A QM Implementation Framework For Manufacturing-Based RD Environments

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
A quality management implementation framework for manufacturing‐based R&D

environments
Vinod Kumar Todd Boyle
Article information:
To cite this document:
Vinod Kumar Todd Boyle, (2001),"A quality management implementation framework for
manufacturing#based R&D environments", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol.
18 Iss 3 pp. 336 - 359
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 03:52 04 November 2014 (PT)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710110383557
Downloaded on: 04 November 2014, At: 03:52 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 31 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1110 times since 2006*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 117974 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The research register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
IJQRM
18,3 A quality management
implementation framework for
manufacturing-based R&D
336
Received February 2000
environments
Revised November 2000 Vinod Kumar
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and
Todd Boyle
St Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada

Keywords Quality, R&D, Implementation, Manufacturing
Abstract This research outlines the practices that managers believe are critical for achieving
quality management in applied research and development (e.g. R&D, process development,
product development, and engineering) departments of manufacturing companies. Using these
practices, comments from R&D managers, and the existing quality in R&D research literature, a
model is developed that highlights the need for broad management practices, specific
management practices, awareness of the R&D external environment, and a quality culture to
achieve quality management in the R&D departments of manufacturing organizations.
Introduction
Quality management (QM) has caught the attention of researchers and
managers alike, as is evident from the large volumes of literature produced in
the area and the constant claim by managers that their products and services
are of superior quality. It is surprising, however, that in the midst of this
quality movement, the research regarding the QM of research and development
(R&D) activities of organizations is still in its infancy. (For this research, the
acronym R&D includes the following activities: applied research, engineering
and product and process design and development. The acronym R&D for this
article does not imply nor include basic research.) Current research on quality
in R&D includes case studies of successful quality in research activities (e.g.
Keiser and Blake, 1996; Patino, 1997; Martensen and Dahlgaard, 1999), defining
quality in R&D (e.g. Patino, 1997; Schumann et al., 1995; Wood and McCamey,
1993), developing quality in R&D measurements and tools (e.g. Holcombe et al.,
1999; Keiser and Blake, 1996; Takahashi, 1997; Pearson et al., 1998; Werner and
Souder, 1997), identifying the biases that employees have in applying quality
practices to R&D activities (e.g. Patino, 1997; Wood and McCamey, 1993), and
developing models for achieving QM in R&D (e.g. Chang and Hsu, 1998;
Pearson et al., 1998).
This research deviates from these themes by developing a model of those
International Journal of Quality &
practices that R&D managers of quality award winning manufacturing
Reliability Management,
Vol. 18 No. 3, 2001, pp. 336-359.
organizations believe are necessary to implement quality management. The
# MCB University Press, 0265-671X quality practices that are successful in manufacturing environments are well
known and widely published. However, due to the low tangibility and Management
repetition found in R&D departments (Tenner, 1991), such manufacturing- implementation
based quality practices when applied to R&D departments may prove framework
disastrous. This research is exploratory in nature and focuses on North
American manufacturing organizations that have a demonstrated commitment
to quality. This research focuses exclusively on manufacturing companies in
an attempt to emphasize that R&D departments should not be forced to adopt 337
quality practices simply because they are successful in the manufacturing
department. A commitment to quality is demonstrated by an organization
winning a national award for quality, specifically the Canada Awards for
Business Excellence, Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, or the Shingo
Prize for Excellence in Manufacturing. Such awards represent `àn external
source of recognition that could be used as a yardstick for measuring ```quality

in R&D' progress and identifying gaps for improvement as well as providing a
common focus or direction for the whole company'' (Pearson et al., 1998). Using
these practices as a starting point, a model is developed highlighting the
importance of broad management practices, specific management practices, the
R&D external environment, and a quality culture for achieving QM in the R&D
departments of manufacturing companies.
Models for implementing quality into R&D

A review of the current research literature reveals that there is no one common
definition of quality in R&D. Patino (1997) states that quality in R&D involves
doing `ìt the right way the first time, learning from and improving it each time
and getting the results the company needs''. Wood and McCamey's (1993)
definition of quality in R&D addresses the specific involvement of the R&D
client. They summarize quality in R&D as really knowing your customers,
doing things right once you are sure you are working on the right things,
concentrating on continually improving the system, enabling people by
removing barriers and encouraging people to make their maximum
contribution. Schumann et al. (1995) also address the needs of the R&D client in
their summarization of R&D quality. They state that the:
Essence of quality in R&D, as in other fields, is a market focus. This requires that there be an
understanding of who the customer is and what his or her values and expectations are, what
the key technologies are and how they can be used to meet customers' expectations. Who the
competitors are and how they will respond to emerging customers' needs.
The operational definition of quality in R&D for this research is a combination

of Wood and McCamey (1997) and Schumann et al. (1995) summarization of
quality in R&D and is stated as:
An understanding of who the R&D client is and what his or her values and expectations are,
what the key technologies are and how they can be used to meet R&D clients' expectations
and the needs of the entire organization, and who the R&D competitors are and how they will
respond to emerging R&D clients needs. This is achieved by doing things right once you are
sure you are working on the right things, concentrating on continually improving the system,
IJQRM enabling people by removing barriers, and encouraging people to make their maximum
contribution.
18,3
It is very difficult for R&D departments to achieve the goals stated in such
definitions due to the low tangibility and repetition of R&D activities (Tenner,
1991), the lack of well known and appropriate R&D quality measurements
(Chang and Hsu, 1998), employee biases regarding quality in R&D (Patino,
338 1997), the temptation simply to force-fit manufacturing quality techniques to
R&D (Pearson et al., 1998) and, applicable to quality in general, a lack of
management commitment. As a result, managers must be aware that
implementing traditional quality measurements, tools, and slogans are not
enough to achieve and maintain quality in R&D. What is instead required are
models for implementing quality in R&D that consider a holistic set of internal
and external measurements, specific and broad management practices, and

quality culture issues; while keeping in mind the unique characteristics of the
R&D environment.
Although there are many models suggesting how to implement quality
management into organizations in general (e.g. Yusof and Aspinwall, 2000; Rao
et al., 1999), very few are focused on implementing quality into research
activities. Chang and Hsu (1998) develop a QM model consisting of a
commercial application policy, implementation structure, and evaluation.
Commercial application policy includes such practices as developing a mission
statement, determining the direction of future R&D developments, and the
continuous improvement of R&D processes. The implementation structure
involves identifying and developing techniques for accessing performance at
various phases of an R&D project. Evaluation involves auditing the various
R&D phases and evaluating the satisfaction of firms that have used the R&D
results. The model developed by Chang and Hsu (1998) is focused on
government research institutions. As a result, this model considers items that
may not be very important for a manufacturing company. For example, Chang
and Hsu (1998) highlight that one of the goals of their phases is to diffuse R&D
results to the industrial sector. The goal of manufacturing-based R&D is
solving problems for other departments or the organization in general. It is
unlikely that the goal of the R&D department in a manufacturing organization
is to directly diffuse the research results to parties outside of the organization.
Pearson et al. (1998) suggest that quality in R&D can be implemented by
following four phases, specifically: initiation, involvement, implementation and
sustenance. The purpose of the initiation phase is to gain top management
support for quality and to identify the goals and objectives of the R&D
department. This phase requires managerial understanding of quality in R&D,
determining the scope of the organizational changes needed to implement
quality in R&D, developing a plan mapping out the objectives of each phase
and how each objective will be achieved, implementing a QM steering
committee, and finding quality champions. The involvement phase focuses on
communicating the requirements for quality in R&D to all the levels of the
organization. This phase is achieved by training sessions tailored to R&D,
developing a customer focus, highlighting the need to implement quality into Management
R&D processes, developing R&D performance measurements, stressing the implementation
importance of open communication and teamwork, and having senior framework
managers champion training sessions. The implementation phase is focused on
creating, maintaining, and building `òn the momentum behind the quality
initiative'' (Pearson et al., 1998). Achieving this phase requires quality
improvement teams within departments, quality improvement teams 339
sponsored by middle management, quality improvement teams sponsored by
senior management, and implementing recognition and reward systems. The
sustenance phase is focused on maintaining the quality commitment through
internal and external benchmarking, applying for quality awards, and
obtaining quality certification.
Ransley and Rogers (1994) suggest that quality in R&D can be achieved by
implementing seven ``best practices'', specifically technology strategies,
program selection and management, core strengths, effectiveness, external
awareness, technology transfer and personnel. ``Technology strategies'' allows
for a ``strong alignment of the technology strategy with the corporate and
business strategy'' (Ransley and Rogers, 1994). This practice is achieved by
ensuring that business and technology strategies are integrated,
communicated, and understood by the different departments. ``Program
selection and management'' ensures that the business-technology alignment
also occurs at the project level. This is achieved by implementing analytical
tools and cross-functional teams for selecting technology programs. ``Core
strengths'' is focused on `ìdentifying, nurturing, and exploiting core
technologies'' (Ransley and Rogers, 1994) and is achieved by defining and
integrating core technologies into the business and technical plans.
`Èffectiveness'' involves analyzing R&D results to determine how well the
technology strategy aids in achieving the business strategies. `Èxternal
awareness'' is focused on identifying and monitoring external threats and
opportunities by analyzing the actions of rivals and working with customers,
suppliers, government agencies, universities, and industry consortia.
``Technology transfer'' involves diffusing R&D results to other departments
and allows for technology strategy-business strategy alignment. This practice
is achieved by implementing effective organization-wide communication,
cross-functional teams, and job rotations. ``Personnel'' involves the integration
of personnel issues (e.g. recruitment, career development, and matching skills
to needs) into the long-term R&D strategy. This practice is achieved by
ensuring that career development programs are in place and effective.
Miller (1994) suggests that strategic analysis, engineering of processes,
research evaluation and client evaluation practices are needed to implement
and maintain quality in R&D. Strategic analysis allows for R&D managers to
become actively involved in the organization's strategic goals. The strategic
analysis practices Miller (1994) found to be important among senior R&D
managers include understanding corporate strategies (e.g. mission statement,
strategic area that R&D must serve), competitive position and assessment (e.g.
IJQRM review of patents, publications, competitive position of the firm's technology or
18,3 product), surveillance of intellectual property, exploration groups (e.g. multi-
functional groups used to identify possible future markets), review of strategic
goals and R&D purpose, cost/benefit, risk analysis, and deliberations with
senior managers. Wood and McCamey (1993) demonstrate the importance of
strategic analysis for achieving quality in R&D using the Health and Personal
340 Care Technology Division of Procter and Gamble (HPCT) case. They suggest
that focusing improvement efforts on the ``strategic areas critical to the
business'' was a key factor to achieving quality in R&D at HPCT. Takahashi
(1997) also addresses the need for strategic analysis by suggesting that
managers must ensure that R&D projects match the corporate strategy and
that ``the most critical role for an R&D manager is to keep the R&D projects
abreast of the corporate strategy at all times''. Miller (1994) groups practices
that focus on R&D processes under engineering of processes. Engineering of
processes:
. . . outlines the product development steps to be carried out by multi-functional teams,
including marketing, research, engineering, supplies, production and finance: design reviews
are arranged to ensure compliance with specifications, standards, procedures, and
regulations (Miller, 1994).
The engineering of process practices Miller (1994) identified include:

competitors benchmarking, modeling of processes, review of systems and
processes, common research databases and methodologies, documentation and
reporting practices and quality certification. The importance of identifying
R&D processes to ensure that you ``do it the right way the first time'' has been
stressed by Roberts (1991), Giordan and Ahern (1994) and Keiser and Blake
(1996). Competitor benchmarking as a means of achieving quality in R&D has
been identified by numerous researchers including Patino (1997), Chen and
Bullington (1993), Werner and Souder (1997) and Keiser and Blake (1996).
Research evaluation practices address the past accomplishments of
research. Miller (1994) suggests that developing a formal system of metrics,
peer reviews, and the ex post evaluation of accomplishment are needed for the
effective evaluation of research. Purdon (1996) suggests that the scientist must
develop three core competencies to help the organization achieve quality in
R&D. These competencies are: developing mastery of their field of science and
technology, knowing and developing the core competencies essential to
advancing the value-added processes of the business (e.g. improving the key
manufacturing technologies), and understanding the R&D customer.
Client evaluation practices are focused on developing effective relations
between R&D department and clients and include practices such as meetings
between R&D and clients, survey of clients, and senior management
assessment of research. Other researchers that have identified the importance
of developing close working relations with the R&D client include Werner and
Souder (1997) and Patino (1997).
Miller (1994) did not focus specifically on the R&D departments of
manufacturing companies and therefore did not address some important
management practices that this research considers. These specific practices Management
include the need for the involvement of suppliers, the involvement of all implementation
employees, not just the research scientist, in R&D, and developing formal framework
groups to specifically address quality in R&D (e.g. QM steering committee).
Unlike these existing R&D quality implementation models (i.e. Chang and Hsu,
1998; Miller, 1994; Pearson et al., 1998; Ransley and Rogers, 1994), the model
developed in this research focuses exclusively on the R&D departments of 341
manufacturing organizations that are recognized quality leaders. In addition to
highlighting that manufacturing-based QM techniques should not be blindly
applied to R&D, the practices examined and the model developed by this research
are important for a number of more general reasons, described as follows:
Knowledge of such practices is beneficial to managers attempting to
implement QM into their R&D department, as it will give them insight

as to what practices to emphasize and avoid.
. Many of these practices show the importance of the R&D external
environment in achieving QM in R&D, suggesting that the success of
QM in R&D is highly dependent on a number of factors outside the
immediate control of the R&D manager.
. As many of these practices are focused internally to the R&D department,
the successful implementation of such practices can be added to an overall
list of criteria in evaluating the performance of R&D managers.
. This research provides a list of the QM implementation practices as
recommended by R&D managers of manufacturing organizations that
are recognized quality leaders.
. As a result of the previous point, this research provides a starting point
for developing a benchmark of practices for R&D departments in
manufacturing organizations that are attempting to become recognized
quality leaders.
The practices presented to R&D managers are a combination of the QM
practices suggested by various R&D quality implementation models (i.e. Chang
and Hsu, 1998; Miller, 1994; Pearson et al., 1998; Ransley and Rogers, 1994) and
QM practices that are commonly used in manufacturing taken from more
general QM implementation models (i.e. Rao et al., 1999; Yusof and Aspinwall,
2000; Puri, 1992). The way in which this study develops a model for QM
implementation into manufacturing-based R&D is illustrated in Figure 1.
Combining QM practices from the various R&D quality implementation
models with manufacturing-based QM practices from more general QM
implementation models forms the final set of practices for this research. These
practices are presented in Table I.
Methodology and data analysis

The specific organizations for this study were chosen among those that won
the Canada Awards for Business Excellence, the Malcolm Baldrige National
IJQRM
18,3
342
Figure 1.
Model development
Quality Award, or the Shingo Prize for Excellence in Manufacturing.

Interviews conducted with R&D managers from these organizations consisted
of two components. The first section of the interview comprised a questionnaire
where managers would respond on the appropriateness of a list of practices for
achieving QM in R&D. This list of practices was derived from a review of the
R&D and manufacturing literature. The second section of the interview was
open-ended and allowed the respondents to further comment on these practices
and suggest practices that were not identified in the questionnaire. The
sampling frame consisted of the single most R&D official willing to participate
from each of these 56 manufacturing organizations. A total of 21 semi-
structured telephone interviews were conducted with managers from these 56
organizations, resulting in a response rate of 37.5 per cent. The majority of
these organizations are large manufacturing companies. Of the 21 companies
contacted, one is classified as small (i.e. less than 150 employees), two
companies are medium in size (i.e. less than 500 employees), while the
remaining 18 companies are large in size (i.e. more than 500 employees). The
specific title of the managers interviewed depended on the size of the company
as not all companies had a formal R&D department. The respondents for this
research included quality/production supervisors responsible for addressing
process design issues, managers of engineering and marketing responsible for
addressing product design issues, and research directors in formal R&D
departments. Although the response rate is high, the absolute number of
interviews conducted (i.e. 21) is low. As a result, this research does not blindly
follow the results from the statistical data analysis; instead this research also
relies on respondent comments and the current research literature for model
formation. Overall, this study and the model derived represents exploratory
theory building research and not theory testing.
Management practice Similar practice suggested by: Management
implementation
Understanding corporate strategies (e.g. Miller, 1992; Takahashi, 1997; de Weerd- framework
developing a mission statement) Nederhof et al., 1997; Martensen and
Dahlgaard, 1999; Yusof and Aspinwall, 2000;
Rao et al., 1999
Identification/review of R&D strategic goals Miller, 1992; Patino, 1997; Takahashi, 1997;
and purpose Martensen and Dahlgaard, 1999; Rao et al., 1999 343
Review of R&D processes Miller, 1992; Patino, 1997; Spain, 1996;
Weerd-Nederhof et al., 1997
Copying of successful R&D processes Miller, 1992; Spain, 1996
Establish a quality management steering Keiser and Blake, 1996; Roberts, 1991;
committee Pearson et al., 1998
Implementing a process improvement team Puri, 1992
Undertaking quality improvement projects Puri, 1992; Pearson et al., 1998.
Implementing a formal system of metrics Keiser and Blake, 1996; Miller, 1992;
Takahashi, 1997; Weerd-Nederhof et al., 1997;
Werner and Souder, 1997; Rao et al., 1999
Obtaining quality certification (ISO, SEI, etc.) Miller, 1992; Weerd-Nederhof et al., 1997;
Holcombe et al., 1999; Pearson et al., 1998
Formal deliberations with senior managers Miller, 1992; Patino, 1997; Wood and
(e.g. R&D managers and employees McCamey, 1993
meeting with senior managers to discuss
emerging technology)
Senior management assessment of research Miller, 1994
Implementing exploration groups (e.g. Francis, 1992; Miller, 1994; Patino, 1997;
multi-functional groups used to identify Wood and McCamey, 1993
possible future markets)
Determining the competitive position of Miller, 1994; Patino, 1997; Schumann et al.,
R&D (e.g. review of patents, publications, 1995; Takahashi, 1997; Weerd-Nederhof et al.,
competitive position of the firm's 1997; Werner and Souder, 1997; Martensen
technology or product) and Dahlgaard, 1999
Identifying/monitoring of intellectual Miller, 1994; Schumann et al., 1995; de Weerd-
property Nederhof et al., 1997
Common research databases Miller, 1994; Lamb and Dale, 1994
Common research methodologies Bailetti and Yeun , 1990; Miller, 1994
Effective documentation and reporting Miller, 1994; Patino, 1997
practices
Provide employee awareness/education on Debackere et al., 1997; Patino, 1997; Pearson
quality issues et al., 1998; Martensen and Dahlgaard, 1999;
Rao et al., 1999
Involving employees in R&D decision making Miller, 1994
Monitoring personnel transfer Miller, 1994; Chang and Hsu, 1998
Ex post evaluation of research Miller, 1994; de Weerd-Nederhof et al., 1997;
Werner and Souder, 1997; Chang and Hsu,
1998
Reviewing conformance to requirements Puri, 1992; Pearson et al., 1998
Partner with clients and identify Chen and Bullingtton, 1993; May and Pearson,
requirements/needs 1993; de Weerd-Nederhof et al., 1997
Develop trust with clients Patino, 1997; Pace and Kelly, 1998
Partner with suppliers and identify Debackere et al., 1997; Keiser and Blake, 1996;
needs/requirements May and Pearson, 1993; Takahashi, 1997;
Martensen and Dahlgaard, 1999; Osmond and
Coleman, 1999; Rao et al., 1999
Develop trust with suppliers Chen and Bullington, 1993; Keiser and Blake, Table I.
1996; Rao et al., 1999; Osmond and Coleman, QM practices presented
1999 to R&D managers
IJQRM To develop a model for achieving QM in applied research environments, a
18,3 combination of one-sided Student's t-test and factor analysis was used.
Student's t-test measures the difference between the sample mean and a set
parameter. For this research, the parameter is three and represents the mid-
point on the survey scale. The null hypothesis to determine those QM practices
that R&D managers' view to be important is stated as follows:
344 Ho: Sample mean the mid-point (3) of the survey scale.
HA: Sample mean > the mid-point (3) of the survey scale (one-sided Student's
t-test).
Table II highlights the results of performing Student's t-test, with the non-
significant variables shaded.
Analyzing Table II, it becomes apparent that all but four variables are
significant. The four variables that are not significant are establishing a QM
steering committee, obtaining quality certification, implementing common
Significance
QM practice Mean df = 20
Understanding corporate strategies 4.2381 0.000

Identifying/reviewing the strategic goals of R&D 4.0476 0.001
Identifying/reviewing the purpose of R&D 3.7619 0.001
Reviewing existing R&D processes 3.7619 0.001
Copying successful R&D processes 3.8095 0.001
Establishing a quality management steering committee 3.1905 0.428
Implementing a R&D process improvement team 3.4762 0.047
Undertaking quality improvement projects 3.7619 0.004
Implementing formal systems of metrics 3.6190 0.034
Obtaining quality certification 3.2381 0.470
Conducting formal deliberation with senior managers 3.7619 0.000
Having senior management evaluate research projects 3.4762 0.056
Implementing exploration groups 3.6667 0.002
Determining the competitive position of R&D 3.7143 0.006
Identifying intellectual property 3.8571 0.001
Monitoring intellectual property 3.6190 0.009
Implementing common research databases 3.3810 0.119
Developing common research methodologies 3.2381 0.348
Documenting current practices 3.6667 0.019
Ex post evaluation of research 3.4286 0.035
Monitoring the transfer of employees 3.5238 0.012
Reviewing conformance to clients' requirements 4.2857 0.000
Partnering with clients to identify needs/requirements 4.1905 0.000
Establishing trust with clients 4.5238 0.000
Implementing effective reporting practices 3.9524 0.000
Providing employee awareness on quality issues 4.1905 0.000
Providing employee education on quality issues 4.3333 0.000
Involving employees in R&D decision making 4.1905 0.000
Table II. Partnering with suppliers to identify needs/requirements 4.0952 0.000
Student's t-test Establishing trust with suppliers 4.2381 0.000
research databases, and developing common research methodologies. The first Management
two practices, establishing a QM steering committee and obtaining quality implementation
certification, are very manufacturing oriented. In the open-ended section of the framework
survey, a number of respondents commented very negatively on these
practices. One respondent suggested that QM steering committees along with
all the quality buzzwords are just fads and that there is a need to move away
from the buzzwords that exist with quality. A similar view is shared by another 345
respondent who suggests that the quality buzzwords, such as QM steering
committee, are cynical. With these views, it is possible that R&D managers
may consider new quality developments as simply a new name for an existing
QM concept.
A number of respondents also commented negatively on quality certification
in R&D departments. This is best illustrated by one R&D manager whose

company was ISO certified. He commented very strongly on the document
burden that exists with conducting research as a result of ISO certification and
felt that ISO certification represented a ``quality hassle''. A similar view is shared
by a company researched by Lamb and Dale (1994). This company experienced
problems identifying what was required of them to introduce a quality assurance
system such as ISO 9000. This company was `ùnsure as to whether quality
assurance applies at all and . . . [viewed certification] as regimentation''.
Common research databases and methodologies are viewed in the literature
as important practices for achieving quality in R&D (e.g. Miller, 1994). In this
research, however, such practices were viewed as not being important for
achieving QM in R&D. In the open-ended section of the questionnaire, none of
the respondents commented on methodologies or research databases in R&D.
The poor view towards these two practices may result from R&D managers'
overemphasis on the importance of implementing quality into R&D designs
and not into R&D processes. Specifically, research environments (e.g. R&D,
engineering) may still think `ìn terms of inspecting quality into their product
i.e. their designs rather then building them into their processes'' (Walton et al.,
1989). Research databases may not be viewed as important for achieving
quality in R&D due to concerns regarding the accuracy, appropriateness, and
type of the data in the database. This is illustrated by Szakonyi (1992) who
discusses a company where disputes over technology transfer occurred
between the engineering and manufacturing departments.
The essence of the dispute concerned the quality of the data that engineering would put in the
database. To preserve its flexibility during the development process, the engineering
department wanted to avoid getting into great detail in its designs. To make the production
process as standardized as possible, manufacturing wanted all the details. Both sides found it
difficult to accept the other side's demands (Szakonyi, 1992).
Based on the statistical data, comments from R&D respondents, and arguments
from the research literature, the four practices addressed in this section ±
specifically, establishing a QM steering committee, obtaining quality certification,
implementing common research databases, and developing common research
methodologies ± will not be included when developing a new model.
IJQRM With the four practices (i.e. establishing a QM steering committee, obtaining
18,3 quality certification, implementing common research databases, and
developing common research methodologies) removed, factor analysis was
performed to determine the broad management practices that R&D manager's
view as important for achieving quality in R&D. Factor analysis involves
``reducing to a manageable number many variables that belong together and
346 have overlapping measurement characteristics'' (Cooper and Schindler, 1998).
The most frequent approach used in factor analysis is principal component
analysis. Principal component analysis reduces a large number of variables to a
small set of variables or principal components. There are three steps in
performing factor analysis, specifically: developing a correlation matrix of the
variables to be reduced; extracting the factors; and applying a rotation
procedure to aid in interpretation. The rotation procedure selected for this

study is Varimax rotation as it minimizes the number of variables that have
high loadings on each factor. Performing factor analysis with Varimax rotation
on the remaining 26 QM practices results in six components with 79 per cent of
the variance explained. Table III lists the factors, associated management
practices, and correlation coefficients.
Practices to achieve QM in R&D

Owing to the low number of respondents and exploratory nature of this
research, the factors resulting from this statistical analysis are only used as a
Factor QM practice (r)
1 Conducting formal deliberation with senior managers (0.728)

Implementing exploration groups (0.674)
Identifying intellectual property (0.752)
Monitoring intellectual property (0.855)
Involving employees in R&D decision making (0.870)
2 Providing employee awareness on quality issues (0.899)
Providing employee education on quality issues (0.893)
Partnering with suppliers to identify needs/requirements (0.819)
3 Understanding corporate strategies (0.547)
Reviewing conformance to clients' requirements (0.867)
Partnering with clients to identify needs/requirements (0.910)
Establishing trust with clients (0.806)
4 Implementing a R&D process improvement team (0.568)
Determining the competitive position of R&D (0.573)
Documenting current practices (0.721)
Monitoring the transfer of employees (0.858)
Ex post evaluation of research (0.766)
5 Identifying/reviewing the strategic goals of R&D (0.682)
Table III. Identifying/reviewing the purpose of R&D (0.708)
Quality management Having senior management evaluate research projects (0.737)
factors, practices and 6 Reviewing existing R&D processes (0.816)
correlation Implementing effective reporting practices (0.748)
starting point for the final model. The final model developed by this research Management
will also incorporate the existing research literature and the statements made implementation
by the respondents during the open-ended section of the interviews. framework
``R&D can no longer live in a vacuum but rather must respond to customer
requirements and the need to maintain contact with those using the work''
(Fisher et al., 1992). As a result, quality in R&D requires practices that interact
with the R&D external environment (e.g. senior managers, suppliers, and 347
customers). Quality management practices will require different degrees of
interaction with the R&D external environment to be effective. R&D practices
that require a large amount of interaction with the R&D external environment
are categorized for this research as `èxternal R&D QM practices''. Such
practices include establishing trust with customers, implementing exploration
groups, and senior management evaluation of research projects. There are also
a number of practices that are more internal to the R&D department and do not
require a large amount of interaction with the external environment. These
practices are referred to as `ìnternal R&D QM practices'' and include reviewing
existing R&D processes, implementing effective reporting practices, and the ex
post evaluation of research. The general and broad management practices that
R&D managers perceive as important for achieving QM in R&D at the 0.05
level of significance are listed in Table IV. The factors resulting from
performing principal component analysis are referred to as broad management
practices and include R&D strategic management, R&D quality awareness,
R&D client focus, research capability assessment, and R&D process
management. These practices are outlined in Table IV and are described below.
R&D strategic management comprises formal deliberations with senior
managers, implementing exploration groups, identifying and monitoring
intellectual property, and involving employees in R&D decision making.
Formal deliberations with senior managers involve R&D employees and
managers meeting with senior management to discuss emerging technologies.
This helps the organization identify possible future markets and new long-term
strategies. Such meetings also bring to light any technological opportunities
that can help the organization obtain its current strategic goals. Miller (1994)
also emphasizes the importance of such meetings to help in strategy
development, suggesting that these deliberations help senior managers and
R&D managers ``close the gap between corporate needs and technological
possibilities''. In order to identify technical possibilities, teams of employees
from various departments can be used via exploration groups. Such groups
focus on `èconomic trends, sustainable advantages, potential benefits for
clients, evolving technologies, etc.'' (Miller, 1994). Exploration groups, since
they are composed of individuals from different functional areas, help to ensure
that specific research supports the overall strategy of the organization. Wood
and McCamey (1993) cite a case that involves the development of innovation
teams to help solve problems and implement change. ``Membership [in the
innovation teams] spanned all levels . . . and there was an expectation that
people would participate''. Identifying and monitoring intellectual property
IJQRM Quality management practices R&D environment
18,3
R&D strategic management
Understanding corporate strategies External
Conducting formal deliberation with senior managers External
Implementing exploration groups External
Identifying intellectual property Internal
348 Monitoring intellectual property Internal
Involving employees in R&D decision making Internal
R&D quality awareness
Providing employee awareness on quality issues Internal
Providing employee education on quality issues Internal
Partnering with suppliers to identify needs/requirements External
R&D client focus
Reviewing conformance to clients' requirements External

Partnering with clients to identify needs/requirements External
Establishing trust with clients External
Research capability assessment
Identifying/reviewing the strategic goals of R&D External
Identifying/ reviewing the purpose of R&D Internal
Implementing a R&D process improvement team Internal
Having senior management evaluate research projects External
Determining the competitive position of R&D External
Documenting current practices Internal
Monitoring the transfer of employees Internal
Table IV. Ex post evaluation of research Internal
Quality management R&D process management
practices and Reviewing existing R&D processes Internal
environment Implementing effective reporting practices Internal
allows senior managers to determine current R&D capabilities and gives senior
managers some insight as to whether the R&D department can meet the
strategic goals required of it. Finally, employees should have some say in the
long-term strategy of their organization. Involving employees in R&D decision
making can increase idea generation and may lead to the development of new
products, processes, or strategies. These practices are all essential to the
development of R&D strategies and aligning the strategic goals of R&D with
that of the entire company, and therefore this broad management practice is
referred to as R&D strategic management.
R&D quality awareness comprises providing employee awareness on
quality issues, providing employee education on quality issues, and partnering
with suppliers to identify needs and requirements. It may appear that these
practices are unrelated and should be divided into separate groups. However,
these practices are similar in that they are required to create and maintain
awareness of the need for quality in the day-to-day activities of the R&D
department. Without education on quality issues, employees may gain the
biases that are commonly found in R&D departments. These biases will
hamper the acceptance and use of quality in the day-to-day activities of R&D
staff and include views such as that QM restricts creativity and only involves Management
statistical techniques. To prevent these biases, education on quality issues is implementation
required at the employee level of the organization. However, managers must framework
`ènsure that the content of any training is custom-built for R&D'' (Pearson et al.,
1998) and address ``real'' issues. Wood and McCamey (1993) cite a case where a
company realizing that ``scientists only buy in when it becomes clear that
[quality management] gives them more time to `do science''' modified their 349
training material to have an employee focus. The R&D department of this
organization ``modified the company training materials to include more
relevant examples, less accent on statistics and . . . admitted right up front that
the plan-do-check-act cycle was a reapplication of the scientific method'' (Wood
and McCamey, 1993). The importance of R&D suppliers will also have an
impact on the quality of day-to-day R&D activities. By partnering with

suppliers, the quality goals of the R&D department can be made known early
in the supply chain and inefficiencies (e.g. arrival of late or incorrect lab
supplies) can be identified and resolved in a quick manner. The importance of
partnering with a few suppliers, and ideally with only one, is also suggested by
Osmond and Coleman (1999) who suggest that a reduction in the number of
suppliers for R&D departments will reduce administrative costs, reduce
variation of incoming supplies, increase interaction and open communication
between the supplier and R&D, and allow for more long-term planning between
the supplier and R&D. Pearson et al. (1998) also highlight the importance of the
supplier by suggesting that the focus of middle management sponsored quality
improvement teams should be determined using ``feedback from their internal
customers and suppliers''.
Education of members of the R&D department on quality issues appears to
be occurring, at least at the management level, in the companies surveyed.
Common comments regarding the importance of quality in R&D include:
. Quality in R&D is a requirement.
. Quality in R&D is beneficial and gainsome.
. Quality must be designed in.
. TQM is a cynical term. Quality is very important in any job.
. Quality in R&D is applicable but it is a hard thing to identify.
. Quality in R&D defies the statistical measures that are well defined.
. It is hard to make the cultural shift.
. Quality in R&D is difficult to obtain.
R&D client focus comprises reviewing conformance to client's requirements,
partnering with clients to identify needs/requirements, establishing trust with
clients, and understanding corporate strategies. By understanding corporate
strategies, the importance of R&D in achieving the long-term company goals
can be highlighted to senior managers. Senior management may not be
committed to achieving QM in R&D if they do not realize the organizational
IJQRM benefits of doing so. Lamb and Dale (1994) suggest that one of the pitfalls to
18,3 avoid when implementing QM in R&D is ``starting the quality process without
the long-term commitment and personal leadership from management''. To
achieve this long-term commitment, an understanding of R&D in the overall
strategy of the organization is required. This practice, since it involves the
continual monitoring of both organizational and R&D strategies by
350 management, is better represented as an R&D strategic management practice.
Understanding corporate strategies will therefore become an R&D strategic
management practice. The remaining practices (i.e. reviewing conformance to
client's requirements, partnering with clients to identify needs/requirements,
and establishing trust with clients) will be referred to as R&D client focus
practices since they are all focused on identifying and meeting the needs of the
R&D client.
The fourth factor consists of implementing an R&D process improvement
team, determining the competitive position of R&D, documenting current
practices, monitoring employee transfer, and the ex post evaluation of research.
These practices are all essential for the evaluation of the general research
capability of the R&D department, irrespective of any particular project that
they may currently be working on. Implementing an R&D process
improvement team and documenting current practices will help to identify any
inefficiencies in the way in which current research is being conducted. Lamb
and Dale (1994) emphasize the importance of identifying processes, procedures,
and documentation in a case comparing two R&D departments:
Both companies have been aware of the fact that procedures are often ignored and usually
passed on through word of mouth. They have begun to tackle this problem through the
quality improvement process and are already seeing the benefits of having readable and
accessible procedures.
Determining the competitive position of R&D includes reviewing patents and

publications and provides a means in which to benchmark the R&D
department against similar research departments and institutions. Monitoring
the transfer of employees involves tracking the skills that employees bring into
the R&D department. This will help to determine the capability of research
staff to work on various projects or a new area of research. Finally, evaluating
research after it has occurred allows for the identification of areas that need
improvement and can provide a means to determine if any changes to existing
R&D process have been successful. These QM practices (i.e. R&D process
improvement team, determining the competitive position of R&D, documenting
current practices, monitoring employee transfer, and the ex post evaluation of
research) allow organizations to determine if their R&D department has the
capability to achieve the strategic goals of the organization. This factor is
therefore referred to as research capability assessment.
The quality of individual research projects will also give an indication of the
general research capability of the R&D department. Factor five comprises
identifying/reviewing the strategic goals of R&D, identifying and reviewing
the purpose of R&D, and having senior managers evaluate research projects.
Identifying and reviewing the purpose and strategic goals of R&D and having Management
senior managers evaluate research projects will ensure that specific R&D implementation
projects are done in the best interest of the organization and not necessarily in framework
the best interest of R&D. If a large number of R&D projects are not done in the
best interest of the organization, it may suggest that the R&D department does
not have the knowledge or capability to achieve the strategic goals of the
organization. This point is illustrated in a case by Szakonyi (1992), who: 351
Visited an instrument company in which the engineers, most of whom were mechanical
engineers, ignored for years the advances that were taken place in electronics. Eventually, the
only way in which this company could remain competitive was to base its products on
electronic, not mechanical, devices. Unfortunately, most of its engineers were unprepared to
make the transition.
These practices are also excellent indicators of the general research capability
of the R&D department. The practices of factors 4 and 5 are so closely related
that they will be combined to form one broad management practice. This broad
management practice is called research capability assessment (i.e. the name
assigned to factor 4).
The final broad management practice consists of reviewing existing R&D
processes and implementing effective reporting practices. Reviewing existing
R&D processes will allow for the identification of any inefficiencies or
redundant tasks that may be occurring in the R&D department. By eliminating
these tasks, the efficiency of R&D will improve. Once process changes occur,
they will need to be monitored to ensure that a positive change has been made.
Implementing effective reporting practices in R&D will help to determine if
changes to a particular process have been beneficial. Since these practices
focused on R&D processes, the broad management practice is referred to as
R&D process management. The importance of improving R&D processes was
also highlighted in the open-ended section on the surveys. Respondents'
comments regarding the importance of quality in R&D processes include:
. Do not produce anything without a process for quality.
. To achieve quality in R&D you must think in terms of business
processes. This is the same in every business function. You must
continue to improve on these business practices and processes.
. You must design quality into the product and process.
This research also found four practices that are not part of any broad
management practice, but are still considered important for achieving quality
in R&D (i.e. the significant management practices that did not load onto a
factor). These specific practices are: copying successful R&D processes,
undertaking quality improvement projects, implementing a formal system of
metrics, and establishing trust with suppliers. The first three practices (i.e.
copying successful R&D processes, undertaking quality improvement projects,
and implementing a formal system of metrics) focuses primarily on R&D
processes and are therefore considered for this research to be internal R&D QM
IJQRM practices. The last practice (i.e. establishing trust with suppliers) is an external
18,3 R&D QM practice since it requires a large amount of interaction with the R&D
external environment (i.e. R&D suppliers) to be successful. These practices will
be included in the final model, since they can indirectly lead to quality in R&D.
To illustrate, by developing trust with suppliers it will be easier to partner with
these same suppliers to determine their needs and requirements for quality. If
352 R&D suppliers do not trust the R&D department then these suppliers may be
reluctant to discuss their needs and requirements for quality. This is especially
true if suppliers fear that the R&D department may want to determine needs
and requirements in an attempt to expose supplier quality weaknesses and
therefore justify the replacement of these suppliers with more ``quality
conscious'' ones. As a result, developing trust with suppliers will help the
implementation of the ``partner with suppliers to identify needs and

requirements'' QM practice. This practice (i.e. partner with suppliers to identify
needs and requirements) will then directly help in the implementation of the
R&D quality awareness broad management practice.
Implementing QM into manufacturing-based R&D

The final model for this research was developed using a combination of
statistical data analysis, respondents' comments, and the current research
literature. The model shows the relationship between broad management
practices, specific management practices, the research environment, and a
quality culture to achieve QM in R&D. This model is illustrated in Figure 2.
The first step in achieving QM in R&D involves the identification of the
R&D external environment. Identifying the R&D external environment (e.g.
other departments, senior management, customers, and suppliers) will help to
highlight the fact that R&D does not occur in a vacuum and must interact with
its external environment to achieve quality in R&D (Fisher et al., 1992). Once
QM practices have been selected, they are implemented into R&D and various
areas of the R&D external environment. Implementing one or a few of these
practices will not result in QM in R&D. As practices are implemented, various
R&D stakeholders will begin to realize the need and benefits of having quality
in R&D. This new awareness of the need and importance of quality in R&D is
referred to as the R&D quality culture. `Òne of the most significant things that
research management can do to promote quality within an organization is to
establish the proper culture'' (Roberts, 1991). A quality culture is not in itself
QM in R&D, but is rather a requirement to achieve QM in R&D (e.g. the R&D
department and stakeholders must first recognize the need for quality before it
can actually be achieved).
Practices that were implemented early in the effort to achieve this quality
culture may eventually be replaced by more appropriate practices. To
illustrate, providing employee awareness on quality issues may be one of the
first practices used to introduce employees to quality in R&D. This practice
may later be replaced by providing employee education on the specific details
of these same quality issues. Similarly, identifying intellectual property may be
Management
implementation
framework
353
Figure 2.
Model for achieving QM
in R&D
used as an early QM practice. However, once the entire R&D intellectual

properly has been identified, this practice may be replaced by the monitoring of
intellectual property. The view that a QM practice used to establish the quality
culture may eventually be replaced by a more effective practice is indicated in
Figure 2 by the four arrowed lines. Once the R&D quality culture exists, it will
be much easier to implement specific QM practices, since all parties involved
will realize the benefits of these practices. As QM practices are implemented
into R&D, specific combination of these practices (e.g. Table IV) will allow for
the broad management practices (i.e. R&D strategic management, R&D quality
awareness, research capability assessment, R&D client focus, and R&D
IJQRM process management) to occur. It is only when all of the broad management
18,3 practices have been achieved and are continually used that QM in R&D will
actually occur. To illustrate, if the specific practices used in the R&D quality
environment are only R&D strategic management practices, then QM in R&D
will not occur. R&D strategic management allows for an understanding of the
purpose of R&D, but simply having this understanding with no change in the
354 day-to-day R&D activities (e.g. no R&D quality awareness) is not enough to
allow for QM in R&D. As a result, QM in R&D will only occur once all the
broad management practices exist.
A review of the research literature provides support for various components
of this model. As previously addressed, quality in R&D can be defined as:
An understanding of who the R&D client is and what his or her values and expectations are,
what the key technologies are and how they can be used to meet R&D clients' expectations
and the needs of the entire organization, and who the R&D competitors are and how they will
respond to emerging R&D clients needs. This is achieved by doing things right once you are
sure you are working on the right things, concentrating on continually improving the system,
enabling people by removing barriers, and encouraging people to make their maximum
contribution.
Table V shows how the specific practices presented in this research achieves
the definition of quality in R&D.
Reviewing the practices in Table V, it is apparent that the definition of
quality in R&D has been fully captured by the individual QM practices
outlined in the framework depicted in Figure 2.
The broad management practices of this research (i.e. R&D strategic
management, R&D process management, research capability assessment,
R&D client focus and R&D quality awareness) are also supported by the
current research literature. Pearson et al. (1998) suggest that QM in R&D can be
achieved by implementing four phases, specifically initiation, involvement,
implementation, and sustenance. The broad practices developed by this
research will allow for the four phases suggested by Pearson et al. (1998) to
occur. R&D strategic management and R&D client focus will highlight the
need and importance of quality in R&D, allowing for the initiation phase to
occur. R&D strategic management, client focus and quality awareness
practices will allow for the key R&D stakeholders (e.g. senior management,
R&D client, suppliers and employees) to be actively involved in identifying key
areas for quality improvement, helping to achieve the involvement phase. As
stated earlier, only when all of the five broad management practices (i.e. R&D
strategic management, R&D client focus, R&D quality awareness, R&D
process management and research capability assessment) are implemented will
quality in R&D occur. Therefore, the implementation and sustenance of quality
in R&D will be achieved when the R&D department has implemented all of the
five broad management practices suggested by this research.
Many of the practices suggested by Chang and Hsu (1998) do not fit the
model presented in this research. This was expected as Chang and Hsu's (1998)
work is focused on government R&D institutions, which operate in a
Definition component Practices from the QM model Management
implementation
An understanding of who the R&D client is Partner with clients to identify requirements/ framework
and what his or her values and needs
expectations are Develop trust with clients
What the key technologies are and how Formal deliberations with senior management
they can be used to meet R&D clients' (e.g. R&D managers and employees meeting
expectations and the needs of the with senior management to discuss emerging
355
entire organization technology)
Who the R&D competitors are and how Determining the competitive position of R&D
they will respond to emerging R&D clients (e.g. review of patents, publications,
needs competitive position of the firm's technology
or product)
Doing things right once you know you are Understanding corporate strategies
working on the right things, concentrating Identification/review of R&D strategic goals

on continually improving the system and purpose
Review of R&D processes
Copying of successful R&D processes
Implementing an R&D process improvement
team
Undertaking quality improvement projects
Reviewing conformance to clients'
requirements
Enabling people by removing barriers, and Formal deliberations with senior management
encouraging people to make their (e.g. R&D managers and employees meeting
maximum contribution with senior management to discuss emerging
technology)
Implementing exploration groups (e.g. multi-
functional groups used to identify possible
future markets)
Providing employee awareness/education on
quality issues Table V.
Involving employees in R&D decision making Quality definition and
Monitoring personnel transfer practice mapping
substantially different environment than manufacturing-based R&D

departments. However, Chang and Hsu (1998) recognize the importance of
analyzing the R&D department's resources and competence to successfully
conduct the required research. This issue, not addressed by other
implementation models in any great detail, is similar to the research capability
assessment management practice presented by this research.
The practices suggested by Ransley and Rogers (1994) support many
components of the model, especially the R&D strategic management and
research capability assessment practices. R&D strategic management contains
similar practices to the technology strategies and program selection and
management best practices, while research capability assessment is similar to
external awareness and core strengths best practices.
Comments made by the respondents also support various components of
this model. The common responses from R&D managers regarding QM in
IJQRM R&D include: many manufacturing QM models are not appropriate for
18,3 achieving quality in R&D; to achieve quality in R&D you must think in terms
of business processes; you must design quality into the product and process;
quality in R&D is applicable but it is a hard thing to identify; quality in R&D
defies the statistical measures that are well defined; and it is hard to make the
cultural shift. These common concerns among R&D managers can be
356 addressed by implementing the R&D strategic management, R&D quality
awareness, and R&D process management practices suggested by the model
presented by this research.
Assumptions and limitations

Many organizations still view quality as a one-time management goal. Once
quality is obtained, you no longer need to focus on maintaining QM practices

and improving existing systems. As a result, a major assumption of this
research is that the winners of the various quality awards are still focused on
quality and are continually improving the quality of their products and
processes. Of course, the major limitation of this study is the possibility of low
generalizability. Although the response rate was high at 37.5 per cent, the
absolute number of observations (i.e. 21) is low. The model is based on the R&D
departments of North American manufacturing quality award winners. It
would be dangerous to generalize the results of this research to R&D
departments in general. As manufacturing-based R&D is very applied in
nature, this study may also have limited applicability to research departments
that are focused on basic research.
What the model does supply is a summary of the R&D departments of North
American national quality awards winners and as such represents a very good
starting point for manufacturing-based R&D departments attempting to
implement QM practices into their own department. This research, by focusing
on manufacturing companies, helps to illustrate that successful manufacturing-
based QM techniques cannot be blindly applied to R&D. The current literature
shows support for different components of the model, suggesting that this
model provides an adequate starting point for determining and modeling the
practices required to achieve QM in the R&D departments of manufacturing
organizations.
Conclusion
This research outlines the practices that managers believe are critical for
achieving QM in the R&D departments of manufacturing organizations. The
practices addressed by this research are a combination of R&D specific and
general manufacturing QM practices. This research found that four widely
accepted manufacturing-based QM practices are viewed as inappropriate for
achieving quality in R&D. These practices are establishing a QM steering
committee, obtaining quality certification, implementing common databases,
and developing common methodologies. This research also found that many
traditional manufacturing QM practices are viewed as important for achieving
quality in R&D. Such practices include implementing process improvement Management
teams, reviewing and copying successful processes, and documenting current implementation
practices. These findings suggest that although many of the manufacturing- framework
based QM practices are applicable to R&D, managers must take care in
selecting QM practices and should not blindly adopt the common practices
used in manufacturing. Such a viewpoint is also supported by comments from
the respondents of this study. These comments include ``factory floor concepts 357
of quality do apply to R&D, but they must be tailored to work'', ``there are
different types of R&D and many manufacturing models are not appropriate
for achieving quality in R&D'', ```Quality in R&D' is; applicable but it is a hard
thing to identify'', and ```Quality in R&D' defies the statistical measures that are
well defined''.
Using the significant QM practices as a starting point, a model was then

developed using a combination of factor analysis, citations from the research
literature, and comments from R&D managers. The model explains how broad
QM practices, specific QM practices, awareness of the R&D external
environment, and a quality culture will lead to QM in the R&D departments of
manufacturing companies. Although the response rate was high, the absolute
number of observations is low, therefore limiting the generalizibility of this
study. As emphasized earlier, it would be dangerous to generalize the results of
this research to R&D departments in general. This model however, does give a
good indication of those practices R&D managers from North American
national quality awards winners view as appropriate for achieving QM in
R&D. Such knowledge can aid in other manufacturing-based R&D
departments applying for a quality award or attempting to implement QM
practices into their own department.
QM in R&D requires more than effective management practices. Future
research should therefore focus on obtaining the perceptions of R&D
stakeholders (e.g. R&D employees, senior managers, and functional managers)
as to the activities needed to achieve QM in the R&D departments of
manufacturing companies. In addition, the broad and general management
practices identified by this research can be administrated to various key
audiences as a survey questionnaire that could span numerous industries and
geographic boundaries. These research endeavors would aid in developing a
complete set of practices required to achieve QM in manufacturing-based R&D
and in deriving a robust model for implementing such practices.
References
Bailetti, T.J. and Yeun, T.M. (1990), ``Designing products for quality'', Canadian Business Review,
Spring, pp. 28-32.
Chang, P.-L. and Hsu, C.-W. (1998), `À quality management model for research institutes
responsible for government-supported R&D projects'', International Journal of Technology
Management, Vol. 16 Nos 4/5/6, pp. 393-404.
Chen, C. and Bullington, S.F. (1993), ``Development of a strategic research plan for an academic
department through the use of quality function deployment'', Computers and Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 49-52.
IJQRM Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (1998), Business Research Methods, Irwin McGraw-Hill, Toronto.
18,3 de Weerd-Nederhof, P.C., van Harten, W.H., Boer, H. and Hermens, H. (1997), `Àssessing R&D
quality in rehabilitation technology development. The case of Roessingh Research and
Development'', R&D Development, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 225-38.
Fisher, J., Heywood, C. and McCutcheon, J. (1992), ``Total quality management of Canadian R&D
activities'', CMA Magazine, Vol. 66 No. 7, pp. 25-8.
358 Francis, P.H. (1992), ``Putting quality into the R&D process'', Research & Technology
Management, July-August, pp. 16-23.
Giordan, J.C. and Ahern, A.M. (1994), ``Self-managed teams: quality improvement in action'',
Research & Technology Management, May-June, pp. 33-7.
Holcombe, D., Neidhart, B., Radvila, P., Steck, W. and Wegscheider, W. (1999), ``Quality
assurance good practice for research and development and non-routine analysis'',
Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 393 Nos 1/2/3, pp. 157-65.
Keiser, B. and Blake, N. (1996), ``How Nalco revitalized its quality process for R&D'', Research &
Technology Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 23-9.
Lamb, G.E. and Dale, B.G. (1994), ``Quality improvement in research and development: a study'',
Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 208, pp. 253-7.
Martensen. A. and Dahlgaard, J. (1999), `Ìntegrating business excellence and innovation
management: developing vision, blueprint and strategy for innovation in creative and
learning organizations'', Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 Nos 4/5, pp. S627-S635.
May, C. and Pearson, A. (1993), ``Total quality in R&D'', Journal of General Management, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 1-22.
Miller, R. (1994), ``Quality in research: an empirical study'', Technovation, Vol. 14, pp. 381-94.
Osmond, R. and Coleman, G. (1999), ``Can single sourcing work in R&D?'', Quality Progress, May,
pp. 37-43.
Pace, L.A. and Kelly, E.P. (1998), ``TQM at Xerox: lessons worth duplicating'', International
Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 16 Nos 4/5/6, pp. 326-35.
Patino, H. (1997), `Àpplying total quality to R&D at Coors Brewing Company'', Research &
Pearson, A.W., Vaughan, N. and Butler, J. (1998), ``The implementation of TQM in R&D'',
International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 16 Nos 4/5/6, pp. 405-32.
Purdon, W. (1996), `Ìncreasing R&D effectiveness: researchers as business people'', Research &
Technology Management, July and August, pp. 48-56.
Ransley, D. and Rogers, J. (1994), `À consensus on best R&D practices'', Research and Technology
Management, Vol. 37, March-April, pp. 19-26.
Rao, S., Solis L. and Raghunathan, T. (1999), `À framework for international quality management
research: development and validation of a measurement instrument'', Total Quality
Management, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 1047-75.
Roberts, G.W. (1991), ``Managing research quality'', Research & Technology Management, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 28-31.
Schumann, P.A., Ransley, D.L. and Prestwood, D. (1995), ``Measuring R&D performance'',
Research & Technology Management, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 45-54.
Spain, D.R. (1996), ``To improve quality in R&D, improve the team process'', Research &
Szakonyi, R. (1992,) `Ìntegrating R&D with company efforts to improve quality'', International
Journal of Technology Management, Special Issue on Competing through Quality,
Production and Technological Innovation Management, Vol. 7 Nos 4/5, pp. 254-77.
Takahashi, T. (1997), ``Management for enhanced R&D productivity'', International Journal of Management
Technology Management, Vol. 14 Nos 6/7/8, pp. 789-803.
Tenner, A.R. (1991), ``Quality management beyond manufacturing'', Research & Technology
implementation
Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 27-32. framework
Walton, K.R., Dismukes, J.P. and Browning, J.E. (1989), `Àn information specialist joins the R&D
team'', Research & Technology Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, p. 32.
Werner, B.M. and Souder, W.E. (1997), ``Measuring R&D performance ± state of the art'', Research 359
& Technology Management, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 34-42.
Wood, L.V. and McCamey, D.A. (1993), `Ìmplementing total quality in R&D'', Research &
Yusof, S. and Aspinwall, E. (2000), ``Total quality management implementation frameworks:
comparison and review'', Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 281-94.
This article has been cited by:
1. Dainelis Cabeza Pullés, Leopoldo J. Gutiérrez Gutiérrez, F. Javier Lloréns‐Montes. 2013. Transactive
memory system and TQM: exploring knowledge capacities. Industrial Management & Data Systems 113:2,
294-318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Vinod Kumar, Dong‐Young Kim, Uma Kumar. 2012. Quality management in research and development.
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 4:2, 156-174. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Eduardo Tomé, Maimunah Ismail, Efizah Sofiah Ramly. 2011. Career aspirations of Malaysian research
and development professionals in the knowledge economy. Journal of European Industrial Training 35:6,
606-622. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Dilani Jayawarna, Robin Holt. 2009. Knowledge and quality management: An R&D perspective.
Technovation 29:11, 775-785. [CrossRef]
5. Daniel I. Prajogo, Soon W. Hong. 2008. The effect of TQM on performance in R&D environments: A
perspective from South Korean firms. Technovation 28:12, 855-863. [CrossRef]

A QM Implementation Framework For Manufacturing-Based RD Environments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A QM Implementation Framework For Manufacturing-Based RD Environments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

A quality management implementation framework for manufacturing‐based R&D

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

St Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada

source of recognition that could be used as a yardstick for measuring ```quality

Models for implementing quality into R&D

The operational definition of quality in R&D for this research is a combination

and external measurements, specific and broad management practices, and

The engineering of process practices Miller (1994) identified include:

implement QM into their R&D department, as it will give them insight

Methodology and data analysis

Quality Award, or the Shingo Prize for Excellence in Manufacturing.

Understanding corporate strategies 4.2381 0.000

in R&D departments. This is best illustrated by one R&D manager whose

procedure to aid in interpretation. The rotation procedure selected for this

Practices to achieve QM in R&D

Factor QM practice (r)

1 Conducting formal deliberation with senior managers (0.728)

Reviewing conformance to clients' requirements External

impact on the quality of day-to-day R&D activities. By partnering with

Determining the competitive position of R&D includes reviewing patents and

implementation of the ``partner with suppliers to identify needs and

Implementing QM into manufacturing-based R&D

used as an early QM practice. However, once the entire R&D intellectual

working on the right things, concentrating Identification/review of R&D strategic goals

substantially different environment than manufacturing-based R&D

Assumptions and limitations

quality is obtained, you no longer need to focus on maintaining QM practices

Using the significant QM practices as a starting point, a model was then

perspective from South Korean firms. Technovation 28:12, 855-863. [CrossRef]

You might also like