This article was downloaded by: [Monash University Library]On: 12 March 2013, At: 01:40Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Total Quality ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm19

Theories and concepts in totalquality managementJohn A. Dotchin a & John S. Oakland aa European Centre for TQM, University of Bradford,Management Centre, Emm Lane, Bradford, West Yorkshire,BD9 4JL, UKVersion of record first published: 28 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: John A. Dotchin & John S. Oakland (1992): Theories and concepts in totalquality management, Total Quality Management, 3:2, 133-146

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544129200000015

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. Theaccuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independentlyverified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of thismaterial.

TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT, VOL. 3, NO. 2,1992

Theories and concepts in total quality management

JOHN A. DOTCHIN & JOHN S. OAKLAND European Centre for T Q M , University of Bradford, Management Centre, Emm Lane, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD9 4JL, UK

Abstract This paper uses a review of the literature to examine quality as a concept and in the context of providing an operational understanding. T Q M is presented as a holistic approach which requires customer orientation, empowered people, attention to the process, agood quality system, and continuous improvement. The concepts, theories and components are assembled into a new model for T Q M .

Introduction An examination of the ANBAR abstracting service for the 17 years up to an including 1988 shows that there has been an increase of more than six times in the number of papers classified under 'quality', from 22 in 1971-72, to 134 in 1988-89. As can be seen in Fig. 1, most of the increase has occurred since 1979, vol. 8, and is in the classification concerned with production, rather than the non-production category. This indication of the growth in the number of papers dealing with the subject corresponds with the increase in quality awareness commented on by Juran (1988) and which he attributes to initiatives taken by many companies in the early 1980s, in response to what amounted to a 'quality crisis' for many US manufacturing companies faced with competition from Japan.

The literature offers many recommendations for implementing total quality, and principles for management. Different authors place their individual emphases, and it might be inferred that substantially different philosophies are being represented. A more careful analysis, however, reveals surprisingly similar content. It is possible to recognize the influence of Feigenbaurn (1956), Juran (1964), Crosby (1979), and Deming (1982), to a variable extent, in many subsequent works.

Many of the tools used in total quality management (TQM) have rigorous theoretical background and are proven empirically, for example, many of the techniques and procedures incorporated in statistical quality control (Shewhart, 1931), or more recently statistical process control (Oakland & Followell, 1990). In sharp contrast, there is little published research on other aspects, especially about the integration of the whole. Although most of the little available empirical work is inconclusive, in general it tends to support the views propounded by the acknowledged authorities (Garvin, 1988; Saraph et al., 1989).

Quality as a concept Scholars face many problems when defining quality as an economic as opposed to a transcendent concept. The difficulties it seems apply equally to goods and to services. In

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:40

12

Mar

ch 2

013

134 JOHN A. DOTCHIN & JOHN S. OAKLAND

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Vol 1 = 1971 Vol 18 = 1989

+- Prodn. -c Non-Prodn.

Figure 1 . ANBAR Abstracts classed as quality of production (3.51) and quality (non-production) (2.58)

1968, Edwards used the definition 'quality is the capacity of a commodity or service to satisfy human wants'. He noted that human 'wants' are complex, and may not always be satisfied in a particular way, users of products make a personal assessment of quality. Each case will be influenced by how well numerous aspects of performance are able to provide satisfaction of multiple wants and further distinguished by the subjective importance attached by the individual.

For many products, judgements must be made over their useful life, and reliability and ease of maintenance must be taken into account. Another aspect of time and quality was given almost 60 years ago by Shewhart (1931) who drew attention to the particular difficulty of knowing and measuring what consumers will consider to be acceptable quality in the future. Townsend & Gebhart (1986) separted 'quality of perception', as seen sub- jectively by the customer, from 'quality of fact', or performing to the standard which has been set. Both need to be recognized and two of the most frequently repeated definitions of quality, provided by Juran and by Crosby, illustrate this. Juran (1974) referred to quality being 'fitness for purpose . . . judged by the user, not manufacturer, merchant, or repair- man'. A different but equally important emphasis was given by Crosby (1979) who defined quality as 'conformance to requirements, not elegance'.

These definitions are not mutually exclusive, as they may at first seem, but apply in different contexts. What the two definitions have in common is (1) powerful simplification of the concept and (2) they are memorable.

Both definitions have passed into general use and have even stimulated argument and disagreement (Crosby, 1989). Some of this popular acceptance is because of implicit as well as explicit meaning.

The strength of assumed meaning and implication, can create problems of under- standing, however. For example, the word 'conformance' has strong desirable associ- ations in the manufacturing function of a company, but may be anathema in the design

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:40

12

Mar

ch 2

013

THEORIES AND CONCEPTS IN TQM 135

department of a firm making a product with a strong fashion element. Groocock (1986), discussing this problem, pointed out that short messages can easily be misinterpreted because of the wealth of implication that they carry. This was further supported by research at AT&T (Lader & Alexander, 1988) which found that some messages, intended to motivate for quality, have the opposite effect and stimulate negative feelings. Hence, the words chosen to define and explain quality should be selected with careful attention to the collective experience of the group concerned.

Quality in context

An explanation of why quality should have different meanings in different contexts was given by Garvin (1984,1988) by a recognition of five approaches:

transcendent or innate excellence; product-based or the amount of a desirable attribute which is present; user-based in the context of fitness for use; manufacturing-based or conformance to specification; value-based or satisfaction relative to price.

Garvin argued that these meanings can co-exist. Furthermore, it is necessary to change the approach taken towards quality from user-based to product-based, as products move through market research to design; and then from product-based to manufacturing- based, as they go from design into manufacture. He also noted that it may be necessary to give quality different meanings in different industries.

This was partially explained by Cullen & Hollingham's (1988) assertion that total quality, unlike a piece of equipment, cannot be purchased but 'must be developed in the minds of everyone in the organization'. That Ford, after several years of quality improve- ment experience, have recently changed from using a 'conformance to requirement' definition of quality to one which places more emphasis on customer, reliability and value, suggests that it is necessary to be prepared to redefine quality in response to external influences, and as organizational learning allows and dictates.The conclusion that may be drawn from the above is that although quality, being the ability of products, goods and services to satisfy human requirements, may have universal truth, it is also necessary to have a more detailed expression of the meaning of quality in the context of the following:

(1) the particular organization; (2) specific activities and functions within the organization;

(3) the state of maturity and experience of the group(s) concerned.

This is consistent with that part of Harrington's (1987) recommendations for improving quality in organizations, which suggests the need for first developing a common understanding that is relevant to the enterprise as a whole, and then proceeding to refine the meaning in functions, departments and work groups.

Need for an operational understanding of quality

Deming (1982, 1986) has succinctly observed that the concept is only the beginning of meaning, since 'concepts are ineffable. . . the only communicable meaning is the record of what happens on application'. In deciding what dimensions might be used to record the 'application' of quality, several of the models and structures described in the literature have been considered. Some of these are listed in Table 1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:40

12

Mar

ch 2

013

136 JOHN A. DOTCHIN & JOHN S. OAKLAND

Table 1 . Selected quality tnodels

Ishikawa (CWQC) 1985 All functions, all employees, continuous improvement, customer orientation

Juran 1986189 Planning, control, improvement Snee 1986 Philosophy, control, improvement Hoernschemeyer 1989 Context, barrier removal, empowering people, communication Oakland 1989 Management, system, teamwork, tools Shores 1989 Customer, management, participation, systematic analysis Saraph er al . 1989 Management leadership, quality department, training, design, supplier

management, process management, process control, data and reporting, employee relations

As most quality recommendations have evolved through work in the manufacturing sectors (Garvin, 1988), and since none of the models summarized in Table 1 is considered to be more appropriate than any other in respect of service quality, T Q M is here discussed under six headings borrowed from several of the models.

Total quality management is holistic

Writing about the approach taken by Deming, Gabor (1988) observed that T Q M is holistic in that it can only be conceived if it includes all the functions in the organization, all the people who work there, and all the other organizations and individuals supplying and receiving goods and services. This must not suggest an overview, however, since it also requires attention to and understanding of the detailed operation of all processes and functions (Deming, 1982).

The term 'Total Quality Control' was used by Feigenbaum in 1956 to emphasize that quality control cannot be achieved by concentration on just the production function since quality is determined at all stages in the industrial cycle, and the early stages, such as design, have the most influence. Oakland (1989) has built on this and added that T Q M enables every part of the organization to work towards the same goal. In a similar vein, Ishikawa (1985) asserted the need for cross-functional management in the form of steering committees and councils, to overcome sectionalism.

The representation of 'production as a system', used by Deming in Japan in 1950 (Deming, 1982, 1986) to show how improvement envelopes the entire operation, was restated by Scholes & Hacquebord (1988) as the alternative to a chain of command view of organization. Functions recognize internal supplier-customer relationships (Oakland, 1989), with the next process being the customer (Ishikawa, 1985). Not only should all functions be involved in TQM, but so also should all the people in the organization. Everyone needs to know what their job is and how it fits into the system if quality is to be achieved (Ishikawa, 1985). This applies to all tasks, and to all levels in the organization (Endosomwan, 1988).

The scope of total quality not only extends beyond operations to the other functions within the organization, it also involves knowledge and understanding of suppliers and their suppliers, and customers and their customers (Oakland, 1989). Several authorities place emphasis on the way firms must work with suppliers, co-operating to prevent defects through better understanding of respective processes and requirements (Deming, 1982, 1986; Juran, 1974; Ishikawa, 1985; Oakland, 1989). Product improvements are often also dependent upon technological advances by suppliers of materials, and their supplier (Price, 1984). Some organizations have reported benefits by encouraging contacts with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:40

12

Mar

ch 2

013

THEORIES AND CONCEPTS IN TQM 137

customers and suppliers at several levels, and including the operators in this (Doran, 1985).

Other organizations and lobbies, which do not have direct commercial links, also influence considerations of quality. The consumer movement, Government action on deregulation, development of national and international standards, and technological advances, are all examples of this. Another, and in some situations a primary influence, is competition. Quality as noted in the introduction, is at last being recognized as a strategic issue, fundamental to survival in increasingly competitive situations (Peters, 1988; Heskett, 1986, 1987; Levitt, 1980).

Customer orientation

Customer awareness and being responsive to customers requirements, is integral to TQM. Its importance has been stressed by most authorities. Conway (1988) pointed out that 'customers define quality' and customer orientation is a cornerstone of several models, including Japanese company-wide quality control. This emphasis is needed to overcome the results of the process of industrialization which has tended to isolate producers from the customer (Juran & Gryna, 1980)-an observation made in a manufacturing context but which can also be seen in the more mature and complex services, for example, in banks where there are large numbers of 'operators' who work in the back office, not unlike those in a factory (Levitt, 1979; Deming, 1982,1986).

People in direct customer contact, such as many people in the service sector, benefit from direct feedback (Juran & Gryna, 1980). Even so, objective on-the-spot assessment of that feedback is not always possible. Emigh (cited in Deming, 1982) observed that service workers are not aware of the product (because it is intangible) and hence they may be unable to visualize customer satisfaction.

In all types of organizations, it is necessary to know about customers' likes, tastes and applications (Ishikawa, 1985). This applies to the immediate customer and the ultimate user (Juran & Gryna, 1980). It is insufficient to rely solely on customer complaints. Careful attentive listening to customers opinion is also needed (Hutchins, 1985; Kinsley, 1979; Deming, 1982, 1986; Marr, 1986; Desatnick, 1987; Peters, 1988; Scholes & Hacquebord, 1988). This can be through formal market research (Juran 1974), and also by creating opportunities for people at all levels, and in all positions in the organization, to be exposed to customers (Doran, 1985; Peters, 1988).

Peters & Austin (1985) found that, although executives agree that customers are of primary importance, very little is acted on. Marr (1986) attributed this to lack of trust in customer research data because they are based on subjective perceptions, and he provided some recommendations for making assessment more reliable; though these still rely on subjective customer opinion. Leading organizations are active in this field and Hauser (1988) gave examples of Japanese and US companies using discussion with customers, focus groups and qualitative interviews throughout the product development and design process. These techniques, incorporated into quality function deployment (GFD) (Sullivan, 1988), increase the effectiveness of customer consideration.

Even this level of customer involvement is not sufficient to determine future needs. The customers of banks could not have anticipated 'charge cards'. It needed computer technology, investment in the network and marketing before EFTPOS (electronic financial transactions at point of sale) could be realized. It is often necessary to 'lead the customer into the future' (Deming, 1982), but to focus creativity on the application, and hence the customer, rather than to rely on 'giant technological leaps' (Peters, 1988).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:40

12

Mar

ch 2

013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:40

12

Mar

ch 2

013

THEORIES AND CONCEPTS I N TQM 139

Attention to the process

One of the most important precepts in total quality, and a hallmark of its application in the Far East, was noted by Oakland (1989) as the attention paid to the detail of the process. Often improvements can only be achieved by involving people who have detailed knowl- edge of the process, or are in a position to acquire it. For example, a detailed flowchart of anything more than the simplest process can seldom be completed without the help of others (Oakland, 1989), since boundaries of responsibility are crossed by nearly all processes in real organizations (Ishikawa, 1985).

Standards are necessary to know if the job has been completed and determining methods leads naturally to standardization which is necessary for delegation of authority (Ishikawa, 1985). Standards used merely as a means of preventing progress must be avoided however (Juran, 1964). There are particular problems which apply in standardiz- ing some service processes because of the variation which direct customer involvement introduces (Morris & Johnston, 1987). Nevertheless some types of services have very successfully applied standards. The fast food business (Levitt, 1979) provides and example where setting service standards has contributed to simultaneous improvement in efficiency and quality.

For Deming (1982, 1986), understanding the nature of variation is essential. The causes of variation can be either 'common', and determined by the capability of the system, or 'special' (Shewhart used 'random' and 'assignable'), and can be attributed to some special event. Failure to distinguish one from the other will result in inappropriate adjust- ment actually increasing variability. A system is only manageable when it is in statistical control, because then it is possible to predict output and measure the effect of changes. Applying this in some parts of service organizations may prove difficult, because of the problem of setting standards when customers are present during the operation, and because of the difficulty in measuring multiple, intangible attributes.

T o clarify the relationship between cause and effect and to identify the factors which hinder smooth functioning of the process, analysis using seven simple tools is adequate in the majority of cases (Ishikawa, 1985). These are flowcharts, tally graphs, histograms, Pareto analysis, scatter diagrams, Ishikawa (cause and effect) diagrams and control charts.

Most writers agree that statistical process control (SPC) is a key tool for the manage- ment of processes (Deming, 1982; Oakland & Followell, 1990; Endosomwan, 1988). Juran and others wisely caution against any approach to quality driven only by technique. There are numerous examples of SPC being used in manufacturing and some in other situations. Deming gives many examples of what might be studied with statistics in service industries, but does not include the less tangible process which, according to Morris & Johnston (1987), are key differences between service and manufacture.

Difficulties with service processes compared with manufacturing processes were summarized by Endosomwan (1988) as follows:

(1) more difficult to define ownership, measurement, cycle times, customers and boundaries;

(2) both inputs and outputs are less tangible; (3) more difficult to quantify; (4) less well established; (5) less repetition.

Williams & Zigli (1987) suggested that further research is needed into the application of multivariate methods to produce information for the control of service processes. They

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:40

12

Mar

ch 2

013

140 JOHN A. DOTCHIN & JOHN S. OAKLAND

further suggested that operations research techniques like fuzzy set theory, and goal programming, which can be useful in dealing with ambiguous and subjective information, may also provide insights when applied to the problems of process improvement in services.

Quality systems

Juran (1988) has stated that strategic planning for quality requires a corporate infra- structure, in a structure, in a similar way to strategic business planning. Many other authorities also place stress on the need for a system so that, '. . . human, administrative and technical factors affecting quality will be under control' (Oakland, 1989). Oakland also explained that, in practice, gaining control takes the form of 'Quality Management Systems' which are used to ensure that the customer's requirements and the organization's requirements can be met. These systems are established within the context of the organiz- ation's quality policy and structure, and will incorporate a plan for achieving quality of each product or service and be documented in a quality manual setting out the procedures and practices in appropriate detail.

Oakland (1989) described how international and company standards, such as I S 0 9000 and Ford's Q l , provide a template for systems which can be used by organizations as the stimuli to examine their activities, record what they actually do, and provide the basis for standardization and improvement. This involves setting policy, developing quality manuals, a quality information recording and analysis system, quality plans, and providing for quality system checks by audit, survey and review.

Although Ishikawa (1985) recognized the role played by national standards in his country's economic recovery, he also cautioned against 'self satisfaction' having achieved the standard, and stressed the need for continuous improvement. Deming (1986) reminded us that systems are not universally regarded as a positive factor since, to the production worker, historically the system is mostly repressive. This suggests that sys- tems, although necessary, should not be allowed to dictate, or be thought of as justification for action or inaction of their own merit. Rather, according to Deming, systems must be subordinate to, and supportive of, the organization's objectives.

There is the mistaken belief in some organizations that performance, as reflected in terms of output figures, return on investment, etc., is separate from quality issues. This has been blamed on specialization (Juran, 1988), perhaps resulting from wide adoption of Taylor's 'scientific management' methods. Possibly the most persistent reason for this misconception is constant reinforcement by the actions of senior managers to override quality policies and standards in the interest of other priorities. In these circumstances there is a need for a quality function with equivalent standing to other functions. Crosby (1979) and Harrington (1987) have recommended the use of a procedure of corrective action in which quality problems are escalated to successively higher levels in the manage- ment and quality function with the two parties acting in equality to resolve the issues within the limits of their responsibility.

In Japan, where there are few quality specialists (Ishikawa, 1985), procedure is implicit as well as explicit, and works effectively because in many of the major organiz- ations lifetime employment ensures common understanding and shared values (Ouchi, 1981). This does not mean that attention to quality manuals, plans and records, etc. are unnecessary in any circumstances, but that the responsibility can rest with either a quality function, which is the usual method in manufacturing in Europe and the USA, or with the direct operational function concerned, as is practised in Japan. Notably, even in Japan,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:40

12

Mar

ch 2

013

THEORIES AND CONCEPTS IN TQM 141

sectional interests need to be balanced and senior level cross-functional councils are used (Ishikawa, 1985). These are similar to steering committees which have been proposed by Crosby and Harrington and which have been adopted by Western organizations attempting to improve and maintain quality.

Garvin (1988) noted that when T Q M is achieved in an organization, quality is part of every job description and the quality function can be performed by a small professional group able to advise at all levels and provide strategic input to business decisions.

Continuous improvement

The idea of continuous improvement is a cornerstone of the Deming philosophy as practised in Japanese companies for many years. Quality should not be portrayed as a programme with a definite end-point, but as a process. Crosby's 14-point plan for quality improvement has, 'Do it over again', as the final point, to emphasize this aspect and also recommends the use of novel projects to maintain interest among managers. He demands improvement towards a standard of 'zero-defects', as opposed to a limit dictated by economics.

Juran proposed annual improvement targets and project-by-project improvement which are similar but, in contrast to Crosby, recognized an economic minimum, i.e. a point beyond which it would be wasteful to expend more effort. Price (1984) dismisses this as the 'mathematics of mediocrity'. The apparent conflict between authorities concerning the economics, and the principal, of continuous improvement, can be explained by noting that economic trade-offs will exist, but only if external conditions are held constant. In practice, it is never possible to hold constant conditions over an extended period of time since the market and technology intervene. All the systems with which organizations are concerned are 'open systems' and, unlike closed systems which settle inevitably to an equilibrium, open systems adopt different states dependent upon the input conditions (Pall, 1987). Hence, today's minimum is tomorrow's suboptimum and continuous improvement is required.

Deming uses the Shewhart cycle to illustrate continuous improvement. Continuation of the cycle leads to a helix of improvement which is central to TQM.

Assembling the concepts, theories, and componentea new model for TQM

In this paper definitions have been reviewed and we find that quality is most usefully expressed in terms of an ability to satisfy customer requirements. It is also apparent that quality should be defined in the organizational context.

We have also seen that T Q M involves the entire organization: all people, all functions, and including external organizations, such as suppliers. The several facets of T Q M have been reviewed, including the following:

recognizing customers and discovering their needs; setting standards which are consistent with customer requirements; controlling processes and improving their capability; establishing systems for quality; management's responsibility for setting quality policy, providing motivation through leadership, and equipping people to achieve quality; empowerment of people at all levels in the organization to act for quality improvement

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:40

12

Mar

ch 2

013

142 JOHN A. DOTCHIN & JOHN S. OAKLAND

The task of implementing T Q M can be daunting and the chief executive and directors faced with it may become confused and irritated by the proliferation of theories and packages. A synthesis, and at the same time simplification, is required. Dominant within T Q M must be customer-supplier interfaces, both internally and externally, which are linked by operational processes converting inputs to outputs. A first step is commitment to building in quality by management of the inputs.

How can we help senior managers and directors know what needs to be done to implement T Q M and to become committed to quality? Drawing on the words of wisdom in management and leadership of the so-called 'gurus' which many organizations are using to establish a policy based on quality we have distilled 10 points for senior management to adopt. Their sources will be clear to those well read in the field.

The organization needs long term commitment to constant improvement. The philosophy of zero errorsldefects must be adopted to change the culture to 'right first time'. Train the people to understand the customer-supplier relationships. Do not buy on price alone-look at thc total cost. Recognize that improvement of the systems has to be managed. Adopt modern methods of supervision and training-eliminate fear. Eliminate barriers between departments by managing the process-improve communications and teamwork. Eliminate -goals without methods -work standards based only on numbers -barriers to pride of workmanship and -fiction, get facts by using the correct tools. Constantly educate and retrain-develop 'experts' and 'gurus'. Develop a systematic approach to manage the implementation of TQM.

These can be factored into soft and hard outcomes of TQM. The soft outcomes form the basis of our model (Fig. 2).

Identify customer-supplier relationships Manage processes Culture Communications Commitment

The process core must also be surrounded by some 'hard' management necessities

-Systems (based on a good international standard), -Teams (the councils, quality improvement teams, quality circles, corrective action

teams, etc.) and -Tools (for analysis, correlations, and predictions for action for continuous

improvement to be taken).

The model (Fig. 3) now provides a three-dimensional T Q M 'vision' against which a particular company's status can be examined, or against which a particular approach to T Q M implementaiton may be compared and weakness highlighted.

Comparison with some of the models summarized in Table 1 shows that several elements are in common, apart from semantic differences. Some other features of T Q M are also present by implication. For example, 'Planning and Control' is a necessary element

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:40

12

Mar

ch 2

013

Figure 2 . Foundations for the TQM model.

C O M M I T M E N T I Figure 3. TQM model.

within all the spheres. Similarly, many of the tools used to identify and resolve problems are relevant to customer and people aspects of quality management, just as they are to the processes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:40

12

Mar

ch 2

013

We hope this conceptualization will help in understanding the differences of opinion and approach referred to at the beginning of the paper and which are apparent in the literature.

References

BRACHE, P.P. & RUMMLER, G.A. (1988) The three levels of quality, Quality Progress, 21(10), pp. 46-51. CONWAY, D.A. (1988) The right way to manage, Quality Progress, 21(1), p. 14-15. CROSBY, P.B. (1979) Quality is Free (New York, McGraw-Hill). CROSBY, P.B. (1989) Let's Talk Quality (New York, McGraw-Hill). CULLEN, J. & HOLLINGHAM, J. (1987) Implementing Total Quality (Bedford, IFS Publications). DEMING, W.E. (1982) Quality Productivity and Competitive Position (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press). DEMING, W.E. (1986) Out of the Crisis (Cambridge, MA, M I T Press) DESATNICK, R.L. (1987) Managing to Keep the Customer (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass). DORAN, P.K. (1985) A total quality improvement programme, Quality Assurance, 11, pp. 106-109. DORAN, P.K. (1985) A total quality improvement programme, InternationalJournal of Quality and Reliability

Management, 2(3), pp. 18-36, DORAN, P.K. (1986) How to achieve performance: riding high, Management Today, April, p p . 94-100. ENDOSOMWAN, J.A. (1988) Productivity and Quality Improvement (Bedford, IFS Publications). EDWARDS, C.D. (1968) The meaning of quality, Quality Progress, pp. 36-39. FEIGENBAUM, A.V. (1956) Toral Qualily Control, 1st ed (New York, McGraw-Hill). FEIGNENBAUM, A.V. (1980) Total Quality Control, 3rd ed (New York, McGraw-Hill). GABOR, A. (1988) The man who changed the world, International Management, 43(3), pp. 42-45. GARVIN, D.A. (1984) What does product quality really mean, Sloan Management Review, 26, pp. 25-43. GARVIN, D.A. (1987) Competing on the eight dimensions of quality, Harvard Business Review, 65(6), pp.

101-109. GARVIN, D.A. (1988) Managing Quality: The Strategic and Competitive Edge (New York, Free Press). GITLOW, H.S. & GITLOW, S. J. (1987) The Deming Guide to Quality and Co-operative Position (New York, Prentice

Hall). GROOCOCK, J.M. (1986) The Chain of Quality (New York, Wiley). GROOCOCK, J.M. (1988) Bridging the quality gap Quality Assurance, 14(4), pp. 117-121. HARRINGTON, H.J. (1987) The Improvement Process (New York, McGraw-Hill). HAUSER, J.R. (1988) The house of quality, Harvard Business Review, 66(3), pp. 63-73. HESKETT, J.L. (1986) Managing the Service Economy (Cambridge, MA, Harvard Business School Press). HESKETT, J.L. (1987) Lessons in the service sector, Harvard Business Review, 65(2), pp. 118-126. HUTCHINS, D. (1985) The Quality Circle Handbook (London, Gower). HUTCHINS, D. (1990) In Pursuit of Quality (London, Pitman). ISHIKAWA, K. (1985) What is Quality Control the Japanese Way? (New York, Prentice Hall). JURAN, M.C. (1964) Managerial Breakthrough (New E'ork, McGraw-Hill). JURAN, J.M. (1974) Quality Control Handbook, 3rd ed (New York, McGraw-Hill). JURAN, J.M. & GRYNA, J.M. (1980) Quality Planning & Analysis (New York, McGraw-Hill). JURAN, J.M. (1986) The quality trilogy, Quality Progress, 19(8), pp. 19-24. JURAN, J.M. (1988)Juran on Planningfor Quality (New York, Free Press). JURAN, J.M. (l989)Juran on Leadership for Quality--An Executive Handbook, (New York, Free Press). KINSLEY, G. (1979) Financial services marketers must learn package goods selling tools, Advertising Age. LADER, J.I. &ALEXANDER, C.P. (1988) Getting emotional about quality, Quality Progress, 21(7), pp. 16-23. LEVITT, T. (1979) Production-line approach to services, Harvard Business Review, 50, pp. 41-52. LEVITT, T. (1980) Marketing success through the differentiation-of anything, Harvard Business Review, 58,

pp. 83-91. MARR, J.W. (1986) Letting the customer be the judge of quality, Quality Progress, 19(10), pp. 46-49. MORRIS,B. &JOHNSTON, R. (1987)Dealing with inherent variability; the difference between service and manufac-

turing explained, The InternationalJournal of Operations and Production Management, 7(4), pp. 13-22. OAKLAND, J.S. (1989) Toral Quality Management (Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann). OAKLAND, J.S. (1989) Kwalireits-Management (Amsterdam, De Management Biblotheek). OAKLAND, J.S. & FOLLOWELL, R.F. (1990) Statistical Process Control, 2nd ed (Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann). OUCHI, W.G. (1981) Theory Z(Reading, MA, Addison Wesley). PALL, G.A. (1987) Quality Process Management (Englewood Cliffs, N J, Prentice-Hall).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:40

12

Mar

ch 2

013

THEORIES AND CONCEPTS IN TQM 145

PETERS, T. (1988) Thriving on Chaos (New York, Macmillan). PETERS, T. &AUSTIN, N. (1985) A Passion for Excellence: The Leadership Difference (New York, Random House). PRICE, F. (1984) Right First Time: Using Quality Controlfor Profit (Aldershot, Gower). SARAPH, J.V., BENSON, P.G. & SCHROEDER, R. G. (1989) An instrument for measuring the critical factors in

quality management, Decision SciencesJournal, 20(4), pp. 810-829. SARGENT, G. (1986) The pygrnalion effect on quality, Quality Progress, 20(8), pp. 34-38. SCHOLES, P.R. & HACQUEBORD, H. (1988) Beginning the quality transformation, Quality Progress, 21(7), pp.

28-33. SHEWHART, W.A. (1931) Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Products (New York, Van Nostrand). SHORES, R. (1989) TQC: science not witchcraft, Quality Progress, 22(4), pp. 42-45. SNEE, R.D. (1986) In pursuit of total quality, Quality Progress, 19(8), pp. 25-31. SULLIVAN, L.P. (1988) The role of quality function deployment, Quality Progress, 21(7), pp. 20-22. TOWNSEND, P.L. & GEBHART, J.E. (1986) Commit to Quality (New York, Wiley). WILLIAMS, R.H. & ZIGLI, R.M. (1987) Ambiguity impedes quality in service industries, Quality Progress, 20(7)

pp. 14-17.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:40

12

Mar

ch 2

013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:40

12

Mar

ch 2

013