While Six Sigma is increasingly implemented in industry, little academic research has been done on Six Sigma and its influence on quality management theory and application. There is a criticism that Six Sigma simply puts traditional quality management practices in a new package. To investigate this issue and the role of Six Sigma in quality management, this study reviewed both the traditional quality management and Six Sigma literatures and identified three new practices that are critical for implementing Six Sigma's concept and method in an organization. These practices are referred to as: Six Sigma role structure, Six Sigma structured improvement procedure, and Six Sigma focus on metrics. A research model and survey instrument were developed to investigate how these Six Sigma practices integrate with seven traditional quality management practices to affect quality performance and business performance. Test results based on a sample of 226 US manufacturing plants revealed that the three Six Sigma practices are distinct practices from traditional quality management practices, and that they complement the traditional quality management practices in improving performance. The implications of the findings for researchers and practitioners are discussed and further research directions are offered. #

No abstract

Purpose -This empirical study seeks to resolve the conflicting findings in the quality management (QM) literature about how different QM practices, specifically, infrastructure QM practices and core QM practices, affect quality performance. Design/methodology/approach -Based on the Socio-Technical Systems theory and research related to QM implementation and performance, the study proposes a research model of the relationship between infrastructure and core QM practices and their direct and indirect effects on quality performance. The empirical data were drawn from 226 manufacturing plants in the USA. The research model was tested using structural equation modelling (SEM) technique. Findings -In the structural model, two integrated factors were used to represent the two types of QM practices: the infrastructure QM includes top management support, customer relationship, and supplier relationship, and workforce management; and the core QM consists of quality information, product/service design, and process management. The analysis of the structure model shows that the core QM directly leads to improved quality performance, and the infrastructure QM contributes to quality performance by supporting the core QM.Research limitations/implications -The study examines the roles of infrastructure QM practices and core QM practices in improving quality performance. It confirms that QM should be implemented as an integrated approach of different practices. Practical implications -The major implication of the study is that both core and infrastructure QM practices are important in improving quality. It is important that companies allocate resources to establish both types of QM practices in order to achieve the effectiveness of the whole QM system. Originality/value -The study utilized the SEM technique to empirically investigate the direct and indirect effects of infrastructure QM practices and core QM practices on quality performance. The SEM results help to clarify the mixed findings in the literature regarding the pattern of the QM practices-performance relationships.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to examine two approaches buying firms can utilize to manage supplier quality; and to investigate the ways in which factors inherent in supply chain relationships affect the use of these approaches in supply chain quality management. Design/methodology/approach -Drawing on agency theory, this paper proposes a conceptual framework that relates the underlying factors of a supply chain relationship to the use of quality management approaches. Two types of approaches, outcome-based and behavior-based, are discussed in terms of their focuses, purposes, and methods. Propositions are developed about the effects of these factors on the decisions buying firms make about supply chain quality management. Findings -This study suggests that rather than relying on one generic supply chain quality management approach for all suppliers, firms need to choose different management mechanisms for different suppliers based on the salient attributes of individual suppliers and their relationships with the buyers. Five types of agency-based factors are discussed. These factors -information asymmetry, goal conflict, risk aversion of suppliers, length of relationship, and task characteristics -can be expected to influence how firms design and manage their quality management systems for supply chains. Practical implications -A better understanding of the distinction between outcome-based and behavior-based approaches helps managers evaluate which approach is best suited to managing the quality of their suppliers. The propositions pertaining to the key factors provide managers with some guidelines about the critical conditions they should consider when building their firm's supply chain quality management system. Originality/value -Having an effective quality management system of a supply chain is essential for maintaining a smooth supply of high quality products and services to customers. However, little is known about how a firm should design this supply chain quality management system. The paper addresses this gap by applying agency theory to examine the two essential approaches to managing supplier quality and to explore the critical factors that should be taken into account when considering the appropriate approaches for different suppliers.

No abstract

We propose an extension of the Hollenbeck, Beersma, and Schouten team context model to include a fourth dimension: virtuality—the distance between team members. Based on an analysis of 29 unique approaches to conceptualizing virtuality and a critical comparison of these approaches with the Hollenbeck et al. framework, we recommend that virtuality be measured, along with skill differentiation, authority differentiation, and temporal stability when conducting team research. We conclude that the addition of this redefined construct, virtuality, is warranted based on the following: (a) its uniqueness versus the other dimensions, (b) its impact on team outcomes, and (c) the moderating or interaction effects between virtuality and the other contextual dimensions.

No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to investigate the underlying characteristics that influence quality management implementation at manufacturing companies operating in China.Design/methodology/approachThe data of this study were based on 199 manufacturing companies collected from a cross‐sectional survey in China. The cultural profiles of these companies were identified through cluster analysis. Multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to identify the effects of operating characteristics and cultural profile on the implementation level of quality management practices.FindingsThe results show that in general, there is no significant difference in implementing quality management practices among companies of different operating characteristics in terms of company size, industry, ownership, and production process. This study reveals that cultural profile is a distinguishing factor to explain the difference in quality management implementation among the companies.Originality/valueAs China is becoming an important supplier of products to the global market, it is necessary to understand how product quality is controlled and managed in China. This study examines the effects of operating and cultural characteristics of companies in China on their implementation of quality management practices. The results contribute to a deeper understanding of how to build an effective quality system at companies in China.