提高质量管理体系的价值

IF 3.4 Q2 MANAGEMENT
Ida Gremyr, Jan Lenning, Mattias Elg, Jason M. Martin
{"title":"提高质量管理体系的价值","authors":"Ida Gremyr, Jan Lenning, Mattias Elg, Jason M. Martin","doi":"10.1108/ijqss-10-2020-0170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nOver one million organisations have a quality management system (QMS) certified to the ISO 9001 standard; however, the system requires a lot of resources and its value has been questioned. This critique also leads to a questioning of the strategic relevance of quality management. The purpose of this paper is to explore how different types of uses of QMS correlate with management perceptions of quality management in terms of respect, cost and strategic importance.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe paper is based on a mixed method data collection strategy, quantitative data being collected from a survey in 8 organisations (n = 108) and qualitative data being collected from 12 interviews with quality managers in 12 different organisations.\n\n\nFindings\nThe paper shows that a compliance-oriented QMS usage will more likely lead to a view of quality management as costly and of little respect, than a business or improvement-oriented QMS usage. Moreover, it nuances the view on compliance-oriented usage, showing that it is mainly documentation that negatively influences how management views quality management, whereas standardisation that is part of the compliance-oriented use is perceived as more value-adding.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis paper suggests three types of QMS use, namely, business management, improvement, and compliance-oriented use, and that a wise selection of how to use the QMS will affect the respect, strategic importance and cost that management associates with quality management.\n","PeriodicalId":14403,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Increasing the value of quality management systems\",\"authors\":\"Ida Gremyr, Jan Lenning, Mattias Elg, Jason M. Martin\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ijqss-10-2020-0170\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nOver one million organisations have a quality management system (QMS) certified to the ISO 9001 standard; however, the system requires a lot of resources and its value has been questioned. This critique also leads to a questioning of the strategic relevance of quality management. The purpose of this paper is to explore how different types of uses of QMS correlate with management perceptions of quality management in terms of respect, cost and strategic importance.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThe paper is based on a mixed method data collection strategy, quantitative data being collected from a survey in 8 organisations (n = 108) and qualitative data being collected from 12 interviews with quality managers in 12 different organisations.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe paper shows that a compliance-oriented QMS usage will more likely lead to a view of quality management as costly and of little respect, than a business or improvement-oriented QMS usage. Moreover, it nuances the view on compliance-oriented usage, showing that it is mainly documentation that negatively influences how management views quality management, whereas standardisation that is part of the compliance-oriented use is perceived as more value-adding.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThis paper suggests three types of QMS use, namely, business management, improvement, and compliance-oriented use, and that a wise selection of how to use the QMS will affect the respect, strategic importance and cost that management associates with quality management.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":14403,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijqss-10-2020-0170\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijqss-10-2020-0170","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

目的超过100万个组织拥有通过ISO9001标准认证的质量管理体系;然而,该系统需要大量的资源,其价值一直受到质疑。这一批评也引发了对质量管理战略相关性的质疑。本文的目的是探讨QMS的不同类型的使用如何与管理层在尊重、成本和战略重要性方面对质量管理的看法相关联。设计/方法论/方法本文基于混合方法数据收集策略,从8个组织(n=108)的调查中收集定量数据,从12个不同组织的质量经理的12次访谈中收集定性数据。发现该论文表明,与以业务或改进为导向的QMS使用相比,以合规为导向的质量管理体系使用更有可能导致质量管理成本高昂且不受尊重的观点。此外,它对以合规为导向的使用的观点进行了细微的区分,表明主要是文件对管理层如何看待质量管理产生了负面影响,而作为以合规为主的使用的一部分的标准化被认为是更有价值的。原始性/价值本文提出了三种类型的QMS使用,即业务管理、改进、,以及以合规为导向的使用,明智地选择如何使用QMS将影响管理层与质量管理相关的尊重、战略重要性和成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Increasing the value of quality management systems
Purpose Over one million organisations have a quality management system (QMS) certified to the ISO 9001 standard; however, the system requires a lot of resources and its value has been questioned. This critique also leads to a questioning of the strategic relevance of quality management. The purpose of this paper is to explore how different types of uses of QMS correlate with management perceptions of quality management in terms of respect, cost and strategic importance. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on a mixed method data collection strategy, quantitative data being collected from a survey in 8 organisations (n = 108) and qualitative data being collected from 12 interviews with quality managers in 12 different organisations. Findings The paper shows that a compliance-oriented QMS usage will more likely lead to a view of quality management as costly and of little respect, than a business or improvement-oriented QMS usage. Moreover, it nuances the view on compliance-oriented usage, showing that it is mainly documentation that negatively influences how management views quality management, whereas standardisation that is part of the compliance-oriented use is perceived as more value-adding. Originality/value This paper suggests three types of QMS use, namely, business management, improvement, and compliance-oriented use, and that a wise selection of how to use the QMS will affect the respect, strategic importance and cost that management associates with quality management.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
7.70%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences seeks to explore various aspects of quality and services as closely interrelated phenomena in the context of ongoing transformation processes of organizations and societies. Thus the journals'' scope is not limited to micro perspectives of organizational and management related issues. It seeks further to explore patterns, behaviors, processes, mechanisms, principles and consequences related to quality and services in a broad range of organizational and social/global processes. These processes embrace cultural, economic, social, environmental and even global dimensions in order to better understand the past, to better diagnose the current situations and hence to design better the future. The journal seeks to embrace a holistic view of quality and service sector management and explicitly promotes the emerging field of ‘quality and service sciences’.The journal is an open forum and one of the main channels for communication of multi- and inter- disciplinary research and practices.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信