Quality Management Journal

ISSN: 1068-6967 (Print) 2575-6222 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uqmj20

On Baldrige Core Values and Commitment to

Quality

Jeffrey A. Ogden, Cynthia Wallin & S. Thomas Foster Jr.

To cite this article: Jeffrey A. Ogden, Cynthia Wallin & S. Thomas Foster Jr. (2010) On Baldrige
Core Values and Commitment to Quality, Quality Management Journal, 17:3, 21-34, DOI:
10.1080/10686967.2010.11918278

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2010.11918278

Published online: 21 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uqmj20
 On Baldrige Core Values
and Commitment
to Quality
Jeffrey A. Ogden, Air Force Institute of Technology
Cynthia Wallin, Brigham Young University
S. Thomas Foster Jr., Brigham Young University
This paper reports the results of a study compar-
ing the perceptions of supply chain and operations
managers relative to the core values of the Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award. The authors’
results showed agreement between operations and
supply chain managers relative to a high emphasis
on results orientation, customer-driven quality,
creating value, and focus on innovation. Operations
managers tended to prioritize partnering, social
responsibility, and future orientation more than
supply managers. On the other hand, supply chain
managers prioritized organizational and personal
learning higher than did operations managers. An
exploratory stepwise regression analysis was per-
formed for supply chain managers, operations
managers, and both groups combined (overall),
with the dependent variables being “quality as a
strategic priority,” “executive managers providing
clear guidelines for improvement,” and “strength of
the firm’s quality orientation.”
© 2010, ASQ
INTRODUCTION
An emerging area of research in the quality field
is supply chain quality management (SCQM).
According to Foster (2008), SCQM “is defined as a
systems-based approach to performance improvement
that leverages opportunities created by upstream and
downstream linkages with suppliers and customers.”
SCQM is interesting, as it represents an evolutionary
step forward and a theoretical foundation for exter-
nalizing the view of quality. This isn’t necessarily
new. In his 14 points for management, W. Edwards
Deming (1986) emphasized a systems-based view of
improvement. He also emphasized the importance
of purchasing and working with suppliers to achieve
better quality. The historical emphasis on quality
control and engineering, however, has led to inter-
nally focused quality efforts. This is consistent with
the traditional production and operations manage-
ment approach to quality management that is still
emphasized in operations management thinking
today (Stevenson 2007).
In this paper, the authors distinguish between
operations managers and supply chain manag-
ers. The APICS dictionary (Cox and Blackstone
1988, 62) defines operations management as “the
planning, scheduling, and control of the activi-
ties that transform inputs into finished goods and
services.” Often, these processes are referred to as
“transformation or conversion processes” (Jacobs
and Chase 2010). Therefore, operations managers
have historically been focused on internal processes
www.asq.org 21
 On Baldrige Core Values and Commitment to Quality
and engineering-oriented quality approaches such
as statistical quality control and product design
(Foster and Ogden 2008).
On the other hand, the Institute of Supply
Management (ISM) defines supply chain man-
agement as “a systems management concept
employed by some organizations to optimize the
factors of material costs, quality, and service”
(Raedels 2001, 224). Implicit in this definition
is an outward-looking view that includes suppli-
ers (upstream), logistical activities, and customer
relationship management with after-sales service
(downstream). The authors define this outward
view as an externalized view.
As firms externalize their view of quality manage-
ment upstream and downstream, the authors are
interested in understanding how this influences qual-
ity thinking. For this reason, they undertook a study
to examine how differently operations and supply
chain managers emphasize the Baldrige core values,
which are a set of foundational beliefs that underlie
modern quality improvement (NIST 2009).
While operations management and supply chain
management as fields are not mutually exclusive,
literature suggests that the internal versus exter-
nal orientations are significant (Choi and Hartley
1996; Frohlich and Westbrook 2001; Robinson and
Malhotra 2005). In addition, an emerging stream
of literature in the area of supply chain quality
management (Choi and Rungtusanatham 1999;
Flynn and Flynn 2005) attempts to define what
influence supply chain management has on qual-
ity management. The purpose of this paper is to
extend this stream of research to contrast the view-
points of operations managers and supply chain
managers relative to the Baldrige core values. The
fundamental research questions the authors seek to
address are:
• Q1: Is there a difference in emphasis on Baldrige
core values between operations and supply chain
managers?
• Q2: Does the difference in emphasis affect percep-
tions of firms’ emphasis on quality improvement
overall?
22 QMJ VOL. 17, no. 3/© 2010, ASQ
Therefore, in the first part of the study the
authors examine the question, “Is there a difference
in perception between operations managers and
supply chain managers?” This is examined using a
nonparametric statistical method. The second part
of this paper is exploratory in nature. The authors
expect that an emphasis on core values will result
in an increased emphasis on quality improvement
in an organization (NIST 2009). This is an area,
however, that has not been studied in the past. The
authors use stepwise regression to study the pre-
dictive worth of the Baldrige core values relative
to quality as a strategic value or priority within
the firm, the extent to which executive managers
provide clear guidelines for improvement, and the
strength of the firm’s quality orientation. In keeping
with the theme of this paper, the authors study this
phenomena from both operations and supply chain
perspectives.
They find that operations and supply chain man-
agers emphasize the core values differently and that
there are significantly different ways in which these
impact the extent to which the firm emphasizes
quality improvement at a strategic level.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Traditionally, quality management has been the
domain of operations managers and has focused
primarily on processes inside the organization.
The related field of supply chain management
has been developed and championed to a large
extent by those in charge of purchasing and logis-
tics functions who spend much more of their time
and energy dealing with external customers and
suppliers. More recent definitions of operations
management and supply chain management have
started to show a merging of these two approaches:
those who handle purchasing and logistics func-
tions have gained a more quality-minded approach,
and operations managers have increased their
external focus on customer satisfaction (Mehta
2004). Some authors, however, have argued that
this merging is still far from complete and that
 On Baldrige Core Values and Commitment to Quality
quality practices must advance even further from a
traditional firm-centric and product-based mindset
to an inter-organizational supply chain orientation
involving customers, suppliers, and other partners
(Robinson and Malhotra 2005).
While some articles discuss the notion of inte-
grating these two approaches, others suggest that
supply chain management may be an evolution of
management thought that may actually replace the
total quality paradigm because it involves higher-
order interactions across organizational units and
departments (Hackman and Wageman 1995; Juran
and Dershin 2000). Some researchers suggest that
just-in-time, supply chain management, and quality
management can be used as part of a three-pronged,
integrated operations strategy (Kannan and Tan
2005). Others view quality management as a sub-
set of supply chain or operations management
(Romano and Vinelli 2001). Some researchers point
out that quality can be a foundation upon which
other capabilities, such as supply chain manage-
ment, can be built (Trent 2001; Flynn, Schroeder,
and Sakakibara 1995). Whether supply chain man-
agement and quality management are different
prongs of an integrated approach, subsets of each
other, or replacements for one another, the literature
does agree that quality management practices and
concepts can add value to supply chain manage-
ment and that supply chain management concepts
and practices can add value to quality management
(Hutchins 2002).
BALDRIGE CORE VALUES
AND CONCEPTS
The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
(MBNQA) honors outstanding U.S. businesses that
exemplify core values. According to the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST 2009),
“these values are embedded beliefs and behaviors
found in high-performing organizations. They are
the foundation for integrating key performance and
operational requirements within a results-oriented
framework that creates the basis for action and
feedback,” and therefore provide the means for evalu-
ating award applicants. As the foundation for superior
performance, the 11 core values used in the MBNQA
have implications for both quality management
and supply chain management.
Visionary leadership
Deming’s integrated approach to improving quality
encompasses several aspects of visionary leadership,
including accepting responsibility for quality, encour-
aging employee involvement, setting financial goals,
and effective communication (Deming 1986; Anderson
et al. 1995). Visionary leadership has also been shown
to be important in supply chain management (Wong
2001). Cooper and Ellram (1993) illustrate the impor-
tance of leadership in order to develop and execute
supply chain strategies, and Cooper, Lambert, and
Pagh (1997) suggest various ways this leadership can
take place. Top management support was also found
to be the factor that contributes the most to successful
logistics integration (Daugherty, Ellinger, and Gustin
1996). Interestingly, a recent study that retested the
Anderson et al. (1995) model found a significant
relationship between visionary leadership and both
internal and external cooperation (Fisher 1997).
Customer-driven excellence
Deming defined quality as meeting or exceeding
customer expectations (Deming 1986; Knouse et al.
2009). While the operations perspective has long
been internally focused (Robinson and Malhotra
2005), the emergence of supply chain management
has helped motivate operations specialists to exter-
nalize their focus to include customers (Heberling
1993). Frohlich and Westbrook (2001) found that
companies with the greatest degree of integration
(including both customers and suppliers) will
have the largest rates of performance improve-
ment. Likewise, Rosenzweig, Roth, and Dean
(2003), through the use of a supply chain integra-
tion intensity construct that includes the integration
of customers, found that high integration intensity
leads directly to superior product quality, delivery
reliability, process flexibility, and cost leadership.
www.asq.org 23
 On Baldrige Core Values and Commitment to Quality
Organizational and personal learning
Deming’s fifth principle of quality is to “improve
constantly and forever the system” (Deming 1986;
Knouse et al. 2009). Continuous improvement
remains an important aspect of quality management
with a significant impact on customer satisfaction
(Fisher, Barfield, and Menta 2005). Continuous
learning is integral to supply chain management
as well, leading to higher levels of end-customer
satisfaction and a more market-focused supply chain
(Spekman, Spear, and Kamouff 2002). Furthermore,
a learning orientation can augment supply chain
agility, enabling a firm to better mitigate and
respond to supply chain risk (Braunscheidel and
Suresh 2009).
Valuing employees and partners
Valuing employees and partners is a key aspect
of Deming’s approach to quality management
(Deming 1986; Anderson, Rungtusanatham, and
Schroeder 1994). From a supply chain management
perspective “partnerships” take various forms —
strategic alliances, teamwork, and collaboration
are but a few (Cooper, Lambert, and Pagh 1997).
Much of the supply chain literature is built of the
relational view of the firm (Dyer and Singh 1998),
which posits that choosing the right supply chain
relationships can lead to a competitive advantage
for a firm. In a more recent study, researchers
found that a relational strategy enabled integrated
operations and improved logistics performance
(Rodrigues, Stank, and Lynch 2004).
Agility
The agility literature largely emanated from engi-
neering and operations management (Scannell,
Vickery, and Droge 2000), where flexibility has
been an important aspect of quality management.
Flexibility and the ability to adapt to changing cus-
tomer needs are also critical for successful supply
chain management (Lummus, Vokurka, and Duclos
2005). A supply chain that is aligned, adaptable,
and agile is capable of managing supply chain risks
(Lee 2004; Tang and Tomlin 2008; Skipper and
24 QMJ VOL. 17, no. 3/© 2010, ASQ
Hanna 2009). Supply chain flexibility can also help
to control the bullwhip effect (Pereira et al. 2009).
Focus on the future
The long-accepted approach to quality management
is one of a never-ending pursuit for improvement
(Deming 1986; Anderson, Rungtusanatham, and
Schroeder 1994). Similarly, supply chain managers
pursue long-term relationships with suppliers. Each
member of the supply chain expects the relationship
to continue for a considerable, if not indefinite, time
period and that risks and rewards will be shared over
the long term (Cooper and Ellram 1993; Lambert,
Emmelhainz, and Gardner 1996; Pearson, Ellram,
and Carter 1996). Supply chain management efforts
are often geared toward developing future supplier
capabilities rather than focusing only on current
capabilities (Hahn et al. 1986; Ellram 1990; Watts
and Hahn 1993).
Managing for innovation
Deming’s focus on learning and continuous
improvement (Deming 1986) naturally leads to a
quest for innovation and breakthroughs in both
operations and the quality of the product or service
being produced. In supply chain management,
suppliers, rather than internal resources, often pro-
vide the source of innovation. Research in supplier
involvement in product development has found that
involving suppliers in new product development can
lead to improvements in both product design and
financial returns (Wasti and Liker 1997; Petersen,
Handfield, and Ragutz 2005).
Management by fact
A systemic approach to quality and opera-
tions management requires the collection and
analysis of data, an essential element of process
management (Anderson et al. 1995; Fisher et
al. 2005). Performance measurement is equally
important to effective supply chain management.
Integrated measurement systems provide the means
to coordinate functions within a firm and with exter-
nal supply chain partners (Bowersox, Closs, and
 On Baldrige Core Values and Commitment to Quality
Stank 1999). These systems provide feedback for key
supply chain initiatives, allowing managers to take
prompt corrective action and ensure goals are met
(Rodrigues, Stank, and Lynch 2004).
Social responsibility
The Deming “chain reaction” illustrates a key
element of his philosophy, which is that higher
quality leads to higher productivity, which leads
to a long-term competitive strength, which allows
the firm to stay in business and provide jobs and
more jobs (Evans and Lindsay 2005, 94). His focus
extended beyond the organization. Likewise, for
supply chain managers who are by definition
externally focused, issues related to social respon-
sibility have become increasingly important in
recent years. For example, Sampson, Foster, and
Dunn (2000) found that service firms were more
likely to adopt newer environmental practices if the
environmental problems were visible to custom-
ers and the customers were involved in business
process co-production. Purchasing’s social respon-
sibility includes the environment, diversity, human
rights, philanthropy, safety, and ethics (Carter
and Jennings 2004). The role of logistics must
also include a focus on social responsibility (Stock
1990; Carter and Jennings 2004).
Focus on results and creating value
Not only has quality management been shown to
have an effect on customer satisfaction (Madu, Kuei,
and Lin 1995), but it also has a effect on overall busi-
ness performance (Flynn, Schroder, and Sakakibara
1995; Powell 1995; Hendricks and Singal 1997; Sousa
and Voss 2002). Supply chain management has been
defined as “the integration of business processes
from end users through original suppliers that pro-
vides products, services, and information that add
value for customers” (Cooper, Lambert, and Pagh
1997). Various aspects of supply chain management
have also been shown to have a positive impact on
performance. For example, researchers have found
a significant positive relationship between supply
chain integration and performance (Frohlich and
Westbrook 2001; Rosenzwig et al. 2003; Swink et al.
2007), and between information sharing and firm
performance (Clark and Hammond 1997; Cachon
and Fisher 2000; Frohlich 2002; Hult, Ketchen, and
Slater 2004).
Systems perspective
Systems involve processes, people, technology,
knowledge, and infrastructure (Stevenson 2008). A
systems perspective is necessary in quality manage-
ment to coordinate the infrastructural elements
of customer relationship management, leadership
and strategic planning, human resources man-
agement, process management, and information
and knowledge management (Evans and Lindsay
2005). This perspective is equally important in
supply chain management, as many aspects of the
supply chain and multiple supply chain members
must be simultaneously considered when making
decisions and setting goals (for example, Burgess
and Singh 2006; Li et al. 2008; Klibi, Martel, and
Guitouni 2010).
Given that these widely adopted core values
are central to improving quality within an orga-
nization, and to the practice of supply chain
management, the authors will study whether they
are predictive of an organization that supports and
sustains quality improvement. It has long been held
that quality is strategic (Kaynak 2003; Kaynak and
Hartley 2008). Therefore, a company that empha-
sizes quality management should demonstrate that
its improvement efforts are strategically important.
As a result, top managers will create an organi-
zation where expectations for improvement are
clear. This strategic emphasis is expected to result
in a quality orientation for the firm (Anderson,
Rungtusanatham, and Schroder 1994). The
remainder of this article studies which core values
for supply chain and operations management pro-
fessionals are predictive of an organization that
emphasizes quality. This is similar to the work per-
formed by Adam (1994) except that they are using
behavioral core values measures instead of quality
management tool adoption as predictors.
www.asq.org 25
 On Baldrige Core Values and Commitment to Quality
METHODS
In this paper, the authors will provide an overview of
the method used in gathering data. Participants in
this study filled out Web or paper surveys, depending
on the requirements of their particular professional
organization. Items for the study were developed
using the MBNQA core values and the Adam (1994)
instrument. Since these values underscore the
philosophy of modern quality management and
are widely used, they were thought to be impor-
tant measures for understanding how managers
from differing disciplines approach quality manage-
ment. The instrument used seven-point Likert scales
(strongly disagree, disagree, moderately disagree,
neutral, moderately agree, agree, and strongly agree)
for respondents to indicate the extent to which they
emphasized the various core values. The items are
included in the Appendix. The core values were not
identified in the survey as “Baldrige” core values.
They were simply identified as core values to simplify
the items so the respondents did not feel they were
rating the importance of the MBNQA process.
In the second section of the survey, respondents
were asked to provide demographic data including
their professional organization and their professional
orientation (quality management, supply chain man-
agement, operations management). The third section
of the survey included three dependent items: the
extent to which the respondents’ company places
strategic priority on quality, provides clear guidelines
for delivery of quality products or services, and has a
strong quality orientation.
The survey was pretested with an MBA class
(n = 30) in one of the authors’ universities and with
12 members of a U.S. Association for Operations
Management (hereafter referred to as APICS) chap-
ter. Internal content reliability was examined using
Cronbach’s alpha (alpha > .95) for each of the items.
Cronbach’s alpha has an important use as a measure
of the reliability of a psychometric instrument. It
indicates the extent to which a set of test items can
be treated as measuring a single latent variable.
Generally, values above .70 indicate that survey
26 QMJ VOL. 17, no. 3/© 2010, ASQ
items are internally reliable. Later test/retest reli-
ability analysis confirmed these Cronbach results
(alpha > .95). Pretest comments were received from
the initial respondents. While some minor adjust-
ments were made to the form of the survey, no items
were added or deleted as a result of the pretest. While
the MBA responses were not used in any further
analysis beyond the pretest, the APICS member
responses were included in the final results.
The population for the survey included profes-
sional members of APICS, the Council of Supply
Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP), and
the ISM. The respondents were from chapters in two
states in the U.S. Intermountain West region.
The Web survey was administered according to the
Dillman (1999) method for administering Web-based
and paper-based surveys. Surveys were administered
differently to the three organizations according to
the desires of their boards of directors. The boards of
directors for the APICS chapters provided members’
e-mail addresses to the researchers. An e-mail was
sent to 82 APICS members, explaining the purpose of
the survey and inviting the members to respond to the
survey. Of the 82 potential respondents, 44 responded
to the survey.
The ISM board would only allow the authors to
circulate a sign-up list for those who would volunteer
to respond to the survey at an ISM monthly chapter
meeting. After the volunteers provided their e-mail
addresses to the researchers, the e-mail was sent to
the ISM members asking them to participate in the
survey. Two weeks after the mailing, a follow-up was
sent. Of the 41 members who initially signed up to
participate in the survey, 33 responded.
The CSCMP board allowed the authors to attend
a day-long seminar. The leadership of the CSCMP
requested that they administer the survey on paper
the day of the seminar rather than e-mailing their
members, as they thought members were weary
of constantly receiving surveys. Of the 44 people
attending the conference, 25 filled out the paper
survey. Combining the three groups, the authors
totaled 102 respondents (though surveys from two
of these were discarded as unusable) out of 167
 On Baldrige Core Values and Commitment to Quality

Table 1 Pearson correlations.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Results 1

2. Cust-driven 0.45 1

3. Creating value 0.31 0.66 1

4. Social 0.25 0.52 0.677 1

5. Partners 0.5 0.5 0.556 0.55 1

6. Future 0.48 0.45 0.457 0.33 0.53 1

7. Innovation 0.56 0.47 0.386 0.26 0.47 0.39 1

8. Employees 0.53 0.45 0.388 0.32 0.41 0.38 0.79 1

9. Systems 0.43 0.39 0.331 0.27 0.41 0.16 0.58 0.49 1

10. Personal 0.46 0.16 0.225 0.18 0.56 0.39 0.38 0.36 0.3 1

11. Org. agility 0.57 0.52 0.518 0.36 0.38 0.52 0.47 0.53 0.43 0.31 1

©2010, ASQ
12. Visionary 0.48 0.59 0.506 0.47 0.52 0.56 0.48 0.52 0.39 0.37 0.64 1

13. Org. learning 0.21 0.51 0.383 0.44 0.35 0.51 0.23 0.27 0.14 0.23 0.36 0.53 1

potential respondents, for a 60 percent response Table 2 Kruskal-Wallis analysis of emphasis means.
rate. The authors tested for bias resulting from the
Core values Operations Supply chain Diffs
variation in sampling techniques and found no mean mean
significant differences in responses by people with
Results 5.76 6.19 -0.42
similar job orientations from differing professional
organizations. Cust-driven 5.58 6.19 -0.61
For the authors’ analysis, they compared the Creating value 5.33 5.90 -0.57
responses of operations managers and supply chain
Social 5.07 5.42 -0.35
managers. The organizations they selected for this
study are relevant to the study of differences in Value of partners 4.93 5.54 -0.61

perceptions between operations and supply chain Future orientation 4.91 5.25 -0.35
managers. APICS identifies itself as the “global Focus innov. 4.85 5.55 -0.70
leader and premier source of the body of knowl-
Value of emps. 4.72 5.29 -0.57
edge in operations management.” ISM was formerly
named the National Association of Purchasing Systems 4.70 5.46 -0.76

Managers and identifies itself as “the largest sup- Personal 4.67 5.71 -1.03
ply management association in the world as well as Org. agility 4.63 5.24 -0.61
one of the most respected.” CSCMP identifies itself
Visionary 4.58 5.53 -0.94
as “the pre-eminent worldwide professional asso-
©2010, ASQ

ciation of supply chain management professionals.” Org. learning 4.50 5.66 -1.16
Therefore, these groups provided a broad selection Kruskal Wallis = 7.953, p < .05
of operations and supply chain managers. It should
be noted that the two sample groups were mutually

www.asq.org 27
 On Baldrige Core Values and Commitment to Quality

exclusive in that no particular person responded to Table 3

the survey more than once.
Stepwise regression for core values for strategic (Q73)
with full model

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Variable R Square F Pr > F

Survey participants were asked to respond to the Creating value 0.3412 48.18 0.0001
following prompt: “Please rate the extent to which Value of partners 0.4255 13.49 0.0004
the following quality values are emphasized in
Customer-driven Q 0.4514 4.3 0.0409
your organization.” Table 1 shows Pearson correla-
tions for each of the Baldrige core value measures. Stepwise regression for core values for strategic (Q73)
This table was used to examine the presence of with operations managers (Q72 = 1)
multicollinearity in the data. While surveys are, Variable R Square F Pr > F
arguably by definition, problematic when it comes Creating value 0.5634 49.03 0.0001
to multicollinearity, the correlation coefficients
Value of partners 0.6058 3.99 0.0532
are such that multicollinearity was not found to be
a serious problem in this research (Hair, Anderson, Customer-driven Q 0.6461 4.1 0.0505

and Tatham 1987). Stepwise regression for core values for strategic (Q73)
Table 2 shows the means for emphasis of the with supply chain managers (Q72 = 2)
relative core values. Using these data, the authors Variable R Square F Pr > F
performed a Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric analysis

©2010, ASQ
Value of partners 0.3794 32.4 0.0001
of variance (Hair et al. 1987). The Kruskal-Wallis
analysis showed that the emphasis of the core values Value of employees 0.4154 3.21 0.0792

by operations and supply chain managers differed

significantly (p < .05). The differences are discussed
next. The implications of these differences will be
addressed later in this paper.
Differences for the mean scores are computed
in Table 2. It should be noted that on average, the
supply chain managers placed higher overall impor-
tance on the various core values. While this result
may be difficult to interpret, it is also instructive to
evaluate these core values in relative terms. Those
values that are relatively highly emphasized for
both supply chain and operations managers include
results, customer-driven quality, creating value,
and focus on innovation. Supply chain managers
emphasized organizational learning and personal
learning on a relative basis more than operations
managers. Operations managers placed higher rela-
tive importance on value of partners, importance
of corporate social responsibility, and future ori-
entation. Finally, both groups placed relatively low
emphasis on visionary leadership, systems thinking,
value of employees, and organizational agility.
Stepwise Regression Analysis
Stepwise regression was used to study the analytical
worth of the Baldrige core values relative to quality
as a strategic value or priority within the firm, the
extent to which executive managers provided clear
guidelines for improvement, and the strength of
the firm’s quality orientation. These results are pre-
sented in three stages: overall for both groups, with
operations managers only, and with supply chain
managers only.
Stepwise regression can be used in two ways.
First, variables can be forced into models to test
theory. Second, stepwise regression can be used in
exploratory studies to help develop a preliminary
understanding of the relationships between inde-
pendent variables and outcomes (Hair, Anderson,
and Tatham 1987). The authors have adopted the
latter approach for this research, as this is an area
that has been previously unstudied. In other words,
sufficient theory does not exist to predict how core

28 QMJ VOL. 17, no. 3/© 2010, ASQ

 On Baldrige Core Values and Commitment to Quality

Table 4 Table 5
Stepwise regression for core values for exec managers Stepwise regression for core values for strong quality
(Q74) with full model org (Q76) with full model
Variable R Square F Pr > F Variable R Square F Pr > F

Creating value 0.3645 53.33 0.0001 Creating value 0.3582 51.9 0.0001

Value of partners 0.4457 13.48 0.0004 Value of employees 0.4131 8.6 0.0042

Social 0.4683 3.87 0.0523 Customer-driven Q 0.4478 5.73 0.0188

Stepwise regression for core values for exec managers Social 0.4782 5.24 0.0245
(Q74) with operations managers (Q72 = 1)
Stepwise regression for core values for strong quality
Variable R Square F Pr > F org (Q76) with operations managers (Q72 = 1)
Creating value 0.5098 39.53 0.0001 Variable R Square F Pr > F

Results 0.5817 6.35 0.0162 Creating value 0.5702 50.41 0.0001

Personal 0.6235 4 0.053 Customer-driven Q 0.631 6.1 0.0183

Stepwise regression for core values for exec managers Social 0.6647 3.62 0.0651
(Q74) with supply chain managers (Q72 = 2)
Stepwise regression for core values for strong quality
Variable R Square F Pr > F org (Q76) with supply chain managers (Q72 = 2)
©2010, ASQ

Value of employees 0.4422 42.02 0.0001 Variable R Square F Pr > F

©2010, ASQ
Value of partners 0.4883 4.69 0.035 Value of employees 0.414 37.45 0.0001

Personal 0.4655 5 0.0296

values will influence organizational commitment to

quality improvement. Further, this approach provides
a means for better understanding how supply chain
managers differ from operations managers.
As seen in Table 3, the overall model shows
three independent core value variables that are
predictive of “quality as a strategic value or priority
within the firm:” creating value, value of partners,
and customer-driven quality. The overall model
explains 45 percent of the variation, with a p-value
of .0409. When considering only the operations
management professionals, the same three vari-
ables were significant, with 65 percent explained
variation and p < .0505. When evaluating supply
chain management professionals, however, value
of partners and value of employees emerged with
42 percent explained variation and p < .0792 for
the complete model. It may not be a surprise that
valuing partners was significant for supply chain
professionals (p < .0001), as this is a basis for
supply chain management.
As seen in Table 4, a stepwise regression was per-
formed to explore which variables were related to the
extent to which “executive managers provided clear
guidelines for improvement.” For the all-inclusive
model, creating value, value of partners, and the
importance of corporate social responsibility were sig-
nificantly related, with 47 percent explained variation
and p < .0523. Operations managers focused more on
creating value, results, and personal learning, with
62 percent explained variation and p < .0530. Supply
chain managers emphasized the value of employees
and value of partners, with 49 percent explained
variation and p < .0350.
Table 5 presents the results for the stepwise regres-
sion analysis exploring the predictive value of the
core values with the “strength of the firm’s quality
orientation.” For the overall model, four variables
were significantly related to the dependent variable:
creating value, value of employees, customer-driven
quality, and social responsibility, with 48 percent

www.asq.org 29
 On Baldrige Core Values and Commitment to Quality

explained variation and p < .0245.
For operations managers, three
variables emerged: creating
value, customer-driven quality,
and social responsibility, with
Figure 1 A comparison of relative priorities for operations and supply
chain managers.
Priorities for operations and
supply chain managers

66 percent explained variation Results orientation

Customer-driven quality
and p < .0651. For supply chain Creating value
managers, value of employees Focus on innovation
and personal learning were sig-
Priorities for
nificantly related to the dependent Priorities for
operations managers
variable, with 47 percent explained supply chain managers
Value of partners
variation and p < .0296. Organizational learning
Social responsibility
Personal learning
Future orientation

CONCLUSIONS Priorities for operations and

supply chain managers
This study was an exploratory
Results orientation
examination of the implications Customer-driven quality

of differences in patterns of core
value emphases between opera-
tions managers and supply chain
managers in order to gain a better
understanding of SCQM. The results show that there
are clearly differences in the perspectives of opera-
tions managers and supply chain managers when it
comes to the Baldrige core values and their influence
within their respective organizations. The analysis
of the priority rankings for the two groups showed
that operations managers place a higher priority
on the value of partners, something that could not
have been predicted from the existing literature. The
stepwise regression analysis, however, showed that
for supply chain managers the value of partnerships,
especially internal ones with employees, was much
more significant in terms of the relationship to qual-
ity as a strategic value or priority within the firm,
the extent to which executive managers provided
clear guidelines for improvement, and the strength
of the firm’s quality orientation. This result was
interesting given the notion that operations manage-
ment is often viewed as being much more internally
focused than supply chain management. Clearly, the
increased emphasis on supply chain management
in the workplace has implications for how quality
management is practiced and how quality-related
©2010, ASQ
Creating value
Focus on innovation
values are emphasized. These differences in practice
and philosophy between supply chain and operations
managers should be studied further.
Figure 1 shows the differing patterns of empha-
ses when comparing supply chain and operations
managers. Operations managers were more plan-
ning oriented with an emphasis on the future
and social responsibility. The authors previously
discussed the pattern of emphasis in the area of
valuing partners. While operations managers placed
a higher emphasis on partnering, supply chain
managers tended to see partnering as more strategic
(as was shown in the stepwise-regression analysis).
Conversely, supply chain managers emphasized
learning. The authors weren’t sure if this meant
supply chain managers are learning more or if it is
a result of the more topical and current nature of
supply chain management.
Figure 1 also shows the core values that were
highly ranked by both types of managers and those
that were lower ranked. Results orientation, custom-
ers, value creation, and innovation are important
for both types of managers.

30 QMJ VOL. 17, no. 3/© 2010, ASQ

 On Baldrige Core Values and Commitment to Quality
This study has implications for managers.
Managers must rethink their approaches to quality
management to take advantage of the opportuni-
ties provided by supply chain management. While
considering the practical implications of this
study, the authors should consider the pedagogi-
cal implications of supply chain management. As
organizations, including universities, place more
emphasis on supply chain management, they can use
these results to tailor their curricula to meet the needs
of the supply chain and to emphasize the values
identified in this study. The future research question
bears discussion: “Are we teaching the right things
in quality management classes and training?”
This study has several limitations that should be
addressed in future studies. Of course, the standard
caveats for survey research apply. Also, studies with
a larger sample size could provide more insights
into this topic. Case work in this area might be
undertaken to measure actual effort expended in
each of these areas as opposed to survey measures
of organizational emphasis. This paper focused on
emphasis and not actual effort. Future studies using
case method might be able to better measure actual
effort relative to the core values. As more researchers
create surveys for practitioners, it is getting more
difficult to obtain high response rates. The approach
the authors took in achieving these response rates
is time consuming and costly, albeit fruitful, and
requires close interaction with these professional
organizations. Future studies should include ASQ,
which was not included in this study.
REFERENCES
Adam, E. E. Jr. 1994. Alternative quality improvement prac-
tices and organization performance. Journal of Operations
Management 12, no. 1:27-44.
Anderson, J. C., M. Rungtusanatham, and R. G. Schroeder.
1994. A theory of quality management underlying the Deming
management method. Academy of Management Review 19, no.
3:472-509.
Anderson, J., M. Rungtusanatham, R. Schroeder, and S. Devaraj.
1995. A path analytic model of a theory of quality management
underlying the Deming management model: Preliminary empirical
findings. Decision Sciences 26, no. 5:637-658.
Bowersox, D. J., D. J. Closs, and T. P. Stank. 1999. 21st Century
logistics: Making supply chain integration a reality, Oak Brook,
Ill: Council of Logistics Management.
Braunscheidel, M. J., and N. C. Suresh. 2009. The organi-
zational antecedents of a firm’s supply chain agility for risk
mitigation and response. Journal of Operations Management 27,
no. 2:119-140.
Burgess, K., and P. J. Singh. 2006. A proposed integrated frame-
work for analyzing supply chains. Supply Chain Management
11, no. 4:337-344.
Cachon G. P., and M. Fisher. 2000. Supply chain inventory man-
agement and value of shared information. Management Science
46, no 8:1032-1048.
Carter, C. R. 2004. Purchasing and social responsibility: A repli-
cation and extension. Journal of Supply Chain Management 40,
no. 4:4-17.
Carter, C. R., and M. M. Jennings. 2004. The role of purchasing
in corporate social responsibility: A structural equation analysis.
Journal of Business Logistics 25, no. 1:145-186.
Choi and Hartley. 1996. An exploration of supplier selec-
tion practices across the supply chain. Journal of Operations
Management 14:333-343.
Choi, T. Y., and M. Rungtusanatham. 1999. Comparison of qual-
ity management practices: Across the supply chain and industries.
Journal of Supply Chain Management 35, no. 1:20-7.
Clark T., and J. Hammond. 1997. Reengineering channel reor-
dering processes to improve total supply chain performance.
Production & Operations Management 6, no. 3:248-265.
Cooper, M., and L. Ellram. 1993. Characteristics of supply chain
management and the implications for purchasing and logistics strat-
egy. International Journal of Logistics Management 4, no. 2:13-24.
Cooper, M. C., D. M. Lambert, and J. D. Pagh. 1997. Supply
chain management: More than a new name for logistics.
International Journal of Logistics Management 8, no. 1:1-13.
Cox, J., and J. Blackstone. 1988. APICS dictionary. Alexandria,
Va.: APICS.
Daugherty, P. J., A. E. Ellinger, and C. M. Gustin. 1996.
Integrated logistics: Achieving logistics performance improve-
ments. Supply Chain Management 1, no. 3:25-33.
Deming, W. E. 1986. Out of the crisis. Boston: CAES (MIT).
Dillman, D. 1999. Mail and internet survey: The tailored design
method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Dyer, J. H., and J. Singh. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative
strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advan-
tage. Academy of Management Review 23, no. 4:660-679.
Ellram, L. M. 1990. The supplier selection decision in strategic
partnerships. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management
(Fall):8-14.
www.asq.org 31
 On Baldrige Core Values and Commitment to Quality
Evans, J. R., and W. M. Lindsay. 2005. The management and
control of quality, 6th edition. Mason, Ohio: South-Western.
Fisher, M. 1997. What is the right supply chain for your product?
Harvard Business Review (March-April):105-116.
Fisher, C. M., J. Barfield, J. Li, and R. Mehta. 2005. Retesting
a model of the Deming management method. Total Quality
Management 16, no. 3:401-412.
Flynn, B., and E. Flynn. 2005. Synergies between supply
chain management and quality management: Emerging impli-
cations. International Journal of Production Research 43, no.
16:3421-3436.
Flynn, B., R. Schroeder, and S. Sakakibara. 1995. The impact of
quality management practices on performance and competitive
advantage. Decision Sciences 26, no. 5:659-692.
Foster, S. T. Jr. 2008. Towards an understanding of supply chain
quality management. Journal of Operations Management 26, no.
4:461-467.
Foster, S. T. Jr., and J. Ogden. 2008. On differences in how
operations and supply chain managers approach quality man-
agement. International Journal of Production Research 46, no.
24: 6945-6961.
Frohlich, M. T. 2002. E-integration in the supply chain: Barriers
and performance. Decision Sciences 33, no. 4:537-556.
Frohlich, M. T., and R. Westbrook. 2001. Arcs of integration:
An international study of supply chain strategies. Journal of
Operations Management 19, no. 2:185-200.
Hackman, J. R., and R. Wageman. 1995. Total quality manage-
ment: Empirical, conceptual, and practical issues. Administrative
Science Quarterly 40:309-342.
Hahn, C. K., K. H. Kim, and J. S. Kim. 1986. Costs of competi-
tion: Implications for purchasing strategy. Journal of Purchasing
and Materials Management Fall:2-7.
Hair, J., R, Anderson, and R. Tatham. 1987. Multivariate Data
Analysis. New York: Macmillan.
Heberling, M. E. 1993. The rediscovery of modern purchasing.
International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management
29, no. 4:48-53.
Hendricks, K., and V. Singhal. 1997. Does implementing an
effective TQM program actually improve operating performance?
Empirical evidence from firms that have won quality awards.
Management Science 43, no. 9:1258-1274.
Hult G. T. M., D. J. Ketchen, and S. F. Slater. 2004. Information
processing, knowledge development, and strategic supply
chain performance. Academy of Management Journal 47, no.
2:241-254.
Hutchins, G. 2002. Supply chain management: A new opportu-
nity. Quality Progress 35, no. 4:111-112.
Jacobs, R., and R. Chase. 2010. Operations and supply manage-
ment: The core. New York.
32 QMJ VOL. 17, no. 3/© 2010, ASQ
Juran, D. C., and H. Dershin. 2000. Lessons in supply chain
assessment and improvement. Quality Focus 4, no. 1:18-28.
Kannan, V., and K. Tan. 2005. Just in time, total quality man-
agement, and supply chain management: Understanding their
linkages and impact on business performance. Omega 33, no.
2:153-162.
Kaynak, H., and J. Hartley. 2008. A replication and extension of
quality management into the supply chain. Journal of Operations
Management 26, no. 4:468-489.
Kaynak, H. 2003. The relationship between total quality manage-
ment practices and their effects on firm performance. Journal of
Operations Management 21, no. 4:405-435.
Klibi, W., A. Martel, and A. Guitouni. 2010. The design of
robust value-creating supply chain networks: A critical review.
European Journal of Operational Research 203, no. 2:283-293.
Knouse, S. B., P. P. Carson, K. D. Carson, and R. B. Heady.
2009. Improve constantly and forever: The influence of W.
Edwards Deming into the twenty-first century. The TQM Journal
21, no. 5:449-461.
Lambert, D. M., M. A. Emmelhainz, and J. T. Gardner. 1996.
Developing and implementing supply chain partnerships.
International Journal of Logistics Management 7, no. 2:1-17.
Lee, H. 2004. The triple-A supply chain. Harvard Business Review
October, 102-112.
Li, X., C. Chung, T. J. Goldsby, and C. W. Holsapple. 2008. A
unified model of supply chain agility: The work-design perspec-
tive. International Journal of Logistics Management 19, no.
3:408-435.
Lummus, R. R., R. J. Vokurka, and L. K. Duclos. 2005. Delphi
study on supply chain flexibility. International Journal of
Production Research 43, no. 13:2687-2703.
Madu, C., C. Kuei, and C. Lin. 1995. A comparative analysis of
quality practice in manufacturing firms in the U.S. and Taiwan.
Decision Sciences 26, no. 5:621-636.
Mehta, J. 2004. Supply chain management in a global economy.
Total Quality Management 15, no. 6:841-848.
Newman, R. G. 1989. Single sourcing: Short-term savings ver-
sus long-term problems. Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management (Summer):20-25.
NIST. 2009. Criteria for Performance Excellence, the Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Program. Gaithersburg, Md.: NIST.
Pearson, J. N., L. M Ellram, and C. Carter. 1996. Status and
recognition of the purchasing function in the electronics industry.
International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management
32, no. 2:30-36.
Pereira, J., K. Takahashi, L. Ahumada, and F. Paredes. 2009.
Flexibility dimensions to control the bullwhip effect in a sup-
ply chain. International Journal of Production Research 47, no.
22:6357-6374.
 On Baldrige Core Values and Commitment to Quality
Petersen, K. J., R. B. Handfield, and G. L. Ragatz. 2005. Supplier
integration into new product development: Coordinating prod-
uct, process and supply chain design. Journal of Operations
Management 23, no. 3/4:371-388.
Powell, T. 1995. TQM as competitive advantage: a review and
empirical study. Strategic Management Journal 16, no. 1:15-37.
Raedels, A. 2001. CPM study guide. Tempe, Ariz.: ISM.
Robinson, C., and M. Malhotra. 2005. Defining the concept
of supply chain quality management and its relevance to aca-
demic and industrial practice. International Journal of Production
Economics 96, no. 3:315-325.
Rodrigues, A. M., T. P. Stank, and D. F. Lynch. 2004. Linking
strategy, structure, process and performance in integrated logis-
tics. Journal of Business Logistics 25, no. 2:65-94.
Romano, P., and A. Vinelli. 2001. Quality management in a
supply chain perspective: Strategic and operative choices in a
textile-apparel network. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management 21, no. 4:446-457.
Rosenzweig, E. D., A. V. Roth, and J. W. Dean. 2003. The
influence of an integration strategy on competitive capabilities
and business performance: An exploratory study of consumer
products and manufacturers. Journal of Operations Management,
21:437-456.
Sampson, S. E., S. T. Foster Jr., and S. C. Dunn. 2000. The
impact of customer contact on environmental initiatives for ser-
vice firms. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 20, no. 2:187-203.
Scannell, T. V., S. K. Vickery, and C. L. Droge. 2000. Upstream
supply chain management and competitive performance in the
automotive supply industry. Journal of Business Logistics 21, no.
1:23-48.
Skipper, J. B., and J. B. Hanna. 2009. Minimizing supply chain
disruption risk through enhanced flexibility. International Journal
of Physical Distribution and Logistics 39, no. 5:404-427.
Sousa, R., and C. A. Voss. 2002. Quality management re-visited:
A reflective review and agenda for future research. Journal of
Operations Management 20, no. 1:91-109.
Spekman, R. E., J. Spear, and J. Kamauff. 2002. Supply chain
competency: Learning as a key component. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 7, no. 1:41-55.
Stevenson, W. 2008. Operations management. Boston:
McGraw/Hill-Irwin.
Stock, J. R. 1990. Logistics thought and practice: A perspec-
tive. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management 20, no. 1:3-6.
Swink, M., R. Narasimhan, and C. Wang. 2007. Managing
beyond the factory walls: Effects of four types of strategic integra-
tion on manufacturing plant performance. Journal of Operations
Management 25, no. 1:148-164.
Tang, C., and B. Tomlin. 2008. The power of flexibility for
mitigating supply chain risks. International Journal of Production
Economics 116, no. 1:12-27.
Trent, R. 2001. Applying TQM to SCM. Supply Chain
Management Review 5, no. 3:70-78.
Vokurka, R., and R. Lummus. 2003. Better supply chains with
Baldrige. Quality Progress 36, no. 4:51-58.
Wasti, A. N., and J. K. Liker. 1999. Collaborating with suppliers
in product development: a U.S. and Japan comparative study. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management 46, no. 4:444-461.
Watts, C. A., and C. K. Hahn. 1993. Supplier development pro-
grams: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Purchasing
and Materials Management 29, no. 2: 10-17.
Wong, A. 2001. Leadership for effective supply chain partner-
ship. Total Quality Management 12, no. 7/8:913-927.
BIOGRAPHIES
Jeffrey A. Ogden is an associate professor of logistics and
supply chain management in the Operational Sciences
Department at the Air Force Institute of Technology. He
has published numerous articles in journals such as the
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Journal of Business
Logistics, International Journal of Logistics Management, and
International Journal of Operations Management. He received
his doctorate from Arizona State University in supply chain
management and is the coauthor of the textbook Supply Chain
Management: From Vision to Implementation. Ogden can be
reached at jeffrey.ogden@afit.edu.
Cynthia Wallin is an assistant professor of global supply
chain management in the Marriott School at Brigham Young
University. She has a doctorate from Arizona State University.
She has published several research articles in journals such
as Decision Sciences, the International Journal of Production
Research and the Journal of Business Logistics. Prior to entering
academia, she worked in purchasing with Intel Corporation.
S. Thomas Foster is area leader, professor, and Ford Motor
Company Fellow of Global Supply Chain Management in the
Marriott School at Brigham Young University. He is the winner
of the prestigious Innovative Education Award from the Decision
Sciences Institute and is sole author of the best selling Managing
Quality: Integrating the Supply Chain. He has published
more than 60 articles and recently guest-edited special issues
of the Journal of Operations Management and the Quality
Management Journal in supply chain quality. Among his several
awards and recognitions, he was recently named to the Board
of Overseers for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.
In addition, Foster is a Senior member of ASQ and has con-
sulted with more than 30 major organizations in the private and
public sectors. He can be reached at tom_foster@byu.edu.
www.asq.org 33
 On Baldrige Core Values and Commitment to Quality

Appendix
Survey Items
Please rate the extent to which the following values are emphasized in your firm from
1 = unimportant to 7 = extremely important.
Visionary leadership
Customer-driven excellence
Organizational and personal learning
Valuing employees and partners
Agility
Focus on the future
Managing for innovation
Management by fact
Social responsibility
Focus on results and creating value
Systems perspective

Which of the following best characterizes your job:

Quality Supply Chain Operations

To which of the following organizations do you belong?

ASQ APICS ISM

Please rate the extent to which your firm emphasizes the following from 1 = no emphasis
to 7 = very strong emphasis.
Quality as a strategic value or priority in our firm.
Executive managers provide clear guidelines for improvement.
Strength of the firm’s quality orientation.

34 QMJ VOL. 17, no. 3/© 2010, ASQ