Working Definition of TQM Provides Foundation for Research

Working Definition for Total Quality
Management (TQM) Researchers
William Johnson Miller
Georgia State Universin,

Total quality management represents a movement which is revolutioniz-
ing the way business is done in the industrialized world. Using points of
agreement between the writings of the quality gurus, this paper develops
a definition of TQM to serve as a reference point for those interested in
doing research on this important topic.

Once in a generation, perhaps, something happens that profoundly changes the
world and how we look at it. Business is no different. From time to time, some-
one develops a new way of operation that spreads from industry to industry.
Those who adapt, prosper; those who do not, disappear. Well known examples
of such processes include the adoption of the factory system in the 18th century
and the assembly line in the 20th century. Without question, total quality man-
agement (TQM) is an innovation on this scale.
-Chase & Aquilano, 1992, p. 186

With the words above from Chase and Aquilano’s widely-used production/opera-
tions management text setting the stage, this paper embarks on an exploration into
a topic, which over the last ten years, has led to a revolution in the way business is
being done in America and throughout the world.
Most of us are familiar with the story of Japan’s rise out of the ruins of World
War II to become a world leader in the manufacturing of products. This success
was driven in large part by a focus on quality as the fundamental basis for manag-
ing the organization. Deming and Juran were among the first American quality
experts who studied this “quality revolution” in the 1950s. In the early 1970s
American business was surprised by the superior performance of Japanese prod-
ucts and realized that something must be done to profoundly change the way they
did business in order to maintain competitiveness. As a result Deming and Juran
studied Japanese manufacturing processes and were recognized as gurus of this
revolution. They were consulted as to implementing these processes, and the rev-
olution spread to America and the rest of the world (Chase & Aquilano, 1992).

Direct all corre.pmdence m: William J. Miller, Georgia State University, College of Business, Department of
Management, PO. Box 4014, Atlanta, GA 30303.4014.
Journal of Quality Management, Vol. I, No. 2. pp. 149-159 ISSN: 1084.8568
Copyright 0 1996 JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

149

150 MILLER

After a decade a confusing situation existed. A number of organizations in
various industries had taken steps to transform themselves according to the ideals
of total quality management. The need to change to stay competitive was acknowl-
edged. The goal of “quality management” was recognized. The missing element
was a definition of the goal and steps to be followed to obtain the goal in terms of
a any given organizational and environmental context. Change always presents
challenges.
A look at the literature reveals many books on “how to” implement TQM
(Aguayo, 1990; Crosby, 1979, 1985, 1989; Cullen & Hollingham, 1987; Deming,
1986; the Ernst & Young Quality Consulting Group, 1990; Garvin, 1988; Gitlow
& Gitlow, 1987; Ishikawa, 1985; Juran, 1989; Mizuno, 1988; Oakland, 1989;
Price, 1990; Scherkenbach, 1991) as well as a considerable number of industry
specific and general business practitioner articles which discuss the merits and
importance of TQM programs. While both of these types of writings are very help-
ful in encouraging organizations to adopt TQM and to provide guidance along the
way, each has a situational specific set of issues to discuss or points to make which
may be significantly different than the others. When taken as a whole, this litera-
ture can be somewhat intimidating and confusing. This potential for confusion can
almost make one wonder if, in fact, the various writers are talking about the same
thing when they bring up the subject of TQM.
One of the primary goals of TQM is the momentous task of totally transform-
ing the way business is conducted throughout the world. It is not surprising that
there are a wide variety of approaches and potential for confusion. Each of the var-
ious authors seeks to make meaningful contributions toward assisting and
encouraging the growth of the TQM movement. When faced with such varied
ideas and approaches, a natural question to ask is “what does the research show?”
The literature discussed above takes the traditional practitioners’ approach by
describing what is being done by means of case descriptions and then prescribing
based on those results. Unfortunately, the case approach is extremely subjective
and does not bring an objective scientific approach to examining the various issues
which are fundamental to the TQM area.
Rephrasing the above question, then, one should ask, “what does the objective
(scientific) research show?” The answer to this is difficult to discover because
management scientists and other scholars who are responsible for conducting such
research have not been involved in this process. To emphasize this point, Robert
Kaplan of Harvard University concluded-after searching through a number of
1990 operations and business journals-that “virtually no research (had been) pub-
lished on the subject (of TQM)” (Bemowski, 1991, pp. 37-42).
This lack of involvement by the research community has not gone unnoticed
by business leaders. In 1991 chief executives of six major U.S. corporations (Rob-
inson et al., 1991) advocated the need for research on TQM in “An Open Letter:
TQM on Campus.” In an effort to put their money where their mouth is, IBM
announced an incentive program late in 1991, stating that they would sponsor eight
awards of $1 million each to universities which took steps to incorporate TQM into
their research, operations and curricula (IBM Corporation, 199 1).

JOURNAL OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT. Vol. I. No. 2, 1996

WORKING DEFINITION FOR TQM 151

This paper has been written to assist in the process of bringing scientific
research to bear on TQM. Among a number of topics listed in a research agenda
proposal by the Deming Center for Quality Management is “developing an agreed-
upon definition or model for TQM” (Bemowski, 1991, pp. 37-42). Developing a
definition for TQM which can be accepted by all those who study and deal with the
topic seems to be a very important place to start. This paper represents an effort to
contribute to that process.

THE IMPORTANCE OF DEFINITIONS

With a process which involves the use of rather complex conceptual constructs, it
is vitally important that definitions be developed precisely and specifically. The
concepts associated with TQM are no different. A look at the literature reveals that
considerable attention has been given by most authors to define terms. Most exist-
ing works have been defined in terms of case descriptions and prescribing courses
of actions to immplement TQM programs based on these result, the definitions
developed tend to be rather diverse in nature.
While the definitions of TQM programs serve business professionals in case
specific situations, they are not univerisal. In case-specific situations terms are
defined by “what is.” For scientific research a definition must be flexible enough
on fundamental issues to fit many situations and precise enough to permit
comparisons.
This can be demonstrated by examining the research process itself. With the
generally accepted process of scientific research, researchers seek to study specific
phenomena under a number of conditions and settings with the intention of testing
hypotheses. Basic concepts must have a standardized definition so that results of
experiments performed under varying settings and conditions can be compared
and replicated. Only then can generalizations be formulated. It serves no useful
scientific purpose for researchers to compare the results of studies which disagree
on fundamental issues. Such “apples versus oranges” comparisons are useless in
the area of scientific research.
The goal of this paper is to develop a definition of the concept of TQM which
is specific enough to accurately represent the concept completely and broad
enough to be acceptable to individual with diverse perspective involved in this
field.

TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

Existing Definitions

One way to approach the issue is to look at specific definitions of Total Qual-
ity Management as they appear in the literature and to evaluate the relative merits
of the different definitions. Before proceeding with this approach though, it is nec-
essary to clarify something about the literature.

JOURNAL OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT, Vol. 1, No. 2. 1996

152 MILLER

The field of Total Quality Management is perhaps different than many areas.
It has a few individuals who have so dominated theory development and imple-
mentation processes in many organizations that they have achieved a special
status. In much of the literature these individuals are referred to as gurus. This
paper will borrow the use of this term for purposes of convenience, implying only
the positive connotations associated with important philosophical leaders in the
field.
Generally, the three individuals considered to merit the title of guru are W.
Edwards Deming, Joseph M. Juran, and Philip B. Crosby. The contributions of
Deming and Juran have continued to significantly impact the TQM movement in
the United States as well as Japan. Crosby’s contribution to TQM is primarily cen-
tered in the United States: starting with his work in the early 60’s at Martin
Company, a missile manufacturer, and later, as Quality Director at I.T.T. In 1979 he
formed a consulting firm which has been influential in assisting with the imple-
mentation of quality management processes in a number of organizations in the
United States. Garvin (1992, pp. 180- 190) and Oakland (1989, pp. 28 l-305) give
an overview of these contributions and comparisons of their different approaches.
Oakland includes Bill Conway, a disciple of Deming, as a fourth guru, but this is
not consistent with the rest of the literature, and therefore, will not be included in
this discussion.
It would perhaps shorten this discussion considerably if each of the three
gurus had a clearly stated definition of the term, Total Quality Management. This
is not the case. In fact, a search of the writings of all three failed to reveal a single
instance where any of them has even used the term. This being true, a less direct
route in developing a definition of TQM will have to be taken in this paper.
A search of the literature reveals two definitions for TQM which may be used
as a starting point. The first is offered by Chase and Aquilano, and defined from a
customer orientation perspective: “Total Quality Management may be defined as
managing the entire organization so that it excels in all dimensions of products and
services that are important to the customer” (Chase & Aquilano, 1992, pp. 186-
187). This definition by itself, is short and to the point (which is generally desirable
in a working definition). On the negative side, however, it uses the word “manag-
ing” to define a term which includes “management” so it could be improved.
A second definition provided by John S. Oakland in his book Total Quality
Management follows:

Total Quality Management is an approach to improving the effectiveness and flexibility
of organizations as a whole. It is essentially a way of organizing and involving the whole
organization; every department, every activity, every single person at every level. For
an organization to be truly effective, each part of it must work properly together, recog-
nizing that every person and every activity affects, and in turn is affected by, others.

TQM is a method for ridding people’s lives of wasted effort by involving everyone in
the processes of improvement; improving the effectiveness of work so that the results
are achieved in less time. The methods and techniques used in TQM can be applied
throughout the organization. They are equally useful to finance, sales, marketing, distri-

JOURNAL OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT, Vol. I, No. 2, 1996


bution, development, manufacturing, public relations, personnel, to every one of a com-
pany’s activities (Oakland, 1989, pp. 14-15).

While the considerable length of this second definition limits its suitability as
a working definition, it does present an interesting contrast to the previous defini-
tion. This definition gives greater emphasis to the inside of the organization.
Looking at the first definition alone, one could conclude that total quality manage-
ment focuses only on dimensions of products and services that are important to the
customer. This implies that efforts to improve the quality of other processes within
the organization other than those that directly impact on the customer should not
be considered as important to TQM. In contrast, the second definition fails to take
the customer into account at all, except to the extent that an “effective organiza-
tion” should serve a customer’s needs more “effectively.” The exuberance of the
second definition also implies something that is missing from the first one, namely
that TQM is larger that just an organizational program. It suggests that TQM is a
philosophy which will bring about improvements not only to the organization, but
also to individual’s lives.

AN APPROACH TO A DEFINITION

Since the gurus have no commonality of definition of TQM, and since the two def-
initions given lack agreement of perspective (one limited to the customer, one
limted to the organization), further steps will need to be taken in developing a suit-
able definition. It is clear that no simple definition will suffice, if for no other rea-
son than the term consists of three complicated words, total, quality and
management. To further complicate this process is the fact that TQM is supposed
to result in the complete transformation of business in the world as we know it.
Issues of complexity are sometimes best approached in an incremental man-
ner; therefore, this definition will be put together by looking at one segment at a
time: beginning with the central concept, quality, around which the other two con-
cepts revolve. With each concept a look will be taken at what the three gurus say
in hopes of finding commonalities. With this method it is anticipated that a whole
definition can be developed which will adequately describe what is meant by TQM
and be consistent with what its primary “experts” have stated.

QUALITY Defined

The definition of quality is something that has been given considerable atten-
tion in the literature. The most significant point is that it is a multi-dimensional
concept which depends in large part upon the orientation of the individual
involved. To give an example of the range of definitions, Garvin (1988, pp. 40-68)
has identified five basic terms that constitute a definition of “quality:” transcen-
dental, product based, user based, manufacturer based, and value based. In his
discussion he explains how individuals from different departments within the orga-
nization define the concept of quality, based on their different perspectives. (For

JOURNAL OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT, Vol. I, No. 2. 1996

154 MILLER

example, marketing takes a user based orientation, while engineering and manu-
facturing takes a manufacturing based orientation toward quality.) Garvin proceeds
to further describe quality (making the task of developing a simple working defi-
nition even more difficult) by identifying eight dimensions across which product
quality can be viewed: performance, features, reliability, conformance, durability,
serviceability, aesthetics, and perceived quality.
It should also be recognized that Garvin has devoted most of his attention to
quality as it relates to the manufacturing sector. Parasuraman, Zeithalm, and Berry
(1988) have identified an entirely different set of dimensions for service industries.
These has been identified by: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and
empathy.
With the basic understanding that quality is a multi-dimensional concept let us
look at what the gurus have to say. Deming’s discussion of quality follows:

What is quality? Quality can be defined only in terms of the agent. Who is the judge of
quality?

In the mind of the production worker, he produces quality if he can take pride in his
work. Poor quality, to him, means loss of business, and perhaps of his job. Good quality,
he thinks, will keep the company in business. All this is as true in the service industries
as it is in manufacturing.

Quality to the plant manager means to get the numbers out and to meet specifications.
His job also, whether he knows it or not, continual improvement of processes and con-
tinual improvement of leadership .

The problems inherent in attempts to define quality of a product, almost any product
were stated by the master, Walter A. Shewhart. The difficulty in defining quality is to
translate future needs of the user into measurable characteristics, so that a product can
be designed and turned out to give satisfaction at a price that the user will pay (Deming,
1986, pp. 168-169).

To summarize then, quality for Deming is itself something relevant only to the
individual who is judging and will represent different things to different people
(echoing Garvin’s point above that quality is a multi-dimensional, perspective-
based concept). Important characteristics which are also involved in the quality
concept are meeting specifications, continual improvement, and designing and
providing products which provide satisfaction to the customer.
To emphasize this last point, Gitlow and Gitlow (1987, p. 35) who explicate
Deming’s philosophy define quality: “Quality must be thought of as a customer-
oriented philosophy. Quality should be defined as ‘surpassing customer needs and
expectations throughout the life of the product.“’
Presenting a different perspective, Crosby defines quality as follows:

The first erroneous assumption is that quality means goodness, or luxury, or shininess,
or weight. The word ‘quality’ is used to signify the relative worth of things in such
phrases as ‘good quality,’ ‘bad quality,’ and the brave new statement ‘quality of life.’
‘Quality of life’ is a cliche’ because each listener assumes that the speaker means

JOURNAL OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1996


exactly what he or she, the listener, means by the phrase. It is a situation in which indi-
viduals talk dreamily about something without ever bothering to define it.

That is precisely the reason we must define quality as ‘conformance to requirements’ if
we are going to manage it .

“
Requirements must be clearly stated so that they cannot be misunderstood. Mea-
surements are then taken continually to determine conformance to those requirements.
The nonconformance detected is the absence of quality. Quality problems become non-
conformance problems, and quality becomes definable. All through this book, when-
ever you see the word ‘quality,’ read ‘conformance to requirements”’ (Crosby, 1985, p.
17).

Based on this discussion, according to Crosby, quality is conformance to
requirements, which seems to be closely allied with Deming’s reference to “meet-
ing specifications.” Implied in this, although unstated, is to whom the requirements
are directed: the customer. In a later work Crosby (1989, p. 76) mentions “cus-
tomer requirements” as the goal to which one strives in pursuit of quality.
Juran provides the most detailed and probably most helpful definition of qual-
ity for our purposes. He states:

Reaching agreement on what is meant by quality is not simple. (The dictionary lists
about a dozen definitions.) For managers, no short definition is really precise, but one
such definition has received wide acceptance: quality is fitness for use.

This definition provides a short, comprehensive label, but it does not provide the depth
needed by managers to choose courses of action. On closer examination we discover
that fitness for use branches out in two rather different directions (Juran, 1989, pp.
15-16).

The two branches of quality Juran refers to are product features that meet cus-
tomer needs and freedom from deficiencies. With this definition of quality the
characteristics emphasized by Deming (designing a product which will meet or
surpass customer requirements) and Crosby (avoiding nonconformance problems
or deficiencies) are both included.
For the purposes of this paper, then, fitness for use, to the extent that it implies
that products and services produced by an organization are designed to meet the
requirements of the customer and are actually made to match those standards, can
serve as a definition of quality which is consistent with the ideas of the gurus, and
therefore, this component of the definition of TQM is provided.

TOTAL Defined

In order to understand the total aspect of TQM, a second look at Japan in the
1950’s can be taken. Feigenbaum developed the concept of “Total Quality Con-
trol” (TQC) by which quality improvement is taken from its traditional place on
the shop floor to spread its influence throughout the organization (Garvin, 1988, p.
183). Feigenbaum states:


156 MILLER

Total quality control’s organization-wide impact involves the managerial and technical
implementation of customer-oriented quality activities as a prime responsibility of gen-
eral management and of the main-line operations of marketing, engineering, production,
industrial relations, finance, and service as well as of the quality-control function itself
(P. 13).

In Japan, Feigenbaum’s ideas were transformed into a different version of
Total Quality Control which has been referred to as “Company-Wide Quality Con-
trol” (CWQC) (Garvin, 1988, p, 191). The primary difference between
Feigenbaum’s TQC and the Japanese CWQC is that instead of quality being the
responsibility of an elite group of professionals in the quality control department,
the Japanese version requires all individuals in the organization to be responsible
for quality. In addition, CWQC focuses on continuous improvement and a strong
customer orientation (Garvin, 1988, pp. 19 I - 192): two concepts which were men-
tioned in the above discussion of quality.
Deming’s 14 points, as they focus heavily on taking steps to transform the
organizational culture to support the quality management system, are strongly con-
sistent with this notion of involving everyone in the organization in the process of
continuous improvement. Such concerns as driving out fear, removing barriers,
and providing training to all are just a few examples of this (Deming, 1986, pp. 23-
90).
Crosby’s support of this notion of everyone’s involvement in the quality pro-
cess can be seen by looking at the second point of his “Quality Vaccine:” the
process by which management brings a new orientation toward quality to the
organization. The second point, “education” is described as: “the process of help-
ing all employees have a common language of quality, understand their individual
roles in the quality improvement process, and have the special knowledge avail-
able to handle antibody creation” (Crosby, 1989, pp. 7-10). Clearly it can be seen
that Crosby’s perception of quality management includes everyone in the
organization.
Juran’s support for the involvement of everyone in the organization is evi-
denced by his use of a pyramid with strategic quality management at the top,
operational quality management in the middle, and the work force and quality at
the bottom by which his quality management system is implemented (Juran, 1989,
p. 177). Chapters 6,7, and 8 of his book, Juran on Leadership for Quality, are orga-
nized along these lines.
Juran (1989, p. 17) brings another aspect to total which further clarifies the
concept, with respect to our discussion of the quality and the need to design a prod-
uct or service which will meet or exceed customer requirements. Since the total
concept involves everyone in the organization, a question which must be asked is
how can employees who do not deal directly with customers become involved in
the quality process? The answer to this is provided by the concept of the customers
being identified as both external and internal. With this notion of customers being
anyone for which one produces a product or provides a service, involvement in the
process of quality management can indeed be considered total.

JOURNAL OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT, Vol. 1. No. 2. 1996


MANAGEMENT Defined

According to Webster, two definitions of management are “the art or act of
managing: the conducting or supervising of something (as a business)” and “judi-
cious use of means to accomplish an end” (1981, p. 691). With the first definition
it is apparent that management in TQM can be seen as a means of conducting (or
running a) business. Most importantly this brings out that TQM is management of
the entire organizations, and as such, control of this process resides at the top or
strategic apex of the organization. Management at the strategic level is customarily
focused on a long range perspective.
Deming’s first point is that top management is responsible for taking action
which will allow TQM to proceed (Gitlow & Gitlow, 1987, pp. 13-26). Similarly
Crosby’s first step requires the commitment (in word and deed) of senior manage-
ment to the quality process (Crosby, 1989, p. 101). Finally Juran, as mentioned
above, focuses on top management in his discussion of the strategic quality man-
agement at top of the pyramid (Juran, 1989, p. 177).
The second definition of management above, relating to the means to accom-
plish an end, brings out the aspect of TQM upon which the primary disagreements
between the gurus occur. Each of the three recommends different methods for
bringing the concepts of TQM to the organization. The purpose of this paper is to
focus on the similarities rather than the differences between the gurus; therefore,
the discussion here will be limited to a statement that the management concept
involves a set of specific steps toward accomplishing the goals of transforming the
organization. The relative value of the different specific tools prescribed by the
gurus can be judged better later after the process of objective scientific research
has been underway for some time.

A DEFINITION OF TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

Based on the foregoing discussion, the following definition for TQM can be pos-
tulated:

An ongoing process whereby top management takes whatever steps nec-
essary to enable everyone in the organization in the course of perform-
ing all duties to establish and achieve standards which meet or exceed
the needs and expectations of their customers, both external and inter-
nal.

Thus, a definition has been developed which is based those concepts which
are commonly shared by the preeminent authorities or gurus in the field. It is
offered as a contribution to the effort to bring a more scientific, research-oriented,
theory developing, hypothesis testing approach to the study of TQM. Definitions
of this sort are an important starting point.
Others involved in the field are invited to critically evaluate the above defini-
tion so that inadequacies can be resolved and general agreement can be reached on
the issue. In addition these individuals are challenged to continue this process with

JOURNAL OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT. Vol. 1. No. 2. 1996

158 MILLER

further efforts of definition formulation, as well as theory, proposition, and hypoth-
esis development. Such efforts are very much needed with regard to encouraging
the research process in this area of study which is having such an extensive impact
on organizations throughout the world.
It should be mentioned that this definition has been developed from a purely
theoretical basis without taking into account TQM as it is actually being practiced.
An alternative approach to understanding TQM would be to identify certain orga-
nizations that are generally accepted as practicing exceptional quality management
and then study the characteristics and practices shared by such organizations. As a
result of this process a definition could be derived that defines TQM in terms of
specific characteristics, approaches, and practices. A few issues that might need to
be considered are specific characteristics of organizations (size, financial situation,
industry), approaches to managing quality (formal process as recommended by
Deming, Juran, or Crosby versus modified programs, approach to implementation-
top down versus bottom up, amount of time involved in the process), and practices
(SPC tools, team development, management support, extensive training, quality
circles, employee empowerment).
The benefit of such an alternative approach to a definition would be that it
would account for the gap between the intentions of those who implement TQM
and the reality of such implementations. To a considerable extent, however, TQM
while intended for application in real organizations is largely based on ideals that
organizations must strive continuously to achieve. The theory-based definition of
TQM developed in this discussion is an appropriate place for researchers to start.
In addition to the development of definitions such as the one presented here,
researchers must develop and test models of quality management. Such models
should identify characteristics, approaches, and practices utilized by organizations
that successfully manage quality. There is considerable need for a clearer under-
standing of which quality management practices are most important under what
circumstances. For example, some organizations may use SPC tools and other
quality management techniques extensively, yet might not make changes to estab-
lish a culture consistent with that recommended by TQM theory. On the other hand
other organizations might have a culture consistent with that of TQM, yet might
not utilize SPC tools and other specific quality management techniques. It has yet
to be proven empirically whether (contrary to theory which would suggest that
both are required for TQM) either of these approaches may under certain circum-
stances lead to the successful management of quality.
Models should also be developed and tested that examine the impact of qual-
ity management in terms of quality performance and overall organizational
performance across a number of organizations. It is possible that as result of the
development and testing of these models gaps might be found not only between the
ideals of quality management theory and actual practices but also between the
expected impact of quality management practices on quality performance and
organizational performance. The definition of TQM presented here can perhaps
help focus interpretation of such gaps and enhance understanding which can lead
to better research on the management of quality in organizations.

JOURNAL OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT, Vol. 1, No. 2, I996


Acknowledgment: A previous version of this manuscript was presented at the
Distinguished Paper Poster Session, Academy of Management Annual Meeting,
August 1993, Atlanta, GA.

REFERENCES

Aguayo, R. (1990). Dr Denting: The American who taught the Japanese about quality. New
York: Carol Publishing.
Bemowski, K. (1991). Restoring the pillars of higher education. Quality Progress, (October):
37-42.
Chase, R.B. & Aquilano, N.J. (1992). Production and operations management, 6th ed.
Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Crosby, P.B. (1979). Quality is free. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
. (1985). Qunlity without tears. New York: Signet.
(1989). Lets talk about quality. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
Cullen, J. & Hollingham J. (1987). implementing total quality. Luton: Barthan Press Ltd.
Deming, W.E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ernst & Young Quality Improvement Consulting Group. 1990. Total quality: An executive’s
guide for the 1990’s. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Feigenbaum, A.V. (1983). Total quality control, 3rd ed. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
Gabor, A. (1990). The man who discovered quality. New York: Random House.
Garvin, D.A. (1988). Managing quality: The strategic and competitive edge. New York: Free
Press.
_’ (1992). Operations strategy: Text And cases. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gitlow, H.S. & Gitlow, S.J. (1987). The Deming guide to quality and competitive position.
Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
IBM Corporation. (1991). An IBM total quality management (TQM) competition for colleges
and universities in the USA (Program Guidelines), October.
Ishikawa, K. (1985). What is total quality control: The Jupanese way, Translated by D.J. Lu.
Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Juran, J.M. (1989). Juran on leadership for quality. New York: Free Press.
Mizuno, S. (1988). Company-wide total quality control. Hong Kong: Asian Productivity
Organization.
Oakland, J.S. (1989). Total quality management, London: Heinemann.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithalm, VA. & Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal Of Retailing, 64( 1): 12-40.
Price, F. (1990). Right every time: Using the Drming approach. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Robinson, J.D., Akers, J.F., Artzt, E.L., Poling, H.A., Galvin, R.W. & Allaire, P.A.
(Signatories). (1991. An open letter: TQM on the campus. Harvard Business Review,
(November-December): 94-95.
Scherkenbach, W.W. (1991). The Deming route to quality and productivity: Road maps and
roadblocks. Washington: Ceep Press.
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. 1981. Springfield, MA: G&C Merriam Company.


Working Definition of TQM Provides Foundation for Research

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Working Definition of TQM Provides Foundation for Research

Ähnlich wie Working Definition of TQM Provides Foundation for Research (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Working Definition of TQM Provides Foundation for Research