157
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
Background and purpose: The quality management field has been studied for more than 100 years dating back to 
the early 1900s when Fredrick W. Taylor is known as the father of Scientific Management, stressed the importance 
of quality inspection. This paper describes how quality management field has developed and evolved to date, par-
ticularly by tracking its focus over time.
Design/Methodology/Approach: A systematic approach to literature review was adapted in this research. Identi-
fying the gurus and the scholars in this field makes it possible for the researchers to review their works, which are, 
mainly, in the form of books and journal articles. Process in getting literature review that has been conducted include 
quality management in general, as well as ‘evolution of quality management’ and ‘development of quality manage-
ment’ respectively in capturing the field of quality management and thus, illustrating how the quality management 
field has evolved over the time. 
Results: It appears that quality management literature have evolved through time, and as they evolved, the princi-
ples, systems, tools and techniques have changed. As a result of the study, this paper also provides the synthesis 
of quality management literature over time according to the key focus and gives a new perspective for the further 
research. 
Conclusions: The historical review allows the researchers to establish the pattern of quality – the ‘focus, principles, 
systems, and tools and techniques’ over time. Our observations have confirmed that as the focus has changed, 
the principles have also changed and as the principles have changed, the systems, tools and techniques also have 
changed in quality management field. 
Keywords: Quality Management; focus; principles; systems; and tools and techniques.
1 
Received: September 23, 2018; revised: February 18, 2019; accepted: June 10, 2019
1 Introduction
The quality management field has been studied for more 
than 100 years dating back to the early 1900s when Fre-
drick W. Taylor known as the father of Scientific Manage-
ment, stressed the important of quality inspection (Foster, 
2001, p. 44; Garvin, 1988, p. 5). According to Feigen-
baum (1961), quality does not mean “best” but “best for 
the customer use and selling price”. While Crosby (1984) 
deems that quality has to be defined as conformance to 
requirements. In turn, Juran (1988) points out that qual-
ity is “fitness for use”, recognises that a product or ser-
vice must be produced with the customers’ need in mind. 
Quality Management Evolution from 
the Past to Present: Challenges for 
Tomorrow
Syaiful Rizal HAMID1,2, Saifuddin ISA2, Boon Cheong CHEW2 and 
Abdullah ALTUN3
1Faculty of Business Administration, Gebze Technical University, 41400 Gebze, Turkey, rizal@gtu.edu.tr 
2Faculty of Technology Management and Technopreneurship, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Hang Tuah Jaya, 
Durian Tunggal, 76100 Melaka, Malaysia, syaiful@utem.edu.my 
3Enterprise Resource Management, Financial Monitoring Department, Tubitak Bilgem, 41470, Gebze, Kocaeli, 
Turkey.
DOI: 10.2478/orga-2019-0011
158
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
“Freedom from defects” and “fitness for use or purpose”. 
Further, Drucker (1989) claims that quality in a product or 
service is not what the supplier put in. It is what the cus-
tomer gets out and is willing to pay for. Likewise, Deming 
(1993) states that quality means a predictable degree of 
uniformity, dependability at low cost and suited to the mar-
ket. As this is seconded by several literature studies which 
proposed the importance of a product or service must be 
produced with the customers’ need context, such as (J. J. 
Dahlgaard, Kristensen, & Kanji, 2002; Foster, 2001; Price, 
1990; Richardson, 1997; Slack, Chambers, Johnston, & 
Betts, 2006; Stamatis, 1996). 
Looking from a bigger picture, quality management 
has been defined as “philosophy or an approach to man-
agement” made up of a “set of mutually reinforcing prin-
ciples, each of which is supported by a set of practices and 
techniques” (Dean & Bowen, 1994). Thus, (Godfrey, Dale, 
Marchington, & Wilkinson, 1997) point out that quality 
management is about all aspects of the overall manage-
ment function that determine the quality policy objectives 
and responsibilities, and implement them by means such 
as quality planning, quality control, quality assurance and 
quality improvement within the quality system. Consistent 
with this (Sousa & Voss, 2002) also highlight that quality 
management is a managerial philosophy or an approach 
made up of a set of mutually reinforcing principles, each 
of which is supported by a set of practices, tools and tech-
niques for enduring effectiveness and efficiency with re-
spect to the systems and its performance.
In general, it appears that there is agreement on the 
definitions of quality and quality management means al-
though different authors use different terminology. There-
fore, we would say that there seems to be no conflict or ar-
gument between the authors. It is believed that the patterns 
of quality management literature are influenced by the big 
gurus’ thinking (i.e. Shewhart; Deming; Juran; Crosby, 
Feigenbaum and Ishikawa) which reflects the stream and 
direction of the quality movement as they are today. This 
is consistent with the works of Martinez et al. (1998) who 
further reinforced that the quality management movement 
can be tracked by looking at the Crosby, Deming, Feigen-
baum, Ishikawa and Juran works’, as they can be consid-
ered the most important gurus of the quality management 
field.
As such, a number of studies have focused on access-
ing the quality management approach, tools and tech-
niques such as Total Quality Management (Belohav, 1993; 
Garrity, 1993; Hellsten & Klefsjo, 2000; G. K. Kanji, 
1990; Kano, 1993; Macdonald, 1995; Martinez-Lorente, 
Dewhurst, & Dale, 1998; Milakovich, 1991; Powell, 1995; 
Taylor & Pearson, 1994), Six Sigma (Eckes, 2005; Kuei 
& Madu, 2003; Stamatis, 2003), and Lean Manufacturing 
(Hanna, 2007; Jayaram, Vickery, & Droge, 2008; Kremer 
& Fabrizio, 2005; Patty & Denton, 2010; Womack, Jones, 
& Roos, 1990). In recent years, the focus of these stud-
ies was to assess the integration of quality management 
(Pavel Castka & Balzarova, 2008; Fernie & Sparks, 2014; 
Mortimer & Mortimer, 2015; Muzaimi, Chew, & Hamid, 
2017; Oaklan, 2014; Prajogo & Sohal, 2006; Ross, 2017; 
Thai & Jie, 2018; Yoon, Giirhan-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006) 
in the context of supply chain, risk management, corpo-
rate social responsibility and operation management. 
Some other studies such as (Bititci, Garengo, Dorfler, & 
Nudurupati, 2008; Burge, 2009; Giannakis, 2007; Hakes, 
1999; G. Kanji, 2002) focused on assessing the quality 
management merely on the perspective of performance 
measurement matters. While, (Berger, 2007; Devadasan & 
Goshteeswaran, 2005; Gunasekaran, 1999; Jin-Hai, 2003) 
focused on quality management in manufacturing industry 
(i.e. Agile manufacturing) and others such as (Chaniotakis 
& Lymperopoulos, 2009; Kumar, Kee, & Charles, 2010; 
Tan, Hamid, & Chew, 2016; Zeithaml, Parasurarnan, & 
Malhotra, 2002) highlighted the quality management link 
to service quality. 
It indicates that the majority of studies have been con-
ducted to measure or validate quality management agenda 
from customers’ perspectives or managers’ perspectives 
without much attention given to examining the concept of 
quality from the perspective of development and evolu-
tion of quality itself. In addition, examining the evolution 
and development perspectives has been recommended by 
previous studies, for example (Chiaromonte, 2004; Cho, 
Jung, & Linderman, 2017; Cochran, 2007; S. M. Dahl-
gaard-Park, 2011; Freeman & Louca, 2001; Martinez-Lor-
ente et al., 1998; Schroeder, Linderman, & Zhang, 2005; 
Wang & Kleiner, 2005).
Thus, all of the above literature suggests that there is an 
ample amount of literature review on quality management, 
the majority of studies have been conducted to measure or 
eliciting the view of quality management from customers’ 
perspectives or with the attention given to examining qual-
ity practices from managers’ and employees’ perspectives. 
Consequently, based on relevant quality management re-
view, this article contributes to the quality management 
literature by fulfilling the following gap:
“To the best of our knowledge, there is no study in the 
field of quality management that have been comprehen-
sively conducted to review the field itself, particularly by 
tracking the focus of quality management evolution over 
time”.
This paper aims to describe how quality management 
field has developed and evolved to date, particularly by 
tracking its focus over time. In the study of quality, it is 
vital to understand the fundamental points where quality 
management comes from, before predicting where this 
field will be in the future. The evolution of the quality de-
velopment and its interconnections over time are believed 
to be the factors that shape the ideas of the current progress 
of the quality management field. Consistent with this view, 
Powell (1995) makes the points that the origin of quality 
management can be traced by time series (i.e. Historical 
perspective).
159
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: the first 
section provides the literature review on the origins and 
evolution of quality management. The second section dis-
cusses the methodology of the study. In the third section, 
the paper continues with the findings and discussion, along 
with research challenges in quality management and future 
research. The final section discusses the conclusion of the 
study.
2 Origins and Evolution of Quality 
Management
Authors such as (Garvin, 1988) link the era of quality 
management with time series; i.e., from Inspection Era 
to Statistical Quality Control Era, Quality Assurance Era 
and the latest Strategic Quality Management Era. Powell 
(1995) also discusses TQM relative to time. In this paper, 
we propose that the development and origins of quality 
management can also be traced to the focus of quality over 
the time.
Traditionally quality is used for inspection as a method 
of measurement to detect the errors in production manu-
facturing. According to Foster (2001) and Garvin (1988) 
the driving force of inspection activities was inspired by 
Frederick Taylor (the father of Scientific Management) in 
the early 1900s. Through the years, the interest in quality 
has evolved when G.S Radford published his book named 
The Control of Quality in Manufacturing in 1922 (Garvin, 
1988, p. 5). It defined quality as a distinct management 
responsibility and as an independent function yet, at that 
time, the primary focus was inspection (Dahlgaard, et al., 
2002; Garvin, 1988, p.5). Meanwhile Henry Ford devel-
oped the Model T which later became the Ford car and 
introduced the moving assembly line, which lead to the 
concept of mass production (Roth, 1996; Womack et al., 
1990). The Model T was described as the first product of 
mass production, which was developed to produce the 
Model T in great quantities (Batchelor, 1994, p. 66; Roth, 
1996). Moreover, Womack, et al., (1990, p. 27) note that 
“the key to mass production wasn’t – as many people then 
and now believe – the moving, continuous, assembly line. 
Rather, it was the complete and consistent interchangea-
bility of parts and the simplicity of attaching them to each 
other. These were the manufacturing innovations that 
made the assembly line possible”. This interchangeability 
reflects the quality in the form of standardisation, which 
reduce the variation in the parts. 
Between 1930s and 1940s, statistics became the main 
method of influence for the quality management discipline. 
In 1938, Deming published a technical book and taught 
courses in the use of his statistical methods (ASQ, 2002, 
p. 20). Deming thinking was centred to problem solving 
in process management, when he proposed the Deming 
Cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act). This was influenced by She-
whart who at that time was concerned with the use of Sta-
tistical Quality Control (SQC) in reducing the deviation in 
production (ASQ, 2002).
As such Garvin (1988, p. 6) notes that in 1931, Sh-
ewhart had published Economic Control of Quality of 
Manufactured Product, in which he gave a precise and 
measurable definition of manufacturing control, devel-
oped powerful techniques for monitoring and evaluating 
day-to-day production, and suggested a variety of ways of 
improving quality. Garvin states that Shewhart’s book is 
considered by many to be the origin of the basic principles 
of quality. Moreover, the book was considered by statisti-
cians to be a landmark contribution to the effort to improve 
the quality of manufactured goods and he made the utmost 
valuable contribution to quality development with the con-
cepts of Statistical Control or processes known today as 
SPC (ASQ, 2002, p. 29). Garvin adds that the develop-
ment of quality management during that time was heavi-
ly influenced by statistical methods and their application. 
This was further developed during 1940s in the work of 
Bell Laboratories, which initiated and developed sampling 
techniques, namely Acceptable Quality Levels (AQL) and 
Average Outgoing Quality Limit (AOQL) (Garvin, 1988). 
Therefore, it is a general belief that during the period from 
the early 1900s to 1940s, the philosophy of quality was 
focused on the product (i.e. product focus). The process 
of inspection and control was aimed at detection and re-
jection at the point of production (i.e. How can we ensure 
quality in a product?).
The 1950s could be considered as the turning point of 
the quality management field. During that decade, the Jap-
anese Industrial Revolution had rapidly begun. Earlier in 
1946 the Union of Japanese Scientist and Engineers was 
founded, which went on to introduce the Deming Prize 
in 1951. At this time, the Japanese Industrial Standards 
Committee was established, and they have played a major 
role in the development of the quality movement in Japan. 
As such, several tools and techniques were implemented 
and are still being practiced across the world. These in-
clude Statistical Process Control (originated from Statis-
tical Quality Control), Reliability Engineering, Kaizen 
and Genba-Kaizen, Failure Mode and Effect Analysis, Po-
ka-Yoke (mistake proofing), Jidoka and Just-in-Time and 
Total Preventive Maintenance (Foster, 2001; Richardson, 
1997).
Meanwhile, Juran published his first edition of the 
Quality Control Handbook in 1951. Its initial chapter dis-
cusses the economics of quality and proposes the famous 
analogy gold in the mine. He divided quality into avoida-
ble and unavoidable causes (Costs of Quality). As such, in 
Statistical Quality Control, he estimates that 15% of quali-
ty problems in a company are due to special causes, which 
means that they may involve the workers. In his view, 85% 
or more are down to management dealing with the system 
(quality in the operation system). Therefore, he believes 
that problems can be solved by moulding the processes of 
160
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
the system. 
In 1961, Feigenbaum published his book on Total 
Quality Control (TQC). He argued for a systematic or 
a total approach to quality, requiring the involvement of 
all functions, not just manufacturing, in the quality pro-
cess. He argued that the underlying principles of this to-
tal quality are to provide genuine effectiveness control 
which must start with the design of the product and end 
only when the product has been placed in the hands of 
the satisfied customer. In short, quality starts to become a 
must in every process. It is clear that the idea was to build 
in quality at an early stage rather than inspecting and con-
trolling quality at the end of the production process.
In Japan, Ishikawa developed the Ishikawa Diagram 
as a management problem solving tool in 1943 (Dahl-
gaard, et al., 2002, p. 90; Ishikawa, 1985, p. 64). In the 
early 1960s, Ishikawa produced a non-technical quality 
analysis textbook for quality circle members. Ishikawa’s 
quality circles where first piloted at the Nippon Telegraph 
and Cable Company in 1962. He published a book en-
titled “What Is Total Quality Control” in which seven 
basic tools (7 Quality Tools) were described as indispen-
sable for quality control (Ishikawa, 1985, p. 198).
In turn, another Japanese guru in quality management 
progress is Taguchi. In 1951, he won the Deming Award 
for Literature on Quality and in 1960 he won the Deming 
Application Prize. Along the way, Taguchi developed the 
concept of the “quality loss function” and his methods 
are concerned with the routine optimisation of product 
and process prior to manufacture, rather than reliance on 
the achievement of quality through inspection. Concepts 
of quality and reliability are pushed back to the design 
stage. The Design of Experiments (DOE) method pro-
vides an efficient technique to design product tests prior 
to entering the manufacturing phase (Foster, 2001; Rich-
ardson, 1997, p. 9). This method is aligned with the con-
cept proposed by Feigenbaum where quality is built in 
to every process of production. It seems that at this stage 
the focus of QM has moved from product to process (i.e. 
How can we ensure quality in process?).
In 1979, standards, quality accreditation and quality 
systems were first introduced, with British Standard (BS) 
5750 since revised in 1987 (Bank, 2000; Callan, 1992; 
Hill, MacGregor, & Dewar, 1996), and which later be-
came the BS EN ISO 9001:2000. Meanwhile, Womack 
et al., (1990, p. 159) claim that Ford started a systemat-
ic supplier grading system, called Q1, in the mid-1980s. 
This is a complex statistical system, which ranks suppli-
ers by the number of defects discovered in the assembly 
plant, delivery performances, progress in implementing 
quality, improvement programs in the supplier plant, lev-
el of technology and management attitudes. The aim was 
to bring every supplier gradually up to higher and higher 
levels of performance and quality. 
Following on from this, 1987 was a pivotal year for 
quality management when the International Standards 
for Organisation (ISO) and The Malcolm Baldrige Nation-
al Quality Award were established. ISO developed the ISO 
9000 series that set out methods by which a system can be 
implemented, to ensure that the specific quality require-
ments are fulfilled (ASQ, 2002). On the other hand, the cri-
teria for Malcolm Baldrige Model were established by the 
approach that reflected a consensus of best practice, and 
an annual review process was put in place to ensure that 
the Baldrige Model continues to reflect evolving trends 
(Hakes, 1999). 
The development of a standard European approach 
followed quickly on from the Baldrige experience. In Sep-
tember 1988, the leaders of 14 major European countries 
played a key role in establishing the European Foundation 
for Quality Management (EFQM). EFQM established its 
own model in 1991, named Business Excellence Model for 
the European Quality Award, which built upon the Deming 
and Malcolm Baldrige approaches (Hakes, 1999). Looking 
at the system as a whole, it covers all processes that are em-
bedded within it. All of these models recognise the interde-
pendencies between various components in the system (i.e. 
leadership shapes strategy, people, standardise processes, 
and cause and effect relationships) as all of these are in-
terrelated. For example, Malcolm Baldridge Model con-
sists of processes for meeting the company quality goals as 
these processes are measured by information management, 
strategic quality planning, human resource management, 
product and process management, and part of the customer 
focus and satisfaction category. While EFQM system rec-
ognises how leadership drives policy and strategy that is 
delivered through people, partnerships and resources, and 
processes. Therefore, it is suggested that all of these inte-
grated managerial systems reflect the system focus. As it 
is clearly seen, the quality journey during this period from 
the 1960s to 1980s focused on the system (i.e. How can we 
ensure quality in the system?). 
Crosby’s first book “Quality Is Free” in 1979 sold over 
2 million copies and has been translated into 15 languages. 
Much of “Quality Is Free” is devoted to the concept of zero 
defects, which is a way of explaining to employees the idea 
that everything should be done “right first time”, that there 
should be no failures or defects in work outputs. His think-
ing places greater attention on the people aspects of quality 
management (Crosby, 1979). Meanwhile, in 1984, Crosby 
published his second bestseller “Quality without Tears”. 
The 14 points that Crosby considered essential involve the 
following ideas: management commitment, education and 
training, measurements, cost of quality, quality awareness, 
corrective action, zero defects, goal setting and recogni-
tion (Crosby, 1984). Therefore, it is fair to say that Crosby 
initiates a new perspective on quality which considers it 
through organisational lenses.
During the 1990s, Total Quality Management (TQM) 
became central in the agenda of top management. Ac-
cording to Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard (2003) Total Qual-
ity Management (TQM) is a relatively new management 
161
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
philosophy, which has evolved from the rather narrow and 
mechanistic approach of Statistical Quality Control (SQC) 
as discussed earlier, to a more holistic and humanistic ap-
proach. The concept of TQM is a logical development of 
the concept of Total Quality Control (TQC), as introduced 
by Feigenbaum in 1961. In addition, another humanis-
tic-oriented quality standard named the Investors in People 
(IIP) was launched in October 1991, based on widely-ac-
cepted principles of best training and development prac-
tices to enable organisations to improve their training and 
enhance their performance (Mason, 1997, p. 1).
Slowly but gradually, by this time, there seems to be 
more attention given to people with the system (people 
spin), in the development of quality journey. As these can 
be seen with the increased focus on Investors in People 
(1991) for the Best Training and Development Practices, 
European Foundation for Quality Management (1992) for 
the Business Excellence Model (BEM); e.g. leadership 
with excellent mindset and OHSAS 18000 (1996) for Oc-
cupational Health and Safety Management System. 
Following on from this, the emphasis on system focus 
still continues with Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing 
made the headlines during the 1990s. Mikel Harry (Mo-
torola) first published “The Nature of Six Sigma” in 1986 
and commercialised Six Sigma as a vibrant quality-im-
provement methodology (Eckes, 2005). The technique 
was given global boost in 1998 by Jack Welch then CEO 
of General Electric (Eckes, 2005; Miles, 1999). Another 
philosophy emerging at this time was Lean Manufacturing 
which derives from the Toyota Production System (TPS) 
or Just in Time (JIT) manufacturing. The lean manufactur-
ing concept was popularised in American factories in large 
part by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who 
studied the movement from mass production toward Lean 
production as described in “The Machine That Changed 
the World: The Story of Lean Production” (Womack et al., 
1990).
Systems have further developed with the implemen-
tation of TickIT, originally set up by UK Department of 
Trade and Industry and administered by British Standards 
Institution (BSI). This standard applies to suppliers of all 
types of information systems that involve software devel-
opment processes. Further, the International Automotive 
Task Force (IATF) has developed ISO/TS 16949 for au-
tomotive related products. The system enables continuous 
improvement, emphasizing defect prevention and reduc-
tion of variation and waste in the supply chain. ISO/TS 
16949 mainly applies to design/development, production, 
installation and servicing of automotive related products, 
and is the replacement of QS 9000: 1998 - International 
Automotive Task Force (IATF, 2002). Therefore, this was 
the time when overlapping occurred within the quality 
movement journey with the focus on both systems and 
people. 
Moving to the late of 2000, there seems to be an in-
creased awareness of Corporate Social and Environmental 
Responsibility that obliges the business sector to play a 
sensible yet not solely profit-oriented role. This includes 
social and environmentally driven actions, where the busi-
ness sector has been expected to go beyond its moneymak-
ing and commercial activities to commit to the well-being 
of the community. This has led to the introduction of ISO 
26000 (standards for Social Responsibility), which pub-
lished in 2010 that act as a guideline for dealing with cor-
porate social responsibility and the environment. 
Castka and Balzarova (2008) insist that the new ISO 
26000 should be closely aligned with ISO 14000 and re-
quires organisations to develop their management systems 
around their social responsibility (i.e. people orientation) 
aspects and impacts. Thus, several years after the intro-
duction of ISO 9000, global discussions was taking place 
related to GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade, which was a predecessor to the World Trade Or-
ganization), aiming to remove as many obstacles as pos-
sible to international trade (P. Castka, Prajogo, Sohal, & 
Yeung, 2015). The ISO 9000 has been revised to the new 
revision, ISO 9000:2015 is based on a number of quality 
management principles, including a strong customer fo-
cus, the motivation and implication of top management, 
the process approach and continual improvement. Da Fon-
seca (2015) mentions that ISO 14001 is an International 
Standard of worldwide acceptance based on the concept 
that better environmental performance can be achieved 
when environmental aspects are systematically identified 
and managed giving a major contribution to sustainabili-
ty, through pollution prevention, improved environmental 
performance and complying with applicable laws.
In turn, the emphasis on risk management is the big-
gest of several changes in the third version of ISO 13485 
(McMenamin, 2016). New changes in ISO 13485:2016 is 
the requirements for a quality management system spe-
cific to the medical device industry. Another ISO quality 
standard evolves to the latest is the ISO 37001 standard, 
published on October 15, 2016, called “Anti-bribery man-
agement systems - Requirements with guidance for use” 
is a useful tool to tackle corruption (Valerio, 2017). Over 
time, it is becoming clear that the quality focus has moved 
from a system focus to a people focus. It is clear that the 
development of quality management is focused on people 
with an extended view towards corporate social responsi-
bility, environment and risk management. In fact, it is also 
fair to say that the risk focus turn to be the main leading 
idea with the establishment of ISO 31000 standard and the 
new revision of ISO 9001 standard. In other words, from 
the beginning of the 1980s to the millennium the main idea 
is centred on understanding how can we ensure quality in 
people?. 
Continuing from there, a new type of work emerges 
that is different from both the manual-work and knowl-
edge-work. The organising principle is fast moving to-
wards netocracy, with flexible, flat and ever emerging 
trans-organisational networks where small organisations, 
162
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
and even individuals, are forming and reforming global 
collaborative networks to deliver innovative value prop-
ositions to global markets and customers (Hamel, 2007; 
Malone, 2004). Netocracy in the context of social govern-
ing reflects the idea of moving from an industrial society 
where social values are money driven to a humanitarian 
society which is knowledge driven (Bititci et al., 2008; 
Grant, 2008).
As such, this includes cloud manufacturing (CMfg) 
where it is a computing and service oriented manufactur-
ing model developed from existing advanced manufactur-
ing models (e.g. ASP, AM, NM, MGrid) and enterprise 
information technologies under the support of cloud com-
puting, IoT, virtualization and service-oriented technolo-
gies, and advanced computing technologies (Tao, LaiLi, 
Xu, & Zhang, 2013). It aims to realize the full sharing and 
circulation, high utilization, and on-demand use of vari-
ous manufacturing resources and capabilities by providing 
safe and reliable, high quality, cheap and on-demand used 
manufacturing services for the whole life cycle of manu-
facturing (Tao et al., 2013).
Further, in a CMfg system, various manufacturing re-
sources and abilities can be intelligently sensed and con-
nected into the wider internet, and automatically managed 
and controlled using IoT technologies e.g. radio frequency 
identification (RFID), wired and wireless sensor network, 
embedded system (Tao, Cheng, Da Xu, Zhang, & Li, 2014). 
Inevitably, the manufacturing resources and abilities are 
virtualized and encapsulated into different manufacturing 
cloud services (MCSs) that can be accessed, invoked, de-
ployed, and on-demand used based on knowledge by using 
virtualization technologies, service-oriented technologies, 
and cloud computing technologies (Tao et al., 2014). 
This period can be seen as the focus shifting to net-
works focus. It is heavily about managing/leadings net-
works, people with multiple networks and networks of 
networks. An example of this, the MCSs are classified and 
aggregated according to specific rules and algorithms, and 
different kinds of manufacturing clouds are constructed. 
Different users can search and invoke the qualified MCSs 
from a related manufacturing cloud, according to their 
needs, and assemble them to be a virtual manufacturing 
environment or solution to complete their manufacturing 
task involved in the whole life cycle of manufacturing pro-
cesses under the support of cloud computing, service-ori-
ented technologies, and advanced computing technologies 
(Tao, Zhang, Venkatesh, Luo, & Cheng, 2011). This leads 
to the central question of how can we ensure quality in 
people in the network environment?
Today’s it has seen rapid advances in connectivity, mo-
bility, analytics, scalability, and data, spawning what has 
been called the fourth industrial revolution, or Industry 4.0 
(Foidl & Felderer, 2015). Aligning with the era of digiti-
zation, quality field has taken initiative to bring Quality 
4.0 by a long list of technology advances in several arenas 
that together enable innovation, new insights, connectivity 
between people, and connectivity between people and ma-
chines (Jacob, 2017).
The powerful new data available to companies, to-
gether with new configurations and capabilities of smart, 
connected products, is restructuring the traditional func-
tions of business—sometimes radically. This transforma-
tion started with product development but is playing out 
across the value chain. As it spreads, functional boundaries 
are shifting, and new functions are being created. Smart, 
connected products requires a fundamental rethinking of 
design. At the most basic level, product development shifts 
from largely mechanical engineering to true interdiscipli-
nary systems engineering (Porter & Heppelmann, 2015). 
Products have become complex systems that contain soft-
ware and may have as much or more software in the cloud.
Industry 4.0 makes factories more intelligent, flexi-
ble, and dynamic by equipment manufacturing with sen-
sors, actors, and autonomous systems (Roblek, Meško, 
& Krapež, 2016). Accordingly, machines and equipment 
achieve high levels of self-optimization and automation. 
In addition, the manufacturing process has the capacity 
of fulfilling more complex and qualified standards and re-
quirements of products, as expected (Roblek et al., 2016). 
Thus, intelligent factories and smart manufacturing are the 
major goals of Industry 4.0 (Sanders, Elangeswaran, & 
Wulfsberg, 2016).
Consistent with this, Albers, Gladysz, Pinner, Butenko, 
and Stürmlinger (2016) analyse quality-related production 
with an intelligent condition monitoring-based quality 
control system and develop a comprehensive descriptive 
model. Similarly, in order to achieve transparency and pro-
ductivity of big data, (Lee, Kao, & Yang, 2014; Vijayku-
mar, Saravanakumar, & Balamurugan, 2015) address the 
trends of manufacturing service transformation and the 
readiness of smart predictive informatics tools. The prog-
nostics-monitoring system is a trend of the smart manu-
facturing and industrial big data environment (Lee, Kao & 
Yang, 2014; Vijaykumar, Saravana Kumar & Balamuru-
gan, 2015). This point out that at the most current rate, the 
quality focus has extended the view from a networks focus 
to a smart focus with the pivotal question now is about how 
can we ensure quality in people in the smart environment?
3 Research methodology
In this paper, literature is important that it is considered 
as the key part of the research methodology. Therefore, in 
designing the research, we have opted to use a structured 
approach for selecting literature for review. In general 
terms, a literature review can be defined as the process of 
describing and criticising relevant literature, which others 
have published in that particular subject area. In order to 
make sense of the literature, and to find out the literature 
pertinent to quality management, the literature search be-
gins by identifying who the gurus and experts are in this 
163
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
field, and then reviewing at their published works. There-
fore, this study followed Martinez et al. (1998), who claim 
that the quality management movement can be tracked by 
looking at the Crosby, Deming, Feigenbaum, Ishikawa and 
Juran works’, as they can be considered the most important 
gurus of the quality management field. 
Thus, in the field of quality management, the gurus 
have been identified and universally agreed upon (Foster, 
2001, pp. 35-49; Richardson, 1997, pp. 92-93); they are 
Walter Shewhart, Edward Deming, Armand Feigenbaum, 
Philip Crosby, Joseph Juran, Kaoru Ishikawa, Masaki 
Imai, Taiichi Ohno, and Genichi Taguchi. Identifying the 
gurus and the scholars in this field makes it possible for us 
to review their works, which are, mainly, in the form of 
books and journal articles. This allows us to build on their 
ideas and further investigate the particular issues by look-
ing in-depth at the literature via an online database jour-
nal, such as Emerald, Science Direct, and ABI/Pro-Quest. 
These online databases cover journals in the area of quality 
management, namely the Journal of Production and Oper-
ations Management, Journal of Total Quality Management 
and Business Excellence, International Journal of Opera-
tion and Production Management, International Journal of 
Quality and Reliability Management, California Manage-
ment Review, Managing Service Quality, The TQM Mag-
azine, Journal of Operations Management, as well as other 
leading general management journals. 
Further, a systematic approach to literature review is 
based on the knowledge that gives a major role in evi-
dence-based practices (Denyer & Tranfield, 2008; Rous-
seau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008; Tranfield, Denyer, & 
Smart, 2003) was adapted in this research. In the essence 
of this, a substantial literature review that was published 
by Ahire et al. (1995) were referred. This was a mainly 
descriptive review, providing a thorough synthesis of ar-
ticles published from 1970 to 1993 and categorizing the 
literature along the several components of QM. Likewise, 
Martinez et al. (1998) also have provided a substantial lit-
erature review of articles published from 1986 to 1997 and 
categorizing the literature according to the number of ref-
erences with the terms TQM, quality management (QM) 
and total quality (TQ). Similar to this, (Sousa & Voss, 
2002) also put forward their view to synthesize, organize 
and structure knowledge from an academic/research stand-
point and offer suggestions for future research of quality. 
Schroeder et al. (2005) further reinforced this by reviewing 
papers on quality from 1992 to 2003 which mainly regard-
ing the Total Quality Management (TQM) issues. While, 
Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. has reflected the quality movement 
(i.e. The evolution patterns of quality management and 
the evolution of Total Quality Management) through the 
work of Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (1999, 2011). All of these 
reviews were a useful stepping-stone in helping to consol-
idate the field.
Essentially, systematic reviews are formulated around 
research questions, and the criteria for inclusion and ex-
clusion of papers are clearly defined at the outset (De-
nyer & Tranfield, 2008; Rousseau et al., 2008; Watson, 
Wilson, Smart, & Macdonald, 2018). In this study, pro-
cess in getting literature review that has been conducted 
includes the inclusion of quality management in general, 
as well as ‘evolution of quality management’ and ‘devel-
opment of quality management’. However, considering the 
objectives of this work, we found that the inclusion and 
exclusion criteria were emerging as we developed great-
er insights in quality management and global trends (i.e. 
Industrial Revolution 4.0 and Digital Manufacturing). We 
believe this dynamic and iterative nature of the literature 
review conducted, while not strictly following a systemat-
ic literature review approach, provided a ‘fit for purpose’ 
protocol for the intended purpose (see (Bititci, Garengo, 
Dörfler, & Nudurupat, 2012; Macpherson & Jones, 2010). 
The illustration of the protocol is presented in Figure 1, as 
in the following paragraphs. 
Following from there, the initial search identified over 
79,000 articles (See Table 1), which was reduced in two 
ways, based on the insights that were emerging from the 
parallel literature review on emerging global and busi-
ness trends, and the researchers’ previous knowledge of 
the field. This ensured that key contributions previously 
unknown to us were not missed. Obviously, it was still im-
possible to include all the articles that made a contribution. 
Also, it should be noted that the focus of the review was to 
identify the extant literature rather than reviewing and dis-
cussing all relevant contributions, as many contributions 
built upon each other (See Ahire et al. (1995), Martinez et 
al. (1998), Sousa and Voss (2002), Schroeder et al. (2005) 
and Dahlgaard-Park, S.M.  (1999, 2011). In conducting the 
review, our objective was to describe how quality manage-
ment field has developed and evolved to date, particular-
ly by tracking its focus over time. Thus, we specifically 
looked for the key events and research question that were 
being addressed rather than identifying specific solutions, 
models and frameworks.
In parallel, we explored general literature on global 
and business trends. Here our objective was to uncover the 
global and business trends that are predicted for the near 
future in order to provide a contextual basis against which 
164
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
Figure 1: The methodological basis of the literature review. Source: Adapted from Bititci et. al (2012) 
165
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
we could synthesize the quality management literature. 
Our initial search of the popular research databases with 
key words such as ‘global’, ‘global trends’ and ‘business 
trends’ resulted in over 1.5 million possible articles. Con-
sequently, rather than conducting an exhaustive review of 
the literature, which would have been impractical and of 
little additional value, we have followed the work of Bititci 
et. al (2012) who pinpoint the works of a few ‘gurus’ such 
as Drucker, Mintzberg, Porter and Prahalad as the basis 
living contemporary gurus. We started by identifying the 
most significant commentators, including both academic 
and non-academic authors of the global trends. To this end, 
we consulted sources such as the http://www.thinkers50.
com and ‘Who are the gurus’ gurus?’ and What’s the Big 
Idea? (Davenport & Prusak, 2003; Prusak & Davenport, 
2003). We gathered the most important messages from 
these thinkers and extrapolated these in the context of the 
quality management key events that emerging from the lit-
erature. This approach provided us with a picture of the 
global and business trends that most relevant from a quali-
ty management perspective.
4 Findings and Discussion from 
literature review
This finding of the literature review is presented with a 
particular emphasis on how the development of the qual-
ity field tracked or related in terms of focus, principles, 
systems, and tools and techniques. We have followed the 
Dale’s framework (Dale, 1994) of principles, systems, and 
tools and techniques. In order to describe this quality field 
using this framework, definitions of the framework terms 
are stated for clarity.
According to Slack, et al., (2006) principles are “the 
core ideas that describe how operations behave, how they 
can be managed, and how they can be improved. They are 
not immutable laws or prescriptions that indicate how op-
erations should be managed, nor are they descriptions that 
simply explain or categorise issues”. In this research, the 
we defines principles as the core ideas or the fundamental 
ways of thinking in performing things. 
Betz (1998, p. 39) defines the concept of a system as 
“to look at a thing, an object, with a view to seeing it as 
a totality, displaying change, and encompassed in an en-
vironment”. Additionally, American Society for Quality 
- (ASQ, 2002, p. 8) define a system as “a set of interre-
lated or interacting processes”. Consistent with this, the 
we have synthesised their definitions and proposes that a 
system is a set of interrelated or interacting processes with 
a view to seeing it as a totality, displaying change, and en-
compassed in an environment. 
Borrowing the definition from American Society for 
Quality (2002), a tool is defined as “a device used to help 
accomplish the purpose of a technique”. In line with this 
and the work of (Phaal, Farrukh, & Probert, 2004), we de-
fines a tool as something that facilitates the practical appli-
cation of a technique and a technique is a structured way 
of completing part of a procedure.
According to the literature, quality management evo-
lution can be divided into five specific eras, which are: 
(1) Quality Inspection (QI), (2) Quality Control (QC), (3) 
Quality Assurance (QA), (4) Total Quality Control (TQC), 
and (5) Total Quality Management (TQM). It should be 
noted that the terms used here are based on the emerging 
focus throughout the evolution of quality management. 
Consequently, the focus is believed to drive the principles, 
systems, and tools and techniques in the development of 
each quality era. Based on the review presented in the 
previous section, allowed the the researchers to identify 
nine quality management principles, these are namely as; 
1. Continuous quality improvement, 2. Conformance to 
standard, 3. Management understanding, 4. Customer ori-
entation, 5. Quality leadership, 6. Involvement, 7. Quality 
supplier relationship, 8. Process management and 9. Sys-
tem Management. Each era will now be discussed accord-
ing to the framework introduced earlier.
Quality Inspection (QI) Era
During this period, quality was associated with inspection 
(J. J. Dahlgaard et al., 2002; Garvin, 1988, p. 5). Accord-
Keywords Search
*(a) “Quality Management” or “Evolution of Quality 
Management”
**(b) “Global” or “Global Trends” or 
‘Business Trends’
EBSCOhost 24,583 978,307
ProQuest 37,699 1,516,047
Web of Science 31,116 1,121,332
Scopus 79,884 1,372,791
Table 1: Results of the qualitatively assessed identified papers
Note: Keyword search was performed in November 2018.
166
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
ingly, “at one time inspection was thought to be the only 
way of ensuring quality” (Dale, 2003, p. 22). Further, Dale 
(2003) based on BS EN ISO 9000 – British Standards 
Institute (2000) defines quality inspection as the “degree 
to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfils require-
ments”. It is clear this period was focused around products.
Principles of Quality Inspection
Along the path of Quality Inspection era, the primary prin-
ciple of quality was stressed as sorting good from bad, 
with continuous quality improvement based on the correc-
tive action basis. The idea was to commit solely to con-
formance to product standards. The management under-
standing during this time laid on specialisation of labour 
that means every worker has his own task. This principle 
can be traced back to when Henry Ford came introduced 
the implementation of task separation and mass production 
manufacturing. The leadership style at this time was about 
command. In fact, the management understanding towards 
quality was very shallow with the assumption that quality 
was a subordinate to cost, and customers were seen as a 
necessary evil, as evidenced by the infamous quotation, 
“Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he 
wants so long as it is black” (Batchelor, 1994) based on 
(Ford, 1922). Therefore, the consumers bought what was 
available as the economy was dominated by the producers. 
Systems
It is fair to say that the Ford mass production system was 
the main comprehensive system around during the QI era. 
This system combined all elements of a manufacturing 
system, consisting of people, machines, tooling, infra-
structure (factory) and products, which worked together in 
a continuous system for manufacturing the Model T auto-
mobile (Batchelor, 1994). Therefore, the production sys-
tem could be considered as the formal system that emerged 
at this point of time. 
Tools and techniques 
Inspection technique and moving assembly line could be 
considered as the key tools and techniques in this period, 
as inspection was used to grade the finished product and a 
moving assembly line made it possible for producing prod-
ucts in great numbers.
Quality Control (QC) Era
Continuing from the quality inspection era, the next 
movement was about quality control (J. J. Dahlgaard et 
al., 2002; Dale, 2003; Garvin, 1988). As a consequence, 
previous work by quality gurus such as Fredrick W. Tay-
lor, Walter Shewhart, G.S Radford, Deming and Ishikawa 
stressed inspection activities that are linked more formally 
to quality control. Indeed, product was still the key focus 
during this era (i.e. product focus).
Principles of Quality Control
In this Quality Control era, one of the main ideas in contin-
uous quality improvement was the use of statistical tools 
to control process output. However, at this time, quality 
improvement was limited to corrective action (i.e. finding 
and fixing problems). In term of conformance to stand-
ard, the idea was solely about meeting quality standards 
(i.e. product standard). Clearly, the ideas during this time 
were still on specialisation of labour and the assumption 
that quality was secondary to cost. Yet slowly and gradu-
ally, systematic documentation and the review of product 
specifications, inspection procedures and responsibilities 
emerged and became the central ideas during the QC era. 
In the principle of leadership, command and control 
were the centred idea during this era. The products pro-
duced were depended on what the producers supplied. 
As it was not based on market demands customers had 
no freedom to select. The product quality was based on 
the perspective of the producer without the customers in-
volvement. Process management was still fragmented at 
this time. Dale (2003, p. 23) claims that, “there was lack 
of creative and systematic work activity, with planning and 
improvements being neglected and defects being identified 
late in the process”. For instance, the principle of system 
management occurred and it was about the product. The 
emphasis of the system was about the understanding of the 
isolated cause and effects in product quality.
Systems
In this period, no new system emerged with the production 
system still dominating during this era.
 
Tools and techniques 
Several tools and techniques such as Statistical Quality 
Control (SQC), inspection link to quality control, sam-
pling Acceptable Quality Levels (AQL), Average Outgo-
ing Quality Limit (AOQL) and Total Preventive Mainte-
nance (TPM) emerged and made an impact during the QC 
era. It is clear that statistical analysis became so influential 
played a big part in the movement of quality control during 
this period. 
Quality Assurance (QA) Era
According to Dale (2003, pp. 24-25) quality assurance is 
about a “prevention-based system which improves product 
and service quality, and increases productivity by placing 
the emphasis on product, service and process design”. 
While (Ishikawa, 1985, p. 75) defines quality assurance as 
a means to “assure quality in product so that a customer 
can buy it with confidence and use it for a long period 
with confidence and satisfaction”. Accordingly, in this era, 
the focus of quality management shifted from product to 
process. 
Principles of Quality Assurance
The principle of continuous quality improvement during 
this time seemed to be rather systematic but fragmented 
167
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
improvement, with the agenda of quality improvement 
shifting from corrective action to preventive action. Thus, 
the quality conformance had changed from product to pro-
cess standards in the operational system. On top of that, 
from a management understanding view, emphasis was on 
multi-skilled labour and not only about specialisation of 
labour as in previous times. Hence, the management un-
derstanding brought the idea of systematic documentation 
and review of quality policies, procedures and responsibil-
ities (e.g. Quality Management System). This was a proac-
tive approach rather than the reactive approach in the QC 
era. By this time, the principle of customer orientation had 
evolved to understanding customers’ requirements through 
capturing, documenting and reviewing them as part of the 
quality process. The changes in quality principles of lead-
ership became more systematic, where leadership was 
driven by the quality system orientation (leadership in the 
system) with some elements of control (i.e. decision-mak-
ing and rectifying problems). In spite of that, the quality 
principles of involvement and supplier relationships were 
slow to emerged. At this stage, controlled involvement and 
controlled partner relationships had occurred. For exam-
ple, staff in the organisation could be involved in quality 
programs and activities but still under the control of man-
agement. The same case applied with supplier relation-
ships. 
In short, involvement and supplier relationships be-
came the issues and key ideas in quality development. 
Looking at the principle of process management and sys-
tem management the transition happened from fragment-
ed to integrated process control in the quality process; 
as there was recognition of quality as a process in itself. 
While system management underline the understanding of 
simple causes and effects in the process and discrete prov-
en process (the quality system and practices were likely to 
have met as a minimum requirement). This suggests that 
the principle of the system management was not fully ap-
plied until the adoption of a systems approach during the 
Quality Assurance era.
Systems
Quality Assurance era could be considered as the focal 
point for the formal development of quality management 
systems. For example, the Deming Model was the com-
prehensive measurement system of quality standards de-
veloped during this time in 1951. The release of British 
Standard (BS) 5750 and International Standard Organi-
sation (ISO) 9000 series were the formal quality systems 
that made a mark during this time. In line with this, Total 
Preventive Maintenance (TPM), which was primary fo-
cused on techniques for maintenance of assets (i.e. product 
and machine maintenance), evolved to Total Productive 
Maintenance (TPM) that focuses on productivity of entire 
system (including man, machine, method etc). This means 
that the Preventive Maintenance, which was very much 
process focused, became system focused by moving to To-
tal Productive Maintenance (i.e. shifting to system focus).
Tools and techniques 
During this era, the revolution of tools and techniques rap-
idly occurred. Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) was extended 
to become Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA). Further, Cause 
and Effect Diagram, Failure Mode and Effect Analysis 
(FMEA), Reliability Engineering, Statistical Process Con-
trol (SPC), Kaizen, Kanban, Jidoka and Just-In-Time (JIT) 
were among the tools and techniques that emerged at this 
era. 
Total Quality Control (TQC) Era
Total Quality Control era reflected the development of 
quality systems orientation in the context of quality man-
agement development. In some cases, there was an overlap 
in the context and application of tools and techniques, as 
this was the time when the focus of quality management 
shifted from process to systems. Ideally, the boundaries of 
quality had extended to a bigger scope, which complete-
ly covered the entire process embedded in the system. As 
noted by Feigenbaum (1961), “total quality control is an 
effective system for integrating the quality development, 
quality maintenance and quality improvement efforts of the 
various groups in an organisation so as to enable market-
ing, engineering, production and service at the most eco-
nomical levels which allow for full customer satisfaction”. 
Principles of Total Quality Control
The changes in the principles of continuous quality im-
provement can be seen as it became much more systemat-
ic and manageable. We would describe this as systematic 
managed continuous improvement. Accordingly, the line 
of thinking improved with managed prevention and im-
provement. In terms of conformance to standard, it was 
about conformance to a systematic improvement standard 
which was managed by a team (i.e. Quality Control Circle 
and Problem Solving Group). As such, the management 
understanding evolved with the understanding of the need 
of multi-skilled and cross-functional teams working to 
improve quality on a daily basis. Team working became 
central to ensuring quality. This understanding included 
managing systematic use of tools and techniques, and fa-
cilitating objective and structured management. Occasion-
ally, this was the time where quality was perceived as a 
project driven journey. On top of that, the idea of customer 
orientation transformed to customer satisfaction by fulfill-
ing and exceeding customers’ requirements. The principle 
of leadership changed to be more participatory where the 
leaders (i.e. top management) encouraged all staff to take 
responsibility for quality and managed the involvement 
of workers (e.g. Quality Control Circle and Kaizen activ-
ities). At this time, the issues of managing involvement 
and partnership relationships emerged in a quality context. 
Further, process management evolved and became more 
systematic, while system management dealing with the 
168
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
understanding of complex causality in the operational pro-
cesses.
Systems
The changing from quality assurance to total quality con-
trol era includes changes in quality systems deployment. 
The systems that emerged in this period were Toyota Pro-
duction System (TPS), ISO 9000 revision 1992, Ford Q1 
System, QS 9000, ISO 14000, OHSAS 18000 and TickIT. 
This reflected the progression of new standards in TQC 
era. In short, quality standards became the most dominant 
systems at this point.
Tools and techniques 
Several tools and techniques that made the headlines dur-
ing this time were Quality Loss Function, Quality Func-
tional Deployment (QFD), Poka Yoke, Quality Control 
Circle (QCC), 7 Quality Tools (i.e. Pareto Analysis; Fish 
Bone Diagram; Stratification; Check sheet; Histogram; 
Scatter Diagram and Control Chart), Benchmarking, Lean 
tools and techniques, and Single Minute Exchange of Die 
(SMED). 
Total Quality Management (TQM) Era
Total quality management is about the cooperation of 
everyone in an organisation and associated business pro-
cesses to produce value-for-money products and services, 
which meet and exceed the needs and expectations of cus-
tomers (Dale, 2003). In TQM era, the quality focus is not 
solely about the systems but includes people, so the focus 
is about people in the organisation (i.e. People focus) striv-
ing towards business excellence. 
Over time, the development of TQM era is still focused 
on people with an extended view towards global collabora-
tive networks. This period can be seen as the focus shifting 
to networks focus. It is heavily about managing/leading 
networks, people with multiple networks and networks of 
networks (Tao et al., 2011).
Today, aligning with the era of digitization, TQM is 
integrating with the Industrial Revolution 4.0 in which in-
volved with the technology advances in several areas that 
together enable innovation, new insights, connectivity be-
tween people, and connectivity between people and ma-
chines (Jacob, 2017). It is becoming clear that the quality 
focus now has a further extended view from network-focus 
to a smart-focus.
Principles of Total Quality Management
In TQM era, the evolving principles of quality are centred 
on the people. For instance, the quality principle of contin-
uous improvement has evolved to become more systemat-
ic and habitual. This means that improvement is not only 
about managing and rectifying mistakes or problems, but 
becomes habitual for prevention and improvement.
During this era, conformance to standard is about con-
formance to systematic improvement standard, which has 
become habitual for the workers. From the perspective of 
management understanding, the transformation of ideas 
happened, where multi skilled cross-functional teams and 
the use of tools and techniques for facilitating objective 
and structured management have become the norm among 
the employees. Along with this, the principle of customer 
orientation transformed from customer satisfaction orien-
tation to customer delight (i.e. exceeding customer expec-
tation) mainly in service dominant culture, which is about 
adding value to customers, business, life etc. The principle 
style of quality leadership centred on coherent leadership 
with excellence mindset. Leadership goes beyond partici-
pation to a mindset of excellence. In terms of involvement, 
it has extended to a bigger scope, encompassing all levels 
and the habitual involvement of suppliers and partner in 
continuous quality improvement activities. By this time, 
process management has evolved where processes are 
managed as an integrated system, and system management 
has evolved to become a complex system, concerning the 
understanding of causalities in business processes includ-
ing operational, managerial, support and human factors.
Systems
During this time, the quality systems that emerged and im-
pacted on the quality management field was the Malcolm 
Baldrige Model, Investors in People (IIP), EFQM Excel-
lence Model, ISO 9001 revision 2000 and 2015, Lean con-
cept (i.e. Lean Manufacturing), ISO 14001 revision 2015, 
ISO/TS 16949 standards for automotives and ISO 31000 
revision 2009 and 2018. 
Tools and techniques 
The tools and techniques that make a mark during this time 
include Design of Experiments (DOE), 5S (i.e. Seiri, Sei-
so, Seiko, Seiketsu and Shisuke) and Six Sigma. 
In summary, borrowing from the work of, (Slack et al., 
2006, p. 376):
“Quality was achieved by inspection – screening out 
defects before customers noticed them. Then the ‘quality 
control’ (QC) concept developed a more systematic ap-
proach to not only detecting but also solving quality prob-
lems. ‘Quality assurance’ (QA) widened the responsibility 
for quality to include functions other than direct opera-
tions, such as Human Resources, Accounting and Mar-
keting. It also made increasing use of more sophisticated 
statistical quality techniques. TQM included much of what 
went before but developed its own distinctive themes, espe-
cially in its adoption of a more ‘all-embracing’ approach”. 
Table 2 provides the brief summary of this evolution 
of quality management field organised into the focus, 
principles, systems, and tools and techniques framework. 
It should be noted that the table should be read not in a 
very detailed fashion, but what is more important is that 
the reader need to get the big picture of this table. The table 
is obviously an oversimplification of the reality. However, 
169
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
Table 2: The origins and the evolution of quality management from Quality Inspection (QI) to Total Quality Management (TQM)
it is actually done on purpose. It is impossible to capture 
the richness of the real world, let alone hundred years of 
evolution of the quality management field, and it is impos-
sible to have everyone agree about the details, as different 
experts will have different perspectives.
Dimension Quality In-
spection (QI)
Quality Control 
(QC)
Quality Assur-
ance (QA)
Total Quality 
Control (TQC)
Total Quality Man-
agement (Business 
Excellent, Networks and 
Smart Environment)
Approximate 
Timings
1900s ~ 1920s 1920s ~ 1950s 1950s ~ 1980s 1960s ~ 1990s 1980s ~ present
Key References Garvin (1988, 
p. 5); Foster 
(2001, p. 44) 
- Fredrick W. 
Taylor
Batchelor 
(1994, p. 22); 
Womack, 
Jones, & Roos 
(1990, p. 26) -  
Henry Ford 
Garvin (1988, 
p. 5) - G.S 
Radford 
ASQ (2002, 
p. 29) - Walter 
Shewhart 
ASQ (2002, p. 
20) - Deming 
Garvin (1988, p. 
9) - Bell Labora-
tories 
Dahlgaard, et al., 
(2002, p. 90) - 
Ishikawa 
Nakajima 
(1988); Rich-
ardson (1997) - 
Total Preventive 
Maintenance
Bound, Yorks, 
Adam & Ranney 
(1994, p. 58); 
Gower (1990, 
p. 193) - Failure 
Mode Effect Anal-
ysis (FMEA)
Garvin (1988), 
Martinez-Lorente, 
Dewhurst & Dale 
(1998) and Bank 
(2000) - Statistical 
Process Control 
(SPC)
Nakajima (1988) 
and Richardson 
(1997) - Total 
Productive 
Maintenance 
(TPM)
Imai (1986); 
Dahlgaard, et al., 
(2002, p. 306) – 
Kaizen
Gower (1990, p. 
453) and Louis 
(1997, p. 21) – 
Kanban 
Dahlgaard, et al., 
(2002) – Jidoka 
Feigenbaum 
(1961) - Total 
Quality Control
Garvin (1988, pp. 
189,198) - Genba-
To-QC 
Ishikawa (1985); 
Bank (2000); ASQ 
(2002, p. 4) - Ishi-
kawa 
Womack, et al., 
(1990)) - Toyota 
Production System 
(TPS) 
ASQ (2002) - 
Taguchi and Quali-
ty Loss Function
Garvin (1988, 
p. 198);  Bank 
(2000); Zairi 
(1994, p. 43) - 
Quality Functional 
Deployment 
(QFD)
Nikkan Kongyo 
Shimbun (1988) – 
Poka Yoke
Foster (2001) - Total 
Quality Management 
Philosophy
Foster (2001, p. 49) - 
Genichi Taguchi and 
DOE
Imai (1986) – 5S
Crosby (1984) – 14 
Points
ASQ (2002);  Bank 
(2000) - Malcolm 
Baldrige National Quality 
Award 
Womack, et al., (1990) 
- Toyota and  Lean Man-
ufacturing 
Eckes (2005, p. 12) - 
Motorola & GE and Six 
Sigma 
Mason (1997, p. 1) - 
National Training Task 
Force and Investors In 
People
170
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
Gower (1990) - 
Taiichi Ohno and 
Just-In-Time (JIT)
Garvin (1988, 
p. 198); Foster 
(2001, p. 36); 
Dahlgaard, et al., 
(2002, p. 23) - 
Union of Japanese 
Scientists and 
Engineers (JUSE) 
and Deming Prize
Garvin (1988, p. 
12); Bank (2000); 
ASQ (2002, p. 
22); Juran (1951) 
- Juran Quality 
Control Handbook 
Bank (2000); 
www.bs igroup .
com - British 
Standards Institute 
(BSI) 
ASQ (2002, pp. 
4,30,32);  (Bank, 
2000); www.iso.
org - Internation-
al Standard for 
Organisation, 
Geneva
Shingo (1985) 
- Single Minute 
Exchange Die 
(SMED)
 
Crosby (1979) 
- Crosby Zero 
Defects and “The 
Absolutes”
Bank (2000) - 
Xerox Corporation 
and Benchmarking
 
Womack, et al., 
(1990, p. 159) - 
Ford system Q1 
Stamatis (1996, 
p. 76) - Daim-
ler-Chrysler, Ford 
& General Motor 
and  Quality Sys-
tem (QS 9000) 
International Stan-
dard for Organisa-
tion; Morris (2004) 
- ISO 14000 
International Stan-
dard for Organisa-
tion - ISO 18000 
DISC TickIT 
(1992) – TickIT 
Dahlgaard, et al., (2002, 
p. 23) – EFQM, Business 
Excellence Model
International Standard for 
Organisation; BSI (2000)  
- ISO 9001 Revision 
(2000)
IATF (2002) - ISO/TS 
16949
Castka and Balzarova 
(2008) - ISO 26000
International Standard 
for Organisation (2009)  
- ISO 31000  (Risk Man-
agement)
(Bititci et al., 2008; 
Grant, 2008; Hamel, 
2007; Tao et al., 2013; 
Tao et al., 2011)  - Global 
Collaborative Networks 
(Network Environment)
(Foidl & Felderer, 2015; 
Roblek et al., 2016) - 
Industrial Revolution (IR 
4.0) for Quality Manage-
ment
(Albers et al., 2016; 
Jacob, 2017; Lee et 
al., 2014; Vijaykumar 
et al., 2015) - Smart 
Environment for Quality 
Management
Focus Product Product Process System People in Organisation
People in Network (Net-
work – focus)
People in Smart Environ-
ment (Smart-focus)
Table 2: The origins and the evolution of quality management from Quality Inspection (QI) to Total Quality Management (TQM) 
(continued)
171
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
Principles:
Principle 1 
Continuous 
Improvement
Sorting good 
from bad
Corrective 
Action
Use of statistical 
tools to control 
process output
Corrective Action
Systematic but 
fragmented 
improvement 
Preventive 
Action
Systematic managed 
continuous improve-
ment
Managed prevention 
and improvement
Systematic and habitual 
continuous improvement
Habitual prevention and 
improvement 
Principle 2 
Conformance 
to Standard
Conformance 
to product 
standard
Conformance to 
product standard
Conformance 
to process 
standard in the 
operational 
system
Conformance to 
systematic im-
provement standard 
(Managed)
Conformance to systemat-
ic improvement standard 
(Habitual)
Principle 3 
Management 
Understand-
ing
Specialisation 
of labour
Quality subor-
dinate to cost
-
Specialisation of 
labour
Quality subordi-
nate to cost
Systematic doc-
umentation and 
review of product 
specifications 
and inspection 
procedures and 
responsibilities
Multi-skilled 
labour
-
Systematic 
documentation 
and review of 
quality policies, 
procedures and 
responsibilities 
(e.g., Quality 
Management 
System)
Multi-skilled and 
cross-functional 
teams (Managed)
-
Managed systematic 
use of tools and 
techniques facilitat-
ing objective/struc-
tured management
Multi-skilled cross- func-
tional teams (Habitual)
-
Habitual use of tools and 
techniques facilitating 
objective/structured man-
agement
Principle 4 
Customer 
Orientation
Customer is a 
necessary evil
Customer has no 
choice
Understanding 
customers 
requirements 
through 
capturing, 
documentation 
and review 
of customer 
requirements
Customer satisfac-
tion by fulfilling and 
exceeding customers 
requirements
Customer delight in service 
dominant culture adding 
value to customers, busi-
ness, life etc.
Principle 5 
Leadership
Command Command and 
control
Systems and 
control
Participatory Coherent leadership with 
excellence mindset
Principle 6 
Involvement
No involve-
ment
No involvement Controlled 
involvement
Managed involve-
ment 
Habitual involvement at all 
level 
Principle 7 
Supplier Rela-
tionships
Adversarial 
arm’s length 
(i.e. no rela-
tionship)
Adversarial arm’s 
length (i.e. no 
relationship)
Controlled 
partner rela-
tionships
Managed partner 
relationships
Habitual involvement of 
partner in continuous im-
provement activities
Principle 8 
Process Man-
agement
No recognition 
of the process 
Fragmented Integrated pro-
cess control
Systematic process 
management
Processes are managed as 
an integrated system 
Table 2: The origins and the evolution of quality management from Quality Inspection (QI) to Total Quality Management (TQM) 
(continued)
172
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
Principle 9 
System Man-
agement 
No system 
thinking or 
understanding
Understanding 
isolated cause and 
effects in product 
quality
Product
Understanding 
simple causes 
and effects in 
the process
Discrete proven 
process 
Understanding 
complex causality 
in the operational 
processes
Operational pro-
cesses
Understanding complex 
system causalities of busi-
ness processes including 
operational, managerial, 
support and human factors 
Complex system causalities
Systems Mass Produc-
tion System
Mass Production 
System
Deming Model
BS 5750 Quali-
ty Management 
series
ISO 9000 Stan-
dards
Total Produc-
tive Mainte-
nance (TPM)
Toyota Production 
System (TPS)
ISO 9000:1992
Ford Q1 System
QS 9000
ISO 14000
ISO 18000
TickIT
Malcolm Baldrige Model
Investors In People
EFQM Excellence Model
ISO 9001:2000; 2015
Lean concept
ISO/TS 16949
ISO 14001:2015
ISO 31000: 2009; 2018
Tools & Tech-
niques
Inspection
Moving assem-
bly line
Statistical Quality 
Control (SQC)
Inspection link to 
quality control
Sampling Ac-
ceptable Quality 
Levels (AQL)
Average Outgoing 
Quality Limit 
(AOQL)
Total Preventive 
Maintenance
Plan-Do-
Check-Act 
(PDCA)
Extend PDCA 
to become 
Plan-Do-Study-
Act (PDSA)
Cause and Ef-
fect Diagram
Failure Mode 
Effect Analysis 
(FMEA)
Reliability 
Engineering
Statistical 
Process Control 
(SPC)
Kaizen
Kanban
Jidoka
Just-In-Time 
(JIT)
Quality Loss Func-
tion
Quality Functional 
Deployment (QFD) 
Poka Yoke
Quality Control 
Circle (QCC)
7 Quality Tools 
(Pareto Analysis, 
Fish Bone Diagram, 
Stratification, Check 
Sheet, Histogram, 
Scatter Diagram, 
Control Chart)
Benchmarking
Lean tools and 
techniques
Single Minute 
Exchange of Die 
(SMED)
Design of Experiments 
(DOE)
5S
Six Sigma
Table 2: The origins and the evolution of quality management from Quality Inspection (QI) to Total Quality Management (TQM) 
(continued)
173
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
5 Research challenges in quality 
management
Implications of the research
As a result of this research, the managerial implications for 
future work are as follows: 
Investigating a single organisation is futile, since the 
organisation will form part of a network. For example, 
there is less value for future research in continuous im-
provement based solely in a single company because in 
the future, it is about the improvement that comes from the 
network. The interactions and relationships throughout the 
network should be considered (i.e. internal and external 
ideas/innovation). 
Further, future research should not only focus on a 
specific issue (e.g. continuous improvement for product 
design) and neglect to other issues/factors around it. It 
should consider the entire system. This means that the fu-
ture researcher needs to understand the whole picture of 
the process internally and externally, as the future is not 
only about managing a specific problem in a single compa-
ny, but what matters is how companies managing and deal-
ing the wide resources of improvements and innovation 
across the networks with the architectural of participation 
and collaboration that come from all over the world (i.e. 
high involvement of communities of practice).
The fact that the future will be more about network, 
key quality principles such as; continuous improvement, 
standards, leadership and partnerships in the future will 
be managed in a network context (i.e. open source, open 
innovation, “smart” environment). For example, Sony has 
moved from lean production to open source, where Sony 
Corporation and Google Inc. announced an alliance to pro-
vide a range of new and rich entertainment experiences 
that combine Google’s open-source Android OS platform 
with Sony’s expertise in technology and product design. 
The two companies are exploring the joint development 
of compelling new Android-based hardware products for 
the home, mobile and personal product categories and are 
also exploring extending the alliance in connection with 
Sony’s wide range of entertainment assets to establish new 
forms of cloud-based user experiences (Perakakis, 2017). 
Through this alliance, Sony aims to leverage the stability, 
future growth potential and open-source accessibility of 
Google’s Android platform to further optimise its product 
development processes while also providing consumers 
with an open, expansive and evolving user experience (See 
also Sony Official website at: https://www.sony.com).This 
raises some interesting questions as follows:
• Do the collaboration and partnerships in the net-
works are equally and fairly beneficial for both 
parties? Are they willing to share their expertise 
(core competencies) with each other? Can this 
collaboration be extended to form partnerships 
with others in the network? 
• Are they developing the standards? If not why? 
What is the impact of this?
• Are they managing continuous improvement 
across the network? How do they manage it?
• Do they recognise leadership across the network 
and not just from one company? How do they 
manage it?
All of the above discussion suggest that the collabora-
tors/partners need to think about how to manage the stand-
ards comprising of open technologies standards, codes of 
practice and standard for control, and to deal with the is-
sues of managing leadership, continuous improvement and 
partnerships; internally and externally. 
Limitation of the Research
The quality management field has been studied for more 
than 100 years dating back to the early 1900s when Fre-
drick W. Taylor is known as the father of Scientific Man-
agement, stressed the importance of quality inspection. 
First, even though a variety of journals and several re-
nowned books in the field of quality management were 
considered in this study, it may happen that this topic (i.e. 
Evolution of Quality Management) had also been cov-
ered in other journals and conferences. Additionally, there 
might be studies that we missed, because they investigate 
similar phenomena but discuss it with different terms. 
However, as we have mentioned earlier the focus of the 
review was to identify the extant literature rather than re-
viewing and discussing all relevant contributions, as many 
contributions built upon each other (See Ahire et al. (1995), 
Martinez et al. (1998), Sousa & Voss (2002), Schroeder 
et al. (2005) and Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (1999, 2011). In 
conducting the review, our objective was to describe how 
quality management field has developed and evolved to 
date, particularly by tracking its focus over time.
Thus, we specifically looked for the key events and re-
search question that were being addressed rather than iden-
tifying specific solutions, models and frameworks.
6 Concluding remarks
This article has attempted to reflect on the history of qual-
ity management through chronology of its establishment 
over time. The key aim of this research is to describe how 
quality management field has developed and evolved to 
date, particularly by tracking its focus over time. We start 
the research with the question of; How quality manage-
ment field has developed and evolved to date, particularly 
by tracking its focus over time?
In so doing, we have identified that quality manage-
ment literature have evolved through time with their fun-
damental focus evolving, and as they evolved, the princi-
ples, systems, tools and techniques have changed. 
174
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
This witnessed by the findings from the literature re-
vealing that in the early evolution of quality management, 
this period was focused around products (i.e. How can we 
ensure quality in a product?). Then, in the later period of 
time, the focus of quality management has moved from 
product to process (i.e. How can we ensure quality in the 
process?). Following from there, the focus of quality man-
agement shifting to system focus (i.e. How can we ensure 
quality in the system?). Slowly but gradually, by the later 
period of time, there seems to be more attention given to 
people with the system (people spin), in the development 
of quality journey. So, the focus in this period was about 
people in an organisation - people focus (i.e. How can we 
ensure quality in people?). 
Today’s the current development of quality manage-
ment is focused on people with an extended view towards 
networks focus (i.e. How can we ensure quality in people 
in the network environment?) and the most recent is the 
smart focus (i.e. How can we ensure quality in people in 
the smart environment?). Therefore, we would say that as 
the focus has changed, the principles have also changed 
and as the principles have changed, the systems, tools and 
techniques also have changed in quality management field. 
This observation is consistent with Dale (1994) and 
several authors’ works such as (Besterfield et al., 2003; 
Hellsten & Klefsjo, 2000; Mahadevan, 2010; Mukherjee 
& Kachwala, 2009) that organise their subject of study 
using the approach of ‘principles, systems, and tools and 
techniques’. As a result of this study, we can confirm that 
there are emerging patterns and trends on how things have 
developed and evolved around the fundamental ‘focus, 
principles, systems, and tools and techniques’, in relation 
to the evolution of quality management. In summary, this 
research suggests that one can study the evolution of this 
field by looking at how the ‘focus, principles, systems, and 
tools and techniques’ have evolved over time.
t this will further increase their job satisfaction. 
It is very important for practitioners to understand how 
important satisfaction with work itself is within the context 
of job satisfaction of employees. With the amount of time 
we are spending at work it is no doubt that any manager 
needs to use all the knowledge he or she has to help in-
crease the job satisfaction of employees, this being even 
more important in service oriented industries. 
Further research that we propose is to investigate job 
satisfaction among “employees” that manage their own 
apartments through platforms such as AirBnb, and we have 
to understand that jobs themselves are changing, Turnšek 
and Ladkin (2017) did extensive work on Airbnb that has 
hit the hotel sector hard in recent years, and noted that job 
satisfaction within the sharing economy, or platform econ-
omy, has a completely different position, that is why we 
propose this as an interesting area to conduct research in.
We have to understand that, not even the best managers 
can be overseeing how their employees treat their custom-
ers all the time. Thus, it is even more important that they 
can rely on their employees to provide the experience of 
hospitality for customers at every step of the way, since, as 
is seen by Rangus and Brumen (2016), the importance of 
tourism is, after all, visible in its huge impact on the local, 
national and global economies. 
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Me-
laka (UTeM) and Gebze Technical University (GTU) for 
the financial support and facilities provided in completing 
this research. We will welcome any collaboration for this 
kind of research with an open arm.
Literature
ANSI/ASQC. (1987). ANSI/ASQC. 1987 Quality Systems 
Terminology, American National Standard A3-1987.
ANSI/ISO/ASQ. (2000). ANSI/ ISO/ ASQ Q9000-
2000, Quality Management Systems-Fundamentals 
and Vocabulary. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press.
ANSI/ISO/ASQC. (1994). ANSI/ISO/ASQC A8402-
1994, Quality Management and Quality Assur-
ance-Vocabulary. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQC.
Arter, D. R., & Russell, J. P. (2009). ISO Lesson Guide 
2008: Pocket Guide to ISO 9001:2008. United States of 
America: American Society for Quality, Quality Press.
Ahire, S. L., Landeros, R., & Golhar, D. Y. (1995). 
Total quality management a literature review 
and an agenda for future research. Productions 
and operations management, 4(3), 227-306. 
 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.1995.tb00057.x 
Albers, A., Gladysz, B., Pinner, T., Butenko, V., & 
Stürmlinger, T. (2016). Procedure for defining 
the system of objectives in the initial phase of an 
industry 4.0 project focusing on intelligent qu-
ality control systems. Procedia Cirp, 52, 262-
267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.07.067 
ASQ. (2002). The Quality Improvement Handbo-
ok. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQ Quality Press. 
Bank, J. (2000). The Essence of Total Quali-
ty Management (2nd Edition ed.): Prentice Hall.
Batchelor, R. (1994). HENRY FORD Mass Pro-
duction, Modernism and design. Man-
chester: Manchester University Press.
Belohav, J. A. (1993). Quality, strategy and com-
petitiveness. California Management Review, 
35(3), 55-67. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166743
Berger, H. (2007). Agile development in a bureaucra-
tic arena—A case study experience. International 
Journal of Information Management 27, 386-396. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.08.009
Besterfield, D. H., Besterfield-Michna, C., Besterfield, 
G. H., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Urdhwareshe, H., & 
175
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
United States of America.: McGraw-Hill.
Da Fonseca L.M.C.M. (2015 ). ISO 14001: 2015: An 
improved tool for sustainability. Journal of In-
dustrial Engineering and Management, 8(1), 
37-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.1298
Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (1999). The evolution patterns of 
quality management. Total Quality Management, 10(5), 
465–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954412997424
Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2011). The quality move-
ment: Where are you going? Total Quality Mana-
gement & Business Excellence, 22(5), 493-516. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2011.578481
Dahlgaard, J. J., Kristensen, K., & Kanji, G. K. (2002). 
Fundamentals of Total Quality Management. Chel-
tenham: United Kingdom: Nelson Thornes Ltd.
Dahlgaard, S. M. P., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2003). Ma-
nagement Control Theories and The Europe-
an Excellence Model. The Best of Quality, 14. 
Dale, B. G. (1994). A Framework for the Introduc-
tion of a Process of Quality Improvement in Re-
tail Organizations. International Journal of Re-
tail & Distribution Management, 22(8), 25-32. 
ht tps: / /doi .org/10.1108/09590559410074886
Dale, B. G. (2003). Managing Quality (Fourth 
ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2003). What‘s the Big Idea? 
Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Dean, J. W. J., & Bowen, D. E. (1994). Management 
theory and total quality: Improving research and 
practice through theory development. The Aca-
demy of Management Review, 19(3), 392-418. 
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1994.9412271803
Deming, W. E. (1993). The New Economics For In-
dustry, Government, and Education. Cam-
bridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technolo-
gy Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2008). Producing a 
systematic review. In D. e. Buchanan (Ed.), 
The Sage Handbook of Organizational Rese-
arch Methods (pp. 671-689). London: Sage.
Devadasan, S. R., & Goshteeswaran, S. (2005). Design for 
quality in agile manufacturing environment through mo-
dified orthogonal array-basedexperimentation. Journal 
of Manufacturing Technology Management, 16(6), 
576-597. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380510609456 
Document, U. N. (1987). World Commision on Environ-
ment and Development: Our Common Future. Retrie-
ved from http://www.un-documents.net/a42r187.htm
Drucker, P. F. (1989). The new realities: in go-
vernment and politics, in economy and busine-
ss, in society, and in worldview. Oxford: Hei-
nemann Professional Publishing Limited.
Eckes, G. (2005). Six Sigma Execution: How the Wor-
ld’s Greatest Companies Live and Breathe Six Sigma. 
New York: United States of America: McGraw-Hill.
Feigenbaum, A. V. (1961). Total quality control: en-
Urdhwareshe, R. (2003). Total Quality Manage-
ment (Third ed.). India: Pearson Education Inc.
Betz, F. (1998). Managing technological innovation : com-
petitive advantage from change . New York: Son & Wiley.
Bititci, U., Garengo, P., Dörfler, V., & Nudurupat, S. (2012). 
Performance Measurement: Challenges for Tomorrow. 
International Journal of Management Reviews, 14, 305–
327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00318.x
Bititci, U., Garengo, P., Dorfler, V., & Nudurupati, S. 
(2008). Performance Measurement; Question for To-
morrow. SIOM Working Paper Series, No. 0001, www.
strath.ac.uk/siom. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 
UK. University of Padavo, Padova, Italy. Retrieved 
from https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/id/eprint/13954
Bounds, G., Yorks, L., Adams, M., & Ran-
ney, G. (1994). Beyond Total Quali-
ty Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
BSI. (2000). BS EN ISO 9001:2000 Quality Manage-
ment Systems. Requirements. In: BSI Standards.
Burge, R. C. (2009). The Baldrige Jour-
ney. Industrial Engineer 41, 40-44.
Callan, R. J. (1992). The British Standard 5750 - A qu-
ality control instrument for the hotel and catering 
industry - The case of Astley Bank. International 
Journal of Hospitality Management 11 (4), 359-372. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-4319(92)90052-W
Castka, P., & Balzarova, M. A. (2008). The impact of 
ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 on standardisation of so-
cial responsibility—an inside perspective. Inter-
national Journal of Production Economics, 113, 
74-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.02.048
Castka, P., Prajogo, D., Sohal, A., & Yeung, A. C. 
(2015). Understanding firms׳ selection of their 
ISO 9000 third-party certifiers. International Jour-
nal of Production Economics, 162, 125-133., 162, 
125-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.012
Chaniotakis, I. E., & Lymperopoulos, C. (2009). Service 
quality effect on satisfaction and word of mouth in the 
health care industry. Managing Service Quality, 19(2), 
229-242. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520910943206
Chiaromonte, F. (2004). From R&D to stra-
tegic technology management – Evolu-
tion and perspectives. Telektronikk, 2, 33-41. 
Cho, Y. S., Jung, J. Y., & Linderman, K. (2017). 
The QM evolution: Behavioral quality manage-
ment as a firm’s strategic resource. Internatio-
nal Journal of Production Economics, 191, 233-
249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.05.002
Cochran, P. L. (2007). The evolution of corporate so-
cial responsibility. Business Horizons 50, 449-
454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2007.06.004
Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: the art of 
making quality certain. New York:  Uni-
ted States of America: New American Library.
Crosby, P. B. (1984). Quality without tears: the 
art of hassle-free management. New York: 
176
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
International Automotive Task Force, IATF Gui-
dance to ISO/TS 16949:2002,  (2002).
Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen (Ky’zen), the key to Japan’s com-
petitive success (1 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ishikawa, K. (1985). What is total quality control? The Japa-
nese way (D. J.Lu, Trans.). New Jersey.: Prentice Hall,Inc.
Jacob, D. (2017). Quality 4.0 Impact and Strategy Handbo-
ok. Getting Digitally Connected to Transform Quality 
Management.  . United State of America: LNS Research.
Jayaram, J., Vickery, S., & Droge, C. (2008). Relationship 
building, lean strategy and firm performance: an explo-
ratory study in the automotive supplier industry. Inter-
national Journal of Production Research, 46(20), 5633-
5649. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540701429942
Jin-Hai, L. (2003). The evolution of agile manufacturing. 
Business Process Management Journal, 9(2), 170-
189. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150310468380
Juran, J. M. (1951). Quality-control han-
dbook. New York: McGraw-hill.
Juran, J. M. (1988). Juran’s quality control han-
dbook (4 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kanji, G. (2002). Measuring Busine-
ss Excellence. London.: Routledge.
Kanji, G. K. (1990). Total quality management: the second 
industrial revolution. Total Quality Management, 1(1), 
3-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544129000000001
Kano, N. (1993). A perspective on quality activities in 
American firms. California Management Review, 
35(3), 12-31. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166741
Kenney, M., & Pon, B. (2011). Structuring the smartphone 
industry: is the mobile internet OS platform the key?. 
. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 11(3), 
239-261. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1851686 
Kremer, R., & Fabrizio, T. (2005). The Lean Primer - Solu-
tions for the Job Shop. United State: MSC Media, Inc.
Kuei, C.-H., & Madu, C. N. (2003). Customer-centric six 
sigma quality and reliability management. International 
Journal of Quality & Realibility Management, 20(8), 
954-964. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710310493661
Kumar, M., Kee, F. T., & Charles, V. (2010). Comparative 
evaluation of critical factors in delivering service qu-
ality of banks: an application of dominance analysis 
in modified SERVQUAL model. International Jour-
nal of Quality and Reliability Management, 27(3), 
351-377. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656711011023320
Lee, J., Kao, H. A., & Yang, S. (2014). Service in-
novation and smart analytics for industry 4.0 
and big data environment. . Procedia Cirp, 16, 
3-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.02.001
Louis, R. S. (1997). Integrating Kanban with 
MRP II: Automating a Pull System for Enhan-
ced JIT Inventory Management. Portland, Uni-
ted States of America: Productivity Press.
Macdonald, J. (1995). TQM-does it always works? 
Some reasons for disappointment In G. K. Kan-
ji (Ed.), Total Quality Management: Proceedings of 
gineering and management: the technical and 
management field for improving product quali-
ty, including its reliability, and for reducing ope-
rating costs and losses. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fernie, J., & Sparks, L. (2014). Logistics and Retail Ma-
nagement: Emerging Issues and New Challenges 
in the Retail Supply Chain: Kogan Page Publishers.
Foidl, H., & Felderer, M. (2015). Research chal-
lenges of industry 4.0 for quality management. 
Paper presented at the International Conferen-
ce on Enterprise Resource Planning Systems. 
 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32799-0_10
Ford, H. (1922). My Life and Work. Salt 
Lake City: UT Project Gutenberg.
Foster, S. T. (2001). Managing Quality an Integrative Appro-
ach. New Jersey: United States of America: Prentice Hall.
Freeman, C., & Louca, F. (2001). As Time Goes By: From 
the Industrial Revolutions to the Information Resolu-
tion. New York, United States: Oxford University Press.
Garrity, R. B. (1993). Total quality management: an 
opportunity for high performance in federal organiza-
tions. Public Administration Quarterly, 17, 430-459. 
Garvin, D. A. (1988). Managing Quality the Strategic 
and Competitive Edge. New York: The Free Press.
Giannakis, M. (2007). Performance measurement 
of supplier relationships. Supply Chain Mana-
gement: An International Journal, 12(6), 400-
411. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540710826335
Godfrey, G., Dale, B., Marchington, M., & Wilkin-
son, A. (1997). Control: A contested concept in 
TQM research International Journal Opera-
tions & Production Management, 17(6), 558-573. 
Gower, D. L. (Ed.) (1990). Gower Handbook of Quality Mana-
gement. England: Gower Publishing Company Limited.
Grant, R. M. (2008). The Future of Management: Whe-
re is Gary Hamel Leading Us? Long Range Planning 
41, 469-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2008.06.003
Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing: A fra-
mework for research and development. Interna-
tional Journal Production Economics, 62, 87-105. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00222-9
Hakes, C. (1999). The Business Excellent Handbook 
(5 ed.): BQC Performance Management Limited.
Hamel, G. (2007). The future of management. 
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hanna, J. (2007). Bringing ‚Lean‘ Prin-
ciples to Service Industries. Harvard Busi-
ness School: Research and Ideas, pp. 1-2. 
Hellsten, U., & Klefsjo, B. (2000). TQM as a mana-
gement system consisting of values, techniques 
and tools. The TQM Magazine, 12(4), 238-244. 
ht tps: / /doi .org/10.1108/09544780010325822 
Hill, Y., MacGregor, J., & Dewar, K. (1996). Nur-
ses’ access to higher education: a quality produ-
ct. Quality Assurance in Education, 4 (2), 21-
27. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889610116021
177
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
872. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2017.2726821
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P., & Probert, D. R. (2004). 
A framework for supporting the manage-
ment of technological knowledge. Internatio-
nal Journal Technology Management, 27(1), 
1-15. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2004.003878
Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2015). How smart, 
connected products are transforming compa-
nies. . Harvard Business Review, 93(10), 96-114. 
Powell, C. T. (1995). Total Quality Management as 
Competitive Advantage: A Review and Empiri-
cal Study. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 
15-37.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160105 
Prajogo, D. I., & Sohal, A. S. (2006). The integration of 
TQM and technology/R&D management in determi-
ning quality and innovation performance. OMEGA, The 
International Journal of Management Science, 34, 296 
– 312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2004.11.004
Price, F. (1990). The Quality Concept and Objectives in 
Gower Handbook of Quality Management. In D. Lock 
(Ed.), Gower Handbook of Quality Management. 
Aldershot, England: Gower Publishing Company.
Prusak, L., & Davenport, T. (2003). Who are the gu-
rus’ gurus. Harvard Business Review, 81, 14-16. 
Richardson, T. L. (1997). Total Quality Management. New 
York: United States of America: Delmar Publishers.
Roblek, V., Meško, M., & Krapež, A. (2016). A com-
plex view of industry 4.0. . SAGE Open, 6(2). 
h t tps : / /do i .o rg /10 .1177/2158244016653987 
Ross, J. E. (2017). Total Quality MANAGEMENT Text, 
Cases and Readings. London: Taylor & Francis Group.
Roth, A. V. (1996). Neo-Operations Strategy: Lin-
king capabilities-Based Competition to Techno-
logy. In G. H. Gaynor (Ed.), Handbook of Tech-
nology Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Evidence 
in management and organizational science: Assembling 
the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through 
syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 
475-515. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211651
Sanders, A., Elangeswaran, C., & Wulfsberg, J. P. 
(2016). Industry 4.0 implies lean manufacturing: 
Research activities in industry 4.0 function as 
enablers for lean manufacturing. . Journal of In-
dustrial Engineering and Management (JIEM), 
9(3), 811-833. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.1940
Schroeder, R. G., Linderman, K., & Zhang, D. (2005). 
Evolution of Quality: First Fifty Issues of Produc-
tion and Operations Management. Production and 
Operations Management Society, 14(4), 468–481. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2005.tb00234.x
Shingo, S. (1985). A revolution in manufacturing: 
the SMED system. Stamford: Productivity Press.
Slack, N., Chambers, S., Johnston, R., & Betts, A. 
(2006). Operations and process management: 
Principles and practice for strategic impact. Har-
the First World Congress. London: Chapman & Hall.
Macpherson, A., & Jones, O. (2010). Strategies 
for the development of International Journal 
of Management Reviews. International Jour-
nal of Management Reviews, 282, 107–113. 
 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00282.x
Mahadevan, B. (2010). Operations Management (Second 
ed.). New Delhi, India: Pearson Education in South Asia.
Malone, T. W. (2004). The future of work: How 
the new order of business will shape your or-
ganization, your management style, and your 
life. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Martinez-Lorente, A. R., Dewhurst, F., & Dale, B. G. 
(1998). Total quality management: origins and evo-
lution of the term. The TQM Magazine, 10(5), 378-
386. https://doi.org/10.1108/09544789810231261 
Mason, D. (1997). Achieving Investors in Pe-
ople. London: Pitman Publishing.
McMenamin, E. (2016). Medical devi-
ces: ISO 13485 places new emphasis on 
risk management. Quality, 55(10), 18-20. 
Milakovich, M. M. (1991). Total quality management in 
the public sector. National Productivity Review, 10, 
195-213. https://doi.org/10.1002/npr.4040100208
Miles, M. (1999). Cowboy Quali-
ty. Quality Progress, 32(10), 27-34.    . 
Morris, A. S. (2004). ISO 14000 Environmental Ma-
nagement Standards: Engineering and Financial 
Aspects. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons 
Limited. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470090782.ch1
Mortimer, S. T., & Mortimer, D. (2015). Quality and 
Risk Management in the IVF Laboratory. In. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511547287.061
Mukherjee, P. N., & Kachwala, T. T. (2009). Opera-
tions Management and Productivity Techniques. 
New Delhi, India: PHI Learning Private Limited.
Muzaimi, H., Chew, B. C., & Hamid, S. R. (2017). In-
tegrated management system: The integration of ISO 
9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO 31000. 
Paper presented at the AIP Conference Proceedings. 
Nakajima, S. (1988). Introduction to TPM: To-
tal Productive Maintenance. Cambridge, Lon-
don: Productivity Press Incorporations.
Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun, L. f. m. (1988). Po-
ka-yoke: Improving product quality by preven-
ting defects Cambridge: Productivity Press.
Oaklan, J. S. (2014). Total Quality Management and 
Operational Excellence. New York,: Routledge.
Patty, R. M., & Denton, M. A. (2010). The End of 
Project Overruns: Lean and Beyond for Engi-
neering, Procurement and Construction. Flo-
rida, United State: Universal-Publishers.
Perakakis, E. (2017). Smart Enough for the Web? A Respon-
sive Web Design Approach to Enhancing the User Web 
Browsing Experience on Smart TVs. IEEE TRANSAC-
TIONS ON HUMAN-MACHINE SYSTEMS, 47(6), 860-
178
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
IOT and bigdata implementation model. Indian 
Journal of Science and Technology, 8(35), 1-4. 
 https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i35/86698
Wang, J., & Kleiner, B. H. (2005). The Evo-
lution of R&D Management. Manage-
ment Research News, 28(11/12), 88-95. 
Watson, R., Wilson, H. N., Smart, P., & Macdonald, E. 
K. (2018). Harnessing Difference: A Capability-Ba-
sed Framework for Stakeholder Engagement in En-
vironmental Innovation PROD INNOV MANAG, 
35(2), 254–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12394
Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The 
Machine that changed the world: based on Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology. New York: 
United States of America: Rawson Associates.
Yoon, Y., Giirhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The 
Effect Of Corporate Social Responsibility (Csr) 
Activities On Companies With Bad Reputations. 
Journal Of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 377-
390. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_9
Zairi, M. (1994). Measuring Performance for Business 
Results. London, United Kingdom: Chapman & Hall.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasurarnan, A., & Malhotra, A. 
(2002). Service Quality Delivery Through Web Si-
tes: A Critical Review of Extant Knowledge. Jour-
nal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4), 
362-375. https://doi.org/10.1177/009207002236911 
low, England: Prentice Hall Financial Times.
Sousa, R., & Voss, C. A. (2002). Quality management 
re-visited: a reflective review and agenda for future 
research. Journal of Operations Management, 20, 91-
109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(01)00088-2 
Stamatis, D. H. (1996). Integrating QS-9000 
with your Automotive Quality System. Ma-
laysia: Golden Books Centre Limited.
Stamatis, D. H. (2003). Six Sigma fundamentals: a 
complete guide to the system, methods and to-
ols. New York, United State: Productivity Press.
Tan, L.-H., Hamid, S.-R., & Chew, B.-C. ( 2016). Ser-
vice quality audit based on conceptual gaps mo-
del of service quality: a case study of top three lar-
gest local bank in Malaysia. International Journal 
Productivity and Quality Management, 18(1), 99-
115.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPQM.2016.075712
Tao, F., Cheng, Y., Da Xu, L., Zhang, L., & Li, B. H. 
(2014). CCIoT-CMfg: cloud computing and internet 
of things-based cloud manufacturing service system. 
. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 10(2), 
1435-1442. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2014.2306383 
Tao, F., LaiLi, Y., Xu, L., & Zhang, L. (2013). FC-PA-
CO-RM: a parallel method for service composition 
optimal-selection in cloud manufacturing system. 
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 9(4), 
2023-2033. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2012.2232936
Tao, F., Zhang, L., Venkatesh, V. C., Luo, Y., & Cheng, 
Y. (2011). Cloud manufacturing: a computing and 
service-oriented manufacturing model. Proceedings 
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: 
Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 225(10), 1969-
1976. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405411405575
Taylor, R., & Pearson, A. (1994). Total Quality Management 
in Research and Development. The TQM Magazine, 6(1), 
26-34. https://doi.org/10.1108/09544789410052723
Thai, V., & Jie, F. (2018). The impact of total quality manage-
ment and supply chain integration on firm performance 
of container shipping companies in Singapore. Asia Pa-
cific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 30(3), 605-626. 
 https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-09-2017-0202
TickIT, D. (1992). Department of Trade and Industry/British 
Computer Society, TickIT making a better job of softwa-
re. In (2 ed.). London: The Department of Enterprise.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards 
a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Infor-
med Management Knowledge by Means of Syste-
matic Review. British Journal of Management, 14, 
207-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375 
Valerio, B. (2017). Corruption and ISO 37001: A new in-
strument to prevent it in international entrepreneurship. . 
World Journal of Accounting, Finance and Engineering, 
1, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.21742/wjafe.2017.1.1.01
Vijaykumar, S., Saravanakumar, S. G., & Balamu-
rugan, M. (2015). Unique sense: Smart compu-
ting prototype for industry 4.0 revolution with 
Mohd Syaiful Rizal Hamid, is associate professor and 
a former Dean of the Faculty of Technology Manage-
ment and Technopreneurship at the Universiti Tekni-
kal Malaysia Melaka, Malaysia (UTeM). He received 
his Ph.D. in School of Engineering, Design Manufac-
ture Engineering Management from the University of 
Strathclyde, United Kingdom. His fields of expertise are 
technology management and quality management and 
his research focuses on Quality Tools and Techniques, 
Environmental Management, Service Management & 
Sustainable Development.
Saifuddin Isa is a Master of Sciences in the field 
of Technology Management (Innovation). He is a 
researcher at Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka 
(UTeM), Faculty of Technology Management and 
Technopreneurship. His research focuses is Quality 
Tools and Techniques of Industrial Revolution 4.0, 
particularly in the Smart Manufacturing context. His 
main area of expertise are Quality Management, 
Operation Management and Technology Management.
179
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
Chew Boon Cheong is presently the Associate 
Professor of Faculty of Technology Management 
and Technopreneurship (FPTT), Universiti Teknikal 
Malaysia Melaka (UTeM). He received his Ph.D. 
from University of Edinburgh in 2012 in Technology 
Management and Science and Technology Studies. 
His primary research interest is renewable energy 
development and deployment, clean technology 
innovation and introduction, green and sustainable 
practise, human technology innovation and 
introduction; which all are angled from social science 
and technology management studies.
Abdullah Altun is a chief specialist in the Informatics 
and Information Security Research Center (BİLGEM) in 
The Scientific and Technological Research Council of 
Turkey (TÜBİTAK). He has a Ph.D. degree in economics. 
His primary research interests are international trade 
and growth economics. His studies are mainly about 
the empirical analysis of global value chains. He has 
visited various universities as a visiting scholar such as 
University of Warsaw (Poland) and Universiti Teknikal 
Malaysia Melaka, UTeM (Malaysia).
Razvoj vodenja kakovosti in izzivi za jutri
Ozadje in namen: Področje upravljanja kakovosti so proučevali že pred več kot 100 leti. V zgodnjih 1900-ih je 
Fredrick W. Taylor, znan kot oče znanstvenega menedžmenta, poudaril pomen inšpekcijskega nadzora kakovosti. 
V tem prispevku je prikazano, kako se je področje upravljanja kakovosti razvilo in razvijalo do danes, s poudarkom 
na njegovi osredotočenosti skozi čas.
Oblikovanje / metodologija / pristop: V raziskavi je bil prilagojen sistematičen pristop k pregledu literature. Če 
prepoznajo guruje in eminentne znanstvenike na izbranem področju, lahko raziskovalci ovrednotijo svoja dela, ki 
so objavljena predvsem v obliki knjig in člankov v revijah. Proces presoje literature, ki smo ga uporabili, vključuje 
splošno upravljanje kakovosti, pa tudi „razvoj vodenja kakovosti“ in tako ponazarja, kako se je sčasoma razvijalo 
področje vodenja kakovosti.
Rezultati: Z razvojem literature o vodenju kakovosti so se načela, sistemi, orodja in tehnike vodenja kakovosti inten-
zivno spreminjali. Članek predstavi sintezo literature o vodenju kakovosti skozi čas glede na ključni poudarek in daje 
novo perspektivo za nadaljnje raziskave.
Zaključki: Zgodovinski pregled omogoča raziskovalcem, da sčasoma določijo vzorec kakovosti - „osredotočenost, 
načela, sisteme ter orodja in tehnike“. Naša opažanja so potrdila, da so se s poudarkom na spremembi spreminjala 
tudi načela; ker so se načela spreminjala, so se spreminjali tudi sistemi, orodja in tehnike na področju upravljanja 
kakovosti.
Ključne besede: upravljanje kakovosti; osredotočenost; načela; sistemi; ter orodja in tehnike.
180
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
Appendix
Table 1 below summarises the quality management literature over time. It should be noted that the ‘key events’ in 
Table 1 indicates the important events in Quality Management field over time that considered been seen as were 
giving a larger scale of impact to the quality management in general.
Key Focus App. 
Time
Key Events Key References
How can we ensure 
quality in product?
1900 Fredrick W. Taylor calls as the father of 
Scientific Management stressed on inspec-
tion activities
Garvin (1988); Foster (2001)
1910s Henry Ford came out with Model T (be-
came the Ford car) and introduced of mov-
ing assembly line which lead to mass pro-
duction concept (quality interchangeability)
Batchelor (1994); Womack, et al., (1990) 
1920s Walter Shewhart of Bell Laboratories de-
veloped a system for measuring variance 
in production system, known as statistical 
process control. Shewhart also created the 
Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle, which 
applies a systematic approach to improving 
work processes
Garvin (1988)
1922 Inspection activities were linked more for-
mally to quality control with the publication 
of G.S Radford’s The Control of Quality in 
Manufacturing. Quality was viewed as a dis-
tinct management responsibility and as an 
independent function
Garvin (1988)
1924 Walter Shewhart of Bell Laboratories de-
veloped Statistical Process Control (SPC)
American Society for Quality (2002)
1926 The Bell Telephone began to apply statisti-
cal control methods
Martinez-Lorente, Dewhurst and Dale 
(1998)
1931 Shewhart has published Economic Control 
of Quality of Manufactured Product, giv-
ing the discipline a scientific footing for the 
first time. Shewhart gave a precise and mea-
surable definition of manufacturing control, 
developed powerful techniques for monitor-
ing and evaluating day-to-day production, 
and suggested a variety of ways of improv-
ing quality
Garvin (1988); American Society for 
Quality (2002)
1938 Deming published a technical book and 
taught courses in the use of his statistical 
methods
American Society for Quality (2002)
1939 Shewhart wrote Statistical Method from the 
viewpoint of Quality Control
Shewhart’s idea for the Plan-Do-Check-Act 
cycle was used extensively by Deming and 
others to help manage quality improvement 
projects
American Society for Quality (2002)
Garvin (1988); American Society for 
Quality (2002)
Table 1: Important events in the quality management movement
181
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
1940 A committee was formed in December by 
the American war department to draft stan-
dards in the area quality
Garvin (1988)
1942 A quality control section was established in 
the war department staff mainly by statisti-
cians from Bell Laboratories. This group de-
veloped a new set of sampling, tables based 
on the concept of acceptable quality levels 
(AQL)
Garvin (1988)
1943 Ishikawa invented Fish-Bone diagram 
which bears his name as Ishikawa Diagram 
as management problem solving tools
Dahlgaard, et al., (2002)
Mid-
1940s
The American army pushed the use of sam-
pling methods during World War II 
Martinez-Lorente, Dewhurst and Dale 
(1998)
1946 Japanese Industrial Standards Committee 
is established. Union of Japanese Scientists 
and Engineers (JUSE) is established
Deming involved with the Union of Scien-
tists Engineer (JUSE) after its formation 
Garvin (1988)
American Society for Quality (2002); 
Foster (2001) 
How can we ensure 
quality in process?
1950 First visit of Deming to Japan. Deming give 
a talk and taught Japanese’s leaders about 
statistical quality control techniques (SQC)
JUSE publishes the magazine Statistical 
Quality Control. Japanese Industrial Stan-
dards are established under the Industrial 
Standardization Law
Garvin (1988); Foster (2001); Bank 
(2000); Martinez-Lorente, Dewhurst and 
Dale (1998)
1950s Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) 
developed by US military after the Korean 
war. 
Reliability engineering developed by 
American Department of Defence which 
formed an Ad Hoc Group on Reliability of 
Electronic Equipment 
The basis of the kaizen revolution in Japan 
that took place in the 1950s along with the 
used of Kanban, Jidoka and Just in Time 
(JIT) together to continually improves pro-
duction processes
Taiichi Ohno, who is generally recognised 
as the ‘father of JIT’ due to his pioneering 
work at Toyota in the 1950s and 1960s. 
Preventive maintenance was introduced in 
the 1950s where in Japan Total Productive 
Maintenance (TPM) is called Preventive 
Maintenance
Bounds, Yorks, Adams and Ramney 
(1994); Gower (1990) 
Richardson (1997); Gower (1990); Louis 
(1997); Dahlgaard, et al., (2002)
Nakajima (1988); Richardson (1997)
Table 1: Important events in the quality management movement (continued)
182
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
1951 Deming Prize is established in Japan
Juran published his first edition of Quality 
Control Handbook
Garvin (1988); Foster (2001); Dahlgaard, 
et al., (2002)
Garvin (1988); Bank (2000); American 
Society for Quality (2002) 
1954 First visit of Juran to Japan Garvin (1988); American Society for 
Quality (2002) 
1956 Armand Feigenbaum introduced total a prin-
cipe called Total Quality Control (TQC) 
which underlying principles to provide gen-
uine effectiveness control must start with the 
design of the product and end only when the 
product has been placed in the hand of the 
customer who remain satisfied
Garvin (1988); Feigenbaum (1961) 
How can we ensure 
quality in system?
Early 
1960s
Ishikawa is best known as a pioneer of the 
“quality circle” movement in Japan 
American Society for Quality (2002) 
1960s Crosby invented the concept of Zero De-
fects Goals in the1960s.
Crosby lists for new essentials of quality 
management which he calls “The Abso-
lutes”
Crosby (1979); Garvin (1988); American 
Society for Quality (2002); Bank (2000) 
1961 First edition of Feigenbaum’s Total Qual-
ity Control
Martinez-Lorente, Dewhurst and Dale 
(1998)
1962 Ishikawa’s quality circles where first pilot-
ed at Nippon Telegraph and cable compa-
ny. Published a book named What Is Total 
Quality Control 
The idea of quality circles appeared in the 
first issue of the Japanese journal Quality 
Control for the Foreman (Genba-To-QC)
Bank (2000); American Society for 
Quality (2002)
Garvin (1988)
1968 Ishikawa produced a non-technical quality 
analysis textbook for quality circle members 
Most large Japanese companies had adopted 
what Ishikawa called Companywide Qual-
ity Control (CWQC) in Japan to produce 
world-class quality products
American Society for Quality (2002)
Garvin (1988); American Society for 
Quality (2002)
Early 
1970s
Taguchi developed the concept of the Qual-
ity Loss Function.
The method provides an efficient technique 
to design product tests prior to entering the 
manufacturing phase
American Society for Quality (2002)
Table 1: Important events in the quality management movement (continued)
183
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
1970s The established of Toyota Production Sys-
tem (TPS) with the key elements are Just-
In-Time (JIT), Jidoka, Standardised Work 
and Kaizen
Womack, et al., (1990)
1972 Quality Function Deployment was first 
practiced at Kobe Shipyard, Mitsubishi 
Heavy Industries, Ltd. 
Garvin (1988); Bank (2000); Zairi (1994)
1973 After the 1973 oil crisis, the JIT system was 
adopted by a vast number of Japanese com-
panies. A small number of American and 
European companies began to apply this 
system in the 1980s
Martinez-Lorente, Dewhurst and Dale 
(1998)
Mid-
1970s
Quality circles began to be widely intro-
duced in the USA, the first quality circle pro-
gramme was launched in Lockheed in 1974 
and in the UK it was Rolls-Royce which in-
troduced the concept in 1979
Martinez-Lorente, Dewhurst and Dale 
(1998)
1979 First edition of Crosby’s Quality Is Free
Xerox Corp. started to apply the benchmark-
ing concept to processes
Publication of the BS 5750 quality manage-
ment series
Crosby (1979); American Society for 
Quality (2002)
Bank (2000) 
Bank (2000); Hill, et al., (1996); Callan 
(1992)
1980 The Taguchi method design of experiments 
(DOE) was first introduced by Dr. Genichi 
Taguchi to AT&T Bell Laboratories
Foster (2001)
1980s The establishment of Total Quality Man-
agement (TQM) which is a management 
approach that originated in the 1950s
Foster (2001)
1982 First edition of Deming’s Quality, Produc-
tivity and Competitive Position
Martinez-Lorente, Dewhurst and Dale 
(1998)
How can we ensure 
quality in people?
1984 Crosby published his second bestseller 
“Quality Without Tears”
Crosby (1984); Foster (2001)
Mid-
1980s
Ford started a systematic supplier grading 
system, called Q1
Womack, et al., (1990)
1986 First edition of Deming’s Out of the Crisis. It 
became a bestseller
American Society for Quality (2002)
1987 First edition of ISO 9000 quality manage-
ment system series
Publication of the Malcolm Baldrige Na-
tional Quality Award
BS 5750 revised in 1987
American Society for Quality (2002); 
Bank (2000)
Bank (2000); Dahlgaard, et al., (2002)
Table 1: Important events in the quality management movement (continued)
184
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
1990s Xerox introduced leadership through quality 
as a vehicle for change.
Six Sigma was developed at Motorola. 
Lean Manufacturing derives from the Toy-
ota Production System or Just in Time Pro-
duction.
The “lean manufacturing” concept was pop-
ularized in American factories in large part 
by the Massachusetts Institute of Technolo-
gy study of the movement from mass pro-
duction toward production as described in 
The Machine That Changed the World: 
The Story Of Lean Production.
Garvin (1988)
Eckes (2005, p. 12) 
Womack, et al., (1990)
1991 National Training Task Force introduced In-
vestors in People (IIP) in October 1991
Mason (1997)
1992 The EFQM Excellence Model was intro-
duced at the beginning of 1992 as the frame-
work for assessing organisations for the Eu-
ropean Quality Award
Dahlgaard, et al., (2002)
1994 QS 9000 is developed by Daimler-Chrysler, 
Ford & General Motor where it is based on 
ISO 9001: 1994. 
The system became effective on September 
1, 1994 
Stamis (1996)
How can we ensure 
quality in people in the 
network environment?
1996 First edition of ISO 14000 environmental 
management series 
First edition of OHSAS 18000 - occupa-
tional health and safety management series, 
which derived from the British Standard 
BS8800:1996
International Organisation for Standardi-
sation at www.iso.org; Moris (2004)
International Occupational Health 
and Safety Management  at 
www.ohsas-18001-occupation-
al-health-and-safety.com; British Stan-
dards Institute at www.bsigroup.com
1998 QS 9000 reissued in March 1998 Stamatis (1996)
Early 
2000
TickIT originally set up by UK Department 
of Trade and Industry and administered by 
British Standards Institution (BSI), which 
applies to all types of information system 
supply, which involve software develop-
ment processes
TickIT (1992)
2000 The 2000 edition of the ISO 9000 was es-
tablished
American Society for Quality (2002)
2002 International Automotive Task Force 
(IATF) - automakers General Motor, Chrys-
ler and Ford developed ISO/TS 16949:2002
International Automotive Task Force 
(IATF) (2002)
Table 1: Important events in the quality management movement (continued)
185
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
2007 Global Collaborative Networks - to deliv-
er innovative value propositions to global 
markets and customers
Hamel 2007
2010 ISO 26000 standard for Social Responsibil-
ity
Castka and Balzarova (2008)
2010 Collaboration sony and google corpora-
tion - Sony and Google Establish Strategic 
Alliance to Deliver Compelling New 
Cloud-based Products and Services with the 
Android Platform
Kenney and Pon (2011)
2011 ISO 50001:2011 Energy management
Supports organizations in all sectors to use 
energy more efficiently, through the devel-
opment of an energy management system 
(EnMS)
Official International Organization for 
Standardization website 
https://www.iso.org/home.html
2014 ISO 50002:2014 Energy audits -- Require-
ments with guidance for use
Specifies the process requirements for carry-
ing out an energy audit in relation to energy 
performance. It is applicable to all types of 
establishments and organizations, and all 
forms of energy and energy use
2015 ISO 9001:2015 Quality Management Sys-
tem
This standard is based on a number of qual-
ity management principles, including a 
strong customer focus, the motivation and 
implication of top management, the process 
approach and continual improvement
ISO 14001:2015 Environmental Manage-
ment Systems
Specifies the requirements for an environ-
mental management system that an organi-
zation can use to enhance its environmental 
performance
Table 1: Important events in the quality management movement (continued)
186
Organizacija, Volume 52 Issue 3, August 2019Research Papers
2016 ISO 13485:2016 Medical devices – Quali-
ty management systems
Internationally agreed standard that sets out 
the requirements for a quality management 
system specific to the medical device indus-
try. It has recently been revised, with the 
new version published in March 2016
ISO 37001:2016 Anti-bribery manage-
ment systems 
Specifies requirements and provides guid-
ance for establishing, implementing, main-
taining, reviewing and improving an an-
ti-bribery management system
2017 to 
Present
The Emerging of Quality 4.0
The digitalisation of quality management 
on quality technology, processes and people
Jacob (2017)
Table 1: Important events in the quality management movement (continued)