Sousa 2002 Quality Manag Revisited JOM

Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 91109

Conceptual noteQuality management re-visited: a reflective

review and agenda for future researchRui Sousa a,, Christopher A. Voss b,1

a Faculdade de Economia e Gesto, Universidade Catlica Portuguesa at Porto, Rua Diogo Botelho, 1327, 4169-005 Porto, Portugalb London Business School, Sussex Place, Regents Park, London NW1 4SA, UK

Received 10 July 2001; accepted 9 October 2001

Abstract

Quality management (QM) has become an all-pervasive management philosophy, finding its way into most sectors oftodays business society. After the initial hype and enthusiasm, it is time to take stock of the knowledge accumulated inwhat is now a mature field of study and look for directions to take the field further forward. This article reflects on the massof literature in the field, synthesizing, organizing and structuring knowledge and offering suggestions for future research. Itreviews QM research organized along five main themes: the definition of QM, the definition of product quality, the impactof QM on firm performance, QM in the context of management theory and the implementation of QM. The article draws onthese themes to reflect on three questions which are fundamental to re-visit and re-appraise QM: (i) What is QM? (ii) Is theset of practices associated with QM valid as a whole? (iii) How to implement QM in a real business setting? 2002 ElsevierScience B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Quality management; Literature review; Reflective

1. Introduction

Quality management (QM) was born almost twodecades ago with the core ideas of W. Edwards Dem-ing, Joseph Juran, Philip Crosby and Kaoru Ishikawa.Since then it has become an all-pervasive manage-ment philosophy finding its way into most sectorsof todays business society. Many companies havenow embedded QM practices into their normal oper-ations and, more and more, these practices are being

Corresponding author. Tel.: +351-22-6196200;fax: +351-22-6196291.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Sousa),[email protected] (C.A. Voss).

1 Tel.: +44-20-7262-5050; fax: +44-20-7724-7875.

stripped of their faddish connotations to the point thatnowadays, it is generally accepted that QM is here tostay. After the initial hype and enthusiasm, it is timeto take stock of the knowledge accumulated over thelast two decades in what is now becoming a maturefield of study and look for directions to take the fieldfurther forward.

A substantial literature review was published byAhire et al. (1995). This was a mainly descriptivereview, providing a thorough synthesis of articlespublished from 1970 to 1993 and categorizing theliterature along the several components of QM. Thisreview was a useful stepping-stone in helping to con-solidate the field. As QM has now entered a maturephase (in terms of having established sound defini-tional and conceptual foundations), the objective of

0272-6963/02/$ see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.PII: S0 2 7 2 -6963 (01 )00088 -2

92 R. Sousa, C.A. Voss / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 91109

this paper is to re-visit it and provide a reflectivereview of its literature.

The paper looks at broad issues, rather than offer-ing a systematic and descriptive coverage of the wholebody of literature, as Ahire et al. (1995) did. Our aim isto synthesize, organize and structure knowledge froman academic/research standpoint and offer suggestionsfor future research. Despite our review having differ-ent objectives from Ahire et al. (1995), we focus ona similar literature scope. Namely, we mainly reflecton literature in the field of management, written inthe context of QM, focusing on an integrated view ofmanaging quality and maintaining a broader QM per-spective. As such, we do not directly cover specifictopics such as technical and analytical quality topics(e.g. quality control statistical techniques, cost models,etc.), discipline-specific articles (e.g. information sys-tems, health care, etc.), literature specifically related toquality standards (e.g. ISO 9000) and quality awards(e.g. the European Foundation and Baldrige QualityAwards), and literature focusing on single individualcomponents of QM (e.g. leadership, workforce man-agement, supplier involvement, etc.). The focus of thispaper is explicitly product quality. We have not ad-dressed the area of service quality. The service litera-ture has a strong focus on consumer perceptions andmarketing area, e.g. SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al.,1988), and is somewhat separate from the focus of thispaper. A review of service quality has recently beenpublished by Harvey (1998).

Within this remit, we classify the existing literaturein five main research streams: the definition of QM,the definition of product quality, the impact of QMon firm performance, QM in the context of manage-ment theory and the implementation of QM. We re-view these five streams with the objective of reflect-ing on three questions that we consider fundamentalin re-visiting and re-appraising QM.

The first question is existential and definitional innature: Is there such a field as QM? If so, what doesit consist of and how should we define its immedi-ate output, product quality? The relevant researchstreams that we review are the definition of QM andthe definition of product quality. Accepting that thereis such a field as QM, the second fundamental ques-tion is whether the set of practices associated withQM is valid as a whole. In this connection, we re-view the research stream on the impact of QM on

firm performance and how QM compares to existingmanagement theory. Accepting the premise that QMis valid brings us to the third fundamental question:How to implement QM in a real business setting? Inthis connection, we review the research stream on theimplementation of QM.

For each of the five research streams we synthesizethe main findings and offer suggestions for futureresearch. We conclude by re-visiting our three funda-mental questions in the light of the literature reviewand provide overarching conclusions and generalsuggestions to take research in the QM field furtherforward.

2. Defining quality management

QM has been defined as a philosophy or an ap-proach to management made up of a set of mutuallyreinforcing principles, each of which is supported bya set of practices and techniques (Dean and Bowen,1994). As QM has become embedded in more andmore organizations in the last two decades, it has cometo mean different things to different people (Watsonand Korukonda, 1995), to such an extent that it begsthe question: Is there such a thing as QM? Hackmanand Wageman (1995) answer this question affirma-tively. They defend that QM exhibits convergent va-lidity, since there is substantial agreement among themovements founders about the key principles andpractices of QM. Furthermore, they also attribute dis-criminant validity to QM arguing that, as espoused bythe movements founders, QM philosophy and prac-tice can be reliably distinguished from other strategiesfor organizational improvement.

At the empirical level, the assessment of whethersuch a thing as QM exists and what constitutes QMshould be made at the level of practices: practicesare the observable facet of QM, and it is throughthem that managers work to realize organizationalimprovements. Principles are too general for empiri-cal research and techniques are too detailed to obtainreliable results (e.g. one practice may be implementedvia many optional techniques). For example, the QMprinciple continuous improvement can be supportedby the practice process management, which in turncan resort to several techniques such as statisticalprocess control and Pareto analysis.

R.Sousa,C.A.Vo

ss/Jou

rnal

ofOperations

Manag

ement20

(2002)91109

93


Several studies have tried to synthesize the vastQM literature and identify the key QM practice di-mensions. Associated instruments to measure thesedimensions were developed and empirically tested viasurvey research. Table 1 compares five major studiesand provides an approximate correspondence betweenthe QM practice constructs that were identified. Asshown in the table, there is substantial agreement asto the set of constructs classified under the QM um-brella. These constructs are all present in the frame-works used for the national quality awards, such asthe Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in theUS and the European Quality Award.

The agreement in the literature on what constitutesQM indicates that QM as a field has indeed maturedand is laid down on solid definitional foundations.Despite this, future research should incrementallybuild on the already existing base. First, future studiesshould make explicit at what level they are address-ing QM content: principles, practices or techniques.Some of the conflicting results reported in the litera-ture may have to do with different levels of analysis ofQM (e.g. while SPCa technique supportive of thepractice process managementmay be observed asnot being in use in a certain plant, other techniquessupportive of the same practice, e.g. process datacollection and analysis, may well be used instead,representing a good overall use of practice processmanagement). Researchers should also strive for astandardization of definitional terms. For example,different terms have been used for practices, such asfactors (Saraph et al., 1989; Powell, 1995), imple-mentation constructs (Ahire et al., 1996; Andersonet al., 1995) and interventions (Hackman and Wage-man, 1995). Table 1 also demonstrates the profusionof different terms for what are essentially similarpractices making up QM. Finally, there is the need totest the existing instruments to measure QM practice

Table 2Alternative approaches to the definition of product quality

Approach Definitional variables Underlying discipline

Transcendent Innate excellence PhilosophyProduct-based Quantity of desired attributes EconomicsUser-based Satisfaction of individual consumer preferences Economics, marketing and operations managementManufacturing-based Conformance to requirements Operations managementValue-based Affordable excellence Operations management

Source: Garvin (1984).

dimensionstypically developed using samples oflarge companies in well developed industry sectorsin still less well studied contexts, such as processindustries, small volume production of customizedproducts or industry sectors where creativity is key.

One dangerous trend that may threaten the sound-ness of the fields conceptual foundations is theinclusion by the practitioner community of an everincreasing range of practices under the QM umbrellain an attempt to re-package QM and make it moresellable after its initial hype. For example, the scopeof the major quality awards assessment frameworkshas been continuously enlarged making them over-all business excellence models rather than strictlyquality models. This trend carries with it the dangerof destroying QMs convergent and discriminant va-lidity, a challenge that the QM academic communitywill have to deal with in the future.

3. Defining product quality

Research in QM has been unable to arrive at a sin-gle definition of product quality. At best, several op-tional definitions were proposed. Garvin (1984) iden-tified five major approaches to the definition of qual-ity and the disciplines in which they are rooted (seeTable 2). Reeves and Bednar (1994) identify similardefinitional approaches to quality, and conclude thata global definition of quality does not exist; rather,different definitions of quality are appropriate underdifferent circumstances.

Another important realization is that quality seemsto be a multi-dimensional construct (Garvin, 1984;Hjorth-Anderson, 1984). Garvin (1984, 1987) pro-posed eight dimensions of product quality (perfor-mance, features, reliability, conformance, durability,serviceability, aesthetics and perceived quality) and

R. Sousa, C.A. Voss / Journal of Operations Management 20 (2002) 91109 95

there is empirical evidence of the multi-dimensionalityof the quality construct (Stone-Romero et al., 1997).

Despite the above findings, most research to datetreats quality as an unidimensional construct anddoes not take the necessary care to state clearlythe definition of quality used (Stone-Romero et al.,1997). In this connection, two main points shouldbe considered in future research. First, future studiesshould use multi-dimensional measures of quality.The importance of recognizing the multi-dimensionalnature of quality cannot be overstated. In fact, therelative strategic importance of the different qualitydimensions varies across products and industries. Anorganization will only achieve competitive advantagethrough quality if there is a match between the impor-tance that the markets assign to the individual qualitydimensions and the organizations performance alongthose individual dimensions (Garvin, 1984). Also,different quality dimensions exhibit different relation-ships with other competitive variables such as cost anddelivery dependability. For example, regarding cost,improved conformance quality may lead to reducedcosts, while improvement in the performance dimen-sion may imply reduced conformance and increasedcosts (Maani, 1989). In addition, the deficiencies ofthe existing QM literature in defining product qualityhave been identified as being responsible for conflict-ing results reported in the literature linking qualityto outcomes such as market share, cost and profits(Reeves and Bednar, 1994). Finally, provision of dif-ferent quality dimensions poses different demandson different organizational functions (e.g. marketing,design, manufacturing, purchasing) and may requiredifferent organizational practices (including QM prac-tices) depending on the quality dimension in question(Flynn et al., 1995a). For example, while the designfunction and associated design practices are bound toinfluence most quality dimensions, the manufacturingfunction and practices will probably be limited toinfluencing conformance quality.

Second, future studies should not aim at a singledefinition of quality. Rather, they should focus uponthe fundamental nature of an organizations outputand use a definition of quality encompassing the rele-vant dimensions for that output. Garvins (1984, 1987)eight quality dimensions are a robust framework forresearch, covering a wide range of products and mar-kets, and thus, are a good starting point for choosing

the right dimensions. However, in some cases, we mayneed to consider other quality dimensions, or aggre-gate/desegregate some of Garvins basic dimensionsto fit the particular situation being addressed. In thisconnection, there is the need to develop conceptualframeworks and measuring methods for specific con-texts of the product quality construct (Reeves and Bed-nar, 1994).

4. The impact of quality management on firmperformance: the quality performance model

One important area of research in QM has beenthe examination of the extent to which QM practiceshave an impact on firm performance. Fig. 1 depictsthe model underlying this body of literature.

The quality performance model shows the severalroutes by which QM practice may impact on quality,operational and business performance. QM proponentsargue that the set of QM practices reduce the manu-facturing process variability (thus, increasing internalprocess quality and subsequently product confor-mance quality), e.g. by using statistical process con-trol. Moreover, all other product quality dimensionswill also be improved, e.g. by using design and cus-tomer minded QM practices. Garvin (1984) showedhow, in turn, internal process quality and productquality performance could impact on operational andbusiness performance. He proposed two main routesfor the effect of quality on business performance: themanufacturing route and the market route (Fig. 1).

In the manufacturing route, improved internal pro-cess quality, meaning fewer defects, scrap and re-work, results in improved operational performance(e.g. lower manufacturing costs, more dependable pro-cesses), and subsequent improvement in terms of man-ufacturing related order-winners and qualifiers. Thesein turn lead to improved business performance.

In the market route, improvements in product qual-ity lead to increased sales and larger market shares, oralternatively, less elastic demand and higher prices. Ifthe cost of achieving these gains is outweighed by theincreases in contribution received by the firm, higherprofits will result. Larger market shares can improvebusiness performance directly and can also lead to in-direct experience based cost savings and further gainsin profitability. Less elastic demand and higher prices


Fig. 1. The quality performance model.

can lead directly to improved business performance.Finally, improved product quality can lead to lowerwarranty and product liability costs, resulting in lowerservice costs and improved business performance.

The following sections review empirical evidenceon two main sets of relationships depicted in thequality performance model: (i) the impact of qualityperformance (internal process quality and productquality) on operational and business performance; and(ii) the impact of QM practice on performance (inter-nal process quality, product quality, operational andbusiness performance). The first two sections summa-rize the evidence which is then discussed at the end.

4.1. The impact of quality performance onoperational and business performance: empiricalevidence

This research stream can be traced to the seminalstudy of Phillips et al. (1983) which was then fol-lowed by a flurry of similar studies during the 1980s.Capon et al. (1990) summarized all this work using

meta-analysis to examine published studies of factorsaffecting financial performance. Recently, there havebeen more rigorous empirical studies with the explicitgoal of testing relationships between quality and oper-ational and business performance (Maani et al., 1994;Sluti et al., 1995; Madu et al., 1995; White, 1996).Table 3 summarizes these studies.

4.2. The impact of quality management practiceon performance: empirical evidence

While the above research examined the relation-ship between quality performance and operational andbusiness performance, other researchers have workedfurther upstream in the quality performance model bystudying the relationship between QM practice andperformance (internal process quality, product quality,operational and business performance). Much of theearly literature was descriptive, and evidence of linksbetween QM practices and performance was in themost part anecdotal. More recently, there have beenmore elaborate efforts to substantiate these relation-


Table 3Summary of the empirical evidence on the relationship between quality performance and operational and business performance

Study Methodology Sample Findings related to the impact of qualityperformance onOperational performance Business performance

Capon et al. (1990) Meta-analysis 20 published studiesrelating quality tobusiness performance

Not addressed In the sample of studiesthere were 104 positive,versus 8 negative,relationships between qualityand business performance

Maani et al. (1994),Sluti et al. (1995)

Survey study, structuralequation modeling

184 manufacturing firms Conformance quality had asignificant and strong effect

Conformance quality had asignificant but weak effect

Madu et al. (1995) Survey study, pathanalysis

146 manufacturing firms Not addressed Significant effect of qualityperformance (customersatisfaction, employeesatisfaction and employeeservice quality)

White (1996) Meta-analysis Previous studies providingempirical evidence ofrelationships betweenconformance quality andbusiness performance

Strong support for thebeneficial effect ofconformance quality

Less strong, but still positivesupport for the beneficialeffect of conformance quality

ships, using sophisticated data collection and analy-sis approaches to move beyond description to infer-ence. Flynn et al.s (1995a) categorization of the roleof QM practices into core and infrastructure (infras-tructure practices create an environment supportive ofthe use of core practices) proved to be enlightening ininterpreting and comparing the results of these stud-ies. Table 4 summarizes the major rigorous empiricalstudies directly addressing the impact of QM practiceson performance.

4.3. Conclusions and further research

Overall, the studies on the relationship betweenquality performance and firm performance (Table 3)suggest that: (i) quality performance (mainly con-formance quality) has a significant and strong effecton operational performance; and (ii) quality perfor-mance has a weak and not always significant effecton business performance. In turn, the studies on therelationship between QM practice and performance(Table 4) seem to indicate that, as a whole, QM prac-tices have a significant and strong impact on qualityand operational performance. However, the impact ofQM practices on business performance is weaker andnot always significant.

The results of these two sets of studies are remark-ably consistent and, although causality cannot beestablished, taken together they seem to suggest thefollowing. First, QM practices have a significant andstrong impact on quality (internal process and prod-uct) and operational performance. Second, the indi-rect impact of QM practices on business performancevia the mediating effect of quality and operationalperformance, although significant, is weaker, and stillleaves a reasonable amount of business performancevariance unexplained.

The weak impact of QM practices on business per-formance is open to two different interpretations. Inthe first possible interpretation, QM practice may in-deed be beneficial to business performance, i.e. qualitymay be freeand its weak impact reported in empiri-cal studies attributed to research methodology. Hack-man and Wageman (1995) list several difficulties indetecting statistically the direct effects of QM by us-ing outcome criteria such as business performance.

A second interpretation may be that the impactof QM practice on business performance is con-tingent on other factors, such as the nature of themarket environment (e.g. in terms of market size andstructure, e.g. perfect competition versus monopoly)(Karmarkar and Pitbladdo, 1997). According to this

98R.Sousa,C.A.V

oss/Jo

urn

alofO

perationsM

anagem

ent20(2002)

91109

R.Sousa,C.A.Vo

ss/Jou

rnal

ofOperations

Manag

ement20

(2002)91109

99


interpretation, quality may not always be free. Thatis, although the quality performance model delineatespossible mechanisms by which increased quality per-formance may lead to increased operational and busi-ness performance, it should not be taken for grantedthat the final result of these mechanisms will always beincreased performance. Within this paradigm, qualityimprovements should be assessed by the return on theinvestment made as any other productivity enhancingor cost reducing initiative (Karmarkar and Pitbladdo,1997). This is in line with Jurans ideas on optimalquality, according to which there is an optimum levelof conformance quality above which it ceases to beadvantageous for firms to invest in improving internalprocess quality (Juran, 1988). Although conceptuallyit is difficult to challenge this view, the relevant issueis to identify under which conditions quality may notbe free and whether these conditions are bound tooccur frequently in real business settings. Followingfrom this, there is the need to test the relationshipsin the quality performance model across differentbusiness contexts.

The findings listed in Table 4 also raise questionsabout the interplay between core and infrastructurepractices. Existing theory points to core and infras-tructure practices both having to be present to pro-duce success. Spencer (1994), Sitkin et al. (1994)and Dean and Bowen (1994) all defend the integra-tion of mechanistic/process/technical (core) andnon-mechanistic/sociobehavioral (infrastructure)QM aspects. Hackman and Wageman (1995) alsonote the utility of quality tools and techniques (coreelements) as auxiliary for learning. According tothis view, the infrastructure components of QM mayonly have a positive effect on performance if coreaspects have also been established, i.e. the infrastruc-ture aspects seem to work through the core aspects toproduce improvements.

While this view is consistent with the empirical re-sults of Flynn et al. (1995a) and Anderson et al. (1995),other studies have raised doubts about the contribu-tion of core practices to performance, suggesting thatinfrastructure practices can produce performance evenwithout the core practices (Powell, 1995; Dow et al.,1999; Samson and Terziovski, 1999). However, theresearch design used by the latter studies was not ad-equate to draw any definite conclusions, because thequality performance model in which they were based

did not allow for the separation of direct effects ofinfrastructure practices on performance from indirecteffects of these practices through the core practices.

For example, Powell (1995) suggests that only in-frastructure practices may contribute to business per-formance because they are difficult to imitate, whilecore practices are not. Powell (1995) based his doubtsabout the effectiveness of core practices on the factthat the best performers in terms of business perfor-mance in his sample had a significantly higher degreeof adoption of the infrastructure practices than theworse performers. However, there was no significantdifference in the degree of adoption of core practices.This leaves scope for an alternative explanation. In-frastructure practices are indeed necessary to supportand enhance the effects of core practices on perfor-mance. But they might not be sufficient: firms onlyadopting the infrastructure practices may not achievea good level of performance. What may be difficultto imitate may not only be the infrastructure practicesper se, but its integration with the core practices. Dowet al.s (1999) and Samson and Terziovskis (1999)studies suffered from similar deficiencies. For exam-ple, Samson and Terziovski (1999) found that the onlypractices that were related to performance were infras-tructure practices; however, the usage of core practiceswas found to be strongly correlated with the use of theinfrastructure practices, thus, casting doubts over theseparation of the effects of each of the sets of practices.Therefore, further research is needed to clarify the rel-ative importance and the interplay between core andinfrastructure practices in determining performance.

Future research in the quality performance modelalso needs to address some of the deficiencies of paststudies. First, there is a need to clearly situate studieswithin the practice performance model by indicatingwhich parts of the model the studies are addressing.Several studies address only a few variables of themodel and ignore potentially important effects ofother variables (e.g. research relating QM practiceto business performance without considering qualityand operating performance).

Second, quality needs to be clearly defined ineach study. The word quality is used to meandifferent things in different studies such as internalprocess quality, one or several dimensions of productquality, customer satisfaction and operational per-formance. Universalistic propositions describing the


relationship among various variables and quality can-not be made when the meaning of quality continuallychanges. Some of the conflicting results reported inthe literature linking quality to performance outcomesmay be largely attributable to definitional deficiencies(Reeves and Bednar, 1994).

Finally, we need to increase our understanding ofthe means by which QM effects are generated. In thisconnection, three areas need more investigation. First,more research into the linkages between the severalQM practices is needed. Most research to date deal-ing with specific QM practices tends to ignore theirrelationship with other practices (e.g. SPC as dissoci-ated from workforce management). Second, we needto know more about the interaction between QM andother best practices. One of the few empirical studiesin this area is Flynn et al. (1995b) who looked at theinteraction between JIT and QM. Third, one impor-tant factor in the practice performance model needs tobe further researched, namely, the time lags betweenthe implementation of QM practice and performance(e.g. Reed et al., 1996). Given the integrative and com-plex nature of this type of research, the field mightbenefit from case study research using process criteria(the degree to which improvements in organizationalfunctioning that are expected are actually observed;Hackman and Wageman, 1995) to measure QM effec-tiveness, as opposed to outcome criteria.

5. Quality management in the context ofmanagement theory

Although the field of QM has been mainly led bypractitioners, recently there have been efforts to bridgethe gap between practice and theory with an emphasison research attempting to situate QM in the contextof management theory (MT) of which the special is-sue of the Academy of Management Review in 1994is a landmark. Four pieces of work stand out as themost elaborate and explicit efforts in comparing QMand MT at the detailed topic level (Dean and Bowen,1994; Anderson et al., 1994; Hackman and Wageman,1995; Waldman, 1994). Across these four works, sev-eral QM topics were systematically compared to MT.Table 5 summarizes the main conclusions of thesestudies, following Dean and Bowens (1994) classifi-cation of topics along the content areas of the Baldrige

Award framework. These studies found areas in whichQM and MT are essentially similar; and areas of dis-crepancy between QM and MT: areas in which MTcould offer insights into QM (most notably, strategicquality planning and human resource management),areas where QM raises questions for further develop-ment in MT; and clear conflict areas between QM andMT.

Other studies have compared QM to MT at a moregeneral level. Spencer (1994) examines several QMcomponents to conclude that QM comprises elementsfrom both the mechanistic and organismic modelsof organization. Similarly, Grant et al. (1994) statethat QM can bridge the gap between the rationalistschool (based on the principles of scientific manage-ment and the theory of bureaucracy) and the humanrelations school (based on the role of the organiza-tion as a social system, emphasizing psychologicaland social needs). It, thus, seems that QM holds po-tential to inform MT, in that it seems to retain some ofwhat is valuable in traditionally opposing models oforganization while discarding some of their negativeaspects (Spencer, 1994).

Several important points arise from the theoreticaldevelopments described above. First, QM in its pureform (as first envisaged by its founders) may notbe synonymous with current best practice. As statedearlier, there seems to be areas where QM couldreceive insights from MT. Moreover, practitioners,who have traditionally led the QM field, are merg-ing pure QM with other practices prescribed by MT(e.g. performance-related compensation, benchmark-ing) (Hackman and Wageman, 1995). Furthermore,empirical studies using definitions of QM not strictlybased on the founders of the movement and incor-porating practices in actual use have shown a linkbetween the use of these practices and performance(e.g. Flynn et al., 1995a; Ahire et al., 1996; Blackand Porter, 1996). Whether these deviations frompure QM are implementation deficiencies threaten-ing performanceas defended by some authors (e.g.Kolesar, 1995)or a worthy modification of the orig-inal QM recommendations needs to be ascertained.

Second, QM seems to be able to offer insights intoMT, especially in what concerns the pragmatic inte-gration of aspects from traditionally opposing schoolsof management theory (Spencer, 1994; Grant et al.,1994). Finally, there are unresolved conflicts between

102R.Sousa,C.A.V

oss/Jo

urn

alofO

perationsM

anagem

ent20(2002)

91109

R.Sousa,C.A.Vo

ss/Jou

rnal

ofOperations

Manag

ement20

(2002)91109

103


QM and MT in some areas (Table 5). Further researchneeds to be undertaken to ascertain whether MT shouldincorporate insights from QM or QM principles andprescribed practice should be modified in light of MT.It has also been suggested that some of the conflictsbetween QM and MT arise because of the universalorientation of QM, which contrasts with the contin-gent approach of MT (Dean and Bowen, 1994). Con-tingency research into QM may be a promising avenueto solve some of these conflicts.

6. The implementation of quality management

The implementation of QM in an organization re-quires two distinct types of decisions: what to do (con-tent: the extent to which the different QM practicesshould be used) and how to do it (process: how toconduct the change process by which the chosen QMpractices are embedded in an organization). We reviewthe literature concerning these two aspects of QM im-plementation and discuss them jointly at the end.

6.1. QM implementation contentwhat to do

Having been strongly led by practitioners sinceits inception, QM has acquired a strong prescriptivestance, with the whole set of QM practices often beingadvocated as being universally applicable to organi-zations. The logical implication is that organizationsshould adopt and use the whole set of QM practicesto the same (high) degree, regardless of their context.

Recently, however, more rigorous academic stud-ies have started to question the universal validity ofQM practices, investigating the influence of the or-ganizational context on QM practice. Only four stud-ies were found that rigorously addressed this issuewithin an explicit contingency framework (Bensonet al., 1991; Sitkin et al., 1994; Reed et al., 1996;Sousa, 2000; Sousa and Voss, in press). All of themsuggest that the effectiveness of individual QM prac-tices is contingent on the organizational context. Rel-evant contextual variables include managerial knowl-edge, corporate support for quality, external qualityrequirements and product complexity (Benson et al.,1991), organizational uncertainty (Sitkin et al., 1994;Reed et al., 1996) and manufacturing strategy context(Sousa, 2000; Sousa and Voss, in press). Other stud-

ies, whose main purpose was not to investigate QMcontingencies, have tangentially uncovered other con-textual factors affecting QM practices, such as indus-try (Maani, 1989; Powell, 1995), firm size (Price andChen, 1993; Madu et al., 1995), years since adoptionof QM programs (Powell, 1995; Ahire, 1996), country(Madu et al., 1995), and product/process factors (e.g.manufacturing system: Maani, 1989; type of work anorganization does: Lawler, 1994; breadth of productline and frequency of product changes: Kekre et al.,1995).

In addition, several large scale empirical studies ex-amining the impact of QM on firm performance havefound that some QM practices did not have a signifi-cant impact on performance (e.g. Powell, 1995; Dowet al., 1999; Samson and Terziovski, 1999), some ofthem suggesting that this may be due to these practicesbeing context dependent (Powell, 1995; Dow et al.,1999).

In conclusion, the existing literature on QM con-tingencies, although sparse, clearly raises the pos-sibility of individual QM practices being contextdependent. However, only two studies (Benson et al.,1991; Sousa, 2000) have directly addressed this issueempirically, pointing to the need to conduct moreempirical studies of this sort. Such studies should aimat identifying important contingency variables thatdistinguish between different types of organizationalcontexts and producing guidelines on which practicesto emphasize in each of them.

6.2. QM implementation processhow to do it

The QM practitioner literature abounds with re-ports of problems in (the process of) implementingQM. For example, Harari (1993) and MacDonald(1993) listed reasons why QM may not work, Papa(1993) suggested that after 18 months or so, QMpractices can revert to the old ways, and Myers andAshkenas (1993) discussed ways to stop QM frombecoming another expensive and unproductive fad.Empirical studies also uncovered implementationproblems (e.g. Van de Wiele et al., 1993). In parallel,several authors share the view that successful im-plementation of QM requires a radical change (e.g.Dobyns and Crawford-Mason, 1991; Munroe-Faureand Munroe-Faure, 1992; Reger et al., 1994) result-ing in a paradigm shift that may bring into question


members most basic assumptions about the natureof the organization (Blackburn and Rosen, 1993).According to this view, QM cannot simply be graftedonto existing management structures and systems,and may require the redesign of work, the redefinitionof managerial roles, the redesign of organizationalstructures, the learning of new skills by employeesat all levels, and the reorientation of organizationalgoals (Grant et al., 1994). Thus, the prevalent viewseems to be that QM is difficult to implement.

A tremendous wealth of advice is available on howa company can go about implementing QM. Works inthis area include experience-based recommendations(e.g. Fenwick, 1991; Dawson, 1995; Davis, 1997),lessons based on case studies (e.g. Instone and Dale,1989; De Cieri et al., 1991; McDonnell, 1992), iden-tification of barriers to implementation (e.g. Oaklandand Sohal, 1987; Eisen et al., 1992; Whalen andRahim, 1994), and reasons why QM programs fail(e.g. Harari, 1993; MacDonald, 1993).

This literature, however, suffers from two mainshortcomings. First, lack of academic rigor, illustratedby the rare presence of a methodology section in pub-lished studies and the absence of a clear definition ofwhat is meant by QM content wise. Studies have usu-ally been exploratory, descriptive and/or prescriptivein nature. Second, and related to the first deficiency,these studies have been unable to offer a series ofunderlying threads and principles which apply irre-spective of the characteristics of the company.

Although these studies were useful in the first stagesof research, we now need to raise the theoretical andmethodological level of QM implementation researchand attempt to produce more general principles. Wepropose two main courses of action to accomplish this.First, to develop theoretical frameworks that can struc-ture and guide research beyond the exploratory leveltowards theory building. In this endeavor, researchersmay find it fruitful to draw on existing theories. Forexample, Reger et al. (1994) draw on cognitive the-ory to build a conceptual framework for understandingimpediments to implementing QM which they thenuse to produce powerful and general propositions re-garding QM implementation. A promising theoreticalsource which has not yet been adequately explored isthe existing literature on the management of organi-zational change (e.g. Tushman and Romanelli, 1985;Mohrman et al., 1989).

Second, there is the need to conduct contingencystudies. While there may be no one best implementa-tion approach to suit all organizations and each com-pany may need a tailored implementation program(e.g. Van der Akker, 1989; Atkinson, 1990), it maybe possible to derive general principles that apply toparticular categories of companies. In this connection,research should identify which are the relevant con-textual factors to be considered and their links to thechoice of the implementation approach (e.g. Mann andKehoe, 1995; Yusof and Aspinwall, 2000).

6.3. Conclusions and further research

Although the implementation of QM requires deci-sions in the above two areas, the respective researchstreams have largely progressed ignoring each other.On the one hand, research on what to do has beganto provide only a static view, offering so far only lim-ited insights on how the end result should look likecontent-wise for the organizations embarking on theQM journey. What it has as yet failed to produce areguidelines on what practices should be emphasized byorganizations at difference stages of QM maturity andon what might be the best QM practice implementa-tion sequence to reach the end result.

On the other hand, the how to do it researchstream has taken for granted that all QM practices areuniversally applicable. Implicit in their view is that it isalways possible and worth changing an organizationscontext to accommodate all QM practices as espoused.However, research on what to do suggests that theremay be innate organizational characteristics resulting,e.g. from the nature of the markets, business strategy,or process hardware that cannot or are very difficult tochange in order to accommodate standard QM. Someof the difficulties and problems in implementing QMreported in the literature may in fact not simply bean inevitable pain that organizations have to endure inmoving towards quality, but they may result insteadfrom too great a mismatch between the universally es-poused form of QM and the particular organizationalcontext. It is important to clearly differentiate thesedifficulties from those arising from the change pro-cess, because they may demand different courses ofaction. In particular, context induced difficulties maybe seen as requiring structural fixes along one orboth of the following two dimensions: the mix of QM


practices to adopt and/or the modification of adversecontext characteristics (Sousa, 2000). These measuresare clearly different from measures attempting to fa-cilitate the implementation process, such as leadershipor training issues.

The integration of the two research streams emergesas the main challenge facing QM implementation re-search and one which would contribute to structuringthe current chaotic wealth of QM implementation ad-vice and to producing more solid and useful advice tomanagers.

7. Overall conclusions and future research

We have organized and reviewed QM research infive areas: the definition of QM, the definition of prod-uct quality, the impact of QM on firm performance,QM in the context of management theory and the im-plementation of QM. In each of them, we exploredsuggestions for future research. In reflecting on thefield as a whole, we would like to re-visit our initialthree fundamental questions.

First, is whether there is such a field as QM. We con-cluded that QM, as espoused by its founders, can bereliably distinguished from other strategies for orga-nizational improvement and there is substantial agree-ment in the literature as to which practices fall underthe QM umbrella. Regarding QMs immediate output,product quality, we saw that existing research still hadto overcome some definitional deficiencies, namely,it should begin to carefully choose and clearly statethe definition of quality used and to treat quality as amulti-dimensional construct. Overall, QM researchersnow seem to have ironed out most of the existential is-sues and laid out solid conceptual foundations for whatmight indeed be considered a maturing field of study.The future research that we recommended in this areaamounts to further developing the already establishedfoundations, including the need to distinguish betweenQM principles, practices and techniques, the need tostandardize the vocabulary, the need to test the exist-ing instruments to measure QM practice dimensionsin still less well studied contexts and the need to de-velop more precise definitions and multi-dimensionalmeasures of product quality for different contexts.

Our second fundamental question is whether the setof practices associated with QM is valid as a whole.

The many problems reported in implementing QM le-gitimately raise the question of whether these are theresult of conceptual flaws in QM or of implementa-tion deficiencies. Most authors recognize the virtuesof QM and attribute failures to implementation prob-lems, such as non-committal executives (e.g. Barclay,1993; Hackman and Wageman, 1995; Masterson et al.,1997; Samson and Terziovski, 1999). Research on therelationship between QM practices and performancealso points to the overall set of QM practices beingvalid, although being difficult to implement and be-ing potentially subject to contingencies. In this area,we identified the need for a more detailed and solidunderstanding of QMs performance effects by usingfiner quality performance models (including all of therelevant variables and relationships), investigating themodels relationships across different contexts, fur-ther studying the interplay between core and infras-tructure practices, looking at the interactions betweenQM practices between them and with other sets of bestpractices, and investigating the mechanisms (and timelags) by which QM practices affect performance.

The research on comparing QM to existing manage-ment theory reinforces the overall validity of QM, butsimultaneously raises doubts as to whether the originalrecommendations could be improved by incorporatinginsights from existing theory and practitioners in thefield. In addition, in the present business environmentthere are increasing pressures to stretch and add to thecontent of QM. These may be due partly to an effortby practitioners to re-package QM and make it moresellable after its initial hype and partly to the real needsof current businesses. We mentioned earlier the evo-lution of the quality award assessment frameworks toincreasingly include topics which are strictly not qual-ity related. Simultaneously, in an effort to apply QM tonon-traditional settings (e.g. fundamentally uncertaincontexts or contexts where creativity is paramount)new practices are being suggested for inclusion as partof QM (e.g. Sitkin et al.s (1994) Total Quality Learn-ing practices). In addition, in the present business en-vironment, the attention of businesses is increasinglybeing directed away from within-firm boundaries to-wards the management of supply chains and networksof firms. These are areas outside the traditional realmof QM, despite its concerns with the immediate linksto customers and suppliers. This general trend posesa major challenge for the future of the field of QM.


Either it keeps adding to the core of QMcarryingwith it the danger of dissolving QMs identity as a fieldof study and threaten the soundness of the fields con-ceptual foundationsor it begins to frame the muchneeded research in these new areas as research con-ducted at the interface between core QM and otherfields.

Despite eventually benefiting from improvementsand additions, the main body of literature points to theoverall validity of QM. Accepting this premise bringsus to our third fundamental question: How to imple-ment QM in a real business setting? Here, we identi-fied the pressing need to structure the current chaoticwealth of implementation advice and produce moresolid and useful advice to managers. In this connec-tion, we concluded that more empirical research onthe content of QM implementation was necessary. Theaim should be to better understand the effect of con-textual variables on the effectiveness of individual QMpractices with the objective of producing guidelineson how to adapt QM content to an organizations spe-cific context. We also pointed out the need to raise therigor and theoretical level of research on the processof implementation of QM. However, the major chal-lenge we identified was to integrate the content andprocess streams of QM implementation research.

Overall, the research needs discussed above all pointto the overarching need to develop sounder, richer andmore detailed knowledge on QM. This is a naturalcourse for a maturing field of study. After QMs ini-tial hype and exploratory stages, many businesses havecome to mistrust the quick fix and somewhat superfi-cial recipes that have often been associated with QM.As researchers, we need to reinforce QMs validity byoffering more sober and substantiated knowledge. Wesuggest two general avenues to accomplish this.

First, to conduct more contingency studies thatwill help managers tailor the existing QM knowledgeto their particular organizational context. The needto produce contingency knowledge was a recurringtheme in our review of the several QM researchstreams. Examples include the need to test the exist-ing instruments to measure QM practice dimensionsin still less well studied contexts; the need to de-velop definitions and multi-dimensional measures ofproduct quality for different contexts; the need toinvestigate relationships in the practice performancemodel across different contexts; conducting contin-

gency research as a promising way to solve some ofthe identified conflicts with management theory; andthe need to develop QM implementation guidelinesfor different contexts.

Second, sound and rich knowledge needs to bebacked by stronger theory. Although QMs theorygrounding has been increasing in recent years, wehave identified many areas that still need more knowl-edge through theory building. In this connection, es-tablishing links to other theoretically more developedfields may be of benefit. As the theory content ofQM increases, there is also the need for more theorytesting research. This could take the form of replica-tion studies (e.g. Rungtusanatham et al., 1998) andtesting existing theories in new settings (contingencyresearch).

The generation of deeper and richer knowledgeshould be backed up by rigorous research methods andcarefully chosen research designs. Although the trendhas been in this direction, there are still research areasthat especially lack academic rigor and are gearedtowards descriptive type studies, such the one on theprocess of QM implementation. The field needs tokeep increasing the use of more sophisticated method-ological tools to enable the transition from descriptionto making sound inferences. This may include the useof more rigorous data analysis methodologies, bothquantitative (e.g. structural equation modeling, Flynnet al., 1995a) and qualitative (e.g. causal networkanalysis of case study data, Sousa, 2000).

We hope that our review, by organizing research intofive main themes and structuring existing knowledge,will contribute to eliminating some of the identifieddeficiencies of current research, such as definitionaldifficulties relating to product quality, poor positioningof studies in the quality performance model or lackof research controls for important contextual factors.In addition, we trust that our reflective review willfoster progress towards a more integrative QM theory,by stimulating the forging of links and the integrationof knowledge in the five streams of research that wehave considered. We have extracted some interestinginsights by comparing findings across these severalstreams, but much more proactive work along theselines needs to be conducted.

To conclude, we hope that our reflections willhelp reinforce the importance of QM as a field ofstudy and will help it affirm as a major best practice


tool kit that should be in place in most if not allorganizations.

References

Adam, E., 1994. Alternative quality improvement practices andorganisation performance. Journal of Operations Management12, 2744.

Adam, E., Corbett, L., Flores, B., Harrison, N., Lee, T., Rho, B.,Ribera, J., Samson, D., Westbrook, R., 1997. An internationalstudy of quality improvement approach and firm performance.International Journal of Operations and Production Management9 (17), 842873.

Ahire, S., 1996. TQM age versus quality: an empiricalinvestigation. Production and Inventory Management Journal,1823.

Ahire, S., Landeros, R., Golhar, D., 1995. Total qualitymanagement: a literature review and an agenda for futureresearch. Production and Operations Management, 277307.

Ahire, S., Golhar, D., Waller, M., 1996. Development andvalidation of TQM implementation constructs. DecisionSciences 27 (1), 2356.

Anderson, J., Rungtusanatham, M., Schroeder, R., 1994. A theoryof quality management underlying the Deming managementmethod. Academy of Management Review 19 (3), 472509.

Anderson, J., Rungtusanatham, M., Schroeder, R., Devaraj, S.,1995. A path analytic model of a theory of quality managementunderlying the Deming management method: preliminaryempirical findings. Decision Sciences 26 (5), 637658.

Atkinson, P., 1990. Creating Culture Change: The Key toSuccessful Total Quality Management. IFS Publications,Bedford.

Barclay, C., 1993. Quality strategy and TQM policies: empiricalevidence. Management International Review, (1), 8798.

Benson, G., Saraph, J., Schroeder, R., 1991. The effects oforganisational context on quality management: an empiricalinvestigation. Management Science 37 (9), 11071124.

Black, S., Porter, L., 1996. Identification of the critical factors ofTQM. Decision Sciences 27 (1), 121.

Blackburn, R., Rosen, B., 1993. Total quality and human resourcesmanagement: lessons learned from Baldridge award-winningcompanies. Academy of Management Executive 7 (3), 4966.

Capon, N., Farley, J., Hoenig, S., 1990. Determinants of financialperformance: a meta-analysis. Management Science 36 (10),11431159.

Choi, T., Eboch, K., 1998. The TQM paradox: relations amongTQM practices, plant performance, and customer satisfaction.Journal of Operations Management 17, 5975.

Davis, T., 1997. Breakdowns in total quality management:an analysis with recommendations. International Journal ofManagement 14 (1), 1322.

Dawson, P., 1995. Implementing quality management: somegeneral lessons on managing change. Asia Pacific Journal ofQuality Management 4 (1), 3546.

De Cieri, H., Samson, D., Sohal, A., 1991. Implementation ofTQM in an Australian manufacturing company. InternationalJournal of Quality and Reliability Management 8 (5), 5565.

Dean, J., Bowen, D., 1994. Managing theory and total quality:improving research and practice through theory development.Academy of Management Review 19 (3), 392418.

Dean, J., Snell, S., 1996. The strategic use ofintegrated manufacturing: an empirical examination. StrategicManagement Journal 17 (6), 459480.

Dobyns, L., Crawford-Mason, C., 1991. Quality or Else: TheRevolution in World Business. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston.

Dow, D., Samson, D., Ford, S., 1999. Exploding the myth: doall quality management practices contribute to superior qualityperformance? Production and Operations Management 8 (1),127.

Eisen, H., Mulraney, B., Sohal, A., 1992. Impediments to theadoption of modern quality management practices. InternationalJournal of Quality and Reliability Management 9 (5), 1741.

Fenwick, A., 1991. Five easy lessons: a primer for starting a totalquality management program. Quality Progress 24 (12), 6366.

Flynn, B., Schroeder, R., Sakakibara, S., 1995a. The impact ofquality management practices on performance and competitiveadvantage. Decision Sciences 26 (5), 659692.

Flynn, B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R., 1995b. Relationshipbetween JIT and TQM: practices and performance. Academyof Management Journal 38 (5), 13251360.

Garvin, D., 1984. What does product quality really mean? SloanManagement Review, 2543.

Garvin, D., 1987. Competing on the eight dimensions of quality.Harvard Business Review 65, 202209.

Grant, R., Shani, R., Krishnan, R., 1994. TQMs challenge tomanagement theory and practice. Sloan Management Review,2535.

Hackman, J., Wageman, R., 1995. Total quality management:empirical, conceptual, and practical issues. AdministrativeScience Quarterly 40, 309342.

Harari, O., 1993. Ten reasons why TQM doesnt work.Management Review 82 (1), 3338.

Harvey, J., 1998. Service quality: a tutorial. Journal of OperationsManagement 16 (5), 583597.

Hendricks, K., Singhal, V., 1997. Does implementing an effectiveTQM program actually improve operating performance?Empirical evidence from firms that have won quality awards.Management Science 43 (9), 12581274.

Hjorth-Anderson, C., 1984. The concept of quality and theefficiency of markets for consumer products. Journal ofConsumer Research 11, 708718.

Instone, F., Dale, B., 1989. A case study of the typical issuesinvolved in quality improvement. International Journal ofOperations and Production Management 9 (1), 1526.

Juran, J., 1988. Quality Control Handbook. McGraw-Hill, NewYork.

Karmarkar, U., Pitbladdo, R., 1997. Quality, class, and competition.Management Science 43 (1), 2739.

Kekre, S., Murthi B., Srinivasan, 1995. Operating decisions,supplier availability and quality: an empirical study. Journal ofOperations Management 12, 387396.

Kolesar, P., 1995. Partial quality management: an essay. Productionand Operations Management 4 (3), 195200.


Lawler, E., 1994. Total quality management and employeeinvolvement: are they compatible? Academy of ManagementExecutive 8 (1), 6876.

Maani, K., 1989. Productivity and profitability through qualitymyth and reality. International Journal of Quality and ReliabilityManagement 6 (3), 1123.

Maani, K., Putterill, M., Sluti, D., 1994. Empirical analysis ofquality improvement in manufacturing. International Journal ofQuality and Reliability Management 11 (7), 1937.

MacDonald, J., 1993. TQM: Does it Always Work? TQMPractitioner Series. Technical Communications (Publishing)Ltd.

Madu, C., Kuei, C., Lin, C., 1995. A comparative analysis ofquality practice in manufacturing firms in the US and Taiwan.Decision Sciences 26 (5), 621636.

Mann, R., Kehoe, D., 1995. Factors affecting the implementationand success of TQM. International Journal of Quality andReliability Management 12 (1), 1123.

Masterson, S., Olian, J., Schnell, E., 1997. Belief versus practicein management theory: total quality management and agencytheory. Advances in the Management of Organisational Quality2, 169209.

McDonnell, J., 1992. Three years of total quality management.Journal for Quality and Participation 15 (1), 69.

Mohrman, A., Mohrman, S., Ledford, G., Cummings, T., Lawler,E., 1989. Large-Scale Organizational Change. Jossey-Bass, SanFrancisco.

Munroe-Faure, L., Munroe-Faure, M., 1992. Implementing TotalQuality Management, Pitman, London.

Myers, K., Ashkenas, R., 1993. Results-driven quality . . . now!.Management Review 82 (3), 4044.

Oakland, J., Sohal, A., 1987. Production management techniquesin UK manufacturing industry: usage and barriers to acceptance.International Journal of Operations and Production Management7 (1), 837.

Papa, F., 1993. Linkage of old and new. Management Review82 (1), 63.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., 1988. SERVQUAL: amulti-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service.Journal of Retailing 64 (1), 1240.

Phillips, L., Chang, D., Buzzell, R., 1983. Product quality,cost position and business performance: a test of some keyhypotheses. Journal of Marketing 47, 2643.

Powell, T., 1995. TQM as competitive advantage: a review andempirical study. Strategic Management Journal 16 (1), 1537.

Price, M., Chen, E., 1993. Total quality management in a small,high-technology company. California Management Review,96117.

Reed, R., Lemak, D., Montgomery, J., 1996. Beyond process:TQM content and firm performance. Academy of ManagementReview 21 (1), 173202.

Reeves, V., Bednar, D., 1994. Defining quality: alternatives andimplications. Academy of Management Review 19 (3), 419445.

Reger, R., Gustafson, L., Demarie, S., Mullane, J., 1994. Reframing

the organisation: why implementing total quality is easier saidthan done. Academy of Management Review 19 (3), 565584.

Rungtusanatham, M., Forza, C., Filippini, R., Anderson, J., 1998. Areplication study of a theory of quality management underlyingthe Deming management method: insights from an Italiancontext. Journal of Operations Management 17, 7795.

Samson, D., Terziovski, M., 1999. The relationship between totalquality management practices and operational performance.Journal of Operations Management 17 (4), 393409.

Saraph, J., Benson, P., Schroeder, R., 1989. An instrument formeasuring the critical factors of quality management. DecisionSciences 20 (4), 810829.

Sitkin, S., Sutcliffe, K., Schroeder, R., 1994. Distinguishing controlfrom learning in total quality management: a contingencyperspective. Academy of Management Review 19 (3), 537564.

Sluti, D., Maani, K., Putterill, M., 1995. Empirical analysisof quality improvement in manufacturing: survey instrumentdevelopment and preliminary results. Asia Pacific Journal ofQuality Management 4 (1), 4772.

Sousa, R., 2000. Quality Management Practice: Universal orContext Dependent? An Empirical Investigation, UnpublishedPh.D. Thesis. London Business School, University of London,UK.

Sousa, R., Voss, C., 2002. Quality management: universal orcontext dependent? Production and Operations Management.Special Issue on Quality Management.

Spencer, B., 1994. Models of organisation and total qualitymanagement: a comparison and critical evaluation. Academyof Management Review 19 (3), 446471.

Stone-Romero, E., Stone, D., Grewal, D., 1997. Development of amulti-dimensional measure of perceived product quality. Journalof Quality Management 2 (1), 87111.

Tushman, M., Romanelli, E., 1985. Organizational evolution: ametamorphosis model of convergence and reorganization. In:Cummings, L., Staw, B. (Eds.), Research in OrganizationalBehavior. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 171222.

Van de Wiele, T., Dale, B., Timmers, J., Bertsch, B., Williams,R., 1993. Total quality management: a state-of-the-art surveyof European industry. Total Quality Management 4 (1), 2338.

Van der Akker, G., 1989. Managing quality across cultures. TQMMagazine, August.

Waldman, D., 1994. The contributions of total quality managementto a theory of work performance. Academy of ManagementReview 19 (3), 510536.

Watson, J., Korukonda, A., 1995. The TQM jungle: a dialecticalanalysis. International Journal of Quality and ReliabilityManagement 12 (9), 100109.

Whalen, M., Rahim, M., 1994. Common barriers to implementationand development of a TQM program. Industrial Management36 (2), 1921.

White, G., 1996. A meta-analysis model of manufacturingcapabilities. Journal of Operations Management 14, 315331.

Yusof, S., Aspinwall, E., 2000. TQM implementation issues:review and case study. International Journal of Operations andProduction Management 20 (6), 634655.

Quality management re-visited: a reflective review and agenda for future researchIntroductionDefining quality managementDefining product qualityThe impact of quality management on firm performance: the quality performance modelThe impact of quality performance on operational and business performance: empirical evidenceThe impact of quality management practice on performance: empirical evidenceConclusions and further research

Quality management in the context of management theoryThe implementation of quality managementQM implementation content-what to doQM implementation process-how to do itConclusions and further research

Overall conclusions and future researchReferences

Sousa 2002 Quality Manag Revisited JOM

Documents

Transcript of Sousa 2002 Quality Manag Revisited JOM