استفاده از گونه شناسی تامپسون به منظور مدیریت کیفیت جامع در شرکت های خدماتی

This work is based on the premise that service firms are different. The involvement of customers in the provision of services not only creates an uncertainty that makes service organizations different from manufacturing firms, but, within the broad classification of service organizations, they can also be different from each other. In line with previous research on service firms, we use Thompson's [Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill] typology of interdependence (pooled, sequential, and reciprocal) as a useful framework for addressing those differences. We deduce that components of TQM content and TQM process should vary according to an organization's degree of interdependence if output uncertainty, expressed in terms of service quality, is to be minimized. Thus, the success of TQM in service organizations is dependent upon the fit among interdependence and the strategy's content and process.

Thompson's (1967) seminal work on organization theory contains one of the best known and most widely accepted typologies of technology in management. Thompson's use of the term “technology” refers to work flows (i.e., transformation processes). Associated with each type of technology is a different category of interdependency between individuals and groups within the organization and between the organization and its customers. Interdependency thus refers to the type of linkage between the various steps or stages in the workflow. The first type of technology is mediating, which is used in organizations whose main purpose is to link up clients and customers. For example, firms in the banking industry use this technology to provide a service of bringing together people who would otherwise have no way of interacting (e.g., depositors, who want a return on savings, with borrowers who are willing to pay a price for using the money over some time period). The interdependence (or lack of dependence, in this case) for an organization using this type of technology is called “pooled interdependence.” Each part of the organization (e.g., a bank branch office) contributes to the entity, and each relies on the performance of the others, but there may be little, if any direct interaction between them. The second type of technology is long-linked technology where one individual's output becomes the next one's input. Although the classic example of this type of technology is assembly line manufacturing, it also applies to service organizations. For example, in education one stage of the learning (production) process needs to be completed before the next one can begin (social promotion notwithstanding). The type of interdependence here is termed “sequential” or “serial.” The success of the organization is still dependent upon the contributions of each part to the whole, but, also, the parts are directly linked in a dependent relationship. Finally, the most complex of the three is intensive technology. In an intensive technology, the sequencing, the type of process, and the order in which transformations are administered is determined by feedback from the object of the transformation process. Emergency-room care is a prime example of an activity that uses an intensive technology. The interdependence in this technology is termed “reciprocal” because the transformation process requires the object to go through a series of input–output–input exchanges. Typically, there is a Guttman-scale type of effect at work in interdependence. A firm with a sequential interdependence can include elements of pooled interdependence and, similarly, a firm that has a reciprocal type of interdependence can include elements of sequential and pooled interdependence. Here, we acknowledge that the use of a particular technology and an associated interdependence is not a discrete phenomenon. Larsson and Bowen (1989) also recognized this characteristic of interdependence. Although their contingency matrix for classifying service interdependence patterns according to demand diversity and customer participation permits recognition of this Guttman-scale type of effect, it does so in a soft form. To maintain parsimony in the process of exploring how TQM works in different types of service organizations, we will revert to Thompson's (1967) linear ordering of interdependence according to task complexity. Thus, we assume that the highest level of task complexity is always dominant.

This paper has focused on applying TQM to service organizations, which is a neglected area in management theory in general and in TQM in particular. We have applied Thompson's (1967) typology of technology and interdependence to service organizations, and the resulting conceptual framework points to reasons why some TQM programs in service organizations could be successful while others are less so. We have theorized that differences in interdependence patterns and their interaction with TQM content and process is key in reducing output uncertainties, and thus improving performance. It has long been argued in the literature that there should be a fit between strategy and structure. It is now becoming clear that the “one-size-fits-all” approach that has been implicit in the TQM literature, since the earliest seminal writings on TQM, may be flawed. If, as Reed et al. (1996) point out, not all aspects of TQM content are appropriate for all types of manufacturing firms in all environments, then, as this work suggests, service firms also need to be aware of those limitations of the strategy. And, as we have demonstrated, that limitation also applies to the strategy's process. The TQM literature is process heavy. This asymmetry between content and process may reflect the process-heavy nature of TQM, or it may simply be an artifact of the literature's historical development. If, for the moment, we make the not-unreasonable assumption that process is important, then we may expect to find significant performance effects from a fit between organization strategy and TQM's process activities of leadership, culture, training, and the use of teams. Although, the full effects of the fit may require more specificity in delineating TQM programs beyond the hypothesized relationships offered here. For example, cross-functional teams may be more appropriate for reciprocal interdependence patterns, whereas task teams may work better where there is a sequential or reciprocal pattern. Obviously, there is a need for additional research, both theoretical and empirical. And, we believe there is a need for that research to be done by strategy and organization theorists who have the theoretical and methodological tools at their disposal to address the issues we have raised here. Without such research, some firms may succeed with TQM, but many, many more are doomed to failure as the lack of fit between their form of interdependence and TQM prohibits the strategy from producing its anticipated benefits in terms of reduced output uncertainty. Finally, we return to the main point of this paper — to help remedy the deficiency in theory for TQM in general, and TQM in service industries, in particular. The conceptual framework that has been generated here makes a theoretical contribution and raises questions about how TQM should be used and implemented in service organizations. If, as we pointed out at the start of this paper, the US economy continues its march towards being service-based, and if quality management continues to be of importance, then there is an urgency to exploring those questions more fully.