International Journal of Operations & Production ManagementTQM as a management strategy for the next millenniaSatish Mehra Joyce M. Hoffman Danilo Sirias

Article information:To cite this document:Satish Mehra Joyce M. Hoffman Danilo Sirias, (2001),"TQM as a management strategy for the nextmillennia", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 Iss 5/6 pp. 855 - 876Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570110390534

Downloaded on: 20 July 2015, At: 08:26 (PT)References: this document contains references to 30 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2311 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Juan Jos Tar, (2005),"Components of successful total quality management", The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17Iss 2 pp. 182-194 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09544780510583245Shari M. Yusof, Elaine Aspinwall, (2000),"TQM implementation issues: review and case study",International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 Iss 6 pp. 634-655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570010321595Christos B. Fotopoulos, Evangelos L. Psomas, (2009),"The impact of soft and hard TQM elements onquality management results", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 26 Iss 2pp. 150-163 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710910928798

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:478584 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

TQM as amanagement

strategy

855

International Journal of Operations &Production Management,

Vol. 21 No. 5/6, 2001, pp. 855-876.# MCB University Press, 0144-3577

TQM as a managementstrategy for the next millennia

Satish MehraUniversity of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA

Joyce M. HoffmanStephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas, USA, and

Danilo SiriasChristopher Newport University, Newport News, Virginia, USA

Keywords Quality, TQM, Implementation, Strategy, Globalization

Abstract Total quality management (TQM) has been acclaimed as an organizationalphilosophy to enhance global competitiveness. Will TQM continue to be a managementphilosophy of the future in same shape, size, and design? This paper, through literaturesearch and using field experts, identifies the future role of TQM in businesses facing globalmarkets.

IntroductionIt was in the 1980s that the quality revolution got a serious look by companiesattempting to increase profitability. At the time, no one questioned the resultsthat were supposedly achievable by using quality techniques. Alternatively, noone dared to ask why are we using the quality systems as planned. All qualityimprovement efforts were supposed to end in good results and nothing wasexpected to go wrong. Very little was discussed about the differences betweenquality assurance, quality management, total quality etc., etc. As timeprogressed, quality revolution made some businesses happy while others werequite disillusioned. In management meetings, finger pointing took over fromthe common rationale of business analysis. So, finally, began the phase ofanalyzing quality improvement efforts.

Managing total quality, in recent years, has taken a different meaning as isevident by numerous articles published on the subject of total qualitymanagement (TQM). What is TQM and how does it differ from the qualitymanagement practices of the past? These remain key questions in variousarenas. Some find the two approaches similar while many others see themdifferently. In general, TQM is looked on as a process-oriented philosophy ofenhancing customer satisfaction through the production of higher qualitygoods and services. Quality management practices of the past, however, areregarded as `` after the fact'' control techniques to detect defective items thatrequire reworking. Hence, past practices focused on quality control rather thanquality management. Past practices were result-oriented compared to today'sprocess-oriented philosophy.

TQM can also be viewed as an organization-wide philosophy requiring allemployees at every level of an organization to focus his/her efforts to help

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available athttp://www.emerald-library.com/ft

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

IJOPM21,5/6

856

improve each business activity of the organization. The job of improving andensuring quality is no longer solely the responsibility of certain people or fordepartments of the organization. It is the responsibility of everyone. The peoplein the organization are required to make quality a culture in their daily lives.Furthermore, it is also important to understand that TQM is a long-termperpetual improvement process requiring significant resources, both financialand human. It is a dynamic process not a static one. It is a continuous effortwith no deadlines or target dates. The process can never be consideredcomplete since there is no goal or destination. Hence, TQM becomes a way oflife.

TQM of tomorrow presents a different scenario. Market dynamics arechanging on a continuous basis. New global markets are presenting newerchallenges that change constantly, causing stressful competitiveenvironments. Various authors have suggested a new role of TQMphilosophy for businesses operating in the next century. Suazo (1998)proposes TQM as a holistics approach to managing organizations. Forrest(1998) has suggested that TQM concepts be applied to implementsustainable developments that provide competitiveness. Wong (1996) alsoalluded to the future of TQM by questioning its role for the twenty-firstcentury.

Research objectives and goalsThis paper examines the future role of TQM and its implications formanagerial thinking processes in coming years. It will be a two-step process. Inthe first phase, we will analyze what has been written by many authors as towhat is TQM and how to implement TQM. This phase will require researchingthe literature to document, and synthesize, the views of others regarding TQM.Second, through a panel of experts (from the practising world), we will attempta refinement of findings of the previous phase, and furthermore, establish apath of future trends in the TQM arena. Finally, we will report on the views ofthe expert panel as to the future use of TQM ideals.

TQM and its implementation aspectsMuch has been written about TQM. The quality literature mainly consistsof case studies and analyses of specific aspects of the TQM system. Withfew exceptions (Benson, 1992; Saraph et al., 1989), no systematic attempthas been made to define the critical elements of TQM implementation. Inorder to evaluate the critical elements of TQM implementation, weconducted a literature review. A preliminary list of elements, identified byauthors, who have written directly about TQM implementation or a TQMsystem, was developed. The literature review suggested that there are atleast 45 elements that affect TQM implementation. These elements and theirsources (listed in the Appendix) are presented in Table I.

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

TQM as amanagement

strategy

857

Table I.Proposed elements ofTQM implementation

1. Top management involvementAhire, S. (1996), Black, S. and Porter, L.J. (1996), Blackburn, R. and Rosen, B. (1993),Bowles, J. (1992), Carson, P. and Carson, K. (1993), Deming, E. (1981-82), Hankes, J.(1993), Higginson, T. and Waxler, R. (1994), Juran, J. (1993), Kano, N. (1993), Mathews, J.and Katel, P. (1992), Melcher, A., Acar, W., DuMont, P. and Khouja, M. (1990), Mohr-Jackson, I. (1994), Moran, J. (1991), Nelson, K. (1991), Showalter, M. and Mulholland, J.(1992), Sowards, D. (1992), Walton, M. (1991), Weintraub, D. (1993), Younger, S. (1993).

2. Suppliers' involvementAhire, S. (1996), Becker, S. (1993), Becker, S. Golomski, W. and Lory, D. (1994), Black, S.and Porter, L.J. (1996), Edosomwan, J. and Savage-Moore, W. (1991), Godfrey, B. (1994),Harari, O. (1993), Juran, J. (1993), Lascelles, D. and Dales, B. (1989), Luther, D. (1992),Main, J. (1984), McIntyre, B. (1993), Richardson, J. (1993), Saraph, J., Benson, G. andSchroeder, R. (1989), Weintraub, D. (1993).

3. Small supplier baseBecker, S. (1993), Black, S. and Porter, L.J. (1996), Deming, E. (1981-82), Juran, J. (1993),Lascelles, D. and Dales, B. (1989), McIntyre, B. (1993), Richardson, J. (1993), Saraph, J.,Benson, G. and Schroeder, R. (1989).

4. Total employee involvementAhire, S. (1996), Becker, S. (1993), Becker, S. Golomski, W. and Lory, D. (1994), Benson, T.(1992), Blackburn, R. and Rosen, B. (1993), Cole, R. (1993), Easton, G. (1993), Hankes, J.(1993), Harari, O. (1993), Higginson, T. and Waxler, R. (1994), Leibman, M. (1992), McCabe,D. and Lewin, D. (1992) Moran, J. (1991), Niven, D. (1993), Saraph, J., Benson, G. andSchroeder, R. (1989), Schonberger, R. (1992), Showalter, M. and Mulholland, J. (1992),Sowards, D. (1992).

5. TeamsAhire, S. (1996), Becker, S. (1993), Becker, S. Golomski, W. and Lory, D. (1994), Benson, T.(1992), Blackburn, R. and Rosen, B. (1993), Cole, R. (1993), Easton, G. (1993), Garvin, D.(1993), Godfrey, B. (1994), Higginson, T. and Waxler, R. (1994), Juran, J. (1993), Kano, N.(1993), Melcher, A., Acar, W., DuMont, P. and Khouja, M. (1990), Mohr-Jackson, I. (1994),Niven, D. (1993), Rieley, J. (1992), Saraph, J., Benson, G. and Schroeder, R. (1989),Schonberger, R. (1992), Schroeder, D. and Robinson, A. (1991), Walton, M. (1991),Westbrook, J. (1993).

6. TrainingAhire, S. (1996), Becker, S. (1993), Benson, T. (1992), Black, S. and Porter, L.J. (1996),Blackburn, R. and Rosen, B. (1993), Carson, P. and Carson, K. (1993), Deming, E. (1981-82), Edosomwan, J. and Savage-Moore, W. (1991), Garvin, D. (1993), Godfrey, B. (1994),Hankes, J. (1993), Higginson, T. and Waxler, R. (1994), Juran, J. (1992), Juran, J. (1993),Juran, J. (1993), Luther, D. (1992), Melcher, A., Acar, W., DuMont, P. and Khouja, M.(1990), Saraph, J., Benson, G. and Schroeder, R. (1989), Schonberger, R. (1992), Schroeder,D. and Robinson, A. (1991), Becker, S. (1993), Showalter, M. and Mulholland, J. (1992),Sowards, D. (1992), Walton, M. (1991), Weintraub, D. (1993), Younger, S. (1993).

7. LeadershipEaston, G. (1993), Edosomwan, J. and Savage-Moore, W. (1991), Higginson, T. and Waxler,R. (1994), Johnston, C. and Daniel, M. (1991), Juran, J. (1992), Juran, J. (1993), Leibman, M.(1992), Mohr-Jackson, I. (1994), Nelson, K. (1991), Becker, S. (1993), Sowards, D. (1992),Weintraub, D. (1993).

8. Customer focusAhire, S. (1996), Akers, J. (1991), Becker, S. (1993), Black, S. and Porter, L.J. (1996),Bowles, J. (1992), Cole, R. (1993), Deming, E. (1981-82), Easton, G. (1993), Edosomwan, J.and Savage-Moore, W. (1991), Fuchs, E. (1994), Godfrey, B. (1994), Goodman, J. (1993),R., Shani, R. and Krishnan, R. (1994), Greenwood, F. (1992), Hankes, J. (1993), Harari, O.

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

IJOPM21,5/6

858

Table I.

(1993), Harari, O. (1993), Higginson, T. and Waxler, R. (1994), Johnston, C. and Daniel, M.(1991), Juran, J. (1993), Juran, J. (1993), Kano, N. (1993), Luther, D. (1992), Mohr-Jackson, I.(1994), Niven, D. (1993), Rieley, J. (1992), Schonberger, R. (1992), Schonberger, R. (1992),Showalter, M. and Mulholland, J. (1992), Sparks, R. and Legault, R. (1993), Takeuchi, H.and Quelch, J. (1983) Weintraub, D. (1993), Westbrook, J. (1993).

9. Human resourcesCole, R. (1994)

10. Management styleGrant, R., Shani, R. and Krishnan, R. (1994), Lakhe, R.R. and Mohanty, R.R. (1984),Leibman, M. (1992).

11. Organizational structureBounds, G. and Hebert, F. (1993), Schonberger, R. (1992), Shani, A., Grant, R., Krishnan, R.and Thompson, E. (1992).

12. OwnershipHankes, J. (1993), Harari, O. (1993), Juran, J. (1993), Saraph, J., Benson, G. and Schroeder,R. (1989), Sowards, D. (1992).

13. Continuous improvement processBecker, S. (1993), Cole, R. (1993), Kano, N. (1993), Mathews, J. and Katel, P. (1992),Melcher, A., Acar, W., DuMont, P. and Khouja, M. (1990), Rieley, J. (1992), Walton, M.(1991), Weintraub, D. (1993), Westbrook, J. (1993).

14. ConsultantsSowards, D. (1992).

15. Business cultureBenson, P., Saraph, J. and Schroeder, R. (1991), Black, S. and Porter, L.J. (1996),Blackburn, R. and Rosen, B. (1993), Edosomwan, J. and Savage-Moore, W. (1991), Emery,C. and Summers T. (1994), Fuchs, E. (1994), Hammond, J. (1991), Higginson, T. andWaxler, R. (1994), Holmes, E. (1993), Leibman, M. (1992), Niven, D. (1993), Shuster, D.(1994), Westbrook, J. (1993).

16. Process-orientedAkers, J. (1991), Becker, S. (1993), Benson, T. (1992), Bowles, J. (1992), Deming, E. (1981-82), Easton, G. (1993), Fuchs, E. (1994), Godfrey, B. (1994), Greenwood, F. (1992), Hankes,J. (1993), Main, J. (1984), Mohr-Jackson, I. (1994), Rieley, J. (1992), Saraph, J., Benson, G.and Schroeder, R. (1989), Walton, M. (1991).

17. Statistical toolsAhire, S. (1996), Benson, T. (1992), Deming, E. (1981-82), Garvin, D. (1993), Hankes, J.(1993), Kano, N. (1993), Main, J. (1984), Saraph, J., Benson, G. and Schroeder, R. (1989),Schonberger, R. (1992), Walton, M. (1991).

18. Quality auditEaston, G. (1993), Juran, J. (1993), Juran, J. (1993), Rieley, J. (1992).

19. EmpowermentAhire, S. (1996), Akers, J. (1991), Aubrey, C. II (1993), Becker, S. Golomski, W. and Lory,D. (1994), Benson, T. (1992), Fuchs, E. (1994), Leibman, M. (1992), Mohr-Jackson, I. (1994),Moran, J. (1991), Port, O. (1992), Saraph, J., Benson, G. and Schroeder, R. (1989),Schonberger, R. (1992), Showalter, M. and Mulholland, J. (1992).

20. Quality planningBlack, S. and Porter, L.J. (1996), Deming, E. (1981-82), Edosomwan, J. and Savage-Moore,W. (1991), Godfrey, B. (1994), Mohr-Jackson, I. (1994), Saraph, J., Benson, G. andSchroeder, R. (1989), Weintraub, D. (1993), Younger, S. (1993).

21. Quality dataAhire, S. (1996), Juran, J. (1993), Niven, D. (1993).

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

TQM as amanagement

strategy

859

Table I.

22. Mechanism to set prioritiesBenson, T. (1992), Benson, T. (1992), Cole, R. (1994), Goodman, J. (1993), Kano, N. (1993),Port, O. (1992), Weintraub, D. (1993).

23. Mechanism to coordinate activitiesBecker, S. Golomski, W. and Lory, D. (1994), Bounds, G. and Hebert, F. (1993),Johnston, C. and Daniel, M. (1991), Weintraub, D. (1993).

24. Quality council or steering committeeJuran, J. (1992), Sowards, D. (1992).

25. Written policy on qualitySowards, D. (1992).

26. Measurement of key results areasAkers, J. (1991), Cole, R. (1994), Easton, G. (1993), Edosomwan, J. and Savage-Moore,W. (1991), Garvin, D. (1993), Goodman, J. (1993), Hankes, J. (1993), Juran, J. (1993),Luther, D. (1992), Niven, D. (1993), Port, O. (1992), Schonberger, R. (1992), Sowards, D.(1992), Weintraub, D. (1993), Westbrook, J. (1993).

27. Reward system tied to key measuresAhire, S. (1996), Becker, S. (1993), Benson, T. (1992), Deming, E. (1981-82), Juran, J.(1992), Juran, J. (1993), Showalter, M. and Mulholland, J. (1992), Sowards, D. (1992),Weintraub, D. (1993).

28. Customer-oriented reward systemJuran, J. (1993), Moran, J. (1991).

29. Recognition and celebrationBecker, S. (1993), Black, S. and Porter, L.J. (1996), Blackburn, R. and Rosen, B. (1993),Hankes, J. (1993), Juran, J. (1992), Rieley, J. (1992), Schonberger, R. (1992), Weintraub, D.(1993).

30. Deployment of key information to all employeesAhire, S. and Rana, D.S. (1995),Benson, T. (1992), Black, S. and Porter, L.J. (1996),Blackburn, R. and Rosen, B. (1993), Cole, R. (1993), Fuchs, E. (1994), Godfrey, B.(1994), Hankes, J. (1993), Juran, J. (1993), Kano, N. (1993), Nelson, K. (1991), Niven, D.(1993), Rieley, J. (1992), Schonberger, R. (1992).

31. Quality-related goalsBecker, S. Golomski, W. and Lory, D. (1994), Benson, T. (1992), Black, S. and Porter,L.J. (1996), Carson, P. and Carson, K. (1993), Juran, J. (1992), Juran, J. (1993), Juran, J.(1993), Saraph, J., Benson, G. and Schroeder, R. (1989).

32. Flatter organizationsBecker, S. Golomski, W. and Lory, D. (1994), Harari, O. (1993).

33. Group incentive systemsBecker, S. Golomski, W. and Lory, D. (1994), Blackburn, R. and Rosen, B. (1993),Carson, K., Cardy, R. and Dobbins, G. (1992), Carson, P. and Carson, K. (1993),Leibman, M. (1992).

34. Decentralization of operational decisionsGrant, R., Shani, R. and Krishnan, R. (1994).

35. Lateral communicationBlackburn, R. and Rosen, B. (1993), Grant, R., Shani, R. and Krishnan, R. (1994).

36. Decisions based on dataEaston, G. (1993), Garvin, D. (1993), Goodman, J. (1993), Greenwood, F. (1992), Kano,N. (1993), Leibman, M. (1992), Rieley, J. (1992).

37. BenchmarkingAhire, S. and Rana, D.S. (1995),Benson, T. (1992), Black, S. and Porter, L.J. (1996),Garvin, D. (1993), Godfrey, B. (1994), Hankes, J. (1993), Juran, J. (1993), Luther, D.(1992), Mohr-Jackson, I. (1994), Port, O. (1992), Schonberger, R. (1992).

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

IJOPM21,5/6

860

In order to better understand the nature of these elements, we grouped theminto five factors. These groups were formed on the basis of commonality ofelements to the operations area of a business. These five key factors are asfollows:

(1) Human resources focus.

(2) Management structure.

(3) Quality tools.

(4) Supplier support.

(5) Customer orientation.

Within each factor, the elements are listed in an hierarchical order as shown inTable II. This study considers the frequency of citation of a particular elementas an indication of the element's criticality to the TQM implementation process.In Table II, this frequency is listed in parenthesis next to each element. Itshould be mentioned that, in the factoring process, all 45 elements from Table Iwere not used. Elements with less than four citations were deleted from anygrouping. Next, let us discuss the five factors and their implication for the TQMprocess.

1. Human resource focus.Good human resource management and practices seem to have a large impacton the quality movement in organizations. In this factor, we grouped six

Table I.

38. Measurement of cost of quality

Black, S. and Porter, L.J. (1996), Hankes, J. (1993), Saraph, J., Benson, G. and Schroeder, R.

(1989), Sowards, D. (1992)

39. Customer-oriented product development

Ahire, S. (1996), Benson, T. (1992), Cole,

R. (1993), Saraph, J., Benson, G. and

Schroeder, R. (1989), Sparks, R. and

Legault, R. (1993).

40. Long term employment

Schroeder, D. and Robinson, A. (1991).

41. Technical competence of senior corporate executive

Shani, A., Grant, R., Krishnan, R. and Thompson, E. (1992).

42. Board of directors involvement

Aubrey, C. II (1993).

43. Management tools

Rieley, J. (1992).

44. Right-brain thinking

Bookman, B. (1992).

45. Recognition of environmental issues

Black, S. and Porter, L.J. (1996).

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

TQM as amanagement

strategy

861

elements that relate people and their reward system. This factor recognizes theneed for developing a good workforce that is well trained and properlyrewarded. Let us look into each element grouped into this factor.

Due to the complexity of the problems companies now face, `` teams'' havebecome a necessity, rather than a choice. The nature of the problems todayrequire a multidisciplinary approach, and teams represent a viable alternativeto deal with such a complex environment. There are various forms of teamssuch as quality circles, multi-functional, and self-directed teams. These types ofteams differ on the level of power and involvement that the members have inthe different aspects of their jobs. Companies must be careful when selectingthe type of teams to adopt. Self-directed teams, for example, require heavypreparation and should not be adopted by `` novices'' (Port, 1992). Also, thereward system should be team-based. This suggests, as an immediate result,the need to switch the incentive systems from individual- to group-oriented.

Table II.Hierarchical structure

of TQM elementswithin factors

Human resource focus

Teams with group incentive system (27)Training (26)Total employee involvement (10)Empowerment and ownership (18)Reward system (10)Recognition (8)

Management structure

Top management involvement (20)Key information to all employees (14)Leadership (12)Business culture (12)Mechanism to set priorities (7)Mechanism to co-ordinate activities (4)

Quality tools

Quality goals and quality planning (16)Process orientation (15)Measurement of key result areas (14)Statistical process control (10)Data-based decisions (7)Quality audit (4)

Supplier support

Supplier involvement (15)Small supplier base (8)

Customer orientation

Customer focus (34)Benchmarking (competition) (11)Continuous improvement process (9)Customer oriented product development (5)

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

IJOPM21,5/6

862

The hypothesis of the use of `` group incentive systems'' under a TQM systemwas tested by Becker et al. (1994). They found that there is a trend to changefrom an individual-based system before TQM to a group-based incentivesystem after adopting TQM principles.

`` Training'' is the next element within this factor. This is not a surprisebecause TQM demands that people change working practices. For example,working in `` teams'' requires skills such as problem-solving, humanrelations, mathematics, statistics, writing and oral expression. Acquiringthese skills usually requires heavy training. Since training is usually veryexpensive, focus should be placed on the immediate needs. Weintraub(1993) suggests using a just-in-time (JIT) approach to training. Also,businesses are well advised to develop training materials/manuals thatassist in the enhancement of `` process knowledge'' of an employee (Deming,1981-82).

`` Total employee involvement'' is vital for successful TQMimplementation. Quality has different dimensions such as design,production, sale, delivery, after-the-sale, safety and security, and perceivedquality (Sparks and Legault, 1993). Total employee involvement isnecessary to ensure excellence for all quality dimensions. In other words,quality must become the responsibility of everyone in the organization inorder to succeed in the marketplace.

Next on the list are `` empowerment and ownership''. Employees'empowerment has many advantages. First, the need for supervisors is reduced,which results in lower costs (Becker et al., 1994). Also, empowerment gives asense of `` ownership'' which is also a critical element found in the literature.When employees are empowered, there is a sense that `` everyone owns his/herpiece of the business [which] unleashes the talent and energy of our people''(Ackers, 1991, p. 27).

Another element cited was `` reward systems tied to key measures.''Examples showed that employees act according to how they are measuredand rewarded regardless of the effect their actions have on the overallperformance of the firm. Cases have been found where people actedcompletely against companies' strategic priorities just because of a poorlydesigned reward system. As a result, reward systems must be designed sothat they promote behaviors that contribute to firms' wellbeing.

The final element within this factor is `` recognition.'' Being recognized bypeers greatly motivates people to improve their processes and become moreeffective. Deployment of success stories can be done through newspapers andfliers. Also, tools such as videos and visual displays can be used to recognizeand celebrate work well done. The results of these promotional activities aretwo-fold:

(1) They increase the level of motivation among workers.

(2) They can be used as a training device to deploy solutions that have beenproven to work (the learning organization concept (Garvin, 1993)).

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

TQM as amanagement

strategy

863

Human resource could not excel in any business without good managementstructure, which we discuss next.

2. Management structureOrganizations should have a management structure that acts as a facilitatorfor TQM deployment. Here, we group those elements that create and fosterquality vision. Hence, top management involvement becomes a necessity.

Top management occupies a special place in a TQM implementation. Topmanagement provides both the physical and leadership needs of theorganization, and most organizational changes and training needs requiretop management approval. In addition, top management behavior signalsall employees as to the importance of TQM implementation. Hence, `` topmanagement involvement'' is a critical element of TQM implementationand this was validated by our literature review. Top managementinvolvement is more a matter of coaching and facilitating the work ratherthan directing it.

Deployment of `` key information to all employees'' is the next critical elementwithin this factor. Employees need to have vital information in order to makegood decisions. Several papers mentioned that unsuccessful TQMimplementations showed lack of focus in the different activities of teams thatemployees embarked upon. Having the right information coupled with anadequate reward system is part of the solution. Leadership plays a vital role incommunicating such information.

`` Leadership'', which is another way to express top managementinvolvement, is an important element. Some of the activities top managementcan participate in are `` speeches, meeting with employees, meeting withcustomers, giving formal and informal recognition, receiving training, andtraining others'' (Easton, 1993, p. 35).

Business culture is also mentioned in the literature as a critical element ofTQM implementation. Culture is defined as `` the holistic summation ofindividual community members' habitual attitudes and behaviors'' (Shuster,1994, p. 9). Culture can be analyzed from the point of view of differentcountries' abilities to adopt TQM practices (Benson et al., 1991; Hammond,1991; Holmes, 1993). Also, business culture can be an indicator of thereadiness of a firm to adopt a TQM philosophy (Emery and Summers, 1994).Because failures in TQM implementation are usually attributed toresistance to change, cultural change theory is becoming an importantdiscipline for research (Emery and Summers, 1994).

Since companies have an infinite number of processes and problems to besolved, it is vital to have a `` mechanism to set priorities.'' As mentionedearlier, some companies try to improve everything that can be improved andthe result is lack of focus. Shiba et al. (1993) recommend following a chain ofcause and effect relationships. If the problem leads you to any of the five`` evils'' (defects, mistakes, delays, waste, accidents), the problem should be

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

IJOPM21,5/6

864

solved. Another suggestion is to focus on either reducing cycle time orattacking the main bottlenecks of the system (Port, 1992). However, thereseems to be no agreement as to which are the best mechanisms and/or toolsto set priorities.

A `` mechanism to coordinate activities'' is highly related to qualityplanning. In addition to the lack of focus, companies often try to optimizetheir operations by optimizing every department independently. It is wellknown that optimum of a system is rarely equal to the sum of the localoptimums. Using the wrong approach results in the lack of coordinationamong departments and, hence, resources are wasted. The technique that isoften mentioned is Hoshin management (Fuchs, 1994; Neilson, 1991;Takeuchi and Quelch, 1983). The Hoshin management process results in thecoordination and deployment of the key activities throughout the firm.

3. Quality toolsOne cannot adopt total quality management concepts without the knowledgeand practice of quality associated tools. In this factor, we grouped thoseelements that provide the basis of quality tools.

Developing `` quality-related goals'' is highly recommended. Analyses ofcommon practices indicate that US firms mainly concentrate on achievingproduction quotas. This practice has been highly criticized in Deming's 14points (Deming, 1981) because of its damaging effect on quality. Carson andCarson (1993) suggest setting both quantity and quality goals to encourageimprovements in both parameters. Quality planning, therefore, becomes anecessity. `` Quality planning'' basically implies the developing of a plan inwhich quality objectives and programs are integrated with the corporatestrategy of the firm. Easton (1993) suggests including not only goals andobjectives but also addressing implementation issues in the quality plan. Healso suggests preparing a written plan to make the issue more formal.

Having a `` process-oriented'' approach, as opposed to a results-oriented one,is heavily recommended in the literature. Authors strongly suggestconcentrating on improving processes, usually through simplification, andattacking the root cause of the problems. The usual way to `` improve'' processesis by covering up the symptoms of the problems with short-term solutions. Aprocess-oriented philosophy strongly disagrees with that approach.

An emerging way to improve processes can be accomplished byreengineering. Fuchs (1994) suggests applying reengineering whenprocesses are at their peak level and only a breakthrough solution canincrease their output. In addition, Fuchs argues that reengineering can beused when the gap between the output of the process and what is neededfrom it is too large.

Within this factor, `` measurement of key result areas'' was anotherelement cited often in literature. Even though few papers give amethodology to determine the key areas to be measured, there seems to be

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

TQM as amanagement

strategy

865

an agreement that measures must be customer-related. Commonmeasurements mentioned in the literature are complaints, customer andemployee satisfaction indexes, cycle time, and quality cost. Conversely,some measurements that might look good but do not provide usefulinformation should not be used to evaluate a TQM program. Suchmeasurements include number of hours spent on training, number ofmeetings per team, etc. These measurements do not provide information todetermine if the company is going in the right direction.

One caution: companies should not overemphasize the measurementaspect. Measurement of key areas should be as simple as possible. Harari(1993) reported cases where companies created cumbersome bureaucraciesjust to keep up with all indexes and little measurements. On the other hand,Luther (1992) showed a case where index reports consisted of only one pagewith only the basic information necessary to make decisions. The latter wasmore focused and had better results.

`` SPC tools'' occupy an important place in the TQM literature. These basictools are fairly easy to use, and hence, can be learned by everyone in theorganization. These tools can be used to solve the daily problems employeesface in their jobs. As problems become more difficult to solve, sophisticatedtechniques such as experimental design and regression might be added to thestatistical toolbox.

`` Data-based decision'' is the next critical element. The complexity of theproblems faced by managers makes it almost impossible to rely solely on`` intuition.'' Goodman (1993) presents several examples where intuitionyielded different results than those obtained using hard data. Careful datacollection and analyses would provide scientific bases to make sounddecisions. Data analyses should be part of both determining customer needsand improving processes. This also supports statistical control of theprocess that requires quality improvement. Additionally, data-basedanalysis will ensure the achievement of quality levels through quality audit.

`` Quality audit'' is a `` systematic and independent examination to determinewhether quality activities and related results comply with plannedarrangements and whether these arrangements are implemented effectivelyand are suitable to achieve objectives'' (Walton, 1991, p. 1). Quality auditsbasically have a preventive nature by identifying activities that can createfuture problems.

4. Supplier supportJapanese businesses have proved that supplier involvement is essential forincreases in productivity and quality through process improvements(Deming, 1981-82). In addition to a process improvement approach,`` supplier involvement'' is critical for TQM implementation. It is believedthat `` 50 percent of a company's nonconformances are caused by defectivepurchased materials'' (Lascelles and Dales, 1989, p. 10). Therefore, it is

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

IJOPM21,5/6

866

important to have a mechanism that ensures a good incoming quality fromsuppliers. A change in the buyer-supplier relationship in the form of apartnership has been offered as a solution. Since developing partnershipswith suppliers usually requires heavy preparation, a reduction in thesupplier base is usually necessary. This was validated by the literaturebecause `` small supplier base'' followed as an important element withinthis factor. There are some advantages and disadvantages associatedwith reducing a company's supplier base. However, discussion of this topicis out of the scope of this paper, nonetheless it must be mentionedthat forming strategic alliances with suppliers (e.g. in the cases ofWal-Mart, Nabisco) can be beneficial and that requires a small base ofsuppliers.

5. Customer orientationTQM ideals must keep a close eye on market dynamics, specifically,customer(s) and competitor(s). In this factor, we group those elements thataffect the market side of a business.

Companies must shift their focus toward customer satisfaction. Thiselement, `` customer focus,'' is the most heavily mentioned in the literature.Since TQM is, by definition, a customer-oriented philosophy, customerfocus is expected to occupy a predominant place in the literature. Focusingon customers requires identifying the customers, their current and futureexpectations, and their level of satisfaction. Having a profound knowledgeof customers is the most important aspect of TQM because every activity isdriven by this knowledge. TQM subsystems are designed with thecustomer's needs in mind. Therefore, a failure in identifying the rightinformation can lead the organization toward the wrong direction.

Within this factor, `` benchmarking'' is the second most cited tool in thereviewed literature. Benchmarking is defined as the `` act of finding out whatthe best practices and processes are in business the best of the best,anywhere in the world and adapting and implementing them, or evengoing them one better, in your own firm'' (Westbrook, 1993, p. 13).Benchmarking provides goals that people can relate to and be motivated bybecause such goals have been proven to be achievable (also employeesmight say `` if they can, why can't we?''). However, Benson (1992), based onan international quality study by the American Quality Foundation,suggests that benchmarking should be used preferably by high performingcompanies as the study showed no correlation between using benchmarkingand subsequent success in low and medium performing companies.

Third on the list was `` continuous improvement process'' (CIP). Statisticaltools and continuous improvement process make a powerful combination.CIP demands improving all processes continuously and statisticaltools provide the resources to systematically make those improvements.Continuous improvement process is better described by the

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

TQM as amanagement

strategy

867

`` Deming wheel,'' also known as the PDCA (plan, do, check, act) cycle(Deming, 1991).

The last important element is `` customer-oriented product development.''After knowing the TQM philosophy, it is common sense that new productdevelopment should focus on customer needs. Some of the tools mentioned inthe literature that deal with the design process are quality function deployment(QFD) and simultaneous engineering. Furthermore, continuous improvement ofa product must have its basis in customer orientation through feedback fromconsumer channels. An improved product without customer preference(s) is notimproved at all.

TQM a reality checkIn order to check on the current reality of TQM implementation, we tookthe theoretical findings from the previous phase to the real world. Our objectivewas to assess the managerial perceptions of the quality revolution of the future.Our experiment was designed around senior manufacturing executives(director level or above) of large manufacturing businessesthat included chemical, cosmetics, medical equipment, automobile, computerequipment, major household appliances, and aircraft parts.We believe that these manufacturing leaders offer two strong attributes.One, they are pace-setters by virtue of their financial standing andmarket size. Two, they are forward thinkers due to their globalcompetitive environment. All information was collected throughdetailed one-to-one interviews and discussions with manufacturing executives.

First, we gathered general information about each business's quality effortsand plans for the future. Second, we presented them with the findings ofour investigation regarding TQM implementation. Finally, managementviews were solicited on the future of TQM. It took in all a total of threevisits (per business) to complete our data gathering efforts. Comprehensivefindings of the study were shared with all participants to arrive atconsensus regarding the future of TQM, and these findings are discussednext.

Critical element validationThe expert panel, in near unanimity, confirmed the findings of our researchrelative to the critical elements of TQM use and implementation. It was pointedout that one cannot assign any priority to any of the elements within the factorsor to the factors themselves. We were advised that a lot depends on thebusiness, its products, and its markets. This is not a surprising detail giventhat our research base to identify the critical elements was the writing ofnumerous authors from varied environments over a wide time horizon. Allparticipants agreed that the recent state of TQM implementation is wellrepresented in our findings. However, the future could be a different story.

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

IJOPM21,5/6

868

TQM of tomorrowIn our quest to envision the future of TQM, we explored the managerialthinking process in reference to incoming quality challenges and associatedimprovements. Our findings led us to conclude that the organizationalemphasis of tomorrow will be shifting towards four main areas (called focuseshere) for the improvement of quality. These focus areas are:

(1) customer focus;

(2) process focus;

(3) innovation focus;

(4) environmental focus.

A detailed analysis of these focus areas is presented in Table III, and wediscuss them next.

Customer focusIn the coming years, the word `` customer'' will take on a different meaning. Thecustomer side of any business will be a major force in tomorrow's globalmarkets. Dealing with these forces will require a new approach to designingmanagerial actions. Two major elements are expected to be the key focus of thefuture actions in regard to market dynamics. One is customer partnership, theother being reliable supplier source. Customer partnership will require that thebusiness get closer to the customer, not just physically but in many otherfacets. This closeness should take the form of an enterprise wide sharing ofideas, actions, and other planning aspects. Essentially, it boils down to abusiness `` virtually'' sitting at the door steps of the customer. Both parties,buyers and sellers, are to assume ownership of all actions that occur in thesupply chain.

Information, specifically the flow of information, will become anextremely crucial element for future success. All trading partners will haveto facilitate synchronized flow of information in order to achieve a highdegree of responsiveness to the ultimate customer. It is also expected, assuggested by our expert panel, that businesses will have to achieve a highdegree of integration of processes between suppliers and their customers.This will call for a totally new management thinking, i.e. a focus on globalthinking perspective. The future supplier-customer partnership will yield a`` seamless entity'' that will feel no pain in responding to changes because itwill be a `` seamless'' change. Managing quality will be replaced bymanaging change with quality.

Process focusOur research finds that quality organizations of tomorrow will face a shift inthe management of process. This shift will require a true understanding of theprocess dynamics.

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

TQM as amanagement

strategy

869

Quality management efforts will heavily emphasize self assessment of three

major capabilities, i.e. human resource capabilities, technical capabilities,

and financial capabilities. This self analysis will be crucial before forming

any strategic alliance with customers to arrive at the seamless enterprise as

discussed in the earlier section.

Credible and convincing self assessment will become necessary

to forge long-term relations with all trading partners having similar

critical success factor niches. It is this aspect of the process focus

which will form the platform for common improvements in the area of

enterprise-wide quality. Such a platform will provide a basis of a

seamless performance measurement system. A seamless performance

measurement system will enable every enterprise partner to respond in a

synchronized manner to meet the quality levels demanded by the ultimate

customer.

Table III.TQM: future focus

areas

1. Customer focus. Customer partnership

Feedback Loyalty Enhancing satisfaction

. Reliable supplier

2. Process focus. Self-assessment

Human capabilities Technological capabilities Financial capabilities

. Supplier partnership

. Critical success factor perspective

. Information flow perspective

. Performance measure perspective

3. Innovation focus. Perpetual growth

. Knowledge-creating worker

. Knowledge-creating organization

. Knowledge-creating leadership

4. Environmental focus. Government regulations

. Social and ethical obligations

. Market dynamics

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

IJOPM21,5/6

870

Innovation/improvement/knowledge focusWithout fast paced responsiveness to changing customer demandswill definitely cause the demise of a business in the coming years of thenew millennia. This sentiment was expressed over and over again bythe participants of this study. Efficient consumer response,successfully practised by the food and grocery industry, now comesto the door steps of manufacturers. The service component of theirbusiness takes on a different meaning, with after-sale service just a fadingword.

To provide for customer satisfaction, businesses will have to planperpetual growth processes based upon innovation, improvements,and knowledge creation. These efforts will require technologicalleadership in management ranks of all trading partners. These partnerswill become knowledge-creating organizations having synchronizedknowledge workers moving in the same direction. Hence, the flow ofinformation and timing of managerial actions will become critical in thequality decisions.

Environmental focusThe last missing puzzle in our quest for total quality organization of tomorrowrevealed another focal point of attention, i.e. environmental focus. This is athree-dimensional focus comprising government regulations, social/ethicalissues, and market dynamics.

Government regulations will stay a mystery in years to come due tothe changing patterns of public opinions. The same will be true of socialand ethical issues. However, such uncertainties will have to be dealtwith through early partnerships between governmental organizations(e.g. FDA, EPA, etc.) and businesses. Such cooperative allianceswill provide timely and correct information to all trading partners,and hence, affect the market dynamics through competition. It is inthis respect that the continuous improvement process component ofTQM will take on a new role. This role will be innovation-based,attempting to discover new knowledge (e.g. new technology to produceuser friendly products of higher quality). Creating knowledge on aroutine basis will replace the current mode of working that focuses onjust doing the job.

Summary and conclusionThe new operating environment of the future will provide a set ofchallenges on various levels. A clear focus on defining and managing thecustomer side, process emphasis, and creating knowledge throughinnovation will comprise the new business environment. Under this newenvironment, TQM systems will shift towards a philosophy of quality basedstrategic management systems. In this new paradigm, this research predicts

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

TQM as amanagement

strategy

871

formation of seamless organizations that will function in a very cohesivemanner to deliver goods and services to global markets. Findings of thisresearch are in line with the writings of recent authors (Suazo, 1998; Forrest,1998; Wong, 1996).

In conclusion, this paper proposes that manufacturing businesses take acloser look at the TQM philosophy in general, and specifically, how is it tobe used in their environment. We suggest that businesses use TQM ideals toforge new relationships with their trading partners. Furthermore,businesses must undertake a challenge to design operations using seamlessboundaries in internal processes and external transactions. Our researchfinds that instantaneous response to changing market dynamics will be thesingle most important challenge of the future. It will require a newdefinition of quality and TQM alike. We offer the following workingdefinitions:

For quality. Quality is what is dictated by the market dynamics and what isdemanded by the ultimate customer.

For TQM. TQM is a quality-based management strategy that promotesenterprise-wide quality through a strong focus on customer orientation andenvironment and dynamics. Additionally, this strategic orientation reliesheavily on synchronized processes among all trading partners to createknowledge through innovation in order to achieve global competitiveness.

Like any other research effort, our findings could not be all conclusive.Future research should focus on such topics as `` how to provideorganizational structure that facilitates innovation/knowledge creationprocess,'' `` how to foster trading partners through cooperative effort,'' etc.We hope that research into these areas will provide the missing linknecessary to move into the next millennia smoothly.

References

Akers, J. (1991), `` World-class quality: nothing less will do'', Quality Progress, October, pp. 26-7.

Becker, S., Golomski, W. and Lory, D. (1994), `` TQM and organization of the firm: theoretical andempirical perspectives'', Quality Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 18-24.

Benson, P., Saraph, J. and Schroeder, R. (1991), `` The effects of organizational context on qualitymanagement: and empirical investigation'', Management Decision Sciences, Vol. 37 No. 9,pp. 1107-24.

Benson, T. (1992), `` IQS: when less is more'', Industry Week, September 7, pp. 68-77.

Benson, T. (1992), `` IQS: quality is not what you think it is'', Industry Week, October, pp. 22-34.

Carson, P. and Carson, K. (1993), `` Deming versus traditional management theorists on goalsetting, can both be right?'', Business Horizons, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 79-84.

Deming, E. (1981-82), `` Improvement of quality and productivity through action bymanagement'', National Productivity Review, Winter, pp. 12-22.

Easton, G. (1993), `` The 1993 state of US total quality management: a Baldrige examiner'sperspective'', California Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 32-54.

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

IJOPM21,5/6

872

Emery, C. and Summers T. (1994), `` An exploratory examination of cultural readiness as aprerequisite to successful application of total quality management programs'', paperpresented at SE DSI, Williamsburg, VA.

Forrest, S.J. (1998), `` The integration of sustainable development and TQM'', http://frontpage.hypermall.com/jforrest/development/sustainable.html

Fuchs, E. (1994), `` Total quality management from the future: practices and paradigms'', QualityManagement Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 26-34.

Garvin, D. (1993), `` Building a learning organization'', Harvard Business Review, July-August,pp. 78-91.

Goodman, J. (1993), `` Preventing TQM problems: measured steps toward customer-driven qualityimprovement'', National Productivity Review, Autumn, pp. 555-71.

Hammond, J. (1991), `` An international look at quality practices'', Management Review, May,pp. 38-41.

Harari, O. (1993), `` Ten reasons why TQM doesn't work'', Management Review, January, pp. 33-8.

Holmes, E. (1993), `` Total quality for Americans'', Issues & Observations, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 1-6.

Lascelles, D. and Dales, B. (1989), `` The buyer-supplier relationship in total quality management'',Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Summer, pp. 10-19.

Luther, D. (1992), `` Advanced TQM: measurements, missteps, and progress through key resultsindicator at Corning'', National Productivity Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 23-36.

Nelson, K. (1991), `` Building in quality'', Canadian Business Review, Winter, pp. 22-5.

Port, O. (1992), `` Quality'', Business Week, November 30, pp. 66-75.

Saraph, J., Benson, G. and Schroeder, R. (1989), `` An instrument for measuring the critical factorsof quality management'', Decision Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 810-29.

Shiba, S., Graham, A. and Walden, D. (1993), A New American TQM, Productivity Press,Portland, OR.

Shuster, D. (1994), `` Making cultural change happen: putting management transformation theoryto use'', Quality Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 7-17.

Sparks, R. and Legault, R. (1993), `` A definition of quality for total customer satisfaction: thebridge between manufacturer and customer'', SAM Advanced Management Journal,Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 16-21.

Suazo, M.M. (1998), `` Total quality management: a holistic view of management'', http://www.iusb.edu/~mwacad/suazo~1.html

Takeuchi, H. and Quelch, J. (1983), `` Quality is more than making a good product'', HarvardBusiness Review, July-August, pp. 139-45.

Walton, M. (1991), `` Deming management at work'', Soundview Executive Book Summaries,Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 1-8.

Weintraub, D. (1993), `` Implementing total quality management'', Economic Development Review,Summer, pp. 39-42.

Westbrook, J. (1993), `` Taking a multivariate approach to total quality management'', IndustrialManagement, March/April, pp. 2-3.

Wong, A. (1996), `` World TQM movement a changing or evolutionary process? A key for 21stcentury?'', wysiwyg://26/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5621 /icq/html

Appendix. TQM references

Ahire, S. (1996), `` TQM age vs quality: an empirical investigation,'' Production & InventoryManagement Journal, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 18-23.

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

TQM as amanagement

strategy

873

Ahire, S. (1996), `` Development and validation of TQM implementation constructs'', DecisionSciences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-56.

Ahire, S. and Rana, D.S. (1995), `` Selection of TQM pilot projects using an MCDM approach'',International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 26-7.

Akers, J. (1991), `` World-class quality: nothing less will do'', Quality Progress, October, pp. 26-7.

Aubrey, C., II (1993), `` Should the board of directors be involved in TQM'', National ProductivityReview, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 317-23.

Becker, S. (1993), `` TQM does work: ten reasons why misguided attempts fail'', ManagementReview, May, pp. 30, 32-3.

Becker, S., Golomski, W. and Lory, D. (1994), `` TQM and organization of the firm: theoretical andempirical perspectives'', Quality Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 18-24.

Benson, P., Saraph, J. and Schroeder, R. (1991), `` The effects of organizational context on qualitymanagement: an empirical investigation'', Management Sciences, Vol. 37 No. 9,pp. 1107-24.

Benson, T. (1992), `` IQS: when less is more'', Industry Week, September 7, pp. 68-77.

Benson, T. (1992), `` IQS: quality is not what you think it is'', Industry Week, October, pp. 22-34.

Black, S. and Porter, L.J. (1996), `` Identification of the critical factors of TQM'', Decisions Sciences,Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-21.

Blackburn, R. and Rosen, B. (1993), `` Total quality and human resources management: lessonslearned from Baldrige Award-winning companies'', Academy of Management Executive,Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 49-65.

Bookman, B. (1993), `` Energizing TQM with right-brain thinking'', Training. August, pp. 62-7.

Bounds, G. and Hebert, F. (1993), `` Why total quality programs fail'', paper presented at SE DSI,Chattanooga, TN.

Bowles, J. (1992), `` Is American management really committed to quality?'', Management Review,April, pp. 42-6.

Carson, K., Cardy, R. and Dobbins, G. (1992), `` Upgrade the employee evaluation process'', HumanResources Magazine, Vol. 37 No. 11, pp. 88-92.

Carson, P. and Carson, K. (1993), `` Deming versus traditional management theorists on goalsetting, can both be right?'', Business Horizons, Vol. 36 No. 5 , pp. 79-84.

Cohen, S. and Ledford, G. (1994), `` The effectiveness of self-managing teams: a quasi-experiment'',Human Relations, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 13-43.

Cole, R. (1993), `` Quality, participation and competitiveness'', California Management Review,Spring, pp. 68-81.

Cole, R. (1994), `` Learning from learning theory: implications for quality improvement ofturnover, use of contingent workers, and job rotation policies'', Quality ManagementJournal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9-25.

Deming, E. (1981-82), `` Improvement of quality and productivity through action bymanagement'', National Productivity Review, Winter, pp. 12-22.

Easton, G. (1993), `` The 1993 state of US total quality management: a Baldrige examiner'sperspective'', California Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 32-54.

Edosomwan, J. and Savage-Moore, W. (1991), `` Assess your organization's readiness tosuccessfully compete for the Malcolm Baldrige Award'', Industrial Engineering, February,pp. 22-4.

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

IJOPM21,5/6

874

Emery, C. and Summers, T. (1994), `` An exploratory examination of cultural readiness as aprerequisite to successful application of total quality management programs'', paperpresented at SE DSI, Williamsburg, VA.

Fuchs, E. (1994), `` Total quality management from the future: practices and paradigms'', QualityManagement Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 26-34.

Garvin, D. (1993), `` Building a learning organization'', Harvard Business Review, July-August,pp. 78-91.

Godfrey, B. (1994), `` Ten areas for future research in total quality management'', QualityManagement Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 47-70.

Goodman, J. (1993), `` Preventing TQM problems: measured steps toward customer-driven qualityimprovement'', National Productivity Review, Autumn, pp. 555-71.

Grant, R., Shani, R. and Krishnan, R. (1994), `` TQM's challenge to management theory andpractice'', Sloan Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 25-35.

Greenwood, F. (1992), `` Continuous improvements to meet customers expectations'', Journal ofSystems Management, February, pp. 13-15.

Hammond, J. (1991), `` An international look at quality practices'', Management Review, May,pp. 38-41.

Hankes, J. (1993), `` Great expectations'', Management Accounting, September, pp. 28-33.

Hankes, J. (1993), `` Maintaining the momentum: TQM after implementation'', ManagementAccounting, October, pp. 32-4, 41.

Harari, O. (1993), `` Ten reasons why TQM doesn't work'', Management Review, January,pp. 33-8.

Harari, O. (1993), `` The eleventh reason why TQM doesn't work'', Management Review, May,pp. 31-6.

Higginson, T. and Waxler, R. (1994), `` Communication, commitment and corporate culture: thefoundation for TQM and reengineering'', Industrial Management, November/December,pp.4-7.

Holmes, E. (1993), `` Total quality for Americans'', Issues & Observations, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 1-6.

Johnston, C. and Daniel, M. (1991), `` Customer satisfaction through quality'', Canadian BusinessReview, Winter, pp. 12-15.

Juran, J. (1992), `` Acing the quality quiz'', Across the Board, July/August, p. 58.

Juran, J. (1992), `` Made in USA: a renaissance in quality'', Harvard Business Review, July-August,pp. 42-50.

Juran, J. (1993), `` Why quality initiatives fail'', Journal of Business Strategy, July-August,pp. 35-8.

Kano, N. (1993), `` A perspective on quality activities in American firms'', California ManagementReview, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 12-31.

Lakhe, R.R. and Mohanty, R.R. (1984), `` TQM concepts, evolution, and acceptability indeveloping economies'', International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. II,No. 9, pp. 9-33.

Lascelles, D. and Dales, B. (1989), `` The buyer-supplier relationship in total quality management'',Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Summer, pp. 10-19.

Leibman, M. (1992), `` Getting results from TQM'', HR Magazine, September, pp. 34-8.

Luther, D. (1992), `` Advanced TQM: measurements, missteps, and progress through key resultsindicator at Corning'', National Productivity Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 23-36.

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

TQM as amanagement

strategy

875

McCabe, D. and Lewin, D. (1992), `` Employee voice; a human resources management perspective'',California Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 112-23.

McIntyre, B. (1993), `` Supplier service quality: a necessity in the '90s'', Management InternationalReview, Vol. 33, pp. 112-23.

Main, J. (1984), `` The curmudgeon who talks tough on quality'', Fortune, June 25, pp. 118-22.

Mathews, J. and Katel, P. (1992), `` The cost of quality'', Newsweek, September 7, pp. 48-9.

Melcher, A., Acar, W., DuMont, P. and Khouja, M. (1990), `` Standard-maintaining and continuous-improvement-systems: experiences and comparisons'', Interfaces, May-June, pp. 24-40.

Mills, C. (1989), The Quality Audit, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.

Mohr-Jackson, I. (1994), `` Quality starter versus quality advancer organizations'', QualityManagement Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 47-56.

Moran, J. (1991), `` Leading the organization to perfection through daily management'', NationalProductivity Review, Summer, pp. 369-78.

Nelson, K. (1991), `` Building in quality'', Canadian Business Review, Winter, pp. 22-5.

Niven, D. (1993), `` When times get tough, what happens to TQM?'', Harvard Business Review,May-June, 1993, pp. 20-34.

Port, O. (1992), `` Quality'', Business Week, November 30, pp. 66-75.

Richardson, J. (1993), `` Restructuring supplier relationships in US manufacturing for improvedquality'', Management International Review, Vol. 33, pp. 53-67.

Rieley, J. (1992), `` How to make TQM and CI programs work'', Quality Progress, October, pp. 92-9.

Saraph, J., Benson, G. and Schroeder, R. (1989), `` An instrument for measuring the critical factorsof quality management'', Decision Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 810-29.

Schonberger, R. (1992), `` Is strategy strategic? Impact of total quality management on strategy'',Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 80-7.

Schonberger, R. (1992), `` Total quality management cuts a broad swathe throughmanufacturing and beyond'', Organizational Dynamics, Spring, pp. 16-28.

Schroeder, D. and Robinson, A. (1991), `` America's most successful export to Japan: continuousimprovement programs'', Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 67-81.

Shani, A., Grant, R., Krishnan, R. and Thompson, E. (1992), `` Advanced manufacturing systemsand organizational choice: sociotechnical system approach'', California ManagementReview, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 91-111.

Shiba, S., Graham, A. and Walden, D. (1993), A New American TQM, Productivity Press,Portland, OR.

Showalter, M. and Mulholland, J. (1992), `` Continuous improvement strategies for serviceorganizations'', Business Horizons, July-August, pp. 82-7.

Shuster, D. (1994), `` Making cultural change happen: putting management transformation theoryto use'', Quality Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 7-17.

Sowards. D. (1992), `` TQM is a journey: so where do we begin?'', Industrial Engineering, January,pp. 24-8.

Sparks, R. and Legault, R. (1993), `` A definition of quality for total customer satisfaction: thebridge between manufacturer and customer'', SAM Advanced Management Journal,Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 16-21.

Takeuchi, H. and Quelch, J. (1983), `` Quality is more than making a good product'', HarvardBusiness Review, July-August, pp. 139-45.

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

IJOPM21,5/6

876

Tamini, N. and Gershon, M. (1995), `` A tool for assessing industry practice vs the Demingphilosophy'', Production & Inventory Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 27-32.

Walton, M. (1991), `` Deming management at work'', Soundview Executive Book Summaries,Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 1-8.

Weintraub, D. (1993), `` Implementing total quality management'', Economic Development Review,Summer, pp. 39-42.

Westbrook, J. (1993), `` Taking a multivariate approach to total quality management'', IndustrialManagement, March/April, pp. 2-3.

Younger, S. (1993), `` Finding time for TQM training'', Training and Development, Vol. 47 No. 2,pp. 11-15.

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

This article has been cited by:

1. Marina Kantardjieva. 2015. The Relationship between Total Quality Management (TQM) and StrategicManagement. Journal of Economics, Business and Management 3, 537-541. [CrossRef]

2. Sneana Topalovi. 2015. The Implementation of Total Quality Management in Order to ImproveProduction Performance and Enhancing the Level of Customer Satisfaction. Procedia Technology 19,1016-1022. [CrossRef]

3. Baofeng Huo, Xiande Zhao, Fujun LaiRelationship between Supply Chain Quality Integration andPerformance 305-334. [CrossRef]

4. Nadine Hietschold, Ronny Reinhardt, Sebastian Gurtner. 2014. Measuring critical success factors of TQMimplementation successfully a systematic literature review. International Journal of Production Research52, 6254-6272. [CrossRef]

5. Javier Tamayo-Torres, Vanesa Barrales-Molina, Maria Nieves Perez-Arostegui. 2014. The influenceof manufacturing flexibility on strategic behaviours. International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement 34:8, 1028-1054. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

6. Juan Antonio Gimnez Espn, Daniel Jimnez Jimnez, Micaela Martnez Costa. 2014. La gestin decalidad: importancia de la cultura organizativa para el desarrollo de variables intangibles. Revista Europeade Direccin y Economa de la Empresa 23, 115-126. [CrossRef]

7. Khalid Mahmood, Ilyas Mahmood Ahmad Qureshi, Asim Nisar. 2014. An empirical study onmeasurement of performance through TQM in Pakistani aviation manufacturing industry. InternationalJournal of Quality & Reliability Management 31:6, 665-680. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

8. Amir Karimi, Hossein Safari, Seyed Hamid Hashemi, Payam Kalantar. 2014. A study of the BaldrigeAward framework using the applicant scoring data. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 25,461-477. [CrossRef]

9. Manal Yunis, Joo Jung, Shouming Chen. 2013. TQM, strategy, and performance: a firmlevel analysis.International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 30:6, 690-714. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

10. Juan Antonio Gimenez-Espin, Daniel Jimnez-Jimnez, Micaela Martnez-Costa. 2013. Organizationalculture for total quality management. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 24, 678-692.[CrossRef]

11. Vathsala Wickramasinghe. 2012. Influence of total quality management on human resource managementpractices. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 29:8, 836-850. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

12. Noor Azlina Mohd. Salleh, Salmiah Kasolang, Hj Ahmed Jaafar. 2012. Review study of developing anintegrated TQM with LM framework model in Malaysian automotive industry. The TQM Journal 24:5,399-417. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

13. Alexandra Simon, Luc Honore Petnji Yaya. 2012. Improving innovation and customer satisfaction throughsystems integration. Industrial Management & Data Systems 112:7, 1026-1043. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

14. Jos van Iwaarden, Ton van der Wiele. 2012. The effects of increasing product variety and shorteningproduct life cycles on the use of quality management systems. International Journal of Quality & ReliabilityManagement 29:5, 470-500. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

15. Dong-Young Kim, Vinod Kumar, Uma Kumar. 2012. Relationship between quality management practicesand innovation. Journal of Operations Management 30, 295-315. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

16. Ashish Malik, Stephen Blumenfeld. 2012. Six Sigma, quality management systems and the development oforganisational learning capability. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 29:1, 71-91.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

17. Satish Mehra, Aaron D. Joyal, Munsung Rhee. 2011. On adopting quality orientation as an operationsphilosophy to improve business performance in banking services. International Journal of Quality &Reliability Management 28:9, 951-968. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

18. Vathsala Wickramasinghe, Anuradha Gamage. 2011. Highinvolvement work practices, quality results, andthe role of HR function. The TQM Journal 23:5, 516-530. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

19. Navid Sahebjamnia, Iraj Mahdavi, Namjae Cho. 2010. Designing a new model of distributed qualitycontrol for sub-assemble products based on the intelligent web information system. Journal of IntelligentManufacturing 21, 511-523. [CrossRef]

20. Ebrahim Soltani, Adrian Wilkinson. 2010. Stuck in the middle with you. International Journal ofOperations & Production Management 30:4, 365-397. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

21. Patrick Sitek, Marcus Seifert, KlausDieter Thoben. 2010. Towards an interorganisational perspective formanaging quality in virtual organisations. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 27:2,231-246. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

22. Raj Kumar, Dixit Garg, T.K. Garg. 2009. Total quality management in Indian industries: relevance, analysisand directions. The TQM Journal 21:6, 607-622. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

23. Satish Mehra, Sampath Ranganathan. 2008. Implementing total quality management with a focus onenhancing customer satisfaction. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 25:9, 913-927.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

24. Rodney McAdam, Denis Leonard, Joan Henderson, Shirley-Ann Hazlett. 2008. A grounded theoryresearch approach to building and testing TQM theory in operations management. Omega 36, 825-837.[CrossRef]

25. Iraj Mahdavi, Babak Shirazi, Namjae Cho, Navid Sahebjamnia, Shahram Ghobadi. 2008. Modeling ane-based real-time quality control information system in distributed manufacturing shops. Computers inIndustry 59, 759-766. [CrossRef]

26. V. Kumar, D. De Grosbois, F. Choisne, U. Kumar. 2008. Performance measurement by TQM adopters.The TQM Journal 20:3, 209-222. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

27. Ana Abrunhosa, Patrcia Moura E S. 2008. Are TQM principles supporting innovation in the Portuguesefootwear industry?. Technovation 28, 208-221. [CrossRef]

28. Mara Leticia Santos-Vijande, Luis Ignacio lvarez-Gonzlez. 2007. Innovativeness and organizationalinnovation in total quality oriented firms: The moderating role of market turbulence. Technovation 27,514-532. [CrossRef]

29. Abby Ghobadian, David Gallear, Michael Hopkins. 2007. TQM and CSR nexus. International Journal ofQuality & Reliability Management 24:7, 704-721. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

30. Mahour MellatParast, Lester A. Digman. 2007. A framework for quality management practices in strategicalliances. Management Decision 45:4, 802-818. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

31. Ismail Sila. 2007. Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the lensof organizational theories: An empirical study. Journal of Operations Management 25, 83-109. [CrossRef]

32. Hilma Raimona Zadry, Sha'ri Mohd Yusof. 2006. Total Quality Management and Theory of ConstraintsImplementation in Malaysian Automotive Suppliers: A Survey Result. Total Quality Management &Business Excellence 17, 999-1020. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)

33. Sandeep Grover, V.P. Agrawal, I.A. Khan. 2006. Role of human factors in TQM: a graph theoreticapproach. Benchmarking: An International Journal 13:4, 447-468. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

34. Ypatia Theodorakioglou, Katerina Gotzamani, George Tsiolvas. 2006. Supplier management and itsrelationship to buyers' quality management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 11:2,148-159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

35. Jos van Iwaarden, Ton van der Wiele, Roger Williams, Barrie Dale. 2006. A management controlperspective of quality management. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 23:1,102-112. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

36. B. B. Flynn *, E. J. Flynn. 2005. Synergies between supply chain management and quality management:emerging implications. International Journal of Production Research 43, 3421-3436. [CrossRef]

37. Carol J. Robinson, Manoj K. Malhotra. 2005. Defining the concept of supply chain quality managementand its relevance to academic and industrial practice. International Journal of Production Economics 96,315-337. [CrossRef]

38. Sandeep Grover *, V. P. Agrawal, I. A. Khan. 2004. A digraph approach to TQM evaluation of an industry.International Journal of Production Research 42, 4031-4053. [CrossRef]

39. Denis Leonard, Rodney McAdam. 2004. Total quality management in strategy and operations: dynamicgrounded models. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 15:3, 254-266. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

40. Satish Mehra, Surendra P. Agrawal. 2003. Total quality as a new global competitive strategy. InternationalJournal of Quality & Reliability Management 20:9, 1009-1025. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

41. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Role of Total Quality Management Practices on Quality Performance 1-31.[CrossRef]

42. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Role of Lean Production on Organizational Performance 358-388. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by F

URB

At 0

8:26

20

July

201

5 (P

T)