Journal of Cleaner Production 258 (2020) 120820

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

Are QM models aligned with Industry 4.0? A perspective on current

practices
Muhammad Asif
College of Business Administration, Prince Sultan University, Saudi Arabia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The latest technological developments epitomized in Industry 4.0 have created a disruptive effect on the
Received 8 November 2018 production/service systems and value chains. Industry 4.0, building on the integration of information and
Received in revised form communication technologies, Internet of things, robotics, additive manufacturing, and artificial intelli-
29 July 2019
gence, aims for developing autonomous and dynamic operations to enable the mass production of highly
Accepted 27 February 2020
Available online 29 February 2020
customized products. Industry 4.0 and quality management share the same objective, that is, improving
process performance, yet through different trajectories. However, notwithstanding Industry 4.0 de-
Handling editor: Tomas B. Ramos velopments, quality management models have remained stagnant and failed to keep abreast of these
advancements. This paper evaluates the alignment of quality management models with Industry 4.0. The
Keywords: paper shows that quality models are not congruent with Industry 4.0. The former build on the paradigm
Quality management models that supports establishing formal systems, compliance with specifications, and meeting requirements
Industry 4.0 which are quite irrelevant to Industry 4.0. The paper compares the features of Industry 4.0 against quality
Artificial intelligence models, highlights inadequacies in quality models, and develops recommendations for future quality
Alignment
models. This study is the first to review quality management models in light of the Industry 4.0
Business ecosystem
developments.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. QM models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Industry 4.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Are QM models aligned with Industry 4.0? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Mindful QM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Intellectual capital management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. Making quality predictions from big data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.4. Lean organizational structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.5. Managing networked firms in business ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Limitations and future research directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1. Introduction

Quality of a product or service is viewed as a sustainable source

of competitive advantage (Cf. brand image, prestige, and product
E-mail address: masif@psu.edu.sa.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120820
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 M. Asif / Journal of Cleaner Production 258 (2020) 120820
features). Firms strive to differentiate themselves from others
based on the quality of their products and services, e.g., Apple,
Michelin tires, Ritz Carlton hotels, and Toyota Motors (Dess et al.,
2016). Accordingly, firms seek to convey confidence to their cus-
tomers and other stakeholders in the adequacy of their quality
systems by implementing QM models. The implementation of
quality models (such as ISO 9001 or TQM) gives customers and
other stakeholders confidence that systems to manage quality are
in place.
Firms also endeavor to excel in technology, operations, infor-
mation systems, and support processes. These resources and ca-
pabilities are leveraged to create new competitive advantages. The
developments in the realms of technology, information systems,
knowledge management, organizational design, and business
ecosystems are now shaping the modern business. The latest ad-
vancements in these fields are epitomized in Industry 4.0 (Sanders
et al., 2016). Industry 4.0 builds on the integration of information
technology, artificial intelligence (AI), and robotics to give rise to
what is called as smart manufacturing (Kagermann et al., 2013). The
adoption of Industry 4.0 is considered as a strategy to increase
product quality, productivity, and make processes smooth and
efficient.
Quality models comprise a set of best practices that are estab-
lished to improve quality and process performance. Industry 4.0
and QM share the same objectives of improving quality, produc-
tivity, and flexibility, yet their modus operandi are entirely
different. QM models proceed through the implementation of best
practices aimed at streamlining processes, reducing variation, and
adopting customer-oriented policies and procedures; whereas In-
dustry 4.0 improves process performance through the integrated
use of the latest technologies. The Internet of Things and Services
networks the entire organization to develop a smart environment.
Digitally designed intelligent machines, warehousing systems, and
smart production facilities enable end-to-end integration through
information and communication systems across the whole orga-
nization (Sanders et al., 2016). The use of AI enables accurate pre-
diction of customer demands and the management of the entire
supply chain from inbound logistics to production, outbound lo-
gistics, marketing and sales, and service (Kagermann et al., 2013).
The similarity in the objective of these two approaches raises a
question: do Industry 4.0 and QM models have complementarities/
synergies? And, if so, can they be employed together?
Research on the crossroads of QM models and Industry 4.0 is
scarce. Previous studies have explored the role of Industry 4.0 in
lean production (Sanders et al., 2016), but the compatibilities and
alignment of QM models and Industry 4.0 yet remain to be
explored. Highlighting this scarcity of literature, Gunasekaran et al.
(2018) posed a question for future research: “what changes need to
be done in QM to commit micro level human involvement with
respect to emerging new technologies such as Blockchain, The
Internet of Things, Big data, Business analytics, cyber-physical
systems and smart supply chains?” (p. 128). This paper proceeds
the discussion in this direction. The main question addressed in this
paper is:
RQ: Are QM models aligned with Industry 4.0?
To answer this question, this paper evaluates QM models against
Industry 4.0 developments to determine if quality models can
address the emerging challenges. The features of quality models are
embodied in quality practices discussed in the literature, QM
standards (ISO 9001 and ISO 9004), and excellence models (such as
EFQM, Baldrige, and Deming). Industry 4.0 and its underpinning
technologies are discussed in the literature, see, e.g., Kagermann
et al. (2013) and Tortorella and Fettermann (2018). The findings
show that QM models are not aligned with Industry 4.0. Advances
in Industry 4.0 have outpaced QM models. As a result, QM models
are losing their relevance in the modern business context. Industry
4.0 based processes will find QM models irrelevant.
The key contribution of this paper is that it highlights those
areas where QM models have been unable to keep abreast of the
latest developments. Previous studies have argued that QM can
address the changing needs of business and that QM practices are
universal in terms of applicability and performance improvement
(Rungtusanatham et al., 2005). These studies have argued that QM
may appear to have a faddish character in the beginning, but due to
a rapidly changing environment, “it will remain (or return as) an
important issue on the agenda for top management” (Williams
et al., 2004, p. 603). However, the findings of this study cast
doubt on such claims and suggest that QM models can retain their
universal applicability only if updated to align with Industry 4.0.
The paper also develops recommendations for future QM models.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: the next section
discusses research methodology followed by a discussion of QM
models and Industry 4.0. This is followed by a discussion of the
alignment of QM models with Industry 4.0. The alignment is dis-
cussed in terms of five key dimensions, including mindfulness,
intellectual capital management, making quality predictions from
big data, lean structures, and management of networked firms. The
discussion section then follows, and the paper ends with conclu-
sions, limitations, and future research directions.
2. Methodology
A review protocol was developed to search for relevant papers.
To ensure the rigor, only peer-reviewed papers were included using
the Scopus and Web of Science databases. The search was carried
out using keywords: “quality management” and “TQM” appearing
in the title and/or abstract and/or keywords. In an earlier round, a
third keyword “industr* revolution 4” (Industr* includes alterna-
tive words such as industry and industrial) was also included with
the keywords mentioned above but that did not produce any paper
in both databases. Further research using the keyword “industr*
revolution 4” revealed that only a few papers had been published in
the field of engineering, information technology, big data analysis,
and other technical fields. These papers were published mainly
during 2014-2018. The Web of Science showed only three results
for “Industr* revolution 4” for the year 2013 which clearly shows
that Industrial revolution 4.0 is a new topic and still growing.
QM and TQM literature was searched for the last ten years
(2009e2018). Quality management models have significantly
improved within this time window and developments before this
time are too outdated to be considered in the context of Industrial
revolution 4.0. The web of science and the Scopus returned 876 and
1014 results, respectively. A review of the abstracts of these papers
showed that several irrelevant papers existed in this collection and
required filtering. For example, several papers contained the key-
words ‘quality management’ and ‘TQM’ appearing isolated instead
of being a part of the main theoretical framework. To narrow down
the search results to more relevant papers, the following criteria
were applied.
First, to qualify for selection for the review process, the paper
had to discuss quality models meant for the whole business.
Accordingly, quality models focusing only on operational and
technical performance were excluded, including Shingo Prize for
operational excellence, HACCP for technical quality of food prod-
ucts, Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) for technical quality of
pharmaceutical products, Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) for
quality management in laboratory operations, and Worldwide
Responsible Accredited (formerly apparel) Production (WRAP) for
textile products quality.
Second, papers had to discuss a quality model as the main
 M. Asif / Journal of Cleaner Production 258 (2020) 120820
theoretical framework of the paper. Any paper that mentioned
quality models tangentially or in passing were excluded as such
papers cannot generate rich insights needed for this study. Third, as
an extension of the second criteria, the selected paper had to
discuss constituent practices of the relevant quality models. A
discussion of the constituent practices is needed to understand
their impact, dynamics, and relevance to Industry 4.0. Finally, the
selected papers had to discuss at least one additional theoretical
concept or management practice, such as Industry 4.0, innovation,
knowledge management, intellectual capital management, buyer-
supplier relationships, operational performance, healthcare, tech-
nology management, supply chain management, or service per-
formance. The last criteria helped to exclude several irrelevant
papers, such as those discussing only quality models, the evolution
of quality models, quality philosophies, classification of quality
practices, critical success factors, and critical failure factors of
quality management. The papers on the evolution of quality models
(Van Der Wiele and Brown, 2002) are too outdated compared to
Industry 4.0 that emerged in 2011 (Drath and Horch, 2014). The
papers on classification of quality practices mainly categorized
them into ‘soft/hard’ (Rahman, 2004; Fotopoulos and Psomas,
2009) or ‘core/infrastructural’ (Zu, 2009) making them irrelevant
to the current study. Finally, the papers on critical success factors
focused exclusively on implementation-related factors; a discus-
sion of other practices and developments, such as Industry 4.0, was
beyond the scope of these studies (Seetharaman et al., 2006;
Aquilani et al., 2017). After applying these filters, 120 papers were
shortlisted for further review. Quality management standards, ISO
9001, ISO 9004, and business excellence models (Baldrige, EFQM,
and Deming Prize) were added to these papers for review.
These papers and models were reviewed using an inductive-
deductive approach (Orzes et al., 2018). The inductive approach
was meant to learn about Industry 4.0 developments and associ-
ated challenges. The outcome of the application of the inductive
approach was an enhanced understanding of Industry 4.0 and
underpinning processes/technologies, and their role in shaping
modern supply chains, customer service, and the creation of
personalized customer experiences. In applying the inductive
approach, none of the constructs (such as Industry 4.0, AI, and big
data analytics) were defined a priori, rather they emerged from the
review. For instance, the review entailed that Industry 4.0 builds
upon nine key technologies/processes, which are autonomous ro-
bots, big data analytics, augmented reality, additive manufacturing,
the cloud, cybersecurity, the Internet of things, horizontal and
vertical system integration, and simulations. These undergirding
technologies and processes are capable of resulting in smart and
intelligent business processes capable of making self-adjustments.
Deductive approach, on the other hand, was meant to explore
how QM models address the developments associated with In-
dustry 4.0. In the deductive approach, the key technologies un-
derpinning Industry 4.0, quality models, their constituent practices
were known up front and the purpose was to determine how
quality models address these developments. The application of the
inductive-deductive approach in assessing the adequacy of quality
models is discussed in more detail in the following sections.
3. QM models
QM concerns how the personal, organizational, and societal
resources and processes are steered to achieve quality
(International Organization for Standardization, 2015). American
Society for Quality (2018) defines QM as managing activities and
resources of an organization to achieve objectives and prevent
nonconformances; and a QM system as a formalized system for
documenting processes, procedures, and responsibilities for
3
achieving quality policies and objectives. To this end, different QM
models exist to facilitate the implementation of QM systems. A
common approach is through certification to ISO 9001 standard.
This standard outlines the requirements for QM. Compliance with
these requirements is assessed through independent quality audits
(Mironeasa and Codin
a, 2013). This standard is quite popular as
more than a million organizations have implemented this standard.
Certification to this standard implies that adequate systems are in
place to manage quality. Many international buyers seek standard
certification from their suppliers as a prerequisite for business
transactions.
ISO 9004:2018 is another standard to sustain QM systems. It is a
guidance-rather than the certification-standard. While ISO 9001
brings an organization confidence in the quality of products and
services, ISO 9004 provides confidence in an organization’s ability
to achieve sustained success. ISO 9004:2018 promotes the
involvement of top management and requires them to appreciate
organizational context, factor in the task and general environment,
and discern the unique identity of the organization. ISO 9004 uses a
self-assessment approach and assists ISO 9001 with the purpose of
making organizational QM system more successful. ISO 9004 is
unique and different from ISO 9001 as it transcends product/service
quality to “quality of the organization” and achieving sustained
success. However, neither ISO 9001 nor ISO 9004 were developed
to respond to Industry 4.0 developments. Consequently, many de-
velopments which underpin Industry 4.0 remain unaddressed in
both standards.
TQM represents another approach to quality management. It
comprises three components: ‘values’, ‘tools’, and ‘methodologies’,
the purpose of which is to increase internal and external customer
satisfaction using a reduced amount of resources (Klefsjo € et al.,
2006, 2008). The common ‘values’ in TQM are: a focus on cus-
tomers, continuous improvement, focus on processes, and fact-
based decision making. ‘Tools’ are specific matrices or diagrams
(such as fishbone diagram, control charts, and process mapping),
and the ‘methodologies’ are the ways to work which consist of a
sequence of activities (Klefsjo € et al., 2008). TQM represents a
popular model for implementing QM.
Business excellence models (BEMs) provide a self-assessment
framework for organizational excellence. Three excellence models
are of particular interest: Baldrige Criteria for Performance
Excellence (2018), European Foundation for Quality Management
(EFQM, 2013) model, and Deming Prize (2019) representing
American, European, and Japanese excellence models, respectively
(Holm et al., 2015; Castilla-Polo et al., 2018; Ruokonen and Temmes,
2019). These three models are “recognized worldwide and
considered the mothers of others” (Talwar, 2011, p. 50).
In addition to these models, a number of QM practices are also
discussed in the literature, such as customer focus, supplier man-
agement, process management, quality leadership, and employees
development, among many others (Fotopoulos and Psomas, 2009;
Zu, 2009). Managers can deploy these practices to develop QM
systems in their organizations. Ebrahimi and Sadeghi (2013)
reviewed QM papers and found seven key practices, including
human resource management, customer focus and satisfaction, top
management commitment and leadership, process management,
supplier quality management, quality information and analysis,
and strategic quality planning. These key practices are discussed in
the literature to contribute to operational, quality, and financial
improvement. Together these practices constitute a QM framework
which organizations can employ to manage their quality
performance.
Some industry-specific standards also exist to cater to the
quality needs of particular sectors. For example, Good
Manufacturing Practices (GMP) for the pharmaceutical industry,
4 M. Asif / Journal of Cleaner Production 258 (2020) 120820
Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production (WRAP) for the textile
sector, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) for the
food sector, and Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) for laboratories.
Responsible Business Alliance (RBA) is a standard meant for
ensuring safe working conditions and supply chains in the elec-
tronics industries and industries which use electronics as key
components. RBA addresses environment, health and safety, ethics,
and management systems development. The Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC) sets standards for what constitutes a responsibly
managed forest and is particularly valuable for timber suppliers.
Green Star assesses the sustainable design, construction, and
operation of buildings and communities. Green Star certification
promotes construction designs that are healthy, sustainable, and
reduce environmental impact. Similarly, standards also exist for
software quality. ISO 9126 is an international standard that helps in
creating a framework for assessing software, see, e.g., Suman and
Rohtak (2014) for a comparison of software quality attributes and
how different software quality models measures these attributes.
These standards are meant to manage the technical performance of
their respective sectors but do not furnish an overarching system
for the QM of the whole organization.
4. Industry 4.0
Industry 4.0 is the usage of intelligent processes and products
supported by autonomous data collection and analysis, and with
end-to-end integration, resulting in smart, intelligent, and efficient
processes (Buer et al., 2018). These developments have reached the
current form through a long evolutionary process spread over de-
cades. The first industrial revolution introduced mechanical pro-
duction and steam-powered machines, hence called
‘mechanization’. The second industrial revolution was character-
ized by key developments such as mass production and assembly
line powered by electricity, hence called ‘electrification’. The third
industrial revolution was characterized by further advancements in
autonomous production through the use of electronics and IT,
hence called ‘digitization’. The latest Industry 4.0 developments
make use of cyber-physical systems, i.e., a fusion of the physical and
virtual worlds, and builds upon key technologies, including
autonomous robots, big data and analytics, augmented reality, ad-
ditive manufacturing (3D printing), the cloud, cybersecurity, the
internet of things, horizontal and vertical system integration, and
simulations (Boston Consulting Group, 2019). Together these de-
velopments create intelligent systems undergirding Industry 4.0
(Buer et al., 2018).
Industry 4.0 builds on “networks of manufacturing resources
(manufacturing machinery, robots, conveyor and warehousing
systems and production facilities) that are autonomous, capable of
controlling themselves in response to different situations, self-
configuring, knowledge-based, sensor-equipped and spatially
dispersed and that also incorporate the relevant planning and
management systems” (Kagermann et al., 2013, p. 20). It aims to
develop autonomous and dynamic production, which integrates
information and communication technologies to facilitate the mass
production of highly customized products (Tortorella and
Fettermann, 2018). Because Industry 4.0 concept is relatively new,
many companies struggle to understand it (Sanders et al., 2016).
AI, which is the cornerstone of Industry 4.0, is barging its way
into business processes. Firms are using AI to create forecast de-
mand, smoothen supply chain, manage logistics, hire employees,
and to serve customers better. Mckinsey Global Institute (2018)
estimates that firms will derive around $1.3trn to $2trn per year
in economic value by using AI in manufacturing and supply chains.
In 2017 firms spent around $22bn on AI-related acquisitions and
mergers, that is about 26 times more than in 2015 (The Economist,
2018a).
Industry 4.0 has the potential to affect people, workplace, or-
ganizations, and even the planet. According to the World Economic
Forum (2018), Industry 4.0 will accompany the following de-
velopments. First, AI can help to make intelligent decisions and
reduce material use, decrease energy consumption, clean energy,
and solve problems where traditional wisdom did not work. Sec-
ond, increased automation will bring in higher productivity, effi-
ciencies, and reduce stress on human and environmental resources.
Third, Industry 4.0 will enable sharing across devices and facilities,
such as offices, homes, rides, that can reduce consumption-related
waste and positively impact the life cycle of products. Fourth, In-
dustry 4.0 allows greater decentralization and decision making by
relevant people. For instance, 3D printing can help to make better
design and reduce emissions originating from logistics. Finally,
Industry 4.0 will generate real-time data, that is readily available to
all decision-makers allowing more collaboration, and improved
quality of decision making.
Managing Industry 4.0 requires a new set of skills, work ethics,
and commensurate management systems (World Economic Forum,
2018). However, our current understanding of how to respond to
these challenges is quite limited. Therefore, the need arises to re-
view the current quality models in light of these developments and
start a debate on the (in)adequacy of these models. In particular,
how to align quality models with Industry 4.0. This paper advances
the discussion in this direction.
5. Are QM models aligned with Industry 4.0?
There is a plethora of literature reporting inadequacy of QM
models in addressing quality objectives, hampering innovations,
and a lack of alignment with other organizational initiatives
(Benner and Tushman, 2003; Naveh and Erez, 2004; Hamdoun
et al., 2018). Studies have also shown that QM practices can
hamper a firm’s responsiveness to change and speed of respon-
siveness, see, e.g., Benner (2009), Magd and Curry (2003), Naveh
and Erez (2004), Prajogo (2009), Ratnasingam et al. (2013), and
Wei (2010). Some authors have assigned a contingency perspective
to the success of QM models which states that the success of QM is
contingent upon a lot of factors, such as the extent of imple-
mentation of standards, the extent of signals given by certification
to the market, the motivation to implement standards, the sector
and the region, and the size of the company, see, e.g., Manders et al.
(2016). Overall, these studies allude towards a lack of alignment
between QM models and other organizational initiatives/features
(such as innovation, responsiveness, the speed of new product
development, and knowledge integration mechanisms), though,
none of these studies have taken into consideration the alignment
of QM models with Industry 4.0.
Similarly, TQM has been criticized for its faddish character and
lacking theoretical foundations. Some studies have attempted to
address this criticism; three studies are particularly noteworthy.
First, Van Der Wiele et al. (2000) stated three distinct stages in TQM
evolution using ‘fad, fashion, and fit’ theory. They noted that in its
earlier stages, TQM was perceived as a fad or fashion that accom-
panied its widespread adoption. However, the next stage is the fit
stage whereby TQM will be institutionalized, and in that case, it has
the potential to make a visible impact on organizational perfor-
mance. They call the last stage ‘fit’ which means the alignment of
TQM with the current management practices. The research of Van
Der Wiele et al. (2000) was one of the earliest to point to the
need for alignment. In the following sections, we argue that this
alignment is still lacking.
Dani et al. (2006) found that TQM consultants tended to be
generalists with weak links to the core principles of QM. When the
 M. Asif / Journal of Cleaner Production 258 (2020) 120820
(TQM) fashion busted, consultants started focusing on quality
control expertise. They concluded that fashionable practices return
to their technical roots after the hype is over. This study leads to two
important points: first, the hype that results from the development
of vague links and theoretical underpinning bust, sooner or later,
and second, the core foundations of QM would persist. It is also
assumed that the lasting part of QM is robust enough and aligned
with the contemporary developments in the management field. In
this paper, we argue that this is not the case, considering Industry
4.0.
Finally, Williams et al. (2004) noted that after initial branding as
a fad, TQM would again be a top-management priority because
latest developments in the field of information systems, an
increasing number of networked organizations, and the need for
improved measures of performance will make TQM rise again.
However, we argue that the alignment of TQM with these de-
velopments yet remains a challenge.
The alignment of quality models with contemporary de-
velopments can be understood by a further elaboration on con-
stituent practices that constitute QM models. Ebrahimi and Sadeghi
(2013) reviewed QM papers and summed up various practices into
seven key practices, including, customer focus and satisfaction,
human resources management, top management commitment and
leadership, process management, supplier quality management,
quality information and analysis, and strategic quality planning.
However, these core practices are no more different from those that
appeared in the papers published in the 1990s and even earlier, see,
e.g., Anderson et al. (1995), Dean and Bowen (1994),
Rungtusanatham et al. (1998), Samson and Terziovski (1999), and
Spencer (1994). This shows that practices embodied in these
models have reached stagnation and need review.
Industry 4.0 developments, on the other hand, are relatively
new. The term ‘Industry 4.0’ first appeared in 2011 (Drath and
Horch, 2014). Notwithstanding stagnated QM models, de-
velopments in Industry 4.0 continue to emerge and shape the
modern business. For instance, Industry 4.0 has enabled highly
synchronized operations through information systems that allow
co-production, share core business processes, and work in a busi-
ness ecosystem (Laudon and Laudon, 2012). The concept of the
supply chain is redefined to a collective value creation process
(Gunasekaran and Ngai, 2004). Industry 4.0 based processes have
less linear and more concurrent information flow to support effi-
cient demand and supply. The term quality is now defined not only
in terms of product/service specifications but also flexibility, agility,
responsiveness, and product usage experience, see, e.g., Bernardes
and Hanna (2009). There is growing recognition that intellectual
capital of a firm needs to be leveraged for generating competitive
advantage from highly advanced Industry 4.0 processes (Dess et al.,
2016; Hatch and Dyer, 2004). All these developments fall beyond
the scope of quality models.
As discussed in the methodology section, this paper builds upon
the inductive-deductive approach. An example of the application of
the inductive approach was acquiring the knowledge of Industry
4.0 and related developments. The inductive approach helped to
identify a number of Industry 4.0 dimensions useful to evaluate QM
models. The review process revealed that Industry 4.0 builds upon
technological, human, information, and knowledge resources, and
complementarities among these resources (Tortorella and
Fettermann, 2018). This entails that managing knowledge, skills,
and capabilities to benefit from Industry 4.0 is a must. Thus, ‘in-
tellectual capital management’ emerged as a core factor in the
success of Industry 4.0 (Sanders et al., 2016). As another example,
the review process highlighted that Industry 4.0 is reshaping the
workplace, augmenting the technical side of the organization,
curtailing the human role, and affecting perceived significance and
5
meaningfulness of the work. Semi-automated processes and re-
petitive jobs such as tellers, warehouse workers, counter cashiers,
and assembly line are repetitive and dwindle cognitive engage-
ment. Thus, ’lack of cognitive engagement and mindfulness’
emerged as a relevant dimension to understand the impact of In-
dustry 4.0 on the workplace. In this way, the use of inductive
approach led to the development of five dimensions for evaluating
quality models. These dimensions include mindfulness, intellectual
capital management, making quality predictions from big data, lean
structures, and managing networked firms.
An example of the deductive approach was determining if the
quality models address the dimensions induced during stage-1 (i.e.,
inductive approach). An example of the deductive approach was
investigating if the quality models address intellectual capital
management and mindfulness. In contrast to the inductive
approach, where none of the dimensions was defined a priori, in
the deductive approach, the dimensions related to Industry 4.0
were known up front and the purpose was to determine how they
are addressed by the quality models. Overall, the use of the
inductive and deductive approaches served the basis for assessing
the adequacy of quality models against the backdrop of Industry
4.0.
Building on the inductive-deductive approach, this paper
developed a five-dimensions framework to assess the alignment of
QM models against Industry 4.0. Each of these dimensions repre-
sents a well-established management idea, though lacking research
on connections with Industry 4.0 and quality models. Some
representative examples of the theoretical support of these di-
mensions are provided in Table 1.
It should be noted that these dimensions are not exhaustive;
there can be several other dimensions as well, but these di-
mensions provide a starting point for assessing quality models.
Table 2 summarises the transition desired to make QM models
more relevant.
5.1. Mindful QM
Sociotechnical system theory describes an organization in terms
of social and technical side (Read et al., 2015). The social side
comprises individuals, teams, groups, their interactions, and work
behaviors; the technical side comprises processes, tools, tech-
niques, methodologies, and equipment (Manz and Stewart, 1997).
Industry 4.0 developments have happened on the technical side
and do not directly pertain to the social side of the organization
(Boston Consulting Group, 2019). This, in turn, creates a lack of
alignment between the social and technical side. The overall effect
is that Industry 4.0 jobs promote efficiencies and productivity, are
exploitation-oriented (Buer et al., 2018) and ignore the human side.
For instance, as AI opens new frontiers for managing tasks, man-
agers driven by the need for efficiencies gain remarkable control
over their employees’ routines. As an example, Amazon has
patented a wristband capable of tracking hand movements of
warehouse workers and uses vibrations to nudge them to be more
efficient (The Guardian, 2018). These exploitation-oriented controls
are designed for the higher level of efficiencies but without pro-
moting cognitive engagement in process execution, mimicking
machines. Exploitation-oriented measures can potentially reduce
the perceived significance and meaningfulness of the job, affecting
employee motivation and job satisfaction.
Quality models do not offer any panacea to this problem. Rather,
they promote a rule-based approach which develops traceability
mechanisms, reduces variations, and ensures repeatability of pro-
cesses. Standardization (such as through ISO 9001) is viewed as a
means to accomplish these objectives. The routines ensuing from
standardized processes promote automaticity whereby employees
6 M. Asif / Journal of Cleaner Production 258 (2020) 120820

Table 1
Illustrative examples of theoretical support for the criteria.

Dimensions for evaluation of Illustrative examples of theoretical support

quality models

Mindful QM
Intellectual capital management
Making quality predictions from
big data
Lean organizational structure
Managing networked firms
Brown and Ryan (2003); Dane (2011); Bjurstro€m (2012); Oly Ndubisi (2012); Kroon et al. (2017)
Ataseven et al. (2014); Bornemann (2015); Dess et al. (2016); Hatch and Dyer (2004); Kim et al., (2009); Shih et al. (2011)
Akter and Wamba (2016); Erevelles et al. (2016); Lee (2017)
Womack et al. (1990); Womack and Jones (2003); Hajmohammad et al. (2013); Tsironis and Psychogios (2016); Fredriksson and
Isaksson (2018); Sunder et al. (2018)
Miles et al. (2005); Riedl et al. (2009); Laudon and Laudon (2012); Chen et al. (2014); Kim (2016); Polese et al. (2018)

Table 2
Rethinking the current perspectives and practices in quality models.

The desired transition of quality models:

Dimensions From To

Mindful QM 1. Automaticity 1. Cognitive engagement

2. Standardized routines 2. Mindful task execution
3. Compliance with rules and procedures 3. The direction of attention towards one’s ongoing experience
4. Evaluating and questioning the value of a routine
Intellectual capital 1. Managing employees 1. Managing human, social, and intellectual capitals
management 2. Managing human resources
Making quality predictions 1. Anticipating customer requirements and 1. Making accurate prediction using big data.
from big data addressing them. 2. Using big data to determine changing customer preferences, enable agility,
flexibility, and responsiveness, to create delightful customer experiences.
Lean structures 1. Developing formal systems through manuals, 1. Coexistence of technology and human-based simplicity
procedures, work instructions, and records 2. Alignment of human-side with new lean structures
2. Establishing documented evidence for quality
processes
Managing networked firms 1. Defined boundaries and scope of operations 1. Management of networked firms operating in business ecosystems
in business ecosystems 2. Management of a relatively stable set of partners 2. Managing collective value creation
and suppliers 3. Going beyond supplier management to integration with other firms for strategic
3. Supplier management advantage.

perform a task because it is always done like that, without cognitive
engagement. Over time, these routines are hardened to become a
default method dwindling the space for creativity. Thus, a key
limitation of these (standardized) routines is that they hamper the
mindful execution of processes and limit opportunities for
continuous improvement. Mindfulness which is essential to pro-
moting cognitive engagement in the workplace remains missing in
quality models.
Fostering creativity and innovation requires curbing automa-
ticity and promoting a mindful approach whereby the value of each
practice is astutely ascertained. Mindfulness is defined as “the
awareness that arises out of intentionally attending in an open and
discerning way to whatever is arising in the present moment”
(Shapiro, 2009, p. 555). A mindful approach to QM is the opposite of
traditional QM routines; it requires observing rather than just
seeing, ascertaining rather than mere conforming, and conscious
actions rather than automaticity (Bjurstro € m, 2012). Mindfulness
allows employees to regulate their motivation and behavior (Brown
and Ryan, 2003). Further, mindful employees are better self-leaders
(Houghton and Neck, 2002), thus, reducing the need for external
leadership (Kroon et al., 2017). The need for mindfulness is signif-
icantly increased in the modern workplace which tends to decouple
cognitive engagement from the task and promotes non-thinking
functions. However, all quality models are mute on this impor-
tant aspect.
An argument counter to ours could be that that QM models
encourage continuous improvement, thus, going beyond mere
compliance to incorporating improvements. However, we argue
that mindfulness and continual improvement are not the same. The
former is a heedful process representing an attentive state of mind
at the individual level and is an always happening process, whereas
the latter is a formal process involving teamwork, brainstorming
sessions, quality circles, ideas sharing, collective refining of ideas,
and presenting those ideas to the management (Prashar and
Antony, 2018).
5.2. Intellectual capital management
Intellectual capital refers to the flow of knowledge available to
an organization (Baron and Armstrong, 2007). Intellectual capital
comprises two distinct types of capitals e human and social. Hu-
man capital is defined as a set of capabilities, knowledge, skills, and
experiences of the company’s employees (Hatch and Dyer, 2004).
Successful organizations differentiate from others by engaging
their human capital. The networks and working relationships of
employees constitute ‘social capital’ which extends beyond the
organization to create learning opportunities through external
parties such as suppliers, alliance partners, and customers. The
human and social capital of a firm constitutes the intellectual
capital which is the worth of the intangible assets of a firm
including employee skills and experience, reputation, employee
loyalty, company values, brand image, and customer relationships.
These intangible assets build upon the knowledge and skills of
employees and therefore, require particular attention (Dess et al.,
2016).
The need to manage intellectual capital of an organization is
further reflected from the constituent practices of Industry 4.0, i.e.,
managing big data, AI, robotics, IoT, quantum computing, and 3D
printing, among many others (Tortorella and Fettermann, 2018).
The fusion of digital-, physical- and virtual-worlds requires an
entirely different set of skills which are developed, nurtured,
managed, and institutionalized within the organization (World
 M. Asif / Journal of Cleaner Production 258 (2020) 120820
Economic Forum, 2018). Industry 4.0 may make some set of skills
obsolete and highlights the need of others. Thus, maintaining a
repository of the relevant set of skills is of utmost importance to
utilize Industry 4.0 to its fullest potential. In particular, developing
adequate ‘capabilities’ and ‘capacity’ is essentially required to run
highly skilled Industry 4.0 based processes. The capabilities, in this
case, refers to honing the required set of skills, while capacity refers
to the availablity of adequate resources. However, QM models are
mute on the management of skill set, developing relevant capa-
bilities and capacity. This is shown in Table 3 which lists three forms
of capital: human, social, and intellectual capital. Quality models
discuss only human resources management which is a subset of
human capital management.
5.3. Making quality predictions from big data
Owing to Industry 4.0, the modern quality is about gleaning rich
insights from large data and making accurate predictions to un-
derstand customer needs better (Akter and Wamba, 2016). Since
customer requirements are fluid and changing, making accurate
predictions is of utmost importance (Erevelles et al., 2016). Amazon
and Otto, a German e-commerce merchant, represent two exam-
ples that build their quality parameters from large databases using
AI.
Amazon has employed algorithms that are capable of predicting
demand for millions of products as early as 18 months ahead. The
demand, in this case, epitomizes all product specifications (The
Economist, 2018b). For instance, in case of clothes, color, size, fab-
ric composition, the rate of product returns by customers, and as-
sociation of a product sale with another product, scalability, risk
factor, agility and flexibility in demand management, all constitute
a rich profile of parameters of a product. Similarly, Otto develops its
relevant quality measures using AI. It purchases around 200,000
items a month from third-parties without any human intervention.
Defining product- and quality-specifications in such a large variety
of products, sizes, and colors will be impossible to carry out
manually.
Managing quality in such contexts means being able to make
quick and accurate predictions about what really matters to the
customer, i.e., a combination of different parameters that will
produce the best customer experience (Lee, 2017). Only organiza-
tions employing best-class analytics to make accurate predictions
will acquire a competitive advantage (Akter and Wamba, 2016).
However, this critical foundation of identifying and managing
customer requirements is missing in the QM models. One notable
exception is ISO 8000 standard meant for facilitating the exchange
of quality data (International Organization for Standardization,
2018). The standard addresses how data is encoded and
formatted to deliver quality information reliably. It defines quality
data as “portable data that meets stated requirements.” The stan-
dard makes it possible to contract for quality data and identify
Table 3
The focus of QM models on human, social, and intellectual capital.
Human capital Social capital
Definition Knowledge, skills, capabilities, and The network and working relationships of people
experiences of people. both within and outside an organization. Social
It is a key source of quality innovations. capital creates opportunities for quality innovation
The focus of QM models mainly discuss human resources Lack of an explicit focus
the management but lack an explicit focus on
current developing and leveraging human capital.
QM
models
7
vendors and partners who can deliver quality data. The importance
of this standard is particularly highlighted against the backdrop of
Industry 4.0 which builds digital processes and supply networks.
Exchanging quality data with partners in the network is the
cornerstone of value-adding collaborations. ISO 8000 discusses
data governance and acquisition of quality data and information;
however, it neither guides nor requires organizations to use data for
customer and market segmentation, creating new product and
process differentiation, developing new core capabilities, data-
based risk management, and creating unique strategic competi-
tive advantages.
It is important to note that QM models do not prohibit the use of
AI in gleaning rich insights, but neither they promote it. Indeed,
condoning this critical aspect implies that QM models are indif-
ferent to Industry 4.0 and the management of quality is left to the
subjective perceptions and understanding of individual managers
(Gunasekaran et al., 2018). Managing product/service quality based
on AI and data-based insights need to be incorporated in the
mainstream QM models. Bringing these features in mainstream
quality models would also help to avoid ethics-related issues that
may stem from the misuse of big data.
5.4. Lean organizational structures
QM models tend to promote a mechanistic work design as they
develop formal channels of communication, compliance with rules
to promote order, and prevent variations from the established
methods. The purpose of developing these structures is to promote
a systematic approach to QM. The latest ISO 9001: 2015 standard
uses the term ‘documented information’ (clause 7.5) for this pur-
pose, it requires creating (clause 7.5.1) and controlling documented
information (clause 7.5.3). In general, A QM system usually has
three layers of documentation. The top one is a quality manual, the
second layer is of procedures, and the third layer is of work in-
structions. ‘Records’ are in addition to these layers. The second and
third layer, in particular, can make a system bulky and bureaucratic.
Hence, it is not surprising why some authors attribute bureaucracy,
rigidity, and inflexibility to the QM models (Martinez-Lorente and
Martinez-Costa, 2004; Hamdoun et al., 2018).
The problem of QM systems induced bureaucracy can be espe-
cially cumbersome in a healthcare setup. Technical protocols for
administering medicines at the top of the layers of QM documen-
tation can make a system slow when quick responsiveness is
essentially required. It is noted that doctors in hospitals spend over
two-third of their time in paperwork which makes processes less
efficient and doctors prone to burnout (Forbes, 2016). Similarly, in
the aviation industry where quick responsiveness is of utmost
importance, heavy documentation and bulky systems may under-
mine efficiencies and adversely affect employees’ morale.
Industry 4.0 and AI-based systems, eliminate the need for these
structures (Sanders et al., 2016). These systems build digital twins,
Intellectual capital
The value of assets such as reputation, employee
loyalty, customer relationships, company values, brand
image, and experience and skills of employees. It is an
approximation of the knowledge assets of employees.
Lack of an explicit focus
8 M. Asif / Journal of Cleaner Production 258 (2020) 120820
i.e., a virtual representation of processes and assets (Kagermann
et al., 2013). Further, they are capable of making intelligent ad-
justments based on real-time data and maintain digital records,
making ‘establishing evidence’ features of traditional models
irrelevant (Buer et al., 2018). AI-based systems give rise to lean
structures which bring operational efficiencies and make decision-
making quicker (Hajmohammad et al., 2013). Consider the example
of an AI-based parcel delivery system. Delivering a dozen parcels
appears to be straightforward, but the number of possible routes
adds up to several trillion (The Economist, 2018a). An AI-based
algorithm counting upon the best route, traffic congestion,
sequence of delivery, driver working hours, and several other fac-
tors, would develop the optimal delivery schedule and route saving
miles, fuel, and drivers’ time. In sum, AI-based systems result in
operations that are lean, efficient, and more responsive (Tortorella
and Fettermann, 2018). The development, maintenance, and man-
agement of lean structures emanating from Industry 4.0 is beyond
the scope of quality models. Hence, firms may feel that quality
models are outdated and irrelevant to their processes.
5.5. Managing networked firms in business ecosystems
QM models assume the organization as a distinct and stable
entity whose scope, processes, and boundary are well defined. The
scope of the organization is the key information in QM certification
as it informs how far the QM system extends within a company’s
operations and what is excluded. Further, QM models assume a
relatively static environment and a stable set of partners and sup-
pliers. However, modern organizations, owing to the development
of virtual platforms, network to form a business ecosystem where
each organization is intricately networked and dependent on
others (Miles et al., 2005). These firms use the highly synchronized
information system to coordinate value chain to produce product/
service collectively (Kulmala et al., 2005). For example, Li & Fung, a
Hong Kong based supply chain company (annual revenue $18.83bn
in 2015), handles product development, raw material procurement,
production planning, quality assurance, and shipping virtually. The
company does not own any fabric factories or machines; instead, it
outsources all of its work to a network of more than 15000 sup-
pliers in 40 countries all over the world. Renowned brands like
Reebok, Guess, Levi-Strauss, Ann Taylor, and major retailers
worldwide use this platform for their routine operations. Buyers
place orders using the extranet platform of the company which
then shares orders related information to suppliers and tracks the
entire production process (Laudon and Laudon, 2012).
Online firms such as Amazon, eBay, and Alibaba, all provide a
virtual platform used by buyers and sellers. Credit card companies
and logistics providers also use the same platform to provide ser-
vices seamlessly. All these firms work collectively to create value
without being constrained by physical boundaries and location.
Their operations are handled collectively and are customer driven,
less linear, and focus on creating better value and efficient response
to market demand. All these aspects go beyond the scope of QM
models. Further, many organizations are increasingly adopting the
model of co-creating value. The concept of ‘complementors’ further
explains this model (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1995). Com-
plementors are those firms that operate in different businesses but
work collectively to create value for their customers. For example,
hardware, no matter, how advanced, is useless without the soft-
ware. Video game consoles are useless without video games (Dess
et al., 2016). The dynamics and intricacies of these business models,
especially collective value creation, go beyond the scope of tradi-
tional quality models.
Although one can argue that QM models require ‘managing
suppliers’ which can cover the supplier network complexities of a
modern organization. However, managing highly synchronized and
networked firms goes beyond supplier management. Further,
supplier management practices presented in QM models fail to
address the management of shared processes in the ecosystem,
managing firms’ interactions, and dynamics of co-value creation.
Future QM models need to pay particular attention to shared value
creation.
6. Discussion
QM has a long history and has been applied worldwide to
improve quality performance. Industry 4.0 represents the latest
developments that bring fundamental changes in organizational
processes, roles of employees, and the overall workplace. QM
models and Industry 4.0 share a common objective, that is,
improving organizational performance (Gunasekaran et al., 2018).
However, this paper shows that QM models are not aligned with
Industry 4.0 and need to be updated. Some of the key aspects of lack
of alignment are as follows.
First, Industry 4.0 developments have taken place on the tech-
nical side of the organization. Automation, intelligent systems, and
AI dwindle the human role in the workplace. Further, these de-
velopments are exploitation-oriented, which means they promote
efficiencies and streamline processes (Sanders et al., 2016). An
imbalanced emphasis of Industry 4.0 on the technical side only,
reduces employee cognitive engagement and perceived meaning-
fulness of job, which can entail boredom, errors, and burnout. This,
in turn, reduces the quality of work and adversely affects job
satisfaction. Bringing mindfulness to modern jobs to make people
more cognitively involved and increase their perceived value of job
needs to be addressed in future quality models (Shapiro, 2009).
Second, Industry 4.0 comprises the latest developments in en-
gineering, IT, nanotechnology, cloud computing, and AI (Buer et al.,
2018). These developments make some types of skills obsolete and
others more relevant. Managing the required repertoire of skills,
knowledge, and capabilities is essential to harvesting Industry 4.0
benefits (World Economic Forum, 2018). These knowledge bases
exist not only in explicit and tacit resources but also in social net-
works (i.e., social capital). Traditional QM models focus on the
development of human resources which is a small subset of intel-
lectual capital and an insufficient requirement for managing
knowledge-intensive Industry 4.0. The need, therefore, arises to
manage the human, social, and intellectual capital of firms on a
systematic basis. QM models need to be updated for this pivotal
feature underpinning Industry 4.0.
Third, building on big data, AI, and advanced analytical ap-
proaches, the modern concept of quality is about creating unique
customer experiences (cf. meeting a specified set of customer re-
quirements) (Erevelles et al., 2016). Virtual reality facilitates prod-
uct customization that appeals to the customer. Defining and
managing quality for fluid and impermanent customer re-
quirements need better consideration in QM models. Building on
the analysis of big data, a challenge for managers is to make ac-
curate predictions about what actually matters to the customer
(Akter and Wamba, 2016). Making right predictions based on big
data is the new face of customer service quality and needs to
addressed in future QM models (Erevelles et al., 2016).
Fourth, Industry 4.0 entails lean structures (Sanders et al., 2016).
Traditional QM models, in order to create a systematic approach to
the management of quality, develop structures which usually take
the form of policy documents, procedures, instructions, records,
and traceability mechanisms all of which make management sys-
tems bulky (Asif et al., 2010). Industry 4.0 renders these structures
and processes redundant as it uses real-time data and AI to deter-
mine the most efficient way to task execution (Buer et al., 2018).
 M. Asif / Journal of Cleaner Production 258 (2020) 120820
Therefore, QM models need to be updated to align with these de-
velopments (Tortorella and Fettermann, 2018).
Finally, Industry 4.0 develops new business models, such as
‘complementors’ and ‘business ecosystems’ where multiple firms
co-create value (Dess et al., 2016). These firms work in an integrated
and seamless manner to create value for the customer
(Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1995). The management of opera-
tions of networked firms is different from the supplier manage-
ment required in traditional QM models. Future QM models need to
address this transition.
It should be noted that although traditional quality models do
not hamper the adoption of Industry 4.0, but they don’t address it
either. Quality models are mute on these aspects, and the reason for
this indifference is also apparent: the quality models have gradually
evolved through incremental improvements over several decades;
Industry 4.0, on the other hand, represents the latest developments
surfaced after 2011. Since Industry 4.0 is emerging as the founda-
tion block of modern businesses, ignoring these developments and
leaving them to managers’ discretion can be counter-productive.
The above discussion raises a question: will Industry 4.0 abolish
the need for QM models? Indeed, similar questions have been
raised in the context of a lean production system (Sanders et al.,
2016; Tortorella and Fettermann, 2018). Our findings highlight
that Industry 4.0 has mainly affected the technical side of the or-
ganization. The social side needs to be developed and aligned to the
technical side to reap maximum benefits from Industry 4.0 de-
velopments (Carayon et al., 2015). The developments related to the
social side include, but are not limited to, mindfulness, intellectual
capital management, psychological ownership and perceived sig-
nificance of the job (Read et al., 2015). Further, developing human
and intellectual capital can produce a synergistic effect in har-
nessing value from the technical side. Addressing the social side
and making it aligned with the technical side is the area where
quality models can be of particular help.
QM is an evergreen theme in contemporary management
(Gunasekaran et al., 2018). Previous studies have argued that QM
models remain applicable to changing business scenarios (Van Der
Wiele, 1998; Van Der Wiele and Brown, 2002), and that “quality
management is here to stay” (Sousa and Voss, 2002, p. 91). Our
findings warn that QM models will stay only if updated and aligned
with Industry 4.0. In short, the adage “survival of the fittest” also
applies to QM models.
7. Conclusions
QM models build upon the paradigm of economic efficiencies,
control, and systematic management. Industry 4.0 brings funda-
mental changes in processes and makes several features of QM
models redundant. Consequently, firms will find the current quality
models irrelevant to their unique context. In the worst case, non-
alignment can hamper the efficient functioning of Industry 4.0
based processes. Hence, the need arises to curb the isolation of
quality models from Industry 4.0. This paper calls for updating
quality models with more relevant features e mindfulness, intel-
lectual capital management, enabling quality predictions from big
data, lean organizational structures, and managing networked
firms.
Industry 4.0 is an emerging topic and the nature of these de-
velopments is still poorly understood. This paper is the first to
discuss the alignment of QM models with Industry 4.0. Developing
a QM model that is capable of addressing these features may not be
straightforward. However, an understanding of these limitations is
the first step toward addressing the problem.
9
8. Limitations and future research directions
This paper analyzed the quality models from the perspective of
five dimensions. These dimensions are only illustrative, not
exhaustive. A critical review of quality models from other aspects,
such as their suitability in healthcare and aviation, can yield in-
sights missing in this study. Second, this paper only highlights the
lack of alignment. It does not furnish guidance on the features of
future models. The questions like, ‘what will be the underlying
structure and core values of future quality models? and ‘should the
new model be prescriptive or descriptive?’ are not addressed in this
paper. These questions present an opportunity for future research.
The development of a QM model addressing Industry 4.0 may be
easy to say, but hard to do. Nonetheless, identifying and recog-
nizing such limitations is the starting point for subsequent
improvements.
Second, this study only reviewed quality models for
organization-wide QM. There is a significant body of literature and
quality models discussing quality from the technical perspectives.
For instance, the Shingo Prize for operational excellence, technical
standards for food quality (i.e., HACCP), pharmaceuticals (GMP),
laboratories (GLP), among many others. Future studies may include
a review of technical models as well to glean richer insights.
Third, this research applied ceratin filters during the selection of
papers. As a result, several articles perceived to be irrelevant were
excluded. For instance, papers studying the evolution of quality
models, critical success factors, and the classification of quality
practices were excluded. There is a probability of type-II error (i.e.,
false negative) in this approach, that is, erroneously excluding
relevant papers. Excluded articles might generate insights currently
missing in this study. For instance, studies on critical success factor
may reveal factors that entail success amidst Industry 4.0
challenges.
Future research can be carried out along several dimensions.
Research should empirically investigate incompatibilities between
quality systems and Industry 4.0 and how managers can overcome
these incompatibilities? Further, how future quality models could
be built considering these five dimensions. Initial research could
take the form of longitudinal studies. For example, using data from
firms equipped with AI-based processes, case studies should
investigate how QM practices interact with Industry 4.0. Firms with
sophisticated technological processes having implemented quality
systems, such as Amazon, Apple, Otto, ING Bank, and Li & Fung, may
provide an ideal sample for such research. Cross-sectional research
could investigate the impact of Industry 4.0 on ’quality’ perfor-
mance of firms.
References
Akter, S., Wamba, S.F., 2016. Big data analytics in E-commerce: a systematic review
and agenda for future research. Electron. Mark. 26 (2), 173e194.
American Society for Quality, 2018. What is a quality management system (QMS)? –
ISO 9001 & other quality management systems [Online] Am. Soc. Qual.
Accessed March 29, 2018 2018.
Anderson, J., Rungtusanatham, M., Schroeder, R., Devaraj, S., 1995. A path analytic
model of a theory of quality management underlying the Deming management
method: preliminary empirical findings. Decis. Sci. J. 26 (5), 637e658.
Aquilani, B., Silvestri, C., Ruggieri, A., Gatti, C., 2017. A systematic literature review
on total quality management critical success factors and the identification of
new avenues of research. TQM J. 29 (1), 184e213.
Asif, M., Fisscher, O.a.M., De Bruijn, E.J., Pagell, M., 2010. Integration of management
systems: a methodology for operational excellence and strategic flexibility.
Oper. Manag. Res. 3 (3), 146e160.
Ataseven, C., Prajogo, D.I., Nair, A., 2014. ISO 9000 internalization and organizational
commitment-implications for process improvement and operational perfor-
mance. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 61 (1), 5e17.
Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence, 2018. 2017-2018 Baldrige Criteria
[Online]. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Available:
https://www.nist.gov/baldrige. (Accessed 1 February 2019).
Baron, A., Armstrong, M., 2007. Human Capital Management: Achieving Added
10 M. Asif / Journal of Cleaner Production 258 (2020) 120820
Value through People. Kogan Page Publishers.
Benner, M., 2009. Dynamic or static capabilities? Process management practices
and response to technological change. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 26 (5), 473e486.
Benner, M., Tushman, M., 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process manage-
ment: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28 (2), 238e256.
Bernardes, E.S., Hanna, M.D., 2009. A theoretical review of flexibility, agility and
responsiveness in the operations management literature: toward a conceptual
definition of customer responsiveness. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 29 (1), 30e53.
Bjurstro€ m, E., 2012. Minding the contexts of mindfulness in quality management.
Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 29 (6), 699e713.
Bornemann, M., 2015. Audit and Quality Issues - Intellectual Capital Reporting and
ISO 9001. Ikam-Inst Knowledge Asset Management, Matera.
Boston Consulting Group, 2019. Embracing Industry 4.0 and Rediscovering Growth
[Online]. Boston Consulting Group. Available: https://www.bcg.com/
capabilities/operations/embracing-industry-4.0-rediscovering-growth.aspx.
(Accessed 4 May 2019).
Brandenburger, A.M., Nalebuff, B.J., 1995. The right game: use game theory to shape
strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev.
Brown, K.W., Ryan, R.M., 2003. The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its
role in psychological well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84 (4), 822.
Buer, S.-V., Strandhagen, J.O., Chan, F.T., 2018. The link between Industry 4.0 and
lean manufacturing: mapping current research and establishing a research
agenda. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (8), 2924e2940.
Carayon, P., Hancock, P., Leveson, N., Noy, I., Sznelwar, L., Van Hootegem, G., 2015.
Advancing a sociotechnical systems approach to workplace safetyedeveloping
the conceptual framework. Ergonomics 58 (4), 548e564.
Castilla-Polo, F., Gallardo-Va zquez, D., Sa nchez-Herna ndez, M.I., Ruiz-
Rodríguez, M.C., 2018. An empirical approach to analyse the reputation-
performance linkage in agrifood cooperatives. J. Clean. Prod. 195, 163e175.
Chen, Z., Dahlgaard-Park, S.M., Yu, L., 2014. Service quality management and
ecosystem theory. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excel. 25 (9e10), 1190e1205.
Dane, E., 2011. Paying attention to mindfulness and its effects on task performance
in the workplace. J. Manag. 37 (4), 997e1018.
Dani, S., Harding, J.A., Case, K., Young, R., Cochrane, S., Gao, J., Baxter, D., 2006.
A methodology for best practice knowledge management. Proc. IME B J. Eng.
Manufact. 220 (10), 1717e1728.
Dean, J.W., Bowen, D.E., 1994. Management theory and total quality: improving
research and practice through theory development. Acad. Manag. Rev. 19 (3),
392e418.
Deming Prize, 2019. Deming evaluation criteria [online]. Japan: union of Japanese
scientists and engineers. Available: https://www.juse.or.jp/deming_en/
challenge/03.html. (Accessed 28 January 2019).
Dess, G., McNamara, G., Eisner, A., 2016. Strategic Management: Text and Cases.
McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
Drath, R., Horch, A., 2014. Industrie 4.0: hit or hype?[industry forum]. IEEE Ind.
Electron. Mag. 8 (2), 56e58.
Ebrahimi, M., Sadeghi, M., 2013. Quality management and performance: an anno-
tated review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (18), 5625e5643.
EFQM, 2013. EFQM Excellence Model [Online]. European Foundation for Quality
Management. Available: http://www.efqm.org/the-efqm-excellence-model.
(Accessed 15 December 2013).
Erevelles, S., Fukawa, N., Swayne, L., 2016. Big Data consumer analytics and the
transformation of marketing. J. Bus. Res. 69 (2), 897e904.
Forbes, 2016. Doctors Wasting over Two-Thirds of Their Time Doing Paperwork
[Online]. Forbes. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2016/09/07/
doctors-wasting-over-two-thirds-of-their-time-doing-paperwork/
#1ad2cc3a5d7b. (Accessed 30 April 2019).
Fotopoulos, C.B., Psomas, E.L., 2009. The impact of "soft" and "hard" TQM elements
on quality management results. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 26 (2), 150e163.
Fredriksson, M., Isaksson, R., 2018. Making sense of quality philosophies, 29. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, pp. 1452e1465, 11e12.
The Guardian, 2018. Amazon patents wristband that tracks warehouse workers’
movements [Online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/
2018/jan/31/amazon-warehouse-wristband-tracking. Accessed March 31 2018.
Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E.W., 2004. Information systems in supply chain integration
and management. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 159 (2), 269e295.
Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N., Ngai, E., 2018. Quality Management in the 21st
Century Enterprises: Research Pathway towards Industry 4.0. Elsevier.
Hajmohammad, S., Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., Gavronski, I., 2013. Reprint of Lean
management and supply management: their role in green practices and per-
formance. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 86e93.
Hamdoun, M., Jabbour, C.J.C., Othman, H.B., 2018. Knowledge transfer and organi-
zational innovation: impacts of quality and environmental management.
J. Clean. Prod. 193, 759e770.
Hatch, N.W., Dyer, J.H., 2004. Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable
competitive advantage. Strat. Manag. J. 25 (12), 1155e1178.
Holm, T., Vuorisalo, T., Sammalisto, K., 2015. Integrated management systems for
enhancing education for sustainable development in universities: a memetic
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 155e163.
Houghton, J.D., Neck, C.P., 2002. The revised self-leadership questionnaire: testing a
hierarchical factor structure for self-leadership. J. Manag. Psychol. 17 (8),
672e691.
International Organization for Standardization, 2015. Quality Management Systems
e Fundamentals and Vocabulary [Online]. International Organization for
Standardization [Accessed October 21 2017].
International Organization for Standardization, 2018. ISO 8000-115:2018; Data
Quality - Part 115: Master Data: Exchange of Quality Identifiers: Syntactic, Se-
mantic and Resolution Requirements [Online]. International Organization for
Standardization, Switzerland. Accessed July 29, 2019 2019.
Kagermann, H., Helbig, J., Hellinger, A., Wahlster, W., 2013. Recommendations for
Implementing the Strategic Initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0: Securing the Future of
German Manufacturing Industry; Final Report of the Industrie 4.0 Working
Group. Forschungsunion.
Kim, J., 2016. The platform business model and business ecosystem: quality man-
agement and revenue structures. Eur. Plann. Stud. 24 (12), 2113e2132.
Kim, D.Y., Kumar, V., Kumar, U., 2009. A framework of intellectual capital man-
agement based on ISO 9001 quality management system: the case study of ISO
9001 certified Public R&D Institute. Knowl. Process Manag. 16 (4), 162e173.
Klefsjo€, B., Bergquist, B., Edgeman, R.L., 2006. Six Sigma and total quality manage-
ment: different day, same soup? Int. J. Six Sigma Compet. Advant. 2 (2),
162e178.
Klefsjo€, B., Bergquist, B., Garvare, R., 2008. Quality management and business
excellence, customers and stakeholders: do we agree on what we are talking
about, and does it matter? TQM J. 20 (2), 120e129.
Kroon, B., Van Woerkom, M., Menting, C., 2017. Mindfulness as substitute for
transformational leadership. J. Manag. Psychol. 32 (4), 284e297.
Kulmala, H.I., Vahteristo, A., Uusi-Rauva, E., 2005. Interorganizational operations in
value chainsdexperiences from networked software firms. Prod. Plann. Contr.
16 (4), 378e387.
Laudon, K.C., Laudon, J.P., 2012. Management Information Systems: Managing the
Digital Firm. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River: New Jersey.
Lee, I., 2017. Big data: dimensions, evolution, impacts, and challenges. Bus. Horiz. 60
(3), 293e303.
Magd, H., Curry, A., 2003. An empirical analysis of management attitudes towards
ISO 9001: 2000 in Egypt. TQM Mag. 15 (6), 381e390.
Manders, B., De Vries, H.J., Blind, K., 2016. ISO 9001 and product innovation: a
literature review and research framework. Technovation 48, 41e55.
Manz, C.C., Stewart, G.L., 1997. Attaining flexible stability by integrating total quality
management and socio-technical systems theory. Organ. Sci. 8 (1), 59e70.
Martinez-Lorente, A.R., Martinez-Costa, M., 2004. ISO 9000 and TQM: substitutes or
complementaries? An empirical study in industrial companies. Int. J. Qual.
Reliab. Manag. 21 (3), 260e276.
Mckinsey Global Institute, 2018. AI Is Moving from the Lab to the Workplace, with
Profound Implications for Business and Society [Online]. Available: https://
www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/artificial-intelligence. Accessed March 29
2018.
Miles, R.E., Miles, G., Snow, C.C., 2005. Collaborative Entrepreneurship: How Com-
munities of Networked Firms Use Continuous Innovation to Create Economic
Wealth. Stanford University Press.
Mironeasa, C., Codina
, G.G., 2013. A new approach of audit functions and principles.
J. Clean. Prod. 43, 27e36.
Naveh, E., Erez, M., 2004. Innovation and attention to detail in the quality
improvement paradigm. Manag. Sci. 50 (11), 1576e1586.
Oly Ndubisi, N., 2012. Mindfulness, quality and reliability in small and large firms.
Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 29 (6), 600e606.
Orzes, G., Moretto, A.M., Ebrahimpour, M., Sartor, M., Moro, M., Rossi, M., 2018.
United Nations global compact: literature review and theory-based research
agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 177, 633e654.
Polese, F., Vesci, M., Troisi, O., Grimaldi, M., 2018. Reconceptualizing TQM in service
ecosystems: an integrated framework. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci.
Prajogo, D.I., 2009. Experiences of Australian firms in implementing ISO 9001: a
comparison of the 1994 and 2000 versions. Int. J. Prod. Qual. Manag. 4 (4),
383e399.
Prashar, A., Antony, J., 2018. Towards continuous improvement (CI) in professional
service delivery: a systematic literature review. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excel.
1e29.
Rahman, S., 2004. The future of TQM is past. Can TQM be resurrected? Total Qual.
Manag. Bus. Excel. 15 (4), 411e422.
Ratnasingam, J., Yoon, C., Ioraş, F., 2013. The effects of ISO 9001 quality management
system on innovation and management capacities in the Malaysian furniture
sector. Ser. II. For. Wood Ind. Agric. Food Eng. 6 (55), 63e70. Bulletin of the
Transilvania University of Braşov.
Read, G.J., Salmon, P.M., Lenne , M.G., Stanton, N.A., 2015. Designing sociotechnical
systems with cognitive work analysis: putting theory back into practice. Er-
gonomics 58 (5), 822e851.
Riedl, C., Bo € hmann, T., Rosemann, M., Krcmar, H., 2009. Quality management in
service ecosystems. Inf. Syst. E Bus. Manag. 7 (2), 199e221.
Rungtusanatham, M., Forza, C., Filippini, R., Anderson, J.C., 1998. A replication study
of a theory of quality management underlying the Deming management
method: insights from an Italian context. J. Oper. Manag. 17 (1), 77e95.
Rungtusanatham, M., Forza, C., Koka, B., Salvador, F., Nie, W., 2005. TQM across
multiple countries: convergence hypothesis versus national specificity argu-
ments. J. Oper. Manag. 23 (1), 43e63.
Ruokonen, E., Temmes, A., 2019. The approaches of strategic environmental man-
agement used by mining companies in Finland. J. Clean. Prod. 210, 466e476.
Samson, D., Terziovski, M., 1999. The relationship between total quality manage-
ment practices and operational performance. J. Oper. Manag. 17 (4), 393e409.
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. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 9 (3), 811e833.
 M. Asif / Journal of Cleaner Production 258 (2020) 120820
Seetharaman, A., Sreenivasan, J., Boon, L.P., 2006. Critical success factors of total
quality management. Qual. Quantity 40 (5), 675e695.
Shapiro, S.L., 2009. The integration of mindfulness and psychology. J. Clin. Psychol.
65 (6), 555e560.
Shih, K.-H., Lin, C.-W., Lin, B., 2011. Assessing the quality gap of intellectual capital in
banks. Total Qual. Manag. 22 (3), 289e303.
Sousa, R., Voss, C.A., 2002. Quality management re-visited: a reflective review and
agenda for future research. J. Oper. Manag. 20 (1), 91e109.
Spencer, B.A., 1994. Models of organization and total quality management: a
comparison and critical evaluation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 19 (3), 446e471.
Suman, M.W., Rohtak, M., 2014. A comparative study of software quality models.
Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. 5 (4), 5634e5638.
Sunder, M.V., Ganesh, L., Marathe, R.R., 2018. A morphological analysis of research
literature on Lean Six Sigma for services. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 38 (1),
149e182.
Talwar, B., 2011. Comparative study of framework, criteria and criterion weighting
of excellence models. Meas. Bus. Excell. 15 (1), 49e65.
The Economist, 2018a. AI-spy: the workplace of the future [Online]. The Economist.
Available: https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21739658-artificial-intel-
ligence-pushes-beyond-tech-industry-work-could-become-faireror-more.
Accessed March 29 2018.
The Economist, 2018b. In Algorithms We Trust: How AI Is Spreading throughout the
Supply Chain [Online]. The Economist. Available: https://www.economist.com/
news/leaders/21739658-artificial-intelligence-pushes-beyond-tech-industry-
work-could-become-faireror-more. Accessed March 29 2018.
Tortorella, G.L., Fettermann, D., 2018. Implementation of Industry 4.0 and lean
11
production in Brazilian manufacturing companies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (8),
2975e2987.
Tsironis, L.K., Psychogios, A.G., 2016. Road towards Lean Six Sigma in service in-
dustry: a multi-factor integrated framework. Bus. Process Manag. J. 22 (4),
812e834.
Van Der Wiele, T., 1998. Beyond Fads: Management Fads and Organisational Change
with Reference to Quality Management. Eburon Publishers, Delft.
Van Der Wiele, T., Brown, A., 2002. Quality management over a decade: a longi-
tudinal study. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 19 (5), 508e523.
Van Der Wiele, A., Williams, A., Dale, B., 2000. Total Quality Management: Is it a Fad,
Fashion, or Fit?.
Wei, W.-C., 2010. From mediate and moderate view to untangle the relationship
among product innovation performance, cross-functional cooperation and
quality practices. Int. J. Inf. Manag. Sci. 365e390.
Williams, R., Van Der Wiele, T., Van Iwaarden, J., Visser, R., 2004. TQM: why it will
again become a top management issue. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 21 (6),
603e611.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., 2003. Lean Thinking. Free press, NY.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., Roos, D., 1990. The Machine that Changed the World.
Rawson Associates, New York.
World Economic Forum, 2018. The 10 Skills You Need to Thrive in the Fourth In-
dustrial Revolution [Online]. World Economic Forum. Available: https://www.
weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-10-skills-you-need-to-thrive-in-the-fourth-
industrial-revolution/. (Accessed 8 January 2018).
Zu, X., 2009. Infrastructure and core quality management practices: how do they
affect quality? Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 26 (2), 129e149.