Computers ind. Engng Vol. 19, Nos I-4, pp.

267-271, 1990
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

0360-8352/90 $3.00 + 0.00

Copyright 1990 Pergamon Press pie

OMAX+
AN ADVANCEDQUALITY IMPROVEMENTMEASUREMENTSYSTEM
Robert R. Safford, David H. Gobeli, and Kai P. Suen

Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering

and the
Oregon Productivity and Technology Center
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon

system, has been developed by the Oregon Productivity and Technology Center to provide
analysts developing TQC programs for organizations with a measurement system designed for
use in monitoring and tracking quality improvements.

ABSTRACT

This paper describes OMAX+, a microcomputer based quality improvement measurement

system developed by the Oregon Productivity
and Technology Center at Oregon State University.
OMAX+ is a modified and enhanced version
of the Objectives Matrix approach for product i v i t y and quality measurement developed by
the late James L. Riggs, Head of the Department of Industrial Engineering. OMAX+ is
specifically designed for use byorganizations
engaged in Total Quality Control (TQC) efforts. Use of OMAX+presents the industrial
engineer engaged in TQC with a useful measurement tool to quantify and track quality improvements. The paper discusses the approaches that will enable the OMAX+ measurement
system to be integrated into new or on-going
quality improvement programs. OMAX+ is a
self-contained program for IBM personal computers and true compatibles. A version with
additional graphics capabilities is being
developed by the Oregon Productivity and
Technology Center for use on Macintosh Computers.
OMAX+ has been successfully used by
several industries and service organizations
in the Northwestern United States.

TOTAL QUALITY CONTROL

INTRODUCTION
Total Quality Control (TQC) has been
identified by many organizations as the most
effective approach toward improvement of
quality, productivity, and their competitive
position. Applied at f i r s t primarily by manufacturing organizations in foreign countries,
i t is now applied extensively in the United
States. Service oriented organizations in the
United States have, in fact, taken the lead in
adapting the TQC procedure to non-manufacturing applications. It is now widely used to
improve the quality of u t i l i t y operations,
military support activities, and governmental
organizations, to name a few.
A major attribute of the TQC process
cited by its proponents is that i t is "data
based." Yet few measurement procedures have
been designed that are specifically tailored
toward TQC quality improvement activities.
OMAX+, a microcomputer based measurement
267

The concept of "Total Quality Control"

can perhaps be best explained in a brief
period of time by contrasting the concept to
our traditional concepts of quality and quality control. That traditional concept suggests
that:
"There is an optimum level of quality and quality effort that is limited by the customer's willingness to
pay for i t . "
The "Total Quality Control" concept, the
feasibility of which has been demonstrated by
a number of foreign industries and an increasing number of continental U.S. industries, is
based on the premise that:
"Ever-increasing quality (as perceived by the customer) will u l t i mately reduce costs, increase productivity,
and increase market
share."
The key element in this concept is that
of "ever-increasing" quality. Most TQC (total
quality control) projects or TQM (total quality management) activities are oriented towards
quality improvement. Many organizations in
fact call their "total quality" programs
"Quality Improvement Programs" or "Total
Quality Improvement Programs" (TQIP).
All of these programs as they are applied
in actual agency operations or organizations
have unique characteristics. They all share,
however, certain commoncharacteristics. They
all recognize, for example, that

Quality is defined by the customer, the

person who receives the end product or
service.
o
A quality product or service is one that
meets or exceeds customer expectations.

As quality improves customer expectations

increase forcing the need for further
quality improvements.
o
Most (= 85%) of the problems needing to
be solved to improve quality are problems
with the process and only a small per-

268

Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Computers & Industrial Engineering

centage (= 15% or less) are due to people.

There is also a common core of components
to most quality improvement a c t i v i t i e s . The
common elements are shown in the central
portion of Figure 1.
As indicated in the
figure, the major input to the quality improvement process is information from the
"customer."
Customers, of course, in the
context of Total Quality Control may be the
external users of an end product or service
produced or provided by an organization or
they may be internal. An internal customer is
one that is employed within the organization
but is the user of an item or service produced
by some other entity in the organization.
Total Quality Control is based on data, so
customer information is obtained. This information should be quantifiable and result from
deliberate structured surveys of the customer.
From this customer information, processes
which can be looked into to improve customer
satisfaction are identified.
Next in the process an issue statement is
developed. An issue statement is a verbal
statement that identifies: the process that
w i l l be looked at for improvement, a quality

CustomerOrientation

indicator (or indicators} for the process, and

a direction for each quality indicator that is
associated with improvement. Examples of
quality indicators would be: accuracy, varia b i l i t y , or defects.
Process flow analysis and other process
analysis procedures are useful then to identify the operations and a c t i v i t i e s and their
interrelationships within a process that
impact the quality indicators.
Together the information from the issue
statement and the flow process analysis enable
the definition of Process Performance Measures.
Traditionally, Process Performance
Measures have been looked at individually in
Total Quality Control Processes. A primary
analysis tool and tracking tool for monitoring
Process Performance Measures has been the
control chart adopted from s t a t i s t i c a l quality
control.
From this point the quality improvement
procedure a c t i v i t y
be focused
modification of the process to produce quality
improvements. Causesof problems in a process
and an indication of the relative impact of
causes on the process performance measures can
be found by doing cause and effect ("fishbone

can

i so s,=ooe,(s, I

MeasurementProeu

........................................... i
Issue Identification
I Select~issue ' ~ 1

::
Deve!op
quaJitYtndicat....
r jI :

' Diagramp*'cess
',
......................................

I .............
Establishprocess ~
I
measures I
~
/
Diagramcauses I
I
andeffect J
/

Causeidentification

o,,

Figure I.

I
easu elX

performance

Integrated TQC Process.

on

Safford et al.: OMAX+ Measurement System

analysis") and Pareto diagrams. Next, the

Deming PDCA(plan, do, check, adopt) approach
can be employed in changing the process and
evaluating the effect of the changes on the
Process Performance Measures.
TOTAL QUALITY CONTROLAND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
MEASUREMENT
Proponents of Total Quality Control
emphasize the need for measurement. TQC is
based on measurement. Most of the measurement
procedures that are suggested for use in the
TQC process are simple and are directed toward
monitoring one variable, or Process Performance Measure, or effect (e.g., histograms,
control charts, fishbone analysis).
Traditional statistical quality control tools are
useful, of course, when process performance is
being monitored after stabilization at an
improved level.
A systematic approach to enable monitoring of several Process Performance Measures
during a period of quality improvement has
been lacking.

269

effort using OK~X+. Figure 2 indicates how

these measures are brought together in the
development of the measurement system.

Process
Flow
Analysis

Issue
Statement

//

S~jmrS:
ce;

/
I
\

Process
Improvement
Measurement
System

Cause
and
Effect
Analysis

THE OREGONPRODUCTIVITYAND TECHNOLOGYCENTER

The Oregon Productivity and Technology
Center (OPTC), located in Corvallis, Oregon,
on the campus of Oregon State University, is
a cooperative extension activity of the College of Engineering and the College of Business.
It has worked with several hundred
client organizations in the development of
performance measurement systems. Its founder,
the late Dr. James L. Riggs, the head of the
Department of Industrial Engineering at Oregon
State University, was also the developer of
the widely used Objectives Matrix approach for
measuring productivity and organizational performance.
Currently, the efforts of the Oregon
Productivity and Technology Center are oriented toward the development of Total Quality
Control programs for client organizations. In
its work with its clients the OPTChas identified several points in the TQC process where
a measurement system specifically designed for
monitoring and tracking quality improvement is
useful. These points are shown on the right
side of Figure 1. The OPTChas formulated an
approach for developing the appropriate measurement system at these points. The idea for
this approach originated from consideration of
the approach embodied in the OPTC's Objective
Matrix. The nameOMAX+reflects the origin of
the ideas for the quality improvement measurement tool.
OMAX+USEDFOR MONITORING PROCESSPERFORMANCE
MEASURESAND QUALITY INDICATORS
As indicated previously, the TQC approach
leads to the development of issue statements
with quality indicators and to process performance measures associated with operations that
impact quality indicators.
These quality
indicators and process performance measures
can be monitored during a quality improvement

To enable
establishmentof
bassl~nesand
trackingof process
improvements

Figure 2.

To
enable
1
initiation
of
specificprocess
improvement
activities

Developing Measurements for OMAX+.

More specifically, the steps that are

employed in the development of the measurement
system include:
I)
Identify the quality indicators and
Process Performance Measures to be used
to indicate process improvement.
2)
Identify the current level of performance
(the baseline) for each PPM or quality
indicator.
3)
Identify target levels or goals for each
PPM or quality indicator.
4)
Identify intermediate targets or goals.
5)
Weight the PPMsand quality indicators in
terms of overall relative importance.
6)
Prepare a matrix summary of the above
information in the manner prescribed by
OMAX+to be used as a quality improvement
tracking tool for the process.
AN EXAMPLEOF OMAX+APPLICATION
The procedure for using OMAX+to establish a quality improvement measurement system
is perhaps best explained by looking at an
example taken from a case developed by one of
OPTC's clients, a major electrical u t i l i t y in
the northwestern U.S. This u t i l i t y is in the
process of installing TQC as a means of improvement of the quality of their service
delivery. They are training their employees

270

Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Computers & Industrial Engineering

starting with their supervisory personnel in

TQC methods. An issue that was identified by
an "internal customer" (service center crews)
was with respect to the information obtained
on a work order form f i l l e d out by an "internal supplier" (an office representative who
obtains information from new external customers). The issue statement for this situation
stated "Improve the accuracy and timeliness of
form 2200." The Process Performance Measures
identified for this issue, their baseline
level, target level, and relative weights are
indicated in Table I.
Table l .
OMAX+ Inputs
Power Company Example
Process
Performance
Measures

Baseline Target Weight

5%

0%

45%

# of Incorrect
Service Location
Descriptions/lO0

12%

2%

10%

# of Omissions/1000
in Type of Load
Energy Code

100

50

20%

Timeliness of
Transmittal of Form
(Wanted Time Minus
Transmittal Time)

40
TMU

60
TMU

25%

% of Failures to
Identify Service
Location when Different than Mail
Address

Overall Weighted Performance 20%x.4S+S0%x.l-Z0%x.2+Z5%x.25 - 16.25

OMAX+has the capability of generating a
number of managerial reports of progress
reports each time i t is employed. An example
of such a managerial report is shown in Figure
5.
SUMMARY

At this point the OMAX+ microcomputer

procedure was introduced by the quality improvement team to develop the measurement
system for the efforts that they initiated to
improve quality. The information presented in
Table I is the input to the OMAX+programs.
The programs then summarize the information in
I
LEVEL

CRITERIA
% Nonldent Serv Loc
wt : 45 %
P :

4.00

# Serv Loc Desc Err

wt : 10 %
P =

7.00

# Omission Load Code

wt = 20 %
P =

..11o.o

OMAX+ is a straightforward, easy to

understand, user friendly microcomputer procedure that has been found to f i l l a void in the
current analysis procedures associated with
TQC. Additional information about OMAX+and
the manner in which i t can be utilized in TQC
activities may be obtained from the Oregon
Productivity and Technology Center of the
Oregon State University in Corvallis, Oregon.

" I BASEl +
-30){

"20)~ "10%

6.50

6.00

5.50

< < M I L E S T ON E S

P =

] GOALI

0)~

10){

20)~

305{

40X

50~

60)~

70X

80X

90%

IOOX

5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

iii!i!i!ili~.iiiiiili~!iitliiii!i!!ili!!ii!ii!:.!iiill:
15.0014.00

13.00 12.00 11.00 10.00

,i~iiii!i~?:iit!:.
iii!)!ii!iiiiil
iil)i!iiiii!;:!:i,
ii iil)ii!ii:.!ii!ii)ii:~i::~!!!::!i!!i))!)ii)
I15.0

I0.0 105.0 I00.0 95.00 90.00 85.00 80.00 75.00 70.00 65.00 60.00 55.00 50.00

)!)il)iiii))))))
i)))i))~)))))i)!
))i)))i?))))ill)
34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00)54-00

Timeliness
wt = 25

a matrix format llke that shown in Figure 3.

As can be seen in the figure, intermediate
target levels for each PPM or quality indicator criteria are computed. Theseintermediate
target levels indicate the points associated
with successive 10% increments of improvement
to the goal.
Figure 3 also shows a column identified
as "level." That column is where the current
level of performance is recorded. For our
example, that column shows figures of 4, 7,
110, and 45 indicating that OMAX+ Is being
used at a point in time after performance in
the PPM has changed from the baseline values
to those indicated in the level column.
Figure 4 shows another OMAX+matrix for this
example at a point in time when performance
has improved substantially on all the PPMs.
The "progress bars" shown on the matrix output
readily indicate the current level of performance.
An index number presented at the
bottoms of Figures 3 and 4 give a numerical
indication of the process improvement. The
index value is a weighted average of the
"percent of interval to goal" achieved byeach
measure to date. The index for Figure 3 would
be computed via the manner indicated below:

45.00

)6.00 58.00 60.00

i!i)lll~)i~i
iilIiill!)i)il
lilI~)i!!i!))::il
OVERALL
MEIGHTED
PERFORMANCE

* * * WARNING: performance below base LeveL.

Figure 3.

Initial OMAX+Matrix with First Update Information.

Safford et al.: O M A X + Measurement System

I
CRI TERI A

1.00

# Serv Loc Desc E r r

wt = 10 ~
P =

4.00

# Omission Load Code

wt = 20 %
P =

65.00

Timer iness
wt = 25 ~

58.00

LESTONE$>>

I GOALI

-30~

-L~

-lOg

O~

10~

20~

]Og

40"4

6.50

6.00

5.50

5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

15.00 14.00 13.00 12.00 11.00 10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

LEVEL

Nonldent Serv Loc

wt = 45 ~
p =

< < M[

" I BASEl +

271

50Z

60X

70Z

80~

90~

100~

115.0 1 1 0 . 0 1 0 5 . 0 100.0 95.00 90.00 85.00 80.00 75.00 70.00

i5.00 60.00 55.00 50.00

~4.00 ~6.00138.00 0.00 cz.oo .00 ~6.00 48.00 50.00152.00 54.00 56.00 58.00 60.00
P =

OVERALL
WEIGHTED
PERFORNAMCE

Figure 4.

Subsequent Update of OMAX+Matrix.

UPDATED 8UNI4,~RY REPORT I N P E R F O R N J ~ O E

(I"NTERV),L PERCENTAGE)

CRITERIA
~, Nonldent Serv Loc
# Serv Loc Desc Err
# Omission Load Code
Timer iness

WEIGHT(X)
45
10
20
25

BASE

PREVIOUS

5.00
12.00
100.00
40.00

Figure 5.

4.00
7.00
110.00
45.00

CURRENT
1.00
4.00
65.00
58.00

GOAL

CURRENT
~ CHAMGE

OVERALL
~ CHANGE

0.00
2.00
50.00
60.00

75.00
DO.O0
75.00
86.67

80.00
80.00
70.00
90.00

WEIGHTED AVERAGE

76.42

80.50

OHAX+Hanagerial Summary R e p o r t .