We cast doubt on the adequacy of current conceptualization and operationalization of process management (PM) based on quality management (QM), particularly when PM is considered as comprising of only control and incremental improvement practices. Furthermore, the dimensionality of PM is hitherto, lack of detailed empirical validation. QM literature is also silent about the interrelationships among various PM practices. This study sheds light on the above issues by drawing upon Organizational Change (OC) and Knowledge Management (KM) perspective. A hybrid approach consisting of qualitative and quantitative methods to conceptualize and operationalize PM has been demonstrated. The results show that PM should be conceptualized beyond the current QM boundary by including the radical process improvement practices. Finally, the measurement quality of the identified items can be demonstrated by assessing their content validity quantitatively as the cornerstone for later scale development.
[...] (1997), performance effects of process management techniques”, Management Science, Vol No.4, pp. 522-534. Jaeger, A. M., & Baliga, B. R.(1985), “Control systems and strategic adaptation: Lessons from the Japanese experience”. Strategic Management Journal, pp.115-134. Janz, B. D., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003), “Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge management: the importance of a knowledge-centered culture”. Decision Sciences, Spring pp.351-384. [28]Jha, S., & Noori, H., & Michela, J. L. (1996), dynamics of continuous improvement aligning organizational attributes and activities for quality and productivity”. [...]
[...] First, as increasing studies address the OM phenomenon such as TQM from other theoretical perspectives, this study specifically advances the current knowledge of PM and strives to construct a holistic view of PM by drawing upon perspectives from QM, OC and KM. Second, PM in this study is conceptualized as a construct composing of three dimensions namely process control incremental process improvement (IPI) and radical process improvement (RPI). With reference to the lens of OC and KM theories, we understand the difference in nature between IPI and RPI, and 9 the complexity of their interrelationshps. [...]
[...] These documents and procedures enable the implementation of PC and the deployment of process knowledge Operationalization of Process Management Based on the above review, we select the items for each dimension of process management as shown in Table 2 Table 2 Measurement items of PC Item Measurement items PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7 PC8 PC9 We dedicate a portion of everyday solely to maintenance for achieving quality and schedule compliance We have well established methods to measure and analyze quality of our products and services We have site-wide standardized and documented operating procedures Regular process audits conducted by production management We make extensive use of statistical techniques to reduce inferior variance in process Housekeeping is maintained to ensure the plant is neat and tidy, and tools/materials can be easily accessible Our production and planning control system functions effectively and efficiently We effectively manage our suppliers Quality data is systematically collected and analyzed to fine-tune our processes PC10 Most of the core processes have had clear and measurable performance indicators PC11 Adequate training is provided to those perform the tasks Table 3 Measurement items of IPI Item IPI1 IPI2 IPI3 IPI4 IPI5 IPI6 IPI7 IPI8 Measurement items We run process improvement projects on a continuous basis Front-line employees are encouraged to participate in process improvement teams We seek simplification of existing processes Process variation is progressively reduced even it is at the acceptable level Our process improvement aims at small wins The direction of improvement is determined based on past performance We use problem solving tools (e.g. [...]
[...] (1994), “Management theory and total quality improving research and practice through theory development”, Academy of Management Review, Vol No pp. 324-418. Deming, W. E. (1986), of crisis”, Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center of Advanced Engineering. Edmondson, A. C., Winslow, A. B., Bohmer, R. M. J., & Pisano, G. P. (2003), “Learning how and learning what: effects of tacit and codified knowledge on performance improvement following technology adoption”, Decision Sciences; Spring; 34, 197-223. Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S. [...]
[...] (1999), “Towards measuring the implementation/practice” construct some evidence of measurement quality”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol No.4, pp.301-329. Rungtusanatham, M., Anderson, J. C., & Dooley, K. J. (1997), “Conceptualizing organizational implementation and practice of statistical process control”, Journal of Quality Management, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 113-137. Samson, D., & Terziovski, M. (1999), relationship between total quality management practices and operational performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol pp. 393-409. Saraph, J. V.; Benson, P. G., & Schroeder, R. G. (1989), instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management”, Decision Sciences, Vol pp. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
