1.

Introduction

Quality management has come forth as a management theory for heightening organizational efficiency and competitiveness (Dow et al., 1999; Grandzol and Greshon, 199 ; !ila, "## ; !anchez$%odriguez and &artinez$'orente, "##(). !everal e*perimental surveys and studies propose that organizations attain higher levels of productivity and organizational functioning via successful e*ecution of +uality management (,aston and -arrell, 199.; /owell, 1990; Das et al., "###; 1eung et al., "##2; !antos$3i4ande and 5lvarez$Gonz6lez, "##9; 7ayna8, "##9). Quality management (Q&) is delineated and calculated in e*perimental studies as the practices of firms that put into practice the doctrine such as focusing on customer, constant progression and improvement, and the teamwor8 to enhance the service and product +uality (/ra4ogo and &cDermott, "##0; !ousa and 3oss, "##"; Dean and :owen, 199(). !ome studies, however, put forward demonstrate that Quality &anagement practices, particularly, infrastructure Quality &anagement practices and its core practices, affect performance (!ousa and 3oss, "##"). (Dow et al., 1999; /owell, 1990; !amson and ;erziovs8i, 1999 argue that 4ust the Quality &anagement<s infrastructure practices, for e*ample the dedication of e*ecutive, empowerment of employee, and focus of customer, impart to improvement of the +uality, =ut the core Quality &anagement practices, for e*ample the analysis and information, improvement of process, setting of =enchmar8, apparently do not. >ontrariwise, ?orza and ?lippini, 199.; %ahman and :ulloc8, "##0; !anchez$%odriguez and &art@nez$'orente, "##(; &otwani et al. 199(; Adam et al., 199 argue that they have discovered positive relationships among the core Quality &anagement performance and practices, and some analyses determined that the Quality &anagement practices, for e*ample the 4o= of superior management, the relations of employees, involvement of employee, and the selection and development of employee are not much related to performance.

2.

Proposed Process: Total Quality Management (TQM)

;he core values for ;otal Quality &anagement are that of Bcontinuous improvementC, Bfocus on processesC, Bparticipation of allC, Bcustomer focusC, Bcommitment of leadershipC, and Bfocus on factsC. (Dale, 1999; Dahlgaard et al., 199.; :ergman and 7lefs4D, "##9). Ef the centre values in the =usiness e*cellence models (:,&) are engaged as ;otal Quality &anagement e*amples, then a significant num=er of values, for e*ample, Bvaluing partners and employeesC, Bfocus on results and creating valueC Bsocial responsi=ilityC, and Bsystems perspectiveC, could also =e appended in ;Q& (,?Q&, "##9). ;he word BmethodologyC is generally employed to define activities that are done in a firm order. !ome methodologies employed to ;otal Quality &anagement include self$assessment, si* sigma, =enchmar8ing, and =usiness process management. A significant methodology inside the ;otal Quality &anagement is the self$appraisal process =ased on criterion in :usiness ,*cellence &odels (:,&). ;he ,uropean ?oundation for Quality &anagement (,?Q&) ,*cellence &odel, the !EQ &odel for /erformance ,*cellence and the American &alcolm :aldrige Fational Quality Award (&:FQA) specify criteria =ased on ;Q& core values (&:FQA, "##(; ,?Q&, "##9; !EQ, "##9). ;he author =elieves that =y successfully employing these criterions it has proven to improve economic performance (Gendric8s and !inghal, 199 , 1999; Hrolstad and 7rueger, "##1; Gansson and ,ri8sson, "##"). ;he tools used in ;Q& involve control charts, process maps, and cause and effect diagrams. !ila and ,=rahimpour ("##9) state that the surveys conducted =etween the period of 19.# to "### it was discovered that the process management was characterised as a crucial factor in the three.

;here is not a single or generically accepted description on the process (Armistead et al., 1999; Garvare, "##"; 'indsay et al., "##9). Gowever, various definitions of process are laid down in the literature. !ome of them include the conversion from input to output, adding value for a customer, or interlin8ed activities. ;hese are things contri=ute to the process management. /rocesses in the organizations are categorized with regards to different principles. ;here are two fre+uent theories used for classification. ;hey are the hierachies of details and the nature of process. Et is argued =y %entzhog, (1992). An illustration of the nature of the process is the arrangement into management, and support and operative process >a8ar et al. ("##9), :ergman and 7lefs4D ("##9) and Iuld (1990). Iperative processes are often named as main processes or core processes, and are delineated as those that convey output to the sta8eholders who are e*ternal. ;he support processes are those that offer =ac8 up to the processes that are operative and the management processes addressing the strategy, control and planning sta8eholders that are internal. Another case in point e*emplifying the classification =y hierarchy, can =e determined in Garrington (1991), who assorts processes into a series of ordered groupings and separates them into activities, tas8s and su=$processes. &elan (199") argues that process measurement constitutes a significant part of process management. ;he process performance of different organizations can =e estimated from the outcome of the process, which is =asically the output, =ut it can furthermore =e =ased on the process performance level, as the facilitator of the output. ;he ,?Q& e*cellence model distinguishes amongst results and facilitators. Jsual facilitator comprises processes, people and leadership (,?Q&, "##9), at the same time as that the satisfaction of the customer is viewed as an outcome of the output. ;he criterion for the !EQ representation constitutes this difference in having one ma4or principle for outcomes and one for the satisfaction of customer (!EQ, "##9). General efforts for pro=lems related to +uality could =e defined =y employing a theory of the cause$and$effect diagram which is also named as the B &C

(:ergman and 7lefs4D, "##9). ;his diagram suggests the classes of management, method, man, measurement, material, milieu and machine as possi=le origins of fre+uent causes. En this conte*t, the author of this assignment identifies that the facilitators referred in the ,?Q&$model of leadership, people and process could =e viewed as =eing fraction of the &<s of method, man and management and stretching this logic would suggest that every &<s in here could =e viewed as facilitators. A su=stitute of ena=lers could =e to view all of them as availa=le resources for the firm. !ome fre+uently cited resources in the organization are that of e+uipment, which could =e machines, and employees, the men, leads to a functioning theory that all &<s are a=le to =elieve as availa=le resources (Esa8sson and Garvare, "##9=). :ased on this, the author of this assignment =elieves that it gets capa=le of happening to present significant change components such as facilitators, outcome and output in a process model, as viewed in the ?igure 1. ;he values such as Bprocesses focusingC and Bperspective of systemsC are =elieved to play a significant part in the synergies among !D and ;Q&. ;he reason is to demonstrate how process management could =e employed to =ac8up the wor8 in order to improve the sustaina=ility.

Figure 1: /roposed organisational system in reference to ;otal Quality &anagement$!ustaina=le Development, showing the different processes, elements and measurements.

2.1

A Process Model W ic is !ystem"#ased

All organisations cope with their pro4ect processes to diverse degrees. ;hey all translate the input into output within a networ8 of activities. /rocess mapping can =e applied to any organisation as a way of identifying performance measurements and assessing actual performance. &elan, 199"; Iuld, 1990 argue that the pronouncements and criteria for process modelling and mapping fre+uently pertain to sym=ols that are

technical in nature and fit the idea of ela=orated graphing for e*act development applications. !uch an apparatus is helpful while viewing at any element which is a part of the transformational process. ;he author of this assignment =elieves that the mapping method which is =ased on operative and support process and management, with fastidious spotlight on recognizing the processes admitted in the system. ;his approach, the author of this assignment =elieves, wor8 effectively for all 8inds of processes. ;he proposed model in as demonstrated in ?igure " sym=olizes a system vision,

where the process of transformation is =alanced with a +uantity of factors stri8ing the system and acting within it.

Figure 2: ;he proposed central model of the process suggesting different 8inds of processes and the availa=le resources inclusive of a few distinctive illustrations. Support processes and the operative process in order to uphold equipment have been described. The boxes suggest support and management processes as illustrations.

/ro4ect Quality &anagement involves the procedures, activities and processes of the acting firm that conclude the policies with regards to +uality, responsi=ilities and o=4ectives in order to satisfy the needs of the pro4ect. Et enforces the system =ased on the +uality management via procedures and policies with continuous process improvement (>E) activities carried throughout suita=ly. /ro4ect Quality &anagement processes comprises of the followingK Plan Quality: Et is the process of descri=ing +uality standards or the demands for the product or the pro4ect. Et further documents on how the pro4ect will show fulfilment. Quality Assurance Per$orming: Et is the process which includes inspecting the re+uirement of the +uality and the outcome gained via measurements of +uality control in order to ma8e sure suita=le standards of operational and +uality resolutions are used. Per$orming t e Quality %ontrol: Et is the process which involves the registering and supervising the results which came after the e*ecution of +uality standards ad implemented. ?igure 9 shows the chart of Quality Assurance /rocess (QA/)

Figure &: Quality Assurance Process

&.

!ta'e olders

As highlighted =y the author in the a=ove part of the assignment, the operative processes are repeatedly called as ma4or processes or core processes, and are descri=ed as those that transmit output to the sta8eholders who are e*ternal. ;he support processes are those that tender endorsement to the processes that are operative and the management processes covering the strategy, control and planning sta8eholders that are internal. Another case in point e*emplifying the classification =y hierarchy, can =e determined in Garrington (1991), who assorts processes into a series of ordered groupings and separates them into activities, tas8s and su=$ processes.

:riner et al. (1992) descri=ed four 8inds of sta8eholders, namely, the pro4ect leader<s organization, client, invisi=le team mem=ers, and outside services. >leland (1990, p. 101) ac8nowledged the demand to =uild up an organisational structure of sta8eholders from end to end realizing each the interest of every sta8eholder, and how to deal with them. !ta8eholders are defined as B;he ones who grip the =eefC (Dinsmore, 1999), those who have a concern, necessary in Bpeople$oriented pro4ect culturesC and efficiently coping these sta8eholders is indispensa=le at all points in the pro4ect from BstartC to Bshut outC (>leland, 1990). ?igure ( furnishes a model with regards to sta8eholders that aids to envisage where they may emerge from, and as argued =y the Hal8er ("##9, p. "21). Et is noticea=le that there are those sta8eholders who are invisi=le =ut they can still influence the pro4ect or process.

Figure (: !ta'e older Model

(.

Ac ie)ing Quality Attri*utes

Quality can =e achieved via the /erformance I=4ectives. ;hey are as followsK 1. Quality L directly dealing the standards of the pro4ect or product, and ma8ing sure that the pro4ect or product has meet the needs of customer, consumers and the sta8eholders. ". !peed L how fast the pro4ect or product has reached to the customer or consumer. 9. Dependa=ility L it deals with the fact that the pro4ect is dependa=le on sta8eholders and e*ternal factors as well as the customers. (. >ost L it is the ma4or factor in ma8ing sure the +uality is achieved. >ost should =e 8ept to minimum =ut the standards of the pro4ect or product must not =e slashed down. 0. ?le*i=ility L it deals with how fle*i=le the manufacturer is or how fle*i=le the pro4ect manager is while leading the pro4ect to success. 2. !afety L it deals with the hazard analysis and system safety engineering.

+.

P,%A !tructure

;he incorporation of sustaina=ility into =usiness processes demand constant communication and colla=oration with sta8eholders, and innovative ways of reviewing, updating =usiness processes and designing. ;he very dynamic nature of it demands e*pansion of internal competences and the 8nowledge of institution to deal with up$and$coming pro=lems and conse+uences and their influence on the firm. ;he structure for commercial sustaina=ility is set up upon the /D>A (/lan Do >hec8 Act) cycle which furnishes the =asis for the higherlevel$management of sustaina=ility incorporation. ;o summarize, the higherlevel$management approach to sustaina=ility following steps are detailed =y the author of this assignmentK

10

:egins from sta8eholder discussion to ma8e sure successful communi+ue with sta8eholders; encourages horizontal and vertical incorporation to ma8e sure it fits with variety of processes at different levels and stages of organizations; ?ormulates the competences and 8nowledge of institution for sustaina=ility; ?ormulates higherlevel$routines to provide constant improvement.

Et is proposed =y Daft and Heic8, 19.(; Heic8, 19. that companies need to deduce a collective understanding of 8nowledge to efficiently cope with up$ and$coming issues and to comprehend their firm and their surroundings healthier. Author of this assignment =elieves that the employing of the plan$do$chec8$ act (/D>A) cycle, where /Mdefining the strategies, processes, indicators and o=4ectives; DMmeasure, e*ecute and rectify the pro=lem and process when needed; >Me*ecuting analytical self$appraisal of the preceding two stages, final outcomes are; AMpost$ appraisal activities, chiefly sta=ilisation of the accomplished =etterments. Irganizations that have furnished themselves with a decent model and progress it in time via use L and methodically employing the /D>A cycle L are well again furnished to advance the 8nowledge of themselves and then identify own illness and the right treatment. Irganizational illness, when unidentified and then not treated, incite ar=itrary vi=rations of performance (left$hand diagram of ?igure 0). Jse of an effective model in con4unction with the /D>A cycle, can lead to a improved control and sustained presentation improvement (right$hand diagram of ?igure 0).

11

Figure +:

P,%A %ycles *ased on !ystematic Application o$ an

Appropriate -.cellence Model

/.

%onclusion

En this assignment the author has find out the Quality &anagement process and the sta8eholders in the pro4ect process. ;he author has delineated the ;Q& methodology to ensure the Quality.

12

0e$erences:
Dow, D., !amson, D., ?ord, !. (1999), N,*ploding the mythK do all +uality management practices contri=ute to superior +uality performanceON, Production and Operations Management , 3ol. . Fo.1, pp.1$" .

Grandzol, -.%., Greshon, &. (199 ), NHhich ;Q& practices really matterK an empirical investigationN, Quality Management Journal, 3ol. ( Fo.(, pp.(9$09. !ila, E., ,=rahimpour, &. ("##9), N,*amination and comparison of the critical factors of total +uality management (;Q&) across countriesN, International Journal o Production !esearch, 3ol. (1 Fo.", pp."90$2..

!anchez$%odriguez, >., &artinez$'orente, A.%. ("##(), NQuality management practices in the purchasing functionK an empirical studyN, International Journal o Operations " Production Management , 3ol. "( Fo. , pp.222$. . ,aston, G.!., -arrell, !.'. (199.), N;he effects of total +uality management on corporate performanceK an empirical investigationN, Journal o #usiness, 3ol. 1 Fo.", pp."09$9# . /owell, ;.>. (1990), N;otal +uality management as competitive advantageK a review and empirical studyN, Strategic Management Journal, 3ol. 12 Fo.1, pp.10$9 . Das, A., Gandfield, %.:., >alantone, %.-., Ghosh, !. ("###), NA contingent view of +uality management L the impact of international competition on +ualityN, $ecision Sciences, 3ol. 91 Fo.9, pp.2(9$9#. 1eung, A.>.'., ,dwin >heng, ;.>., 'ai, 7. ("##2), NAn operational and institutional perspective on total +uality managementN, Production and Operations Management, 3ol. 10 Fo.1, pp.102$ #.

13

!antos$3i4ande, &., 5lvarez$Gonz6lez, '. ("##9), N;Q&Ps contri=ution to mar8eting implementation and firmPs competitivenessN, Total Quality Management and #usiness %xcellence, 3ol. "# Fo.", pp.1 1$92. 7ayna8, G. ("##9), N;he relationship =etween total +uality management practices and their effects on firm performanceN, Journal o Operations Management, 3ol. "1 Fo.(, pp.(#0$90. /ra4ogo, D.E., &cDermott, D.&. ("##0), N;he relationship =etween total +uality management practices and organizational cultureN, International Journal o Operations " Production Management , 3ol. "0 Fo.11, pp.11#1$"". !ousa, %., 3oss, >.A. ("##"), NQuality management re$visitedK a reflective review and agenda for future researchN, Journal o Operations Management , 3ol. "# Fo.1, pp.91$1#9. Dow, D., !amson, D., ?ord, !. (1999), N,*ploding the mythK do all +uality management practices contri=ute to superior +uality performanceON, Production and Operations Management , 3ol. . Fo.1, pp.1$" . Dean, G.H., :owen, D.,. (199(), N&anagement theory and total +ualityK improving research and practice through theory developmentN, &cademy o Management !evie', 3ol. 19 Fo.9, pp.99"$(1..

/owell, ;.>. (1990), N;otal +uality management as competitive advantageK a review and empirical studyN, Strategic Management Journal, 3ol. 12 Fo.1, pp.10$9 . !amson, D., ;erziovs8i, &. (1999), N;he relationship =etween total +uality management practices and operational performanceN, Journal o Operations Management, 3ol. 1 Fo.(, pp.999$(#9.

14

?orza, >., ?lippini, %. (199.), N;Q& impact on +uality conformance and customer satisfactionK a causal modelN, International Journal o Production %conomics, 3ol. 00 Fo.1, pp.1$"#. %ahman, !., :ulloc8, /. ("##0), N!oft ;Q&, hard ;Q&, and organizational performance relationshipsK an empirical investigationN, Omega, 3ol. 99 Fo.1, pp. 9$.9. !6nchez$%odriguez, >., &art@nez$'orente, A.%. ("##(), NQuality management practices in the purchasing functionK an empirical studyN, International Journal o Operations " Production Management , 3ol. "( Fo. , pp.222$. . &otwani, -.G., &ahmoud, ,., %ice, G. (199(), NQuality practices of Endian organizationsK an empirical analysisN, International Journal o Quality " !eliability Management, 3ol. 1 Fo.1, pp.9.$0". Adam, ,.,. -r, >or=ett, '.&., ?lores, :.,., Garrison, F.-., 'ee, ;.!., %ho, :.G., %i=era, -., !amson, D., Hest=roo8, %. (199 ), NAn international study of +uality improvement approach and firm performanceN, International Journal o Operations " Production Management , 3ol. 1 Fo.9, pp..("$ 9. Dale, :.G. (1999), Managing Quality, 9rd ed., :lac8well /u=lishers 'td, I*ford, . Dahlgaard, -., 7ristensen, 7., Gopal, 7. (199.), (undamentals o Total Quality Management, >hapman Q Gall, 'ondon, . :ergman, :., 7lefs4D, :. ("##9), Quality rom )ustomer *eeds to )ustomer Satis action, "nd ed., !tudentlitteratur, 'und, . ,?Q& ("##9), The %(QM %xcellence Model, ,uropean ?oundation for Quality &anagement, :russels, .

15

&:FQA ("##(), N;he criteria for the &alcolm :aldrige Fational Quality AwardN, availa=le atK www.+uality.nist.gov, . !EQ ("##9), S'edish Institute or Quality, ;he !wedish Quality Award, Gothen=urg, . Gendric8s, 7.:., !inghal, 3.%. (199 ), NDoes implementing an effective ;Q& program actually improve operating performanceON, Management Science, 3ol. (9 Fo.9, pp.1"0.$ (. Gendric8s, 7.:., !inghal, 3.%. (1999), NDonPt count ;Q& out L evidence shows implementation pays off in a =ig wayN, Quality Progress, 3ol. 9" Fo.(, pp.90$(". Hrolstad, &.A., 7rueger, ;.&. ("##1), N!tudy shows that +uality pays winnersN, The Quality Management (orum, !ummer, pp.11$1(. Gansson, -., ,ri8sson, G. ("##"), N;he impact of ;Q& on financial performanceN, Measuring #usiness %xcellence, 3ol. 2 Fo.(, pp.(($0(. !ila, E., ,=rahimpour, &. ("##9), N,*amination and comparison of the critical factors of total +uality management (;Q&) across countriesN, International Journal o Productivity !esearch, 3ol. (1 Fo.", pp."90$2..

Armistead, >., /ritchard, -$/., &achin, !. (1999), N!trategic =usiness process management for organisational effectivenessN, +ong !ange Planning, 3ol. 9" Fo.1, pp.92$1#2.

Garvare, %. ("##"), N/rocess management and sustaina=le development in a +uality perspective L implementation and measurement related to small and medium sized enterprisesN, Division of Quality ;echnology and !tatistics, 'uleR Jniversity of ;echnology, 'uleR, .

16

'indsay, A., Downs, D., 'unn, 7. ("##9), N:usiness processes L attempts to find a definitionN, In ormation " So t'are Technology , 3ol. (0 Fo.10, pp.1#10$ 9. &elan, ,.G. (199"), Process Management. Methods or Improving Products and Service, &cGraw$Gill, Few 1or8, F1, . Gammer, &. (1992), #eyond !eengineering, Garper >ollins /u=lishers, Few 1or8, F1, . Garrington, -.G., ,sseling, ,.7.>., van Fimwegen, G. (199 ), #usiness Process Improvement ,or-boo-, &cGraw$Gill, Few 1or8, F1, . ?reeman, %.,., %eed, D.'. (19.9), N!toc8holders and sta8eholdersK a new perspective on corporate governanceN, )ali ornia Management !evie', 3ol. "0 Fo.9, pp...$1#2. %entzhog, I. (1992), N>ore process managementN, 'in8Dping Jniversity, Division of Quality ;echnology, 'in8Dping, . >a8ar, ?., :ititci, J.!., &ac:ryde, -. ("##9), NA =usiness process approach to human resource managementN, #usiness Process Management Journal , 3ol. 9 Fo.", pp.19#$"# . Iuld, &.A. (1990), #usiness Processes. Modelling and &nalysis or !e/ engineering and Improvement, Hiley, >hichester, . Garrington, -.G. (1991), #usiness Process Improvement 0 The #rea-through Strategy or Total Quality1 Productivity1 and )ompetitiveness , &cGraw$Gill, Few 1or8, F1, . Esa8sson, %., Garvare, %. ("##9=), NDrivers, ena=lers and =arriers towards sustaina=le organisational performanceN, Proceedings o the 2th International 17

)on erence on Quality Management and Organisational $evelopment/ (ocusing On Sustainable $evelopment1 3/4 October , /aris, .

:riner, H., Gastings, >., Geddes, &. (1992), Pro5ect +eadership, Gower, Aldershot, .

>leland, D.E. (1990), N'eadership and the pro4ect management =ody of 8nowledgeN, International Journal o Pro5ect Management , 3ol. 19 Fo.", pp.."$..

Dinsmore, /.>. (1999), ,inning in #usiness ,ith %nterprise Pro5ect Management, American &anagement Association, Few 1or8, F1, .

>leland, D.E. (1990), N'eadership and the pro4ect management =ody of 8nowledgeN, International Journal o Pro5ect Management , 3ol. 19 Fo.", pp.."$..

Hal8er, D.G.;. ("##9), NEmplications of human capital issuesN, in Hal8er, D.G.;., Gampson, 7.D. (,ds), Procurement Strategies. & !elationship #ased &pproach, :lac8well /u=lishing, I*ford, pp."0.$90. Daft, %.'., Heic8, 7.,. (19.(), N;owards a model of organizations as interpretation systemsN, &cademy o Management !evie', 3ol. 9 Fo.", pp.".($90. 8han Weick, K.E. (1987), "Organizationa c! t!re an" #ig# re ia$i it%", )ali ornia

Management !evie', &o . 29 'o.2, ((.112)27.

18