بررسی ایزو 9000 :ایزو2000 و زنجیره تامین تضمین کیفیت

ISO 9000:2000 is the latest version of the quality standard developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The standard aims to evaluate a firm's ability to effectively design, produce, and deliver quality products and services. This version of the standard tries to enhance customer satisfaction by including more top-management involvement and continual improvement. Despite widespread international acceptance, the new standard is surrounded by controversy similar to that surrounding its predecessor, the 1994 version. The literature is clearly divided in its assessment of ISO 9000:2000, which is viewed as either a quality management (QM)-based system or as another paper-driven process that increases risk, uncertainty, and costs. This study utilizes case-based research to address the competing views of the ISO 9000:2000 standard in an attempt to see if a sample of firms in the automotive industry can be positioned within the Miles and Snow [Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., 1978. Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process. McGraw-Hill, New York] strategic typology. We compare different amounts of quality standard integration and quality assurance in the supply chain of firms with ISO 9000:2000 registration while positing several research propositions.

Quality assurance (QA) covers all activities, including design, development, production, installation, servicing, and documentation (Deming, 1981, Deming, 1986, Garvin, 1983, Garvin, 1984, Garvin, 1986 and Garvin, 1987), and is important to the competitive capabilities of any organization or supply chain. The importance of assuring quality requires that quality not be dealt with on an ad hoc basis. Only a properly implemented quality management system (QMS) within an organization and across its supply chain can provide protection from short-term actions that do not serve long-term goals. For many firms, obtaining acceptable levels of quality comes with the registration of a QMS for itself and its suppliers. In the new ISO 9000:2000 standards, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) provides what is regarded as the most prevalent approach to developing a QMS. To date, over half a million organizations in over 150 countries have achieved quality registration through ISO standards. Over 50,000 companies within the United States alone have obtained the new ISO 9000:2000 registration (IQNet, 2006). The continued growth of this standard for nearly 20 years suggests that it is, and will continue to be, an influential global metastandard (Curkovic and Handfield, 1996, Curkovic and Pagell, 1999, Uzumeri, 1997 and Kartha, 2004). Despite the international acceptance of ISO 9000:2000, the standard is still subject to controversy for individual firms and supply chains. A widespread criticism of the program is that it is not connected directly enough to product quality (Wayhan et al., 2002 and Naveh and Marcus, 2004). For example, a registered company can still have substandard processes and products because registration does not tell a company how to design more efficient and reliable products. When registration is used as a requirement for a supply base, buyers like to think that registered suppliers will have a leg up on the competition, but this may not be the case. Basically, the ISO quality standards ensure only that a quality system exists but cannot guarantee its functionality within a particular firm or supply chain (Curkovic and Handfield, 1996 and Gotzamani, 2005). Other important criticisms include the idea that registration will not ensure improved firm performance (Anderson et al., 1999, Sun, 2000, Tsekouras et al., 2002, Wayhan et al., 2002, Dimara et al., 2004, Naveh and Marcus, 2004 and Morris, 2006). There is also uncertainty as to the amount of resources necessary to implement a QMS and whether these resources actually improve quality assurance (Douglas and Judge, 2001, Hendricks and Singhal, 2001, Nicolau and Sellers, 2002 and Quazi and Jacobs, 2004). Mixed results from research on quality initiatives show that organizations achieved a distinct operating advantage when they used the ISO standards in daily practice and when these standards served as a catalyst for change (Naveh and Marcus, 2004). However, these same researchers also demonstrated that while applying the ISO standards may lead to operational benefits, doing so does not necessarily lead to improved business performance. Kaynak (2003) identified multiple relationships among total quality management (TQM) practices and performance and then found significant positive relationships by examining the direct and indirect effects of these practices on various performance levels. Comments from managers in our study mirror these findings. Some said ISO 9000:2000 had hindered the firm, others praised accompanying process improvements and benefits to the firm and its suppliers, while still others were undecided on the standards and their impact on supply chain performance. Since the 1980s and the call to improve quality in the United States, a large amount of research has been conducted under the domain of “quality” (Juran, 1978, Juran, 1981a, Juran, 1981b, Deming, 1981, Garvin, 1986, Garvin, 1987 and Juran and Gryna, 1988). Given the research to date, there is yet to be a consensus on the state of quality assurance in supply chain management and the roles of customers in driving quality assurance by requiring registrations such as ISO 9000. Existing frameworks for quality and supply chain management stress the importance of relationships (Liker and Choi, 2004), communication (Cai et al., 2006), agility (Lee, 2004 and Swafford et al., 2006), speed (Fine, 1998 and Foster and Adam, 1996), and supplier selection (Choi and Hartley, 1996), to name a few. However, no research has focused on the strategic aspects of quality assurance programs and the use of international standards for supplier selection and supply chain performance. Thus, a lack of consensus exists regarding the effects ISO quality standards have on quality assurance and supply chain performance. There also appears to be little treatment as to where quality standards fit within existing frameworks. Miles and Snow (1978) produced a typology of business-level strategies that can be used as a lens through which to view the integration of ISO 9000:2000 within supply chain management quality assurance efforts. Miles and Snow proposed that firms develop relatively stable patterns of behavior in order to survive within their perceived industry environments and that they take on one of four basic typologies/strategies: defenders, reactors, analyzers, or prospectors. While obtaining ISO registration in itself does not constitute a shift in strategy, registration does become part of a history of decisions that help constitute an overall strategy for a firm. Within the Miles and Snow typology, defenders have narrow product domains. Managers in this type of plant are experts in their organization's area of operation but do not search outside their domain for new opportunities. These managers seldom need to make major adjustments in structure or methods of operation unless customers demand it. They look primarily at improving the efficiency of existing operations. Reactors include managers who frequently perceive change and uncertainty occurring in their organizational environments but are unable to respond effectively. Management lacks a consistent strategy–structure relationship and seldom makes adjustments until forced to do so. Reactors may also be considered laggards when adopting new systems (Moore, 1991). Analyzers include firms that operate in two types of product-market domains, one relatively stable, the other changing. Within the stable areas, these companies operate routinely and efficiently through formalized structures and processes. Alternatively, in the more turbulent product areas, management will watch their competitors closely for new ideas and rapidly adopt those that appear to be the most promising. The final typology involves prospectors, who continuously search for market opportunities and experiment with responses to emerging environmental trends. Managers in this category often create the change and uncertainty to which the competition must respond and are much the same as the innovators described by Moore (1991). Because of their strong position on product and market innovation, prospector organizations lead by example. For the purpose of this study, we use the Miles and Snow typology to provide a better understanding of why and how some firms implement QMS. Later in this study, we lay a foundation for research propositions based on the existing literature in general and the Miles and Snow (1978) typology specifically. Given a lack of research on strategic frameworks and quality standards, the primary objective of this study is to explore the implications of ISO 9000:2000 adoption. The aim is to build theory in quality assurance and supply chain management. Before exploring the factors that influence the decision to adopt the international quality standard, we first review the relevant literature regarding ISO quality standards and supply chain frameworks. Next, we examine relevant supply chain management theory before discussing methods for a replicated field study. We then reveal insights from multiple site visits and develop several research propositions. We conclude with an evaluation of ISO 9000:2000 and its benefits and offer suggestions on how supply chain theory should be expanded for future research.

Many of the criticisms of ISO 9000:2000 espoused by managers seem valid on the surface but may actually mask an underlying strategic position of a plant. This study attempts to demonstrate that companies who fully integrate a QMS can reap significant benefits internally and externally in terms of quality assurance. ISO 9000:2000 does not have to be a non-value-added, paper-driven process. However, companies that see registration as a game to keep business will not obtain the additional benefits seen in more proactive plants where more effort is put into quality standards integration and supply chain quality assurance. Much like the findings from Naveh and Marcus (2004), we find differences between plants that install a registered QMS with external coordination and integration and plants that do not. Those plants that see ISO registration as an opportunity to improve QA and supply chain integration of quality standards will be part of a more effective supply chain. Buyers wanting to improve the integration of quality within their supply base should seek out suppliers that are prospectors. Prospectors have the greatest opportunity for a competitive advantage from ISO registration. Plants with a lesser amount of integration and plants that do not use ISO registration as a catalyst for change and quality assurance tend to be reactors and should not be sought out by buying firms. Interestingly, buyers wanting to increase either ISO standards integration or quality assurance should seek out defenders or analyzers. These types of plants, while not as desirable as prospectors, can improve a supply base and a supply chain to varying degrees. ISO registration contains important foundations for QA. Registered plants are forced to examine all of their processes and, in doing so, their own competitive priorities. Many plants with a strong focus on QMS integration have used the documentation process as a tool to discover and later solve problems. Much the same as any new initiative, low-hanging fruits will be found early in the implementation of a quality system and its registration. Those plants that do a good job of integration will reap early benefits. They will also find more long-term returns through inclusion in a customer's supply base, less variance in manufacturing processes, visibility and communication with supply chain members, an external image of quality, and the ability to attract new customers that understand and work with registered suppliers. ISO 9000:2000 forces plants to measure many things that they may not have previously measured. These metrics are useful in both finding and solving problems. Without a proper performance measurement system it is difficult to measure, manage, and hold people accountable for their actions. The importance of performance measurement cannot be stressed enough, as good performance measurement systems facilitate a better understanding of processes and products both internally and externally. A repeated sentiment from managers involved in this study is that without the structured approach of the ISO registration process, many quality system implementations would have fallen short of delivering the benefits discussed in this study. These same benefits help facilitate quality assurance upstream and downstream within a supply chain. The results of this study contribute to theory development by exploring a strategic dimension of QA (i.e., ISO 9000:2000), positing new research propositions, and confirming relationships posited in previous research. They also suggest that future research should take into consideration the strategic position of a plant when assessing the impacts of ISO 9000:2000 or when modeling supplier section practices that include ISO registration of a supply base. In this study we show that ISO 9000:2000 has the potential, when used under the right circumstances, to improve QA across the supply chain. In other words, it is a tool for QA. It can be applied across firms so as to tap into the synergies associated with QA, such as better understanding of processes, lower costs, and improved performance. Through the use of a structured interview protocol and qualitative data collection methods, the information from the respondents in this study also helps to develop theory in a broader context. It does this through providing a better understanding of the ISO 9000:2000 uncertainties, risks, benefits, and implications for quality assurance within a supply chain. We find that ISO registration does not make for a level playing field and that the level of integration and impact on supply chain QA varies. This variance allows some plants to actually obtain competitive advantages from registration, while other plants will always struggle with QMS development, integration, and compliance with registration. Limitations of this study include generalizability, causality, and empirical testing. The limited sample size and the industry involved constrains the generalizability of the findings. The qualitative approach does not support causality or the ability to empirically test propositions surrounding ISO 9000:2000 and objective measures of uncertainty, risk, benefits, and management support. Suggestions for future research focus on the evolutionary rather than the revolutionary nature of QA within supply chains. There is a need for a quantitative assessment of relationships identified from this study. Researchers should expand supply chain constructs to include a supplier's strategic orientation toward QA and ISO 9000:2000 registration. Additional research should test relationships between strategic orientation toward QA, ISO registration, competence, and performance. Additionally, the development of a QMS to aid in the process of quality assessment is necessary to further advance supply chain integration and quality assurance. To date, there is a lack of empirical research comparing plants that have sought registration on their own versus plants whose customers mandated registration. Focusing on the automotive industry has allowed our research to be conducted from secondary data sources such as Compustat, with the help of event study analysis, since the automotive OEMs mandated ISO 9000:2000 registration. This would be an extension of Naveh and Marcus (2004) or Corbett et al. (2005). Further examination of their data sets should be able to distinguish between plants with and without mandates for registration simply based on industry codes while taking signaling into consideration. This study provides support for the idea that ISO 9000:2000 itself does not provide competitive advantage. The way a plant implements and uses the registration as a catalyst for change can lead to plant-specific advantages and is an indication of the strategic orientation of the facility. The differences in implementation lead to differences in supply chain QA among a supply base that is required to have registration. If the objective of the buying firm is to create a uniform dialog and a quality platform among its suppliers, ISO registration goes a long way in helping to do this. There will always be differences between plants and additional measures of quality, risk, and performance. The ability to communicate and share information needs to be included in the purchasing decision. ISO registration alone is not enough to ensure anything beyond compliance with the registration standard.