pdca

Sustainable development of total quality management through Deming’s PDSA Cycle

Taken from The International Journal for Quality and Standards of 40 www.bsieducation.org/ijqs G Karuppusami/R.Gandhinathan

Sustainable development of total quality management through

Deming’s PDSA cycle

G.Karuppusami R. Gandhinathan

Asst. Professor

Mechanical Engineering Department

Kumaraguru College of Technology

Coimbatore - 641 006

India

Professor

Mechanical Engineering Department

PSG College of Technology

Coimbatore - 641 004

India

Abstract: This paper suggests Deming’s Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle

based approach to develop and sustain TQM. The least developed programs of

TQM in firms are identified in this proposed method and sorted in the lowest to

highest order of development. The result will help the top management in setting

out priorities to achieve sustained growth of TQM process. The PDSA cycle

suggested for TQM sustainability consists of four steps: (1) plan for TQM, (2)

Implement TQM, (3) study and measure the level of implementation of TQM and

(4) take necessary actions to improve the less developed programs of TQM. In

this research, the level of implementation of TQM is measured with the help of

quality index calculation algorithm. In order to provide an example of the

application, possibilities and the benefits of our proposed model, a project

developed for a major Indian auto ancillary company is presented. An empirical

survey with 85 questions related to Quality-related Action Programs (QAPs) and

13 Critical Success Factors (CSFs) were circulated to the 9 department heads of

the company to assess the level of TQM implementation. Data related to the

current TQM implementation at various functional units of the company was



collected. TQM Implementation Index (TQMII) for the selected QAPs, CSFs and

firm as a whole were calculated and presented to the company. The suggested

methodology was useful to audit how much of TQM the firm has implemented into

their organization.

Keywords: TQM, PDSA, CSF, QAP, TQMII, sustainability



1 Introduction

Total quality management (TQM), as a fad, has had a long life (Williams et al.,

2004). The Japanese were moving in the quality direction soon after the Second

World War and the hype first reached the USA by the mid 1980s with the

installation of the Baldridge award in 1987. The movement then hit Europe with

the founding first of the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM)

and then the rest of the world. Van Der Wiele et al. (2000) analyzed the concept of

TQM to examine whether TQM can survive and last long enough to eventually

become part of the recognized management theory. It has been argued that if

TQM is to move from being a fad to being a fashion or a fit, it must be clearly

defined and its present implementation status assessed. Like many other TQM

studies, they also emphasized the critical role of top management support or

motivation for this process to be successful.

The Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for TQM are now much better known

and understood (Curry et al., 2002). Evidence from the past has shown that TQM

initiatives have failed because the CSFs were not in place. There have been

nonetheless several case examples of successful TQM implementations and

sustainability. Such examples show that TQM should not be reinvented at regular

intervals but should become part of everyday working life. TQM should not be a

fad or a flavor of the month but a durable culture that promotes business

improvement over time (Curry et al., 2002). While there has been criticism for



many years, still quality management philosophy continues to be a central focus

for the business and a mechanism for contributing to better performance.

Now quality management is being linked to and integrated with company

management systems, e.g. the ISO 9000, ISO 14000 and the management

systems related to the quality awarded models. Organizations with a high level of

quality maturity have been able to integrate the quality management systems into

their normal day to–day fabric of managing the business. Quality is essential for

organizational success and competitive advantage. TQM is only one of many

possible means to attain quality. In other words quality is sacred; TQM is not

(Harari, 1993).

2 Sustainable development of TQM

Sustainability is defined as ‘the ability of an organization to adapt to change in the

business environment to capture contemporary best practice methods and to

achieve and maintain superior competitive performance’ (Zairi & Liburd 2001).

Quinn (2000) describes sustainability as the development that meets present

needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own

needs. Without sustainability, there is little benefit to be gained from TQM (Curry

et al., 2002). The authors conducted an empirical study in Saudi Arabian

industries to identify the evaluation and sustainable factors of TQM. The survey

population was 140 ISO 9000 registered manufacturing companies in Saudi

Arabia. The questionnaire had 63 questions and the response was 83 companies.



The authors reported that the people issues, customer focus, quality improvement

tools, quality culture and the performance measurement factors of these

companies lacked considerably in development and required further attention.

Ahmed et al. (2002) reported that many organizations jumped on the TQM

bandwagon thinking that if they copy the tools and techniques, they will reap the

benefits of TQM. The findings of their study suggested that the social systems

cannot be ignored; rather both social and technical systems need to be developed

simultaneously for sustainability of TQM. The authors concluded that the checking

of employees’ behavioral traits during the selection and recruitment process to

prevent mismatch between the technical and social systems is essential for

effective implementation of quality management process. TQM looks at quality as

a long-term business strategy, which strives to provide products and/or services to

satisfy fully both internal and external customers by meeting their explicit and

implicit expectations. At the core, is the issue of measurement, which is the

source of strength, continuity and sustainable performance (Zairi, 2002).

Lund et al. (1994) listed the following symptoms for TQM process not working.

• The results are not visible;

• Top management commitment is not seen and is not felt;

• Middle management does not know precisely what is expected of them in

relation to the TQM process;

• Low degree of employee involvement; and

• The organization changes priorities often and as a result quality decreases.



Capon et al. (1995) researched on the measurement of the success of TQM

programs. The study concluded that the measuring and displaying results

increase the chance of success in a TQM program. The authors recommended six

monitors based on the following MBNQA award criteria.

1. Management involvement;

2. Strategic quality planning;

3. Employee involvement;

4. Training;

5. Process capability; and

6. Customer perceptions.

In the present context, there is a need to develop a TQM sustainability

methodology that clearly defines the steps to be taken by the organizations for

effective long term implementation of TQM. This is attempted in the present study

by using Deming’s Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle. This approach is unique and

can be customized to suit the requirements of individual user as explained in the

methodology section.

3 PDSA cycle for sustainable development of TQM

The Deming’s PDSA cycle is a well-known model for continual process

improvement. It teaches organizations to plan an action, do it, study to see how it

conforms to the plan and act on what has been learned.



‘Take from Fig: 1’

The terms are defined below.

Step 1: Plan Recognize an opportunity, and plan the change.

Step 2: Do Implement the change.

Step 3: Study Review the implementation, analyze the results and identify

learnings.

Step 4: Act Take action based on what you learned in the step 3. If the

change was successful, incorporate the learnings from the test into wider

changes. If not, go through the cycle again. The PDSA cycle for sustainable

development of TQM shown in Fig. 1 is made up of four steps.

Step 1: Plan for TQM

Quality having become one of the twentieth century’s most important

management ideas, has exorcised – driven out – the traditional business as well

as graduate management school notion that a company’s success means making

products and offering services quicker and cheaper, selling them hard, and

providing a product service net to try to catch those that do not work well

(Feigenbaum, 1999). TQM has replaced this notion with the business principle

that making products better is the best way to make them quicker and cheaper

and that what you do to make quality better anywhere in an organization makes it

better everywhere in the organization. The evolution of TQM into and a full blown

management took shape through the works of Crosby (1979), Deming (1986),

Feigenbaum (1983) and Juran (1986). The primary focus of TQM philosophy is on



the hands and minds that employ the tools and techniques rather than the tools

and techniques themselves (Antony et al., 2002).

ISO 9000: 2000 versions adopt TQM philosophy with stronger focus on

customer satisfaction and an effective process-oriented approach emphasizing on

continual performance improvement. Clearly the new revised standard is a step

forward towards TQM, customer satisfaction and does not just achieve product

quality assurance (Magd et al., 2003). Those companies wishing to remain

competitive and improve their quality systems are recommended the use of ISO

9000 as a foundation for a much broader system of TQM. This is based on the

fact that ISO 9000 is an important part of TQM, and the implementation of both

the approaches will lead to organizational success and competitive advantage.

Rao et al. (1997) conducted a four nation study (US, China, India and Mexico) and

concluded that ISO 9000 registered companies have better quality management

practices and enjoy better quality results than companies that are planning to get

registered and are not interested in registration. The adoption of TQM in an

organization has to start from a strategy for implementation involving the planning

and preparation of document detailing the way forward (Yusof & Aspinwall 2000a).

The preparation of such a document may constitute:

1. Creation of a co-ordination body;

2. Development of a vision, mission and policy statements;

3. Education for the top management and coordinating body members on

total quality principles and philosophy;

4. Selection and trial run of the first improvement project; and



5. Appraising the company’s current level of quality management

implementation.



Step 2: Implement TQM

Taylor and Wright (2003) conducted a longitudinal study of TQM implementation

for a cohort of 109 firms in UK over a 5-year period and found that 42 firms,

predominantly small in size, had discontinued with TQM, while the remaining 67

firms reported varying degree of success. The study concluded that the size of the

firm, the nature of the customer base and the holding of ISO 9000 series

certification has had no significant effect on TQM outcomes for this cohort. The

research has highlighted some necessary antecedents for TQM success. In

particular, managers need to understand the nature and purpose of TQM, its

relationship to ISO 9000, and the potential benefits that can accrue from its

implementation. Antony et al. (2002) conducted an empirical study in Hong Kong

and developed an instrument by using the perceptions and experiences of TQM-

based companies. The authors concluded that the training and education is the

most critical success factor for the successful implementation of TQM in Hong

Kong organizations. Change management theory developed by Whittle et al.

(1991, 1992) was adopted by Krasachol and Tannock (1999) as methodology to

study TQM implementation in Thailand. The authors conducted case studies in

three companies and concluded that each company adopted different

combinations of 1) Visionary total quality (VTQ) 2) Learning total quality (LTQ) 3)

Planning total quality (PTQ) and 4) Transformational total quality (TTQ) theories

proposed by Whittle et al. (1991, 1992) but successful approaches to TQM

implementation. Woon (2000) assessed the TQM implementation of Singapore’s

productivity leaders, which comprised the pioneer batch of 240 organizations in



the Singapore Quality Award program. The data were obtained from an instrument

developed by Lee and Quazi (1999) based on the TQM model underlying the

Award. The organizations were found to have a medium level of TQM

implementation. The constructs in these organizations were also found be highly

interrelated. Thiyagarajan and Zairi (2001) constructed TQM implementation

framework by studying the organizations that have already implemented TQM in

Malaysia. The framework has been constructed based on findings from 81

organizations and 16 case study analysis. Mohanty and Lakhe (1998) conducted

a survey based research in Indian industries and recommended an instrument

with critical success factors proactive business orientation, internal support,

competitive assessment and participatory orientation for effective implementation

of TQM.

Yusof & Aspinwall (2000b) conducted a case study in a small business in UK

through a structured interview and reported two major problems in the

implementation of TQM. The first is financial and the second is a more general

resource constraint, which in a broad sense includes time, manpower, technical

expertise and managerial expertise. They recommended that TQM must be

presented in an attractive way to small businesses in the sense that it must not

promise to improve everything or to solve every problem but rather it must be

seen to help them to be better in a short span of time, say three to six months,

with a view to long-term sustainability. Again, Yusof & Aspinwall (2001) reported

findings of four industrial case studies on the implementation of TQM in

automotive small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) located in UK. The



authors found a wide range of quality initiatives and similarities in three main

areas stated below with regard to their approaches towards building TQM.

1. People focus as the vehicle for cultural transformation;

2. QS 9000 as the major system for achieving quality improvement; and

3. Continuous and progressive implementation of initiatives based upon

resource availability.



Step 3: Study and measure the level of TQM implementation

Regardless of which TQM model is adopted, the CSFs must be

operationalized for effective TQM implementation. Manifestation of CSFs results

in generation of Quality-related Action Programs (QAPs). The measurement of

TQM involves selecting a list of QAPs to measure each CSF, providing a

measurement scale for the QAPs, and then testing the instrument for reliability

and validity. For each CSF the actual level of TQM practice is represented by the

average of the QAPs ratings for that CSF. A vector of the averages for all the

CSFs represents the level of TQM implementation for the organization as a whole

(Saraph et al., 1989). Saraph et al. (1989) study was replicated by Badri et al.

(1995) in United Arab Emirates and Quazi et al. (1998) in Singapore. The TQM

implementation level in Singapore organizations was at a medium level and in the

organizations in the United Arab Emirates was found to be low. The application of

instrument developed by Flynn et al. (1995) in the 42 US organizations found a

medium level of TQM implementation. Ahire et al. (1996), with the application of

their instrument concluded that there was no significant difference in the level of

TQM implementation in large and small firms. The instrument by Rao et al. (1999)

has been applied by the researchers in the US, India, China, Mexico and Taiwan.

The TQM implementation levels in the US and Taiwan were found to be higher

than those in India, China and Mexico.



Step: 4 Take necessary actions to improve the less developed programs of

TQM

The audits and assessments keep organizations with alert on the gaps between,

its internal satisfaction with existing system and the changing external demands in

relation to externally defined systems (Van Der Wiele & Brown, 2002). Business

organizations should monitor the quality of their products and services in order to

maintain their strategic and financial position. In addition, they should know with

precision when, where, and how-much adjustments are needed in their existing

total quality program activities in order to maintain, and possibly enhance, their

strategic advantage. In turn, this means that organizations could use a

methodology that not only provides reliable information pertaining to the existing

state of quality, but also has the capability of identifying specific changes needed

to maintain and improve their strategic position and profitability. Furthermore,

because of the changing nature of markets and customer preferences, this

information should be available quickly, that is, the methodology should be flexible

enough to generate this information fast so that the necessary course corrections

may be initiated in good time (Kumar et al., 1999, 2004).

4. Methodology

The organizations can explore and adopt the successful models explained

in sections 2 and 3 with regard to the first two stages of the PDSA cycle 1) Plan

for TQM and 2) Implement TQM. For the third stage, the methodology proposed



by Kumar et al. (1999, 2004) that constructs an index called Quality

Competitiveness Index (QCI) is suggested to measure the level of TQM

implementation. QCI offers significant flexibility in terms of application potential by

virtue of its design. Hence the methodology for QCI was adopted for calculation of

TQM Implementation Index (TQMII). The list of CSFs considered in the proposed

framework is developed as a superset of CSFs available in several leading

publications in total quality management and organizational self-assessment

literature. An organization willing to compute its TQMII thus has freedom to

choose relevant CSFs from an exhaustive list. Yet should this list not contain

CSFs of specific interest to a company, new CSFs can be added without changing

the basic methodology. Furthermore, the model permits a high level of

customization by allowing managers to choose the weights that best represent

their actual situations with respect to the importance of a functional unit, level of

quality consciousness, and application effectiveness of a tool or technique at the

time of assessment. Algorithm proposed by Kumar et al. (1999, 2004) that

constructs an index called Quality Competitiveness Index (QCI) is replicated in the

following section.



4.1 The TQMII algorithm

The TQMII development algorithm is comprised of four steps. These are

presented below.

Step 1. Create a Department-Consciousness Matrix (Table 1)

a. Identify all departments D1,D2…..DM that play a significant role in building

product or service quality or are involved in the customer-company

interface.

b. Estimate and assign weights, Z1, Z2, …, Zm to each of the m departments

on a scale of 1 to 10 that reflect the degree to which a department might

influence the quality implementation of a company. Assign 10 to the

department that is most important and assign weights to other departments

based on their importance in relation to this department.

c. Identify stages of quality consciousness.

d. Estimate and assign weights, Y1, Y2, …, YK, to each stage of quality

consciousness on a scale of 1 to 10, which reflect the degree to which a

stage might influence the quality implementation of a company.

e. Estimate and assign weights, Xmk, m =1, …, M; k = 1, …, K to each cell in

the department-consciousness matrix on a scale of 1-10, based on the



degree of quality consciousness of that department within each stage.

Weights are assigned to a department in adjacent stages only. These

weights should add up to 10 for each department to assure comparability

between departments. The stages of quality consciousness represent a

chronological evolution of a department from the lowest stage of quality

consciousness (crisis management) to the highest stage of quality

consciousness (sustenance) as the quality improvement effort is expended.

Any department, at any given time, may be either in a given state of quality

consciousness or in a state of transition from one state to the next higher

state. Hence the adjacency of weights is dictated by reality. However, the

presence of weights in non-adjacent columns or in more than one column

is not a limitation of the TQMII algorithm presented above.

Step 2. Compute the Weighted Quality Consciousness Level (Table 1)

a. Compute each department’s normalized quality consciousness

weight.

....,,2,1,}{10 1

MmYXZMax

ZWKk

kkmk

m

mm ∑ ==

=

= (1)

Note that Max{Zm} = 10 based on the stipulation in Step 1b. However, the

formula provides flexibility in case Max{Zm} < 10.

b. Compute each department’s quality consciousness state efficiency.

=mQCSE ....,,2,1,010

11

MmYXKk

kkmk∑ =

=

= (2)



Step 3. Create a TQMII Matrix (Table 2)

a. Estimate and assign weights, Ui, i = 1, …, I, for QAP on a scale of 1 to 10

based on its contribution to the implementation of the company. This requires

active involvement of top-level personnel from marketing, sales, production,

and quality departments, customers, and higher management personnel.

b. Estimate and assign weights Vim for i = 1, …, I, m = 1, …, M on a scale of 0 to

10 such that each assigned weight accurately reflects the effectiveness and

completeness with which the QAP in question has been applied to or

implemented in department i.

Step 4. Compute the TQMII for the Organization (Table 2)

The TQM implementation index, TQMII, algorithm is presented below.

TQMII of QAP I ∑

∑=

=

=

== Mm

m

Mm

mmim

Zm

WV

1

1

10 i = 1, 2, 3…..I

TQMII algorithm for the firm is as follows.

∑

∑∑=

=

=

=

=

== Mm

m

Mm

mmim

Ii

i

ZmI

WVTQMII

1

11

10 i = 1, 2, 3…..I; m = 1, 2, 3 …. M



5 Case study

The suggested PDSA model for TQM Implementation was applied to an

automotive ancillary company located in South India. The company is the largest

manufacturer of automotive horns in India and has ISO 9002, ISO 14001, ISO/TS

16949:1999 certifications. At present, the company is engaged in the development

of quality systems to attain Q1 standard of Ford motor company, USA. They used

various certifications as stepping stone for TQM planning and implementation.

TQM and TPM are in the initial stages of implementation and the company

believes in the strategic management principles. They are open to experimenting

with new concepts and methods that will give them competitive advantage over

competitors. The proposed model for TQM sustainability was explained and the

management accepted the model and co-operated with the project. The company

has already progressed through the first two stages of the PDSA cycle and hence

the project started with the third stage, ‘study and measure the level of TQM

implementation’. Nine department heads actively participated in the study (Table

1).

‘Take from table 1’

The participating team selected 13 CSFs and 85 QAPs of TQM (Table 2) from

various publications for the development of TQMII. The algorithm developed by

Kumar et al. (1999, 2004) was replicated in this study.




CSFs, department or functional units and stages of quality consciousness

are the three classes of variables that are needed to construct a TQMII. The

results obtained by the application of TQMII algorithm to the selected company

are presented in Table 2. The QAP weights used in the tables are the mean

values of the weights given by the departmental heads of the company. The first

15 least developed QAPs were sorted in the ascending order of development and

presented in Table 3.


The step: 4 of PDSA cycle was accomplished by the company by creating

an action plan for the QAPs listed in the Table 3. The Company set a target of 6

months to improve the less developed QAPs.

6. Findings of the case study

By applying the TQMII algorithm of Kumar et al. (1999, 2004), the

combined level of TQM implementation in the selected organization was assessed

as 0.460 (Table 2). The TQMII of CSFs and QAPs are presented in Table 2. The

TQMII measures, on a unit scale, how well the company has implemented its total

quality programs. The TQMII of the selected thirteen CSFs are as follows.

1. Role of top management and quality policy = 0.59

2. Supplier quality management = 0.37

3. Customer focus = 0.50



4. Process management = 0.46

5. Product / service design = 0.47

6. Quality data and reporting = 0.44

7. Training = 0.45

8. Employee relations = 0.47

9. Role of quality department = 0.47

10. Benchmarking = 0.50

11. Information technology analysis = 0.42

12. Lean manufacturing = 0.43

13. Continuous improvement = 0.37

The index aims to tell how effective the company’s quality policies and

practices are with respect to their potential for improving total quality program.

The CSFs, ‘Role of top management and quality policy’, ‘Customer focus’ and

‘benchmarking’ with calculated TQMII of 0.50 and above were attributed as the

best implemented CSFS. The CSFs ‘Supplier quality management’ and

‘Continuous improvement’ with a TQMII of 0.37 were rated as least implemented

CSFs. By referring to the department consciousness matrix (Table 1), materials

department was rated as the lowest at 0.58. Analysis revealed that Materials

department was constantly engaged in timely arrangement of materials to avoid

production delays of various products and hence the penetration of QAPs was

less in this department comparing with other departments. TQMII of ‘supplier

quality management’ was lower due to the same reason.



The team then analyzed the next least implemented CSF ‘continuous

improvement’ and found that the QAP ‘Taguchi methods’ with a TQMII of 0.13 and

‘process control through 6-Sigma’ with a TQMII of 0.23 were not implemented in 5

out of 9 departments of the company. The reason attributed to the lapse was the

lack of training. Further the first 15 least developed QAPs listed in the Table 3

were taken for analysis by the team and after discussions; five major

recommendations listed below were put forward to bring about improvements in

those areas.

1. Link the department quality consciousness state efficiency of TQM

implementation program (Table 1) to their annual group incentive

scheme offered by the company. Management decided to motivate

departments with monetary benefits if higher level of implementation

of TQM is achieved.

2. Arrange training program for all the least developed QAPs and

create awareness among departments in attaining a high degree of

TQM implementation. The company set a target of 6 months to

improve the least developed QAPs.

3. Encourage exchange of information and data by departments with

higher level of implementation of TQM to departments with lower

level of TQMII.

4. Obtain expert advice about the list of CSFs and QAPs selected for

the TQMII analysis and revise if necessary.

5. Integrate the TQM programs with the procedures of ISO 9002, ISO

14001, ISO/TS 16949:1999 certifications.



The top management was pleased by the outcome of the study as the

study quantified and exposed the exceptional and as well as least performing

QAPs. Every department manger participated in the study agreed that the

problem areas were correctly identified by the proposed model. The least

developed programs of TQM in firms were identified in this proposed method and

sorted in the lowest to highest order of development. The result helped the top

management in setting out priorities to achieve sustained growth of TQM process.

The TQMII developed and used in the present study can be used as an internal

and external benchmark tool and is designed to deal with quality management,

performance and improvement. The results are practical, quantitative and easy to

apply.

7. Conclusion

The authors proposed PDSA cycle for continuous improvement and sustainable

development of TQM in firms. The PDSA cycle suggested for TQM sustainability

consisted of four steps: (1) plan for TQM, (2) Implement TQM, (3) study and

measure the level of implementation of TQM and (4) take necessary actions to

improve the less developed programs of TQM. The list of CSFs considered in the

proposed framework is developed as a superset of CSFs available in several

leading publications in total quality management and organizational self-

assessment literature. Karuppusami et.al. (2006) reported the following CSFs as

the most vital after reviewing the TQM literature spanning 1989 until 2003.



1. The role of management leadership and quality

2. Supplier quality management

3. Process management

4. Customer focus

5. Training

6. Employee Relations

7. Product / service design

8. Quality data

9. Role of Quality Department

10. Human resource management and development

11. Design and conformance

12. Cross functional Quality teams

13. Bench marking

14. Information and analysis

In the current research, CSFs reported by Karuppusami et.al. (2006) were

included in the TQMII calculation and validated. The measurement of TQM

involves selecting a list of QAPs to measure each CSF, providing a measurement

scale for the QAPs (Saraph et al., 1989). The QAPs were selected from the

publications of Saraph et al., (1989) and Joseph et.al., (1989). The level of

implementation of TQM was measured with the help of quality index calculation

algorithm proposed by Kumar et al. (1999, 2004). A methodology is developed



and presented here that allows companies to compute a TQM Implementation

index that represents a composite value of the effectiveness with which a

company has implemented its total quality program. The index has some parallels

with a productivity index in terms of the purposes of interpretation. Just as

productivity efficiency indicates, on a scale of 0 to 1, how well a company’s

resources have been employed for production, a TQMII indicates how well a

company’s quality activities are conducted to gain strategic advantage. The least

developed programs of TQM in firms were identified in this proposed method and

sorted in the lowest to highest order of development.

The TQMII development process allows evaluation of a company’s performance

of its total quality program as a stand-alone entity. The process also allows

comparison with other companies in the industry. Perhaps a most useful outcome

of the process of development of a TQMII is that it allows tracking of factors and

departments that are substantially impacting the quality competitiveness of a

company adversely. In order to substantiate the four steps of PDSA cycle,

possibilities and the benefits of the proposed model, a project developed for a

major Indian auto ancillary company was presented. The most useful outcomes of

the project are as follows.

• The problem areas of TQM implementation correctly identified by the

proposed PDSA method.

• The model allows tracking of TQM programs and departments that are

substantially impacting the TQM implementation in the company.



• Specific recommendations were proposed to bring about improvements in

those least developed TQM programs.

This research could be extended further by replicating the PDSA cycle for

TQM in other industries.



REFERENCES

1. AHIRE, E.E., and GOLHAR, D., 1996, Quality management in large vs small firms, Journal of Small Business Management, 34(2), 1-13.

2. AHMAD, S. and SCHROEDER, R.G., 2002, The importance of recruitment and selection process for sustainability of total quality management, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19(5), 540–550.

3. ANTONY, J., LEUNG, K., KNOWELS, G. and GOSH, S., 2002, Critical success factors of TQM implementation in Hong Kong industries, International journal of Quality & Reliability management, 19(5), 551–566.

4. BADRI, M. A., DAVIS, D., and DONALD D., 1995, A study of measuring the critical success factors of quality management, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 12(2), 36–53.

5. CAPON, N., KAYE, M.M. and WOOD, M., 1995, Measuring the success of a TQM programme, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 12(8), 8–22.

6. CROSBY, P.B., 1979, Quality Is Free, New American Library, New York, NY.

7. CURRY, A. and KADASAH, N., 2002, Focusing on key elements of TQM – evaluation for sustainability, The TQM magazine, 14(4), 207-216.

8. DEMING, W.E., 1986, Out of Crisis, MIT Centre for Advanced Engineering, Cambridge, MA.

9. FEIGENBAUM, A.V., 1983, Total Quality Control: Engineering and Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

10. FEIGENBAUM, A.V., I999, The new quality for the twenty- first century, The TQM magazine, 11(6), 376–383.

11. FLYNN, B.B., SCHROEDER, R.G. and SAKAKIBARA, S., 1995, The impact of quality management practices on performance and competitive advantage, Decision Sciences, 26(5), 659-91.

12. HARARI, O., 1993, Ten reasons why TQM doesn’t work, Management review, 82(1), 33–38.

13. JOSEPH, I. N., RAJENDRAN, C. and KAMALANABHAN, T.J. 1999, ” An Instrument For Measuring Total Quality Management Implementation in Manufacturing Based Business Units In India”, International journal of production research, Vol.37 No.10 pp. 2201-2215



14. JURAN, J.M., 1986, The quality trilogy, Quality Progress, 9(8), 19-24.

15. KARUPPUSAMI, G., GANDHINATHAN. R. 2006, Pareto analysis of critical success factors of total quality management: A literature review and analysis”, TQM Magazine, Vol.18 No.4 pp. 372-385.

16. KRASACHOL, L. and TANNOCK, J.D.T., 1999, A study of TQM Implementation in Thailand, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 16(5), 418–432.

17. KUMAR, A., MOTWANI, J., DOUGLAS, C. and DAS, N., 1999, A quality competitiveness index for benchmarking, International Journal of Benchmarking, 6(1), 12-21.

18. KUMAR, A., STECKE, K.E. and MOTWANI , J.G., 2004, An analytical framework to measure, benchmark, and improve the strategic position of an organization using a quality competitiveness index, International Journal of Operations and Quantitative Management, 10(2), 1-37.

19. LEE, P.M. and QUAZI, H., 1999, Assessment of quality management performance in organizations, working paper, Nangyang Business School, Nangyang Technological University, Singapore.

20. LUND, K. and THOMSON, C., 1994, How to sustain the total quality management process after the first 12 months, The TQM magazine, 6(5), 47–49.

21. MAGD, H. and CURRY, A., 2003, ISO 9000 and TQM: are they complementary or contradictory to each other?, The TQM Magazine, 15(4), 244-256.

22. MOHANTY, R.P., and LAKME, R.P., 1998, Factors affecting TQM implementation: An empirical study in Indian Industry, Production planning & control, 9(5), 511– 520.

23. QUAZI, H.A., JEMANGIN, J., KIT, L.W. and KIAN, C.L., 1998, Critical success factors in quality management and guidelines for self-assessment: The case of Singapore, Total Quality Management, 9(1), 35-55.

24. QUINN, B., 2000, Sustaining New Jersey’s industrial future, Pollution Engineering, 32(13), 25-27.

25. RAO, S.S., RAGU-NATHAN, T.S. and SOLIS, L.E., 1997, Does ISO 9000 have an effect on quality management practices? An international empirical study, Total Quality Management, 8(6), 335–346.

26. RAO, S.S., SOLIS, L.E. and RAGHUNATHAN, T.S., 1999, A framework for international quality management research: Development and validation of a



measurement instrument, Total Quality Management, 10(7), 1047–1075.

27. SARAPH, J. V., BENSON, P. G. and SCHROEDER, R. G., 1989, An Instrument for measuring the critical success factors of Quality Measurement, Decision Sciences, 20(4), 810-29.

28. TAYLOR, W.A. and WRIGHT, G.H., 2003, A Longitudinal study of TQM implementation: factors influencing success and failure, Omega, 31, 97 – 111.

29. THIAGARAJAN, T. and ZAIRI, M., 2001, A proposed model of TQM implementation based on an empirical study of Malaysian industry, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 18(3), 289–306.

30. VAN DER WIELE, T. and BROWN, A., 2002, Quality management over a decade: A longitudinal study, International journal of Quality & Reliability management, 19(5), 508–523.

31. VAN DER WIELE, T., DALE, B. and WILLIAMS, R., 2000, Self-assessment based on quality/excellence award models, Journal of General Management, 25(3), 373-84.

32. WHITTLE, S., SMITH, S., TRANFIELD, D. and FOSTER, M., 1991, Implementation total quality: erecting tents or building palaces, 6th International conference of OMA (UK ).

33. WHITTLE, S., SMITH, S., TRANFIELD, D. and FOSTER, M., 1992, Total quality and change management: integrating approaches for organization design, Institute of Electrical Engineers, Third International conference, York, July.

34. WILLIAMS, R., VAN DER WIELE, T., IWAARDER, J.V. and VISSER, R., 2004, TQM: why it will again become a top management issue, International journal of Quality & Reliability management, 21(6), 603–611.

35. WOON, K.C., 2000, Assessment of TQM implementation: Benchmarking Singapore’s productivity leaders, Business Process Management Journal, 6(4), 314–330.

36. YUSOF, S.M. and ASPINWALL, E., 2000a, A conceptual framework for TQM implementation for SMEs, The TQM magazine, 12(1), 31-36.

37. YUSOF, S.M. and ASPINWALL, E., 2000b, TQM implementation issues: review and case study, International journal of operations and production management, 20(6), 634–655.

38. YUSOF, S.M. and ASPINWALL, E., 2001, Case studies on the implementation of TQM in the UK automotive SMEs, International journal of Quality &



Reliability Management, 18(7), 722–743.

39. ZAIRI, M. & LIBURD, I.M., 2001, TQM sustainability-a roadmap for creating competitive advantage, Integrated Management, Proceedings of the 6th International conference on ISO 9000 & TQM, Paisely, Ayr, Scotland, 17-19 April, 452-461 (Hong Kong Baptist University Press) ISBN 962-86107-2-4.

40. ZAIRI, M., 2002, Beyond TQM implementation: the new paradigm of TQM sustainability, Total Quality management, 13(8), 1161–1172.



Fig: 1 PDSA Cycle for sustainable development of TQM

ACT PLAN

Study DO

Step 3: Study and measure the level of TQM implementation

Step 1: Plan for TQM

Step 2: Implement TQM

Step 4: Take necessary actions to improve the

less developed programs of TQM



Table 1 Department consciousness matrix

State of quality consciousness

Department name

Dm

Weight

Cris

is M

anag

emen

t

Aw

aren

ess

Emer

genc

e

Mat

urity

Sust

enan

ce

Nor

mal

ized

Qua

lity

Con

scio

usne

ss w

eigh

t, W

m

Qua

lity

cons

ciou

snes

s st

ate

effic

ienc

y fo

r D

epar

tmen

t m, Q

CS

Em

k = 1 2 3 4 5

Zm yk = 2 4 6 8 10

Product engineering

D1 10.00 X11 = 0.5 1 2.5 3 3 7.40 0.74

Quality assurance D2 10.00 2 2 2 2 2 6.00 0.60

Production planning & control D3 7.00 0.5 0.5 1 3 5 5.81 0.83

Application Engineering D4 7.00 0 1 1 6 2 5.46 0.78

Manufacturing Engineering D5 9.00 0 0 2 2 6 7.92 0.88

Production department D6 10.00 1 1 1 2.5 4.5 7.70 0.77

Materials department D7 9.00 1 1 6 2 0 5.22 0.58

Information Technology D8 6.00 0 1 2 3.5 3.5 4.74 0.79

Sales & Marketing department D9 7.00 0 0 0 1 9 6.86 0.98



Table 2 Matrix showing the calculation of TQMII

CSFs, QAPs and weights Index Performance weights of departments on each QAPs

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9

m = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

wm = 7.40 6.00 5.81 5.46 7.92 7.70 5.22 4.74 6.86CS

F

QA

Ps

Inde

x (i)

QAP

s

QA

Ps

wei

ght (

Ui)

Zm = 10.00 10.00 7.00 7.00 9.00 10.00 9.00 6.00 7.00

TQM

II of

QA

P I

give

n st

ate

of q

ualit

y

TQM

II of

CS

Fi g

iven

st

ate

of q

ualit

y

1 Top management responsibility for quality performance 8.86 V1m = 9 10 7 10 10 10 8 9 5 0.65

2 Performance evaluation based on quality 9.05 7 6 6 10 8 7 7 7 7 0.55

3 Acceptance of responsibility for quality by major dept heads 8.95 6 8 7 6 10 9 6 7 6 0.56

4 Degree of participation by dept heads in quality improvement process 8.95 7 9 6 10 10 7 6 6 7 0.58

5 Consideration of quality as first priority 9.33 8 8 7 10 10 9 8 7 8 0.63

6 Discussion of quality related issues in meetings 8.81 8 10 5 9 10 7 10 5 7 0.60

7 Extent to which quality goals and policies are understood 8.81 7 8 6 9 10 6 8 6 8 0.57

Rol

e of

Top

Man

agem

ent a

nd Q

ualit

y Po

licy

8 Degree of comprehensiveness of quality plan 8.67 8 8 6 9 10 7 10 5 8 0.60

0.59



Table2 contd..

9 Selection of suppliers based on quality rather than price 7.83 8 6 6 7 5 7 0.34

10 Thoroghness of the supplier rating systems 8.67 6 6 5 5 6 4 6 0.34

11 Reliance on reasonably few dependable suppliers 7.09 6 5 6 6 7 2 4 0.31

12 Technical assistance provided to suppliers 8.45 7 6 7 6 7 2 7 0.36

13 Involvement of the suppliers in product development process 7.64 7 4 5 7 5 5 4 0.32

14 Extent to which long term relations are offered to suppliers 8.09 7 8 6 6 6 4 7 7 0.42

15 Clarity of specifications provided to suppliers 9.09 9 8 5 5 5 8 5 9 0.48S

uppl

ier Q

ualit

y M

anag

emen

t

16 Supplier programmes to ensure quality of incoming products 8.83 7 6 4 5 4 7 2 9 0.39

0.37

17 Application of QFD 8.81 7 8 9 7 9 7 8 9 8 0.60

18 Feedback on quality and delivery performance 9.38 7 8 9 8 10 8 10 10 0.60

19 Complaint disposal time 9.07 4 6 5 9 8 6 8 8 0.44

20 Guarantee and warranty 8.53 6 8 8 10 6 7 7 7 8 0.55

21 Field investigation for improving products 8.36 6 8 6 5 4 7 8 6 8 0.49

22 Complaint management system 8.33 6 8 8 8 2 7 6 6 8 0.49

23 Customer involvement in product design 7.67 8 5 4 9 6 4 9 0.38

Cus

tom

er F

ocus

24 Frequency of customer survey 7.43 5 5 5 6 7 2 7 9 0.38

0.50



Table2 contd..

25 Use of acceptance sampling 7.91 6 8 5 5 10 7 10 7 0.51

26 Use of statistical control charts 7.91 8 8 6 5 5 6 6 7 6 0.47

27 Amount of preventive equipment maintenance 9.11 7 5 4 10 5 3 5 0.36

28 Extent of automation of inspection/review/checking 7.82 5 7 5 5 8 6 4 6 5 0.43

29 Importance of inspection review 3.38 6 7 4 5 6 7 6 6 7 0.46

30 Stability of production schedule/work distribution 3.19 6 6 5 4 6 6 5 0.33

31 Degree of automation of process 4.00 5 6 5 6 2 5 7 6 8 0.41

32 Extent to which the process design is foolproof 4.67 8 7 6 6 10 6 6 7 8 0.55

Proc

ess

Man

agem

ent

33 Clarity of process instruction to employees 9.09 8 7 5 5 10 7 8 8 5 0.53

0.4634 Product design review prior to production 9.08 9 8 5 5 6 7 6 6 0.45

35 Co-ordination among affected departments 9.18 8 8 5 6 5 6 6 7 7 0.49

36 Consideration of producibility in product design process 8.40 10 6 6 5 5 7 5 7 0.45

37 Emphasis on quality of new product rather than price 8.60 6 5 4 6 7 7 10 8 0.46

Prod

uct/

Serv

ice

Des

ign

38 Clarity of product specifications and procedures 9.20 8 8 5 7 5 7 7 8 4 0.49

0.47

Table2 contd.. 39 Availability of cost of quality data 8.62 5 8 4 5 8 5 10 8 7 0.49

Dat

a an

d R

epor

tin

40 Availability of quality data (Error rates/defect rates/ scrap) 9.08 7 9 5 5 8 7 8 7 0.49



41 Timeliness of quality data 8.64 6 9 5 4 5 6 6 7 0.41

42 Quality data available to operators 7.91 7 4 5 6 5 7 0.30

43 Quality data available to supervisors and managers 8.09 4 8 6 4 7 5 7 6 0.40

44 Use of quality data as tools to manage quality 8.75 7 9 4 5 7 7 7 6 6 0.49

45Use of quality data in evaluation of supervisor and managerial performance

8.17 6 7 2 4 8 5 7 7 6 0.44

46 Display of quality data, control charts etc at work stations 8.92 8 7 4 7 4 8 9 5 0.45

0.44

47 Availability of resources for employee training 8.75 8 6 6 7 8 7 8 5 0.47

48 Training in advanced statistical techniques 9.00 9 7 8 5 7 5 7 6 0.46

49 Training to implement quality circles 8.33 5 6 5 5 7 6 7 6 0.41

50Training in basic statistical techniques (histogram, control chart, Pareto analysis)

8.79 6 10 8 7 7 7 6 8 6 0.55

51 Training in the total quality concept 8.62 6 7 6 5 6 7 6 8 6 0.48

52 Commitment of top management to training 8.92 8 7 8 6 8 6 8 6 0.48

53 Specific works skill training given to hourly employees 8.82 8 7 6 4 6 0.27

Trai

ning

54 Quality related training given to managers and supervisors 8.77 6 9 7 5 5 7 6 8 8 0.51

0.45



Table2 contd..

55 Implementation of quality circles or employee involvement type programmes 8.58 6 6 6 6 5 6 7 7 0.42

56 Effectiveness of quality circle programmes 8.45 6 6 6 7 6 5 7 6 0.42

57 Responsibility of employees for defect free output 9.14 7 6 8 7 6 5 7 8 7 0.51

58 Feedback provided to employees on quality performance 9.36 7 7 7 8 6 6 9 7 8 0.54

59 Participation of non supervisory employees in quality decisions 8.08 7 6 6 4 6 6 7 7 0.43

60 Extent of quality awareness among employees 9.13 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 6 7 0.50

61 Recognition of superior quality performance 7.18 6 8 5 7 6 6 10 8 6 0.51

Empl

oyee

Rel

atio

ns

62 Effectiveness of supervisors in solving problems 9.07 6 7 6 7 8 6 8 8 0.46

0.4763 Visibility of the quality department 9.00 6 8 7 7 6 10 7 0.42

64 Quality department's access to top management 9.42 9 10 6 6 6 8 8 8 7 0.57

65 Autonomy of quality department 9.36 6 9 4 6 7 7 4 7 6 0.48

66 Co-ordination between the quality and other departments 9.09 6 8 2 6 8 6 5 8 5 0.45

Rol

e of

Qua

lity

Dep

artm

ent

67 Effectiveness in improving quality 9.27 8 9 5 7 7 6 5 0.42

0.4768 Emphasis on benchmarking competitor's products 9.17 9 9 7 5 7 8 8 7 0.52

69 Emphasis on benchmarking other company's processes 8.70 7 6 6 6 7 8 7 5 0.44

70 Effectiveness of benchmarking in product quality improvement 9.10 9 5 6 8 7 10 8 0.47

71 Effectiveness of benchmarking in cost reduction 9.33 9 8 5 6 8 6 10 8 8 0.57 Benc

hmar

king

72 Willingness to benchmark in future 9.00 8 8 5 6 7 7 6 8 5 0.51

0.50



Table2 contd..

73 Extent of computerization of 7 tools of quality 7.75 6 5 6 6 5 7 6 0.35

74 Online quality control 8.75 6 6 5 7 8 7 0.32

75 Communication of quality goals to suppliers and customers 9.00 6 7 8 6 8 9 7 0.41

Info

rmat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy A

naly

sis

76 Efficacy of intranet in data transfer and communication 8.64 7 7 5 7 7 6 5 7 8 0.50

0.42

77 JIT/KANBAN philosophy 8.29 7 6 4 6 5 5 4 0.32

78 Waste elimination 9.38 7 6 5 7 8 6 10 7 7 0.53

79 TPM 8.94 6 4 8 5 3 7 0.30

80 Inventory management 9.13 7 6 5 7 5 7 10 7 7 0.51

Lean

Man

ufac

turin

g

81 Value engineering 8.93 8 7 5 7 6 6 8 7 0.47

0.43

82 Employee suggestion programme 9.53 8 7 7 6 7 6 10 7 6 0.53

83 Process control through 6-Sigma 8.25 7 5 7 5 0.23

84 Kaizen 9.06 8 6 8 8 5 7 8 0.42

Con

tinuo

us

Impr

ovem

ent

85 Taguchi Methods 8.13 5 6 4 0.13

0.37

TQMII of the company

0.46



Table 3 Least developed QAPs sorted in the ascending order of TQMII

CSFs, QAPs, and weights Index Performance weights of departments on each QAPs

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9

m = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

wm = 7.40 6.00 5.81 5.46 7.92 7.70 5.22 4.74 6.86

QA

Ps

inde

x (i)

QAPs

QA

Ps

wei

ght (

Ui)

Zm = 10.00 10.00 7.00 7.00 9.00 10.00 9.00 6.00 7.00 TQM

II of

QA

P I

for g

iven

su

sten

ance

sta

te o

f qua

lity

1 Taguchi Methods 8.13 5 6 4 0.13

2 Process control through 6-Sigma 8.25 7 5 7 5 0.23

3 Specific works skill training given to hourly employees 8.82 8 7 6 4 6 0.27

4 TPM 8.94 6 4 8 5 3 7 0.30

5 Quality data available to operators 7.91 7 4 5 6 5 7 0.30

6 Reliance on reasonably few dependable suppliers 7.09 6 5 6 6 7 2 4 0.31

7 Involvement of the suppliers in product development process

7.64 7 4 5 7 5 5 4 0.32



Table 3 Least developed QAPs sorted in the ascending order

CSFs, QAPs, and weights Index Performance weights of departments on each QAPs

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9

m = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

wm = 7.40 6.00 5.81 5.46 7.92 7.70 5.22 4.74 6.86

QA

Ps

inde

x (i)

QAPs

QA

Ps

wei

ght (

Ui)

Zm = 10.00 10.00 7.00 7.00 9.00 10.00 9.00 6.00 7.00

TQM

II of

QA

P I

for g

iven

su

sten

ance

sta

te o

f qua

lity

8 Online quality control 8.75 6 6 5 7 8 7 0.32

9 JIT/KANBAN philosophy 8.29 7 6 4 6 5 5 4 0.32

10 Stability of production schedule/work distribution 3.19 6 6 5 4 6 6 5 0.33

11 Thoroughness of the supplier rating systems 8.67 6 6 5 5 6 4 6 0.34

12 Selection of suppliers based on quality rather than price 7.83 8 6 6 7 5 7 0.34

13 Extent of computerization of 7 tools of quality 7.75 6 5 6 6 5 7 6 0.35

14 Technical assistance provided to suppliers 8.45 7 6 7 6 7 2 7 0.36

15 Amount of preventive equipment maintenance 9.11 7 5 4 10 5 3 5 0.36

pdca

Documents

sacred tqm

implement tqm

tqm initiatives

concept of tqm

tqm studies

quality management systems

quality management efqm

quality management philosophy