Critical Factors and Results of Quality Management - An Empirical Study

This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]
On: 07 September 2013, At: 01:44

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20
Critical factors and results of quality management:

An empirical study
a a a
Enrique Claver , Juan Jos Tar & Jos Francisco Molina
a
Department of Business Management, University of Alicante, Spain
Published online: 30 Mar 2010.
To cite this article: Enrique Claver , Juan Jos Tar & Jos Francisco Molina (2003) Critical factors and results of
quality management: An empirical study, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 14:1, 91-118, DOI:
10.1080/14783360309709
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783360309709
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT, VOL. 14, NO. 1, 2003, 91118
Critical factors and results of quality

management: an empirical study
E C, J J T & J F M
Department of Business Management, University of Alicante, Spain
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 01:44 07 September 2013
Quality management theory has been influenced by the contributions from quality
leaders, standardized quality models and empirical research. This has helped identifiy a set of critical
factors for successful quality management implementation, as a way to improve customer satisfaction
and performance. This study reviews the literature in order to identify the critical factors and results
of quality management, using a factor analysis and, starting from this analysis, we also create a
scale that can be empirically tested from the answers provided by those responsible for quality in 106
certified firms.
Introduction
Total quality management (TQM) allows firms, on the one hand, to obtain a high degree of
dierentiation, satisfying customers needs and strengthening brand image, and on the other,
to reduce costs by preventing mistakes and time wasting and allowing improvements in the
corporations processes. However, in spite of its advantages (American Quality Foundation
and Ernst & Young, 1991; Sohal et al., 1991; Maani et al., 1994; James, 1996; Lee, 1998;
Quazi & Padibjo, 1998), we can also find problems in its implementation ( Joubert, 1998;
Kanji, 1998; Quazi & Padibjo, 1998). Thus, for a successful implementation, firms must
develop a number of components in an integrated way (Powell, 1995; Easton & Jarrell, 1998;
Claver et al., 1999).
In this respect, various studies have been carried out for the identification of those
critical factors and also for the results of TQM from three dierent areas: contributions
from quality leaders (Crosby, 1979; Deming, 1982, 1986; Ishikawa, 1985; Juran, 1988;
Feigenbaum, 1991), formal evaluation models (European Quality Award, Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award, The Deming Award) and empirical research (Sarap et al., 1989;
Flynn et al., 1994; Badri et al., 1995; Black & Porter, 1995, 1996; Ahire et al., 1996; Grandzol
& Gershon, 1998; Quazi et al., 1998; Rao et al., 1999).
The European Quality Award in Europe is a generally accepted TQM framework.
Starting from a review of this model, the purpose of this paper is to contribute to the
identification of critical factors and results of TQM, by developing a measurement scale.
This scale is validated empirically, using answers from quality managers from 106 certified
firms in the area of Alicante (eastern Spain).
This paper will be structured as follows: first, we shall identify the elements of TQM
Correspondence: Juan Jose Tar, Department of Business Management, University of Alicante, PO Box 99,
03080 Alicante, Spain. E-mail: jj.tari@ua.es
ISSN 1478-3363 print/ISSN 1478-3371 online/03/010091-28 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/1478336032000044852
92 E. CLAVER ET AL.
through a review of the literature. We shall then study the methodology used in our research.
We will identify critical factors and results using factor analysisusing answers from the
interviewed firmsand we will also provide the reliability and validity results. Finally, we
will discuss and compare our results with those from other studies and we shall attempt to
draw a number of conclusions.
Review of the literature

Quality management theory has been influenced by the contributions from quality leaders
(Ishikawa, 1976, 1985; Crosby, 1979; Deming, 1982, 1986; Juran, 1986, 1988; Feigenbaum,
1991). The research by all these authors shows both strengths and weaknesses, for none of
the authors oers all the solutions to the problems encountered by firms (Dale, 1999),
although some common issues can be observed, such as management leadership, training,
employees participation, process management, planning and quality measures for continuous
improvement.
These ideas have exerted an influence upon later studies, in such a way that the literature
on quality management has developed from these initial contributions, and has identified
dierent elements for eective quality management. Taking the initial research as a basis, the
elements in quality management found in the literature vary from one author to another,
although there is a common core, formed by the requirements shown in Table 1.
Alongside these factors, identified both in theoretical and empirical studies, there are
standardized quality models used by firms as a guide for quality implementation, or in order
to carry out self-evaluations of their quality practices. The main models are the Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award model in the USA, the European Foundation for Quality
Management (EFQM) model in Europe and the Deming Application Prize model in Japan.
The USA model lists in seven categories the main concepts and values in quality management:
leadership, strategic planning, human resources orientation, process management, informa-
tion and analysis, customer and market focus and business results (Hunt, 1993; Dean &
Evans, 1994). The EFQM model consists of the following principles: leadership, employee
management, policy and strategy, alliances and resources, process management, results in
people, results in customers, results in society and key results (EFQM, 2000). The Deming
model is grouped into ten chapters, which are in turn divided, as in the two previous models,
into a number of subcriteria, in the following way: policies, organization, information,
standardization, development and usage of human resources, activities ensuring quality,
activities for maintenance and control, activities for improvement, results and future plans
(Hunt, 1993).
This examination allows us to say, on the one hand, that the critical factors of quality
management dier from one author to another, although there are common issues, and also
that, in practice, firms may follow known, accepted, standard models as a guide to carrying
out TQM. In this respect, we should refer to the studies by Anderson et al. (1994), who
strive to synthesize a theory of quality management from a study based on the Delphi
method, carried out both on academics and on managers closely associated with quality, and
using questions related to Demings 14 principles. From their conclusions they obtained
seven concepts that form Demings quality management theory: forward-looking leadership,
internal and external cooperation, learning, administrative processes, continuous improve-
ment, employees performance and customer satisfaction.
Together with this study, there have so far been a number of contributions yielding valid,
reliable measurement tools to suitably evaluate these factors, which can help both researchers
and managers who have to make decisions related to quality management. On the one hand,
CRITICAL FACTORS OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT 93
Table 1. Factors of quality management according to the literature
Customer-based approach; i.e. any task must be Brocka & Brocka (1992); Dean & Evans (1994);
carried out always bearing in mind customer James (1996); Goetsch & Davis (1997); Claver
satisfaction. et al. (1999); Sun (1999); Moreno et al. (2001).
Management commitment and leadership, Dean & Evans (1994); James (1996); Goestsch
visible before the eyes of employees. & Davis (1997); Claver et al. (1999); Dale
(1999); Sun (1999); Yusof & Aspinwall (1999);
Moreno et al. (2001); Kanji (2002).
Quality planning, i.e. defining objectives and Saraph & Sebastian (1993); Dean & Evans
actions to attain such objectives. (1994); James (1996); Goetsch & Davis (1997);
Shin et al. (1998); Dale (1999); Sun (1999).
Management based on facts, that is, continuous Olian & Rynes (1991); Brocka & Brocka (1992);
evaluation for improvement, for instance, by Savage (1996); Dale (1999); Yusof & Aspinwall
measuring the degree of achievement of planned (1999); Moreno et al. (2001).
objectives, which must be evaluated periodically
on the basis of quality information.
Continuous improvement is the objective of Shingo (1990, 1991); Imai (1986); Brocka &
every quality system; this must be based on Brocka (1992); James (1996); Goetsch & Davis
everyones commitment and on information, (1997); Claver et al. (1999); Yusof & Aspinwall
which helps make decisions aimed at (1999); Moreno et al. (2001).
improvement.
Involvement of all members in the firm in order Olian & Rynes (1991); Brocka & Brocka (1992);
to achieve a real quality commitment. Dean & Evans (1994); James (1996); Goetsch &
Davis (1997); Shin et al. (1998); Claver et al.
(1999); Dale (1999); Sun (1999); Moreno et al.
(2001).
Training. Ishikawa (1985); Kanji (1991); Brocka & Brocka

(1992); James (1996); Goetsch & Davis (1997);
Dale (1999); Sun (1999); Yusof & Aspinwall
(1999); Moreno et al. (2001).
Work teams enabling the participation of Nonaka (1991); Ohno (1991); Dean & Evans
employees in quality tasks and, therefore, (1994); Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995); James
employees commitment to such tasks. (1996); Goetsch & Davis (1997); Nonaka &
Konno (1998); Dale (1999); Moreno et al.
(2001).
Communication systems that eliminate Nonaka (1991); Brocka & Brocka (1992);
communication barriers within the firm and Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995); James (1996);
favour internal and external cooperation. Nonaka & Konno (1998); Shin et al. (1998);
Claver et al. (1999).
Learning, for quality management is a strategy Harber et al. (1993); Anderson et al. (1994);
creating or reinforcing a learning environment. Sitkin et al. (1994); Hackman & Wageman
(1995); Dervitsiotis (1998); Moreno et al.
(2001).
Process management in order to obtain the best Sun (1999); Yusof & Aspinwall (1999); Moreno
products. et al. (2001).
Cooperation with suppliers. Deming (1982); Olian & Rynes (1991); Katz
(1993); Claver et al. (1999); Sun (1999); Yusof
& Aspinwall (1999); Moreno et al. (2001).
Organizational awareness and concern for the Claver et al. (1999); Sun (1999).
social and environmental context.
94 E. CLAVER ET AL.
Table 2. Empirical research of quality management
Critical factors Size of

Authors Purpose Source identified the firms
Saraph et al. Develop an instrument for Review of the literature 8 factors with [1000
(1989) measuring critical factors 66 items employees
of quality management
Badri et al. Additional assessment of Instrument proposed 8 factors with [20

(1995) instrument proposed by by Saraph et al. (1989) 66 items employees
Saraph et al. (1989)
Black & Identify a set of critical Malcolm Baldrige 10 factors with 32 Not
Porter factors of TQM National Quality items indicated
(1995, 1996) Award
Ahire et al. Identify constructs of Review of the literature 12 factors with 50 [100
(1996) TQM and develop scales items employees
for measuring these
constructs
Grandzol & Develop and test an Anderson et al. (1994); 7 exogenous factors All sizes
Gershon instrument for use in Brown et al. (1994) with 39 items and 6
(1998) TQM research endogenous factors
with 23 items
Quazi et al. Corroborate the results of Instrument developed 16 factors with 78 All sizes
(1998) the studies developed by by Saraph et al. (1989) items
Saraph et al. (1989)
Rao et al. Develop a valid instrument Review of the prescriptive, 13 factors with 62 All sizes
(1999) for key dimensions of practitioner, theoretical items
quality management in the and empirical literatures
international context on TQM
we may quote the studies by Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988), who developed a valid, reliable
method to measure service quality, defined as SERVQUAL, applicable only to service firms,
and also the studies that developed an instrument for measuring quality management, and
assessed its validity and reliability, and which was applicable only to industrial firms (Flynn
et al., 1994; Ahire et al., 1996). On the other hand, there are the studies that developed a
valid, reliable quality measurement instrument applicable to both sectors (Saraph et al., 1989;
Badri et al., 1995; Black & Porter, 1995, 1996; Grandzol & Gershon, 1998; Quazi et al.,
1998; Rao et al., 1999). These studies created a valid, reliable measurement instrument of
quailty management by identifying critical factors in TQM (Table 2).
Research design
Sample
In order to achieve our objective, we selected as the population for our study those firms
carrying out their activity in the Alicante area (eastern Spain) that had received ISO 9000
certificate. The total population (number of certificates) was 175. However, our study only
includes 154 cases for the following reason.
We eliminated two multinational consultancy firms, which were not included in the
study.
Table 3. Number of certified firms according to number of employees
Number of employees
Small Medium Large
\20 2049 5099 100250 [250 [500 Total
No. of firms 17 17 27 24 8 13 106

Total 34 51 21 106
Total (percentage) 32% 48% 20% 100%
Table 4. Number of firms per sector

Sector (Standard Industrial ClassificationSIC) Number of firms
Industry Manufacturing 49 63 59%

Construction and contractors 14
Transport, communication and public services 15 (transport)
9 (public services)
Services Services 8 43 41%
Wholesalers 6
Finance, insurance 3
Retailers 2
Total 106 106
There were four firms with more than one certificate for each of them (nine altogether),
and thus the number of answers received was four.
It was detected, in some cases, that there were various certified firms belonging to the
same group, and thus the person responsible for quality matters was the same. This
reduced a total of 22 certificates to eight interviews (i.e.eight answers).
In addition to this, it proved impossible to obtain data from 12 firms, and thus the final
population considered was 142. The number of answers recorded was 108, which represents
a percentage response of 76.06%. However, two answers were not regarded as valid owing
to incomplete data; therefore, the number of cases processed statistically with the SPSS
software was 106 firms. The characteristics of these 106 firms are shown in Tables 3 and 4.
Data collection
While the database was being selected, a questionnaire was designed meeting the objectives
that had been set. With these questions, we attempted to find out about the usual practices
of firms implementing quality systems, through the critical factors and results of TQM. In
order to measure the degree of implementation, 54 variables were used in the final question-
naire, measured on a seven-point scale (see the Appendix).
The process of developing the questionnaire finished with a pilot survey, which was used
to modify and eliminate a number of variables, until the final design of the questionnaire was
settled. Experts on the subject were consulted, to ensure that the questions were properly
phrased, and the suitability of the questionnaire was tested on a sample of firms (Madu,
1998). This test consisted of a first revision of the questionnaire (pre-test) with four people
(an academic, a smallmedium firm manager and two quality consultants) to ensure a
96 E. CLAVER ET AL.
suitable coverage of the domain of each construct, and a second test with the ten first firms
studied, selected at random, which allowed us to modify and delete some variables.
The data were collected by means of a structured personal interview, carried out face to
face, based on a closed questionnaire, plus a set of open questions that allowed us to clarify
certain points. In this way, the process started with a pilot test in June 1999, which allowed
us, as has been previously discussed, to modify the initial questionnaire; between June and
October 1999 we conducted the interviews with the 108 firms that agreed to participate.
The questionnaire was answered by the persons in charge of the quality area, for the following
reasons: (a) these persons played an active role in the quality strategy; (b) they possessed the
knowledge required to answer the questionnaire and, given their training and knowledge on
the subject, and considering that these firms had quality systems, this would allow a better
understanding of the questions; and (c) in similar studies, the key person to interview was
the quality manager.
Variables and measures

Our measurement instrument was based on the EFQM model and on a review of the
literature. We selected the constructs considering mainly the categories defined by the EFQM
model and on a review of the literature, defining the items from those fixed in that model
and those used the empirical work by Saraph et al. (1989), Badri et al. (1995), Black & Porter
(1995, 1996), Powell (1995), Ahire et al. (1996), Grandzol & Gershon (1998) and Quazi
et al. (1998). We considered the study by Powell (1995), which does not appear in Table 2
because it was not its objective to develop an instrument for measuring TQM, but he did
carry out an empirical test on such an instruments components. Once the variables had
been defined, they were tested through the pilot test described above. This allowed us to
eliminate some items, giving a final number of 37 items, grouped into eight critical factors
of TQM, and 17 items grouped into four results (Table 5).
Out of these eight critical factors, the learning factor has the same five items as that used
by Grandzol & Gershon (1998). From the four results, we consider the customer satisfaction
construct used by Grandzol & Gershon (1998) and the construct TQM programme performance
used by Powell (1995); however, in both factors we included in the final questionnaire one
Table 5. Categories of the EFQM model and critical factors and results identified
Enablers (EFQM model) Critical factors No. of items
Leadership Leadership 5
Planning and strategy Quality planning 6
Employee management Employee management 6
Resources Supplier management 3
Processes Customer focus 3
Process management 4
Continuous improvement 5
Learning Learning 5
Results (EFQM model) Results
Customer satisfaction Customer satisfaction 3

Employee satisfaction Employee satisfaction 4
Social impact Social impact 3
Business results Business results 7
item less than in these studies, both items being dropped as a result of the pilot test.
Concerning the TQM programme performance construct, the eects of quality on perfor-
mance may be evaluated by examining unexpected changes in published financial results, for
example, in the five years following the introduction of quality management (Easton & Jarrell,
1998); or in a subjective way, by measuring respondents perceptions. Such subjective
measurements are widely accepted in organizational research (Powell, 1995), due to the
diculty of identifying and obtaining an objective measurement for firms of dierent sizes
and sectors (Saraph et al., 1989). In our case, we chose the second option and we measured
the results through seven items each on a seven-point scale. As for the customer satisfaction
construct, we used a variable consisting of three items measuring the level of customer
satisfaction.
Analytic procedures
We first develop a factor analysis with the set of 37 items of the critical factors and with the
17 items of the results of TQM in order to identify the most important critical factors and
results, based upon the perceptions of quality managers of firms with quality systems,
following the methodology used by Black & Porter (1995, 1996). Secondly, we test the
reliability and validity of the factors identified in previous analyses in order to create a
measurement instrument for future studies following the stages (a) reliability test, (b) detailed
item analysis and (c) validity analysis, which are widely accepted in the development of
instruments for measuring variables in social sciences (Likert, 1967; Nunnally, 1978).
Results
First we performed a factor analysis on the critical factors and results of TQM, and then we
tested the scale empirically.
Identification of the critical factors and results

Upon the answers given to the 37 variables by the 106 firms studied, we applied a principal
component factor analysis, eliminating factor loads lower than 0.30. We chose 0.30 because:
(a) there is no statistical reason justifying this limit, and (b) from a theoretical point of view,
we can accept it because it allows us to consider items with loads between 0.30 and 0.40,
which we deemed important. However, 0.40 is usually taken as a cut o for factor loading in
empirical research (Huarng et al., 1999). In this respect, the initial solution is usually dicult
to interpret, which is why a rotation is usually performed. In this case, because the TQM
factors must be related to one another, as pointed out by the EFQM model and the studies
cited in the review of the literature, an oblimin rotation seems more suitable, as justified in
Black & Porter (1995, 1996).
Once it had been verified that the analysis was an adequate one (Table 6), the results
showed 11 factors accounting for 70% of the total variance (Table 7).
Table 6. Data matrix for the analysis of the critical factors of quality management
Determiner 1.874E-09
KaiseMeyerOlkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.740
Bartletts test of sphericity Chi-square 1744.954
gl 666
p 0.000
Table 7. Rotated factor matrix of the critical factors of TQM 98

Factors
Con- Manage-
tinuous Supplier ment Special- Customer Process Coopera-
improve- Quality Leader- manage- involve- ized manage- manage- tion with
Items Training ment planning ship ment ment training Learning ment ment customer
E. CLAVER ET AL.
13. Employees are trained in quality principles 0.673

12. Management are trained in quality principles 0.530
6. Development and implementation of
strategies and plans based on data concerning
customers requirements and the firms
capabilities 0.409 0.346
37. Managers and supervisors participate in
specialist training 0.395
29. This organization reinforces continuous study
and improvement of all its products, services
and processes 0.886
28. Programme aimed at finding time and cost
losses in all internal processes 0.629
32. Information management aimed at supporting
quality management 0.524
31. Identification of areas for improvement 0.450
30. Use of specific organizational structures
(quality committee, work teams) to support
quality improvement 0.300
7. The management sets objectives for managers 0.836
8. The management sets objectives for all
employees 0.818
11. Results are evaluated by comparing them with
planned results, in order to make
improvements 0.400 0.480
16. Employees performance is measured and
recognized in order to support quality
programme 0.389 0.351 0.382 0.348
9. The management communicates its strategy
and objectives to the whole sta 0.367 0.326 0.303
Table 7. Continued
Factors
Con- Manage-
5. Managers and supervisors motivate their

employees and help them perform at a high
level in their tasks 0.302 0.836
2. Managers actively communicate a quality
commitment to the employees 0.653 0.331
3. Employees are encouraged to help implement
changes in the organization 0.475 0.542
4. Managers and supervisors allow employees to
make their own decisions 0.320 0.413
19. Requirements are placed upon suppliers in
order to find quality specifications 0.873
18. Closer work with suppliers 0.591
20. The management encourages the usage of few
suppliers, emphasizing quality rather than
price 0.443
1. Higher management actively directs our
quality management programme 0.717
27. The employees involved in dierent processes
know how to evaluate them 0.440 0.517 0.330
14. Employees are trained in problem-solving
skills 0.921
15. Employees are trained in teamwork 0.920
34. Most employees in this organization possess
sucient knowledge of the basic aspects of
our sector 0.896
35. Most employees in this organization
understand the basic processes used to create
our products/services 0.868
CRITICAL FACTORS OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT
17. There is bottom-up, top-down and horizontal

communication among all the sta 0.665
99
100
Table 7. Continued.
Factors
Con- Manage-
E. CLAVER ET AL.
36. Higher management has developed an

environment helping towards on-the-job
training 0.317 0.519
33. Managers and supervisors declare that all
employees are trained to help them
understand how and why the organization
performs 0.421
22. Customers requirements are used as the basis
for quality 0.817
23. Managers and supervisors support activities
improving customer satisfaction 0.344 0.339
25. Preventing faulty products/services is a strong
practice in this organization 0.868
24. Continuous control and improvement of key
processes 0.684
21. Increased personal contacts between the
organization and customers 0.824
10. Management involves the employees in the
setting of its objectives and plans 0.331 0.397 0.471
26. The processes used in this organization
include quality measures 0.348 0.393
Eigenvalue 3.936 3.659 3.450 2.957 2.717 1.795 4.248 4.542 1.692 3.256 2.192
Percentage variance explained by factor 22.947 8.535 6.383 5.755 5.128 4.292 3.823 3.674 3.401 2.965 2.834
Percentage total variance explained 22.947 31.482 37.866 43.621 48.749 53.040 56.864 60.538 63.939 66.604 69.737
The first factor we have called training. It reflects managerial and employee training in
quality principles and, to a lesser extent, managers involvement in training and the develop-
ment of strategies and plans.
The second factor, which we have called continuous improvement, corresponds to improve-
ment-related activities. This underlines the importance of improvement through time, cost
and product studies, and of identifying actions for improvement through an adequate
structure, based mainly on a quality committee and a person responsible for quality, with the
occasional support of an ecient information management system as the basis for decision
making.
The third factor is related to setting goals for the management and employees, communi-
cating such goals to the whole sta and assessing them, and also measuring employees
performance. This is called quality planning, which involves firms focusing their planning on
defining goals which are communicated to all and are assessed periodically.
The fourth factor is related to the leadership function activities, which is why we have
labelled it leadership. This factor shows high values for firms in which managers communicate
a quality commitment, encourage their employees to implement changes, allow them to make
their own decisions and motivate them.
The fifth factor is related to working more closely with suppliers and the requirements
placed upon them, which is why we have called it supplier management. This factor has high
values in firms that have formalized supplier management.
The sixth factor contains the items higher management actively directs the quality
programme and the procedures used in the organization include quality measures; this we
have termed management involvement.
The seventh factor is defined as specialized training. This factor shows the need for
a training system based on problem-solving skills and teamwork, in order to increase
employees knowledge and, in turn, to increase their involvement in the firms objectives and
plans.
The eighth factor, which we have called learning, is related to those activities that
improve learning. This involves the employees being familiar with the basic issues in the
sector and understanding the firms basic processes, which is influenced by communication
in all directions and training by the management.
The ninth factor has been termed customer management, for it consists of the variables
usage of customer requirements and managers support those activities aimed at enhancing
customer satisfaction.
The tenth factor is formed by the variables continuous control and improvement of key
processes and preventing faulty products; this we have called process management.
The final factor indicates that the management encourages contact with customers by
making its employees involved in quality tasks and measuring these activities, which is why
we call it cooperation with customers.
This analysis has grouped the data into 11 factors identifying the critical factors of
TQM. A similar procedure is followed for the results of TQM. In this respect, the principal
components factor analysis is adequate (Table 8) and we obtain five that allow us to account
for 60% of the total variance (Table 9).
The first factor, which we have called business results, shows higher values in firms that
believe that the quality system has had a partial influence upon results by improving
competitiveness and the firms internal procedures, thus generating positive eects upon the
firms.
The second factor is formed by community-related variables, and shows greater values
in those firms concerned with reducing and preventing health and safety risks to their
102 E. CLAVER ET AL.
Table 8. Data matrix for the analysis of results of quality management
Determiner 6.206E-03
KaiserMeyerOlkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.664
Bartletts test of sphericity Chi-square 495.520
gl 136
p 0.000
Table 9. Rotated factor matrix of the results of TQM

Factors
Business Social Customer Employee Sta

Items results impact satisfaction satisfaction indicators
49 Our quality programmes increased our

revenue 0.860
51 Our quality programme has improved
our competitive position 0.774
48 Our financial results have been excellent 0.754
50 Our quality programme has increased
our yield 0.725
52 Our quality programme has improved
our performance in general 0.593 0.316
54 We could have done better (i.e. obtained
better financial results) without a quality
programme 0.492 0.433
53 Our quality programme has a a negative
impact upon our profitability 0.471 0.323 0.425
46 Policies are developed to protect the
environment 0.810
47 This organization is not much actively
involved in the community 0.770
45 Policies are developed to reduce and
prevent health and safety risks 0.687
38 This organization is not concerned
about collecting information from its
customers in order to measure their
satisfaction 0.817
39 Customer satisfaction has historically
shown improvements 0.663
40 This organization has implemented a
process to listen to and solve customer
complaints 0.512 0.402
41 This organization collects relevant
information from employees to measure
their satisfaction 0.772
42 Employee satisfaction has historically
improved 0.731
44 Employee rotation is low 0.676
43 Absenteeism is high 0.410 0.663
Eigenvalue 3.517 2.079 1.807 1.737 1.528
Percentage variance explained by factor 22.080 12.243 10.154 7.933 7.125
Percentage total variance explained 22.080 34.323 44.478 52.410 59.535
employees and the environment, and those that take part in the activities of their social
environment. This we have called social impact.
The third factor includes customer results, and indicates that some firms measure
customer satisfaction in a more formal manner than merely recording complaints. In this
way, this factor has greater values in firms measuring the satisfaction of their customers, and
we have called it customer satisfaction.
The fourth factor concerns employee results. This dimension shows higher values for
firms collecting data from their employees to measure their satisfaction, and thus we have
termed it employee satisfaction. It indicates that firms gather information from their employees
in order to measure their satisfaction in a more or less systematized manner.
The final factor is related to two indicators of the human resources area, and shows
higher values in those firms that believe that their employees are happy because their
absenteeism and rotation are low. This we have termed sta indicators.
Thus, the answers given by firms to the 17 results of TQM yield a more manageable
and significant five-factor structure, showing five dimensions of the results created by a
quality system.
Having established these critical factors and results, we may now study their reliability
and validity in order to create valid scales that can be used in further studies, by carrying out
the cited stages (reliability, item analysis and validity).
Empirical validation of scales

Reliability. This can be estimated by means of a reliability coecient, such as Cronbachs
alpha, measuring the internal consistency of multidimensional scales (Cronbach, 1951). This
is the most widely used reliability estimate in empirical research (Peterson, 1994). In this
respect, the minimum advisable level is 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978), although it may be reduced to
0.6 in exploratory research (Hair et al., 1995) or even to 0.55 (Van de Ven & Ferry, 1979).
Starting from factor analysis results, we calculate Cronbachs alpha for each factor. Once
the alpha has been obtained for the whole construct, it is recalculated after eliminating one
item in order to verify whether the scale improves (see Tables 10 and 11).
Thus, for example, the alpha coecient for the first factor, training (consisting of four
items) is 0.6733. However, it can be seen that, after deleting item 6, the alpha coecient
(considering only the remaining items) is 0.6899, which is an improvement on the scale.
Because of this, the factor consists of the other three items.
This analysis eliminates the following items in the critical factors: 6 (development and
implementation of strategies and plans based on data concerning customers requirements
and the firms capabilities) in the training factor and 20 (the management encourages the
usage of few suppliers, emphasizing quality rather than price) in the supplier management
factor, because the scale improves after dropping these items. In addition, we drop the
scales 6 (management involvement), 9 (customer management) and 11 (cooperation with
customer), because their original rating is below 0.55.
In the results factors, we drop item 54 (we could have done better without a quality
programme) in the business results and item 40 (this organization has implemented a process
to listen to and solve customer complaints) in customer satisfaction because the scale
improves after dropping these items. In addition, we drop the employee satisfaction scale and
the sta indicators scale, because the original alpha is below 0.55.
In this context, the literature shows that there are significant dierences in this coecient,
between using a two-category scale and more than two category scales (Churchill & Peter,
1984; Peterson, 1994), and there are no significant dierences between using a Likert 1 to 5
Table 10. Reliability analysis of critical factors of TQM
No. Alpha after

of eliminating
Factor items Items one item
1. Training 4 6 Development and implementation of strategies and plans

a0.6733 based on data concerning customers requirements and the
firms capabilities 0.6899
12 Management are trained in quality principles 0.5746
13 Employees are trained in quality principles 0.4800
37 Managers and supervisors participate in specialist training 0.6456
2. Continuous 5 28 Programme aimed at finding time and cost losses in all

improvement internal processes 0.7209
a0.7589 29 This organization reinforces continuous study and

improvement of all its products, services and processes 0.7420
30 Use of specific organizational structures (quality committee,
work teams) to support quality improvement 0.7276
31 Identification of areas for improvement 0.6559
32 Information management aimed at supporting quality
management (analysis of data regarding business performance,
cost and financial aspects in order to support the development
of improvement priorities) 0.6837
3. Quality 5 7 The management sets objectives for managers 0.6551

planning 8 The management sets objectives for all employees 0.6205
a0.7139 9 The management communicates its strategy and objectives to
the whole sta 0.6770
11 Results are evaluated by comparing them with planned
results, in order to make improvements 0.6767
16 Employees performance is measured and recognized in order
to support quality programmes 0.6974
4. Leadership 4 2 Managers actively communicate a quality commitment to the

a0.7637 employees 0.6931
3 Employees are encouraged to help implement changes in the
organization 0.6945
4 Managers and supervisors allow employees to make their own
decisions 0.7589
5 Managers and supervisors motivate their employees and help
them perform at a high level in their tasks 0.6824
5. Supplier 3 18 Closer work with suppliers 0.4080

management 19 Requirements are placed upon suppliers in order to find
a0.5113 quality specifications 0.2021
20 The management encourages the usage of few suppliers,
emphasizing quality rather than price 0.6193
6. Management 2 1 Higher management actively directs our quality management

involvement programme
a0.1742 27 The employees involved in dierent processes know how to
evaluate them
7. Specialized 2 14 Employees are trained in problem-solving skills

training 15 Employees are trained in teamwork
a0.9138
Table 10. Continued
No. Alpha after

of eliminating
8. Learning 5 17 There is bottom-up, top-down and horizontal communication

a0.8364 among all the sta 0.8131
33 Managers and supervisors declare that all employees are
trained to help them understand how and why the
organization performs 0.8065
34 Most employees in this organization possess sucient
knowledge of the basic aspects of our sector 0.7840
35 Most employees in this organization understand the basic
processes used to create our products/services 0.8046
36 Higher management has developed an environment helping

towards on-the-job training 0.8094
9. Customer 2 22 Customers requirements are used as the basis for quality

management 23 Managers and supervisors support activities improving
a0.4425 customer satisfaction
10. Process 2 24 Continuous control and improvement of key processes

management 25 Preventing faulty products/services is a strong practice in this
a0.5525 organization
11. Cooperation 3 10 Management involves the employees in the setting of its

with customers objectives and plans 0.5194
a0.3522 21 Increased personal contacts between the organization and
customers 0.2816
26 The processes used in this organization include quality
measures 0.0020
scale and a 1 to 7 scale. In addition, there is a tendency towards higher reliability and lower
measurement error when the number of items is increased (Churchill, 1979). However, this
is not a very strong relationship, and the greatest dierences appear in scales between two
and three items and those with more than three. Ten-item scales have very high coecients
(Peterson, 1994); therefore, it seems that very high coecients (higher than 0.9) should be
avoided, for they might entail redundancy between the items (Boyle, 1991). By applying
these ideas, it was found that the coecients indicate that construct reliability has a rating
higher than 0.55, except for the management involvement factor, the customer management
factor, the cooperation with customers factor, the employee satisfaction factor and the sta
indicators factor; this could be due to the low number of items they consist of. For its part,
Factor 6 has a very poor alpha. This could be due to the fact that these factors are not related
from a theoretical point of view, and therefore it is normal that the reliability should be a
low one.
Detailed item analysis. This analysis evaluates how the items are assigned to each scale, using
each items correlation with each scale (Nunnally, 1978). This correlation is used to determine
whether an item belongs to the scale it has been assigned to, to a dierent one, or whether it
should be eliminated.
Table 12 shows the correlation matrix between the items and the measurement scales.
After eliminating the items mentioned in the reliability analysis, we calculate the correlation
Table 11. Reliability analysis of critical factors of TQM
No. Alpha after

of eliminating
1. Business 7 48 Our financial results have been excellent 0.7726

results 49 Our quality programme has increased our revenue 0.7571
a0.8143 50 Our quality programme has increased our yield 0.7785
51 Our quality programme has improved our competitive
position 0.7858
52 Our quality programme has improved our performance in
general 0.8120
53 Our quality programme has had a negative impact upon our
profitability 0.7992
54 We could have done better (i.e. obtained better financial

results) without a quality programme 0.8181
2. Social impact 3 45 Policies are developed to reduce and prevent health and
a0.6495 safety risks 0.5833
46 Policies are developed to protect the environment 0.4458
47 This organization is not much actively involved in the
community 0.6013
3. Customer 3 38 This organization is not concerned about collecting

satisfaction information from its customers in order to measure their
a0.5565 satisfaction 0.2479
39 Customer satisfaction has historically shown improvements 0.3857
40 This organization has implemented a process to listen to and
solve customer complaints 0.5721
4. Employee 2 41 This organization collects relevant information from

satisfaction employees to measure their satisfaction
a0.4483 42 Employee satisfaction has historically improved
5. Sta 2 43 Absenteeism is high
indicators
a0.3761 44 Employee rotation is low
matrix for the remaining items and the eight critical factors (average of items). For example,
item 12 (management are trained in quality principles) has a correlation of 0.746; 0.115;
0.356; 0.395; 0.048; 0.036; 0.469 and 0.115 with the eight scales (training, continuous
improvement, quality planning, leadership, supplier management, specialized training, learn-
ing and process management). It can be observed that the highest correlation appears with
the first factor (average of items 12, 13 and 37), which indicates that it has been correctly
assigned to that scale. We used the same method for the results factors (Table 13).
The results shown in Tables 12 and 13 indicate that no item must be eliminated because
all items had been correctly assigned to the scales, as the highest correlations were found in
the scales to which they had initially assigned.
Validity. The most widely accepted classification is the one distinguishing between content,
criterion-related and construct validity, as reflected in the empirical research cited in the
literature review concerning stages in the development of measuring instruments.
Content validity. An instrument has content validity if researchers agree that the instrument
is made up of a group of items covering the issues to be measured, i.e. that it represents a
Table 12. Correlation matrix (critical factors)
Continuous Supplier Special- Process

improve- Quality Leader- manage- ized manage-
Items Training ment planning ship ment training Learning ment
Training 12 0.746 0.115 0.356 0.395 0.048 0.036 0.469 0.115

13 0.869 0.296 0.364 0.461 0.079 0.257 0.439 0.384
37 0.744 0.470 0.290 0.376 0.164 0.333 0.502 0.336
Continuous 28 0.199 0.699 0.214 0.099 0.290 0.310 0.161 0.182

improvement 29 0.280 0.624 0.206 0.310 0.018 0.100 0.302 0.158
30 0.384 0.690 0.379 0.178 0.191 0.265 0.405 0.149
31 0.240 0.751 0.272 0.155 0.239 0.361 0.213 0.224
32 0.285 0.794 0.345 0.083 0.281 0.423 0.242 0.313
Quality 7 0.231 0.242 0.695 0.027 0.021 0.145 0.141 0.035

planning 8 0.186 0.144 0.759 0.295 0.094 0.207 0.258 0.041
9 0.270 0.233 0.681 0.388 0.177 0.320 0.335 0.337
11 0.496 0.405 0.647 0.187 0.190 0.223 0.349 0.185
16 0.288 0.361 0.636 0.342 0.017 0.382 0.399 0.175
Leadership 2 0.411 0.126 0.256 0.774 0.077 0.113 0.416 0.197
3 0.462 0.238 0.306 0.783 0.024 0.141 0.415 0.178
4 0.347 0.031 0.374 0.712 0.051 0.072 0.403 0.169
5 0.359 0.279 0.196 0.795 0.088 0.147 0.416 0.159
Supplier 18 0.097 0.297 0.054 0.056 0.864 0.112 0.040 0.224

management 19 0.121 0.203 0.082 0.016 0.838 0.077 0.082 0.245
Specialized 14 0.259 0.391 0.341 0.127 0.100 0.957 0.145 0.163

training 15 0.275 0.418 0.384 0.168 0.114 0.962 0.200 0.203
Learning 17 0.436 0.193 0.427 0.436 0.092 0.075 0.753 0.140
33 0.572 0.364 0.407 0.532 0.037 0.264 0.784 0.260
34 0.419 0.195 0.308 0.304 0.012 0.020 0.822 0.132
35 0.349 0.276 0.266 0.270 0.007 0.114 0.764 0.183
36 0.518 0.382 0.282 0.516 0.199 0.205 0.778 0.185
Process 24 0.299 0.396 0.191 0.086 0.325 0.253 0.186 0.840

management 25 0.307 0.081 0.192 0.301 0.123 0.058 0.201 0.817
Table 13. Correlation matrix (results)
Customer
Items satisfaction Social impact Business results
Customer satisfaction 38 0.844 0.139 0.128

39 0.830 0.057 0.126
Social impact 45 0.066 0.700 0.168
46 0.144 0.839 0.126
47 0.054 0.767 0.066
Business results 48 0.044 0.252 0.788
49 0.007 0.221 0.843
50 0.174 0.096 0.778
51 0.217 0.032 0.751
52 0.138 0.090 0.595
53 0.078 0.063 0.567
Table 14. Summary of the factor matrix for each construct
Item loading range Percentage variance

Construct KMO for factor 1 Elgenvalue explained by factor 1
Leadership 0.773 0.679 to 0.805 2.356 58.888

Quality planning 0.634 0.602 to 0.727 2.353 47.053
Training 0.567 0.676 to 0.889 1.878 62.586
Specialized training 0.500 0.960 to 0.960 1.843 92.145
Supplier management 0.500 0.851 to 0.851 1.450 72.498
Process management 0.500 0.829 to 0.829 1.373 68.646
Continuous improvement 0.806 0.636 to 0.786 2.550 51.009
Learning 0.803 0.746 to 0.844 3.053 61.055
Customer satisfaction 0.500 0.837 to 0.837 1.401 70.045
Social impact 0.634 0.724 to 0.827 1.791 59.713
Business results 0.784 0.549 to 0.869 3.185 53.082
specific thematic universe. The critical factors and results have content validity because they
have been obtained from a review of the literature and the categories of the EFQM model as
we have indicated in the third section.
Criterion-related validity. This is measured through the correlation coecient with other
measures, in such a way that it is useful to measure present or future behaviour. These eight
factors have a high criterion-related validity when, taken together, they are highly and
positively related with a firms quality performance. This type of validity is examined through
the multiple correlation coecient between the eight critical factors and a measurement of
the quality results of a business unit (Saraph et al., 1989; Badri et al., 1995; Quazi et al.,
1998), which in our case is the average between the three variables defined in the TQM
results analysis (customer satisfaction, social impact and business results).
The multiple correlation coecient between the eight critical factors of quality manage-
ment and this measure is 0.65 (p0.000), which indicates that these eight factors are
significantly related to quality results, but in a moderate way. With this result, we demonstrate
the relation between these factors, taken together, and the results of TQM.
Construct validity. This is calculated through a factor analysis for each of the eight critical
factors and the three results. In this analysis, each one must be one-dimensional. Table 14
shows that all are uni-factorial.
Discussion
Initial factor analysis identified 11 critical factors and five results factors of TQM using
perceptions from quality managers from 106 certified firms. Secondly, we have verified both
reliability and validity for each factor in order to develop a TQM measurement instrument.
These studies show that we have identified eight critical factors and three results factors,
which are reliable and valid.
Thus, starting from the original scale of TQM critical factors we eliminated two items,
6 (development and implementation of strategies and plans based on data concerning
customers requirements and the firms capabilities) and 20 (the management encourages
the usage of few suppliers, emphasizing quality rather than price) in the training factor and
supplier management, and three factors whose reliability coecients are below 0.55. Similarly,
from the TQM results scale we eliminated two items, 54 (we could have done better without
a quality programme) in the business results factor and 40 (this organization has implemented
a process to listen to and solve customer complaints) in the customer satisfaction factor and,
in addition, the employee satisfaction scale and the sta indicators scale. After finishing these
analyses, Table 15 shows the final scale.
Eliminating item 6 from the training factor makes sense, since from a theoretical point
of view it leaves us with a factor wholly related to employee training. Similarly, it may seem
logical, for practical purposes, to delete item 20 from the supplier management scale, because
many firms stated that searching always for quality was the usual thing to do, and therefore
the information that such variable may yield is small. Deleting item 40 is also justified, for
all firms are certified, and therefore it is normal that they should have some kind of method
to document complaints, so that item does not provide a way of distinguishing between them.
In addition, the elimination of the customer management is a limitation for this study
because, from both a theoretical and practical point of view, it is an important component of
TQM, as mentioned in the second section.
Correlation between the categories of TQM

The review of the relevant TQM literature shows that this model must be implemented in
an integrated way (Black & Porter, 1995, 1996; Ahire et al., 1996; Sun, 1999). Thus, a
significant relation exists between the critical factors of TQM and the results factors. These
correlations reveal the importance of the interrelationships in order to make sure that TQM
is successfully implemented, as shown in Tables 16 and 17, and as we have demonstrated in
criterion-related validity.
These results reveal that only the supplier management factor does not have a significant
correlation with the five critical factors (leadership, training, quality planning, specialized
training and learning). Similarly, this factor does not have a significant correlation with
customer satisfaction and business results, perhaps because the relationship with suppliers is
neccesary for the firm and thus has no influence upon results. In addition, continuous
improvement does not have a significant correlation with business results, although it has a
significant correlation with customer satisfaction and social impact. In this respect, many
firms stated that their quality system had had a low impact upon their results, considering
that they had only been working in this area for a short time (the average was almost 3 years
of certification), which may explain the lack of a connection.
These results illustrate the nature of the interrelationships between the critical factors of
TQM, and their influence on the results factors. Thus, the critical factors, taken together,
are the enablers that can generate successful results.
Comparison with other models

Comparing the results of the reliability and validity analysis of our study with other research,
we found that the ratings are within the limits found in the literature, although they are
slightly lower than those found in the works cited. In Saraph et al. (1989) the alpha coecient
ranges between 0.71 and 0.94; in Badri et al. (1995), between 0.89 and 0.97; in Ahire et al.
(1996), between 0.72 and 0.92 and in the research by Quazi et al. (1998) between 0.82 and
0.95. On the other hand, in Grandzol & Gershon (1998) the coecient ranges between 0.73
and 0.86, except for the public responsibility construct, which has a rating of 0.2454.
Concerning the detailed item analysis, we did not eliminate any items because the
highest correlations for items were found in the factor to which they had been assigned, as
in Saraph et al. (1989) and in Badri et al. (1995).
Table 15. Final instrument (items for each critical factor and result)
Items
Factor 1: Training
12 Management are trained in quality principles
13 Employees are trained in quality principles
37 Managers and supervisors participate in specialist training
Factor 2: Continuous improvement

28 Programme aimed at finding time and cost losses in all internal processes
29 This organization reinforces continuous study and improvement of all its products, services and
processes
30 Use of specific organizational structures (quality committee, work teams) to support quality
improvement
31 Identification of areas for improvement

32 Information management aimed at supporting quality management (analysis of data regarding
business performance, cost and financial aspects in order to support the development of
improvement priorities)
Factor 3: Quality planning

7 The management sets objectives for managers
8 The management sets objectives for all employees
9 The management communicates its strategy and objectives to the whole sta
11 Results are evaluated by comparing them with planned results, in order to make improvements
16 Employees performance is measured and recognized in order to support quality programmes
Factor 4: Leadership
2 Managers actively communicate a quality commitment to the employees
3 Employees are encouraged to help implement changes in the organization
4 Managers and supervisors allow employees to make their own decisions
5 Managers and supervisors motivate their employees and help them perform at a high level in their
tasks
Factor 5: Supplier management

18 Closer work with suppliers
19 Requirements are placed upon suppliers in order to find quality specifications
Factor 6: Specialized training

14 Employees are trained in problem-solving skills
15 Employees are trained in teamwork
Factor 7: Learning
17 There is bottom-up, top-down and horizontal communication among all the sta
33 Managers and supervisors declare that all employees are trained to help them understand how and
why the organization performs
34 Most employees in this organization possess sucient knowledge of the basic aspects of our sector
35 Most employees in this organization understand the basic processes used to create our products/
services
36 Higher management has developed an environment helping towards on-the-job training
Factor 8: Process management

24 Continuous control and improvement of key processes
25 Preventing faulty products/services is a strong practice in this organization
Result 1: Customer satisfaction

39 This organization is not concerned about collecting information from its customers in order to
measure their satisfaction
40 Customer satisfaction has historically shown improvements
Table 15. Continued
Items
Result 2: Social impact

45 Policies are developed to reduce and prevent health and safety risks
45 Policies are developed to protect the environment
47 This organization is not much actively involved in the community
Result 3: Business results

48 Our financial results have been excellent
49 Our quality programme has increased our revenue
50 Our quality programme has increased our yield
51 Our quality programme has improved our competitive position
52 Our quality programme has improved our performance in general
53 Our quality programme has had a negative impact upon our profitability
Table 16. Correlation between critical factors of TQM
Con-
Supplier tinuous Special- Process
Leader- manage- improve- Quality ized manage-
ship ment ment Training planning training Learning ment
Leadership 1.000
Supplier management 0.043 1.000
Continuous improvement 0.220** 0.296*** 1.000
Training 0.522 0.127 0.388 1.000
Quality planning 0.371 0.079 0.402 0.425 1.000
Specialized training 0.154 0.112 0.422 0.278*** 0.378 1.000
Learning 0.539 0.070 0.367 0.596 0.436 0.181* 1.000
Process management 0.229** 0.274*** 0.293*** 0.365 0.231** 0.192** 0.233** 1.000
*pO0.10; **pO0.05; ***pO0.01; pO0.001
Table 17. Correlation matrix (critical factors-results)
Con-
Supplier tinuous Special- Process
Leader- manage- improve- Quality ized manage-
ship ment ment Training planning training Learning ment
Customer satisfaction 0.200* 0.030 0.325 0.192** 0.229* 0.336* 0.121 0.174**
Social impact 0.147 0.360 0.426 0.307 0.253*** 0.342 0.156 0.300***
Business results 0.239** 0.027 0.143 0.328 0.367 0.214** 0.286*** 0.192**
*pO0.10; **pO0.05; ***pO0.01; pO0.001
Regarding content validity, the study has content validity because it has been obtained
from a review of the literature. Similarly, criterion-related validity is evident because the
correlation between the eight critical factors and the measurement of the quality results is
statistically significant, although it is not as high as in other works cited. In this respect,
Saraph et al. (1989) obtain a measure of 0.80; Badri et al. (1995), 0.85; and Quazi et al.
(1998), 0.73. Additionally, there are two studies using a correlation between individual scales
and performance. In this respect, Ahire et al. (1996) point out that all the scales have
statistically significant positive correlations with this measure and, therefore, criterion-
related validity is accepted. Similarly, Grandzol & Gershon (1998) state that almost all the
correlations exceed the acceptable rating of 0.30.
Following the construct validity analysis, we concluded that our 11 factors are all uni-
factorial. In this respect, the study by Saraph et al. (1989) shows that the process management
factor is not one-dimensional, and concludes by indicating that future studies should consider
the possibility of dividing the cntical factor of process management into two separate
constructs. For their part, Badri et al. (1995) prove that all eight factors are one-dimensional,
and thus conclude that the eight constructs may be used for future research, without dividing
process management into two factors, as suggested by the results of Saraph et al. (1989).
Finally, Quazi et al. (1998) show that only three factors are uni-factorial and the other five
are multi-factorial. In total, 16 factors are recommended for further research, instead of the
initial eight factors. Additionally, in the first study, the minimum explained variance per-
centage is 56%, in the second one 64% and in Quazi et al. (1998), 44.7%. Similarly, in
Grandzol & Gershon (1998), all factors are uni-factorial, and most of the loads range between
0.50 and 0.80 (one load has a rating of 0.461), whereas in Ahire et al. (1996) the analysis
reveals that there is no evidence of a lack of construct one-dimensionality. These results are
similar to the results obtained in our research.
Finally, we can indicate some similarities and dierences with Black & Porters (1995,
1996) model. Black & Porter (1995, 1996) obtain ten factors with 32 items with an alpha
coecient ranging between 0.68 and 0.87, while in our study these ratings range between
0.55 and 0.91 for the critical factors and 0.57 and 0.82 for the results factors. However,
there is a factor (communication of improvement information) in Black & Porter (1995,
1996) whose items do have not much relation with ours. The remaining factors used by
these authors have a good relationship with our factors (Table 18). Thus, the external
interface management construct and customer satisfaction orientation construct would have
a small relationship with the social impact construct and customer satisfaction, respectively.
In addition, the ten factors are all uni-factorial and the KMO statistic ranges between 0.50
and 0.84, which is similar to our study. The variance explained ranged between 0.61 and
0.85, while in our study the variance explained ranged between 0.47 and 0.92 for critical
factors and 0.53 and 0.70 for results factors.
These factors do not perfectly fit the enablers and results in the EFQM model, but they
are consistent, both with the EFQM model and with established quality management theory,
proving that it is possible to develop a model for measuring these practices.
The contribution of this research

An important contribution compared with other studies is the size of the firms where the
scale has been tested empirically. Saraph et al. (1989) worked with firms of over 1000
employees, which indicates that their model works well with large firms. Similarly, Ahire et al.
(1996) studied firms with between 100 and 3600 employees, the average number being 364.
Badri et al. (1995) studied firms with over 20 employees, most of them (72%) having over
100 workers. As for Grandzol & Gershon (1998) and Quazi et al. (1998), although they do
not set a minimum for their sample, most of the firms studied are also larger than 100
employees (72% and 79%, respectively). In our study, however, most of the firms have less
than 100 workers, and the firms over 500 workers are in a minority (Table 19). Therefore,
our measurement scale supplements that developed by these authors and works well with
small and medium firms.
In addition, we have identified a set of factors that assess the results of TQM. In this
respect, only Grandzol & Gershon (1998) and Rao et al. (1999) have defined results
Table 18. Comparison with Black & Porter (1995, 1996) and EFQM model
EFQM model Black & Porter (1995, 1996) Our model
Leadership Corporate quality culture Leadership

Strategic quality management
Policy and strategy Operational quality planning Quality planning
Employee management People and customer management Training
Specialized training
Resources Supplier partnerships Supplier management
Process Quality improvement measurement Process management
systems Continuous improvement
Teamwork structures for process
improvement
External interface management
Communication of improvement
information
Customer satisfaction orientation
Learning Learning
Customer satisfaction Customer satisfaction
Employee satisfaction
Social impact Social impact
Business results Business results
10 factors with 32 items 8 critical factors with 28 items

and 3 results with 11 items
Table 19. Comparison of employee numbers in dierent studies
Number of Badri et al. Grandzol & Gershon Quazi et al.

employees (1995) (1998) (1998) Our model
\100 28% 21% 21% 58%

100500 42% 42% 42% 30%
[500 30% 30% 37% 12%
constructs. Grandzol & Gershon (1998) identified six results constructs: product/service
quality, operational productivity, financial, public responsibility, employee satisfaction and
customer satisfaction. For their part, Rao et al. (1999) identified two kind of results: internal
quality results and external quality results.
In our study we obtain three reliable, valid results (customer satisfaction, social impact
and business result) and two results that we do not consider as they do not fulfil the reliability
requirements (employee satisfaction and sta indicators). Thus, the points reflected by the
above authors in their results constructs are reflected in ours, except for the product/service
quality result in Grandzol & Gershon (1998), which we do not consider.
Finally, our model shows a framework for evaluating TQM. It can be used mainly by
managers of small and medium firms in order to identify strengths and weaknesses, and to
find those areas where improvement is necessary. It can be used, therefore, to plan the quality
management eort. In this respect, managers have to define a methodology in order to

implement these actions. Thus, they must develop actions or management methods (teams,
quality goals . . .) that can be used to implement and improve the basic elements of TQM
(Zhang, 2000; Kanji, 2001, 2002).
Conclusions
The research we propose here reflects the empirical results of 106 firms in order to identify
eight critical factors and three results of TQM (reliable and valid), which allow to us develop
a scale for measuring TQM.
This measurement instrument consists of the following critical factors: leadership,
quality planning, training, specialized training, supplier management, process management,

continuous improvement and learning, and the results factors: customer satisfaction, social
impact and business results. These elements do not perfectly fit the categories in the EFQM
model, but they are consistent both with the EFQM model and with the established TQM
theory.
The instrument is reliable, valid and therefore can be used in future research. Once we
have identified the critical factors and results of TQM, starting from a principle components
analysis (oblimin rotation), we validate the scale following the next steps: (a) reliability
analysis, (b) detailed item analysis and (c) content validity, criterion-related validity and
construct validity.
Thus, our measurement instrument supplements existing measures in the literature and
is particularly applicable to small and medium firms. The study provides an integrated
framework for TQM, identifying its critical factors and results factors. It is a model for
evaluating TQM, allowing managers to have a better understanding of quality management
practices. Using this model periodically, a firms quality standards can be evaluated, finding
those areas where improvement is necessary and, therefore, providing a basis for planning
the quality management eort.
In the light of these results, it is our belief that future studies should be carried out with
a larger number of firms, and focusing on small and medium-sized firms, in order to
corroborate these results and reinforce their applicability to this kind of firm, as a supplement
to those firms studied in the literature.
References
A, S.L., G, D.Y. & W, M.A. (1996) Development and validation of TQM implementation
constructs, Decision Sciences, 27, pp. 2356.
A Q F & E & Y (1991) International Quality Study: the Definitive Study of
the Best International Quality Management Practices (Cleveland, OH, Ernst & Young).
A, J.C., R, M. & S, R.G. (1994) A theory of quality management underlying
the Deming management method, Academy of Management Review, 19, pp. 472509.
B, M.A., D, D. & D, D. (1995) A study of measuring the critical factors of quality management,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 12, pp. 3653.
B, S. & P, L.J. (1995) An empirical model for total quality management, Total Quality Management,
6, pp. 149164.
B, S.A. & P, L.J. (1996) Identification of the critical factors of TQM, Decision Sciences, 27, pp. 121.
B, G.J. (1991) Does item homogeneity indicate internal consistency or item redundancy in psychometric
scales?, Personality and Individual Dierences, 12, pp. 291294.
B, B. & B, M.S. (1992) Quality Management. Implementing the Best Ideas of the Masters (Illinois,
New York, Irwin).
B, M., H, D. & W, M. (1994) Why TQM Fails and What to do About It (New York,
Irwin Professional).
C, G.A. (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs, Journal of
Marketing Research, 16, pp. 6473.
C, G.A. & P, P. (1984) Research design eects on the reliability of rating scales: a meta-analysis,
Journal of Marketing Research, 21, pp. 98104.
C, E., L, J. & T, J.J. (1999) Calidad y direccion de empresas (Madrid, Civitas).
C, L.J. (1951) Coecient alpha and the internal structure of test, Psychometricka, 16, pp. 297334.
C, P.B. (1979) Quality is Free: the Art of Making Quality Certain (New York, Hodder & Stoughton).
D, B.G. (1999) Managing Quality (Oxford, Blackwell Publishers).
D, J.W. & E, J.R. (1994) Total Quality: Management, Organization and Strategy (Minneapolis, West
Publishing Company).
D, W.E. (1982) Quality Productivity and Competitive Position (Cambridge, MA, MIT Center for
Advanced Engineering).
D, W.E. (1986) Out of the Crisis (Cambridge, MA, MIT Center for Advanced Engineering).
D, K.N. (1998) The challenge of managing organizational change: exploring the relationship of re-
engineering, developing learning organizations and total quality management, Total Quality Management,
9, pp. 109122.
E, G.S. & J, S.L. (1998) The eects of total quality management on corporate performance: an
empirical investigation, Journal of Business, 71, pp. 253307.
EFQM (2000) EFQM Excellence Model (Brussels, European Foundation for Quality Management).
F, A.V. (1991) Total Quality Control (New York, McGraw-Hill).
F, B.B., S, R.G. & S, S. (1994) A framework for quality management research and
associated measurement instrument, Journal of Operations Management, 11, pp. 339366.
G, D.L. & D, S.B. (1997) Introduction to Total Quality: Quality Management for Production Processing
and Services (New Jersey, Prentice Hall).
G, J.R. & G, M. (1998) A survey instrument for standardizing TQM modelling research,
International Journal of Quality Science, 3, pp. 80105.
H, J.R. & W, R. (1995) Total quality management: empirical, conceptual, and practical issues,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, pp. 309341.
H, J.F., A, R.E., T, R.L. & B, W.C. (1995) Multivariate Data Analysis with Reading
(Englewood Clis, NJ, Prentice Hall).
H, D., B, K. & B, D. (1993) Total quality management as a cultural intervention: an
integrative review, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 10, pp. 1727.
H, F., H, C. and C, C. (1999) A study of ISO 9000 process, motivation and performance,
Total Quality Management, 10, pp. 10091025.
H, V.D. (1993) Managing for Quality. Integrating Quality and Business Strategy (Illinois, Business One Irwin,
Homewood).
I, M. (1986) Kaizen: the Key to Japans Competitive Success (New York, McGraw-Hill).
I, K. (1976) Guide to Quality Control (Tokyo, Asian Productivity Organization).
I, K. (1985) What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way (London, Prentice Hall).
J, P. (1996) Total Quality Management: an Introductory Text (New Jersey, Prentice Hall).
J, B. (1998) ISO 9000: international quality standards, Production and Inventory Management Journal,
39, pp. 6065.
J, J.M. (1986) Quality trilogy, Quality Progress, August, pp. 1424.
J, J.M. (1988) On Planning for Quality (London, Collier Macmillan).
K, G.K. (1991) Education, training, research and consultancythe way forwards for total quality
management, Total Quality Management, 2, pp. 207212.
K, G.K. (1998) An innovative approach to make ISO 9000 standards more eective, Total Quality
Management, 9, pp. 6778.
K, G.K. (2001) Forces of excellence in Kanjis Business Excellence Model, Total Quality Management, 12,
pp. 259272.
K, G.K. (2002) Measuring Business Excellence (UK, Routledge).
K, A. (1993) Knowing which pitfalls to avoid can increase your chances of success. Eight TQM pitfalls,
Journal of Quality and Participation, JulyAugust, pp. 2427.
L, T.Y. (1998) The development of ISO 9000 certification and the future of quality management: a survey
of certification firms in Hong Kong, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 15,
pp. 162177.
L, R. (1967) The Human Organization: its Management and Value (New York, McGraw-Hill).
M, K.E., P, M.S. and S, D.G. (1994) Empirical analysis of quality improvement in

manufacturing, Asia Pacific Journal of Quality Management, 3,pp. 523.
M, C.N. (1998) An empirical assessment of quality: research considerations, International Journal of Quality
Science, 3, pp. 348355.
M, M.D., P, F.J. & G, T. (2001) Gestion de la calidad y diseno de organizaciones. Teora y
estudio de casos (Madrid, Prentice-Hall).
N, I. (1991) The knowledge-creating company, Harvard Business Review, 69, pp. 96104.
N, I. & K, N. (1998) The concept of Ba: building a foundation for knowledge creation, California
Management Review, 40, pp. 4054.
N, I. and T, H. (1995) The Knowledge-creating Company (New York, Oxford University Press).
N, J.C. (1978) Psychometric Theory (New York, McGraw-Hill).
O, T. (1991) El sistema de produccion Toyota (Barcelona, Gestion 2000).
O, J.D. & R, S.L. (1991) Making total quality work: aligning organizational process, performance,
measures, and stakeholders Human Resource Management, 30, pp. 303333.
P, A., Z, V.A. & B, L.L. (1988) conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, 49, pp. 4150.
P, A., Z, V.A. & B, L.L. (1988) SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for measuring
consumer preceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, 64, pp. 1240.
P, R.A. (1994) A meta-analysis of Cronbachs coecient alpha, Journal of Consumer Research, 21,
pp. 381391.
P, T.C. (1995) Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study,
Strategic Management Journal, 16, pp. 1537.
Q, H.A. & P, S.R. (1998) A journey toward total quality management through ISO 9000 certifica-
tiona study on small and medium-sized enteprises in Singapore, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 15, pp. 489508.
Q, H.A., J, J., K, L.W. & K, C.L. (1998) Critical factors in quality management and
guidelines for self-assessment: the case of Singapore, Total Quality Management, 9, pp. 3555.
R, S.S., S, L.E. & R, T.S. (1999) A framework for international quality management
research: development and validation of a measurement instrument, Total Quality Management, 10,
pp. 10471075.
S, J.V. & S, R.J. (1993) Developing a quality culture, Quality Progress, September, pp. 7378.
S, J.V., B, P.G. & S, R.G. (1989) An instrument for measuring the critical factors of
quality management, Decision Sciences, 20, pp. 810829.
S, B.M. (1996) Managing quality data, Total Quality Management, 7, pp. 667674.
S, D., K, J.G. & E-E, G.A. (1998) Critical implementation issues in total quality
management, Sam Advanced Management Journal, 68, pp. 1014.
S, S. (1990) El sistema de produccion de Toyota desde el punto de vista de la ingeniera (Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Productivity Press).
S, S. (1991) Produccion sin stocks: el sistema Shingo para la mejora continua (Madrid, Tecnologas de
Gerencia y Produccion).
S, S.B., S, K.M. & S, R.G. (1994) Distinguishing control from learning in total quality
management: a contingency perspective, Academy of Management Review, 19, pp. 537564.
S, A.S., R, L. & S, D. (1991) Quality management practices in Australian industry, Total
Quality Management, 3, pp. 283299.
S, H. (1999) Diusion and contribution of total quality management: an empirical investigation, Total
Quality Management, 10, pp. 901914.
V V, A. & F, D. (1979) Measuring and Assessing Organizations (New York, Wiley).
Y, S.M. & A, E. (1999) Critical success factors for total quality management implementation in
small and medium enterprises, Total Quality Management, 10, pp. S803S809.
Z, Z. (2000) Developing a model of quality management methods and evaluating their eects on business
performance, Total Quality Management, 11, pp. 129137.
Appendix
Initial items used to measure the critical factors and results of TQM. Out of these original
54 items of the factors, we have asterisked those that were used as reverse scored.
Elements of Quality Management

Please, indicate the level of implementation in your firm of each of the following elements in
a scale from 1 (not implemented) to 7 (fully implemented).
Leadership
1. Higher management actively directs our quality management programme.
2. Managers actively communicate a quality commitment to the employees.
3. Employees are encouraged to help implement changes in the organization.
4. Managers and supervisors allow employees to make their own decisions.
5. Managers and supervisors motivate their employees and help them perform at a high
level in their tasks.
Quality planning
6. Development and implementation of strategies and plans based on data concerning
customers requirements and the firms capabilities.
7. The management sets objectives for managers.
8. The management sets objectives for all employees.
9. The management communicates its strategy and objectives to the whole sta.
10. Management involves the employees in the setting of its objectives and plans.
11. Results are evaluated by comparing them with planned results, in order to make
improvements.
Employee management
12. Management are trained in quality principles.
13. Employees are trained in quality principles.
14. Employees are trained in problem-solving skills.
15. Employees are trained in teamwork.
16. Employees performance is measured and recognized in order to support quality
programmes.
17. There is bottom-up, top-down and horizontal communication among all the sta.
Supplier management
18. Closer work with suppliers.
19. Requirements are placed upon suppliers in order to find quality specifications.
20. The management encourages the usage of few suppliers, emphasizing quality rather
than price.
Customer focus
21. Increased personal contacts between the organization and customers.
22. Customers requirements are used as the basis for quality.
23. Managers and supervisors support activities improving customer satisfaction.
Process management
24. Continuous control and improvement of key processes.
25. Preventing faulty products/services is a strong practice in this organization.
26. The processes used in this organization include quality measures.
27. The employees involved in dierent processes know how to evaluate them.
Continuous improvement
28. Programme aimed at finding time and cost losses in all internal processes.
29. This organization reinforces continuous study and improvement of all its products,
services and processes.
30. Use of specific organizational structures (quality committee, work teams) to support
quality improvement.
31. Identification of areas for improvement.
32. Information management aimed at supporting quality management (analysis of data
regarding business performance, cost and financial aspects in order to support the
development of improvement priorities).
Learning
33. Managers and supervisors declare that all employees are trained to help them understand
how and why the organization performs.
34. Most employees in this organization possess sucient knowledge of the basic aspects of
our sectors.
35. Most employees in this organization understand the basic processes used to create our
products/services.
36. Higher management has developed an environment helping towards on-the-job training.
37. Managers and supervisors participate in specialist training.
Quality management results

Please, answer the following questions within a scale from 1 (I completely disagree) to 7
(I completely agree).
Customer satisfaction
38. This organization is not concerned about collecting information from its customers in
order to measure their satisfaction. (*)
39. Customer satisfaction has historically shown improvements.
40. This organization has implemented a process to listen to and solve customer complaints.
Employee satisfaction
41. This organization collects relevant information from employees to measure their
satisfaction.
42. Employee satisfaction has historically improved.
43. Absenteeism is high. (*)
44. Employee rotation is low.
Social impact
45. Policies are developed to reduce and prevent health and safety risks.
46. Policies are developed to protect the environment.
47. This organization is not much actively involved in the community. (*)
Please, indicate for each question within a scale from 1 (I completely disagree) to 7 (I completely
agree) how your quality programme has influenced your firms performance.
TQM performance
48. Our financial results have been excellent.
49. Our quality programme has increased our revenue.
50. Our quality programme has increased our yield.
51. Our quality programme has improved our competitive position.
52. Our quality programme has improved our performance in general.
53. Our quality programme has had a negative impact upon our profitability. (*)
54. We could have done better (i.e. obtained better financial results) without a quality
programme. (*)

Critical Factors and Results of Quality Management - An Empirical Study

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Critical Factors and Results of Quality Management - An Empirical Study

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]

On: 07 September 2013, At: 01:44

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

Critical factors and results of quality management:

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783360309709

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Critical factors and results of quality

Review of the literature

Table 1. Factors of quality management according to the literature

Training. Ishikawa (1985); Kanji (1991); Brocka & Brocka

Table 2. Empirical research of quality management

Critical factors Size of

Badri et al. Additional assessment of Instrument proposed 8 factors with [20

Table 3. Number of certified firms according to number of employees

Small Medium Large

\20 2049 5099 100250 [250 [500 Total

No. of firms 17 17 27 24 8 13 106

Table 4. Number of firms per sector

Sector (Standard Industrial ClassificationSIC) Number of firms

Industry Manufacturing 49 63 59%

the quality manager.

Variables and measures

Enablers (EFQM model) Critical factors No. of items

Results (EFQM model) Results

Customer satisfaction Customer satisfaction 3

Identification of the critical factors and results

Table 7. Rotated factor matrix of the critical factors of TQM 98

13. Employees are trained in quality principles 0.673

5. Managers and supervisors motivate their

17. There is bottom-up, top-down and horizontal

36. Higher management has developed an

Table 8. Data matrix for the analysis of results of quality management

Table 9. Rotated factor matrix of the results of TQM

Business Social Customer Employee Sta

49 Our quality programmes increased our

Empirical validation of scales

Table 10. Reliability analysis of critical factors of TQM

No. Alpha after

1. Training 4 6 Development and implementation of strategies and plans

2. Continuous 5 28 Programme aimed at finding time and cost losses in all

a0.7589 29 This organization reinforces continuous study and

3. Quality 5 7 The management sets objectives for managers 0.6551

4. Leadership 4 2 Managers actively communicate a quality commitment to the

5. Supplier 3 18 Closer work with suppliers 0.4080

6. Management 2 1 Higher management actively directs our quality management

7. Specialized 2 14 Employees are trained in problem-solving skills

Table 10. Continued

No. Alpha after

8. Learning 5 17 There is bottom-up, top-down and horizontal communication

36 Higher management has developed an environment helping

9. Customer 2 22 Customers requirements are used as the basis for quality

10. Process 2 24 Continuous control and improvement of key processes

11. Cooperation 3 10 Management involves the employees in the setting of its

Table 11. Reliability analysis of critical factors of TQM

No. Alpha after

1. Business 7 48 Our financial results have been excellent 0.7726

54 We could have done better (i.e. obtained better financial

3. Customer 3 38 This organization is not concerned about collecting

4. Employee 2 41 This organization collects relevant information from

Table 12. Correlation matrix (critical factors)

Continuous Supplier Special- Process

Training 12 0.746 0.115 0.356 0.395 0.048 0.036 0.469 0.115

Continuous 28 0.199 0.699 0.214 0.099 0.290 0.310 0.161 0.182

Quality 7 0.231 0.242 0.695 0.027 0.021 0.145 0.141 0.035

pO0.10; pO0.05; pO0.01; pO0.001

pO0.10; pO0.05; pO0.01; pO0.001