Search

The competitive position achieved by the Japanese and Western industries during the 1970s to mid-1990s, and 1980s to mid-1990s, respectively, derived from understanding, implementing, and developing Total Quality Management (TQM) as a comprehensive management philosophy. Several research and/or company studies provided evidence of this development and its impact on leading companies efficiency and effectiveness. Despite that, research on TQM seemed on the surface, after a boom from about 1990-1995, to have declined. However, one recent detailed study from 2013 concluded that TQM is now at a more mature stage where focuses have shifted from being initially on TQM to the methods, tools, techniques and core values which are needed to implement TQM and to build a quality and BE (Business Excellence) culture. This study is an extension of the 2013 study, where we extend the previous study on TQM publications to 2017, and further analyse more detailed not only which methods, tools and techniques are used, but also at what organisational level they are used - strategical, tactical or the operational level. We collect data on research about TQM and its methods, tools and techniques, and we analyse further the shift of focus from TQM as a comprehensive management theory/ philosophy to a focus on the TQM methods, tools and techniques to be used at various management levels of a company. We use two of managements basic functions - management control (MC) and organisational learning (OL) - to unveil the challenges faced by TQM and to help converting these challenges into new research opportunities to be jointly addressed by companies and research communities such as the Quality Management and Organisational Development (QMOD) Research Community. In light of the findings in this research, it became clear that MC and OL are two sides of the same coin. MC can never be effectively implemented without OL, and OL needs to be supported by a comprehensive MC system.

This study compares the historical evolution of Total Quality Management (TQM) to eight well-known management theories to investigate whether there are affinities between TQM and the selected manag...

This paper proposes an alternative perspective on service quality management (SQM) based on the ecosystem of complex and dynamic service environments. First, the ways in which systems thinking and core principles of Quality Management evolved are analysed in order to understand the past, present and the future. Then, by analysing the theories, models and applications of SQM systems and business ecosystems, the paper proposes a framework model for a service ecosystem. The proposed service ecosystem is based on value co-creation that can be utilised to manage service quality and to increase innovability. Through two case studies, the differences between the traditional approach to SQM and the application of ecosystem theory to SQM are compared and reflected. The case studies indicate that ecosystem theory can be used to manage service quality and to achieve success in value co-creation through new innovative practices.

PurposeImai defined Kaizen as: “a means of continuing improvement in personal life, home life, social life, and working life. At the workplace, Kaizen means continuing improvement involving everyone – managers and workers alike”. According to Imai, Kaizen can take at least three forms: Kaizen management; Group Kaizen; Individual Kaizen. In this last form, the strength of the continuous improvement of this Japanese management approach is focused on the work of each person as an individual. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explore how some people have applied Personal Kaizen to their personal lives in order to improve their quality of life. The research question that drives the study is: How do some people apply Personal Kaizen in order to improve their quality of life?Design/methodology/approachAn exploratory qualitative study was conducted. Using theoretical sampling, three persons who have implemented Personal Kaizen in their daily lives in order to change their quality of life were identified and interviewed. Similarly, documentary references of the three cases cited were used to generate a cross‐case analysis of the methodological techniques used.FindingsThis paper analyses the cases of three persons who have implemented Personal Kaizen in their lives in order to change their quality of life. The authors cross the empirical data with the theoretical framework of Kaizen and quality of life and try to corroborate three hypotheses.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper has the same limitations as all other qualitative research, including subjectivity of analysis and questionable generalisation of findings. Furthermore, there may well be a theoretical gap with respect to the geographic region, given that the paper only considers three individuals living in Mexico.Practical implicationsThe description of how three persons apply an individual Kaizen approach in order to change their quality of life may prove to be of value to other persons who wish to change their health‐related behaviour.Originality/valueThe study contributes to the limited existing literature on the Personal Kaizen approach and subsequently disseminates this information in order to provide impetus, guidance and support for improving individual quality of life.

The purpose of this article is to create a snapshot of 25 years quality movement. The creation process of the snapshot, as well as the result of the study, aims to help in diagnosing the current status of quality management (QM) and further contribute in understanding and shaping its future direction. For this purpose, all published articles during the last 25 years period (1987-2011) under the subject of Total Quality Management (TQM), Business Excellence (BE), quality tools, techniques as well as core values/principles have been collected through the ABI/INFORM complete periodical database. The collected data were analysed and reflected in order to show the current status, evolution trends of the past, and the predicted future directions. The results show that the total number of articles under the subject of TQM has been decreasing after having reached its peak in 1995. However, papers focusing on techniques and tools within the QM framework in terms of Lean, Just-in-Time/Toyota Production System, Benchmarking, and Six-Sigma Quality have been increasing. In addition, papers focusing on core values/key principles needed to build a quality culture in terms of leadership, people-based management, continuous improvements, management based on facts, and focus on the customer have been slightly increasing during the last decade. The findings indicate that QM is now at a more mature stage where focuses have shifted from being initially on TQM to tools, techniques, and core values which are needed for building a quality and BE culture. Based on its evolution, it is concluded that TQM can be understood as a management innovation, if not a management revolution.

In this special double issue, we have selected articles related to the understanding of the complex relationships between enhancing quality and employee well-being. The selected articles are, in di...

PurposeAn overall aim with a new human‐oriented TQM metrology is to help managers in giving answers to the questions of what to measure, how to measure and why? It is the purpose of this paper to give input to answering these questions. In doing so the measurement problems are to be discussed in relation to the context in which the measurements are applied. Some common risks or failures are also to be discussed when more complex or advanced measurements are used such as LISREL or PLS measurements.Design/methodology/approachThe main methodology is to re‐interpret measurements from three company cases by having a special focus on understanding the importance of the human‐oriented dimension of TQM and Change Management. The European Excellence Model (EFQM) is used as the reference framework for understanding what to measure, how to measure and why?FindingsThe measurements support the view that establishing measurements related to the human dimension of TQM and Change gives new opportunities for understanding the results achieved or not achieved.Research limitations/implicationsBecause the research is based on a combination of theory and case studies it is believed that the findings can be generalized to most companies working under the laws of free competition. The specific measurement examples should not be copied but should be adapted carefully to other contexts and cultures.Practical implicationsThe case companies analysed are two relatively big global industrial companies and a big national and government‐owned service company (Post Denmark). Case studies from small‐ and medium companies have not been analysed here but several materials from these kinds of companies support the conclusions in the paper.Originality/valueThis is the first paper towards a human‐oriented metrology for improvement and change. The main value of establishing performance measurement systems with a balanced focus on tangibles and intangibles (the human dimension) is that this kind of measurement is a necessity for understanding the root causes of the results achieved or not achieved.

PurposeThe authors analyze the principles and results of lean production and compare the lean production philosophy with the six sigma quality process and the principles of total quality management (TQM). At the end of the paper, it is discussed how to build the necessary company culture for having success with these principles/management philosophies.Design/methodology/approachLiterature search and comparative analysis complemented with a Danish case on wastage in a core process.FindingsIt is shown that the lean production philosophy and the six sigma steps are essentially the same and both have developed from the same root – the Japanese TQM practices. The improvement process from six sigma, the DMAIC process, can be regarded as a short version of the Quality Story, which was developed in Japan in the 1960s as a standard for QC‐circle presentations. We conclude that the roadmaps of lean production and six sigma quality are examples of new alternative TQM roadmaps. We also conclude that especially with lean production and six sigma quality there seems to be too much focus on training people intools and techniques and at the same time too little focus on understanding the human factor, i.e. how to build the right company culture.Originality/valueThe detailed and historical analysis of six sigma quality, lean production and TQM combined with a focus on the human factor and the needed corporate culture.

In this paper some of the main management control theories are reviewed and six dominating paradigms are identified. The identified management control paradigms are compared and analysed in relationship with the European Excellence Model (EEM) in order to investigate whether the EEM can be adopted as a management control model. Based on the analysis, advantages as well as disadvantages of the EEM as control model are discussed.

During the last 17 years the QMOD conference has become one of the largest scientific conferences in the world within the research fields of Quality and Service Sciences. The 16th QMOD conference t...

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present and discuss the development of a system for assessing and improving technology development and innovations. The system components comprise: a framework or model for assessing, measuring, diagnosing and improving innovation enablers and results; a simple methodology for data collection, data analysis and prioritizing improvement areas; and an index for measuring the performance level of innovation, learning and lean (ILL) and the potentials to increase that level. To improve innovation, which is the most complex challenge for today's organizations, there is a need for such a system. Design/methodology/approach – The first two system components have been developed and tested during a period of ten to 15 years in several industrial companies as well as service organizations. The last component has recently been developed to satisfy a need of all types of organizations. Findings – With the last development, the ILL index, the three components comprise a system for assessing and improving innovations. As with any other system, the system components are interrelated. Originality/value – This paper presents a system for assessing and improving innovations. As with any other system the system-components are interrelated. To improve innovation, which is the most complex challenge for today's organizations, there is a need for such a system. It is hoped that the suggested system will be used within all types of organizations and all types of innovations – products, processes and services. Original Publication:SuMi Dahlgaard Park and Jens Jörn Dahlgaard, Organizational learnability and Innovability: A system for assessing, diagnosing and Improving Innovations, 2010, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, (2), ISSUE 2, 153-174.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17566691011057339Copyright: Emerald Publishing Grouphttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/