Advertisement

The Quality Dilemma: Combining Development and Stability

  • Anders Fundin
  • Bo Bergman
  • Mattias Elg
Chapter
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 255)

Abstract

The objective of this chapter is to problematize the strategic management of both efficiency and effectiveness through quality management. First, the chapter describes five cases with lessons learned from the dichotomy of efficiency and effectiveness on how quality management could be turned into either a constructive or a destructive dilemma. Then, the history of the quality movement and how it has developed during the last century is discussed briefly. Quality management will be considered in relation to organization theory regarding exploration, exploitation, and dual organizational capabilities. Finally, the chapter concludes with proposals on ways forward for quality management as a strategy for both short-term efficiency and long-term effectiveness and survival.

References

  1. Abernathy, W. J. (1978). The productivity dilemma roadblock to innovation in the automobile industry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abernathy, W. J., & Wayne, K. (1974). Limits of the learning curve. Harvard Business Review, 52, 109–119.Google Scholar
  3. Aboelmaged, M. G. (2010). Six Sigma quality: A structured review and implications for future research. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 27(3), 268–317.Google Scholar
  4. Ackoff, R. L. (1979). The future of operational research is past. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 30(2), 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the corporate future: Plan or be planned for. New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Adler, P. S. (1999). Building better bureaucracies. The Academy of Management Executive, 13(4), 36–47.Google Scholar
  7. Adler, P. S., Benner, M., Brunner, D. J., MacDuffie, J. P., Osono, E., Staats, B. R., Takeuchi, H., Tushman, M. L., & Winter, S. G. (2009). Perspectives on the productivity dilemma. Journal of Operations Management, 27(2), 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1 (Mars)), 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Adler, P. S., & Cole, R. E. (1993). Designed for learning: A tale of two auto plants. Sloan Management Review, 34(3), 85–95.Google Scholar
  10. Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization science, 10(1), 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Akao, Y., & Mazur, G. H. (2003). The leading edge in QFD: Past, present and future. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 20(1), 20–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Alves, A. C., Dinis-Carvalho, J., & Sousa, R. M. (2012). Lean production as promoter of thinkers to achieve companies agility. The Learning Organization, 19(3), 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Andersson, R., Eriksson, H., & Torstensson, H. (2006). Similarities and differences between TQM, six sigma and lean. The TQM magazine, 18(3), 282–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Angelis, J., Conti, R., Cooper, C., & Gill, C. (2011). Building a high-commitment lean culture. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 22(5), 569–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action, a guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II, theory, method, and practice. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 676–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of management review, 28(2), 238–256.Google Scholar
  19. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2015). Reflections on the 2013 decade award – exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of management review, 40(4), 497–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bergman, B., & Klefsjö, B. (2010). Quality from customer needs to customer satisfaction (3rd ed.). Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur AB.Google Scholar
  21. Bessant, J., & Francis, D. (1999). Developing strategic continuous improvement capability. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19(11), 1106–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bou-Llusar, J. C., Escrig-Tena, A. B., Roca-Puig, V., & Beltrán-Martín, I. (2009). An empirical assessment of the EFQM Excellence Model: Evaluation as a TQM framework relative to the MBNQA Model. Journal of Operations Management, 27(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cole, R. E. (2001). From continuous improvement to continuous innovation. Quality Management Journal, 8(4), 7–33.Google Scholar
  24. Cole, R. E., & Matsumiya, T. (2007). Too much of a good thing? Quality as an impediment to innovation. California Management Review, 50(1), 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cole, R. E., & Scott, W. R. (2000). The quality movement & organization theory. London: Sage Publications Inc..Google Scholar
  26. Daneryd, P., Stenberg, J., & Elg M. (2014). Intermountain Healthcare – Styrning för kvalitet i ett högpresterande system, Research report, Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting.Google Scholar
  27. Dawson, C. (2004). Lexus: The relentless pursuit. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  28. Dean, J. W., & Bowen, D. E. (1994). Management theory and total quality: Improving research and practice through theory development. Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 392–418.Google Scholar
  29. Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.Google Scholar
  30. Deming, W. E. (1994). The new economics for industry, government and education (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study.Google Scholar
  31. Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Kilmann, L. R. Pondy, & D. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization design: Strategies and implementation (pp. 167–188). New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
  32. Eriksson, H., Gremyr, I., Bergquist, B., Garvare, R., Fundin, A., Wiklund, H., Whester, M., & Sörqvist, L. (2016). Exploring quality challenges and the validity of excellence models. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 36(36), 1201–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Feigenbaum, A. V. (1983). Total quality control. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  34. Frey, F. X. (2006). Breaking the trade-off between efficiency and service. Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 92–101.Google Scholar
  35. Fundin, A., & Elg, M. (2010). Continuous learning using dissatisfaction feedback in new product development contexts. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 27(8), 860–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Garvin, D. A. (1988). Managing quality: The strategic and competitive edge. New York, USA: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  37. Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71, 78–91.Google Scholar
  38. Guler, I., Guillén, M. F., & Macpherson, J. M. (2002). Global competition, institutions, and the diffusion of organizational practices: The international spread of ISO 9000 quality certificates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gupta, A. K., et al. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hargadon, A. B., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2000). Speed and quality in new product development: An emergent perspective on continuous organizational adaptation. In R. E. Cole & W. R. Scott (Eds.), The quality movement and organization theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Holweg, M. (2007). The genealogy of lean production. Journal of operations management, 25(2), 420–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Holweg, M., & Pil, F. K. (2005). The second century: Reconnecting customer and value chain through build-to-order moving beyond mass and lean in the auto industry (1st ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press Books.Google Scholar
  43. Ishikawa, K. (1990). Introduction to quality control. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  44. Juran, J. M., & Godfrey, A. B. (1999). Juran’s quality handbook (5th ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  45. Kano, N. (2001). Life cycle and creation of attractive quality. In J. J. Dahlgaard & S. M. Park Dahlgard (Eds.), Quality management and organizational development (QMOD) conference proceedings. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University.Google Scholar
  46. Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., & Tsuji, S. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality. Hinshitsu, 14(2), 39–48. (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  47. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 75–85.Google Scholar
  48. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2007). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 150–161.Google Scholar
  49. Klefsjö, B., Wiklund, H., & Edgeman, R. L. (2001). Six Sigma seen as a methodology for total quality management. Measuring Business Excellence, 5(1), 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lee, G. K., & Cole, R. E. (2003). From a firm-based to a community-based model of knowledge creation: The case of the Linux kernel development. Organization Science, 14(6), 663–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. LePrevost, J., & Mazur, G. H. (2005). Quality infrastructure improvement: Using QFD to manage project priorities and project management resources. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 22(1), 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Likert, J. K. (2004). The toyota way – 14 management principles from the world’s greatest manufacturer. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.Google Scholar
  53. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 75–93.Google Scholar
  54. Marodin, G. A., & Saurin, T. A. (2013). Implementing lean production systems: Research areas and opportunities for future studies. International Journal of Production Research, 51(22), 6663–6680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moreno Luzon, M. D., & Valls Pasola, J. (2011). Ambidexterity and total quality management: Towards a research agenda. Management Decision, 49(6), 927–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Muhammad, A., & de Vries, H. J. (2015). Creating ambidexterity through quality management. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 26(11-12), 1226–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Osono, E., Shimizu, N., & Takeuchi, H. (2008). Extreme toyota. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  60. Osterman, C., & Fundin, A. (2014). Exploring approaches how to measuring a lean process. Organization - Journal of Management, Information Systems and Human Resources, 47(3), 132–142.Google Scholar
  61. Powell, T. C. (1995). Total Quality Management as competitive advantage: A review and empirical study. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Raisch, S., et al. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schön, D. A. (1983). Reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  64. Schroeder, R. G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C., & Choo, A. S. (2008). Six sigma: Definition and underlying theory. Journal of operations Management, 26(4), 536–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
  66. Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2003). Lean manufacturing: Context, practice bundles, and performance. Journal of operations management, 21(2), 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2007). Defining and developing measures of lean production. Journal of operations management, 25(4), 785–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shewhart, W. A. (1931). Economic control of quality of manufactured product. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc..Google Scholar
  69. Shewhart, W. A. (1939). Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control. Graduate School of the Department of Agriculture: Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  70. Shiba, S., Walden, D., & Graham, A. (1993). A new american TQM: Four practical revolutions in management. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
  71. Sousa, R., & Voss, C. A. (2002). Quality Management re-visited: A reflective review and agenda for future research. Journal of operations management, 20(1), 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Spencer, B. A. (1994). Models of organization and total quality management: A comparison and critical evaluation. Academy of management review, 19(3), 446–471.Google Scholar
  73. Stålberg, L. (2014). A supportive framework for successful implementation of improvement work. Licentiate: Mälardalen University.Google Scholar
  74. Stålberg, L., & Fundin, A. (2016). Exploring a holistic perspective on production system improvement. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 33(2), 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Starbuck, W. H., & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executives perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In D. Hambrick (Ed.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top managers (pp. 35–65). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  76. Steiber, A., & Alänge, S. (2016). The silicon valley model: Management for entrepreneurship (1st ed.). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sterman, J. D., Repenning, N. P., & Kofman, F. (1997). Unanticipated side effects of successful quality programs: Exploring a paradox of organizational improvement. Management Science, 43(4), 503–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Taguchi, G. (1993). Taguchi on robust technology development: Bringing quality engineering upstream. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Takeuchi, H., & Nonaka, I. (2004). Knowledge creation and dialectics. In H. Takeuchi & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Hitotsubashi on knowledge management. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons (Asia).Google Scholar
  80. Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  81. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organization. California, USA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  82. Weick, K. E. (2000). Quality Improvement – a sensemaking perspective. In R. E. Cole & W. R. Scott (Eds.), The quality movement and organization theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  83. Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  84. Yamamoto, Y. (2013). Kaikaku in production toward creating unique production systems. Doctoral thesis, Mälardalen University.Google Scholar

List of Recommended Literature for Further Reading

  1. Adler, P. S., Benner, M., Brunner, D. J., MacDuffie, J. P., Osono, E., Staats, B. R., Takeuchi, H., Tushman, M. L., & Winter, S. G. (2009). Perspectives on the productivity dilemma. Journal of Operations Management, 27(2), 99–113.Google Scholar
  2. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2015). Reflections on the 2013 decade award – exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of management review, 40(4), 497–514.Google Scholar
  3. Spencer, B. A. (1994). Models of n and total quality management: A comparison and critical evaluation. Academy of management review, 19(3), 446–471.Google Scholar
  4. Steiber, A., & Alänge, S. (2016). The silicon valley model: Management for entrepreneurship (1st ed.). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of innovation, Design and EngineeringMälardalen UniversityEskilstunaSweden
  2. 2.Chalmers University of TechnologyGöteborgSweden
  3. 3.Linköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations