Skip to main content
Log in

Supply chain quality management practices and performance: An empirical study

  • Published:
Operations Management Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study proposed a conceptual framework to study the relationships among three dimensions of supply chain quality management (SCQM) – in-house quality management practices (internal QM), interaction for quality with suppliers on the upstream side of supply chain (upstream QM), and interaction for quality with customers on the downstream side of supply chain (downstream QM) – and their impact on two types of quality performance (conformance quality, and customer satisfaction). Survey data were collected from 238 plants in three industries across eight countries and structural equation modeling was used to test this framework. The results indicate a dominant role of the internal QM in SCQM which has a positive impact on the other SCQM dimensions and two types of quality performance. Downstream QM is found to mediate the relationship between internal QM and customer satisfaction, while there is a lack of direct impact of upstream QM on either type of quality performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adam EE Jr, Corbett LM, Flores BE, Harrison NJ, Lee TS, Rho BH, Ribera J, Samson D, Westbrook R (1997) An international study of quality improvement approach and firm performance. Int J Oper Prod Manage 17:842–873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahire SL, Dreyfus P (2000) The impact of design management and process management on quality: an empirical examination. J Oper Manage 18:549–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahire SL, O’Shaughnessy KC (1998) The role of top management commitment in quality management: an empirical analysis of the auto parts industry. Int J Qual Sci 3:5–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahire SL, Golhar DY, Waller MA (1996) Development and validation of TQM implementation constructs. Decis Sci 27:23–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JC, Rungtusanatham M, Schroeder RG, Devaraj S (1995) A path analytic model of a theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method: preliminary empirical findings. Decis Sci 26:637–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arauz R, Matsuo H, Suzuki H (2009) Measuring changes in quality management: an empirical analysis of Japanese manufacturing companies. Total Qual Manage Bus Excell 20:1337–1374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler PM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 107:238–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne M, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS (eds) Testing structural equation models. Sage Publications, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter JR, Ellram LM (1994) The impact of inter-organizational alliances in improving supplier quality. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 24:15–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi TY, Eboch K (1998) The TQM paradox: relations among TQM practices, plant performance, and customer satisfaction. J Oper Manage 17:59–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deming WE (1986) Out of the crisis. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dröge C, Jayaram J, Vickery S (2004) The effects of internal versus external integration practices on time-based performance and overall firm performance. J Oper Manage 22:557–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn BB, Flynn EJ (2005) Synergies between supply chain management and quality management: emerging implications. Int J Prod Res 43:3421–3436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn BB, Schroeder RG, Sakakibara S (1994) A framework for quality management research and an associated measurement instrument. J Oper Manage 11:339–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn BB, Schroeder RG, Sakakibara S (1995) The impact of quality management practices on performance and competitive advantage. Decis Sci 26:659–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forker LB, Mendez D, Hershauer JC (1997) Total quality management in the supply chain: what is its impact on performance. Int J Prod Res 35:1681–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forza C (1996) Achieving superior operating performance from integrated pipeline management: an empirical study. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 26:36–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forza C, Filippini R (1998) TQM impact on quality conformance and customer satisfaction: a causal model. Int J Prod Econ 55:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster ST (2008) Towards an understanding of supply chain quality management. J Oper Manage 26:461–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster ST, Ogden J (2008) On differences in how operations and supply chain managers approach quality management. Int J Prod Res 46:6945–6961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fynes B, Voss C, Búrca SD (2005) The impact of supply chain relationship quality on quality performance. Int J Prod Econ 96:339–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvin DA (1984) Japanese quality management. Columbia J World Bus 19:3–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillebrand B, Biemans WG (2003) The relationship between internal and external cooperation: literature review and propositions. J Bus Res 56:735–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu L, Bentler PM (1995) Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH (ed) SEM concepts, issues and applications. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 76–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Juran JM (1992) Juran on quality by design – the new steps for planning quality into goods and services. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaynak H (2003) The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance. J Oper Manage 21:405–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaynak H, Hartley JL (2008) A replication and extension of quality management into the supply chain. J Oper Manage 26:468–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King WR, Teo TSH (1997) Integration between business planning and information systems planning: validating a stage hypothesis. Decis Sci 28:279–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koufteros X, Vonderembse M, Jayaram J (2005) Internal and external integration for product development: the contingency effect of uncertainty, equivocality, and platform strategy. Decis Sci 36:97–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuei C, Madu CN, Lin C (2001) The relationship between supply chain quality management practices and organizational performance. Int J Qual Reliab Manage 18:864–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuei C, Madu CN, Lin C, Chow WS (2002) Developing supply chain strategies based on the survey of supply chain quality and technology management. Int J Qual Reliab Manage 19:889–901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai K, Cheng TCE, Yeung ACL (2005) Relationship stability and supplier commitment to quality. Int J Prod Econ 96: 397–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy P (1998) Total quality management in the supply chain. In: Madu CN (ed) Handbook of TQM. Kluwer, London, pp 275–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Li SH, Ragu-Nathan B, Ragu-Nathan TS, Rao SS (2006) The impact of supply chain management practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance. Omega 34:107–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin C, Chow WS, Madu CN, Kuei C, Yu PP (2005) A structural equation model of supply chain quality management and organizational performance. Int J Prod Econ 96:355–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long JS (1983) Confirmatory factor analysis. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, p 75

    Google Scholar 

  • Park S, Hartley JL, Wilson D (2001) Quality management practices and their relationship to buyer’s supplier ratings: a study in the Korean automotive industry. J Oper Manage 19:695–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell TC (1995) Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study. Strateg Manage J 16:15–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson C, Malhotra M (2005) Defining the concept of supply chain quality management and its relevance to academic and industrial practice. Int J Prod Econ 96:315–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romano P, Vinelli A (2001) Quality management in a supply chain perspective: strategic and operative choices in a textile-apparel network. Int J Oper Prod Manage 21:446–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross DF (1998) Competing through Supply Chain Management. Chapman & Hall, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rungtusanatham M, Salvador F, Forza C, Choi TY (2003) Supply-chain linkages and operational performance: a resource-based perspective. Int J Oper Prod Manage 23:1084–1099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvador F, Forza C, Rungtusanatham M, Choi TY (2001) Supply chain interactions and time-related performances, an operations management perspective. Int J Oper Prod Manage 21:461–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samson D, Terziovski M (1999) The relationship between total quality management practices and operational performance. J Oper Manage 17:393–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saraph JV, Benson PG, Schroeder RG (1989) An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decis Sci 20:810–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schonberger RJ (2007) Japanese production management: an evolution – with mixed success. J Oper Manage 25:403–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder RG, Flynn BB (2001) High performance manufacturing: global perspectives. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin H, Collier DA, Wilson DD (2000) Supply management orientation and supplier/buyer performance. J Oper Manage 18:317–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sila I, Ebrahimpour M, Birkholz C (2006) Quality in supply chains: an empirical analysis. Suppl Chain Manage Int J 11:491–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snell SA, Dean JW Jr (1992) Integrated manufacturing and human resource management: a human capital perspective. Acad Manag J 35:467–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan KC, Handfield RB, Krause DR (1998) Enhancing the firm’s performance through quality and supply base management: an empirical study. Int J Prod Res 36:2813–2837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan KC, Kannan VR, Handfield RB, Ghosh S (1999) Supply chain management: an empirical study of its impact on performance. Int J Oper Prod Manage 19:1034–1052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey M, Tan CL (2001) Empirical analysis of supplier selection and involvement, customer satisfaction, and firm performance. Suppl Chain Manage Int J 6:174–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trent RJ, Monczka RM (1999) Achieving world-class supplier quality. Total Qual Manage 10:927–938

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the financial support for this research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, No. 22330112.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jing Zeng.

Appendix: Question items of measurement scales

Appendix: Question items of measurement scales

Factor loadings are given in parentheses following each item.

1.1 Top management leadership

  1. 1.

    All major department heads within the plant accept their responsibility for quality (0.721)

  2. 2.

    Plant management provides personal leadership for quality products and quality improvement (0.815)

  3. 3.

    The top priority in evaluating plant management is quality performance (0.522)

  4. 4.

    Our top management strongly encourages employee involvement in the production process (0.635)

  5. 5.

    Our plant management creates and communicates a vision focused on quality improvement (0.791)

  6. 6.

    Our plant management is personally involved in quality improvement projects (0.764)

1.2 Strategic Planning

  1. 1.

    Our plant has a formal strategic planning process, which results in a written mission, long-range goals and strategies for implementation (0.841)

  2. 2.

    This plant has a strategic plan, which is put in writing (0.849)

  3. 3.

    Plant management routinely reviews and updates a long-range strategic plan (0.789)

  4. 4.

    The plant has an informal strategy, which is not very well defined (0.689)

1.3 Quality Information

  1. 1.

    Charts showing defect rates are posted on the shop floor (0.758)

  2. 2.

    Charts showing schedule compliance are posted on the shop floor (0.754)

  3. 3.

    Charts plotting the frequency of machine breakdowns are posted on the shop floor (0.692)

  4. 4.

    Information on quality performance is readily available to employees (0.781)

  5. 5.

    Information on productivity is readily available to employees (0.726)

1.4 Process control

  1. 1.

    Processes in our plant are designed to be “foolproof” (0.581)

  2. 2.

    A large percent of the processes on the shop floor are currently under statistical quality control (0.815)

  3. 3.

    We make extensive use of statistical techniques to reduce variance in processes (0.825)

  4. 4.

    We use charts to determine whether our manufacturing processes are in control (0.734)

  5. 5.

    We monitor our processes using statistical process control (0.862)

1.5 Preventive maintenance

  1. 1.

    We upgrade inferior equipment, in order to prevent equipment problems (0.689)

  2. 2.

    In order to improve equipment performance, we sometimes redesign equipment (0.542)

  3. 3.

    We estimate the lifespan of our equipment, so that repair or replacement can be planned (0.748)

  4. 4.

    We use equipment diagnostic techniques to predict equipment lifespan (0.734)

  5. 5.

    We do not conduct technical analysis of major breakdowns (0.578)

1.6 Housekeeping

  1. 1.

    Our plant emphasizes putting all tools and fixtures in their place (0.698)

  2. 2.

    We take pride in keeping our plant neat and clean (0.811)

  3. 3.

    Our plant is kept clean at all times (0.856)

  4. 4.

    Employees often have trouble finding the tools they need (0.586)

  5. 5.

    Our plant is disorganized and dirty (0.791)

1.7 Small group problem solving

  1. 1.

    During problem solving sessions, we make an effort to get all team members’ opinions and ideas before making a decision (0.643)

  2. 2.

    Our plant forms teams to solve problems (0.805)

  3. 3.

    In the past three years, many problems have been solved through small group sessions (0.786)

  4. 4.

    Problem solving teams have helped improve manufacturing processes at this plant (0.775)

  5. 5.

    Employee teams are encouraged to try to solve their own problems, as much as possible (0.652)

  6. 6.

    We don’t use problem solving teams much, in this plant (0.710)

1.8 Task-related training for employees

  1. 1.

    Our plant employees receive training and development in workplace skills, on a regular basis (0.854)

  2. 2.

    Management at this plant believes that continual training and upgrading of employee skills is important (0.779)

  3. 3.

    Employees at this plant have skills that are above average, in this industry (removed)

  4. 4.

    Our employees regularly receive training to improve their skills (0.879)

  5. 5.

    Our employees are highly skilled, in this plant (0.608)

1.9 Employee suggestion

  1. 1.

    Management takes all product and process improvement suggestions seriously (0.809)

  2. 2.

    We are encouraged to make suggestions for improving performance at this plant (0.780)

  3. 3.

    Management tells us why our suggestions are implemented or not used (0.764)

  4. 4.

    Many useful suggestions are implemented at this plant (0.819)

  5. 5.

    My suggestions are never taken seriously around here (0.711)

1.10 Product design process

  1. 1.

    Direct labor employees are involved to a great extent before introducing new products or making product changes (0.635)

  2. 2.

    Manufacturing engineers are involved to a great extent before the introduction of new products (0.727)

  3. 3.

    There is little involvement of manufacturing and quality people in the early design or products, before they reach the plant (0.677)

  4. 4.

    We work in teams, with members from a variety of areas (marketing, manufacturing, etc.) to introduce new products (0.706)

  5. 5.

    We are not concerned about the number of parts in an end item (0.517)

  6. 6.

    Our engineers make an effort to simplify our product designs (0.529)

1.11 Upstream QM

  1. 1.

    We strive to establish long-term relationships with suppliers (0.649)

  2. 2.

    Our suppliers are actively involved in our new product development process (0.711)

  3. 3.

    Quality is our number one criterion in selecting suppliers (0.552)

  4. 4.

    We use mostly suppliers that we have certified (0.623)

  5. 5.

    We maintain close communication with suppliers about quality considerations and design changes (0.804)

  6. 6.

    We actively engage suppliers in our quality improvement efforts (0.779)

  7. 7.

    We would select a quality supplier over one with a lower price (removed)

1.12 Downstream QM

  1. 1.

    We frequently are in close contact with our customers (0.690)

  2. 2.

    Our customers seldom visit our plant (removed)

  3. 3.

    Our customers give us feedback on our quality and delivery performance (0.721)

  4. 4.

    Our customers are actively involved in our product design process (0.582)

  5. 5.

    We strive to be highly responsive to our customers’ needs (0.727)

  6. 6.

    We regularly survey our customers’ needs (0.706)

1.13 Quality performance

Please circle the number which indicates your opinion about how your plant compares to its competition in your industry in terms of quality of product conformance, on a global basis? 5 = Superior or better than average, 4 = better than average, 3 = Average or equal to the competition, 2 = Below average, 1 = Poor, low end of industry.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zeng, J., Phan, C.A. & Matsui, Y. Supply chain quality management practices and performance: An empirical study. Oper Manag Res 6, 19–31 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-012-0074-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-012-0074-x

Keywords

Navigation