The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Impact of Quality Management Practices on Performance and Competitive Advantage
Abstract
As decision makers become more involved in implementing Total Quality Management, questions are raised about which management practices should be emphasized. In this exploratory investigation of the relationship of specific quality management practices to quality performance, a framework was constructed. It focuses on both core quality management practices and on the infrastructure that creates an environment supportive of their use. In addition, it incorporates two measures of quality performance and their role in establishing and sustaining a competitive advantage. Path analysis was used to test the proposed model, with multiple regression analysis determining the path coefficients, which were decomposed into their various effects. Weak linkages were eliminated. The trimmed model indicated that perceived quality market outcomes were primarily related to statistical control/feedback and the product design process, while the internal measure of percent that passed final inspection without requiring rework was strongly related to process flow management and to statistical control/feedback, to a lesser extent. Both measures of quality performance were related to competitive advantage. Important infrastructure components included top management support and workforce management. Supplier relationships and work attitudes were also related to some of the core quality practices and quality performance measures. The results were interpreted in light of Hill's concept of order winners and order qualifiers and Garvin's eight dimensions of quality. They indicate that different core quality management practices lead to success in different dimensions of quality, and that those dimensions function differently as order winners and order qualifiers.
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
Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors
(1980) · Journal of Sustainable Competitive Intelligence · doi:10.24883/iberoamericanic.v2i2.38 · Cited by 16,592
Cited by
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
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
KANNAN, V (2005) · Omega · doi:10.1016/j.omega.2004.03.012 · Cited by 720
The role of quality in e‐procurement performance: An empirical analysis
Vaidyanathan, G., & Devaraj, S. (2008) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.08.004 · Cited by 133
Driving Factors of Industry 4.0 Readiness among Manufacturing SMEs in Malaysia
Wong, A. P. H., & Kee, D. M. H. (2022) · Information · doi:10.3390/info13120552 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S.
- Venue
- Decision Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-09
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 659-691
- ISSN
- 0011-7315 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5915
- OpenAlex
- W2089186825
- Cited by
- 1,310
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.77
- 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: The Impact of Quality Management Practices on Performance and Competitive Advantage. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1995.tb01445.x
- The paper
- Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S. (1995). The Impact of Quality Management Practices on Performance and Competitive Advantage. Decision Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1995.tb01445.x
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.