an investigation to the effect of TQM and ERP on market performance of industrial company at Rasht and Anzali s industrial city

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "an investigation to the effect of TQM and ERP on market performance of industrial company at Rasht and Anzali s industrial city"

Transcription

1 International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences 2013 Available online at ISSN X / Vol, 6 (5): Science Explorer Publications an investigation to the effect of and on market performance of industrial company at Rasht and Anzali s industrial city Seyyed Mohammad Nopasand asil 1, Mohammad Dostar 2, Amin Shoja 3 1. Professor Assistant, the university of Guilan, Rasht,IRAN 2. Professor Assistant, the university of Guilan, Rasht,IRAN 3. MBA, the university of Guilan, Rasht, IRAN Corresponding Author aminshoja62@gmail.com ABSTRACT: Different industries seek to constant improvement on organizational performance, because it is essentials for every organization. All of them imply to total quality and gain competitive advantage. There is question that if implementation needs to implementation? The aim of this articl is an investigation to the effect of and on market performance of industrial company at Rasht and Anzali s industrial city. Statistical society is industrial companies at Rasht and Anzali s industrial city. 2 middle s and 1 top completed the questioner which is 42 questioners. It is analyzed by Perason Correlation. Results indicated that is proceeding of implementation. has significant relationship to customer, and has no relationship to operation. It effects on company s market performance. Key words: total quality, Enterprise Resource Management, operation Management,, organizational performance INTRODUCTION Different industrial company consider that constant important at organizational performance is an essential element for survive at competitive market. So, organizations create competitive advantage by total quality. Quality measurement is complicated. There are several quality awards that play an important role for boosting organization s quality, but each of awards focus on some dimension of quality and performance. Hence, we don t measure organizational performance according to quality performance (Chen and Chen, 2009). Organizations seek to new business opportunity among competitive markets. They focus on their agility such as meet the customer need, quality important, increase production quality, and efficiency improvement. They sometimes consider that business needs to fundamental changes for IT usage. So, most of companies seek to improve their level of competitiveness by IT and some systems such as enterprise resource planning (), and total quality (). System implementation is not simple and needs to people attentions at organizations. On the one hand, these systems have significant impact on organizational performance. On the other hand, implementing these systems is so complicate and are risk processing (Granbski and Leech,2007). The aim of this project is an investigation to the impact of total quality and enterprise resource organizations on market performance at industrial company. At the next section, there is Literature finding and results will be at follow. Finally, reference will mentioned at the end. MATERIALS AND METHODS organizational performance Although, the importance of organizational performance was consideringwidely, there is not significant debate about it and also,there is not obvious scale for performance measurement. Performance consist efficiency that related to measurement, and lead to business growth or employee s. In addition to, we can define organizational performance by financial and nonfinancial measurement or in objective resource point of view.

2 Objective measurements are such as second hand financial measurement, asset rejection or benefits growth (Alegre and Chiva, 2008). Researchers are able to analyzedstructure by financial measurement. Conceptual or nonfinancial resources aresuch as employee s efficiency or financial healthcare lead to total. Performance subjective measurement evaluates organizational efficiency and employee. High pursue at organization create needs and some scale that obviously is not sufficient for organizational multi goals (Sambasivan,2008). Organizational performance measurement scales reflect different organizational productivity s dimensions organizational performance or productivity s explanation must be in parallel of organizational capability, because they impact on performance. Organizational performance was divided on 2 parts: financial and nonfinancial measurement that financial part measure by assets and nonfinancial refer to manager s efficiency. These categories were made comparison organizational subjective and objective advantage. Relative advantage consists some point of view that explain why they made such decision (Gopalakrishnan,2006). From the other view, organizational performance divides on 2 parts that are efficiency and effectiveness which focus on conceptual dimension. s are the basis on organizational products and services, employee s, efficiency, and reach to organizational goals (Alegre and Chiva,2008). total quality () Companies that can be competing among competitive market can survive, and don t need to protect against competitive forces. So, business more to competitive atmosphere. Today s organizations move to imply total quality (), and gain competitive advantage. Then, they improve business operation, production, services, increase organizational efficiency, and reinforce organizational productivity. Some researchers believe that implementation not only in developed countries, but also in developing countries have many advantages (Sarmi et al, 2009). Martin (1993) mentioned that is a ware, and common at social atmosphere. Constant improvement and team working are result of that lead to customer. Totally, is professional and constant systems that is on the basis of employee s and top s commitment. Increase the level of competitiveness, technological development was created new challenge for implementation. traditional approach sometimes is rational. However research s data is traditional and normal, but it consiststheoretical evaluations (Mc Adam et al,2008) Wang et al (2010) represents 5 dimensions for Management leadership and commitment Human resource Relationship between customer and supplier. Organizational domestic culture Process There elements don t compatible without implementation. Studies indicated that companies which implement in comparison to others without implementation have competitive advantage. In addition to, it was stated that has positive relationship to organizational performance. Although, some researches show negative relationship, positive relationship are existed (Huij and Post,2011) Enterprise Resource planning () Knowledge and its capability are the important resources for stable competitive resources in companies. Globalization and strategic alliance transmit knowledge. implementation needs to wide knowledge. If company ignores to external environment, was implement hardly. Level of success depend on customer operation and update knowledge and skills that can be learned (Zahedy and Gorji,2009). systems are computer oriented systems, and it wasdesigned for data process, promote facilities, planning and meet customer needs. systems also investigate structural problems and present software models for increase organizational performance. implementation represents some views about business, and aware people for dynamic environment changes. Although systems can gain competitive advantage for organization, it does not identify yet (Amid et al,2012). Most of time, effort, and expenditure were spent for implementation. At first, such systems weredesigned for huge company. 60% of American huge company had been implement systems until plans need to huge investment, and high commitment. Company s domestic size and their activity span are consider at systems. research often did at the first stage of company establishment. Most of company s financial goals are at the systems. Knowledge was stored during the implementation that is one of the 645

3 important resources for organization, and must mange correctly. promote organizational process, and data division. implementation needs knowledge, evaluate models, software, teach employees, and keep supportive systems (Mc Ginnis and Huange, 2007) is fundamental framework for implementation, and is essential for organizational changes. It seeks to improve business activities, but is technology oriented. So, and is also technology oriented process. and are complete each other. also is proceed for implementation (Syed Hossine and Bayat Tork,2004). and operation is one of the customer oriented companies goal. systems implementation is leverage for produce, promote its capability for planning, control and operation. Companies need to manage between demand and data. systems help to improve supplier chain. If it implements correctly, information system cannot manage data. indicated the lead time for production delivery, cost, and orders. systems helps to production activity by simplicity of process and remove the redounded process (Kanellou and Spathis,2013). and Somer et al (2010) defined customer on which customer understand systems that meet hisor her information needs. They mentioned that customer s about information systems is one of the important criteria for successful. Delon and Maclean (2010) suggested that there are 3 reasons for at least: System comprehensive. Appropriate developmetn of criteria measurement tools. Alterative tools weakness. Companies must focus on 5 dimensions for customer : Content System correctness Design Easy use Up data (Kanellou and Spathis, 2013) reflects their needs. and start with customer and market and finish with them too. The aim of and is gain profits. So, customer is on the central of companies. Managers pay more attention to quality of activates. systems can provide information about customers need and competitiveness. Marketperforman ce Figure1. Research conceptual model (Li et al, 2008) Research hypotheses are resource planning. There is significant relationship between total quality and enterprise 646

4 There is significant relationship between total quality and operation. There is significant relationship between total quality and customer There is significant relationship between enterprise resource planning and operation. There is significant relationship between enterprise resource planning and customer. There is signification relationship between operation and market performance. There is signification relationship between customer and market performance. Statistical society is middle and top of industry city at Rasht and Anzali that are 42. dimensions are Provide better services and production in comparison with competitors. Provide services to customer in comparison to performance (Li et al,2008). Researches show that implementation control companies activities. It needs to comprehensive planning. cause to increase productivity and provide customer by.organizational performance improvement and customer cause to promote organizational performance, and companies position. Fig1 shows research conceptual model. RESULT AND DISCUSSION Data was analyzed by person correlations. Hypothesis tests are mentioned at follow: There is significant relationship between total quality and enterprise resource planning. Table1. Correlation rate between and Pearson Correlation ** Pearson Correlation.546 ** 1 Correlation between and is 54/6% that indicate directrelationship between these criteria. There is significant relationship between total quality and operation. Table2. Correlation rate between and operation Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed).272 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed).272 There is not significant relationship between and operation. There is significant relationship between total quality and customer Table3. Correlation rate between and customer Pearson Correlation ** Pearson Correlation.640 ** 1 According to this table, it can stated that correlation rate between and customer is 64% that has direct relationship between and customer. There is significant relationship between enterprise resource planning and operation. 647

5 Table4. Correlation rate between and operation Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed).237 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed).237 There is not significant relationship between and operation. There is significant relationship between enterprise resource planning and customer. Table5. Correlation rate between and customer Pearson Correlation ** Pearson Correlation.644 ** 1 Correlation between these 2 criteria is 64/4% that said direct relationship between and customer. There is signification relationship between operation and market performance. Table6. Correlation rate between operation and market performance. Market performance Pearson Correlation Market performance Sig. (2-tailed).070 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed).070 There is not significant relationship between operation and market performance. There is signification relationship between customer and market performance. Table7. Correlation rate between customer and market performance Market performance Pearson Correlation * Sig. (2-tailed).046 Pearson Correlation.309 * 1 Market performance Sig. (2-tailed).046 According to table 7, it can stated that, correlation rate between customer and market performance is 30/9% that stated direct relationship between customer and market performance. According to analyzes, correlation rate between and are 54/6%. At first, we can answer to this question that is proceed for? Industrial city company s data at Rasht and Anzali: indicated that 54% of implementation successfulness depend to implementation. Lee et al (2008) was also stated the same results. They found that implementation at organizations needs to implementation. There was investigated to the impact of on operation and customer, and it was sated that didn t have and direct relationship with operation, but can prognosticate 64% of customer. At Rasht and Anzali s industrial companies didn t promote production. It seems that there is not direct impact. The correlation between and customer is 64% it show that promote customer by increase products quality. At following hypotheses, the relationship between with operation and was evaluated, its results is the same as. has relationship just to. And according to last hypostatize, 648

6 has relationship to organizational performance that was accepted. In other words, customer promotes organizational performance. In this project, it was stated that significant relationship between and with customer, but there is not any relationship between and with operation. It was suggested that, at future research, investigate why and don t have any relationship to them? REFERENCES Alerge J, Chiva R.2008." Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance: an empirical test", Tecnovation,.28(6), pp Amid A, Moalagh M, Ravasan A Indentification and classification of critical failure factors in Iranian industries, Information systems. 37(9), p p Chen J, Chen I measurement for the biotechnology industry in Taiwan, Expert systems with Applications,.36(18),pp Gopalkrishnan "Unraveling the links between dimensions of innovation and organizational performance", High Technology Management Research, 11(1),pp Grabsk S, Leech S Complementary controls and implementation success, international Journal of accounting information systems,.8(12), pp Huij J, Post T on the performance of emerging market equity mutual funds, emerging markets review, 12 (8), pp Kanellou A, Spathis C.2013.Accouting benefits and in an environment, International Journal of Accounting Information systems, 14(5),pp Li L, Markowski.C, Markowski E A predecessor of implementation, Int. J. production Economics, 115 (12), pp MC Ginnis T, Huang Z Rethinking success: A new perspective from knowledge and continuous improvement, information & Management, 44 (12), pp MCAdam R, Leonard D, Henderson J, Hazlett SH a grounded theory research approach to building and testing theory in operations, Omega, 36(12), pp Saremi M, Mousavi F, Sanayei A consultant selection in SMEs with TOPSIS under fuzzy environment, Expert systems with Applications, 36 (6), pp Seyed Hossini S, Bayat Tork A evaluation the production critera, Bazaryabi Novin, 10 (3), pp Sombasiven M, Nadan T, Mohamad Z consideration of performance measure in a supply chain environment, Journal of Enterprise Information,22(6), pp Zahedi SH, Gorji M ay insurance and represent appropriate algorithm, Daneshvar Juornal, 16(3), pp