Research SummaryDongli Zhang
AoM OM Division
Doctoral Student Consortium
Quality Control versus Quality Learning: Measurement, Antecedents, and Performance Implication
Quality management (QM) practices and the benefits related to these practices have been addressed in many studies (see inNair, 2005; Kaynak, 2003). However, although these practices are sold as “universal remedies” (e.g. Juran, 1986), there are mixed results and high-profile failures in their implementation (Powell, 1995). A considerable number of organizations have tried to implement these practices but have failed to achieve the expected advantage, while some other organizations have implemented the practices with great success (Douglas and Judge, 2001). The purpose of this research is to outline a study that addresses the phenomenon from a contingency point of view. A central premise of this study is that there exist two different aspects of QM practices that have different objectives: quality control (QC) and quality learning (QL). The use of them should be more or less effective in different external or internal conditions (Sitkin et al., 1994). Ignoring this may result in inappropriate implementation of QM practices, and ineffective performance will result. It is hoped that this study will empirically validate the measurement of the two aspects of QM and identify moderators (such as organizational structure, environmental uncertainty) that influence the relationship between QC, QL, and performance. Antecedents that influence the implementation of QC and QL will also be addressed in the study (institutional factors, contingency factors, or rational factors).
This is important to study for a number of reasons. With the increasingly reliance on QM practices to gain competitive advantage, more knowledge about implementing and getting performance benefits from QM is needed to make QM activities more sustainable. This study will contribute to the research on QM, which is, as Chase (1998) claimed, the unquestioned major area in the field of operations management, as well as in the management field in general. Many scholars are concerned that the potential contributions of QM could be lost if its theoretical underpinnings and boundary conditions are not critically assessed. This study is among the first attempts that address the theoretical underpinnings of QM by distinguishing its two goals: control and learning. The study will also be the first empirical test for discriminating the two concepts in QM literature. Furthermore, this study incorporates insights from organizational theory and management theory into the research on the implementation and effectiveness of QC versus QL. Incorporating the insights of other fields will enhance and inform the research on QM. Results of the study will generate deeper and richer knowledge on the theoretical underpinnings of QM, the implementation of QM, and the link between QM and performance. It will provide foundation for further research on the two different aspects of QM.
From a practical point of view, this research has important managerial implications. Despite the increasing popularity of QM practices, practitioners still suffer from mixed performance results. By distinguishing QC from QL and addressing their implementation and contextual factors separately, the proposal will answer two important questions for the practitioners: (i) how can they implement QM in a real business setting? and (ii) how can they get more from QM in an organization’s specific context? Answering these two questions will produce solid and useful guidance to managers.
References
Chase, R. B. 1998. Production and Operations Management: Manufacturing and Services (8th ed.). London: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Douglas, T. J., Judge Jr, W. Q. 2001. Total quality management implementation and competitive advantage: The role of structural control and exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1): 158-169.
Juran, J. M. 1986. The quality trilogy: A universal approach to managing for quality. Quality Progress, 19(8): 19-24.
Kaynak, H. 2003. The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(4): 405-435.
Nair, A. 2005. Meta-analysis of the relationship between quality management practices and firm performance - implications for quality management theory development. Journal of Operations Management, forthcoming.
Powell, T. 1995. Total quality management as competitive advantage: A review and empirical study. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 15-37.
Sitkin, S. B., Sutcliffe, K.M., Schroeder, R.G. 1994. Distinguishing control from learning in total quality management: a contingency perspective. Academy of Management Review, 19(3): 537-564.