This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Technology and process management in the Australian wine industry
Stuart Christopher Orr
Monash University, Caulfield East, Australia
Introduction Can manufacturing strategy be applied to industries which are not traditionally considered to be involved in manufacturing processes? This paper demonstrates the applicability of manufacturing strategy to the Australian wine industry, via a case study and questionnaire survey analysis of the actual process of developing a strategy for the industry. The methodology follows Platts’ method for manufacturing strategy research in the manufacturing industry. The following features of the wine industry made it an appropriate subject of study. The positive points were: • essentially homogeneous; • good sample size (about 700 organizations); • scope can include whole industry; • clearly defined boundaries (product and operations); • a 200-year history; • displaying strong growth; • virgin manufacturing strategy research territory. The negative points were: • very proud; • highly traditional; • naïve about international business; • limited corporate orientation; • medium industry moderation; • unsure as to industry identity (agriculture, food or manufacturing). The elements of manufacturing strategy being investigated in this case study are key decision areas and competitive priorities, as first proposed by Skinner. Skinner argues that manufacturing strategy is the missing link
Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, Vol. 4 No. 1, 1997, pp. 18-33. © MCB University Press, 1351-3036
A copy of the questionnaire used for the project is available from the author.
between production and business strategy because the capabilities of manufacturing often are not considered in the formulation or implementation of business strategy. Competitive priorities are operational characteristics which the organization wishes to achieve to compete in the market (cost, service, quality, etc.). Decision areas are choices made in the wine manufacturing process as to the nature of these operations (technology, job design, work practices, quality control, etc.) which create the competitive priorities and lead to a competitive advantage. This concept has been developed[4-7] into a correlation between key decision areas and competitive priorities for industry competence, which is used as the theoretical principle for this paper. Figure 1 shows the scope of the research in the context of the manufacturing process of a wine producer. As can be seen, the external environment is essentially outside the control of the organization, but determines the actions it must take to compete. What is within the control of the organization is the choices it makes about how it will run its operations and which areas it will focus on in achieving excellence. The project concentrates on those activities which are under the control of the organization, which extend from its competitive priorities and key decision areas to wine production competence. The wine production competence of the organization is the basis of its capacity to perform in the market.
Technology and process management 19
Figure 1. Scope of project in the context of a manufacturing organization
Industry overview On a macro scale, the Australian wine industry has been relatively stable for the past decade. It has replaced flagging local sales with export sales, making it an
industry which has justification for displaying an interest in world class manufacturing. On a micro scale, there is some movement in the industry (such as acquisitions) which makes it an interesting and worthwhile topic for research. It is an industry with a broad variation in organizational groups, from the numerous small boutique wineries appearing in South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia, to companies which are large by Australian, as well as world, wine producing standards. Some of the larger producers have commercial interests in, joint agreements with, or ownership of, overseas wine manufacturers. This differentiates the Australian wine industry from industries such as the Australian automotive industry which is in a state of decline and in which there is a relatively small number of dedicated major organizations available for research data collection. The wine industry in Australia has been identified by business observers as “one of the biggest growth areas in the economy”; Australia has now replaced Germany as the fourth largest source of wines imported in the USA. Over the 1990-91 financial year, the Australian wine industry contributed $1.05 billion to Australia’s GDP and $177 million to Australia’s export earnings (4 per cent of elaborately transformed manufactures exports). Over the last three financial years, wine exports (in dollar values) have increased. Exports have stayed static at about 18 per cent of imports (for the year ended 1993). In terms of national wine making R&D, Australia spends $1.68 million on public technical research (or 0.16 per cent of annual production) per year. Major export destinations are: the UK (27 per cent), Sweden (21 per cent), the USA and New Zealand (11 per cent each), Canada (8 per cent) and Japan (5 per cent). A major wine producer, BRL Hardy Pty Ltd, identifies economies of scale savings in marketing, production, distribution and corporate overhead costs as being a potential benefit to wine producers. Distribution networks and product range were also identified as being important dimensions of competitiveness. According to BRL (based on findings published at the National Agricultural Resources Outlook Conference, 1990), Australia enjoys a cost production advantage over the USA and France in the wine variety Cabernet Sauvignon. Figure 2 shows the relevant cost components of the production process for this wine for Australia, USA and France. Methodology As stated in the introduction, the methodology for this research follows that of Platts: • creating the strategy formulation process; • testing and refining the process by application in a small number of companies; • investigating the applicability of the process by survey.
Technology and process management 21
Figure 2. International cost benchmarking: Cabernet Sauvignon
In this project Platts’ stage two (which drew on a small sample to test and refine the process) was replaced by an industry workshop (preceded by a pilot group survey) which provided a larger and richer information source. This is not considered to weaken the rigour of the project, but reflects the limited literature available on strategy and manufacturing management practices within the wine industry. Stage one was augmented by a personal interview process with industry representatives. In essence, the project comprised the elements shown in Table I.
Activity 1 Detailed company interviews using an interview guide developed from past detailed industry interviews, e.g. . 2 Detailed literature review to match the identified processes, competitive priority and key decision areas with other potential competitive priorities and key decision areas identified by other researchers. 3 A one-day industry workshop involving representatives from wine producers of all sizes, industry researchers, industry authority representatives and consultants. 4 Design of a questionnaire to be used in an industry-wide census.
Purpose Identify the main processes which the industry deals with and create a starting list of competitive priorities and key decision areas for this industry. Produce a complete list of potential competitive priorities and key decision areas.
To further test the concept of the relationship between key decision areas and competitive priorities for the wine industry and to trial the list of both. To determine the correlation between the key decision areas and competitive priorities and impact of the key decision areas on manufacturing competence in this industry. To maximize the quality of the responses.
5 DELPHI testing of the questionnaire.
6 Distribution and analysis of the questionnaire.
Table I. Summary of the elements which the project comprised
Findings An initial understanding of the industry was achieved through personal interviews and the preparation of case studies on nine major wineries. The personal interviews were based on an interview guide prepared from previous operations management research projects, conducted by a range of researchers including Sohal, et al.. In essence it covered the following five issues: (1) Individual company directions. (2) Wine manufacturing. (3) Production planning and control. (4) Purchasing and materials management. (5) Future opportunities for the Australian wine industry. The interviewees were mainly CEOs or production managers. The nine largest wine producers (in terms of sales and number of employees) were interviewed and the results written up into case studies. A customized follow-up questionnaire was then sent to each organization, addressing areas where information was omitted in the initial interview, or which the interviewee could not answer at that time. The information received from these follow-up questionnaires was then incorporated into the case studies. The key decision areas and competitive priorities were identified directly from the responses of the interviewees in the finalized case studies in relation to problems, advantages and the basis for competition in the Australian wine industry. The competitive priorities and the frequency with which they were identified by the interviewees are shown in Figure 3. As can be seen, product cost, product
Figure 3. Frequency of identification of competitive priorities by interviewees
quality, production output variation and delivery/supply flexibility were the most significant competitive priorities identified. The following were the key decision areas identified by the interviewees: • technology investment; • inventory management; • JIT; • MRP II; • plant layout; • process control; • production plan manipulation/control; • statistical process control; • raw material (grape) quality control; • distribution; • subcontracting production; • customer focus; • scales of economy; • allocation of production to centres of strength; • inclusion of market research in production plan; • quality certification (ISO 9000). The key decision areas of technology investment, production plan manipulation/control, ISO 9002 quality certification, inventory management and statistical process control were considered to relate directly to the four major competitive priorities mentioned above by more than 50 per cent of the interviewees. The literature reviewed provided a further list of potential competitive priorities for the wine industry, identified through direct measurement or reviews of other research. These competitive priorities were then evaluated against the scope of the project (shown in Figure 1) and the qualitative data in the case studies. Speed of production, market scope, rate of innovation and product price were added subsequently to the competitive priorities shown in Figure 3. The literature reviewed also provided a range of key decision areas for manufacturing strategy. These key decision areas were similarly evaluated and the following were added to the list given above: • process flexibility; • integration; • time (control); • capacity;
Technology and process management 23
• • • •
quality control; labour and staffing; integration with business strategy and environment; role of workforce; product design; organizational design; facility management; work organization; material flow; worker involvement; supplier reliability; top management involvement; corporate culture; communication; structural decentralization; organization design.
• • • • • • • • • • • •
In the course of this project, the term “product quality” in relation to wine and wine production has become prominent. It is therefore appropriate to define it here. Different organizations and researchers use different definitions of quality, the simplest of which is “fitness of purpose”. Other definitions include “conformance to requirements” and “the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs”. In many cases product and service quality also incorporates the concept of “value for money”. Quality clearly has meaning only when it is related to the function of the product. In the wine industry this meaning is represented by the characteristics of the wine as a (premium) beverage. Garvin defines product quality as “performance, features, reliability, conformance, durability (shelf life), serviceability, aesthetics and perceived quality”. In addition Samson and Sohal believe that quality arising from a production process should include “what does the customer want and what can we deliver?” Thus it would appear that the term “product quality” in the context of wine production is a mixture of delivery, value for money and customer perception factors. This definition of quality is a moving target for the wine production process. It is up to the wine producer to monitor customer lead changes and adjust the process to accommodate these changes. This need for constant appraisal and adjustment makes the total quality management term “continuous improvement” very important for industries such as the wine industry.
To evaluate the key decision areas and competitive priorities identified in the literature and personal interviews, a one-day workshop was held at the Australian Wine Research Institute. Attendance at the workshop was by invitation. To ensure all perspectives were addressed, winery senior management, managers, industry consultants and industry researchers were invited. This process also placed the findings drawn from the case studies in context. The methodology used for the workshop was to: • introduce the necessary theoretical concepts to the participants; • present previous findings and relevant literature; • form teams of four to five people to discuss the validity and relative importance of the competitive priorities and key decision areas. The concepts introduced to the participants were: • the meaning and role of wine production strategy and competence; • the meaning and role of key decision areas and competitive priorities. In total, 20 participants attended the workshop (this represented a 50 per cent attendance rate of the 40 participants invited). The participants were formed into three groups containing a mixture of consultants, industry researchers and winery managers. This ensured a broad spread of perspectives in each group as well as the basis for competitive discussion. Competitive discussion is useful for detailed examination of difficult-to-define issues. The groups were given 30 minutes to discuss and prioritize a list of competitive priorities and 30 minutes to discuss and prioritize a list of key decision areas. Each of these was supplied as a pro forma list to the participants. Each group then presented their findings to the rest of the participants. All of these presentations were recorded, transcribed and the principal observations extracted. As a result the following competitive priorities were identified as being significant for the Australian wine industry: • product cost; • product quality; • product price; • product range; • supply dependability; • supply flexibility; • speed of production; • role of workforce; • rate of innovation; • market scope; • brand name.
Technology and process management 25
With the exception of brand name and product range, these priorities were the same as the suggested competitive priorities drawn from the literature and case studies. The syndicate groups were asked to give a rating of 1-5 for each of the suggested competitive priorities. There was only limited agreement as to the relative importance of each of the priorities between the groups. Most groups concluded that all the above priorities were important and so rating them was a subjective process. A larger sample would have been required for an accurate evaluation. The groups’ work sheets (each group submitted a work sheet at the end of the workshop) indicated that product cost, product quality and product price were generally considered to be of high priority. Speed of production and role of workforce were considered generally to be of lower priority. Each group was asked to make a brief presentation outlining the basis by which they rated each of the competitive priorities in order of their relative importance. Group One felt that, in determining the relative importance of competitive priorities, the individual organization should decide within which position of the wine market they wished to operate. For example, a wine producer could sell products into the fine wine segment of the market or alternatively into the beverage section of the market. This market positioning will then determine which of the agreed set of competitive priorities are more important and which are less important for that particular organization. It was also noted that some organizations which have adopted an approach of having a very large product range may endeavour to operate in several positions in the market and for them all competitive priorities may be of equal importance. For this group the most important competitive priority was for the organization to establish its mission and be aware of its principal objectives. This, of course, is a vital business process for any organization although, in terms of the scope of this project, this activity is part of the strategies of the organization as a whole and not just the wine manufacturing process. Determining the mission of the organization is an organization or business strategy issue, rather than one pertaining solely to manufacturing competitive priorities and competences. This group also identified the fact that it was difficult to separate the competitive priorities of product cost, quality and price as they are very much interrelated. Despite this, there was agreement within this group that product quality was universal in that the purchaser of a four litre wine cask has the same expectation of quality as one who buys an expensive bottle of wine. For this reason, this group identified product quality as the second priority. The group’s third priority was product cost. They felt that product price is influenced by factors outside the organization’s control and that a wine producer prices products in response to these external influences. The group did, however, note that the organization does have the option of determining the product price for a given unit production cost. The fourth priority identified was the role of the workforce. The skills possessed by the company’s employees (including technology, operations
management, logistics, sales and marketing) were considered to be main Technology and contributions of the workforce to the competitive priorities of the wine process production process. The fifth most important priority according to this group management was flexibility in supply. The group believed that speed of production, supply flexibility and supply dependability all really combine to create this competitive priority. The final competitive priority discussed by the group was rate of 27 innovation. Innovation in this context was considered to apply to both winemaking processes (including the introduction of new processes), new products and new business approaches. Group Two gave each of the competitive priorities a rating of 1 to 5, 1 being most important as they did not believe that it was possible to rank all the priorities in order of relative importance. They believed that all competitive priorities come out of and represent an integrated system and therefore can be implemented only as a system. They also noted, however, that, in analysing a system, one must first define the elements. In this context product quality was defined as the most important competitive priority. They identified product cost and product price as combining to represent the second most important competitive priority. They also noted that the systems environment into which these competitive priorities fit means that possessing any one of these priorities without the other made any of them of little value. For example, low product prices without quality have no real value in this industry. The group then rated supply dependability as a third level of importance as a competitive priority and identified supply flexibility as being associated very closely (in terms of its beneficial impact on the organization) with supply dependability. The group felt that these two competitive priorities together really represented the third level of importance as a competitive priority. Production capacity was identified as the fourth level of importance as a competitive priority. The group noted that many companies were driven by marketing and sales and neglected the production environment. They felt that such organizations believed that there was always capacity to produce the order and did not attempt to match the orders with the capacity that the organization could manage efficiently. Market scope was also rated at the third importance level. Awareness of the market in which the organization operates is vital to matching the organization’s operations to the market. The role of the workforce within the organization was given a fourth level importance rating. Multi-skilling and flexibility in the workforce was identified as being particularly important for today’s wine manufacturing environment. Innovation in product ranges and processes as well as the products themselves were rated at the fifth importance level competitive priorities. Group Three believed that all of the competitive priorities suggested for discussion were of equal importance for any wine producing organization. They believed there was strong synergy within the identified list of competitive priorities. They also quoted Japanese businesses and Apple Computers as organizations which focus simultaneously on all competitive priorities. This
group suggested that, despite the interrelatedness of the suggested competitive priorities, it was important to attempt to separate them and identify their individual significance (as did the previous group). This group believed that brand name also represented a competitive priority for the organization which was tied in with quality and consistency. They gave this a number one level importance. As a brand name can be transferred between organizations, or manufacturing sites, it has been concluded that this competitive priority does not apply to the manufacturing process and so does not fall within the scope of the project. Product cost was identified as the second most important competitive priority by this group. The group then concluded that it was unable to determine the relative importance of the rest of the competitive priorities. They did, however, suggest that supply flexibility, speed of production and the role of the workforce were the least important of the suggested competitive priorities. They also noted that this did not make these competitive priorities unimportant, but they would be lower on the importance scale. It is interesting to note that the opinion of this group does not relate highly with the opinion of the second group, but does correlate moderately with the opinion of the first group. The proposed key decision areas were then presented to the workshop participants and the following finalized list of key decision areas was identified as being significant for the Australian wine industry: • process flexibility; • process integration; • time control; • capacity; • inventory levels; • material flow; • organization design; • integration of production with business strategy and environment; • product design; • plant and equipment; • production planning control; • work organization; • labour and staffing; • role of workforce; • worker involvement; • level of integration of technology; • facility management;
• supplier reliability; • quality control/assurance; • corporate culture; • communication; • structural decentralization; • top management involvement. The syndicate groups were asked to give a rating of 1-5 for each of the key decision areas selected. There was only limited agreement as to the relative importance of the decision areas between the syndicate groups. Most groups once again concluded that all the above decision areas were important and so rating them was a subjective process. It was determined that all of the above key decision areas were generally of high importance except organizational design and structural decentralization which were considered to have lower importance than the other key decision areas. A questionnaire was then designed and mailed out to all registered Australian wineries. There were 740 registered wineries at the time, of which 125 responded, giving a response rate of 17 per cent. The questionnaire contained two questions of relevance to this paper. The first asked the respondents to rate the importance of the competitive priorities on a Likert scale, between 1 and 5. The second question asked the respondents to consider each competitive priority and then select from the list of key decision areas given above a key decision area as having the “Most effect”, “Next most effect” and “Third most effect”. Each of the “effect” categories were listed in columns, alongside the competitive priorities, creating a cross-correlation table. There was also scope for the respondents to introduce other competitive priorities and key decision areas. Although the “other” category was used, no sufficiently frequent responses were apparent from the frequency analysis. The results were computed by tabulating the frequency counts of each of the 23 key decision areas with respect to three levels of effect, for each of the ten competitive priorities. Each level of key decision area effect (“Most effect”, “Next most effect” and “Third most effect”) was given a weighting of 3, 2 and 1 respectively. The ∑(frequency*weighting) was then calculated for each key decision area-competitive priority pair (there are 230 of these pairs). To this was added a significance constraint to improve the validity of the results. The (frequency*weighting) was set to a value of 0 if less than 10 per cent of the respondents indicated that the key decision area had an effect on the competitive priority (i.e. the sum of the frequency of responses ≥ 10 per cent of respondents. The ∑(frequency*weighting) was then multiplied by the relevant importance level of each of the competitive priorities (determined from the Likert scale question) to determine the contribution to the organization from each key decision area from each competitive priority. The results were then summed for each key decision area to find the total contribution to the organization from that key decision area and the findings were normalized to
Technology and process management 29
sum to 100. The results are shown in Table II and the main ten are depicted graphically in Figure 4. As can be seen, the key decision areas of plant capacity, quality assurance, plant and equipment, production planning and control, product design and top management involvement all have a high and roughly equivalent potential level of importance to Australian wine producers. This means that these key decision areas have a high level of impact on the competitive priorities which are considered important by wine producers. These results indicate that the correct management of these key decision areas will result in a higher level of manufacturing competence and a more competitive production output from the wine making process. Anecdotal evidence from the interview and workshop transcripts supports these findings. Investment in plant and equipment is a significant issue for all wine producers, absorbing up to 10 per cent of sales per year. The high cost of capital equipment for this industry, together with its low profit margins (2 per cent for some producers) means that the more effectively capacity is managed, the greater the wine producer’s profitability. Some of the producers interviewed
Key decision area Plant and equipment Quality control/assurance Capacity Production planning and control Product design Top management involvement Inventory levels Labour and staffing Integration with business strategy Material flow Communication Worker involvement Work organization Supplier reliability Process flexibility Level of integration of technology Corporate culture Role of workforce Time control Process integration Organizational design Facility management Other Importance 11.8 11.2 11.1 9.9 8.4 8.2 6.4 4.8 4.0 3.9 3.4 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.2 1.8 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3
Table II. Importance scores for key decision areas (normalized between 0 and 100)
Technology and process management 31
Figure 4. Importance of the ten major key decision areas resulting from the industry census
operated their capacities at 100 per cent while others claimed to be much lower (down to 50 per cent). While the industry does have its own internal quality assurance standards (wine show awards, and toxicity and pesticide residue levels), many of the larger wine producers have gained or are seeking to gain ISO 9002 quality certification to support export sales. Production planning and control is managed at very different levels throughout the industry. At one end of the spectrum, it is based on the Chief Wine Maker’s preferences, and at the other end, on a version of MRP II developed specifically for the industry. The interview and workshop findings indicate, however, that all major producers are now rapidly increasing their level of usage of computers in production planning. In an industry where prices are low (Australian wine prices are quite low compared to the wine quality, by world standards) buying behaviour is influenced strongly by product characteristics and design. Thus, product design is also an important manufacturing characteristic for this industry. As the industry is experiencing some consolidation at this time, the acquisitions of smaller producers have meant that some organizations now have up to 30 production sites. With this type of operating environment, senior management involvement at the production level naturally is perceived to be low and communication and coordination a significant issue for the larger organizations. It is also interesting to note that while inventory level still is considered to be a significant key decision area, it has a lower level of importance than the other major key decision areas. This may be because of the fact that the industry perceives inventory holdings as a necessary part of the wine manufacturing process and not subject to control and reduction. The interviews did, however, identify the use of JIT in the bottling and packaging areas, which appeared to lend themselves to inventory level reduction. Some key decision areas scored
very low importance scores which suggests that they did not have a significant positive impact on any of the competitive priorities which were important to wine producers. These key decision areas should be given a low priority as the returns from investing resources in these areas are likely to be low. When compared to the findings of research projects for more traditionally identified manufacturing industries, such as the automotive industry, the major key decision areas identified in this project are quite similar. This would suggest that the basis for operational competence for any production-based process, whether it be manufactured traditionally or not, is driven by the world class manufacturing parameters of technology management, quality assurance, capacity and inventory management, production planning and control, and product design. This has interesting implications for many other industries. Figure 5 summarizes the findings of this project by displaying the relationship between the groupings of the key decision areas and all the competitive priorities identified in this project.
Figure 5. Relationship between identified decision areas and competitive priorities categories
Conclusion The basic tenets of manufacturing strategy (i.e. that key decision areas correlate with a set of competitive priorities and subsequently can result in manufacturing competence) can be successfully applied to an industry such as the Australian wine industry, which is not traditionally considered to be a manufacturing industry. The results of this study would suggest that, for an industry with a production-type process, the basic demands of international competition result in a fundamental set of key decision areas and competitive priorities.
References 1. Platts, K.W., “A process approach to researching manufacturing strategy”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 13 No. 8, 1993, p. 7.
2. Orr, S.C., Production Strategies in the Australian Wine Industry – Report 2, Proceedings of a Workshop on Wine Industry Production Strategy, Quality Management Research Unit Publications, Melbourne, 1994. 3. Skinner, W., “Manufacturing: missing link in corporate strategy”, Harvard Business Review, May 1969, pp 136-45. 4. Banks, R.L. and Wheelwright, S.C., “Operations versus strategy: trading tomorrow for today”, Harvard Business Review, May-June 1979, pp.112-20. 5. Buffa, E.S., Meeting the Competitive Challenge, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1984. 6. Hayes, R.H. and Abernathy, W.J., “Managing our way to economic decline”, Harvard Business Review, July-August 1990, pp. 67-77. 7. Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.C., Restoring Our Competitive Edge: Competing through Manufacturing, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1984. 8. Orr, S. C., “A case study on operations management and performance improvement in the Australian wine industry”, paper presented at the Second International EurOMA Conference, Enschede, The Netherlands, 1995. 9. BRL Hardy Limited, Prospectus, BRL Hardy Limited, Adelaide, July 1992. 10. Petaluma Limited, Investment Prospectus, Petaluma Limited, Piccadilly, South Australia, 1992. 11. Brown, B., “Tough times for small wineries”, Business Australian, 5 August 1993, p. 1. 12. Iddles, N., “Globalisation of the automotive industry – staying in the game”, SAE-A Journal, September-October 1991, p. 19. 13. Lander, R., “Bikkies and wine taste good”, Bulletin, 6 July 1992, p. 73. 14. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Sales of Australian Wine and Brandy by Winemakers, Canberra, December 1993, ABS Cat. No. 8504.0. 15. Grape and Wine Research Council, Annual Report 1990-1991, Adelaide, 1991. 16. Port, J., “Meeting overseas wine demands”, The Age, 23 March 1993, p. 25. 17. Minor, E.D., Hensley, R. L. and Wood, R. D., “A review of empirical manufacturing strategy studies”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, 1994, p. 18. 18. Sohal, A., Samson, D. and Weill, P., “Manufacturing and technology strategy: a survey of planning for AMT”, Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 4 No. 2, May 1991, pp. 71-9. 19. Orr, S.C., Case Studies on Management Practices in the Australian Wine Industry, Quality Management Research Unit Publications, Melbourne, 1994. 20. Juran, J.M., Quality Control Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1979. 21. Crosby, P.B., Quality Is Free, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1979. 22. ISO 8402, Quality Vocabulary, International Standards Office, Geneva, 1986. 23. Samson, D. A. and Sohal, A., “The strategic status of quality: an Australian perspective”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 5 No 3, 1990. 24. Garvin, D.A., “Competing of the eight dimensions of quality”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 65 No. 6, 1987, pp. 101-9.
Technology and process management 33
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.