The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm

Relationship between quality

management information and
operational performance
International perspective

QMI and
operational
performance
519

Phan Chi Anh

Faculty of Business Administration,
University of Economics and Business Vietnam National University,
Hanoi, Vietnam and
Faculty of Business Administration, Yokohama National University,
Yokohama, Japan, and

Yoshiki Matsui
International Graduate School of Social Sciences,
Faculty of Business Administration, Yokohama National University,
Yokohama, Japan
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine whether quality management information (QMI)
can be a source of competitive advantage and should be managed strategically.
Design/methodology/approach Analysis of variance and regression techniques were applied to
the database of the high-performance manufacturing (HPM) project to analyze the differences and
similarities existing across the countries on the degree of implementation of QMI practices and their
contribution to operational performance of manufacturing plants.
Findings The results of statistical analysis indicate significant differences in the implementation of
QMI practices across the countries. This study highlights the important role of QMI in Japanese plants
where shop-floor and cross-functional communication and information sharing practices significantly
impact on different dimensions of operational performance.
Practical implications This study suggests that HPM could be achieved by the implementation
of a set of communication and information sharing practices in shop-floor and cross-functional levels
of manufacturing plants.
Originality/value Although scholars considered information as one dimension of quality
management, existing quality management literature provides little empirical evidence on the
relationship of QMI and operational performance of manufacturing plants. This paper fills the gap by
introducing a comprehensive research framework to analyze the communication and information
sharing practices in the shop-floor and cross-functional levels.
Keywords Quality management, Management information systems,
Operations and production management
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Quality management information (QMI) refers to the systematic collection and analysis
of data in a problem-solving cycle to identify critical problems, find their root causes,
and generate solutions to the problems. Effective implementation of QMI allows the

Management Research Review

Vol. 34 No. 5, 2011
pp. 519-540
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-8269
DOI 10.1108/01409171111128706

MRR
34,5

520

manufacturers to improve product and service quality and facilitate their supplier
relationship management (Flynn et al., 1994; Forza and Flipini, 1998; Kaynak, 2003;
Morita et al., 2001; Schniederjans et al., 2006). Recently, greater attention has been paid to
QMI by such international standards and awards as ISO 9000, Malcom Baldrige
National Quality Award, and Japan Quality Award. Although scholars considered
information as one dimension of quality management, existing quality management
literature provides little empirical evidence on the relationship of QMI practices and
operational performance of manufacturing plants. This study aims to fill this gap by
responding to the following questions:
.
What are similarities and differences in the perception of QMI practices across
countries?
.
Do QMI practices positively relate to various dimensions of operational
performance of manufacturing plants such as quality, cost, delivery, flexibility, etc?
To be competitive in global market, many manufacturing companies have implemented a
set of practices such as total quality management (TQM), just in time (JIT), and total
productive maintenance (TPM) that hereafter broadly labeled as high-performance
manufacturing (HPM) initiatives. HPM literature indicates that effective implementation
of such HPM practices highly depend on how the companies manage the communication
and information flow. This study examines QMI by introducing a set of communication
and information sharing practices at shop-floor and cross-functional levels of
manufacturing plants. These practices reflect various types of communication and
interaction within shop floor and between functions/departments of manufacturing plants
such as information feedback, suggestions, training, small group activities,
cross-functional product design, coordination of decision between departments, etc.
This study utilizes survey data which have been gathered from 167 manufacturing plants
in six countries during 2003-2004 in the framework of HPM project. The statistical results
indicate the significant difference in the perception of the QMI practices across the
countries. Plants in the USA and Sweden show their stronger emphasis on QMI practices
than other plants, particularly those in Japan and Italy. All the countries except Japan and
Korea place their higher attention on cross-functional practices than shop-floor practices.
The significant difference among countries in the effect of QMI practices on performance is
detected. The connection between the QMI practices and high performance in Japanese
plants appears tight, comparing with other countries. These findings are consistent with
the institutional theory when the institutions are taken to be the countries. National
culture, geographical specifics, and competitive environment may account for the
differences we observe in communication and information sharing practices across the
countries. The linkage between QMI and operational performance found in this study
suggests that HPM could be obtained by implementing a set of communication and
information sharing practices. The remaining of this paper presents the literature and
research framework, which are followed by the descriptions of data collection,
measurement test, and hypothesis testing. The last three sections discuss on the important
findings, the limitations of this research, and the final conclusions.
Literature review
The impact of QMI on performance has been widely investigated by scholars (Flynn et al.,
1994; Forza and Flipini, 1998; Morita et al., 2001; Kaynak, 2003; Schniederjans et al., 2006).

Flynn et al. (1994) indicate that process management strongly depends on how processs
owner collect and analyze data at the source to take immediate problem-solving action.
Quality performance data such as defect rate, scrap, and rework must be collected,
analyzed, shared, and used for quality improvement. Design quality also depends on
QMI because QMI provides a wide range of data from purchasing, marketing,
manufacturing, design, customers, and suppliers in order to design quality into products.
To support suppliers for improving product quality, manufacturing plants need to create
a database about the suppliers performance regarding quality, delivery, purchasing
cost, etc. so that managers and employees can identify and solve problems from materials
and parts supplied and provide the suppliers timely and important feedbacks to improve
their performance (Kaynak, 2003). In summary, empirical studies on quality
management emphasize importance of QMI as follows:
.
timely quality measurement;
.
feedback of quality data to employees and managers for problem solving;
.
evaluation of managers and employees based on quality performance; and
.
availability of quality data.
Recently, researchers find that systematic management of information and data
resource is also important to the use of advanced quality management methods such as
Six Sigma, which is itself a data-driven approach to eliminate defects and wastes in
business processes. Researchers agree that the execution of Six Sigma relies on the
availability and accuracy of QMI because quality metrics can only be used for quality
improvement when they are calculated from reliable and valid data (Zu et al., 2008).
To successfully implement QMI practices, many requirements need to be satisfied as
indicated from empirical literature. Effective QMI directly depends on customer focus,
workforce management, and top management support. Workforce management is
considered as infrastructure for quality management and it facilities the collection and
use of QMI by increasing employees continuous awareness of quality-related issues and
empowering employees in quality decision making. Close contact with customers,
frequent visit to customers, and customer surveillance allow the firm to obtain product
and service quality information and use it for further quality improvements.
For manufacturing organization, QMI is a critical issue influencing its long-term
viability. However, little empirical research has been conducted with the international
perspective of QMI even in manufacturing sectors (Parast et al., 2006). Early studies
on international comparison of quality management mainly focused on comparing
the quality practices between the USA and Japan (Garvin, 1986; Flynn, 1992). Recently,
the scope of international comparison of quality management has been extended to
study the quality practices in other countries and regions around the world (Madu et al.,
1995; Rao et al., 1997; Flynn and Saladin, 2006; Phan and Matsui, 2009). Most of these
studies use different frameworks, instruments, and constructs for measuring and
comparing quality management practices across the countries. As discussed in the
literature, the question regarding the universal applicability of quality management
has not been fully answered, and more empirical studies on international
comparison of quality management are needed (Sila and Ebrahimpour, 2003;
Rungtusanatham et al., 2005).

QMI and
operational
performance
521

MRR
34,5

522

Research framework
QMI improves quality performance through collecting, storing, analyzing, and reporting
information on quality to assist decision makers at all level. This concept requires input
from a variety of functional areas and recognized that information consists of not only
data but also other knowledge needed for decision making ( Juran and Gryna, 1980;
Forza, 1995). Schroeder and Flynn (2001) argue that successful implementation of
variety of manufacturing management practices such as TQM, JIT, and TPM depend on
how the manufacturing plants develop their horizontal linkage structure throughout the
communication network. The communication and action process is one of the
underlying forces that have made such practices as TQM and JIT so successful.
While most of quality management literature have emphasized on the importance of
availability, accuracy, and timeliness of QMI, this study focuses on how the
manufacturing plants develop QMI through facilitating communication and information
sharing practices to achieve HPM. The flow of communication and information sharing
is distinguished into two categories: shop-floor and cross-functional levels. Shop-floor
QMI concentrates on the collection, analysis, and feedback of quality information on the
shop floor where products are created. It relates with two-way communications between
managers/engineers and workers and between workers themselves. Conducting small
group activities is the means for employees to share their ideas and expertise for quality
improvement. In addition, along with the feedback of quality performance, employees
suggestions should be formally acknowledged to encourage the employees
participation in quality improvement. Cross-functional QMI, on the other hand, relates
with communication and information sharing between functions/departments
concerning with coordination, new product development efforts, and the interaction
with customers and suppliers. Communication and information sharing between
different functions are important for making quality decisions especially to solve critical
quality problems. External communication with customers and suppliers is also crucial
for quality management. Close contact with customers, frequent visit to customers, and
regular customers survey are the best ways to capture customers needs and
expectations while sharing information with suppliers improves their mutual trust
within the supply chain. The framework of this study is simply shown in Figure 1.
Prior to examining the linkage between QMI and operational performance, this
study empirically compares the degree of implementation of QMI practices across the
countries. This is important as we can determine whether QMI depends on the
contextual factors such as national culture or geographical specifics. Some scholars

Shop-floor quality
management information
practices

Figure 1.
Research framework

Cross-functional quality
management information
practices

Operational
performance

argue that, with the evolvement and spreading of modern technologies, benchmarking,
organizations may design their operational structure in similar ways in order to be
efficient and effective (Form, 1979). Other scholars, however, indicate the linkage
between information and national specifics (Wacker and Sprague, 1998; Snell and Hui,
2000). More recently, Flynn and Saladin (2006) point out that such component of
quality management as QMI would be influenced by Hofstede national culture values.
The power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance may affect
the use of information to support decision making. For example, high power distance
cultures may restrict learning opportunities to high-status members and discourage
open access to information and information sharing between different organizational
levels. Members of collectivist national cultures are more likely to rely on information
provided though teamwork and cross-functional collaboration. Because of a lack of
development of valid instruments on QMI, the results of previous QMI studies cannot
be generalized. The question regarding the universality of QMI and its linkage with
performance has not been answered. More empirical and cross-country research is
needed in QMI study. Then, we establish comprehensive instruments on QMI and test
whether country location influences the implementation of QMI practices. The first
hypothesis is presented as follows:
H1. There is difference in the implementation of QMI practices across the countries.
The contribution of communication and information sharing to quality performance or
supply chain performance has been identified in the existing literature (Forza, 1995; Carr
and Kaynak, 2007). The use of bilateral relations, including lateral forms of
communication and joint decision-making processes increases information systems
capacity. This permits problems to be solved at the level where they occur, rather than
being referred upward in the hierarchy, increasing the capacity of the organization to
process information and make decisions by increasing the discretion at lower levels of
the organization (Phan and Matsui, 2009). Flynn and Flynn (1999) suggest that the use of
lateral relations would moderate the adverse impact of environmental complexity,
thereby improving manufacturing performance. We assume that, shop-floor QMI is a
critical element for process control and improvement. The application and results of
statistical process control need to be intensively discussed and shared on the shop floor
to solve the problems. Process variation and quality problems should be detected,
analyzed, controlled, and eliminated through several activities such as shop-floor
information feedback, interaction between managers/engineers and workers, small
group activities, etc. As cited in the existing literature, the reduction of defective
products leads to a reduction of time delay for rework, inspection, and time for machine
stop. These allow the production run faster with shorter consuming time from material
receiving to customer delivery. Thus, shop-floor QMI practices would relate with the
various dimensions of operational performance: product cost, on-time delivery, and
flexibility to change the production volume. Cross-functional QMI, in other way, would
contribute to design quality and new product development lead time. Fast identification
of customers expectations and translating those expectations into product
specifications requires intensive interaction with customers in various channels such
as web/fax/phone contacts, survey, or direct visits. The reduction of time-to-market and
improvement of the design quality would be achieved though the cross-functional
products design effort. This is an overlap design/engineering practice that includes

QMI and
operational
performance
523

MRR
34,5

524

all functions from the beginning of new product development project. Suppliers can be
regarded as an external process of the plants. Collaboration with suppliers through
opening and sharing information concerning quality problems and design changes
would also allow the plants to improve product quality and save production cost.
The hypothesis on the relationship between QMI practices and operational performance,
therefore, is presented as follows:
H2. QMI practices positively relate to operational performance.
To test the hypotheses, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression analysis are
used to compare those practices across the countries and identify whether QMI
significantly impact 13 operational performance indicators.
Research variables
From literature reviewing, ten measurement scales are developed to examine QMI
under two perspectives: shop floor and cross-functional as mentioned early.
Shop-floor QMI includes six measurement scales as follows:
(1) Feedback measures whether the plant provides shop-floor personnel with
information regarding their performance (including quality and productivity) in
a timely and useful manner.
(2) Shop-floor contact measures the level of interaction between managers,
engineers, and workers, on the shop floor. A high degree of interaction between
management and workers is thought to promote problem solving and general
improvement.
(3) Employee suggestions measures employees perception regarding
managements implementation and feedback on employee suggestions.
(4) Small group problem solving evaluates how the plant uses teamwork
activities to solve quality problems.
(5) Supervisory interaction facilitation measures whether supervisors
successfully encourage workers works as team, including expressing their
opinions and cooperating with each other to improve production.
(6) Multi-functional employees determines if employees are trained in multiple
task/areas; that is, received cross-training so that they can perform multiple
tasks or jobs.
Cross-functional QMI includes four measurement scales as follows:
(1) Coordination of decision making determines cross-functional cooperation and
communication in the plants.
(2) Cross-functional product design measures the level about amount of input
that the manufacturing function has in the new product introduction process.
This includes cooperation and input into process across functional boundaries.
(3) Communication with customers assesses the level of customer contact,
customer orientation, and customer responsiveness.
(4) Communication with suppliers assesses whether plants develop trust-based
relationship with suppliers by exchanging communication and sharing
information.

A total of 13 measurement items are used to evaluate different dimensions of operational

performance of the plants: unit cost of manufacturing, conformance to product
specifications, on-time delivery performance, fast delivery, flexibility to change product
mix, flexibility to change volume, inventory turnover, cycle time (from raw materials to
delivery), new product development lead time, product capability and performance,
on-time new product launch, product innovativeness, and customer support and service.
Those items are summed up to form overall operational performance.
Because the objective of this study is to identify impacts of QMI practices on
operational performance that can be generalized across countries and industries, the
effects of country and industry need to be removed prior to evaluating the relationship
between QMI practices and operational performance. We, therefore, include the
following control variables in the regression analyses. Five country control variables:
USA (the USA compared to Japan), ITA (Italy compared to Japan), SWE (Sweden
compared to Japan), KOR (Korea compared to Japan), and AUT (Austria compared to
Japan) are used to represent the five countries. Similarly, two industry control variables,
MAC (machinery industry compared to automobile industry) and EE (electric and
electronics industry compared to automobile industry), are used to represent the three
industries from which the data were collected.
Data collection
This study explores data gathered through the international joint research initiative
called High-Performance Manufacturing (HPM) Project started in 1980s by researchers
at the University of Minnesota and Iowa State University. The overall target of this
project is to study best practices in manufacturing plants and their impact on plant
performance in the global competition. The first round of the survey was conducted in
1989 gathering information from 46 US manufacturing plants. In 1992, the project was
expanded to include researchers from Germany, Italy, Japan, and the UK. The second
round of the survey gathered data from 146 manufacturing plants from the above
countries. In 2003, the project was expanded to include other researchers from Korea,
Sweden, Finland, Austria, and Spain. The total number of manufacturing plants
participated in the third round of the survey is 210 except Spanish plants. Within each
country, surveyed are plants with more than 100 employees belonging to one of three
industrial fields electrical and electronics, machinery, and transportation.
The researchers, based on business and trade journals and financial information,
identified manufacturers as having either a world-class manufacturer (WCM) or a
non-WCM reputation. Each manufacturer selected one typical plant for participating
in the project. This selection criterion allowed for the construction of a sample with
sufficient variance to examine variables of interest for the research agenda.
In this research, the authors can acquire data from 167 manufacturing plants in
six countries: the USA, Japan, Italia, Sweden, Austria, and Korea during 2003-2004.
The key characteristics of these plants are summarized in Table I.
In each plant, the degree of implementation of QMI practices and continuous
improvement and learning is evaluated by nine positions such as direct workers,
supervisors, process engineer, quality manager, production control manager, inventory
manager, human resource manager, plant superintendent, and a member of new product
development team as summarized in Table II. Ten QMI measurement scales are constructed
by four to six question items evaluated on a seven-point Likert scale (1 strongly disagree,

QMI and
operational
performance
525

MRR
34,5

4 neither agree nor disagree, and 7 strongly agree). The individual question items are
shown in the Appendix. Finally, 13 operational measures of manufacturing plants are
judged by the plant manager. Each plant manager is asked to indicate his/her opinion about
how the plant compares to its competitors in the same industry on a global basis on a
five-point Likert scale (1 poor or low end of the industry, 3 average, and 5 superior or
top of the industry).

526
Measurement analysis
The first step of analytical process is the analysis of reliability and validity of ten
measurement scales and two super-scales. In this study, Cronbachs alpha coefficient is
calculated to evaluate the reliability of each measurement scale. Table III shows the
alpha values for all of ten scales exceeded the minimum acceptable alpha value of 0.60
for pooled sample and country-wise. Most of the scales have the alpha value above 0.75
indicating that the scales were internally consistent:
.
Content validity. An extensive review of literature and empirical studies is
undertaken about quality management and organization performance to ensure
content validity.
USA

Table I.
Demographic of
survey respondent

Electrical and electronic

Machinery
Automobile
Total
Plant characteristics
Average market share (%)
Average sale ($000)
Average of number of
employee (salaried person)

9
11
9
29
25.50
284,181

10
12
13
35

Feedback
Shop-floor contact
Supervisory interaction facilitation
Employee suggestions
Multi-functional employees
Small group problem solving
Coordination of decision making
Cross-functional product design
Communication with suppliers
Communication with customers
Operational performance

474

PD

Italy

Sweden

10
10
7
27

33.05
1,118,492

153

Measurement scales

Table II.
Survey respondents

Japan

HR

7
10
7
24

Austria

Korea

Total

10
10
11
31

56
60
51
167

10
7
4
21

23.38
71,209

34.80
584,371

20.00
64,470

31.54
2,266,962

296

348

122

2,556

Positions to answer questionnaire

DL
IM
PE
QM
SP
6

6
6
1
1

1
6
6

1
1

PM

6
6

PS

1
1

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Notes: DL, Direct labor; PM, plant manager; PD, member of new product development team; HR,
human resource manager; QM, quality manager; PS, plant superintendent; IM, inventory manager; SP,
supervisor; PE, process engineer

Scales
Feedback (FDB)
Shop-floor contact (SFC)
Supervisory interaction facilitation (SIF)
Employees suggestions (ESG)
Small group problem solving (SPS)
Cross-functional training (CFT)
Coordination of decision making (CDM)
Cross-functional product design (CPD)
Communication with supplier (CSP)
Communication with customer (CCS)
Super scales
Shop-floor quality information (SQMI)
Cross-functional quality information (CQMI)

Measurement items
0.812
0.632
0.624
0.604
0.601
0.623
0.648
0.724
0.478
0.535
0.521
0.451

4.972
5.245
5.131
5.149
5.097
5.297
5.226
4.817
5.463
5.260
5.151
5.192

Descriptive
Mean
SD

0.88
0.64

0.76
0.60
0.76
0.85
0.85
0.84
0.73
0.79
0.65
0.66

USA

0.88
0.84

0.78
0.64
0.75
0.81
0.81
0.82
0.78
0.70
0.68
0.68

Japan

0.84
0.62

0.80
0.69
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.78
0.75
0.70
0.69
0.78

Sweden

0.91
0.89

0.74
0.70
0.71
0.69
0.69
0.77
0.69
0.71
0.79
0.77
0.83
0.69

0.88
0.60
0.82
0.86
0.86
0.76
0.77
0.75
0.82
0.75

Cronbachs alpha
Korea
Italy

0.90
0.81

0.80
0.72
0.83
0.86
0.86
0.76
0.80
0.81
0.86
0.67

Austria

0.88
0.74

0.79
0.64
0.79
0.82
0.83
0.79
0.74
0.74
0.71
0.69

Pooled sample

QMI and
operational
performance
527

Table III.
Measurement test

MRR
34,5

528

Construct validity. Construct validity is conducted to ensure that all question

items in a scale all measure the same construct. Within-scale factor analysis is
tested with the three criteria: uni-dimensionality, a minimum eigenvalue of 1, and
item factor loadings in excess of 0.40. The results of measurement testing for the
pooled sample and country-wise show that all scales had well construct validity.
The eigenvalue of the first factor for each scale is more than two. Factor loading
for each items are more than 0.40, mostly range between 0.70 and 0.90 for the
pooled sample as shown in the Appendix.

Hypothesis testing
This section starts with the analysis of country effect existed in QMI practices. One-way
ANOVA is used to identify the similarities and differences in QMI practices across the
countries. The last two columns of Table IV show the values of the F-statistic and their
significant levels. If we set the set significant level at 5 percent, the ANOVA test results
suggest that all of QMI practices are significantly different across the countries except
employee suggestions. Next, Tukey pairwise comparison tests of mean differences are
conducted to identify how QMI practice differed between each pair of countries.
We observe that the largest differences exist in such practices as supervisory interaction
facilitation, cross-functional product design, coordination of decision making,
communication with suppliers, and communication with customers. The Japanese and
US plants are quite similar in almost of the practices except multi-functional employees
and communication with customers. In addition, QMI practices are evaluated in similar
way in two Asian countries. In general, shop-floor QMI practices are lowest in Italy and
highest in Austria and Korea, while cross-functional QMI practices are lowest in Japan and
highest in Austria and the USA. In the USA, an Italian plants, the focus of cross-functional
QMI practices are appeared higher than shop-floor QMI while both of them are similar in
Japanese and Korean plants. It is found that the most focused practices (top practices) of
QMI practices are different between the countries: communication with customer (in the
USA), multi-functional employees (in Sweden), coordination of decision making
(in Austria), shop-floor contact (in Korea), and employee suggestions (in Japan). In
summary, the results of ANOVA test suggest that QMI practices vary widely by country.
Each country evaluated the degree of implementation of QMI practices in different ways.
National culture, geographical specifics, and competition environment and other factors
may account for the differences we observed among QMI practices adopted in different
countries. As the result, we would like to accept H1 and state that there is significant
difference in QMI practices across the countries.
Primary relationship between ten QMI practices and 13 operational performance
measures is identified by the binary correlation analysis that conducted in pooled and
countries-wise samples as show in Table V. It has 130 cells, each corresponding to a
pair of one QMI practices and one operational indicator. The cells include initials of
the countries for which significant correlations are found between the practices and the
performance indicators. We observe that linkage between QMI practices and
performance in Japanese plants exhibits closer than the one in other countries if we
set the significant level at 0.5 percent as suggested in literature. Out of 130, the number of
pair of significant correlation in Japanese case is 43. This number is 14, 13, 10, 8, 7, and 82
in Korea, Austria, Italy, Korea, US, Sweden, and pooled samples, respectively.
It is observed that QMI practices are highly associated with on-time delivery,

5.323

5.191 5.157

4.604
4.982
4.476
4.808
4.867
5.168
4.912
4.533
5.125
5.624

5.262
5.507
5.275
5.261
5.352
5.578
5.710
5.016
5.170

2.568
4.976
7.946
1.874
(U vs I)
3.008
( J vs I), ( J vs S), ( J vs A), and (S vs K)
5.531
(U vs A), ( J vs A), (S vs K), (S vs I), and (I vs A)
5.721
(U vs J), (U vs S), (U vs K), (U vs A), and (S vs I)
5.630
(U and J), (U and K), ( J and S), ( J and I), and ( J and A) 7.870
(U and J), (U and K), (U and I), ( J and S), (I and A), and
(K and A)
8.304

(I vs A)
(K vs I) and (I vs A)
(U vs I), ( J vs I), (S vs I), (K vs I), and (A vs I)

5.561 4.891

5.139
5.471
5.163
5.286
5.016
5.188
5.089
4.871
4.827

Communication with customers

4.980
5.372
5.503
5.242
5.215
5.639
5.547
5.146
5.394

5.047
5.144
5.292
5.091
5.327
5.457
5.103
4.366
5.190

Feedback
Shop-floor contact
Supervisory interaction facilitation
Employee suggestions
Small group problem solving
Multi-functional employees
Coordination of decision making
Cross-functional product design
Communication with suppliers

4.843
5.087
5.140
5.204
4.920
4.957
5.177
5.015
4.698

USA Japan Sweden Korea Italy Austria Pair-wise differences

QMI practices

0.000

0.020
0.000
0.000
0.087
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

Sig.

QMI and
operational
performance
529

Table IV.
Quality information
practices across countries

P
P
P
P
P
P
P, U
P, I, S
S

CPS
P,
P,
P,
P,
P,
P,
P,
P,
P,
P,

A, I
U
A
A, I
A, I
A, K
A, J, U
I
U
J, U

OTD

P
P
P, J
P, J
P
P
P

FDL

FPM
P,
P,
P,
P,
P
P,
P,
P,
P,
P,
J, K
J, K
J, K, S
A, I, J
J

J
J
J
J

FCV

Notes: U, USA; J, Japan; S, Sweden; K, Korea; I, Italy; A, Austria; P, pooled sample

P, S

P, J
P
J
P, J
P, J
P

Feedback
Shop-floor contact
Supervisory interaction facilitation
Employee suggestions
Small group problem solving
Multi-functional employees
Coordination of decision making
Cross-functional product design
Communication with suppliers
Communication with customers

Table V.
Correlation between
quality information
practices and operational
performance indicators
UCM

I, J
J
J

P
P

ITO

J, S
J

P
P
P

CTM

P, J
P, I, J, K
A, J, K
P, A, J

P, J
K
J
P, J
P, K

NDT

P
I
J

PCP

P, J, K
A, K, U
P
P
P, K
P, K
P, A, K, U
P, I, J, K
A, J
P, J

OPL

530

QMI practices

P, U
P, J
P, S
P
P
P
P, J
A, J
A, J

PIN

P,
P,
P,
P
P,
P,
J
P,
P,

J
J

J
J

J
J
J, S

CSS

MRR
34,5

flexibility to change volume, new product develop lead time, and on-time new product
launch. In case of Japanese and pooled samples, QMI practices significantly correlate
with every performance indicators. The number of performance indicators significantly
correlate with QMI practices is 11, 6, 5, 5, 4, and 4, in Japanese, Sweden, Austrian, Korean,
US, and Italian samples, respectively.
To formally test the impact of shop-floor and cross-functional QMI practices on
operational performance, further regression analysis was conducted. Regression model is
formulated using SQMI and CQMI as two dependent variables along with seven dummy
variables. Table VI presents the regression on overall operational performance (delivered
by summarizing 13 individual operational performances) using pooled sample of 167 cases.
If we consider the value of adjusted R 2 as the indicator for explanation power of the model,
regression result indicates that both SQMI and CQMI can explain 13.5 percent variability
of operation performance. Between two independent variables, CQMI is found as
significant predictor for operational performance. Although correlation analysis suggests
the country-difference on impact of individual QMI practices on individual operational
performances, regression analysis rather indicates the non-significant difference in the
determinants of operational performance between Japan and other countries.
To confirm this finding with more formal statistical evidence, additional regression
analysis is required to check whether the coefficients in a particular regression model are
the same for the samples of different countries, after dividing the pooled sample into six
sub-samples representing each country. What is required is to compare an estimated
regression model including two measurement scales as independent variables for the

QMI and
operational
performance
531

Coefficients and significant level

(Constant)
USA
SWE
KOR
ITA
AUT
MAC
EE
SQMI
CQMI
US*CQMI
US*SQMI
SWE*SQMI
SWE*CQMI
KOR*CQMI
KOR*SQMI
ITA*SQMI
ITA*CQMI
AUT*CQMI
AUT*SQMI
R2
Adjusted R 2
F and p
Note: Model using dummy country and industry variables

2 1.306 (0.128)
2.431 (0.026)
2.195 (0.039)
1.493 (0.112)
2.029 (0.044)
1.847 (0.050)
0.104 (0.147)
2 0.006 (0.477)
0.165 (0.356)
0.694 (0.036)
2 2.453 (0.130)
0.009 (0.498)
2 1.221 (0.264)
2 1.357 (0.253)
2 2.300 (0.174)
0.709 (0.394)
0.366 (0.420)
2 2.497 (0.106)
2 2.332 (0.137)
0.291 (0.441)
0.244
0.135
2.242 (0.002)

Table VI.
Regression analysis
on relationship between
quality information
practices and operational
performance

MRR
34,5

532

pooled sample with the corresponding model applied for six sub-samples. In estimating
the regression models for the sub-samples, no restrictions are imposed on the values of
regression coefficients so that every coefficient can take different values for different
countries. We can evaluate the improvement in explanatory power by dividing the
pooled sample into six sub-samples and enabling regression coefficients to take different
values by an F-test (Chow, 1960):
RSSR 2 SSSRi =k
;
F 2 statistic
SSSRi =n 2 i*k
where:
RSSR is the sum of squared residuals from a linear regression of the pooled sample.
SSRi is the sum of squared residuals from a linear regression of sub-sample i.
i

is the number of subgroup.

is number of independent variable.

is number of total observations.

Table VII shows regression analysis on relationship between QMI practices and
operational performance taking on pooled and country-wise sample using SQMI and
CQMI as two independent variables. We obtain value of F-statistic is 3.654 with p-value
is 0.008. If we setting significant level at 5 percent, the results of Chow test indicate the
difference on determinant of operational performance across the countries. In summary,
we can accept H2 and state that QMI practices significantly impact operational
performance. In addition, statistical results reveal that this impact widely varies across
the countries and the linkage between QMI and performance in Japanese plants appears
closer than others.
Discussions
Results of the present study show that the differences on QMI practices existed in
manufacturing plants operating in different countries. The degree of implementation of
each QMI practices and their linkage with specific operational performance indicators
appear differently across the countries. Although this has been previously implied in the
quality management literature, comparison of a comprehensive list of QMI practices
among countries was lacking. We obtained the mixed results when the QMI practices
were compared across six countries.
First, we find that all the QMI practices are significantly different across the
countries (except employee suggestion). The USA and three other European countries
place their higher focus on cross-functional QMI practices rather than on shop-floor
QMI practices. Plants in the USA, Austria, and Sweden show their stronger emphasis
on every QMI practice than other plants in Italy and Japan.
Second, we find the linkage between QMI practices with different dimensions of
operational performance rather than with quality performance only. For example,
statistical analysis reveals that QMI practices closely linked with time-based
performance indicators of manufacturing plants, for example: on-time delivery
(in Austria, the USA, and Italy), on-time new product launch (in Korea), and new product
development lead time (in Japan). Cross-functional product design is found as the most

(Constant)
SQMI
CQMI
R2
Adjusted R 2
F and p
Chow test
F and p: 3.654 (0.008)

1.386
0.139
0.251
0.136
0.124
11.688
(0.000)

(0.002)
(0.120)
(0.018)

Pooled sample
2.376 (0.050)
0.137 (0.325)
0.109 (0.362)
0.053
20.030
0.641 (0.267)

USA
0.945 (0.240)
0.318 (0.235)
0.107 (0.403)
0.173
0.094
2.192 (0.137)

South Korea
2 1.067
0.053
0.551
0.358
0.315
8.348
(0.001)

(0.188)
(0.430)
(0.039)

Japan
1.985
20.194
0.409
0.105
0.020
1.231
(0.156)

(0.074)
(0.237)
(0.070)

Sweden

Austria
1.528 (0.135)
0.322 (0.217)
0.131 (0.374)
0.189
0.081
1.750 (0.104)

QMI and
operational
performance

Italy
1.485 (0.88)
0.227 (0.195)
0.179 (0.249)
0.139
0.067
1.934 (0.084)

533

Table VII.
Regression analysis
on relationship between
QMI practices and
operational performance
taking on pooled and
country-wise sample

MRR
34,5

534

critical factor for these performances. In general, employee suggestions, coordination of

decision making, and cross-functional product are found highly associated with
operational performance of plants in the six countries.
Third, the significant difference between countries in the linkage of individual QMI
practices on specific performance indicators is detected. We observed that the
connection between the QMI practices and high performance in Japanese plants
appears tight, comparing with other countries. Japanese plants with high performance
highly focus on shop-floor contact, small group problem solving, and feedback.
The findings on significant differences across the countries are consistent with the
institutional theory when the institutions are taken to be the countries. National culture,
geographical specifics, and competitive environment may account for the differences
that we observed in communication and information sharing practices across the
countries. In addition, the finding of our study highlights the Japanese quality
management. The prosperity and survival of Japanese manufacturers are archived by
their Japanese way of management such as TQM, JIT production, TPM, concurrent
engineering, and their ability to create horizontal linkage structure throughout the
communication network. Those are the real strengths of Japanese manufacturers,
besides of their technological advantages. The communication and action process is
one of underlying forces that have made such practices as TQM and JIT so successful
(Morita et al., 2001).
For the researchers and practitioners, this study provides the evidence on how
performance is associated with communication and information sharing in the plants.
Managers who want to improve selected operational performance indicators can find
some valuable suggestions from the statistical analysis results. For example, in Japanese
plants, high performance in term of manufacturing cost and volume flexibility relates with
the implementation of such shop-floor QMI practices as feedback, shop-floor contact,
supervisory interaction facilitation, and employee suggestions. Improvement of inventory
turnover and reduction of new product development lead time would be achieved by
implementation of such cross-functional QMI practices as cross-functional product design,
and communication to suppliers and communication to customers. Because the quality,
cost, delivery, and flexibility performances are closely correlated, benefits of QMI
practices sometimes have multiple effects on operational performance. Regression
analysis on the pooled sample shows that cross-functional QMI is significant predictor for
operational performance. This suggests that the emphasis on communication and
information crossing the borders of functions would explain the difference on competitive
position of manufacturing plants
This study contributes to quality management literature as it refines our
understanding of the nature of relationship between QMI practices and plant
performance. Continuing to use HPM perspective to study QMI, we provide further
insight on the achievement of high performance through communication and
information sharing. This study introduces a comprehensive research framework to
study QMI and uses the latest database to test the hypotheses. Our findings are in line
with previous studies on QMI using HPM perspectives such as Forza and Salvador
(2001), Schroeder and Flynn (2001) and Flynn and Saladin (2006). In addition, we find
that operational performance would be influenced by such QMI components as
shop-floor contact or supervisory interaction facilitation, which have not been fully
studied in previous works.

Limitation and future research

It is important to view this research in the context of its limitations. Methodologically,
this study is based on cross-sectional survey research data. It utilizes database gathered
from self-reported questionnaires, and individual bias in reporting may exist. Although
we address the issue of common method bias through the use of multiple respondents,
the study heavily relies on the use of perceptual data. The other issue is sample size.
Because time and resources constrains, the sample consist of only 167 plants belonging
to three industries. These restrict the scope of the studies and utilization of some data
analysis techniques. For example, the relative small sample size not allows the authors
to use path analysis technique to examine interrelations among specific QMI practices
and operational performance with industry and country effects.
Next is the issue relates with evaluation of operational performance. The HPM collected
both objective and subjective data on operational performance of manufacturing plants in
all of member countries. The objective measures of operational performance on quality,
cost, and delivery have been collected such as percentage of scrap and rework,
manufacturing cost, percentage of on-time delivery, etc. However, because of
industrial difference; these objective data on performance cannot be fully used in this
study. Therefore, the subjective measures are used to evaluate operational performance in
this study. Other studies in framework of HPM projects also encountered this issue
(Flynn et al., 1995; Ahmad et al., 2003; Matsui and Sato, 2002; Phan and Matsui, 2009).
To overcome above-mentioned limitations, a future research should be conducted with
larger and comprehensive sample size. This will allow the researchers to use
comprehensive techniques for investigating relationship between management practices
and performance for specific countries or specific industries, such as path analysis or
structural equation modeling. Researchers should explore both objective measures and
subjective measures in their studies, particularly when focusing on a specific industry.
Conclusions
In the previous sections, we presented the results of the empirical study on the
relationship between QMI and operational performance in manufacturing plants.
A simple analytical framework and two hypotheses were proposed. Then, based on the
literature, we introduced ten measurement scales and two super scales and all of those
measurement scales are satisfactory in terms of reliability and validity for the dataset of
167 manufacturing plants in six countries. Using these scales, we examined the country
effect on QMI to explore the critical success factors of operational performance. The
results indicate the similarities and differences of the implementation of QMI and its
impact on operational performance across countries. This study suggests that
manufacturing plants should develop the process and network of shop-floor and
cross-functional communication and information sharing which is an underlying force
that have made manufacturing management practices became successful and contribute
to their competitive performance. It also highlights the unique and distinguished
position of Japanese manufacturers in the impact of QMI on operational performance.
References
Ahmad, S., Schroeder, R.G. and Sinha, K.K. (2003), The role of infrastructure practices in the
effectiveness of JIT practices: implications for plant competitiveness, Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 161-91.

QMI and
operational
performance
535

MRR
34,5

536

Carr, A. and Kaynak, H. (2007), Communication methods, information sharing, supplier

development and performance: an empirical study of their relationships, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 346-70.
Chow, G.C. (1960), Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions,
Econometric, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 591-605.
Flynn, B.B. (1992), Managing for quality in the US and in Japan, Interface, Vol. 22 No. 5,
pp. 69-80.
Flynn, B.B. and Flynn, E.J. (1999), Information-processing alternatives for coping with
manufacturing environment complexity, Decision Sciences, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 1021-52.
Flynn, B.B. and Saladin, B. (2006), Relevance of Baldrige constructs in an international context:
a study of national culture, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 583-603.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. (1994), A framework for quality management
research and an associated instrument, Journal of Operation Management, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 336-9.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. (1995), The impact of quality management
practices on performance and competitive advantage, Decision Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 659-91.
Form, W. (1979), Comparative industrial sociology and the convergence hypotheses, Annual
Review of Sociology, Vol. 5, pp. 1-25.
Forza, C. (1995), The impact of information systems on quality performance: an empirical study,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 69-83.
Forza, C. and Flippini, R. (1998), TQM impact on quality conformance and customer
satisfaction: a causal model, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 55 No. 1,
pp. 1-20.
Forza, C. and Salvador, F. (2001), Information flows for high-performance manufacturing,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 21-36.
Garvin, D.A. (1986), Quality problem, policies, and attitudes in the United States and Japan:
an explore study, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 653-73.
Juran, J.M. and Gryna, F.M. (1980), Quality Planning and Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Kaynak, H. (2003), The relationship between total quality management practices and their
effects on firm performance, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 405-35.
Madu, C.N., Kuel, C. and Lin, C. (1995), A comparative analysis of quality practices in
manufacturing firms in the US and Taiwan, Decision Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 621-36.
Matsui, Y. and Sato, O. (2002), An international comparison study on benefits of production
information systems, International Journal of Operation and Quantitative Management,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 191-214.
Morita, M., Sakikabara, S., Matsui, Y. and Sato, O. (2001), Japanese manufacturing organization:
are they still competitive, in Schroeder, R.G. and Flynn, B.B. (Eds), High Performance
Manufacturing: Global Perspectives, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 199-232.
Parast, M.M., Adam, S.G., Jones, E.C., Rao, S.S. and Raghu-Nathan, T.S. (2006), Comparing
quality management practices between the United States and Mexico, Quality
Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 36-49.
Phan, C.A. and Matsui, Y. (2009), Effect of quality management on competitive performance in
manufacturing companies: international perspective, Journal of Productivity and Quality
Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 153-77.

Rao, S.S., Ragu-Nathan, T.S. and Solis, L.E. (1997), Does ISO have an effect on quality
management practice? An international empirical study, Total Quality Management,
Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 335-46.
Rungtusanatham, M., Forza, C., Koka, B.R., Salvador, F. and Nie, W. (2005), TQM across
multiple countries: convergence hypothesis versus national specificity arguments,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 43-63.
Schniederjans, M.J., Parast, M.M., Nabavi, M., Rao, S.S. and Raghu-Nathan, T.S. (2006),
Comparative analysis of Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award criteria: an empirical
study of India, Mexico and the United States, Quality Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 7-21.
Schroeder, R.G. and Flynn, B.B. (2001), High Performance Manufacturing: Global Perspectives,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Sila, I. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2003), Examination and comparison of critical factors of total
quality management (TQM) across countries, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 235-68.
Snell, R.S. and Hui, S.S.K. (2000), Towards the Hong Kong learning organization: an exploratory
case study, Journal of Applied Management Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 150-75.
Wacker, J.F. and Sprague, L.G. (1998), Forecasting accuracy: comparing the relative
effectiveness of practices between seven developing countries, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 16 Nos 2/3, pp. 271-90.
Zu, X., Fredendall, L. and Douglas, T.J. (2008), The evolving theory of quality management:
the role of Six Sigma, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 630-50.
Further reading
Ahire, S.L., Golhar, D.Y. and Waller, M.A. (1996), Development and validation of TQM
implementation constructs, Decision Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-56.
Benson, P.G., Saraph, J.V. and Schroeder, R.G. (1991), The effects of organizational context on quality
management: an empirical investigation, Management Science, Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 1107-24.
Das, A., Handfield, R.B., Calantone, R.J. and Ghosh, S. (2000), A contingent view of quality
management the impact of international competition on quality, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 649-90.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G., Flynn, E.J., Sakakibara, S. and Bates, K.A. (1997), World-class
manufacturing project: overview and selected results, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 671-85.
Matsui, Y. (2002), An empirical analysis of quality management in Japanese manufacturing
companies, Proceedings of the Seventh Asia-Pacific Decision Sciences Institute
Conference, National Institute of Development Administration, Bangkok, Thailand.
Molina, L.M., Lorens-Montes, J. and Ruiz-Moreno, J. (2007), Relationship between quality
management practices and knowledge transfer, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 682-701.
Nair, A. (2005), Meta-analysis of the relationship between quality management practices and
firm performance implications for quality management theory development, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 948-75.
Saraph, J.V., Benson, G.P. and Schroeder, R.G. (1989), An instrument for measuring the critical
factors of quality management, Decision Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 810-29.
Schonberger, R.J. (1986), World Class Manufacturing: The Lessons of Simplicity Applied,
The Free Press, New York, NY.

QMI and
operational
performance
537

MRR
34,5

538

Appendix
The values that follow the names of scales and super-scales report the results of factor analysis
(the eigenvalue and percentage of variance of the first factor) taking on the pooled sample to
evaluate the validity of these scales.
The values follow each question item show factor loading for this question item:
I. Shop-floor quality information practices (3.83 and 64 percent)
I.1 Feedback (2.792 and 56 percent):
1. Charts showing defect rates are posted on the shop floor (0.76).
2. Charts showing schedule compliance are posted on the shop floor (0.78).
3. Charts plotting the frequency of machine breakdowns are posted on the shop floor
(0.68).
4. Information on quality performance is readily available to employees (0.78).
5. Information on productivity is readily available to employees (0.74).
I.2 Shop-floor contact (2.20 and 44 percent):
1. Managers in this plant believe in using a lot of face-to-face contact with shop-floor
employees (0.70).
2. Engineers are located near the shop floor, to provide quick assistance when
production stops (0.73).
3. Our plant manager is seen on the shop floor almost every day (0.75).
4. Managers are readily available on the shop floor when they are needed (0.79).
5. Manufacturing engineers are often on the shop floor to assist with production
problems (0.70).
I.3 Supervisory interaction facilitation (2.57 and 64 percent):
1. Our supervisors encourage the people who work for them to work as a team (0.77).
2. Our supervisors encourage the people who work for them to exchange opinions and
ideas (0.78).
3. Our supervisors frequently hold group meetings where the people who work for them
can really discuss things together (0.79).
4. Our supervisors rarely encourage us to get together to solve problems (0.76).
I.4 Employee suggestions (3.03 and 61 percent):
1. Management takes all product and process improvement suggestions seriously
(0.80).
2. We are encouraged to make suggestions for improving performance at this plant
(0.78).
3. Management tells us why our suggestions are implemented or not used (0.81).
4. Many useful suggestions are implemented at this plant (0.70).
5. My suggestions are never taken seriously around here (removed).
I.5 Small group problem solving (2.64 and 53 percent):
1. During problem solving sessions, we make an effort to get all team members
opinions and ideas before making a decision (0.80).
2. Our plant forms teams to solve problems (0.78).
3. In the past three years, many problems have been solved through small group
sessions (0.87).

4. Problem solving teams have helped improve manufacturing processes at this plant
(0.76).
5. Employee teams are encouraged to try to solve their own problems, as much as
possible (0.78).
6. We do not use problem-solving teams much, in this plant (removed).
I.6 Multi-functional employees (3.026 and 61 percent):
1. Our employees receive training to perform multiple tasks (0.77).
2. Employees at this plant learn how to perform a variety of tasks (0.76).
3. The longer an employee has been at this plant, the more tasks they learn to perform
(0.77).
4. Employees are cross-trained at this plant, so that they can fill in for others, if necessary
(0.78).
5. At this plant, each employee only learns how to do one job (0.75).
II. Cross-functional quality information practices (2.320 and 58 percent)
II.1 Coordination of decision making (2.28 and 57 percent)
1. Generally speaking, everyone in the plant works well together (0.79)
2. Departments in the plant communicate frequently with each other (0.79)
3. Departments within the plant seem to be in constant conflict (0.70)
4. Management works together well on all important decisions (0.75)
II.2 Cross-functional product design (2.28 and 56 percent)
1. Direct labor employees are involved to a great extent before introducing new products
or making product changes (0.76)
2. Manufacturing engineers are involved to a great extent before the introduction of
new products (0.77)
3. There is little involvement of manufacturing and quality people in the early design
or products, before they reach the plant (0.78)
4. We work in teams, with members from a variety of areas (marketing, manufacturing,
etc.) to introduce new products (0.77)
II.3 Communication with customer (2.11 and 53 percent)
1. We frequently are in close contact with our customers (0.70)
2. Our customers give us feedback on our quality and delivery performance (0.65)
3. We strive to be highly responsive to our customers needs (0.76)
4. We regularly survey our customers needs (0.80)
II.4 Communication with supplier (2.18 and 54 percent)
1. We are comfortable sharing problems with our suppliers (0.76)
2. In dealing with our suppliers, we are willing to change assumptions, in order to find
more effective solutions (0.77)
3. We believe that cooperating with our suppliers is beneficial (0.76)
4. We emphasize openness of communications in collaborating with our suppliers
(0.72)
5. We maintain close communications with suppliers about quality considerations and
design changes (removed)

QMI and
operational
performance
539

MRR
34,5

540

About the authors

Phan Chi Anh is a Lecturer in the Faculty of Business Administration, University of Economics
and Business Vietnam National University, Hanoi. His research topics relate to quality
management, lean production, and high-performance manufacturing. His articles can be found in
International Journal of Productivity and Quality, Operation Research Review, and International
Journal of Production Economics. Phan Chi Anh is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: anhpc@yahoo.com
Yoshiki Matsui is a Professor of Operations Management at the International Graduate
School of Social Sciences and Faculty of Business Administration, Yokohama National
University in Japan. His research and teaching topics cover issues of manufacturing
management, supply chain management, quality management, JIT production, and new product
development. He has published papers in International Journal of Production Economics,
International Journal of Operations and Quantitative Management, International Journal of
Global Logistics and Supply Chain Management, and so on.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints