رابطه بین شیوه های مدیریت کیفیت و نوآوری

The purpose of this study is to examine the associations among different quality management (QM) practices and investigate which QM practices directly or indirectly relate to five types of innovation: radical product, radical process, incremental product, incremental process, and administrative innovation. We test the proposed framework and hypotheses using empirical data from ISO 9001 certified manufacturing and service firms. The results show that a set of QM practices through process management has a positive relationship with all of these five types of innovation. It was found that process management directly and positively relates to incremental, radical, and administrative innovation. Organizational capability to manage processes may play a vital role in identifying routines, establishing a learning base, and supporting innovative activities. The findings also reveal that the value of an individual QM practice is tied to other QM practices. Therefore, highlighting just one or a few QM practices or techniques may not result in creative problem solving and innovation.

Over the last 30 years, innovation has caught the attention of researchers and practitioners (Gatignon et al., 2002 and Damanpour, 1987). In a turbulent economic environment, innovation is a strategic driver in seizing new opportunities and protecting knowledge assets (Hurmelinna-Laukkanen et al., 2008 and Teece, 2000). Specifically, innovation plays a key role in providing unique products and services by creating greater value than was previously recognized and establishing entry barriers (Lloréns Montes et al., 2005). The importance of innovation has motivated researchers to identify the various driving forces of innovation (Becheikh et al., 2006). Some researchers contend that quality management (QM) could be one of the prerequisites of innovation (Hoang et al., 2006 and Perdomo-Ortiz et al., 2006). QM practices contribute to operational and financial performance, allowing a firm to achieve a competitive advantage (Lagrosen and Lagrosen, 2005 and Kaynak, 2003). It is not surprising that many manufacturing and service firms around the world (e.g., Xerox, Ford, Motorola, and Federal Express) have adopted QM over the last two decades (Rahman, 2004 and Powell, 1995). Since the early 2000s, researchers have conducted empirical studies on the relationship between QM and innovation. While previous studies have provided interesting insight into the role of QM practices in innovation, a few shortcomings in these studies emerge from the literature review. First of all, earlier studies failed to explain which QM practices are directly or indirectly associated with innovation. Most studies examined only the direct relationship between QM practices and innovation. Researchers have tended to identify whether the implementation of QM practices is positively related to innovation (e.g., Abrunhosa et al., 2008, Martinez-Costa and Martinez-Lorente, 2008 and Hoang et al., 2006) or which QM practice is directly related to innovation (Moura et al., 2007 and Prajogo and Sohal, 2004). Second, researchers were limited to assessing only a few types of innovation. Some studies examined a single type of innovation, such as process innovation (e.g., Abrunhosa et al., 2008) or product innovation (e.g., Prajogo and Sohal, 2004), whereas others explored both process and product innovation (e.g., Feng et al., 2006 and Martinez-Costa and Martinez-Lorente, 2008). Looking at the earlier studies, two questions arise: Is it worthwhile to examine QM practices that can lead to only product and process innovations? If not, what other types of innovation should be explored to clearly address an association between QM and innovation? These studies devoted only limited attention to examining various types of innovation. This narrow view of innovation may be a barrier that causes a misunderstanding of the contribution of QM to innovation. The multidimensional types of innovation need to be tested to correctly understand the real value of QM on innovation. Third, earlier studies on the relationship between QM and innovation have provided inconsistent findings (See Appendix A). Some found that QM practices are positively related to innovation (e.g., Perdomo-Ortiz et al., 2006 and Martinez-Costa and Martinez-Lorente, 2008), whereas others concluded that there is no evidence linking QM activities and innovation (e.g., Singh and Smith, 2004, Moura et al., 2007, Prajogo and Sohal, 2004 and Santos-Vijande and Álvarez-González, 2007). This study explores the following two questions: What relationship exists among QM practices? Which QM practices are directly or indirectly related to innovation? We concentrate on the research questions by conducting an empirical study of manufacturing and service firms. The objective of this study is to empirically investigate the relationships among QM practices and to explore which QM practices are directly or indirectly associated with five types of innovation: radical product, radical process, incremental product, incremental process, and administrative. The remainder of this study is organized as follows. The following section describes the extant literature, gives a research model, and presents hypotheses. The next section presents methodology, including data collection, measurement scales, measurement analysis, and hypothesis testing. Finally, this study concludes with a discussion, notes the implications of the results, and gives suggestions for future research.

This study examines the relationship between QM practices and innovation. A proposed model comprises eight QM practices and five types of innovation. To test the proposed model, data were collected from a sample of ISO 9001 certified manufacturing or service firms. The analysis shows that QM practices are associated with innovation directly or indirectly and that the importance of individual QM practices is tied to other practices. In particular, the results indicate that process management directly and positively relates to all types of innovation. Limitations of this study should be recognized, providing researchers with future research opportunities. First, respondents for this study are ISO 9001 certified firms. The firms fit the research purpose because they are familiar with terminologies and concepts of QM practices. However, other QM-intensive firms, which were awarded quality improvement awards such as the MBNQA or the EFQA, might have been left out of this study. It would be promising to replicate this research using data collected from firms that have been awarded the MBNQA or the EFQA but are not ISO 9001 certified. Further, it may not be possible to generalize our findings for firms that are not ISO 9001 certified. Because our data involves only ISO 9001 firms, the findings of this study may not be applicable to non-certified firms that are likely to have less-developed quality programs. Future studies could be conducted to examine the relationship between QM practices and innovation in both ISO 9001 certified firms and firms that are not certified. A second limitation is the use of cross-sectional data. Although the research is focused on examining the association between QM and innovation across various organizations, it would be valuable to conduct a longitudinal study within organizations. This attempt would verify the finding of this research and improve understanding of the relationship of QM to innovation. Third, while this study collected data based on respondents’ perceptual judgment, considering their performance within a firm, there is little attempt to compare performance with other competitors in a similar industry. There is also no quantitative measurement item to evaluate innovation. Though this study adapts measurement items from the literature, future researchers need to develop more objective and comprehensive measurement items for extending this research. Fourth, it would be worthwhile to consider case studies to answer why and how QM practices lead to innovation. Using a straightforward survey analysis, we focused on investigating the relationship between QM practices and innovation. Our study could not clearly answer questions such as how and why QM practices result in innovation. Case studies may offer in-depth insight on how QM-driven firms create innovation efficiently and why process management is the most important among QM practices in supporting innovation activities. Despite these limitations, this study contributes to the development of the literature in the following ways. The study enhances our understanding of which QM practices relate to each other and then, directly or indirectly, result in innovation. Earlier studies were limited to simply identifying a list of QM practices that directly influence innovation. Unlike the previous studies, this study investigates direct and indirect linkages among QM practices and clearly shows the positive relationships between QM practices and innovation. Furthermore, this study extends the boundaries of current studies by testing the relationship between QM practices and five different types of innovation, such as radical product and incremental process innovation. We also provide empirical evidence of the significance of process management that may assist firms or managers to identify routines, to establish a learning base, and to support innovation initiatives. It will be beneficial for practitioners to develop innovation strategies and to allocate resources effectively, as needed by the type of innovation.