The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A framework for quality management research and an associated measurement instrument
Abstract
Research on quality incorporates a range of concerns, including quality definition and management, and such specific mechanisms as statistical quality control (SQC). However, though research in statistical quality control has evolved in a scientific and rigorous fashion, based on the early works of Shewhart, Juran, Deming and others, the study of other aspects of quality, particularly quality management, has not evolved in a similarly rigorous fashion. Theory development and measurement issues related to reliability and validity are particularly weak in the quality management literature. Starting from a strategic perspective of the organization, this paper identifies and substantiates the key dimensions of quality management, then tests the measurement of those dimensions for reliability and validity. In doing so, it establishes a clear framework for subsequent research and for evaluation of quality management programs by practitioners. In order to specify the important dimensions of quality management, a thorough search of the relevant literature was undertaken. Quality management is defined as an approach to achieving and sustaining high quality output; thus, we employ a process definition, emphasizing inputs (management practices) rather than outputs (quality performance) in our analysis. Quality management is first viewed as an element of the integrated approach known as World Class Manufacturing; quality management supports and is supported by JIT, human resources management, top management support, technology management and strategic management. The key dimensions of quality management are then articulated. Top management support creates an environment in which quality management activities are rewarded. These activities are related to quality information systems, process management, product design, work force management, supplier involvement and customer involvement. They are used in concert to support the continuous improvement of manufacturing capability. As manufacturing capability and quality performance improve, a plant achieves and sustains a competitive advantage. This, in turn, provides feedback, reinforcement and resources to top management, which stimulates continuous improvement. Based on the seven dimensions of quality management identified in this paper, a set of 14 perceptual scales was developed. The scales were assessed for reliability and validity with a sample of 716 respondents at 42 plants in the U.S. in the transportation components, electronics and machinery industries. Reliability is broadly defined as the degree to which scales are free from error and, therefore, consistent. The use of reliable scales provides assurance that the obtained results will be stable. Application of Cronbach's alpha both across the board and by industry and nationality subsamples refined the original group of 14 scales to 11 internally consistent scales. Validity refers to the degree to which scales truly measure the constructs which they are intended to measure. This provides academic and industry users with confidence that the scales measure important constructs which are related to independent measures of the same constructs, and that each scale measures a single construct. It was concluded that the scales, and the instrument as a whole, are valid measures of quality management practices. Thus, the scales may be used with confidence by both researchers and industry users to measure quality management practices, with the ability to generalize beyond the immediate sample. This paper makes several important contributions to the area of quality management. It proposes an emergent theory of quality management and links it to the literature. Because the proposed scales are reliable and valid, they may be used by other researchers for hypothesis testing and by practitioners for assessing quality management practices in their plants and for internal and external benchmarking. Finally, the paper provides a step‐by‐step approach and criteria for conducting reliability and validity analysis of a measurement instrument.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
SERVQUAL: A multiple-Item Scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1988) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.14579729 · Cited by 21,118
Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(83)90156-3 · Cited by 1,309
Cited by
Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance
Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2003) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/s0272-6963(02)00108-0 · Cited by 2,897
Defining and developing measures of lean production
Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2007) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.019 · Cited by 2,399
An assessment of survey research in POM: from constructs to theory
Malhotra, M. K., & Grover, V. (1998) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00021-7 · Cited by 1,313
Contingency research in operations management practices
Sousa, R., & Voss, C. A. (2008) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2008.06.001 · Cited by 996
Successful lean implementation: Organizational culture and soft lean practices
Bortolotti, T., Boscari, S., & Danese, P. (2015) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.10.013 · Cited by 678
Metadata
- Authors
- Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Operations Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-03
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 339-366
- ISSN
- 0272-6963 (ISSN-L)
- 1873-1317
- OpenAlex
- W2001771780
- Cited by
- 1,966
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 41.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A framework for quality management research and an associated measurement instrument. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0272-6963(97)90004-8
- The paper
- Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S. (1994). A framework for quality management research and an associated measurement instrument. Journal of Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-6963(97)90004-8
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.