Outcome of quality management practices

Abstract

Purpose: The main purpose of this paper is to describe differences among (1) public and private, (2) manufacturing and service, and (3) SMEs and large organisations regarding the outcome of quality management practices. Design/methodology/approach: This study looks at the scores for different criteria (or practices) from quality award applicants in Sweden between 1992 and 2010. Findings: The service industry outperforms the manufacturing industry. Furthermore, and perhaps unsurprisingly, large organisations are ahead of small and medium enterprises in the race for quality progress. In general, when comparing public with private organisations, private organisations do better, and the practice of process management seems to be easier for private firms. Research limitations/implications: This study suggests that process management, as it is currently described and evaluated, needs to be revised and improved to better fit organisations. Practical implications: Organisations, in general, score worse on business results than in all other criteria. This study proposes that quality managers must focus even more on how to achieve results and improve results in order to justify quality management. Originality/value: This study suggests that researchers and managers need to change their mind-set regarding service organisations in relation to manufacturing organisations, and that manufacturing organisations in particular need to see how successful service organisations work with leadership aspects, information and analysis, and business planning; how they obtain committed and developed co-workers, and how they work with their customers.

Expectations of manufacturing companies regarding future priorities of improvement actions taken by their suppliers

“…Erginel ( 2010 ) showed, for example, that large enterprises cope better with the implementation of the principles of quality management, especially in the field of leadership, employee involvement, continuous improvement and decision based on facts. On the other hand, Eriksson ( 2016 ), analyzing the differences among SMEs and large organizations regarding the outcome of quality management practices, found that large organizations are ahead of small and medium enterprises in the race for quality progress. So it is no surprise that they have higher expectations of their suppliers than smaller companies.…”

A Comparative Assessment of Quality Management Practices in Manufacturing Firms and Service Firms: A Repeated Cross-Sectional Analysis

“…For example, it would be harder to develop performance measures for service firms because of the intangible nature of service products. Such factors make activities like process improvement and service innovation more challenging in service organizations compared to their manufacturing counterparts [20].…”

“…W HILE the origins of quality management can be traced to the pioneering work of several quality leaders in manufacturing settings, these practices have been translated to nonmanufacturing sectors to help other organizations with their quality improvement programs [20]. As such, the critical role of quality in superior, sustained organizational performance has also been acknowledged in the service sector, and quality management has witnessed increasingly widespread application in the service sector [1], [52], [54].…”

Introducing Lean Six Sigma to a German municipality: an action research report

“…LSS not only has a process background but is also known as one of the most prominent quality philosophies. The extensive application of Six Sigma quality management initiatives has been very successful in the manufacturing and the service industries (Eriksson, 2016;Patyal and Koilakuntla, 2017). Scientific literature about Lean and Six Sigma in the public sector can be found, for example, for health care (Taner et al, 2007;Antony et al, 2007b) and higher education (Antony et al, 2012;Thomas et al, 2015;Douglas et al, 2015;Svensson et al, 2015).…”