1

全面品管哲學與方法對品質績效的相關性研究Relationships of TQM Philosophy, Methods

and Performance: A Survey in TaiwanNSC 89-2416-H-218-005

黃峰蕙 (Fenghueih Huarng)1

1 南台科技大學企管系 (Department of Business Administration, Southern Taiwan University of Technology, Tainan, Taiwan 710)

2

Literature Review• The relationships of CSF and performances

– Powell (1995)__USA, N=63 • open culture• employee empowerment• executive commitment

• quality training• process improvement• benchmarking

– Control variables:• years since TQM adoption (experience)• number of employees (firm size)• industry (manufacturing vs. service)

Produce advantage

No help

3

– Samson & Terziovski (1999)__ Australian and New Zealand, N=1024, No control variable

• leadership

• management of people

• customer focus

– Sun(1999)__Norway, N=316, No control variable

• quality leadership

• human resource development

• quality information

Current operational performance

Increase customersatisfaction & businessperformance

4

– Huarng, Horng & Chen(1999) __ISO in Taiwan,

N=376

• all employee’ empowerment

• open culture

• use of information system

• documentation through auditing

• quality control activity before ISO

– Control variables

• the age of corporation (experience)

• the number of employee (firm size)

• the percentage of overseas sales

Quality, costinternationalizationsales

5

TQM Non-TQM TotalSample frame 215 785 1000Respondents 73 71 144Return Rate 34.0% 9.0% 14.4%

Research Method• literature review & pre-tested by two site managers• top 1000 manufacturing firms 1999 on China Credit Infor

mation Service,Ltd.• data collected in Summer 2000• 42 items for implementation practices (cronbach = 0.960

4), 1:highly disagree, 4: indifferent, 7: highly agree• 16 items for performance (cronbach = 0.8997), 1: highly

worsen, 4: remain the same, 7: highly improved• Non-response test (73 TQM vs. 142 TQM non-response)

-No difference in total sales, # of employees, industry distribution

• TQM have greater size than non-TQM

6

Results• Factor analysis

– Table:performance variables– Table: implementation practices

• Factor 1 : employee empowerment • Factor 2 : all employee perception through top

executive support• Factor 3 : training• Factor 4 : measuring product and service• Factor 5 : benchmarking on quality and service• Factor 6 : statistical method• Factor 7 : benchmarking on cost• Factor 8 : supplier co-operation• Factor 9 : employee involvement.

7

• Table: performance variables

I t e m Loading

Factor 1: cost reduction (cronbach = 0.9251)B14 Reducing customer complaints .884B12 Reducing defect rate .861B4 Reducing cost of reworks and waste .839B9 Reducing process variance .834B10 Reducing manufacturing cost .786B13 Reducing quality cost .772B3 Reducing delivery time .744B1 Reducing management cost .578Factor 2: business performance (cronbach = 0.8851)B7 Improving capacity of machinery and equipment .858B16 Increasing market share .837B5 Increasing orders .808B11 Speeding new product introduction .718B6 Improving product functionality .713B8 Improving overall profitability .699B2 Improving product reliability .686

8

Item LoadingFactor 1: employee empowerment (cronbach = 0.9374)P26 A more active employee suggestion system .822P7 Ideas from production operators are actively used in production management .784P16 These customer requirements are effectively disseminated and understood

throughout the workforce.671

P40 Employee training in problem-solving skills .665P8 Database is built for analysis .646P17 All employees believe that quality is their responsibility .636P15 Environmental (‘green’) protection issues are proactively managed .580Factor 2: all employee quality perception through top executive support(cronbach = 0.9228)P38 Our plan always incorporate external customers, suppliers and other stakeholders .682P1 Top manager clearly understand the fundamental spirits and principles of quality

management.678

P5 Written statement of strategy clearly articulated and agreed to .674P39 Increased employee autonomy in decision-making .641P41 Employee satisfaction is formally and regularly measured .633P11 We proactively pursue continuous improvement rather than reacting to crisis ‘fire-

fighting’.618

P3 A top executive decision to commit fully to a quality program .510P4 Employees clearly understand the fundamental spirits and

principles of TQM.454

P21 Employee training in teamwork .432P23 Data is analyzed using computer for managers to make decisions .401

Table: implementation practice

9

Item LoadingFactor 3: training (cronbach = 0.91)P35 Management training in quality principles .818P33 Customer complaints are used as a method to initiate improvements in our current

processes.718

P36 Statistical methods to measure and monitor quality .550P27 Have organization-wide training & development process for all employees .550P28 Production operators training regularly in quality .545P34 Mission statement communicated and supported by employees .532P12 Measurement of quality performance in all area .494Factor 4: measuring product and service (cronbach = 0.7232)P24 We have well established methods to measure the quality of our product and

services.787

P30 We have side-wide standardized and documented operating procedure .735P13 Use of computer to record daily data .635P2 We know our external customers’ current and future requirements (both in terms

of volume and product characteristics.622

P37 We work closely with our suppliers to improve each others’ processes .453Factor 5: benchmarking on quality and service (cronbach = 0.8253)P10 We are engaged in extensive benchmarking of competitors’ quality procedures .855P19 We are engaged in extensive benchmarking of competitors’ operating processes .825P31 We are engaged in extensive benchmarking of competitors’ customer service .646

Table: implementation practice

10

Item LoadingFactor 6: statistical method (cronbach = 0.7456)P29 Use of Statistical Process Control (SPC) .782P22 Charts and graphs to measure and monitor quality .621P25 We have an effective process for resolving external customers’ complaints .494Factor 7: benchmarking on cost (cronbach = 0.7049)P6 We are engaged in extensive benchmarking of competitors’ relative cost position .751P20 Building database system with our suppliers .556P18 Have a comprehensive and structured planning process .502P32 We are engaged in extensive benchmarking of competitors’ sale dollars .484Factor 8: supplier co-operationP14 Our suppliers work closely with us in product development .874Factor 9: employee involvementP9 Employees involve in design and planning .738P42 We proactively champion certification of quality management system .588

Table: implementation practice

11

• Linear Regression analysis (stepwise)

– two control variables

• C1:starting date of TQM adoption

• C2:the corporate sales

– VIF is 1.222 for 2 CV & 9 independent variables

– α=0.05• BF1: cost reduction

• BF2: business performance

• Regression : interaction models• BF1:cost reduction

• BF2:business performance

12

Discussions & conclusions

• Both TQM philosophy & tools help business performance– Two P’s:

• employee empowerment (PP1)

• all employee quality perception through top executive support (PP2)

– Four M’s:• training (PM1)

• use of statistical method (PM4)

• benchmark on cost (PM5)

• supplier co-operation (PM6)

13

• The relationship may vary from country to country– confirm Sun (Norway, 1999)– different from Powell (USA, 1995) & Dow et al

(Australian, 1999)

• Integration of P & M help – PP1 & PM1 integration help cost down

» capable employee with empowerment

– PP2 & PM6 integration help business perform» cooperation of top executive, employees & suppliers

• TQM P & M help in all sizes of firms with or without experience of TQM adoption

14

~ The End ~

Fenghueih Huarng1

15

Total 38 28.40502800

Parameter Standard Type II Step 2 Variable PM3Removed R-square = 0.17497146 C(p) = -0.32275978

DF Sum of Squares Mean Square FProb>F

Regression 2 4.97006916 2.48503458 3.82 0.0314Error 36 23.43495884 0.65097108

Variable Estimate Error Sum of Squares FProb>F

INTERCEP 1.03111045 0.69260951 1.44276358 2.22 0.1453C1 -0.01222440 0.00832172 1.40472186 2.16 0.1505C2 0.00001748 0.00001009 1.95244855 3.00 0.0919

Stepwise regression analysis for BF1: cost reduction

16

Step 6 Variable PP2 Entered R-square = 0.77875330 C(p) = 6.04972662

DF Sum of Squares Mean Square FProb>F

Regression 8 29.74715928 3.71839491 13.20 0.0001Error 30 8.45127831 0.28170928Total 38 38.19843759

Parameter Standard Type IIVariable Estimate Error Sum of Squares F Prob>F

INTERCEP -0.12140026 0.49484736 0.01695500 0.06 0.8079C1 -0.00052287 0.00593385 0.00218731 0.01 0.9304C2 0.00002242 0.00000728 2.67586120 9.50 0.0044PP1 0.30132279 0.08916881 3.21691180 11.42 0.0020PP2 0.20107267 0.09605692 1.23438301 4.38 0.0449PM1 0.39869318 0.09756178 4.70456343 16.70 0.0003PM4 0.37898169 0.09969803 4.07065629 14.45 0.0007PM5 0.29009042 0.08382673 3.37367214 11.98 0.0016PM6 0.27021406 0.08585940 2.79023880 9.90 0.0037

Stepwise regression analysis for BF2:business performance

17

Dependent Variable: BF1 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Prob>F Model 5 9.63959 1.92792 3.390 0.0140 Error 33 18.76543 0.56865 C Total 38 28.40503 Root MSE 0.75409 R-square 0.3394 Dep Mean 0.21200 Adj R-sq 0.2393 C.V. 355.70213

Parameter Estimates Parameter Standard T for H0: Variance Variable DF Estimate Error Parameter=0 Prob > |T| Inflation INTERCEP 1 1.039845 0.65116048 1.597 0.1198 0.00000000 C1 1 -0.012329 0.00779727 -1.581 0.1234 1.12515107 C2 1 0.000012789 0.00000988 1.295 0.2043 1.22757722 PP1 1 0.131120 0.12489734 1.050 0.3014 1.11286691 PM1 1 0.272192 0.16965090 1.604 0.1182 1.59782785 INT11 1 0.299498 0.10702288 2.798 0.0085 1.63222334

Interaction regression analysis for (BF1) cost reduction

18

Dependent Variable: BF2 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Prob>F Model 5 17.77247 3.55449 5.743 0.0006 Error 33 20.42597 0.61897 C Total 38 38.19844

Root MSE 0.78675 R-square 0.4653 Dep Mean 0.03390 Adj R-sq 0.3842 C.V. 2320.95928

Parameter Estimates Parameter Standard T for H0: Variance Variable DF Estimate Error Parameter=0 Prob > |T| Inflation INTERCEP 1 -0.082211 0.70708157 -0.116 0.9081 0.00000000 C1 1 -0.002021 0.00845772 -0.239 0.8126 1.21621001 C2 1 0.00003188 0.00001014 3.144 0.0035 1.18848112 PP2 1 0.379872 0.13900000 2.733 0.0100 1.13216780 PM6 1 0.309924 0.13250136 2.339 0.0255 1.14217095 INT26 1 0.286577 0.10385201 2.759 0.0094 1.15005292

Interaction regression analysis for (BF2) business performance