What is total quality management … and does it matter?

Abstract

This paper considers the definition of total quality management (TQM) by examining a variety of sources from individuals through institutions to surveys. It aims to develop a set of common themes which define TQM, in order to contribute to the debate rather than merely to add another definition to those already available. Definition matters because TQM is increasingly taught as an academic subject, there is a body of research in the area which is still developing, TQM and quality management are often confused and evidence regarding the 'success' of TQM is mixed. After consideration of the evidence from a variety of sources, a set of TQM principles and practices are presented, which are developed from the evidence, and the importance of the distinction between principles and practices is discussed. The paper concludes by posing a series of questions arising from the conclusions suggested by the evidence presented. Does it matter that some of the 'gurus' do not use and do not endorse the term TQM? Is TQM a new paradigm or another form of organizational change? Is it a bad thing that definitions of TQM are still diverse? Is the failure of TQM to do with poor practice rather than inappropriate principles? Is TQM dead, superseded or living on in other forms?

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 — 133 citations exist upstream.

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