Research Summary
AoM OM Division
Doctoral Student Consortium
Dongli Zhang
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 in Nair, 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.
Research Summary
AoM OM Division
Doctoral Student Consortium
Dongli Zhang
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.