مدیریت کیفیت جامع و نوآوری: مرور مقالات و چارچوب پژوهش
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|4252||2001||20 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||11190 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Technovation, Volume 21, Issue 9, September 2001, Pages 539–558
This paper discusses the relationship between the implementation of Total Quality Management (TQM) and innovation performance. The discussion arises primarily based on the considerable controversy concerning this relationship that appears in the literature. As of interest to resolve this controversy, a research framework is developed preceded by a theoretical discussion of the multidimensionality of TQM when applied in different organizational contexts. The primary proposition of this framework is that the implementation of TQM practices will be influenced by the external and internal environment as well as the strategy adopted by the firm. The model of TQM implemented is then reflected in terms of different outcomes relating to quality performance and innovation performance.
This paper discusses the relationship between TQM and innovation. We believe that such a discussion is important for the following three reasons: to assess the relevance of TQM for management of innovation; to determine the usefulness of TQM as a resource for innovation; and to clarify conflicting accounts of the relationship between TQM and innovation. First, from a TQM perspective, this discussion provides a reassessment of the need for implementing TQM in organizations. Basically, TQM has been widely accepted as a management model that provides a competitive advantage, if implemented successfully. However, as market conditions change, it is expected that the basis of competition will also change with quality becoming one of the “qualifying criteria” and flexibility, responsiveness and particularly innovation taking over as “winning order criteria”1 (Bolwijn and Kumpe, 1990, Hamel and Prahalad, 1994 and Tidd et al., 1997). In this respect, a question can then be raised: Should organizations continue to implement TQM as a management model in the future, particularly if they want to achieve a high innovation performance? Second, from the point of view of innovation, testing the suitability of TQM as a management model for managing innovation could enrich the perspective of managerial practices in innovative organizations. As Cooper (1998) suggests, academics as well as practitioners have devoted significant amount of time to continually seeking and identifying organizational factors, practices and resources that support and enhance innovation. In this respect, a particular question can thus arise: Can TQM function as a specific resource that allows organizations to build their competence and competitiveness in innovation? Third, the discussion on the relationship between TQM and innovation is important from the point of view of innovation based also on the fact that innovation studies consider TQM itself as one form of innovation (Westphal et al., 1997, Yamin et al., 1997 and Cooper, 1998). At the same time, innovation scholars have an interest to examine the impact of adoption and implementation of a particular innovation, as suggested by Wolfe (1994, p. 417):
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
When discussing the debate presented above, a greater concern is placed on the negative arguments rather than the positive ones as the former are more controversial and challenging. Moreover, whilst the two groups of arguments appear to be antagonistic to each other, the negative arguments do not totally reject the positive view that TQM supports innovation. However, the negative view posits that TQM will only support innovation on a very limited basis and, to a certain degree, suggest that the implementation of TQM is likely to be detrimental for innovation. Therefore, it seems that conflict between the two schools of thought occurs because of the difference in defining what innovation is, particularly in differentiating the incremental and radical types of innovation. It must be noted, however, that while the distinction between these two types of innovation has been acknowledged in innovation studies, to differentiate them is, in itself, quite problematic (Dewar and Dutton, 1986). Even so, TQM scholars commonly refer to any type of change as the result of innovation, therefore arguing that continuous improvement is one type of innovation (Dean and Evans, 1994). On the other hand, innovation scholars prefer to confine innovation in terms of radical change and to distinguish it from incremental change which they prefer to label as improvement (Abernathy and Utterback, 1988). They commonly argue that improvement is simply “doing something in a better way”, but innovation is about “doing something differently” (Kirton, 1976). As an example, the distinction between continuous improvement and re-engineering is based on the principle that the first focuses on the existing system and continually seeks ways to enhance its performance, whilst the latter re-starts everything from the beginning and thus establishes discontinuity with the past. The essence of the negative arguments raised against TQM above, however, is more profound than solely distinguishing the radicalness of change. What have been highlighted above are the different behavioral traits, ways of thinking, approaches, and principles embodied in TQM in contrast to innovation. For example, the difference is clearly seen in the issue of product innovation. Whilst TQM does support the importance of product innovation, the approach is more reactive than proactive, meaning that TQM tends to encourage new product development only when there is such an explicit demand from customers. This is quite in contrast to the philosophy of innovative companies which creates demand through innovation. In essence, TQM is more market-pull (or customer-driven) whilst innovation is more product-push. By and large, the debate on the relationship between TQM and innovation warrants a rigorous study if there is to be obtained a definite yes/no answer regarding that relationship. While this could result in a clear conclusion from a practical perspective to accept or reject the applicability of TQM for innovative organizations, this is hardly possible to achieve in view of the unclear definition and boundaries of TQM itself. Moreover, a number of scholars (for example, Sitkin et al., 1994, Spencer, 1994 and Moreno-Luzon and Peris, 1998) have argued that this conflict can be resolved if we can accept the idea of perceiving TQM as a multidimensional model instead of a single “exclusive” one. They suggest that TQM has different facets, and this can be seen from various terminologies that have been introduced in the area of quality management, such as quality control, quality assurance, total quality control, company-wide quality control, total quality management, and strategic quality management. Understanding the multifacetedness of TQM could provide a solution to resolving the conflict in the relationship between TQM and innovation as well as challenging the traditional concept formulated by the quality gurus who tend to adopt a “universalistic” approach to TQM, assuming that it is a “fixed entity” which can be applied to any company in any set of circumstances.