Search

This article presents a comparison of the quality attitudes of executives of American and Japanese firms. The authors note that the Japanese have been identified as achieving high levels of success in industries involving high volume repetitive manufacturing and have done so while maintaining superior quality. They note that one strategic measure that has helped the Japanese maintain this level of performance is just-in-time production. They discuss the distinction of management attitudes that assume quality is free and those who believe quality has a price. They test their idea that Japanese managers will favor the former notion while American managers will prescribe to the latter.

Management control systems should be designed to complement the strategies pursued. Few empirical studies, however, have focused on management control systems for quality control and zero-defect strategies. This study compares quality strategies and their relationships with management control systems in the Japanese and U.S. electronics industry. The results indicate that the quality strategies of U.S. manufacturing managers reflect adherence to zero-defect philosophies more than those of the Japanese managers. However, fewer U.S. managers receive management control information to support these zero-defect strategies. Tests linking quality strategies to management control information provide limited evidence that those U.S. managers who have adopted zero-defect strategies are more likely to receive modified management control information than U.S. managers who have not adopted zero-defect strategies. In contrast, the data suggest that Japanese managers are provided with goal-setting and feedback information about quality performance regardless of their adherence to a zero-defect versus a traditional quality management strategy, thus focussing workers' attention on continuous quality improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While Japanese manufacturing philosophies are said to be based on "quality is free" notions, it is commonly accepted that U.S. manufacturing centers on a "quality is costly" belief. This paper provides empirical data that test this conceptual division, seeking evidence about the quality trade-off philosophies of U.S. and Japanese electronics manufacturing managers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent attention has focused on how management control systems can be used to support quality improvements in manufacturing. This study analyzes the type and frequency of production and quality internal failure goals and feedback information provided to 1468 operating managers in 64 U.S. and 50 Japanese electronics firms. Significantly more Japanese than U.S. managers regularly receive production and internal failure goals, indicating that Japanese manufacturers have modified their management control systems to focus employees on production and quality improvements. With respect to quality feedback, U.S. control systems are more comparable to those in Japan. Research has shown, however, that feedback without goal-setting does not result in significant performance improvement. The lack of specific goal-setting for internal failure measures in the U.S. suggests that U.S. firms may encounter difficulty in implementing quality improvement programs because complementary management control systems are not in place to delineate expectations and encourage improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Potential blows to US competitiveness by Japanese manufacturers have been instrumental in stimulating interest in the development of manufacturing strategy theory and its importance at the level of competitive strategy. Unfortunately, little substantial empirical research effort has attempted to measure manufacturing strategy and to explore its potential linkages with management control systems in the United States and Japan. This study expands the empirical data base available on this topic by exploring the adoption of just-in-time strategies, and the use of management control systems associated with the implementation of inventory reduction and flexibility initiatives in the United States and Japan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents authors comment on an previous article by writer S.C. Aggarwal, commenting on authors article that previously appeared in a issue of the journal Management International Review. They noted with great satisfaction the "forceful" reaction to our survey of U.S. and Japanese quality attitudes by Aggarwal. This is an indication of how important empirical research on this topic has become. Basically, Aggarwal finds "no fault with the study or its methodology" but criticizes its outcome. Aggarwal notes, "a most baffling situation evolves when another sample of the same population totally rejects the findings of the study. Aggarwal's sample, a group of 40 executive MBA students, could hardly be considered comparable to the sample of "operating" managers which authors defined as "all personnel involved in the management of production." MBA groups usually are a mix of a great variety of functional specialists and consequently a poor match with samples of functional homogeneity. They noted with great interest the model presented by Aggarwal. They sincerely hope that the variables can be operationalized and that Aggarwal will empirically test his model which otherwise may turn into another dusty remnant in the annals of armchair philosophy.