Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Despite the recognized importance of strategic alignment for competitiveness and of quality management maturity for achieving operational excellence, a significant literature gap persists in systematically integrating these concepts. This study addresses how to systematically align strategic alignment dimensions with quality management maturity. Using a systematic literature review and thematic analysis, 843 documents were screened, resulting in 47 articles for data coding and analysis. The primary contribution is a cross-mapping table of strategic alignment and quality management maturity dimensions, which delineates interrelationships between six strategic alignment dimensions (skills, governance, value, communication, stakeholder participation, and scope) and seven quality management maturity dimensions (context, leadership, process management, resource management, performance analysis and evaluation, and improvement, learning and innovation). The research provides an integrated framework elucidating interaction mechanisms between these domains. Practically, it offers managers a diagnostic tool for assessing organizational status and developing simultaneous enhancement strategies for both quality maturity and strategic alignment. This framework fosters a paradigm shift in managerial approaches and facilitates leveraging existing platforms to strengthen the interaction between strategic and quality management systems, ultimately supporting sustained organizational excellence.
Introduction
In today's competitive landscape, industrial organizations require strategic alignment between objectives and operational activities for sustainable success. Strategic alignment creates coherence between organizational plans and daily operations, particularly when quality management systems directly support strategic goals, enhancing operational efficiency and customer satisfaction (Alam et al., 2024; Zavareh, 2021).
Integrating Total Quality Management with strategic planning improves performance and builds organizational resilience (Okonkwo et al., 2025). Quality Management Maturity measures how organizations establish and improve quality systems (Dima et al., 2023), becoming crucial in Industry 4.0 environments for managing interconnected systems (Eliwa et al., 2024).
However, achieving synergy faces challenges including misaligned priorities and inadequate measurement tools. Previous research has predominantly used case studies, revealing a significant gap in systematic reviews simultaneously addressing strategic alignment and quality management maturity. This study therefore conducts a systematic review to identify key dimensions in both domains that can mutually facilitate organizational strategic alignment.
Literature Review
Strategic alignment creates organizational coherence by integrating strategy with operational components (Kaplan & Norton, 2006). Recent studies confirm that strategic alignment and Quality Management (QM) maturity interact to enhance organizational performance and sustainable success (Younis et al., 2023), Alam et al., 2024). Contemporary strategic frameworks include the Balanced Scorecard (Qies & Adnan, 2024), McKinsey 7S focusing on leadership and culture (Kanyangale, 2024), and dynamic capability models (Maulana et al., 2023). Quality management has evolved through models like integrated QM systems (Akmal et al., 2024) and maturity frameworks (Masana, 2021). However, significant research gaps persist. Comprehensive frameworks assessing strategic alignment's impact on QM effectiveness remain underdeveloped, particularly regarding organizational culture's mediating role. Studies have predominantly examined these constructs separately, with limited research on their systematic integration (Kim et al., 2024), Siddiqui & Waiker, 2025). Furthermore, contemporary alignment models remain IT-focused, lacking application across diverse operational domains. This systematic review addresses these gaps by examining integrated strategic-quality frameworks.
Strategic alignment frameworks include the Contingency Theory (McAdam, Miller, & McSorley, 2016), Strategic Fit Process (Beer et al., 2005), Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 2016), Strategic Alignment Maturity Model (Luftman, 2003), Quality Strategy (5P) Model (Pryor et al., 2007), Strategic Alignment Matrix (Bertolotti et al., 2019), Resource-Product-Market Model (Reed, 2023), McKinsey 7S (Boateng & Yamoah, 2023), (Kanyangale, 2024). Quality management models encompass Baldrige (Prabowo & Saptadi, 2020), (AL-Hashem & Abu Orabi, 2021), ISO 9004 (Silva & Matos, 2022), (Akmal et al., 2024), APQC (Silva & Matos, 2022), UBEM Vedic[1] (Koura & Talwar, 2008), Indonesian Performance Excellence[2] (Upadhyaya & Bhat, 2020), TQM (Kulenović & Veselinović, 2021), (Chen, 2024), Shingo[3] (Edgeman, 2018), EFQM (Dima, Vitzilaiou, & Glykas, 2022), Martusewicz, Wierzbic, & Łukaszewicz, 2024), and KAIIAE Model[4] (Upadhyaya & Bhat, 2020).
Methodology
This study employs a qualitative systematic review with an exploratory approach, designed to establish a theoretical foundation and address the research question (Gough, Oliver, & Thomas, 2017). The protocol adheres to the PRISMA[5] framework to ensure transparency, accuracy, and reproducibility (Page et al., 2021). The research process was structured into six distinct stages.
First, the research question was formulated to identify the key dimensions in Quality Management Maturity (QMM) models and strategic alignment frameworks. Second, a comprehensive search strategy was developed using structured Boolean queries with three core keyword categories: "strategic alignment," "quality management maturity," and integrative concepts. The search was executed across major academic databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, for publications from 1983 to January 2025.
Third, study characteristics were defined using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included studies were original research, review articles, books, and conference proceedings in English or Persian that explicitly examined the interaction between QMM models and strategic alignment frameworks in industrial organizations. Studies from non-industrial sectors, publications in non-peer-reviewed sources, and works in other languages were excluded.
Fourth, a rigorous quality assessment and screening process was implemented. After duplicate removal, articles underwent title/abstract screening followed by full-text evaluation. To ensure reliability and validity, standardized data extraction forms were used and continuously updated. Multiple strategies were employed to minimize bias, including publication, language, and methodological biases. A double-blind screening process was conducted using the Rayyan web-based tool, where authors independently assessed each article. Conflicts were resolved through consensus discussions among all authors (Page et al., 2021).
Fifth, data synthesis involved thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's (2006) approach. Key concepts such as leadership, strategy, processes, and stakeholder engagement were coded and categorized into broader themes. The analysis integrated dimensions from established strategic alignment models (Kaplan & Norton, 2006; Henderson & Venkatraman, 1990) and QMM frameworks (ISO 9004, EFQM). Finally, the synthesized themes were refined and defined to form the conceptual foundation of the study's integrated framework, ensuring comprehensive coverage of both domains.
Results
The systematic review identified significant growth in publications, with Scopus data showing an increase from 64 articles in 2023 to 134 in 2024, indicating growing scholarly interest in strategy-quality integration. Geographically, the United States (176 articles) and China (82 articles) lead research production.
As shown in Table 1, key findings revealed six strategic alignment dimensions: skills, governance, value, communication, interested parties’ participation, and scope which are compatible with previous researches such as (Miyamoto, 2018). Whereas seven quality management maturity dimensions emerged: context, leadership, process management, resource management, Performance analysis and evaluation, and Improvement, Learning and Innovation are in line with (Glogovac, Ruso & Maricic, 2022). The integration mechanism operates through four interconnected levels: foundational (leadership/governance), enabling (resources/competencies), operational (processes), and cultural (values/communications).
Discussion and Conclusion
This study demonstrates that strategic alignment emerges not randomly, but as the outcome of an integrated, mature quality management system. The Proposed framework addresses critical gaps in understanding the causal mechanisms between these domains.
Practically, the study offers organizations diagnostic method for assessing alignment gaps and developing integrated roadmaps. The mapping enables managers to identify specific QM maturity requirements for achieving strategic objectives, particularly in industrial settings where process-standardization interfaces are crucial (Kaplan & Norton, 2006). The findings affirm that strategic alignment and QM maturity represent complementary dimensions of organizational excellence rather than discrete constructs.
The study's primary contribution lies in developing an integrated framework mapping systematic relationships between quality maturity and strategic alignment dimensions. Theoretically, this provides a novel contingency model explaining causal mechanisms between the domains. Practically, it offers organizations diagnostic tools for assessing alignment gaps and developing integrated roadmaps.
For future research, empirical validation through large-scale quantitative studies and longitudinal case research is recommended. Developing industry-specific integrated maturity models and investigating moderating variables like organizational size and age would further enhance understanding. Additionally, exploring each maturity level requirements for these dimensions presents promising research avenues.
Keywords
Subjects