ABSTRACT - Faced with the contraction of customers and currency, the industrial base of the United States must change how it perceives its customers and their needs.  The Total Quality Enterprise Model (TQEM) is introduced to stimulate thought about this subject.  TQEM is developed around a concept called Dynamic Resource Supervision.

Resource Supervision provides a means for people to Identify, Plan, Organize, Engage, and Manage resources.  Resources are defined as Time, Information, Objects, and Processors.  A collection of people and the system resources at their disposal is identified as People Resources.  In this context, people are not resources as objects.  Through their knowledge of a subject and their vitality, people are able to supervise the Acquisition Network to produce a quality product. 

An Acquisition Network is defined as a dynamic structure composed of the following four interacting layers:

        1)   People, the producers of quality products.

        2)   The system within which people produce these products.

        3)   The products people produce.

        4)   The customer for whom the product is being produced. 

Each layer is defined by the same three attributes, namely, Integrity, Necessity, and Consistency. A generic definition of these quality attributes follows:

        1)   Integrity - Ability to do what is required.

        2)   Necessity - Performing when required.

        3)   Consistency - Being in place where required.

These attributes are symbiotic in nature and are not mutually exclusive.  Attributes which define the dynamics of the of the network are Adaptability, Cohesion, and Communication.  The Acquisition Network provides people the capability to optimize their performance to effect Network Resonance. 

Network resonance as synergism results when the allocation of resources are dynamically and optimally coupled with the attributes of quality, namely, Integrity, Necessity, and Consistency.  The acronym for these attributes is INC which of course is the abbreviation for "Incorporated."  Perhaps an answer to our survival is Quality INC.

PURPOSE - This paper develops the concept for a Total Quality Enterprise Model (TQEM).  It is offered as a means to obtain a greater understanding of the acquisition process.  It requires much thought, and feelings get bruised, to produce a product which meets the customer’s needs.  The Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition life-cycle is used as the time span to develop this thesis.  New terms and concepts are introduced but the TQEM perspective is not a radical departure from current thinking..  TQEM may be considered as a tool to stimulate further thought and concerns about the responsibiles for producing a quality product. 

BACKGROUND TERMINOLOGY - This section introduces, and puts into perspective, some important applicable terms which need to be understood to gain an appreciation of TQEM. System Dynamics - This term defines the maturity of the acquisition network to internally supervise, couple, and exhibit behavior initiated by stimuli from the external physical environment of the system product.  The three attributes which characterize system dynamics are Adaptability, Cohesion, and Communication.  These attributes are identified with, and belong to, System Integration Level 1.

Acquisition Network - A TQEM system product is produced as the result of the dynamic interaction of four concurrent system elements.  These four elements comprise the acquisition network and is shown as a set of concentric circles on the left side of Figure 1 ;  on the right, the external physical environment of the system product.  (Associated with each of the four elements are three system integration levels, each level having a unique set of performance attributes)

The TQEM system elements are:

      1)    People as producers of a system product for a customer.

      2)    The environmental system(s) within which people produce a product.

      3)    The system product(s) they produce.

      4)    Ultimately, the utilization of the system product by the DoD customer into another DoD system (or, transition to the next acquisition phase).

These relationships are depicted in Figure 1 .  Each element, or set(s) of elements, receive stimuli from another element or the physical environment and exhibit behavior across the interface.

System Integration Levels - There are three levels at which performance attributes are integrated by System Supervision into the system product.  It is important to understand that all three of these levels exist within each of the four elements of the Acquisition Network.  The System Dynamics subscribed to by System Supervision to supervise System Resources will dictate System Worth.  System product design begins at level one and proceeds downward through level three;  development is upward.  The three levels, from top to bottom, and associated attributes are:

        1)   System Dynamics - Adaptability, Cohesion, and Communication.

        2)   System Worth - Integrity, Necessity, and Consistency.

        3)   System Resources - Time, Information, Objects, and Processors.

The relationships of these attributes for Levels 1, 2, and 3 are shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4, respectively.

System Worth - Worth, to a customer, is a measure of resource expenditures relative to the capability of the system product to satisfy requirements;  the displacement of something of value to gain something of greater value.  The three attributes which define the worth of a system product to a user are:

        1)   Integrity - ability to do what is required.

        2)   Necessity - performing when required.

        3)   Consistency - being in place where required.

This implies that the system has been adequately designed, developed, and tested to solve the "how" part of the equation.  These attributes are identified and belong to System Integration Level 2, and are a subset of System Integration Level 1 (see Figure 3 ). 

System Supervision - A structured means to Identify, Plan, Organize, Engage, and Manage allocated system resources.  Two sides of the supervision coin are involved.  The front side is in play when supervision specifies and receives the needed resources to acquire a TQ system product of value.  The flip side occurs when supervision is given a set of inadequate resources and must "shoehorn" them to acquire a product with which they must "make-do."  Despite all laws of probability, the coin most often lands on its edge.

System Resources - Characteristics of an inanimate entity that are of value to and owned by the system.  Inclusively, these characteristics are Time, Information, Objects, and Processors.  These attributes are identified with, and belong to, System Integration Level 3 (see Figure 4 ).

People Resources - A person is not a resource, but rather, an owner, producer, and a consumer of resources.  A person is an animate entity who is identified (only in the linear sense) by their acquired knowledge; who possesses resources of value; and, who is able to adapt their knowledge and resources within the production system to produce a system product composed of system resources.

Entity - An objective description of the existence of a thing as a bounded collection and allocation of resources to satisfy a system requirement(s) during the conceptual phase.  An entity is a perception of the system product, an interpretation of requirements, whose metrics describe system performance in terms of resources.  During the conceptual phase, the relationship of entities to each other are described by an Entity-Relationship Model (ERM), a sub-model of TQEM.  The ERM is independent of any requirements which specify hardware, software, or firmware objects as solutions.  At some point of system product evolvement, the entities of ERM are grouped as sets and transformed into subjective objects.  The ERM evolves into an Object-Oriented Model (OOM), a model which describes the qualitative and quantitative physical characteristics and requirements of the objects.

Metrics - Metrics describe the characteristics of an entity; are derived from system requirements; and, embody the qualitative and quantitative attributes of performance.  The qualitative portion of the metric describes a physical parameter; the qualitative, a unit of measurement for the parameter.
These attributes permit the metric to be quantified, integrated into the system, and verified and validated via testing to assure system performance.

Value - The worth of inanimate resources, or a system product to another system, relative to how, when, and where the resources or system product are allocated.  Additionally, the worth of a person as a producer of a system product, or as a system user, is relative to their knowledge, self-worth, and interface with the system.  Ultimately, the user must be convinced, or is able to persuade others, that the system product enhances their worth.

User Agency - For the purposes of this paper, the ultimate user is DoD.  However, during the evolvement of the system product, there exists a multitude of users.  These users, who are identified with various agencies, accept a portion of the system product, add value thereto, and pass their contributions to a subsequent user/user agency.  Examples of user agencies are industry, DoD, and the academic community.  User and customer are used synonymously.

UNDERSTANDING TQEM - This section provides an encapsulation of the more salient features of TQEM.

System Integration Levels - TQEM is a means to incorporate TQ into a system product via a methodology which specifies three levels of performance attributes to which user metrics are attached by the user agency.  At level three (see Figure 4 ), product resources involving Time, Information, and Objects are grouped together as an entity to function as an active Processor under control of system states.    Within level two (see Figure 3), processors are grouped into system functions and metrics assigned to Integrity, Necessity, and Consistency attributes.  At level one (see Figure 2 ), the level at which the ultimate user interfaces with the system product, metrics are assigned to the system product attributes of Adaptability, Cohesion, and Communication.  It is important to understand that a multitude of ultimate users exist throughout all agencies as the system product evolves; with each user contributing value according to their worth within the agency.

Acquisition Phases of the Network - Conceptually, a system product embodies, is a manifestation of four separate, interrelated, and concurrent system elements known as the acquisition network.  The four TQEM elements collectively interact to assure that system and people resources are correctly supervised to effect acquisition of a quality system product.

TQEM provides a framework of classes of generic TQ attributes at three integration levels.  Each of the four concurrent network elements must exhibit and satisfy the TQEM specific attributes with requisite metrics for the three levels of system integration.

Collectively, the TQEM attributes define system performance for the system product associated with each DoD acquisition phase during the system product evolvement.  The range of this network is the five acquisition phases which comprise the acquisition life-cycle.

There are five DoD phases that exist for the acquisition life-cycle of the ultimate system product, namely:

        1)   Phase 0, Concept Exploration and Definition.

        2)   Phase I, Demonstration and Validation.

        3)   Phase II, Engineering and Manufacturing Development.

        4)   Phase III, Production and Deployment.

        5)   Phase IV, Operations and Support.

Ideally the term system product refers to the finished product, the output of Phase III, used by the customer in Phase IV.  However, it could refer to an output of any portion of an acquisition phase provided the phase category is referenced.  TQEM could be used during only a single acquisition phase but is best utilized during the entire acquisition process for both open-loop and closed-loop product acquisition cycles to maximize its effectiveness.

An open-loop product refers to a product produced for a projected marketplace whose users generally have to "sold" the notion that the product has value for them (usually after the product is manufactured, e.g., the automotive market, personal consumer products, etc.).  A closed-loop product refers to a product produced exclusively for a customer who has a specific purpose in mind and sets the operational specifications and requirements.  DoD is an example of a customer who purchases closed-loop system products.

System Product - A system product is the culmination of the resources involved to actualize the system product during each phase, and expended by the production system and system producers during each acquisition phase, to ultimately produce a product of value to the user.  During the Conceptual Phase, for example, metrics are assigned to applicable TQEM attributes relative to the system requirements specified by the DoD customer, the ultimate user.  These TQEM attributes and associated metrics expand to rigorously define the system product in more detail during subsequent phases.  Using this approach, tractability of a specific design feature of an entity within any phase back to prime system requirements of Phase 0 is inviolable.

TQEM attributes and metrics systematically define system performance to provide a common denominator, that is, a base level of knowledge, which satisfies all user agencies as the system product evolves through the phases of the acquisition cycle.  Users within the agencies of industry, government, and DoD may then define and test their specific quality segments and metrics from this common base to produce a TQ system product.  Using this TQ knowledge base, quality segments from any agency may readily be interfaced with segments of other agencies without loss of definition or degradation of system product quality relative to initial or evolving DoD requirements.

DESCRIPTION OF TQEM SYSTEM ELEMENTS - Within TQEM, wherein resources are utilized by knowledgeable people to produce, or gain new resources, by definition, there exists as a network, four separate, interrelated system elements which concurrently interact.  The TQEM system elements are defined by linear relationships which can be formulated, measured, tested, and verified. TQEM does not pertain to "non-linear" (may the mathematicians forgive me) abstractions which cannot be formulated.  The following definitions pertain to acquisition of a DoD system product.

System Element 1 - This element is a composite of people, animate beings, who bring their resources and knowledge to the work place in exchange for resources and satisfactions that the production system has to offer.  They have acquired this knowledge by previously investing time and money (an object) to learn processing skills which now provides them the ability to sort and collate data into information, objects, and processors to produce their portion of the system product.

People desire to bring QUALITY INC to a work place (System Element 2) that supports supervision of their resources. QUALITY INC:  INTEGRITY - ability to focus knowledge on their portion of product evolvement;  NECESSITY - application of their knowledge in a timely and responsible manner;  CONSISTENCY - dedication to the work place and other people and to be in position to apply their knowledge.

QUALITY INC defines people as thinking and feeling beings, not robots.  By de facto, they become involved and accept responsibility for making decisions pertaining to the customer; the product they are producing for the customer; the production system within which they produce the product;  and, other people.  People are supervisors of their resources and apply Adaptability, Cohesion, and Communication among themselves to assure system product compliance.

System Element 2 - The production system is an inanimate entity (but empowered, made animate, by the people working within it) wherein people interact with other people to collectively utilize their resources and knowledge, and the resources of the production system, to produce a TQEM system product for a customer.  The work place should be environmentally correct and must exhibit QUALITY INC:  Integrity - adequate and valued resources to provide people the capability to apply their knowledge in a worthy manner; Necessity - availability of required resources in a timely manner;  and, Consistency - positioning of the resources for  utilization by people. People are supervisors of their resources and the production system and apply Adaptability, Cohesion, and Communication between themselves and within the production system to assure system product compliance.

System Element 3 - The system product being produced by people within the production system is an inanimate, complex system  which evolves to satisfy the customer's requirements.  Within this system product are concurrently embodied resources from the producers, the producing system, and the DoD customer/user.  The DoD customer continuously monitors performance metrics to assure that value is added to the mission role for which the system product was acquired.  DoD allocates costly resources during system product acquisition and should logically expect a greater return on its investment than it expends.  For example, the capability of the new system product, when integrated with an existing mission capability, to counter a hostile geo-political threat of a more diverse nature, should provide a greater capability in a simpler manner than the existing mission capability.  This sounds like a trivial statement, but more often than not, it is neglected for one reason or another during acquisition.  It is also given that the product should add worth to the customer’s mission:  a) Integrity - ability to do the job;  b) Necessity - performs the job on demand.;  c) Consistency - accepts where it is positioned to be utilized.

System Element 4 - The Customer, an animate being who purchases the Product, for use in a system.  The customer exchanges resources with the producing system with the expectation that utilization of the produced product will add value to the customer's system.  By definition, this system is strictly limited to interface with the Customer, and the hostile, geo-political environment.

TQEM EXAMPLE - Perhaps the best way to understand the TQEM concept is to provide an example which portrays the principal features in an unobtrusive, straight forward manner.  A symphonic orchestra is a good  example to use to illustrate the salient features of TQEM.  Italics are used to shift the reader’s thoughts from the orchestra example to inanimate system products , perhaps to prompt the reader to reflect on some of their experiences. 

Integrity - the ability to do the job as required.  Each member is a highly skilled musician who chose to apply their resources learning how to obtain a required sound in the form of a specific frequency from a particular instrument.  This investment is of worth to the musician as the prestige of playing with a symphonic orchestra is of value to the player.  These players act as a unit, a family system, as they exhibit adaptability, cohesion, and communicate among themselves, both verbally and with music.

Likewise, engineers have invested considerable resources learning how to design circuits and write programs to do the same.  Compare the orchestra with that of an inanimate system composed of hardware and software that has been designed, developed, and rigorously tested by a group of people to assure physical integrity with its specifications.  A software program can be compared with a musical composition that the hardware must learn to flawlessly interpret on cue by the executive program, the conductor.  In appropriate or ambiguous specifications, a flawed design, or a poorly manufactured part can only result in a cacophony.

To produce the required output, the player had to learn to adapt their anatomy to a particular instrument;  then, gained proficiency by playing many different classical compositions until the sound was right.  As a player ages, the player learns to sense and compensate for physical impairments and maladies to assure that integrity is not impaired.  This is adaptability at the personal level.

Given that performance is not to be impaired as the system degrades and compensating resources are implemented into the main-line design, a system could sense and compensate for peculiarities to main-line resources without appreciably effecting system integrity.

Necessity - doing the job when required.  At this point, it is a given that each orchestra player knows how to interpret musical composition and has the skills to produce the required frequency from the instrument of choice.  But the frequencies must be produced as necessary in time in accordance with the musical composition.  A player can accomplish this by either reading the musical score and listening to the music being produced to receive a time cue;  or, by watching the conductor for a time cue.  A player may have integrity and produce pleasing frequencies, but if the player continuously plays out of time sequence, the player does not add value to the composition being played and their worth to the orchestra would be in question.

Similarly, all system entities must be designed to interpret when is the proper time to process information, how long the system can wait for output information from the process, and what are the inherent delay times to move information within the system.)

Consistency - being in the right place to do the job.  Each member of the orchestra knows where to sit relative to the conductor, other orchestra members, and the musical composition.  The orchestra’s physical configuration is adaptable to certain situations provided cohesion and communication are not compromised.  The second violinist does not decide at will to sit next to their friend the oboe player;  or, because the second violinist thinks that the composition is better rendered by that physical configuration.  Neither circumstance would add value to the orchestra.

As well, the performance of DoD system product should be optimized to dynamically exhibit adaptability, cohesion, and communications:

       Between well supervised hardware and software resources.

       To the ultimate user who now plays the role of the conductor.

      To the customer on the receiving end, the hostile geo-political threat.

      The paying customer, the American taxpayer.

 

SUMMARY - A challenge to the industrial base of the United states is to rethink, perhaps rethink twice: 

       Who are our customers? 

       Do all customers have the same requirements.? 

       What image do we present to our customers?

       How do we view ourselves? 

       What are our responsibilities to our customers?

       Can those responsibilities be accepted?

       Are resources available, can they be allocated, and can they be dynamically supervised to produce a product of unquestionable quality?

TQEM is a non-rigorous attempt to portray the complex, often convoluted, DoD acquisition life-cycle from an engineer’s viewpoint.  Hopefully, that view is not out of focus.  The linear thought by which, and abstract feelings from which, a system product evolves have been introduced using TQEM

The ultimate understanding from TOQUE could be that we are our own customers; our own supervisors; and that we are responsible for our actions as we are the products of our thinking!

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - The author wishes to thank Ms Pam Bridges and Mr. Gary Trice for their assistance in preparing this paper for publication.