Conclusions
Using a review of the literature as a basis,
first, the most common QM dimensions were identified, taking as a reference studies which measured QM as a multidimensional construct.
Second, the review of empirical studies about
QM–performance and EM–performance links revealed that both systems can affect firm performance. In addition, the measures used to assess QM, EM, QP, EP and FP were indicated for each empirical study. Third, the literature suggests that the parallels between
QM and EM indicate that system integration will be beneficial. Regarding integration, this paper has identified dimensions for QEM and shown models of cause–effect relationships between QM, EM, QEM, QP, EP and FP.
Given the similarities between QM and
EM, the QM framework can serve as abridge to the development of EM and QEM. Then,
one may say that QM, EM and QEM systems have succeeded when they develop the eight dimensions listed in Table 5: leadership,
people management, planning, information and analysis, process management, supplier management, customer/stakeholder focus, and product design. These dimensions maybe used to develop a QM system alone, an EM
system alone or a QEM system.
This paper contributes to theory and practice in various ways. First, it contributes to the development of QM, EM and QEM systems theory. Dimensions for QM, EM, QEM and firm performance are provided. Second, the
|
