TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

, VOL. 11, NO. 3, 2000, 281± 294
Total quality management implementation frameworks: comparison and review
SHA’RI MOHD YUSOF & ELAINE ASPINWALL School of Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
ABSTRACT One of the most in¯ uential factors in ensuring total quality management (TQM) adoption success is the formulation of a sound implementation framework prior
to embarking on such a change process. Current frameworks seem to have been developed and derived primarily from the context and experience of larger sized
organizations rather than small businesses. They tend to be complex and too prescriptive, rather than being a general guide. This paper compares and reviews a sample
of the existing frameworks found in the literature. The ® rst part focuses on understanding small businesses in terms of their de® nition and characterizes the diþ
erences between large and small businesses with respect to TQM implementation. It is followed by analysing the proposed frameworks as to their suitability and
applicability to small and medium-sized enterprises (referred to as small businesses). This particular sector is chosen because it provides much needed attention,
especially if TQM is to be sustained by the larger multinational organizations. By improving the small business sector, the resultant eþ ect on the overall economy
will be tremendous. A discussion is included on the future research direction for the development of a framework to meet the needs of small businesses.
Introduction
Total quality management (TQM) has been described as a management philosophy and a way of thinking that has helped many organizations towards achieving world-class
status. These organizations are able to produce quality products and services that meet and exceed the needs of their customers. TQM helps create a culture of trust,
participation, teamwork, quality-mindedness, zeal for continuous improvement, continuous learning and, ultimately, a working culture that contributes towards a ® rm’s
success and existence. This paper looks at diþ erences between large and small business TQM adoption. It will look at the diþ erent models and frameworks used as a
starting point for implementation. Many of the frameworks found are not well adapted to the needs of a small business environment. Not many researchers have actually
addressed this problem and it is argued that a framework that is more suitable for smaller businesses can and should be developed to meet the shortcomings. The
implementation of TQM is one of the most complex activities that any company can attempt, the main reason being that it involves a change in working culture and
impacts people (Kanji & Barker, 1990). Glover (1993) argued that many organizations do not actually understand the complexity of organizational change and innovation.
It is only appropriate
Correspondence: E. Aspinwall, School of Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. E-mail:
E.Aspinwall@bham.ac.uk
ISSN 0954-4127 print/ISSN 1360-0613 online/00/030281-14 € 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd
282 S. MOHD YUSOF & E. ASPINWALL
that a sound implementation framework be developed before actual implementation to ensure a successful adoption of TQM in any organization. The purpose here is not to
compare each and every one of the frameworks proposed in the literature, but to provide an overall perspective and understanding of the main diþ erences and
similarities. Once this is achieved, the way will be paved for the further development of a framework for small businesses.
De® ning small businesses
There is no consensus on the de® nition of a small business; variations exist between countries, industries and even diþ erent government agencies within one country.
Numerous authors, such as Bolton (1971), Hertz (1982), Anthony (1983), Storey (1994) and Corman and Lussier (1996), have discussed this in depth. Small businesses will
be treated in a similar way to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in this study and are taken to be those which employ fewer than 250 workers, as adopted by DTI
(1996).
Diþ erences between large and small businesses
Before discussing the various implementation frameworks, it is appropriate ® rst to try and characterize the small business sector with regard to quality
implementation by comparing both large and small businesses. By doing so, the small business context can be put into perspective and it will be possible to understand
why current implementation frameworks are not suitable for small businesses. Ghobadian and Gallear (1997) made a list of the diþ erences that exist between large and
small and medium-sized businesses. After a careful analysis of the items put forward, a modi® cation was made, adding the advantages and disadvantages with respect to
the main characteristics; these are shown in Table 1. Certain characteristics can encourage the process of implementing TQM, while others can hinder it. Some of the
advantages are:
· a ¯ at structure and short decision-making process allows shorter and faster information ¯ ow which can improve communication; · a low degree of specialization
(generalist) results in having a broader perspective of issues and problems rather than narrow specialist functional viewsÐ better in providing improvement ideas; ·
high management visibility and closeness to point of deliveryÐ easier to permeate new change initiatives; · a uni® ed culture provides a good foundation for change,
e.g. the adoption of TQM; · the high incidence of innovativeness can nurture a continuous improvement culture; · people-dominated together with organic behaviour,
rather than bureaucratic and system-dominated, helps improve the chances of success for new initiatives.
In terms of structure, processes and people, a small business seems to be in an advantageous position for adoption of a new change initiative, provided that the
owner/management has the commitment to and leadership of the change process, together with a sound knowledge of it. Small businesses can provide high-quality
employment in terms of involvement and a generally high level of satisfaction (Thompson & Leyden, 1983). There are also characteristics that can result in a
disadvantageous situation. The most important is believed to be the ® nancial and human resources constraint faced by many small businesses. Other disadvantages
include:
· Lack of ® nancial resources, which can aþ ect investment in new products and processes.
TQM IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORKS 283
Table 1. Small business characteristicsÐ advantages and disadvantages
Characteristics Advantage Disadvantage
Structure Flat with very few layers of Faster communication line, quick Low specialization may result in management, top management decision-making process, faster
lack of expertise in change highly visible and close to the point implementation, short decision- initiatives. Need outside assistance. of delivery. Less delegation.
making chain Owner controls everything and Division of activities limited and lack of delegation can sti¯ e growth unclear. Low degree of specialization. Flexible
structure and information ¯ ows. Strategic process incremental and heuristic
Systems and procedures Activities and operations not Simple system allows ¯ exibility and Lack of proper systemÐ diý culty governed by formal rules and fast response
to customer needs in ensuring eý ciency of work, and procedures. Low degree of high variability in work outcome. standardization and formalization. `Gut feeling’
approach may result People-dominated. Simple in wrong decisions planning and control system. Incidence of `gut feeling’ decisions more prevalent. Informal evaluation,
control and reporting procedure. Flexible and adaptable processes
Culture and behaviour Operations and behaviour of Corporate mind-set is conducive Uncommitted or dictatorial owner/ employees in¯ uenced by owners’/ for new change
initiatives, i.e. manager ethos can damage new managers’ ethos and outlook. company ® rst. Uni® ed culture can initiatives Organic, not strong departmental/ be good
starting point for, say, functional mind-set, corporate TQM mind-set. Uni® ed culture. Resultoriented
Human resources Personal authority mainly high. High authority and responsibility Lack of ® nancial support, e.g. no Few decision-makers. Dominated can ensure job is
done. Innovative training budget ad hoc, and smallby pioneers and entrepreneurs. environment will support scale approach can sti¯ e Individual creativity encouraged
improvement culture. Early union improvement eþ orts. Improvement and high incidence of involvement needed to ensure needs investment in human innovativeness. Modest
human success. Fewer employeesÐ better resources capital, ® nancial resources and relationship, knows almost know-how. Individuals normally everyone can see the
results of their endeavours. Low incidence of unionization. Low degree of resistance to change. More generalist, some staþ may cover more than one department
Markets and customers Span of activities narrow. Limited Immediate feedback from International marketing expensive, external contacts. Normally customers can make
response after sales support not as extensive dependent on a small customer quicker. Understand better as large businesses. Easily base. Close contact, easily customer
needs suppressed/dictated by larger accessible and many known multinationals (if they are personally. Mostly local market, customers), e.g. imposed ISO few national or
international 9000, QS 9000, EMS, etc.
284 S. MOHD YUSOF & E. ASPINWALL
· Training and staþ development being ad hoc and small scale can hinder the improvement eþ ort. · Owner not delegating and trying to control every aspect of the
businessÐ can sti¯ e teamwork and involvement. · Improper and inadequate system and procedures can aþ ect eý ciency and will result in dissatisfaction from employees,
e.g. inconsistent industrial relations policies between diþ erent people.
These are some of the examples relating to the characteristics of a small business. The advantages and disadvantages of being small can shape the way they conduct
their improvement eþ orts. Many small businesses complain about the problems they are faced with, such as lack of time and money, usually resulting in ® re-® ghting
these problems. They may not have time to plan, to improve or even to adopt new managerial techniques; but they can improve through the proper adoption of improvement
tools and techniques which ultimately can save them a lot of time and money wasted through ineý cient processes and which can provide them with better ways of doing
things, i.e. a quality job. However, not having a proper guide and blindly following what their `big brothers’ in larger organizations are doing can be disastrous.
Welsh and White (1981) summed it up quite aptly when they stated that a small business should not be treated like a little large business. Clearly, these
characteristics must be understood ® rst before attempting to introduce or adopt new initiatives such as TQM.
De® ning an implementation framework
Many writers have often used the term framework in TQM implementation without really de® ning it. Some writers have referred to it as being a prescriptive set of
things to do, while others have chosen to portray the frameworks through diagrams or graphical representations. There also seems to be no mention as to whether or not
a TQM model is equivalent to a TQM implementation framework. It is assumed here that a model answers the question of `what is TQM’, with the overall concept or
elements put down together, whereas a framework answers `how to’ questions and provides an overall way forward. The Reader’s Digest Universal Dictionary (1987) de® nes
framework as “a structure for supporting, de® ning, or enclosing something; especially, skeletal erections and supports as a basis for something to be constructed’’
and also “a basic arrangement, form, or system’’. A framework is also a set of basic assumptions or fundamental principles of intellectual origin in which discussions
and actions can proceed (Popper, 1994). If TQM is to be theoretically `designed and constructed’, then one would need to have the overall picture and structure for
implementing, which is referred to as a framework, for carrying out those relevant and important activities. Aalbregtse et al. (1991) de® ned a framework as being “a
clear picture of the leadership goal for the organization and should present key characteristics of the to-be style of business operations’’. In TQM terms, it means
that one should design and develop a framework representing the modus operandi, the systems to be developed, the activities to be carried out and the ultimate vision
of the new style of managing quality in the organization. Struebing and Klaus (1997) argued that a sound implementation plan should de® ne what the organization does,
what it is trying to do and how it is going to do it, ensuring that each step builds on the previous one. Hakes (1991) concluded that a sound framework secures links
between concepts and practical application. This means translating TQM theory into practice through some systematic means.
TQM IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORKS 285
Wrong implementation approaches to TQM are perhaps the most frequent reason for failure (Glover, 1993). One problem is that the mission, the strategy and the needed
values are not interfaced with the TQM approach. Many organizations seem trapped with the notion that TQM is something that is added on to their existing system. TQM
should be seen as a new way of managing the business. However, trying to change from a culture in which ® re-® ghting prevails to a new culture in which constant plans
are made, improvement is a norm and the attitude is proactive rather than waiting for problems to occur, is quite a formidable task. It will de® nitely require a new
thinking style, the thinking for quality. Some of the reasons why a framework is needed are (Aalbregtse et al., 1991):
· To illustrate an overview of TQM so as to communicate a new vision of the organization. · It forces management to address a substantial list of key issues which
otherwise might not be addressed. · It gives an insight into the organization’s strengths and weaknesses. · Most importantly, to support implementation and to improve
the chances that TQM adoption will be successful.
In short, developing a sound implementation framework is crucial and should be one of the ® rst things to be done before embarking on TQM. The framework will make the
organization more aware of TQM itself, and be able to introduce its elements and features in a more comprehensive, controlled and timely manner.
Implementation framework classi® cation
Diþ erent approaches have been developed, re¯ ecting the particular author’s background and experience (Dale & Prapopoulos, 1995). In this section, the various
frameworks proposed by researchers, consultants and experts in the ® eld are reviewed. A full coverage of all frameworks would be impractical, but as far as possible,
the most widely published and relevant ones are presented. It is not intended that these form a de® nitive list of frameworks available, but rather a representative
sample of the most common ones mentioned and proposed. From the various frameworks and models researched, they have been categorized into three broad types, namely:
(1) Consultants/experts based. (2) Awards based. (3) Academic based.
Basically, consultants-based frameworks are those derived from personal opinion and judgement through experience in providing consultancy to organizations embarking on
the TQM journey. Academic-based frameworks are those developed by academics and researchers mainly through their own research and experience in the ® eld. Although
awards-based frameworks are meant mainly for organizations seeking to be recognized as leaders in the quality management ® eld, some authors, such as Ghobadian and Woo
(1996), have suggested that they can be used as guidelines for implementation, while Hewitt (1997) has the opinion that they are more of a self-assessment tool. The
authors tend to agree that awards-based frameworks are more suitable for self-assessment as well as to gain recognition of a company’s eþ ort towards applying for an
award. Award-based models are but one of the tools within the spectrum of quality initiatives to be employed when an organization has reached a mature level of TQM
implementation. An additional subcategory separately discussed is the small and medium-sized frameworks proposed by consultants and academics. This is so that they
286 S. MOHD YUSOF & E. ASPINWALL
can be diþ erentiated from the rest of the frameworks whose applicability to SMEs was not the primary focus.
Consultants/experts-based framework
All the quality gurus are or were consultants at one stage in their career. Deming’s implementation approach can best be described by his 14 points for management
(Deming, 1986). They actually comprise a set of `things to do by top management’ in trying to change the prevalent management thinking of large companies in the US.
His approach advocated management to change their business culture by adopting a quality improvement attitude for products, processes and services. Crosby (1980) gave
his famous 14-step quality improvement programme, which can be described as a stepwise method towards building total quality into an organization. Juran (1993)
provided 12 clearly laid out steps for organizations to follow. It is worth noting that their working background was all in large organizations, e.g. the ITT
Corporation and the General Electric Bell Labs. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that their approach primarily targeted large organizations, which was also pointed
out by Ghobadian and Gallear (1997). Adams (1994) described an implementation framework used for guiding TQM implementation in the Harris Corporation. The model
described how the company identi® ed a focus and set correct goals towards TQM adoption based on ® ve main stages: assessment and understanding; setting the course;
focusing; planning and aligning; and actual implementation. Aalbregtse et al. (1991) proposed two implementation frameworks in the form of ¯ ow diagrams, which they
called total customer value (TCV) and the umbrella of TQM. The TCV framework places a strong emphasis on customer values and incorporates the supply network into the
model. Both these frameworks are very complex, they contain a lot of jargon and probably target large companies where knowledge, skills and resources are in abundance.
However, it can be argued that it is far from suitable for small businesses because: (1) the jargon used may cause confusion; (2) the framework itself is complex; and
(3) it does not consider the small business environment. Berry (1991) prescribed a model containing 15 sectors within concentric circles to denote the evolutionary
nature of the process. The inner most circle begins with realizing the needs, then structuring for quality, determining customers needs, designing the quality process,
quality planning, quality improvement teams, unit-level quality, training, awareness and promotion, recognition, demanding vendor quality, enhancing the process and, ®
nally, monitoring and measuring progress. Certain issues, such as training and awareness, may require much earlier attention in the implementation process. However,
Berry had placed it on the outer concentric circle, which is obviously a bit late. How does one conduct quality improvement without ® rst providing the necessary
training to the people involved on various aspects including necessary tools and concepts for improvement? Together with this is the need to establish a proper
improvement infrastructure and the required procedures for conducting improvement activities. Hakes’s (1991) management framework for TQM attempted to answer pertinent
questions relating to implementation, such as: What are the missions, aims and objectives that the company wishes to achieve in the short and long term and how are
these communicated? How are external customer and competitor data gathered? How will performance be measured? How are improvement opportunities highlighted and
communicated? How will the whole process be coordinated? All these ideas are aimed at continuous ongoing improvement.
TQM IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORKS 287
Hakes’s model is simple but too prescriptive and lacks some important elements, such as the quality tools and techniques, quality system and human resource issues.
However, its simplicity oþ ers an attractive option to start with when developing an implementation framework.
Awards-based framework
Quality awards have been used by many organizations either as a tool to assess their progress towards TQM adoption or to compete for the particular award for which
they applied. The Malcolm Baldridge Award is said not only to codify the principles of quality management in a clear and accessible language, but also to provide
companies with a comprehensive framework for assessing their progress towards the new paradigm of management (Garvin, 1991). Garvin (1991) pointed out that the “best
way to understand the Baldridge criteria is as an audit framework’’ which tells companies where, and in what ways, it must demonstrate pro® ciency in managing quality.
However, it does not actually provide an answer on how to proceed towards the criteriaÐ the categories are, in a sense, a `to do list’. It is an assessment tool that
companies can use once TQM has started. Some writers have advocated the use of the Malcolm Baldridge and European Quality Award (EQA) model as a framework for TQM
implementation (Ghobadian & Gallear, 1997; Thompson & Simmons, 1997). They suggested that quality awards are particularly useful for smaller companies and provide a
framework for the implementation of total quality. However, they fall short of describing how they could actually be used. Ghobadian and Woo (1996) mentioned that
“small companies lack knowledge of how to implement total quality and cannot aþ ord to engage expensive consultants’’. Award-based models, when used by small
businesses as an implementation framework, would be too complicated, elaborate and involve jargon with which many small business managers may not be familiar. Not all
small businesses are as advanced in their application of quality tools and practices as large businesses. Hewitt (1997) described in some detail the diý culties
involved in getting small businesses to conduct self-assessment based on the EQA model. Small businesses, according to Hewitt (1997), do not see the need for business
excellence when they are too tied up with their day-to-day survival. They also do not see the bene® ts, such as the marketing advantage, in getting the award as
compared to being certi® ed to ISO 9000 where they can use maximum publicity. It can be argued that award-based models are not for the beginners; they are only useful
when a company has already begun its quality journey and wants to enhance its programmes as well as for those who want to add to their milestone of `honour rolls’ in
quality achievements.
Academic-based frameworks
Diþ erent researchers in academia have developed some form of implementation framework for adopting TQM. Oakland (1993) outlined a TQM implementation plan consisting
of a series of seven key steps. The ® rst three are gaining commitment to change, developing a shared mission and de® ning the measurable objectives. The next four
comprise developing the mission into its critical success factors, understanding the key critical processes and gaining ownership, breaking down the critical processes
into sub-processes, activities, tasks and, ® nally, monitoring and adjusting the process alignment in response to diý culties in the change process. Together with
these steps he incorporates a plan± do± check± act (PDCA) cycle for the purpose of pursuing never-ending improvement. Dale (1995) proposed the UMIST Quality
Improvement Framework for the purpose of
288 S. MOHD YUSOF & E. ASPINWALL
showing how the various elements and features of TQM ® t together. He stressed that it is particularly useful for organizations that
· are taking their ® rst steps on the quality improvement journey; · have ISO 9000 registration and require guidance on what to do next; · are attempting to develop
quality improvement plans and controls in a number of sites; · have less than 3 years’ operating experience of quality improvement.
The UMIST model seems to be more succinct with regard to basic issues to be addressed, with four main sections being: organizing for improvement; systems and
techniques; measurement and feedback; and culture change. However, the framework still suþ ers from certain limitations in that some of its features are more
applicable to large companies than small. Some of the problems Dale mentioned were:
· small companies do not see the same need as large companies for formal long-term plans for quality improvement; · the responsibility for organizational change in
small companies is left mainly with the Managing Director, whereas in large companies it is shared among various teams and levels of senior management.
Kanji’s (1996) modi® ed pyramid model, together with his four-stage process of implementing TQM, represents an attractive and practical implementation framework for
companies to follow. His four stages are incorporated in the PDCA format. They are identi® cation and preparation, management understanding and commitment, scheme of
understanding and critical analysis. The implementation approach seems to be more inclined towards problemsolving or improvement steps. Issues for implementation that
must be addressed are questions such as what kind of systems, activities and procedures need to be designed and developed before one can say that TQM is operational.
For example, at the identi® cation stage Kanji pointed out the need to identify and collect information where improvement will have the most impact. This will require
a management information or a fact-based data collection system. Without the existence of such a system, especially for a small business just starting on TQM, it would
be diý cult but not impossible to start with the ® rst stage. Basically, it can be argued that one would need to have a proper information system, a quality
improvement infrastructure and system, or other management systems in place before and during the implementation phase. These `employee and customer friendly systems’,
when properly designed, can aþ ect people’s actions to change and ultimately improve prevalent culture. For example, just by saying that one needs to have quality
improvement alone is not enough. Clear responsibilities must be assigned on developing policies and procedures, when to activate teams and their corresponding
composition, a proper training system, as well as plans to enhance and sustain the whole TQM process. The organization needs to design a quality improvement system
that addresses policy matters, the infrastructure, the types of projects to undertake, training and education and other basic necessities. Early involvement from
employees or unions is also important for success as well as the signals of management commitment, attitude and necessary behavioural changes, if this has not been a
practice before. An extensive and complex framework was developed by Mann (1992). His model is considered complex because there are many components interacting and
dependent on each other. There is a `TQM implementation approach’ comprising a `TQM implementation system’ and `TQM quality activities’ that can improve `operational
business performance’ and ® nally impacts on `strategic business performance’. Within the categories themselves, there are still many individual items that need to be
addressed, such as implementation
TQM IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORKS 289
change agent, implementation driver, rate of TQM implementation, etc. The complexity may have derived from the large company-based frameworks from which he obtained
his information. Of the 21 companies Mann studied, 14 were large, six having more than 2000 employees, the remaining being small and medium-sized companies. He
claimed, however, that the smaller the number of employees, the easier it is to implement TQM. In fact, from his model small companies may become discouraged with the
complexity involved, let alone trying to understand the philosophy of TQM itself. The authors would also argue that if it is easier for small businesses then there
should be many small companies which have already been successful in their TQM eþ ort. However, this is not the case. The facts show that many small companies are
actually failing in their eþ orts, as reported by Doherty (1995). Again, it is crucial not to overlook the actual diý culties of small business involvement in TQM as
well as in determining ways of assisting them to adopt TQM more successfully. Glover (1993) proposed a ® ve-stage implementation framework consisting of awareness,
education, structural change, necessary activities and outcomes or expected improvements. He proposed a TQM system design looking into issues such as whether there
have been any management± union con¯ icts, the cultural backgrounds of employees and conducting baseline evaluation of the organization, e.g. through organizational
surveys. Other design considerations include details of the transformation process and how the TQM system will be structured, such as how many quality teams, members
selection, the communication systems, plans to educate the existing staþ , how new managers and employees will learn the TQM process, and how the management
information and accounting systems should be modi® ed to enhance TQM and revenue generation. Eþ ective design based on a thorough analysis of the organization and its
operating environment will de® nitely provide a sound foundation for the path to successful TQM implementation.
Small and medium-sized companies’ frameworks
Few studies were found speci® c to small businesses. Ghobadian and Gallear (1997) proposed a 10-step approach for TQM implementation in SMEs. The ® rst step involves
recognition of need, then an understanding of the concepts and establishing goals for the quality improvement process. A step which calls for creating a systematic
procedure, e.g. BS EN ISO 9000, seems to be pointing to the direction that these procedures can solve the quality problems in small businesses. In actual fact, it is
the preventive system for quality assurance that should be the focus here. Moreover, there are diþ erent systems in use, such as AQAP or QS 9000, for quality assurance
that can be developed according to a company’s requirement. Ho and Fung (1994) developed a stepwise implementation model applicable in SMEs which they called the TQM
excellence model. It provides a step-by-step guide for SMEs to follow, but is too prescriptive and seems to be very technically inclined, with all the Japanese
concepts such as QCC, 5S, ISO 9000 and TPM included. Unlike Kanji’s and Dale’s models, Ho and Fung’s looks incomplete, since it lacks other important elements such as
cultural issues, education and training, measurement aspects, etc. QCC may be suitable for a particular industry or even a country; it is not a generic concept but a
name given to quality improvement activities. Asher (1992) provides a practical guide to implementing TQM in SMEs based on his experience as a consultant. He suggested
establishing a structure for improvement, de® ning responsibilities and appointing a total quality coordinator on a part-time basis. Education and training was
suggested for everyone in the organization and he explicitly divided education into the principles of total quality and training to be carried out on tools and
techniques for
290 S. MOHD YUSOF & E. ASPINWALL
problem-solving. An important step is to plan for improvement. Improvement eþ orts can be derived from initial assessment, quality cost data, internal customer
problems or by focusing on the business processes. In ensuring total quality permanency, he suggested measuring success as well as communicating and recognizing
results. His implementation framework can be summarized in four stages, namely diagnostic, commitment, implementation and review. The diagnostic stage is required for
establishing the need for change, which can show management and employees where to start. Some of the methods suggested by Asher are: (1) investigating cost of
quality; (2) conducting customer perception surveys; (3) collecting data on employees perceptions; and (4) establishing systems and procedures, e.g. BS EN ISO 9000.
Asher’s framework is simple; however, like Kanji’s (1996), he assumed that a small company already has in place a data collection system, such as quality costing.
Companies that do not have some form of data collection system will need one prior to conducting the diagnostic stage. Some small companies will need to develop a
suitable system which can actually integrate the measurement aspect right from the start without having to develop two separate systems for diagnosing and monitoring
purposes. So, improvement actually entails ® nding out what to improve, measuring results, comparing with some expected targets and reviewing for continuous
improvement. An integrated measuring system will be cheaper than isolated measuring systems where each measurement criterion or tool is used separately at diþ erent
stages. Huxtable (1995) prescribed an implementation plan which he claimed is typical for small companies. He suggested four main elements, starting with education and
awareness, then on to management team commitment, planning (through customer review, employee survey, cost of quality, business process analysis) and ® nally
implementation activity (through training, problem-solving, teamworking, statistical tools). He recognized that the small business manager may be at a loss as to where
to start, especially considering the wide range of implementation strategies put forward by leading exponents of TQM.
Discussion
Some of the most important and relevant implementation frameworks have been presented. In spite of this, some are probably still in the hands of consultants,
academics, or researchers who may not yet have published them. However, it is felt that those discussed are suý cient to highlight the major issues. It can be argued
that the quality gurus, such as Deming, Crosby and Juran, did not actually develop any implementation framework. They devised some improvement steps and advice for
management to follow, which were more of a prescription for companies to act upon. How to do it was solely up to each and every organization. Some of the followers of
these gurus have moved a step forward and developed frameworks for adopting TQM. Oakland’s implementation framework, and Dale’s UMIST framework, are possibly
derivatives of the guru’s principles presented in a diþ erent form. However, Kanji’s pyramid model (1996), with his four-stage implementation procedure, is the ® rst
to provide a systematic way to implement TQM. Aalbregtse et al.’s (1991) and Mann’s (1992) frameworks are too complex and complicated in nature for SMEs to apply. As
described earlier, they contain too many elements and are suitable for organizations having specialist job functions, clearly depicting a large company structure.
Together with this is the number of people required to execute various tasks of implementing TQM, such as data collection for improvement, supplier appraisal, quality
system development, etc. again resembling a large company situation. An implementation framework, when developed from a small business perspective, needs to be less
complex to
TQM IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORKS 291
suit the particular organizational context in question. Small businesses are constrained by human and ® nancial resources; so, implementing TQM based on such
complicated frameworks can be disastrous. Besides being complex, it was felt that some of the frameworks assumed that certain systems are already in place before
implementing TQM. For example, Asher’s (1992) and Kanji’s (1996) frameworks assumed that data collection for quality costs or a customer feedback system already
existed or could be achieved before the implementation. This is not true of all SMEs. It may be true for large businesses. Therefore, it is not appropriate to assume
that all small businesses have systems that are comparable to their large counterpart’s system before implementing TQM. Systems such as data collection or quality
costs, which are prerequisites to TQM adoption, must ® rst be checked for availability and improved if needed. Data and information form the basic foundation for any
continuous improvement process. Even those frameworks claimed to be suitable for SMEs are too prescriptive and seem to provide one de® nitive solution in the form of
`steps to be taken’ rather than a general outline for the way towards implementing TQM. For example, a step which called for certi® cation to BS EN ISO 9000 portrayed
a false picture of TQM implementation. Small businesses must be informed of a need for a system for quality assurance in their eþ ort towards TQM, but not based solely
on BS EN ISO 9000. Ho and Fung’s model (1994) is very much tool-oriented and believed not to be exhaustive, since many elements of TQM are not included. Implementation
frameworks should provide an overall view towards building total quality in an organization. One major diþ erence between the frameworks is the structure in which they
were presented. Except for Aalbregtse et al.’s (1991), Dale’s (1995) and Mann’s (1992) frameworks, all the rest are based on steps to follow. These frameworks can be
said to have a `step approach structure’, while the remaining ones seem to ® t a so-called `system approach structure’, whereby an overall picture is presented. The
major similarity between the frameworks is that they can be condensed into the four major elements of the PDCA cycle: planning what to do, doing what has been planned,
checking results or eþ ects of what has been done, and ® nally acting upon those results in terms of standardization, further improvement, or feedback. Although diþ
erent terms were used, they actually represent the same meaning in a particular element, such as planning. For example, the terms assessment, diagnostic or recognition
of needs carry the same activity in the planning stage. The activities, elements and ideas in the frameworks were analysed and have been categorized into a PDCA
format, and are shown in Tables 2± 4. The problems highlighted in this short review indicate that current implementation frameworks still suþ er from weaknesses and
are far from suitable for SMEs to adopt. SMEs diþ er in terms of their structures, processes, resources and behavioural aspects, all of which will need to be
considered if a framework that ® ts the purpose is to be developed. Therefore, the weaknesses which have been highlighted must be overcome in order for such a
framework to be suitable for small businesses.
Conclusions and future research
The implementation of TQM is not and has not been an easy task for many organizations. This paper began with an overview of the small business, it provided a de®
nition and elaborated on the characteristics that can impact its TQM implementation. It was argued that certain advantages inherent in small businesses can facilitate
TQM adoption in these organizations. However, there are factors that can be disadvantageous, such as lack of
292 S. MOHD YUSOF & E. ASPINWALL
Table 2. Similarities of academic-based frameworks using PDCA elements
Oakland (1993) Kanji (1996) Mann (1992) Dale (1995) Glover (1993)
Framework structure Step approach Step approach System approach System approach Step approach Planning Goals, targets Identi® cation TQM Organizing Awareness, and
strategies and preparation, implementation TQM design management approach understanding Doing Developing Scheme for TQM Systems and Education, factcritical success
improvement implementation techniques based problemfactors, most system solving critical processes Check Measure Measure Measure Measurement Measure performance
business performance performance Action Corrective Critical analysis Feedback Continuous action teams improvement
Table 3. Similarities of consultant-based frameworks using PDCA elements
Aalbregtse et al. Adams (1994) (1991) Berry (1991) Hakes (1991)
Framework structure Step approach System approach Step approach Step approach Planning Assessment of Voice of customer, Realize need, Steering of TQ current situation,
comprehensive structure for quality, programme, formulate key assessment, business designing quality communication of strategies strategy process, quality missions,
aims and planning objectives Doing Education, Developing and Determine customer Collection and employees’ improving business needs, quality collation of external
alignment processes and improvement teams, intelligence systems training Check Detail goals, Monitoring and Monitoring and Measurement of objectives assessment
measuring performance Action Implementation of Continuous Enhancing the Continuous plan improvement process, recognition implementation of framework improvements
resources, which need particular attention when designing a suitable implementation framework. This implies that a simple framework will be better for small
businesses. This paper has also reviewed various implementation frameworks found in the literature. By classifying them into the various major types, consultant-based,
award-based, academicbased and small and medium-sized business frameworks, it has provided some light on the strengths, weaknesses, similarities and diþ erences that
exist between them. Most of the frameworks found were argued not to be suitable for small businesses. Even if they appear to be suitable, they still suþ er from
certain problems which are not in accordance with the peculiar characteristics described in this paper. Improvements are urgently needed to ensure that small business
TQM adoption will be successful. It was also argued that the frameworks developed to date have largely centred on big companies, as detailed in the Discussion section.
SMEs cannot simply follow a system in which ample resources are available and, in
TQM IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORKS 293
Table 4. Similarities of small and medium-sized frameworks using PDCA elements
Ghobadian and Gallear (1997) Asher (1992) Huxtable (1995)
Framework structure Step approach Step approach Step approach Planning Recognition of needs, Diagnostic costs of quality, Planning through customer establish goals and
system audit, customer and review, employee survey, objectives, plan TQM employee perceptions costs of quality implementation Doing Educate, train all employees,
Implement quality plan, Education and training, create systematic procedure action teams, educate and problem-solving train Check Monitor implementation Measure
business performance Action Continuous improvement
some cases, are in a diþ erent `playing ® eld’ (like IBM, Microsoft, SONY, British Airways, etc.). It is imperative that an implementation framework be developed that
`® ts the purpose’ of small businesses and so paves the way for better TQM adoption in this particular sector. In order to develop a framework that is applicable and
suitable for small businesses, certain characteristics must be considered. These could be used as a guide. They are
· systematic and easily understood; · simple structure; · clear links between elements which are presented; · general enough to suit diþ erent contexts; · represent a
road map and a planning tool for implementation; · answers `how to?’, and not `what is?’ TQM; · implementable.
Small businesses need a much simpler approach than large businesses. Some form of gradual progression of quality initiatives adoption could be the key, rather than a
`fully blown’ approach to TQM implementation, which will favour small businesses. Future research will attempt to concentrate on developing an implementation framework
that possesses some, if not all, these characteristics. A follow-up paper concerning this study will elaborate on the conceptual implementation framework for small
businesses together with a case study conducted in a company. Hopefully, with this background on TQM implementation frameworks, and in particular for the small
business sector, the journey towards excellence for small businesses will be much more accommodating, if not easier.
References
AALBREGTSE, R.J., HEJKA, J.A. & MCNELEY, P.K. (1991) TQM: How do you do it?, Automation, August, pp. 30± 32. ADAMS, M.L. (1994) Quality ® rst: a model for TQM
implementation & planning, IEEE AES Systems Magazine, 9, pp. 25± 27. ANTHONY, D. (1983) Japan. In: D. J. STOREY (Ed.) The Small Firm: An International Survey (London,
Croom Helm), pp. 46± 83. ASHER, J.M. (1992) Implementing TQM in Small and Medium-sized Companies (Hertfordshire, Technical Communication). BERRY, T.H. (1991) Managing
the Total Quality Transformation (New York, McGraw-Hill).
294 S. MOHD YUSOF & E. ASPINWALL
BOLTON, J.E. (1971) Report of the Committee of Inquiry of Small Firms (London, HMSO). CORMAN, J. & LUSSIER, R.N. (1996) Small Business ManagementÐ A Planning Approach
(Chicago, Irwin). CROSBY, P.B. (1980) Quality is FreeÐ The Art of Making Quality Certain (New York, McGraw-Hill). DALE, B.G. (1995) A quality improvement framework:
application and comparative analysis, Total Quality Management, 6, pp. 383± 397. DALE, B.G. & PRAPOPOULOS, M. (1995) The introduction of a quality improvement process
in small companies: an examination in Traþ ord Park, Quality World Technical Supplement, September, pp. 80± 88. DEMING, W.E. (1986) Quality, Productivity, and
Competitive Position (Cambridge, MA, Center for Advance Engineering Study, MIT). DOHERTY, W. (1995) Assessment and self-assessment of total quality management in
organizations using knowledge-based techniques, PhD Thesis, Queen’s University of Belfast. DTI (1996) Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (SME) Statistics for the United
Kingdom 1994 (Sheý eld, Small Firms Statistics Unit, DTI). GARVIN, D.A. (1991) How the Baldridge Award really works, Harvard Business Review, November± December, pp.
80± 93. GHOBADIAN, A. & GALLEAR, D.N. (1997) TQM and organisation size, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 17, pp. 121± 163. GHOBADIAN, A.
& WOO, H.S. (1996) Characteristics, bene® ts, and shortcomings of four major quality awards, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 13, pp. 10±
44. GLOVER, J. (1993) Achieving the organizational change necessary for successful TQM, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 10, pp. 47± 64.
HAKES, C. (1991) Total Quality Management: The Key to Business Improvement (London, Chapman and Hall). HERTZ, L. (1982) In Search of a Small Business De® nition
(Washington, University Press of America). HEWITT, S. (1997) Business excellence: Does it work for small companies?, The TQM Magazine, 9, pp. 76± 82. HO, S.K.M. &
FUNG, C.K.H. (1994) Developing a TQM excellence model, The TQM Magazine, 6, pp. 24± 30. HUXTABLE, N. (1995) Small Business Total Quality (London, Chapman and Hall).
JURAN, J.M. & GRYNA, F.M. (1993) Quality Planning and Analysis, 3rd Edn (Singapore, McGraw-Hill). KANJI, G.K. (1996) Implementation and pitfalls of total quality
management, Total Quality Management, 7, pp. 331± 343. KANJI, G.K. & BARKER, R.L. (1990) Implementation of total quality management, Total Quality Management, 1, pp.
375± 389. MANN, R.S. (1992) The development of a framework to assist in the implementation of TQM, PhD Thesis, University of Liverpool. OAKLAND, J. (1993) Total
Quality Management (Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann). POPPER, K.R. (1994) The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality (London, Routledge). Reader’s
Digest Universal Dictionary (1987) (London, Reader’s Digest). STOREY, D.J. (1994) Understanding the Small Business Sector (London, Routledge). STRUEBING, L. & KLAUS,
L.A. (1997) Smaller businesses thinking big, Quality Progress, February, pp. 23± 27. THOMPSON, J. & SIMMONS, P. (1997) Carving up the business excellence model in a
small ® rm, Quality World, April, pp. 274± 277. THOMPSON, J.H. & LEYDEN, D.R. (1983) The United States of America. In: D. J. STOREY (Ed.) The Small FirmÐ An
International Survey (London, Croom Helm), pp. 7± 45. WELSH, J. & WHITE, J. (1981) A small business is not a little big business, Harvard Business Review, July±
August, pp. 18± 32.
TO GET YOUR ASSIGNMENTS DONE AT A CHEAPER PRICE,PLACE YOUR ORDER WITH US NOW