integrating quality management principles into sustainability management

This article was downloaded by: [Acadia University]On: 15 May 2013, At: 20:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Total Quality Management & BusinessExcellencePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

Integrating quality managementprinciples into sustainabilitymanagementChu-hua Kuei a & Min H. Lu ba Department of Management and Management Science, LubinSchool of Business, Pace University, 1 Pace Plaza, New York, NY,10038, USAb Management and Marketing Department, Leon Hess BusinessSchool, Monmouth University, West Long Branch, NJ, 07764, USAPublished online: 11 May 2012.

To cite this article: Chu-hua Kuei & Min H. Lu (2013): Integrating quality management principlesinto sustainability management, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24:1-2, 62-78

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2012.669536

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2012.669536

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Integrating quality management principles into sustainabilitymanagement

Chu-hua Kueia∗ and Min H. Lub

aDepartment of Management and Management Science, Lubin School of Business, PaceUniversity, 1 Pace Plaza, New York, NY, 10038, USA; bManagement and Marketing Department,Leon Hess Business School, Monmouth University, West Long Branch, NJ 07764, USA

This paper develops conceptual frameworks that are derived from quality managementprinciples and uses them as the building block on how sustainability management (SM)system can be implemented. These frameworks help organisations to understand thecomplexities of quality-driven SM systems. Organisations of all sizes along supplychains can use guidelines presented in this paper to develop a more sustainablepractice and effective systems that are value-adding and sustainable result-oriented.

Keywords: quality management principles; sustainability management; quality-drivensustainability management

1. Introduction

Over the last two decades, managers and business leaders have learnt to use supply and

enterprise resources to produce quality products and processes. Business enterprises of

all sizes are expected to develop capabilities and capacities to offer better and cheaper

products, shorter response times, and higher service levels to meet customers’

demands. To manage in today’s economy, business leaders and managers are increas-

ingly aware that the ultimate success of any enterprise is no longer built around a

firm’s capability and capacity to achieve efficiency, effectiveness, flexibility, and crea-

tivity, but on a supply chain’s capability and capacity to meet the strategic objectives

of sustainability management (SM) (Madu & Kuei, 2012; Epstein, 2010; Epstein,

2009; Hardjono & Klein, 2004). The aim of SM concepts is to achieve economic

development, environmental performance, and social equity simultaneously. To

support such a claim is not simple. A local or global value chain system must

undergo a transformation to change from its traditional management approach to

SM. To facilitate this transformation process, quality management (QM) principles,

popularised by Deming, Juran, Crosby, Taguchi, and Feigenbaum, and national/inter-

national quality awards, can play a significant role in this new world of sustainable

development (Ascıgil, 2010; Hwang, Wen, & Chen, 2010; Rocha, Searcy, & Karape-

trovic, 2007; Isaksson, 2006). A number of works exist to offer insights on the critical

dimensions of such a transformation towards sustainability. Hardjono and Klein

(2004), for example, describe a framework, known as the European corporate sustain-

ability framework, to implement a large-scale transformation. This conceptual model

centres on organisational assets, value levels, and interventions. Organisational

assets, as noted by Hardjono and Klein (2004), can be expressed through four compe-

tencies: material (utilising resources wisely), commercial (responding to markets),

socialisation (inspiring employees and sustaining stakeholders’ relationships), and

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

∗Corresponding author. Email: ckuei@ pace.edu

Total Quality Management, 2013

Vol. 24, No. 1, 62–78, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2012.669536

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aca

dia

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:47

15

May

201

3

intellectual (learning and sharing knowledge). Four different value levels of corporate

sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) defined by Hardjono and Klein

(2004) are: order, success, community, and synergy. Three challenges for implement-

ing CSR are also reported: identifying strategic starting points (labelled as framing),

aligning resources according to the European Foundation for QM (EFQM) Excellence

Model (labelled as alignment), and deploying the CSR policy with instruments such as

business scorecards (labelled as deployment). Key questions for the sustainability

policy deployment from a QM perspective, however, remain unanswered when review-

ing current literature.

. How do firms or supply networks achieve sustainability by using QM principles?

. What are the most important strategic content variables in the context of SM?

. What specific implementation steps should policy-makers consider in the context of

quality-driven SM?. What does the new philosophy of quality-driven SM mean at the functional level and

the cross-enterprise level?

To answer these research questions, we first use two equations to define SM.

Sustainability ¼ continuity of economic development, environmental performance,

and social equity (the concept presented here has also been referred to as the triple

bottom-line model).

SM ¼ accelerating the adoption of best management principles, models, and practices

throughout the operation system, and enabling the environment to achieve sustainable

development.

Defined as such, SM is, thus, considered as an input factor and should be effectively

managed through the use of best management principles, model, and practices. The

triple bottom line is the result. The primary aim of this study is to offer conceptual insights

into quality-driven SM. This quality-driven response strategy would help organisations

reposition themselves and enhance the capability of operation systems for sustainable

development. Adopting QM principles will turn the capability and capacity of operation

systems to organisations’ advantage when making attempt to implement SM systems.

To achieve this, we need to understand what/how QM principles work and what constitu-

tes management of sustainability. It is also our belief that organisations today need to be

conversant with interventions such as quality-driven SM from aggregated/theoretic con-

ceptual levels before designing response strategies for sustainable development. This is

a crucial step for businesses to survive in a sustainability-sensitive environment.

The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. In the next section, we review the

critical principles highlighted in the field of QM. In Section 3, we present a strategic fra-

mework called quality-driven SM. The focus of such a framework is on linking QM prin-

ciples to content variables of SM. In Section 4, implementation issues are discussed. In the

end, we conclude with discussions of managerial implications and limitations of this work.

We believe that our theoretical frameworks will be helpful to today’s enterprises of all

sizes around the globe to understand the key aspects of quality-driven SM and enhance

the current knowledge base in SM literature.

2. Quality and QM principles

For many organisations, quality is regarded as conformance to specifications. For others,

quality lies in the eyes of the beholders. Kuei, Madu, and Lin (2008) consider quality to be

the result of QM. The management of quality is, thus, regarded as an input factor. It requires

Total Quality Management 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aca

dia

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:47

15

May

201

3

dedication and attention to detail. Over the past decade, QM has caused meaningful and

worthwhile improvements in the quality of operations and supply chain systems. Winners

of major quality awards such as the Deming Prize, EFQM excellence model, Swedish

Quality Award, or Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award are good testimonies of this.

To establish and improve QM systems, managers can follow a number of QM practices

and principles. Perhaps one of the best-known QM initiatives is total QM (TQM). Empha-

sis of TQM is on variation reduction, capability development, best-in-class performances,

employment fulfillment, and cultural transformation (Miguel & Santiago, 2010; Foster &

Ogden, 2008; Psychogios & Priporas, 2007; Madu, 2006; Madu & Kuei, 1995; Wilkinson

& Witcher, 1993). Errors, from the TQM perspective, are due to the lack of statistical,

systems, and strategic thinking. Enterprises have to tear down the barriers between func-

tional silos and promote cross-boundary activities. TQM, thus, provides a blueprint for

articulating a quality plan. The aims of such a plan are to permeate quality into a firm’s

network, enable conditions for quality and beyond, and transform the style of management

to one of total optimisation. In conceptualising, five QM principles are essential: facilitat-

ing increased awareness of quality and market signals, enabling conditions for quality,

adopting a systems approach, achieving greater communication and alignment between

cross-organisational units, and examining for congruence with quality objectives (see

also Table 1). They are consistent with the QM principles reported by Kim, Kumar, and

Murphy (2010). We shall examine our five proposed QM principles here.

(1) Facilitate increased awareness of quality and market signals. To capture gains

achieved through TQM processes, Psychogios and Priporas (2007, p. 40) contend that

managers and business leaders should begin by asking themselves the following question:

‘How can TQM become “a way of life” within an organisation when managers are not

really aware of it?’ QM in general and TQM in particular, as noted by Kim et al.

(2010), Kuei et al. (2008) and Psychogios and Priporas (2007), seek to bring out the

best in stakeholders. This occurs when managers recognise the importance of quality.

They can then develop strategic plans to obtain participation and endorsement from key

stakeholders and promote a concern for the management of quality. When managers are

aware of the importance of quality, they also begin to listen to market signals and

voices of stakeholders (Kim et al., 2010; Madu, 2006). Through a coordinated effort

across functions, department, and organisations, management can understand new chal-

lenges/pressures and prepare response plans accordingly. This guiding principle is

intended to help position the organisation so that it can create value for stakeholders.

(2) Enable conditions for quality until each quality goal is achieved. QM provides

enabling conditions for quality. This often requires organisations to consider the manage-

rial, technical, and socio-political questions and what actions would be necessary to facili-

tate the process of organisational transformation. There are some standard questions that

managers need to ask themselves (Breja et al., 2011; Juran & Defeo, 2010; Kim et al.,

2010; Yeung, 2008; Madu & Kuei, 1995):

Why do we want to do it?

What is the probability of success and the impact level if we introduce QM initiatives?

What does the vision of our organisation say about the strategic directions?

Who is involved?

What does specific function do in a total quality environment?

How should functions in a value/supply chain setting be linked?

What does specific enabler allow us to do?

How successful is QM?

64 C.-h. Kuei and M.H. Lu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aca

dia

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:47

15

May

201

3

The answers to these questions frame the design space of QM systems.

Purposeful organisations must create a climate for quality, and fund change vehicles

until quality goals are achieved.

(3) Adopt a systems approach until a holistic view of the organisation is taken into the

assessment process. To facilitate and enable change, QM frameworks usually adopt a

systems approach (Breja et al., 2011; Juran & Defeo, 2010; Kim et al., 2010; Madu,

2004; Deming, 1993). The systems approach in the domain of QM can be operationalised

in the form of the Deming Cycle of Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA) or Juran’s quality

trilogy. To gain competitive advantage through the systems approach, as pointed out by

Breja et al. (2011), business organisations need to master the challenges of (1) maintaining

strategic focus, (2) matching strategic options with aspirations, (3) linking the human

Table 1. Quality management principles.

Guiding principle Author(s) Core concepts

Facilitating increasedawareness of quality andmarket signals

Juran and Defeo (2010), Kimet al. (2010), Yaacob (2009),Kuei et al. (2008), Psychogiosand Priporas (2007), Madu(2006), Lai (2003), Deming(1993)

3 Obtain participation andendorsement from keystakeholders

3 Promote a concern for themanagement of quality

3 Listen to market signals andvoices of stakeholders

Enabling conditions forquality

Breja, Banwet, and Iyer (2011),Juran and Defeo (2010), Kimet al. (2010), Foster and Ogden(2008), Yeung (2008), Maduand Kuei (1995), Deming(1993)

3 Set the stage for organisationaltransformation

3 Consider the managerial,technical, and socio-politicalquestions and what actions wouldbe necessary to facilitateorganisational transformation

3 Fund the change vehicles andprocess change programs/projects

Adopting a system’sapproach

Breja et al. (2011), Juran andDefeo (2010), Kim et al.(2010), Madu (2004), Bennettand Kerr (1996), Deming(1993)

3 Emphasise strategicbenchmarking

3 Implement quality strategiesthrough projects

3 Assess the system and culturaltransformation progress inachieving identified quality goals

Achieving greatercommunication andalignment

Breja et al. (2011), Juran andDefeo (2010), Kim et al.(2010), Candido (2005), Maduand Kuei (2004), Deming(1993)

3 Communicate effectively before,during, and after thetransformation

3 Align people and structure tooptimise performance

3 Prepare a progress report with aspecial focus on quality costs andstatistical data

Examining for congruencewith quality objectives

Juran and Defeo (2010), Kimet al. (2010), D’Aprile, Tatano,and Musmeci (2007), Fuentes-Fuentes, Llorens-Montes, andAlbacete-Saez (2007), Kananaand Tan (2007), Madu (2004),Juran and Gryna (1993),Deming (1993)

3 Create a platform for learning3 Proceduralise the transformation

process and determine thematurity level of quality systems

3 Maintain momentum on thejourney towards quality


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aca

dia

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:47

15

May

201

3

resource mission with the company vision, and (4) working for transformation. Emphasis

here is on the importance of leadership. A committed and purposeful management team is

needed to develop innovative programmes/projects through strategic benchmarking to

lead the transformation. Emphasis here is also on working with stakeholders and assessing

the system and cultural transformation progresses in achieving identified quality goals.

Total optimisation should be a norm, and not an exception.

This guiding principle is intended to point out that the cycle of change is never-ending.

(4) Achieve greater communication and alignment between and/or cross-organis-

ational units until the total optimisation is enforced. The notion of communication and

alignment has been bound tightly to the notion of a QM system. With complex challenges

faced by organisations, QM literature (Juran & Defeo, 2010; Kim et al., 2010; Candido,

2005; Hardjono & Klein, 2004) suggests that it is essential for organisational units to (1)

communicate effectively before, during, and after the transformation, and (2) align internal

forces within the organisation for the quest of quality. The emphasis of the former is on

human and supply resources. Organisations need reliable and innovative employees and

suppliers so that the right people can influence the right processes, and the right processes

can subsequently influence the quality of outputs/outcomes. The emphasis on the latter is on

social and technical components of organisations. They need to be aligned properly to find

out what the customer wants and set that as a goal. Enterprise reporting is a key component

in achieving these goals. Quality costs and statistical data (Juran & Defeo, 2010; Madu,

2004; Deming, 1993) are integral elements of such a report.

(5) Examine for congruence with quality objectives until the process in question has

matured. A further challenge for quality deployment policy is to take into account some

structural effects associated with QM initiatives (Juran & Defeo, 2010; Kim et al.,

2010; Fuentes-Fuentes et al., 2007; Madu, 2004; Deming, 1993). Fuentes-Fuentes et al.

(2007), for example, note that content and process are inextricably linked in a business

setting. Decisions, thus, need to be made to prepare firms to sustain business operations

and build the competences for quality. This principle aims to (1) create a platform for con-

tinuous learning, (2) proceduralise the transformation process and determine the maturity

level of such a process, and (3) maintain momentum on the journey towards quality. This

QM principle enables practicing managers and business leaders to maintain flawless con-

gruence with strategic objectives.

As discussed above, QM principles can enable organisations to establish a market-sen-

sitive, improvement-oriented, system-driven, resource aligned, and competence-building

architecture. In this paper, we contend that the principle of QM can be adopted as a con-

tinuous improvement and sustainable process design guidance in most situations in the

context of SM.

3. The birth of quality-driven sustainability management

In this section, we examine content variables of SM in light of QM principles. A top-level

framework designed to help organisations achieve this goal is shown in Figure 1. We refer

to this initiation as quality-driven SM. Our intention here is to offer a conceptual model

that will help shed light on the complexities of SM.

3.1 Preparing for a responsible change

It is a challenge for today’s organisations to effectively prepare themselves for a change

when making attempts to undergo a transformation towards a sustainability paradigm.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aca

dia

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:47

15

May

201

3

The first QM principle is, thus, useful in facilitating this process. To operationalise this

principle within a corporate enterprise or a supply chain, preparing for change means

(1) obtaining endorsement from critical mass and key stakeholders, (2) promoting a

concern for the management of the triple bottom line, and (3) listening to market

signals and voices of stakeholders. Policy-makers thus need to think strategically, take

active control, and create new, dynamic forms in a constructive way. As noted by

Booher (2003), this will require organisations to pay attention to the following four

stages: deciding to change, guiding change, supporting change, and sustaining change.

If the support is not there, however, it is not an easy task to change a practice. As organ-

isations start moving forward and prepare themselves for a responsible change, they have

to learn that ‘intra-unit support’ may be of greater importance to the long-term success

than ‘inter-unit support’ (Winkler, 2010). Organisations need to know how intra-unit

support fits into their strategy for a responsible change.

3.2 Sustainability scope management

The second QM principle calls for a proactive approach to make organisational climate,

leadership styles, and organisational structure more responsive and supportive for the

new policy deployment. From a global warming perspective, for example, Boiral

(2006) notes that a proactive climate change policy is the essential basis on which an effec-

tive and comprehensive environmental quality programme should be developed. Such a

programme is enabled by three interdependent activities: managerial (e.g. training, ISO

14000, and employee commitment), technical (e.g. compensation measures, renewable

energy investments, and design-for-environment product), and socio-political (e.g. green-

ing of image and lobbying to enforce regulations). With a special focus on environmental

sustainability, Boiral (2006), thus, defines the scope, boundaries, and work contents for the

sustainability policy deployment. To achieve expected outcomes and thereby enhance the

value and competitive position of organisations, today’s managers must respond by

looking at seven important areas in the domain of sustainability scope management:

vision, internal/external pressures change agents, required functions, strategic enablers,

risks, and validation/reflections. They need to be approached and handled in a holistic way.

Figure 1. Quality-driven SM – linking quality management principles to content variables of SM.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aca

dia

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:47

15

May

201

3

3.3 Transformation steps

QM experts such as Deming and Juran popularised the use of systems approach to model-

ling and improving organisational performance (Juran & Defeo, 2010; Deming, 1993).

This QM principle can also be incorporated into the existing SM model (Epstein, 2010;

Esquer-Peralta, Velazquez, & Nora Munguia, 2008; Kleindorfer, Singhal, & Wassenhove,

2005; Hardjono & Klein, 2004). In this phase, the qualities needed for successful leader-

ship are emphasised. Enterprise leaders need to know both current trends in business and

current characters of the organisation. They need to think through the role of organisation

in today’s economy and direct, monitor, and coordinate response actions. In this phase, the

management of sustainability project is also emphasised. This involves project planning,

implementation, post-implementation, and job analyses (physical, mental, and infor-

mation). The aim is to effect change and increase the likelihood of success. To adapt to

the challenges of today, an organisation must work with stakeholders, become systemic

in its approach, and undergo cultural transformation. This cycle of transformation

ensures proper character development and continuous improvement.

3.4. Validation

The emphasis of the fourth QM principle is on effective communication and alignment in

planning and execution. It is important for organisations to periodically review tasks and

activities to ensure that (1) stakeholders understand the role of the organisation and (2)

tasks and activities are well planned and aligned to achieve organisational goals. This

can be done through the use of performance reports (Madu & Kuei, 2012; Holcomb,

Upchurch, & Okumus, 2007; Lo & Sheu, 2007; Schaltegger & Wagner, 2006; Epstein

& Roy, 2001). By keeping track of corporate responsibility and sustainability reports,

managers can ensure that the new organisation is better than the one being transformed.

The use of performance reports on a regular basis will help organisations develop rapid

responses to the complex and dynamic challenges in the global environment (Lin, Kuei,

Madu, & Winch, 2010). To achieve this, Lo and Sheu (2007) suggest that organisations

can use the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (http://www.sustainability-indexes.com/

07_htmle/assessment/criteria.html) to validate the models, procedures, and processes in

use. This practice can be employed before, during, and after the transformation. The

scope, boundaries, and work contents for the sustainability policy deployment, as a

result, will certainly be challenged on a number of levels. Quality-driven SM focus on

the triple bottom line; however, the focus is incomplete without such a challenge.

3.5 The quest for competencies

The fifth QM principle shows the need for continuous learning, striving for the next level

of process maturity, and maintaining momentum for change. Change is inevitable and sus-

tainability is an area which no organisation can afford to ignore. The bottom line is that SM

initiatives need to be proven to work in the context of delivery processes and meet strategic

sustainability objectives. In the area of environmental sustainability, for example, Tsoulfas

and Pappis (2006) list six strategic areas in a supply chain setting such as: product design,

packaging, collection and transformation, recycling and disposal, greening the internal and

external business environment, and SM issues. Core guiding principles are discussed for

each strategic area. Enterprises along a supply chain, thus, need to make attempts to mini-

mise wastes, maximise throughputs, and conserve resources in these six areas. The


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aca

dia

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:47

15

May

201

3

http://www.sustainability-indexes.com/07_htmle/assessment/criteria.html

http://www.sustainability-indexes.com/07_htmle/assessment/criteria.html

ultimate goal of this phase is to build competencies to enhance social, financial, and

environmental performances.

4. Implementations issues

Figure 2 details the implementation process of quality-driven SM. This top-level frame-

work helps policy-makers understand the implementation process from a strategic point

of view. As can be seen from Figure 2, this implementation process is composed of five

components: a cycle of PDCA, a template of design and a statement of work, a cycle of

transformation, a pyramid of assessment approach, and a platform for learning. We

shall look at each phase and its contents.

4.1 A cycle of PDCA

To extend the question posted by Psychogios and Priporas (2007), twenty-first century

managers and business leaders must first ponder the following: How can SM become ‘a

way of life’ within our organisation? To be effective, the strategy, at the first stage of

quality-driven SM, must give a complete overview of courses of action into future.

Such tactical operational plans over time must have impacts on the new SM structure

and must reflect the new SM culture. Figure 3 presents such a plan using Deming’s

PDCA approach.

4.1.1 Plan

At the Plan stage, we have strategic planning and formulation with the focus on enabling

conditions for the triple bottom line. As depicted in Figure 3, this cycle begins with the

acknowledgement that a dynamic system is composed of three elements: natural

system, social system, and businesses. Change agents (e.g. practicing managers) or lead

firms in a supply chain setting must take a lead and outline visions/plans to achieve favour-

able outcomes and full system competencies. This view is supported by Jabbour and

Jabbour (2009), Boak (2008), Srivastava (2008), Tsoulfas and Pappis (2006), Kleindorfer

Figure 2. Implementation issues – linking QM principles to implementation issues.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aca

dia

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:47

15

May

201

3

et al. (2005), Hardjono and Klein (2004), Madu (2004), Kuei and Madu (2003), and

Spekman, Spear, and Kamauff (2002).

4.1.2 Do

At the Do stage, we have strategy implementation on a small scale. At this point, the focus

is on implementing sustainability strategy through programmes/projects. By referring to

the context, interventions, mechanisms, outcomes (CIMO) logic suggested by Denyer

and Tranfield (2009, p. 683), we characterised the essence of sustainability project man-

agement using four constructs here:

. Context (C): who are the stakeholders of interest? Which aspects of the sustainability

processes are of interest?. Interventions (I): What is the intervention of interest?. Mechanisms (M): What are the mechanisms of interest? Why are mechanisms acti-

vated or not activated?. Outcomes (O): What are the relevant outcomes? What outcomes would be important

to the stakeholders involved? How do we measure success?

Answers to the above questions set the stage to explore the complexity and variability

of phenomena and of human actions in the context of quality-driven SM.

4.1.3 Check

At the Check stage, we have evaluation and control with the emphasis on checking the

current state of affairs and doing the things correctly on a routine basis. Operational

reality should be checked and SM projects should be proven to work at this stage. After

all, without solid evidences of SM initiatives’ effectiveness, it is difficult for managers

to convince the relevant stakeholders. The practical engagement here will lead the organ-

isation to a higher level of system performance.

Figure 3. Preparing for responsible change (A cycle of PDCA).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aca

dia

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:47

15

May

201

3

4.1.4 Act

The ‘Act’ stage deals with the full-scale introduction of sustainable products and processes

to the world. At this stage, organisations should focus on managing process maturity and

getting the best performance with fewer resources. As managers of organisations adopt the

concept of quality-driven SM, they understand ‘building sustainable economics’ is of great

importance when establishing strategies to guide the work of their operation systems. In

fact, as noted by Madu (1996), the process of achieving a ‘sustainable’ product/process

does not negate product/process quality. Managing process maturity to achieve such a

goal posits new challenges. Policy-makers, in the pursuit of sustainability, need to concen-

trate resources on a few priority (or strategic) enablers selected for continuous improve-

ment and major innovation.

4.2 A template of design and a statement of work

The second stage of implementation deals with the sustainability scope management. The

emphasis is on creating the documentation and approval of all important scope parameters.

This documentation process begins with a generic template of self-assessment with a

special focus on design for quality-driven SM (Table 2) and ends with a statement of

work. As discussed in Section 3.2, important parameters presented in a generic template

of design for quality-driven SM should at least include vision, internal/external pressures,

change agents, required functions, strategic enablers, risks, and validation/reflections.

Today’s enterprise should always try to develop their own standard template for the con-

struction of reasonably detailed scope descriptions. This requires the organisation to

review its current systems and the contents of scope parameters to improve the overall

triple bottom-line performance (i.e. economic development, environmental performance,

and social equity). Work contents, at the conclusion of this exercise, can then be prioritised

and presented as the statement of work. Organisations also need to develop their own

unique statement of work. This view is supported by Kerzner (2010).

4.3 A cycle of transformation

Once the scope of sustainability projects’ baseline is defined, it must be effectively

implemented through a cycle of transformation. Managers should begin with strategic

benchmarking. The goal of strategic benchmarking is to listen to market signals and

learn from the practices of organisations that are leaders in the development of sustainabil-

ity. The learning gained from this exercise is instrumental in transforming the current

system.

Moving on, managers should also set the stage to transform their organisations’

systems with a special focus on structures and processes (Hardjono & Klein 2004).

Generally, structural issues involve the design of systems and form the basis for achieving

and sustaining long-term success. The structure needs to be tailed to realise one of value

levels of CSR defined by Hardjono and Klein (2004). Process decisions determine the pro-

cedures, steps, activities, flows, operations, relationships, and control mechanisms needed

to get the job done and to achieve strategic goals.

To adapt to the new realities of sustainability, a sustainability-oriented organisational

culture also needs to be integrated with the system transformation. Elements of organis-

ational climate proposed by Hsui (1972) can be used here for the self-assessment. They

are: general attitude, competitive pressure, expectation of stability, employee-oriented,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aca

dia

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:47

15

May

201

3

self-centered, effective organisation, proactive expectation, proactive efforts, performance

emphasis, centralised leadership, and management manipulation.

Managers must also take steps to get stakeholders’ involvement. Primary activities

include: meeting periodically to assess the effectiveness of decision-making, identifying

Table 2. Design for quality-driven SM – a self-assessment template.

Seven areas Research questionCore elements (examples in

point)

Self-assessment (tobe filled out bypractitioners)

Vision What does it say with respectto quality-driven SM andperformance drivers?

† Economic development† Environmental

performance† Social equity

Internal/externalpressures

Why do agents in questionwant to do it in order toreposition theirorganisations?

† Outsourcing† Protecting the

environment† Reducing wastes† Developing communities† Adopting advanced

technologyAgents Who is involved? † Suppliers

† Manufacturers† Distributors† Retailers† Customers† Service providers

Functions What does it do? † Inbound logistics† Operations† Outbound logistics† Marketing and sales† Services† Supporting functions

Strategicenablers

What does it (i.e. strategicenabler) allow agents inquestion to do and helpenhance the capability ofoperations systems?

† Strategic product lifecycle Management

† SOM† Minimal supply chain

operations† Creative philanthropy† Multidimensional

competenceRisks What is the probability of

success and impact?† Operational level† Tactical level† Strategic level

Validationandreflections

How successful are ‘QM’approaches and ‘SM’approaches as mutuallyreinforcing ways towardsbusiness excellence?

† Suggestions for Kaizen† Impact on existing

systems and stakeholders† Maturity level along

supply chains† On-going issues (e.g. why

are mechanisms activatedor not activated?)

† New strengths,weaknesses,opportunities, and threats


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aca

dia

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:47

15

May

201

3

critical success factors, resolving conflict management issues, and benchmarking best tac-

tical sustainability practices to deliver expected outcomes.

To facilitate the cycle of transformation, a committed and purposeful management

team is needed.

4.4 A pyramid of assessment approach

There must be a validation process to ensure that the new system is better than the one

being transformed. Schaltegger and Wagner (2006, p. 5) contend that managers need to

ask themselves the following question: ‘How can we communicate our sustainability per-

formance with the relevant stakeholders?’ To resolve this matter, a pyramid of assessment,

as shown in Figure 4, is proposed to evaluate sustainability performances. The expected

deliverables include operational measures, business metrics/dashboard, business score-

card, and the citizenship report. The citizenship report, centring on five areas (Holcomb

et al., 2007): community, environment, marketplace, workforce, and vision and values,

for example, can help organisations communicate effectively with major stakeholders

and the public. To align internal forces and resources, the following generic questions

must also be answered at the conclusion of this validation session to find win–win oppor-

tunities for continuous improvement (Madu & Kuei, 1995, p. 7):

. How well is the organisation doing compared to its competitors?

. How well are organisational resources being utilised?

. What are the market responses?

. What new strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) are being

encountered?

A management-by-fact culture must be developed and analytical thinking must be

enhanced at this stage of development.

Figure 4. Validation (a pyramid of assessment approach).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aca

dia

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:47

15

May

201

3

4.5 A platform for learning

To assist corporations in achieving maturity and excellence in a reasonable period of time,

organisations also need to determine the maturity level of systems of sustainability.

Drawing on Carnegie Mellon’s Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) and

Kuei, Madu, and Lin (2009), we suggest that there are five points of reference along the

process maturity: initial, managed, defined, quantitatively managed, and optimised

(http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/). In the context of quality-driven SM, the INITIAL stage

can be characterised by poorly defined processes. Basic knowledge of quality-driven SM,

however, is noted. At the MANAGED stage, process/project baselines are defined.

Proper quality-driven SM and standard procedures are also set in place. At the DEFINED

stage, guidelines to measure and verify potentials/performances of quality-driven SM insti-

tutions are available. Platforms to ensure execution and implementation are well estab-

lished. During the stage of QUANTITATIVELY MANAGED, analytical models are

used advantageously to deal with practical concerns in the field of quality-driven SM. At

the OPTIMISED stage, emphasis is on learning through practical engagement and social

networks, maintaining momentum on the journey towards sustainability, and sharing

experience of current engagement to help encourage effective practice and wider partici-

pation in a supply chain setting.

Effective implementation steps ensure that actions will be followed through by man-

agement teams to achieve the intended function and results.

5. Implications for practices

The aim of this study is to help motivate organisations not currently practicing sustainabil-

ity to learn from proven QM principles and hopefully upgrade their own SM practices. We

shall discuss briefly the practical implications that quality-driven SM (Figure 2) may have

for functional units in a business setting and social/professional encounters in a supply

chain network.

5.1 Implications for functional units

Porter’s value chain activities (Porter, 1985), namely, inbound logistics, operations, out-

bound logistics, marketing, and services, are considered to be primary functions in a

business setting. By reviewing fundamental implementation steps presented in Figure 2,

we note that changing existing situations in the context of a specific function into preferred

position of sustainability is possible. Functional managers need to take an active role in

preparing their teams and responding to such a paradigm shift. Difficult choices need to

be made to deliver favourable outcomes. To make optimal use of resources and enable

the achievement of sustainable development in the area of operations, based on implemen-

tation steps outlined in Figure 2, for example, operation managers must do the following:

. Recognising how quality-driven SM can contribute to effective sustainable

operations:

Operation managers need to recognise that quality-driven SM is the new discipline for

helping them choose wisely so that they can turn the capability of operation systems to

organisations’ advantage and boost performance in three areas simultaneously: economic

development, environmental performance, and social equity.

. Generating a statement of work:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aca

dia

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:47

15

May

201

3

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/

Knowledge of work contents (shown in Table 2) can help policy-makers in the field of

operations to lay out effective actionable plans. SOM, for example, can be used here as a

focus for discussion and exploration at this stage (Kleindorfer et al., 2005). SOM calls for

effective and efficient use of limited resources, making optimal use of renewable

resources, and enabling the achievement of sustainability.

. Engaging in project works: Based on clearly defined work contents, operation man-

agers need to launch a variety of sustainable operation initiatives. Examples of such

projects include green purchasing, sustainable packaging, and environmental tech-

nologies and information systems. The guiding principles of transformation will

lead to change in operations.. Developing an integrated assessment framework for sustainability performance

measurement: There exist certain realities of decision-making and social issues

that operation managers will perceive as roadblocks to alignment and deployment

because often times members of operation teams are not properly prepared to under-

stand and deal with the problem at hand. To overcome this, operation managers need

to identify a variety of organisationally relevant outcomes and rely on communi-

cation tools such as sustainability balanced scorecards and citizenship reports.

They need to have confidence that all members in the field of operations know

what ‘quality-driven SM’ is.. Creating a platform for learning: Operation managers also need to craft a platform

for learning that assists corporations in laying the foundation for business success

and achieving maturity in a reasonable period of time. The ultimate aim of such a

platform is to develop long-term sustainability competencies. The application of

Carnegie Mellon’s CMMI is central to our learning model.

5.2 Implications at the cross-enterprise level

A supply chain is a system of suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and custo-

mers with three distinct flows: product, finance, and information. Supply chain manage-

ment (SCM) is about dealing with production and supply chain problems/concerns at

the cross-enterprise level (Lin et al., 2010; Madu & Kuei, 2004). It is, thus, important

for lead firms such as McDonald’s, Zara, Apple Inc. and their supply chain partners to

fulfil their respective responsibilities so that institutions along a supply chain can

achieve mutual benefits.

In today’s global economy, management must be innovative and systems must be sus-

tainability-driven (Madu & Kuei, 2012; Sarkis, 2012; Zhu et al., 2012; Sarkis, Zhu, & Lai,

2011; Epstein, 2010; Epstein, 2009; Srivastava, 2008; Hardjono & Klein, 2004). In the

area of environmental sustainability, for example, Sarkis (2012), Zhu et al. (2012),

Sarkis et al. (2011), and Srivastava (2008) invited practicing managers to think through

implementation steps of Green SCM (GSCM). Using environmental sustainability as an

example, we contend that the operating principles and guidelines presented in Figures–

1–4 shall be consistently and uniformly applied to the specific areas as defined in

GSCM. To achieve this at the cross-enterprise level, additional concerns for lead firms

and their channel partners from quality-driven SM point of view include: (1) understand-

ing the complexity and variability of phenomena and of actions at the cross-enterprise

level, (2) finding strategic starting points, (3) establishing a governance structure, (4)

designing sustainability thinking into a lead firm’s supply network, (5) adopting the

best models and practices based on QM principles, (6) changing management styles and

inspiring employees to turn the capability of systems to supply chains’ advantage, (7)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aca

dia

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:47

15

May

201

3

breaking down barriers and find win–win opportunities, (8) optimising materials receiv-

ing/products production/shipping services systems, (9) implementing improvements by

adopting international standards such as ISO 14000 series of standards, (10) bundling

and prioritising strategic enablers in the context of environmental sustainability to gener-

ate more value, reduce energy consumption, and minimise wastes, (11) maximising the

human capacity through global education and training, (12) organising for the system-

wide transformation, (13) employing a self-regulatory approach under different operating

conditions, and (14) building on SM competencies.

Competing in a new era of sustainability, today’s supply chains should continuously

stimulate creativity and invest in good causes along the triple bottom line.

6. Limitations and future extensions

The conceptual framework presented in this paper is drawn from literature review and

experts’ assessments and interpretations. The template of design for quality-driven SM

(Table 2), for example, is constructed by following the best QM models and practices.

It can be used for successful integration of the intended change into the operation

systems of firms along supply chains. To boost performance outcomes, practitioners

need to seek to understand our proposed models, conduct a self-assessment study (e.g.

adopting the template of design for quality-driven SM shown in Table 2 or 14 points pre-

sented in Section 5.2), and then make their own way. Any conclusion about the link

between quality-driven sustainability systems and business excellence, however, is pre-

liminary at this point in time. Researchers need to collect more comprehensive data in

different organisational contexts and study long-term effects of such a response strategy.

In future studies, we need to establish propositions, test proposed models with larger and

balanced data sets, collect field notes based on interviews with practitioners, and conduct

content analyses in follow-up studies.

7. Conclusions

Our proposed conceptual model is designed to answer the following question: how should

diverse, best QM concepts be linked and sequenced to create a quality-driven SM system

and achieve business excellence? We fully articulate how work should be done by follow-

ing our conceptual model. The detailed implementation steps for the sustainability policy

deployment are also described. Most importantly, the new quality-driven SM approach has

practical implications for both functional units and cross-enterprise operations. We believe

that the conceptual model presented in this paper will help enterprises around the world to

see the complexity and variability of new business realities and to create the circumstances

for the implementation of quality-driven SM systems.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and detailed

reviews.

References

Ascıgil, S. (2010). Toward socially responsible SMEs? Quality award model as a tool. QualityManagement Journal, 17(3), 7–20.

Bennett, L.M., & Kerr, M.A. (1996). A systems approach to the implementation of total quality man-agement. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 7(6), 631–666.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aca

dia

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:47

15

May

201

3

Boak, J. (2008). Chicago goes green. Scientific American – Earth3.0, 18(5), 46–51.Boiral, O. (2006). Global warming: Should companies adopt a proactive strategy? Long Range

Planning, 39, 315–330.Booher, H.R. (2003). Handbook of human systems integration. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Breja, S.K., Banwet, D.K., & Iyer, K.C. (2011). Quality strategy for transformation: A case study.

The TQM Journal, 23(1), 5–20.Candido, C.J.F. (2005). Service quality strategy implementation: A model and the case of the

Algarve hotel industry. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 16(1), 3–14.D’Aprile, L., Tatano, F., & Musmeci, L. (2007). Development of quality objectives for contaminated

sites: State of the art and new perspectives. International Journal of Environment and Heath,1(1), 120–141.

Deming, W.E. (1993). The new economics for industry, government, education. Cambridge, MA:MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review, Ch.39. In D. Buchanan & A.Bryman (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671–689).London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Epstein, M.J. (2009). Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring cor-porate social, environmental, and economic impacts. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-KoehlerPublishers.

Epstein, M.J. (2010). Thinking straight about sustainability. Stanford Social Innovation Review,8(3), 51–55.

Epstein, M.J., & Roy, M. (2001). Sustainability in action: Identifying and measuring the key per-formance drivers. Long Range Planning, 34, 585–604.

Esquer-Peralta, J., Velazquez, L., & Nora Munguia, N. (2008). Perceptions of core elements for sus-tainability management systems (SMS). Management Decision, 46(7), 1027–1038.

Foster, S.T., & Ogden, J. (2008). On differences in how operations and supply chain managersapproach quality management. International Journal of Production Research, 46(24),6945–6961.

Fuentes-Fuentes, M.M., Llorens-Montes, F.J., & Albacete-Saez, C.A. (2007). Quality managementimplementation across different scenarios of competitive structure: An empirical investi-gation. International Journal of Production Research, 45(13), 2975–2995.

Hardjono, T., & de Klein, P. (2004). Introduction on the European corporate sustainability frame-work. Journal of Business Ethics, 55, 99–113.

Holcomb, J.L., Upchurch, R.S., & Okumus, F. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: What are tophotel companies reporting. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,19(6), 461–475.

Hsui, S. (1972). Litwin and Stringer organization climate instruments reliability and validity study inTaiwan. Academic News of National Cheng Chi University, 26, 103–129.

Hwang, Y., Wen, Y., & Chen, M. (2010). A study on the relationship between the PDSA cycle ofgreen purchasing and the performance of the SCOR model. Total Quality Management andBusiness Excellence, 21(12), 1261–1278.

Isaksson, R. (2006). Total quality management for sustainable development: Process based systemmodels. Business Process Management Journal, 12(5), 632–645.

Jabbour, A.B.L.S., & Jabbour, C.J.C. (2009). Are supplier selection criteria going green? Casestudies of companies in Brazil. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 109(4), 477–495.

Juran, J.M., & Defeo, J. (2010). Juran’s quality handbook: The complete guide to performanceexcellence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Juran, J.M., & Gryna, F.M. (1993). Quality planning and analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.Kanana, V.R., & Tan, K.C. (2007). The impact of operational quality: A supply chain view.

International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 12(1), 14–19.Kerzner, H. (2010). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and control-

ling. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Kim, D.Y., Kumar, V., & Murphy, S.A. (2010). European foundation for quality management

business excellence model. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,27(6), 684–701.

Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K., & Wassenhove, L.N.V. (2005). Sustainable operations management.Production and Operations Management, 14(4), 482–492.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aca

dia

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:47

15

May

201

3

Kuei, C., & Madu, C.N. (2003). Customer-centric six sigma quality and reliability management.International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 20(8), 954–964.

Kuei, C., Madu, C.N., & Lin, C. (2008). Implementing supply chain quality management. TotalQuality Management and Business Excellence, 19(11), 1127–1141.

Kuei, C., Madu, C.N., & Lin, C. (2009). Setting priorities for environmental policies and programs:An environmental decision making approach. Design Principles and Practices: AnInternational Journal, 3(5), 315–332.

Lai, K. (2003). Market orientation in quality-oriented organizations and its impact on their perform-ance. International Journal of Production Economics, 84(1), 17–34.

Lin, C., Kuei, C., Madu, C.N., & Winch, J. (2010). Identifying critical successful factors for supplychain excellence. International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences, 1(3), 49–70.

Lo, S.F., & Sheu, H.J. (2007). Is corporate sustainability a value-increasing strategy for business?Corporate Governance, 15(2), 345–358.

Madu, C.N. (1996). Managing green technologies for global competitiveness. Westport, CT:Quorum Books.

Madu, C.N. (2004). Competing on quality and environment. Fairfield, CT: Chi Publishers.Madu, C.N. (2006). House of quality in a minute. Fairfield, CT: Chi Publishers.Madu, C.N., & Kuei, C. (1995). Strategic total quality management. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Madu, C.N., & Kuei, C. (2004). ERP and supply chain management. Fairfield, CT: Chi Publishers.Madu, C.N., & Kuei, C. (2012). Handbook of sustainability management. Singapore: World Scientific

Pub Co Inc.Miguel, B.C., & Santiago, G.B. (2010). Application of the total quality management approach in a

Spanish retailer: The case of Mercadona. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,21(12), 1365–1381.

Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance.New York: The Free Press.

Psychogios, A.G., & Priporas, C. (2007). Understanding total quality management in context:Qualitative research on managers’ awareness of TQM aspects in the Greek service industry.The Qualitative Report, 12(1), 40–66.

Rocha, M., Searcy, C., & Karapetrovic, S. (2007). Integrating sustainable development into existingmanagement systems. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 18(1 & 2),83–92.

Sarkis, J. (2012 forthcoming). Benchmarking and process change for green supply chain management.In C.N. Madu & C. Kuei (Eds.), Handbook of sustainability management. Singapore: WorldScientific Pub Co Inc.

Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., & Lai, K. (2011). An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain man-agement literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 130(1), 1–15.

Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2006). Integrative management of sustainability performance,measurement and reporting. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing andPerformance Evaluation, 3(1), 1–19.

Spekman, R.E., Spear, J., & Kamauff, J. (2002). Supply chain competency: Learning as a key com-ponent. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 7(1), 41–55.

Srivastava, S.K. (2008). Network design for reverse logistics. Omega, 36(4), 535–548.Tsoulfas, G.T., & Pappis, C.P. (2006). Environmental principles applicable to supply chains’ design

and operation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 1593–1602.Wilkinson, A., & Witcher, B. (1993). Holistic TQM must take account of politic process. Total

Quality Management, 4(1), 47–56.Winkler, H. (2010). Sustainability through the implementation of sustainable supply chain networks.

International Journal of Sustainable Economy, 2(3), 293–309.Yaacob, Z. (2009). The impact of employee awareness toward quality management thrust on its

implementation. European Journal of Economics, Finance and administrative Sciences, 15,106–116.

Yeung, A.C.L. (2008). Strategic supply management, quality initiatives, and organizational perform-ance. Journal of Operations Management, 26, 490–502.

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. (2012). Green supply chain management innovation diffusion and itsrelationship to organizational improvement: An ecological modernization perspective.Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 29, 168–185.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aca

dia

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:47

15

May

201

3

integrating quality management principles into sustainability management

Documents