program was used in Japan in 1962, in the USA by Lockheed in1974, and in the UK by Rolls-Royce in 1978 (Boaden and Dale, 1993). Nowadays, thereare many applications of the program in both manufacturing (for, e.g. see Dale, 1984;Banas, 1988; Collard and Dale, 1989; and Pinnington and Hammersley, 1997) andservice (e.g., see Berry et al., 1989; Smith and Lewis, 1989; and Millson and Kirk-Smith,1996) industries.

According to Piczak (1988), among the potential advantages of QCCs include: theyinvolve and develop employees, and can directly address problems in areas such asquality, productivity, efficiency, costs, communication, absenteeism, staff turnover andgrievances as well as competition. Furthermore, the techniques also result in other

TQM19,3

230

benefits including helping: employees learn to work towards a common goal withpeople at different organizational levels and from different parts of the organization,thus reducing communication barriers between managers and staff; increase in jobsatisfaction and decrease in frustration among them; increase the members’ skill levels;and increase their control over their own environment (Piczak, 1988).

Past researches have found both successes as well as failures with the use of QCCsby organizations. For example, research by Lee and Lam (1997) on the use of QCCs byKowloon-Canton Railway Corporation has found that the use of QCCs together with theISO 9001 quality system has resulted in significant increase in the reliability of theelectric passenger train service while at the same time it resulted in a decrease in themaintenance costs. Also, according to Johns and Chesterton (1994), ICL of UK wassaved from bankruptcy because of the introduction and implementation of a system ofQCCs throughout the manufacturing division in 1983. However, in another example, anempirical study of the use of QCCs within Land-Rover in the UK by Pinnington andHammersley (1997) did not produce positive results, where after nine years ofoperations, Land-Rover’s QCC program was terminated in early 1997. The researchersargue that the program was a failure because the management of the company did notwant to experiment further with a participative approach to management.Nevertheless, Hill (1995) and Hill (1996) claim that the failure of many British andWestern QCC programs to achieve what was expected of them during the 1980s weredue to the setting of inappropriate objectives and faulty implementation and not due totheir lack of intrinsic merits.

Moreover, the literature review reveals that most organizations operate in anenvironment of risk (such as manufacturing companies) and the key to business successis to reduce this risk to an acceptable or tolerable level (Fuller and Vassie, 2001).

Worker safety is one of the most important sources of risk. Workers cannot beeffectively motivated if they feel they are working in a dangerous environment(Stevenson, 2005). More importantly, work safety is one of the criteria that is used tojudge a good layout within manufacturing firms (Slack et al., 2003).

An effective program of safety control requires the adoption, use and pervadingsafety culture within organizations (Back and Woolfson, 1999). Also, workers must betrained in proper procedures and attitudes, and they can certainly contribute to areduction in hazards by pointing out if hazards exist in the workplace to themanagement (Slack et al., 2003).

One of the effective training tools that can be implemented to help workersovercome any problems they might face them in their work environment is QCCs.Accordingly, this case study attempts to demonstrate that a movement towards alower level of unsafe work is accelerated by the adoption of one of the most importantcontinuous improvement initiatives or programs, such as QCCs.

MethodologyAs the nature of this research problem is exploratory and descriptive, and the contextis organizational, a case study research design was selected as in Pinnington andHammersley (1997), Goh (2000), and Canel and Kadipasaoglu (2002).

Data for this case study was collected via personal interviews with the QCCmembers of the Direct Reduction Plant of Qasco, the QC facilitator, the QC leader, fivemanagers from various levels, three supervisors, and two technicians during the

Quality controlcircles

231

months of May and June of 2005. Data was also gathered from secondary sources suchas the company’s internal publications and newsletters as well as the Internet.

Qasco profileQatar Steel Company (Qasco) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Industries Qatar (aQatari shareholding company) is the first integrated steel plant in the whole ArabianGulf. The company was established on 14 December 1974, but steel production at theplant started only in 1978. The mill is located in Mesaieed Industrial City, 45 kilometerssouth of Doha, the capital of Qatar.

The integrated plant consists primarily of four units: Direct Reduction, Electric ArcFurnace, Continuous Casting, and Rolling Mill. Other auxiliaries include the MaterialReceiving/Handling, Main Power Substation, Quality Control Centre, MaintenanceShops, and other facilities as sea/fresh water, compressed air, natural gas and a clinic.The whole plant including its administrative offices occupies a land area of707,000 sq.m. Adjacent to the land is a further land area of 375,000 sq.m reserved forfuture development and expansion of the plant.

With its latest production technology and equipment, the plant generates an annualproduction of 1.2 million tons of molten steel and 740,000 tons of rolled iron per year.The plant employed a total workforce of approximately 1,250 employees comprising 12different nationalities. With the exception of the office staff, the mill is run on a 3-shiftsystem. Since the start of its first production, the company has undergone rapid growthand expansion and has achieved many milestones, certifications and awards includingJIS Mark and ISO 9002 certifications.

Over the years, Qasco has gained a reputation as a manufacturer of first classproducts. Its product quality is tailored in accordance with international standards. Forexample, in addition to getting ISO 9002 certification in 1992, the product andmanagement quality of the company has been endorsed by the UK-based CertificateAuthority for Reinforcing Steels (CARES), an authority which is accredited by theUnited Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) to ISO Guide 65 (product certification)and ISO Guide 62 (quality management systems certification using ISO 9001 (www.qasco.com.qa/, 14 October 2006).

The product is supported by an effective and reliable delivery and after salesservice. Its proximity to other GCC countries enables it to supply a sizeable portion ofthe regions’ requirements, as well as Qatar’s own domestic need.

The case studyHazardous conditions in Qasco’s direct reduction plantDirect Reduction plant is inevitably vital in the production cycle of Qasco as it controlsthe cost of production and the profitability of the company. The plant produces spongeiron used by the electric arc furnace for making molten steel. Natural gas and oxidepellets are its feed stocks and the process is called the Midrex process. There are threemain facilities in the plant:

(1) Material handling (MH) system which supplies oxide pellets to shaft furnaceand sponge iron to the Melting shop.

(2) Reformer which produces reformed gas used by the Reduction Furnace.

(3) Reduction furnace which reduces the oxide pellets to sponge iron.

TQM19,3

232

The material handling and direct reduction maintenance sections of the plant maintaineach static and rotating equipment of the plant in order to ensure its maximumutilization. The responsibility of the maintenance section is also to maintain a smoothtrouble free plant operations and to upgrade and develop the equipment in order toenhance the productivity at reduced production costs (see Figure 1).

In accordance with the plant layout all equipments in the plant are classified intofour zones: material handling system; process system; shaft furnace; and dustcollection system.

To assure maximum plant availability, the plant places high emphasis on the safetyof the equipment in order to safe guard the workers. To achieve this objective, duringthe one-year period from January to December 2004, the QCC team studied all the fourzones in order to determine which specific operations are hazardous to the workerswhile doing the jobs. From the study, the breakdown of the percentages of thehazardous jobs carried out by the workers in all the four zones is shown in Figure 2.

From the pie chart it reveals that most (60 per cent) of the unscheduled jobs werehazardous during execution of DR shaft furnace. The QCC members further analyzedthe unscheduled jobs and execution difficulties using a Pareto graph over the one yearperiod. The results obtained are shown in Figure 3.

After having acknowledged the unsafe conditions in the DR shaft furnace and inorder to tackle them successfully, the QCC team selected a theme for their QCCprogram as “To enhance the working safety in DR furnace zone”. Basically, the mainreasons for selecting the theme were due to:

. unsafe working environment at the plant;

. a possibility of human and equipment accident could occur; and

Figure 1.Maintenance strategy

Figure 2.Percentages of the

hazardous jobs

Quality controlcircles

233

. delays in job execution could occur. In order to plan and execute the QCCactivities, the QCC schedule (see Figure 4) was prepared by the team.

Problem analysisUsing a Cause and Effect or Fishbone diagram (Figure 5) the QCC members were ableto analyze the various problems.

Specific problems faced by the QCC team:

(1) TGS and CZS “U”-Seal. The TGS and CZS “U” Seal is a barometric seal whichblocks the system gases from escaping, seals the scrubber and maintains thesystem pressure. The scrubber “U” seal level was maintained by a watercolumn. The continuous presence of carbon monoxide (CO) gas at the vent areaand its direct contact with water is very dangerous since the gas is highlyflammable and explosive. Furthermore, several repair works such as weldingand gas cutting jobs carried out in the furnace during the plant operations couldcause sparks to get into the vent mouth which could cause fire. This could evenlead to plant stoppage. During the one year period, there were two instances offire accidents occurred at the plant.

(2) DR furnace hatches. All the top and bottom hatches of the DR furnace have to beopened in order to carry out any sort of repair activities. The first priority forthe workers to do is to open the top hatch cover in order to facilitate quick andsudden cooling of the furnace as the tendency of the hot gas flow is alwaystowards the top. The top hatch is bigger in size (about 1.5 m in diameter and300 mm in thickness) and weighs approximate 500 kg. Opening and pulling outof this hatch cover is very difficult and unsafe due to the high temperature and

Figure 3.Percentages of hazardousjobs

TQM19,3

234

Figure 4.The QCC schedule

Quality controlcircles

235

Figure 5.Cause and effect diagram

TQM19,3

236

the jamming of the furnace refractory shell. After pulling it out, the hatch coverneeds to be shifted using chain blocks to a nearby and convenient location,away from the workers walkway.

(3) Furnace top seal cone and distribution legs. In an effort to increase productivity,lime coating of the oxide pellets was introduced. Due to this, dust built-up at thefurnace top seal cone and distribution legs increased. The dust later becameharden causing the area to diminish in size and interrupting the material flowresulting in lowering of quality and production loss. To overcome the problem,a temporary platform with scaffolding material was erected at the top seal conearea for the purpose of hammering and unplugging the top seal cone with aswinging hammer. The hammer is located at about 3 m height from the existingfloor. However, while hammering the top seal with great force the platformstarted to shake and causing it to be imbalance and increasing the chances of anaccident to occur.

A summary of the problems encountered by the QCC members and their resultingcountermeasures is shown in Table I. To eliminate these problems through the QCCprinciple of Plan – Do – Check – Act, the team fixed their target as:

. ensuring safe working environment;

. assuring human and equipment safety; and

. ensuring smooth execution of jobs.

Problems before QCC Reason Countermeasure Remarks

Problem 1: Unsafe point at TGS and CZS “U” seal vent pipeTGS and CZS U sealvent pipe caught firedue to presence of COwhile welding and gascutting on furnace topfloor

Sparks flying from thework area and gettinginto the U-seal vent

Work area covered bytarpaulin and heatresistant non-asbestoscloth

1. Proper sealing of thearea was notpossible. So the jobwas risky

Problem 2: Unsafe point during opening and transferring of Furnace top hatchFurnace top hatch coverextraction andtransferring was adifficult and tiresomeactivity

Bigger in size, heavyand heat radiation,congested area

Several chain blockswere provided, wedgingand manually pushingby crow bar, andmanual coolerproviding

1. Wedging andhammering causeddamage to the hatchrefractory

2. Cover extraction andtransferring weredifficult and unsafe

3. More manpowerrequired

Problem 3: Unsafe point during opening and transferring of the furnace top hatchUnplugging of the topseal cone area using aswinging hammer onthe scaffolding wasunsafe

Platform was weak andshaky

Wearing of safety beltby workers

1. Full concentration notattained whilehammering andhigher possibility ofaccidents occurring

Table I.Problems analysis and

the resultingcountermeasures

Quality controlcircles

237

Efforts to overcome the problemsProblem 1: U seal vent pipe caught fire due to welding sparks while executing repair jobson the furnace. In order to overcome the problem, the QCC members conducted a coupleof trials. The first trial involved covering the U-seal vent mouth with a fire resistantnon-asbestos cloth. After carrying out this trial, the QCC members were able toevaluate the results (see Table II).

As the above trial produced significant de-merit and disadvantages, the QCC teamdecided to do a second trial, i.e. by installing a hinge-type metallic cover with stopperand chain. The result of this second trial is shown in Table III.

After this modification is made, if unexpected seal loss occurred during any weldingjob in the furnace area, the cover will be opened by the pressurized hot water and it willbe closed automatically. After the job is completed, the cover can be opened manuallyby pulling the chain from the furnace platform by a single person without the need touse a crane.

Problem 2: Opening, closing, and transferring difficulties of the furnace top hatchcover. To execute any repair activities in the shaft furnace, all the hatches from top tobottom need to be opened to allow for quick and sudden cooling of the furnace. Also,the extraction and transferring of the top hatch cover was a difficult and tiresomeactivity (see Table IV).

After a detailed study of the situation, the QCC members decided to simplify themethod for extracting and transferring the top hatch cover safely. Two evaluationtrials were carried out. The first trial (in February 2005) involved using a jack to

Trouble Idea Merit De-merit Remarks

Fire at the U-sealvent mouth

Covering theU-seal vent withfire resistantnon-asbestos cloth

Prevent fire Mouth coveringprocedure wasalways dangerousdue to continuouspresence of CO inthe area and due tounexpected sealloss due to hotwater which couldcause gaspoisoning andburn injury

1. Job is unsafe2. Repeated job3. High altitude4. Crane is required to

do the job

Table II.Problem 1 – Evaluationof Trial No. 1 (March2005)

Trouble Idea Merit De-merit Remarks

Covering U-sealvent mouth withfire resistantnon-asbestos clothwas unsafe andrequiring repeatedjobs

Provide apermanent metallichinge typeopen/close coverwith a stopper plateand chain

Completely avoidedthe need for humanto handle the U-sealvent mouth andremoved the need touse the crane

Nil Any gascutting/welding jobon the furnace canbe executed in a safemanner and withoutfear

Table III.Problem 1 – Evaluationof Trial No. 2

TQM19,3

238

extract top hatch cover from the furnace. To do this, the QCC members modified thehatch cover with a 2-sided projection plate and used a hydraulic jack to eject the cover.The result of the evaluation of Trial 1 is shown in Table V.

After the implementation of the jacking provision the hatch cover extractionprocedure became simplified. But the transferring of the hatch cover to a safe locationby means of chain blocks was difficult and unsafe. The work group became exhausteddue to heat radiation from the hot air blowing out from the furnace. The approximatetemperature of the hot air was more than 3008C. Thus, the QCC team decided to carryout another trial (in February 2005) involving the use of a traveling hoist provision atthe top hatch area.

To do this, the QCC members installed a traveling hoist mechanism with “I” beam toenable quick and easy handling and transferring of the hatch cover to a safe locationwith minimum use of manpower. The team members could now start to carry outinternal repair activities of the furnace three to four hours ahead of time, during theshut down by quick extraction and transferring of top hatch cover. Thus, afterimplementing the traveling hoist, hatch cover shifting to safe area and re-fixing it inthe furnace became easy and safe (Table VI).

Problem No. 3: Top seal cone unplugging was inconvenient due to weak and improperplatform. The third problem faced by the QCC team is shown in Table VII. Toovercome the problem, the team members carried out a trial (in May 2005) whichinvolved the installation of a rigid platform with safety hand railings and a ladder(Table VIII). By installing these facilities, hammering jobs on the top seal cone becamesafer and more effective. Also, free flows of the material were also assured.

Problems before QCC Reason Countermeasures Remarks

Opening, closing, andtransferring of thefurnace top hatch coverwas difficult and unsafe

Big size, heavy, heatradiation, congestedarea, and jamming withthe furnace shellrefractory

Several chain blockswere provided; wedgingand manually pushingusing a crow bar, andproviding a manualcooler

Extracting andtransferring was alengthy procedure.Workers wereexhausted due to heatradiation and areacongestion. Moremanpower was required

Table IV.Second problem and its

countermeasurebefore QCC

Trouble Idea Merit De-merit Remarks

Opening/closing ofthe furnace tophatch cover wasdifficult, unsafeand tiresome

Provided a jackingprovision on bothsides of the hatchcover

Wedging andhammering weretotally eliminated.Extracting thehatch coverprocedure wassimplified

Transferring ofthe cover to a safearea was verydifficult by meansof chain blocks.More manpowerwas required.Tiresome activityremained

Over-staying atthe heat radiationarea continued tooccur. Workinggroup becametired andexhausted

Table V.Problem 2 – Evaluation

of Trial No. 1(March 2005)

Quality controlcircles

239

Cost and benefit analysisThe efforts carried out by the QCC to improve the quality of the plant operations haveresulted in some financial savings to the company. As can be seen in Table IX, theeradication of the problems (which has cost the company 26,400 QR per year inmaintenance cost) by the QCC members has resulted in a net saving of 20,080 QR for2005 alone (after deducting 1,320 QR annual maintenance cost after the QCCimplementation and the one-time QCC expense of 5,000 QR (covering the costs ofbeverages and light meals for the QCC team members over the period of 15 January to15 December 2005)). Thus, in the subsequent years we can expect that the annualsaving will be more that the above figure since the QCC expense mentioned above wasa one-time expense.

In addition to the above financial benefit, the company also gained some intangiblebenefits including:

Trouble Idea Merit De-merit Remarks

Furnace top hatchcover transferringwas difficult, unsafeand tiresome

Provided a travelinghoist mechanism atthe top hatch area

After extracting thehatch cover from thefurnace it can beshifted to a safe areaimmediately

Nil Hatch covertransferring job wasmade easy and safewith minimum timeand manpower.Thus, over-stayingof workers at theheat radiation areacan now be avoided

Table VI.Problem 2 – Evaluation ofTrial No. 2 (March 2005)

Problems before QCC Reason Countermeasure Remarks

Unplugging of the topseal cone area by aswinging hammer onthe scaffolding wasunsafe

Hammering locationheight was too high.Temporary scaffoldingplatform was shaky andunsafe

Workers were made towear a safety belt

1. Slipping possibility2. Full concentration

not attained whilehammering

3. Humanly unsafeoperation

Table VII.Third problem and itscountermeasurebefore QCC

Trouble Idea Merit De-merit Remarks

Unplugging of thetop seal cone by aswinging hammeron the scaffoldingwas unsafe

Fabricated andinstalled a rigidplatform with handrailings at the topseal cone area

With these addedfacilities,hammering jobs onthe top seal conebecame safer andmore effective. Theyalso assured freeflow of the materials

Nil

Table VIII.Problem 3 – Evaluationof Trial No. 1 (June 2005)

TQM19,3

240

. ability of the managers and workers to identify future safety problems;

. improved workers’ self-confidence;

. improved technical skills of the workers in identifying problems; and

. improved workers’ safety.

Contribution, managerial implications and conclusionThe contribution of this study is threefold. First, the findings of this case studycontribute to operations management literature in general and to QCCs literature inparticular. This may provide some ideas for other researchers to execute more researchin the field of the QCCs implementation.

Second, there has not been any reported cases of success in the use of QCCs in any ofthe Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Thus, this paper represents a firstattempt at reporting a success story of the effective use of the technique in the State ofQatar, a member of the GCC countries.

Third, a very significant contribution of this case study represents a first attempt atreporting the role of QCCs in enhancing work safety within manufacturing companieswhich can be used as a template for other manufacturing companies.

This case provides a useful insight into the practical implementation of a QCCprogram in the company in its efforts to provide a safe working environment to itsworkers. The collective efforts undertaken by the QCC team members have enabledthem to identity the safety problems faced by the plant and to carry out the necessarysteps to eradicate the problems which have eventually enabled the firm to improve thesafety of its workers and the quality of its operations.

On the whole, the QCC program has enabled the members not only to achieve all thethree targets they set at the beginning of the program, but it also helped them resolvethe unsafe working atmosphere at the Reduction furnace, improve their self confidenceand technical skills in tackling problems, and enable them to enjoy trouble-freeoperations of the equipments as well as ensuring the safety of their workers.

QCCs in this case study are used as an innovative tool to manage work safety withina large public company where social objectives such as workers’ safety are critical.

Total maintenance cost before QCCMan hour cost for U seal job 34 £ 16hr £ 20QR 10,880.00Hiring of crane cost 34 £ 4hr £ 100QR 13,600.00Man hour cost for top hatch cover open/ close 2 £ 48hr £ 20QR 1,920.00Total cost 26,400.00 QR

Total maintenance cost after QCCMan hour cost for U seal job 34 £ 1hr £ 20 QR 680.00Hiring of crane cost Nil 0.00Man hour cost for top hatch cover open/close 2 £ 16hr £ 20QR 640.00Total cost 1,320.00QRQCC. Expense (light meals and refreshments) 5,000.00QRTotal cost after QCC Circle þ QCC expense 25,000 þ 1,320 ¼ 6,320.00QR

Net savings/year 26,400 26,320 ¼ 20,080.00QR

Note: US$1:00 ¼ 3:65 QR (Qatari Riyals)

Table IX.Net savings obtained by

the QCC team

Quality controlcircles

241

Management at Qasco must realize that QCC should be embraced as a part of theorganization instead of being positioned as a special activity or a quick lead-up to totalquality management (TQM) (Hill, 1995).

The findings of this case study concur with the findings of Goh (2000) who foundQCCs, if properly used, are good source of an improvement in the staff’sproblem-solving ability. This in turn, expands the capacity of the workforce tocontribute positively to collaborative decision making and to manage their own workprocesses.

Qatari managers should realize that there are many factors affecting theeffectiveness of safety management such as: availability of clear procedures for safetyissues, keeping employees informed about safety issues, reporting all unsafesituations, ensuring that all workers are aware of safety standard and checking thatsafe procedures are implemented.

Managers should perceive that the key approach to overcome unsafe work problemsis to implement a systematic and structured improvement process, i.e. via QCCprograms or initiatives.

Policy makers in the Qatari industrial sector should realize that the purpose of QCCis not only to solve operations problems but also, to close the gap between workers andadministration which will lead to a more efficient and better utilization of resources.

Limitations and suggestions for future researchThis study provides a foundation for further research regarding the implementation ofQCCs in the Qatari industrial sector. Moreover, the results of this study suggest thatfurther research will be more meaningful if it focuses on the critical factors affectingthe successful implementation of the QCC. Further studies may be necessary in order todemonstrate that safety climates can be benchmarked in an offshore operationalenvironment.

This study suggests that further investigations into the ways to utilize QCCs forimproving the safety of workers at their workplace and the quality of company’soperations. Thus, this case study will be of value to academics who are interested inhow QCC enhance the safety of workers at their workplace. Finally, the results of thisstudy suggest a novel framework that can provide a basis for further research into theprofound nature of work safety.

References

Back, M. and Woolfson, C. (1999), “Safety culture – a concept too many?”, The Safety and HealthPractitioner, January, pp. 14-16.

Banas, P. (1988), “Employee involvement: a sustained labor/management initiative at the FordMotor Company”, in Campbell, J.P. and Campbell, R.J. (Eds), Productivity in Organizations:New Perspectives from Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Jossey-Bass, SanFrancisco, CA.

Berry, L., Bennett, R. and Brown, W. (1989), Service Quality: A Profit Strategy for FinancialInstitutions, Dow-Jones Irwin, Homewood, IL.

Besterfield, H. (1994), Quality Control, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Boaden, J. and Dale, G. (1993), “Teamwork in services: quality circles by another name?”,International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5-24.

TQM19,3

242

Canel, C. and Kadipasaoglu, S. (2002), “Quality control circles in the veterans administrationhospital”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 238-48.

Collard, R. and Dale, B. (1989), “Quality circles”, in Sisson, K. (Ed.), Personnel Management inBritain, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 356-77.

Dale, G. (1984), “Quality circles in UK manufacturing industry – a state of the art survey”,Occasional Paper No. 8402, UMIST, Manchester.

(The) Department of Trade and Industry (1992), Quality Circles – An Executive Guide,an Enterprise Initiative booklet from the “Managing into the ’90s” programme, DTI,London.

French, L. (1998), Human Resource Management, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.

Fuller, C. and Vassie, L. (2001), “Benchmarking the safety climates of employees and contractorsworking within a partnership arrangement: a case study in the offshore oil industry”,Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 413-30.

Goh, M. (2000), “Quality circles: journey of an Asian public enterprise”, International Journal ofQuality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 784-99.

Harris, R. (1995), “The evolution of quality management: an overview of the TQM literature”,Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 95-105.

Hill, H. (1996), “Organizational learning for TQM through quality circles”, The TQM Magazine,Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 53-7.

Hill, S. (1995), “From quality circles to total quality management”, in Wilkinson, A. and Wilmott, H.(Eds), Making Quality Critical, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, pp. 33-53.

Ishikawa, K. (1976), Guide to Quality Control, Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo.

Ishikawa, K. (1985), What Is Total Quality Control? (translated by Lu, D.J.), Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Johns, N. and Chesterton, J. (1994), “ICL Kidsgrove: engineering a quality culture”, InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 6 Nos 1/2, pp. 25-9.

Lee, S. and Lam, K. (1997), “Managing quality at an engineering maintenance centre: from QCC toISO 9001 and beyond”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 14No. 2, pp. 118-37.

Millson, F. and Kirk-Smith, M. (1996), “The effects of quality circles on perceived service qualityin financial services”, Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 2No. 4, pp. 75-88.

Olberding, R. (1998), “Toyota on competition and quality circles”, The Journal of Quality andParticipation, p. 52.

Piczak, W. (1988), “Quality circles come home”, Quality Progress, December, pp. 37-9.

Pinnington, A. and Hammersley, G. (1997), “Quality circles under the new deal at Land-Rover”,Employee Relations, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 415-29.

Slack, N., Chambers, S. and Johnston, R. (2003), Operations Management, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall,London.

Smith, M. and Lewis, R. (1989), “Customer care in financial service organisations”, InternationalJournal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 13-22.

Stevenson, W. (2005), Operations Management, 8th ed., Mc-Graw-Hill, London.

Quality controlcircles

243

Further reading

Hill, F. (1997), “En route to TQM: organizational learning through quality circles”, Training forQuality, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 84-7.

Vassie, H. (1998), “A proactive team-based approach to continuous improvement in health andsafety management”, Employee Relations, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 577-93.

www.qasco.com.qa (2006), QASCO Gets Stamp of Quality from CARES, available at: www.qasco.com.qa (accessed 14 October 2006).

Corresponding authorSalaheldin I. Salaheldin can be contacted at: salahialy@qu.edu.qa

TQM19,3

244

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints