ادغام مدیریت کیفیت جامع (TQM) و مدیریت فن آوری تحقیق و توسعه در تعیین کیفیت و نوآوری در عملکرد
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|4288||2006||17 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||10110 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Omega, Volume 34, Issue 3, June 2006, Pages 296–312
This paper presents an empirical study which examines the co-alignment between Total Quality Management (TQM) and technology/research and development (R&D) management in predicting organizational performance in terms of quality and innovation. This study improves our understanding of the relationship between TQM and innovation based on the following two major issues. First, this study contributes to the understanding of the co-alignment between TQM and technology management along with R&D management by bridging the gap between the two areas which are often addressed in a separate fashion. Second, this study also examines the impact of the integration between TQM and technology/R&D on quality and innovation performance which have been considered as the primary sources of a competitive advantage. The empirical data was drawn from 194 Australian organizations and analyzed using the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique. The findings indicate that TQM shows a strong predictive power against quality performance but no significant relationship against innovation performance. On the other hand, technology and R&D management shows a significant relationship with quality performance but at a lower level than that of TQM, and shows much stronger relationship with innovation performance. In addition, there is strong and positive correlation between TQM and technology/R&D management. The major implication of this study is that technology/R&D management is an appropriate resource to be used in harmony with TQM to enhance organizational performance, particularly innovation.
In their seminal work, Benner and Tushman  highlighted the idea of balancing the firm's dynamic capabilities between exploitation and exploration as suggested by strategy and organization theorists. They referred to exploitation capabilities as those aimed at maximizing existing resources to achieve efficiency and productivity, whilst exploration capabilities are associated with innovative capacities and developing new skills and resources. They argued that the ability of a firm to integrate and capitalize both capabilities simultaneously will determine its competitiveness and sustainability of its performance over time. The study presented in this paper built on the above premise by examining the integration of Total Quality Management (TQM) practices and technology and research and development (R&D) management in determining performance in terms of quality and innovation. We believe that the study contributes to research in several ways. First, this study is important when viewed in relation to today's highly competitive environment where the pressures for organizations to meet multiple, often inconsistent, contextual demands have escalated . As Bolwijn and Kumpe  argued, the competitive environment today requires organizations to pursue more complex dimensions of performance, most notably quality and innovation. Quality has been heralded as the source of competitive advantage during the 1980s and 1990s, particularly when Western companies began to see the loss of their market share to their Japanese competitors. This loss has been attributed mainly to the inferior quality compared to their Japanese counterparts. Similarly, innovation has long been recognized as one of the major sources of competitive advantage, and research evidence has shown a large number of business companies which have benefited from it in terms of increasing profits and market share . In this paper, innovation is defined as “something that is new or improved and done by the enterprise to create significantly added value either directly for the company or indirectly for its customers” [4, p. 3]. Literature on innovation has also pointed the importance to define innovation more clearly by distinguishing between radical and incremental innovations  and . The importance of this issue comes from the interplay between variations in organizational characteristics and the types of innovation, meaning that the degree of radicalness of the innovation will dictate the management schemes and resources needed by the organizations, as exemplified in the past studies ,  and . The cumulative dimensions of competitive strategies have driven organizations to employ a variety of resources, including those who were previously considered as antagonistic in their nature .
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The findings of this study have addressed three issues as summarized below. First, TQM can be implemented in harmony with TIM although they each have a unique role in determining different types of performance. Second, the combination of TQM and TIM produces a greater explanatory power in terms of product quality, product innovation, and process innovation than TQM alone. Third, there are cross-fertilizations which occur amongst the three performance variables with process innovation mediating the relationship between product quality and product innovation. As a final note, it is important to comment on the extent to which TQM and TIM can be integrated as organizational resources. As clearly indicated by the findings, TQM and TIM are not only distinct from each other but also show a unique role in predicting different types of performance, that is between quality and innovation. Apart from the earlier discussion, what can be further inferred here is that the application of TQM practices perhaps are still confined within certain areas or functions that are focused on achieving quality as conformance where control should be promoted. From the point of view of value chain, it can be suggested that TQM perhaps is more effectively applied in downstream (production or shop floor) processes, whilst TIM, particularly in regard to R&D, would seem more closely related to upstream (design) processes and more radical innovations. This suggests that although TQM and TIM can be implemented in harmony with each other, organizations tend to implement them in combination or complementary rather than in an integrated form. As such, the notion suggesting that TQM needs to be implemented at the company-wide level receives a weak support here. On the other hand, the conventional wisdom suggesting that the ineffectiveness of quality control techniques in innovation would seem to prevail. In his case study research, Zairi  suggested that most companies found it extremely difficult to apply TQM concepts and techniques in the area of innovation. Similarly, Thompson  notes that underlying this view is an assumption that quality and innovation are rarely considered as supportive to each other, with quality being seen as a conformance issue and innovation as an R&D imperative, a point highlighted in the literature review section. Therefore, as a conclusion, it appears that Australian firms still need to learn how to exploit the potential benefits yielded by TQM, and that the first challenge will be to develop a wider appreciation of the applications inherent in TQM.