Quality Management Practices: A Review of the Literature

Introduction In this paper we review the literature on quality management practices. In doing so, it is recognised that theory development and theory testing within this discipline is a relatively recent phenomenon and that much of the emergent literature is somewhat prescriptive. Accordingly, the reviewing process demands a comprehensive dif ferentiation between rigorous contributions and anecdotal evidence. In structuring the paper, firstly we consider the problems associated with precisely defining quality as a construct and the implications for conducting research. Secondly, in a discipline where prescriptive and anecdotal approaches have traditionally been to the fore, we highlight the recent emergence of a much more rigorous approach to theory building, theory testing and empirical analysis. Thirdly, we review empirical studies of quality management practices and consider seven key quality management practices: top management support, process management, product design, workforce management, quality information, supplier involvement and customer involvement (Flynn, Schroeder and Sakakibara, 1994). Finally, we present a synthesis of the quality management literature. Defining Quality One of the most problematic issues confronting the researcher in quality management is the search for an appropriate definition. Precisely defining such a multi-faceted construct such as "quality" is dif ficult given the number of possible alternatives available (Hardie and Walsh, 1994). Garvin (1984), in one of the first classifications to appear in the literature, captures this ambiguity by differentiating between definitions of quality which are: Transcendental - excellence-of the highest standard; Product-based - dependent on the attributes; User-based - satisfying or exceeding the wants of customers; Manufacturing-based - conformance to requirements, and Value-based - value for money. Similarly, Reeves and Bednar (1994) suggest a four-way classification of quality definitions that incorporates excellence, value, conformance to specifications and meeting and/or exceeding customer requirements. The strengths and weaknesses of each approach from a research perspective are summarised in Table 1. The diversity inherent in these definitions, they argue, implies that "the quality construct space is so broad and includes so many components that there would be little utility in any model that tried to encompass them all" (p. 441). Significantly, they conclude that "the complexity and multiple perspectives historically associated with the concept have made theoretical and research advances difficult" and that ultimately the "search for a universal definition of quality and a statement of law-like relationships has been unsuccessful" (p. 441). What then are the research implications of these various definitions? An essential building block for theory development is an understanding of existing definitions and their appropriateness to a given situation (Blalock, 1969). If the meaning of a variable such as quality is subject to a variety of interpretations, it is particularly difficult to formulate propositions describing the relationship with potential explanatory variables (Cameron and Whetton, 1983). Flynn, Schroeder and Sakakibara (1994), in addressing this problem, contend that a key issue in theory development is the "articulation of the distinction between quality management practices (input) and quality performance (output), which to date has been blurred under the broad heading of quality" (p. 340). As already noted, the focus of this paper is on quality management practices. The Research Tradition in Quality Management Since the 1930s, manufacturing practitioners and academics have identified product/service quality as a key source of competitive advantage (see Shewhart, 1931). But until recently there has been little empirical research on either what this means in practice and whether or not it leads to improved manufacturing and business performance. …