1.
Introduction
Control processes for
total quality
management and
quality assurance
Naceur Jabnoun
The author
Naceur Jabnoun is Associate Professor at Business
Department, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE.
Keywords
Control, Quality assurance, Total quality management
Abstract
While quality has been widely accepted as essential in
today's global competition, limited work has been
conducted on the management processes that lead to it.
This paper addresses the control processes in quality
assurance and total quality management. The generic
management control process is first presented and its
deficiencies are highlighted. The paper then proposes
control processes for quality assurance and total quality
management. Finally, these two processes are compared.
Electronic access
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0043-8022.htm
Work Study
Volume 51 . Number 4 . 2002 . pp. 182±190
# MCB UP Limited . ISSN 0043-8022
DOI 10.1108/00438020210430733
182
The terms ``control'' and ``quality'' when
paired together as distinct concepts (rather
than as one in the term ``quality control'')
create quite a debate within the literature.
Clemmer (1992) considers TQM to be the
opposite of management by control, a
concept that does not fit easily within a
mechanistic model for an organization.
Conversely, Spencer (1994) and Boje (1993)
argue that quality organizations stress
control more than mechanistic
organizations. This paper addresses this
confusion by examining control process in
the two major quality approaches of quality
assurance (QA) and total quality
management (TQM).
Control is one of the four components of
the generic management process. The fact
that control is the fourth management process
after planning, organizing, and leading does
not mean that it is last in importance. In fact,
the control process also provides some
measures of the quality of the planning,
organizing and leading processes.
The purpose of the basic control process is
to ensure that actual conform to planned
activities (Stoner and Freeman, 1992).
Perhaps the most popular definition of
control is that given by Mockler (1984), who
stated:
Management control is a systematic effort to set
performance standards with planning objectives,
to design information feedback systems, to
determine whether there are any deviations, and
to measure their significance, and to take any
action required to assure that all corporate
resources are being used in the most effective
and efficient way possible in achieving corporate
objectives.
It is clear that the control process defined
above does not address major elements of
quality management such as continuous
improvement and customer satisfaction. The
above control process has also been criticized
for neglecting the responsibility of
management in enabling people to meet
standards. Bounds et al. (1996, p. 105) state
that:
The traditional control theory does not
acknowledge managers' responsibility to attend
to systems to make sure that people have the
high quality equipment, raw materials, training
on the job, methods of work, and cooperation
from team members who are working towards
compatible standards.
 Control processes for total quality management
Naceur Jabnoun
Bounds et al. (1996) added that the
traditional control approach does not inform
managers about the causes of deviations,
considering them to be discrete events. This
contradicts the quality approach, where
managers are encouraged to look for patterns
of deviations that can be studied statistically.
Most TQM gurus, with the exception of
Juran and Feigenbaum, have not explicitly
addressed the control process. The Juran
control process is no different from the basic
control process. Juran (1989) suggested three
steps for control, namely:
(1) evaluating performance;
(2) comparing the actual performance with
the goal; and
(3) taking action on the difference.
The Feigenbaum control process is more
relevant to quality management than this
basic control process, though its ``roots'' in
this basic process are obvious. The process
includes the following four steps
(Feigenbaum, 1983):
(1) setting quality standards;
(2) appraising conformance with these
standards;
(3) acting when standards are exceeded; and
(4) planning for improvement in the
standards.
This control process is more suitable for
TQM, as it includes the improvement
dimension. However, it does not incorporate
the TQM culture, nor does it stress customer
satisfaction and management responsibility.
Bounds et al. (1996) stressed the
importance of analyzing the collected data,
using statistical methods and other
techniques, to understand causes of variation.
They also suggested four aspects of control:
(1) preliminary control of input which is a
preventive and proactive control,
addressing the system of causes such as
equipment, training and raw materials;
(2) concurrent control is done on a real-time
basis to make sure that work is performed
according to design procedures;
(3) rework control is performed at the output
level, where defective items are reworked;
and
(4) damage control is performed to minimize
the negative impact on customers who
receive defective products or services.
This can be done through apologizing,
replacing the product or service, and
refunding.
183
Work Study
Volume 51 . Number 4 . 2002 . 182±190
The work of Bounds et al. (1996) is more
suitable to quality, as it addresses preliminary
control of input and stresses finding causes of
variations. However, it does not address the
interaction between the four suggested
aspects of control and ignores the role of
corporate culture and empowerment. It also
does not clarify the role of customer
satisfaction and continuous improvement.
The objective of this paper is to propose
control processes that fit the major
dimensions of quality assurance and total
quality management. The paper also
highlights the differences between the two
processes. The second section of this paper
will introduce QA and TQM. The third
section will propose a control for QA and the
fourth section will propose a control process
for TQM. The final, fifth section will
compare the two control processes.
2. Approaches to quality
There are two main approaches to quality,
namely quality assurance and total quality
management (Moreno-Lonzo and Peris,
1998). These approaches are presented
below.
2.1 Quality assurance
Quality assurance (QA) is a systematic
approach to the pursuit of quality (Collins,
1994). The purpose of QA is the
conformance of products, services and
processes with given requirements and
standards (Moreno-Lonzo and Peris, 1998).
This conformance is achieved through
systematic measurement and control to detect
special causes of variation and achieve process
standardisation (Dale et al., 1990). QA
includes, and is an extension of, quality
control (Garvin, 1988; Moreno-Lonzo and
Peris, 1998). QA is concerned with quality
planning and defect prevention through
systems and documented processes
throughout the supply chain (Garvin, 1988).
Quality responsibility is shared with all
functions with a view to ``building-in'' quality.
Top management also plays a major role in
this endeavour by ensuring proper
co-ordination and building systems that
enable conformance with requirements. This
includes reliable equipment, adequate raw
material, appropriate training and effective
reward systems. The ISO 9000 series is the
 Control processes for total quality management
Naceur Jabnoun
most popular set of standards of QA. These
standards attempt to build-in quality by
ensuring conformity requirements to be
specified during the design, development,
installation and services.
2.2 Total quality management
Total quality management (TQM) is a
comprehensive management approach aiming
at satisfying or delighting customers
(Moreno-Lonzo and Peris, 1998; Dean and
Bowen, 1994). TQM stresses the importance
of culture in designing, producing and
improving products and services that satisfy
customers (Collins, 1994). There is little
agreement on what constitutes TQM.
Elements of TQM include supplier
relationships (Anderson et al., 1994; Deming,
1986; Grandzol, 1996), benchmarking,
(Ahire, 1996; Oakland, 1997; Youssef and
Zairi, 1995). However, the most cited
components of TQM are continuous
improvement, customer satisfaction,
empowerment, and top management
responsibility (Dean and Bowen, 1994;
Anderson et al., 1994; Hartline and Ferrel,
1996; Juran, 1989; Deming, 1986). These
components are presented below.
Continuous improvement
Bessant et al. (1994) defined continuous
improvement (CI) as a company-wide process
focused on continuous incremental
innovation sustained over a long period of
time. Being essential for meeting customers'
varying needs, CI is considered an integral
part of TQM (Deming, 1986). The intensity
of global competition has led to even greater
interest for continuously improving products,
services and processes (Garvin, 1987;
Parasuraman et al., 1985; Misterek et al.,
1990). There are many tools to achieve CI,
including statistical methods and
benchmarking, but its main prerequisites are
a supporting culture (Hyland et al., 2000b), a
conducive structure (Leede and Looise,
1999), and a supportive leadership (Hyland
et al., 2000a).
Customer satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is the objective of
TQM (Dean and Bowen, 1994; Youssef and
Zairi, 1995). Deming considers customers to
be the most important part of the production
line (Scherkenbach, 1986). Customers are
indeed the origin and the purpose of product
development and improvement. Producing a
184
Work Study
Volume 51 . Number 4 . 2002 . 182±190
high quality product or service that does not
meet customers' needs and expectations will
be a total waste for the organisation.
Customer satisfaction is largely dependent on
continuous improvement and empowerment.
Continuous improvement is required in order
to satisfy customers' varying needs, while
empowerment is necessary for bringing the
decisions closer to the customers.
Customers are internal and external to the
organisation (Juran, 1989). External
customer satisfaction is achieved through
meeting or exceeding customer expectations,
which, in turn, require the presence of a
supportive culture (Jabnoun, 2001; Zeitz et al.,
1997). Internal customer satisfaction can be
achieved through teamwork and satisfying
employees' expectations and through
empowering them (Parker and Price, 1994).
Empowerment
Empowerment has been described as a means
to enable employees to make decisions
(Bowen and Lawler, 1992). Empowerment is
one of the main constructs of TQM (Ahire,
1996; Feigenbaum, 1996; Hartline and
Ferrell, 1996). Empowerment is essential for
internal customer satisfaction. Indeed, studies
on empowerment reveal that it is positively
associated with employees' satisfaction
(Parker and Price, 1994; Ganster and
Fusilier, 1989). Empowerment is also
essential to pursue external customer
satisfaction (Sitkin et al., 1994), for external
customers cannot be satisfied, if those who
serve them have no authority to respond to
their needs. Empowerment should be rooted
in the culture and structure of the
organisation.
Top management responsibility
The role of top management is critical for
quality success (Deming, 1986; Juran, 1989;
Dale and Duncalf, 1984; Ebrahimpour, 1985;
Lascelles and Dale, 1990). McKinsey and
Company (1989) reported that 95 per cent of
the CEOs of the top 500 European
corporations considered top management
attention as the key requirement for success in
TQM. Lascelles and Dale (1990) also
reported that CEOs are the primary internal
change agents for quality improvement, as
they are those who shape organisational
values and establish managerial structure and
actually bring about change. Top
management commitment will lead
employees at all levels to invest time and
 Control processes for total quality management
Naceur Jabnoun
effort in the change programme, if that
programme has the full and credible support
of top management (Cole et al., 1993; Krantz,
1989). Deming (1986) argues that
management is responsible for more than 90
per cent of quality problems. In order to be
able to deliver the desired quality, top
management should provide the necessary
input to the people that are directly involved
in producing products and providing services.
This input includes the necessary resources, a
fitting culture and structure, a fair reward
system and the necessary skills that can be
acquired through training. Managers are
consequently responsible for most problems.
They should therefore alter their input in
order to prevent defects and facilitate
improvement.
TQM and its major components of
continuous improvement, customer
satisfaction and empowerment are highly
dependent on cultural values (Lewis, 1998;
Collins, 1994; Hyland et al., 2000a, b;
Jabnoun, 2001). The main cultural values
that underlie empowerment, continuous
improvement and customer satisfaction
include:
. humbleness (Gupta, 1996; Gibson, 1995;
Bentz, 1990; Horner, 1997);
. innovation and challenge (Zeitz et al.,
1997);
. openness (Steyn, 1999; Roberts, 1992);
. respect for people (Seiling, 1999; Mehta,
1999);
. integrity (Goetsh and Davis, 2000);
. empathy (Parasuraman et al., 1985;
Bogue, 1997);
. trust (Axline, 1991; Drucker, 1974); and
. co-operation (Oakland, 1997; Jabnoun,
2001).
3. QA control process
Based on the tenets of QA outlined in section
2, we propose the following QA control
process (Figure 1):
(1) Setting the standards. This involves clearly
stating the objectives and goals of the
organization in specific and measurable
terms. Any vagueness in the statement of
the objectives and goals renders the
control process impossible. Then, the
processes and procedures leading to those
objectives are well determined and clearly
documented. The clarity of the process
185
Work Study
Volume 51 . Number 4 . 2002 . 182±190
documentation is the corner-stone of
defect prevention. Performance standards
for each work package in the process
leading to the goals and objectives have to
be clearly established. Establishing the
standards is essential to the control
process, because the planning and control
responsibilities are usually assumed by
different people (Steingraber, 1990). Top
managers set goals and establish
standards, while supervisors and line
managers assume the control
responsibility.
(2) Providing the input that will enable workers
to conform with standards. Management
has to make sure that employees possess
the necessary training to perform their
jobs. Management has also to provide the
reward system that will enhance the
needed workers' motivation. The input
also includes reliable equipment and raw
materials.
(3) Measuring performance. This is supposed
to be a regular process, during which the
actual performance is measured. The
frequency of measurement is usually
dependent on the type of activity. The
pressure level in a submarine, for
example, should be monitored
continuously, while progress on long-
term expansion can be monitored every
quarter. The measuring of performance is
usually handled by line managers and/or
members of the quality department.
(4) Analysis of the measured performance data.
The performance data should be analyzed
using statistical process control (SPC),
and compared against documented
standards. The analysis of the
performance data will reveal whether or
not there are special causes of variation. If
performance matches the standards, it
should continue without any
modification.
(5) Taking corrective action. Once it is found
that performance is not conforming with
standards, it becomes necessary to take
corrective action. In case special causes of
variation existed, the input should be
modified. Otherwise it will just be
sufficient to correct the human
performance error. Workers are not
empowered to make corrections
themselves. It is the responsibility of line
managers to correct performance.
 Control processes for total quality management
Naceur Jabnoun
Figure 1 QA control process
The above QA control process is generally
similar to the basic control process. The main
difference between the two processes lies in
the fact that it puts emphasis on the
manager's role to provide the input or systems
of causes that enable workers to conform with
standards. The QA control process also
includes analyzing the measured performance
to find special causes of variations.
4. TQM control process
Incorporating the steps of the generic control
process with the major TQM ingredients of
management responsibility, empowerment,
continuous improvement, and customer
satisfaction and their underlying culture, we
can develop the following control steps
(Figure 2):
(1) The standards have to be clarified. These
standards not only should reflect the
186
Work Study
Volume 51 . Number 4 . 2002 . 182±190
expectation of the customers but should
be set to delight them. These standards
are continuously improved to meet and
exceed customers' expectations. Setting
standards is not restricted to managers
but includes customers, empowered
employees and suppliers. The standards
have to be clear and readily measurable.
(2) The necessary input should be provided by
management. This input should include
the necessary skills and know-how, the
necessary resources, the reward system,
as well as the needed authority and
structure. The input should also include
the infusion and reinforcement of cultural
values that support TQM
implementation. This reflects the
importance of the responsibility of
management.
(3) A continuous search for new ways of
improving the performance and its standards
should be established. This search is
 Control processes for total quality management
Naceur Jabnoun
Figure 2 TQM control process
everybody's responsibility, including
workers, customers and suppliers. It is
carried out through a favourable culture
and some specially designed programmes.
The culture should be one of respect,
openness, cooperation, humbleness,
innovation and challenge (Jabnoun,
2001). The improvement programmes
can include quality circles, SPC, regular
invitation of outside consultants, training,
research and development,
benchmarking, employees' suggestions,
suppliers' and particularly customers'
surveys.
(4) The needs of customers must be continuously
monitored through various methods. These
include surveys, panel discussions,
competitive analysis, interviews,
consumer associations and perhaps even
``chat'' sites on the Internet.
(5) Checking performance and output.
Everybody must closely check
performance and output against the
standards. This checking needs to be
driven by cultural values of integrity,
respect, trust, openness and empathy. It
may also be accomplished through some
specially designed programmes such as
regular measurement, SPC, and
customers' surveys. The TQM values
make everyone a quality checker in a
TQM organization, while the
programmes ensure systematic
checking. Performance data should be
187
Work Study
Volume 51 . Number 4 . 2002 . 182±190
analyzed in order to find special causes
of variations.
(6) Take corrective action. If the performance
and/or the output do not conform with
the standards, corrective action must be
taken. Employees must be empowered to
participate in, and even instigate, taking
corrective action. In the Toyota Motor
Company assembly line workers are
empowered to stop the production line
whenever they detect a problem (Bounds
et al., 1996). However, recognizing that
most problems are management
problems, this step is usually focused on
eliminating special causes of variations by
changing the organizational input. The
process might be redesigned, the
authority might be altered, skills might be
improved through training, resources
might be increased, and values might be
reshaped.
(7) Check for improvement and changes in
customer needs. If performance
corresponds with standards, then
conformance with standards has been
achieved. However, this is not sufficient
in TQM, where we need to continuously
improve to meet and exceed customers'
varying needs. The possibility of
improving performance is, therefore,
checked. We also check whether there are
any changes in customer needs.
(8) Adopt improvement and new customer needs
as new standards. If there is a way of
 Control processes for total quality management
Naceur Jabnoun
improving the process, or there is a
change in customers' needs, then the
standards are changed to conform with
customers' needs and to adopt new
improvements. Subsequently, the
organizational input is altered to
empower employees to conform with the
new standards. This reflects the dynamic
nature of this control process that clearly
sets it apart from the QA control process.
(9) Repeat the TQM process.
Controlling performance in TQM is not
about fixing the blame, scaring people into
actions, or punishing them. The above
control model is basically a measure to
empower employees to meet customer
expectations and achieve improvement.
Control aims primarily at finding system
problems and satisfying customers' varying
needs rather than at finding people problems.
` ... Customers are the main determinants of
standards. They also play a major role,
checking performance and searching for
new improvements.... '
The above model relies heavily on cultural
values as a means of quality control and
improvement. Indeed, cultural values are the
main enablers of quality checking and
improvement. This model also puts the
responsibility of non-conformance with
standards on the shoulders of managers, who
are supposed to empower employees through
providing them with the proper input, and to
alter the input whenever a problem is
detected or standards are changed. The
above model also incorporates customer
satisfaction, empowerment and continuous
improvement. Customers are the main
determinants of standards. They also play a
major role, checking performance and
searching for new improvements.
Empowered employees are involved in
setting standards, searching for new
improvements, checking performance, and
taking corrective actions. Continuous
improvement is adopted through altering
performance standards. Continuous
improvement is anchored in the culture of
the organization. Its methods include
customers' and suppliers' surveys,
employees' suggestions, SPC and
benchmarking.
188
Work Study
Volume 51 . Number 4 . 2002 . 182±190
Comparing the QA and TQM control
processes
The major differences between the QA and
TQM control processes lie in their respective
focuses. While the QA control process focuses
on conformance, the TQM process focuses
on customer satisfaction and improvement.
As a result the QA process is static in nature,
while the TQM process is as dynamic as
customers' needs. Both processes focus on
prevention by emphasizing the role of
management in providing the input that will
``build-in'' quality. However, management
input in the TQM control process includes
delegation of authority and the infusion and
reinforcement of supporting TQM cultural
values, while it is restricted to ``systems'' in
the QA control process. In QA, only
managers supervise and correct performance,
while in TQM empowered employees check
performance and take corrective actions. The
main elements enabling workers to conform
with standards are systems and process
documentation in the QA process, while
cultural values play the main role in ensuring
customer satisfaction and continuous
improvement in the TQM process. The
differences between the two control processes
are summarized in Table I.
5. Conclusion
This paper proposed control processes for QA
and TQM. The QA control process
incorporated the QA emphasis on prevention
through providing the systems of inputs that
enable employees to conform with standards.
It also stressed the analysis of performance
data in order to detect special causes of
variations. The TQM control process focuses
on customer satisfaction and continuous
improvement. It is dynamic in nature, and it
relies heavily on the values of empowered
employees to check and improve quality. It
also stresses the role of management in
providing and altering the necessary input of
structure, skills, systems and shared values, in
order to meet customers' varying demands.
Finally, this paper compared the two
proposed processes and highlighted their
major differences. These differences were
found in terms of focus, nature, role of
management, role of employees, and
main enablers.
 Control processes for total quality management
Naceur Jabnoun
Table I Differences between the QA and TQM control processes
QA control
Focus Conformance
Nature Static
Management role Establish documented systems, provide
training and resources, supervise
employees
Employees' role Conform with documented standards
Main enabler Systems and process documentation
References
Ahire, S.L. (1996), ``TQM age and quality: an empirical
investigation'', Production and Inventory
Management Journal.
Anderson, J.C., Rungtusanatham, M. and Schroeder
(1994), ``A theory of quality management underlying
the Deming management method'', Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 472-509.
Axline, L.L. (1991), ``TQM: a look in the mirror'',
Management Review, July, New York, NY.
Bentz, V.J. (1990), ``Contextual issues in predicting
high-level leadership performance: contextual
richness as a criterion consideration in personality
research with executives'', in Clark, K.E. and Clark,
M.B. (Eds), Measures of Leadership, Leadership
Library of America, West Orange, NJ, pp. 131-43.
Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., Gilbert, J. and Harding, R. (1994),
``Rediscovering continuous improvement'',
Technovation, Vol. 14 No. 3.
Bogue, G.E. (1997), ``Beyond systems: moral outrage and
other servants of quality'', Vital Speeches of the
Day, New York, NY, 1 January.
Boje, D.M. (1993), ``Toyota: deconstructing the 21st
century organizations'', presented at the Annual
Meeting of the IABD, New Orleans, LA.
Bounds, G., York, L., Adams, M. and Ranney, G. (1996),
Beyond Total Quality Management, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Bowen, D.E. and Lawler, E.E. (1992), ``The empowerment
of service workers: what, why, how and when?'',
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 31-9.
Clemmer, J. (1992), Charting the Journey to Higher
Service/Quality, Zenger-Miller, San Jose, CA.
Cole, R., Barcdayan, P. and White, B. (1993), ``Quality,
participation and competitiveness'', California
Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 68-81.
Collins, P. (1994), ``Approaches to quality'', The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 3.
Dale, B.G. and Duncalf, A.J. (1984), ``Quality-related
decision making: a study in six British companies'',
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 15-25.
Dale, B.G., Boaden, R.J. and Lascelles, D. (1990), ``Total
quality management: an overview'' in Dale, B.G.
(Ed.), Managing Quality, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NY, pp. 3-39.
Dean, J.W. and Bowen, D.E. (1994), ``Management theory
and total quality: improving research and practice
through theory development'', Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 392-418.
189
Work Study
Volume 51 . Number 4 . 2002 . 182±190
TQM
Customer satisfaction, continuous improvement
Dynamic
Empower employees by infusing TQM values and
providing resources, know-how, systems, and
delegating authority
Participate in setting standards, searching for new
improvement, checking performance and correcting
actions
TQM cultural values
Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Drucker, P. (1974), Management: Tasks, Responsibilities,
Practices, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, NY.
Ebrahimpour, M. (1985), ``An examination of quality
management in Japan: implications for
management in the United States'', Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 419-31.
Feigenbaum, A.V. (1983), Total Quality Control, McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY.
Feigenbaum, A.V. (1996), ``Managing for tomorrow's
competitiveness today'', Journal for Quality and
Participation, Vol. 19 No. 2, March, pp. 10-17.
Ganster, D.C. and Fusilier, M.R. (1989), ``Control in the
workplace'', in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I. (Eds),
International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY, pp. 235-80.
Garvin, D.A. (1987), ``Competing on the eight dimensions
of quality'', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 13,
pp. 138-42.
Garvin, D.A. (1988), Managing Quality: The Strategic and
Competitive Edge, Free Press, New York, NY.
Gibson, P. (1995), ``One renewal journey'', The Journal for
Quality and Participation, Vol. 18 No. 4, July/
August, pp. 62-8.
Goetsh, D.L. and Davis, S.B. (2000), Introduction to Total
Quality Management, Quality Management for
Production, Processing and Services, 3rd ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Grandzol, J. (1996), ``Implementing total quality: critical
relationships'', unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
Gupta, R. (1996), ``Everything in the garden's lovely'',
Economist, Vol. 340 No. 7976, 27 July, p. 56.
Hartline, M.D. and Ferrell, O.C. (1996), ``The management
of customer-contact service employees: an empirical
investigation'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4,
October, pp. 52-70.
Horner, M. (1997), ``Leadership theory: past, present, and
future'', Team Performance Management, Vol. 3
No. 4.
Hyland, P., Mellor, R., Sloan, T. and O'Mara, E. (2000a),
"Learning strategies and CI: lessons from several
small and medium Australian manufacturers'',
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 11 No. 6.
Hyland, P., Mellor, R., Sloan, T., O'Mara, E. and
Kondepudi, R. (2000b), ``A comparison of Australian
firms and their use of continuous improvement
tools'', The TQM Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 2.
 Control processes for total quality management
Naceur Jabnoun
Jabnoun, N. (2001), ``Values underlying continuous
improvement'', The TQM Magazine, Vol. 7 No. 12.
Juran, J.A.M. (1989), Juran on Leadership for Quality, Free
Press, New York, NY.
Krantz, K.T. (1989), ``How Velcro got hooked on quality'',
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 34-40.
Lascelles, D.M. and Dale, B.G (1990), ``Quality
management: the chief executive perception and
role'', European Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 67-75.
Leede, J. and Looise, J.K. (1999), ``Continuous
improvement and the mini-company concept'',
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 19 No. 11.
Lewis, D. (1998), ``How useful a concept is organizational
culture?'', Strategic Change, Vol. 7, August,
pp. 261-76.
McKinsey and Company (1989), ``Management of quality:
the single most important challenge for Europe'',
European Quality Management Forum, Montreaux,
19 October.
Mehta, J. (1999), ``Business excellence through quality:
Indian experience'', Total Quality Management,
Vol. 10, No. 4/5, July, Abingdon, pp. 647-52.
Misterek, S.A., Anderson, J.C. and Dooley, K.J. (1990),
``The strategic nature of process quality'',
Proceedings of the National Decision Science
Institute Conference, pp. 1517-19.
Mockler, R.J. (1984), The Management Control Process,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p. 2.
Moreno-Lonzo, M.D. and Peris, F.J. (1998), ``Strategic
approach, organizational design and quality
management'', International Journal of Quality
Science, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 328-47.
Oakland, J.S. (1997), ``Interdependence and cooperation:
the essentials of total quality management'', Total
Quality Management, Vol. 8 No. 2/3.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), ``A
conceptual model for service quality and its
implications for future research'', Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 41-50.
Parker, L. and Price, R. (1994), ``Empowered managers
and empowered workers: the effects of managerial
support and managerial perceived control on
workers' sense of control over decision making'',
Human Relations, Vol. 47, pp. 911-29.
Roberts, R.A. (1992), ``You want to improve? First you
must change'', Supervision, Vol. 53 No. 8, August,
pp. 17-19.
Scherkenbach, W.W. (1986), ``The Deming route to quality
and productivity: Ford's new philosophy'', Quality
Progress, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 40-6.
Seiling, J.G. (1999), ``Reaping the rewards and rewarding
work'', The Journal for Quality and Participation,
Vol. 22 No. 2, March/April, pp. 16-20.
Sitkin, S.B., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Shroeder, R.G. (1994),
``Distinguishing control from learning in total quality
190
Work Study
Volume 51 . Number 4 . 2002 . 182±190
management: a contingency approach'', Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 537-54.
Spencer, B.A. (1994), ``Models of organization and total
quality management: a comparison and critical
evaluation'', Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 446-71.
Steingraber, F.G. (1990), ``Managing in the 1990s'',
Business Horizons, January-February.
Steyn, G.M. (1999), ``Out of the crisis: transforming
schools through TQM'', African Journal of
Education, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 357-461.
Stoner, J.A.F and Freeman, R.E. (1992), Management,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Youssef, M.A. and Zairi, M. (1995) ``Benchmarking critical
factors for TQM. Part II: empirical results from
different regions in the world'', Benchmarking for
Quality Management & Technology, Vol. 2 No. 2.
Zeitz, G., Johannesson, R. and Richie, J.E. Jr (1997), ``An
employee survey measuring total quality
management practices and culture'', Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 414-44.
Further reading
Batten, J. (1992), Building a Total Quality Culture, Crisp
Publications, Menlo Park, CA.
Brown, W.S. (1985), 13 Fatal Errors Managers Make and
How You Can Avoid Them, Berkeley Books, New
York, NY.
Church, A.H. (1995), ``Linking leadership behaviours to
service performance: do managers make a
difference?'', Managing Service Quality, Vol. 5 No. 6.
Congor, J.A. and Kanungo, R. (1988), ``The empowerment
process: implementing theory and practice'',
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13,
pp. 471-82.
Garfield, C. (1986), Peak Performers: The New Heroes of
American Business, William Morrow and Company,
New York, NY.
George, S. and Weimerskirch, A. (1994), Total Quality
Management, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY,
p. 69.
Jabnoun, N. (1999), Rethinking TQM and Making It Work,
Prentice-Hall Sprint Print, Singapore.
Ketz, F.R. and Miller, D. (1986), Personality, culture and
organization'', Academy of Management Review,
April, pp. 266-79.
Tannenbaum, A.S. (1986), ``Controversies about control
and democracy in organizations'', in Stern, R.N. and
McCarthy, S. (Eds), International Yearbook of
Organizational Democracy for the Study of
Participation Co-operation and Power, Vol. III, The
Organizational Practice Of Democracy, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY, pp. 279-303.