INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED ENGINEERING RESEARCH, DINDIGUL Volume 2, No 1, 2011

Transcription

1 TQM for manufacturing excellence: Factors critical to success Singla Nitin 1, Khanduja Dinesh 2, Singh Tejinder Paul 3 1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Engineering College, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, India. 2 Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, NIT Kurukshetra, Haryana, 3 Director, Symbiosis Institute of Technology, Symbiosis International University, Pune. nitintiet@gmail.com ABSTRACT The critical success factors of TQM can be described as best practices or ways in which firms & their employees undertake business activities in all key processes. TQM is seen as a relatively new concept and a way for the organizations to improve the quality of their products and services. TQM has been playing an increasingly important role in the survival and growth of companies in manufacturing sector. Many firms have arrived at the conclusion that effective TQM implementation can improve their competitive abilities and provide strategic advantages in the marketplace. Many approaches have been used for implementation of TQM. These approaches form an integral part of several International Quality Awards/National Quality Awards developed by governments of various countries as well as many frameworks developed by individual researchers. Further each Quality Award/framework has its own different set of critical success factors. It therefore creates a lot of confusion for the manufacturing firms, as to which critical success factors to choose and which not, so as to implement the concept of TQM for achieving manufacturing excellence. The purpose of this paper is to identify a set of critical success factors of TQM implementation by comparing a set of 24 awards/frameworks as given by various agencies and researchers. The outcome of this study is a comprehensive list of most important critical success factors of TQM implementation required for sustaining or achieving manufacturing excellence. Keywords: Total Quality Management (TQM), Critical Success factors (CSFs), National Quality Award (NQA) 1. Introduction Best will survive is the slogan of the top class business organizations. In recent years increasing internationalization and globalization of markets have made it necessary for the organizations to improve their effectiveness and for this many have targeted the area of quality (Cao et al, 2000). With increasing international pressure from the international community to meet the World Trade organization guidelines, the governments will not be able to maintain protectionist policies like restrictions, tariffs and different types of subsidies for local industries(khan, 2003). This has added pressure on small manufacturers (Singla et al, 2008). Producing everything right the first time every time is very important. Accordingly all manufacturing firms seek to adopt and implement a set of operations management practices that have been successful elsewhere and that will help them to identify changes in the environment and to respond proactively through continuous improvement (Fassoula, D, 2006). One form of operations management practices is TQM which has received great 219

2 attention in last two decades (Jung et al, 2006). Total Quality Management thus assumes a great importance in the prevailing manufacturing scenario. TQM is a culture; inherent in this culture is a total commitment to quality and an attitude expressed by everybody s involvement in the process of continuous improvement of products and services through the use of innovative scientific methods. TQM is not a step by step technique but it is a culture. This culture varies from company to company. Implementation of TQM in an organization would demand designing a procedure taking into account the factors and forces prevalent in that organization. This demands that a flexible approach is to be used for implementation of TQM and this can be named as Flexible Systems Methodology. The concept of flexibility in organizational context refers to the ability to precipitate intentional changes, to continuously respond to unanticipated changes and to adjust to the unexpected consequences of predictable changes (Bahrami, 1992). Flexibility is also defined as the ability to change or react with little penalty in time, effort, cost or performance (Upton, 1994). The concept of flexibility dwells on three central issues of continuum, freedom of choice and dynamic interplay, which are highly interrelated. The three basic components that define the dynamic interplay of reality in flexible system management paradigm are situation, actor and process. The situation is to be managed by an Actor through a flexibly evolved management process. Flexible Systems Methodology bridges the gap between hard system based techniques and soft system based techniques (Singh et al, 1996). FSM has got four phases: the first phase involves Clarifying the Context, through detailed review of existing literature. The second phase Understanding the Situation involves a survey of various industrial organizations. The third phase Assessing the Actor s Capability involves conducting detailed case studies in some of the surveyed organizations for finding out more details. Phase four of the study aims at Evolving a management Process which is specific to the class and category of the industry. This phase takes into account, the information collected in all the previous phases and its analysis in the light of expert opinion to evolve a management process. In this paper an attempt has been made to discuss the phase I of the FSM methodology i.e. clarifying the context and thus provide a universally accepted framework which will contain all the important CSFs of TQM. The task has been carried out by carrying a detailed literature review of fourteen different frameworks as developed by various researchers and that of criteria given by 10 different National Quality awards. 2. Literature Review An extensive literature has been carried out to select the various TQM frameworks for this study. Primarily literature related to two different types of frameworks has been analyzed viz. award based frameworks and researcher based frameworks. Award based frameworks are meant mainly for the organizations seeking recognition. There are more than hundreds of National Quality Awards existing in different categories but amongst them most renowned National Quality Awards are Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) of USA, Deming Prize (DP) of Japan and European Quality Award (EQA). These award based frameworks are used by many organizations to assess and benchmark their level of TQM implementation. Hendricks & Singhal (2000) have quoted that these quality awards are proxy for effective implementation of TQM. Other type of comparison is made between the frameworks developed by various researchers known as researcher based frameworks. These 220

3 are the frameworks developed by a particular renowned researcher due to his vast experience in the field of TQM. The first survey which attempted to identify the critical success factors of TQM, was done by Saraph et al (1989). Some of the other important frameworks given by researchers include that by Flynn et al (1995) which has given details 11 on CSF s of TQM and by Ahire et al (1996) which covers 12 CSF s of TQM. Framework by Zhang et al (2000) gives 11 CSF s of TQM and in addition of these studies, several other empirical studies have also attempted to give a set of various CSF s of TQM. Thus a large number of frameworks, award based as well as researcher based, are available in literature for manufacturing units to assess their own level of TQM implementation and therefore making it difficult for the organizations to decide upon which set of CSF s to choose. Further TQM is not a step by step technique, rather it is a culture which varies from company to company. Thus implementation of TQM in an organization would demand designing a procedure taking into account the factors and forces prevalent in that organization. (Singla et al, 2008). Table 1 has enlisted various frameworks based on National Quality Awards and table 2 has enlisted various researcher based frameworks compared in this study. Table 1: List of National Quality Awards S. No Name Abbreviation used 1 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (1999) MBNQA 2 Deming Prize (1996) DP 3 European Foundation for Quality Management (1994) EFQM 4 Rajiv Gandhi National Quality Award (Tan et al, 2002) RGNQA 5 IMC Ramakrishna Bajaj National Quality Award) IMCRBNQA 6 Japan Quality Award (Khoo et al, 2003) JQA 7 South African Excellence Award (Hui and Chuan, 2002) SAEA 8 Golden Peacock National Quality Award GPNQA 9 Austrlian Business Excellence Award (Hui and Chuan, 2002) ABEA 10 The German Quality Award (Zink et al, 1998) GQA Table 2: List of Researcher Based Frameworks S.No Name of the framework along with Researcher. 1 An instrument for measuring TQM implementation for Chinese manufacturing companies by Zhang et al (2000) 2 An instrument for measuring factors of quality management by Saraph et al (1989) 3 A framework for international quality management research development and validation of a measurement instrument by Rao et al (1999) 4 Development and validation of TQM implementation constructs by Ahire et al (1996) 5 The impact of Quality management practices on performance & competitive advantage by Flynn et al (1995) 6 A Path analytic mode of theory of quality management methods by Anderson et al (1995) 7 An empirical investigation of critical TQM factors using exploratory factor analysis by Tamini (1995) 8 Critical success factors of TQM implementation in Hong Kong industries by Antony 221

4 et al (2002) 9 Self assessment of TQM programs by Wu et al (1997) 10 Assessment of quality management performance in organizations by Lee & Quazi (1999) 11 Measuring Critical factors of TQM, Measuring business excellence by Motwani (2000) 12 Critical success factors of total quality management by Seetharaman et al (2006) 13 Critical success factors for SPC implementation in UK small and medium enterprises: some key findings from a survey by rungasamy et al (2002) 14 The implementation of total quality management in the NHS: how to avoid failure by Nwabueze & Kanji ( National Quality Awards: A comparison Table 3 shows the comparison of various National Quality Awards with respect to 24 different CSFs of TQM implementation. Symbol X in front of particular CSFs signifies its inclusion in a particular National Award Category. The last column of the table signifies the frequency of occurrence of a particular CSFs in all National Quality Award categories taken together. The data of frequency of occurrence of CSFs in various award categories taken together is also shown in figure 1 in the form of a histogram. The figure depicts the CSFs which get maximum frequency of occurrence and these are Strategic Quality Planning, Process Flow Management, Education & Training, Customer Orientation, Employee Empowerment & Involvement, Internal Quality Results and External Quality Results. All these got the maximum score of 10 and this implies that all the NQAs have included these seven CSFs in their award framework. CSF of Top Management Support has got a good score of 09 out of 10 and this shows that importance of this CSF is also emphasized by maximum frameworks and only one NQA has not included it in its framework. The CSFs, which got the least score of 1, are Vision & Plan Statement, Benchmarking, Unity of Purpose, Organization, Standardization, Maintenance and Future Plans, thus showing their least importance in terms of various NQA frameworks. Table 4 depicts the ten best CSFs i.e. those CSFs which attained a maximum score, in the descending order and Table 5 depicts the Ten CSFs which got the poor score i.e. those CSFs which attained the minimum score of frequency of occurrence in the ascending order Table 3: Comparison of various National Quality Awards MBNQA DP EFQM RGNQA IMCRBN QA JQA SAEA GPNQA ABEA GQA Frequenc y of Occurrenc Top Management Support X X X X X X X X X 09 Education & Training X X X X X X X X X X 10 Vision & Plan Statement X 01 Customer Orientation X X X X X X X X X X 10 Supplier Quality management X X X

5 Employee Empowerment & 10 X X X X X X X X X X Involvement Process Flow Management X X X X X X X X X X 10 Reward & Recognition X X X X X X X 7 Benchmark X 01 Strategic Quality Planning X X X X X X X X X X 10 Information, Evaluation & Analysis X X X X X X X 7 Product Design X X 02 Product Quality X X X 03 Unity of Purpose X 01 Internal Quality Results X X X X X X X X X X 10 External Quality Results X X X X X X X X X X 10 Quality System improvement X X 02 Organization X 01 Standardization X 01 Maintenance X 01 Future plans X 01 Impact on Environment/Society X X X X X 05 Resources X X X X 04 Market focus X X X 03 Frequency of Occurence of CSF's (Award Based Comparison) Top M anagement Support Education & Training V i si on & P l an Statement Customer Orient ation Frequency of occurence Critical Success factors Supplier Qualit y management Employee Empowerment & Involvement Process Flow M anagement Reward & Recognition Benchmark Strat egic Quality Planning Information, Evaluation & Analysis Product Design Product Qualit y Unity of Purpose Internal Quality Results Ext ernal Qualit y Results Quality Syst em improvement Organizat ion Standardization M aintenance Fut ure plans Impact on Environment/ Society Resources M arket focus Figure 1: Frequency of Occurrence of CSF's (Award Based Comparison) 223

6 Table 4: List of Best Ten CSFs Getting Highest Score (Award Based) S.No List of Best Ten CSF s Getting Highest Score Score (out of 10) 1 Strategic Quality Planning 10 2 Process flow Management 10 3 Education & Training Customer Orientation 10 5 Employee Empowerment & Involvement 10 6 Internal Quality Results 10 7 External Quality Results 10 8 Top Management Support 09 9 Reward & Recognition Information, Evaluation & Analysis 07 Table 5: List of Best Ten CSFs Getting Lowest Score (Award Based) S.No List of Ten CSF s Getting Lowest Score Score (out of 10) 1 Vision & Plan statement 1 2 Benchmark 1 3 Unity of Purpose 1 4 Organization 1 5 Standardization 1 6 Maintenance 1 7 Future Plans 1 8 Product design 2 9 Product Quality 3 10 Quality System Improvement 2 4. Researcher based frameworks: A Comparison Table 6 shows the comparison of various frameworks as suggested by individual researchers with respect to 26 different CSFs of TQM implementation. Symbol X in front of particular CSFs signifies its inclusion in a particular framework. The last column of the table signifies the frequency of occurrence of a particular CSF in all frameworks taken together. The data of frequency of occurrence of CSFs in various research based frameworks taken together is also shown in figure 2 in the form of a histogram. This figure depicts the CSFs, which got maximum frequency of occurrence. Top Management Support has got the maximum score of 14 and this implies that all the researchers have included this CSF in their framework. CSFs of Education & Training, Customer Orientation, and Information, Evaluation & Analysis, Employee Empowerment & Involvement have also got a good score, which shows that importance of these CSFs is also emphasized by maximum researchers. 224

7 Table 6: Comparison of various Researcher based frameworks Zhang et al Saraph et al Subba Rao et Ahire et al Flynn et al Anderson et al Tamini Antony et al Wu et al Lee et al Motwani Seetharaman Rungasamy Nwabueze et Frequency of Occurrence Top Management Support X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 Education & Training X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 Vision & Plan Statement X 01 Customer Orientation X X X X X X X X X X X 11 Supplier Quality 07 X X X X X X X Management Employee Empowerment & 09 X X X X X X X X X Involvement Process flow Management X X X X X X X 07 Statistical Process Control X X X X 04 Reward & Recognition X X X X 04 Benchmark X X X X 04 Strategic Quality Planning X X X X 04 Information, Evaluation & 11 X X X X X X X X X X X Analysis Product Design X X X X X X 06 Product Quality X 01 Perceived Quality Market 01 X outcome Unity of Purpose X X X X 04 Internal Quality Results X X X 03 External Quality Results X X X 03 Quality System improvement X 01 Innovation & Technology X 01 Role of Quality Department X X 02 Quality citizenship X 01 Continuous Improvement X X 02 Communication to improve 05 X X X X X Quality Providing assurance to 01 X employees Organizational Structure X 01 The CSFs, which got the least score of 1, are Vision & Plan Statement, Product Quality, Percieved Quality Market Outcomes, Quality System Improvement, Innovation & Technology, Quality Citizenship, Providing assurance to Employees and Organizational Structure, thus showing their least importance in terms of various researcher based frameworks. 225

8 Frequency of Occurence of CSF's (Researcher Based Comparison) frequency of Occurence Critical Sucess factors Top M anagement Support Education & Training Vision & Plan St atement Customer Orient at ion Supplier Quality M anagement Employee Empowerment & Involvement Process flow M anagement Statistical Process Control Reward & Recognition Benchmark Strategic Quality Planning Informat ion, Evaluation & Analysis Product Design Product Quality Perceived Qualit y M arket out come Unity of Purpose Internal Qualit y Results Ext ernal Quality Results Qualit y System improvement Innovation & Technology Role of Qualit y Department Qualit y citizenship Continuous Improvement Communication to improve Quality Providing assurance t o employees Organizational Structure Figure 2: Frequency of Occurrence of CSF's (Researcher Based Comparison) Table 7 depicts the ten best CSFs i.e. those CSFs which attained a maximum score in the descending order and table 8 depicts the ten CSFs which got the poor score i.e. those CSFs which attained the minimum score of frequency of occurrence in the ascending order Table 7: List of Best Ten CSFs Getting Highest Score (Researcher Based) S.No List of Best Ten CSF s Getting Highest Score Score (out of 14) 1 Top Management Support 14 2 Education & Training 13 3 Customer Orientation 11 4 Information, Evaluation & Analysis 11 5 Employee Empowerment & Involvement 9 6 Supplier Quality management 7 7 Process flow Management 7 8 Product Design 6 9 Benchmark 4 10 Strategic Quality Planning 4 226

9 Table 8: List of Best Ten CSFs Getting Lowest Score (Researcher Based) S.No List of Ten CSF s Getting Lowest Score Score (out of 14) Vision & Plan Statement 01 Product Quality 01 Perceived Quality Market outcome 01 Quality System improvement 01 Innovation & Technology 01 Quality citizenship 01 Providing assurance to employees 01 Organizational Structure 01 Role of Quality Department 02 Continuous Improvement 02 A brief discussion about the best CSF s that got the highest Score as per table 4 & 7 is given below: 1. Strategic Quality Planning: It demands the integration of quality and customer satisfaction issues into strategic and operational plans. This integration allows organizations to set clear priorities establish clear target area for improvement activities and allocates resources to the most important things to be done (Godfrey, 1993). 2. Process flow Management: This factor emphasizes systems and procedures for adding values to processes, increasing quality levels and raising productivity per year (Motwani, 2001). Deming (1986) stated that improving product quality should not depend on mass inspection, which is too late, ineffective and costly but should depend on improvement on production process. 3. Top Management Support/Leadership: Top Management Support/Leadership has proved to be the key in the continuous quality improvement process and the driver of quality management practices (Crossby, 1979; Deming, 1982; Garvin 1983;1984; Gibson, 1990; Gilbert 1990; Gryna, 1991; Juran 1986; Leonard and Sasser, 1982; Steeples, 1992). 4. Education and Training: Within an organization only a good education and training programme helps in starting a successful quality culture. Training and education at all levels is vital to success of TQM. It should cover all aspects of TQM, from the general concepts, through the development of customer focus, to the measurement of quality and should include information about effective team working and use of problem solving techniques (Nwabueze and Kanji, 1997). 5. Customer Orientation: Meeting the needs and requirements of customers is the main focus of TQM. Efforts by companies must not be only restricted to merely meeting specifications, reducing defects and errors or eliminating complaints, these must 227

10 emphasize designing new products and responding rapidly to changing consumer and market demands. (Evans and Lindsay, 1999). 6. Employee Empowerment and Involvement : Empowerment of employees is involving them in organizational planning, have the abilities and tools to perform tasks well and can trust and be trusted by management (Raiborn and Payne, 1996). Employee empowerment means that workers are prepared for and are authorized to fully participate in work and safety planning (Weinstein, 1996). 7. Internal Quality Results: The first and immediate goal of most quality management practices is to improve internal quality performance measures (Steeples, 1992). Internal quality performance (waste, rework etc) is improved when the product components are designed in such a way that is easy to manufacture and assemble. (Rao et al, 1999). 8. External Quality Results: Good quality practices resulting in the improvement of internal quality performance will lead to the improvement of external performance such as competitive market position, profitability and customer satisfaction. (Deming 1982; 1986). When companies deliver good quality, they generate satisfied customers who reward the organization with continuous patronage and favorable word of mouth advertising thus resulting in external quality performance. (Rao et al, 1999). 9. Reward and Recognition: Firms that are serious about achieving quality and customer satisfaction must integrate theses aspects to their recognition and reward system. Johnston & Daniel cited rewards and recognition as one of the enablers, which maximizes employees potential and involvement and in doing so become one of the main contributors to the company s journey to quality (Johnston and Daniel, 1991). 10. Information Availability, Evaluation and Analysis: A key part of the quality management infrastructure is information system [Godfrey, 1993]. Continuous Quality improvement relies on steady flow of accurate information about processes that generate a company s products & from various constituencies like workers, agents, vendors and customers (Crossby, 1979; Deming, 1986; Ishikawa, 1985; Juran, 1986). Analysis of this information allows management to make effective decisions on Quality related issues and tasks. (Juran, 1986). 11. Supplier Quality Management: It is an important aspect of TQM since materials and purchased parts are often a major source of quality problems (Zhang et al, 2000). It can be defined as the set of supplier related quality management practices for improving supplier s quality of products and services. (Mann et al, 1992). 12. Product Design: Product design translates customer expectations for functional requirements into specific engineering and quality characteristics, which can be called specifications. Sound product design can contribute to the improvement of product quality to be better than that of the competitors thus increasing a firm s competitive advantage in market place (Juran & Gryna, 1993). 228

11 13. Benchmarking: it is a systematic method by which organizations can measure themselves against the best industry practices. It promotes best superior performance by providing an organized framework through which organizations learn how the best in class do the things, understand how these best practices differ from their own and implement change to close the gap (Besterfield et al, 2007). 5. Conclusions The paper attempts to classify the various CSF s according to their frequency of occurrence in various National Quality Awards (NQA s) and according to preference as given by various researchers in their frameworks. The paper gives a whooping comparison of 24 frameworks as given by various NQA s and 14 individual researchers in the light of 26 CSF s of TQM. From the study, it was found that there are commonalities as well as differences in terms of CSF s suggested by various frameworks. The study also gives the details of the ten best CSF s, which are highly emphasized by most of the NQA s 7 researchers seperately. Implementation of these CSF s will add to the competitive position of a manufacturing firm and thus provides a firm with strategic advantage in the marketplace. The paper also enlists the ten least significant CSF s. Although the study includes a whooping comparison of 24 frameworks and 26 CSF s, yet the list is incomplete, as the comparison of many other CSF s can be done in the light of some more NQA s of various other countries and also of more researcher based frameworks. Further the importance of particular CSF may vary from company to company and from country to country, thus the score (frequency of occurrence) of a particular CSF may vary accordingly. Future research can be suggested in terms that these CSF s can be clubbed together to develop a framework which can be empirically tested through a questionnaire survey to get more accurate results. 6. References 1. Ahire, S.L., Golhar, D.Y., Waller, M. A. (1996), Development and validation of TQM implementation constructs, Decision Sciences, 27(1), pp American Quality Foundation and Ernst & Young (1992), International Quality study: The definitive study of the best international Quality management practices, Cleveland, OH, thought leadership series. 3. Anderson J., Rungtusanatham, M., Schroeder, R and Devraj, S. (1995), A Path analytic mode of a theory of Quality management method, Decision sciences, 26 (5), pp Antony, J., Leung, K., Knowles, G. and Gosh, S. (2002), Critical success factors of TQM implementation in Hong Kong industries, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 19(5), pp Bahrami, H. (1992), The emerging flexible organization: perspective from Silicon Valley, California Management Review, 34(4), pp

12 6. Baidoun, S.& Zairi, M. (2003), A proposed model for TQM implementation in Palestinian context, TQM & Business Excellence, 14(10), pp Bester field, D.H., Besterfield, C., Besterfield, G.H., Besterfield, M. (2007), Total Quality Management, Third edition, Pearson prentice hall. 8. Cao, G., Clarke, S., & Lehaney, B. (2000), A systematic view of organizational change & TQM, The TQM Magazine, 12(3), pp Crossby.P. (1979), Quality is free: The art of making Quality certain, Mc Graw Hill, New York, NY. 10. Crossby P. (1989), Let s Talk Quality: 96 Questions that you always wanted to ask Phil crossby, Mcgraw Hill, New York, NY. 11. Deming, W., E. (1982), Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position, MIT Institute for Advanced Engineering study, Cambridge, MA 12. Deming,W.,E. (1986), Out of the crisis, Cambridge university Press, Cambridge 13. Deming prize (1996), Guide for overseas companies, Union of Japanese scientist and Engineers, Tokyo, Japan 14. Easton, G.S. (1993), The 1993 state of U.S. Total Quality management: A Baldrige Examiners perspective, California Management Review, 35(3), pp European foundation for quality management (1994), Self assessment based on the European model for total quality management: Guidelines for identifying and addressing business excellence issues, Brussels, Belgium. 16. Evans, J.R. and Lindsay, W., M. (1999), The management and control of quality, 4 th edition, South Western college publishing, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. 17. Fassoula, D. (2006), Transforming the supply chain, Journal of Manufacturing Technology management, 17(6), pp Feigenbaum, A.V. (1961), Total Quality control, McGraw Hill, London. 19. Flynn, B.B., Scgroeder, R.G., and Sakakibara, S. (1995), The impact of quality management practices on performance and competitive advantage, Decision sciences, 26(5), pp Garvin, D., A. (1983), Quality on the line, Harvard Business Review, pp Garvin, D., A. (1984), Japanese Quality Management, The Columbia Journal of Business, 19(1), pp

13 22. Gibson, T.C. (1990). Helping leaders accept leadership of Total quality management, Quality Progress, November, pp Gilbert, R.J. (1990). Are you Committed, Quality Progress, pp Godfrey, A.B. (1993). Ten areas for future research in Total Quality Management, Quality management Journal, 4(1), pp Gryna, F.M. (1991). The quality director of the 90s, Quality Progress, pp Hendricks, K., B. and Singhal, V., R. (2000). The impact of Total Quality management on financial performance: evident from quality award winners, available at 10k 27. Hui, K.H., & Chuan, T., K. (2002). Nine approaches to organizational excellence, Journal of organizational excellence, 22(1), pp Ishikawa, K. (1985). What is Total quality control?, The Japanese way, prentice hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 29. Jarrar,Y and Zairi, M. (2000). Best Practice transfer for future competitiveness: A study of best practices, Total Quality Management, 11(4/5/6), pp Johnston, C., G., and Daniel M., J. (1991). Customer satisfaction through Quality: an international perspective, The conference board of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 31. Jung, J., and Wang, Y. (2006). Relationship between TQM and continuous improvement of International Project management, CIIPM Technovation, 26(5 6), pp Juran J.M. (1974). Quality Control Handbook, Mcgraw Hill, London. 33. Juran, J.M. (1986). Quality Trilogy, Quality Progress, August, pp Juran., J., M. & Gryna, F.M. (1993). Quality planning & Analysis, Third edition, Mcgraw hill, Inc, new York 35. Khan, J., H. (2003). Impact of Total Quality management on productivity, The TQM magazine, 15(6), pp Khoo, H.H. and Tan, K.C. (2003). Managing for quality in USA & Japan: differences between MBNQA, DP & JQA, The TQM Magazine, 15(1), pp Lee, P.M. and Quazi, H. (1999). Assessment of quality management performance in organizations, Working Paper, Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. 231

14 38. Leonard, F. and Sasser, W.E. (1982). The incline of quality, Harvard Business Review, pp Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award, (1991). Criteria for performance excellence, national Institute of standard & technology, United states, department of commerce, Gaithersburg, MD 40. Mann, R.S. (1992). The development of a framework to assist in implementation of TQM, PhD thesis, department of industrial studies, university of Liverpool, UK 41. Motwani, J. (2001). Measuring critical factors of TQM, Measuring Business Excellence, 5(2), pp Nwabueze, U & Kanzi, G.K., (1997). The implementation of total quality management in the NHS: How to avoid failure, Total Quality management, 8(5), pp Oakland, J.S. (1993). Total Quality Management, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. 44. Raiborn, C & Payne, D. (1996). TQM: Just what the Ethicist ordered, Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), pp Rao, S.S., Solis, L.E., Ragunathan, T.S. (1999). A framework for International Quality Management research: Development & Validation of a measurement instrument, Total Quality management, 10(7), pp Rungasamy, S., Antony, J. and Ghosh, S. (2002). Critical success factors for SPC implementation in UK small and medium enterprises: some key findings from a survey, The TQM Magazine, 14(4), pp Saraph, J. V., George Benson, P., and Shroeder, R. G. (1989). An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management, Decision sciences, 20(4), pp Seetharaman, A., Sreenivasan, J. and Boon, L.P. (2006). Critical success factors of Total Quality Management, Quality and Quantity, 40(1), pp Singh, T.P., Khamba, J.S., Sushil. (1996). A framework for flexible management of technology, International conference on Technology management, Istanbul, Turkey, June Singla, N. and Singh, T.P. (2008). Flexible Systems Methodology Approach for TQM Implementation in Industry, Proceeding of an International Conference Glogift 08, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, pp

15 51. Steeples, M.M. (1992). The corporate guide to the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, Business One Irwin, Homewood, IL. 52. Tamimi, N. (1995). An empirical investigation of critical TQM factors using exploratory factor analysis, International Journal of Production Research, 33(11), pp Tan, K.C., and Khoo, H.H. (2002). Indian Society, Total Quality and the Rajiv Gandhi National Quality Award, Journal of management development, 21(6), pp Upton, D.M. (1994). The management of manufacturing flexibility, California Management review, 36(2), pp Weinstein, M.B. (1996). Improving safety programme through Total quality, Occupational safety Hazards, 58(8), pp Wu, H.Y., Wiebe, H. and Politi, J. (1997). Self assessment of Total Quality Management programs, Engineering Management Journal, 9(1), pp viewed on 06/01/ viewed on 27/12/ Zairi, M. (1994). Measuring Performance for Business results, chapman & hall, London. 60. Zhang, Z., Waszink, A., and Wijngard, J. (2000). An instrument for measuring TQM implementation for Chinese manufacturing companies, International Journal of Quality and reliability management, 17(7), pp Zink, K.J., and Voss, W. (1998). Quality in Germany an overview, The TQM Magazine, 10(6), pp