Perception of TQM benefits, practices and obstacles

Jaeger, Martin; Adair, Desmond

doi:10.1108/tqm-10-2014-0091

Cited by 22 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, we may argue that the position does not have more influence on the usage of management tools, as they are used across the entire organization. What is surprising is that the position in the organization is often considered in studies of management tools as potentially decisive for the studied phenomena (i.e., considered management tool), but many studies then do not consider the respondent's position in the organization in a further analysis-i.e., in basic descriptive statistics or beyond [35,39,84,111].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The position in an organization is another variable frequently examined in business studies in general [90,100], as well as in studies examining management tools from various standpoints [1,35,37,39,72,80,83,84]. Two existing studies about drivers of management tool usage reported similar results [42,43], with all the considered management tools used more at higher organizational levels.…”

Section: Personal Driversmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Drives the Usage of Management Tools Supporting Industry 4.0 in Organizations?

Nedelko

2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main purpose of this study was to examine how personal and organizational drivers influence the utilization of management tools aimed at supporting organizational working in Industry 4.0 settings. We built our research upon the recognized importance of management tools for organizational working under Industry 4.0 settings and explored the key personal and organizational drivers of management tool usage. Calculations were performed based on the responses of 222 employees working in organizations across Europe. The results revealed that, among personal drivers, a higher level of education leads to significantly higher usage of six sigma, rapid prototyping, outsourcing, customer relationship management, knowledge management, core competencies, and strategic planning. More experienced employees use significantly more six sigma, total quality management, supply chain management, knowledge management, and core competences than their less experienced peers. The impact of organizational drivers is substantially weaker, where only industry shows significant influence, indicating that lean production, six sigma, and supply chain management are used more in manufacturing than in service organizations. Gender, one’s position in the organization, and the organization size do not play a substantial role in management tool usage. Managers should recognize the role of personal and organizational drivers of management tool usage in order to more quickly implement Industry 4.0 principles in organizations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Personal Driversmentioning

confidence: 96%

What Drives the Usage of Management Tools Supporting Industry 4.0 in Organizations?

Nedelko

2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are numerous possible reasons for employee resistance and/or negative attitude during implementation of a QMS, such as difficulty accepting change (Bokrantz et al, 2016;Georgiev and Ohtaki, 2016) and fear, generated by a lack of 151 Quality management systems knowledge of ISO 9001 requirements and objectives (Al-Najjar and Jawad, 2011;Jaeger and Adair, 2016;Talib et al, 2011). Given these possible reasons for employee resistance, it is necessary for top management to evaluate these problems and work collaboratively with employees to minimize or eliminate such negative reactions.…”

Section: Employee Resistance And/or Negative Attitudementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although conceptually it may appear to be an easy activity, in practice, the alignment between QMS and consumer's needs is a major difficulty for companies ( Jaeger and Adair, 2016). Thus, an ISO 9001 standard's major objective is to structure an efficient QMS that promotes and enhances customer satisfaction (ABNT, 2015;Park et al, 2007).…”

Section: Difficulties In Aligning Qms Requirements With Customer Requirementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…et al (2013), Al-Najjar and Jawad (2011),Feng et al (2008),Ingason (2014Ingason ( /2015,Jaeger and Adair (2016),Mosadeghrad (2014),Salgado et al (2014),Souza-Poza et al (2009),Talib et al (2011),Willar et al (2015) andYamada et al (2013) 2 Employee resistance and/or negative attitudeAbdullah et al (2013), Al-Najjar andJawad (2011),Bokrantz et al (2016),Georgiev and Ohtaki (2016),Ingason (2014Ingason ( /2015,Jaeger and Adair (2016),Mosadeghrad (2014), Talib et al (2011) and Willar et al (2015) 3 Insufficient understanding of how QMS can improve company's daily activities Abdullah et al (2013), Boiral (2011), Georgiev and Ohtaki (2016), Poksinska et al (2006), Willar et al (2015) and Yamada et al (2013) 4 Lack of internal communication or inadequate internal communication Abdullah et al (2013), Bokrantz et al (2016), Grudzień and Hamrol (2016), Jaeger and Adair (2016), Mosadeghrad (2014), Talib et al (2011) and Yamada et al (2013) 5 Difficulties in document optimization to avoid excess Abdullah et al (2013), Al-Najjar and Jawad (2011), Boiral (2011), Feng et al (2008), Grudzień and Hamrol (2016) and Willar et al (2015) 6 Difficulties in aligning QMS requirements with customer requirements ABNT (2015), Jaeger and Adair (2016) and Park et al (2007) 7 More emphasis on the certification acquisition than on the process improvement Abdullah et al (2013), Al-Rawahi and Bashir (2011), Asif et al (2009) and Boiral (2011) 8 Erroneous planning of financial support necessary for QMS implementation Magd (2008), Poksinska et al (2006) and White et al (2009) 9 Lack of training for all employees regarding principles of quality Abdullah et al (2013), Ingason (2014/2015), Jaeger and Adair (2016), Mosadeghrad (2014), Souza-Poza et al (2009), Talib et al (2011) and Yamada et al (2013) 10 Lack of support from consultants and specialists during QMS implementation Abdullah et al (2013), Al-Najjar and Jawad (2011), Boiral (2011) and Ingason (2014/2015) 11 Difficulties in process standardization and compliance with QMS requirements Al-Najjar and Jawad (2011) and Poksinska et al (2006) 12 Underestimation of time required to implement QMS and verify its benefits Boiral (2011), Feng et al (2008), Sampaio et al (2009) and Yamada et al (2013) 13 Difficulties in implementing an appropriate QMS, specific to company's size and sector Al-Najjar and Jawad (2011), Boiral (2011), Ingason (2014/ 2015) and Park et al (2007) 14 Lack of integration among company departments needed for synergic gains Abdullah et al (2013), Georgiev and Ohtaki (2016), Jaeger and Adair (2016), Talib et al (2011) and Yamada et al (2013) 15 Unrealistic expectations regarding results to be achieved by QMS implementation Psomas et al (2010), Psomas and Antony (2015), Psomas and Fotopoulos (2009) and Zeng et al (2007) Source: Indicated in the table…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Observed difficulties during implementation of quality management systems in Brazilian manufacturing companies

Anholon

Rampasso

Ordóñez

et al. 2018

JMTM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the difficulties observed during implementation of quality management systems (QMSs) in Brazilian manufacturing companies. Design/methodology/approach The methodological strategy used was a literature review, a panel of experts and a survey. Through the literature review, 15 difficulties associated with the implementation of QMS were raised; these were organized into latent variables by specialists in the subject and served as the basis for a survey. In total, 123 professionals working with quality management in manufacturing companies participated in the research and the data collected were analyzed by means of second-order confirmatory factorial analysis. Findings The results allowed the validation of the 15 difficulties observed in the literature, and it was evidenced that these difficulties are structured in four latent variables as follows: difficulties associated with employees; difficulties associated with QMS structuration; difficulties associated with integration; and difficulties resulting from the planning. Research limitations/implications The main limitation of this research is the sample size, because 123 professionals that work with quality management in manufacturing companies participated in the research. It should be noted, however, that all parameters evaluated through the second-order confirmatory factorial analysis were validated. Practical implications The findings have great value for both quality management professionals, who may use those findings to guide the pre-implementation phase of a QMS, and researchers, who may use those findings as a foundation for future studies, in the development of models or tools related to QMS implementation. Originality/value No other paper was found on the scientific basis with the same focus for Brazilian manufacturing companies, thus demonstrating originality. The value of the research lies in the fact that the results presented here, statistically validated, may be used by other researchers and market professionals.

show abstract

Does the isomorphic implementation of the tqm philosophy effectively lead to the simultaneous attainment of legitimacy and efficiency targets?

Carmona-Márquez

Leal-Rodríguez

Leal‐Millán

et al. 2019

Journal of Management & Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on the new institutional theory and the resources based view of the firm (RBV), this study tries to shed light upon the idea that isomorphic organizational changes seek legitimacy over efficiency. Using data from 102 Spanish companies and employing partial least squares, a variance-based structural equation modeling technique, this study concludes that both objectives are achievable simultaneously when firms implement total quality management (TQM) as an integrative stream of both theories. Furthermore, empirical results reveal that: (i) institutional pressures (IP) condition significantly the implementation of TQM, (ii) TQM exerts a double mediating role in the IP-legitimacy and IP-efficiency relationships, and (iii) both efficiency and legitimacy objectives are achieved by means of TQM. However, we observe a dual phenomenon: (i) while we find a significant positive effect of TQM on overall performance (OP) via efficiency and (ii) we failed to find support for the TQM-OP link via legitimacy.

show abstract

Perception of TQM benefits, practices and obstacles

Cited by 22 publications

References 45 publications

What Drives the Usage of Management Tools Supporting Industry 4.0 in Organizations?

What Drives the Usage of Management Tools Supporting Industry 4.0 in Organizations?

Observed difficulties during implementation of quality management systems in Brazilian manufacturing companies

Does the isomorphic implementation of the tqm philosophy effectively lead to the simultaneous attainment of legitimacy and efficiency targets?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About