such as Kaoru Ishikawa. The Japanese Union of Scientists and Engineers (JUSE) coordinated the movement in Japan. The first circles started at the Nippon Wireless and Telegraph Company; the idea then spread to more than 35 other companies in the first year. By 1978 it was claimed by JUSE in their publication Gemba to QC Circles, that there were more than one million quality circles involving some 10 million Japanese workers. they operate in most East Asian countries; it was recently claimed by the President of the Chinese Quality Circles Society at the ICSQCC Conference in Beijing 30 August 1997 that there were more than 20 million quality circles in China. Quality circles have been implemented even in educational sectors in India, and QCFI (Quality Circle Forum of India) is promoting such activities. However this was not successful in the United States, as the idea was not properly understood and implementation turned into a fault-finding exercise – although some circles do still exist. Don Dewar together with Wayne Ryker and Jeff Beardsley established quality circles in 1972 at the Lockheed Space Missile factory in California. Empirical studies In a structures-fabrication and assembly plant in the south-eastern US, some quality circles (QCs) were established by the management (management-initiated); whereas others were formed based on requests of employees (self-initiated). Based on 47 QCs over a three-year period, research showed that management-initiated QCs have fewer members, solve more work-related QC problems, and solve their problems much faster than self-initiated QCS. However, the effect of QC initiation (management- vs. self-initiated) on problem-solving performance disappears after controlling QC size. A high attendance of QC meetings is related to lower number of projects completed and slow speed of performance in management-initiated QCS QCs with high upper-management support (high attendance of QC meetings) solve significantly more problems than those without. Active QCs had lower rate of problem-solving failure, higher attendance rate at QC meetings, and higher net savings of QC projects than inactive QCs. QC membership tends to decrease over the three-year period. Larger QCs have a better chance of survival than smaller QCs. A significant drop in QC membership is a precursor of QC failure. The sudden decline in QC membership represents the final and irreversible stage of the QC's demise. Attributions of quality circles' problem-solving failure vary across participants of QCs: Management, supporting staff, and QC members. There are seven basic quality improvement tools that