total quality management. are information systems managers ready?

ELSEVIER Information & Management 29 (1995) 251-263

Research

Total Quality Management Are information systems managers ready?

J. Michael Pearson a,*, Cynthia S. McCahon b, Ross T. Hightower b a .BCIS Department, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud MN 56301, USA

b Department o f Management, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS 66506, USA

Abstract

The results of an empirical survey of information systems (IS) managers indicated that 41% understood the basic philosophy of Total Quality Management (TQM) fairly well. Furthermore, the IS managers typically indicated they thought most of the concepts/tools commonly associated with TQM would be useful to both the organization and the IS function. IS managers currently involved in implementing TQM reported their IS function had achieved the following benefits: improved customer satisfaction, enhanced quality of products and services delivered to the customer, and increased flexibility in meeting customer demands. It was also reported, however, that these benefits typically were not achieved until three-to-five years after TQM initiation.

Keywords: Information systems; Total quality management; Empirical

I. Introduct ion

During the past decade, quality improvement has become one of the most important organizational strategies for achieving competitive advantage. Im- proving the quality with which an organization can deliver its products and services is critical for com- peting in an expanding global market. Subsequently, total quality management (TQM) has emerged as the new paradigm for the management of product and service quality [4,13,16,18,28]. Top-level executives from many diverse industries have embraced TQM as an operational philosophy. Organizations such as Xerox, Texas Instruments, Federal Express, and AT &T have implemented aggressive TQM programs

* Corresponding author.

that have helped establish or reestablish these firms as world leaders within their respective industries [2,9].

Quality-focused companies are quick to empha- size the important role that information systems (IS) have had in the TQM process. It and information technology provide a Comprehensive and integrated approach by which an organization can achieve improved quality in the products and/or services it offers [14,17,25,27,30]. Federal Express credits its innovative use of information technology, particu- larly its computer-based package tracking system, in becoming the recognized industry leader [3,24]. Car- der Corporation achieved significant benefits from the integration of information technology and TQM in the form of lowered manufacturing costs, improved profitability and improved customer satisfaction.

0378-7206/95/$09.50 © 1995 Elsevier Science B.V. All fights reserved SSDI 0378-7206(95)00028-3

252 J.M. Pearson et al. / Information & Management 29 (1995) 251-263

Organizations that have had success with TQM have found that newly empowered employees have a greater need for both timely and accurate information. Employees must be able to communicate across organizational levels, functions, product lines, and locations to solve interdepartmental problems and to manage the changes mandated by a TQM implementation effectively [6,14,31,33]. Because of this increased demand for information within the quality- based organization, information systems (IS) profes- sionals should expect a greater focus on the quality and value of services provided by the IS function. The transformation of information systems to those that can support TQM can be achieved only by IS managers who (1) understand the concepts, tools, and techniques upon which TQM is based (i.e., benchmarking, concurrent engineering, employee empowerment, etc.); (2) realize that TQM is a neces- sary operational strategy for future competitiveness; and (3) recognize the TQM opportunities in his /her own function and organization [24,27].

Unfortunately, many organizations have not recognized the important role that IS must have in quality improvement programs such as TQM [22,26]. Laplante has suggested four specific reasons why the IS function has not assumed a leadership role in the quality initiative of many organizations: (1) few IS functions actually know their customers; (2) quality techniques or measures have not yet been adapted to the IS function; (3) IS tends to focus on individual performance and craft versus group efforts and func- tional processes; and (4) IS is still perceived as being more concerned with technology than overall business efficiency [21]. If these reasons are valid, they support a study by Ernst & Young, etc. [1] that found that only 22% of U.S. business b believed information technology could be of "pr imary importance" in meeting the quality goals of their organization. These findings are unfortunate, since many of the functions critical to the success of programs such as TQM are dependent on the collection, processing, and dissemination of data about the performance of critical organizational processes.

In order to ascertain the readiness of IS managers to support a TQM strategy, this study investigated three IS manager attributes: (1) does the manager understand the concepts and tools upon which TQM is based? (2) does the manager believe TQM can

~__ ~ * organization TQM --e

IS function

nt~ * organization • IS function

Fig. 1. Research approach.

have a positive impact on the IS function and the organization? and (3) does the manager believe TQM concepts/tools can be implemented within the organization? Fig. 1 provides an schematic of these questions.

2. The total quality management (TQM) strategy

Four components frequently cited as critical to a successful TQM strategy are customer satisfaction, employee involvement, managerial leadership, and process improvement and control. Marketing theory has long recognized the importance of customer satisfaction to the business organization. Quality- focused organizations must identify their customers (both internal and external), determine the specific needs of these customers, integrate all activities of the organization (including marketing, production, finance, HRM, and IS) to satisfy the needs of these customers, and finally, follow up to ensure the customers have been satisfied [7,8,11,15,19].

TQM incorporates a progressive perspective of the use of employees. Employee involvement through self-managed teams, quality improvement teams, management teams, and executive steering commit- tees allow organizations to benefit from the knowl- edge and skills that individuals bring to the organizational work place. Empowered employees at all levels are charged to review and change their work processes in an effort to improve the overall quality of the finished product and service [5,29].

Managerial leadership requires all levels of management to shift their roles from authoritarian decision-maker to coaching facilitator. Gitlow and Git- low suggest that the traditional hierarchical pyramid

J.M. Pearson et al. / Information & Management 29 (1995) 251-263 253

structure of the organization will be replaced by the inverted pyramid [See Fig. 2]: that " t op" and "lower-level" managers support the front line employees in delivering quality products and/or services to the customer [12].

Process improvement and control is the continu- ous improvement of all processes critical to organizational quality. Empowered employees are responsi- ble for monitoring the state of control within their processes. Once a process is in statistical control, then employees, with encouragement and coaching from managers, develop and implement process im- provements to reduce the variation of the process continuously, thus improving the quality of the product or service.

The successful implementation of these TQM components potentially provides many significant benefits to the organization and the IS function. The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that finalists for the Baldridge Quality Award, on the average, increased market share by 13.7%, decreased customer complaints by 11.6%, decreased product defects by 10.3%, and increased on-time delivery rates by 4.75% [23]. Additional benefits frequently achieved include improved customer satisfaction, enhanced quality of products and services, lower maintenance costs, greater productivity, reduced applica- tion development time, increased flexibility in meeting customer demands, better utilization of human resources, and better management control. In addi- tion, Evans and Lindsay [10] and Schonberger [28] have suggested that TQM should be a critical com-

ponent of strategic planning and the integration of TQM into the strategic plan can lead to organizational growth, competitive advantage, and increased profitability.

3. Study design

A sample of 500 managers was randomly selected from members of the Data Processing Management Association (DPMA). Each of these individuals indicated that he /she (1) worked for a non-academic business unit and (2) was currently working in a top management IS position. A pilot questionnaire was developed and sent to ten IS managers randomly selected from the original sample. The questionnaire was then revised based on the comments provided. The survey instrument, a cover letter, and a postage- paid envelope were then mailed to the remaining 490 people.

The revised questionnaire had five sections; these solicited information about (1) organization and respondent demographics, (2) the potential and realized benefits derived from TQM for both the organization and the IS function, (3) the respondents' understanding of basic TQM concepts/tools, (4) the perceived usefulness of TQM concepts/tools within the organization and IS function, and (5) whether TQM concepts/tools could be implemented within the organization and/or IS function. See Appendix 1.

Customers~

Tradiuonal Maz~8~e~t

Cu~om~rs

L i n e Employees /

TQM Based Management Fig. 2. Traditional versus TQM-based management approaches.

254 J.M. Pearson et al.// Information & Management 29 (1995) 251-263

4. Responses

The mailing provided 127 responses: a return rate of 25.9%. Sixteen questionnaires were considered unusable, because there was: a change of address by the intended respondent, an incorrectly completed questionnaire, or the intended respondent indicated he /she no longer had a top managerial IS position. Non-response bias was checked by comparing the answers provided by late responding individuals with the answers provided by earlier respondents [20]. Analysis indicated no statistically significant differences between these two groups, thus indicating non-response bias was not a problem in this research study.

Table 2 IS manager 's TQM awareness

Heard of TQM: (n = 111) Yes 90 (81.1%) No 21 (18.9%) Understanding of TQM Concepts/tools: (n = 90) Completely 3 (3.3%) Fairly Well 41 (45.6%) Somewhat 34 (37.8%) A Little 12 (13.3%) Confused 0 (0.0%) Perception of TQM Impact on IS: (n = 90) Very Significant 28 (31.1%) Significant 43 (47.8%) Moderate 19 (21.1%) Very Little 0 (0.0%)

Table 1 Organization Demographics

Annual Sales (Millions): (n = 111) < = 10 26 (23.4%) 11-100 27 (24.3%) 101-500 23 (20.7%) 501-1,000 15 (13.5%) > 1,000 20 (18.0%) IS Structure in Organization: (n = 111) Centralized 59 (53.2%) Decentralized 13 ( 11.7 %) Hybrid 39 (35.1%) Organization Implementing TQM: (n = 90) Yes 43 (47.8%) No 47 (52.2%) Organization Implementing TQM: (n = 43) < 1 year 3 (7.0%) 1-3 years 10 (23.3%) 3-5 years 16 (37.2%) > 5 years 14 (32.6%) Number of IS Employees: (n = 111) < = 50 66 (59.5%) 51-100 16 (14.4%) 101-250 16 (14.4%) 251-500 6 (5.4%) > 500 7 (6.3%) IS Function Implementing TQM: (n = 90) Yes 35 (38.9%) No 55 (61.1%) IS Function Implementing TQM: (n = 35) < 1 year 6(17.1%) 1-3 years 14 (40.0%) 3 -5 years 9 (25.7%) > 5 years 6(17.1%)

Table 1 provides the demographics of the organizations. Of the 111 IS managers who provided us- able responses, 43 indicated their organizations were currently implementing TQM; 35 of these said the IS function was also involved in the TQM implementation. While almost 70% of these organizations have been implementing TQM for three or more year, only 43% of the IS functions have been involved with TQM for a similar period of time.

5. Do IS managers understand TQM?

81% of the IS managers had heard of TQM. Approximately one-half of these suggested they understood the philosophy and concepts associated with TQM fairly well or completely. Almost 80% believed that TQM could have a positive impact on the IS function [See Table 2].

One tailed t-tests were used to determine which concepts/tools the IS managers believed were an important part of a TQM implementation. As shown in Table 3, the IS managers indicated they believe all of the concepts/tools listed should be part of a TQM implementation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine which factors affected the IS m a n a g e r ' s recogni t ion of which concepts/tools were an important part of TQM. These factors included: the IS manager's understanding of TQM; whether their organization was cur-

J.M. Pearson et a l . / Information & Management 29 (1995) 251-263 255

Table 3 Awareness of TQM Concepts/Tools (descending order of importance)

Tukey's HSD

TQM Concepts/Tools Mean Grouping t-statistic

Listening to the Customer 1.07 1 -73.1 a Continual Improvement 1.10 1 - 59.8 a Group Decision Making I. 10 1 -59 .8 a Top Management Leadership 1.14 1 - 36.1 a Employee Empowerment 1.19 1 - 36.4 " Process Analysis 1.32 2 - 29.7 a Identifying the Customer 1.42 2 - 20.0 ~ Benchmarking 1.49 2 - 18.0 ~ Statistical Process Control 1.72 3 - 16.2 ~ Concurrent Engineering 2.20 3 - 11.0 a F-statistic = 5.24 a

Significant at 0.01. Rating scale: 1 = Definitely Belongs 2 = Might Belong 3 = Neutral 4 = Probably Does Not Belong 5 = Definitely Does Not Belong

r en t ly i m p l e m e n t i n g T Q M ; and w h e t h e r the IS func -

t ion w a s c u r r e n t l y i n v o l v e d in T Q M . T h e r e su l t s

i nd i ca t ed that the re w a s n o s ign i f i c an t e f f ec t o n the

IS m a n a g e r ' s r e c o g n i t i o n o f w h i c h c o n c e p t s / t o o l s

b e l o n g e d in a T Q M i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .

A n A N O V A w a s a l so p e r f o r m e d to d e t e r m i n e if

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d in the l eve l s o f inc lu -

s i on o f c o n c e p t s / t o o l s in a T Q M i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .

T h e a n a l y s i s w a s l imi t ed to the 90 r e s p o n d e n t s w h o

ind i ca t ed t hey w e r e a t - l e a s t - s o m e w h a t - f a m i l i a r w i th

the c o n c e p t s / t o o l s c o m m o n l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h T Q M .

A p p a r e n t l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s d o ex i s t in the

i m p o r t a n c e IS m a n a g e r s p l ace o n the T Q M con-

c e p t s / t o o l s . T o e x a m i n e t he se d i f f e r ences , T u k e y ' s

H o n e s t l y S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e s ( H S D ) w e r e ca l cu -

la ted to d e t e r m i n e if the c o n c e p t s / t o o l s g r o u p e d in a

log ica l m a n n e r [32]. T h e resu l t s , s h o w n in T a b l e 3,

i nd i ca t ed tha t the c o n c e p t s / t o o l s spl i t in to th ree

d i s t inc t g r o u p s .

6 . C a n T Q M h a v e a p o s i t i v e i m p a c t o n t h e f i r m ?

6.1. P o t e n t i a l use fu lness o f T Q M

O n e ta i led t - tes t s w e r e aga in u s e d to d e t e r m i n e

w h i c h T Q M c o n c e p t s / t o o l s the IS m a n a g e r s (n = 90)

Table 4 TQM Concepts/Tools useful to organization/IS function

TQM Concepts / Tools

Organization (n = 90) IS Funtion (n = 90)

Tukey's HSD Tukey's HSD

Mean Grouping t-statistic Mean Grouping t-statistic

Listening to the Customer 1.08 1 - 52.0 a Employee Empowerment 1.11 1 - 50.1 a Continual Improvement 1.15 1 - 37.1 a Top Management Leadership 1.18 1 - 33.1 a Identifying the Customer 1.27 1 -31 .2 a Group Decision Making 1.45 2 - 17.2 a Process Analysis 1.48 2 - 17.5 a Benchmarking 1.50 2 - 17.9 ~ Statistical Process Control 1.85 3 - 11.3 a Concurrent Engineering 2.30 3 - 6.0 a F-statistic = 7.66 a

1.02 1 - 87.0 ~ 1.08 1 - 57.8 a 1.09 1 - 42.7 a 1.19 1 -33 .9 a 1.23 1 - 33.5 ~ 1.41 2 - 17.5 ~ 1.49 2 - 17.7 " 1.55 2 - 13.4 a 1.92 3 - 9.8 a 2.18 3 -7 .1 ~

6.97 a

(5) significant at 0.01 level. Rating scale: 1 = Definitely Useful 2 = Somewhat Useful 3 = Undecided 4 = Not Very Useful 5 = Definitely Not Very Useful

256 J.M. Pearson et al . / Information & Management 29 (1995) 251-263

thought wou ld be most useful within the IS funct ion

and the i r o r g a n i z a t i o n . T a b l e 4 l is ts the

c o n c e p t s / t o o l s in descending order o f importance.

Apparen t ly IS managers be l ieve that al l o f the T Q M

c o n c e p t s / t o o l s tested here wou ld have a posi t ive

impact on their IS funct ion and organizat ion; the IS

managers ranked the T Q M c o n c e p t s / t o o l s in the

same order for both the IS funct ion and the organiza-

tion.

An A N O V A was then per formed to de termine if

s ignif icant d i f ferences exis ted be tween the IS man-

age r ' s percept ion o f the value of specif ic T Q M

c o n c e p t s / t o o l s in the organiza t ion and the IS func-

tion. The analysis was again l imited to the 90 re-

spondents who had indicated they were famil iar with

the c o n c e p t s / t o o l s c o m m o n l y associated with T Q M

implementa t ion . The results o f the analysis indicated

that s ignif icant d i f ferences do exist in how IS man-

age r ' s pe rce ive the usefulness of specif ic T Q M con-

c e p t s / t o o l s . T u k e y ' s H S D was again calculated to

de te rmine if the c o n c e p t s / t o o l s grouped in a logical

manner . The results, shown in Table 4, indicated that

the c o n c e p t s / t o o l s broke down into three dist inct

groups.

6.2. Benef i ts realized through T Q M

Forty three (39%) of the IS managers indicated

their organiza t ion was implemen t ing T Q M . Since

only respondents who are current ly invo lved in T Q M

can ident i fy the benefi ts achieved, analysis was l im-

ited to the responses provided by these them. As

shown in Table 5, the IS managers indicated that six

of the nine benefi ts tested have been achieved, to

var ious degrees , by their organizat ions. These in-

c luded improved cus tomer satisfaction, enhanced

quali ty o f de l ivered products, enhanced quali ty o f

services del ivered, lower main tenance in deve loped

applicat ions, greater product iv i ty o f personnel , and

increased f lexibi l i ty in mee t ing cus tomer demands .

Three benefi ts were not achieved. T u k e y ' s H S D was

calcula ted to de termine if the mos t important bene-

fits could be identified. The results indicated that the

top three were the benefi ts cons idered most impor-

tant.

Thir ty f ive (32%) of the IS managers indicated

their funct ion was implement ing T Q M . They said

that only four o f the nine benefi ts c o m m o n l y associ-

ated with T Q M have been ach ieved by their func-

Table 5 Benefits realized by organization/IS function through TQM

Potential TQM Benefits

Organization (n = 43) IS Function (n = 35)

Tukey's HSD Tukey's HSD

Mean Grouping t-statistic Mean Groupings t-statistic

Improved Customer Satisfaction Enhanced quality of products delivered Enhanced quality of services delivered Lower maintenance in developed applications Greater productivity of personnel Reduced product development time Increased flexibility in meeting customer demands Better utilization of human resources Better management control F-statistic =

2.28 1 - 4.3 a 2.42 2 - 4.2 " 2.23 1 - 5.2 " 2.60 2 - 3.3 a 2.51 2 -3.3 a 2.74 2 - 1.9 2.26 1 - 5.4 ~ 2.70 2 - 1.8 2.88 3 -0 .6

3.95 ~

2.31 I -3.8 ~ 2.40 1 - 3.8 a 2.20 1 -5.1 " 2.86 3 -0.8 2.69 2 - 1.7 2.94 3 - 0.3 2.29 1 - 3.8 ~ 2.63 2 - 2.0 2.63 2 - 1.7

4.02 "

(~) significant at 0.01 level. (b) significant at 0.05 level. Rating scale: 1 = Definitely Realized 2 = Realized Somewhat 3 = Neutral 4 = Probably Have Not Realized 5 = Definitely Have Not Realized

J.M. Pearson et a l . / Information & Management 29 (1995) 251-263

Table 6

T Q M benefits real ized by IS funct ion over t ime (n = 35)

257

Mean (n = 6 ) M e a n (n = 14) Mean (n = 9) M e a n (n = 6)

Potential TQM Benefits ( < 1 year) (1-3 years) (3-5 years) ( > 5 years) F-statistic

Improved Cus tomer Sat isfact ion 4.25

Enhanced qual i ty of products del ivered 4.00

Enhanced qual i ty of services del ivered 3.50

Lower main tenance in deve loped appl icat ions 4.00

Greater product ivi ty o f IS personnel 4.25

Reduced produc t deve lopment t ime 4.25

Increased flexibil i ty in meet ing cus tomer demands 3.50

Better uti l ization o f h u m a n resources 4.00

Better IS m a n a g e m e n t control 4.25

2.29 2.33 1.50 10.6 ~

2.57 1.78 2.00 9.7 a

2.50 1.67 1.50 8.2 a

3 .14 2.78 1.50 6.8 a

2.86 2.67 1.50 8.2 a

3.29 3.00 1.50 10.6 a

2.71 1.89 1.50 4.9 "

2.86 2 .34 1.50 6.4 a 2.57 2.67 1.50 4.4 b

(") s ignif icant at 0.01 level.

(b) s ignif icant at 0.05 level.

Rat ing scale:

1 = Defini tely Real ized

2 = Real ized S o m e w h a t

3 = Neutral

4 = Probably Have Not Real ized

5 = Defini tely Have Not Real ized

t i o n . F i v e p o s s i b l e b e n e f i t s w e r e n o t f o u n d t o b e

s i g n i f i c a n t . T u k e y ' s H S D w a s a g a i n u t i l i z e d t o d e t e r -

m i n e i f t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t b e n e f i t s t o t h e I S f u n c t i o n

c o u l d b e i d e n t i f i e d . F o u r b e n e f i t s w e r e i d e n t i f i e d a s

b e i n g s i g n i f i c a n t .

S e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e b e n e -

Table 7

Percept ion o f whether T Q M c o n c e p t s / t o o l s could be implemented in o r g a n i z a t i o n / I S funct ion

Organization (n = 90) IS Function (n = 90)

T u k e y ' s H S D T u k e y ' s HSD

TQM Concepts / Tools Mean Grouping t-statistic Mean Grouping t-statistic

Listening to the Cus tomer 1.80 1 - 9.3 Employee E m p o w e r m e n t 2.38 2 - 4.4 Cont inual Improvemen t 1.96 1 - 8.2

Top M a n a g e m e n t Leadership 2.47 2 - 3.4

Ident i fying the Cus tomer 2.32 2 - 5.1 Group Decis ion Mak ing 1.78 1 - 9.6

Process Analys is 2.18 2 - 6.3 Benchmark ing 2.49 2 - 4.1

Statistical Process Control 2 .54 2 - 3.9

Concur ren t Engineer ing 2.91 3 - 0.8

F-statistic = 17.65 a

a 1.72 1 - 10.4 a a 1.94 1 - 8.3 ~

a 1.79 1 - 10.0 a

2.09 1 - 6 . 1 a a 2.04 1 - 8.0 a

1.76 1 - 10.5 a

a 2.00 1 - 8.2 a

2.31 2 - 5 . 4 a

a 2.58 2 - 3.9 ~

2.83 2 - 1.5

22.35 ~

(a) s ignif icant at 0.01 level.

Rat ing scale:

1 = Definitely Could be Implemented

2 = Probably Could be Implemented 3 = Unsure

4 = Probab ly Could Not Be Implemented 5 = Defini tely Could Not Be Implemented

258 J.M. Pearson et a l . / lnformation & Management 29 (1995) 251-263

fits associated with TQM can take several years to achieve. In an effort to determine if this is true, an A N O V A was performed to determine whether significant differences existed between IS managers who were relatively early in their TQM implementation and those that have been practicing TQM for a longer period. Table 6 lists the means and the test for significant differences based on length of time the IS function has been involved with TQM. Apparently significant differences between the time ranges existed for all the benefits tested. This supports the premise that the benefits tend to occur only after a funct ion/organiza t ion has been implementing TQM for a number of years.

7. Can TQM be implemented?

One tailed t-tests were used to determine whether the IS m a n a g e r s b e l i e v e d that the T Q M concep ts / too l s could be integrated into their IS function and organization. Table 7 lists the TQM concep t s / too l s in descending order of implementabili ty. The results indicated the IS managers believe that all of the TQM concep t s / too l s tested in this study could be implemented within their IS function and organization. Tukey ' s HSD was again calculated to identify which TQM concep t s / too l s were believed by the IS managers to be the easiest to implement into the IS function a n d / o r organization. The concep ts / too l s that the IS managers bel ieved would be easiest to integrate into the IS function were listening to the customer, employee empowerment , continual improvement, top management leadership, identifying

the customer, group decision making, and process analysis.

8. Are IS managers ready for TQM?

The answer is a qualified " y e s " . The results, regardless of firm size, indicate that most IS managers (87%) are at least somewhat familiar with the concep t s / too l s associated with TQM and that most of them (79%) believe TQM can have a significant impact on the performance of the IS function and their organization. The results also show that many of the IS managers familiar with TQM believe that all of the TQM concep t s / too l s could be implemented successfully into their IS functions and organizations with the possible exception of concurrent engineering. Also, IS managers whose functions are currently implementing TQM believe they have achieved some of the important benefits frequently associated with TQM.

Unfortunately, while many IS managers believe TQM could have a significant impact on the IS function and their organization, less than 32% of managers surveyed indicated their IS function was currently implementing TQM. One possible explanation is that while many IS managers (49%) appear to be very familiar with the TQM concepts / too ls , many of the IS managers (51%) are not completely com- for tab le with thei r unde r s t and ing of these concepts / too ls . It is unlikely that IS managers who do not understand the basic TQM concep ts / too l s would actively pursue a TQM implementation.

Another possible explanation for the low rate of TQM implementation in the IS function is the gen-

Table 8 Comments on TQM from information system managers

* Organization and function are committed to TQM. * 1S manager "talks the talk" but doesn't "walk the walk!" * It is difficult for the IS manager to relinquish control to employees - empowerment has a way to go! * Senior management talks TQM, but does not support it. The IS management has difficulty accepting these "new" concepts! * Implementing TQM in government is very challenging due to have to "play by the rules" and follow bureaucratic regulations. We are

trying to implement only aspects of TQM. * No efforts are being made at this time. We are constantly fighting fires and have no time for TQM. * Education and training are just beginning to gain recognition and importance in this organization.

J.M. Pearson et al. / Information & Management 29 (1995) 251-263 259

eral feeling by IS managers that top management would not enthusiastically support them in implementing TQM. Less than 35% of the IS managers currently involved in a TQM implementation believe top management supported their efforts to incorpo- rate TQM. This is important because most IS managers recognize that top management leadership is a critical factor in their success, and that lack of top management supports makes it unlikely that IS managers would attempt to implement TQM. Table 8 provides a representative sampling of comments provided by IS managers.

9. Limitations

Although this study provides valuable insights into the IS manager's understanding of TQM, limitations must be acknowledged. The most obvious are those associated with the use of a questionnaire as the primary vehicle for data collection. Another possible limitation is that the instrument was not de- signed to determine the depth of the IS manager's understanding of TQM concepts and tools. Maybe

the IS managers were familiar with the language of TQM, but did not really understand its underlying philosophies and /or principles.

10. Summary

The purpose of this study was to determine if IS managers were familiar with the basic concepts/tools and potential benefits of TQM. This was accom- plished by administering a questionnaire to a sample of IS managers who currently work for business units. The results have implications for both IS managers and researchers. IS managers should realize that significant benefits can be achieved through TQM. TQM offers an integrated approach by which IS managers can develop an information infrastruc- ture that is responsive to the changing needs of the business. Another important consideration is that TQM is not a quick and easy solution to the problems faced by the IS function: the benefits achieved by IS functions implementing TQM have taken from 3-5 years to achieve. The IS manager must be willing to commit to the TQM strategy for the long r u n .

Appendix A. T O T A L QUALITY M A N A G E M E N T (TQM) CONCEPTS

1. What is your organization's primary i n d u s t r y / s e r v i c e ? 2. How many people are employed within your IS function? 5 0 or less 51-100 1 0 1 - 2 5 0

251-500 _ _ g r e a t e r than 500 3. What is your organization's approximate annual sales dollars (millions)? 1 0 or less 11-100

101-500 50 l - 1,000 _ _ g r e a t e r than 1,000 4. Would you describe the IS function within your organization as: Centralized Decentralized

Some functions centrally controlled and others not. 5. Have you heard of total quality management? Yes No 6. How well do you understand the philosophy and concepts of total quality management? Completely

Fairly Well Somewhat A little Confused 7. Do you believe TQM can have (a) impact on the IS function. Very Significant Significant

Moderate Very Little No 8. Is organization currently implementing TQM? Yes No 9. Is IS function currently implementing TQM? Yes No 10. Top management has been in our efforts to implement total quality management concepts within the

IS function. Very Supportive. Somewhat Supportive Less Than Supportive Neutral Resistive 11. Approximately how long have you been actively implementing TQM (no. of years)? Organization: not

at all less than 1 yr. 1 - 3 yrs. 3 - 5 yrs. greater than 5 yrs. Department: not at all less than 1 yr. 1 - 3 yrs. 3-5 yrs. greater than 5 yrs.

260 J.M, Pearson et al. / Information & Management 29 (1995) 251-263

For the remaining questions, please circle the appropriate answer using the indicated scales: 12. It has been found that Total Quality Management can provide several benefits to an organization and/or

a department. Please indicate which of the following benefits have been realized by your organization:

Probably Definitely Definitely Realized Have Not Have Not Realized Somewhat Neutral Realized Realized

Improved customer satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5 Enhanced quality of products delivered 1 2 3 4 5 Enhanced quality of services provided 1 2 3 4 5 Lower maintenance in developed applications 1 2 3 4 5 Greater productivity of IS personnel 1 2 3 4 5 Reduced product development time 1 2 3 4 5 Increased flexibility in meeting customer demands 1 2 3 4 5 Better utilization of human resources 1 2 3 4 5 Better management control of IS function 1 2 3 4 5

13. Please indicate which of the following benefits have been realized by your IS function:

Probably Definitely Definitely Realized Have Not Have Not Realized Somewhat Neutral Realized Realized

Lower maintenance in developed applications 1 2 3 4 5 Better management control of IS function 1 2 3 4 5 Enhanced quality of services provided 1 2 3 4 5 Improved customer satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5 Greater productivity of IS personnel i 2 3 4 5 Reduced product development time 1 2 3 4 5 Enhanced quality of products delivered 1 2 3 4 5 Better utilization of human resources 1 2 3 4 5 Increased flexibility in meeting customer demands 1 2 3 4 5

14. To what degree do you believe the following concepts belong in a TQM implementation?

Probably Definitely Definitely Might Doesn't Doesn't Belongs Belong Neutral Belong Belong

Benchmarking 1 2 3 4 5 Concurrent Engineering l 2 3 4 5 Continual Improvement 1 2 3 4 5 Employee Empowerment 1 2 3 4 5 Group Decision Making 1 2 3 4 5 Identifying the Customer 1 2 3 4 5 Listening to Customers 1 2 3 4 5 Process Analysis 1 2 3 4 5 Statistical Process Control 1 2 3 4 5 Top Management Leadership 1 2 3 4 5

J.M. Pearson et al./lnformation & Management 29 (1995) 251-263 261

15. To what degree do you believe the following concepts would be useful in your organization?

Definitely Somewhat Not Very Definitely Useful Useful Undecided Useful Not Useful

Top Management Leadership 1 2 3 4 5 Benchmarking 1 2 3 4 5 Continual Improvement 1 2 3 4 5 Listening to Customers 1 2 3 4 5 Identifying the Customer 1 2 3 4 5 Group Decision Making 1 2 3 4 5 Process Analysis 1 2 3 4 5 Concurrent Engineering 1 2 3 4 5 Employee Empowerment 1 2 3 4 5 Statistical Process Control 1 2 3 4 5

16. To what degree do you believe the following concepts would be useful in your IS department?

Definitely Somewhat Not Very Definitely Useful Useful Undecided Useful Not Useful

Benchmarking 1 2 3 4 5 Process Analysis 1 2 3 4 5 Continual Improvement 1 2 3 4 5 Listening to Customers 1 2 3 4 5 Group Decision Making 1 2 3 4 5 Identifying the Customer 1 2 3 4 5 Employee Empowerment 1 2 3 4 5 Statistical Quality Control 1 2 3 4 5 Top Management Leadership 1 2 3 4 5 Concurrent Engineering 1 2 3 4 5

17. To what degree do you believe these concepts could be implemented within your organization?

Definitely Probably Probably Definitely Implement Implement Unsure Implement Implement

Statistical Quality Control 1 2 3 4 5 Concurrent Engineering 1 2 3 4 5 Identifying the Customer 1 2 3 4 5 Continual Improvement 1 2 3 4 5 Top Management Leadership 1 2 3 4 5 Employee Empowerment 1 2 3 4 5 Group Decision Making 1 2 3 4 5 Listening to Customers 1 2 3 4 5 Process Analysis 1 2 3 4 5 Benchmarking 1 2 3 4 5

262 J.M. Pearson et al. / lnformation & Management 29 (1995) 251-263

18. To what degree do you be l ieve these concepts could be imp lemen ted into the I S depar tmen t?

Defin i te ly Probably Probably Def ini te ly

I m p l e m e n t Imp lemen t Unsure Imp lemen t Implemen t

Cont inual I m p r o v e m e n t 1 2 3 4 5

E m p l o y e e E m p o w e r m e n t 1 2 3 4 5

Benchmark ing 1 2 3 4 5

Ident i fy ing the Cus tomer 1 2 3 4 5

Concur ren t Engineer ing 1 2 3 4 5

Group Decis ion Making 1 2 3 4 5

Statist ical Qual i ty Control 1 2 3 4 5

Top M a n a g e m e n t Leadership 1 2 3 4 5

Lis ten ing to Cus tomers 1 2 3 4 5

Process Analys is 1 2 3 4 5

19. Please provide any addit ional c o m m e n t s you would to add about your o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s / d e p a r t m e n t ' s

efforts to imp lemen t T Q M :

References

[1] Anonymous, "International Quality Study: The Definitive Study of the Best International Quality Management Prac- tices" Cleveland, OH: Ernst and Young and the American Quality Foundation, 1991.

[2] Anonymous, "Quality Winners Credit IT" Information Week, Oct. 1992, 15.

[3] G.M. Ashmore, "Better Information Means Better Quality", The Journal of Business Strategy, January/February 1992, 57-60.

[4] J.B. Ayers, "Total Quality Management and Information Technology: Partners for Profit", Information Strategy: The Executive's Journal, Spring 1993, 26-31.

[5] P. Block, The Empowered Manager: Positive Political Skills at Work, 1987, Jossey-Bass Publishing Company, Houston, TX.

[6] R. Brownstone, "Is TQM Enough?", The Journal of Quality and Participation, July/August 1990, 34-36.

[7] P.B. Crosby, Quality Is Free, 1979, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY.

[8] W.E. Deming, Quality, Productivity and Competitive Posi- tion, 1982, MIT, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

[9] W. Eckerson, "Total Quality Management Paying Off For Users" Network World, April 16, 1990, 25,28.

[10] J.R Evans and W.M. Lindsay, The Management and Control of Quality, 1993, West Publishing Co., Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN.

[11] A.V. Feigenbaum, Total Quality Control, 1991, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY.

[12] H.S. Gitlow and S.J. Gitlow, Total Quality Management in Action, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PTR Prentice Hall, 1994.

[13] R. Johnson and W.O. Winchell, Production and Quality, 1989, New York: American Society for Quality Control.

[14] L.H. Jones, "Information Systems, Organizational Change and Quality Improvement Programs", National Productivity Reveiw, Spring 1988, 165-168.

[15] J.M. Juran, Juran on Leadership for Quality: An Executive Handbook, 1989, New York: The Free Press.

[16] J.M. Juran, "Made in the U.S.A.: A Renaissance in Quality", Harvard Business Review, July-August 1993, 42-50.

[17] R.B. Keith, Jr., "MIS + TQM = QIS", Quality Progress, April 1994, 29-31.

[18] J.J. Kendrix, "Total Quality Management Ups Revenue, Productivity, Study Shows" Quality, Dec. 1993, 17.

[19] P.A. LaBarbara and D. Mazursky, "A Longitudinal Assess- ment of Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction: The Dy- namic Aspect of the Cognitive Process", Journal of Market- ing Research, Nov. 1983, 393-404.

[20] D.M. Lambert and T.C. Harrington, "Measuring Nonre- sponse Bias in Customer Service Mail Surveys," Journal of Business Logistics, 11.2, 5-25.

[21] A. Laplante, "For I /S, Quality is 'Job None'", Computer World, January 6, 1992, 56.

[22] K. Mathieson and T.J. Wharton, "Are Information Systems a Barrier to Total Quality Management?", Journal of Systems Management, Sept. 1993, 34-38.

[23] A.I. Mendelowitz, Management Practices, U.S. Companies Improve Performance Through Quality, Washington, D.C.: United States General Accounting Office, 1991.

[24] G. Premkumar and W.R. King, "The Evaluation of Strategic Information System Planning," Information & Management, 26.6 (June 1994) 327-340.

[25] E. Rivard and K. Kaiser, "The Benefit of Quality IS", Datamation, Jan. 15, 1989, 53-58.

[26] J.M. Rowe and R.D. Neal, "TQM in System Development: A Paradigm Without A Sound Foundation" Journal of Sys- tems Management. May 1993, 12-16.

J.M. Pearson et al./lnformation & Management 29 (1995) 251-263 263

[27] B. Pitman, "Total Quality Management For Information Services", Journal of Systems Management, July 1992, 18.

[28] R.J. Schonberger, "'Total Quality Management Cuts a Broad Swath Through Management and Beyond", Organizational Dynamics, Spring 1992, 16-27.

[29] H.R. Shrednick, R.J. Shutt and M. Weiss, "Empowerment: Key to IS World-Class Quality", MIS Quarterly, Dec. 1992, 491-505.

[30] P.T. van den Hoven, F.P.A.. van Valkenburg and M.S.H. Heng, "Managing Information Systems Within Japenese Companies in Europe: An Empirical Study," Information & Management, 27.5 (Nov. 1994) 315-325.

[31] D.L. Weintraub, "Implementing Total Quality Management", Economic Development Review, Summer 1993, 39-42.

[32] B.J. Winer, Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, 1971, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY.

[33] M.A. Zadrozny and K.E. Ferrazzi, "Building a Technology Base for TQM", Chief Information Officer Journal, Fall 1992, 18-21.

J. Michael Pearson is an associate professor of Information Systems at St. Cloud State University. His research has been published in Information & Man- agement, Decision Support Systems, Communications of the ACM, Journal of Computer Information Systems and Information Systems Management. Dr. Pearson has presented papers at national and international conferences, including the International Conference on Infor- mation Systems (ICIS). His primary

teaching and research interests are in organizational planning, management of quality, and productivity of information technology.

........................................ Cynthia S. McCahon is an Associate Professor of Operations Management at Kansas State University. She received her Ph.D. in industrial engineering from Kansas State University Her current research interests include the implementation of quality improvement strategies and multiple criteria decision making. Her published work has appeared in In- formation & Management, OMEGA, European Journal of Operational Re- search, IEEE Transactions in Engineer-

ing Management and Computers and Mathematics with Applica- tions.

Ross Hightower received his PhD from Georgia State University in 1991. His research interests include computer- mediated communication and the im- pacts of technology. His publications include articles in the Journal of Informa- tion Technology Management and Com- puters in Human Behavior. He is mem- ber of the Decision Science Institute and the Institute for Management Scientists.

total quality management. are information systems managers ready?

Documents