DSpace at VNU: Quality management practices and competitive performance: Empirical evidence from Japanese manufacturing companies

Int. J. Production Economics 133 (2011) 518–529

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Int. J. Production Economics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

Quality management practices and competitive performance: Empirical
evidence from Japanese manufacturing companies
Anh Chi Phan a,b,n, Ayman Bahjat Abdallah c, Yoshiki Matsui b
a

University of Economics and business, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, 307-E4, 144 Xuan Thuy, Cau Giay, Hanoi, Vietnam
Faculty of Business Administration, Yokohama National University, 79-4 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-Ku, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan
c
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Applied Science Private University, Amman 11931, Jordan
b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 6 August 2009
Accepted 29 January 2011
Available online 3 March 2011

This paper presents the results of an empirical study on the relationship between quality management
practices and competitive performance in Japanese manufacturing companies. The data was gathered
from two surveys including the common sample of twenty-seven Japanese manufacturing companies
in the 1990s and the 2000s. Statistical techniques are used to compare the degree of implementation of

the eleven quality management practices and their impact on different dimensions of competitive
performance between two periods. Findings of this study highlight the stability and consistency of the
Japanese quality management, which can be used as one of the strategic weapons for maintaining
competitive advantage of Japanese manufacturing companies.
& 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Japanese quality management
Competitive performance
Manufacturing
Empirical study

1. Introduction
During the 1990s, the Japanese economy has suffered from a
long recession. The growth rate has markedly declined. Many
companies have suffered from low profits or financial losses.
However, some well-managed Japanese manufacturing companies still continue to hold their strong competitive power in the
global market. The survival and prosperity of Japanese manufacturers are achieved by their Japanese way of management such as
total quality management (TQM), just-in-time (JIT) production,
total productive maintenance (TPM), and concurrent engineering,
and their ability to create horizontal linkage structure throughout
the communication network. Those are real strengths of Japanese
manufacturers, besides of their technological advantages as
demonstrated by Morita et al. (2001) and Matsui (2002a). Quality
management has been recognized as single most critical success
factor in Japan’s manufacturing (Imai, 1986; Ohno, 1988). Quality
management in Japan is characterized as company-wide participation, emphasis on employees training, quality circles, quality
diagnoses, statistical methods, and national-wide campaign. People from all levels of management and workers are involved in the
company-wide quality management or total quality management
(Schroeder and Flynn, 2001; Matsui, 2002b; Schonberger, 1986,

2007). This concept intends to not only control quality levels of
products by applying statistical methods and other analytical
techniques, but also manage all kinds of work properly centered

n

Corresponding author. Tel.: 84 4 3754 7506; fax: + 84 4 3754 6765.
E-mail address: (A.C. Phan).

0925-5273/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.01.024

on quality. While the emergent trends in Japanese management
are studied and presented in several academic papers and articles
regarding manufacturing strategy (Fujimoto, 2004), business
restructuring by vertical and horizontal alliances (Kono and
Clegg, 2001), supplier involvement in product development
(Takeishi, 2001), and transforming individual skills to organizational capability (Sako, 1999), there is a little evidence on how
Japanese quality management is longitudinally maintained for
enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of manufacturing
companies which are coping with fierce competition from other
developed countries or emergent economies. In order to address
this need, this paper presents results of an empirical study on the
relationship of quality management practices and competitive
performance in Japanese manufacturing companies. This objective is accomplished by analyzing a set of data gathered from two
surveys, which includes the common sample of twenty-seven
Japanese manufacturing companies conducted in 1993–1994
and 2003–2004. Eleven measurement scales are utilized to
measure different aspect of quality management. Findings of this
study highlight the robustness, stability, and consistence of

Japanese quality management and its positive relationship to
the competitive performance in manufacturing plants. This study
provides empirical evidence that Japanese manufacturing companies explore quality managements as a strategic weapon for
improving competitive advance during the 1990s and the 2000s.
The remaining of this paper presents the analytical research
framework, which is followed by description of data collection,
measurement testing, and hypothesis testing. The last three
sections discuss the important findings, limitations, and final
conclusions.


A.C. Phan et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 133 (2011) 518–529

2. Analytical framework
The evidence of outstanding performance of Japanese manufacturers in the late 1970s and the 1980s led to the development
of world-class manufacturing (WCM) and high performance
manufacturing (HPM) perspectives (Hayes and Wheelwright,
1984; Schroeder and Flynn, 2001). These perspectives suggest
that the ability to develop simultaneously different competitive
advantages is achieved through development of an infrastructure
of practices focused on designing, controlling, and continuously
improving processes to produce high-quality product. Excellent
quality is regarded as a platform for achieving other competitive
edges such as cost, delivery, cycle time, and flexibility. For
successful implementation of quality management, several daily
practices should be conducted in manufacturing plants such as
process management, customer focus, supply quality involvement, and small group activity (Flynn et al., 1995). Characteristics
of Japanese quality management have been analyzed in several
empirical studies. Matsui (2002b), using survey data from fortysix manufacturing plants in the 1990s, found the similarity in
quality management practices among machinery, electrical &

electronics, and automobile in Japan and significant contribution
of customer involvement, cleanliness and organization, and supplier quality involvement on performance indicators such as fast
delivery, inventory turnover, and cycle time. Schroeder and Flynn
(2001) comparatively studied quality practices in 164 plants
located in the Unites States, Japan, German, Italy, and United
Kingdom during the 1990s and found that Japanese manufacturers took advantage of quality management over other countries in term of shop floor activities such as process control,
information feedback, and small group activities. It was also
detected that US plants more emphasized on customer satisfaction and relationship than Japanese plants. To continue the
previous studies of Schroeder and Flynn (2001) and Matsui
(2002b), this paper empirically analyzes the relationship between
quality management and competitive performance based on the
relevant measurement scales and data collected from Japanese
manufacturing plants through extensive questionnaires. The aims
of this study is to identify the stability of Japanese quality
management between the 1990s and the 2000s and to examine

Quality Management Practices

519

whether Japanese quality management significantly impacted on
the competitive performance in manufacturing plants in the new
context of manufacturing environment at the beginning of the
21st century.
The framework of this study is presented in Fig. 1. The first
component of our simple analytical framework is Japanese quality
management that represents company-wide activities to improve
the quality level of products and works through customer
orientation, continuous quality improvement, and employee
involvement to establish and sustain competitive advantage.

The second component includes the different aspects of competitive performance of manufacturing plants: quality, cost, delivery, and flexibility. As observed by consumers and researchers,
Japanese manufacturers are routinely producing extreme highquality products at very low cost with short production cycle time
and new product development time. Thanks to the foolproof
process and utilization of statistical process control, the variation
of process is identified and eliminated. Minimization of process
variance results in a reduction of scraps and reworks; thus, reduce
the production cost. The reduction of defected product also leads
to a reduction of time delay for rework, inspection, and time for
machine stop. These allow the production run faster with shorter
consuming time from material receiving to customer delivery.
High conformance quality product, short cycle time, and multiskill workers allow the plant having abilities to change volume
mix and product mix. In summary, high product quality is
associated with the low cost, on-time delivery, and high flexibility. Then, we would like to propose the hypotheses on the
consistency and stability of quality management in Japanese
plants and its contribution to competitive performance as
described as follows.
Firstly, it is expected that Japanese manufacturing companies
share the similar characteristic and structure of their quality
management. Quality management movement was raised in
Japan during the 1950s with high commitment of top management leadership to quality, quality-based strategy development,
strong focus on human resource management, process management, and customer and supplier relationships. Between the
1990s and the 2000s, as mentioned in the cited literature,
Japanese manufacturers made a lot of efforts on restructuring

Competitive Performance

Top management leadership

Unit cost of manufacturing

Formal strategic planning

Conformance to product specifications

Training

On-time delivery performance

Small group problem solving

Fast delivery

Employee’s suggestions

Flexibility to change product mix

Cross-functional product design

Flexibility to change volume

Housekeeping

Inventory turnover

Process control

Cycle time

Information feedback

Speed of new product introduction

Customer involvement

Product capability and performance

Supplier quality involvement

Customer support and service

Fig. 1. Framework of study on Japanese quality management.


520

A.C. Phan et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 133 (2011) 518–529

and reengineering their business processes, searching for vertical
and horizontal alliances, changing employment system, and
anticipating new technologies to overcome their business problems (Kono and Clegg, 2001). It is expected that, during the
1990s–2000s, quality management has been well maintained and
focused through the daily activities as a weapon for competition
in Japanese manufacturing plants. The first hypothesis could be
presented as follows.
Hypothesis H1. There is no difference in quality management
practices in Japanese manufacturing plants between the 1990s
and the 2000s.
Next is the linkage between quality management and competitive performance of Japanese manufacturing plants. Manufacturing is a central part of the Japanese economic engine for over a
hundred years. It has been discussed that the excellent quality is a
success factor for global competition of Japanese manufacturers.

Despite the problems after the burst of the financial bubble
during the 1990s, the Japanese manufacturing organizations
continue to maintain their competitive position with large profit,
high productivity, and the skilled artisanship that foreign firm
could not easily intimate. Using the updated survey data, this
study would like to test whether the Japanese quality management in the 2000s maintains its positive contribution to competitive performance as it did in the 1990s. The next hypothesis is
stated as follows:
Hypothesis H2. There is no difference in the impact of quality
management practices on competitive performance of Japanese
manufacturing plants between the 1990s and the 2000s.
To test the hypotheses, a set of eleven scales is constructed to
measure the degree of implementation of different quality management practices in Japanese plants. The selection of this set of
quality management practices is based on the suggestion from
recent empirical quality management studies such as Anderson
et al. (1995), Flynn et al. (1995), Choi and Liker (1995), Forza and
Flippini (1998), Dow et al. (1999), Samson and Terziovski
(1999), Das et al. (2000), Cua et al. (2001), Matsui (2002b),
Kaynak (2003), Yeung et al. (2005), and Parast et al. (2006). The
main characteristics of these studies are summarized in Table 1.
The results of these studies identified the key elements of quality
management: leadership commitment, human motivation and
development, new product design, process management, quality
information, and customers and supplier relations, which significantly impact on different dimensions of competitive performance of manufacturing plants.
Previous quality management studies demonstrated that the
establishment of leadership commitment, which consists of top
management leadership and strategic planning, is critical for achieving superior product quality because it creates the environment and
direction for continuous quality improvement (Anderson et al.,
1995; Flynn et al., 1995; Samson and Terziovski, 1999; Das et al.,
2000; Kaynak, 2003). Two measurement scales are used to evaluate
leadership commitment as follows:

the labor force with quality-minded and working skills, leading to
better product quality.

 Top management leadership: This scale measures top manage-

The positive impact of relationship with customers and suppliers
on performance was reported in many empirical studies such
as Flynn et al. (1995), Samson and Terziovski (1999), Cua et al.
(2001), Kaynak (2003), Yeung et al. (2005), and Parast et al. (2006).
These studies suggested that managers should focus on customer
and supplier involvement because it would allow manufacturing
plants to improve quality performance, reduce associated cost, and
achieve customer satisfaction. Our study adopts this approach and
constructs two scales to measure the relationship of manufacturing
plants and their customers and suppliers as follows:



ment commitment and personal involvement in pursuing
continuous improvement
Formal strategic planning: This scale measures whether the
plants develop, review and update the strategic planning

Human resource is critical factor for producing quality products. This study focuses on three aspects of human resource
management: skill training for employees and participation of
employees in continuous improvement activities through small
group activities and suggestion scheme. Flynn et al. (1995), Choi
and Liker (1995), and Samson and Terziovski (1999) demonstrated that implementation of these practices would develop

 Training: This scale determines if employees’ skill and knowl




edge are being upgraded in order to maintain workforce with
cutting edge skills and knowledge
Small group problem solving: This scale evaluates how the plant
uses the teamwork activities to solve quality problems
Employee suggestion: This scale measures whether the plant
implement and feedback the employees’ suggestions
Flynn et al. (1995) found the evidence that the cooperation
between product designers and manufacturing people significantly improve product quality. We adopt this approach and
use one measure to evaluate cross-functional product design
effort as follows.
Cross-functional product design: This scale evaluates whether
plant develop new product by cross-functional cooperation

Process management contributes to quality performance by
the reduction in process variance, which leads to less scraps and
reworks. This argument has been empirically supported by the
works of Flynn et al. (1995), Choi and Liker (1995), Cua et al.
(2001), Matsui (2002b), Kaynak (2003), and Yeung et al. (2005). In
more detail, Flynn et al. (1995), Cua et al. (2001), and Matsui
(2002b) suggested that process control and housekeeping should
be implemented to facilitate production flow and these practices
significantly relate with quality performance. To measure process
management in Japanese plants, this study uses two scales to
measure the implementation of 5S activities and utilization of
statistical process control in order to identify and eliminate

process variations.

 Housekeeping: This scale evaluates whether plant management



has taken steps to organize and maintain the work place in
order to help employees accomplish their jobs faster and instill
a sense of pride in their work place
Process control: This scale measures the use of statistical
process control in production and in office support function,
in designing ways to ‘‘foolproof’’ process and self-inspection

Quality charts, graphs, and tables are widely used on the shop
floor of Japanese plants. They are effective tools to raise quality
awareness of the employees and identify and eliminate the sources of
quality problems. This argument has been supported by the empirical
studies of Flynn et al. (1995), Choi and Liker (1995), Kaynak (2003),
and Yeung et al. (2005). One measurement scale related with shop
floor information feedback is used in this study.

 Information feedback: This scale measures whether the plant
provides its shop-floor personnel with the information regarding their performance (including quality and productivity) in a
timely and useful manner

 Customer involvement: This scale assesses the level of customer
contact, customer orientation, and customer responsiveness.


A.C. Phan et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 133 (2011) 518–529

521

Table 1
Summaries of studies on relationship between quality management and organizational performance.
Author

Operationalisation of quality
management

Operationalisation of performance

Anderson
et al.
(1995)

Multidimensional construct:

Operating performance

(1) Visionary leadership (2) Internal and Customer satisfaction
external cooperation (3) Learning
(4) Process management (5) Continuous
improvement (6) Employee fulfillment
Flynn et al. Multidimensional
(1995)
Operating performance: (1) Quality
(1) Process flow management,
market outcomes, (2) Percent-passed
(2) Product design process, (3) SPC/

final inspection with no rework
feedback, (4) Customer relationship,
(5) Supplier relationship, (6) Work
attitudes, (7) Workforce management,
(8) Top management support

Data collection method
and analysis
– Questionnaires
– Data collected from 41
manufacturing
plants in US
– Path analysis

– Questionnaires
– Data collected from 42
manufacturing
plants in US
– Path analysis

Competitive advantage: (1) Unit cost
(2) Fast delivery (3) Volume flexibility
(4) Inventory turnover (5) Cycle time

Main findings

Employee fulfillment has a significant
direct effect on customer satisfaction.
No significant relationship exists
between continuous improvement and

customer satisfaction.

Process flow management and the
product design process have positive
effects on perceived quality market
outcomes while internal measure of
the percent that passed final
inspection without requiring rework is
impacted by the process flow
management.
Both perceived quality market
outcomes and percent-passed final
inspection with no rework have
significant effects on competitive
advantage.
TQM practices have a stronger effect
on customer satisfaction than they do
on plant performance.
Plant performance fails to show
significant impact on customer
satisfaction.

Choi and
Liker,
1995

Plant performance: (1) Quality, (2) Cost,
Single TQM construct practices is
(3) Delivery Customer satisfaction
summarized from: (1) Process quality,

(2) Human resource, (3) Strategic quality
planning, (4) Information and analysis

– Questionnaire
– Data collected from
339 manufacturers in
US
– Structural equation
modeling

Forza and
Flippini
(1998)

Multidimensional construct:

Two dimensions of competitive
performance:
(1) Orientation towards quality, (2) TQM Quality conformance Customer
satisfaction
linked with customer, (3) TQM links
with supplier, (4) Process control,
(5) Human resource

– Questionnaire
– Data collected from 43
manufacturers in Italy,
US, Germany,
and France
– Structural equation

modeling

Process control has a significant effect
on quality conformance, and TQM
links with customers has a significant
effect on customer satisfaction.

Samson
and
Terziovski
(1999)

Multidimensional construct
(1) Leadership, (2) People management,
(3) Customer focus, (4) Strategic
planning, (5) Information and analysis,
(6) Process management

Operating performance
(1) Product quality, (2) Customer
satisfaction, (3) Employee morale,
(4) Productivity, (5) Delivery
performance

– Questionnaire
– Data collected from
1024 manufacturing
sites in Australia and
New Zealand
– Multiple regression

analysis

Leadership, human resources
management, and customer focus (soft
factors) are significantly and positively
related to operating performance.

Dow et al.
(1999)

Multidimensional construct
(1) Workforce commitment, (2) Shared
vision, (3) Customer focus, (4) Use of
teams, (5) Personnel training, (6) Cooperative supplier relations, (7) Use of
benchmarking, (8) Use of advanced
manufacturing systems, (9) Use of JIT
principle

Quality outcome
(1) The percentage of defects at final
assembly (2) The cost of warranty
claims (3) The total cost of quality
(4) An assessment of the defect rate
relative to competitors

– Questionnaire
– Data collected from
698 manufacturing
sites in Australia and
New Zealand

– Structural equation
modeling

Employee commitment, shared vision,
and customer focus in combination has
a positive impact on quality outcomes.

Das et al.
(2000)

Multidimensional construct:

Financial performance: (1) Market share,
(2) ROA, (3) Market share increase
(1) Supply chain management practices, Customer satisfaction
(2) Quality resources and evaluation,
(3) Quality training, (4) Customer
commitment

– Questionnaire
– Data collected from
290 companies in US
– Structural equation
modeling

Quality practices are positively
correlated with customer satisfaction.
Customer satisfaction is positively
correlated with firm performance.

Cua et al.
(2001)

Multidimensional construct:
(1) Cross-functional product design,
(2) Process management, (3) Supplier
quality management, (4) Customer
involvement

Operating performance
(1) Quality (2) Cost (3) Delivery
(4) Flexibility

– Questionnaire
– Data collected from
163 manufacturing
plants in US, UK, Italy,
Germany, and Japan
– Multiple discriminant
analysis

The results of study indicate strong
link between quality management
practices and operating performance.
Integration of quality management, JIT,
and TPM should be adopted for better
performance

Matsui
(2002b)

Multidimensional construct:
(1) Cleanliness and organization,
(2) Continuous improvement,
(3) Customer involvement, (4) Customer
satisfaction, (5) Feedback,

Competitive performance: (1) Unit cost
of manufacturing, (2) Quality of product
conformance, (3) Delivery performance,
(4) Fast delivery, (5) Product mix
flexibility, (6) Volume flexibility,

– Questionnaire
– Data collected from 46
manufacturing plants
in Japan
– Canonical analysis

Quality management is strongly
influenced by certain organizational
characteristics, human resource
management, information systems,
and manufacturing strategy, and that


522

A.C. Phan et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 133 (2011) 518–529

Table 1. (continued )

Kaynak
(2003)

Yeung
et al.
(2005)

Parast
et al.
(2006)

it plays an important role in
determining the competitive
performance of the manufacturing
companies, partly through the impacts
upon just-in-time production,
information systems, and technology
development.
Quality management depends on
commitment, coordination of decisionmaking, task-related training for
employees, small group problem
solving, multi-functional employees,
distinctive competence, and
anticipation of new technology, among
others.
Quality management gives positive
Questionnaire
impact on financial and market

Data collected from
performance through operating
214 manufacturers in
performance. Process management
US
positively relates with quality
Structural equation
performance. Supply quality
modeling
management and quality information
positively relate with inventory
performance
Study indicated the chain effects on
Questionnaire
organization performance of four
Data collected from
225 electronics firms in quality management modules. Quality
constructs are context dependent. In
Hong Kong and China
electronic industry, process
mainland
management and customer focus are
Path analysis
more important than other elements.

(6) Maintenance, (7) Process control,
(7) Quality in new products, (8) Rewards
for quality (9) Supplier quality
involvement, (10) Supplier quality
involvement, (11) Top management

leadership for quality, (12) TQM link
with customers

(7) Inventory turnover, (8) Cycle time,
(9) Speed of new product introduction,
(10) Customer support and service, (11)
Product capability and performance

Multidimensional construct
(1) Management leadership,
(2) Training, (3) Employee relation,
(4) Quality data& report, (5) Supplier
quality management, (6) Process
management, (7) Product design

(1) Financial & market performance,
(2) Competitive performance,
(3) Inventory performance

Multidimensional construct:
(1) Top management leadership,
(2) Cultural elements, (3) Operational
support systems, (4) Process control and
improvement

Operational Performance
(1) Time-based operational efficiency,
(2) Customer satisfaction, (3) Costrelated operational efficiency
Business results: (1) Financial
performance, (2) Marketing

performance

–
–

Quality results
Customer satisfaction

– Questionnaire
– Data collected from
250 companies in US
and 113 companies
in Mexico
– Analysis of variance

Multidimensional construct:
(1) Quality leadership, (2) Quality
information analysis, (3) Strategic
planning, (4) Human resource,
(5) Quality assurance of product and
service, (6) Supplier quality (7) General
matters

–
–

–

 Supplier quality involvement: This scale assesses the amount
and type of interaction regarding quality concerns, which

occurs with vendors.
Competitiveness generally refers to the ability of a business
organization to survive in a competitive marketplace by offering
products or services that attract and satisfy customers (Fujimoto,
2004). For manufacturing organizations, quality, cost, delivery,
flexibility, and time are recognized as the core of manufacturing
capabilities that leads to their competitiveness (Schroeder and
Flynn, 2001). This study uses eleven competitive performance
indicators to evaluate the competitiveness of each manufacturing
plant as: unit cost of manufacturing, conformance to product
specifications, on-time delivery performance, fast delivery, flexibility
to change product mix, flexibility to change volume, inventory
turnover, cycle time, speed of new product introduction, product
capability and performance, and customer support and service.
These indicators have been widely use in HPM framework and
other quality management studies to measure whether implementation of quality management practices can simultaneously
improve different dimensions of competitive performance (Flynn
et al., 1995; Cua et al., 2001; Matsui, 2002b; Kaynak, 2003).
The first step of the analysis is to check the reliability and
validity of each measurement scale. Hypotheses H1 and H2 are
tested by using analysis of variance (ANOVA) techniques, correlation analysis, and regression analysis.

–

Stepwise regression
analysis

The study indicated the differences
between critical success factors of
quality management practices within

the United States and Mexico. In both
countries social responsibility and
supplier quality were found that
significantly explain variability of
quality results. Similarities on effect of
quality management practices on
customer focus and satisfaction were
found

3. Data collection and measurement analysis
Data used for the subsequent analyses were gathered through
the international joint research initiative called High Performance
Manufacturing Project (HPM) started in the 1980s by researchers
at the University of Minnesota and Iowa State University. The
overall target of this project is to study ‘‘best practices’’ in
manufacturing plants and their impact on plant performance in
the global competition. The first round of the survey was
conducted in 1989 gathering information from forty-six US
manufacturing plants. In 1992, the project was expanded to
include researchers from Germany, Italy, Japan, and the UK. The
second round of the survey gathered data from one hundred and
forty-six manufacturing plants from those countries. In 2003, the
project was further expanded to include other researchers from
Korea, Sweden, Finland, Austria, and Spain. The total number of
manufacturing plants participated in the third round of the
survey is 266. Within each country, surveyed are plants with
more than 100 employees belonging to one of three
industries—electrical & electronics, machinery, and automobile.
Based on business and trade journals and financial information,
the researchers identified and selected manufacturers as having

either a ‘‘World-Class Manufacturer (WCM)’’ or a ‘‘Non WorldClass Manufacturer (NWCM)’’ reputation. Each manufacturing
company selected one typical plant for participating in the
project. This selection criterion allowed for the construction of a


A.C. Phan et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 133 (2011) 518–529

sample with sufficient variance to examine variables of interest
for the research agenda.
Some of the significant results of studies conducted based on
this project are shown in Sakakibara et al. (1993), Flynn et al.
(1994) Flynn et al. (1995), Schroeder and Flynn (2001), (Matsui,
2002a,b, 2007); Phan and Matsui (2009). These results concern
with some important aspects of manufacturing plants: quality, JIT
production, information systems, information technologies, and
technology development, manufacturing strategy, improvement,
and performance.
In this research, we acquire the data from twenty-seven
Japanese manufacturing companies that are included in both
two surveys in 1993–1994 and 2003–2004. Those data are
extracted from the sample of forty-six companies participated
in the first survey during 1993–1994 and thirty-five companies
participated in the second survey in 2003–2004 (in each company, one typical manufacturing plant is selected to response to
the survey). Twenty-seven plants belong to three industrial fields:
electrical & electronics (9 plants), machinery (11 plants), and
automobile (7 plants). The first data gathered from survey in
1993–1994 reflects the degree of use of quality management in
Japanese plants during the 1990s. The second data gathered from
the latest survey in 2003–2004 illustrates the situation of quality
management in the 2000s.

In both periods, the implementation of quality management
practices is evaluated by fifteen and sixteen individuals in the same
nine positions from managers to direct labor for each period as
summarized in Table 2. The measurement scales are constructed by
four to seven question items evaluated on a seven-point Likert scale
(1¼strongly disagree, 4¼neither agree nor disagree, 7¼strongly
agree). Individual question items are shown in the appendix. Finally,
eleven competitive performance indicators are judged by the
plant manager. Each plant manager is asked to indicate his/her
opinion about how the plant compares to its competitors in the
same industry on a global basis on a five-point Likert scale (1¼poor
or low end of the industry, 2¼ below average, 3¼average, 4¼
equivalent to competitor, 5¼superior or top of the industry).
The first step of analytical process is the analysis of reliability
and validity which is performed to evaluate the measurement
properties of the individual scales. Reliability is an estimate of
measurement consistency. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is calculated for each scale to evaluate the reliability. Table 2
shows the alpha values for all scales exceeded the minimum

523

acceptable alpha value of .60 for both samples collected in the
1990s and the 2000s (Nunnally, 1967; Flynn et al., 1990). Most of
the scales have alpha value above .70 indicating that the scales
are internally consistent.
Next, the validity of measurement scales is tested against
content and construct.
Content validity: An extensive review of the literature on the
empirical study of quality management practices, production
management and organization performance is conducted to

ensure content validity. This study continues the works of Flynn
et al. (1995), Schroeder and Flynn (2001), and Matsui (2002b) that
developed and tested a set of measurement scales of quality
management in the framework of HPM Project.
Construct validity: Construct validity test is tested to ensure
that in a scale, all question items measure the same construct.
Within scale factor analysis is conducted with the three criteria as
follows: (a) uni-dimensionality, (b) a minimum eigenvalue of 1,
(c) item factor loadings should be greater than .40. The results
show that all scales have good construct validity. Table 1 show
that the eigenvalue of the first factor is all more than 2.00 for each
scale. The factor loading for each item (shown in the appendix) is
more than .40, mostly ranged between .70 and .90 indicating the
high validity of the measurement scales.

4. Hypotheses testing
In this section, we explore the time effect (the 2000s vs. the
1990s) upon quality management practices and its relationship
with competitive performance in Japanese manufacturing plants.
The description of each quality management practice in both
periods is presented in Table 3. It is observed that top management
leadership and formal strategic planning are the most important
aspects in both periods. The less important aspects can be
attributed to customer involvement (the 1990s) and process control
(the 2000s).
In order to identify the similarity and difference in Japanese
quality management practices between two periods (the 1990s
vs. the 2000s), analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique is applied
and the results are shown in Table 4. If we set the significant level
at 5% as suggested in cited literature, the results indicate that

significant differences between two periods existed in four
practices named as customer involvement, process control, supplier

Table 2
Measurement analysis of individual scales for Japanese sample.
Survey respondents
DL

Top management leadership
Formal strategic planning
Training
Small group problem solving
Employee suggestions
Cross-functional product
design
Housekeeping
Process control
Information feedback
Customer involvement
Supplier quality involvement

a

QM

PE

1
1
1

5(4)
5(4)

1

1
1
1
1
1

SP

PD

HR

IM

1
1

1
1

5(4)
5(4)
5(4)
5(4)
5(4)

PS

4
4
4
4

1990s Data

2000s Data

PM

Alpha

Eigenvalues
(Percentage
of variance)

Alpha

Eigenvalues
(Percentage
of variance)

1
1

.79

.87
.77
.69
.71
.71

3.19
3.41
2.67
2.28
2.44
2.19

(46)
(60)
(53)
(46)
(45)
(55)

.78
.72
.76
.75
.80
.71

3.17
2.25
2.31

2.48
2.61
2.13

(53)
(56)
(58)
(50)
(26)
(53)

.80
.78
.77
.66
.69

2.89
2.62
2.85
2.11
2.17

(58)
(52)
(47)
(43)
(45)

.84

.87
.76
.69
.77

3.10
3.26
2.62
2.17
2.98

(62)
(62)
(52)
(54)
(43)

1

1

4
1
1
4
1

DL, Direct Labor; QM, Quality Manager; PE, Process Engineer; PS, Plant Superintendent; SP, Supervisor; PD, Member of Product Development Team; HR, Human Resource
Manager; IM, Inventory Manager; PM, Production Manager
a

The number of the direct labor answering the questionnaire is different between surveys in the 1990s and the 2000s. The figure in parentheses shows the number of
the direct labor answering the questionnaire in the 2000s.


524

A.C. Phan et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 133 (2011) 518–529

Table 3
Quality management practices in Japanese manufacturing companies between 1990s and 2000s.
Quality management practices

1990s
Mean

Top management leadership
Formal strategic planning
Training
Small group problem solving
Employee suggestions
Cross-functional design
Housekeeping
Process control
Information feedback
Customer involvement
Supplier quality involvement

5.621
5.519
4.877

5.126
5.311
4.950
5.232
5.062
4.881
4.687
5.218

2000s
Std.

.551
.873
.655
.467
.530
.667
.723
.546
.671
.543
.513

Mean

5.562
5.297
4.797
4.797

5.189
4.991
5.234
4.570
4.764
5.108
4.852

Paired differences
Std.

.519
.617
.564
.564
.454
.652
.551
.692
.634
.393
.372

Mean
difference

.059
.222
.081
.330

.122
À .040
À .003
.492
.117
À .421
.367

Std.

.566
.803
.693
.513
.644
.700
.687
.661
.598
.619
.610

t

Sig.
(2-tailed)

.544
1.436
.604

3.337
.986
À .299
À .022
3,869
1.015
À 3.529
3.125

.591
.163
.551
.003
.333
.767
.982
.001
.320
.002
.004

t

Sig.
(2-tailed)

À 1.570
À .618
À 1.030
À .319

À .514
.700
.642
.795
.473
À 1.671
À .795

.129
.542
.313
.753
.612
.490
.527
.434
.640
.107
.434

Std. error 95% Confidence
mean
interval of the
difference

.109
.154
.133
.099
.124

.135
.132
.127
.115
.119
.117

Lower

Upper

À .165
À .096
À .194
.127
À .133
À .317
À .275
.231
À .120
À .666
.125

.283
.539
.355
.533
.377
.237
.269

.754
.353
À .176
.608

Table 4
Competitive performance in Japanese manufacturing companies between 1990s and 2000s.
Quality management practices

1990s
Mean

Unit cost of manufacturing
Conformance to product specifications
On-time delivery performance
Fast delivery
Flexibility to change product mix
Flexibility to change volume
Inventory turnover
Cycle time
Speed of new product introduction
Product capability and performance
Customer support and service

3.407
4.222
3.963
3.704
3.778
3.704

3.185
3.444
3.481
4.333
3.778

2000s
Std.

1.047
.751
.706
.993
.801
.669
.962
.974
1.087
.679
.801

Mean

3.192
4.115
3.769
3.692
3.640
3.846
3.346

3.654
3.577
4.000
3.615

Paired differences
Std.

.939
.588
.815
.884
.995
.881
.936
.797
1.137
.800
.941

quality involvement, and small group problem solving. Among them,
only customer involvement shows higher score in the 2000s while
the last three exhibits lower scores in the 2000s comparing with
the 1990s. The largest difference between two periods occurs on
process control that becomes less important in the 2000s. Customer involvement, which exhibits the lowest score in the 1990s,
becomes more important in the 2000s, just behind top management leadership, formal strategic planning, and housekeeping. Other
seven practices appear similarly between two periods: training,
top management leadership, formal strategic planning, employee
suggestions, cross-functional product design, housekeeping, and
information feedback. This indicates that Hypothesis H1 could

not be rejected and we could state that our analysis could not
prove any difference on practicing quality management in the
Japanese manufacturing plants.
Next, we examine the linkage between Japanese quality
management practices and competitive performance. As depicted
in Table 4, the competitive performance of Japanese manufacturing companies is evaluated similar way between two periods.
Japanese managers highly evaluate their product quality in terms
of both conformance to product specifications and product capability
and performance. In contrast, manufacturing unit cost and inventory
turnover lay in the bottom. Pair-sample t-test is conducted and we
could not find out any significant difference between two periods
(the significant level is 5%).

Mean

À .269
À .115
À .231
À .077
À .120
.154
.154
.192
.115
À .346
À .192

Std.

.874

.952
1.142
1.230
1.166
1.120
1.223
1.234
1.243
1.056
1.234

Std. error 95% Confidence
mean
interval of the
difference

.171
.187
.224
.241
.233
.220
.240
.242
.244
.207
.242

Lower

Upper

À .622
À .500
À .692
À .574
À .601
À .299
À .340
À .306
À .387
À .773
À .691

.084
.269
.231
.420
.361
.606
.648
.691
.618
.080
.306

We further test primary relations between individual quality
management practices and performance indicator by conducting
simple correlation analysis for two samples. The binary correlation
coefficients between eleven practices and eleven performance indicators are presented in Table 4. It appears that quality practices are

significantly associated with every performance measure in both
periods if we set the significant level at 5%. The number of significant
pair could be used to evaluate the relationship between practices
and performance indicators. In the 1990s sample; top management
leadership, training, formal strategic planning, small problem group
solving, and process control are the most influential factors to
performance. In other side, speed of new product introduction, product
capability and performance, cycle time, manufacturing unit cost, and
conformance to product specifications are strongly connected to
quality practices. In contrast, housekeeping, employee suggestions,
on-time delivery, and flexibility to change product mix have few
significant pair with performance. In the 2000s sample; small
problem group solving, employee suggestion, information feedback,
and training have strong connection to performance while flexibility
to change volume, manufacturing unit cost, speed of new product
introduction, and customer support and service have strong connection
to quality practices. In contrast, fast delivery, product capability and
performance, and flexibility to change product mix have only few
significant pairs with performance. Comparing the correlation coefficient between two periods, we can obtain mixed result. The number


A.C. Phan et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 133 (2011) 518–529

525

clearly exhibits higher mean value than the low performance
group for every quality practices. In detail, the results of F-test
clearly indicate the significant difference existed in quality
practices of the 1990s sample excluding employee suggestion and
information feedback which own marginal difference only. For the

2000s sample, the differences between two groups appear clearly
in five practices: small group problem solving, employee suggestion,
cross-functional product design, housekeeping, and process control.
In addition, the marginal difference between two groups exhibit
in other four practices: top management leadership, training,
information feedback, and customer involvement. There is no
significant difference between two groups for formal strategic
planning and supplier quality involvement even though the mean
value of the high performance group is higher than the lower
performance group. The results of correlation analysis and
ANOVA analysis indicate Hypothesis H2 could not be rejected
and we could state that our analysis could not prove any
difference in the relationship of quality management practices
and competitive performance in Japanese manufacturing plants.

of significant pair in the 2000s exhibits rather higher than the
number in the 1990s (75 vs. 67). Some practices like employee
suggestion, housekeeping, small problem group solving, and information
feedback become more correlated with performance indicators while
other practices such as top management leadership, formal strategic
planning, and training slightly become less correlated with performance indicators. We find the same phenomenon occurred with
performance where some indicators significantly become more
correlated with quality practices such as on-time delivery, flexibility
to change volume, and customer support and service while product
capability and performance become no longer significantly correlated
with any quality practices. In summary, the correlation analysis
indicates that quality practices significantly correlate with a large
portion of competitive performance indicators Table 5.
To test Hypothesis H2 formally, further ANOVA analysis is
conducted. Japanese companies are spitted into two sub-groups

depending on their competitive performance, which is delivered
by summing-up the individual performance indicators for each
period: the high performance group (above average score) and
low performance group (under average score). The numbers of
companies classified into high performance group are 14 and 13
in the 1990s and the 2000s, respectively, while the numbers of
companies in the low performance group are 13 and 14. Table 6
presents the mean value of each quality practices by two groups
and the results of F-test. In general, the high performance group

5. Implications and discussions
The previous sections presented the results of an empirical
analysis on relationship between quality management and

Table 5
Correlation analysis of quality management and competitive performance in Japanese manufacturing companies.
Constructs

1990s
(1)

Top management
leadership
Formal strategic
planning
Training
Small group problem
solving
Employee suggestions
Cross-functional

product design
Housekeeping
Process control
Information feedback
Customer involvement
Supplier quality
involvement

(2)

2000s
(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10) (11)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

.242 .488 .224

.339

.443 .370 .335 .337 .433 .490

.437 .394 .360 .159 À .070 .169 .428 .594 .410 .637

.323 .204 .323

.501

.171 .038 .482 .505 .516 .357

.149 .273 .098 .311

.134 .479 .464 .338 .246 .285 À .071 .405

.444 .441 .334
.592 .346 .283

.146
.211

.322 .209 .504 .595 .719 .552
.237 .354 .480 .684 .583 .327

.353 .593 .381 .182
.150 .508 .415 .360

.045 .213 .504 .365 .404 .589
.243 .464 .616 .573 .601 .653

.140 .399
.277 .574

.217 .116 .216 .393 .497 .283 À .033 .456 .371 .457
.418 .235 .599 .192 .339 .419
.015 .083 .372 .395 .507 .434
.235 .441 .216 .093 À .008 .360 .470 .340 .391 .623

.113 .513
.163 .381

.287 .142 .012 À .054
.375 .340 .214
.278
.236
.438
.467
.373
.390

.206
.401
.136
.486
.652

.161 À .059 À .007 .123 .146 .304
.284
.268
.257 .451 .201 .468
.138
.371
.034 .260 .283 .438
.106
.153
.258 .429 .120 .176
.288
.162

.259 .291 .287 .293

.653
.719
.457
.720
.756

.483
.526
.334
.514
.621

.378
.411
.023
.531
.377

.445
.538
.494
.346
.429

.452
.551
.483
.360

.254

.381
.439
.479
.363
.350

.265
.293
.206
.235
.117

.390
.210
.108
.085
.065

.589
.587
.600
.610
.619

.157
.376
.447
.237

.298

.133
.299
.308
.195
.176

.229 .299

.525
.012 .510
.490
.075 .467
.576 À .008 .382
.454
.197 .474
.333 À .084 .298

(1) Unit cost of manufacturing; (2) conformance to product specifications; (3) on-time delivery performance; (4) fast delivery; (5) flexibility to change product mix
(6) Flexibility to change volume; (7) inventory turnover; (8) cycle time; (9) speed of new product introduction; (10) product capability and performance; (11) customer
support and service.

Table 6
Japanese quality management practices classified by high and low performance.
1990s

Top management leadership
Formal strategic planning
Training

Small group problem solving
Employee suggestions
Cross-functional product design
Housekeeping
Process control
Information feedback
Customer involvement
Supplier quality involvement

2000s

High

Low

F

Sig.

High

Low

F

Sig.

5.949
5.994
5.255

5.367
5.474
5.209
5.364
5.319
5.105
4.921
5.425

5.267
5.008
4.470
4.867
5.136
4.672
5.088
4.785
4.639
4.435
4.995

16.479
12.349
14.792
10.539
2.947
5.070
.981
8.295
3.573

4.995
5.563

.000
.002
.001
.003
.098
.033
.331
.008
.070
.017
.026

5.789
5.479
5.326
5.169
5.413
5.340
5.533
4.886
5.054
5.265
4.947

5.471
5.234
4.963

4.516
4.995
4.775
5.015
4.369
4.605
4.947
4.793

3.818
1.202
3.361
12.704
6.435
6.552
7.088
4.280
4.158
3.891
1.109

.062
.284
.079
.002
.018
.017
.014
.050
.053

.060
.303


526

A.C. Phan et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 133 (2011) 518–529

2000s to produce extreme high-quality product with consumerfriendly features.
We further find the evidence of the shift in how the Japanese
manufacturing companies specifically utilize quality management
practices to improve specific performance indicators. It is identified that the determinants for high performance is moderately
changed in the 2000s. The influence of small group problem
solving, employee suggestion, information feedback, and training is
significantly increased. This indicates that quality management
information became more critical for achieving high competitive
performance during 2000s than before. Other important finding is
the change of determinants for design quality. By the time,
product capability and performance become less dependent on
quality management practices at plant level. It indicates that
Japanese high design quality may be defined by other factors than
common quality management practices used in this study. They
might be high technology, advanced manufacturing methods, or
Six Sigma-oriented techniques.
The relationship between quality practices and performance is
illustrated in more detail in Fig. 3 that shows the level of eleven
quality management practices for two groups based on their
overall competitive performance. As shown in this figure, a
similar pattern occurs in both groups in each period with parallel
distance between the groups in term of implementation level of

the practices. This indicates the positive inter-relationship
between quality management practices where the higher level
of implementation of one practice is achieved through mutual
supportive relationship among practices. Naming this as ‘‘levered
linkage’’, Morita et al. (2001) discusses that one of the most
important characteristics of successful Japanese manufactures is
their ability to create a ‘‘levered linkage structure’’ through the
communication network. The ‘‘communication and action’’ process is viewed as an underlying force that made Japanese quality
management so successful. An empirical evidence to support this
argument is found in our study. Our finding is that competitive
performance becomes more dependent on the shop-floor communication and information sharing (employee suggestion, small
group problem solving, and information feedback) in the 2000s,
while Japanese manufacturing companies maintain their focus on
the cross-functional communication and information sharing
(cross-functional design, customer involvement, and supplier quality
involvement). The effective communication and information sharing improve the effectiveness of statistical process control, allow
people to share and capture necessary information, and lead to
the behaviors that continuously improve the competitiveness of

competitive performance in Japanese manufacturing plants. The
main findings and implications derived from a series of statistical
analyses are summarized as below.
During the 1990s and the 2000s Japanese manufacturing companies explore quality management as a strategic weapon for
improving their competitive advance. Along with other factors such
as information technology and manufacturing technology, quality
management can considerably explain the high performance in
terms of conformance quality, manufacturing cost, dependability,
flexibility, time, and customer service. During the 1990s and the
2000s Japanese manufacturers maintain a consistent structure of
quality management system which characterized by top management leadership for quality, close customer relationship; sharp focus

on process management, employees’ training and participation, and
information feedback. This allows the Japanese manufacturing
maintain the competitive position in the global market as illustrated
in Fig. 2, where we can observe that the level of competitive
performance appears in similar pattern in both periods. Quality
performance (both conformance and design quality), delivery,
flexibility are rated in high in both periods while the bottoms are
two indicators concerning with manufacturing cost and inventory
which can be evaluated internally only. These indicate the confident
of Japanese managers about their quality performance while manufacturing cost and inventory remain as serious concerns for
them. The stability of Japanese quality management practices and
quality performance over the time can be explained by the fact
that quality management concepts are deeply instilled into people
in most Japanese manufacturing companies regardless of their
products and processes. The superior performance is achieved
by long-term efforts involving several strategic and human factors:
company-wide participation, emphasis on employees training,
quality circles, quality diagnoses, statistical methods, and nationalwide campaign which could not be easily graded down in a
decade.
So, what have been considerably changed between the 1990s
and the 2000s? A few practices become more or less important
over the time. For example, Japanese plants turn to more focused
on how to satisfy the customer by managing closed relationship
with customers and improving the responsiveness to customer’s
requirements. Japanese market is uniquely characterized by the
strong demand of Japanese consumers on quality and refinement.
The concept of ‘‘economical defective rate’’ is not allowed in
Japanese plants. This explains the reason why the Japanese
manufacturers have increased their attention on involving the
customers in their product quality improvement programs in the

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5

Competitive Performance in 1990's

2

Competitive Performance in 2000's

1.5
1
0.5
0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Fig. 2. Competitive performance in Japanese manufacturing companies between the 1990s and 2000s. 1: Unit cost of manufacturing 2: Conformance to product
specifications 3: On time delivery performance 4: Fast delivery 5: Flexibility to change product mix 6: Flexibility to change volume 7: Inventory turnover 8: Cycle time 9:
Speed of new product introduction 10: Product capability and performance 11: Customer support and service Note: Vertical axis shows the level of competitive
performance on a five-point Likert scale (1¼ Poor or low end of the industry, 2¼ Below average, 3 ¼Average, 4¼ Equivalent to competitor, 5 ¼Superior or top of the
industry).


A.C. Phan et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 133 (2011) 518–529

527

7
6
5
4
High Performance in 1990's
Low Performance in 1990's

3
2

1
0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

7
6
5
4

High Performance in 2000's

Low Performance in 2000's

3
2
1
0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Fig. 3. Quality management practices in Japanese manufacturing companies between the 1990s and 2000s classified by high and low performance. 1: Top management
leadership 2: Formal strategic planning 3: Training 4: Small group problem solving 5: Employee’s suggestions 6: Cross-functional product design 7: Housekeeping 8:

Process control 9: Information feedback 10: Customer involvement 11: Supplier quality involvement Note: Vertical axis shows the degree of implementation of quality
management practices on a seven-point Likert scale (1¼ Strongly disagree, 4¼ Neither agree nor disagree, 7 ¼Strongly agree).

manufacturing companies. From this analysis, researchers and
practitioners can recognize the toughness of competition in
Japanese market where the manufacturing organizations must
compete in every aspect of manufacturing management in order
to survive competitively. Beside the long term emphasizing on
process management, Japanese manager also seek for other
breakthrough solutions (to achieve superior design quality, for
example) and sometime to return to the basic techniques (good
housekeeping, for example).

6. Limitations and further research
It is important to view this study in the context of its limitations.
Methodologically, this study is based on the cross-sectional survey
data gathered via self-reported questionnaires, and individual bias in
reporting may exist. Although we addressed the issue of common
method bias through the use of multiple respondents in the same
positions at the companies in both surveys, the study still heavily
relies on the use of perceptual data. The other issue is small sample
size. Because of time and resources constraints, it is impossible to
involve more manufacturing companies into the survey. In addition,
the sample is limited to three industries. These restricted the scope
of the studies and the utilization of some data analysis techniques.
For example, we could not use the path analysis technique to
examine interrelations among quality management and competitive
performance with industry effect.
To overcome these limitations, a future research should be
conducted with larger size which allows the researchers to use

more comprehensive techniques for investigating the relationship
among quality management practices and competitive performance for specific industries, such as path analysis or structural
equation modeling. The researchers should explore both objective
and subjective performance measures in their studies, particularly
when studying a specific industry. This study indicates several
questions for future research on Japanese quality management.
For example, is there any trade-off between quality performance

and cost performance? What are determinants for Japanese high
design quality? Future study should develop new measurement
construct to capture current situations and new trends of Japanese
quality management beside the existing eleven scales used in
this study.
7. Conclusions
The Japanese economy has encountered several crises during the
1990s and the 2000s. Japanese companies still face with the
problems caused by the burst of the bubble economy and the fierce
competition from other developed countries or emergent economies. But it is believed that they overcome these problems successfully because the manufacturing sector still remains competitive. As
a core of Japanese production system, quality management is now
almost half-of-century old and seems built to endure. This study
suggests the stability of most quality management practices, which
have been still utilized to maintain the competitive advantage
of Japanese manufacturing companies. Focusing on a set of eleven
quality management practices, this study reveals their general
contribution to competitive performance in Japanese manufacturing
companies in both periods. In addition, the evidence of evolution on
Japanese quality management is detected. By the time, the Japanese
manufacturing plants become more focused on the interaction with
customers and involving customers in quality improvement activities. The influence of shop floor communication and information
sharing on the competitive performance of the plants has been also

increased. We observe that the high performance manufacturing
plants give strong focuses on implementation of small group
problem solving, employee suggestions, and information feedback.
The results of analysis indicate the linkage between quality management practices and competitive performance in terms of on-time
delivery and volume flexibility in the 2000s. The findings of this
study suggest that such components of quality management as
leadership commitment, process management, and communication
and information sharing should be explored to achieve high competitive performance.


528

A.C. Phan et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 133 (2011) 518–529

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully thank the anonymous reviewers for
making constructive comments and suggestions for improving
the original draft. The remaining errors must be attributed to
the authors only, nevertheless. The authors also appreciate the
financial support for this research from the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science by Grant-in-Aids for Scientific Research,
Nos. 19330082 and 2008317.

Appendix. Question items of quality management scales
Values show factor loading of each question item in the 1990s
and the 2000s samples.
Measurement scales
Top management leadership
All major department heads within the
plant accept their responsibility for

quality
Plant management provides personal
leadership for quality products and
quality improvement
The top priority in evaluating plant
management is quality performance
Our top management strongly
encourages employee involvement in
the production process
Our plant management creates and
communicates a vision focused on
quality improvement
Our plant management is personally
involved in quality improvement
projects
Formal strategic planning
Our plant has a formal strategic planning
process, which results in a written
mission, long-range goals and strategies
for implementation
Plants management is not included in the
formal strategic planning process. It is
concluded at higher levels in the
corporation
This plant has a strategic plan, which is
put in writing
Plant management routinely reviews and
updates a long-range strategic plan
The plant has an informal strategy, which
is not very well defined

The plant manager is part of the business
strategy planning process for business
unit(s) at the plant
Training
Our plant has a low skill level, compare
with our industry
At this plant, some employees lack
important skill
Our plant employees receive training and
development in work place skills, on a
regular basis
Management at this plant believes that
continual training and upgrading of
employee skills is important

1990s

2000s

.638

.836

.823

.851

.580

.432

.477

.544

.692

.759

.720

.831

.783

.797

.748

-

.848

.845

.771

.589

.822

.747

.668

-

.829

-

.592

-

.759

.821

.677

.715

Employees at this plant have skills that
are above average, in this industry
Our employees regularly receive training
to improve their skills
Our employees are highly skilled, in this
plant
Small group problem solving

During problem solving sessions, we
make an effort to get all team members’
opinions and ideas before making a
decision
Our plant forms teams to solve problems
In the past three years, many problems
have been solved through small group
sessions
Problem solving teams have helped
improve manufacturing processes at
this plant
Employee teams are encouraged to try to
solve their own problems, as much as
possible
We don’t use problem solving teams
much, in this plant
Employee suggestion
Management takes all product and
process improvement suggestions
seriously.
We are encouraged to make suggestions
for improving performance at this
plant.
Management tells us why our
suggestions are implemented or not
used.
Many useful suggestions are
implemented at this plant
My suggestions are never taken seriously
around here

Cross-functional product design
Direct labor employees are involved to a
great extent before introducing new
products or making product changes
Manufacturing engineers are involved to
a great extent before the introduction
of new products
There is little involvement of
manufacturing and quality people in
the early design or products, before
they reach the plant
We work in teams, with members from a
variety of areas (marketing,
manufacturing, etc.) to introduce new
products
Housekeeping
Our plant emphasizes putting all tools
and fixtures in their place
We take pride in keeping our plant neat
and clean
Our plant is kept clean at all times
Employees often have trouble finding the
tools they need
Our plant is disorganized and dirty
Process control
Customer requirements are thoroughly
analyzed in the new product design
process

.771

.658

–

.841

–

Removed

.513

Removed

.748
.755

.772
.627

.773

.783

.536

Removed

–

.846

.640

.827

.783

.657

.684

.705

.596

.788

.770

.761

.819

.652

.828

.777

.535

.753

.738

.732

.645

.669

.857

.839

.764
.660

.871
.685

.850

.840

.654

-

A.C. Phan et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 133 (2011) 518–529

Processes in our plant are designed to be
‘‘foolproof’’
A large percent of the processes on the
shop floor are currently under
statistical quality control
We make extensive use of statistical
techniques to reduce variance in
processes
We use charts to determine whether our
manufacturing processes are in control
We monitor our processes using
statistical process control
Information feedback
Charts showing defect rates are posted
on the shop floor
Charts showing schedule compliance are
posted on the shop floor
Charts plotting the frequency of machine
breakdowns are posted on the shop
floor
Information on quality performance is
readily available to employees
Information on productivity is readily
available to employees
My manager never comments about the
quality of my work

Customer involvement
We frequently are in close contact with
our customers
Our customers seldom visit our plant
Our customers give us feedback on our
quality and delivery performance
Our customers are actively involved in
our product design process
We strive to be highly responsive to our
customers’ needs
We regularly survey our customers’
needs
Supplier quality involvement
We strive to establish long-term
relationships with suppliers
Our suppliers are actively involved in our
new product development process
Quality is our number one criterion in
selecting suppliers
We use mostly suppliers that we have
certified
We maintain close communication with
suppliers about quality considerations
and design changes
We actively engage suppliers in our
quality improvement efforts
We would select a quality supplier over
one with a lower price

.675

.761

Removed .840

.739

.823

.654

.713

.675

.884

.714

.664

.752

.706

.660

.673

.724

.813

.529

.748

.729

-

.684

.628

Removed Removed
.617
.720
.590

Removed

.602

.793

.757

.797

.632

.609

.594

.671

.645

.448

Removed .683
.699

.766

–

.783

–

.549

References
Anderson, J.C., Rungtusanatham, M., Schroeder, R.G., Devaraj, S., 1995. A path
analytic model of a theory of quality management underlying the Deming

529

Management Method: preliminary empirical findings. Decision Sciences 26
(5), 637–658.
Choi, T.Y., Liker, J.K., 1995. Bringing Japanese continuous improvement approaches
to US manufacturing: the roles of process orientation and communications.
Decision Sciences 26 (5), 589–616.
Cua, K.O., McKone, K.E., Schroeder, R.G., 2001. Relationship between implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM and manufacturing performance. Journal of
Operations Management 9 (6), 675–694.
Das, A., Handfield, R.B., Calantone, R.J., Ghosh, S., 2000. A contingent view of
quality management—the impact of international competition on quality.
Decision Sciences 31 (3), 649–690.
Dow, D., Samson, D., Ford, S., 1999. Exploding the myth: do all quality management practices contribute to superior quality performance? Production and
Operations Management 8 (1), 1–27.
Flynn, B.B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R.G., Bates, K.A., Flynn, E.J., 1990. Empirical
research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management 9 (2), 250–284.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G., Sakakibara, S., 1994. A framework for quality management research and an associated measurement instrument. Journal of Operations Management 11 (4), 339–366.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G., Sakakibara, S., 1995. The impact of quality management practices on performance and competitive advantage. Decision Sciences
26 (5), 659–691.
Forza, C., Flippini, R., 1998. TQM impact on quality conformance and customer
satisfaction: a causal model. International Journal of Production Economics 55
(1), 1–20.
Fujimoto, T., 2004. A twenty-first-century strategy for Japanese manufacturing.
Japan Echo 31 (1), 20–25.
Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C., 1984. Restoring our Competitive Edge: Competing
through Manufacturing. Wiley, New York.
Imai, M., 1986. Kaizen: The Key to Japanese Competitive Success. Random House,
New York.
Kaynak, H., 2003. The relationship between total quality management practices
and their effects on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management 21
(4), 405–435.

Kono, T., Clegg, S.R., 2001. Trends in Japanese Management. Palgrave, London.
Matsui, Y., 2002a. Contribution of manufacturing departments to technology
development: an empirical analysis for machinery, electrical and electronics,
and automobile plants in Japan. International Journal of Production Economics
80 (2), 185–197.
Matsui, Y., 2002b. An empirical analysis of quality management in Japanese
manufacturing companies. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of
the Asia-Pacific Decision Sciences Institute, APDSI, pp.1–18.
Matsui, Y., 2007. An empirical analysis of just-in-time production in Japanese
manufacturing companies. International Journal of Production Economics 108
(1-2), 153–164.
Morita, M., Sakikabara, S., Matsui, Y., Sato, O., 2001. Japanese manufacturing
organization: are they still competitive. In: Schroeder, R.G., Flynn, B.B. (Eds.),
High Performance Manufacturing: Global Perspectives. John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Nunnally, J., 1967. Psychometric Theory. McGraw Hill, New York.
Ohno, T., 1988. Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production.
Productivity Press, Cambridge.
Parast, M.M., Adam, S.G., Jones, E.C., Rao, S.S., Raghu-Nathan, T.S., 2006. Comparing
quality management practices between the United States and Mexico. Quality
Management Journal 13 (4), 36–49.
Phan, C.A., Matsui, Y., 2009. Effect of quality management on competitive
performance in manufacturing companies: international perspective. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management 4 (2), 153–177.
Sakakibara, S., Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G., 1993. A framework and measurement
instrument for Just-in-Time manufacturing. Production and Operations Management 2 (3), 177–194.
Sako, M., 1999. From individual skills to organizational capability in Japan. Oxford
Review of Economic Policy 15 (1), 114–126.
Samson, D., Terziovski, M., 1999. The relationship between total quality management practices and operational performance. Journal of Operations Management 17 (4), 393–409.
Schroeder, R.G., Flynn, B.B., 2001. High Performance Manufacturing: Global
Perspectives. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Schonberger, R.J., 1986. World Class Manufacturing: The Lessons of Simplicity
Applied. Free Press, New York.
Schonberger, R.J., 2007. Japanese production management: an evolution-with
mixed success. Journal of Operations Management 25 (2), 403–419.
Takeishi, A., 2001. Bridging inter- and intra-firm boundaries: management of
supplier involvement in automobile product development. Strategic Management Journal 22 (5), 403–433.
Yeung, A.C.L., Cheng, T.C.E., Lai, K.H., 2005. An empirical model for managing
quality in the electronic industry. Production and Operations Management 14
(2), 189–204.