Journal of Operations Management 26 (2008) 461–467

www.elsevier.com/locate/jom

Towards an understanding of supply chain quality management

S. Thomas Foster Jr.*
Global Supply Chain Management, Marriott School of Management, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, United States

Available online 22 June 2007

Abstract
In this paper, we define supply chain quality management (SCQM) to operationalize and understand the effect of increased
emphasis on supply chain management on the practice of quality management. We review current research in quality management
and identify common themes found in the literature. Key quality management content variables identified are customer focus,
quality practices, supplier relations, leadership, HR practices, business results, and safety. We use these variables to propose areas
for future research in the field of supply chain quality management.
# 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Supply chain quality management (SCQM); Supply chain management; Quality management

1. Introduction ing to leverage strategic position and to improve

The increasing emphasis on supply chain manage-
ment is causing researchers to rethink models,
constructs, and frameworks for quality management
that have been developed for the field of operations
management. While some work has been done in this
area (Thirumalai and Sinha, 2005; Benton and Maloni,
2005; Flynn and Flynn, 2005), more scholarly work is
needed. Research in quality management has often
focused on internal versus external views of quality,
with the internal view focusing on process and the
external view focusing on the customer. As firms adopt
the systems approach implicit in supply chain manage-
ment, they must merge these views as they internalize
upstream and downstream processes with their own.
To understand the field of supply chain quality
management (SCQM), we must first define the term by
deconstructing it. Bowersox et al. (2007) state that
supply chain management consists of firms collaborat-
* Tel.: +1 801 422 2444.
E-mail address: tom_foster@byu.edu.
operating efficiency. This includes partnering with other
firms in chains of relationships that result in down-
stream benefits to customers. Similarly, the quality
management perspective has traditionally considered
interacting aspects of systems such as processes, inputs,
machines, people, procedures, plant, and equipment as
means of creating excellence in products and services
(Deming, 2000). This systems-based view of quality
also applies to supply chains as well.
According to Fawcett et al. (2006), competition now
is not only found at the firm level. Business competition
now exists as supply chains seek to gain advantage over
competing supply chains. This level of competition
requires a much greater level of coordination among
chains or networks of suppliers, distributors, producers,
and customers. As a result, we adopt the following
definition:
Supply chain quality management (SCQM) is
defined as a systems-based approach to performance
improvement that leverages opportunities created by
upstream and downstream linkages with suppliers
and customers.

0272-6963/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.06.003
462 S.T. Foster Jr. / Journal of Operations Management 26 (2008) 461–467
This special issue on research in supply chain quality
contains papers that provide greater insights into how
decisions about quality management, quality assurance,
and quality control need to be recast to improve supply
chain performance.
2. Current Research in SCQM
2.1. Kaynak and Hartley
Kaynak and Hartley develop a structural equation
model showing the relationships between quality
management practices and upstream and downstream
entities in the supply chain. Supplier quality manage-
ment and customer focus variables are used to study
quality management practices as they extend into the
supply chain. They study how these two upstream and
downstream practices influence quality-related perfor-
mance. In addition, they examine other QM practices
that mediate these relationships.
In this issue of the Journal of Operations Manage-
ment, Kaynak and Hartley examine eight QM practices
in their paper—management leadership, training,
employee relations, customer focus, quality data and
reporting, supplier quality management, product or
service design, and process management. It is important
to note that as a result of supply chain management,
these previously internal QM practices have now been
externalized to suppliers and customers. Explicit supply
chain relationships they study include:
 employee relations and customer focus;
 quality data reporting and customer focus;
 quality data reporting and supplier quality manage-
ment;
 product and service design and supplier quality
management;
 process management and supplier quality manage-
ment;
 effective inventory management with supplier quality
management.
Their study confirms the need for implementing
quality management as an integrated system instead of
just a loose set of quality practices. This is particularly
interesting as many firms are focused on tools and
practices instead of creating a quality management
infrastructure that will lead to long-term positive
results. Kaynak and Hartley suggest that managers
should extend their vision beyond their own firms into
the supply chain to manage quality. However, for this to
happen, differing firms within the supply chain must
each develop interlocking practices that are based in
collaboration, communication, and collaborative inte-
gration. This includes both upstream and downstream
quality improvement processes that must be integrated
to provide service and product quality to the customer.
Kaynak and Hartley find a direct relationship
between management leadership, customer focus,
management leadership, and supplier quality manage-
ment. This demonstrates that leadership is essential to
navigate cultural, process-oriented, and human resource
practices that differ for firms all along the supply chain.
Finally, they find that the role of suppliers in assuring
low defect levels in incoming materials not only affects
quality downstream, it also affects inventory manage-
ment practices as the need for safety stock to hedge
against this type of variation is obviated.
2.2. Yeung
Yeung studies competition between supply chains to
understand the extent to which strategic supply chains
interact with quality management systems to drive
competitiveness. In his study of manufacturers in Hong
Kong and the Pearl River Delta region of Guangdong,
he attempts to understand the efficacy of creating
strategic supplier partnerships and leveraging supplier
management efforts. His stated objectives are to
examine the effects of contextual factors such as size,
process, ISO 9000 certification, and quality manage-
ment (QM) on strategic supply management (SSM). In
addition, he investigates the impact of SSM on
organizational performance in the form of efficiency,
customer satisfaction, and business outcomes.
The relationships he studies directly include:
 SSM and ISO 9000 certification;
 SSM and QM implementation;
 SSM and company size;
 SSM and strategy process type;
 SSM and time-based efficiency;
 SSM and cost-related efficiency;
 customer satisfaction and efficiency (time and cost);
 business performance and customer satisfaction.
Using surveys and follow-up interviews for a deeper
understanding of the findings, the author classified
quality systems into four types (e.g., undeveloped,
framed, accommodating, and strategic). Using repre-
sentative samples of each type, he administered surveys
and clarified survey findings with exploratory inter-
views by interviewing staff from purchasing, quality, or
operations areas. Further, he identified firms as either
 S.T. Foster Jr. / Journal of Operations Management 26 (2008) 461–467
QM-intensive or non-QM-intensive to distinguish
between firms that either have or have not exhibited
long-term commitment to quality management.
Using structural equation modeling, he found that
SSM is significantly related to quality management
implementation but not to ISO 9000. He also found that
implementing QM might facilitate SSM. As a result, he
showed that QM is a foundation of SSM and a key
requirement for continuous improvement extending to
the supply chain. It is interesting that he found that ISO
9000 will not initiate SSM efforts. SSM is primarily
related to timely operations such as cycle time reduction
and on-time delivery.
2.3. Sroufe and Curkovic
Sroufe and Curkovic used the case method to study the
efficacy of ISO 9000:2000 within a supply chain
management context. With the new ISO 9000:2000
standards, the International Organization for Standardi-
zation has created probably the most commonly adopted
process for documenting a quality management system
(QMS). So far, over 500,000 firms in over 150 countries
have been registered. The U.S. has over 50,000 registered
firms, making this an important standard that is worthy of
attention and research. ISO 9000:2000 is important in
supply chain management as it provides a mechanism for
a supplier to document its quality system. Also, supplier
registration is often required by customers. The ISO
standard demonstrates that a quality system exists.
However, it does not guarantee its efficacy.
Sroufe and Curkovic use the Miles and Snow
typology to provide a better understanding of why and
how some firms implement QMSs. They then lay a
foundation for research propositions based on the Miles
and Snow (1978) typology. The propositions help to
build theory in quality assurance and supply chain
management. They demonstrate that ISO 9000:2000
was created to address shortcomings of the previous
ISO 9000 standard. Many have viewed ISO 9000 (the
1987 standard) as unable to deliver real benefits and
continued over-emphasis on bureaucratic procedures
and documents.
They found that the reasons for non-adoption of ISO
9000:2000 included uncertainty of benefits, risk of
bureaucracy, costs, and loss of face associated with
failing to achieve registration. These reasons were
especially true for smaller firms. The four reasons in
favor of adopting ISO 9000:2000 included customers,
documentation, costs/benefits, and management invol-
vement. From this study they developed propositions
relating to the following variables:
463
 the number of defenders and reactors in a supply base
and quality assurance throughout the supply chain;
 defenders and prospectors having higher levels of ISO
9000:2000 integration internally and externally with
supply chain partners;
 ISO 9000:2000 benefiting the form of integration and
quality assurance for prospectors and reactors;
 the relationship between ISO 9000:2000 registration
and management involvement, communication, and
levels of integration and quality assurance.
The results of the case studies show that companies
that see registration as a game to keep business will not
obtain the full benefits of registration. Prospectors have
the greatest opportunity for a competitive advantage
from registration. Plants with lower levels of integration
will often be reactors who buyers should avoid.
Similarly, buyers wanting to increase either ISO
standards integration or quality assurance should seek
out defenders and analyzers.
2.4. Das, Pagell, Behm, and Veltri
Das, Pagell, Behm and Veltri study how differences
in perceptions of plant safety influences quality
outcomes. This research benefits the field by increasing
the understanding of linkages between safety and
quality performance—something that has not been
studied in the operations management or supply chain
literature. It also helps us to understand if safety
performance influences business operations perfor-
mance. This is especially important given that safety
is an established criterion for industry awards. Also, this
work extends the safety research published in the
applied psychology literature with a key variable being
psychological comfort with the working environment.
To study this issue, the authors create a variable
known as safety disconnect which is the difference in
perception of safety between workers and managers.
They expect that safety disconnect will adversely affect
safety performance and that it could affect perceptions
of company quality performance. The authors develop
alternative conceptualizations of the relationships
between safety disconnect and quality performance.
These conceptualizations are:
 a negative association between disconnect and quality
performance;
 a curvilinear association between disconnect and
quality performance;
 a negative exponential relationship between discon-
nect and quality performance;
464 S.T. Foster Jr. / Journal of Operations Management 26 (2008) 461–467

 a negative linear relationship between disconnect and
quality performance.
To study these relationships, they sent surveys to
companies in five SIC codes. Their analysis shows that
safety disconnect is related to operational performance
in a negative linear manner. As disconnect increases and
the safety environment deteriorates, product quality
also appears to suffer. It appears that an organizational
system that permits poor safety performance also will
lead to poor quality performance. Theory suggests that
skill level will moderate the safety disconnect–quality
relationship. However, their results suggest that quality
is affected regardless of skill level.
by using improvement specialists, a structured method,
and performance metrics with the aim of achieving
strategic objectives.’’
In addition, the authors develop testable hypotheses
in the areas of:
 the relationships between the structure and organiza-
tion of six sigma with organizational performance;
 the relationships between structural control and
exploration with organizational performance;
 the differences between six sigma and total quality
management.
3. Common themes

2.5. Schroeder, Linderman, Liedtke, and Choo In this section, we will discuss the topics submitted
to the special issue. This is interesting as this
Schroeder et al. find that while six sigma is similar to demonstrates the research relative to supply chain
total quality management, there are important differ- quality management that is either being published or in
ences such that six sigma should not be dismissed as some stage of development. We will also display the
‘‘nothing new.’’ Six sigma provides a switching methodologies that were submitted for consideration.
structure that allows organizations to act organically Finally, we will identify common themes found in
in improving while operating mechanistically in accepted articles and propose areas for future study.
implementing improvement processes. In addition, Table 1 displays the submissions by topic for this
the structure of six sigma employs a methodology that issue of the Journal of Operations Management. These
promotes the conflicting demands of exploration and topics were determined by distributing the article titles
control for the management and improvement of
quality. Thus, the new attribute of six sigma is its Table 1
organizational implementation method rather than Submissions by topic
tools, techniques, or philosophies. Topic Percentage
Their research addresses (1) how six sigma is
defined, (2) the theory underlying six sigma, and (3) S.C. theory 21
Standards 14
what is new about six sigma. To do this they interviewed Quality tools in SC 11
personnel from two corporations that had implemented SC strategy 18
six sigma—a manufacturer and a service firm. They SC performance 19
selected four successful projects and four unsuccessful Supplier relations 7
project from each company. In addition to discussing SC technology 10
issues related to the three questions, they also asked Submissions = 35.
respondents about previous quality improvement
approaches, top management support, training, and
Table 2
the benefits of six sigma. They asked specifics relative
Submissions by methodology
to certain projects, including a description of the origin
of the project, a description of the team and Topic Percentage
methodology, project costs and benefits, what’s new Case 21
relative to the project, a summary of learning from the Survey/SEM 21
project, as well as gathering other written information Survey/regression 14
Conceptual 11
and procedures. They followed typical case research Survey/factor analysis 3
methodology, including within-case and across-case Survey/descriptive statistics 3
analysis. Modeling/optimization 21
From the case research they developed a definition of Data mining/decision trees 3
six sigma, ‘‘Six sigma is an organized, parallel-meso Survey/non-parametric stats 3
structure to reduce variation in organizational processes Submissions = 35.
 S.T. Foster Jr. / Journal of Operations Management 26 (2008) 461–467 465

Table 3
Key variables in special issue SCQM articles
Authors Key variables
Customer focus Quality practices Supplier relations Leadership HR practices Business results Safety
K&H x x x x x x
Yeung x x x x
S&C x x x
DPB&V x x x
SLLC x x
Total 3 5 3 1 1 4 1

to undergraduate and MBA students in the final weeks
of quality management classes. The titles were
categorized into themes using the affinity diagram
process (Brassard and Ritter, 2004). First, the MBA
students categorized the article titles. Later, another
group of quality management students performed the
same affinity diagram process. The results were very
consistent from each cycle. However, there were some
minor differences. To validate the results and to rectify
the differences, a group of supply chain faculty
members were asked to review the outcomes and come
to the common groupings found in Table 1.
Table 2 shows a listing of the methodologies
employed in all submissions (N = 35). It is interesting
to note the types of methodologies that were most
acceptable to reviewers.
Table 3 shows the common themes found in the
articles accepted for this issue of the Journal of
Operations Management. The common themes
approach was used by Adam and Swamidass (1989)
in identifying issues of interest for further research in
operations management. We adopt this approach to
identify themes and common issues that are found in
this journal to provide direction for future research in
this area. This shows those variables that have been
operationalized and utilized repeatedly in these articles.
Again, using the Adam and Swamidass (1989)
approach to synthesize strategic operations variables
(Foster, 2007), Fig. 1 shows those variables that occur
across articles most commonly in the center of the
target. For this journal issue, these are the core variables
of interest for supply chain quality management. The
variables that occur less often are found in the middle
ring and those variables that occur least in the articles
are in the outer ring.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, we first defined the term, supply chain
quality management by combining differing theoretical
constructs from the literature. We then reviewed the
articles and submissions for this special issue to help to
identify key variables and constructs for future research
in supply chain quality.
As we stated, the purpose of this special issue of the
journal is, in a sense, to create a new field of study known
as supply chain quality management (SCQM). SCQM is
an important emergent area that needs to be further
researched so that we can understand how more emphasis
on supply chain management will change how we
approach, research, and teach quality tools and philo-
sophies. This special issue of the journal of operations
management represents a good early step in this process.

5. Directions for future research

Of course, a special issue such as this does not allow

space to fully encompass the full range of topics and
research propositions contained in the area of supply
chain quality management. Areas that need further work
Fig. 1. Common themes in SCQM in this journal. include but are not limited to:
466 S.T. Foster Jr. / Journal of Operations Management 26 (2008) 461–467

1. Supply chain management models. How does 2007. I wish to thank the following team of esteemed
emphasis on the supply chain affect how we view reviewers for their contributions to this special issue:
quality? What are supply chain quality contextual Sanjay Ahire University of South Carolina
variables? How do these contextual variables Umit Akinc Wake Forest University
influence supply chain performance? Tim Baker Washington State University
2. Supply chain constructs. How is quality defined in Jaydeep Balakrishnan University of Calgary
John Blackstone University of Georgia
terms of the supply chain? Do Garvin’s (1983) and
Roger Calantone Michigan State University
Parasuraman et al. (1988) dimensions still apply or Joseph Carter Arizona State University
are new typologies needed? Is there a fit between Steve Chapman North Carolina State University
philosophies espoused by practitioners such as Dave Christy California Polytechnic State
Deming, Juran, and Crosby and supply chain University,
management? San Luis Obispo
Lawrie Corbett Victoria University of Wellington
3. Supply chain frameworks. Do frameworks such as Sime Curkovic Western Michigan University
Flynn et al. (1994), Adam (1994), or Saraph et al. Mark Davis Bentley College
(1989) still apply to supply chain management? Are Jan De Vries University of Groningen
new frameworks needed? Laurens Debo Carnegie Mellon University
4. Supply chain quality strategy. How do supply chain Robb Dixon Boston University
Bill Doll University of Toledo
quality practices affect performance? What are Kevin Dooley Arizona State University
implications of the supply chain for strategic quality Maling Ebrahimpour Roger Williams University
content and process? James Evans University of Cincinnati
5. Supply chain quality assurance. How do we assure Philip Evers University of Maryland
Stanley Fawcett Brigham Young University
product and service quality in the supply chain?
Joy Field Boston College
What are the emerging roles of customers and Byron Finch Miami University, Ohio
suppliers in assuring quality? What is the state of the Larry Fredendall Clemson University
art in design quality and communication of standards Phil Fry Boise State University
and quality specifications? What is the impact of Tim Fry University of South Carolina
supplier qualification systems such as ISO/TS 16949 Tom Gattiker Boise State University
Richard Germain University of Louisville
and ISO 14000 on supply chain performance? Soumen Ghosh Georgia Tech University
6. Supply chain quality control. What is the state of the John Grout Berry College
art for supply chain quality control? How does one Norma Harrison Macquarie University
deal with issues of control versus empowerment in Kevin Hendricks Wilfred Laurier University
Nancy Lea Hyer Vanderbilt University
the supply chain?
Hale Kaynak University of Texas, Pan American
7. Supply chain quality management. How is quality Ken Klassen Brock University
managed in the context of the supply chain? How is Cerry Klein University of Missouri, Columbia
management integrated with customers and suppliers Canan Kocabasoglu University of Kansas
to improve supply chain performance? How do these Dennis Krumweide Idaho State University
changing relationships influence quality results in Nenad Jukic University of Loyola, Chicago
T.S. Lee Chinese University of Hong Kong
firms? What is the role of supplier development in Kevin Linderman University of Minnesota
improving product and service performance? Rhonda Lummus Iowa State University
8. Supply chain service. What is the impact of customer Christian Madu Pace University
relationship management on the management of Janis Miller Clemson University
operations? What are the services linkages that exist Amitava Mitra Auburn University
Eitan Naveh Israel Institute of Technology
in the supply chain? What is the impact of customer Rocky Newman Miami University, Ohio
contact in the supply chain? Jeff Ogden Air Force Institute of Technology
Trudi Pannirselvam Southern Illinois University,
Acknowledgements Edwardsville
Diane Parente Penn State, Erie
Seungwook Park Cal State, Fullerton
This special issue of the Journal of Operations Patrick Philipoom University of South Carolina
Management benefited from the work of many talented Tom Rohleder University of Calgary
reviewers. The deadline for submissions was the end of Danny Samson University of Melbourne
August 2006. Reviews, revisions, second reviews, final Nada Sanders Wright State University
revisions, and editorial editing were completed by June Jayant Saraph Metropolitan State University
 S.T. Foster Jr. / Journal of Operations Management 26 (2008) 461–467 467

Shane Schvaneveldt Weber State University Brassard, M., Ritter, D., 2004. The Memory Jogger II. Goal/QPC,
Roger Schroeder University of Minnesota Salem, NH.
Kristie Seawright Brigham Young University Deming, W.E., 2000. Out of the Crisis. MIT/CAES, Boston, MA.
Chwen Sheu Kansas State University Fawcett, S., Ellram, L., Ogden, J., 2006. Upper Saddle Rive. Prentice-
Giovanni Da Silveira University of Calgary Hall, NJ.
Robert Spekman University of Virginia Flynn, B.B., Flynn, E.J., 2005. Synergies between supply chain
Cynthia Wallin Brigham Young University management and quality management: emerging implications.
Hugh Watson University of Georgia International Journal of Production Research 43 (16), 3421–
Charlie Watts John Carroll University 3436.
Urban Wemmerlov University of Wisconsin Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R., Sakakibara, S., 1994. A framework for
Craig Wood University of New Hampshire quality management research and an associated measurement
Amy Xia Middle Tennessee State University instrument. Journal of Operations Management 11 (4), 339–
Steve Yourstone University of New Mexico 366.
Xing Xing Zu Morgan State University Foster Jr., S.T., 2007. Managing Quality: Integrating the Supply
Chain. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle Rive, NJ.
Garvin, D., 1983. Quality on the Line, Harvard Business Review, vol.
References 61, September–October, pp. 64–75.
Miles, R., Snow, C., 1978. Organizational Strategy, Structure, and
Adam Jr., E.E., Swamidass, P.M., 1989. Assessing operations manage- Process. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.
ment from a strategic perspective. Journal of Management 15 (2), Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. Servqual: a
181–203. multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions. Journal
Adam Jr., E.E., 1994. Alternative quality improvement practices and of Retailing 64 (1), 12–41.
organization performance. Journal of Operations Management 12 Saraph, J., Benson, G., Schroeder, R., 1989. An instrument for
(1), 27–44. measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision
Benton, W.C., Maloni, M., 2005. The influence of power driven buyer/ Sciences 20 (4), 810–821.
seller relationships on supply chain satisfaction. Journal of Opera- Thirumalai, S., Sinha, K.K., 2005. Customer satisfaction with order
tions Management 23 (1), 1–22. fulfillment in retail supply chains: implications of product type in
Bowersox, D., Closs, D., Cooper, M.B., 2007. Supply Chain Logistics electronic B2C transactions. Journal of Operations Management
Management. McGraw Hill, New York, NY. 23 (3/4), 291–303.