Plymouth Business School

Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Business

2017-03-13

The Influence of Supply Chain Quality Management Practices on

Quality Performance: An empirical investigation
Anabela Soares University of Plymouth

Ebrahim Soltani Hamdan Bin Mohammed Smart University

Ying-Ying Liao Hamdan Bin Mohammed Smart University

Let us know how access to this document benefits you

General rights
All content in PEARL is protected by copyright law. Author manuscripts are made available in accordance with publisher policies.
Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open
licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact the library providing details, and we will remove access to
the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Follow this and additional works at: https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/pbs-research
Part of the Operations and Supply Chain Management Commons

Recommended Citation
Soares, A., Soltani, E., & Liao, Y. (2017) 'The Influence of Supply Chain Quality Management Practices on
Quality Performance: An empirical investigation', Supply Chain Management, 22(2), pp. 122-144. Emerald:
Available at: https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-08-2016-0286
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Business at PEARL. It
has been accepted for inclusion in Plymouth Business School by an authorized administrator of PEARL. For more
information, please contact openresearch@plymouth.ac.uk.
 University of Plymouth
PEARL https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk
Faculty of Arts and Humanities Plymouth Business School

2017-06

The Influence of Supply Chain Quality

Management Practices on Quality
Performance: An empirical investigation

Soares, A
http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/9567

10.1108/SCM-08-2016-0286
Supply Chain Management: an International Journal
Emerald

All content in PEARL is protected by copyright law. Author manuscripts are made available in accordance with
publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or
document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content
should be sought from the publisher or author.
The Influence of Supply Chain Quality Management Practices on
Quality Performance: An Empirical Investigation

Purpose
The extant literature highlights the notable lack of a consensus among operations
and supply chain management scholars regarding the theoretical underpinnings
and associated empirical evidence for the performance impact of supply chain
quality management (SCQM) practices on quality. The aim of this study is to
redress this imbalance in the literature through empirical examination of the
relationship between SCQM practices and quality performance outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach
In accordance with the research aim, a quantitative approach was adopted, and a
multi-item scale web-based survey was designed to collect primary data. A total
number of 325 questionnaires were collected from a sample of UK-based
manufacturing companies. Factor analysis, internal consistency and multivariate
regressions were employed to validate the multi-item scale and test the
hypotheses.
Findings
The findings confirm the proposed hypotheses and reveal statistically significant
results for the performance impact of SCQM practices on quality at an aggregate
level. However, the results of the individual level analysis of SCQM practices
appear to vary from practice to practice. Of various SCQM practices, customer
focus with the highest beta value (i.e. β= 0.303; t-value= 6.120; p=0.000) was
found to have the greatest impact on quality performance.
Practical implications
The findings encourage managers to place high priority on both inter-firm and
intra-firm relationships as prerequisites for achieving superior quality
performance. The propositions and the results of the study provide managers with
some guidelines about effective management of upstream, midstream and
downstream supply chain networks and awareness of the potential synergies
arising from the combined effects of SCQM practices that could bring about
desired quality performance outcomes across the entire supply chain network.
Originality/value
Real and sustainable quality performance often requires an equal focus on both
intra- and inter-firm relationships among supply chain partners. So effective
management of quality across the entire supply chain is deemed essential if a

1
 firm is to smoothly supply high quality products and services to customers. But,
little research has been devoted to understanding conceptual underpinnings of
SCQM as well as empirical support and validation for the conceptualisation and
measurement of SCQM practices. Based on the insights gained from social
network theory (SNT), this paper makes an attempt to address this gap and
examine the impact of SCQM practices on quality performance.

Keywords: supply chain quality management (SCQM); social network theory, quality
performance, individual/aggregate-level analysis, survey, UK manufacturing sector.

Type: Research paper

1. Introduction
The current globalised business environment has forced businesses to shift their intra-

firm focus on quality improvement to encompass the globalization of their quality

strategy (Li, Su and Chen, 2011; Soltani et al., 2011; Wiengarten, Fynes and Onofrei,

2013; Lin, Kuei and Chai, 2013). This has encouraged operations and supply chain

management scholars to discuss the need for implementing quality across the entire

supply chain (see Kaynak and Hartley, 2008; Foster, Wallin and Ogden, 2011). Such

revisit of internal quality strategy to take account of the dynamic nature of external supply

chain network has proved to be core to a firm’s competitive standing and deemed essential

to achieve desired quality and supply chain performance outcomes (see Vanichchinchai

and Igel, 2011). Hence, quality is now viewed as a common supply chain goal and

perceived to be the responsibility of all levels and actors in the supply chain, particularly

in a context where business models show increasing trends to adopt servitization, IoT and

circular economy models. Drawing on in-depth industrial interviews and extensive

literature review, Lo and Yeung’s (2006) study suggests the application of supply quality

management practices throughout the entire supply chain based on the understanding that

a function has to view its upstream function as its supplier – if quality is to be managed

effectively in supply chain. In the extant literature, such focus on the interface between

2
quality and supply chain has been referred to as ‘Supply Chain Quality Management’

(SCQM hereinafter) (Lo and Yeung, 2006; Sila, Ebrahimpour and Birkholz, 2006; Foster,

Wallin and Ogden, 2011; Kuei, Madu and Lin, 2011; Uluskan, Joines and Godfrey, 2016;

Tsai and Hung, 2016).

Since its initial conceptualisation by Ross (1998), the notion of SCQM has been

increasingly gaining recognition as a vastly important topic for theorisation and research.

However, it can be argued that much of the debate in this area has been relied on the

theoretical inferences from either quality management (QM), supply chain management

(SCM) practices or in very few cases on the interface between the two concepts rather

than direct empirical scrutiny of SCQM practices as fully stand-alone theme and field of

study. While existing studies of SCQM have laudably increased the interest of both

academics and managers in the field of operations and supply chain management, they

typically do not delve deeply into whether SCQM practices can influence and improve the

quality of products and services produced. As our review of several most influential and

frequently cited operations and supply chain management journals (e.g. SCMIJ, IJOPM,

JOM, IJPE, IJPR) indicates (see Appendix 1), SCQM has not yet received a similar level

of detail as exists in the operations-related supply chain and quality literature. Thus, there

is the lack of a coherent theory and a consensual theoretical framework of fundamental

principles underpinning SCQM coupled with the abundance of interpretations of what

characterises SCQM. In addition, a review of the extant literature shows that while

previous studies have identified performance effects of SCQM practices on quality at an

aggregate level, the aggregate measure of SCQM impact on quality performance is

unlikely to yield accurate measures of differences in quality performance across a broad

and heterogeneous range of products and suppliers. Such dearth of attempts has led us to

argue that an enhanced understanding of the individual-level associations between each

3
of SCQM practices and quality performance could assist managers to evaluate and

prioritise critical success factors of SCQM and formulate strategies for SCQM successful

implementation. Of particular significance is the dearth of empirically validated scales for

SCQM construct. Similarly, the absence of recent empirical assessments suggests that

many studies of SCQM fail to collect data from industries which are characterised by

global production chains, multiple domestic and foreign locations for production facilities,

multi-tier domestic and foreign supply networks, and overreliance on rigorous quality

standards.

Based on insights gained from Social Network Theory (SNT) and building upon

prior research on SCQM practices (e.g. Sila, Ebrahimpour and Birkholz, 2006; Foster,

Wallin and Ogden, 2011; Lo and Yeung, 2006; Wiengarten, Fynes and Onofrei, 2013;

Quang et al., 2016), the current study makes an attempt to respond to these shortcomings

with both theoretical and empirical contributions. Specifically, this study heeds the

suggestions offered by several researchers (e.g. Foster, Wallin and Ogden, 2011; Kuei and

Madu, 2001; Kuei, Madu and Lin, 2011; Sila, Ebrahimpour and Birkholz, 2006; Zhong et

al., 2016; Kaynak and Hartley, 2008; Flyn and Flyn, 2005; Quang et al., 2016) who

commonly argue that SCQM is still in the definitional stage and that it requires empirically

validated SCQM measures (Foster, Wallin and Ogden, 2011, p. 2286). Furthermore, we

argue that having only validated SCQM measures makes it hard to justify an investment

decision in an update of existing quality systems throughout the entire supply chain.

Rather, we argue that the performance impact of quality-related implementation efforts

across the supply chain needs to be measured – if improved SCQM practices are to

enhance product quality and organisational performance (see Uluskan, Joines and

Godfrey, 2016; Theodorakioglou, Gotzamani and Tsiolvas, 2006; Prajogo, Huo and Han,

2012). Our aim is thus to empirically develop a richer account of SCQM practices and

4
assess their performance impact on product quality. To test this argument, we used data

from a sample of 325 UK-based manufacturing firms with multiple manufacturing sites

and multi-tier domestic and foreign suppliers.

The paper is organised as follows. It starts with a review of the literature pertinent

to SCQM and quality performance. The literature review lays a foundation for developing

the conceptual framework as well as deriving a set of research hypotheses. The next

section discusses the adopted quantitative methodology followed by an analysis of the

data. The final section discusses the theoretical and practical implications of the study.

2. Theoretical background
Social network theory (SNT henceforth) argues that organisations should not be studied

in isolation because they are ultimately influenced by the network to which they belong

to (Williams and Durrance, 2008). Key SNT principles include graph hierarchy, graph

efficiency, least upper boundedness, centralisation index, density, clique, n-cliques, clique

overlap, clique multiplexity, simmelian ties, homophily, multiplexity, heterophily,

structural holes, strength of ties, strength of weak ties, weak ties, influence, propinquity,

mutuality (reciprocity or symmetry), distance, ‘small world’, degree of connectedness,

embeddedness, and transitivity (Scott, 2000, p. 7).

Even though the network approach has been frequently adopted in organisational

research since the 1930’s (Jack, 2010), it still offers opportunities for further research,

especially in the field of operations and supply chain management (Kim et al., 2011;

Braziotis et al., 2013). SNT endorses the idea of looking at supply chains as networks and

explains how the structure of the interactions between firms affects outcomes (Kilduff and

Tsai, 2003; Kim et al., 2011). There has been a growing awareness of the relevancy and

benefits of network perspective in the SCQM context – largely based on the premise that

SCQM connotes the management of inter-organizational (supplier-customer) relations

5
and that maintaining quality across the entire supply chain requires firms to form

collaborative inter-firm relationships in terms of sharing information, coordinating

schedules, and developing high quality products and services together (Humphries and

Gibbs, 2010; Soares, Soltani and Liao, 2012). With the emphasis on inter-firm relationship

as an important avenue for creating value, differential advantages and bilateral

dependence between buyers and suppliers, the network perspective has become a lingua

franca for operations and supply chain management scholars. As evidence of the

importance of social network theory in a supply chain context, several researchers have

presented evidence to argue that the assumptions underpinning SNT can be utilised as a

generic explanatory platform to relate network variables to performance outcomes of

interest and more specifically to shorten the large distance between buyer and supplier

(see Borgatti and Li, 2009; Choi, Dooley and Rungtusanatham, 2001;, Ellram, Tate and

Carter, 2006; Carter, Ellram and Tate, 2007; Autry and Griffis, 2008; Fletcher et al.,

2016; Pomponi, Fratocchi and Tafuri, 2015). In light of the aforementioned discussion,

we gain insights from SNT as an appropriate lens to highlight the importance attached to

the linkages between internal processes with upstream and downstream firms’

externalisation – if quality is to be maintained as a core identity for all parties across the

entire supply chain (Foster, Wallin and Ogden, 2011, 2011, p. 2286). The principles

underpinning SNT allow us to adopt a holistic approach, apply network concepts to “soft”

types of intra- and inter-firm ties, and consequently to interpret the dynamics of upstream,

midstream and downstream supply chain relationships and effectively tap SCQM

implementation and performance outcomes (see Kilduff and Tsai, 2003; Borgatti and Li,

2009).

3. Supply chain quality management (SCQM): a review

The renewed emphasis on harmonization of the needs and interests of various supply chain

6
partners and on the importance attached to alignment of these needs with those of diverse

customer requirements (at both intra- and inter-firm levels) are deemed essential for

manufacturing firms (see Zhang et al., 2011; Kamal and Irani, 2014). One explanation for

such renewed emphasis on supply chain management integration arises from the fact that

it is viewed as a prerequisite for boosting operational efficiency, rendering superior quality

products/services, maintaining organisational performance, and keeping abreast of

customers’ ever-rising and changing expectations (see Sila, Ebrahimpour and Birkholz,

2006; Foster, Wallin and Ogden, 2011; Prajogo, Huo and Han, 2012; Tsai and Hung,

2016). These operational and organisational priorities and the need to further advance

from a traditional firm-centric and product-based mindset to an inter-organisational

supply chain orientation have paved the way for operations and supply chain management

scholars to make concerted efforts to theorize and operationalise the interface between

QM and SCM practices into a unified and coherent whole as ‘SCQM’ (see Ross, 1998;

Sila, Ebrahimpour and Birkholz, 2006; Lo and Yeung, 2006; Foster, 2008; Foster, Wallin

and Ogden, 2011; Kuei, Madu and Lin, 2011; Prajogo, Huo and Han, 2012; Tsai and

Hung, 2016; Uluskan, Joines and Godfrey, 2016). For the sake of parsimony, a summary

of these studies is shown in Table 1.

‘INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE’

As Table 1 suggests, existing studies of SCQM can be categorized into three broad

strands, namely, (i) definitional aspects of SCQM concept, (ii) SCQM practices, and (iii)

individual and aggregate performance impact of SCQM practices on quality and

organizational performance. While these and a number of other studies (e.g. Kannan and

Tan, 2005; Prakash, 2011; Zhang et al., 2011; Jraisat and Sawalha, 2013; Kamal and Irani,

2014) have consistently pointed to the synergies arising from the relatedness of internal

quality processes with upstream and downstream processes and dynamics, they have

7
often inferred and indirectly explored the nature and peculiarities of SCQM from either

an internal quality perspective or an external perspective of suppliers. Each of these areas

will be briefly covered below.

3.1. SCQM Definition

As with all scholarly endeavours in other fields, a range of different definitions of SCQM

have so far been offered by different authors. These definitions reflect different

theoretical, empirical and more importantly the focus and scope of the scholars’ own

research interests. For example, Ross (1998, p.284) views SCQM as ‘the latest stage in

the total quality movement’ and considers all supply chain actors responsible for

processes and products/services improvement. Kuei and Madu (2001, p.411) adopt a

relational approach to the definition of SCQM and argue in favour of the need for trust in

buyer-supplier relationships as a prerequisite for sustained quality performance across the

entire supply chain (see also Fynes et al., 2005). Robinson and Malhotra (2005, p.319)

advocate a coordinative and cooperative approach to managing supply chain relationships

and related business processes for effective integration of quality and supply chain

management practices. In a more recent definition of SCQM, Foster (2008, p. 461) views

the term to signal a more ‘systems-based and holistic approach to performance

improvement which capture not only internal processes but also upstream and

downstream processes and dynamics’.

Whilst these definitions implicitly take different stances of the essence of SCQM

and highlight the intricacies of the two concepts, a key tendency appears to be the

increased emphasis upon the broadest network of supply chain participants and their

knock-on effect on quality performance. Although getting the right quality product at the

8
right price and at the right time is perceived to be the primary concerns for buyers,

supplying the right quality product at the right time and at a profitable price is regarded

as the ultimate goal of suppliers (Fynes et al., 2005). Thus, understanding and finding the

optimal balance in the buyer-supplier relationship and the nature of inter-firm interactions

and consequences for product quality performance provides a fertile ground for utilising

SNT assumptions to examine the management of quality processes throughout the entire

supply chain (see Wee and Wu, 2009; Fletcher et al., 2016; Tsanos and Zografos, 2016;

Kähkönen, Lintukangas and Hallikas, 2015; Sancha, Longoni and Giménez, 2015).

3.2. SCQM practices

Another important debate in the literature on SCQM has centred on a set of practices and

critical factors that characterise the nature of SCQM. A number of recent studies have

pointed to the potential synergies between QM and SCM (e.g., Foster, Wallin and Ogden,

2011; Soltani et al., 2011; Quang, et al., 2016; Sampaio, Carvalho and Fernandes, 2016;

Fernandes et al., 2017) and provided a fertile area for elucidating SCQM practices. For

example, Lin et al. (2005) suggested nine SCQM constructs as follows: top management

leadership, training, product/service design, supplier QM, process management, quality

data reporting, employee relations, customer relations and benchmarking learning. In a

similar vein, Kaynak and Hartley (2008) conceptualise SCQM through the following

eight practices: management leadership, training, employee relations, customer focus,

quality data and reporting, supplier QM, product/service design, and process

management. Several other researchers (e.g. Kuei, Madu and Lin, 2008:1132) developed

a SCQM framework based upon five categories, namely, customer focus, quality of the

IT system, supplier relationships, externally focused process integration, and supply chain

quality leadership. In other study, Lin, Kuei and Chai (2013) identified the enabler criteria

of SCQM as supplier relationship, information technology, process management, top

9
management support, human resource management, QM, strategic planning, and

knowledge management. Taken together, these bodies of literature have theorized a set

of shared practices that can be summarized into the following five practices:

(1) Quality leadership: it refers to managerial actions and choices with regard to

establishing a working environment conducive to continuous improvement at both inter-

and intra-firm levels (Ahire and O’Shaughnessy, 1998; Prajogo and Sohal, 2003; Kaynak

and Hartley, 2008).

(2) Customer focus: it requires viewing both internal and external customers as the

ultimate arbiter of quality, long-term business value driver and a prime source of business

success. It also connotes a prompt response and proactive approach to customer needs

and concerns (Deming, 1986; Lai, 2003; Sroufe and Curkovic, 2008).

(3) Supplier focus: it requires organisations to view suppliers as invaluable members of

their value chain creation and that organisations should establish a business environment

which enable joint quality focus and development through collaborative relationships. It

should be noted that the ability and willingness of supply chain partners to promptly

respond to the quality concerns of the buying organisation rely, in the main, upon the

level of trust between all the parties and at all levels of supply chain (Lin et al., 2005; Lo

and Yeung, 2006).

(4) IT-enabled organisations: It views communication and information sharing through

the use of IT as a prerequisite for optimising quality performance of multi-echelon supply

chain networks. If managed and maintained appropriately, IT can result in operational

efficiency and yield competitive advantage for all members of supply chain network (Xu,

2011).

(5) Integration: it refers to close alignment and coordination within a supply chain which

is deemed essential to the coherent implementation of SCM activities and the

10
achievement of improved performance (Yeung, 2008; Huo, Zhao and Lai, 2014).

3.3. Performance impact of SCQM practices

In general, prior work on quality management (QM) practices and performance has

primarily attempted to measure the impact of quality practices separately. As Table 2

seeks to suggest, much existing research on QM practices are frequently devoid of critical

analysis of the performance impact of QM practices altogether and their aggregate impact

on product/service quality and organisational performance (e.g., Cua, Mckone, and

Schroeder, 2001; Flynn, Schroeder and Sakakibara, 1994, 1995; Tan et al., 1999). The

results of such individual-level (as opposed to aggregate level) analysis of performance

impact of quality management practices at operational and organisational levels showed

that different QM practices had different effects on quality performance (e.g. Dow,

Samson and Ford, 1999; Samson and Terziovski, 1999; Baird, Hu and Reeve, 2011).

‘INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE’

In terms of the performance impact of SCQM practices (see Table 1), research

has provided evidence in support of a positive relationship between SCQM practices and

overall organisational performance (see Lin et al., 2005; Kahnali and Taghavi, 2010).

With the exception of Sila, Ebrahimpour and Birkholz’s (2006) study of the performance

impact of SCQM on product quality and design quality, the extant empirical studies of

the performance impact of SCQM have failed to capture the performance effects of

SCQM practices at the individual level of analysis. In most of these studies, research

scholars have typically measured the performance impact of SCQM at the aggregate

level. For example, Kuei, Madu and Lin (2001) report on the managers’ positive

perceptions toward the impact of SCQM on overall organisational performance. In their

study of the synergies between quality and supply chain management, Flynn and Flynn

(2005, p.3424) present evidence in favour of the positive impact of QM practices on a

11
firm’s operational (supply chain) performance such as ‘inventory and time-related

metrics – e.g. cycle time and delivery dependability’ (see also Flynn, Schroeder and

Sakakibara, 1995). In a study involving 200 suppliers in the electronics sector in the

Republic of Ireland, Fynes, Búrca and Voss (2005) reported the positive impact of supply

chain relationship quality (SCRQ) on supply chain performance quality. Similarly, Lo,

Yeung and Yeung’s (2007) study provided evidence for the positive impact of SCQM on

organisational/quality performance in Chinese manufacturing firms.

Whilst these studies have made significant contribution to the conceptualisation

and theorization of SCQM, the existing SCQM research seems to be weakened by the

assumption of unidimensional nature of SCQM. In other words, the analysis of SCQM

empirical data has often been carried out at an aggregate level (i.e. viewing SCQM as a

single construct), thereby concealing variation between individual practices of SCQM

(see Nair, 2006; Johnson, Rosen and Chang, 2011; Kim, Kumar and Kumar 2012). In this

regard and given the multidimensionality of SCQM, we argue that the literature could be

enriched by analysing the individual performance impact of each SCQM practice on

product quality. Such individual level of analysis of SCQM practices not only

supplements the existing dominant aggregate level analysis of SCQM, but also provides

a platform for quality, supply chain and operations managers to identify the relative

importance weight of individual SCQM practices and to plan their operational and

strategic priorities accordingly. Finally, another limitation of existing theorization of

SCQM is that they often explore the impact of SCQM practices on overall organisational

performance. This implies that few studies have provided (mixed) accounts of the

performance impact of SCQM practices on quality and that the impact of SCQM practices

on quality performance has remained ambiguous and controversial – to say the least (see

Lin et al., 2005; Kaynak and Hartley, 2008; Kahnali and Taghavi, 2010).

12
 The study reported in this article is designed to contribute to the existing SCQM

research by identifying SCQM practices and exploring their impacts on quality

performance at individual level of analysis. In the context of this article, quality

performance connotes the quality of the final product (which incorporates design,

conformance and more importantly quality attributes). A review of quality performance

is given in the next section.

3.4. Quality performance

‘Quality’ or ‘quality performance’ is a controversial construct for a variety of conceptual

and empirical reasons. From a conceptual point of view, quality has been viewed as a

‘seductive’ (Wilkinson and Willmott, 1995) and ‘an unusually slippery concept of

management which is easy to visualize but exasperatingly difficult to define’ (Garvin,

1991). From an empirical standpoint, the existing research evidence provides mixed

results at both micro- and macro-level impact of QM practices on individual and

organisational performance (see Table 2). While some studies reported little or no

performance improvements as a result of QM implementation (e.g. Adam Jr. et al., 1997),

others provided evidence in support of the significant impact of QM practices on quality

performance outcomes (e.g., Forker, Mendez and Hershauer, 1997). As a result of the

mixed findings concerning the performance impact of QM programmes, the debate on

quality performance measurement systems has been equally diverse and illusive (see De

Toni, Nassimbeni and Tonchia, 1995; Flynn, Schroeder and Sakakibara, 1995; Lee, Rho

and Lee, 2003). In most of these studies, scholars have tended to focus on the positive

association between internal quality practices with operational (including quality) and

financial performance outcomes (e.g., Kaynak, 2003; Goldstein and Iossifova, 2012;

Jayaram, Oke and Prajogo 2013), thereby leading to a relative neglect of

operationalization of quality performance as a construct.

13
 A review of the extant literature highlights three key issues that might explain the

variety and vagaries of research findings relevant to performance impact of quality

practices: (1) the use of different measurement instruments to assess both quality

implementation and the resulting performance impact, (2) the use of quality and

performance as single and/or multi-dimensional constructs (Kim, Kumar and Kumar,

2012:296) which implies individual and/or aggregate level measurement of quality

performance, and (3) the existence of additional interacting/contextual variables (e.g.,

Sousa and Voss, 2001). Consequently, the ambiguity and existing mixed results of the

definitions and operationalization of quality performance calls for further research on the

individual impact of each of the quality practices on quality performance outcomes.

In the light of these limitations and absence of a consensual definition of quality

performance, more recent research suggests to study quality and its performance impact

as a multidimensional construct. This usage is essentially that of Garvin (1987) who

defines product quality in terms of the following eight mutually exclusive attributes:

product performance, product features, reliability, conformance, technical durability,

serviceability, aesthetics and perceived quality (see also Neely, 2007 that adds value for

money to these attributes). Sousa and Voss (2002, p.94) consequently highlighted the

need to differentiate between quality performance and operational performance and urged

operations and supply chain scholars to study the multi-dimensional nature of ‘quality

performance’ in future research. However, very few studies have empirically examined

the multidimensional performance attributes of product quality in the context of SCQM.

This vital issue (i.e. examination of the individual level impact of SCQM practices on

quality outcomes) constitutes the primary focus of the current study.

4. Research framework and hypotheses

Figure 1 presents the adopted research framework and hypotheses. As depicted in Figure

14
1, four SCQM practices were considered for the purpose of the current study. These four

categories are based on the literature previously presented, namely, Kuei, Madu and Lin’s

(2008) SCQM practices (i.e. customer focus, quality of the IT system, supplier

relationships, externally focused process integration and supply chain quality leadership).

To avoid item repetition, the items representing the quality of the IT system dimension

(i.e. the information sharing items adopted in the current study) were included in the

survey with the questions referring to the ‘customer focus’ and ‘supplier focus’ practices.

As a result, SCQM practices were examined in the form of four (see Kuei, Madu and Lin,

2008) SCQM practices in the current study. In order to conceptualise and operationalise

quality performance, we employed product quality features recommended by Garvin

(1987) and Neely (2007).

‘INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE’

In the light of the aforementioned research framework (Figure 1), the related hypotheses

are elaborated as follows.

4.1. Customer focus and quality performance

The existing research pertinent to the relationship between customer focus and quality

performance tends to support the positive effect of customer-focused practices on quality

performance at both individual and aggregate levels (Tan et al., 1999; Chen and Paulraj,

2004). For example, Flynn, Schroeder and Sakakibara (1994) supported the role of

customers’ involvement in the product design and development process not least because

it had the potential to reduce quality problems at the production stage. Adam Jr. et al.

(1997) found that actual quality was influenced by QM knowledge, its degree of customer

focus, and management involvement. Kaynak and Hartley’s (2008) study provided

evidence for the direct relationship between customer focus, management leadership,

15
supplier QM and quality performance, as well as the need for implementing QM as an

integrated system. In short, we make the following hypothesis:

H1: Customer focus positively contributes to the achievement of superior quality

performance.

4.2. Supplier focus and quality performance

The extant literature (see Table 2) indicates that suppliers’ quality and involvement has a

positive, but not always direct, impact on operational and financial performance. For

example, Forker, Mendez and Hershauer (1997) reported that suppliers’ relative

efficiency moderated the relationship between QM practices and quality performance.

Kaynak (2003) demonstrated the importance of supplier QM in effective QM

implementation through its direct relationships with product/service design and process

management. Baird, Hu and Reeve (2011) found that while all QM practices were

interrelated, supplier QM, process management, and quality data and reporting were

reported to facilitate the achievement of operational performance goals. Thus, we suggest

the following hypothesis:

H2: Supplier focus positively contributes to the achievement of superior quality

performance.

4.3. Supply chain integration and quality performance

The relationship between supply chain integration and business and operational

performance has also been fairly established in the literature (see Table 2). For example,

Rosenzweig, Roth and Dean’s (2003) study of the effects of an integration strategy on

competitive capabilities and business performance supported the influence of supply

chain integration intensity on product quality and delivery reliability. Yeung’s (2008)

16
study of the organizational impacts of strategic supply management on quality and

organisational performance found that supply chain integration improved on-time

shipments, reduces operational costs, and consequently led to customer satisfaction and

improved business performance. Based on the insights gained from the contingency and

configuration approaches, Flynn, Huo and Zhao’s (2010) study revealed that supply chain

integration was related to both operational and business performance. Similarly, Huo,

Zhao and Lai’s (2014, p. 38) study of antecedents and consequences of supply chain

quality integration found how different types of supply chain quality integration were

related to quality-related performance. In particular, Huo et al.’s (2010, 2014) findings

highlighted internal quality integration as a core strategic resource for quality

improvement. Restated as a proposition, we offer the following statement:

H3: Supply chain integration positively contributes towards the achievement of

superior quality performance.

4.4. Quality leadership and performance

The extant literature has provided evidence in support of the impact of quality leadership

on performance. For example, Rodgers and Hunter’s (1991) study showed that when top

management commitment to specific performance objectives was high, firms experienced

an average gain in productivity of up to 56%. Powell (1995) reported that top

management commitment to quality significantly influenced quality performance. In a

similar vein, Ahire and O’Shaughnessy (1998) showed that high top management

commitment resulted in higher quality products. In another study, Samson and Terziovski

(1999) found that QM practices were not equally predictors of operational performance.

Of various QM practices, their study confirmed only a significant positive correlation

between leadership and customer focus with the firm performance. As such, we argue

17
that leadership is expected to substantially impact on quality performance. In formal

terms:

H4: Quality leadership positively contributes towards the achievement of superior

quality performance.

4.5. The overall performance impact of SCQM practices on quality

As our review of the literature indicates (see Table 1), much discussion of SCQM is based

on the examination of the aggregate impact of SCQM practices on overall organisational

performance. As a result, there is the dearth of research into the quality performance

impact of SCQM practices and empirically validated scales for SCQM. In this regard and

in concordance with the existing research pertinent to the potential impact of SCQM

practices on quality performance (e.g., Sila, Ebrahimpour and Birkholz, 2006; Lin et al.,

2005; Kahnali and Taghavi, 2010), we argue that SCQM implementation (i.e. the

combined effect of the four SCQM practices on quality performance) is positively related

to the achievement of superior quality performance. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H5: Supply Chain Quality Management (SCQM) has a positive effect on quality

performance.

5. Methodology
The aim of the present study was to investigate the performance impact of SCQM

practices on quality. Drawing on positivist ontologies, a quantitative research strategy

was adopted (see Burns, 2000). Simple linear regression and multivariate analysis were

employed to test the research hypotheses. Specifically, simple regression analysis was

undertaken to examine H1-H5. The results of multivariate regression were provided for

18
further discussion about the relationship between variables at an aggregate level.

5.1. Questionnaire development

In order to collect the quantitative data and test the research hypotheses a web-based

survey was adopted. Of various modes of survey data collection (e.g. postal-mail,

telephone, face to face survey), this method was chosen for two main reasons: to enable

the collection of data in an efficient and cost-effective manner, and more importantly to

maximize response rate (Griffis, Goldsby and Cooper, 2003). In line with De Vaus’

(2002) recommendations, the elaboration and refinement phase of questionnaire design

involved a three-stage pre-test analysis. The outcomes of the analysis led to some changes

in the layout and content of the final draft of survey questionnaire. The final version of

the web-based self-completion questionnaire adopted a seven-point Likert scale (Likert,

1932). The final version of the questionnaire survey was composed of the following four

main sections: introduction, SCQM items, quality performance items, and background

information questions.

5.2. Sample

In an attempt to broaden distribution and dissemination of the questionnaires, extensive

collaborative efforts were undertaken with several professional manufacturing and

quality associations. As a result of our joint efforts, a total number of 2000 questionnaires

were distributed to leading membership organizations for these associations in the UK,

of which 527 were received but only 325 were usable. This yielded a 16.3% response rate

which was comparable to similar studies of quality and supply chain management (e.g.

Sila, Ebrahimpour and Birkholz, 2006; Kaynak and Hartley, 2008; Dellana and Kros,

2014). The demographic profile of responding companies included mainly large

19
manufacturing companies with operations in the metals and engineered metal products

sector (14.46%), food and drinks (12.92%), electronics (12%), process manufacturing

(9.85%), pharmaceutical (8.31%), aerospace (8%), automotive (8%) and other

manufacturing sectors (26.46%). They were located all over the UK with the highest

percentage of companies operating in the South-East region (23.69%). The majority of

the companies (75.4%) were in operations for more than 20 years and varied in size (no.

of employees), ranging from small and medium sized (42.4%) to large enterprises

(56.3%). They were ISO 9000 certified and adopted different business excellence models

(mainly European Foundation for Quality Management or EFQM Business Excellence

Model) and improvement methodologies and techniques (e.g. lean manufacturing tools,

six sigma, business process reengineering) to aid in execution of operations strategy and

improve the effectiveness and efficiency of quality management activities.

5.3. Measurement

As our proposed conceptual framework indicates (see Figure 1), four SCQM practices

were selected for the purpose of the current study. These practices included customer

focus, supplier focus, supply chain integration, and quality leadership. Given the absence

of a thorough measurement scale for all SCQM practices, several validated items utilised

in previous studies were adopted and adapted accordingly (e.g. Zhang, Waszink and

Wijngaard 2000; Kannan and Tan, 2010). In order to measure the dependent variable of

the proposed conceptual framework (i.e. quality performance), Neely’s (2007, p.69) nine

attributes of quality (i.e. product performance, features, reliability, conformance,

technical durability, serviceability, aesthetics, perceived quality and value for money)

were adopted.

20
6. Results
6.1. Validity and reliability

Cronbach’s alpha and factor analysis under the extraction method of principal component

analysis with the rotation method of Varimax were employed to assess the reliability and

validity of the adopted scales. Overall, factor loadings greater than 0.4 (cut-off point at ≥

+0.4 or ≤ –0.4) and internal consistency/reliability higher than 0.7 (α > 0.7) are needed

for practical significance (see Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001; Hair et al., 2006) and

retaining an item in a scale (Nunnally, 1978), respectively. The results from these

analyses suggested that all measures were both valid and reliable which implied that they

could be safely used for testing the research hypothesis. Table 3 shows the results for

factor analysis as well as the reliability analysis of the variables.

‘INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE’

In line with the extant literature, the results of the factor analysis produced four

SCQM factors with high loadings for all communalities (> 0.4) and a KMO of 0.94 (see

Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001; Hair et al., 2006). These four factors which cumulatively

explained 63.7% of the total variance were labelled as follows: (1) SC

activities/integration, (2) customer focus, (3) supplier focus and (4) quality leadership.

Individually, each of these factors explained 42.8%, 9.8%, 6.4% and 4.8% of the data

variance, respectively. These factors were further used to conduct multiple regression

analysis.

6.2. Hypotheses testing

The correlation between variables was then tested and significant correlations at the 0.01

level (2-tailed) were found among the variables – an indication of low and medium

correlation levels. Table 4 presents the correlation analysis of the research variables.

21
 ‘INSERT TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE’

Regression assumptions were also considered to ensure that the data was normally

distributed, with no heteroscedasticity, singularity or multicollinearity and that a linear

association could be inferred (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001; Hair et al., 2006). Upon

fulfilling all these conditions, multiple regression analyses were conducted to analyse the

impact of SCQM practices on quality performance outcomes. In this respect, summed

scales for each of the independent and dependent variables were created and included in

the regression analysis. The four practices and an aggregate SCQM variable for testing

their impact as a whole were used as independent variables in a series of regressions with

quality performance as the dependent variable.

After analysing the results of correlation analysis and regression conditions, we

conducted two regression analyses: simple and multiple regression analysis. Simple

regression was used to test the performance effect of each independent variable (i.e. each

of SCQM practices separately including SCQM as an independent variable) on dependent

variable (i.e. quality performance) – i.e. addressed by H1 to H5. Table 5 presents a simple

regression model for explaining the individual effect of SCQM practices on quality

performance.

‘INSERT TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE’

As shown in Table 5, the results of simple linear regression lend support for all

the hypotheses (H1 to H5). The results of the individual performance impact of SCQM

practices (including SCQM as an independent variable) indicate that customer focus (β

=0.465, t-value =7.935, p<0.001), supplier focus (β =0.448, t-value =8.201, p<0.001),

supply chain activities/integration (β =0.285, t-value =5.503, p<0.001), quality leadership

(β =0.307, t-value =6.211, p<0.001) and SCQM (β =0.533, t-value =8.549, p<0.001) all

have a positive impact on quality performance (addressed by H1 to H5).

22
 While the results of simple regression are suggestive of a positive linear

relationship between SCQM and quality performance (addressed by H5), they do not

show how much of the variation in product quality performance can be explained by

customer focus, supplier focus, supply chain integration and quality leadership ‘as a

whole’ – the aggregate performance impact of SCQM. Thus, we used multiple regression

to further examine H5 and analyse the ‘relative contribution’ of each SCQM practice in

explaining the variance in quality performance. The use of multiple regression analysis

allowed us to determine the overall fit (variance explained) of the model and the relative

contribution of each of the predictors to the total variance explained. Table 6 shows the

multiple regression analysis for the four explanatory variables of SCQM. A discussion of

data analysis is given in the next section.

‘INSERT TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE’

Although the aggregate effect of SCQM on quality performance is statistically

significant (with the highest R-squared, 18.5% - see Table 5), the results of multiple

regression (see Table 6) show how much variance in product quality performance can be

attributed to each of the four SCQM practices (i.e. aggregate performance impact of

SCQM as the sum of all four practices). The analysis reveals the proportions of variance

explained by SCQM practices to vary from 0.8% (supply chain integration), 4% (quality

leadership), and 7.6% (supplier focus) to 9.2% (customer focus).

These results not only support the extant literature that argues in favour of the

individual effects of SCQM practices on quality performance (e.g., Flynn, Schroeder, and

Sakakibara 1994; 1995; Cua, Mckone, and Schroeder 2001), but also they support

the potential aggregate effect of SCQM practices ‘as a whole’ on quality performance

(e.g., Sila, Ebrahimpour and Birkholz 2006; Lin, Kuei, and Chai 2013).

23
7. Discussion

7.1. Main findings

The results of the present study provide a response to the notable lack of research

regarding the theoretical underpinnings and associated empirical evidence for the effects

of SCQM practices on product quality. Overall, the findings reveal that different SCQM

practices significantly affect product quality and that the effects of each of SCQM

practices on product quality measures differ. A summary of the main findings is detailed

as follows.

The findings support the significance of definitional dimensions of SCQM as a

coordinated effort of all parties involved in the company's supply chain to improve

product quality. A SCQM or end-to-end approach to managing quality is even deemed

more essential for the entire supply chain network than merely paying lip service to

quality by each individual firm (i.e. the buying organisation’s or supplier’s) through their

internal system of quality control. This finding not only confirms the paramount

importance of all SCQM practices in enhancing product quality outcomes but also

indicates that some of the SCQM practices are strong enablers of product quality

improvement across the entire supply chain network. This echoes Huo, Zhao and Lai’s

(2014, p. 47) observation who argue that the organisation-wide approach to managing

quality across the entire supply chain can signal supply chain members to understand each

other well, to learn from each other, and to achieve high quality performance in a

competitive environment.

An end-to-end or supply chain approach to managing quality not only

demonstrates a proven way to enhance product quality performance, but also and more

importantly, it lays stress on the need to improve the entire supply chain network and

associated processes that must work together to ensure high quality products. This finding

24
echoes assumptions underpinning SNT in a sense that effective management of quality

across the entire supply chain requires supply chain members to thoroughly understand

the nature and peculiarities of a broader network of ties, their multiple interdependencies,

non-linear feedback and hidden consequences (Humphries and Gibbs, 2010; Soares,

Soltani and Liao, 2012), if a SCQM network is to be established effectively and product

quality is to exceed customer expectations. In practice, these findings indicate that

members of supply chain network need to have awareness of complexities arising from

multi-party supply chain peculiarities and adopt a multi-tiered approach to effectively

manage product quality across the entire supply chain. One explanation is that the failure

of one logistics partner in a supply chain network has unwelcome repercussions for its

fellow members and consequently impact on the product quality performance (see Scott,

2000; Braziotis et al., 2013).

Whereas most of previous studies were largely theoretical and involved proposing

models to analyse SCQM practices or enablers (e.g. Lin et al., 2005; Kaynak and Hartley,

2008; Kuei, Madu and Lin, 2008; Lin, Kuei and Chai, 2013), our empirical findings

support previously identified SCQM constructs. As our results showed, these practices

were grouped into four broad categories, namely, customer focus, supplier focus, supply

chain activities/integration and quality leadership. Overall, the findings support previous

research documenting the direct positive effect of all four SCQM practices on quality

performance (e.g. Kaynak and Hartley, 2008; Collin, Eloranta and Holmström, 2009;

Baird, Hu and Reeve, 2011; Prajogo, Huo and Han, 2012; Hu, Zhao and Lai, 2014;

Huang, Yen and Liu, 2014; Huo, Han and Prajogo, 2016; Uluskan, Joines and Godfrey,

2016). Although prior research findings have yielded mixed results for the individual

effect of SCQM practices on quality performance (e.g. Lin et al., 2005), our findings are

25
consistent with those of Sila, Ebrahimpour and Birkholz (2006), who observed a strong

and positive relations between each of SCQM practices and quality performance.

Whereas previous studies have tended to conceptualise SCQM largely as a stand-

alone construct and activity and in terms of its aggregate effect on operational and

organisational performance, our findings also highlight the relative importance of

individual SCQM practices and related operational and strategic effects. To help

understand and realise the potential performance impact of SCQM, our findings offer an

individual level analysis of the performance impact of each of SCQM practices on

product quality. Overall, the findings lend support for the direct positive effect of all

SCQM practices on quality performance. But, the results of the aggregate level analysis

of SCQM practices suggest that the performance impact of each SCQM practice varies

and that customer and supplier orientation are stronger predictors of quality performance

than other SCQM practices. In contrast to most of previous research findings on the

primacy of leadership role in managing quality (e.g. Deming, 1986; Juran, 2003; Rahman,

2006; Soltani and Wilkinson, 2010; Uluskan, Joines and Godfrey, 2016), our results

reveal that quality leadership is less important than some of SCQM practices (see Soltani,

2005). This finding suggests that managing quality in an increasingly global supply chain

brings many challenges and consequently the relative importance of SCQM practices

does change to some degree as products move through a series of tiers and organisations.

7.2. Implications for research

This study contributes to supply chain and quality management literature by examining

the interlinking of the two perspectives and their resulting combined effects (i.e. SCQM)

on product quality outcomes. Our focus on SCQM heeds the suggestion offered by

Robinson and Malhotra (2005, p. 315) who have highlighted the “need for more focused

26
approach in evaluating quality management issues within the internal and external supply

chain context”. Given the notable lack of consensus among operations and supply chain

management scholars regarding conceptualization of SCQM, our study examines SCQM

in terms of both its theoretical underpinnings and associated empirical evidence for their

performance impact on quality. Theoretically, our proposed SCQM conceptual model is

a response to the absence of multivariate scales that allow replication and measurement

of SCQM critical factors (e.g. Kuei, Madu and Lin, 2008, 2011). We also empirically test

our SCQM model using data collected from 325 UK-based manufacturing companies

with global and regional operations. Our focus on the UK-based manufacturing sector is

attributed to the fact that empirical scrutiny of SCQM has largely relied on leading

manufacturing firms and lead OEM and ODM suppliers operating in East Asian

economies – an indication of a potential limitation of existing conceptualization of SCQM

from the perspectives of Western business economies which have become major

recipients of substantial East Asian Manufacturing outputs.

Our study also contributes insights into the appropriateness of SNT as a theoretical

lens for the study of quality management issues within the internal and external supply

chain contexts. Our findings lend support to the view that the interlinking nature of

SCQM practices could have knock-on effects on the degree of quality performance as

products move through a series of tiers and organizations at both intra- and inter-firm

levels. Although the performance effects of QM practices on operational and

organizational performance have been examined in the literature, very little has focused

on the key predictors or enablers of SCQM and their performance impact on product

quality. Our study enriches the SNT literature by identifying the relative importance of

customer orientation and supplier focus than other SCQM practices. SNT has the

potential to become the foundation for the systematic study of intra- and inter-firm

27
supplier-buyer relationships. In fact, the uncertainties and challenges of global supply

chain and in particular language, trust, communication and cultural issues inherent in

multiple buyer-supplier relationships coupled with inter-connected supply chain

networks with profound interdependencies have made the network perspective to become

‘a lingua franca’ (Borgatti and Li, 2009; Wichmann and Kaufmann, 2016). While

supporting evidence is found that concords with some theories’ call for additional

empirical research into the application of social network perspective (see Kembro,

Selviaridis and Näslund, 2014; Halldórsson, Hsuan and Kotzab, 2015), the SNT literature

can be enriched by exploring how and to what extent the nature and peculiarities of a

broader network of ties at both intra- and inter-frim levels can influence product quality

performance (see Scott, 2000; Braziotis et al., 2013; Håkansson and Persson, 2004; Choi

et al., 2015). We argue that real and sustainable quality performance requires firms to

advance from traditional firm centric and product-based mindsets to an inter-

organizational supply chain orientation with equal focus on both intra- and inter-firm

relationships (see Huo, Zhao and Lai, 2014).

In a manner similar to that of previous SCQM research (e.g. Nair, 2006; Johnson,

Rosen and Chang, 2011), we analyzed the aggregate impact of SCQM on quality

performance. Our study also extends this literature by providing an individual level

analysis of SCQM practices. In this respect, customer orientation and supplier focus

emerged as main predictors of SCQM effectiveness. These findings appear somewhat

contradictory to those initially reported by the proponents of quality management and

their followers (e.g. Deming, 1986; Juran, 2003; Garvin, 1991) who consider leadership

as the most important ingredient for successful implementation of quality and continuous

improvement initiatives and in fact the glue that holds the TQM organization together

through cementing the importance of quality in the minds of everyone from top to shop

28
floor (see also Prajogo and Sohal, 2003; Sila, Ebrahimpour and Birkholz, 2006; Rahman,

2006; Kaynak and Hartley, 2008; Soltani and Wilkinson, 2010; Uluskan, Joines and

Godfrey, 2016). Rather, strong evidence emerged to support the view that customer focus

and supplier orientation were the ‘raison d'etre’ of effective SCQM. This finding echoes

Robinson and Malhotra (2005, p. 315) who observed that effective implementation of

quality initiatives from an (internal and external) supply chain perspective necessitates a

shift in focus “from traditional firm centric and product based mindsets to an inter-

organizational supplier chain orientation involving customers, suppliers and other

partners”. Taken together, the results of individual level analysis and relative importance

of SCQM practices contribute to extant conceptualization and theories of SCQM – i.e.

research that lies at the interface of quality and external supply chain management (see

Flynn, 2005; Foster, 2008; Fish, 2011; Soltani et al., 2011). Our findings improve the

clarity of SCQM definition and practices and ensure that the relative importance of

SCQM practices on product quality performance is not overlooked in future SCQM

research.

7.3. Implications for practice

The study contributes insights into the effective management of quality from the supply

chain perspective. The findings encourage practicing managers to adopt both an internal

quality and external supply chain perspectives to managing quality and place high priority

on effective intra- and inter-firm relationships as prerequisites for achieving superior

product quality performance (see Halldórsson, Hsuan and Kotzab, 2015). The

propositions and the results of the study provide managers with some guidelines about

effective management of upstream, midstream and downstream supply chain networks

and awareness of the potential synergies arising from the combined effects of SCQM

29
practices that could bring about desired quality performance outcomes across the entire

supply chain network (see Kuei and Madu, 2001; Robinson and Malhotra, 2005; Foster,

2008). To develop an organisational environment that is conducive to produce a quality

product for the end customer and meet the requirements of global market competition in

the long run, managers should not rely solely on developing internal quality integration

capabilities. Rather, they should adopt a supply chain perspective to managing quality in

a sense that they should extend the concept of a customer to include both stakeholders

within the organisation as well as suppliers and other partners who at any time are

dependent on anyone else within or between the organization(s). As such, managers need

to convince internal customers about the benefits of adopting an appropriate approach

and behaviour in their working relationships with suppliers and other members of supply

chain network particularly end customers (see Ross, 1998). In an era where competitors

are considering and developing servitized solutions and incorporating IoT and big data in

their business models (Tachizawa, Alvarez-Gil and Montes-Sancho, 2015), it is

mandatory for manufacturing companies to consider the extended links of their networks

and ensure the implementation of consistent quality throughout their supply chain.

To remain competitive in the aftermath of the “post-Brexit”, practicing quality and supply

chain managers in the UK should be reminded that a business-as-usual approach will not

deliver desired quality attributes for the global market. Rather, the quality of end product

specifically and the future competitiveness of UK manufacturing generally is influenced

by all parties involved in the entire supply chain network. Given the numerous linkages

between all members of supply chain network and their (in) direct effects on product

quality throughout the supply chain, any UK government policy design will also need to

address the entire supply chain at both strategic and more detailed levels (Foresight, 2013,

p. 6).

30
8. Limitations and suggestions for future research

Despite the contributions of the current study to both the theory and practice of SCQM,

it has several limitations that establish avenues for future research. Our focus in the

current study was on UK-based manufacturing sector operating in different industries and

involving processing of a wide range of products. Given the differences in manufacturing

environment of firms and today’s manufacturing industry’s reliance on supply base (as

opposed to the historical practices of vertically integrated manufacturing firms) and the

resulting implications for product quality outcomes, future research could explore the

performance impact of SCQM practices on quality in a single industry. In addition to

providing depth to the study, focusing on a single industry not only controls for quality

performance variance due to industry-specific conditions and characteristics but also

enhances the generalisability of the findings.

Given that we limit our study to survey data coupled with the recent call for

strengthening the theoretical base of operations and supply chain management research

(Seuring, 2008; Singhal and Singhal, 2012; Jraisat and Sawalha, 2013; Soltani et al.,

2014), future studies could include theory-informed qualitative approach to the study of

quality performance throughout the supply chain network. Relatedly, in the current study,

we analysed the performance effects of SCQM practices on quality performance at both

individual and aggregate level of analyses in a sample of UK-based manufacturing sector.

The increased importance of the servitization of products and inherent challenges of

managing service quality in the manufacturing supply chain could also extend the current

study to collect data from the service side of supply chain as well as the service industries

(see Prakash, 2011).

31
 In the light of globalization, geographically scattered suppliers and greater supply

chain interdependence, future studies could involve examining the cross-national/cultural

differences in supply chain relationships, identifying context- and culture-dependant

effects on SCQM performance, and challenging SCQM theories that are generally valid

and universally applicable (see Sousa and Voss, 2001; Cao et al., 2015; Davis et al., 2014;

Jia et al., 2016; Cadden et al., 2013; Uluskan, Joines and Godfrey, 2016; Wiengarten et

al., 2015).

Finally, given that the adopted survey method in the current study was cross-

sectional in nature and assessed the performance effects of SCQM practices on quality

performance at just one point in time, future studies of SCQM could test the research

model in a longitudinal manner. It is argued that longitudinal data has the potential to

identify the improvement or otherwise in quality across the entire supply chain over time

and locate the associated causes and sleeper effects that might not be apparent until later

in the course long-term supply chain relations (See Hakim, 1987; Menard, 2002; Yeniyurt

et al., 2014).

9. Concluding remarks

This study offers a review of the extant literature on SCQM in terms of its definitional

dimensions, underlying practices and their performance effects on product quality. While

our review indicates that SCQM has so far remained a relatively new construct in

operations and supply chain management field (e.g., Quang et al., 2016; Fernandes et al.,

2017), it is increasingly gaining recognition as a promising topic of research and

theorising – largely owing to the strategic role of global sourcing and widespread product

quality failure of supply chain at global level (see Li et al., 2002; Theodorakioglou,

Gotzamani and Tsiolvas, 2006; Rahman, 2006; Prajogo, Huo and Han, 2012; Huang, Yen

32
and Liu, 2014; Huo, Han and Prajogo, 2016; Tsanos and Zografos, 2016; Uluskan, Joines

and Godfrey, 2016). In addition, our study offers an empirical test of SCQM practices

and their effects on product quality performance. The findings confirm the underlying

practices of SCQM and present their performance effects on quality at both individual

and aggregate level of analyses. While the findings reveal statistically significant results

for the overall performance impact of SCQM, the results of the individual level analysis

of SCQM practices appear to vary from practice to practice.

References

Adam Jr, E., Corbett, L., Flores, B., Harrison, N. Ribera, J., Samson, D. and Westbrook,
R. (1997), “An International Study of Quality Improvement Approach and Firm
Performance”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol.17 No.9, pp.842–873.
Ahire, S. and O’Shaughnessy. K.C. (1998), “The Role of Top Management Commitment
in Quality Management: An Empirical Analysis of the Auto Parts Industry”,
International Journal of Quality Science, Vol.3 No.1, pp.5–37.
Ahire, S. and Ravichandran, T. (2001), “An Innovation Diffusion Model of TQM
Implementation”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol.48 No.4,
pp.445–464.
Ahire, S., Golhar, D. and Waller, M. (1996). “Development and Validation of TQM
Implementation Constructs”, Decision Sciences, Vol.27 No.1, pp.23–56.
Anderson, J., Rungtusanatham, M., Schroeder, R. and Devaraj, S. (1995), “A Path
Analytic Model of a Theory of Quality Management Underlying the Deming
Management Method: Preliminary Empirical Findings”, Decision Sciences,
Vol.26 No.5, pp.637–658.
Autry, C. and Griffis, S. (2008), “Supply chain capital: the impact of structural and
relational linkages on firm execution and innovation”, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol.29 No.1., pp.157-174.
Baird, K., Hu, K. and Reeve, R. (2011), “The Relationships between Organizational
Culture, Total Quality Management Practices and Operational Performance”,

33
 International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol.31 No.7,
pp.789–814.
Black, S. and Porter, L. (1996), “Identification of the Critical Factors of TQM”, Decision
Sciences, Vol.27 No.1, pp.1–21.
Borgatti, S. and Li, X. (2009), “On Social Network Analysis in A Supply Chain Context”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol.45 No.2, pp.5–22.
Braziotis, C., Bourlakis, M., Rogers, H. and Tannock, J. (2013). "Supply chains and
supply networks: distinctions and overlaps", Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 18 No.6, pp.644-652.
Burns, R. (2000), Introduction to research methods, London: Sage.
Cadden, T., Marshall, D. and Cao, G. (2013), “Opposites attract: organisational culture
and supply chain performance, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol.18 No.1, pp.86-103.
Cagliano, R., Caniato, F. and Spina, G. (2004), “Lean, Agile and Traditional Supply: How
Do They Impact Manufacturing Performance?”, Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, Vol.10 No.4-5, pp.151–164.
Cao, Z., Huo, B., Li, Y. and Zhao, X. (2015), "The impact of organizational culture on
supply chain integration: a contingency and configuration approach", Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol.20 No.1, pp.24 – 41.
Carr, A., and Pearson, J. (1999), “Strategically Managed Buyer–supplier Relationships
and Performance Outcomes”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.17 No.5,
pp.497–519.
Carter, C., Ellram, L. and Tate, W. (2007), “The use of social network analysis in logistics
research”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol.28 No.1, pp.137–169.
Chen, I, and Paulraj, A. (2004), “Towards a Theory of Supply Chain Management: The
Constructs and Measurements”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.22 No.2,
pp.119–150.
Choi, T. (1995), “Conceptualizing Continuous Improvement: Implications for
Organizational Change”, Omega, Vol.23 No.6, pp.607–624.
Choi, T. and Eboch, K. (1998), “The TQM Paradox: Relations among TQM Practices,
Plant Performance, and Customer Satisfaction”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol.17 No.1, pp.59–75.

34
Choi, T., Dooley, K. and Rungtusanatham, M. (2001), “Supply networks and complex
adaptive systems: control versus emergence”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol.19 No.3, pp.351–366.
Choi, T.Y., Shao, B.B.M. and Shi, Z.M. (2015), “Hidden suppliers can make or break
your operations”, Harvard Business Review, May 29, pp. 1-5.
Collin, J., Eloranta, E. and Holmström, J. (2009), "How to design the right supply chains
for your customers", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol.14
No.6, pp.411- 417.
Cua, K., Mckone, K. and Schroeder, R. (2001), “Relationships between Implementation
of TQM, JIT and TPM and Manufacturing Performance”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol.19 No.6, pp.675–694.
Davis, J., Mora-Monge, C., Quesada, G. and Gonzalez, M. (2014), “Cross-cultural
influences on e-value creation in supply chains”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol.19 No.2, pp.187-199.
De Toni, A., Nassimbeni, G. and Tonchia, S. (1995), “An Instrument for Quality
Performance Measurement”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol.38 No.2-3, pp.199-207.
De Vaus, D.A. (2002), Surveys in social research, 5th ed., London: Routledge
Deming, W. E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Dellana, S. and Kros, J. (2014) "An exploration of quality management practices,
perceptions and program maturity in the supply chain", International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 34 No.6, pp.786-806.
Douglas, T. and Judge, W. (2001), “Total Quality Management Implementation and
Competitive Advantage: The Role of Structural Control and Exploration”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol.44 No.1, pp.158-169.
Dow, D., Samson, D. and Ford, S. (1999), “Exploding the Myth: Do All Quality
Management Practices Contribute to Superior Quality Performance?” Production
and Operations Management, Vol.8 No.1, pp.1–27.
Easton, G. and Jarrell, S. (1998), “The Effects of Total Quality Management on Corporate
Performance: An Empirical Investigation”, Journal of Business, Vol.71 No.2,
pp.253–307.

35
Ellram, L., Tate, W. and Carter, C. (2006), “Product-process-supply chain: an integrative
approach to three-dimensional concurrent engineering”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol.37 No.4, pp.305–330.
Fernandes, A., Sampaio, P., Sameiro, M. and Truong, H. (2017), "Supply chain
management and quality management integration A conceptual model proposal",
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol.34 No.1, pp.53-
67.
Fletcher, G., Greenhill, A., Griffiths, M. and McLean, R., (2016),"The social supply chain
and the future high street", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol.21 No.1, pp.78-91.
Flynn, B. and Flynn, E. (2005), “Synergies between Supply Chain Management and
Quality Management: Emerging Implications”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol.43 No.16, pp.3421–3436.
Flynn, B., Huo, B. and Zhao, X. (2010) “The Impact of Supply Chain Integration on
Performance: A Contingency and Configuration Approach”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol.28 No.1, pp.58–71.
Flynn, B., Schroeder, R. and Sakakibara, S. (1994), “A Framework for Quality
Management Research and an Associated Measurement Instrument”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol.11 No.4, pp.339–366.
Flynn, B., Schroeder, R. and Sakakibara, S. (1995), “The Impact of Quality Management
Practices on Performance and Competitive Advantage”, Decision Sciences,
Vol.26 No.5, pp.659–691.
Foresight (2013). “The Future of Manufacturing: a new era of opportunity and challenge
for the UK. Summary Report. The Government Office for Science, London”
[online], available at:
http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/uploads/Resources/Future_of_Manufacturing_Re
port.pdf, (Accessed 21 January 2017).
Forker, L., Mendez, D. and Hershauer, J. (1997), “Total Quality Management in the
Supply Chain: What Is Its Impact on Performance?” International Journal of
Production Research, Vol.35 No.6, pp.1681–1702.
Forza, C. and Filippini, R. (1998), “TQM Impact on Quality Conformance and Customer
Satisfaction: A Causal Model”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol.55 No.1, pp.1–20.

36
Foster, T. (2008), “Towards an Understanding of Supply Chain Quality Management”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol.26 No.4, pp.461–467.
Foster, T., Wallin, C. and Ogden, J. (2011), “Towards a Better Understanding of Supply
Chain Quality Management Practices”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol.49 No.8, pp.2285–2300.
Frohlich, M. and Westbrook, R. (2001), “Arcs of Integration: An International Study of
Supply Chain Strategies”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.19 No.2,
pp.185–200.
Fynes, B., Búrca, S. and Voss, C. (2005), “Supply Chain Relationship Quality, the
Competitive Environment and Performance”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol.43 No.16, pp.3303–3320.
Fynes, B., Voss, C. and Búrca, S. (2005), “The Impact of Supply Chain Relationship
Quality on Quality Performance”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol.96 no.3, pp.339–354.
Garvin, D. (1987), “Competing on the Eight Dimensions of Quality”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol.65 No.6, pp.101–109.
Garvin, D. A. (1991), Managing Quality: The Strategic and Competitive Edge, New York:
Free Press.
Goldstein, S. and Iossifova, A. (2012), “Ten Years after: Interference of Hospital Slack in
Process Performance Benefits of Quality Practices”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol.30 No.1-2, pp.44–54.
Grandzol, J. and Gershon, M. (1997), “Which TQM Practices Really Matter: An
Empirical Investigation”, Quality Management Journal, Vol.4 No.4, pp.43–59.
Griffis, S. E., Goldsby, T. J., and Cooper, M. (2003), “Web-Based and Mail Surveys: A
Comparison of Response, Data and Cost”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol.24
No.2, pp.237-258.
Hackman, R. and Wageman, R. (1995), “Total Quality Management: Empirical,
Conceptual, and Practical Issues”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.40 No.2,
pp.309–342.
Hair, Jr., J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., and Tatham, R.L. (2006),
Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.), Pearson-Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ.

37
Håkansson, H. and Persson, G. (2004), “Supply chain management: the logic of supply
chains and networks”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 11-26.
Hakim, C. (1987), Research Design: Strategies and Choices in the Design of Social
Research, London: Allen & Unwin.
Halldórsson, A., Hsuan, J. and Kotzab, H. (2015), "Complementary theories to supply
chain management revisited – from borrowing theories to theorizing", Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol.20 No.6, pp.574-586.
Handfield, R., Petersen, K., Cousins, P. and Lawson, B. (2009), “An Organizational
Entrepreneurship Model of Supply Management Integration and Performance
Outcomes”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol.29 No.2, pp.100–126.
Ho, D. C. K., Duffy, V. G. and Shih, H. M. (2001), “Total Quality Management: An
Empirical Test for Mediation Effect”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol.39 No3, pp.529–548.
Huang, M., Yen, G. and Liu, T. (2014), "Re-examining supply chain integration and the
supplier's performance relationships under uncertainty", Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No.1, pp. 64 – 78.
Humphries, A.S. and Gibbs, R. (2010), Collaborative Change, Charleston: Create Space.
Huo, B. (2012), “The Impact of Supply Chain Integration on Company Performance: An
Organizational Capability Perspective”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol.17 No.6, pp.596–610.
Huo, B., Han, Z. and Prajogo, D. (2016),"Antecedents and consequences of supply chain
information integration: a resource-based view ", Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol.21 No.6, pp. 661 – 677.
Huo, B., Zhao, X. and Lai, F. (2014), “Supply Chain Quality Integration: Antecedents and
Consequences”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol.61 No.1,
pp.38–51.
Jack, S. (2010), “Approaches to studying networks: Implications and outcomes”, Journal
of Business Venturing, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 120–137.
Jayaram, J., Oke, A. and Prajogo, D. (2013), “The Antecedents and Consequences of
Product and Process Innovation Strategy Implementation in Australian

38
 Manufacturing Firms”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol.23,
pp.1–16.
Jia, F., Gao, R., Lamming, R. and Wilding, R. (2016), “Adaptation of supply management
towards a hybrid culture: The case of a Japanese automaker”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol.21 No.1, pp. 45–62.
Johnson, R., Rosen, C., and Chang, C. (2011), “To Aggregate or Not to Aggregate: Steps
for Developing and Validating Higher-Order Multidimensional Constructs”,
Journal of Business & Psychology, Vol.26 No.3, pp.241-248.
Jraisat, L. and Sawalha, I. (2013), "Quality control and supply chain management: a
contextual perspective and a case study", Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol.18 No.2, pp.194 – 207.
Juran J. M., (2003), Architect of Quality, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Kähkönen, A., Lintukangas, K. and Hallikas, J., (2015),"Buyer’s dependence in value
creating supplier relationships", Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol.20 No.2, pp. 151 – 162.
Kahnali, A, and Taghavi, A. (2010), “Relationship between Supply Chain Quality
Management Practices and Their Effects on Organisational Performance”,
Singapore Management Review, Vol.32 No.1, pp.45–68.
Kamal, M. and Irani, Z. (2014), "Analysing supply chain integration through a systematic
literature review: a normative perspective", Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 19 No.5/6, pp.523-557.
Kannan, V. and Tan, K. (2005), “Just in Time, Total Quality Management, and Supply
Chain Management: Understanding Their Linkages and Impact on Business
Performance”, Omega, Vol.33 No.2, pp.153–162.
Kannan, V. and Tan, K. (2010), “Supply Chain Integration: Cluster Analysis of the Impact
of Span of Integration”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol.15 No.3, pp.207–215.
Kaynak, H. (2003), “The Relationship between Total Quality Management Practices and
Their Effects on Firm Performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.21
No.4, pp.405–435.
Kaynak, H. and Hartley, J. (2008), “A Replication and Extension of Quality Management
into the Supply Chain”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.26 No.4,
pp.468–489.

39
Kembro, J., Selviaridis, K. and Näslund, D. (2014), "Theoretical perspectives on
information sharing in supply chains: a systematic literature review and conceptual
framework", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol.19 No.
5/6, pp.609 – 625.
Kilduff, M. and Tsai, W. (2003), Social Networks and Organizations, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Kim, D., Kumar, V. and Kumar, U. (2012), “Relationship between Quality Management
Practices and Innovation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.30 No.4,
pp.295–315.
Kim, Y., Choi, T.Y., Yan, T. and Dooley, K. (2011), “Structural investigation of supply
networks: A social network analysis approach”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 194–211.
Koufteros, X. Vonderembse, M. and Jayaram, J. (2005), “Internal and External Integration
for Product Development: The Contingency Effects of Uncertainty, Equivocality,
and Platform Strategy”, Decision Sciences, Vol.36 No.1, pp.97–133.
Kuei, C. and Madu, C. (2001), “Identifying Critical Success Factors for Supply Chain
Quality Management”, Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol.6 No.4, pp.409–
423.
Kuei, C., Madu, C. and Lin, C. (2001), “The Relationship between Supply Chain Quality
Management Practices and Organizational Performance”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol.18 No.8, pp.864–872.
Kuei, C., Madu, C. and Lin, C. (2008), “Implementing Supply Chain Quality
Management”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol.19 No.11,
pp.1127–1141.
Kuei, C., Madu, C. and Lin, C. (2011), “Developing global supply chain quality
management systems”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol.49
No.15, pp.4457-4481.
Kuei, C., Winch, J. and Madu, C. (2008), “Supply Chain Quality Management: A
Simulation Study”, International Journal of Information and Management
Sciences, Vol.19 No.1, pp.131–151.
Lai, K-H. (2003), “Market Orientation in Quality-Oriented Organizations and Its Impact
on Their Performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol.84
No.1, pp.17–34.

40
Lee, S., Rho, B. and Lee, S. (2003), “Impact of Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
Criteria on Organizational Quality Performance”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol.41 No.9, pp.2003–2020.
Li, J., Fok, W., Fok, L. and Hartman, S. (2002), "The impact of QM maturity upon the
extent and effectiveness of customer relationship management systems", Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol.7 No.4, pp.212 – 224.
Li, L., Su, Q., and Chen, X. (2011), "Ensuring supply chain quality performance through
applying the SCOR model", International Journal of Production Research, Vol.49
No.1, pp.33-57.
Likert, R. A. (1932), “A technique for the measurement of attitudes”, Archives of
Psychology, Vol.140, pp.44-53.
Lin, C., Chow, W., Madu, C., Kuei, C. and Yu, P. (2005), “A Structural Equation Model
of Supply Chain Quality Management and Organizational Performance”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol.96 No.3, pp.355–365.
Lin, C., Kuei, C. and Chai, K. (2013), “Identifying Critical Enablers and Pathways to High
Performance Supply Chain Quality Management”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol.33 No.3, pp.347–370.
Lo, V. and Yeung, A. (2006), “Managing Quality Effectively in Supply Chain: A
Preliminary Study”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol.11
No.3, pp.208–215.
Lo, Y., Yeung, A. and Yeung, C. (2007), “How Supply Quality Management Improves
an Organization’s Quality Performance: A Study of Chinese Manufacturing
Firms”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol.45 No.10, pp.2219–
2243.
Menard, S. (2002), Longitudinal Research (second ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, S. and Collier, D. (2001), “An Empirical Test of the Causal Relationships in the
Baldrige Health Care Pilot Criteria”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.19
No.4, pp.403–426.
Mohrman, S., Tenkasi, R., Lawler, E. and Ledford, G. (1995), “Total Quality
Management: Practice and Outcomes in the Largest US Firms”, Employee
Relations, Vol.17 No.3, pp.26–41.

41
Nair, A. (2006), “Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Quality Management
Practices and Firm Performance - implications for Quality Management Theory
Development”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.24 No.6, pp.948–975.
Neely, A. (2007), “Measuring Performance: The Operations Management Perspective” In
Business Performance Measurement: Unifying Theory and Integrating Practice,
edited by Andy Neely, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978), Psychometric theory (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.
Powell, T. (1995), “Total Quality Management as Competitive Advantage: A Review and
Empirical Study”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.16 No.1, pp.15–37.
Pomponi, F., Fratocchi, L. and Rossi Tafuri, S. (2015), “Trust development and horizontal
collaboration in logistics: a theory based evolutionary framework”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 83-97.
Prajogo, D. and Sohal, A. (2003), “The Relationship between TQM Practices, Quality
Performance, and Innovation Performance: An Empirical Examination”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol.20 No.8, pp.901–
918.
Prajogo, D., Huo, B. and Han, Z. (2012), "The effects of different aspects of ISO 9000
implementation on key supply chain management practices and operational
performance", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol.17
No.3, pp.306-322.
Prakash, G. (2011), “Service quality in supply chain: Empirical evidence from Indian
automotive industry”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol.16 No.5, pp.362–378.
Quang, H., Sampaio, P., Carvalho, M., Fernandes, A., Na, D. and Vilhenac, E. (2016),
“An extensive structural model of supply chain quality management and firm
performance”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol.33
No.4, pp.444-464.
Rahman, S. (2006), "Quality management in logistics: an examination of industry
practices", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol.11 No.3,
pp.233-240.
Robinson, C. and Malhotra, M. (2005), “Defining the Concept of Supply Chain Quality
Management and Its Relevance to Academic and Industrial Practice”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol.96 No.3, pp.315–337.

42
Rodgers, R. and Hunter, J. (1991), “Impact of Management by Objectives on
Organizational Productivity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.76 No.2,
pp.322-336.
Rosenzweig, E., Roth, A. and Dean, J. (2003), “The Influence of an Integration Strategy
on Competitive Capabilities and Business Performance: An Exploratory Study of
Consumer Products Manufacturers”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.21
No.4, pp.437–456.
Ross, D. (1998), Competing through Supply Chain Management, New York: Chapman &
Hall.
Rungtusanatham, M., Forza, C., Filippini, R. and Anderson, J. (1998), “A Replication
Study of a Theory of Quality Management Underlying the Deming Management
Method: Insights from an Italian Context”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol.17 No.1, pp.77–95.
Sampaio, P., Carvalho, M., Fernandes, A., (2016), "Quality and supply chain
management: integration challenges and impacts", International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 33 No. 4.
Samson, D. and Terziovski, M. (1999), “The Relationship between Total Quality
Management Practices and Operational Performance”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol.17 No.4, pp.393–409.
Sancha, C., Longoni, A. and Giménez, C. (2015), “Sustainable supplier development
practices: Drivers and enablers in a global context”, Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, Vol.21 No.2, pp.95-102.
Sánchez-Rodríguez, C. and Martínez-Lorente, A. (2004), “Quality Management Practices
in the Purchasing Function: An Empirical Study”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol.24 No.7, pp.666–687.
Saraph, J., Benson, P. and Schroeder, R. (1989), “An Instrument for Measuring the
Critical Factors of Quality Management”, Decision Sciences, Vol.20 No.4,
pp.810–829.
Scott, J. (2000), Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, Sage Publications, London.
Seuring, S. (2008), “Assessing the rigor of case study research in supply chain
management”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol.13
No.2, pp.128-137.

43
Sila, I. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2003), “Examination and Comparison of the Critical Factors
of Total Quality Management (TQM) across Countries”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol.41 No.2, pp.235–268.
Sila, I., Ebrahimpour, M. and Birkholz, C. (2006), “Quality in Supply Chains: An
Empirical Analysis”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol.11 No.6, pp.491–502.
Singhal, K. and Singhal, J. (2012), “Imperatives of the science of operations and supply-
chain management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.30 No.3, pp. 237-
244.
Soares, A., Soltani, E. and Liao, Y. (2012), “The Influence of Inter-Firm Relationships on
Supply Chain Quality Management: A Survey of UK Firms”, International
Journal of Global Management Studies Professional, Vol.4 No.2, pp.17–32.
Soltani, E. (2005), “Top management: A threat or an opportunity to TQM?” Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 16 No.4, pp.463-476.
Soltani, E. and Wilkinson, A. (2010), “Stuck in the middle with you”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 30 N.4, pp. 365–397.
Soltani, E., Ahmed, K. P., Ying Liao, Y. and Anosike, U. P. (2014), “Qualitative middle-
range research in operations management”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol.34 No.8, pp. 1003–1027.
Soltani, E., Azadegan, A., Liao, Y. and Phillips, P. (2011), “Quality Performance in a
Global Supply Chain: Finding out the Weak Link”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol.49 No.1, pp.269–293.
Soteriou, A. and Chase, R. (1998), “Linking the Customer Contact Model to Service
Quality”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.16 No.4, pp.495–508.
Sousa, R. (2003), “Linking Quality Management to Manufacturing Strategy: An
Empirical Investigation of Customer Focus Practices”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol.21 No.1, pp.1–18.
Sousa, R. and Voss, C. (2001), “Quality Management: Universal or Context Dependent?”
Production and Operations Management, Vol.10 No.4, pp.383–404.
Sousa, R. and Voss, C. (2002), “Quality Management Re-Visited: A Reflective Review
and Agenda for Future Research”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.20
No.1, pp.91–109.

44
Sroufe, R. and Curkovic, S. (2008), “An Examination of ISO 9000:2000 and Supply Chain
Quality Assurance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.26 No.4, pp.503–
520.
Tabachnick, B. and Fidell, L. (2001), Using Multivariate Statistics, (4th Edition), New
York: Allyn & Bacon.
Tachizawa, E., Alvarez-Gil, M. and Montes-Sancho, M., (2015)," How “smart cities” will
change supply chain management ", Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol.20 No.3, pp. 237 – 248.
Tan, K., Kannan, V., Handfield, R. and Ghosh, S. (1999), “Supply Chain Management:
An Empirical Study of Its Impact on Performance”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol.19 No.10, pp.1034–1052.
Theodorakioglou, Y., Gotzamani, K., Tsiolvas, G. (2006), "Supplier management and its
relationship to buyers' quality management", Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol.11 No.2, pp.148-159.
Tsai. J. and Hung, S. (2016), “Supply chain relationship quality and performance in
technological turbulence: an artificial neural network approach”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol.54 No.9, pp.2757-2770.
Tsanos, C. and Zografos, K., (2016),"The effects of behavioural supply chain relationship
antecedents on integration and performance", Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol.21 No.6, pp. 678 – 693.
Uluskan, M., Joines, J. and Godfrey, A. (2016), “Comprehensive insight into supplier
quality and the impact of quality strategies of suppliers on outsourcing decisions”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol.21 No.1, pp.92-102.
Vanichchinchai, A. (2014), “Supply chain management, supply performance and total
quality management: An organizational characteristic analysis”, International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 22 Issue: 2, pp.126-148.
Vanichchinchai, A. and Igel, B. (2011), “The impact of total quality management on
supply chain management and firm’s supply performance”, International Journal
of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 11, pp. 3405–3424.
Wee H.M., Wu, S. (2009), "Lean supply chain and its effect on product cost and quality:
a case study on Ford Motor Company", Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol.14 No.5, pp.335-341.

45
Wichmann, B. and Kaufmann, L. (2016) "Social network analysis in supply chain
management research", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 46 No.8, pp.740-762.
Wiengarten, F., Fynes, B. and Onofrei, G. (2013), "Exploring synergetic effects between
investments in environmental and quality/lean practices in supply chains", Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol.18 No.2, pp. 148 – 160.
Wiengarten, F., Gimenez, C., Fynes, B. and Ferdows, K. (2015), “Exploring the
importance of cultural collectivism on the efficacy of lean practices”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol.35 No.3, pp. 370–391.
Wilkinson, A. and Willmott, H. (1996) "Quality management, problems and pitfalls: a
critical perspective", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 13 No.2, pp.55-65.
Williams, K. and Durrance, J. (2008), “Social Networks and Social Capital: Rethinking
Theory in Community Informatics”, The Journal of Community Informatics, Vol.
4 No. 3, pp. 1–20.
Wilson, D. and Collier, D. (2000), “An Empirical Investigation of the Malcolm Balridge
National Quality Award Causal Model”, Decision Sciences, Vol.31 No.2, pp.361–
390.
Xu, L. (2011), “Information architecture for supply chain quality management”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol.49 No.1, pp.183-198.
Yeniyurt, S., HenkeJr., J. and Yalcinkaya, G. (2014), “A longitudinal analysis of supplier
involvement in buyers’ new product development: working relations, inter-
dependence, co-innovation, and performance outcomes”, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol.42 No.3, pp 291–308.
Yeung, A. (2008), “Strategic Supply Management, Quality Initiatives, and Organizational
Performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.26 No.4, pp.490–502.
Zhang, Z., Waszink, A. and Wijngaard, J. (2000), “An Instrument for Measuring TQM
Implementation for Chinese Manufacturing Companies”, International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, Vol.17 No.7, pp.730-755.
Zhang, L., Wang, S., Li, F., Wang, H., Wang, L., & Tan, W. (2011), “A few measures for
ensuring supply chain quality”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol.49 No.1, pp.87-97.

46
Zhong, J., Ma, Y., Tu, Y. and Li, X. (2016), "Supply chain quality management: an
empirical study", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 28 No.11, pp.2446-2472.
Zu, X. and Kaynak, H. (2012), “An Agency Theory Perspective on Supply Chain Quality
Management”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol.32 No.4, pp.423–446.

47
Table 1. SCQM literature: summary.
Authors
(Year) Sample Methodology Main findings

Kuei, N=81 Email surveys; Organisational performance could be enhanced through improved SCQM.
Madu Taiwan Reliability & validity; Impact on cost savings, productivity, sales and earnings growth.
and Lin (2001) Cluster analysis;
Stepwise discriminant
analysis;
Means analysis.

Flynn N=164 Survey; Evidence to support the need for integration of QM and SCM.
and Flynn USA, Japan, Italy, Stepwise and hierarchical Organisations with stronger QM practices achieve better supply chain performance.
(2005) England and regression analyses.
Germany.

Fynes, N=200 Mail survey; Supply chain relationship quality (SCRQ) has a positive impact on supply chain
Búrca Republic of Ireland Confirmatory factor performance.
and Voss analysis and structural Competitive environment moderates this relationship.
(2005) Path model (AMOS).

Fynes, N=200 Mail survey; Conceptual framework incorporating dimensions of supply chain relationships and
Voss and Republic of Ireland Confirmatory factor quality performance.
Búrca analysis and structural SCRQ has a positive impact on design quality, but not on conformance quality.
(2005) path model (AMOS).

Lin et al. N1 = 109 Postal mail surveys; QM practices have no direct influence on organisational performance.
(2005) Hong Kong Structural equation Indirect effect through supplier participation.
N2 = 103 Taiwan modelling (LISREL).

48
Authors
(Year) Sample Methodology Main findings

Robinson and 1 Case study Literature review; SCQM literature taxonomy.

Malhotra USA Interviews. Illustration of SCQM themes with a case study.
(2005)

Lo and Yeung N=90 Postal mail surveys; 10 critical SCQM practices clustered into three major groups: supplier selection,
(2006) Hong Kong reliability and validity supplier development and supplier integration.
analysis Reliable and valid research instrument.

Sila, N = 89 Mail surveys; SCQM can improve the quality of the final product
Ebrahimpour USA Mean comparison Acknowledgement of SCQM importance but lack of implementation in companies
and Birkholz considered.
(2006)

Foster Jr. Literature review SCQM definition and operationalisation.

(2008) Areas for future SCQM research.

Kuei, 1 Case study Case study survey; SCQM main dimensions: SC competence, critical success factors, strategic
Madu Taiwan Analytic Hierarchy components and SCQM practices.
and Lin Process; Differentiating perspectives between company and suppliers.
(2008) Two management levels Commonalities: supplier participation and buyer-supplier quality
comparison.

Kuei, Statistical experimental Links between critical SCQ factors and their influences performance (response lead
Madu design methods and times and cost of non-conformance).
and Winch simulation meta-
(2008) modeling.

49
Authors
(Year) Sample Methodology Main findings

Kahnali N=130 Mail surveys; Organisational performance could be enhanced through improved SCQM;
and Iran Validity & reliability; Support for the interdependence of QM practices in SC and their implementation as
Taghavi Path analysis. a whole system.
(2010)

Hung (2011) Case study Optimal quality Combines activity-based costing (ABC) with economic incentive schemes (EISs)
modeling; to develop a system of optimal incentive planning for global SCQM;
Sensitivity analysis
Kuei, Madu & Taiwan Executive MBA students; Theoretical framework;
Lin (2011) Corporate executive Four major SCQM themes: design for six-sigma, international standards, SCM,
interviews; global leadership and human resource management.
Analytic hierarchy
process.

Foster Jr., N=102 Web-based survey; Differentiating perspectives of operations and supply chain managers on SCQM.
Wallin and USA Rankings and mean Commonalities: job training, data analysis, supply chain management, project
Ogden differences (Kruskal management and surveys.
(2011) Wallis).

Soltani et al. N=148 Face-to-face interviews; Dynamics of SCM and QM practices;

(2011) China, Indonesia, Two case studies; Implications to end customers in terms of product/service quality at a global level;
United Arab Emirates, Secondary data analysis. Collaborative mode of inter-firm relations;
China, and UK
Xu (2011) Literature review SCQM information architecture;
Key technologies that have the potential to significantly improve the performance.

50
Authors
(Year) Sample Methodology Main findings

Zu and Literature review. Conceptual framework (outcome-based and behaviour-based);

Kaynak No generic approach;
(2012) Different management mechanisms for different suppliers.

Jraisat, L. and Case study High‐order factors of quality control (QC) are identified,
Sawalha, I. 5 firms (Jordan) Observation; The role of QC in SCM is demonstrated,
(2013) questionnaires. QC acts as the main strategy to improve supply chains.

Lin, Kuei N=17 Interviews; SCQM enablers: supplier relationship, information technology, process
and Chai Taiwan Content analysis and management, top management support, human resource management, quality
(2013) formal concept analysis. management, strategic planning, and knowledge management;
Pathways towards high performance SCQM (training programs, ISO and supplier
quality audit programs).

Quang, et al. Literature review Conceptual framework developed that identifies direct and indirect
(2016) Semi-structure relationships between SCQM and firm performance.
interviews; Q-sort
method;

51
Authors
(Year) Sample Methodology Main findings

Fernandes et Literature review QM and SCM synergies;

al. (2017) Identification of critical factors for an effective integration of SCQM;
Conceptual model.

52
Table 2. A review of the literature on the association of quality practices and
performance

Customer Supplier Supply chain Leadership

Studies Focus Focus integration
Adam Jr. et al. (1997) X X
Ahire and O’Shaughnessy X X X
(1998)
Ahire and Ravichandran X
(2001)
Ahire, Golhar and Waller X X X X
(1996)
Anderson et al. (1995) X X X
Baird, Hu, and Reeve (2011) X
Black and Porter (1996) X X X X
Cagliano, Caniato, and X
Spina (2004)
Chen and Paulraj (2004) X X
Choi (1995) X
Choi and Eboch (1998) X
Collin, Eloranta and X
Holmström (2009)
Cua, Mckone, and Schroeder X X X X
(2001)
Douglas and Judge (2001) X X
Dow, Samson, and Ford X X X
(1999)
Easton and Jarrell (1998) X X
Flynn, Huo, and Zhao (2010) X
Flynn, Schroeder, and X X X X
Sakakibara (1994)
Flynn, Schroeder, and X X X X
Sakakibara (1995)
Forker, Mendez, and X
Hershauer (1997)
Forza and Filippini (1998) X X
Frohlich and Westbrook X X
(2001)
Grandzol and Gershon X X
(1997)
Hackman and Wageman X
(1995)
Handfield et al. (2009) X
Ho, Duffy, and Shih (2001) X
Huang, Yen and Liu (2014) X
Huo (2012) X
Huo, Han and Prajogo, 2016 X

53
 Customer Supplier Supply chain Leadership
Studies Focus Focus integration
Huo, Zhao, and Lai (2014) X
Kannan and Tan (2005) X
Kaynak (2003) X X X
Kaynak and Hartley (2008) X X X
Koufteros, Vonderembse, X
and Jayaram (2005)
Lai (2003) X X
Li et al., (2002) X
Levandoski (1993) X
Meyer and Collier (2001) X X X
Mohrman et al. (1995) X X
Nair (2006) X X
Powell (1995) X X X X
Prajogo and Sohal (2003) X X
Prajogo, Huo and Han X
(2012)
Rahman (2006) X
Robinson and Malhotra X
(2005)
Rodgers and Hunter (1991) X
Rosenzweig, Roth, and Dean X
(2003)
Rungtusanatham et al. X
(1998)
Samson and Terziovski X X X
(1999)
Sánchez-Rodríguez and X X
Martínez-Lorente (2004)
Saraph, Benson, and X X X
Schroeder (1989)
Sila and Ebrahimpour X
(2003)
Sila, Ebrahimpour, and X
Birkholz (2006)
Soteriou and Chase (1998) X
Sousa (2003) X
Sroufe and Curkovic (2008) X X
Tan et al. (1999) X X X X
Theodorakioglou, X
Gotzamani and Tsiolvas
(2006)
Uluskan, Joines and Godfrey X
(2016)
Wilson and Collier (2000) X X X
Yeung (2008) X X

54
Table 3. Factor loadings.
Variable items Factor loadings Cronbach’s
alpha (α)
SCQM 0.96
Supply Chain Integration (Regarding your company's supply chain activities, please indicate on a scale from 1 to 7, the degree to which you agree or 0.93
disagree with the following statements, with 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree.)
Our company creates supply chain teams that include members from different companies. .836
Our company extends the supply chain to include members beyond immediate suppliers. .809
Our company extends the supply chain to include members beyond our direct customers. .807
Our company improves the integration of activities across the supply chain. .797
Our company creates a greater level of trust among supply chain members. .762
Our company involves all members of the supply chain in product/service/marketing plans. .703
Our company participates in sourcing decisions of suppliers. .639
Our company seeks new ways to integrate supply chain activities. .605
Our company aids suppliers in increasing their capabilities. .567
There is a compatible communication/information system with suppliers. .519
Customer Focus (Regarding your company's attitudes towards customers and information sharing, please indicate on a scale from 1 to 7, the degree to 0.92
which you agree or disagree with the following statements, with 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree)
Determination of key factors for building and maintaining customer relationships. .827
Enhancement of customers' ability to seek assistance. .812
Determination of future customer expectations. .799
Evaluation of formal and informal complaints. .769
Follow-up with customers for quality/service feedback. .751
Measurement and evaluation of customer satisfaction factors. .741
Interaction with customers to set reliability, responsiveness, and other standards. .736
Communicating customers’ future strategic needs throughout the supply chain. .595
Use of informal information sharing with customers. .565
Supplier Focus (Regarding your company’s attitudes towards suppliers, please indicate on a scale from 1 to 7, the degree to which you agree or disagree 0.92
with the following statements, with 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree.)
Our company regularly conducts supplier quality audit. .802
Our company has detailed information about supplier performance. .765
Our company always gives feedback on the performance of suppliers' products. .639
Our company always participates in supplier activities related to quality. .639
Our company has a formal programme for evaluating and recognising suppliers. .633

55
Variable items Factor loadings Cronbach’s
alpha (α)
Our company has very frequent face-to-face planning/communication with key suppliers. .608
Our company can influence 1st tier/Main supplier’s responsiveness to our requirements. .520
Our company enters into special agreements with suppliers who have improved performance. .496
Our company regards product quality as the most important factor for selecting suppliers. .446
Quality Leadership (Regarding your company's top management positions, please indicate on a scale from 1 to 7, the degree to which you agree or 0.92
disagree with the following statements, with 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree.)
Top management strongly encourages employee involvement in quality management and improvement activities. .832
Top management learns quality-related concepts and skills. .809
Top management actively participates in quality management and improvement process. .804
Top management empowers employees to solve quality problems. .788
Top management empowers suppliers to solve quality problems. .693
Top management strongly encourages supplier involvement in quality management and improvement activities. .662
Quality performance (Considering the performance of the products provided by your company in comparison with the industry competitors, please 0.86
indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following sentences, with 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree.)
The product has distinctive features/characteristics when compared to competitors. .810
Our company implements frequent quality improvements. .807
The product has higher technical durability than competitors. .782
The product provided conforms to prearranged specifications. .778
The product functions above average when compared to competitors. .743
The product has higher value for money than competitors. .720
Our company implements frequent cost reduction measures. .661

56
Table 4. Correlations, means and standard deviations.

CF SF SCI QL QP

Customer focus (CF) 1 .598** .496** .526** .404**

Supplier focus (SF) .598** 1 .723** .588** .415**

Supply Chain Integration (SCI) .496** .723** 1 .559** .293**

Quality leadership (QL) .526** .588** .559** 1 .327**

Quality performance (QP) .404** .415** .293** .327** 1

Mean 5.4472 5.2451 4.5622 5.3169 5.3429

SD .89414 .95476 1.05806 1.09451 1.02942

Note: Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

57
Table 5. Results for individual simple linear regressions.

Hypotheses R² Beta t value F

H1: Customer focusQuality performance 0.163 0.465 t=7.935**** F(1,323)=62.969,
p=0.000
H2: Supplier focusQuality performance 0.172 0.448 t=8.201**** F(1,323)=67.251,
p=0.000
H3: Supply chain integrationQuality performance 0.086 0.285 t=5.503**** F(1,323)=30.285,
p=0.000
H4: Quality leadershipQuality performance 0.107 0.307 t=6.211**** F(1,323)=38.572,
p=0.000
H5: SCQMQuality performance 0.185 0.533 t=8.549**** F(1,323)=73.090,
p=0.000
Notes: Statistical significance: *p <0.1; **p<0.05, ***p<0.01, ****p≤0.001

58
Table 6. The influence of Supply Chain Quality Management (SCQM) practices on quality performance.

∆R²
R² Beta (β) SE t-value F
Independent variables: (∆R² to the overall model)
Customer focus (CF) 12.5% (0.092) 0.303 0.049 6.120**** F(3,321) = 15.235, p=0.000
Supplier focus (SF) 14% (0.076) 0.276 0.049 5.582**** F(3,321) = 17.426, p=0.000
Supply Chain Integration (SCI) 20.8% (0.008) 0.091 0.049 1.834* F(3,321) = 28.122, p=0.000
Quality leadership (QL) 17.6% (0.040) 0.200 0.049 4.046**** F(3,321) = 22.898, p=0.000
Notes: Statistical significance: *p <0.1; **p<0.05, ***p<0.01, ****p≤0.001
Dependent Variable: Quality Performance (QP)

59
Figure 1. Conceptual framework

SCQM
H1
Customer focus H2 Quality
H3 Performance
Supplier focus
H4
Supply chain integration
H5
Quality leadership

60
Appendix 1. Summary of research published on SCQM: timeline.
Journal 2001 2002 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

The Int. J. of (1) (2) Kuei (30) (34) (40) (42)

Quality & Kuei, et al. Mellat- Madu & Quang Fernand
Reliability Madu & Parast Kuei et al. es et al.
Management Lin
IJPE (3) Lin (35) (41)
et al. Chen, Huo et
Zhang al.
(4) &
Robinso Delaure
n& ntis
Malhotr
a
IJPR (5) (9) (11) (18)
Flynn & Batson Foster Foster,
Flynn & & Wallin
McGou Ogden &
gh Ogden

(10) Lo, (19)

Yeung Hung
&
Yeung (20)
Kuei,
Madu &
Lin

61
Journal 2001 2002 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

(21) Li,
Su &
Chen

(22)
Soltani
et al.

(23)
Vanichc
hinchai
& Igel

(24) Xu

(25)
Zhang
et al.
Multinational (6) Kuei
Business et al.
Review
SCMIJ (7) Lo (31)
& Jraisat
Yeung &
Sawalha
(8) Sila,
Ebrahim
pour &
Birkhol
z

62
Journal 2001 2002 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

JOM (12)
Das et
al.

(13)
Foster

(14)
Kaynak
&
Hartley

(15)
Sroufe
&
Curkovi
c
TQM (16)
Kuei,
Madu &
Lin
Singapore (17)
Management Kahnali
Review &
Taghavi
The QM (26) (39)
Journal Foster Ford
IJOPM (27) Zu (32) (36)
& Lin, Dellana
Kaynak Kuei & & Kros
Chai

63
Journal 2001 2002 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Int. J. of (28)
Business & Echazu
Economics &
Frascato
re
Asian (29)
Journal on Rashid
Quality &
Aslam
Operations (33)
Management Zeng,
Research Phan &
Matsui
Int. J. of (37)
Organization Vanichc
al Analysis hinchai
IEEE (38)
Transactions Huo,
on Zhao &
Engineering Lai
Management

64