How Quality Management System Components Lead to Improvement in Service Organizations: A System Practitioner Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review Report
According to the authors, the “study aims to explore the mechanisms underlying how quality management systems work in service contexts”.
I believe that there is still need to conduct researches focusing on the development/implementation of quality management systems in services, and its influence on performance. Any attempt to explore such research field is certainly noteworthy. Moreover, the paper is well organized and the reading flows.
Overall, I think that the paper may rise to the standards expected by the journal. Briefly, the paper contributes with interesting additional insights although I think that the paper needs a revision. In fact, as a reviewer, I have few concerns that I would like to bring up:
· In the introduction section, authors could improve their reasoning concerning the gaps in literature and how the study fits in this context, highlighting better the relevance of the study. Moreover, according to authors, “This study aims to explore the mechanisms underlying how quality management systems work in service contexts.” This is a purpose too general. Authors should expand their reasoning highlighting clearly what is the research question or what are the concrete purposes of the research. Authors should also add a few insights about methodological issues.
· Concerning the “Literature Review and Hypotheses Development” section, authors should consider updating their reasoning, including more recent sources/references (also applying to the discussion section). Regarding bibliographical sources, consideration of more recent references would add value to the paper, namely those contributions in the most recent period 2014-2017/18: As far as I see, there are only 4 references to scientific papers in the period 2017-2018. Moreover, almost one third of the references were published more than 20 years ago. The topic is quite popular, and there are several results available within 3-5 years. I suggest checking relevant journals paper about QMS in the services sector. Summarizing the main findings in a table would certainly improve the value of the paper.
· Regarding the “Methodology” section, authors highlight that “The Chinese version of the instrument was tested in a pilot study involving three researchers and ten QMS practitioners in service organizations”. What about the English version? Authors didn’t perform a pre-test? Why? Moreover, author should consider adding any additional information about the sample’s representativeness (e.g. margin of error, confidence level).
· Finally, in my opinion, authors should also enhance how the paper contributes to the theory on quality management systems.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
1st Point: According to the authors, the “study aims to explore the mechanisms underlying how quality management systems work in service contexts”. I believe that there is still need to conduct researches focusing on the development/implementation of quality management systems in services, and its influence on performance. Any attempt to explore such research field is certainly noteworthy. Moreover, the paper is well organized and the reading flows.
Our response: Thanks very much for your comment.
2nd Point: Overall, I think that the paper may rise to the standards expected by the journal. Briefly, the paper contributes with interesting additional insights although I think that the paper needs a revision. In fact, as a reviewer, I have few concerns that I would like to bring up: In the introduction section, authors could improve their reasoning concerning the gaps in literature and how the study fits in this context, highlighting better the relevance of the study. Moreover, according to authors, “This study aims to explore the mechanisms underlying how quality management systems work in service contexts.” This is a purpose too general. Authors should expand their reasoning highlighting clearly what is the research question or what are the concrete purposes of the research. Authors should also add a few insights about methodological issues.
Our response: Thanks very much for your comment and suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we presented two specific research questions and highlighted the contributions of the study as (as suggested by you):
“…Specifically, the study aims to answer the following two research questions. What are the relationships between different QMS components in service contexts? Will task conflict affect relationship management? The findings of the study can shed light on identifying the underlying mechanism of quality management systems and whether task conflict has an influence on quality management.”
3rd Point: Concerning the “Literature Review and Hypotheses Development” section, authors should consider updating their reasoning, including more recent sources/references (also applying to the discussion section). Regarding bibliographical sources, consideration of more recent references would add value to the paper, namely those contributions in the most recent period 2014-2017/18: As far as I see, there are only 4 references to scientific papers in the period 2017-2018. Moreover, almost one third of the references were published more than 20 years ago. The topic is quite popular, and there are several results available within 3-5 years. I suggest checking relevant journals paper about QMS in the services sector. Summarizing the main findings in a table would certainly improve the value of the paper.
Our response: Thanks so much for your comment and suggestion. As suggested by you, we reviewed the manuscript and some recent articles about quality management or quality management systems. We included the following articles in text and references and presented their findings in text:
Djofack, Sidonie, and Marco Antonio Robledo Camacho. 2017. Implementation of ISO 9001 in the Spanish tourism industry. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 34(1): 18-37.
Jaca, Carmen, and Evangelos Psomas. 2015. Total quality management practices and performance outcomes in Spanish service companies. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 26(9-10): 958-70.
José Tarí, Juan, Iñaki Heras-Saizarbitoria, and Jorge Pereira. 2013. Internalization of quality management in service organizations. Managing Service Quality 23(6): 456-73.
Kumar, Mukesh, K. S. Sujit, and Vincent Charles. 2018. Deriving managerial implications through SERVQUAL gap elasticity in UAE banking. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 35(4): 940-64.
Ramanathan, Usha, Sandar Win, and Andreas Wien. 2018. A SERVQUAL approach to identifying the influences of service quality on leasing market segment in the German financial sector. Benchmarking: An International Journal 25(6): 1935-55.
Stamenkov, Gjoko, and Zamir Dika. 2015. A sustainable e-service quality model. Journal of Service Theory and Practice 25(4): 414-42.
Wang, Cheng-Hua, Kuan-Yu Chen, and Shiu-Chun Chen. 2012. Total quality management, market orientation and hotel performance: The moderating effects of external environmental factors. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31(1): 119-29.
We also deleted the following four articles (all before 2010):
Gupta, Atul, Jason C. McDaniel, and S. Kanthi Herath. 2005. Quality management in service firms: Sustaining structures of total quality service. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 15(4): 389-402.
Gustafsson, Anders, Lars Nilsson, and Michael D. Johnson. 2003. The role of quality practices in service organizations. International Journal of Service Industry Management 14(2): 232-44.
Raposo, Mário Lino, Helena Maria Alves, and Paulo Alexandre Duarte. 2009. Dimensions of service quality and satisfaction in healthcare: A patient’s satisfaction index. Service Business 3(1): 85-100.
Sureshchandar, G. S., Chandrasekharan Rajendran, and R. N. Anantharaman. 2001. A conceptual model for total quality management in service organizations. Total Quality Management 12(3): 343-63.
4th Point: Regarding the “Methodology” section, authors highlight that “The Chinese version of the instrument was tested in a pilot study involving three researchers and ten QMS practitioners in service organizations”. What about the English version? Authors didn’t perform a pre-test? Why? Moreover, author should consider adding any additional information about the sample’s representativeness (e.g. margin of error, confidence level).
Our response: Thanks very much for your comment. As all English items were adapted/adopted from the extent literature, we asked two researchers to check the items’ content validity (instead of using a pilot test). In the revised manuscript, we clarified in the third sentence of Section 3.3 as:
“…The English version of the instrument was checked independently by two researchers and the Chinese version of the instrument was tested in a pilot study involving three researchers and ten QMS practitioners in service organizations….”
In the end of Section 3.2, we reported the margin of error and level of confidence as (as suggested by you):
“…. This sample size would produce a margin of error of 4.4% at a 95 percent confidence level.”
5th Point: Finally, in my opinion, authors should also enhance how the paper contributes to the theory on quality management systems.
Our response: Thanks very much for your comment. We added the following sentence as the last sentence in the second last paragraph of Introduction as:
“…The findings of the study can shed light on identifying the underlying mechanism of quality management systems and whether task conflict has an influence on quality management.
We also expanded our Conclusions as:
“This study explored the direct and indirect relationships between different QMS components and the role of task conflict in the relationships. Based on responses from 495 members working in Macao’s service organizations, the structural equation modeling results confirmed that customer focus and leadership and customer focus are key drivers of other QMS components such as evidence-based decision making, use of quality assurance tools, and improvement. Specifically, customer focus was found to have the largest direct and total effect on improvement. Leadership i.e. the supportive behaviors of top management towards quality management was found to have a strong, significant influence on process approach, engagement of people and relationship management, and a moderate, significant influence on evidence-based decision making. Moreover, task conflict was found to have a weak but significant effect on relationship management. The findings of the study demonstrated that service organizations must continuously perceive customer needs and measure and analyze customer satisfaction and organizational leaders must exhibit supportive behaviors to manage internal and external relationships with employees and suppliers.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper examines the mechanism that links the different components of a quality management system to improvement and the role that task conflicts play in this mechanism by applying data deriving from service companies operating in Macao. The result highlights the role of leadership and appears to be quite disconcerting. As well as the fact that task conflicts are weakly but significantly correlated with relationship management. It is difficult to understand, in the current edition, how it could contribute to a deeper understanding of the role of quality management systems in services contexts.
In the introduction the literature is often dated. For example, in line 38 the authors write…." in recent years” and the most recent quote dates back to 2009.
Then, I would ask the authors to clearly reformulate the text from line 53 to line 62.
Honestly it is difficult to link what the authors write with the aim of the paper.
In the Table 1 there is an error in class It’ written 30-29 instead of 30-39.
In managerial implications, I think that the analysis is very weak. For example, I would ask the authors to better specify the meaning of the sentence on line 380. What does this mean? Is it very generic? Is it possible to contextualize it?
In the conclusions I would ask to better specify the meaning of the sentence on line 402.
I agree with the previous conclusion, although very obvious.
It would be appropriate, in my opinion, to explain how the leadership can act in a more contextualized way.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
1st Point: The paper examines the mechanism that links the different components of a quality management system to improvement and the role that task conflicts play in this mechanism by applying data deriving from service companies operating in Macao. The result highlights the role of leadership and appears to be quite disconcerting. As well as the fact that task conflicts are weakly but significantly correlated with relationship management. It is difficult to understand, in the current edition, how it could contribute to a deeper understanding of the role of quality management systems in services contexts.
Our response: Thanks very much for your comment. We incorporated all your suggestions and hopefully we explicitly indicated our contributions more clearly in the revised manuscript. More specifically, we presented two research questions and highlighted the contributions of the study in the second last sentence of Introduction as:
“…Specifically, the study aims to answer the following two research questions. What are the relationships between different QMS components in service contexts? Will task conflict affect relationship management? The findings of the study can shed light on identifying the underlying mechanism of quality management systems and whether task conflict has an influence on quality management.”
2nd Point: In the introduction the literature is often dated. For example, in line 38 the authors write…." in recent years” and the most recent quote dates back to 2009.
Our response: Thanks very much for your comment and suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we rewrote it as:
“Quality management in service organizations has become one of the hottest research topics in recent years (Jaca and Psomas 2015; José Tarí et al. 2013; Lee et al. 2009; Wang et al. 2012).
In this connection, the following three references were added:
Jaca, Carmen, and Evangelos Psomas. 2015. Total quality management practices and performance outcomes in Spanish service companies. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 26(9-10): 958-70.
José Tarí, Juan, Iñaki Heras-Saizarbitoria, and Jorge Pereira. 2013. Internalization of quality management in service organizations. Managing Service Quality 23(6): 456-73.
Wang, Cheng-Hua, Kuan-Yu Chen, and Shiu-Chun Chen. 2012. Total quality management, market orientation and hotel performance: The moderating effects of external environmental factors. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31(1): 119-29.
3rd Point: Then, I would ask the authors to clearly reformulate the text from line 53 to line 62. Honestly it is difficult to link what the authors write with the aim of the paper.
Our response: Thanks very much for your comment. As suggested by you, we rewrote this part as:
“In the hospitality industry, service organizations such as restaurants, hotels, and casinos tend to adopt flatter organizational structures so that top management can empower employees to be more responsive to customer needs and influence quality practices more directly (Lashley 2012). In addition, quality-related employees work personally and closely with suppliers and customers. Because of these special characteristics, the mechanism by which QMS components work together to achieve continual improvement can be different from the sequential framework advocated by the ISO in which organizational leaders manages firm resources, with customer inputs to produce services, and then monitor the level of customer satisfaction. On the other hand, organizational work teams consist of members with diverse backgrounds and perspectives. Conflict is unavoidable when members of the team that may include members of service suppliers make complex decisions. The ambiguous nature of complex issues induces task-related or person-oriented incompatibilities among team members (Janssen et al. 1999). Janssen et al. (1999) argued that task conflict could enhance organizational performance by utilizing diverse inputs from members while personal conflict adversely influenced organizational performance. Specifically, the study aims to answer the following two research questions. What are the relationships between different QMS components in service contexts? Will task conflict affect relationship management? The findings of the study can shed light on identifying the underlying mechanism of quality management systems and whether task conflict has an influence on quality management.”
4th Point: In the Table 1 there is an error in class It’ written 30-29 instead of 30-39.
Our response: Thanks for your comment. We corrected this typing mistake in the revised manuscript.
5th Point: In managerial implications, I think that the analysis is very weak. For example, I would ask the authors to better specify the meaning of the sentence on line 380. What does this mean? Is it very generic? Is it possible to contextualize it?
Our response: Thanks for your comment. In the revised manuscript, we clarified that:
“…Moreover, a service, unlike tangible goods, is produced and consumed simultaneously and the quality of service is determined by the moment of truth, i.e. during that particular time the service firm and/or its employees can demonstrate to the customer the quality of its services (Gronroos 2011).
In this connection, the following reference (a book about the Moment of Truth) was added:
Gronroos, Christian. 2011. Management and Marketing: Marketing the Moment of Truth in Service Competition. Lexington, US: Lexington Books.
6th Point: In the conclusions I would ask to better specify the meaning of the sentence on line 402.
Our response: Thanks for your comment. We clarified that:
“…the structural equation modeling results confirmed that customer focus and leadership are key drivers of other QMS components such as evidence-based decision making, use of quality assurance tools, and improvement.”
7th Point: I agree with the previous conclusion, although very obvious. It would be appropriate, in my opinion, to explain how the leadership can act in a more contextualized way.
Our response: Thanks very much for your comment. In the revised manuscript, we provided more details as:
“…Leadership i.e. the supportive behaviors of top management towards quality management was found to have a strong, significant influence on process approach, engagement of people and relationship management, and a moderate, significant influence on evidence-based decision making. Moreover, task conflict was found to have a weak but significant effect on relationship management. The findings of the study demonstrated that service organizations must continuously perceive customer needs and measure and analyze customer satisfaction and organizational leaders must exhibit supportive behaviors to manage internal and external relationships with employees and suppliers.”
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Well done!
