This issue contains four outstanding articles on quality and process improvement. They focus on quality management in a range of countries, from the United States and Northern Ireland to Singapore, Brunei, and South Korea. In addition, they use a variety of methodologies, including detailed case analysis, sample surveys, focus groups, interviews, and grounded theory.
The first article deals with the phenomenon of de-evolution of SPC, whereby SPC rules and procedures are progressively ignored, overlooked, or modified as operators’ proper reactions to out-of-control situations are viewed by the organization as counterproductive and disruptive. In “Sociotechnical Reasons for the De-evolution of Statistical Process Control,” Harrison Kelly and Colin Drury of the State University of New York at Buffalo use focus group data, sample surveys, and focused interviewing to investigate this all-too-common phenomenon. Building upon W. Edwards Deming’s work on “tampering,” they develop a sociotechnical model of SPC de-evolution, striving to understand why attempts to integrate SPC into business systems can result in failure. They conclude by providing practical suggestions to avoiding SPC de-evolution.
The focus moves to Asia in “Overview of Quality Management Practices in Selected Asian Countries,” by Teng Heng Chan and Hesan Quazi of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. Chan and Quazi conducted an in-depth study of quality management in nine Asian countries. They grouped the countries into three groups, based on the maturity of their quality management practices. South Korea and Singapore had the most mature practices, including many global and world-class quality management practices. The second group was composed of Malaysia, Philippines, India, and Indonesia, which have equivalents of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. Thailand, Brunei, and Bangladesh, with ISO-type quality management systems, were in the third group. Regional factors important in these differences included the state of industrialization and economy in a country, the intensity of government quality management initiatives, the role played by multinationals in disseminating quality management knowledge, and the maturity of quality management practices in a country. They also cited micro-factors, specific to a particular country, including apathy about quality management among manufacturers (Brunei), the presence of a quality management champion (India), the personal involvement of a government member (Malaysia), and the push for survival (Singapore).
In the third article, Denis Leonard of the University of Wisconsin and Rodney McAdam of the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland use grounded theory to develop models for quality management in “The Strategic Dynamics of Total Quality Management: A Grounded Theory Research Study.” Although academics have studied quality management for a number of years, much of the research has been atheoretical. Leonard and McAdam strive to develop a theoretical explanation for quality management through their study of 19 organizations over a two-year period and in-depth longitudinal study of a single organization. This allowed investigation of the pattern of changes over time, rather than a snapshot of quality management at a given point in time. They developed a set of models to allow the impact and consequences of decisions on each other to be ascertained. The integrated set of models includes models for the TQM environment, TQM life cycle, key points of TQM application, strategic application of TQM, and strategic application of business excellence model. The longitudinal case study is used to illustrate the application and integration of the theoretical models.
The final article looks at quality examiners and their motivations. Jennifer Lehr of Fairleigh Dickinson University and Ronald Rice of Rutgers University conducted a study of volunteer quality examiners at Johnson & Johnson. They studied their motivation to become quality examiners, finding that basic motivational needs and organizational identification were important factors, in addition to demographic measures, such as the number of years an employee has been with the company. They also examined the examiner training program, making suggestions for improvement.
As you will see, this is a very interesting and well-written set of articles. I am confident that you will enjoy reading them as much as I did.
Barbara B. Flynn
Editor
Quality Management Journal
EDITORIAL
EDITOR
Barbara B. Flynn
Wake Forest University
PAST EDITOR
George S. Easton
Emory University
FOUNDING EDITOR
William A. Golomski
University of Chicago
BOOK REVIEW EDITOR
James B. Kohnen
St. Mary’s College of CaliforniaPUBLISHER
William Tony
MANUSCRIPT COORDINATOR
Dave Nelsen
COPY EDITORS
Leigh Ann Klaus
Kris McEachern
PRODUCTION
Cathy Schnackenberg
DIGITAL PRODUCTION SPECIALISTS
Jen Czajka
Jill ZimmermanHTML CODING
Jill ZimmermanEDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
John Anderson
University of Minnesota
Selwyn Becker
University of Chicago
Robert E. Cole
University of California
James W. Dean, Jr.
University of North Carolina
James R. Evans
University of Cincinnati
John P. Evans
University of North Carolina
Frank M. Gryna
University of Tampa
John Hamburg
APEX, Inc.
David Luther
Luther Quality Associates
Ram Narasimhan
Michigan State University
Roger G. Schroeder
University of Minnesota
Kalyan Singhal
University of Baltimore
Michael J. Stahl
University of TennesseeEDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD
Sanjay Ahire
University of Dayton
Susan D. Amundson
Arizona State University
Kimberly A. Bates*
University of Toronto
Paul M. Bobrowski
Syracuse University
Kenneth Boyer
Michigan State University
Kenneth E. Case
Oklahoma State University
Injazz Chen
Cleveland State University
Barrie Dale*
University of Manchester
Richard Deane
Georgia State University
John Delery
University of Arkansas
Kevin Dooley
Arizona State University
Edward Duplaga
Bowling Green State University
Susan West Engelkemeyer
Babson College
Byron Finch
Miami University
Mark P. Finster
University of Wisconsin
Laura Forker
University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth
Soumen Ghosh
Georgia Institute of Technology
Glenn H. Gilbreath
Virginia Commonwealth University
John M. Groocock*
TRW (Retired)
Robert Handfield
North Carolina State University
Sandra J. Hartman
University of New Orleans
Marilyn Helms
Dalton State College
Mary Collins Holcomb
University of Tennessee
Ann Jordan
University of North Texas
Gary Kern
Indiana University South Bend
Jill Phelps Kern
Digital Semiconductor
David Kerridge*
Aberdeen University
Ray A. Klotz
Qualcomm Inc.
Frank Knight
FISI Madison Financial
Ronald D. Kurtzmann
Diamond Management Systems
Keong Leong
Ohio State University
A. Magid Mazen
Suffolk University
Satish Mehra
University of Memphis
Kim I. Melton
North Georgia College and State University
Henry R. Neave*
British Deming Association
Yoram Neumann
California State University
William Newman
Miami University
Gary Ragatz
Michigan State University
Gipsie B. Ranney
Belmont University
Richard N. Rosett
Rochester Institute of Technology
Brooke Saladin
Wake Forest University
Helmut Schneider
Louisiana State University
Nirmal Sethia
California State Polytechnic University
John G. Surak
Clemson University
William Tallon
Northern Illinois University
Michael D. Tveite
The Tetrad Group
Peter Ward
Ohio State University
L. David Weller
University of Georgia
Ted Weston
Colorado State University*International reviewer
