Download - TQM implementation: an empirical examination and proposed generic model

Omega 29 (2001) 343–359www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

TQM implementation: an empirical examination and proposedgeneric model

A. Ghobadian ∗, D. GallearBusiness School, Middlesex University, The Burroughs, London NW4 4BT, UK

Received 14 January 2000; accepted 31 March 2001

Abstract

Total quality management (TQM) is considered by many as an important quality and business performance improvementtool. The popularity of the concept has led to an explosion of TQM-related literature. A careful review of the literature suggeststhat most publications recount the experiences or perceptions of the authors or deal with single case organisations. Furthermore,there is a dearth of empirical research and literature dealing with TQM’s implementation process. This paper reports the3ndings of a research project that empirically examined the process of TQM implementation in a sample of organisationswidely regarded as leading exponents of TQM. The paper presents a non-prescriptive model of the TQM implementationprocess derived from the 3ndings and proposes an “outcome driven” approach as an alternative to the more commonplaceTQM implementation strategies. ? 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Total quality management; Implementation process; Organisational change; Non-prescriptive model

1. Introduction

Total quality management (TQM) is one of the most pop-ular and durable modern management concepts. This posi-tion is rooted in its development which has passed througha number of phases since the 1920s: quality control (QC);quality assurance (QA) and total quality control (TQC).Each subsequent phase has extended the scope of the con-cept. Amongst the most signi3cant factors that have con-tributed to the persistence and strength of the TQM modelare: (i) recognition and demonstration of the importance of“quality” as a source of superior competitiveness [1–4]; (ii)the success of Japanese 3rms in taking and retaining marketshare from their Western counterparts [5,6]; (iii) inBuenceof the teaching and writings of scholars such as Deming,Juran, Crosby and Feigenbaum, collectively referred to asthe ‘quality gurus’ [7], and (iv) introduction of internation-ally recognised quality awards such as the Deming Prize,and the Malcolm Baldrige, European and Australian QualityAwards [8].

∗ Tel.: +44-181-362-5000; fax: +44-181-362-5758.E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Ghobadian).

As with most management interventions TQM has notbeen without its critics. A number of publications havesuggested that TQM has failed to deliver expected results[9–11]. Such views are countered by the argument that todismiss TQM on the basis of “loose” negatively orientedevidence is irrational. Ever since the late 1980s when thepositive correlation between introduction of TQM andenhanced competitiveness began to be understood, evi-dence has suggested that the majority of organisations thathave introduced TQM believe that it has helped them toincrease their market share and improve their competitive-ness [6,12,13]. Furthermore, studies that have been devotedto examining the relationship between TQM and perfor-mance using factual rather than perceptual data for example[14–16], by and large have concluded that there is a causeand eKect relationship between TQM practices and healthyor improved corporate performance.

2. The in�uence of the implementation process

The importance of TQM as a means of improving perfor-mance has captured the attention of many researchers and

0305-0483/01/$ - see front matter ? 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S0305 -0483(01)00030 -5

344 A. Ghobadian, D. Gallear /Omega 29 (2001) 343–359

writers. An examination of relevant databases bears witnessto the large increase since the early 1980s in the volumeof TQM-related publications and the range=variety of typesof publications where TQM-related contributions appear. 1

Furthermore, these publications range from those dedicatedto the subject to those concerned with marketing, economics,general management, personnel and human resource man-agement, industrial engineering and strategic management.

2.1. Importance of implementation process

It is broadly agreed that central to the long-term successof TQM within an organisation is the implementation pro-cess [17–21]. Motwani [20] proposed that TQM will nearlyalways work when the proper methods to execute it are em-ployed. Shin et al. [21] argued that when TQM has failed,it is not because there was a basic Baw in the principles ofTQM, but because an eKective system was not created to ex-ecute TQM principles properly. Similarly, Reger et al. [17]noted that as instances of TQM failures begin to surface, 2

the weaknesses are usually, though not entirely, attributedto implementation problems. Newall and Dale [22] studiedthe problems encountered in implementing TQM and otherquality improvement initiatives in eight UK-based compa-nies. They concluded that one of the key reasons for fu-ture diOculties was poor planning in the introduction stages.Moreover, they pointed out that lack of detailed planningprior to the introduction of quality improvement initiativeshad a “knock-on” eKect throughout its development andsubsequent advancement. These views indicate that the in-troduction of a TQM approach is not without diOculty. Itmay be argued that the sheer scale of the change inherentin moving away from the conventional management modeltowards TQM contributes heavily to this diOculty. Grant etal. [23] suggested that the implementation of TQM provideda challenge similar to those involved in the management ofother revolutionary transitions—once underway how doesthe organisation “keep the lid on it?” [5].

Implementation process is important for a number of rea-sons. Central to these is the requirement that for TQM totake root successfully in the long term, it must have a pos-itive inBuence not only on employees’ behaviour, but alsoon their attitudes and values. Ahire and Rana [19] proposedthat as with any new concept, the extent to which TQM willbe successful in any organisation is determined by its initialimpact and its perceived worth as a new way of operating.According to Ahire and Rana [19], the literature dealing with

1 For example, the ABI Inform CD-ROM Database, which pro-vides citations of articles in a large and diverse number of jour-nals dealing with management-related issues, revealed that betweenJanuary 1986 and December 1991 a total of 407 articles were ref-erenced. Between January 1992 and December 1995 the numberof articles referenced was 2281—a signi3cant increase in volume.

2 Reger et al. [17] did however note that studies reporting thefailures have provided scant theoretical justi3cation for their results.

participative decision making and organisational dynamicspoints to the fact that any new technical or management ap-proach is either accepted sincerely or rejected based on the3rst few experiences with it. This led them to postulate thatthe 3rst impression of the initial phase of TQM implemen-tation contributes signi3cantly to the long-term con3denceand support of all participants in a TQM approach.

2.2. Implementation process: a brief review of theliterature

Despite TQM’s perceived importance, examination of thepublished material reveals that little attention has been de-voted to examining the TQM implementation process. Thisis in contrast to identi3cation and examination of its preva-lent components [14,24–27]. Moreover, it appears that ex-amination and discussion of TQM implementation is dom-inated by single case evidence [28–31]. When these casestudy contributions are examined it becomes clear that inmany the implementation “process” is only cursorily exam-ined. Rather, attention is paid only to the introduction pro-cess of speci3c parts or elements of TQM approach. Moresubstantial case studies that do deal with the process of im-plementation can be found in [32–35] for example. Reviewof these contributions is beyond the scope of this paper.Nevertheless, it is clear upon examination that most con-cern organisations that at the time the study took place wererelatively new to TQM, and thus provide a fairly limitedpicture. An extensive review of the literature revealed onlythree empirical multiple-organisation studies primarily ded-icated to the examination of TQM implementation process[22,24,36,37]. Mann and Kehoe [24] examined the processof TQM implementation in 21 UK-based organisations withat least two years experience of TQM and concluded thatthe implementation processes used were largely diverse andthere appeared to be no one dominant approach. The dataled them to conclude that there appeared to be no optimumapproach to implementation. Harte and Dale [36,37] exam-ined the process of TQM implementation in eight profes-sional service organisations. They too found that a variety ofmeans for launching TQM were used, though most followedthe same basic process: diagnosis; goal determination andimplementation. Newall and Dale [22] concluded from theirstudy of eight UK organisations (seven were manufacturers)that despite the diKerent interpretations and descriptions ofthe development of the quality improvement process, com-panies do pass through a number of discrete phases duringthe introduction of TQM. They identi3ed six phases: aware-ness; education and training; consolidation; planning, prob-lem identi3cation and problem solving; implementation ofquality improvement plans; and assessment.

A number of studies have examined the process of imple-mentation as a part of a broader study of TQM [25,38,39].The common conclusion of these studies was that imple-mentation was 3rm speci3c. Based on their own reviewof the TQM literature, Shin et al. [21] concluded that

A. Ghobadian, D. Gallear /Omega 29 (2001) 343–359 345

implementation should be unique to each company. Theyargued that success of TQM is a function of many vari-ables (both controllable and uncontrollable), and many ofthem are unique to the company situation. Therefore, theyconcluded that each company should tailor its approachto exploit its unique strengths and focus on its particularweaknesses. Furthermore, a number of researchers andauthors have noted that for all the attention TQM has re-ceived, there appears to be an apparent neglect of the designissue [40–42]. That is to say, that there appears to havebeen little research attention devoted to the development ofempirically grounded, practical diagnostic tools, that canprovide guidance to the TQM designers in their endeavoursto appropriately customise their organisation’s TQM imple-mentation eKorts. It may be argued that existing knowledgeabout the process of TQM implementation remains highlyfragmented.

2.3. Emergent research questions

Brief review of the existing literature presented abovesuggests that implementation process inBuences the short-and long-term success of TQM, and that TQM implementa-tion process is an under-researched area. Findings and con-clusions drawn about the “full” process of implementationappear to be rarely presented. From a practical viewpoint,it may be argued that the process of implementing TQM inorganisations has been and continues to be directed largelyby anecdotal evidence or prescription rather than hard em-pirical data. There is a clear need for substantive researchto extend the current knowledge and understanding of theprocess of TQM implementation and, to support the futuredevelopment of TQM.

The widely held view expressed in the literature, thatTQM must be customised to an organisation’s speci3cneeds, led the authors to put forward two pertinent researchquestions relating to the process of TQM implementation.It was the purpose of this investigation to address theseresearch questions.Question one: “Is there commonality in the implementa-

tion processes of successful TQM organisations ?”Question two: “If there is commonality in these imple-

mentation processes, does the commonality lie at a leveldeeper than the activity level ?” 3

A further stated objective of this research was to develop anon-prescriptive model of TQM implementation. The ratio-nale for a non-prescriptive model was two pronged: 3rstly,to provide a useful framework within which practitionersand researchers can place other evidence in order to enhancetheir understanding of the complexities and salient features

3 Activity level refers to tangible operational methods, tools ortechniques, that is, to actual practices or actions, versus objectivesor intentions. Activities correspond to what actually happens on theground—the tangible initiatives that are put into place in supportof a broader objective or an intention.

Fig. 1. Process used for derivation of the questions.

of implementation and secondly, this form of researchoutput takes heed of the need to recognise that diKerentorganisations have diKerent contingencies in terms of theirinternal and external environments and therefore that thedetails of implementation—the activities and tactics—maydiKer substantially.

It was not the purpose of this research to revisit ques-tions relating to the “content” or “principles” of TQM.Manyother studies have tackled this area. Some of these studieswere referred to in Section 2.2. This paper focuses solelyon the implementation process—an issue only partially dis-cussed in the current literature but critical to TQM success.The timing of the paper is of particular importance. De-spite the considerable volume of TQM-related publicationthe literature remains fragmented. As Hackman and Wage-man [43] proposed, three worrisome trends are evident: (a)large amounts of rhetoric are winning over substance, (b)an astonishing number of other interventions, some relatedto TQM and some not, are increasingly being presented un-der the TQM banner and (c) too much of the literature con-sists of anecdotal case reports that they suggested may beof more use politically in promoting TQM than in buildingknowledge about TQM processes. This paper aims to addto the scant knowledge about TQM implementation processby systematically examining wide-ranging 3rst- hand TQMimplementation, and synthesising the 3ndings into a model.The authors contend that this contribution addresses the con-cerns expressed by Hackman andWageman [43] among oth-ers, and 3lls an important gap in the existing knowledge. Thenext section describes the empirical research undertaken toanswer the two emergent research questions put forward.

3. Research method

The primary data used in the investigation were the broadimplementation plans of a sample of organisations. Thesedata were collected via a structured postal questionnaire aspart of a much broader modi3ed Delphi study of TQM.Fig. 1 illustrates the process used for derivation of the ques-tions.

A combination of extensive literature review and focusgroup was used to identify the key issues to be addressed by


the questions. Whilst broad and wide ranging, the literaturereview paid particular attention to evidence describing theprocess of TQM implementation and the reasons for bothsuccess and failure of TQM or its implementation process.Focus group discussion was held to identify any other per-tinent issues relating to TQM implementation that had notbeen highlighted by the literature review. The focus groupmembers were drawn from colleagues with considerablepractical and academic experience of total quality organisa-tions. The 3ndings generated from these two sources werejuxtaposed to arrive at a draft questionnaire. A committee ofsix other known and experienced TQM practitioners fromindustry and commerce was then used to screen and verifythe research instrument prior to its distribution. Of crucialimportance to this investigation, the questionnaire asked or-ganisations to supply documentary evidence describing theirTQM scheme and the implementation plans. The majorityof the non-prescriptive model of TQM implementation pro-cess presented in Section 5 was developed based on analysisof the documentary evidence supplied by the organisations.The domain of the primary data was con3ned to organisa-tions recognised as leading exponents of TQM. The rationalefor this restriction was straightforward. Supported by exam-ination of methodological shortcomings of previous TQMresearch investigations it was concluded that a great dealmore could be learnt from organisations that had achieveda high level of TQM success than from those organisationsthat had either failed or made little progress. Thus, invitationto participate in the investigation was based on ful3lment ofat least one of the following criteria considered to indicatea successful total quality organisation:

• was a past winner, 3nalist or recipient of certi3cate ofmerit from an internationally recognised quality awardscheme (European Quality Award, Malcolm BaldrigeNational Quality Award (USA), Canadian Awards forBusiness Excellence (Total Quality Category) or Aus-tralian Quality Award);

• had been awarded a peer acknowledged quality ratingby major customers or vendors;

• had received recognition through prestigious profes-sional or academic journals as a total quality organisa-tion.

Simply being a member of a recognised quality institutionor foundation was not deemed to guarantee the degree ofbest practice required for this investigation. Further, the lit-erature indicated that the successful diKusion of TQM prac-tice to ‘not-for-pro3t’ organisations was in its infancy andunder-developed, and therefore the investigation was re-stricted to the analysis of ‘for-pro3t’ organisations. The tar-get sample was constructed and comprised 47 benchmarkorganisations. The single point of contact (respondent) ateach organisation was the Quality Director=Corporate Qual-ity OOcer or equivalent post. Data were subsequently col-lected from 35 of the benchmark organisations. Thirty-one

of these responses provided the detailed documentary evi-dence of their organisation’s TQM implementation plans re-quired by the analysis. Four of the responses were discardedbecause they did not describe the organisations’ implemen-tation plans in suOcient depth. Of these 31 organisations,16 operated in the manufacturing sector, six operated in theservice sector and nine organisations considered themselvesto have a dual manufacturing and service business orienta-tion. In terms of size, 21 of the organisations were classi3edas large organisations and 10 as small- to medium-sized en-terprises. 4 The organisations’ experience of TQM, that issince the commencement of their TQM implementation pro-cesses, ranged from 3 to 13 years, with an average for thesample of 6.75 years.

3.1. Data analysis procedure

A cursory initial examination of the documents suppliedby the organisations and detailing their implementation plansindicated signi3cant diKerences in approach. This suggestedthat implementation at “activity level” was organisation spe-ci3c in the sample of benchmark TQM organisations stud-ied by the authors. In eKect this 3nding substantiated theview reported in the literature. Moreover, in relation to thede3ned research questions, this 3nding con3rmed that if in-deed there is commonality in the implementation processesof successful TQM organisations, it must reside at a levelother than the “activity level”. The reasons for this positionare discussed in the following sections.

Consultation of appropriate literature suggests that ulti-mately implementation is concerned with tactics. This inturn suggests that implementation requires an “operationalplan”. The purpose of the “operational plan” is to identify aseries of activities=actions necessary to the attainment of thedesired outcome [44]. Grant [45] de3ned tactics as schemesfor speci3c actions. Similarly, Rue and Holland [46] sug-gested that tactical plans were short-range plans orientedtowards day-to-day business operations. The “operationalplan” describes the tactics in the context of that organisa-tion. It was immediately clear that the implementation plansprovided by the participants were the “operational plans” oftheir TQM implementation process. The plans were almostentirely described in terms of “activities” or “initiatives”.

Contemporary wisdom suggests that actions taken byor within an organisation, that are uncoupled from goalsor objectives, are unlikely to make a value-adding con-tribution for the medium to long term. Furthermore, thatfor the activities of a change process to be “cumulatively”value-adding and re-enforcing, shifts in the focus of “activ-ity” may be needed as the change process progresses. Theauthors contend that these arguments suggest that analysing

4 In this study the authors adopted the size classi3cation usedby Eurostat (EC-Directrorate General): micro-organisations (0–9employees), small- to medium-sized organisations (10–499 em-ployees) and large organisations (+500 employees).


the activities=initiatives identi3ed in operational plans with-out examining their underlying objectives or the focus ofthe activity represents a partial analysis. Therefore, the log-ical progression in the analysis of the implementation planswas to: (a) investigate how and where the implementationplans had an impact on the operation of the organisation,(b) examine the contribution of the implementation initia-tives to desired outcomes of implementation process and(c) examine the sequencing of the implementation activityin perspectives of points (a) and (b) above. In short, theimmediate objective of the analysis became examinationof (a) “focus” of the implementation activity, (b) “ratio-nale” for the implementation activity and (c) “phasing” ofthe implementation activity. Each was achieved through acombination of qualitative and quantitative analysis.

3.1.1. “Focus” of the activityLogically, each implementation activity or initiative has

a “focus” and addresses a speci3c element of the TQM con-cept. The model proposed by Ghobadian [47] was used toallocate the TQM activities and initiatives to the relevantelement of the TQM concept. The model used is based oninductive research of TQM in other successful companies.It is an integrative model for TQM where only the key ele-ments are prede3ned. The model is depicted in Fig. 2.

The main elements can be subdivided into a numberof TQM sub-elements, however these are purposely notpre-speci3ed. The rationale for this is that the responsibilityfor identi3cation of the sub-elements (improvement projects,methods, processes and working practices) underpinning theTQM approach rests with the organisation because, to alarge extent, these are contingency dependent. Managementprocess (i.e. management practices and attitudes) is the keyelement in the TQM approach and permeates the other fourmain focus elements. These are: (a) the direction of the or-ganisation focus—this should be external, aiming to meetthe needs of the customer; (b) process focus around the out-come requirements rather than the tasks; (c) people focusand (d) communications and measurements.

Because this model is not prescriptive and not sequen-tial, it was considered to be an appropriate and systematicframework to form the basis for the analysis. Each diKer-ent type of implementation activity=initiative was allocatedto the appropriate principal element of TQM. For example,“competitive benchmarking” was allocated to market fo-cus, “process improvement teams” was allocated to processfocus and “training” was allocated to people focus. The ap-pendix cites the diKerent implementation initiatives and theTQM main element to which they were assigned.

3.1.2. “Rationale” for the activityLogically, each activity or initiative has a “rationale”,

that is they are there to facilitate the attainment of a goalor objective that forms a part of the process of change.“Rationale” for the implementation activity was examined

and each activity or initiative was allocated to the relevantdesired outcomes. As was mentioned previously the studyreported in this paper forms a part of a broader Delphi Studyof TQM with the aim of developing a theoretical foundationfor TQM and these desired outcomes were identi3ed as apart of this broader study.

“Phasing” of the implementation activity is discussed inSection 4.3.

4. Findings

In total, the 31 implementation plans provided by the 31organisations cited 531 implementation initiatives. Theserepresented a wide range of diKerent types of initiatives.The number of initiatives contained in individual organisa-tion’s plans ranged from 6 up to 35. The average numberof initiatives per implementation plan was 17. Interestingly,there was no correlation between size of organisations andthe number of initiatives in organisations’ implementationplans. The most common implementation initiatives were:

• training,• TQM education course,• teamwork (problem solving=improvement),• create quality council=steering group,• quality assurance processes,• mission=vision development and• teamwork (work management).

Training initiatives featured heavily. The total number ofreferences to training in the sample’s plans was 54. Of these,27 were speci3ed in terms of who the training was directedat. The other 27 were speci3ed in terms of speci3c typesof training. Organisations made a clear distinction betweentraining and education. TQM education course initiativeswere all made with reference to whom in the organisationthe TQM education was directed at, with senior managementconstituting the largest proportion. Teamwork, in its variousforms, also featured heavily. Thirty-nine references to team-work were made. The remaining three initiatives in the abovelist, create quality council=steering group, quality assuranceprocesses and mission=vision development were cited 16,14 and 13 times, respectively. All other activities=initiativeswere mentioned less than 10 times each.

4.1. Findings—“Focus” of the activity

The 531 implementation initiatives were allocated to the3ve salient elements of TQM using the model presentedin Fig. 2. The results are illustrated in Fig. 3. The largestnumber of activities and initiatives fell under managementprocess and people focus, accounting for 161 and 167 im-plementation initiatives respectively. Indeed, each of theseven most common initiatives referred to above were clas-si3ed under either management process or people focus.


Fig. 2. The salient elements of TQM.

Fig. 3. Focus of the TQM implementation process activity.

Communication and measurement accounted for 93 initia-tives. Market focus accounted for 61 initiatives, and pro-cess focus accounted for the smallest number of initiatives,47 in total.

These 3ndings indicated that the main focus of the im-plementation plans was on the introduction of activities andinitiatives that would bene3cially aKect the organisations’management process and its people orientation. The anal-ysis also suggested that although, conceptually, ‘customerorientation’ is perhaps the central tenet of an establishedTQM approach, the planned implementation of TQM wasprimarily concerned with gearing up the “internal compe-tency” of the organisation to eKect change and to cope withchange, in readiness for a shift in focus to customer orienta-tion later in the TQMdevelopment. Similarly, there appearedto be some disparity between the perceived importance ofprocess focus as a main element of an established TQM ap-proach, and the scale of process focus oriented action takenduring the planned TQM implementation processes studied.However, when consideration is given to what is involvedin changing from a functional=task orientation to a processorientation, the data make more sense. Process orientationrepresents an integrated approach to organising the work ofthe organisation, and therefore its achievement representsmajor operational and structural change within the organisa-tion. The process orientation de3nes new management andemployee roles and responsibilities, such as process owners,and requires the development and subsequent awareness anduse of communication channels. People at all levels must

cooperate in gaining and sharing knowledge about businessprocesses. It is therefore important that the organisationalinfrastructure is made ready to adapt to the changes that pro-cess orientation will necessitate, for example, that the out-put from process improvement team activity can be incor-porated into the organisation’s operations. Boaden and Dale[48] have observed that not all attempts at process analysisand improvement are successful, and they suggested that inmany cases management appears not to have fully under-stood the concepts or has not been able to apply them organi-sation wide. Clearly, as these arguments illustrate, change toprocess orientation is a considerable undertaking. The datasupport the assertion that a key component of achieving anorganisational transformation is to allow employees to getcomfortable with change.

4.2. Findings—“Rationale” for the activity

Examination and consideration of the individual meritsof the implementation initiatives indicated that some hada very clear cut objective. On the other hand some initia-tives had multiple purpose and goals. These predominantlyhad an identi3able principal objective, but also ful3lled anumber of other roles that contributed positively to the pro-cess of change. The research identi3ed 17 “desirable out-comes” associated with the change relevant to the processof implementing TQM. Following this, the implementationinitiatives capable of supporting the attainment of each ofthe desirable outcomes were heuristically identi3ed. In each


Fig. 4. Extent to which the implementation initiatives of the sample’s implementation plans support 17 proposed ”desirable outcomes”during the process of TQM implementation.

case, those initiatives that would make a signi3cant con-tribution were distinguished from those that would makea supporting=token contribution. This distinction was madeprimarily to augment clarity of the analysis. 5 Fig. 4 showsthe extent to which the 17 desirable outcomes were sup-ported in the sample’s TQM implementation plans. Themagnitude of each bar in the chart represents the number ofactivities or initiatives in the sample’s implementation plansthat were allocated to that desired outcome.

This analysis suggests that the planned implementation ofTQM is heavily concerned with the development of internalimprovement capability. The planned implementation alsoappears to incorporate many initiatives that address attitudi-nal aspects, that is, initiatives that help to increase the levelof trust amongst the members of the organisation, that helpto instil a sense of ownership and shared responsibility, andthat help to nurture a willingness to change. These appearto be complemented by initiatives in the domain of provid-ing direction and guidance, that is initiatives that help to im-prove clarity of organisational objectives and that help tomove from perceptual to fact-based decision making. Fur-thermore, directly supporting these latter aspects, are initia-tives that not only help to increase the amount of informa-tion sharing within the organisation, but more importantly,that help to increase the ease of information sharing. It maybe argued that the analysis has demonstrated that though thespeci3c activity requirements of organisations’ TQM imple-

5 For example, the initiative training to a certain extent wouldmake a contribution to all 17 of the “desirable outcomes”.

mentation processes may diKer widely, the “activity” nev-ertheless has common underlying objectives and roles.

4.3. The “phasing” of the implementation process

Having examined the constitution of the implementationplans we now turn our attention to examining when, dur-ing the implementation process, the “focus” of the activityand the “rationale” for the activity feature. That is, to ex-amine the “phasing” of the implementation process. “Phas-ing” refers to the broad characteristics of the sequence andBow of TQM implementation. 6 Theoretically, the optionsfor how to phase the implementation initiatives can span acontinuum, with the simultaneous introduction of all newinitiatives at one extreme, and the sequential introduction ofinitiatives one-by-one at the other extreme. The latter ap-pears to be the approach most prescribed in the TQM lit-erature. In view of the analytical complexity of examiningand comparing the constitution of 31 independently derivedimplementation plans from viewpoint of “focus” and “ra-tionale” in conjunction with the added dimension of theirsequencing, a qualitative correlative approach against a setof pre-identi3ed alternative phasing approaches appeared toprovide the most logical examination strategy. Furthermore,this approach could potentially overcome any examinationdiOculties brought about by variations amongst the plans

6 A phase refers to a stage of change or development in animplementation approach, in contrast to a step, which refers to aspeci3c piece of action. Usually a phase will comprise a numberof steps.


with regard to: (a) inconsistencies in the manner of phasingrepresentation and (b) diKering number of phases indicated.

Through secondary research seven interpretations ofchange process phases were identi3ed [40,49–54]. Theseare presented in Table 1. Each interpretation was itera-tively compared against each of the sample’s implemen-tation plans. Through this deductive research, commonfeatures amongst implementation plans were identi3ed.This iterative process suggested that the majority of the 31implementation plans followed a four phase implementa-tion approach: start-up (launch); transition; consolidation;maturity=re-focusing. In the majority of implementationplans these four phases were clearly visible, however eachphase was not necessarily mutually exclusive. Rather, thephases exist along an implementation continuum where theweight of evidence strongly indicated the four substantiallydiKerent foci. A brief de3nition was developed for eachphase as part of this process. These are given below. Theassociated bullet points describe the characteristics of eachof the suggested phases:

Phase 1—start-up (launch)—initial phase preceding thedevelopment of the main operational features of the plan.This phase helps to shape the fuller development of the im-plementation by creating the suitable conditions. It is char-acterised by (and=or):

• awakening,• identi3cation and preparation,• intent.

Phase 2—transition—phase in which the implementationintentions are acted on causing a change from the originalstate or set of circumstances to others. It is characterised by(and=or):

• variety generation,• increasing the participation,• mobilise,• power shift.

Phase 3—consolidation—phase in which any necessaryor desired actions are taken or occur to strengthen or initiatethe combining of TQM and=or normal business processesinto one whole. It is characterised by (and=or):

• transformation,• spread=institutionalise revitalisation,• (operational integration),• business alignment,• organization for genuine continuous improvement.

Phase 4—maturity=refocussing—phase during which thenow experienced and competent TQM practitioners monitorand=or adjust strategies or operations in response to (a) out-comes of consolidation and=or (b) wider changes in busi-ness requirements. It is characterised by (and=or):

• necessary activities,• new initiatives with new targets and critical examina-

tion.Having established the prevalent implementation approach,it was possible to apply this phasing scheme to each im-plementation plan, to examine how the “focus” of activityand “rationale” for the activity alter as implementation pro-gresses. After applying the phasing scheme to each of the31 implementation plans, the number of times each type ofactivity or initiative featured in each of the four phases re-spectively were counted. Having already allocated each typeof activity or initiative to the relevant element of the TQMconcept, it was then possible to determine the constitutionof each of the four phases in terms of the 3ve principal el-ements. Fig. 5 depicts the contribution of the 3ve elementsof TQM concept in each of the four phases of implementa-tion. Phases 1 and 2 were found to have a number of salientfeatures distinguishing them clearly from the other phases.Though perhaps to a lesser extent, phase 3 also had distin-guishing features.

4.3.1. Phase 1 (start-up (launch)) speciAc featuresFig. 5 illustrates that phase 1 of implementation was

dominated by initiatives classi3ed under “managementprocess” (57 out of a total of 121 initiatives in phase 1).Three-quarters of the quality steering groups were set upin phase 1. The remaining quarter were set up in phase 2.Development of mission=vision of the organisation wherepreviously absent predominantly occurred in phase 1.The initiatives strategic=long-range plan development andstrategic goals development were also concentrated mainly(7 from a total of 12) in phase 1, and again all of the re-mainder occurred in phase 2. Quality or business processobjectives development was equally concentrated in bothphases 1 and 2. Half of the implementation initiatives thatrelated to TQM leadership appointments occurred in phase1, with the majority of the remainder occurring in phase 2.Perhaps not surprisingly, all references to board agreementto develop TQM concept group-wide, and three-quartersof the references to gain management support occurred inphase 1.

There were very few instances of implementation activi-ties classi3ed under “market focus” in phase 1. This was withthe exception however of the initiative business environment(current and future) analysis, which featured 3ve times, allin the 3rst phase. The vast majority of TQM research initia-tives (“communication and measurement”) were conductedin implementation phase 1. Solicitation and awareness ini-tiatives (“communication and measurement”) also tendedprimarily to be initiated in phase 1.

4.3.2. Phase 2 (transition) speciAc featuresFig. 5 shows that in phase 2, the dominating emphasis

in the sample’s implementation plans shifted from “man-agement process” that dominated phase 1, to the initiatives

A.Ghobadian,

D.Gallear/O

mega

29(2001)

343–359351

Table 1Summary of literature review of change process phases

1st phase 2nd phase 3rd phase 4th phase 5th phase 6th phase

Edwards and Providing the vision Management action Increasing the Business alignmentHodgson [50] participation

Ghobadian et al. [49] Conformance quality Customer-driven Market-driven quality Strategic qualityquality

Foster et al. [51] Start-up Honeymoon Transformation Decline OR newTQM model

Kanji and Asher [52] Identi3cation and Management Scheme for New initiative withpreparation understanding and improvement new targets and

commitment critical examination

Glover [40] Awareness Education Structural change Necessary activities Expectedimprovements

Beer et al. [53] Mobilise commitment Develop a shared Foster consensus for Spread revitalisation Institutionalise Monitor and adjustto change through vision of how to the new vision, to all departments revitalisation through strategies in responsejoint diagnosis of organise and manage competence to enact without pushing it formal policies, to problems in thebusiness problems for competitiveness it, and cohesion to from the top systems and revitalisation process

move it along structures

Merli [54] Initial situation Organisation of=for Management by Complete the(conventional continuous processes implementation ofapproach) improvement TQM


Fig. 5. Quantitative contribution of the 3ve main elements to implementation phases 1–4.

classi3ed under “people focus”. However, “managementprocess” still commanded a signi3cant proportion of the ini-tiatives in phase 2.Training was the 3rst, and very signi3cant distinguish-

ing feature of phase 2 of implementation, cited a total of 48times. In phase 1 of implementation, training was only citedtwice, and in phase 3 it was only mentioned three times.The initiative TQM education course was also most pre-dominant (approximately two-thirds of instances) in phase2. The other third of TQM education course initiatives hadbeen initiated in the previous phase, phase 1. Further exam-ination indicated that whereas in phase 1 the focus of theeducation courses was concentrated on senior management,in phase 2 the focus concentrated on organisation-wide edu-cation. All of the references to TQM education course weremade either in phase 1 or 2. It was in phase 2 that the vastmajority of activities concerning the assessment of the “em-ployee perception” position of the organisation were initi-ated, for example employee satisfaction surveys. Just overhalf of the recognition and reward implementation initia-tives were brought into the implementation process in phase2. The remainder were introduced in phase 3.

The initiation of teamworking activity was the seconddistinguishing feature in phase 2. All of the instances of in-troducing teamwork for problem solving=improvement andall of the more specialised types of teamworking classi3edunder “people focus” were initiated in phase 2. The intro-duction of teamwork for work management was also con-centrated predominantly in phase 2.

The third and fourth distinguishing features in phase 2both related to the “management process” category of im-plementation activity. The third major feature was the ini-tiation of improvement projects. All references to Bagshipimprovement projects and all references to quality improve-ment projects in the sample’s implementation plans occurred

in phase 2. The fourth feature was that two-thirds of theimplementation initiatives directly relating to restructuringwere initiated in phase 2. These were: Batten organisationstructure and restructuring the spans of control . The 3fthdistinguishing feature in phase 2, which relates to the “com-munication and measurement” category, was the vast ma-jority of references to the implementation initiative developcommunication channels.

A number of the types of implementation initiatives fea-tured in all four phases but were most predominant in phase2. These were:

• initiation of benchmarking,• quality assurance processes,• employee involvement.

Activity that centred on empowering employees beyondtheir traditional boundaries was equally distributed betweenphases 2 and 3.

“Process focus” was the implementation activity categorythat was found to be least explicitly represented in the sam-ple’s implementation plans (Section 4.1). As Fig. 5 illus-trates, the vast majority of “process focus” activities wereinitiated or occurred in phase 2. Process improvement teamswere brought into the implementation process primarily aspart of phase 2. All instances of the introduction of the inter-nal customer/supplier concept occurred in phase 2, as did theinstances of taking ownership of processes. Problem solv-ing methods and quality function deployment (QFD) werealso introduced primarily in phase 2. “Market focus” was theother activity category that was found to be un-substantiallyexplicitly represented in the sample’s implementation plans.However, as Fig. 5 clearly shows, despite the overall lowcounts for the majority of the “market focus” initiatives,a substantial amount of implementation activity relating to


suppliers and to customers was initiated in phase 2. All sup-plier development initiatives were initiated in phase 2. Inaddition, half of the supplier partnership arrangements wereinitiated in phase 2. The initiation of diagnostic quality is-sues survey of customers was most predominant in phase 1,with the remainder of references to this initiative occurringin phase 2. However, phase 2 featured two-thirds of the ref-erences to the initiation of customer satisfaction surveys.

4.3.3. Phase 3 (consolidation) speciAc featuresAs stated above, though perhaps to a lesser extent than

phase 1 or 2, phase 3—consolidation also had distinguishingfeatures. One of the speci3c features was the setting upof speci3c forms of communication mechanisms, such asteam brieAngs, regular communications=quality meetings,quarterly reviews and periodic reviews. The introduction offormal self-assessment was concentrated in phase 3, as wasintroduction of suggestion schemes.

4.3.4. Phase 4 (maturity/refocussing)As Fig. 5 illustrates phase 4 (maturity and re-focusing)

contained very few initiatives. Logically, less activity wouldbe expected in this phase. Nevertheless, the 3nding promptedthe question as to whether or not there actually was a dis-tinguishable fourth phase. Phase 4 is about re-focusing, thatis to say, adjusting strategies or operations in response tothe cumulative experience gained during the earlier threephases. Therefore, it is unlikely that much of phase 4 ac-tivity would be de3ned as part of an organisations’ orig-inal TQM implementation plan. Furthermore, there wereinitiatives in phase 4, for example complaint managementand customised quality leadership process which based onthe previous discussion would have been expected to bein one of the 3rst two phases. Although cited with lowfrequency in phase 4, their presence here suggested thattheir identi3cation as a part of implementation was basedon knowledge accumulated during implementation, ratherthan pre-implementation knowledge. Hence, they were anoutcome of “re-focusing”. These arguments suggested thatphase 4 is a distinguishable phase in its own right.

4.3.5. Salient features of implementation phasingCross-referencing the prevalent implementation initia-

tives in phase 1 against their associated “desirable out-come(s)” that were identi3ed (Section 4.2) suggested thatduring the early period of TQM implementation signi3ed byphase 1 the focus was on helping increase (instil) sense ofurgency; taking steps to help to improve the clarity of or-ganisational objectives; putting in place the “managementprocess” related mechanisms that help keep control overthe change process and establishing the knowledge require-ments for helping the development of internal capability.

Cross-referencing the prevalent implementation initia-tives in phase 2 against their associated “desirable out-come(s)” (Section 4.2) suggested that in the second phase

of implementation, the focus was on helping to increasethe ease of information sharing, helping to instil a senseof ownership and shared responsibility, helping to movefrom an individual to a team orientation, helping to in-crease the degree of delegation and empowerment, andas exempli3ed by the implementation initiatives ‘training’,‘organisation-wide TQM education’ and ‘teamwork forproblem solving and improvement’, helping to developinternal improvement capability.

Fig. 5 suggested that in phase 3 the emphasis was nolonger on one particular implementation activity categoryas was the case with the two previous phases. However,what this did infer was that in phase 3 initiatives associ-ated with the activity category “communication and mea-surement” took a much more active role in the implementa-tion than they had previously. Again, cross-referencing theprevalent implementation initiatives in phase 3 against theirassociated “desirable outcome(s)” (Section 4.2) suggestedthat in phase 3 of implementation the focus is on bolster-ing the amount of (internal) information sharing, and bol-stering the ease of information sharing. The “desirable out-come” helping move from perceptive decision-making tofact-based decision making was supported by various im-plementation initiatives right through implementation. How-ever, the cross-referencing suggested that a key focus inphase 3 was on the introduction of new initiatives that con-solidate an organisation’s ability to achieve this “desirableoutcome”. In much the same way, a number of phase 3 ini-tiatives appeared to consolidate eKorts to improve the clar-ity of organisational objectives.

The authors would propose that it is eKectively in thefourth phase, maturity and re-focusing, that activities andinitiatives supporting market focus and process focus arebrought into the TQM implementation process in order forthe organisation to attain the “desirable outcomes” of help-ing to increase the propensity to look to external sources,helping to increase sense of responsibility for the externalcustomer, helping to move from task to process orientationand helping to move from proven to pioneer mentality.

5. A non-prescriptive model of TQM implementationprocess

The phasing analysis and 3ndings showed that each of theinstances of each type of implementation activity=initiativein the sample’s implementation plans was not mutuallyexclusive to one of the four pre-determined phases of im-plementation. Moreover, the broad sequence and Bow ofimplementation determinable within the plans studied sug-gested that the majority followed the four phase approachdescribed above.

A non-prescriptive model is a means of presentingpertinent ideas, pointers and guidelines, and emphasisingrecommended focuses and constituents in a non-prescriptivemanner. That is to say, without prescribing what actual


Fig. 6. Non-prescriptive model of TQM implementation.


actions should be taken. It allows organisations contem-plating the introduction of TQM to identify their speci3ccourse of action and priorities. Furthermore, it allows themto identify, research and develop the individual initiativesat a pace that is appropriate to the situation the organisationfaces and feasible given the resources available to it. Fig. 6shows the non-prescriptive model of TQM implementationprocess that was derived from the cumulative 3ndings ofthe research.

The model suggests that the introduction of TQM con-sists of three stages: pre-implementation; followed byplanned implementation; followed by evolutionary imple-mentation and development. Pre-implementation is 3rstconcerned with gaining a thorough knowledge of what canand should be expected from the introduction of TQM,and of the implications of introducing TQM. It is recom-mended that particular attention is given to: (i) customerexpectations and the bene3ts to be gained, (ii) leadership,responsibilities required and the commitment required and(iii) the probable impact of TQM on the organisation, howto measure progress, and how to communicate the needfor change to the organisation. Pre-implementation is thenconcerned with establishing a team to lead and develop theTQM introduction process, and identifying or developingan appropriate facilitating framework for developing theimplementation action plan. Ful3lment of these objectivesshould then put the organisation in a position to identify theappropriate implementation actions that the organisation re-quires and to establish the priorities amongst them. Here it isrecommended that the organisation make a conscious eKortto focus on a small de3ned set of improvement prioritiesthat align with the organisation’s broad business goals andobjectives, and that should therefore be realistically deliv-erable. The 3nal key objective of this pre-implementationstage emphasises the point that responsibility and ownershipduring this 3rst stage rests with the senior management ofthe organisation. This 3nal objective is to identify speci3cresponsibilities and areas of ownership during the plannedimplementation process. The culmination of and ful3lmentof these objectives should then result in the production ofa structured but Bexible and realistic TQM implementa-tion “action” plan customised to the speci3c needs of theorganisation.

The second stage that the introduction of a TQM ap-proach into an organisation goes through is the plannedimplementation. The model suggests that planned imple-mentation comprises three phases: start-up; progressing intotransition; progressing into consolidation. Each of thesephases has its own primary areas of focus in order to bringabout desirable outcomes that allow the organisation to con-3dently progress into the next phase.

Again, the onus at the start of planned implementation(phase 1—start-up) is for management of the organisa-tion to get its own house in order, so that it may providedirection and consistent guidance to the rest of the or-ganisation. Recommended key activities in this 3rst phase

are: (i) creation of quality steering group and qualityleadership appointments, (ii) where not already clearlyde3ned, clari3cation=development of clear mission=vision,strategy, business process and quality goals and objec-tives and (iii) TQM research, management educationand solicitation=awareness. Progression into phase 2—transition, represents the organisation initiating the ap-propriate activities that expand ownership for the changeprocess from primarily management, to the whole of theorganisation. The focus is on people and communication.Recommended key initiatives in this second phase are:(i) organisation-wide training and education, (ii) problemsolving improvement teams, (iii) work management team-working and management leading by example, (iv) Bagshipand quality improvement projects and (v) the developmentof communication and recognition channels. The thirdplanned phase—consolidation, is primarily concerned withputting in place appropriate mechanisms that will captureand secure: (a) the bene3ts of increased participation andshared responsibility and (b) the knowledge, skills and ca-pabilities developed, from the previous phase (transition).The focus is on communication and measurement. Recom-mended key initiatives in this 3nal “planned” stage of im-plementation are: introduction of team brie3ng and regularreview meetings, introduction of formal organisation-wideself-assessment processes and (iii) introduction of em-ployee performance and evaluation. As the model suggests,these 3rst three phases of “planned” implementation areconcerned with the development of internal improvementcapability.

The model suggests that the third stage that the introduc-tion of TQM goes through, or more pertinently goes into,is evolutionary implementation. By this 3nal stage in theintroduction, the realistically planned phases of implemen-tation are all but completed. As the right hand side of themodel suggests, the organisation is now in a position to ex-ploit the internal improvement capability and use it to eKec-tively re-focus the organisation’s eKorts on improving theprocesses that will consistently deliver customer satisfaction,that is to say, re-organisation to customer- and market-drivenprocess management.

6. Conclusions

The research described here employed a sample of in-ternationally and peer recognised successful TQM organ-isations as its research domain. The overall frequency ofeach diKerent type of activity or initiative within the 31 im-plementation plans studied, suggested that in practice therecan be a very wide range of implementation tactics. Thissupports the proposition that there is no single de3nitiveformula for the introduction of TQM. Nevertheless, deeperexamination has suggested that there are common goalsand purposes underlying the activities that make up theimplementation process. The authors posed the followingtwo research questions:


Question one: “Is there commonality in the implementa-tion processes of successful TQM organisations?”Question two: “If there is commonality in these imple-

mentation processes, does the commonality lie at a leveldeeper than the activity level?”

Evidence presented in this paper indicates that the answerto both questions is yes. There is commonality in the imple-mentation processes, and furthermore, the level at which thiscommonality resides is at the “outcome” level. This level isconcerned with the purpose and driving force for the asso-ciated tactics.

Findings suggest that organisations that go on to success-fully practice the TQM approach use the TQM implementa-tion process as the vehicle for building ‘internal capability’,before the external inBuences are then dealt with throughcustomer focus and process focus oriented actions as part ofthe then established longer term TQM way of working. AsHolder and Walker [55] asserted, aligning with the customerand delivering the products and services that customers ex-pect, at a high quality level, are activities which take a lotof eKort.

It has been suggested in the broader TQM literature thatTQM has a dual make-up; a ‘hard-side’ and a ‘soft-side’,where the ‘hard-side’ focuses on systems, tools and tech-niques and on establishing standards of performance, and the‘soft-side’ concerns attitudes and values reBecting the em-phasis given to mobilising all employees around the goal ofcontinuous improvement and enlisting their active commit-ment by means of participation and responsibility [56–59].This investigation has shown that the “planned” implemen-tation process of organisations that go on to successfullypractice TQM is weighted heavily in favour of activities thataKect the ‘soft-side’. However, the ‘hard-side’ plays twoimportant parts: 3rstly, at the front-end of the implementa-tion process (start-up) by establishing organisational direc-tion and providing organisational guidance and secondly,following the increase in participation (transition) it helpsthe organisation to hold the gains and to help to ensure thatintegration between the new practices and the existing busi-ness processes can take place.

Table 2

Management process Market focus

Create quality council=steering group BenchmarkingQuality assurance processes Customer satisfaction surveyMission=vision development Generic benchmarkingTeamwork—work management Supplier partnershipsBusiness values development Business environment (current and future) analysisQuality policy=CI principles development and approval Competitive benchmarkingStrategic objectives=goals development Diagnostic (quality issues) survey—customersAppoint quality oOcer=director Initiate customer open daysBusiness process objectives=goals development Customer partnershipsFlatten organisation structure Diagnostic (quality issues) survey—suppliers

To date, literature has suggested that there are twobasic strategies for the implementation of TQM: the“activity-driven” approach which is by far the most widelyexpounded, particularly in the prescriptive literature, andthe “results-driven” approach [60,61]. The “results-driven”approach calls for breakthrough actions. Myers and Ashke-nas [61] proposed that substantial results early on are astrong motivator for climbing to even greater performanceheights. Proponents of this approach argue that it is nota return to a ‘quick-3x’ or ‘short-term gains at any cost’mentality. In the authors’ view, whilst the philosophy ofa “results-driven” strategy is appreciated, the investigationreported in this paper calls for the serious considerationof a third alternative approach to the development andsubsequent execution of TQM implementation process.The evidence supports the call for an “outcome-driven”approach. In this approach the activities or initiatives ofimplementation are chosen based on their suitability forsystematically eKecting the necessary changes in manage-ment and employees’ behaviour and more importantly intheir attitudes. In this way, the implementation process isrolled out in a cumulatively value-adding manner. This inturn can aid the development of long-term con3dence andsupport of all participants. Where deemed necessary orappropriate, the approach allows for more speci3c goals,objectives or targets to be de3ned for the particular activ-ities or initiatives chosen. Furthermore, the authors wouldpropose that because this approach directly links action todesired outcomes and broader goals, it more directly facil-itates the longer term integration of quality and businessprocesses, and helps to guard against the common prob-lem of loss of TQM momentum often associated with the“activity-driven” approach.

Appendix

The diKerent implementation initiatives found in the sam-ple’s implementation plans are listed according to the TQMmain element to which they were assigned in Table 2.


Table 2 (continued)

Management process Market focus

Integrate business planning and quality goals=plans Focus on external customer satisfactionEstablish quality objectives=goals Supplier audit=rationalisationCustomised quality leadership process Supplier developmentInitiate Bagship improvement projects Customer inputGain management commitmentImplementation=action plan developmentInitiate quality improvement projectsRestructuringStandards of performanceAppoint business development=QA director or quality managerBoard agreement to develop TQM concept group-wideDisband=localise central quality resources (QC=SG chains)Identify TQM leadership=TQM champion(s)Planning processStrategic plan developmentCustomised quality management processFocus on cost improvementsHealth, safety and environmental focusISO9000 plan developmentLong-range improvement plan developmentManage continuous improvementIntroduce policy deployment

Process focus People focus

Control measures for the process Training—initiate organisation-wide cascadeProcess improvement teams TQM education courseInternal customer=supplier concept Teamwork—problem solving=improvementProblem solving methods Training—quality tools and techniquesQFD Training—motivationalReorganisation to process management Employee involvementTechnology improvement Employee satisfaction survey(s)Complaint management RecognitionCorrective action system=error reduction programme Revise remuneration systemDevelop quality tools Suggestion schemesFMEA Learning forumOwnership of processes Quality circlesProcess benchmarking RewardsWaste elimination Empowerment

People developmentChange in statusDiagnostic (quality issues) survey—managers=employeesIdentify and plan training needsIntroduce incentive bonus=pro3t sharing schemeTeamwork—customer actionDevelop education=training strategy=planJob description

Communication and measurement

Develop communication=feedback channels Employee performance evaluation=appraisal Quality auditFormal self-assessment Solicitation=awareness (all management) Link between measures and visionSolicitation=awareness event TQM research—business eKectiveness developmentBusiness=quality metrics Develop performance measurement system Philosophy of the businessSolicitation=awareness—general Quality award submission— AQA Quality costing introductionTQM research—general Introduce team brie3ng=regular Instigate quarterly reviewsDiagnostic (quality issues) survey— communication=quality meetings “In process measurement and display”

internal=cost of quality Introduce periodic reviews introduction


References

[1] Feigenbaum AV. Quality and business growth today. QualityProgress. 1982;15:22–5.

[2] Heller R. Putting the total into total quality. ManagementToday. August, 1994; 56–60.

[3] Gale BT, Klavans R. Formulating a quality improvementstrategy. Journal of Business Strategy 1985;5(3):21–32.

[4] Garvin DA. Competing on the eight dimensions of quality.Harvard Business Review. 1987;65(6):101–9.

[5] Ghobadian A, Gallear D, Woo H, Liu J. Total qualitymanagement: impact, introduction and integration strategies.London: CIMA Publishing, 1998.

[6] Powell TC. Total quality management as competitiveadvantage: a review and empirical study. StrategicManagement Journal 1995;16(1):15–37.

[7] Ghobadian A, Speller S. Gurus of quality: a framework forcomparison. Total Quality Management 1994;5(3):53–69.

[8] Ghobadian A, Woo HS. Characteristics, bene3ts and short-comings of four major quality awards. International Journalof Quality and Reliability Management 1996;13(2):10–45.

[9] Parker M, Slaughter J. Should the labour movement buyTQM?. Journal of Organizational Change Management1993;6(4):43–56.

[10] Summers B. Total quality management: what went wrong?.Corporate Board 1993;14(79):20–5.

[11] Eskildson L. TQM’s role in corporate success: analysing theevidence. National Productivity Review 1995;16(2):25–38.

[12] Ross JE, Shetty YK. Making quality a fundamental part ofstrategy. Long Range Planning 1985;18(1):53–8.

[13] Mohrman SA, Tenkasi RV, Lawler III EE, Ledford Jr GE.Total quality management: practice and outcomes in thelargest US 3rms. Employee Relations 1995;17(3):26–41.

[14] GAO (United States General Accounting OOce).Management practices: U.S. companies improve performancethrough quality eKorts, 1990.

[15] Oakland JS, Zairi M, Letza SR. TQM and bottom line results.Quality World. 1994;20(9):600–4.

[16] Easton GS, Jarrell SM. The eKects of total quality managementon corporate performance: an empirical investigation. Journalof Business 1998;71(2):253–307.

[17] Reger RK, Gustafson LT, DeMarie SM, Mullane JV.Reframing the organisation: why implementing total qualityis easier said than done. Academy of Management Review1994;19(3):565–84.

[18] Port O, Smith G. Quality: small and mid size companiesseize the challenge—not a moment too soon. Business Week1992;3295:67–75.

[19] Ahire SL, Rana DS. Selection of TQM pilot projects usingan MCDM approach. International Journal of Quality andReliability Management 1995;12(1):61–81.

[20] Motwani J. Viewpoint: total quality management or totalledquality management. International Journal of Quality andReliability Management 1997;14(7):647–50.

[21] Shin D, Kalinowski JG, El-Enein GA. Critical implementationissues in total quality management. SAM AdvancedManagement Journal 1998;63(1):10–5.

[22] Newall D, Dale BG. The introduction and development of aquality improvement process: a study. International Journalof Production Research 1991;29(9):1747–60.

[23] Grant RM, Shani R, Krishnan R. TQM’s challenge tomanagement theory and practice. Sloan Management Review1994;35(2):25–35.

[24] Mann RS, Kehoe DF. The implementation of total qualitymanagement (paper 2). Quality World Technical Supplement.March, 1994; 57–66.

[25] Porter LJ, Parker AJ. Total quality management—the criticalsuccess factors. Total Quality Management 1993;4(1):13–22.

[26] Benson TE. IQS: quality is not what you think it is. IndustryWeek 1992;241(19):22–34.

[27] Wilkinson A, Redman T, Snape E. New patterns of qualitymanagement in the United Kingdom. Quality ManagementJournal 1995;2(4):37–51.

[28] Williams M. Cottoning on to the need for change. TotalQuality Management 1993;5(1):35–8.

[29] Levine C. How TQM worked for one 3rm. Journal ofAccounting 1993;176(3):73–9.

[30] Rau H. 15 years and still going: : :. Quality Progress1995;28(7):57–9.

[31] McCabe D. The best laid schemes of TQM: strategy,politics and power. New Technology, Work and Employment1996;11(1):28–38.

[32] Whittle A, McNiven S. A multiple application. Total QualityManagement 1993;5(2):27–30.

[33] Seel IC. Total quality at Thomas Cork SML. ManagingService Quality 1994;4(5):21–5.

[34] Wellburn J. A TQM life cycle case study. The TQMMagazine1996;8(3):35–45.

[35] Wilshaw G, Dale BG. Developing a continuous improvementphilosophy in a marketing organisation: an examination of keyevents. The Service Industries Journal 1996;16(3):401–15.

[36] Harte HG, Dale BG. Total quality management in professionalservices: an examination. Part 1. Managing Service Quality1995;5(4):38–43.

[37] Harte HG, Dale BG. Total quality management in professionalservices: an examination. Part 2. Managing Service Quality1995;5(5):43–8.

[38] Lascelles DM, Dale BG. The use of quality managementtechniques. Quality Forum 1990;16(4):188–92.

[39] Johnston CG, Daniel MJ. Customer satisfaction throughquality. Canadian Business Review 1991;18(4):12–5.

[40] Glover T. Achieving the organizational change necessaryfor successful TQM. International Journal of Quality andReliability Management 1993;10(6):47–64.

[41] Tolchinsky PD, Ranney JM. Preventing TQM crash landings.Journal for Quality and Participation 1994;17(4):50–7.

[42] Mann RS, Kehoe DF. Factors aKecting the implementationand success of TQM. International Journal of Quality andReliability Management 1995;12(1):11–23.

[43] Hackman J, Wageman R. Total quality management:empirical, conceptual, and practical issues. AdministrativeScience Quarterly 1995;40(2):309–34.

[44] Hannagan T. Management concepts & practices. London:Pitman Publishing, 1995.

[45] Grant RM. Contemporary strategy analysis: concepts,techniques, applications. Oxford: Blackwell Business Books,1997.

[46] Rue W, Holland PG. Strategic management—concepts andexperiences., 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989.

[47] Ghobadian A. Integrating operations strategy and qualityimprovement: the way ahead. Inaugural Professorial Lecture,Middlesex University, 1993.


[48] Boaden RJ, Dale BG. A generic framework formanaging quality improvement: theory and practice. QualityManagement Journal 1994;1(4):11–29.

[49] Ghobadian A, Liu J, Gallear D, Woo H. Strategies forintegrating quality and business processes. In: Proceedingsof British Academy of Management Annual Conference(refereed track), 16–18 September 1996, Aston BusinessSchool.

[50] Edwards J, Hodgson A. Amersham International Plc:stimulating participation in quality improvement. In: TeareR, Atkinson C, Westwood C, editors. Achieving qualityperformance—lessons from British industry. London: Cassell,1994.

[51] Foster M, Smith S, Whittle S, Tran3eld D. Regenerating yourTQM eKort: what to do when it runs out of steam?. The TQMMagazine 1994;6(4):42–7.

[52] Kanji GK, Asher M. Total quality management process: asystematic approach. Abingdon: Carfax Publishing, 1993.

[53] Beer M, Eisenstat RA, Spector B. Why change programsdon’t produce change. Harvard Business Review 1990;68(6):158–67.

[54] Merli G. Eurochallenge—the TQM approach to capturingglobal markets. Bedford: IFS Publications, 1993.

[55] Holder T, Walker L. TQM implementation. Journal ofEuropean Industrial Training 1993;17(7):18–21.

[56] Wilkinson A, Marchington M, Goodman J. Total qualitymanagement and employee involvement. Human ResourceManagement Journal 1992;2(4):1–20.

[57] Hill S. How do you make a Bexible 3rm? the totalquality model. Work, Employment and Society 1991;5(3):397–415.

[58] Rigg M. Organization change and individual behaviour.Industrial Engineering. 1993;25(12):12–3.

[59] Bright K, Cooper CL. Organizational culture and themanagement of quality: towards a new framework. Journal ofManagerial Philosophy 1993;8(6):21–7.

[60] Steele J. Implementing total quality management for long- andshort-term bottom-line results. National Productivity Review.1993;12(3):425–41.

[61] Myers K, Ashkenas R. Results-driven quality: : :now!.Management Review 1993;82(3):40–4.