Quality Management Evolution From The Past To Pres

Organizacija, Volume 52 Research Papers Issue 3, August 2019
DOI: 10.2478/orga-2019-0011
Quality Management Evolution from

the Past to Present: Challenges for
Tomorrow
Syaiful Rizal HAMID1,2, Saifuddin ISA2, Boon Cheong CHEW2 and
Abdullah ALTUN3
1
Faculty of Business Administration, Gebze Technical University, 41400 Gebze, Turkey, rizal@gtu.edu.tr
2
Faculty of Technology Management and Technopreneurship, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Hang Tuah Jaya,
Durian Tunggal, 76100 Melaka, Malaysia, syaiful@utem.edu.my
3
Enterprise Resource Management, Financial Monitoring Department, Tubitak Bilgem, 41470, Gebze, Kocaeli,
Turkey.
Background and purpose: The quality management field has been studied for more than 100 years dating back to
the early 1900s when Fredrick W. Taylor is known as the father of Scientific Management, stressed the importance
of quality inspection. This paper describes how quality management field has developed and evolved to date, par-
ticularly by tracking its focus over time.
Design/Methodology/Approach: A systematic approach to literature review was adapted in this research. Identi-
fying the gurus and the scholars in this field makes it possible for the researchers to review their works, which are,
mainly, in the form of books and journal articles. Process in getting literature review that has been conducted include
quality management in general, as well as ‘evolution of quality management’ and ‘development of quality manage-
ment’ respectively in capturing the field of quality management and thus, illustrating how the quality management
field has evolved over the time.
Results: It appears that quality management literature have evolved through time, and as they evolved, the princi-
ples, systems, tools and techniques have changed. As a result of the study, this paper also provides the synthesis
of quality management literature over time according to the key focus and gives a new perspective for the further
research.
Conclusions: The historical review allows the researchers to establish the pattern of quality – the ‘focus, principles,
systems, and tools and techniques’ over time. Our observations have confirmed that as the focus has changed,
the principles have also changed and as the principles have changed, the systems, tools and techniques also have
changed in quality management field.
Keywords: Quality Management; focus; principles; systems; and tools and techniques.
1 Introduction 2001, p. 44; Garvin, 1988, p. 5). According to Feigen-

baum (1961), quality does not mean “best” but “best for
the customer use and selling price”. While Crosby (1984)
The quality management field has been studied for more
deems that quality has to be defined as conformance to
than 100 years dating back to the early 1900s when Fre- requirements. In turn, Juran (1988) points out that qual-
drick W. Taylor known as the father of Scientific Manage- ity is “fitness for use”, recognises that a product or ser-
ment, stressed the important of quality inspection (Foster, vice must be produced with the customers’ need in mind.
1
Received: September 23, 2018; revised: February 18, 2019; accepted: June 10, 2019
157
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 20.09.19 13:24 UTC
“Freedom from defects” and “fitness for use or purpose”. (Pavel Castka & Balzarova, 2008; Fernie & Sparks, 2014;
Further, Drucker (1989) claims that quality in a product or Mortimer & Mortimer, 2015; Muzaimi, Chew, & Hamid,
service is not what the supplier put in. It is what the cus- 2017; Oaklan, 2014; Prajogo & Sohal, 2006; Ross, 2017;
tomer gets out and is willing to pay for. Likewise, Deming Thai & Jie, 2018; Yoon, Giirhan-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006)
(1993) states that quality means a predictable degree of in the context of supply chain, risk management, corpo-
uniformity, dependability at low cost and suited to the mar- rate social responsibility and operation management.
ket. As this is seconded by several literature studies which Some other studies such as (Bititci, Garengo, Dorfler, &
proposed the importance of a product or service must be Nudurupati, 2008; Burge, 2009; Giannakis, 2007; Hakes,
produced with the customers’ need context, such as (J. J. 1999; G. Kanji, 2002) focused on assessing the quality
Dahlgaard, Kristensen, & Kanji, 2002; Foster, 2001; Price, management merely on the perspective of performance
1990; Richardson, 1997; Slack, Chambers, Johnston, & measurement matters. While, (Berger, 2007; Devadasan &
Betts, 2006; Stamatis, 1996). Goshteeswaran, 2005; Gunasekaran, 1999; Jin-Hai, 2003)
Looking from a bigger picture, quality management focused on quality management in manufacturing industry
has been defined as “philosophy or an approach to man- (i.e. Agile manufacturing) and others such as (Chaniotakis
agement” made up of a “set of mutually reinforcing prin- & Lymperopoulos, 2009; Kumar, Kee, & Charles, 2010;
ciples, each of which is supported by a set of practices and Tan, Hamid, & Chew, 2016; Zeithaml, Parasurarnan, &
techniques” (Dean & Bowen, 1994). Thus, (Godfrey, Dale, Malhotra, 2002) highlighted the quality management link
Marchington, & Wilkinson, 1997) point out that quality to service quality.
management is about all aspects of the overall manage- It indicates that the majority of studies have been con-
ment function that determine the quality policy objectives ducted to measure or validate quality management agenda
and responsibilities, and implement them by means such from customers’ perspectives or managers’ perspectives
as quality planning, quality control, quality assurance and without much attention given to examining the concept of
quality improvement within the quality system. Consistent quality from the perspective of development and evolu-
with this (Sousa & Voss, 2002) also highlight that quality tion of quality itself. In addition, examining the evolution
management is a managerial philosophy or an approach and development perspectives has been recommended by
made up of a set of mutually reinforcing principles, each previous studies, for example (Chiaromonte, 2004; Cho,
of which is supported by a set of practices, tools and tech- Jung, & Linderman, 2017; Cochran, 2007; S. M. Dahl-
niques for enduring effectiveness and efficiency with re- gaard-Park, 2011; Freeman & Louca, 2001; Martinez-Lor-
spect to the systems and its performance. ente et al., 1998; Schroeder, Linderman, & Zhang, 2005;
In general, it appears that there is agreement on the Wang & Kleiner, 2005).
definitions of quality and quality management means al- Thus, all of the above literature suggests that there is an
though different authors use different terminology. There- ample amount of literature review on quality management,
fore, we would say that there seems to be no conflict or ar- the majority of studies have been conducted to measure or
gument between the authors. It is believed that the patterns eliciting the view of quality management from customers’
of quality management literature are influenced by the big perspectives or with the attention given to examining qual-
gurus’ thinking (i.e. Shewhart; Deming; Juran; Crosby, ity practices from managers’ and employees’ perspectives.
Feigenbaum and Ishikawa) which reflects the stream and Consequently, based on relevant quality management re-
direction of the quality movement as they are today. This view, this article contributes to the quality management
is consistent with the works of Martinez et al. (1998) who literature by fulfilling the following gap:
further reinforced that the quality management movement “To the best of our knowledge, there is no study in the
can be tracked by looking at the Crosby, Deming, Feigen- field of quality management that have been comprehen-
baum, Ishikawa and Juran works’, as they can be consid- sively conducted to review the field itself, particularly by
ered the most important gurus of the quality management tracking the focus of quality management evolution over
field. time”.
As such, a number of studies have focused on access- This paper aims to describe how quality management
ing the quality management approach, tools and tech- field has developed and evolved to date, particularly by
niques such as Total Quality Management (Belohav, 1993; tracking its focus over time. In the study of quality, it is
Garrity, 1993; Hellsten & Klefsjo, 2000; G. K. Kanji, vital to understand the fundamental points where quality
1990; Kano, 1993; Macdonald, 1995; Martinez-Lorente, management comes from, before predicting where this
Dewhurst, & Dale, 1998; Milakovich, 1991; Powell, 1995; field will be in the future. The evolution of the quality de-
Taylor & Pearson, 1994), Six Sigma (Eckes, 2005; Kuei velopment and its interconnections over time are believed
& Madu, 2003; Stamatis, 2003), and Lean Manufacturing to be the factors that shape the ideas of the current progress
(Hanna, 2007; Jayaram, Vickery, & Droge, 2008; Kremer of the quality management field. Consistent with this view,
& Fabrizio, 2005; Patty & Denton, 2010; Womack, Jones, Powell (1995) makes the points that the origin of quality
& Roos, 1990). In recent years, the focus of these stud- management can be traced by time series (i.e. Historical
ies was to assess the integration of quality management perspective).
158
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: the first whart who at that time was concerned with the use of Sta-
section provides the literature review on the origins and tistical Quality Control (SQC) in reducing the deviation in
evolution of quality management. The second section dis- production (ASQ, 2002).
cusses the methodology of the study. In the third section, As such Garvin (1988, p. 6) notes that in 1931, Sh-
the paper continues with the findings and discussion, along ewhart had published Economic Control of Quality of
with research challenges in quality management and future Manufactured Product, in which he gave a precise and
research. The final section discusses the conclusion of the measurable definition of manufacturing control, devel-
study. oped powerful techniques for monitoring and evaluating
day-to-day production, and suggested a variety of ways of
improving quality. Garvin states that Shewhart’s book is
2 Origins and Evolution of Quality considered by many to be the origin of the basic principles
Management of quality. Moreover, the book was considered by statisti-
cians to be a landmark contribution to the effort to improve
Authors such as (Garvin, 1988) link the era of quality the quality of manufactured goods and he made the utmost
management with time series; i.e., from Inspection Era valuable contribution to quality development with the con-
to Statistical Quality Control Era, Quality Assurance Era cepts of Statistical Control or processes known today as
and the latest Strategic Quality Management Era. Powell SPC (ASQ, 2002, p. 29). Garvin adds that the develop-
(1995) also discusses TQM relative to time. In this paper, ment of quality management during that time was heavi-
we propose that the development and origins of quality ly influenced by statistical methods and their application.
management can also be traced to the focus of quality over This was further developed during 1940s in the work of
the time. Bell Laboratories, which initiated and developed sampling
Traditionally quality is used for inspection as a method techniques, namely Acceptable Quality Levels (AQL) and
of measurement to detect the errors in production manu- Average Outgoing Quality Limit (AOQL) (Garvin, 1988).
facturing. According to Foster (2001) and Garvin (1988) Therefore, it is a general belief that during the period from
the early 1900s to 1940s, the philosophy of quality was
the driving force of inspection activities was inspired by
focused on the product (i.e. product focus). The process
Frederick Taylor (the father of Scientific Management) in
of inspection and control was aimed at detection and re-
the early 1900s. Through the years, the interest in quality
jection at the point of production (i.e. How can we ensure
has evolved when G.S Radford published his book named
quality in a product?).
The Control of Quality in Manufacturing in 1922 (Garvin,
The 1950s could be considered as the turning point of
1988, p. 5). It defined quality as a distinct management
the quality management field. During that decade, the Jap-
responsibility and as an independent function yet, at that
anese Industrial Revolution had rapidly begun. Earlier in
time, the primary focus was inspection (Dahlgaard, et al.,
1946 the Union of Japanese Scientist and Engineers was
2002; Garvin, 1988, p.5). Meanwhile Henry Ford devel-
founded, which went on to introduce the Deming Prize
oped the Model T which later became the Ford car and in 1951. At this time, the Japanese Industrial Standards
introduced the moving assembly line, which lead to the Committee was established, and they have played a major
concept of mass production (Roth, 1996; Womack et al., role in the development of the quality movement in Japan.
1990). The Model T was described as the first product of As such, several tools and techniques were implemented
mass production, which was developed to produce the and are still being practiced across the world. These in-
Model T in great quantities (Batchelor, 1994, p. 66; Roth, clude Statistical Process Control (originated from Statis-
1996). Moreover, Womack, et al., (1990, p. 27) note that tical Quality Control), Reliability Engineering, Kaizen
“the key to mass production wasn’t – as many people then and Genba-Kaizen, Failure Mode and Effect Analysis, Po-
and now believe – the moving, continuous, assembly line. ka-Yoke (mistake proofing), Jidoka and Just-in-Time and
Rather, it was the complete and consistent interchangea- Total Preventive Maintenance (Foster, 2001; Richardson,
bility of parts and the simplicity of attaching them to each 1997).
other. These were the manufacturing innovations that Meanwhile, Juran published his first edition of the
made the assembly line possible”. This interchangeability Quality Control Handbook in 1951. Its initial chapter dis-
reflects the quality in the form of standardisation, which cusses the economics of quality and proposes the famous
reduce the variation in the parts. analogy gold in the mine. He divided quality into avoida-
Between 1930s and 1940s, statistics became the main ble and unavoidable causes (Costs of Quality). As such, in
method of influence for the quality management discipline. Statistical Quality Control, he estimates that 15% of quali-
In 1938, Deming published a technical book and taught ty problems in a company are due to special causes, which
courses in the use of his statistical methods (ASQ, 2002, means that they may involve the workers. In his view, 85%
p. 20). Deming thinking was centred to problem solving or more are down to management dealing with the system
in process management, when he proposed the Deming (quality in the operation system). Therefore, he believes
Cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act). This was influenced by She- that problems can be solved by moulding the processes of
159
the system. for Organisation (ISO) and The Malcolm Baldrige Nation-
In 1961, Feigenbaum published his book on Total al Quality Award were established. ISO developed the ISO
Quality Control (TQC). He argued for a systematic or 9000 series that set out methods by which a system can be
a total approach to quality, requiring the involvement of implemented, to ensure that the specific quality require-
all functions, not just manufacturing, in the quality pro- ments are fulfilled (ASQ, 2002). On the other hand, the cri-
cess. He argued that the underlying principles of this to- teria for Malcolm Baldrige Model were established by the
tal quality are to provide genuine effectiveness control approach that reflected a consensus of best practice, and
which must start with the design of the product and end an annual review process was put in place to ensure that
only when the product has been placed in the hands of the Baldrige Model continues to reflect evolving trends
the satisfied customer. In short, quality starts to become a (Hakes, 1999).
must in every process. It is clear that the idea was to build The development of a standard European approach
in quality at an early stage rather than inspecting and con- followed quickly on from the Baldrige experience. In Sep-
trolling quality at the end of the production process. tember 1988, the leaders of 14 major European countries
In Japan, Ishikawa developed the Ishikawa Diagram played a key role in establishing the European Foundation
as a management problem solving tool in 1943 (Dahl- for Quality Management (EFQM). EFQM established its
gaard, et al., 2002, p. 90; Ishikawa, 1985, p. 64). In the own model in 1991, named Business Excellence Model for
early 1960s, Ishikawa produced a non-technical quality the European Quality Award, which built upon the Deming
analysis textbook for quality circle members. Ishikawa’s and Malcolm Baldrige approaches (Hakes, 1999). Looking
quality circles where first piloted at the Nippon Telegraph at the system as a whole, it covers all processes that are em-
and Cable Company in 1962. He published a book en- bedded within it. All of these models recognise the interde-
titled “What Is Total Quality Control” in which seven pendencies between various components in the system (i.e.
basic tools (7 Quality Tools) were described as indispen- leadership shapes strategy, people, standardise processes,
sable for quality control (Ishikawa, 1985, p. 198). and cause and effect relationships) as all of these are in-
In turn, another Japanese guru in quality management terrelated. For example, Malcolm Baldridge Model con-
progress is Taguchi. In 1951, he won the Deming Award sists of processes for meeting the company quality goals as
for Literature on Quality and in 1960 he won the Deming these processes are measured by information management,
Application Prize. Along the way, Taguchi developed the strategic quality planning, human resource management,
concept of the “quality loss function” and his methods product and process management, and part of the customer
are concerned with the routine optimisation of product focus and satisfaction category. While EFQM system rec-
and process prior to manufacture, rather than reliance on ognises how leadership drives policy and strategy that is
the achievement of quality through inspection. Concepts delivered through people, partnerships and resources, and
of quality and reliability are pushed back to the design processes. Therefore, it is suggested that all of these inte-
stage. The Design of Experiments (DOE) method pro- grated managerial systems reflect the system focus. As it
vides an efficient technique to design product tests prior is clearly seen, the quality journey during this period from
to entering the manufacturing phase (Foster, 2001; Rich- the 1960s to 1980s focused on the system (i.e. How can we
ardson, 1997, p. 9). This method is aligned with the con- ensure quality in the system?).
cept proposed by Feigenbaum where quality is built in Crosby’s first book “Quality Is Free” in 1979 sold over
to every process of production. It seems that at this stage 2 million copies and has been translated into 15 languages.
the focus of QM has moved from product to process (i.e. Much of “Quality Is Free” is devoted to the concept of zero
How can we ensure quality in process?). defects, which is a way of explaining to employees the idea
In 1979, standards, quality accreditation and quality that everything should be done “right first time”, that there
systems were first introduced, with British Standard (BS) should be no failures or defects in work outputs. His think-
5750 since revised in 1987 (Bank, 2000; Callan, 1992; ing places greater attention on the people aspects of quality
Hill, MacGregor, & Dewar, 1996), and which later be- management (Crosby, 1979). Meanwhile, in 1984, Crosby
came the BS EN ISO 9001:2000. Meanwhile, Womack published his second bestseller “Quality without Tears”.
et al., (1990, p. 159) claim that Ford started a systemat- The 14 points that Crosby considered essential involve the
ic supplier grading system, called Q1, in the mid-1980s. following ideas: management commitment, education and
This is a complex statistical system, which ranks suppli- training, measurements, cost of quality, quality awareness,
ers by the number of defects discovered in the assembly corrective action, zero defects, goal setting and recogni-
plant, delivery performances, progress in implementing tion (Crosby, 1984). Therefore, it is fair to say that Crosby
quality, improvement programs in the supplier plant, lev- initiates a new perspective on quality which considers it
el of technology and management attitudes. The aim was through organisational lenses.
to bring every supplier gradually up to higher and higher During the 1990s, Total Quality Management (TQM)
levels of performance and quality. became central in the agenda of top management. Ac-
Following on from this, 1987 was a pivotal year for cording to Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard (2003) Total Qual-
quality management when the International Standards ity Management (TQM) is a relatively new management
160
philosophy, which has evolved from the rather narrow and Responsibility that obliges the business sector to play a
mechanistic approach of Statistical Quality Control (SQC) sensible yet not solely profit-oriented role. This includes
as discussed earlier, to a more holistic and humanistic ap- social and environmentally driven actions, where the busi-
proach. The concept of TQM is a logical development of ness sector has been expected to go beyond its moneymak-
the concept of Total Quality Control (TQC), as introduced ing and commercial activities to commit to the well-being
by Feigenbaum in 1961. In addition, another humanis- of the community. This has led to the introduction of ISO
tic-oriented quality standard named the Investors in People 26000 (standards for Social Responsibility), which pub-
(IIP) was launched in October 1991, based on widely-ac- lished in 2010 that act as a guideline for dealing with cor-
cepted principles of best training and development prac- porate social responsibility and the environment.
tices to enable organisations to improve their training and Castka and Balzarova (2008) insist that the new ISO
enhance their performance (Mason, 1997, p. 1). 26000 should be closely aligned with ISO 14000 and re-
Slowly but gradually, by this time, there seems to be quires organisations to develop their management systems
more attention given to people with the system (people around their social responsibility (i.e. people orientation)
spin), in the development of quality journey. As these can aspects and impacts. Thus, several years after the intro-
be seen with the increased focus on Investors in People duction of ISO 9000, global discussions was taking place
(1991) for the Best Training and Development Practices, related to GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and
European Foundation for Quality Management (1992) for Trade, which was a predecessor to the World Trade Or-
the Business Excellence Model (BEM); e.g. leadership ganization), aiming to remove as many obstacles as pos-
with excellent mindset and OHSAS 18000 (1996) for Oc- sible to international trade (P. Castka, Prajogo, Sohal, &
cupational Health and Safety Management System. Yeung, 2015). The ISO 9000 has been revised to the new
Following on from this, the emphasis on system focus revision, ISO 9000:2015 is based on a number of quality
still continues with Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing management principles, including a strong customer fo-
made the headlines during the 1990s. Mikel Harry (Mo- cus, the motivation and implication of top management,
torola) first published “The Nature of Six Sigma” in 1986 the process approach and continual improvement. Da Fon-
and commercialised Six Sigma as a vibrant quality-im- seca (2015) mentions that ISO 14001 is an International
provement methodology (Eckes, 2005). The technique Standard of worldwide acceptance based on the concept
was given global boost in 1998 by Jack Welch then CEO that better environmental performance can be achieved
of General Electric (Eckes, 2005; Miles, 1999). Another when environmental aspects are systematically identified
philosophy emerging at this time was Lean Manufacturing and managed giving a major contribution to sustainabili-
which derives from the Toyota Production System (TPS) ty, through pollution prevention, improved environmental
or Just in Time (JIT) manufacturing. The lean manufactur- performance and complying with applicable laws.
ing concept was popularised in American factories in large In turn, the emphasis on risk management is the big-
part by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who gest of several changes in the third version of ISO 13485
studied the movement from mass production toward Lean (McMenamin, 2016). New changes in ISO 13485:2016 is
production as described in “The Machine That Changed the requirements for a quality management system spe-
the World: The Story of Lean Production” (Womack et al., cific to the medical device industry. Another ISO quality
1990). standard evolves to the latest is the ISO 37001 standard,
Systems have further developed with the implemen- published on October 15, 2016, called “Anti-bribery man-
tation of TickIT, originally set up by UK Department of agement systems - Requirements with guidance for use”
Trade and Industry and administered by British Standards is a useful tool to tackle corruption (Valerio, 2017). Over
Institution (BSI). This standard applies to suppliers of all time, it is becoming clear that the quality focus has moved
types of information systems that involve software devel- from a system focus to a people focus. It is clear that the
opment processes. Further, the International Automotive development of quality management is focused on people
Task Force (IATF) has developed ISO/TS 16949 for au- with an extended view towards corporate social responsi-
tomotive related products. The system enables continuous bility, environment and risk management. In fact, it is also
improvement, emphasizing defect prevention and reduc- fair to say that the risk focus turn to be the main leading
tion of variation and waste in the supply chain. ISO/TS idea with the establishment of ISO 31000 standard and the
16949 mainly applies to design/development, production, new revision of ISO 9001 standard. In other words, from
installation and servicing of automotive related products, the beginning of the 1980s to the millennium the main idea
and is the replacement of QS 9000: 1998 - International is centred on understanding how can we ensure quality in
Automotive Task Force (IATF, 2002). Therefore, this was people?.
the time when overlapping occurred within the quality Continuing from there, a new type of work emerges
movement journey with the focus on both systems and that is different from both the manual-work and knowl-
people. edge-work. The organising principle is fast moving to-
Moving to the late of 2000, there seems to be an in- wards netocracy, with flexible, flat and ever emerging
creased awareness of Corporate Social and Environmental trans-organisational networks where small organisations,
161
and even individuals, are forming and reforming global between people, and connectivity between people and ma-
collaborative networks to deliver innovative value prop- chines (Jacob, 2017).
ositions to global markets and customers (Hamel, 2007; The powerful new data available to companies, to-
Malone, 2004). Netocracy in the context of social govern- gether with new configurations and capabilities of smart,
ing reflects the idea of moving from an industrial society connected products, is restructuring the traditional func-
where social values are money driven to a humanitarian tions of business—sometimes radically. This transforma-
society which is knowledge driven (Bititci et al., 2008; tion started with product development but is playing out
Grant, 2008). across the value chain. As it spreads, functional boundaries
As such, this includes cloud manufacturing (CMfg) are shifting, and new functions are being created. Smart,
where it is a computing and service oriented manufactur- connected products requires a fundamental rethinking of
ing model developed from existing advanced manufactur- design. At the most basic level, product development shifts
ing models (e.g. ASP, AM, NM, MGrid) and enterprise from largely mechanical engineering to true interdiscipli-
information technologies under the support of cloud com- nary systems engineering (Porter & Heppelmann, 2015).
puting, IoT, virtualization and service-oriented technolo- Products have become complex systems that contain soft-
gies, and advanced computing technologies (Tao, LaiLi, ware and may have as much or more software in the cloud.
Xu, & Zhang, 2013). It aims to realize the full sharing and Industry 4.0 makes factories more intelligent, flexi-
circulation, high utilization, and on-demand use of vari- ble, and dynamic by equipment manufacturing with sen-
ous manufacturing resources and capabilities by providing sors, actors, and autonomous systems (Roblek, Meško,
safe and reliable, high quality, cheap and on-demand used & Krapež, 2016). Accordingly, machines and equipment
manufacturing services for the whole life cycle of manu- achieve high levels of self-optimization and automation.
facturing (Tao et al., 2013). In addition, the manufacturing process has the capacity
Further, in a CMfg system, various manufacturing re- of fulfilling more complex and qualified standards and re-
sources and abilities can be intelligently sensed and con- quirements of products, as expected (Roblek et al., 2016).
nected into the wider internet, and automatically managed Thus, intelligent factories and smart manufacturing are the
and controlled using IoT technologies e.g. radio frequency major goals of Industry 4.0 (Sanders, Elangeswaran, &
identification (RFID), wired and wireless sensor network, Wulfsberg, 2016).
embedded system (Tao, Cheng, Da Xu, Zhang, & Li, 2014). Consistent with this, Albers, Gladysz, Pinner, Butenko,
Inevitably, the manufacturing resources and abilities are and Stürmlinger (2016) analyse quality-related production
virtualized and encapsulated into different manufacturing with an intelligent condition monitoring-based quality
cloud services (MCSs) that can be accessed, invoked, de- control system and develop a comprehensive descriptive
ployed, and on-demand used based on knowledge by using model. Similarly, in order to achieve transparency and pro-
virtualization technologies, service-oriented technologies, ductivity of big data, (Lee, Kao, & Yang, 2014; Vijayku-
and cloud computing technologies (Tao et al., 2014). mar, Saravanakumar, & Balamurugan, 2015) address the
This period can be seen as the focus shifting to net- trends of manufacturing service transformation and the
works focus. It is heavily about managing/leadings net- readiness of smart predictive informatics tools. The prog-
works, people with multiple networks and networks of nostics-monitoring system is a trend of the smart manu-
networks. An example of this, the MCSs are classified and facturing and industrial big data environment (Lee, Kao &
aggregated according to specific rules and algorithms, and Yang, 2014; Vijaykumar, Saravana Kumar & Balamuru-
different kinds of manufacturing clouds are constructed. gan, 2015). This point out that at the most current rate, the
Different users can search and invoke the qualified MCSs quality focus has extended the view from a networks focus
from a related manufacturing cloud, according to their to a smart focus with the pivotal question now is about how
needs, and assemble them to be a virtual manufacturing can we ensure quality in people in the smart environment?
environment or solution to complete their manufacturing
task involved in the whole life cycle of manufacturing pro-
cesses under the support of cloud computing, service-ori- 3 Research methodology
ented technologies, and advanced computing technologies
(Tao, Zhang, Venkatesh, Luo, & Cheng, 2011). This leads In this paper, literature is important that it is considered
to the central question of how can we ensure quality in as the key part of the research methodology. Therefore, in
people in the network environment? designing the research, we have opted to use a structured
Today’s it has seen rapid advances in connectivity, mo- approach for selecting literature for review. In general
bility, analytics, scalability, and data, spawning what has terms, a literature review can be defined as the process of
been called the fourth industrial revolution, or Industry 4.0 describing and criticising relevant literature, which others
(Foidl & Felderer, 2015). Aligning with the era of digiti- have published in that particular subject area. In order to
zation, quality field has taken initiative to bring Quality make sense of the literature, and to find out the literature
4.0 by a long list of technology advances in several arenas pertinent to quality management, the literature search be-
that together enable innovation, new insights, connectivity gins by identifying who the gurus and experts are in this
162
field, and then reviewing at their published works. There- clusion of papers are clearly defined at the outset (De-
fore, this study followed Martinez et al. (1998), who claim nyer & Tranfield, 2008; Rousseau et al., 2008; Watson,
that the quality management movement can be tracked by Wilson, Smart, & Macdonald, 2018). In this study, pro-
looking at the Crosby, Deming, Feigenbaum, Ishikawa and cess in getting literature review that has been conducted
Juran works’, as they can be considered the most important includes the inclusion of quality management in general,
gurus of the quality management field. as well as ‘evolution of quality management’ and ‘devel-
Thus, in the field of quality management, the gurus opment of quality management’. However, considering the
have been identified and universally agreed upon (Foster, objectives of this work, we found that the inclusion and
2001, pp. 35-49; Richardson, 1997, pp. 92-93); they are exclusion criteria were emerging as we developed great-
Walter Shewhart, Edward Deming, Armand Feigenbaum, er insights in quality management and global trends (i.e.
Philip Crosby, Joseph Juran, Kaoru Ishikawa, Masaki Industrial Revolution 4.0 and Digital Manufacturing). We
Imai, Taiichi Ohno, and Genichi Taguchi. Identifying the believe this dynamic and iterative nature of the literature
gurus and the scholars in this field makes it possible for us review conducted, while not strictly following a systemat-
to review their works, which are, mainly, in the form of ic literature review approach, provided a ‘fit for purpose’
books and journal articles. This allows us to build on their protocol for the intended purpose (see (Bititci, Garengo,
ideas and further investigate the particular issues by look- Dörfler, & Nudurupat, 2012; Macpherson & Jones, 2010).
ing in-depth at the literature via an online database jour- The illustration of the protocol is presented in Figure 1, as
nal, such as Emerald, Science Direct, and ABI/Pro-Quest. in the following paragraphs.
These online databases cover journals in the area of quality Following from there, the initial search identified over
management, namely the Journal of Production and Oper-
79,000 articles (See Table 1), which was reduced in two
ations Management, Journal of Total Quality Management
ways, based on the insights that were emerging from the
and Business Excellence, International Journal of Opera-
parallel literature review on emerging global and busi-
tion and Production Management, International Journal of
ness trends, and the researchers’ previous knowledge of
Quality and Reliability Management, California Manage-
the field. This ensured that key contributions previously
ment Review, Managing Service Quality, The TQM Mag-
unknown to us were not missed. Obviously, it was still im-
azine, Journal of Operations Management, as well as other
possible to include all the articles that made a contribution.
leading general management journals.
Further, a systematic approach to literature review is Also, it should be noted that the focus of the review was to
based on the knowledge that gives a major role in evi- identify the extant literature rather than reviewing and dis-
dence-based practices (Denyer & Tranfield, 2008; Rous- cussing all relevant contributions, as many contributions
seau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008; Tranfield, Denyer, & built upon each other (See Ahire et al. (1995), Martinez et
Smart, 2003) was adapted in this research. In the essence al. (1998), Sousa and Voss (2002), Schroeder et al. (2005)
of this, a substantial literature review that was published and Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (1999, 2011). In conducting the
by Ahire et al. (1995) were referred. This was a mainly review, our objective was to describe how quality manage-
descriptive review, providing a thorough synthesis of ar- ment field has developed and evolved to date, particular-
ticles published from 1970 to 1993 and categorizing the ly by tracking its focus over time. Thus, we specifically
literature along the several components of QM. Likewise, looked for the key events and research question that were
Martinez et al. (1998) also have provided a substantial lit- being addressed rather than identifying specific solutions,
erature review of articles published from 1986 to 1997 and models and frameworks.
categorizing the literature according to the number of ref- In parallel, we explored general literature on global
erences with the terms TQM, quality management (QM) and business trends. Here our objective was to uncover the
and total quality (TQ). Similar to this, (Sousa & Voss, global and business trends that are predicted for the near
2002) also put forward their view to synthesize, organize future in order to provide a contextual basis against which
and structure knowledge from an academic/research stand-
point and offer suggestions for future research of quality.
Schroeder et al. (2005) further reinforced this by reviewing
papers on quality from 1992 to 2003 which mainly regard-
ing the Total Quality Management (TQM) issues. While,
Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. has reflected the quality movement
(i.e. The evolution patterns of quality management and
the evolution of Total Quality Management) through the
work of Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (1999, 2011). All of these
reviews were a useful stepping-stone in helping to consol-
idate the field.
Essentially, systematic reviews are formulated around
research questions, and the criteria for inclusion and ex-
163
Figure 1: The methodological basis of the literature review. Source: Adapted from Bititci et. al (2012)
164
Table 1: Results of the qualitatively assessed identified papers
Keywords Search
*(a) “Quality Management” or “Evolution of Quality **(b) “Global” or “Global Trends” or
Management” ‘Business Trends’
EBSCOhost 24,583 978,307
ProQuest 37,699 1,516,047
Web of Science 31,116 1,121,332
Scopus 79,884 1,372,791
Note: Keyword search was performed in November 2018.
we could synthesize the quality management literature. we defines principles as the core ideas or the fundamental
Our initial search of the popular research databases with ways of thinking in performing things.
key words such as ‘global’, ‘global trends’ and ‘business Betz (1998, p. 39) defines the concept of a system as
trends’ resulted in over 1.5 million possible articles. Con- “to look at a thing, an object, with a view to seeing it as
sequently, rather than conducting an exhaustive review of a totality, displaying change, and encompassed in an en-
the literature, which would have been impractical and of vironment”. Additionally, American Society for Quality
little additional value, we have followed the work of Bititci - (ASQ, 2002, p. 8) define a system as “a set of interre-
et. al (2012) who pinpoint the works of a few ‘gurus’ such lated or interacting processes”. Consistent with this, the
as Drucker, Mintzberg, Porter and Prahalad as the basis we have synthesised their definitions and proposes that a
living contemporary gurus. We started by identifying the system is a set of interrelated or interacting processes with
most significant commentators, including both academic a view to seeing it as a totality, displaying change, and en-
and non-academic authors of the global trends. To this end, compassed in an environment.
we consulted sources such as the http://www.thinkers50. Borrowing the definition from American Society for
com and ‘Who are the gurus’ gurus?’ and What’s the Big Quality (2002), a tool is defined as “a device used to help
Idea? (Davenport & Prusak, 2003; Prusak & Davenport, accomplish the purpose of a technique”. In line with this
2003). We gathered the most important messages from and the work of (Phaal, Farrukh, & Probert, 2004), we de-
these thinkers and extrapolated these in the context of the fines a tool as something that facilitates the practical appli-
cation of a technique and a technique is a structured way
quality management key events that emerging from the lit-
of completing part of a procedure.
erature. This approach provided us with a picture of the
According to the literature, quality management evo-
global and business trends that most relevant from a quali-
lution can be divided into five specific eras, which are:
ty management perspective. (1) Quality Inspection (QI), (2) Quality Control (QC), (3)
Quality Assurance (QA), (4) Total Quality Control (TQC),
4 Findings and Discussion from and (5) Total Quality Management (TQM). It should be
noted that the terms used here are based on the emerging
literature review focus throughout the evolution of quality management.
Consequently, the focus is believed to drive the principles,
This finding of the literature review is presented with a systems, and tools and techniques in the development of
particular emphasis on how the development of the qual- each quality era. Based on the review presented in the
ity field tracked or related in terms of focus, principles, previous section, allowed the the researchers to identify
systems, and tools and techniques. We have followed the nine quality management principles, these are namely as;
Dale’s framework (Dale, 1994) of principles, systems, and 1. Continuous quality improvement, 2. Conformance to
tools and techniques. In order to describe this quality field standard, 3. Management understanding, 4. Customer ori-
using this framework, definitions of the framework terms entation, 5. Quality leadership, 6. Involvement, 7. Quality
are stated for clarity. supplier relationship, 8. Process management and 9. Sys-
According to Slack, et al., (2006) principles are “the tem Management. Each era will now be discussed accord-
core ideas that describe how operations behave, how they ing to the framework introduced earlier.
can be managed, and how they can be improved. They are
not immutable laws or prescriptions that indicate how op- Quality Inspection (QI) Era
erations should be managed, nor are they descriptions that During this period, quality was associated with inspection
simply explain or categorise issues”. In this research, the (J. J. Dahlgaard et al., 2002; Garvin, 1988, p. 5). Accord-
165
ingly, “at one time inspection was thought to be the only In this Quality Control era, one of the main ideas in contin-
way of ensuring quality” (Dale, 2003, p. 22). Further, Dale uous quality improvement was the use of statistical tools
(2003) based on BS EN ISO 9000 – British Standards to control process output. However, at this time, quality
Institute (2000) defines quality inspection as the “degree improvement was limited to corrective action (i.e. finding
to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfils require- and fixing problems). In term of conformance to stand-
ments”. It is clear this period was focused around products. ard, the idea was solely about meeting quality standards
(i.e. product standard). Clearly, the ideas during this time
Principles of Quality Inspection were still on specialisation of labour and the assumption
Along the path of Quality Inspection era, the primary prin- that quality was secondary to cost. Yet slowly and gradu-
ciple of quality was stressed as sorting good from bad, ally, systematic documentation and the review of product
with continuous quality improvement based on the correc- specifications, inspection procedures and responsibilities
tive action basis. The idea was to commit solely to con- emerged and became the central ideas during the QC era.
formance to product standards. The management under- In the principle of leadership, command and control
standing during this time laid on specialisation of labour were the centred idea during this era. The products pro-
that means every worker has his own task. This principle duced were depended on what the producers supplied.
can be traced back to when Henry Ford came introduced As it was not based on market demands customers had
the implementation of task separation and mass production no freedom to select. The product quality was based on
manufacturing. The leadership style at this time was about the perspective of the producer without the customers in-
command. In fact, the management understanding towards volvement. Process management was still fragmented at
quality was very shallow with the assumption that quality this time. Dale (2003, p. 23) claims that, “there was lack
was a subordinate to cost, and customers were seen as a of creative and systematic work activity, with planning and
necessary evil, as evidenced by the infamous quotation, improvements being neglected and defects being identified
“Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he late in the process”. For instance, the principle of system
wants so long as it is black” (Batchelor, 1994) based on management occurred and it was about the product. The
(Ford, 1922). Therefore, the consumers bought what was emphasis of the system was about the understanding of the
available as the economy was dominated by the producers. isolated cause and effects in product quality.
Systems Systems
It is fair to say that the Ford mass production system was In this period, no new system emerged with the production
the main comprehensive system around during the QI era. system still dominating during this era.
This system combined all elements of a manufacturing
system, consisting of people, machines, tooling, infra- Tools and techniques
structure (factory) and products, which worked together in Several tools and techniques such as Statistical Quality
a continuous system for manufacturing the Model T auto- Control (SQC), inspection link to quality control, sam-
mobile (Batchelor, 1994). Therefore, the production sys- pling Acceptable Quality Levels (AQL), Average Outgo-
tem could be considered as the formal system that emerged ing Quality Limit (AOQL) and Total Preventive Mainte-
at this point of time. nance (TPM) emerged and made an impact during the QC
era. It is clear that statistical analysis became so influential
Tools and techniques played a big part in the movement of quality control during
Inspection technique and moving assembly line could be this period.
considered as the key tools and techniques in this period,
as inspection was used to grade the finished product and a Quality Assurance (QA) Era
moving assembly line made it possible for producing prod- According to Dale (2003, pp. 24-25) quality assurance is
ucts in great numbers. about a “prevention-based system which improves product
and service quality, and increases productivity by placing
Quality Control (QC) Era the emphasis on product, service and process design”.
Continuing from the quality inspection era, the next While (Ishikawa, 1985, p. 75) defines quality assurance as
a means to “assure quality in product so that a customer
movement was about quality control (J. J. Dahlgaard et
can buy it with confidence and use it for a long period
al., 2002; Dale, 2003; Garvin, 1988). As a consequence,
with confidence and satisfaction”. Accordingly, in this era,
previous work by quality gurus such as Fredrick W. Tay-
the focus of quality management shifted from product to
lor, Walter Shewhart, G.S Radford, Deming and Ishikawa
process.
stressed inspection activities that are linked more formally
to quality control. Indeed, product was still the key focus
Principles of Quality Assurance
during this era (i.e. product focus).
The principle of continuous quality improvement during
this time seemed to be rather systematic but fragmented
Principles of Quality Control
166
improvement, with the agenda of quality improvement tal Productive Maintenance (i.e. shifting to system focus).
shifting from corrective action to preventive action. Thus,
the quality conformance had changed from product to pro- Tools and techniques
cess standards in the operational system. On top of that, During this era, the revolution of tools and techniques rap-
from a management understanding view, emphasis was on idly occurred. Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) was extended
multi-skilled labour and not only about specialisation of to become Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA). Further, Cause
labour as in previous times. Hence, the management un- and Effect Diagram, Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
derstanding brought the idea of systematic documentation (FMEA), Reliability Engineering, Statistical Process Con-
and review of quality policies, procedures and responsibil- trol (SPC), Kaizen, Kanban, Jidoka and Just-In-Time (JIT)
ities (e.g. Quality Management System). This was a proac- were among the tools and techniques that emerged at this
tive approach rather than the reactive approach in the QC era.
era. By this time, the principle of customer orientation had
evolved to understanding customers’ requirements through Total Quality Control (TQC) Era
capturing, documenting and reviewing them as part of the Total Quality Control era reflected the development of
quality process. The changes in quality principles of lead- quality systems orientation in the context of quality man-
ership became more systematic, where leadership was agement development. In some cases, there was an overlap
driven by the quality system orientation (leadership in the in the context and application of tools and techniques, as
system) with some elements of control (i.e. decision-mak- this was the time when the focus of quality management
ing and rectifying problems). In spite of that, the quality shifted from process to systems. Ideally, the boundaries of
principles of involvement and supplier relationships were quality had extended to a bigger scope, which complete-
slow to emerged. At this stage, controlled involvement and ly covered the entire process embedded in the system. As
controlled partner relationships had occurred. For exam- noted by Feigenbaum (1961), “total quality control is an
ple, staff in the organisation could be involved in quality effective system for integrating the quality development,
programs and activities but still under the control of man- quality maintenance and quality improvement efforts of the
agement. The same case applied with supplier relation- various groups in an organisation so as to enable market-
ships. ing, engineering, production and service at the most eco-
In short, involvement and supplier relationships be- nomical levels which allow for full customer satisfaction”.
came the issues and key ideas in quality development.
Looking at the principle of process management and sys- Principles of Total Quality Control
tem management the transition happened from fragment- The changes in the principles of continuous quality im-
ed to integrated process control in the quality process; provement can be seen as it became much more systemat-
as there was recognition of quality as a process in itself. ic and manageable. We would describe this as systematic
While system management underline the understanding of managed continuous improvement. Accordingly, the line
simple causes and effects in the process and discrete prov- of thinking improved with managed prevention and im-
en process (the quality system and practices were likely to provement. In terms of conformance to standard, it was
have met as a minimum requirement). This suggests that about conformance to a systematic improvement standard
the principle of the system management was not fully ap- which was managed by a team (i.e. Quality Control Circle
plied until the adoption of a systems approach during the and Problem Solving Group). As such, the management
Quality Assurance era. understanding evolved with the understanding of the need
of multi-skilled and cross-functional teams working to
Systems improve quality on a daily basis. Team working became
Quality Assurance era could be considered as the focal central to ensuring quality. This understanding included
point for the formal development of quality management managing systematic use of tools and techniques, and fa-
systems. For example, the Deming Model was the com- cilitating objective and structured management. Occasion-
prehensive measurement system of quality standards de- ally, this was the time where quality was perceived as a
veloped during this time in 1951. The release of British project driven journey. On top of that, the idea of customer
Standard (BS) 5750 and International Standard Organi- orientation transformed to customer satisfaction by fulfill-
sation (ISO) 9000 series were the formal quality systems ing and exceeding customers’ requirements. The principle
that made a mark during this time. In line with this, Total of leadership changed to be more participatory where the
Preventive Maintenance (TPM), which was primary fo- leaders (i.e. top management) encouraged all staff to take
cused on techniques for maintenance of assets (i.e. product responsibility for quality and managed the involvement
and machine maintenance), evolved to Total Productive of workers (e.g. Quality Control Circle and Kaizen activ-
Maintenance (TPM) that focuses on productivity of entire ities). At this time, the issues of managing involvement
system (including man, machine, method etc). This means and partnership relationships emerged in a quality context.
that the Preventive Maintenance, which was very much Further, process management evolved and became more
process focused, became system focused by moving to To- systematic, while system management dealing with the
167
understanding of complex causality in the operational pro- become habitual for the workers. From the perspective of
cesses. management understanding, the transformation of ideas
happened, where multi skilled cross-functional teams and
Systems the use of tools and techniques for facilitating objective
The changing from quality assurance to total quality con- and structured management have become the norm among
trol era includes changes in quality systems deployment. the employees. Along with this, the principle of customer
The systems that emerged in this period were Toyota Pro- orientation transformed from customer satisfaction orien-
duction System (TPS), ISO 9000 revision 1992, Ford Q1 tation to customer delight (i.e. exceeding customer expec-
System, QS 9000, ISO 14000, OHSAS 18000 and TickIT. tation) mainly in service dominant culture, which is about
This reflected the progression of new standards in TQC adding value to customers, business, life etc. The principle
era. In short, quality standards became the most dominant style of quality leadership centred on coherent leadership
systems at this point. with excellence mindset. Leadership goes beyond partici-
pation to a mindset of excellence. In terms of involvement,
Tools and techniques it has extended to a bigger scope, encompassing all levels
Several tools and techniques that made the headlines dur- and the habitual involvement of suppliers and partner in
ing this time were Quality Loss Function, Quality Func- continuous quality improvement activities. By this time,
tional Deployment (QFD), Poka Yoke, Quality Control process management has evolved where processes are
Circle (QCC), 7 Quality Tools (i.e. Pareto Analysis; Fish managed as an integrated system, and system management
Bone Diagram; Stratification; Check sheet; Histogram; has evolved to become a complex system, concerning the
Scatter Diagram and Control Chart), Benchmarking, Lean understanding of causalities in business processes includ-
tools and techniques, and Single Minute Exchange of Die ing operational, managerial, support and human factors.
(SMED).
Systems
Total Quality Management (TQM) Era During this time, the quality systems that emerged and im-
Total quality management is about the cooperation of pacted on the quality management field was the Malcolm
everyone in an organisation and associated business pro- Baldrige Model, Investors in People (IIP), EFQM Excel-
cesses to produce value-for-money products and services, lence Model, ISO 9001 revision 2000 and 2015, Lean con-
which meet and exceed the needs and expectations of cus- cept (i.e. Lean Manufacturing), ISO 14001 revision 2015,
tomers (Dale, 2003). In TQM era, the quality focus is not ISO/TS 16949 standards for automotives and ISO 31000
solely about the systems but includes people, so the focus revision 2009 and 2018.
is about people in the organisation (i.e. People focus) striv-
ing towards business excellence. Tools and techniques
Over time, the development of TQM era is still focused The tools and techniques that make a mark during this time
on people with an extended view towards global collabora- include Design of Experiments (DOE), 5S (i.e. Seiri, Sei-
tive networks. This period can be seen as the focus shifting so, Seiko, Seiketsu and Shisuke) and Six Sigma.
to networks focus. It is heavily about managing/leading In summary, borrowing from the work of, (Slack et al.,
networks, people with multiple networks and networks of 2006, p. 376):
networks (Tao et al., 2011). “Quality was achieved by inspection – screening out
Today, aligning with the era of digitization, TQM is defects before customers noticed them. Then the ‘quality
integrating with the Industrial Revolution 4.0 in which in- control’ (QC) concept developed a more systematic ap-
volved with the technology advances in several areas that proach to not only detecting but also solving quality prob-
together enable innovation, new insights, connectivity be- lems. ‘Quality assurance’ (QA) widened the responsibility
tween people, and connectivity between people and ma- for quality to include functions other than direct opera-
chines (Jacob, 2017). It is becoming clear that the quality tions, such as Human Resources, Accounting and Mar-
focus now has a further extended view from network-focus keting. It also made increasing use of more sophisticated
to a smart-focus. statistical quality techniques. TQM included much of what
went before but developed its own distinctive themes, espe-
Principles of Total Quality Management cially in its adoption of a more ‘all-embracing’ approach”.
In TQM era, the evolving principles of quality are centred Table 2 provides the brief summary of this evolution
on the people. For instance, the quality principle of contin- of quality management field organised into the focus,
uous improvement has evolved to become more systemat- principles, systems, and tools and techniques framework.
ic and habitual. This means that improvement is not only It should be noted that the table should be read not in a
about managing and rectifying mistakes or problems, but very detailed fashion, but what is more important is that
becomes habitual for prevention and improvement. the reader need to get the big picture of this table. The table
During this era, conformance to standard is about con- is obviously an oversimplification of the reality. However,
formance to systematic improvement standard, which has
168
it is actually done on purpose. It is impossible to capture sible to have everyone agree about the details, as different
the richness of the real world, let alone hundred years of experts will have different perspectives.
evolution of the quality management field, and it is impos-
Table 2: The origins and the evolution of quality management from Quality Inspection (QI) to Total Quality Management (TQM)
Dimension Quality In- Quality Control Quality Assur- Total Quality Total Quality Man-
spection (QI) ance (QA) Control (TQC) agement (Business
(QC) Excellent, Networks and
Smart Environment)
Approximate 1900s ~ 1920s 1920s ~ 1950s 1950s ~ 1980s 1960s ~ 1990s 1980s ~ present
Timings
Key References Garvin (1988, ASQ (2002, Bound, Yorks, Feigenbaum Foster (2001) - Total
p. 5); Foster p. 29) - Walter Adam & Ranney (1961) - Total Quality Management
(2001, p. 44) Shewhart (1994, p. 58); Quality Control Philosophy
- Fredrick W. Gower (1990,
Taylor p. 193) - Failure
Mode Effect Anal-
ASQ (2002, p. ysis (FMEA) Garvin (1988, pp. Foster (2001, p. 49) -
20) - Deming 189,198) - Genba- Genichi Taguchi and
Batchelor To-QC DOE
(1994, p. 22);
Womack, Garvin (1988),
Jones, & Roos Garvin (1988, p. Martinez-Lorente,
(1990, p. 26) - 9) - Bell Labora- Dewhurst & Dale Ishikawa (1985); Imai (1986) – 5S
Henry Ford tories (1998) and Bank Bank (2000); ASQ
(2000) - Statistical (2002, p. 4) - Ishi-
Process Control kawa
(SPC) Crosby (1984) – 14
Garvin (1988, Dahlgaard, et al., Points
p. 5) - G.S (2002, p. 90) -
Radford Ishikawa Womack, et al.,
Nakajima (1988) (1990)) - Toyota
and Richardson Production System ASQ (2002); Bank
(1997) - Total (TPS) (2000) - Malcolm
Nakajima Productive Baldrige National Quality
(1988); Rich- Maintenance Award
ardson (1997) - (TPM)
Total Preventive ASQ (2002) -
Maintenance Taguchi and Quali-
ty Loss Function Womack, et al., (1990)
Imai (1986); - Toyota and Lean Man-
Dahlgaard, et al., ufacturing
(2002, p. 306) –
Kaizen Garvin (1988,
p. 198); Bank
(2000); Zairi Eckes (2005, p. 12) -
(1994, p. 43) - Motorola & GE and Six
Gower (1990, p. Quality Functional Sigma
453) and Louis Deployment
(1997, p. 21) – (QFD)
Kanban
Mason (1997, p. 1) -
Nikkan Kongyo National Training Task
Dahlgaard, et al., Shimbun (1988) – Force and Investors In
(2002) – Jidoka Poka Yoke People
169
(continued)
Gower (1990) - Shingo (1985) Dahlgaard, et al., (2002,

Taiichi Ohno and - Single Minute p. 23) – EFQM, Business
Just-In-Time (JIT) Exchange Die Excellence Model
(SMED)
Garvin (1988, International Standard for

p. 198); Foster Crosby (1979) Organisation; BSI (2000)
(2001, p. 36); - Crosby Zero - ISO 9001 Revision
Dahlgaard, et al., Defects and “The (2000)
(2002, p. 23) - Absolutes”
Union of Japanese
Scientists and
Engineers (JUSE) IATF (2002) - ISO/TS
and Deming Prize Bank (2000) - 16949
Xerox Corporation
and Benchmarking
Garvin (1988, p. Castka and Balzarova

12); Bank (2000); (2008) - ISO 26000
ASQ (2002, p. Womack, et al.,
22); Juran (1951) (1990, p. 159) -
- Juran Quality Ford system Q1 International Standard
Control Handbook for Organisation (2009)
- ISO 31000 (Risk Man-
agement)
Stamatis (1996,
Bank (2000); p. 76) - Daim-
w w w. b s i g r o u p . ler-Chrysler, Ford (Bititci et al., 2008;
com - British & General Motor Grant, 2008; Hamel,
Standards Institute and Quality Sys- 2007; Tao et al., 2013;
(BSI) tem (QS 9000) Tao et al., 2011) - Global
Collaborative Networks
(Network Environment)
ASQ (2002, pp. International Stan-

4,30,32); (Bank, dard for Organisa-
2000); www.iso. tion; Morris (2004) (Foidl & Felderer, 2015;
org - Internation- - ISO 14000 Roblek et al., 2016) -
al Standard for Industrial Revolution (IR
Organisation, 4.0) for Quality Manage-
Geneva ment
International Stan-
dard for Organisa-
tion - ISO 18000 (Albers et al., 2016;
Jacob, 2017; Lee et
al., 2014; Vijaykumar
DISC TickIT et al., 2015) - Smart
(1992) – TickIT Environment for Quality
Management
Focus Product Product Process System People in Organisation
People in Network (Net-

work – focus)
People in Smart Environ-

ment (Smart-focus)
170
(continued)
Principles: Sorting good Use of statistical Systematic but Systematic managed Systematic and habitual
from bad tools to control fragmented continuous improve- continuous improvement
process output improvement ment
Principle 1
Continuous Corrective Corrective Action Preventive Managed prevention Habitual prevention and
Improvement Action Action and improvement improvement
Principle 2 Conformance Conformance to Conformance Conformance to Conformance to systemat-

Conformance to product product standard to process systematic im- ic improvement standard
to Standard standard standard in the provement standard (Habitual)
operational (Managed)
system
Principle 3 Specialisation Specialisation of Multi-skilled Multi-skilled and Multi-skilled cross- func-

Management of labour labour labour cross-functional tional teams (Habitual)
Understand- teams (Managed)
ing
Quality subor- Quality subordi- - - -

dinate to cost nate to cost
- Systematic doc- Systematic Managed systematic Habitual use of tools and

umentation and documentation use of tools and techniques facilitating
review of product and review of techniques facilitat- objective/structured man-
specifications quality policies, ing objective/struc- agement
and inspection procedures and tured management
procedures and responsibilities
responsibilities (e.g., Quality
Management
System)
Principle 4 Customer is a Customer has no Understanding Customer satisfac- Customer delight in service
Customer necessary evil choice customers tion by fulfilling and dominant culture adding
Orientation requirements exceeding customers value to customers, busi-
through requirements ness, life etc.
capturing,
documentation
and review
of customer
requirements
Principle 5 Command Command and Systems and Participatory Coherent leadership with
Leadership control control excellence mindset
Principle 6 No involve- No involvement Controlled Managed involve- Habitual involvement at all

Involvement ment involvement ment level
Principle 7 Adversarial Adversarial arm’s Controlled Managed partner Habitual involvement of
Supplier Rela- arm’s length length (i.e. no partner rela- relationships partner in continuous im-
tionships (i.e. no rela- relationship) tionships provement activities
tionship)
Principle 8 No recognition Fragmented Integrated pro- Systematic process Processes are managed as
Process Man- of the process cess control management an integrated system
agement
171
(continued)
Principle 9 No system Understanding Understanding Understanding Understanding complex

thinking or isolated cause and simple causes complex causality system causalities of busi-
System Man- understanding effects in product and effects in in the operational ness processes including
agement quality the process processes operational, managerial,
support and human factors
Product Discrete proven Operational pro- Complex system causalities

process cesses
Systems Mass Produc- Mass Production Deming Model Toyota Production Malcolm Baldrige Model
tion System System BS 5750 Quali- System (TPS) Investors In People
ty Management ISO 9000:1992 EFQM Excellence Model
series Ford Q1 System ISO 9001:2000; 2015
ISO 9000 Stan- QS 9000 Lean concept
dards ISO 14000 ISO/TS 16949
Total Produc- ISO 18000 ISO 14001:2015
tive Mainte- TickIT ISO 31000: 2009; 2018
nance (TPM)
Tools & Tech- Inspection Statistical Quality Plan-Do- Quality Loss Func- Design of Experiments
niques Moving assem- Control (SQC) Check-Act tion (DOE)
bly line Inspection link to (PDCA) Quality Functional 5S
quality control Extend PDCA Deployment (QFD) Six Sigma
Sampling Ac- to become Poka Yoke
ceptable Quality Plan-Do-Study- Quality Control
Levels (AQL) Act (PDSA) Circle (QCC)
Average Outgoing Cause and Ef- 7 Quality Tools
Quality Limit fect Diagram (Pareto Analysis,
(AOQL) Failure Mode Fish Bone Diagram,
Total Preventive Effect Analysis Stratification, Check
Maintenance (FMEA) Sheet, Histogram,
Reliability Scatter Diagram,
Engineering Control Chart)
Statistical Benchmarking
Process Control Lean tools and
(SPC) techniques
Kaizen Single Minute
Kanban Exchange of Die
Jidoka (SMED)
Just-In-Time
(JIT)
172
5 Research challenges in quality • Are they developing the standards? If not why?
What is the impact of this?
management
• Are they managing continuous improvement
across the network? How do they manage it?
Implications of the research • Do they recognise leadership across the network
As a result of this research, the managerial implications for and not just from one company? How do they
future work are as follows: manage it?
Investigating a single organisation is futile, since the
organisation will form part of a network. For example,
All of the above discussion suggest that the collabora-
there is less value for future research in continuous im-
tors/partners need to think about how to manage the stand-
provement based solely in a single company because in
ards comprising of open technologies standards, codes of
the future, it is about the improvement that comes from the
practice and standard for control, and to deal with the is-
network. The interactions and relationships throughout the
sues of managing leadership, continuous improvement and
network should be considered (i.e. internal and external
partnerships; internally and externally.
ideas/innovation).
Further, future research should not only focus on a
Limitation of the Research
specific issue (e.g. continuous improvement for product
The quality management field has been studied for more
design) and neglect to other issues/factors around it. It
than 100 years dating back to the early 1900s when Fre-
should consider the entire system. This means that the fu-
drick W. Taylor is known as the father of Scientific Man-
ture researcher needs to understand the whole picture of
agement, stressed the importance of quality inspection.
the process internally and externally, as the future is not
First, even though a variety of journals and several re-
only about managing a specific problem in a single compa-
nowned books in the field of quality management were
ny, but what matters is how companies managing and deal-
considered in this study, it may happen that this topic (i.e.
ing the wide resources of improvements and innovation
Evolution of Quality Management) had also been cov-
across the networks with the architectural of participation
ered in other journals and conferences. Additionally, there
and collaboration that come from all over the world (i.e.
might be studies that we missed, because they investigate
high involvement of communities of practice).
similar phenomena but discuss it with different terms.
The fact that the future will be more about network,
However, as we have mentioned earlier the focus of the
key quality principles such as; continuous improvement,
review was to identify the extant literature rather than re-
standards, leadership and partnerships in the future will
viewing and discussing all relevant contributions, as many
be managed in a network context (i.e. open source, open
contributions built upon each other (See Ahire et al. (1995),
innovation, “smart” environment). For example, Sony has
Martinez et al. (1998), Sousa & Voss (2002), Schroeder
moved from lean production to open source, where Sony
et al. (2005) and Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (1999, 2011). In
Corporation and Google Inc. announced an alliance to pro-
conducting the review, our objective was to describe how
vide a range of new and rich entertainment experiences
quality management field has developed and evolved to
that combine Google’s open-source Android OS platform
date, particularly by tracking its focus over time.
with Sony’s expertise in technology and product design.
Thus, we specifically looked for the key events and re-
The two companies are exploring the joint development
search question that were being addressed rather than iden-
of compelling new Android-based hardware products for
tifying specific solutions, models and frameworks.
the home, mobile and personal product categories and are
also exploring extending the alliance in connection with
Sony’s wide range of entertainment assets to establish new 6 Concluding remarks
forms of cloud-based user experiences (Perakakis, 2017).
Through this alliance, Sony aims to leverage the stability, This article has attempted to reflect on the history of qual-
future growth potential and open-source accessibility of ity management through chronology of its establishment
Google’s Android platform to further optimise its product over time. The key aim of this research is to describe how
development processes while also providing consumers quality management field has developed and evolved to
with an open, expansive and evolving user experience (See date, particularly by tracking its focus over time. We start
also Sony Official website at: https://www.sony.com).This the research with the question of; How quality manage-
raises some interesting questions as follows: ment field has developed and evolved to date, particularly
• Do the collaboration and partnerships in the net- by tracking its focus over time?
works are equally and fairly beneficial for both In so doing, we have identified that quality manage-
parties? Are they willing to share their expertise ment literature have evolved through time with their fun-
(core competencies) with each other? Can this damental focus evolving, and as they evolved, the princi-
collaboration be extended to form partnerships ples, systems, tools and techniques have changed.
with others in the network?
173
This witnessed by the findings from the literature re- ers all the time. Thus, it is even more important that they
vealing that in the early evolution of quality management, can rely on their employees to provide the experience of
this period was focused around products (i.e. How can we hospitality for customers at every step of the way, since, as
ensure quality in a product?). Then, in the later period of is seen by Rangus and Brumen (2016), the importance of
time, the focus of quality management has moved from tourism is, after all, visible in its huge impact on the local,
product to process (i.e. How can we ensure quality in the national and global economies.
process?). Following from there, the focus of quality man-
agement shifting to system focus (i.e. How can we ensure
Acknowledgement
quality in the system?). Slowly but gradually, by the later
period of time, there seems to be more attention given to
people with the system (people spin), in the development We would like to thank Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Me-
of quality journey. So, the focus in this period was about laka (UTeM) and Gebze Technical University (GTU) for
people in an organisation - people focus (i.e. How can we the financial support and facilities provided in completing
ensure quality in people?). this research. We will welcome any collaboration for this
Today’s the current development of quality manage- kind of research with an open arm.
ment is focused on people with an extended view towards
networks focus (i.e. How can we ensure quality in people
Literature
in the network environment?) and the most recent is the
smart focus (i.e. How can we ensure quality in people in
the smart environment?). Therefore, we would say that as ANSI/ASQC. (1987). ANSI/ASQC. 1987 Quality Systems
Terminology, American National Standard A3-1987.
the focus has changed, the principles have also changed
ANSI/ISO/ASQ. (2000). ANSI/ ISO/ ASQ Q9000-
and as the principles have changed, the systems, tools and
2000, Quality Management Systems-Fundamentals
techniques also have changed in quality management field.
and Vocabulary. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press.
This observation is consistent with Dale (1994) and ANSI/ISO/ASQC. (1994). ANSI/ISO/ASQC A8402-
several authors’ works such as (Besterfield et al., 2003; 1994, Quality Management and Quality Assur-
Hellsten & Klefsjo, 2000; Mahadevan, 2010; Mukherjee ance-Vocabulary. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQC.
& Kachwala, 2009) that organise their subject of study Arter, D. R., & Russell, J. P. (2009). ISO Lesson Guide
using the approach of ‘principles, systems, and tools and 2008: Pocket Guide to ISO 9001:2008. United States of
techniques’. As a result of this study, we can confirm that America: American Society for Quality, Quality Press.
there are emerging patterns and trends on how things have Ahire, S. L., Landeros, R., & Golhar, D. Y. (1995).
developed and evolved around the fundamental ‘focus, Total quality management a literature review
principles, systems, and tools and techniques’, in relation and an agenda for future research. Productions
to the evolution of quality management. In summary, this and operations management, 4(3), 227-306.
research suggests that one can study the evolution of this https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.1995.tb00057.x
field by looking at how the ‘focus, principles, systems, and Albers, A., Gladysz, B., Pinner, T., Butenko, V., &
tools and techniques’ have evolved over time. Stürmlinger, T. (2016). Procedure for defining
the system of objectives in the initial phase of an
t this will further increase their job satisfaction. industry 4.0 project focusing on intelligent qu-
It is very important for practitioners to understand how ality control systems. Procedia Cirp, 52, 262-
important satisfaction with work itself is within the context 267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.07.067
of job satisfaction of employees. With the amount of time ASQ. (2002). The Quality Improvement Handbo-
we are spending at work it is no doubt that any manager ok. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQ Quality Press.
needs to use all the knowledge he or she has to help in- Bank, J. (2000). The Essence of Total Quali-
crease the job satisfaction of employees, this being even ty Management (2nd Edition ed.): Prentice Hall.
more important in service oriented industries. Batchelor, R. (1994). HENRY FORD Mass Pro-
Further research that we propose is to investigate job duction, Modernism and design. Man-
satisfaction among “employees” that manage their own chester: Manchester University Press.
apartments through platforms such as AirBnb, and we have Belohav, J. A. (1993). Quality, strategy and com-
to understand that jobs themselves are changing, Turnšek petitiveness. California Management Review,
and Ladkin (2017) did extensive work on Airbnb that has 35(3), 55-67. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166743
hit the hotel sector hard in recent years, and noted that job Berger, H. (2007). Agile development in a bureaucra-
satisfaction within the sharing economy, or platform econ- tic arena—A case study experience. International
omy, has a completely different position, that is why we Journal of Information Management 27, 386-396.
propose this as an interesting area to conduct research in. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.08.009
We have to understand that, not even the best managers Besterfield, D. H., Besterfield-Michna, C., Besterfield,
can be overseeing how their employees treat their custom- G. H., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Urdhwareshe, H., &
174
Urdhwareshe, R. (2003). Total Quality Manage- United States of America.: McGraw-Hill.

ment (Third ed.). India: Pearson Education Inc. Da Fonseca L.M.C.M. (2015 ). ISO 14001: 2015: An
Betz, F. (1998). Managing technological innovation : com- improved tool for sustainability. Journal of In-
petitive advantage from change . New York: Son & Wiley. dustrial Engineering and Management, 8(1),
Bititci, U., Garengo, P., Dörfler, V., & Nudurupat, S. (2012). 37-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.1298
Performance Measurement: Challenges for Tomorrow. Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (1999). The evolution patterns of
International Journal of Management Reviews, 14, 305– quality management. Total Quality Management, 10(5),
327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00318.x 465–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954412997424
Bititci, U., Garengo, P., Dorfler, V., & Nudurupati, S. Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2011). The quality move-
(2008). Performance Measurement; Question for To- ment: Where are you going? Total Quality Mana-
morrow. SIOM Working Paper Series, No. 0001, www. gement & Business Excellence, 22(5), 493-516.
strath.ac.uk/siom. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2011.578481
UK. University of Padavo, Padova, Italy. Retrieved Dahlgaard, J. J., Kristensen, K., & Kanji, G. K. (2002).
from https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/id/eprint/13954 Fundamentals of Total Quality Management. Chel-
Bounds, G., Yorks, L., Adams, M., & Ran- tenham: United Kingdom: Nelson Thornes Ltd.
ney, G. (1994). Beyond Total Quali- Dahlgaard, S. M. P., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2003). Ma-
ty Management. New York: McGraw-Hill. nagement Control Theories and The Europe-
BSI. (2000). BS EN ISO 9001:2000 Quality Manage- an Excellence Model. The Best of Quality, 14.
ment Systems. Requirements. In: BSI Standards. Dale, B. G. (1994). A Framework for the Introduc-
Burge, R. C. (2009). The Baldrige Jour- tion of a Process of Quality Improvement in Re-
ney. Industrial Engineer 41, 40-44. tail Organizations. International Journal of Re-
Callan, R. J. (1992). The British Standard 5750 - A qu- tail & Distribution Management, 22(8), 25-32.
ality control instrument for the hotel and catering https://doi.org/10.1108/09590559410074886
industry - The case of Astley Bank. International Dale, B. G. (2003). Managing Quality (Fourth
Journal of Hospitality Management 11 (4), 359-372. ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-4319(92)90052-W Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2003). What‘s the Big Idea?
Castka, P., & Balzarova, M. A. (2008). The impact of Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 on standardisation of so- Dean, J. W. J., & Bowen, D. E. (1994). Management
cial responsibility—an inside perspective. Inter- theory and total quality: Improving research and
national Journal of Production Economics, 113, practice through theory development. The Aca-
74-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.02.048 demy of Management Review, 19(3), 392-418.
Castka, P., Prajogo, D., Sohal, A., & Yeung, A. C. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1994.9412271803
(2015). Understanding firms‫ ׳‬selection of their Deming, W. E. (1993). The New Economics For In-
ISO 9000 third-party certifiers. International Jour- dustry, Government, and Education. Cam-
nal of Production Economics, 162, 125-133., 162, bridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technolo-
125-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.012 gy Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Chaniotakis, I. E., & Lymperopoulos, C. (2009). Service Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2008). Producing a
quality effect on satisfaction and word of mouth in the systematic review. In D. e. Buchanan (Ed.),
health care industry. Managing Service Quality, 19(2),
The Sage Handbook of Organizational Rese-
229-242. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520910943206
arch Methods (pp. 671-689). London: Sage.
Chiaromonte, F. (2004). From R&D to stra-
Devadasan, S. R., & Goshteeswaran, S. (2005). Design for
tegic technology management – Evolu-
quality in agile manufacturing environment through mo-
tion and perspectives. Telektronikk, 2, 33-41.
dified orthogonal array-basedexperimentation. Journal
Cho, Y. S., Jung, J. Y., & Linderman, K. (2017).
of Manufacturing Technology Management, 16(6),
The QM evolution: Behavioral quality manage-
576-597. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380510609456
ment as a firm’s strategic resource. Internatio-
Document, U. N. (1987). World Commision on Environ-
nal Journal of Production Economics, 191, 233-
ment and Development: Our Common Future. Retrie-
249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.05.002
ved from http://www.un-documents.net/a42r187.htm
Cochran, P. L. (2007). The evolution of corporate so-
Drucker, P. F. (1989). The new realities: in go-
cial responsibility. Business Horizons 50, 449-
vernment and politics, in economy and busine-
454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2007.06.004
ss, in society, and in worldview. Oxford: Hei-
Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: the art of
nemann Professional Publishing Limited.
making quality certain. New York: Uni-
Eckes, G. (2005). Six Sigma Execution: How the Wor-
ted States of America: New American Library.
ld’s Greatest Companies Live and Breathe Six Sigma.
Crosby, P. B. (1984). Quality without tears: the
New York: United States of America: McGraw-Hill.
art of hassle-free management. New York:
Feigenbaum, A. V. (1961). Total quality control: en-
175
gineering and management: the technical and International Automotive Task Force, IATF Gui-
management field for improving product quali- dance to ISO/TS 16949:2002, (2002).
ty, including its reliability, and for reducing ope- Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen (Ky’zen), the key to Japan’s com-
rating costs and losses. New York: McGraw-Hill. petitive success (1 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fernie, J., & Sparks, L. (2014). Logistics and Retail Ma- Ishikawa, K. (1985). What is total quality control? The Japa-
nagement: Emerging Issues and New Challenges nese way (D. J.Lu, Trans.). New Jersey.: Prentice Hall,Inc.
in the Retail Supply Chain: Kogan Page Publishers. Jacob, D. (2017). Quality 4.0 Impact and Strategy Handbo-
Foidl, H., & Felderer, M. (2015). Research chal- ok. Getting Digitally Connected to Transform Quality
lenges of industry 4.0 for quality management. Management. . United State of America: LNS Research.
Paper presented at the International Conferen- Jayaram, J., Vickery, S., & Droge, C. (2008). Relationship
ce on Enterprise Resource Planning Systems. building, lean strategy and firm performance: an explo-
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32799-0_10 ratory study in the automotive supplier industry. Inter-
Ford, H. (1922). My Life and Work. Salt national Journal of Production Research, 46(20), 5633-
Lake City: UT Project Gutenberg. 5649. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540701429942
Foster, S. T. (2001). Managing Quality an Integrative Appro- Jin-Hai, L. (2003). The evolution of agile manufacturing.
ach. New Jersey: United States ofAmerica: Prentice Hall. Business Process Management Journal, 9(2), 170-
Freeman, C., & Louca, F. (2001). As Time Goes By: From 189. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150310468380
the Industrial Revolutions to the Information Resolu- Juran, J. M. (1951). Quality-control han-
tion. New York, United States: Oxford University Press. dbook. New York: McGraw-hill.
Garrity, R. B. (1993). Total quality management: an Juran, J. M. (1988). Juran’s quality control han-
opportunity for high performance in federal organiza- dbook (4 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
tions. Public Administration Quarterly, 17, 430-459. Kanji, G. (2002). Measuring Busine-
Garvin, D. A. (1988). Managing Quality the Strategic ss Excellence. London.: Routledge.
and Competitive Edge. New York: The Free Press. Kanji, G. K. (1990). Total quality management: the second
Giannakis, M. (2007). Performance measurement industrial revolution. Total Quality Management, 1(1),
of supplier relationships. Supply Chain Mana- 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544129000000001
gement: An International Journal, 12(6), 400- Kano, N. (1993). A perspective on quality activities in
411. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540710826335 American firms. California Management Review,
Godfrey, G., Dale, B., Marchington, M., & Wilkin- 35(3), 12-31. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166741
son, A. (1997). Control: A contested concept in Kenney, M., & Pon, B. (2011). Structuring the smartphone
TQM research International Journal Opera- industry: is the mobile internet OS platform the key?.
tions & Production Management, 17(6), 558-573. . Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 11(3),
Gower, D. L. (Ed.) (1990). Gower Handbook of Quality Mana- 239-261. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1851686
gement. England: Gower Publishing Company Limited. Kremer, R., & Fabrizio, T. (2005). The Lean Primer - Solu-
Grant, R. M. (2008). The Future of Management: Whe- tions for the Job Shop. United State: MSC Media, Inc.
re is Gary Hamel Leading Us? Long Range Planning Kuei, C.-H., & Madu, C. N. (2003). Customer-centric six
41, 469-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2008.06.003 sigma quality and reliability management. International
Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing: A fra- Journal of Quality & Realibility Management, 20(8),
mework for research and development. Interna-
954-964. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710310493661
tional Journal Production Economics, 62, 87-105.
Kumar, M., Kee, F. T., & Charles, V. (2010). Comparative
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00222-9
evaluation of critical factors in delivering service qu-
Hakes, C. (1999). The Business Excellent Handbook
ality of banks: an application of dominance analysis
(5 ed.): BQC Performance Management Limited.
in modified SERVQUAL model. International Jour-
Hamel, G. (2007). The future of management.
nal of Quality and Reliability Management, 27(3),
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
351-377. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656711011023320
Hanna, J. (2007). Bringing ‚Lean‘ Prin-
Lee, J., Kao, H. A., & Yang, S. (2014). Service in-
ciples to Service Industries. Harvard Busi-
novation and smart analytics for industry 4.0
ness School: Research and Ideas, pp. 1-2.
and big data environment. . Procedia Cirp, 16,
Hellsten, U., & Klefsjo, B. (2000). TQM as a mana-
3-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.02.001
gement system consisting of values, techniques
Louis, R. S. (1997). Integrating Kanban with
and tools. The TQM Magazine, 12(4), 238-244.
MRP II: Automating a Pull System for Enhan-
https://doi.org/10.1108/09544780010325822
ced JIT Inventory Management. Portland, Uni-
Hill, Y., MacGregor, J., & Dewar, K. (1996). Nur-
ted States of America: Productivity Press.
ses’ access to higher education: a quality produ-
Macdonald, J. (1995). TQM-does it always works?
ct. Quality Assurance in Education, 4 (2), 21-
Some reasons for disappointment In G. K. Kan-
27. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889610116021
ji (Ed.), Total Quality Management: Proceedings of
176
the First World Congress. London: Chapman & Hall. 872. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2017.2726821
Macpherson, A., & Jones, O. (2010). Strategies Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P., & Probert, D. R. (2004).
for the development of International Journal A framework for supporting the manage-
of Management Reviews. International Jour- ment of technological knowledge. Internatio-
nal of Management Reviews, 282, 107–113. nal Journal Technology Management, 27(1),
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00282.x 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2004.003878
Mahadevan, B. (2010). Operations Management (Second Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2015). How smart,
ed.). New Delhi, India: Pearson Education in South Asia. connected products are transforming compa-
Malone, T. W. (2004). The future of work: How nies. . Harvard Business Review, 93(10), 96-114.
the new order of business will shape your or- Powell, C. T. (1995). Total Quality Management as
ganization, your management style, and your Competitive Advantage: A Review and Empiri-
life. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. cal Study. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1),
Martinez-Lorente, A. R., Dewhurst, F., & Dale, B. G. 15-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160105
(1998). Total quality management: origins and evo- Prajogo, D. I., & Sohal, A. S. (2006). The integration of
lution of the term. The TQM Magazine, 10(5), 378- TQM and technology/R&D management in determi-
386. https://doi.org/10.1108/09544789810231261 ning quality and innovation performance. OMEGA, The
Mason, D. (1997). Achieving Investors in Pe- International Journal of Management Science, 34, 296
ople. London: Pitman Publishing. – 312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2004.11.004
McMenamin, E. (2016). Medical devi- Price, F. (1990). The Quality Concept and Objectives in
ces: ISO 13485 places new emphasis on Gower Handbook of Quality Management. In D. Lock
risk management. Quality, 55(10), 18-20. (Ed.), Gower Handbook of Quality Management.
Milakovich, M. M. (1991). Total quality management in Aldershot, England: Gower Publishing Company.
the public sector. National Productivity Review, 10, Prusak, L., & Davenport, T. (2003). Who are the gu-
195-213. https://doi.org/10.1002/npr.4040100208 rus’ gurus. Harvard Business Review, 81, 14-16.
Miles, M. (1999). Cowboy Quali- Richardson, T. L. (1997). Total Quality Management. New
ty. Quality Progress, 32(10), 27-34. . York: United States of America: Delmar Publishers.
Morris, A. S. (2004). ISO 14000 Environmental Ma- Roblek, V., Meško, M., & Krapež, A. (2016). A com-
nagement Standards: Engineering and Financial plex view of industry 4.0. . SAGE Open, 6(2).
Aspects. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons h t t p s : / / d o i . o rg / 1 0 . 11 7 7 / 2 1 5 8 2 4 4 0 1 6 6 5 3 9 8 7
Limited. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470090782.ch1 Ross, J. E. (2017). Total Quality MANAGEMENT Text,
Mortimer, S. T., & Mortimer, D. (2015). Quality and Cases and Readings. London: Taylor & Francis Group.
Risk Management in the IVF Laboratory. In. Roth, A. V. (1996). Neo-Operations Strategy: Lin-
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511547287.061 king capabilities-Based Competition to Techno-
Mukherjee, P. N., & Kachwala, T. T. (2009). Opera- logy. In G. H. Gaynor (Ed.), Handbook of Tech-
tions Management and Productivity Techniques. nology Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
New Delhi, India: PHI Learning Private Limited. Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Evidence
Muzaimi, H., Chew, B. C., & Hamid, S. R. (2017). In- in management and organizational science: Assembling
tegrated management system: The integration of ISO the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through
9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO 31000. syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1),
Paper presented at the AIP Conference Proceedings. 475-515. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211651
Nakajima, S. (1988). Introduction to TPM: To- Sanders, A., Elangeswaran, C., & Wulfsberg, J. P.
tal Productive Maintenance. Cambridge, Lon- (2016). Industry 4.0 implies lean manufacturing:
don: Productivity Press Incorporations. Research activities in industry 4.0 function as
Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun, L. f. m. (1988). Po- enablers for lean manufacturing. . Journal of In-
ka-yoke: Improving product quality by preven- dustrial Engineering and Management (JIEM),
ting defects Cambridge: Productivity Press. 9(3), 811-833. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.1940
Oaklan, J. S. (2014). Total Quality Management and Schroeder, R. G., Linderman, K., & Zhang, D. (2005).
Operational Excellence. New York,: Routledge. Evolution of Quality: First Fifty Issues of Produc-
Patty, R. M., & Denton, M. A. (2010). The End of tion and Operations Management. Production and
Project Overruns: Lean and Beyond for Engi- Operations Management Society, 14(4), 468–481.
neering, Procurement and Construction. Flo- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2005.tb00234.x
rida, United State: Universal-Publishers. Shingo, S. (1985). A revolution in manufacturing:
Perakakis, E. (2017). Smart Enough for the Web? A Respon- the SMED system. Stamford: Productivity Press.
sive Web Design Approach to Enhancing the User Web Slack, N., Chambers, S., Johnston, R., & Betts, A.
Browsing Experience on Smart TVs. IEEE TRANSAC- (2006). Operations and process management:
TIONS ON HUMAN-MACHINE SYSTEMS, 47(6), 860- Principles and practice for strategic impact. Har-
177
low, England: Prentice Hall Financial Times. IOT and bigdata implementation model. Indian
Sousa, R., & Voss, C. A. (2002). Quality management Journal of Science and Technology, 8(35), 1-4.
re-visited: a reflective review and agenda for future https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i35/86698
research. Journal of Operations Management, 20, 91- Wang, J., & Kleiner, B. H. (2005). The Evo-
109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(01)00088-2 lution of R&D Management. Manage-
Stamatis, D. H. (1996). Integrating QS-9000 ment Research News, 28(11/12), 88-95.
with your Automotive Quality System. Ma- Watson, R., Wilson, H. N., Smart, P., & Macdonald, E.
laysia: Golden Books Centre Limited. K. (2018). Harnessing Difference: A Capability-Ba-
Stamatis, D. H. (2003). Six Sigma fundamentals: a sed Framework for Stakeholder Engagement in En-
complete guide to the system, methods and to- vironmental Innovation PROD INNOV MANAG,
ols. New York, United State: Productivity Press. 35(2), 254–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12394
Tan, L.-H., Hamid, S.-R., & Chew, B.-C. ( 2016). Ser- Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The
vice quality audit based on conceptual gaps mo- Machine that changed the world: based on Mas-
del of service quality: a case study of top three lar- sachusetts Institute of Technology. New York:
gest local bank in Malaysia. International Journal United States of America: Rawson Associates.
Productivity and Quality Management, 18(1), 99- Yoon, Y., Giirhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The
115. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPQM.2016.075712 Effect Of Corporate Social Responsibility (Csr)
Tao, F., Cheng, Y., Da Xu, L., Zhang, L., & Li, B. H. Activities On Companies With Bad Reputations.
(2014). CCIoT-CMfg: cloud computing and internet Journal Of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 377-
of things-based cloud manufacturing service system. 390. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_9
. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 10(2), Zairi, M. (1994). Measuring Performance for Business
1435-1442. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2014.2306383 Results. London, United Kingdom: Chapman & Hall.
Tao, F., LaiLi, Y., Xu, L., & Zhang, L. (2013). FC-PA- Zeithaml, V. A., Parasurarnan, A., & Malhotra, A.
CO-RM: a parallel method for service composition (2002). Service Quality Delivery Through Web Si-
optimal-selection in cloud manufacturing system. tes: A Critical Review of Extant Knowledge. Jour-
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 9(4), nal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4),
2023-2033. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2012.2232936 362-375. https://doi.org/10.1177/009207002236911
Tao, F., Zhang, L., Venkatesh, V. C., Luo, Y., & Cheng,
Y. (2011). Cloud manufacturing: a computing and
service-oriented manufacturing model. Proceedings Mohd Syaiful Rizal Hamid, is associate professor and
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: a former Dean of the Faculty of Technology Manage-
Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 225(10), 1969- ment and Technopreneurship at the Universiti Tekni-
1976. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405411405575
kal Malaysia Melaka, Malaysia (UTeM). He received
Taylor, R., & Pearson, A. (1994). Total Quality Management
his Ph.D. in School of Engineering, Design Manufac-
in Research and Development. The TQM Magazine, 6(1),
ture Engineering Management from the University of
26-34. https://doi.org/10.1108/09544789410052723
Thai, V., & Jie, F. (2018). The impact of total quality manage- Strathclyde, United Kingdom. His fields of expertise are
ment and supply chain integration on firm performance technology management and quality management and
of container shipping companies in Singapore. Asia Pa- his research focuses on Quality Tools and Techniques,
cific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 30(3), 605-626. Environmental Management, Service Management &
https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-09-2017-0202 Sustainable Development.
TickIT, D. (1992). Department of Trade and Industry/British
Computer Society, TickIT making a better job of softwa-
re. In (2 ed.). London: The Department of Enterprise. Saifuddin Isa is a Master of Sciences in the field
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards of Technology Management (Innovation). He is a
a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Infor- researcher at Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
med Management Knowledge by Means of Syste- (UTeM), Faculty of Technology Management and
matic Review. British Journal of Management, 14, Technopreneurship. His research focuses is Quality
207-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375 Tools and Techniques of Industrial Revolution 4.0,
Valerio, B. (2017). Corruption and ISO 37001: A new in- particularly in the Smart Manufacturing context. His
strument to prevent it in international entrepreneurship. . main area of expertise are Quality Management,
World Journal of Accounting, Finance and Engineering,
Operation Management and Technology Management.
1, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.21742/wjafe.2017.1.1.01
Vijaykumar, S., Saravanakumar, S. G., & Balamu-
rugan, M. (2015). Unique sense: Smart compu-
ting prototype for industry 4.0 revolution with
178
Chew Boon Cheong is presently the Associate Abdullah Altun is a chief specialist in the Informatics
Professor of Faculty of Technology Management and Information Security Research Center (BİLGEM) in
and Technopreneurship (FPTT), Universiti Teknikal The Scientific and Technological Research Council of
Malaysia Melaka (UTeM). He received his Ph.D. Turkey (TÜBİTAK). He has a Ph.D. degree in economics.
from University of Edinburgh in 2012 in Technology His primary research interests are international trade
Management and Science and Technology Studies. and growth economics. His studies are mainly about
His primary research interest is renewable energy the empirical analysis of global value chains. He has
development and deployment, clean technology visited various universities as a visiting scholar such as
innovation and introduction, green and sustainable University of Warsaw (Poland) and Universiti Teknikal
practise, human technology innovation and Malaysia Melaka, UTeM (Malaysia).
introduction; which all are angled from social science
and technology management studies.
179
Appendix
Table 1 below summarises the quality management literature over time. It should be noted that the ‘key events’ in
Table 1 indicates the important events in Quality Management field over time that considered been seen as were
giving a larger scale of impact to the quality management in general.
Table 1: Important events in the quality management movement

Key Focus App. Key Events Key References
Time
1900 Fredrick W. Taylor calls as the father of Garvin (1988); Foster (2001)
Scientific Management stressed on inspec-
tion activities
1910s Henry Ford came out with Model T (be- Batchelor (1994); Womack, et al., (1990)
How can we ensure
came the Ford car) and introduced of mov-
quality in product?
ing assembly line which lead to mass pro-
duction concept (quality interchangeability)
1920s Walter Shewhart of Bell Laboratories de- Garvin (1988)
veloped a system for measuring variance
in production system, known as statistical
process control. Shewhart also created the
Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle, which
applies a systematic approach to improving
work processes
1922 Inspection activities were linked more for- Garvin (1988)
mally to quality control with the publication
of G.S Radford’s The Control of Quality in
Manufacturing. Quality was viewed as a dis-
tinct management responsibility and as an
independent function
1924 Walter Shewhart of Bell Laboratories de- American Society for Quality (2002)
veloped Statistical Process Control (SPC)
1926 The Bell Telephone began to apply statisti- Martinez-Lorente, Dewhurst and Dale
cal control methods (1998)
1931 Shewhart has published Economic Control Garvin (1988); American Society for
of Quality of Manufactured Product, giv- Quality (2002)
ing the discipline a scientific footing for the
first time. Shewhart gave a precise and mea-
surable definition of manufacturing control,
developed powerful techniques for monitor-
ing and evaluating day-to-day production,
and suggested a variety of ways of improv-
ing quality
1938 Deming published a technical book and American Society for Quality (2002)
taught courses in the use of his statistical
methods
1939 Shewhart wrote Statistical Method from the American Society for Quality (2002)
viewpoint of Quality Control
Garvin (1988); American Society for

Shewhart’s idea for the Plan-Do-Check-Act Quality (2002)
cycle was used extensively by Deming and
others to help manage quality improvement
projects
180
Table 1: Important events in the quality management movement (continued)
1940 A committee was formed in December by Garvin (1988)

the American war department to draft stan-
dards in the area quality
1942 A quality control section was established in Garvin (1988)
the war department staff mainly by statisti-
cians from Bell Laboratories. This group de-
veloped a new set of sampling, tables based
on the concept of acceptable quality levels
(AQL)
1943 Ishikawa invented Fish-Bone diagram Dahlgaard, et al., (2002)
which bears his name as Ishikawa Diagram
as management problem solving tools
Mid- The American army pushed the use of sam- Martinez-Lorente, Dewhurst and Dale
1940s pling methods during World War II (1998)
1946 Japanese Industrial Standards Committee Garvin (1988)

is established. Union of Japanese Scientists
and Engineers (JUSE) is established
Deming involved with the Union of Scien- American Society for Quality (2002);
tists Engineer (JUSE) after its formation Foster (2001)
1950 First visit of Deming to Japan. Deming give Garvin (1988); Foster (2001); Bank
a talk and taught Japanese’s leaders about (2000); Martinez-Lorente, Dewhurst and
statistical quality control techniques (SQC) Dale (1998)
How can we ensure

quality in process?
JUSE publishes the magazine Statistical
Quality Control. Japanese Industrial Stan-
dards are established under the Industrial
Standardization Law
1950s Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) Bounds, Yorks, Adams and Ramney
developed by US military after the Korean (1994); Gower (1990)
war.
Reliability engineering developed by

American Department of Defence which Richardson (1997); Gower (1990); Louis
formed an Ad Hoc Group on Reliability of (1997); Dahlgaard, et al., (2002)
Electronic Equipment
The basis of the kaizen revolution in Japan

that took place in the 1950s along with the Nakajima (1988); Richardson (1997)
used of Kanban, Jidoka and Just in Time
(JIT) together to continually improves pro-
duction processes
Taiichi Ohno, who is generally recognised

as the ‘father of JIT’ due to his pioneering
work at Toyota in the 1950s and 1960s.
Preventive maintenance was introduced in

the 1950s where in Japan Total Productive
Maintenance (TPM) is called Preventive
Maintenance
181
1951 Deming Prize is established in Japan Garvin (1988); Foster (2001); Dahlgaard,
et al., (2002)
Garvin (1988); Bank (2000); American

Society for Quality (2002)
Juran published his first edition of Quality

Control Handbook
1954 First visit of Juran to Japan Garvin (1988); American Society for
Quality (2002)
1956 Armand Feigenbaum introduced total a prin- Garvin (1988); Feigenbaum (1961)
cipe called Total Quality Control (TQC)
which underlying principles to provide gen-
uine effectiveness control must start with the
design of the product and end only when the
product has been placed in the hand of the
customer who remain satisfied
Early Ishikawa is best known as a pioneer of the American Society for Quality (2002)
1960s “quality circle” movement in Japan
1960s Crosby invented the concept of Zero De- Crosby (1979); Garvin (1988); American
fects Goals in the1960s. Society for Quality (2002); Bank (2000)
How can we ensure
quality in system? Crosby lists for new essentials of quality
management which he calls “The Abso-
lutes”
1961 First edition of Feigenbaum’s Total Qual- Martinez-Lorente, Dewhurst and Dale
ity Control (1998)
1962 Ishikawa’s quality circles where first pilot- Bank (2000); American Society for
ed at Nippon Telegraph and cable compa- Quality (2002)
ny. Published a book named What Is Total
Quality Control
Garvin (1988)
The idea of quality circles appeared in the

first issue of the Japanese journal Quality
Control for the Foreman (Genba-To-QC)
1968 Ishikawa produced a non-technical quality American Society for Quality (2002)
analysis textbook for quality circle members
Most large Japanese companies had adopted

what Ishikawa called Companywide Qual- Garvin (1988); American Society for
ity Control (CWQC) in Japan to produce Quality (2002)
world-class quality products
Early Taguchi developed the concept of the Qual- American Society for Quality (2002)
1970s ity Loss Function.
The method provides an efficient technique

to design product tests prior to entering the
manufacturing phase
182
1970s The established of Toyota Production Sys- Womack, et al., (1990)

tem (TPS) with the key elements are Just-
In-Time (JIT), Jidoka, Standardised Work
and Kaizen
1972 Quality Function Deployment was first Garvin (1988); Bank (2000); Zairi (1994)
practiced at Kobe Shipyard, Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries, Ltd.
1973 After the 1973 oil crisis, the JIT system was Martinez-Lorente, Dewhurst and Dale
adopted by a vast number of Japanese com- (1998)
panies. A small number of American and
European companies began to apply this
system in the 1980s
Mid- Quality circles began to be widely intro- Martinez-Lorente, Dewhurst and Dale
1970s duced in the USA, the first quality circle pro- (1998)
gramme was launched in Lockheed in 1974
and in the UK it was Rolls-Royce which in-
troduced the concept in 1979
1979 First edition of Crosby’s Quality Is Free Crosby (1979); American Society for
Quality (2002)
Bank (2000)
Xerox Corp. started to apply the benchmark-

ing concept to processes
Bank (2000); Hill, et al., (1996); Callan

(1992)
Publication of the BS 5750 quality manage-
ment series
1980 The Taguchi method design of experiments Foster (2001)
(DOE) was first introduced by Dr. Genichi
Taguchi to AT&T Bell Laboratories
1980s The establishment of Total Quality Man- Foster (2001)
agement (TQM) which is a management
approach that originated in the 1950s
1982 First edition of Deming’s Quality, Produc- Martinez-Lorente, Dewhurst and Dale
tivity and Competitive Position (1998)
1984 Crosby published his second bestseller Crosby (1984); Foster (2001)
“Quality Without Tears”
Mid- Ford started a systematic supplier grading Womack, et al., (1990)
1980s system, called Q1
How can we ensure
quality in people? 1986 First edition of Deming’s Out of the Crisis. It American Society for Quality (2002)
became a bestseller
1987 First edition of ISO 9000 quality manage- American Society for Quality (2002);
ment system series Bank (2000)
Publication of the Malcolm Baldrige Na-

tional Quality Award
Bank (2000); Dahlgaard, et al., (2002)
BS 5750 revised in 1987
183
1990s Xerox introduced leadership through quality Garvin (1988)

as a vehicle for change.
Six Sigma was developed at Motorola.

Eckes (2005, p. 12)
Lean Manufacturing derives from the Toy-

ota Production System or Just in Time Pro- Womack, et al., (1990)
duction.
The “lean manufacturing” concept was pop-

ularized in American factories in large part
by the Massachusetts Institute of Technolo-
gy study of the movement from mass pro-
duction toward production as described in
The Machine That Changed the World:
The Story Of Lean Production.
1991 National Training Task Force introduced In- Mason (1997)

vestors in People (IIP) in October 1991
1992 The EFQM Excellence Model was intro- Dahlgaard, et al., (2002)
duced at the beginning of 1992 as the frame-
work for assessing organisations for the Eu-
ropean Quality Award
1994 QS 9000 is developed by Daimler-Chrysler, Stamis (1996)
Ford & General Motor where it is based on
ISO 9001: 1994.
The system became effective on September

1, 1994
1996 First edition of ISO 14000 environmental International Organisation for Standardi-
management series sation at www.iso.org; Moris (2004)
How can we ensure

quality in people in the First edition of OHSAS 18000 - occupa- International Occupational Health
network environment? tional health and safety management series, and Safety Management at
which derived from the British Standard www.ohsas-18001-occupation-
BS8800:1996 al-health-and-safety.com; British Stan-
dards Institute at www.bsigroup.com
1998 QS 9000 reissued in March 1998 Stamatis (1996)
Early TickIT originally set up by UK Department TickIT (1992)
2000 of Trade and Industry and administered by
British Standards Institution (BSI), which
applies to all types of information system
supply, which involve software develop-
ment processes
2000 The 2000 edition of the ISO 9000 was es- American Society for Quality (2002)
tablished
2002 International Automotive Task Force International Automotive Task Force
(IATF) - automakers General Motor, Chrys- (IATF) (2002)
ler and Ford developed ISO/TS 16949:2002
184
2007 Global Collaborative Networks - to deliv- Hamel 2007

er innovative value propositions to global
markets and customers
2010 ISO 26000 standard for Social Responsibil- Castka and Balzarova (2008)
ity
2010 Collaboration sony and google corpora- Kenney and Pon (2011)
tion - Sony and Google Establish Strategic
Alliance to Deliver Compelling New
Cloud-based Products and Services with the
Android Platform
2011 ISO 50001:2011 Energy management
Supports organizations in all sectors to use

energy more efficiently, through the devel-
opment of an energy management system Official International Organization for
(EnMS) Standardization website
2014 ISO 50002:2014 Energy audits -- Require-
ments with guidance for use
Specifies the process requirements for carry- https://www.iso.org/home.html

ing out an energy audit in relation to energy
performance. It is applicable to all types of
establishments and organizations, and all
forms of energy and energy use
2015 ISO 9001:2015 Quality Management Sys-
tem
This standard is based on a number of qual-

ity management principles, including a
strong customer focus, the motivation and
implication of top management, the process
approach and continual improvement
ISO 14001:2015 Environmental Manage-

ment Systems
Specifies the requirements for an environ-

mental management system that an organi-
zation can use to enhance its environmental
performance
185
2016 ISO 13485:2016 Medical devices – Quali-

ty management systems
Internationally agreed standard that sets out

the requirements for a quality management
system specific to the medical device indus-
try. It has recently been revised, with the
new version published in March 2016
ISO 37001:2016 Anti-bribery manage-

ment systems
Specifies requirements and provides guid-

ance for establishing, implementing, main-
taining, reviewing and improving an an-
ti-bribery management system
2017 to The Emerging of Quality 4.0
Present
Jacob (2017)
The digitalisation of quality management
on quality technology, processes and people
186

Quality Management Evolution From The Past To Pres

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quality Management Evolution From The Past To Pres

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quality Management Evolution From The Past To Pres

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Organizacija, Volume 52 Research Papers Issue 3, August 2019

Quality Management Evolution from

1 Introduction 2001, p. 44; Garvin, 1988, p. 5). According to Feigen-

Table 1: Results of the qualitatively assessed identified papers

Note: Keyword search was performed in November 2018.

Gower (1990) - Shingo (1985) Dahlgaard, et al., (2002,

Garvin (1988, International Standard for

Garvin (1988, p. Castka and Balzarova

ASQ (2002, pp. International Stan-

People in Network (Net-

People in Smart Environ-

Principle 2 Conformance Conformance to Conformance Conformance to Conformance to systemat-

Principle 3 Specialisation Specialisation of Multi-skilled Multi-skilled and Multi-skilled cross- func-

Quality subor- Quality subordi- - - -

- Systematic doc- Systematic Managed systematic Habitual use of tools and

Principle 6 No involve- No involvement Controlled Managed involve- Habitual involvement at all

Principle 9 No system Understanding Understanding Understanding Understanding complex

Product Discrete proven Operational pro- Complex system causalities

Urdhwareshe, R. (2003). Total Quality Manage- United States of America.: McGraw-Hill.

Table 1: Important events in the quality management movement

Garvin (1988); American Society for

Table 1: Important events in the quality management movement (continued)

1940 A committee was formed in December by Garvin (1988)

1946 Japanese Industrial Standards Committee Garvin (1988)

How can we ensure

Reliability engineering developed by

The basis of the kaizen revolution in Japan

Taiichi Ohno, who is generally recognised

Preventive maintenance was introduced in

Table 1: Important events in the quality management movement (continued)

Garvin (1988); Bank (2000); American

Juran published his first edition of Quality

The idea of quality circles appeared in the

Most large Japanese companies had adopted

The method provides an efficient technique

Table 1: Important events in the quality management movement (continued)

1970s The established of Toyota Production Sys- Womack, et al., (1990)

Xerox Corp. started to apply the benchmark-

Bank (2000); Hill, et al., (1996); Callan

Publication of the Malcolm Baldrige Na-

BS 5750 revised in 1987

Table 1: Important events in the quality management movement (continued)

1990s Xerox introduced leadership through quality Garvin (1988)

Six Sigma was developed at Motorola.

Lean Manufacturing derives from the Toy-

The “lean manufacturing” concept was pop-

1991 National Training Task Force introduced In- Mason (1997)

The system became effective on September

How can we ensure

Table 1: Important events in the quality management movement (continued)

2007 Global Collaborative Networks - to deliv- Hamel 2007

Supports organizations in all sectors to use

Specifies the process requirements for carry- https://www.iso.org/home.html

This standard is based on a number of qual-

ISO 14001:2015 Environmental Manage-

Specifies the requirements for an environ-

Table 1: Important events in the quality management movement (continued)

2016 ISO 13485:2016 Medical devices – Quali-

Internationally agreed standard that sets out