Can Six Sigma claim to be a generic strategy? Reassessing the competitive implications of quality improvement

Abstract

Although quality improvement is generally considered an important part of production management, it has seldom been perceived as a strategic choice to gain competitive advantage. This is because the traditional discussion of competitive strategies focuses on differences stemming from different applied production technologies or product designs, and not on different degrees of technology mastery. However, there is abundant evidence of companies using Six Sigma quality improvement techniques having enjoyed rising profitability and strengthening competitive positions. In this paper, we want to show why quality improvement should be considered a competitive strategy, equally if not more important than the strategic choices of cost leadership and differentiation. The strategic value of quality improvement is presented and the competitive advantage of quality leadership described. This leads to an extension of Porter's framework of competitive advantages and provides a model to reassess a company's competitive state and to understand why superior quality can indeed be a valuable strategic aim.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.