This issue of Quality Management Journal contains four excellent articles on a number of interesting topics, ranging from statistical process control (SPC) and the fit between quality approach and strategic orientation of the organization to design for the environment and the role of users in the software development process.
We begin with “Modified Nominal/Target Control Charts—A Case Study in Supplier Development,” by S. K. Vermani of The Boeing Company. Vermani writes about the major initiatives for cost reduction with suppliers, including the promotion of the use of statistics in process management and focus on the suppliers’ processes, rather than product conformance. However, SPC is a challenge in the aerospace industry, where there are many complex parts with a large number of quality characteristics. He describes a new methodology for short-run control charts, which leads to a reduction of the length of each control chart, a reduction in the number of charts necessary, and a focus on the process, rather than on individual quality characteristics. This approach, which lowers the risk of a false alarm and misinterpretation of freak events, is illustrated through a case study of a supplier.
In “Environmental Uncertainty, Strategic Orientation, and Quality Management: A Contingency Model,” Naceur Jabnoun, Azaddin Khalifah, and Attihir Yusuf of the University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates examine a contingency model for matching quality approach with characteristics of an organization’s strategy and the amount of uncertainty in its environment. Based on the Miles and Snow well-known strategic orientation typology, they propose different types of quality approach for various contingencies. The focus on conformance of quality assurance fits well with defenders, which seek to secure a stable niche in the market. Both approaches are internally focused, emphasize control and efficiency, and require a formal, centralized organization. In contrast, total quality learning’s search for new pools of customers and new customer needs and services fits well with prospectors’ desire to locate and exploit new products and markets. Both of these approaches are externally focused, emphasizing learning, flexibility, innovation, and shared values. Similarly, total quality management fits well with the perspective of analyzers. This framework should provide a sound foundation for future empirical research.
Design for the environment (DfE) is the topic of Thomas F. Gattiker’s (Miami University) focus on the classroom article, “A Hands-On Application for Teaching Design for the Environment (DfE) Principles.” He describes an active learning approach, through which students discover DfE principles themselves. Students are provided with a videocassette to disassemble, brainstorming ways to reduce its environmental impact. They are led to focus on incorporating DfE principles in the design stage of a product in order to avoid end-of-life strategies for disposal of products after they are in full production. Through comparison of a traditional videocassette with a new type of videocassette with a considerably smaller environmental impact, they are able to develop and understand DfE principles.
Tor Guimaraes of Tennessee Technological University and S. Sandy Staples and James D. McKeen, both of Queen’s University, investigate the importance of involvement of users in the software development process in “Empirically Testing Some Main User-Related Factors for Systems Development Quality.” They studied 228 application systems in 23 organizations, each developed by IS professionals, examining the role of the extent of user (non-IS members of an organization) participation in development, user expertise, user/developer communication, user training, user influence, and user conflict. Although much has been written about the importance of involving users in the development process, prior research has had mixed results. This research corroborated the importance of user participation, user training, and user experience, finding that the other factors did not have a direct relationship with software system quality.
Combined, these articles deal with some very interesting topics, using a variety of approaches, including empirical, case study, and conceptual research and active learning on the part of students in the classroom.
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
