Total Quality Management Implementation: The "Core" Strategy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT This research presents an empirical investigation of total quality management (TQM) implementation in small- to medium-sized manufacturing firms. The study introduces a new TQM implementation strategy: the Core approach and tests the efficacy of a five-element quality management model. Factor analysis, cluster analysis, and ANOVA are used to test relationships among implementation, resulting practices, and performance. Results suggest TQM implementation transcends industry type and is most successful when viewed as a holistic process rather than either selective or contingent. INTRODUCTION Most American and European businesses have deployed some type of quality initiative in their operations (Silvestro, 2001). Yet, many firms have seen little to no benefit from their quality management efforts. Research has attributed many of these disappointments to improper quality management program implementation (Belohav, 1993; Cole, Bacdayan, & White, 1993; Smith, Tranfield, Foster, & Whittle, 1994; Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Douglas & Judge, 2001; Yusof & Aspinwall, 2002). Indeed, recent work suggests that the high failure rate of quality management initiatives results from a mismatch between these processes and critical problems in their respective environments; in short, that quality management should be seen and properly executed as a contingent process (Melcher, Khouja, & Booth, 2002; Das, Handfield, Clalantone, & Ghosh, 2000; Claycomb, Droge, & Germain, 2002; Wang, 2004). While there is a growing body of literature studying the linkage between quality management practice and performance, most research is not empirically-based and centers on large manufacturing companies (Rahman, 2001). Furthermore, Ingle (2000) noted that little discussion has focused on total quality management (TQM) implementation methodologies and that further work in the area is called for. It is these gaps that this research will address by investigating the relationships among implementation practices and performance in small-to-medium manufacturing businesses. This research will show that, for these firms, quality management implementation transcends industry type and is most successful when viewed as a holistic process, as opposed to either a step-wise or contingent process. The next section of the paper features a review of the literature relevant to the current study. We follow with the operational definition of TQM upon which our research is based. Research methodology is then presented, followed by an analysis of the demographics of firms included in the study. Empirical results are then shown. A final discussion of results and implications is presented in the conclusion section. EXECUTION, CONTINGENCY THEORY, AND IMPLEMENTATION Powell (1995) hypothesized that TQM firms outperform those without quality management programs in a survey of CEOs and quality executives in the Northeastern U.S. Powell utilized financial performance as a dependent variable and evaluated it on the basis of profits, sales growth, and overall financial performance, reported subjectively by the senior manager responding to the survey. He found that certain behavioral aspects of TQM result in improved performance, and concluded that firms with a formal quality management program outperform those without a TQM program. Ahire (1996) studied the impact of TQM programs centering on the following question: Is TQM a long campaign, one taking several years before desired results are seen? He surveyed a total of 499 U.S. and Canadian plant managers and found that successful firms see measurable benefits of the quality management efforts in 2-3 years. In addition, he found that higher levels of top management commitment, customer focus, supplier relations, design quality, training, use of quality management tool s, and employee involvement were associated with better operational results. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».