The articles in this issue are all related to the interesting topic of approaches to organizational change. They focus on frameworks for organizational change, as well as key factors that facilitate and inhibit change efforts.
In the first article, James R. Evans, of the University of Cincinnati, and Eric P. Jack, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, examine the Baldrige Framework for Excellence in “Validating Key Results Linkages in the Baldrige Performance Excellence Model,” looking at how the Baldrige practices are interrelated and how they relate to performance. Using a sample of 307 U. S. manufacturers, they examined whether the relationships proposed by the Baldrige criteria framework existed between measures of the theoretical constructs underlying the Baldrige criteria. Canonical correlation was used to analyze the data, revealing the validity of many of the hypothesized linkages. They also found strong correlations between the framework variables and market share, customer satisfaction, and financial performance. Thus, they provided evidence in support of both the Baldrige framework and the relationship between quality management practices and financial, market, and operating performance.
In “Traditional Management, Quality Management, and Constraints Management: Perceptions of ASQ Members,” Mahesh Gupta, Arthur Adams, and Louis Raho, of the University of Louisville, compare two well-known management approaches with traditional management. Using educators and practitioners who were members of ASQ as a sample, they surveyed respondents to determine the key perceived differences between the approaches. They found that the three approaches were viewed as different on 16 of 18 criteria, with the biggest perceived difference between traditional management and the other two approaches. Constraints management was perceived as “in between” traditional and quality management. There were some differences between the perceptions of practitioners and educators, as well. In general, the practitioners’ perceptions of quality management and constraints management were closer to the traditional management end of the scale than the educators’ perceptions were.
Martin E. Smith looks at radical process change projects in “Business Process Design: Correlates of Success and Failure.” A sample of 210 North American managers was asked to consider a recent major performance-related change effort undertaken by their organization, in order to isolate factors that favored and inhibited the change. They found that business process design often occurred in combination with other types of organizational change, and that overall success rates for business process design projects were quite low. Key success factors included the presence of a high-ranking champion for the project, a strong project team, and stakeholder management, while business process design project failures were most strongly related to ineffective, missing, or conflicting leadership. Thus, while strong management can lead to project failure, it isn’t sufficient, alone, for project success.
These articles provide interesting insights into various frameworks for organizational change.
Barbara B. Flynn
Editor
Quality Management Journal
EDITORIAL
EDITOR
Barbara B. Flynn
Wake Forest UniversityPAST EDITOR
George S. Easton
Emory UniversityFOUNDING EDITOR
William A. GolomskiBOOK REVIEW EDITOR
James B. Kohnen
St. Mary’s College of CaliforniaPUBLISHER
William TonyMANUSCRIPT COORDINATOR
David NelsenCOPY EDITORS
Leigh Ann Klaus
Kris McEachernPRODUCTION
Cathy SchnackenbergDIGITAL PRODUCTION SPECIALISTS
Jen Czajka
Laura FranceschiHTML CODING
Laura FranceschiEDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
John Anderson
University of MinnesotaSelwyn Becker
University of ChicagoRobert E. Cole
University of CaliforniaJames W. Dean, Jr.
University of North CarolinaJames R. Evans
University of CincinnatiJohn P. Evans
University of North CarolinaFrank M. Gryna
University of TampaJohn Hamburg
APEX, Inc.David Luther
Luther Quality AssociatesRam Narasimhan
Michigan State UniversityDuke Oakes
Applied Logistical MethodsRoger G. Schroeder
University of MinnesotaKalyan Singhal
University of BaltimoreMichael J. Stahl
University of TennesseeEDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD
Sanjay Ahire
University of DaytonSusan D. Amundson
Arizona State UniversityKimberly A. Bates*
University of TorontoPaul M. Bobrowski
Syracuse UniversityKenneth Boyer
Michigan State UniversityKenneth E. Case
Oklahoma State UniversityInjazz Chen
Cleveland State UniversityBarrie Dale*
University of ManchesterRichard Deane
Georgia State UniversityJohn Delery
University of ArkansasKevin Dooley
Arizona State UniversityEdward Duplaga
Winona State UniversitySusan West Engelkemeyer
Babson CollegeByron Finch
Miami UniversityMark P. Finster
University of WisconsinLaura Forker
University of Massachusetts at DartmouthSoumen Ghosh
Georgia Institute of TechnologyGlenn H. Gilbreath
Virginia Commonwealth UniversityJohn M. Groocock*
TRW (Retired)Robert Handfield
North Carolina State UniversitySandra J. Hartman
University of New OrleansMarilyn Helms
Dalton State CollegeMary Collins Holcomb
University of TennesseeAnn Jordan
University of North TexasGary Kern
Indiana University South BendJill Phelps Kern
Digital SemiconductorDavid Kerridge*
Aberdeen UniversityRay A. Klotz
Qualcomm Inc.Frank Knight
FISI Madison FinancialRonald D. Kurtzmann
Diamond Management SystemsKeong Leong
The Ohio State UniversityA. Magid Mazen
Suffolk UniversitySatish Mehra
University of MemphisKim I. Melton
North Georgia College and State UniversityHenry R. Neave*
British Deming AssociationYoram Neumann
California State UniversityWilliam Newman
Miami UniversityGary Ragatz
Michigan State UniversityGipsie B. Ranney
Belmont UniversityRichard N. Rosett
Rochester Institute of TechnologyBrooke Saladin
Wake Forest UniversityHelmut Schneider
Louisiana State UniversityNirmal Sethia
California State Polytechnic UniversityJohn G. Surak
Clemson UniversityWilliam Tallon
Northern Illinois UniversityMichael D. Tveite
The Tetrad GroupPeter Ward
The Ohio State UniversityL. David Weller
University of GeorgiaTed Weston
Colorado State University*International reviewer
