Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558

www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation

TQM and innovation: a literature review and research framework

*
Daniel I. Prajogo, Amrik S. Sohal
Department of Management, Monash University, PO Box 197, Caulfield East, VIC 3145, Australia

Received 3 July 2000; accepted 6 October 2000

Abstract

This paper discusses the relationship between the implementation of Total Quality Management (TQM) and innovation perform-
ance. The discussion arises primarily based on the considerable controversy concerning this relationship that appears in the literature.
As of interest to resolve this controversy, a research framework is developed preceded by a theoretical discussion of the multidimen-
sionality of TQM when applied in different organizational contexts. The primary proposition of this framework is that the implemen-
tation of TQM practices will be influenced by the external and internal environment as well as the strategy adopted by the firm.
The model of TQM implemented is then reflected in terms of different outcomes relating to quality performance and innovation
performance.  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: TQM; Innovation; Relationships; Literature review

1. Introduction dominate they must adopt innovation as a way of cor-

The emergence of Total Quality Management
(TQM) has been one of the major developments in
management practice. TQM began to be introduced in
the US around 1980, primarily in response to severe
competitive challenges from Japanese companies. The
recognition of TQM as a competitive advantage is
widespread around the world, especially in Western
countries, and today very few (especially
manufacturing) companies can afford to ignore the
term TQM (Dean and Bowen, 1994). On the other
hand, innovation has also received considerable atten-
tion as having a crucial role in securing sustainable
competitive advantage in today’s competition. As
Tushman and Nadler (1986, p. 74) assert:
In today’s business environment, there is no executive
task more vital and demanding than the sustained
management of innovation and change. . . . To com-
pete in this ever-changing environment, companies
must create new products, services, and processes; to
porate life.
This paper discusses the relationship between TQM
and innovation. We believe that such a discussion is
important for the following three reasons: to assess the
relevance of TQM for management of innovation; to
determine the usefulness of TQM as a resource for inno-
vation; and to clarify conflicting accounts of the relation-
ship between TQM and innovation. First, from a TQM
perspective, this discussion provides a reassessment of
the need for implementing TQM in organizations. Basi-
cally, TQM has been widely accepted as a management
model that provides a competitive advantage, if
implemented successfully. However, as market con-
ditions change, it is expected that the basis of compe-
tition will also change with quality becoming one of the
“qualifying criteria” and flexibility, responsiveness and
particularly innovation taking over as “winning order
criteria”1 (Bolwijn and Kumpe, 1990; Hamel and Prah-
alad, 1994; Tidd et al., 1997). In this respect, a question
can then be raised: Should organizations continue to
implement TQM as a management model in the future,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-3-9903-2033; fax: +61-3-9903-

2979.
1
E-mail address: amrik.sohal@buseco.monash.edu.au (A.S. Qualifying criteria and winning order criteria were first formulated
Sohal). by Hill (1985).

0166-4972/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 6 - 4 9 7 2 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 7 0 - 5
540 D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558
particularly if they want to achieve a high innovation
performance?
Second, from the point of view of innovation, testing
the suitability of TQM as a management model for man-
aging innovation could enrich the perspective of mana-
gerial practices in innovative organizations. As Cooper
(1998) suggests, academics as well as practitioners have
devoted significant amount of time to continually seek-
ing and identifying organizational factors, practices and
resources that support and enhance innovation. In this
respect, a particular question can thus arise: Can TQM
function as a specific resource that allows organizations
to build their competence and competitiveness in inno-
vation?
Third, the discussion on the relationship between
TQM and innovation is important from the point of view
of innovation based also on the fact that innovation stud-
ies consider TQM itself as one form of innovation
(Westphal et al., 1997; Yamin et al., 1997; Cooper,
1998). At the same time, innovation scholars have an
interest to examine the impact of adoption and
implementation of a particular innovation, as suggested
by Wolfe (1994, p. 417):
A logical extension to moving from adoption to extent
of implementation as the focus of innovation research
would be to consider the influence of an innovation
on organizational performance.
This is because, as Tornazky and Flischer (1990)
argue, innovation will have a wide range of conse-
quences, the intended or anticipated ones as well as the
unintended ones. Similarly, Flynn et al. (1995a, p. 1325)
also affirm that
Use of a given set of practices should affect the
intended type of performance, but it may also affect
other types of performance.
Honoring these arguments with respect to TQM and
innovation, it should be worthwhile investigating
the relationship between TQM practices and inno-
vation performance. It would be interesting then to
examine the impact of TQM adoption particularly in
organizations, and particularly in terms of innovation
performance.
Finally, this discussion on the relationship between
TQM and innovation is important because conflicting
arguments appear in the literature in regard to this
relationship. This paper, therefore, seeks to resolve this
debate from a theoretical perspective, thus leading to the
development of an appropriate research framework for
examining the relationship between TQM and inno-
vation.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows.
Section 2 discusses the relationship between TQM and
innovation. Both positive and negative arguments in this
respect are presented. Section 3 discusses the multidi-
mensionality of TQM with respect to innovation. The
three factors, namely external environment, organiza-
tion’s strategy, and internal environment, that impact on
TQM implementation are also addressed. Finally, Sec-
tion 4 presents our research framework and hypotheses
to be examined.
2. Literature review on the relationship between
TQM and innovation
Before discussing the literature review on the relation-
ship between TQM and innovation, it is necessary to
clarify what we mean by TQM and innovation. Defining
“what is TQM” is quite problematic because the most
serious problem with TQM is the absence of a uniform
definition (Lau and Anderson, 1998). The problem in
defining TQM then results in another problem of estab-
lishing a clear-cut boundary to distinguish “TQM” from
“not TQM”, and what belongs to TQM and what does
not. As such, we constrain the scope of TQM by refer-
ring to the work of several TQM scholars, such as Dean
and Bowen (1994), Hackman and Wageman (1995),
Plenert (1996) and Lau and Anderson (1998), who
recognize that TQM concepts and practices are shaped
by a number of individuals who are honored as “quality
gurus” based on their views and prescriptions about
modern quality management, namely Deming (1982,
1986), Juran (1988), Juran and Gyrna (1993), Crosby
(1979, 1984), Feigenbaum (1983), Ishikawa (1985,
1986) and Imai (1986).
On the other hand, the review of the literature on inno-
vation also results in various definitions of innovation
from different perspectives, even though they are satis-
factorily coherent. In this regard, we adopt the definition
suggested by Damanpour (1991, p. 556) who defines
innovation as adoption of an internally generated or pur-
chased device, system, policy, program, process, pro-
duct, or service that is new to the adopting organization.
In addition, innovation scholars also recognize that there
are numerous typologies of innovation (Wolfe, 1994).
In this paper, we constrain our focus on two types of
innovation—product versus process, and incremental
versus radical—because they are found to be central in
innovation studies (Ettlie et al., 1984; Abernathy and
Utterback, 1988; Tushman and Nadler, 1986; Zairi,
1995; Tidd et al., 1997; Huiban and Bouhsina, 1998;
Sciulli, 1998).
Discussions on the relationship between TQM and
innovation do not appear very often in the literature.
Essentially, there is only a small amount of such litera-
ture which is supported by theoretical concepts or by
empirical evidence. A review of these papers has led
to a conclusion that there are conflicting arguments
 D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558
concerning the relationship between TQM and inno-
vation. As presented in the next section, one group of
arguments supports the positive relationship between
TQM and innovation, implying that organizations that
implement TQM will be successful in innovation. The
opposite group of arguments claims that TQM will hin-
der organizations from being innovative due to several
inherent elements that are not congruent with the spirit
of innovation. These two arguments are each con-
sidered in turn.
2.1. Arguments in support of the positive relationship
between TQM and innovation
Arguments that support a positive relationship
between TQM and innovation suggest that companies
embracing TQM in their system and culture will provide
a fertile environment for innovation (growth) because
TQM embodies principles that are congruent with inno-
vation (Mahesh, 1993; Dean and Evans, 1994; Kanji,
1996; Tang, 1998; Roffe, 1999). In this regard, the prin-
ciple of customer focus encourages organizations to
search consistently for new customer needs and expec-
tations and therefore leads organizations to be innovative
in terms of developing and introducing new products as
a continual adaptation to the market’s changing needs
(Juran, 1988). Customer focus also suggests the impor-
tance of delighting customers. This means that suppliers
not only need to meet customers’ basic and stated
requirements but to do so creatively to exceed those
needs and expectations (i.e. going beyond conformance).
This is a strategy very much associated with innovation.
Likewise, continuous improvement encourages change
and creative thinking in how work is organized and con-
ducted. Finally, the principles of empowerment, involve-
ment, and teamwork are also substantial in determining
the success of organizational innovation.
A study on best practice of innovation management
(Zairi, 1999) among several world-class organizations,
including D2D, Rover Group, IBM (UK) Ltd, 3M,
Ford, AT&T, Cadillac, Hewlett Packard, Rank Xerox,
Exxon Chemical, and Kodak Ltd, reveals that some of
the practices are well recognized as TQM elements.
These practices include an implementation of such
principles as “quality culture”, “learning organization”,
“customer-driven organization”, and “continuous
improvement”. More specifically, a wide variety of the
so-called quality tools, including quality function
deployment (QFD), Taguchi methods, design of experi-
ments, statistical process control (SPC), failure mode
and effect analysis (FMEA), Poka Yoke, bench-
marking, six-sigma design, seven problem-solving
tools, seven planning tools, ISO 9001 quality system
standards, employee empowerment and involvement,
multifunctional teamwork, and supplier partnership, are
also included in these practices.
541
The argument supporting the positive relationship
between TQM and innovation is also substantiated by
several empirical studies. Flynn (1994) reports on the
relationship between quality management and the speed
of product innovation. Her findings suggest that there
are significant differences between fast, medium and
slow product innovators based on TQM elements in
terms of top management quality leadership, feedback,
cleanliness and organization, and product design
characteristics. Similarly, the findings of Gustafson and
Hundt (1995) suggest that such elements as customer-
mindedness, management/leadership, benchmarking,
constancy of purpose, data/information, quality mind-
edness, employee mindedness, process mindedness, and
continuous improvement are central to successful inno-
vation and improvement, although not all of them are
of equal importance in predicting success. McAdam et
al. (1998), in comparing TQM—as represented by con-
tinuous improvement—to innovation in 15 companies
in Ireland, report two important results. First, they find
that there is a significant and very high correlation
between the overall continuous improvement score and
innovation score, suggesting that continuous improve-
ment can act as a solid foundation on which to build an
innovative organization. Second, through a qualitative
study, they find that certain practices reflecting a cul-
ture of continuous improvement exist in the organiza-
tions deemed to be innovative. They conclude, there-
fore, that the strong correlation between continuous
improvement and innovation scores is not simply a cor-
relation but suggests a causal relationship, meaning that
the introduction of continuous improvement over a per-
iod of time will lead to increased innovation. Baldwin
and Johnson (1996) find that the adoption of TQM as
a management strategy contributes significantly in dif-
ferentiating the more-innovative organizations from the
less-innovative ones.
2.2. Arguments in support of the negative relationship
between TQM and innovation
In contrast to the above, arguments that reject the
positive relationship between TQM and innovation are
raised by several scholars such as Lawton and Parasura-
man (1980), Bennett and Cooper (1981), Hamel and Pra-
halad (1994), Lynn et al. (1996), Wind and Mahajan
(1997), Slater and Narver (1998), and Tidd et al. (1997).
These negative arguments are summarized below.
2.2.1. TQM could “trap” organizations in
improvement or incremental innovations
The customer focus philosophy could easily lead
organizations to focus only on incremental improve-
ments in their current products and service activities
rather than trying to create novel solutions. In other
words, such behavior leads to the development of
542 D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558
Fig. 1. The company and market perceptions of product innovation (Davis and Moe, 1997, p. 340).
uncompetitive “me-too” products rather than the
development of real innovation (Wind and Mahajan,
1997). Davis and Moe (1997, p. 340) define product
newness, or innovativeness, in terms of risk from both
company and market perspective, as depicted in Fig.
1. On this mapping, product innovativeness can be cat-
egorized based on the degree of the product’s newness
to both the market and the company. The newer the
products are, the greater the risk the company must
bear in investing its resources for developing such
products.
The findings of a study by Atuahene-Gima (1996)
support this argument by concluding that market orien-
tation has an insignificant—and negative—relationship
with product newness in the manufacturing sector. On
the other hand, it appears that market orientation has a
positive relationship with product advantage (i.e.
conformance). This confirms the notion that customer
focus will result in product conformance rather than pro-
duct innovation.
Likewise, continuous improvement is perceived as
possessing several key weaknesses in relation to inno-
vation because it could hinder the introduction of more
radical innovations as it stresses a level of change that
is incremental. The emphasis on incremental change is
central to the philosophy of process improvement
(kaizen) developed by Imai (1986). He strongly con-
trasted the idea of radical and discontinuous break-
through, which he termed as innovation as is usually
implemented by Western companies, with the idea of
small and continuous improvement. This comparison is
presented in Table 1. Imai (1986) has argued, however,
that kaizen is not intended as a substitution for inno-
vation; instead, kaizen is needed to sustain the benefits
resulting from innovation.
Nevertheless, his idea in contrasting continuous
improvement with breakthrough innovation has invited
a number of arguments highlighting the negative aspects
of TQM. For example, Harari (1993a) argue strongly
that the stress on incremental improvement could lead
people to work on unambitious goals and derive sol-
utions that are not novel. Harari (1993b; p. 37) further-
more suggests that
obsessing internally until one achieves a zero-defects
“do-it-right-first-time” routine is a dangerous luxury
that often slows down new breakthrough development
in products and services.
From a strategic perspective, incremental improvement
may allow business to catch up to its competitors, but
it cannot achieve breakthrough performance that will
permit it to leapfrog past them. Therefore, it is suggested
that any business culture that emphasizes catch-up stra-
tegies, without consideration of the need for break-
through change, will soon be outdated (Fuchs, 1993; Jha
et al., 1996).
2.2.2. TQM could lead organizations to be narrow-
minded
Customer focus could lead organizations to be
reactive and short term in focus in terms of serving the
current and stated needs of customers. As Reed et al.
(1996, p. 178) suggest:
Because quality means both producing products to
specifications and meeting customer’s expectations,
the needs of customers becomes a key input to TQM.
In this way, such firms would fail to search customers’
latent needs. As a result, they fail to drive a generative
learning by searching for the unserved, untapped poten-
tial in markets. Customer focus, therefore, could build a
“tyranny of the served market” in which managers see
the world only through their current customers’ eyes
(Slater and Narver, 1998). As such, those companies
may not be aware of the uncertainties of the future in a
dynamic and turbulent market and, thus, not be prepared
to deal with market discontinuity (Kim and Marbougne,
1999). Finally, customer focus also strongly enforces the
 D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558 543

Table 1
Features of kaizen and innovation (Imai, 1986, p. 24)

Kaizen Innovation

1 Effect Long-term and long-lasting, but undramatic Short-term, but dramatic

2 Pace Small steps Big steps
3 Time frame Continuous and incremental Intermittent and non-incremental
4 Change Gradual and constant Abrupt and volatile
5 Involvement Everybody Select few “champions”
6 Approach Collectivism, group efforts, systems approach Rugged individualism, individual ideas and efforts
7 Mode Maintenance and improvement Scrap and rebuild
8 Spark Conventional know-how and state of the art Technological breakthroughs, new inventions, new
theories
9 Practical requirements Requires little investment, but great effort to Requires large investment, but little effort to
maintain it maintain it
10 Effort orientation People Technology
11 Evaluation criteria Process and efforts for better results Results for profits
12 Advantage Works well in slow-growth economy Better suited to fast-growth economy

maintenance of long-term relationship with existing cus-
tomers. Whilst this sounds quite logical, existing cus-
tomers, however, can substantially constrain a firm’s
ability to innovate because a company will fear that pro-
ducing innovations may “disturb” the way of doing busi-
ness with the current customer (Wind and Mahajan,
1997). Focusing on the majority of customers could
result in perceiving risk of losing existing customers and
will, therefore, prevent companies from being innovative
by pursuing conformance at the cost of innovativeness.
As a matter of interest, Christensen and Bower (1996)
report findings that strongly challenge the prevailing
concept of customer focus by having revealed that firms
lost their position as industry leaders because they list-
ened too carefully to their customers.
2.2.3. Based on the issue of risk avoidance and
adaptive approach, TQM could strategically lead
organizations to be imitators or followers rather than
innovators or leaders
The pursuit of customer satisfaction can overwhelm
other strategic performance indicators such as those con-
cerned with new product success, for example Miles and
Snow’s (1978) prospector strategy. This particular strat-
egy is closely associated with producing radical inno-
vation for new markets that clearly involves a high
degree of risk. By suggesting that customer focus does
not encourage organizations to consider radical product
innovation, it also implies that customer focus does not
support the concept of prospector strategy. In addition,
as discussed before, customer focus drives organizations
to serve the existing market. Whilst pursuing a customer
satisfaction strategy is undeniably important, the point
to note here is that in satisfying its customers, an organi-
zation can also offer them something that they have
never experienced or expected before which is clearly
valuable to them (Kim and Marbougne, 1999). Innov-
ative companies, therefore, will emphasize more on
informing and educating customers rather than listening
to them with regard to the introduction of new products
into the market (Wind and Mahajan, 1997). Likewise,
adoption of new technology to improve the process that
leads to radical change is unlikely to obtain support due
to perceived risk, which is not solely concerned with
cost but also with wider issues in relation to the impact
of the change.
2.2.4. TQM could hinder creativity due to the
enforcement of standards, or formalization
Imai (1986) strongly suggests that continuous
improvement requires standardization. He proposes a
combined approach between the improvement (PDCA)
cycle and the standardization (SDCA) cycle.2 As such,
continuous improvement requires a regulatory standard
and activities that are sufficiently routine to be well
understood. Therefore, control and stability is the core
of the continuous improvement process (Jha et al.,
1996). Whilst standardization is necessitated for con-
formance and error reduction, from an innovation point
of view it could trap people into staying with what is
workable and believe this to be “the best solution”, as
asserted by Kanter (1983, p. 70):
Organizations with a formula that works well are
doomed to replicate it, handing over their operations
to people who control things so that there are no devi-
ations from the formula.
2
PDCA stands for Plan-Do-Check-Act, and SDCA stands for Stan-
dardize-Do-Check-Act. Further details can be found in Imai (1986, pp.
60–65).
544 D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558
Standardization, therefore, could inhibit innovation
because it reduces the ambiguity of any task that is
necessary to enforce innovation. In addition, stan-
dardization will raise the fear of breaking rules because
of possible punishment for doing so (Morgan, 1993).
In this way, standardization will produce conformists
and law-abiding workers, yet Morgan (1993) holds that
very few innovations have occurred when people
accepted the status quo. The primary effect of such
standardization is the establishment of routines. Whilst
there is an advantage in having routines with which an
organization can operate continuously and smoothly,
there is also a potential danger in which an organization
will develop a “stickiness” on repeated or established
procedures or processes and not, thereby, explore new
ways of doing things. As asserted by Morgan (1993,
p. 124):
When it comes to thinking, rules are probably the last
thing we need for our survival. Rules make us lazy
in the way we think. They encourage us to accept the
status quo. They stop us thinking outside the rules.
In relation to algorithmic tasks, where task behavior
is governed by fixed and specific rules, innovation would
be inhibited because the “stickiness” on established and
repeated rules will subsequently produce the Not
Invented Here (NIH) syndrome (Tushman and Moore,
1988, p. 293; Woodman et al., 1993). This is referred to
as rigidity and relates to a certain behavioral pattern that
is developed over time. As held by Morgan (1993), such
rigidity will inhibit creativity which is the primary
source of innovation. Katz (1988, in Tushman and
Moore, 1988, p. 204) gives a strong conclusion with
regard to the “end result” of the standardized problem
solving approach, as follows:
As a result, there may develop over time increasing
rigidity in one’s problem solving activities—a kind
of functional fixedness that reduces the individual’s
capacity for flexibility and openness to change. . . .
Furthermore, as individuals continue to work by their
well-established problem-solving strategies and pro-
cedures, the more committed they may become to
such existing methods.
2.2.5. TQM promotes single-loop learning rather than
double-loop learning
The failure of continuous improvement in producing
innovation can also be attributed to the associated
learning process. The popular quality improvement
tools mentioned earlier that always accompany dis-
cussions on continuous improvement usually emphas-
ize analytical, structured and linear thinking, whilst
innovation is more synthetical, unstructured and non-
linear (Bookman, 1994). Incremental improvements
tend to emphasize starting with factual information
(left-brain thinking), whilst breakthrough and radical
thinking both start with intuitive insights (right-brain
thinking), a process which is then followed by factual
verification (Miller, 1995). It is also the case that con-
tinuous improvement is more analytical, whilst inno-
vation is more experimental, allowing trial and error
due to uncertainty (Ahanotu, 1998). The problem solv-
ing method taught by TQM emphasizes the use of data,
indeed one of the most famous terms used in TQM
literature is “management by fact”. This term strongly
promotes the idea of rational thinking supported by a
set of data, tools, and techniques. The danger of too
much emphasis on rational thinking, however, is that
people will try to place creative and chaotic processes
into systematic and rational sequences that may not be
compatible with each other (Roffe, 1999). Furthermore,
Glynn (1996) suggests that in situations where a prob-
lem is familiar, prior experience may lead to the direct
retrieval of the prior solution—as in the case of routin-
ized problem solving. This means that if workers are
allowed to deal only with routine operational problems,
then it would be unlikely that they would produce
innovative solutions.
The emphasis on single-loop learning leads continu-
ous improvement practices to focus on the existing sys-
tem. As mentioned before, certain critics of TQM sug-
gest that the focus on incremental improvement could
well hinder people to consider more radical change. In
this context, the failure to explore any radical change is
caused by overemphasizing the improvement of existing
systems. For example, Lawler (1994) and Samaha
(1996) suggest that the concept of continuous improve-
ment is aimed basically at simplifying or streamlining a
process and carrying it out in a better or faster manner.
Such an approach could be detrimental to breakthrough
innovation that, in turn, leads companies to continually
work upon, and improve, processes that are fundamen-
tally flawed. Similarly, Ahanotu (1998) asserts that in
practice the TQM approach results in a situation where
the learning of production workers is typically con-
strained within a given pre-designed production regime.
Consequently, this brings employees to focus on the
details of the quality process instead of on new ideas that
represent a substantial change from current functions and
structural ways of working. The best that they can do,
therefore, is to improve the existing system incremen-
tally. With regard to the learning process involved in
TQM, Burdett (1994, p. 8) provides the following con-
clusive statement:
A more subtle potential shortfall in TQM is the extent
to which an ethos of continuous improvement impacts
on organizational learning . . . A question that is
framed in terms of “How can we improve this?” by
 D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558
implication moves those involved away from what
may be a more insightful question, “Do we need to
do this at all?”
This incremental and single-loop learning concept is
in contrast to the idea of re-engineering. Rather than
working within the framework of a company’s existing
processes and trying to find ways to enhance them, re-
engineering seeks a breakthrough, not by enhancing
existing process but by discarding them and replacing
them with entirely new ones (Hammer and Champy,
1993).
2.2.6. From a strategic point of view, TQM focuses on
cost efficiency that could limit the capacity and
opportunity for innovation
The underlying concept of process improvement is to
eliminate waste and, therefore, promote efficiency. In
this regard, Imai (1986) even expands the understanding
of waste beyond the case of defective products to also
include resources. Essentially, the overemphasis on
efficiency could minimize, if not eliminate, the avail-
ability of slack resources, something that has been found
to be instrumental in organizational innovation (Rogers,
1983; Mintzberg and Quinn, 1991; Nohria and Gulati,
1996). For example, there is no idle time and energy
allowing workers to be involved in non-production
activities, thus substantially reducing their opportunities
to participate in the processes of innovation (Ahanotu,
1998).
The comparison between the two opposing views of
the relationship between TQM and innovation is sum-
marized in Table 2. What is presented in that table does
not capture all aspects on which the conflict is
grounded. However, the three elements—customer
focus; continuous improvement; and empowerment,
involvement and teamwork—are selected because they
represent the core principles of TQM as suggested by
such scholars as Gobeli and Brown (1994), Dean and
Bowen (1994), Sitkin et al. (1994), and Kim and
Chang (1995).
2.3. Discussion
When discussing the debate presented above, a greater
concern is placed on the negative arguments rather than
the positive ones as the former are more controversial
and challenging. Moreover, whilst the two groups of
arguments appear to be antagonistic to each other, the
negative arguments do not totally reject the positive view
that TQM supports innovation. However, the negative
view posits that TQM will only support innovation on
a very limited basis and, to a certain degree, suggest that
the implementation of TQM is likely to be detrimental
for innovation. Therefore, it seems that conflict between
the two schools of thought occurs because of the differ-
545
ence in defining what innovation is, particularly in dif-
ferentiating the incremental and radical types of inno-
vation. It must be noted, however, that while the
distinction between these two types of innovation has
been acknowledged in innovation studies, to differentiate
them is, in itself, quite problematic (Dewar and Dutton,
1986). Even so, TQM scholars commonly refer to any
type of change as the result of innovation, therefore
arguing that continuous improvement is one type of
innovation (Dean and Evans, 1994). On the other hand,
innovation scholars prefer to confine innovation in terms
of radical change and to distinguish it from incremental
change which they prefer to label as improvement
(Abernathy and Utterback, 1988). They commonly argue
that improvement is simply “doing something in a better
way”, but innovation is about “doing something differ-
ently” (Kirton, 1976). As an example, the distinction
between continuous improvement and re-engineering is
based on the principle that the first focuses on the exist-
ing system and continually seeks ways to enhance its
performance, whilst the latter re-starts everything from
the beginning and thus establishes discontinuity with
the past.
The essence of the negative arguments raised against
TQM above, however, is more profound than solely dis-
tinguishing the radicalness of change. What have been
highlighted above are the different behavioral traits,
ways of thinking, approaches, and principles embodied
in TQM in contrast to innovation. For example, the dif-
ference is clearly seen in the issue of product innovation.
Whilst TQM does support the importance of product
innovation, the approach is more reactive than proactive,
meaning that TQM tends to encourage new product
development only when there is such an explicit demand
from customers. This is quite in contrast to the philo-
sophy of innovative companies which creates demand
through innovation. In essence, TQM is more market-
pull (or customer-driven) whilst innovation is more pro-
duct-push.
By and large, the debate on the relationship between
TQM and innovation warrants a rigorous study if there
is to be obtained a definite yes/no answer regarding that
relationship. While this could result in a clear conclusion
from a practical perspective to accept or reject the appli-
cability of TQM for innovative organizations, this is
hardly possible to achieve in view of the unclear defi-
nition and boundaries of TQM itself. Moreover, a num-
ber of scholars (for example, Sitkin et al., 1994; Spencer,
1994; Moreno-Luzon and Peris, 1998) have argued that
this conflict can be resolved if we can accept the idea
of perceiving TQM as a multidimensional model instead
of a single “exclusive” one. They suggest that TQM has
different facets, and this can be seen from various ter-
minologies that have been introduced in the area of qual-
ity management, such as quality control, quality assur-
ance, total quality control, company-wide quality

Table 2
Summary of conflicting arguments on the relationship between TQM and innovation
TQM elements Positive arguments
Customer focus Customer focus will encourage organizations to be innovative because they
have to seek a better way to meet and exceed customers’ requirements
Customer focus will provide a clear focus for innovation by linking innovation
with customers’ needs
Continuous Continuous improvement will encourage change, innovation, and creative
improvement thinking in how work is organized and conducted
Teamwork, Empowerment should make people feel they have a certain degree of
empowerment and autonomy, are less constrained by technical or rule-bound aspects, and self-
involvement efficacious in doing their work, which will make them innovative
Cross-functional teamwork is one of the most effective channels of
communication, and communication is recognized as the primary determinant
in organizational innovation
546
Negative arguments
Customer focus could lead organizations to be reactive in responding to customers’
needs
Customer focus may prevent organizations from exploring unserved needs and
markets
Customer focus may prevent organizations from developing radical new products
(first-mover) because of its inherent risk-avoidance philosophy
Customer focus could not help organizations to cope with turbulence and
discontinuity of the market
The emphasis of efficiency in continuous improvement would minimize, if not
eliminate, the availability of slack resources that are required for innovation
The stress on incremental improvement could lead teams to work on unambitious
goals and derive solutions which are not novel
Continuous improvement process is only workable when the underlying system of
production is stable and repetitive, and not in a particular environment where there
is a high degree of uncertainty
The establishment of a regulatory standard could inhibit innovation because it
reduces the ambiguity of a task that is necessitated to enforce innovation
Continuous improvement could also result in routinization and rigidity of activities
that will cause an organization to lose its flexibility
Continuous improvement only supports single-loop learning and not double-loop
learning
D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558
Whilst conceptually empowerment and involvement are very much congruent with
innovation, in practice workers are usually “empowered and involved” to deal only
with execution and small scale of improvement
The cultural tendency toward group working which has contributed towards stressing
total quality control to a certain degree will inhibit independent entrepreneurship and
individual creativity, resulting in a detrimental effect upon radical innovations and
inventions
 D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558
control, total quality management, and strategic quality
management. Understanding the multifacetedness of
TQM could provide a solution to resolving the conflict
in the relationship between TQM and innovation as well
as challenging the traditional concept formulated by the
quality gurus who tend to adopt a “universalistic”
approach to TQM, assuming that it is a “fixed entity”
which can be applied to any company in any set of cir-
cumstances.
In particular to this respect, Spencer (1994) asserts
that the issue of the extent to which all components of
the practice must be applied in different situations will
lead to an important research question regarding the
effectiveness of the implementation of TQM. There-
fore, the real question is not whether all TQM compo-
nents are required or not, but whether there is some
necessary pairing among elements for achieving certain
goals. This argument is supported by empirical findings
of past research on TQM (see, for example, Flynn et
al., 1995b; Samson and Terziovski, 1999; Dow et al.,
1999). The primary conclusion is that although in gen-
eral TQM elements positively relate to quality perform-
ance, only certain elements have a power to differen-
tiate between high- and low-quality performing
organizations.
3. The multidimensionality and contingency of
TQM in its relation to innovation
The multidimensionality and contingency of TQM, as
addressed by several scholars, is based on the argument
that TQM consists of a set of principles, practices, and
techniques (Dean and Bowen, 1994; Lau and Anderson,
1998). Organizations then have to distinguish the under-
standing of TQM between a conceptual or philosophical
level and a practical or technical level when
implementing it. This is because although at a philo-
sophical level TQM is very much “homogeneous” or
“convergent”, when deployed into practices it is not a
method that can be “unthinkingly” used without a clear
sense of the context where it is implemented (Sitkin et
al., 1994; Watson and Korukonda, 1995; Reed et al.,
1996; Lau and Anderson, 1998). Lau and Anderson
(1998) even strongly recommend that the key to success-
ful design of TQM programs thus depends on the
extending analysis from the philosophical concepts
advocated by many TQM proponents to the formulation
of specific quality programs that are tailored to the
industry and product or service involved as well as the
company’s unique strategic focus.
This argument is supported by an empirical study by
Benson et al. (1991) who investigated the organizational
context that affects managers’ perceptions of both actual
quality management and their belief concerning ideal
quality management. Benson et al. (1991) hypothesized
547
that, based on the existing literature, ideal quality man-
agement should not be affected by the organizational
context, meaning that good quality management applies
to all types of companies and situations regardless of
industry sector, competition, or types of products. On
the other hand, the organizational context may affect the
practice of quality management. Their findings sup-
ported their hypotheses well and, in particular, the result
suggested that the actual quality management practices
of manufacturing organizations are affected by both
internal contextual factors, such as corporate support for
quality, past quality performance, and management
knowledge, as well as external contextual factors, such
as extent of entry barriers and degree of external qual-
ity demands.
In the context of its relationship with innovation, the
multidimensionality and contingency of TQM is dis-
cussed by several scholars, prominently by Sitkin et al.
(1994) and Spencer (1994). Sitkin et al. (1994) argue
that TQM, as a philosophy which consists of three basic
precepts—customer focus, continuous improvement, and
total system—embodies two distinctive and antagonistic
orientations, namely control and learning. They propose
that although guided under similar (three) underlying
TQM precepts, organizations can apply two significantly
different goals and practices based on two different
orientations, labeled as TQC (Total Quality Control) and
TQL (Total Quality Learning). TQC is associated more
with quality in terms of conformance, and TQL is con-
nected more with innovation. Sitkin et al. (1994)
strongly argue, however, that the singular emphasis on
control has characterized traditional approaches to TQM
implementation and this is something that has resulted
in the rise of the negative arguments concerning the
relationship between TQM and innovation presented
above.
In the same respect, Spencer (1994) discusses TQM
practices in relation to three organization models,
namely mechanistic, organismic, and cultural. She
believes that an organization that adopts TQM can be
characterized by any of these models because there is
a linkage between TQM practices, as advocated by its
proponents, with each of the three models. She argues,
however, that this does not mean that organizations that
practice TQM may hold strictly any one of these models;
rather, they may “oscillate” among them or have an
orientation toward one of them. For example, the stated
goal of TQM to improve quality is associated with the
mechanistic model, because in practice the real objective
of pursuing quality could well shift into productivity and
efficiency, something on which mechanistic organiza-
tions focus. On the other hand, the ideas of employees’
empowerment and cross-functional teamwork are linked
closely to the organismic model.
A link between what is posited by Sitkin et al. (1994)
and Spencer (1994) can then be built. It appears that
548 D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558
what is conceived as control-orientation essentially is
strongly associated with the mechanistic model. As
Spencer (1994, p. 453) affirms:
In the mechanistic model, stability is prized because
it increases predictability, which, in turn, increases
control.
On the other hand, Spencer (1994) refers the organ-
ismic model to the organic model3 proposed by Burns
and Stalker (1961), a typical model of organizations that
are supporting innovation. It then appears that the organ-
ismic model is closely linked to the learning-orientation.
In this regard, when referring to a mechanistic or con-
trol-oriented model, TQM will focus more on quality by
conformance, and thus appear to meet all negative argu-
ments concerning its relationship with innovation. It then
has to be concluded that, rather than attempting to sup-
port or reject the notion as to whether TQM is positively
related with innovation performance, the focus should be
more emphasized on studying the multidimensionality of
TQM.
The logical sequence then is to ask: What factors
affect the multidimensionality of TQM implementation?
The literature suggests that there are perhaps three fac-
tors that could potentially affect the multidimensionality
of TQM. These factors are discussed in the following
sections, particularly concerning their role in affecting
the implementation of TQM resulting in two different
outcomes—quality and innovation.
3.1. The role of the external environment
The impact of the environment on organizations has
been recognized in the classical works of Burns and
Stalker (1961), Thompson (1967), Perrow (1974),
Khandwalla (1977), Miles and Snow (1978) and Lawr-
ence and Lorsch (1986). The primary postulate is that the
environment poses challenges with which organizations
must deal. With respect to TQM, some scholars (for
example, Hill and Wilkinson, 1995; Reed et al., 1996)
suggest that TQM is contingent with different versions
of manifestations in different sectors under different
market conditions in organizations. Similarly, Sitkin et
al. (1994) argue that this also applies in the case of TQM
in relation to quality and innovation. They suggest that
organizations will be driven toward innovation (referred
to as learning-oriented) when they perceive a certain
degree of uncertainty in their environment. A low level
of uncertainty will direct organizations toward the con-
trol approach, whilst a high level of uncertainty will lead
companies to employ the learning, or innovative,
3
From this sentence onward, the term “organismic” and “organic”
will be used interchangeably.
approach. As an example, they take the case of SPC
(Statistical Process Control) implementation. Underlying
the SPC method is the belief that the production process
best operates under stable and predictable condition. The
use of SPC is therefore generally only applicable to a
stable process based on a high-volume repetitive
assembly line, for example an automobile production
process, but would not be appropriate for custom pro-
duction systems. On the other hand, in the computer
industry, the product life cycle is so short that production
techniques frequently become outmoded before they
have a chance to settle into a condition that would be
amenable to the use of TQM tools and techniques, parti-
cularly SPC.
In a similar mode, Arthur (1997) suggests that quality
management and innovation have strategically different
roles. Innovation should be emphasized in strategically
volatile conditions. In such a situation, strategic necess-
ity would be to introduce change which can amend the
rules of competition and other elements of the strategic
paradigm of the industry in which the company operates.
On the other hand, quality management can be emphas-
ized, even at the expense of revolutionary innovation, in
strategically stable industries.
From the point of view of innovation, the maturity
of a market has long been perceived as a factor affect-
ing the type of innovation. Abernathy and Utterback
(1988) suggest that as a market grows toward maturity,
two shifts occur in terms of types of innovation: from
product into process innovation and from a revolution-
ary into an evolutionary level, accompanied by height-
ened price competition. Major process innovation,
combined with incremental product innovation, allows
firms to enhance the product and open the market to a
more diverse customer base until it reaches the mature
stage. At this point, the pattern of incremental product
and major process innovation continues until the pro-
duct and its associated production processes are so
intertwined that only incremental product and process
innovations are possible. During this period, even
small changes in the product or process can lead to
significantly decreased costs or higher quality. The
mature phase of the product life cycle, with its empha-
sis on incremental innovation, lasts until some external
shocks occur, such as technological change or a new
wave of major product innovations. The speed of this
cycle varies from one industry to another. A market
with a fast product cycle is usually termed as turbulent
or dynamic, and several studies on innovation (see, for
example, Miller and Friesen, 1982; Ozsomer et al.,
1997) have concluded that this condition forces partici-
pating organizations to be innovative. Similarly, Willi-
ams (1992) argues that companies competing in the
“fast-cycle resources” class have to be very innovative
because their resources are easily imitable and the only
way to outperform their competitors is to innovate con-
 D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558
tinually. He further suggests that such organization
must make frequent and fast innovation, as they would
not have time to learn about the process in order to
bring it into one that is statistically controlled.
It is, therefore, argued here that the external environ-
ment of organizations significantly affects their innov-
ativeness. Applying this conclusion in the context of the
discussion thus far, it can be inferred that the implemen-
tation of TQM in different business environments is
likely to produce different outcomes, particularly with
regard to quality and innovation.
3.2. The role of an organization’s strategy
The relationship between an organization’s environ-
ment and its strategy has been formulated and examined
in the strategic management field. Most findings suggest
that organizations will implement different strategies
contingent with the condition of the environment wher-
ein they operate (see, for example, Swamidass and New-
ell, 1987; Miller, 1988; Ward et al., 1995). In the context
of an organization’s strategy, some scholars have given
strong support to the view that TQM must be adopted
as a strategic model in an organization (Garvin, 1988;
Schonberger, 1992). TQM, therefore, has successfully
elevated the implementation of quality management
from an operational level to a strategic level. Dean and
Bowen (1994), however, argue that from a strategic
management perspective, TQM emphasizes strategy
implementation, or deployment, rather than strategic
choice, or content. This view arises because TQM pro-
ponents have so elevated the role of quality that TQM
appears to transcend strategy. The implication is that by
putting quality forward as an “ultimate” strategy, it will
eventually drive improvements on other sources of com-
petitive advantage, such as cost. Belohlav (1993) and
Reed et al. (1996) even argue that TQM simultaneously
encompasses more than one of the generic strategies in
Porter’s (1980) model, particularly cost leadership and
differentiation. When quality is concerned with provid-
ing better products that satisfy customers’ needs, the
orientation of the strategy is differentiation. TQM, at the
same time, also leads organizations to reduce cost as a
result of the elimination of defects and wastes and, there-
fore, also leads them to the adoption of a cost leader-
ship strategy.
By contrast, however, reviewing the literature by
TQM proponents (Crosby, 1979; Deming, 1982, 1986;
Juran and Gyrna, 1993; Feigenbaum, 1983) suggests
that even though TQM may encompass both a cost
leadership and differentiation strategy, the emphasis is
primarily directed towards cost leadership. As Deming
(1982) suggests in his “quality improvement chain”
concept, organizations can enhance their competi-
tiveness by improving quality resulting in cost
reduction through the elimination of scrap and rework.
549
Similar arguments are proffered by Crosby (1979) and
Juran and Gyrna (1993) when they introduce the con-
cept of quality cost. With regard to the TQM focus on
cost efficiency, Hackman and Wageman (1995, p. 310)
conclude that:
A fundamental premise of TQM is that the costs of
poor quality (such as inspection, rework, lost cus-
tomers, and so on) are far greater than the costs of
developing processes that produce high-quality pro-
ducts and services.
The notion that TQM is closer to a cost leadership
strategy is also related to another argument suggesting
that TQM puts more emphasis on process rather than
product (Gobeli and Brown, 1994). This view can be
traced back to the origins of TQM in the idea of SPC
(introduced by Shewhart in 1964) which was so clearly
oriented toward process. A company will focus on
improving the process to make it more efficient if its
primary strategy is pursuing cost leadership (Porter,
1980; Reed et al., 1996). This proposition is supported
by the study by Yamin et al. (1997) whose findings sug-
gest that, although not significant, the correlation
between low cost strategy and process innovation is
high.
In contrast to TQM, innovation builds a competitive
advantage based on differentiation strategy rather than
cost leadership strategy (Porter, 1980). This argument
can also be inferred from what Abernathy and Utterback
(1988, p. 28) assert with regard to innovative companies:
Their competitive advantage over predecessor pro-
ducts is based on superior functional performance
rather than lower initial cost, and so these radical
innovations tend to offer higher unit profit margins.
With respect to the differentiation strategy, innovative
companies also tend to emphasize new product develop-
ment (Miller, 1988; Gobeli and Brown, 1994). For
example, Sony introduces 200 new products and major
enhancements to 800 existing products each year, whilst
3M has determined its corporate goal to derive 30% of
its revenue from products introduced within the past four
years (Higgins, 1995).
Apparently, arguments suggesting that TQM puts
more emphasis on a cost leadership strategy rather than
differentiation or that it pays more attention to process
improvement than product development have a strong
basis. However, considering the multifacetedness of
TQM, it is hardly possible to ascribe to TQM in such
an exclusive position. The problem with TQM is not
rooted solely in the difficulty of defining what TQM is
but, more fundamentally, the confusion in defining
quality (Watson and Korukonda, 1995). Reeves and
Bednar (1994) affirm that a search for the definition of
550 D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558
quality has yielded inconsistent results, and they sug-
gest that there are, at least, four definitions of quality,
each leading to different implications in terms of a
firm’s strategy and practice. The four different defi-
nitions are: quality as excellence, quality as value, qual-
ity as conformance to specifications, and quality as
meeting or exceeding a customer’s expectations. Dean
and Bowen (1994) suggest that when quality is defined
as meeting or exceeding customer expectations, it can
be seen as encapsulating any source of competitiveness,
including innovation. However, when quality is defined
narrowly as, for example, conformance to specifi-
cation—as asserted by Crosby (1979)—it is clear that
it will lead to a different strategy from that pursued by
innovation. Reeves and Bednar (1994), however,
strongly believe that the definition of quality as meeting
or exceeding customers’ expectations is the most com-
plex definition of quality and, thus, is the most difficult
to measure. The primary reason for this view is that
determining and measuring customer expectations is a
complex task. It is complex not only when dealing with
the multiple attributes and preferences of different indi-
viduals but also because customers themselves often do
not know what their real expectations are. Moreover,
by contrast, measuring quality as conformance to speci-
fications is relatively straightforward for monitoring
performance within an organization but is also useful
in benchmarking exercises, particularly in the manufac-
turing sector.
Nevertheless, what is argued here is that the dis-
cussion of an organization’s strategy with respect to
TQM and innovation does not seek a conclusion as to
whether TQM supports or hinders innovation. Instead, it
has been posited that TQM can be used in a different
strategic context, such as service, speed, and cost, as well
as quality and innovation. Porter (1980) argues that an
organization’s strategy will have a significant influence
on organizational structure and, thus, each particular
strategy has different implications for organizational
structure and practice. In this context, then it can be
argued that organizations that adopt different strategies
will implement TQM with different emphasis on certain
practices or elements.
3.3. The role of organizational culture
The role of organizational culture in understanding
how firms work has received considerable attention in
the TQM and innovation literature. From the innovation
point of view, Hauser (1998) asserts that in managing
innovation, management is restricted mainly to creating
innovative contexts. The associated implication is that
the propensity for innovation is something inherent in
the members of the organization, such as in their person-
ality or psychological substance. Innovative culture has
been variously defined in the literature. For example,
Claver et al. (1998, p. 61) give the definition of innov-
ative culture as:
a way of thinking and behaving that creates, develops
and establishes values and attitudes within a firm,
which may in turn raise, accept and support ideas and
changes involving an improvement in the functioning
and efficiency of the firm, even though such changes
may mean a conflict with conventional and tra-
ditional behaviour.
Herbig and Dunphy (1998) summarize the works of
several innovation scholars who specify typical cultural
traits in the organization that are associated with inno-
vation, such as individualism and competition, willing-
ness to take risks, readiness to accept change, long-term
orientation, weak uncertainty avoidance, openness to
new information, and the value of education.
Literature on organizational innovation, both anec-
dotal and empirical, emphasizes the importance of cul-
ture as a major determinant in innovation performance
(for example, Robertson and Wind, 1980; Kanter, 1983;
Branen, 1991; Feldman, 1988). Miller and Friesen
(1982) even postulated that innovations in firms with
entrepreneurial culture are more internally, rather than
externally, driven. Their findings support the notion that,
while environmental hostility and dynamism signifi-
cantly impact on the promotion of innovation, it is the
strategic choice involved more so than the environmental
pressures that plays a greater role in promoting inno-
vation in entrepreneurial firms.
Similarly, organizational culture is also an important
part of TQM. Much of the earlier focus of its studies
was on the “hard” aspects, such as the tools, techniques,
and systems. More recently, the emphasis has shifted to
consider its “soft”, behavioral and cultural aspects (see,
for example, van Donk and Sanders, 1993; Westbrook
and Utley, 1995; McNabb and Sepic, 1995). This shift of
emphasis has resulted because implementations of TQM
have failed, thus preventing companies from realizing
the potential benefits of TQM (Tata and Prasad, 1998).
Kekale and Kekale (1995) argue that perceiving TQM
narrowly as a set of tools and techniques (i.e. hard
aspects) has proven to be one of the primary failures of
TQM implementation.
Despite the recognition of the importance of culture
in TQM discussions, there is still no clear definition
of a TQM-type culture. Except for a few recent works
(Chang and Wiebe, 1996; Zeits et al., 1997), most
TQM writers—whilst emphasizing the importance of
cultural change in TQM implementation—failed to
delineate the characteristics of the TQM culture
(Waldman, 1993). Empirical studies tend to focus on
the articulation of TQM practices and not TQM cul-
ture. While this does not indicate the ignorance or
abandonment of the importance of defining TQM-type
 D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558
culture, it may be that the result of the imprecise
boundary between TQM as management practices and
TQM as an organizational culture is not well defined.
Therefore, many TQM elements contain dimensions
that could be classified as reflecting organizational cul-
ture (Zeits et al., 1997). As discussed earlier, Spencer
(1994) argues that TQM can be perceived from a
mechanistic perspective, which embraces tools and
techniques, as well as from a cultural perspective, such
as that of values, beliefs, and mindsets. Does this mean
that TQM-type culture can be identified rigorously
through the observation of TQM practices?
Before answering this question, it is important to
explain why it is important in the present context. A
review of the literature on innovation management prac-
tices (for examples, see Schroeder et al., 1989; Vrakking,
1990; Galbraith, 1982; Chiesa et al., 1996; Tidd et al.,
1997; Ahmed, 1998; Tang, 1998) suggests that many
practices in innovation management are similar to those
recognized as TQM practices. Can it then be concluded
that implementation of TQM practices will lead organi-
zations to high innovation performance based on the
similarity of the practices? If the answer is yes, it must
be concluded that the implementation of TQM practices
will certainly lead to the development of the innovative
culture because, as asserted before, an innovative culture
is an essential determinant of innovation performance. It
then must also be implied that practices and culture are
intertwined with each other.
In this respect, however, Zeits et al. (1997) strongly
reject the notion that organizational culture is “indis-
tinguishable” from TQM practices even though the two
often overlap each other. They view TQM practices as
formal, programmatic, and behavioral, whereas culture
refers to attitudes, beliefs, and situational interactions.
This argument is supported by scholars from the field of
organizational culture. Schein (1985), for example,
asserts that although practice can be a reflection of
organizational culture, it can only capture its surface
level. For Schein, organizational culture is concerned
with something deeper, particularly when considering
such elements as mindset, values, and beliefs. The prob-
lem is that not only are these elements more difficult to
observe, but they are also harder to change. It can be
implied, therefore, that similar practices are not neces-
sarily the reflection of similar cultures. Thus, despite
apparent similarities, there is not yet sufficient evidence
to support the notion that TQM practice is the reflection
of innovative culture. If this is the case, then TQM prac-
tices and innovative culture must be considered as separ-
ate entities.
In further appreciation to the relationship between cul-
ture and practices, Sathe (1985) holds that the value of
artifacts and behaviors depends on the deeper levels of
culture, meaning that practices will not produce what is
expected if they are not rooted in pertinent mindset or
551
values. Bringing this notion into the context of TQM, it
can be implied that it is the organizational culture that
will determine the implementation of TQM practices.
Kekale and Kekale (1995) support this notion by sug-
gesting that different types of culture will lead to differ-
ent types of TQM approach in the organization. For
example, what they called “behavioristic” culture will
lead organizations to emphasize certain TQM practices,
such as systematic measurement, control of work, stan-
dard and statistical procedures, whilst “cognitive” cul-
ture will emphasize “soft” qualitative characters, such as
open management styles, delegated responsibility and
autonomy.
Further support can be obtained from the study by
Powell (1995), in which he argues that TQM practices
have to be implemented within a suitable environment
(i.e. culture) that emphasizes open communication,
which he believes did not originally belong to TQM, but
is imperative for implementation success. As he suggests
(Powell, 1995, p. 21):
Potential TQM adopters may not appreciate that TQM
success depends not only on adopting TQM attributes,
but also on the pre-existence of complementary fac-
tors apparently unrelated to TQM, yet more difficult
to imitate than TQM itself. [emphasis added]
His findings strikingly demonstrate that the soft and
intangible elements of a culture are more powerful in
determining organizational performance than the hard
aspects—most features and observable practices and
techniques—such as SPC and benchmarking that have
been associated with TQM. This study also carries an
important implication that it is the organizational culture
that will affect the implementation of TQM practices,
and not the opposite.
Capitalizing on the results of Powell’s study, it can
be inferred that TQM practices can be implemented in
organizations with different cultures that will result in
different outcomes. The concept of organizational cul-
ture, therefore, could be employed as an explanatory fac-
tor in demystifying the relationship between TQM prac-
tices and innovation performance. This also implies that
the implementation of TQM does not necessarily lead
organizations to achieve a high level of innovation per-
formance because of the absence of the particular culture
that supports it.
4. Summary and research model
This paper has demonstrated an apparent contradic-
tion existing in the literature concerning the relation-
ship between TQM and innovation. Following this jux-
taposition is a theoretical discussion focusing on the
implementation of TQM as a multidimensional model
552 D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558
Fig. 2.
that could provide a solution to resolve this conflict.
For example, when TQM is directed toward a control-
oriented or mechanistic model, it is suitable for pursu-
ing quality—by way of conformance—but not inno-
vation. The previous discussion has also addressed
three particular factors that affect the implementation
of TQM, namely the external environment, the organi-
zational strategy, and the internal environment. The
associated conclusion is that there is insufficient theor-
etical support to accept—or reject—a clear-cut hypoth-
esis as to whether TQM practices support innovation
performance. Instead, it is suggested that when con-
sidering TQM and innovation as two different fields of
knowledge, there is an overlap between them. This
leads to the development of a several specific questions
that are worthy of investigation. These areas of
research interest are as follows:
앫 To what extent are TQM practices positively related
to innovation and what is the nature of the relation-
ship?
앫 Do TQM practices that lead to high quality perform-
ance have different configuration from those that lead
to high innovation performance? To what extent can
the difference be examined?
앫 To what extent are TQM practices affected by differ-
ent organizational contexts, particularly the business
environment and the organizational strategy as well
as the organizational culture? Can these factors
explain the different outcomes resulting from various
configurations of TQM practices?
Given the literature survey conducted thus far, these
questions have not been addressed rigorously in the past
studies involving TQM and innovation fields. These
questions posed above, therefore, represent the gap in
the literature on TQM and innovation. In the interest of
filling this gap, a research framework is devised, as
shown in Fig. 2. As illustrated in this figure, this frame-
work presents TQM as a central piece of the model. On
the right-hand side can be seen the relationship between
TQM practices and organizational performance, in terms
Research framework.
of quality and innovation performance. On the left-hand
side, the relationship between TQM practices and prob-
able associated influences, such as the business environ-
ment, organizational strategy, and the internal environ-
ment and the implementation will also be examined.
Basically, the primary proposition is that TQM is a
multidimensional management model that can be
adjusted in contingency with the environment wherein
organizations operate through the choice of strategy, as
well as being affected by the particular internal environ-
ment of the organizations. The multidimensionality of
TQM is then reflected in terms of different outcomes,
especially those of quality and innovation.
With regards to the multidimensionality of TQM, it
is important to note, however, that TQM was originally
prescribed by its advocates to promote the pursuit of
quality by conformance, as asserted by Wilkinson et al.
(1998, p. 8):
In terms of TQM, however, it is essential to appreci-
ate that the quality gurus’ conception of quality is
meeting reliable and consistent standards in line with
customer requirements; standards which may or may
not be usually identified as exceptionally high but
which nevertheless represent what customers say
they want.
Focusing on quality by conformance means that
organizations will emphasize the use of certain tech-
niques or procedures to reduce or eliminate variation.
These include systematic measurement and control of
work, setting standards of performance and using stat-
istical procedures to assess quality. The empirical
constructs of TQM that were developed and tested in
the past studies (Saraph et al., 1989; Flynn et al.,
1994; Adam, 1994; Powell, 1995; Ahire et al., 1996;
Samson and Terziovski, 1999; Dow et al., 1999) also
appear to be associated with a model focused on qual-
ity by conformance, as indicated by typical dependent
variables used, such as the percentage of defects and
the cost of quality. This does not mean, however, that
these constructs are “exclusively” applicable to qual-
 D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558
ity performance since their relationship with other
performance—particularly innovation—was not a
part of such past studies. Therefore, re-examining
these TQM elements—with respect to innovation per-
formance—will be useful in providing further insights
into the impact of TQM practices on organizational
performance. This poses the following question: Do
TQM practices—that have been successfully proven
as significantly and positively related to quality per-
formance—also have a positive impact on innovation
performance, meaning that the implementation of
TQM supports the organizational innovativeness?
As such, the hypotheses concerning the TQM–
quality/innovation performance relationship are as fol-
lows:
Hypothesis 1. There is a significant relationship between
TQM practices and quality performance.
Hypothesis 2. There is a significant relationship between
TQM practices and innovation performance.
Further investigation can be carried out to address a
more specific inquiry; in particular, which aspects of
TQM practices support or hinder innovation? Based on
Spencer’s (1994) analysis of multidimensional models
of TQM, it can be proposed that TQM practices
reflecting an organismic model are supportive of inno-
vation, whilst those practices that are associated with a
mechanistic model will hinder innovation. Given the
presumption that pursuing innovation requires different
practices from those required for pursuing quality, it can
be expected that the configuration of TQM elements
would be different in organizations that achieve high
quality performance from those that attain high inno-
vation performance. Comparing particular TQM
elements that respectively work as strong predictors of
quality performance and innovation performance would
reveal the multidimensionality of TQM.
In order to further appreciate the previous inquiry,
additional analysis on the relationship between TQM
practices and innovation performance can also be done
by investigating the correlation between quality per-
formance and innovation performance. In this respect,
several authors (Williams, 1992; Sitkin et al., 1994;
Arthur, 1997) suggest that organizations must focus on
either quality or innovation, doing so at the expense of
the other. As such, the following hypothesis is
developed:
Hypothesis 3. There is a significant relationship between
quality performance and innovation performance.
The left-hand side of the research framework presented
in Fig. 2, the impact of the three factors, namely the
external environment, the organizational strategy, and
553
the organizational culture, on TQM practices will be
examined. The hypotheses concerning the relationship
existing among these factors are derived from the study
by Miller (1988). The study concludes that there is a
correlation between an organization’s strategy and its
environment, and there is also a correlation between an
organization’s strategy and its structure. In addition,
there is no significant correlation found in the relation-
ship between an organization’s environment and its
structure. Therefore, the relationship between TQM
practices and the business environment is mediated by
the organizational strategy. As such, the following
hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 4. There is a relationship between the busi-
ness environment and an organization’s strategy.
Hypothesis 5. There is a relationship between an organi-
zation’s strategy and TQM practices.
As a peripheral interest to this research, the relationship
between organizational culture and organizational strat-
egy can also be investigated. According to the resource-
based view theory, the essence of strategy formulation
is to design a strategy that makes the most effective use
of these core resources and capabilities. This may imply
that the firm will limit its strategic scope to those
resources and capabilities that provide a clear competi-
tive advantage (Grant, 1991). In this respect, strategic
management scholars have considered organizational
culture as intangible resources (Barney, 1986a,b; Hall,
1993), meaning that organizational culture does influ-
ence the strategic choice and content of the firm. Other
scholars also support the notion that culture affects
organizational adaptation to the external environment in
the process of strategy formulation (Schwartz and Davis,
1981; Shrivastava, 1985; Saffold, 1988; Bates et al.,
1995). As such, an additional hypothesis is proposed
as follows:
Hypothesis 6. There is a relationship between organiza-
tional culture and an organization’s strategy.
As discussed in the previous section, the relationship
between TQM practices and organizational culture is
well acknowledged. It is also the case that TQM prac-
tices and organizational culture must be considered as
separate entities although they overlap with each other.
However, what matters here is the nature of the relation-
ship. Several scholars argue that TQM needs to be
implemented in a suitable organizational culture in order
to be successfully beneficial for the organization. This
means that it is the organizational culture that will deter-
mine the results of TQM implementation rather than it
being TQM implementation that brings a cultural change
(McNabb and Sepic, 1995; Westbrook and Utley, 1995;
554 D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558
Powell, 1995). As discussed in the Section 3, Benson et
al. (1991) have concluded that it is the organizational
context that will explain—even determine—the actual
quality management practices. As such, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 7. There is a relationship between organiza-
tional culture and TQM practices.
In summary, the objective of the research is to examine
the overall appropriateness of the model, as shown in
Fig. 2, by linking the left-end and the right-end relation-
ships.
Currently, the authors are designing a questionnaire
that will be used to collect data from a large sample of
Australian manufacturing organizations. These data will
be used to test the relationships shown in Fig. 2 sub-
sequently and as hypothesized. The results will be
reported in future articles.
References
Abernathy, W.J., Utterback, J.M., 1988. Innovation overtime and in
historical context. In: Tushman, M.L., Moore, W.L. (Eds.), Read-
ings in the Management of Innovation, 2nd edn. Harper Business,
New York, pp. 25–36.
Adam, E.E., 1994. Alternative quality improvement practices and
organization performance. Journal of Operations Management 12,
27–44.
Ahanotu, N.D., 1998. Empowerment and production workers: a knowl-
edge-based perspective. Empowerment in Organizations 6 (7),
177–186.
Ahire, S.L., Golhar, D.Y., Waller, M.W., 1996. Development and vali-
dation of TQM implementation constructs. Decision Sciences 27
(1), 23–56.
Ahmed, P.K., 1998. Benchmarking innovation best practice. Bench-
marking for Quantity Management and Technology 5 (1), 45–58.
Arthur, N., 1997. Strategic relationship between quality management
and product innovation. Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business 33 (2),
119–135.
Atuahene-Gima, K., 1996. Market orientation and innovation. Journal
of Business Research 35 (2), 93–103.
Baldwin, J.R., Johnson, J., 1996. Business strategies in more- and less-
innovative firms in Canada. Research Policy 25, 785–804.
Barney, J., 1986a. Types of competition and the theory of strategy:
toward an integrative framework. Academy of Management
Review 11 (4), 791–800.
Barney, J.B., 1986b. Organizational culture: can it be a source of sus-
tained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review
11 (3), 656–665.
Bates, K.A., Amundson, S.D., Schroeder, R.G., Morris, W.T., 1995.
The crucial interrelationship between manufacturing strategy and
organizational culture. Management Science 41 (10), 1565–1580.
Belohlav, J.A., 1993. Quality, strategy, and competitiveness. California
Management Review 35 (3), 55–69.
Bennett, R.C., Cooper, R.C., 1981. The misuse of marketing: an Amer-
ican tragedy. Business Horizons 24 (6), 51–61.
Benson, P.G., Saraph, J.V., Schroeder, R.G., 1991. The effects of
organizational context on quality management: an empirical inves-
tigation. Management Science 37 (9), 1107–1124.
Bolwijn, P.T., Kumpe, T., 1990. Manufacturing in the 1990s—pro-
ductivity, flexibility, and innovation. Long Range Planning 23 (4),
44–57.
Bookman, B., 1994. Teams, cow paths and the innovative workplace.
Journal for Quality and Participation 17 (4), 70–73.
Branen, M.Y., 1991. Culture as the critical factor in implementing
innovation. Business Horizons November/December, 59–67.
Burdett, J.O., 1994. TQM and reengineering—the battle for the organi-
zation of tomorrow. TQM Magazine 6 (2), 7–13.
Burns, T., Stalker, G.M., 1961. The Management of Innovation. Social
Science Paperbacks, London.
Chang, F.S., Wiebe, H.A., 1996. The ideal culture profile for Total
Quality Management: a competing values perspective. Engineering
Management Journal 8 (2), 19–26.
Chiesa, V., Coughlan, P., Voss, C.A., 1996. Development of a techni-
cal innovation audit. Journal of Product Innovation 13, 105–136.
Christensen, C.M., Bower, J.L., 1996. Customer power, strategic
investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management
Journal 17 (3), 197–218.
Claver, E., Llopis, J., Garcia, D., Molina, H., 1998. Organizational
culture for innovation and new technological behavior. The Journal
of High Technology Management Research 9 (1), 55–68.
Cooper, J.R., 1998. A multidimensional approach to the adoption of
innovation. Management Decision 38 (8), 493–502.
Crosby, P.B., 1979. Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Cer-
tain. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Crosby, P.B., 1984. Quality Without Tears: The Art of Hassle-Free
Management. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Damanpour, F., 1991. Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of
effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management
Journal 34 (3), 555–590.
Davis, S.M., Moe, K., 1997. Bringing innovation to life. Journal of
Consumer Marketing 14 (5), 338–361.
Dean, J.W., Bowen, D.E., 1994. Management theory and total quality:
improving research and practice through theory development.
Academy of Management Review 19 (3), 392–418.
Dean, J.W., Evans, J.R., 1994. Total Quality—Management, Organiza-
tion and Strategy. West Publishing Co, St Paul, MN.
Deming, W.E., 1982. Quality, Productivity, and Competitive Position.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced
Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA.
Deming, W.E., 1986. Out of the Crisis. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Dewar, R.D., Dutton, J.E., 1986. The adoption of radical and incremen-
tal innovations: an empirical analysis. Management Science 32
(11), 1422–1433.
Dow, D., Samson, D., Ford, S., 1999. Exploding the myth: do all qual-
ity management practices contribute to superior quality perform-
ance? Production and Operations Management 8 (1), 1–27.
Ettlie, J.E., Bridges, W.P., O’Keefe, R.D., 1984. Organization strategy
and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation.
Management Science 30 (6), 682–695.
Feigenbaum, A.V., 1983. Total Quality Control, 3rd edn. McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Feldman, S.P., 1988. How organizational culture can affect innovation.
Organizational Dynamics 17 (1), 57–68.
Flynn, B.B., 1994. The relationship between quality management prac-
tices, infrastructure and fast product innovation. Benchmarking for
Quality Management and Technology 1 (1), 48–64.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G., Sakakibara, S., 1994. A framework for
quality management research and an associated measurement
instrument. Journal of Operations Management 11 (4), 339–366.
Flynn, B.B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R., 1995a. Relationship
between JIT and TQM: practices and performance. Academy of
Management Journal 38 (5), 1325–1360.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R., Sakakibara, S., 1995b. Determinants of
quality performance in high- and low-quality plants. Quality Man-
agement Journal 2 (Winter), 8–25.
 D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558
Fuchs, E., 1993. Total Quality Management from the future: practices
and paradigms. Quality Management Journal 1 (1), 26–34.
Galbraith, J.R., 1982. Designing the innovating organization. Organi-
zational Dynamics Winter, 5–25.
Garvin, D.A., 1988. Managing Quality: The Strategic and Competitive
Edge. The Free Press, New York.
Glynn, M.A., 1996. Innovative genius: a framework for relating indi-
vidual and organizational intelligences to innovation. Academy of
Management Review 21 (4), 1081–1111.
Gobeli, D.H., Brown, W.B., 1994. Technological innovation strategies.
Engineering Management Journal 6 (1), 17–24.
Grant, R.M., Shani, R., Krishnan, R., 1994. TQM’s challenge to man-
agement theory and practice. Sloan Management Review Winter,
25–35.
Gustafson, D.H., Hundt, A.S., 1995. Findings of innovation research
applied to quality management principles for health care. Health
Care Management Review 20 (2), 16–33.
Hackman, J.R., Wageman, R., 1995. Total Quality Management:
empirical, conceptual, and practical issues. Administrative Science
Quarterly 40, 203–270.
Hall, R., 1993. A framework linking intangible resources and capabili-
ties to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management
Journal 14, 607–618.
Hamel, G., Prahalad, C.K., 1994. Competing for the Future. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Hammer, M., Champy, J., 1993. Reengineering the Corporation: A
Manifesto for Business Revolution. Harper Business, New York.
Harari, O., 1993a. The eleventh reason why TQM doesn’t work. Man-
agement Review 82 (May), 31–36.
Harari, O., 1993b. Ten reasons TQM doesn’t work. Management
Review 82 (January), 33–38.
Hauser, M., 1998. Organizational culture and innovativeness of
firms—an integrative view. International Journal of Technology
Management 16 (1/2/3), 239–255.
Herbig, P., Dunphy, S., 1998. Culture and innovation. Cross Cultural
Management 5 (4), 13–22.
Higgins, J.M., 1995. Innovation: core competence. Planning Review
23 (6), 32–35.
Hill, S., Wilkinson, A., 1995. In search of TQM. Employee Relations
17 (3), 8–25.
Hill, T., 1985. Manufacturing Strategy—The Strategic Management of
the Manufacturing Function. The Macmillan Press Ltd, London.
Huiban, J.P., Bouhsina, Z., 1998. Innovation and the quality of labour
factor: an empirical investigation in the French food industry. Small
Business Economics 10, 389–400.
Imai, M., 1986. Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success. Ran-
dom House, New York.
Ishikawa, K., 1985. What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Ishikawa, K., 1986. Guide to Total Quality Control. Asian Productivity
Organization, Tokyo, Japan.
Jha, S., Noori, H., Michela, J.L., 1996. The dynamics of continuous
improvement—aligning organizational attributes and activities for
quality and productivity. International Journal of Quality Science
1 (1), 19–47.
Juran, J.M., 1988. Juran on Planning for Quality. The Free Press,
New York.
Juran, J.M., Gyrna, F.M., 1993. Quality Planning and Analysis: From
Product Development Through Use. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Kanji, G.K., 1996. Can total quality management help innovation?
Total Quality Management 7 (1), 3–9.
Kanter, R.M., 1983. The Change Master—Innovation and
Entrepreneurship in The American Corporation. Simon & Schuster,
New York.
Katz, R., 1988. Managing careers: the influence of job and group lon-
gevities. In: Tushman, M.L., Moore, W.L. (Eds.), Readings in the
555
Management of Innovation, 2nd edn. Harper Business, New York,
pp. 196–212.
Kekale, T., Kekale, J., 1995. A mismatch of cultures: a pitfall of
implementing a total quality approach. International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management 12 (9), 210–220.
Khandwalla, P.N., 1977. The Design of Organizations. Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, New York.
Kim, K.Y., Chang, D.R., 1995. Global quality management: a research
focus. Decision Sciences 26 (5), 561–568.
Kim, W.C., Marbougne, R., 1999. Strategy, value innovation, and the
knowledge economy. Sloan Management Review Spring, 41–54.
Kirton, M.J., 1976. Adaptors and innovators: a description and meas-
ure. Journal of Applied Psychology 61 (5), 622–629.
Lau, R.S.M., Anderson, C.A., 1998. A three-dimensional perspective
of total quality management. International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management 15 (1), 85–98.
Lawler, E.E., 1994. Total Quality Management and employee involve-
ment: are they compatible? Academy of Management Executive 8
(1), 68–76.
Lawrence, P.R., Lorsch, J.W., 1986. Organization and Environment:
Managing Differentiation and Integration. Harvard Business School
Press, Boston.
Lawton, L., Parasuraman, A., 1980. The impact of the marketing con-
cept on new product planning. Journal of Marketing 44 (1), 19–25.
Lynn, G.S., Morone, J.G., Paulson, A.S., 1996. Marketing and discon-
tinuous innovation. California Management Review 38 (3), 8–37.
Mahesh, C., 1993. Total quality management in management develop-
ment. Journal of Management Development 12 (7), 19–31.
McAdam, R., Armstrong, G., Kelly, B., 1998. Investigation of the
relationship between total quality and innovation: a research study
involving small organisations. European Journal of Innovation
Management 1 (3), 139–147.
McNabb, D.E., Sepic, F.T., 1995. Culture, climate, and Total Quality
Management: measuring readiness for change. Public Productivity
and Management 18 (4), 369–385.
Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., 1978. Organizational Strategy, Structure, and
Process. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York.
Miller, D., 1988. Relating Porter’s business strategies to environment
and structure: analysis and performance implications. Academy of
Management Journal 31 (2), 280–308.
Miller, D., Friesen, P.H., 1982. Innovation in conservative and entrepr-
eneurial firms: two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Man-
agement Journal 3 (1), 1–25.
Miller, W.C., 1995. Is innovation built into your improvement pro-
cesses? Journal of Quality and Participation January/February,
46–48.
Mintzberg, H., Quinn, J.B., 1991. The Strategy Process—Concepts,
Contexts, Cases, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Moreno-Luzon, M.D., Peris, F.J., 1998. Strategic approaches, organi-
zational design and quality management—integration in a fit and
contingency model. International Journal of Quality Science 3 (4),
328–347.
Morgan, M., 1993. Creating Workforce Innovation—Turning Individ-
ual Creativity into Organizational Innovation. Business and Pro-
fessional Publishing, Chatswood, NSW.
Nohria, N., Gulati, R., 1996. Is slack good or bad for innovation?
Academy of Management Journal 39 (5), 1245–1264.
Ozsomer, A., Calantone, R.J., Di Benedetto, A., 1997. What makes
firms more innovative? A look at organizational and environmental
factors. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 12 (6),
400–416.
Perrow, C., 1974. Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View. Tavi-
stock Publications, London.
Plenert, G., 1996. Total Quality Management (TQM)—putting struc-
ture behind the philosophy. International Business Review 5 (1),
67–78.
556 D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558
Porter, M.E., 1980. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing
Industries and Competitors. Free Press, New York.
Powell, T.C., 1995. Total Quality Management as competitive advan-
tage: a review and empirical study. Strategic Management Journal
16, 15–37.
Reed, R., Lemak, D.J., Montgomery, J.C., 1996. Beyond process:
TQM content and firm performance. Academy of Management
Review 21 (1), 173–202.
Reeves, C.A., Bednar, D.A., 1994. Defining quality: alternatives and
implications. Academy of Management Review 19 (3), 419–445.
Robertson, T.S., Wind, Y., 1980. Organizational psychographics and
innovativeness. Journal of Consumer Research 7 (June), 24–31.
Roffe, I., 1999. Innovation and creativity in organisations: a review of
the implications for training and development. Journal of European
Industrial Training 23 (4/5), 224–237.
Rogers, E.M., 1983. Diffusions of Innovations. Free Press, New York.
Saffold, G.S., 1988. Culture traits, strength, and organizational per-
formance: moving beyond “strong” culture. Academy of Manage-
ment Review 13 (4), 546–558.
Samaha, H.E., 1996. Overcoming the TQM barrier to innovation.
HRMagazine June, 145–149.
Samson, D., Terziovski, M., 1999. The relationship between total qual-
ity management practices and operational performance. Journal of
Operations Management 17, 393–409.
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G., Schroeder, R.G., 1989. An instrument for
measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision
Sciences 20 (4), 810–829.
Sathe, V., 1985. Culture and related Corporate Realities. Homewood,
Ill, Irwin.
Schein, E., 1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Schonberger, R.J., 1992. Is strategy strategic: impact of Total Quality
Management on strategy. Academy of Management Executive 6
(3), 80–87.
Schroeder, R.G., Scudder, G.D., Elm, D.R., 1989. Innovation in manu-
facturing. Journal of Operations Management 8 (1), 1–15.
Schwartz, R., Davis, S., 1981. Matching corporate culture and business
strategy. Organizational Dynamics 10 (1), 30–48.
Sciulli, L.M., 1998. How organizational structure influences success
in various types of innovation. Journal of Retail Banking Services
20 (1), 13–18.
Shewhart, W.A, 1980. Economic control of quality of manufactured
product. American Society for Quality Control, Milwauke, Wis.
Shrivastava, P., 1985. Integrating strategy formulation with organiza-
tional culture. Journal of Business Strategy 5 (3), 103–111.
Sitkin, S.B., Sutcliffe, K.M., Schroeder, R.G., 1994. Distinguishing
control from learning in Total Quality Management: a contingency
perspective. Academy of Management Review 19 (3), 537–564.
Slater, S.F., Narver, J.C., 1998. Customer-led and market-led: let’s not
confuse the two. Strategic Management Journal 19 (10), 1001–
1006.
Spencer, B.A., 1994. Models of organization and Total Quality Man-
agement: a comparison and critical evaluation. Academy of Man-
agement Review 19 (3), 446–471.
Swamidass, P.M., Newell, W.T., 1987. Manufacturing strategy,
environmental uncertainty and performance: a path analytic model.
Management Science 33 (4), 509–524.
Tang, H.K., 1998. An integrative model of innovation in organizations.
Technovation 18 (5), 297–309.
Tata, J., Prasad, J., 1998. Cultural and structural constraints on Total
Quality Management implementation. Total Quality Management
9 (8), 703–710.
Thompson, J.D., 1967. Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J., Pavitt, K., 1997. Managing Innovation: Integrating
Technological, Market, and Organizational Change. John Wiley &
Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK.
Tornazky, L.G., Flischer, M., 1990. The Process of Technological
Innovation. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Tushman, M., Nadler, D., 1986. Organizing for innovation. California
Management Review 28 (3), 74–92.
Tushman, M.L., Moore, W.L. (Eds.), 1988. Readings in the Manage-
ment of Innovation, 2nd edn. Harper Business, New York.
van Donk, D.P., Sanders, G., 1993. Organizational culture as a missing
link in quality management. International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management 10 (5), 5–15.
Vrakking, W.J., 1990. The innovative organization. Long Range Plan-
ning 23 (2), 94–102.
Waldman, D.A., 1993. A theoretical consideration of leadership and
Total Quality Management. Leadership Quarterly 4 (1), 65–79.
Ward, P.T., Duray, R., Leong, G.K., Sum, C.C., 1995. Business
environment, operations strategy, and performance: an empirical
study of Singapore manufacturers. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment 13, 99–115.
Watson, J.G., Korukonda, A.R., 1995. The TQM jungle: a dialectical
analysis. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Manage-
ment 12 (9), 100–109.
Westbrook, J.D., Utley, D.R., 1995. TQM—the effect of culture on
implementation. Engineering Management Journal 7 (2), 31–34.
Westphal, J.D., Gulati, R., Shortell, S.M., 1997. Customization or con-
formity? An institutional and network perspective on the content
and consequences of TQM adoption. Administrative Science Quar-
terly 42, 366–394.
Wilkinson, A., Redman, T., Snape, E., Marchington, M., 1998. Manag-
ing with Total Quality Management—Theory and Practice. McMil-
lan Businesses, Basingtoke.
Williams, J.R., 1992. How sustainable is your competitive advantage?
California Management Review June, 29–51.
Wind, J., Mahajan, V., 1997. Issues and opportunities in new product
development: an introduction to the special issue. Journal of Mar-
keting Research 34 (1), 1–12.
Wolfe, R.A., 1994. Organizational innovation: review, critique, and
suggested research directions. Journal of Management Studies 31
(3), 405–431.
Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., Griffin, R.W., 1993. Toward a theory
of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review 18
(2), 293–321.
Yamin, S., Mavondo, F., Gunasekaran, A., Sarros, J., 1997. A study of
competitive strategy, organizational innovation and organizational
performance among Australian manufacturing companies. Inter-
national Journal of Production Economics 52, 161–172.
Zairi, M., 1995. Moving from continuous to discontinuous innovation
in FMCG: a re-engineering perspective. World Class Design to
Manufacture 2 (5), 32–37.
Zairi, M., 1999. Best Practice Process Innovation Management. But-
terworth Heinemann, Oxford.
Zeits, G., Johannesson, R., Ritchie, J.E., 1997. An employee survey
measuring Total Quality Management practices and culture—
development and validation. Group and Organization Management
22 (4), 414–444.
Further Reading
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., Herron, M., 1996.
Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Man-
agement Journal 39 (5), 1154–1184.
Anderson, J., Rungtusanatham, M., Schroeder, R., 1994. A theory of
quality management underlying the Deming management method.
Academy of Management Review 19 (3), 472–509.
Angle, H.L., 1988. Psychology and organizational innovation. In: Van
De Ven, A.H., Angel, H., Poole, M.S. (Eds.), Research on the Man-
agement of Innovation. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.
 D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558
Argyris, C., 1982. The executive mind and double-loop learning.
Organizational dynamics 11, 5–22.
Argyris, C., 1999. The next challenge for TQM—taking the offensive
on defensive reasoning. Journal for Quality and Participation 22
(November/December), 41–43.
Avlonitis, G.J., Kouremenos, A., Tzokas, N., 1994. Assessing the
innovativeness of organizations and its antecedents: Project Innov-
strat. European Journal of Marketing 28 (11), 5–28.
Barney, J.B., Griffin, R.W., 1992. The Management of Organization:
Strategy, Structure, Behavior. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Beckford, J., 1998. Quality: A Critical Introduction. Routledge, New
York.
Berthon, R., Hulbert, J.M., Pitt, L.F., 1999. To serve or create? Stra-
tegic orientations toward customers and innovation. California
Management Review 42 (1), 37–58.
Bounds, G., Yorks, L., Adams, M., Ranney, G., 1994. Beyond Total
Quality Management—Toward the Emerging Paradigm. McGraw-
Hill International Editions, Singapore.
Brown, S.L., Eisenhardt, K.M., 1995. Product development: past
research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Man-
agement Review 20 (2), 343–378.
Buzzels, R.D., Gale, B.T., 1987. The PIMS Principles: Linking Strat-
egy to Performance. Free Press, New York.
Cooper, R.G., 1993. Winning at New Products—Accelerating the Pro-
cess from Idea to Launch, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Corbett, C., Van Wassenhove, L., 1993. Trade-offs? What trade-offs?
Competence and competitiveness in manufacturing strategy. Cali-
fornia Management Review 35 (4), 107–122.
Davenport, T.H., 1993. Process Innovation—Reengineering Work
Through Information Technology. Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Delbecq, A.L., M, P.K., 1985. Managerial practices that enhance inno-
vation. Organizational Dynamics 14 (1), 24–34.
Dodgson, M., Rothwell, R. (Eds.), 1994. The Handbook of Industrial
Innovation. E. Elgar, Brookfield, VT.
Dougherty, D., 1990. Understanding new markets for new products.
Strategic Management Journal 11, 59–78.
Downs, G.W., Mohr, L.B., 1976. Conceptual issues in the study of
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 21, 700–714.
Drucker, P.F., 1999. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford.
Forker, L.B., Vickery, S.K., Droge, C.L.M., 1996. The contribution of
quality to business performance. International Journal of Oper-
ations and Production Management 16 (8), 44–62.
Garvin, D.A., 1984. What does “product quality” really mean? Sloan
Management Review 26 (1), 25–43.
Gilbert, J.T., 1993. Faster! Newer! is not a strategy. SAM Advanced
Management Journal Autumn, 4–8.
Gilmore, H.L., 1990. Continuous incremental improvement: an oper-
ations strategy for higher quality, lower costs, and global competi-
tiveness. SAM Advanced Management Journal Winter, 21–25.
Godfrey, G., Dale, B., Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A., 1997. Control:
a contested concept in TQM research. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management 17 (6), 558–573.
Grant, R.M., 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advan-
tage: implications of strategy formulation. California Management
Review 33 (3), 114–135.
Harrington, H.J., 1995. Continuous versus breakthrough improve-
ment—finding the right answer. Business Process Re-engineering
and Management Journal 1 (3), 31–49.
Hind, M., 1996. Are the cultures required to attain ISO 9000 and Total
Quality Management mutually exclusive? Training for Quality 4
(2), 25–29.
Hollenstein, H., 1996. A composite indicator of a firm’s innovative-
ness—an empirical analysis based on survey data for Swiss manu-
facturing. Research Policy 25, 633–645.
557
Hunt, V.D., 1993. Managing for Quality—Integrating Quality and
Business Strategy. Business One Irwin, Homewood, Illinois.
Kim, L., 1980. Organizational innovation and structure. Journal of
Business Research 8, 225–245.
Leonard-Barton, D., 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge—Building and
Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
Manganneli, R.L., Klein, M.M., 1994. The Reengineering Handbook:
A Step-By-Step Guide to Business Transformation. AMACOM,
New York.
Martinez-Lorente, A.R., Dewhurst, F., Dale, B.G., 1998. Total quality
management: origins and evolution of the term. TQM Magazine
10 (5), 378–386.
Nicholson, G.C., 1998. Keeping innovation alive. Research-Tech-
nology Management 41 (3), 34–40.
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Philips, L.W., Chang, D.R., Buzzell, R.D., 1983. Product quality, cost
position, and business performance: a test of some key hypotheses.
Journal of Marketing 37 (2), 26–43.
Porter, M., 1985. Technology and competitive advantage. Journal of
Business Strategy 53 (Winter), 60–78.
Quinn, J.B., 1985. Managing innovation: controlled chaos. Harvard
Business Review May-June, 73–84.
Rothwell, R., 1977. The characteristics of successful innovators and
technically progressive firms (with some comments on innovation
research). R&D Management 7 (3), 191–206.
Sarazen, J.S., 1991. Creating synergy for success—continuous
improvement and innovation. Journal for Quality and Partici-
pation September.
Schewe, G., 1994. Successful innovation management: an integrative
perspective. Journal of Engineering Technology Management Jet-
M 11, 25–53.
Sohal, A.S., 1999. Introducing new technology in to a small business:
a case study. Technovation 19 (3), 187–293.
Sohal, A.S., Samson, D., Ramsay, L., 1998. Requirements for success-
ful implementation of Total Quality Management. International
Journal of Technology Management 16 (4-6), 505–519.
Subramanian, A., 1996. Innovativeness: redefining the concept. Journal
of Engineering Technology Management Jet-M 13, 223–243.
Tushman, L., Anderson, P. (Eds.), 1997. Managing Strategic Inno-
vation and Change: A Collection of Readings. Oxford University
Press, New York.
Wheelwright, S.C., Clark, K.B., 1992. Revolutionizing Product Devel-
opment—Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality. The
Free Press, New York.
Daniel Prajogo is a PhD student in the Depart-
ment of Management at Monash University. His
bachelor’s degree is in electrical engineering
and he completed his Master of Engineering in
Quality Management at RMIT University, Mel-
bourne, Australia, in 1996. He is currently on
study leave from the Department of Industrial
Engineering at Petra Christian University in Sur-
abaya, Indonesia, where he has been working as
a lecturer since 1992. His areas of interest
include TQM, ISO 9000, statistical process con-
trol and service quality, and his current research
topic is focused on examining the multidimensionality of TQM practices
in relation to quality and innovation performance.
Amrik S. Sohal is a Professor in the Department of Management and an
Associate Dean (Research) in the Faculty of Business and Economics at
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. He is also co-director of the
newly formed Australian Consortium for Effective Organizations (AECO).
From 1991 to 2000, Professor Sohal was director of the Quality Manage-
ment Research Unit and from 1993 to 1997 served as Associate Dean
(Research Development and Graduate Teaching) for the Faculty of Busi-
558 D.I. Prajogo, A.S. Sohal / Technovation 21 (2001) 539–558

ness and Economics at Monash University. He holds a PhD in
Manufacturing/Operations Management from the University of Bradford
Management Centre in the UK, as well as a BEng (Hons) and MBA, also
from the University of Bradford.
Professor Sohal is Associate Editor for the journal Technovation and
Asia Pacific Editor of the International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management. He is a member of the Editorial Board of a number of jour-
nals in the area of quality management, technology management and oper-
ations management. He has authored or co-authored over 90 papers pub-
lished in refereed journals, as well as three books and a number of chapters
contributed to books. His current research interests are in
manufacturing/operations strategy, technology/information management,
quality management, supply chain management and lean/agile production
systems. He has received research grants from the State and Federal
Governments, the Australian Research Council and Monash University.