The articles in this issue of Quality Management Journal are all related to the success or failure of quality management efforts and the factors that contribute. They range from general frameworks that can be applied in a variety of settings, to two specific service applications that deal with quality management in hospitals and university computer labs.
The first article, “Changing from Production to Quality: Application of the Situational Leadership and Transtheoretical Change Models,” by Richard A. Grover and H. Fred Walker of the University of Southern Maine, focuses on leadership and its role in determining the success or failure of quality management efforts. The authors integrate concepts from the Transtheoretical Model of Change and the Situational Leadership Model to develop a framework for assessing the readiness of followers for some of the changes associated with quality management, as well as prescribing appropriate leadership styles for meeting the needs of followers in each of the readiness levels. For example, in Level 1, the followers have no interest in and no ability to perform the tasks associated with quality management. The appropriate style of leadership is described as the “telling” style, which is highly structured and focuses on providing information and instruction. In contrast, followers in Level 2 are willing and eager to embrace quality management but lack the skills to carry it out effectively. For this level, the “selling” leadership style is appropriate, combining direction with an invitation for two-way dialogue. This article provides a useful set of guidelines for leaders to use in facilitating each stage of the transformation to quality. It stresses the importance of leadership as a factor in quality management success or failure.
In the second article, “Making Hospitals More Transparent,” Yoji Akao of Asahi University in Japan and Edward R. Chaplin of Continental Rehabilitation Hospital address the issue of transparency in evaluating organizations and encouraging quality transformations. They emphasize that hospitals are among the least transparent types of organizations, lacking a set of common standards, analogous to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or reporting standards used by the SEC or FAA. Such standards encourage uniform procedures, and their transparency brings accountability to the organization. Chaplin and Akao provide suggestions for a set of standards that could be used in hospitals in the United States based on Akao’s work with hospitals in Japan. They are divided into process measures, which are sampled, and outcome measures. They stress the importance of transparency to success or failure of quality management in various types of organizations.
In “Measuring the Quality of University Computer Labs Using SERVQUAL: A Longitudinal Study,” David W. Hughey and Sudhir K. Chawla of Angelo State University, and Zafar U. Khan of Eastern Michigan University provide a nice description of the well-known SERVQUAL instrument and demonstrate its applicability in a university computer lab setting. Although SERVQUAL has been a well-accepted means of assessing quality in service organizations for many years, there are questions about how generalizable it is and the extent to which the items can be modified to the needs of specific settings without changing the fundamental principles upon which it is based. Hughey, Chawla, and Khan tested SERVQUAL in the Angelo State University computer lab and found that analysis of their data revealed the same three dimensions as the original survey: Staff, Services, and Professionalism. In addition, they found a high level of consistency between the findings when the survey was administered to different student populations two years apart. These findings provide evidence of the validity of SERVQUAL in a different setting, as well as providing support for the importance of staff, services, and professionalism in the success or failure of quality management efforts in service organizations.
In the final article, “Understanding the Obstacles to TQM Success,” Rose Sebastianelli and Nabil Tamimi of the University of Scranton, studied barriers to total quality management (TQM) success at a macro level. They asked managers of a large number of organizations to assess the importance of various barriers to TQM success. They found that the top three perceived barriers to success were inadequate resources for TQM, inadequate human resource development and management, and lack of planning for quality. Lack of leadership for quality and lack of customer focus were also perceived as important barriers. Using multiple regression analysis, they were able to link the perceived barriers to success to various outcomes, moving beyond previous research, which has been based only on managers’ perceptions of barriers. Their results show the effect of these factors on various desirable and undesirable outcomes of quality management in organizations.
Combined, these articles provide a comprehensive picture of important factors in the success and failure of quality management in various types of organizations, as well as guidelines to avoid some of the greatest obstacles to success.
Barbara B. Flynn
Editor
Quality Management Journal
EDITORIAL
EDITOR
Barbara B. Flynn
Wake Forest 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
Quality Management Division, ASQRoger G. Schroeder
University of MinnesotaKalyan Singhal
University of BaltimoreMichael J. Stahl
University of TennesseeEDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD
Sanjay Ahire
University of DaytonKimberly 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 University of Nevada–Las VegasA. 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 Technology (Retired)Brooke 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
