article writing

Evolution and future of total quality

management: management control and

organisational learning Jens Jörn Dahlgaard, Lidia Reyes, Chi-Kuang Chen and Su Mi Dahlgaard-Park

The self-archived postprint version of this journal article is available at Linköping

University Institutional Repository (DiVA):

http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-160588

N.B.: When citing this work, cite the original publication. This is an electronic version of an article published in:

Dahlgaard, J. J., Reyes, L., Chen, C., Dahlgaard-Park, Su Mi, (2019), Evolution and future of total quality management: management control and organisational learning, Total quality management and business excellence (Online). https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2019.1665776

Original publication available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2019.1665776 Copyright: Taylor & Francis (Routledge) (SSH Titles) http://www.routledge.com/

Evolution and Future of Total Quality Management: Management Control and Organizational Learning

Jens J. Dahlgaard

Professor, Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, Sweden [email protected]

Lidia Reyes PhD Student, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Yuan Ze University,

Taiwan, [email protected] Chi-Kuang Chen (corresponding author)

Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Yuan Ze University, Taiwan, [email protected]

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Yuan Ze University, 135 Yuan-Tung Road, Chung-Li 320, Taiwan, ROC

Su Mi Dahlgaard-Park Professor, Department of Service Management and Service Studies, Lund University, Sweden

[email protected]

Abstract The competitive position achieved by the Japanese and Western industries during the

1970s to mid-1990s, and 1980s to mid-1990s, respectively, derived from understanding,

implementing, and developing Total Quality Management (TQM) as a comprehensive

management philosophy. Several research and/or company studies provided evidence of this

development and its impact on leading companies’ efficiency and effectiveness.

Despite that, research on TQM seemed on the surface, after a boom from about 1990 to

1995, to have declined. However, one recent detailed study from 2013 concluded that TQM is

now at a more mature stage where focuses have shifted from being initially on TQM to the

methods, tools, techniques and core values which are needed to implement TQM and to build a

quality and BE (Business Excellence) culture.

This study is an extension of the 2013 study, where we extend the previous study on

TQM publications to 2017, and further analyse more detailed not only which methods, tools and

techniques are used, but also at what organisational level they are used – strategical, tactical or

the operational level. We collect data on research about TQM and its methods, tools and

techniques, and we analyse further the shift of focus from TQM as a comprehensive management

theory/ philosophy to a focus on the TQM methods, tools and techniques to be used at various

management levels of a company.

We use two of management's basic functions - management control (MC) and

organizational learning (OL) – to unveil the challenges faced by TQM and to help converting

these challenges into new research opportunities to be jointly addressed by companies and

research communities such as the Quality Management and Organisational Development

(QMOD) Research Community.

In light of the findings in this research it became clear that MC and OL are two sides of

the same coin. MC can never be effectively implemented without OL, and OL needs to be

supported by a comprehensive MC system. Keywords: Total Quality Management, Management Control, Organizational Learning, Strategic Quality Management 1. Introduction

The origins of the theory and practice of Total Quality Management (TQM) can be traced back

to the 1920s where Walter Shewhart in 1924 began to apply statistical process control (SPC) in

the Bell Telephone Company’s Hawthorne Plant. He stated that SPC is a good way to learn and

understand why and how performance changes over time (Lovitt, 1997). This adoption and

promotion of SPC, which uses data as evidence of knowledge, helped to establish the importance

of having a management control function and a related learning process as a necessary part of

quality improvement efforts.

Later, in the 1950s and 1960s, the Japanese – with support from experts like W. Edward

Deming, Armand V. Feigenbaum, Kaoru Ishikawa, and Joseph Juran – interpreted, understood,

practiced, and further developed the concepts of SQC (Statistical Quality Control) and TQC

(Total Quality Control). This term is coined by Feigenbaum (1961), and Prof. Ishikawa

(Ishikawa, 1985 p. 91) who created the new term Company Wide Quality Control (CWQC) for

the Japanese version of TQC. CWQC was further developed and re-branded in the West as TQM

(Total Quality Management) during the 1980s (Dahlgaard-Park, 2013). The above mentioned

quality experts/ gurus as well as others contributed and helped transitioning the movement from

SQC to TQM carrying over the learning methodologies developed in Japan, such as the basic

quality tools, quality control circles (QCC), and quality control stories (Gitlow, 1994).

The job loss in the US and Europe during the last part of the 1970s and the 1980s,

triggered by Japan’s success, forced American and European companies to become interested in

understanding, learning, and adapting the concept of CWQC (Deming 1986). This interest led to

further academic research and the introduction of new principles, tools, and methods such as

Business Excellence (BE), Six Sigma and Lean (Dahlgaard-Park, 2011; Lawler III et al., 1992;

Port et al., 1992; Seymour & Collett, 1991). Consequently, the principles and theories behind

TQM evolved from quality inspection, quality control, quality assurance, and CWQC into the

modern version of TQM, where the content expanded to include all functional areas of a business

(Dahlgaard-Park et al., 2018; Dahlgaard et al., 2003).

As it evolved, TQM incorporated three managerial arenas: process management, human

resource management, and strategic management. Thereby, TQM developed into a

comprehensive management theory with multiple layers and elements/components within its

framework, and many leading companies showed impressive results after having successfully

implemented TQM (Dahlgaard-Park et al, 2018, pp. 1108-1128). However, many companies

experienced that TQM didn’t provide the expected results on economic returns and

competitiveness. Hence, TQM lost its appeal for many company managers who started to use

other competing managerial methods such as Balanced Score Card, Performance Management

etc. hoping that they would give better results.

From the mid-1990s, research publications on TQM & BE as a new and general

management philosophy diminished drastically to the point where the number of articles

published in 2011 was only one-third of those published in 1995 (Dahlgaard-Park et al., 2013).

This was a surprise for many researchers within the quality management area because several

large studies showed that it pays very well for companies to invest in those areas (Hendricks and

Singhal, 1997; Boulter et al, 2013). Some researchers even proclaimed that TQM is dead or

dying (no name references here).

However, as Dahlgard-Park et al concluded in their detailed research study to understand

and explain the dramatic decrease in the number of research publication on TQM and BE (2013

p. 15):

“…we will also understand that data on the number of articles published on TQM and

BE are too narrow to conclude as above. Because TQM and BEM comprise multiple numbers of

tools and techniques as well as culture and core values/principles then we should also collect

and analyse data about these areas before we come up with a quick conclusion about the current

state and expected future directions.

The results showed that the total number of articles under the subject of TQM has been

decreasing since 1995 after having reached its peak. On the other hand, papers focusing on

methods, tools and techniques within the QM framework, in terms of Self-Assessment, Lean, Six

Sigma, SPC, Benchmarking etc. have been increasing. Papers focusing on the core

values/principles needed to build a quality culture in terms of leadership, people-based

management, continuous improvement, management based on facts, and customer focus have

been slightly increasing during the last decade.

These findings indicate that TQM is now at a more mature stage where focuses have

shifted from being initially on TQM to the tools, techniques and core values which are needed to

implement TQM and build a quality and BE culture”.

Trying to have all this in mind, this study aims to explain why research on TQM has

changed its focus to especially methods, tools, techniques, and how this change of focus may

affect the future of the quality movement.

We first do, in section 2, a timeline-based literature review of management control and

organizational learning within the areas of TQM, regarding TQM as a sustainable long-term

management approach derived from a set of values or principles that are control and learning

oriented (Sitkin et al., 1994). Subsequently, in section 3, we analyse how research on

management control and organizational learning have evolved in terms of the most popular TQM

methods, tools and techniques. Discussions of the identified research trends will then follow in

section 4, and our final conclusions and recommendations will end up the article in section 5.

2. Evolution of Management Control and Organizational Learning under TQM

Management Control and Organization Learning processes are interdependent managerial

processes that are seldom considered together in the TQM literature even if they should be

regarded as two sides of the same coin. In the following literature review we will focus on when

and how those two concepts evolved under the TQM evolution and try to find evidence or

indications on the practice or non-practice of the two sides of the same coin principle. First, we

will focus on the evolution related to the operational or process level, and after that we will focus

on the organizational management level and then end up with some preliminary conclusions.

2.1 Operational (process) Level

Management Control is a systematic process to define and implement performance standards to

achieve organizational objectives. It is based on planning/ setting objectives and designing

information feedback systems that help to find deviations and taking action to ensure that

resources are used effectively and efficiently (Mockler, 1984, p.2).

The roots of MC go back to the basic principles of scientific management, where

managers were engaged in planning, training, and follow up activities, allowing workers to

perform their tasks, i.e. “to do” efficiently (Taylor, 1914). As Taylor sought to increase

productivity and employees’ skills while concurrently reducing waste, the further development

of scientific management intertwined with the development of Statistical Quality Control (SQC).

The framework known as Operational Control (Robert, 1965) emerged when Japanese

stakeholders understood the definition, meaning and practice of quality control: “… to develop,

design, produce and service a quality product which is most economical, most useful, and always

satisfactory to the consumer” (Ishikawa, 1985 p. 44).

Prof. Kaoru Ishikawa, who shaped the Japanese version of Total Quality Control (TQC),

suggested quality control circles (QCC) and the seven basic quality improvement tools (7QC) to

be used by the QCC members in their continuous suggestions for new process and product

improvements. As said above, he coined in 1968 the new concept company-wide quality control

(CWQC), a concept in which QC requires everybody’s participation, in other words,

participation of employees to become responsible for operational control (Ishikawa,1974;

Martínez-Lorente et al., 1998).

Most of the methods, tools and techniques for product design and process improvement

used today emerged from observing Japanese quality improvement procedures and best practices.

For example, the Taguchi method (Taguchi, 1986), used for product design, applies statistical

methods to ensure good performance in the design stage of products or processes. Hoshin Kanri

(policy deployment) is a form of corporate-wide management technique that combines strategic

management and operational management by linking the achievement of top management goals

with daily management at the operational level (Kondo, 1995, p. 89). Hoshin Kanri is a

framework for policy-based objectives that translates into QCDE (quality, cost, delivery,

education) targets that drive progress (Witcher & Butterworth, 2001).

From this development another important concept/method emerged, operational learning,

which is defined as learning at the process level, which helps to understand and describe “how to

get things done around a specific process/task or project” (Hoffman & Donaldson, 2004, p. 452).

2.2. Organizational Management Level

Organizational Learning (OL) is about an organization perceiving the environment and using its

experience-based shared knowledge to adapt to changes and threats as well as defining future

strategies. One of the most popular definitions of OL was provided by Senge (1990 p. 13-14), as:

“a shift or movement of mind”, where the environment is perceived differently by finding

problems, proposing solutions, and recreating the organization’s future.

Influenced by the focus mentioned previously, TQM was re-defined by several authors

during the 1990s, and organizational learning (OL) was promoted more and more to the

managerial level because the redefinition of TQM changed its theoretical scope and application.

The new scope of TQM included more stakeholders (customers, employees, suppliers, business

partners, and society), and its applications were widened to become more outcome or result

oriented. New methods, tools and techniques such as Six Sigma, Self-assessment, Balanced

Score Card, and Lean came into play and a more strategic and competitive perspective was

applied (Svensson & Klefsjö, 2006).

Peter Senge’s book (1990) “The Fifth Discipline - The Art & Practice of The Learning

Organization” became a key contributor to this development, influencing EFQM (European

Foundation for Quality Management) to change the wordings and other contents of the EFQM

Excellence Model from 1997 to fit better to this development. For example, the feed-back loop

from Results to Enablers in the 1997 model showed clearly the following two key words to

address: Innovation and Learning (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: EFQM Excellence Model (1997)

In EFQM’s 2013 version of the Excellence Model, shown in Figure 2, the importance of

organizational learning (OL) was stressed even further, indicated by the feedback loop’s focus on

“Learning, Creativity, and Innovation”. The importance of OL is shown furthermore in the sub-

criterions and potential areas to address.

However, the new mechanical logic, or rational orientation, from enablers to results

tended to put aside the soft aspects of management such as organizational culture, values,

people’s motivation, training, and education (Dahlgaard-Park, 2011) even if the EFQM

Excellence Models, as well as other leading excellence models such as the Malcolm Baldridge

Model, requested a balance between the soft and the hard side of management as indicated in

Figure 2. Companies worldwide adopted these new excellence models and its related methods,

tools and techniques, and particularly the process of self-assessment (SA) as a learning

mechanism to guide the development of quality improvement activities including innovation.

Figure 2: EFQM Excellence Model (2012/ 2013)

Self-assessment in TQM involves regular and systematic review of an organization’s

activities and performance supported by a quality/excellence framework such as the EFQM

Excellence Model; however, this process tended to overemphasise measurements and resulted in

a common misunderstanding of the TQM principles (Conti, 2010). Managers forgot that one of

the most important ideas behind the adoption of TQM is the creation of a new organizational

culture; practitioners as well as many researchers overlooked or even neglected to mention that

the foundation for the successful application of all these new methods, tools and techniques is

based on TQM and its core principles.

2.3 Control and Learning – Concluding comments

As seen from the above review, the way in which control and learning was understood, practiced

and managed in Japanese versus western organizations, and more generally in excellent versus

non-excellent organizations irrespective of origin, is in our view one of the main causes for the

different TQM approaches used and the results achieved when companies tried to implement

TQM.

The Japanese concepts of human relations and management focuses on employees’ total

participation for continuous process improvement (Khoo & Tan, 2003) and QC specialists

(Martínez-Lorente et al., 1998) conduct TQC/ CWQC implementation by focusing on employees’

total participation. Most companies in the West focus on short term results rather than

continuous process improvements (Harris, 1995); thus, employees’ participation is weak in most

companies, and managers are mostly the only responsible for improving quality (Martínez-

Lorente et al., 1998). However, excellent companies irrespective of origin have learned the

message that total participation is a TQM principle not to be negotiated, but must be learned and

practiced.

In this learning process, control and learning share a relationship which many

researchers have explained. For instance, Chen and Kuo (2011) concluded that organizational

learning and quality improvement activities such as QCC are linked as facilitators, not as cause

and effect methods. Similarly, Grigg & Walls (2007) showed how statistical thinking and

methods of control are related to organizational learning. They also stated that regardless of the

industrial sector, the effectiveness of a control chart depends on having sufficient data. However,

information from such techniques is seldom used to generate process knowledge, and hence

learning loops are seldom completed. This finding connotes that there is a great need to integrate

statistical thinking with organizational learning.

However, studies in this area have limitations and, so far, there is no specific literature

focusing on management control and organizational learning from the perspective of TQM. In

fact, based on the literature review stated above, since the focus shifted from operations/ process

control and learning to organizational control and learning in the mid-1990s, research on TQM

measured by the number of published research articles seems on the surface gradually to have

lost its attractiveness. Why is that so? Is it because: “TQM is now at a more mature stage where

focuses have shifted from being initially on the TQM Model/ management philosophy to the

tools, techniques and core values which are needed to implement TQM and build a quality and

BE culture”? (Dahlgaard-Park et al 2013 p. 15).

In order to further understand this mature stage, the next section will present statistics of

the literature available on selected management control and organizational learning methods,

tools and techniques used under the ‘TQM umbrella’.

3. Research trends in Management Control and Organizational Learning under TQM

3.1 Research methods

Among the various research methods available, such as narrative literature review, meta-analysis,

and systematic review methodology (SRM) (Baumeister & Leary, 1997), we selected SRM

because it’s a systematic process of conducting literature reviews. We first defined the research

scope, then examined databases, subsequently reviewed it and reported the results.

The research scope includes defining objectives, selecting databases, searching keywords,

research protocols, and review criteria for the papers to be included. The main objectives are here

to identify the research trends of: 1. TQM quality improvement methods, tools and techniques

used for management control and organizational learning, 2. TQM and Business Excellence (BE)

as separate topics, and 3. To provide insightful reasons about the changes found during the last

five years of the study period (2013-17).

To achieve those objectives, we searched through almost half a century of literature using

keywords (See Table 1) that relate to TQM’s areas of study and influence, and performed

statistical analysis on the results. Due to comprehensive databases of the relevant literature, we

selected the ProQuest ABI/Inform Collection as a search instrument. It includes in-depth

coverage from thousands of publications, with 80% of them in full-text and more than 6,800

journals, including the most important business journals from leading publishing companies such

as Cambridge University Emerald Group Publishing, Springer, and MIT Sloan School of

Management, among others. The articles selected were based on the document title and

keywords that represent, at a practical level, the study areas analysed in this research, and articles

were selected from peer-reviewed scholarly journals only.

The analysis of the data is focusing on the management level and the methods, tools and

techniques that are commonly used at each level. The following three typical management levels

of an organization were used in this study: The strategic (SML), tactical (TML) and operational

management level (OML), where each of these three levels uses different TQM methods, tools

and techniques.

Table 1. Data collection from ProQuest ABI/Inform database (1973–2017)

Key-words No. of articles Self-Assessment (SA) 452 Lean 1853 Six Sigma 1029 Process Control Chart (PCC) 180 Statistical Process Control (SPC) 188

The selected methods, tools and techniques play important roles as connectors to achieve

effectiveness and efficiency from the top strategic level to the tactical and the operational levels,

and those three levels offer an opportunity to explain systematically the analysis of the data

collected.

The strategic management level (SML) involves the continuous planning, monitoring,

analysis and assessment of all necessary areas for an organization to meet its aim and goals

(where does the organization want to go), and selecting the areas that should be improved and

setting the goals for improvements. Self-Assessment is the TQM method to be applied at this

level. The tactical management level (TML) involves the selection of appropriate ways and

means of achieving the strategic plan (how to get there), and this is where the Six Sigma and

Lean tools and techniques are to be applied. Finally, the operations management level (OML)

involves planning, organizing, and supervising processes and making the necessary

improvements to increase competitiveness and profitability (the detailed work related to the

overall plans). This is where SPC and PCC together with other tools and methods may be

applied.

3.2 Research trends

Table 2 presents the total number of articles relevant to each tool and technique published in time

intervals of 5 years between 1973 and 2017.

Table 2. Number of articles per time period and keyword 1973–2017

Time interval SPC (OML)

PCC (OML)

Six-Sigma (TML)

Lean (TML)

SA (SML)

Total

1973-1977 0 0 0 2 3 5 1978-1982 0 2 0 2 9 13 1983-1987 0 1 0 7 14 22 1988-1992 0 6 1 17 28 52 1993-1997 0 22 5 140 54 221 1998-2002 58 19 137 141 86 441 2003-2007 59 41 367 349 85 901 2008-2012 41 50 357 610 77 1135 2013-2017 30 39 162 585 96 912

Total 188 180 1029 1853 452 3702 SPC = Statistical Process Control; PCC = Process Control Chart; SA = Self-assessment

If we first look at the total number of articles published in each period, we see significant

increases every period from 1978 to 2012, where only 5 articles were published in the first

period (1973-1977) and a total of 1135 articles were published in the second last period (2008-

2012). We can also observe that the last period showed a significant decrease of 19.6% but the

total number was still higher than the period 2003-2007. We can also see that, of the 3,702

published articles considered for the study, 368 articles (9.95%) belong to operational

management learning level (OML), 2882 articles (77.85 %) belong to the tactical management

level (TML) and 452 articles (12.20%) belong to the strategic management level (SML).

Prior to 1978, the number of publications in the operational tools SPC and PCC were

zero, the tactical tool Lean cropped up with two articles and the strategic tool SA with three

articles. In the next 10 years (1978-1987) we see that the interest for doing research in those

areas increased slowly except that SPC and Six-Sigma were not yet represented in the statistics.

The next 10-year period (1988-1997) shows a very strong increase in publications related

to SA, Lean and PCC especially related to the last five years of this period but SPC is still

represented with zero publications. The next 10-year period (1998-2007) is characterised with

having publications on SPC for the first time and with an impressive growth from zero

publications to a total of 117 publications. For the other tools we see the same explosion in the

number of publications, where the top-scorers were Six Sigma with 504 publications and Lean

with 490 publications.

After 2007 the next period of only 5 years showed a beginning decrease in SPC, Six

Sigma and SA while Lean almost doubled from 349 publications to 610 publications, and the last

5-years period (2013-2017) is characterised by a decrease in all areas except SA which increased

the number of publications from 77 to 96. The most dramatic decrease was the Six Sigma area

which experienced a reduction over 5 years from 357 to 162 publications while Lean only had a

moderate decrease and continued to stay at the relatively high level of 585 publications. The

changes of research focus will be discussed further below supported by Table 2 and Figures 3

and 4.

In the first two decades (1973-1992) shown in Figure 3, TQM knowledge in the western

countries was lagging, which explains the low number of research studies up to 1980. After that,

US and other leading western countries started slowly to wake up, and research interest in Six

Sigma, Lean and SA began to surge.

The amount of published research shows that past the mid-1980s a new phase of quality

control and management began in the western countries with the creation of new concepts and

approaches. As a result, companies began re-examining the quality control techniques that were

used successfully during the past 30 years by the Japanese. However, unlike the Japanese version

with a different cultural approach, the western quality movement focused on the tactical and the

strategic management levels (TML and SML) by providing education and training to middle

and/or top-level managers instead of emphasizing the entire company. As a result, western

companies were showing a lack of integration among the three management levels.

Referring to Figure 3, which shows the number of articles published on quality

management tools and techniques during the period 1973–2017, it is noticed that most of the

research has been done after 1993, increasing substantially during the mid-90s. However, after

2012, research in all the subjects, except SA, decreased, and the last five years (2013–2017)

research on PCC/SPC decreased by 24%, Six Sigma by 55%, and Lean by 4%; with the notable

exception being SA, which actually increased by 20%.

Figure 3. Keyword-based articles published per study area.

Dahlgaard-Park et al (2013) analysed the TQM and BE research trend from 1987 to 2011,

a 25-year period, and in this study we do a continuation of the analysis until 2017. As shown in

Figure 4, the total number of articles published on TQM was 2080, compared to 405 articles

19 41 50 399 14 28 54

86 85 77 96137

367 357

162 140 141

349

610 585

58 59

41 30 1978-1982 1983-1987 1988-1992 1993-1997 1998-2002 2003-2007 2008-2012 2013-2017

PCC SA Six-Sigma

published on BE during the same period. The highest number of publications on TQM was in

1995 (203 articles) and for BE in 2002 (35 articles).

Figure 4. Frequency chart for articles published under TQM and BE (1990–2017)

1 2 3 5 2 8 6 6 14 24 27 19

35 32 24 21 19 15 25

12 12 29

8 10 12 12 12 10 20

43 62

176 187

203

148

120113

85 78 91 89

66 84

71 73

43 47 44 56 50

23 18 23 26 15

26

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017

BE TQM

Our further discussion here in this section focuses on the research developed during the

past six-year period (2012–2017), where the number of articles with TQM or BE in the title

showed a decreasing trend compared to the previous 6-year period, thereby demonstrating a

weakening or further loss of appeal for general TQM and BE subjects. This may indicate a lack

of a profound systems-knowledge which may affect connections between the three management

levels upsetting the organizational controlling and learning processes discussed in Section 2 and

researched further in this section with a focus on selected TQM methods, tools and techniques

(see Figures 2 and 3).

To complement our research above we also did qualitative content analysis. The process

consisted in collecting data from the ProQuest ABI/Inform database (2012-2017) using the

search terms: Total Quality Management and Business Excellence in the title of the articles. In

total 230 articles were found and among of them, we focused on the 10% (24) most cited articles,

considering these the vital few articles that have attracted the most attention from the academic

community. The subject categorization was defined based on the title and abstract reading, and if

it was still unclear a further reading was conducted. As a result, the 24 articles were categorized

into the following four major research subject areas.

First, the research focused on the use of BE frameworks for TQM implementation

(Calabrese & Corbò, 2015; Chuang et al., 2015; Metaxas & Koulouriotis, 2014).

Second, the research focused on the relational analysis of TQM/BE with organizational

culture (Alotaibi, 2014; Fellague & Bennafla, 2015; Gimenez-Espin et al., 2013; Sinha & Arora,

2012).

The third type of research focused on the impact/effect of TQM/BE implementation on

business performance (Iyer et al., 2013; Rashid & Haris Aslam, 2012; Sadikoglu & Olcay, 2014;

Talib et al., 2013).

Finally, the fourth type of research focused on the influence of TQM/BE in different

business areas or industries such as supply chains, education, health, and construction (Altinok,

2016; Claude Ah-Teck & Starr, 2014; Loke et al., 2012; Rashid & Haris Aslam, 2012).

4. Discussions

In light of the research trends analysed above, and the content analysis of 24 articles selected

from the last six years of our study we intend to make further discussions related to the following

three aspects: 1. the research trend in the three management levels of quality methods, tools and

techniques under TQM; 2. the research trend in TQM and Business Excellence (BE); 3. the

importance of Strategic Quality Management (SQM).

4.1 Research trend in quality methods, tools and techniques

With regard to the first aspect, it follows from Figure 3 as well as Table 2 that, the

amount of research related to the tactical management level of TQM (TML), which is

represented by Six Sigma and Lean, and the operational management level of TQM (OML),

represented by SPC and PCC, are much higher than the amount of research at the strategic

management level of TQM (SML), represented by SA. Why is that so?

An explanation may be that organizations have encountered difficulties in their use and

application of the above methods, tools and techniques, indicating that companies, and maybe

researchers too, do not understand that operational and tactical learning (OML and TML) can

only be effective and efficient if the learning process is wisely guided by learning at the strategic

management level of the company (SML). Therefore, this interpretation gives an indication that

more research needs to be done in strategic learning (SML) with a quality management

orientation. In other words, there is a need for research in Strategic Quality Management (SQM),

an important area of TQM, which, for unknown reasons, is undeveloped and in our view is

almost unknown by researchers and top managers in all kind of industries.

Figure 3 shows that the tactical methods, Six Sigma and Lean, attracted the interest of

academicians during the period 1998-2012, after which Six Sigma lost its appeal and Lean

experienced stagnation but still remains at a high level. Based on previous sections, this loss of

appeal in Six Sigma was perhaps because companies didn’t get the results they expected after

maybe too high level of promotion by consultants or researchers (Arthur, 2009).

Another explanation could be the high complexity of implementing the methodologies of

Six Sigma. The implementation of these methodologies is difficult because they’re relatively

sophisticated, demand higher levels of knowledge, and require overcoming a series of challenges

during their application by ordinary workers. Thus, implementation cannot be considered a

straightforward process because the implementation of six-sigma methodologies requires that all

employees are educated and trained by experts to become a kind of expert (black belts, green

belts or white belts), and employees, as well as managers, are going through personal learning

curves while applying the methodologies. This will only work if there is a strong management

support and commitment; therefore, time and financial support are important factors that should

be considered (Lodgaard et al., 2016). In this massive education there are risks that the training

of people will focus too much on training people in statistical tools, and there is too little

emphasis on understanding the human factor (Dahlgaard & Dahlgaard-Park, 2006), teamwork,

motivation, value adding, and sharing of knowledge (Lodgaard et al., 2016). Such risks are high

if the implementation is lacking strategic support meaning that the overall strategic direction is

unclear or missing.

To explain why the interest in Lean is still at a high level, a reasonable explanation is that

the following five principles for reducing waste and building lean enterprises (Womack and

Jones, 1996 p.10; Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park, 2006 p. 268) are easy to understand by

managers and employees, and furthermore easy to relate to top-managers’ strategic thinking and

focus.

(1) Specify value by specific product;

(2) Identify the value stream for each product;

(3) Make the value flow without interruptions;

(4) Let the customer pull value from the producer;

(5) Pursue perfection.

4.2 Research trend in TQM and Business Excellence

Based on the content analysis of 24 published research articles from the last 6-year period we

found that:

1. On one hand, the analysed research studies focused on the promotion of how important

learning is in a TQM organization. Greater levels of TQM practices tend to enhance knowledge

of management practices and, therefore, organizational learning, as proved by findings of

Jiménez-Jiménez et al. (2015), Lee and Lee (2014), and Loke et al. (2012). They also highlight

that the successful implementation of TQM in different industries rely on values such as total

participation based on proper education and training. This leads to team work, continuous

improvement, corporate quality culture, customer focus, and a combination of management

techniques under a quality management system (Fu et al. 2015; Goh 2015; Mosadeghrad 2015).

2. On the other hand, the research contents on TQM and BE over the last six-year period

lead us to conclude that the challenges of TQM are related to adjusting and modifying the QM

framework, while continuously developing better tools and techniques to fit the needs of new

services and knowledge-intensive organizations.

3. The content analysis also showed that TQM has been successfully implemented in

multiple industries, demonstrating that TQM is still an important area of research that still

attracts the interest of academicians as well as managers from different sectors. As Dahlgaard-

Park et al. (2013 p. 15) state, “QM is at a more mature and advanced level, spreading to all types

of industries and the public sector. And successful top leaders have found that practice of TQM

enhances organizational control and learning, enriches management knowledge, and improves

quality performance”.

4. However, our main finding is that there are strong indications for a disconnection

between the three management levels – strategic, tactical and operational level - that further may

have triggered the disintegration between management control (MC) and organizational learning

(OL) under TQM. Such disconnection/disintegration has two significant impacts.

Firstly, it hinders the cultivation of TQM’s core principles: management by fact,

management commitment, customer focus, people-based management, continuous improvement

and, most of all, total participation. Total participation is a key factor of excellent business

performance because it encourages employees to innovate and help the company to maintain its

long-term vision and planning. Companies need to demonstrate the importance of team work and

generate interdepartmental cooperation; recognise employees’ efforts by giving them individual

goals, empower them to participate in decision making, help them to grow in their careers and,

most of all, encourage total participation. This helps to build a TQM culture needed for positive

business performance (Fu et al., 2015).

Secondly, it may have foiled the academic development and integration of MC and OL

perspectives into TQM, leaving aside the continuous development of TQM as an organizational

theory.

4.3 The importance of Strategic Quality Management

With the above background it is no surprise that studies in Strategic Quality Management (SQM)

is still at a very early stage. A simple and logical explanation is that if companies/company

managers haven’t understood that they really need to improve their yearly strategy process with

an increased focus on strategic aspects of quality (SQM) then it is difficult for researchers to

select this research area because empirical data is missing or difficult to find. Instead researchers

select research topics from available ones such as Business Excellence (BE), Self-assessment

(SA) and Lean because those topics may be close related to SQM.

For instance, self-assessment (SA) is an important method to be applied at the strategic

management level, that, combined with other tools and methods such as benchmarking and TQ

audits, helps to understand the current situation of a company (where are we now?) and sets the

plans for quality improvements (where do we want to go?). However, SA could also be applied

for both short and long-term goals; therefore, it is evident that SA needs also to be used at the

tactical level (TML) to bridge the gap in relation to the strategic management level (SML).

In the same way Lean and Six Sigma are tools and methods that connect with SA at the

tactical level (TML). But, Lean and Six Sigma should also go further down to the operational

level (OML) connecting with SPC and PCC and many other tools and techniques at the

operational level. However, such work logic may only become established when quality is

included from the strategic to the operational level. This work logic translates into an overlap of

the three management levels to identify meaningful opportunities for improvements and

guarantee that everyone in an organization works towards common goals (Dahlgaard et al.,

2008).

5. Conclusions

Our findings in this article lead us to conclude that the concept TQM as a general management

theory has gradually lost its research appeal since the mid1990s, and the focus has changed to a

new focus on the application of the TQM methods, tools and techniques. Dahlgaard-Park et al

(2013) explained this change of focus as a natural evolution to a more mature state of the TQM

evolution caused by the challenges and problems which companies experienced when trying to

implement TQM. Companies need better strategic roadmaps complemented with suitable

methods, tools and techniques to assure success with their implementations.

There are several reasons for that need but one main finding in this research indicate that

a root cause may be the negative effects of disintegration of management control (MC) and

organisational learning (OL) methods. The disintegration between MC and OL may result in

short term objectives, lack of systematic implementation and understanding that a system needs

an objective or aim (vision, mission and goals), interrelated components, and continuous

improvement (information/ learning/ knowledge). Moreover, managers need to understand the

importance of building a suitable organizational culture with a focus on the TQM basic

principles which is a must be activity in the pursuit of BE.

Thus, future research should focus more on Strategic Quality Management (SQM), but

with the understanding that MC and OL are two sides of the same coin; this means that MC and

OL are closely related to each other and must not be separated. Using strategic learning through

Self-assessment (SA) organizations can learn quickly from their work, so they can learn from,

and adapt, their strategies to ensure that the tactical and operational levels are learning as well,

demonstrating effective and efficient performance.

In light of the above arguments, the authors believe that the same formula - management

control and organizational learning - is applicable and ready to be applied as a core

methodology for in any type of organisation. Building the right organizational culture with the

top, middle, and shop-floor employee’s active involvement and commitment, appropriate

company structure and resource support helps to improve the effective implementation of TQM

practices. It strengthens core values, management by fact, continuous improvement, and people-

based management, nourishing teamwork, mutual trust, and collaboration, all of which lead to

total organizational participation.

As a management theory, it might seem after a first look on the statistics in figure 4 that

TQM has lost its appeal, but this is only because the look was too quick and ‘viewers’ did not

‘look’ on all components under the TQM umbrella. When looking especially on the evolution of

the TQM methods, tools and techniques we agree totally by the conclusion by Dahlgaard-Park

(2013, p. 15) that “TQM is now at a more mature stage” where focuses have shifted from being

initially on TQM to the methods, tools, techniques and core values which are needed to

implement TQM and to build a quality and BE culture. This research supports this conclusion

and shows not only light on what methods had the highest focus during the different evolution

stages of the study period, but also new and better light on what organizational levels those

methods, tools and techniques are useful to be applied.

REFERENCES Alotaibi, F. M. S. (2014). Impact on quality culture of total quality management practices factors.

International Journal of Business and Economic Development, 2(3), 35-48. Altinok, P. (2016). An evaluation on effects of total quality applications in customer relations

management on sustainable global competition. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 3(1), 35-62.

Arthur, J. (2009). If Six Sigma is so easy, why isn’t everyone doing it? Quality Digest, 2019(01/04).

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1(3), 311-320.

Boulter, L., Bendell, T. & Dahlgaard, J.J. (2013) Total quality beyond North America: A comparative analysis of the performance of European Excellence Award winners, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 33:2, 2013.

Calabrese, A., & Corbò, M. (2015). Design and blueprinting for total quality management implementation in service organisations. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26(7-8), 719-732.

Chen, I. C., & Kuo, M.-H. C. (2011). Quality improvement: perspectives on organizational learning from hospital-based quality control circles in Taiwan. Human Resource Development International, 14(1), 91-101.

Chuang, S.-S., Chen, K.-S., & Tsai, M.-T. (2015). Exploring the antecedents that influence middle management employees' knowledge-sharing intentions in the context of total quality management implementations. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26(1-2), 108-122.

Claude Ah-Teck, J., & E. Starr, K. (2014). Total quality management in mauritian education and principals’ decision-making for school improvement: “Driven” or “informed” by data? Journal of Educational Administration, 52(6), 833-849.

Conti, T. (2010). Systems thinking in quality management. The TQM Journal, 22(4), 352-368. Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2011). The quality movement: where are you going? Total Quality

Management & Business Excellence, 22(5), 493-516. Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2011). The quality movement: where are you going? Total Quality

Management & Business Excellence, 22(5), 493-516. Dahlgaard-Park, S. M., Chen, C.-K., Jang, J.-Y., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2013). Diagnosing and

prognosticating the quality movement– A review on the 25 years’ quality literature (1987–2011). Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24(1-2), 1-18.

Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2015). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Quality and the Service Economy: SAGE Publications.

Dahlgaard-Park, S. M., Reyes, L., & Chen, C.-K. (2018). The evolution and convergence of total quality management and management theories. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 29(9-10), 1108-1128.

Dahlgaard, J. J., Kanji, G. K., & Kristensen, K. (2003). Fundamentals of total quality management: Routledge.

Dahlgaard, J. J., & Mi Dahlgaard-Park, S. (2006). Lean production, six sigma quality, TQM and company culture. The TQM magazine, 18(3), 263-281.

Dale, B., Zairi, M., Van der Wiele, A., & Williams, A. (2000). Quality is dead in Europe–long live excellence-true or false? Measuring Business Excellence, 4(3), 4-10.

Evans, R. (1995). In defence of TQM. The TQM magazine, 7(1), 5-6. Feigenbaum, F.E. (1961). Total Quality Control – Engineering and Management, McGraw-Hill,

New York, US. Fellague, M., & Bennafla, K. (2015). Organizational culture and the implementation of total

quality management in SONATRACH (MEDGAZ project and case study). Indian Journal of Management Science, 5(1), 1.

Frederick, T. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper Bros, 5-29. Fu, S.-L., Chou, S.-Y., Chen, C.-K., & Wang, C.-W. (2015). Assessment and cultivation of total

quality management organisational culture–an empirical investigation. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26(1-2), 123-139.

Gimenez-Espin, J. A., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Martínez-Costa, M. (2013). Organizational culture for total quality management. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24(5-6), 678-692.

Gitlow, H. S. (1994). A comparison of Japanese total quality control and Deming's theory of management. The American Statistician, 48(3), 197-203.

Goh, A. B. (2015). ROFO principle generates ownership, commitment and team learning– mindset change before implementing total quality management. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26(7-8), 854-874.

Grigg, N., & Walls, L. (2007). The role of control charts in promoting organisational learning. The TQM Magazine, 19(1), 37-49.

Harris, C. R. (1995). The evolution of quality management: an overview of the TQM literature. Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 12(2), 95-105.

Hendricks, K. and Singhal, V. (1997), “Does implementing an effective TQM program actually improve operating performance? Empirical evidence from firms that have won quality awards”, Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 9, pp. 1258-74 Hoffman, K. G., & Donaldson, J. F. (2004). Contextual tensions of the clinical environment and

their influence on teaching and learning. Medical education, 38(4), 448-454. Ishikawa, K. (1974). Guide to Quality Control. Asian Productivity Organisation, Tokyo. Ishikawa, K. (1985). What is Total Quality Control? - The Japanese Way. Prentice-Hall,

Engleewood Cliffs, N.J., US. Iyer, A., Saranga, H., & Seshadri, S. (2013). Effect of quality management systems and total

quality management on productivity before and after: Empirical evidence from the Indian auto component industry. Production & Operations Management, 22(2), 283-301.

Jiménez-Jiménez, D., Martinez-Costa, M., Martínez-Lorente, A. R., & Rabeh, H. A. D. (2015). Total quality management performance in multinational companies: A learning perspective. The TQM Journal, 27(3), 328-340.

Khoo, H. H., & Tan, K. C. (2003). Managing for Quality in the USA and Japan: Differences Between the MBNQA, DP and JQA. The TQM Magazine, 15(1), 14-24. Lawler III, E. E., Mohrman, S., & Ledford Jr, G. E. (1992). The fortune 1000 and total quality. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 15(5), 6.

Kondo, Yoshio (1995). Companywide Quality Control – Its Background and Development. 3A Corporation, Tokyo.

Lee, H.-H., & Lee, C.-Y. (2014). The effects of total quality management and organisational learning on business performance: evidence from Taiwanese insurance industries. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(9-10), 1072-1087.

Lodgaard, E., Ingvaldsen, J. A., Gamme, I., & Aschehoug, S. (2016). Barriers to lean implementation: Perceptions of top managers, middle managers and workers. Procedia CIRP, 57, 595-600.

Loke, S.-P., Downe, A. G., Sambasivan, M., & Khalid, K. (2012). A structural approach to integrating total quality management and knowledge management with supply chain learning. Journal of Business Economics & Management, 13(4), 776-800.

Lovitt, M. R. (1997). The new pragmatism: going beyond Shewhart and Deming. Quality Progress, 30(4), 99-105.

Martínez-Lorente, A. R., Dewhurst, F., & Dale, B. G. (1998). Total quality management: origins and evolution of the term. The TQM Magazine, 10(5), 378-386.

Masters, R. J. (1996). Overcoming the barriers to TQM's success. Quality Progress, 29(5), 53-55. Mosadeghrad, A. M. (2015). Developing and validating a total quality management model for

healthcare organisations. The TQM Journal, 27(5), 544-564. Metaxas, I., & Koulouriotis, D. (2014). A theoretical study of the relation between TQM,

assessment and sustainable business excellence. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(5-6), 494-510.

Miyagawa, M., & Yoshida, K. (2005). An Empirical Study of TQM Practices in Japanese- Owned Manufacturers in China. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 22(6), 536-553.

Mockler, R.J. (1984); The Management Control Process, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US

Nichter, S., & Goldmark, L. (2009). Small firm growth in developing countries. World Development, 37(9), 1453-1464.

Nwabueze, U. (2001). How the mighty have fallen: the naked truth about TQM. Managerial Auditing Journal, 16(9), 504-513.

Port, O., Carey, J., Kelly, K., & Forest, S. A. (1992). Quality: small and midsize companies seize the challenge-not a moment too soon. Business Week, 30 (November).

Rashid, K., & Haris Aslam, M. (2012). Business excellence through total supply chain quality management. Asian Journal on Quality, 13(3), 309-324.

Robert, A. (1965). Planning and Control Systems. A Framework for Analysis. Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.

Sadikoglu, E., & Olcay, H. (2014). The effects of total quality management practices on performance and the reasons of and the barriers to TQM practices in Turkey. Advances in Decision Sciences, 2014,17.

Schimpff, S. C., & Rapoport, M. I. (1997). Ownership and governance of university teaching hospitals: Let form follow function. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 72(7), 576-588.

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. The Art & Practice of Learning Organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.

Seymour, D., & Collett, C. (1991). Total Quality Management in Higher Education: A Critical Assessment. Methuen, MA: ERIC.

Sinha, A., & Arora, B. (2012). Fit between organizational culture and business excellence: A case study of heavy electrical equipment plant, BHEL. Vikalpa, 37(3), 19-28.

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.

Svensson, M., & Klefsjö, B. (2006). TQM-based self-assessment in the education sector: Experiences from a Swedish upper secondary school project. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(4), 299-323.

Taguchi, G. (1986). Introduction to Quality Engineering: Designing Quality into Products and Processes. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo.

Taylor, F. W. (1914). Scientific Management: Reply from Mr. F. W. Taylor. The Sociological Review, 7(3), 266–269.

Talib, F., Rahman, Z., & Qureshi, M. (2013). An empirical investigation of relationship between total quality management practices and quality performance in Indian service companies. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 30(3), 280-318.

Witcher, B. J., & Butterworth, R. (2001). Hoshin Kanri: Policy management in Japanese‐owned UK subsidiaries. Journal of Management Studies, 38(5), 651-674.

Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean Thinking – Banish Waste and Create Wealth in your Corporation, Simon & Schuster, London.