پیکربندی مدیریت کیفیت و پیاده سازی بازاریابی و مفاهیم عملکرد برای بازاریابان صنعتی

This study empirically examines if different configurations of quality management and marketing (Q&M) implementation exist in various industrial organizations and explores their implications for firm performance. We survey 304 organizations that have operational quality management systems and conduct in-depth interviews with selected groups of respondent organizations to understand their market-oriented behaviors. We perform cluster analysis of the survey data to empirically construct taxonomic configurations of Q&M implementation that may exist in these organizations. The results show three distinct configurations with each configuration displaying specific implementation characteristics. We label the corresponding organizations as reactive firms, progressive firms, and proactive firms, respectively. In other words, each configuration represents a different extent of implementing Q&M in organizations. We also find that the empirically-derived configurations, corroborated with in-depth interview data, are associated with various firm performance measures. The analysis reveals that proactive firms in which Q&M are implemented at a high level attain the best firm performance. Despite the exploratory nature of this study, the taxonomy developed yields valid and reliable findings that have significant theoretical and practical implications for industrial marketers.

The competitive pressure of today's business environment has prompted many organizations to shift their operational emphasis from a production-oriented approach to a market-oriented approach, which accords customer satisfaction the highest priority. At the same time, many businesses respond to competition by embracing the concepts of quality improvement and total quality management (TQM), which espouse that firms link organizational visions, missions, and operating principles with satisfying customer wants, and that companies exploit quality as a means to this end (Lai & Cheng, 2003). This quality management approach emphasizes organizational ability to continuously satisfy customer needs at a profit with the involvement of all of the organizational members. Implementation of quality management is consistent with the marketing management approach where the latter requires organization-wide generation of market intelligence pertaining to current and future customer needs, dissemination of the intelligence across departments, and organization-wide responsiveness to it for execution (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). Although quality management and marketing (Q&M) have been well defined and both are anchored in the concept of customer satisfaction, their management implications in relation to each other have not been adequately covered in the literature (Lai, 2003). A number of studies have examined the impact of quality management, particularly TQM (e.g., Yeung, Cheng, & Lai, 2006), and the impact of marketing (e.g., Song & Parry, 2009) on business performance. In general, these studies tend to support the notion that Q&M are significant contributors to company success. Some studies, however, have questioned the value of quality management (e.g., Benner & Veloso, 2008) and of marketing (e.g., Merlo & Auh, 2009) to firm performance. Furthermore, the literature is short of empirical studies that examine different Q&M implementation configurations in organizations, although Q&M have been considered complementary management approaches for performance improvement (Lai & Cheng, 2005). It has been suggested that the lack of successful joint implementation of Q&M is the missing link between these two management approaches (e.g., Kordupleski, Rust, & Zahorik, 1993). Therefore, it is desirable to establish a framework that considers the Q&M interface, identify different Q&M implementation configurations, develop a taxonomy of Q&M implementation configurations, and explore the performance implications of different Q&M implementation configurations. This will raise the confidence of organizations in implementing these two management approaches. In fact, the literature is unclear as to the following issues: Does the performance of firms vary with different configurations of Q&M implementation and, if so, which configuration will bring the best performance outcomes? Do organizations with a more desirable configuration with Q&M implemented at a higher level perform better, and vice versa? If different Q&M implementation configurations do exist in practice, then it will be useful to understand what characteristics each configuration possesses and specifically how they are associated with firm performance. While a considerable number of studies have investigated either the quality management–performance relationship or the marketing–performance relationship, there is a serious lack of studies examining the two management approaches collectively focusing on Q&M implementation configurations and their associated performance impli cations. Today's business environment is characterized by diverse customer needs and rapid market changes, which present huge challenges to many businesses in managing their operations. Research linking internal operating processes and market needs is emerging in industrial marketing (Nath, Nachiappan, & Ramanathan, 2010) and operations management (Chintagunta & Desai, 2009). There is an urgent need for more studies to address the new challenges of quality management, particularly when firms are striving to meet rapidly changing market requirements (Schroeder, Linderman, & Zhang, 2005) and industrial relationships. We conduct this study with a view to shedding light on the questions of whether different Q&M implementation configurations exist in organizations and how different configurations are related to firm performance. We also seek to explore the managerial implications of our research findings for industrial marketers.

In Firms A and B, quality management provides them with a unifying focus and integrated the efforts of all the employees, from top management to front-line staff, to continuously improve their business operations for customer satisfaction. Quality management in the two firms helps assure customer focus, give employees a clear role in quality management, and facilitate continuous improvement. All these quality management practices are reflected in their resulting firm performance—increased customer and employee satisfaction, and improved market performance and productivity. Although Firms C and D do not practice quality management well, they recognize the benefits of quality management. It gives them a well-defined and formulated quality policy that contributes to standardized work procedures and reduces job variations. The quality management practices in the two firms appear to be inward-focused and concerned with internal documentation and work procedures. They run the risk of losing sight of market needs and the voice of customers in their quality improvement journeys. Because of a lack of a common language for quality management (e.g., customer satisfaction), collaboration among functional areas and coordination of organizational activities are not obvious. The cross-case findings provide support for the findings in the survey research that Q&M are complementary management approaches in organizations. Quality management acts as an integrating mechanism to drive organization-wide efforts to satisfy customers efficiently, while marketing imbues organizational members with the importance of customer satisfaction and assures a market focus on quality management efforts