ابعاد گوناگون شیوه های مدیریت کیفیت جامع در تعیین کیفیت و نوآوری در عملکرد - بررسی تجربی

This paper examines the multidimensionality of TQM in association with organizational performance. The primary proposition examined in this study is that TQM embodies two different models of practices, mechanistic and organic, with each showing a different role in the association with two different types of performance, quality and innovation. Using empirical data gathered from 194 middle/senior managers in Australian firms, the findings support the proposition in pairing the mechanistic elements of TQM with quality performance and the organic elements with innovation performance. Further results, however, fail to support the proposition that organizations need to configure TQM practices in different ways for achieving different type of performance.

Prajogo and Sohal (2001) have presented a comprehensive literature review on the relationship between TQM and innovation performance. They argued that the need to examine this relationship arises from the fact that, today, the basis for competitive advantage has shifted from quality to innovation, and given that TQM principles and practices were developed in the context of quality management, it is important to evaluate their suitability for pursuing innovation performance. In reviewing a body of literature concerning the relationship between TQM and innovation, they identified two competing schools of thought with one suggesting that TQM is positively related to innovation performance and the other group contending that the implementation of TQM principles and practices could hinder organizations from being innovative. As discussed in the next section, a number of scholars have suggested that TQM actually embodies several practices whose characteristics are different to each other, highlighting the multidimensionality of TQM. This paper examines the multidimensional aspects of TQM and uses this to resolve the debate concerning the relationship between TQM and innovation by drawing on the experience of Australian firms.

In conclusion, in response to the first two research questions, the results have verified the proposition that both mechanistic and organic types of practices can coexist under the umbrella of TQM, hence, establishing the multidimensionality of TQM. The result has also demonstrated the different role of each type of practice in determining different measures of performance with customer focus and process management practices being associated with product quality whilst leadership and people management being related to product innovation. However, further results indicate no variation in the configurations of TQM practices even when organizations pursue different types of strategic performance. This suggests that all TQM practices are equally important although each of them has a different role in determining different types of performance. Further research should focus on identifying and examining several key factors that drive the application of the multidimensionality of TQM from both internal and external perspectives. For example, how TQM practices are implemented in various industry sectors with different levels of uncertainty and dynamism. It is also important to explore the practices of TQM in different functions or departments within the same organization; for example, between marketing and production. Given that, to date, most of the major research on TQM has been focused at the organization level, such a study will provide a significant contribution in developing a better understanding of the flexibility and multidimensionality of TQM applications in organizations.