The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm
IJQRM
23,1
102
International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management Vol. 23 No.
1, 2006 pp. 102-112 q Emerald
Group
Publishing Limited 0265-671X
DOI 10.1108/02656710610637578
A management control perspective of
quality management
An example in the automotive sector
Jos van Iwaarden, Ton van der Wiele and Roger Williams
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and
Barrie Dale
Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Abstract
Purpose – In many industries (e.g. cars and clothing) manufacturing complexity and unpredictability
have increased over the last couple of years because of an increasing variety of products and
shortening product life cycles. At the same time the manufacturers in these industries appear to have
more problems with maintaining high quality levels. This paper aims to develop a methodology to
study the effects of these developments on quality management systems.
Design/methodology/approach – At three European automotive manufacturers the two trends have
been studied by means of a case study approach. Simons’ four levers of control model is utilised to
categorise and interpret the results of the case studies.
Findings – The application of a management control model in the field of quality management is
found to be useful in explaining what changes are necessary to maintain high quality levels. From the
case studies in the automotive sector it is concluded that there is a shift in quality management
systems from a diagnostic towards a more interactive approach. This is in line with what can be
expected as a result of the increasing uncertainty in the automotive sector, caused by shortening life
cycles of car models and smaller batch sizes.
Originality/value – This research presents a novel application of Simons’ four levers of control model
to the field of quality management. Based on the experience with three case studies at European
automotive manufacturers, this approach seems to have potential. Keywords Automotive industry,
Product life cycle, Quality management Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Two important trends in the current business climate are an increasing product variety
for customers and shortening product life cycles (Pine, 1993; Da Silveira et al., 2001;
The Economist, 2001). An increasing product variety can be seen in the ever-
increasing supply of and demand for alternative products and services in the market
place. These days, customers can chose from many different types, colours, flavours
and sizes of products. At the same time product life cycles are becoming shorter in
many industries because products are being increasingly influenced by fashion trends
and more severe (global) competition. Increasing product variety and shortening
product life cycles may have major implications for many management control
systems. This paper studies their effect on one of these control systems: quality
management. Although quality management has often been advocated as a universal
system that applies to all
 Quali
manageme
organisations, research has shown that it is in fact context dependent (Sitkin et al., 1994;
Sousa and Voss, 2001).
In order to manage quality, organisations typically aim to do three things: cement
relationships with customers (and other stakeholders), reduce variation in key
processes, and improve processes and products in a continuous step-by-step manner.
So, quality management control systems are typically based on measures of customer
satisfaction, reduction of variation and step-by-step continuous improvement (Dean 103
and Bowen, 1994; Wilkinson et al., 1998; Handfield and Melnyk, 1998; Dale et al., 2000;
Dale, 2003).
However, the relevance and effectiveness of all of these are influenced by
increasing product variety and shortening product life cycles. The increasing speed of
change may subject the classic step-by-step plan-do-check-act (PDCA) based
performance improvement loops to major strain. Since an updated product or process
may already be in place before any improvements projected can be implemented
(Sitkin et al., 1994). Moreover, many of the traditional tools and techniques aiming at
reducing variation assume large batches of the same or similar products that are
repeated over time. But batches are becoming smaller and the likelihood that a process
will be repeated in exactly the same form is decreasing (Von Corswant and
Fredriksson, 2002). So, the possibility of variation increasing is occurring at the same
time as the basic assumptions required for traditional reduction of variation are under
attack (Sitkin et al., 1994). Therefore, many of the currently used quality management
systems of firms are based on assumptions that are challenged by the two trends and it
is questionable whether these quality management systems are still useful in the
traditional format.
The empirical part of this paper is based on case study research undertaken at three
European automotive companies. The automotive industry is interesting for a number
of reasons. Firstly, it has from the beginning been leading edge in quality management
(e.g. Toyota) (Dale et al., 2000; Womack et al., 1990). Secondly, increasing product
variety and shortening product life cycles are already visible in the automotive
industry (Pine, 1993; The Economist, 2001; Von Corswant and Fredriksson, 2002;
Womack et al., 1990; Alford et al., 2000; Agrawal et al., 2001). Car manufacturers
introduce new models at a high pace and the option lists for cars are becoming
increasingly longer, although many features that used to be options in the past have
now become standard equipment. Life cycles are under pressure because sales drop
rapidly after a few years of production and even face-lifts can do little to counter this.
Thirdly, in an effort to retain as much as possible of mass production, many
automotive firms are sharing platforms with other brands in the same firm or with
competing firms. This indicates that manufacturers are trying to reduce complexity by
sticking to traditional mass production as much as possible, while on the other hand
they try to offer customers the experience of a unique car. Fourthly, current quality
management systems are clearly under strain in the automotive industry since the
number of product recalls has risen sharply (Simon, 2004). To complicate matters,
many of these recalls are not caused by internal problems at the car manufacturers but
they arise from problems at their suppliers and even at sub-suppliers.
This paper argues that quality management systems need to adapt to cope with
increasing product variety and shortening product life cycles. Explorative empirical
IJQRM
23,1
research by means of case studies at three European automotive companies provides
an indication of how quality management systems could develop.
Quality as a management control system
The impact of the two trends of increasing product variety and shortening product life
cycles on organisations lies in their ability to increase complexity and uncertainty. The complexity is caused
by the large number of different processes that require management attention. It is clearly more
straightforward to manage a single mass production process than to manage a number of production processes
with large 104 product varieties. The uncertainty is caused by the constant flow of new product
introductions and product updates, which imply that success in the market place may
last only for a short period of time. Once competitors introduce new versions of their products the balance
may shift again. Prater et al. (2001) point out that any business environment is a mixture of stability
(predictability) and instability (adaptation to changes). Yet increasing product variety and shortening product
life cycles are moving many firms towards more unpredictability and instability. Sitkin et al. (1994) argue that
quality management with its focus on customer requirements, continuous improvement and the total
organisational system, is basically a cybernetic control system. They go on to claim that such control systems
require “a certain degree of task routineness and a moderate to high amount of certainty”, which implies that
“cybernetic control systems are less appropriate in situations of high uncertainty”. A more recent survey by
Mehra et al. (2001) among quality experts led to the conclusion that quality management has to change
radically in the short term, and that instantaneous response to changing market demands will be the single
most important challenge of the future for quality management.
Consequently, to study the effects of increasing product variety and shortening
product life cycles on quality management, a model is needed that can distinguish
between, on the one hand, simple and stable environments and, on the other hand,
complex and unpredictable environments. Existing quality models like the quality
award and business excellence models (e.g. Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award, European Business Excellence Award, and the Deming Prize) are not
appropriate for this purpose because they do not make this distinction. Therefore, it is
necessary to search for an appropriate model outside the quality field. Sitkin et al.
(1994) argue that:
Researchers must look beyond current approaches to total quality management for an
approach to quality that can work under conditions characterised by high uncertainty and
nonroutineness.
On the basis of a study of the quality management literature (e.g. Dean and Bowen,
1994; Wilkinson et al., 1998; Handfield and Melnyk, 1998; Dale et al., 2000; Dale,
2003) it can be concluded that quality management consists of three core building
blocks, which are customer orientation, process control, and continuous improvement.
Based on these three building blocks it can be argued that quality management can be
seen as a control system since it is aiming to control an organisation’s processes and
to improve and change these processes in response to changes. Therefore, a logical
place to look for a model is in the field of management control. Such a model that can
distinguish between, on the one hand, simple and stable environments and, on the
other hand, complex and unpredictable environments, is Simons’ four levers of
control model (Simons, 1995). This model is widely used in management control
literature (Ramos and Hidalgo, 2003). The model is shown in Figure 1.
 Quali
manageme

105

Figure 1.

Simons’ four levers of control model

Simons’ four levers of control model is used to balance control mechanisms in an

organisation in order to realise the business strategy. The model distinguishes four
different types of control mechanisms:
(1) Beliefs systems.
(2) Boundary systems.
(3) Diagnostic control systems.
(4) Interactive controls systems.

Two of these four levers increase individual freedom (i.e. beliefs systems and
interactive control systems), and two restrict individual freedom (i.e. boundary
systems and diagnostic control systems).
Beliefs systems are used to inspire and direct the search for new opportunities. A
beliefs system is the explicit set of organisational definitions that senior managers
communicate formally and reinforce systematically to provide basic values, purpose,
and direction for the organisation. The definitions espouse the values and direction
that senior managers want subordinates to adopt. These core values are linked to the
business strategy of the firm. A formal beliefs system is created and communicated
through such documents as credos, mission statements, and statements of purpose.
Boundary systems are used to set limits on opportunity-seeking behaviour.
Boundary systems delineate the acceptable domain of activity for organisational
participants. Unlike beliefs systems, boundary systems do not specify positive ideals.
Instead, they establish limits, based on defined business risks, to opportunity
seeking.Diagnostic control systems are used to motivate, monitor, and reward
achievement of specified goals. Diagnostic control systems are the formal information
systems that managers use to monitor organisational outcomes and correct deviations
from preset standards of performance. These feedback systems, which are the
backbone of traditional management control, are designed to ensure predictable goal
achievement. Three features distinguish diagnostic control systems:
IJQRM
23,1
(1) The ability to measure the outputs of a process.

106 (2)The existence of predetermined standards against which actual results can becompared.

(3) The ability to correct deviations from standards.

Interactive control systems are used to stimulate organisational learning and the
emergence of new ideas and strategies. Interactive control systems are formal
communication systems that managers use to involve themselves regularly and
personally in the decision activities of subordinates. Based on the unique strategic
uncertainties they perceive, managers use these systems to activate search. Interactive
control systems focus attention and force dialogue throughout the organisation. They
provide frameworks, or agendas, for debate, and motivate information gathering
outside of routine channels. These control systems stimulate search and learning,
allowing new strategies to emerge as participants throughout the organisation respond
to perceived opportunities and threats. An interactive control system is not a unique
type of control system: many types of control systems can be used interactively by
senior managers.
The four different control levers in the model of Simons and their relation to
strategy are summarised in Table I.
Any control system in an organisation can be classified according to the types that
Simons (1995, 1999) distinguishes. The four different types of control systems work
together to realise the business strategy. To be able to do this successfully, there
should be a balance between the different types of control systems. If there is too
much focus on just one or two types of control systems, the organisation may have
difficulties in realising its strategy.
The right mix of control systems depends partly on environmental factors like the
predictability and complexity of the market in which the organisation is operating. If
the environment is predictable and not complex, an organisation can put more
Control system Purpose Communicates Control of strategy as

Beliefs systems Empower and expand Vision Perspective

search activity
Boundary systems Provide limits of Strategic domain Competitive position
freedom
Diagnostic control Coordinate and monitor Plans and goals Plan
systems the implementation of
intended strategies
Interactive control Stimulate and guide Strategic uncertainties Pattern of actions
Table I.
systems emergent strategies
Relating the four levers of
control to strategy Source: Simons (1995, p. 304)
emphasis on the diagnostic control systems and boundary systems. However, if the
environment is unpredictable and complex, a stronger focus on beliefs systems and
interactive control systems is necessary. In the current environment the two trends of
 Quali
manageme
increasing product variety and shortening product life cycles bring about
unpredictability and complexity for many organisations.
The same reasoning that applies to general control systems also applies to specific
control systems, like quality management. Therefore, quality management systems 107
can also be classified according to the four levers of Simons’ model. Moreover, the two
mentioned trends of increasing product variety and shortening product life cycles are
expected to have a major impact on quality management. So, a shift is expected from a major focus on
diagnostic quality management systems to a more important role for interactive quality management systems.

Methodology
To empirically test the hypothesised shift towards an increased importance of beliefs
systems and interactive control systems in a situation of uncertainty and complexity,
three case studies have been conducted at European automotive manufacturers
(OEMs). Because of the explorative nature of this research, a case study approach is a
suitable methodology (Yin, 2003).
In all three organisations interviews have been held with the quality manager,
supply chain manager, logistics manager, production manager, and human resources
manager. In addition, three relevant first tier suppliers have been selected by the
quality managers of each of the OEMs. At each of these suppliers interviews were
held with the quality manager or the account manager for the OEM (in one of the
three cases with both).
All interviews were conducted by two interviewers and each interview took
between 1.5 and 3 hours. The interviews inside the OEM organisation were all
focused on the changes in management systems that have taken place over the last ten
years in the field of responsibility of the interviewee. The interviews at the suppliers
focused on the changes that have taken place in the way the relationship between the
supplier and the OEM is managed by the OEM. Each interview was written down by
both interviewers and, based on these two write-ups, a final write-up of the interview
was produced. Out of these write-ups the most important quality management issues
and developments were derived by means of discussions between the two interviewers
and a group of academic quality experts. The derived issues and developments were
presented to the interviewees during a discussion meeting in which these managers
could express their perceptions and opinions.
In addition to the interviews at the OEMs and the suppliers, information has been
collected by means of plant tours and by studying minutes of relevant meetings and quality
management procedures and policies.

Application of the Simons model

Before discussing the cases, the interpretation of the Simons model is elaborated on in
general. The Simons model is used in the following way for each of the three cases:
(1) Elements of the quality management control system are positioned in the four quadrants of the Simons
model (i.e. beliefs systems, boundary systems, diagnostic control systems, and interactive controls
systems) by assessing the focus of each of these elements. Some elements may fit more than one
quadrant of the Simons model, however we group them on the basis of their major focus.
(2) The shifts over time are identified by comparing the current situation with the situation five to ten
years before.
IJQRM
23,1
(3) The future trends are defined based on the current developments and the 108 expectations about
developments that are becoming more important in thecoming five to ten years.

In the interviews we focus as much as possible on concrete examples of developments

and changes that have taken place over time in the quality management system of
each of the three case companies. Based on these developments we were able to
develop insights into the positioning of the quality management system in relation to
the four quadrants of the Simons model. By positioning the elements of the quality
management system that are relevant at different moments in time, trends are
emerging.
Three case studies at European OEMs have been undertaken. Some basic
information about the cases is presented in Table II.

Interpreting the results of the case studies

The results of the case studies at the three OEMs have been interpreted by means of
the Simons model by placing the identified quality management elements and
developments in the four levers. This means that each element or development has
been judged by a group of academic quality experts and positioned in one or more
levers of the Simons model. Figure 2 shows an example of developments and issues
in the area of process control in one of the three case studies. The numbering
indicates the sequence of developments. Solid arrows indicate a development that has
happened already, while dashed arrows indicate a current development or
planned/expected future development for which already some evidence has been
found.
The developments in Figure 2 can be described as follows. Over the years the
importance of the supply chain has increased for this manufacturer and parallel to this
there has been an evolution in the management and control of the quality of the
suppliers. More than five years ago this manufacturer used incoming inspection to
diagnostically measure the quality of incoming supplies. So, in this stage the quality
management system used can be classed as a diagnostic control system because it
Company A Company B Company C

Market segment Trucks Small cars Lower premium cars

Type of production Brand responsibility Contract manufacturing Production location

Annual production volume 45,000 150,000 80,000

Number of different models

assembled 2 3 1
Number of employees 3,500 4,300 2,000

Factory location The Netherlands The Netherlands UK

 Quali
manageme
Table II. Number of first tier 400 250 220
Characteristics of the suppliers Major suppliers No Yes Yes
cases studied on-site in supplier park

109
Figure 2.
An example of
developments and issues
in an OEM’s process
control

measured the compliance to preset quality standards. When this manufacturer realised the amount of time and
resources this policy was consuming, it started to move towards quality assurance by means of supplier
assessments and ratings. With this, the quality performance of each supplier is monitored on a day-to-day
basis and recorded in a supplier database. The ratings of suppliers are used in the decision process that takes
place when new supply contracts are given to suppliers. As the quality management system uses
predetermined performance measures that lead to a ranking of suppliers from which the top performing
suppliers will be selected for future contracts, it is again diagnostic in nature. In recent years, a development
has been started towards co-development between the manufacturer and its suppliers, requiring
communication and discussion about new products. For example, the manufacturer reveals its plans for future
products to its suppliers and asks for comments on how to identify and address possible quality problems
whilst the product is still in the design phase. This is an interactive way, as the manufacturer discusses its new
designs with suppliers and uses the knowledge and experience of these suppliers to improve the product
design.
Because the sequence of developments in time is known, it becomes clear which levers were important at
specific moments in time and which receive the most attention. From Figure 2 it becomes clear that the
supplier focus of this manufacturer has shifted over time from the right side of the matrix (i.e. diagnostic
control systems) towards the left side (i.e. interactive control systems). However, this shift does not mean that
a previous lever gets no attention once the focus is on another lever. In most cases the manufacturers in this
research kept existing quality management systems in place but felt the need to put more emphasis on
different kinds of quality management systems in order to achieve their quality strategy.
Figure 2 also shows that (for the example presented) two levers of the Simons model (i.e. beliefs systems
and boundary systems) receive no attention because there is no quality management system in place in the
organisation that controls the suppliers from the perspective of these two levers. The absence of certain levers
in the management of the quality of the manufacturer’s suppliers is clearly demonstrated by the matrix in
Figure 2, which allows managers to think about the consequences of missing levers. In the example in Figure
2 there is no boundary system (i.e. the manufacturer has imposed no clear boundaries for the quality level of
its suppliers).
This indicates that top management thinks that such boundaries are not necessary
because the ranking systems that are in place ensure that only the best performing suppliers are awarded new
contracts. Therefore, it may not be necessary to define minimum quality levels. However, the boundary
systems do not only define minimum levels of quality but also maximum levels. These maximum levels may
IJQRM
23,1
be just as important as minimum levels because superior quality may come at a high price. So, 110 although
it may be desirable to have the highest possible quality, this may not be the smartest
strategy from a cost perspective. In the automotive industry, products need to last only for a limited number of
years, so it is not necessary to manufacture car parts that last. This suggests that the relationship between the
technical lifespan of a car part and its costs is important. If increasing the technical lifespan means that the
costs go up, the manufacturer should question whether it is really necessary to go for the highest quality car
part with the longest lifespan.
It can be argued that the presence of quality management issues and their
developments over time in relation to the different levers of the Simons model may
give an indication of the quality maturity of the organisation. So, if a company has
quality management systems in all four levers of the Simons model, it may be more
quality mature than a company that does not have quality management systems in all
four levers.

Conclusions
In the current business environment the two trends of increasing product variety and
shortening product life cycles have an impact on the quality management system of
firms. The automotive sector has been chosen as research area because it is
experiencing the influence of both these trends. In this paper a methodology has been
developed that uses Simons’ four levers of control model to categorise quality
management systems. Based on this methodology it is possible to indicate the
direction in which changes in quality management systems are needed.
From the three case studies it has become clear that many quality management
elements have been in the area of diagnostic control already for a long time. More
recently, a shift is becoming visible in which also elements are emerging that can be
defined as interactive control approaches. This is in line with the theoretical
assumptions of the Simons model, which imply that in situations of uncertainty more
interactive forms of control are needed.
The presence of quality management issues and their developments over time in
relation to the different levers of the Simons model give also an indication of the
quality maturity of the organisation. If a company has quality management systems in
all four levers of the Simons model, it may be more quality mature than a company
that does not have quality management systems in all four levers.
This research has presented a novel application of Simons’ four levers of control
model to the field of quality management. Based on the experience with three case
studies at European automotive manufacturers, this approach seems to have potential.
However, the methodology that has been used for this research needs to be developed
further to improve its usefulness for scientific research and practical application.
References
Agrawal, M., Kumaresh, T.V. and Mercer, G.A. (2001), “The false promise of mass
customization”, The McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 62-71.
Alford, D., Sackett, P. and Nelder, G. (2000), “Mass customisation: an automotive perspective”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 99-110.
 Quali
manageme
Da Silveira, G., Borenstein, D. and Fogliatto, F.S. (2001), “Mass customization: literature
review

and research directions”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 72 No. 1,

111 pp. 1-13.
Dale, B.G. (2003), Managing Quality, 4th ed., Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Dale, B.G., Zairi, M., van der Wiele, A. and Williams, A.R.T. (2000), “Quality is dead in
Europe: long live excellence, true or false?”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 4 No.
3, pp. 4-10.
Dean, J.W. and Bowen, D.E. (1994), “Management theory and total quality: improving research
and practice through theory development”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol.
19 No. 3, pp. 392-418.
(The) Economist (2001), “A long march, mass customisation”, The Economist, 12 July.
Handfield, R.B. and Melnyk, S.A. (1998), “The scientific theory-building process: a primer
using the case of TQM”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 321-39.
Mehra, S., Hoffman, J.M. and Sirias, D. (2001), “TQM as a management strategy for the next
millennia”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 Nos
5/6, pp. 855-76.
Pine, B.J. II (1993), Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Prater, E., Biehl, M. and Smith, M.A. (2001), “International supply chain agility, tradeoffs
between flexibility and uncertainty”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 21 Nos 5/6, pp. 823-39.
Ramos, M.M. and Hidalgo, F.G. (2003), “From diagnostic to interactive style of management
control”, Management Research News, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 21-31.
Simon, B. (2004), “Vehicle recalls hit new high”, The Financial Times, 5 November.
Simons, R. (1995), Levers of Control: How Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive
Strategic Renewal, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Simons, R. (1999), Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy,
Text and Cases, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Sitkin, S.B., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Schroeder, R.G. (1994), “Distinguishing control from learning
in total quality management: a contingency perspective”, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 537-63.
Sousa, R. and Voss, C.A. (2001), “Quality management: universal or context dependent?”,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 383-404.
Von Corswant, F. and Fredriksson, P. (2002), “Sourcing trends in the car industry, a survey of
car manufacturers’ and suppliers’ strategies and relations”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 741-58.
Wilkinson, A., Redman, T., Snape, E. and Marchington, M. (1998), Managing with Total
Quality Management, Theory and Practice, Macmillan Press, London.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World,
Macmillan, New York, NY.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, London.
About the authors
IJQRM
23,1
Jos van Iwaarden, the corresponding author, can be contacted at the Erasmus University
Rotterdam, Room H16-07, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Tel:
þ31104081321; Fax: þ31104089169; E-mail: vaniwaarden@few.eur.nl
Ton van der Wiele can be contacted at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, Room H15-06,
PO Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Tel: þ31104081354; Fax: þ31104089169;
E-mail: vanderwiele@few.eur.nl

112 Roger Williams can be contacted at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, Room H15-06, PO
Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Tel: þ31104081353; Fax þ31104089169; E-
mail: williams@few.eur.nl
Barrie Dale can be contacted at the Manchester Business School, University of Manchester,
Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, UK. Tel: þ441612003424; Fax þ441612008799; E-
mail: barrie.dale@umist.ac.uk

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

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