Comparison of quality management for externally sourced business services

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this paper is to investigate to what extent buying companies use quality management (QM) practices for their externally sourced business services (BS) and if differences between manufacturing and service as well as between large and small companies exist regarding their usage and effects.

Design/methodology/approach

The researcher collected data from a total of 252 companies using an online survey. Significant differences in the data were identified using the Mann‐Whitney‐U test.

Findings

The results show that significant differences exist in the adoption of QM practices for services and their effects on performance between manufacturing and service as well as large and small companies. Only minor differences could be detected, however, regarding barriers to QM implementation and its determinants.

Research limitations/implications

The findings cast doubt on the notion of universal applicability of QM and suggest taking contextual factors into account when examining QM.

Practical implications

The study indicates that QM for externally sourced BSs can have positive effects on the performance of the buying company. In contrast to QM for goods, manufacturers can learn from service providers in order to improve their QM for services.

Originality/value

This study fills a theoretical gap as previous literature has predominantly adopted the perspective of a goods or service provider and did not specifically address quality management for externally sourced services. The findings provide more insights into how manufacturing, service, large and small companies implement QM for externally purchased services. The results imply that the implementation of QM for these services without adjusting to contingent factors is fraught with risk.

Citation

Holschbach, E. (2013), "Comparison of quality management for externally sourced business services", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 530-570. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656711311315503