Challenges and propositions for research in quality management
Journal article, 2018

From its inception, the field of quality management (QM) has been characterised by practice-driven development. Although QM has reached maturity as a field of research based on empirical enquiry, its practitioners still struggle to adapt QM implementations to reap their benefits. This study aims to identify their challenges to better understand how contemporary QM research addresses them. We propose approaches to bridge the potential relevance gaps between research and practice. A Delphi study of QM practitioners in Swedish private and public organisations, several of which operate globally, generated 49 challenges. An exploratory factor analysis was performed to cluster these challenges into themes, and the literature was reviewed to investigate how each theme has been addressed in QM research. The empirical investigation identified three themes related to future QM challenges—organisations' adaptability to rapid changes in the business environment, quality as a strategic concern for business owners, and managerial ownership of quality. By analysing these challenges, six propositions for future research were proposed to reduce potential relevance gaps. Future research should focus on how to make QM a strategic concern for owners, and explore how it can contribute to organisational ambidexterity and adaptability. Research should also determine how context influences the way QM is applied, and investigate how it can improve organisational learning and innovation. Finally, research should indicate how top managers can adopt the responsibilities of quality managers, and explore the ways the principal values of QM can be better integrated into organisations.From its inception, the field of quality management (QM) has been characterised by practice-driven development. Although QM has reached maturity as a field of research based on empirical enquiry, its practitioners still struggle to adapt QM implementations to reap their benefits. This study aims to identify their challenges to better understand how contemporary QM research addresses them. We propose approaches to bridge the potential relevance gaps between research and practice. A Delphi study of QM practitioners in Swedish private and public organisations, several of which operate globally, generated 49 challenges. An exploratory factor analysis was performed to cluster these challenges into themes, and the literature was reviewed to investigate how each theme has been addressed in QM research. The empirical investigation identified three themes related to future QM challenges—organisations' adaptability to rapid changes in the business environment, quality as a strategic concern for business owners, and managerial ownership of quality. By analysing these challenges, six propositions for future research were proposed to reduce potential relevance gaps. Future research should focus on how to make QM a strategic concern for owners, and explore how it can contribute to organisational ambidexterity and adaptability. Research should also determine how context influences the way QM is applied, and investigate how it can improve organisational learning and innovation. Finally, research should indicate how top managers can adopt the responsibilities of quality managers, and explore the ways the principal values of QM can be better integrated into organisations.

Ambidexterity

Relevance gap

Delphi study

Quality management

Organisational adaptability

Author

Anders Fundin

Mälardalens högskola

Bjarne Bergqvist

Luleå University of Technology

Henrik Eriksson

Chalmers, Technology Management and Economics, Service Management and Logistics

Ida Gremyr

Chalmers, Technology Management and Economics, Service Management and Logistics

International Journal of Production Economics

0925-5273 (ISSN)

Vol. 199 May 125-137

Subject Categories

Other Mechanical Engineering

Other Engineering and Technologies not elsewhere specified

Reliability and Maintenance

Areas of Advance

Production

DOI

10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.02.020

More information

Latest update

2/25/2019