Relationship between TQM and

TPM implementation factors and

business performance of
manufacturing industry in Indian
context
Dinesh Seth and Deepak Tripathi
National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai, India
Abstract
Purpose To study the strategic implications of TQM and TPM in an Indian manufacturing set-up
and to detail literature reviews to highlight gap areas. To examine the relationship between factors
inuencing the implementation of TQM and TPM and business performance for the following three
approaches in an Indian context: TQM alone; TPM alone; both TQM and TPM together. This is done
to extract signicant factors for the above three approaches.
Design/methodology/approach Empirical survey-based research on a sample size of 108
manufacturing companies. Uses bivariate correlation and multiple regression analysis techniques to
extract signicant factors using SPSS.
Findings The research identies two sets of factors which are critical for the effectiveness of TQM
and TPM: universally signicant factors for all the three approaches like leadership, process
management and strategic planning; and approach-specic factors like equipment management and
focus on customer satisfaction. The study also highlights the complexities involved in implementing
TQM and TPM together.
Practical implications The emphasis on extracted factors will help companies in realizing
greater benets through TQM and TPM. This study is equally important in a global context also, as
companies across the globe are striving to achieve synergy of TQM and TPM.
Originality/value The preparedness/status of Indian manufacturing industry for TQM and TPM
implementation, as India is becoming a major sourcing base for the world and there is a paucity of
such studies. The study of TQM and TPM in all the three modes simultaneously has not been
investigated in the context of developing countries. Such studies are equally important in a global
context.
Keywords Total quality management, Productive maintenance, Operations management,
Manufacturing industries, India
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
To emerge as a leading manufacturing base for the world market, a tough competition
from global players is being faced by Indian manufacturing industry (Nandi, 1998;
Sahay et al., 2000). Though efforts have been made to boost industrial development, yet
much needs to be done by reducing costs, improving quality, offering more variety of
products with improved services (Chandra and Shastri, 1998). It was only in the
beginning of 1990s that Indian business captains realized the strategic implications of
quality and maintenance to improve performance. The two erstwhile shop oor entities
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm
IJQRM
22,3
256
Received August 2003
Revised January 2004
International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management
Vol. 22 No. 3, 2005
pp. 256-277
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-671X
DOI 10.1108/02656710510582480
were brought to the corporate boardroom through total quality management (TQM)
and total productive maintenance (TPM). Now, both have acquired wide acceptance in
industry (Singh, 1991; Bhadury and Mandal, 1998; Umeda, 1996; Sahay et al., 2000).
These quality and maintenance improvement initiatives are the outcome of the need
to prohibit poor practices in the wake of customers giving preferences to quality
competitive products. Today, a strong middle class of about 300 million customers is
willing to pay a premium for quality, which the manufacturing industry cannot afford
to overlook especially in presence of multinationals. The pressure to compete in
domestic market and a zeal to become global sourcing base, has compelled Indian
executives to start quality initiatives. This is also supported by certication
requirements and institutionalization of quality awards like the Golden Peacock and
Ramakrishna Bajaj awards. Although, these awards are not as prestigious as Deming
or Malcolm Baldrige awards, but have denitely created an environment of
consciousness and competitiveness in Indian industry.
Like quality, on the maintenance front also, major initiatives have been taken
particularly after 1990s. Initially, due to protected and controlled economy, Indian
executives did not pay much attention towards equipment related failures and losses.
Maintenance was viewed as a reactive problem xing and an operating expense to be
minimized. But, the burgeoning pressure from customers to reduce costs, defects and
lead time have forced management to pay attention towards maintenance and allied
issues through improvement drives like TPM. It is now clear to the Indian executives
that TPM is not a waste, but an investment like TQM. It helps in zeroing down the
defectives and failures to ensure quality at reduced cost. This philosophy has gained
acceptance by transforming business and a few agship companies like Sundram
fasteners and Vikram Cement have even claimed prestigious JIPM TPM award. The
reason for increasing acceptance of both TQM and TPM also lies in the roots of Indian
culture, which is attuned to slow and steady changes.
As both quality and maintenance go hand in hand in a manufacturing set up, TQM
and TPM share many threads of commonalties like employee involvement,
cross-functional approach and continuous improvement (Cooke, 2000). On the other
hand, TPM is considered as an application of TQM concepts to equipment, for zero
breakdowns and minimal production loss (Tajiri and Gotoh, 1992). These two
complementary drives have been implemented together in many companies to leverage
the prowess of both. In Indian context, adoption of TQM and TPM can be found in
three modes i.e. TQM alone, TPM alone and combined mode. These modes are termed
as approach in this paper.
The growing concern for improving the effectiveness of these drives in Indian context
has created an urge for this type of research work. Though such studies have been
carried out in other countries for TQM (Choi and Eboch, 1998; Sohal and Terziovski,
2000) and for TPM (Bamber et al., 1999), but simultaneous implementation of two drives
has not been adequately addressed through research. Therefore, this research is
important from global perspective also. It aims to establish relationships between
implementation factors and business performance for each of the three approaches in
Indian context. As both TQM and TPM have similar background, some factors are
expected to be common for the three approaches, while others may be approach specic.
The complexities involved in managing two drives together may justify emphasis
on some factors, which are otherwise not signicant. The understanding of these
Relationship
between TQM
and TPM
257
factors becomes more important, when TQM and TPM are applied in tandem. This
type of research work is highly signicant not only in context of developing economies
like India, but to a large extent for other countries also.
Review of previous studies
A large number of studies are available on relationship between TQM practices and
business performance (Ismail and Ebrahimpour, 2002). These include development of
research frameworks to study the effects of TQM on business performance (Saraph
et al., 1989; Anderson, 1994; Flynn et al., 1994; Ahire et al., 1996). Various recent
researches across the globe have also focused on identication of factors, which are
critical to the success of TQM (Anderson and Sohal, 1999; Corbett and Rastrick, 2000;
Prabhu and Robson, 2000) in a country specic scenario. For example, Anderson and
Sohal (1999) carried out an empirical study to identify factors critical to the success of
TQM in Australian manufacturing industry. The study revealed the importance of
factors like leadership, strong customer focus, quality systems and availability of
information. Raghunathan and Subba Rao (1999) also addressed the relationship
between TQM practices like leadership, strategic planning, human resource
management and quality performance. Sun (2000) identied the importance of
leadership, information, strategy, human resources, processes, suppliers, and customer
focus for quality management practices in Shanghai and Norwegian companies.
Similar studies were also carried out in different national frameworks (Forker, 1996;
Choi and Eboch, 1998; Hendricks and Singhal, 2001).
Though TPM is relatively under-researched, but there are some studies reported on
its implementation issues. These studies are related to the benchmarking of
implementation practices to explore key areas (Ireland and Dale, 2001), identication of
critical factors (Tsang, 2002) and strategies to support its implementation (Ben, 2000).
The relationship of TPM with business performance has also been addressed in some
recent studies (Bamber et al., 1999; Cooke, 2000; Tsang and Chan, 2000). For example,
Tsang and Chan (2000) revealed the importance of management leadership, employee
involvement, education and training, strategic planning and communication for TPM
in Chinese setup. Cooke (2000) also identied top management support, alignment of
management initiatives and change, employee training, autonomy to employees and
communication as important factors for the success of TPM in a European context.
The studies on TQM in Indian context have not addressed the vital issue of
relationship between implementation factors and business performance. These studies
mainly cover identication of quality management practices (Bhadury and Mandal,
1998) and their benchmarking among Indian companies (Motwani et al., 1994). Though
Mohanty and Lakhe (2000) made efforts to identify critical factors for TQM
implementation based on ve sub-sectors of manufacturing industry, but their
relationship with performance was not studied. Further, until recently, only a few
studies could be found on TPM implementation in Indian context. These studies
mainly address the overall scenario of TPM in industry (Majumdar, 1999), issues
pertaining to implementation (Chandra and Krishna, 1998) and company specic case
studies (Narang, 1992). The complementary nature of TQM and TPM as emphasized
by experts (Dale, 1999) is being practised in many companies to achieve synergy
(Patterson et al., 1996; Mathew et al., 2002). However, this aspect is not researched in
detail except for few studies (McKone et al., 1999).
IJQRM
22,3
258
Therefore, an empirical study on these issues in Indian context is considered
important. It not only contributes in improving the effectiveness of two drives, but also
addresses a vital but under-researched area.
Research framework and methodology
The research framework developed and used for this study is presented in Figure 1.
This framework explains the relationships between implementation factors and
performance parameters for TQM, TPM and combined approach. The objective is to
extract those factors for each approach, which signicantly contribute to improvement
in performance.
The two basic inputs required for this research are implementation factors
(independent variables) and parameters of performance (dependent variables). The
implementation factors have been identied with the help of factor analysis on 11
dimensions. These dimensions are cohesive groups of various implementation issues
of TQM and TPM. The six operating performance parameters are considered in the
study. Both dimensions and performance parameters form the part of questionnaire as
shown in the Appendix.
Figure 1.
The research framework
Relationship
between TQM
and TPM
259
Identication of dimensions and performance parameters
An extensive literature reviewhas been carried out to identify all such issues, which have a
bearing on effectiveness of TQM and TPM. The major TQM and TPM awards like
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA), European Quality Award (EQA),
JIPM TPM and Deming Prize were also considered. These awards follow models of TQM
and TPM. Based on comprehensive reviewof literature, 11 dimensions have been identied.
(1) Focus on customer satisfaction.
(2) Leadership for improvement.
(3) Strategic planning for improvement.
(4) Human resource management.
(5) Education and training.
(6) Information architecture.
(7) Performance measurement system.
(8) Materials management.
(9) Equipment management.
(10) Process management.
(11) Management of nancial resources.
The management of resources is considered important for the success of TQM and
TPM. The resources are divided in three categories:
(1) Materials.
(2) Equipment.
(3) Finances.
This division is quite logical as both TQM and TPM are centered on management of
processes. The effective management of these is emphasized in criteria of European
Quality Award, Deming Prize and JIPM TPM award (Benham and Joao, 1994; Zink,
1998) and is also supported by literature. The description of each dimension with
supporting literature is presented in Table I.
The effect of TQM and TPM can be on both external performance realized through
products and services to customers and on internal environment performance. The six
parameters have been considered for the study, which include productivity (P), quality
(Q), cost (C), delivery (D) as external parameters and safety and hygiene (S) and employee
morale (M) as internal environment parameters. These internal parameters are viewed as
important outcome of TQMand TPMimplementation (Nakajima, 1988; Steinbatcher and
Steinbatcher, 1993; Ahire and Rana, 1995; Forker, 1996). The improvement in these
parameters is assessed with the help of 16 indicators as given in the Appendix.
Survey questionnaire and respondent prole
The questionnaire used for this study incorporates 11 dimensions of implementation
and six performance parameters as discussed above. The questions framed are based
on ve points scale ranging from 1 to 5. Each dimension and performance parameter is
taken as a group of many related items as given in the Appendix. The domain of the
study is restricted to manufacturing industry only. A list of 460 companies practising
IJQRM
22,3
260
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
L
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
i
n
T
Q
M
L
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
i
n
T
P
M
1
.
F
o
c
u
s
o
n
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
o
f
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
a
n
d
e
m
e
r
g
i
n
g
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
a
n
d
e
n
s
u
r
i
n
g
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
C
r
o
s
b
y
(
1
9
7
9
)
;
J
u
r
a
n
a
n
d
G
r
y
n
a
(
1
9
8
0
)
;
O
a
k
l
a
n
d
(
1
9
8
9
)
;
F
e
i
g
e
n
b
a
u
m
(
1
9
9
1
)
;
R
a
g
h
u
n
a
t
h
a
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
7
)
;
Z
h
a
n
g
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
0
)
N
a
k
a
j
i
m
a
(
1
9
8
8
)
;
S
u
z
u
k
i
(
1
9
9
4
)
;
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
a
n
d
G
r
i
n
d
e
r
(
1
9
9
5
)
2
.
L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
f
o
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
S
e
n
i
o
r
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

s
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
,
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
,
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
s
e
t
t
i
n
g
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
C
r
o
s
b
y
(
1
9
7
9
)
;
O
a
k
l
a
n
d
(
1
9
8
9
)
;
F
e
i
g
e
n
b
a
u
m
(
1
9
9
1
)
;
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
(
1
9
9
3
)
;
R
a
g
h
u
n
a
t
h
a
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
7
)
;
Z
h
a
n
g
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
0
)
T
a
k
a
h
a
s
h
i
a
n
d
O
s
a
d
a
(
1
9
8
9
)
;
S
t
e
i
n
b
a
t
c
h
e
r
a
n
d
S
t
e
i
n
b
a
t
c
h
e
r
(
1
9
9
3
)
;
C
o
o
k
e
(
2
0
0
0
)
;
T
s
a
n
g
a
n
d
C
h
a
n
(
2
0
0
0
)
;
Y
a
m
a
s
h
i
n
a
(
2
0
0
0
)
3
.
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
T
h
e
w
a
y
a
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
s
e
t
s
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
i
t
s
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
S
o
i
n
(
1
9
9
3
)
;
L
o
g
o
t
h
e
t
i
s
(
1
9
9
7
)
;
R
a
g
h
u
n
a
t
h
a
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
7
)
;
S
u
n
(
2
0
0
0
)
;
Z
h
a
n
g
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
0
)
T
a
k
a
h
a
s
h
i
a
n
d
O
s
a
d
a
(
1
9
8
9
)
;
T
a
j
i
r
i
a
n
d
G
o
t
o
h
(
1
9
9
2
)
;
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
a
n
d
G
r
i
n
d
e
r
(
1
9
9
5
)
4
.
H
u
m
a
n
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
E
n
s
u
r
i
n
g
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s

c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y

s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
w
o
r
k
d
e
s
i
g
n
,
c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
,
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
.
I
t
a
l
s
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
t
e
a
m
w
o
r
k
,
g
r
o
u
p
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
-
s
o
l
v
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
d
e
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
m
a
k
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
o
r
y
w
o
r
k
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
C
r
o
s
b
y
(
1
9
7
9
)
;
S
a
r
a
p
h
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
8
9
)
;
K
a
n
j
i
a
n
d
A
s
h
e
r
(
1
9
9
3
)
;
F
l
y
n
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
4
)
;
B
l
a
c
k
a
n
d
P
o
r
t
e
r
(
1
9
9
6
)
;
S
u
n
(
2
0
0
0
)
N
a
k
a
j
i
m
a
(
1
9
8
9
)
;
S
u
z
u
k
i
(
1
9
9
4
)
;
Y
a
m
a
s
h
i
n
a
(
2
0
0
0
)
;
T
s
a
n
g
a
n
d
C
h
a
n
(
2
0
0
0
)
5
.
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
i
n
s
m
a
l
l
g
r
o
u
p
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
o
l
v
i
n
g
,
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
t
o
o
l
s
a
n
d
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
o
f
T
Q
M
a
n
d
T
P
M
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
o
n
-
t
h
e
-
j
o
b
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
L
e
o
n
a
r
d
a
n
d
S
a
s
s
e
r
(
1
9
8
2
)
;
O
a
k
l
a
n
d
(
1
9
8
9
)
;
F
l
y
n
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
4
)
;
P
u
n
n
a
n
d
C
h
i
n
(
1
9
9
9
)
T
a
k
a
h
a
s
h
i
a
n
d
O
s
a
d
a
(
1
9
8
9
)
;
M
a
g
g
a
r
d
a
n
d
R
h
y
n
e
(
1
9
9
2
)
;
S
u
z
u
k
i
(
1
9
9
4
)
;
C
o
o
k
e
(
2
0
0
0
)
;
T
s
a
n
g
a
n
d
C
h
a
n
(
2
0
0
0
)
6
.
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
C
o
m
p
a
n
y

s
s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
u
s
e
o
f
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
a
n
d
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
d
a
t
a
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
k
e
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
,
a
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
S
a
r
a
p
h
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
8
9
)
;
H
a
r
t
a
n
d
B
o
g
a
n
(
1
9
9
2
)
;
S
u
n
(
2
0
0
0
)
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
a
n
d
G
r
i
n
d
e
r
(
1
9
9
5
)
;
P
a
t
t
e
r
s
o
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
6
)
;
C
o
o
k
e
(
2
0
0
0
)
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table I.
The 11 dimensions and
literature supporting
their importance in TQM
and TPM
Relationship
between TQM
and TPM
261
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
L
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
i
n
T
Q
M
L
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
i
n
T
P
M
7
.
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
n
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
z
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
s
s
u
e
s
a
n
d
a
r
e
a
s
d
e
m
a
n
d
i
n
g
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
.
A
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
b
a
s
e
a
n
d
s
e
t
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
C
r
o
s
b
y
(
1
9
7
9
)
;
F
e
i
g
e
n
b
a
u
m
(
1
9
9
1
)
;
D
a
l
e
a
n
d
P
l
u
n
c
k
e
t
(
1
9
9
5
)
;
K
h
e
l
a
d
a
(
1
9
9
6
)
;
A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
a
n
d
S
o
h
a
l
(
1
9
9
9
)
N
a
k
a
j
i
m
a
(
1
9
8
9
)
;
T
a
k
a
h
a
s
h
i
a
n
d
O
s
a
d
a
(
1
9
8
9
)
;
W
i
r
e
m
a
n
(
1
9
8
6
)
;
S
u
z
u
k
i
(
1
9
9
4
)
8
.
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
T
h
e
w
a
y
a
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
s
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
i
n
l
i
n
e
w
i
t
h
T
Q
M
a
n
d
T
P
M
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
,
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
s
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
y
c
h
a
i
n
,
o
p
t
i
m
i
z
e
s
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
I
s
h
i
k
a
w
a
(
1
9
8
5
)
;
S
a
r
a
p
h
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
8
9
)
;
F
l
y
n
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
4
)
N
a
k
a
j
i
m
a
(
1
9
8
8
)
;
S
u
z
u
k
i
(
1
9
9
4
)
;
Y
a
m
a
s
h
i
n
a
(
2
0
0
0
)
9
.
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
R
e
l
a
t
e
s
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
o
f
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
.
I
t
i
s
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
f
o
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
o
f
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
S
h
i
n
g
o
(
1
9
8
6
)
;
F
e
i
g
e
n
b
a
u
m
(
1
9
9
1
)
;
G
a
r
v
i
n
(
1
9
9
1
)
;
Z
i
n
k
(
1
9
9
8
)
N
a
k
a
j
i
m
a
(
1
9
8
8
)
;
T
a
k
a
h
a
s
h
i
a
n
d
O
s
a
d
a
(
1
9
8
9
)
;
T
a
j
i
r
i
a
n
d
G
o
t
o
h
(
1
9
9
2
)
;
S
u
z
u
k
i
(
1
9
9
4
)
1
0
.
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
T
h
e
w
a
y
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
a
n
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
/
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
a
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
,
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
S
h
i
n
g
o
(
1
9
8
6
)
;
O
a
k
l
a
n
d
(
1
9
8
9
)
;
F
e
i
g
e
n
b
a
u
m
(
1
9
9
1
)
;
F
l
y
n
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
4
)
;
S
u
n
(
2
0
0
0
)
;
Z
h
a
n
g
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
0
)
S
u
z
u
k
i
(
1
9
9
4
)
;
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
a
n
d
G
r
i
n
d
e
r
(
1
9
9
5
)
;
Y
a
m
a
s
h
i
n
a
(
2
0
0
0
)
1
1
.
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f

n
a
n
c
i
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
u
s
e
o
f

n
a
n
c
i
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
o
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
p
o
l
i
c
y
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
t
o
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
T
Q
M
a
n
d
T
P
M
H
a
r
t
a
n
d
B
o
g
a
n
(
1
9
9
2
)
;
K
h
e
l
a
d
a
(
1
9
9
6
)
;
Z
i
n
k
(
1
9
9
8
)
S
u
z
u
k
i
(
1
9
9
4
)
;
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
a
n
d
G
r
i
n
d
e
r
(
1
9
9
5
)
Table I.
IJQRM
22,3
262
TQM and TPM was prepared based on the information made available from authentic
sources like Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Indian Merchant Chambers (IMC),
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries (FICCI), TPMClub of India
and Automobile Manufacturers Association of India (AMAI). These business
chambers follow models based on leading awards criteria for monitoring the
implementation of TQM and TPM in their member companies. Therefore, the
responding companies are expected to follow one or more of these models. The survey
resulted in obtaining 121 responses, out of which 58 have implemented only TQM, 22
only TPM and 28 both TQM and TPM combined. The remaining 13 respondents
replied partially and were therefore excluded from the study.
Tests of reliability, validity and identication of factors
Test for reliability of instrument: internal consistency method
Test of reliability on a measurement instrument is carried out to determine its ability to
yield consistent measurements. Internal consistency reliability is the most commonly
used psychometric measures in assessing survey instrument and scales (Zhang et al.,
2000). Cronbach alpha (a) is the basic formula for determining the reliability based on
internal consistency. The values of alpha (a) obtained for 11 dimensions are 0.901,
0.874, 0.904, 0.875, 0.869, 0.856, 0.786, 0.868, 0.927, 0.858 and 0.753. The value of alpha
for each dimension is much higher than minimum acceptance level of 0.6 Nunnally
(1978). Thus, all the 11 dimensions are accepted for reliability.
Test for content validity
Content validity represents the adequacy with which a specic domain of content has
been sampled, in other words whether the instrument is truly a comprehensive
measure of area under study. Its determination is subjective and judgmental (Nunnally,
1978). The questionnaire is based on extensive literature survey, considering major
award criteria and opinions of experts and, hence, it demonstrates content validity.
Test for construct validity: factor analysis
Construct validity measures the extent to which the items in a scale measure the same
construct. It is established with the help of principal component factor analysis and
varimax rotation technique. The factor analysis was carried out for each scale
individually to examine the construct validity. The scale wise factor analysis was also
adopted during development of earlier quality management measurement instruments
(Flynn et al., 1994; Zhang et al., 2000). The factors with eigenvalues of more than 1.0
only have been retained. All factors with eigenvalues less than 1.0 are considered
insignicant and hence dropped.
The analysis resulted in extraction of one factor for each dimension, except for
human resource management, where two factors were obtained. The principal
component method could not come out with clear assignment of variables to either
factor. Therefore, varimax rotation technique was used for extraction of factors. The
two factors extracted from human resource management are named as employee
involvement and empowerment (items 1, 2, 3 and 4 of human resource management
scale) and organizational system and human development (items 5, 6, 7 and 8 of human
resource management scale). The summary of factor analysis on all dimensions along
with factor loadings is shown in Table II.
Relationship
between TQM
and TPM
263
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
E
i
g
e
n
v
a
l
u
e
F
a
c
t
o
r
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
i
t
e
m
s
S
r
.
N
o
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
/
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
N
o
.
o
f
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
F
a
c
t
o
r
1
F
a
c
t
o
r
2
I
t
e
m
#
1
I
t
e
m
#
2
I
t
e
m
#
3
I
t
e
m
#
4
I
t
e
m
#
5
I
t
e
m
#
6
I
t
e
m
#
7
I
t
e
m
#
8
I
t
e
m
#
9
1
F
o
c
u
s
o
n
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
[
C
S
]
1
0
.
8
3
7

4
.
0
4
9
0
.
7
8
1
0
.
8
1
1
0
.
8
4
2
0
.
8
2
4
0
.
8
3
0
0
.
8
3
9
2
L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
f
o
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
[
L
]
1
0
.
7
8
7

3
.
7
2
2
0
.
8
1
3
0
.
8
0
3
0
.
8
1
7
0
.
7
8
2
0
.
7
9
3
0
.
7
1
4
3
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
[
S
P
]
1
0
.
7
5
0

2
.
8
9
6
0
.
7
1
6
0
.
7
2
1
0
.
8
1
3
4
H
u
m
a
n
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
2
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
e
m
p
o
w
e
r
m
e
n
t
[
E
E
]
(
f
a
c
t
o
r
1
)
0
.
7
2
3

3
.
7
6
6
0
.
9
1
5
0
.
9
2
5
0
.
4
7
3
0
.
5
8
2
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
a
n
d
h
u
m
a
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
[
O
S
]
(
f
a
c
t
o
r
2
)

0
.
8
0
7
2
.
4
2
5
0
.
6
8
4
0
.
7
1
9
0
.
8
7
2
0
.
8
7
1
0
.
8
6
9
5
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
&
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
[
E
T
]
1
0
.
9
0
1
2
.
4
3
8
0
.
9
1
6
0
.
8
9
5
0
.
8
9
3
6
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
[
I
A
]
1
0
.
8
8
3
2
.
3
4
4
0
.
8
5
9
0
.
9
0
6
0
.
8
8
6
7
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
[
P
M
]
1
0
.
8
3
2
2
.
0
8
8
0
.
7
7
4
0
.
8
1
6
0
.
9
0
7
8
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
[
M
M
]
1
0
.
8
9
0
2
.
3
7
7
0
.
8
7
6
0
.
9
0
2
0
.
8
9
2
9
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
[
E
M
]
1
0
.
8
6
1
4
.
4
6
1
0
.
8
8
9
0
.
8
9
7
0
.
8
6
8
0
.
8
3
5
0
.
8
2
0
0
.
8
6
2
1
0
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
[
P
R
M
]
1
0
.
8
8
7
2
.
3
6
6
0
.
8
6
0
0
.
8
9
1
0
.
9
1
2
1
1
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f

n
a
n
c
i
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
[
F
M
]
1
0
.
8
9
4
2
.
4
0
3
0
.
9
0
5
0
.
9
3
4
0
.
8
4
4
N
o
t
e
:
T
h
e
i
t
e
m
s
#
m
e
n
t
i
o
n
e
d
a
r
e
g
e
n
e
r
i
c
i
n
n
a
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
a
c
t
u
a
l
l
y
a
r
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
f
a
c
t
o
r
o
r
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
Table II.
Twelve extracted factors
from 11 dimensions and
their factor loadings
IJQRM
22,3
264
The 12 factors are:
(1) Focus on customer satisfaction (CS).
(2) Leadership for improvement (L).
(3) Strategic planning for improvement (SP).
(4) Employee involvement and empowerment (EE).
(5) Organization systems and human development (OS).
(6) Education and training (ET).
(7) Information architecture (IA).
(8) Performance measurement system (PM).
(9) Materials management (MM).
(10) Equipment management (EM).
(11) Process management (PRM).
(12) Management of nancial resources (FM).
Hypotheses formulated
The factors among those identied are expected to have signicant relationships with
performance parameters for each improvement approach. The signicance of these
relationships needs to be examined in Indian context. Following hypotheses are
formulated for this purpose.
H1. There will be signicant relationships between TQM factors and performance
parameters.
H2. There will be signicant relationships between TPM factors and performance
parameters.
H3. There will be signicant relationships between factors and performance
parameters in combined approach.
The analysis for extraction of signicant factors is carried out in three parts i.e. for
TQM, for TPM and for combined approach.
Analysis and results
In order to establish relationships between performance parameters (dependent
variables) and factors of implementation (independent variables), bivariate correlation
and multiple regression techniques are used. The objective has been to extract those
factors, which are signicantly associated with parameters of performance. The
analysis is carried out separately for TQM, TPM and combined approach. As an initial
step, the bivariate correlation values are calculated to nd the level of inter correlation
among independent variables (factors). The high inter correlations between
independent variables create a problem of multi-collinearity and this affects the
results of multiple regression analysis. In order to reduce this effect one or more factors
with high correlation values have been omitted from regression analysis (Hair et al.,
1992).
Relationship
between TQM
and TPM
265
Bivariate correlation values are calculated between factors and performance
parameters to determine the strength of relationship between the two. A 5 per cent
signicance level (p 0:05) is considered to test signicance of correlation. The results
are explained later in this section for each improvement approach separately. Further,
multiple regression analysis is carried out to extract those factors, which are
signicantly associated to each of the performance parameters. SPSS 10.0 and Excel
2000 software are used for carrying out statistical analysis
The notations used and their meanings are given below:
r Pearson correlation coefcient
b Regression coefcient (beta coefcient)
R Multiple correlation coefcient
Results for TQM
Simple correlation between factors and performance parameters is used for judgment.
The correlation coefcients (r) are found to be high and signicant at p 0:05 in most
of the cases. This indicates that most factors are signicantly related to improvement
in performance parameters and hypothesis H1 is proved to be partially true. The
correlation values (signicant at p 0:05) are shown below for each dependent
variable.
.
Productivity [P] CS (0.805), PRM (0.808), SP (0.723), L (0.641)
.
Quality [Q] L (0.802), SP (0.724), PRM (0.769), CS (0.693)
.
Cost [C] SP (0.761), ET (0.701), OS (0 .685)
.
Delivery [D] EE (0.715), ET (0.712), L (0.684)
.
Safety and hygiene[S] ET (0.751), OS (0.640), IA (0.593)
.
Employee morale [M] CS (0.741), SP (0.537).
The results of multiple regression analysis are shown in Table III. The signicant
factors with (b) signicance level, R, and F values for each performance parameter are
given. The results imply that focus on customer satisfaction (CS) is found to have
signicant association with improvement in productivity (P) and employee morale (M).
Performance parameters Signicant factors Beta value b t value
Signicance
( p value) R value F value
Productivity (P) CS 0.475 2.675 0.015 0.847 25.419
PRM 0.431 2.414 0.025
Quality (Q) L 0.456 4.494 0.001 0.982 32.935
SP 0.438 5.454 0.001
PRM 0.887 5.942 0.001
Cost (C) SP 0.730 3.930 0.001 0.867 19.205
Delivery (D) EE 0.485 3.136 0.005 0.917 52.830
ET 0.527 3.082 0.006
Safety and hygiene (S) ET 0.851 7.433 0.001 0.851 25.252
Employee morale (M) CS 0.471 2.499 0.021 0.879 23.943
SP 0.450 2.387 0.027
Table III.
Results of multiple
regression between
performance parameters
and factors in TQM
IJQRM
22,3
266
The process management (PRM) is associated with improvement in both productivity
(P) and quality (Q). Leadership for improvement (L) is another important factor, which
is signicant for quality performance (Q) of the companies. Other signicant factors
are strategic planning (SP), employee involvement and empowerment (EE) and
education and training (ET).
Results for TPM
The correlation co-efcient (r) between factors and performance parameters for TPM
are given below. Only those factors are indicated for which the r values are signicant
at p 0:05. The correlation coefcients (r) are shown in parentheses next to each
independent variable:
.
Productivity [P] L (0.847); SP (0.779); IA (0.675); EM (0.656); PRM (0.783)
.
Quality [Q] L (0.619); EE (0.643); EM (0.645); PRM (0.627)
.
Cost [C] L (0.577); SP (0.724)
.
Delivery [D] L (0.665); SP (0.723); OS (0.582); ET (0.609); IA (0.705)
.
Safety and hygiene [S] ET (0.777); IA (0.812)
.
Employee morale [M] L (0.564), ET (0.612).
The correlation values indicate that leadership for improvement (L) has highest
relationships with improvement in productivity (r 0:847), quality (r 0:619), cost
(r 0:577), delivery (r 0:665) and employee morale (r 0:564). Similarly, strategic
planning (SP) is strongly correlated with productivity (r 0:779), cost (r 0:724) and
delivery (r 0:723) parameters. Equipment management (EM) is also strongly related
with productivity (r 0:656) and quality (r 0:645). Other variables with signicant
correlations are information architecture (IA), process management (PM), employee
involvement and empowerment (EE), education and training (ET) and organization
systems and human development (OS). Therefore, H2 is partially proved as some of the
factors have signicant relationship with performance parameters.
The results of multiple regression analysis are shown in Table IV. The results imply
that leadership for improvement (L) and process management (PRM) are signicant for
productivity (P). The association of equipment management (EM) for quality (Q),
strategic planning for cost (C) and delivery performance (D) and leadership for
improvement (L) for employee morale (M) is also explained. The other signicant
factors are information architecture (IA) and education and training (ET).
Performance parameters
Signicant
factors
Beta value
b t value
Signicance
( p value) R value F value
Productivity (P) L 0.607 4.402 0.001 0.943 35.993
PRM 0.479 3.138 0.005
Quality (Q) EM 0.640 2.410 0.024 0.645 7.112
Cost (C) SP 0.724 3.317 0.008 0.724 11.01
Delivery (D) SP 0.723 3.310 0.008 0.723 10.995
Safety and hygiene (S) IA 0.812 4.407 0.001 0.812 19.421
ET 0.672 3.220 0.011
Employee morale (M) L 0.532 3.210 0.012 0.689 12.221
Table IV.
Results of multiple
regression between
performance parameters
and factors in TPM
Relationship
between TQM
and TPM
267
Results for combined approach
The combined approach involves intermingling of both TQM and TPM and this
creates many complexities in implementation. These complexities arise due to both
similarities and differences between the two drives, which are required to be managed
enterprise-wide. Therefore, it is expected that some factors signicant for combined
approach may be different from that of TQM and TPM alone.
The correlations coefcient (r) values between dependent and independent
variables, which are statistically signicant (at p 0:05) are given below:
.
Productivity (P) CS (0.582); L (0.611); SP (0.661); ET (0.536)
.
Quality (Q) CS (.609); L (.614); SP (.604); IA (0.751)
.
Cost (C) CS (0.450); EM (0.580)
.
Delivery (D) EM (0.581); PRM (0.598)
.
Safety and hygiene (S) L (0.603)
.
Employee morale (M) CS (0.654); L (0.561).
The values indicate that many of the factors have signicant correlation with
performance parameters. This implies that H3 is partially proved.
Table V shows the signicant factors for combined approach. The results
indicate that the importance of leadership for improvement (L), strategic planning
(SP), process management (PRM), education and training (ET) and information
architecture (IA) is again established in Combined approach. These factors are also
found to be associated with performance parameters in TQM and TPM. In
addition, performance measurement system (PM) is also signicant in combined
approach.
A comparative analysis of signicance of factors for three approaches shows that
these factors can be grouped in two categories.
(1) Factors universally signicant to all three improvement approaches:
.
leadership for improvement;
.
strategic planning;
.
process management; and
.
education and training.
Performance parameters Signicant factors Beta value b t value
Signicance
( p value) R value F value
Productivity (P) SP 0.910 2.710 0.015 0.768 4.80
ET 0.491 4.560 0.002
Quality (Q) IA 0.930 4.060 0.004 0.812 4.06
Cost (C) L 0.760 2.370 0.016 0.768 6.00
PRM 0.453 2.890 0.017
Delivery (D) PRM 0.930 7.390 0.001 0.826 5.27
PM 0.496 2.510 0.013
Safety and hygiene (S) L 0.971 4.560 0.002 0.812 6.940
Employee morale (M) L 0.858 3.810 0.005 0.754 7.29
Table V.
Results of multiple
regression between
performance parameters
and factors in combined
approach
IJQRM
22,3
268
(2) Factors important to specic improvement approach:
.
information architecture for TPM and combined approach;
.
equipment management for TPM;
.
focus on customer satisfaction and employee involvement and
empowerment for TQM; and
.
performance measurement system for Combined approach.
Interpretation and conclusion
The statistical analysis has resulted in extraction of factors, which are grouped in two
categories. The rst category includes factors, which are universally signicant for
performance in Indian context irrespective of the approach adopted. These are
leadership for improvement, strategic planning, process management and education
and training. The second category includes approach specic factors, which are
equipment management for TPM and focus on customer satisfaction as well as
employee involvement and empowerment for TQM. The performance management
system comes out to be signicant for combined approach, whereas information
architecture is critical for both TPM and combined approach.
The importance of leadership for TQM and TPM in Indian context is unquestioned
due to realities of domestic business environment. The companies in India, both
professionally managed and family owned business houses, still epitomize the
bureaucratic and top down management process. On the other hand, changing
environment to suit TQM and TPM is far more challenging in public sector
undertakings, where apart from normal business constraints, managers deal with
stiffer government control, large and unwieldy operations, wary unions and bleeding
bottom lines. The status conscious and hierarchy bound middle level executives
lacking initiatives is also a bottleneck to improvement process. Therefore, a strong
leadership is essential to change the mindset of people, especially about quality and
maintenance.
The signicance of strategic planning is also justied in view of the many top level
managers still acting as companys grand strategists and resource allocators, without
formal planning and involvement of people. The role of frontline managers is limited to
implementation of what comes from the top. The effective implementation of
improvement drives requires a change of this mindset, which Indian companies have
inherited from hierarchical and bureaucratic roots of government owned companies
and paternalism oriented family groups.
Education and training addresses the requirements of continuous improvement,
which is key to both the drives. In most Indian companies, training is still treated as
luxury. The top management views the training expense as a symbol of modernity
while employees treat the programmes as the next best thing to a paid vacation. The
lower literacy level of workforce makes the role of education and training all the more
important in Indian context.
Both TQM and TPM are process centric and emphasize on business processes
cutting across the organization. In India, however, the trend has largely been opposite.
We have still not recognized the dynamics of process based approach, and have fallen
victim of managerial myopia, stiing bureaucracy and compartmentalization of
Relationship
between TQM
and TPM
269
divisions. A shift to management of processes built around these improvement drives
is essential.
The information architecture provides necessary infrastructure to facilitate
decisions in right direction. Traditionally, Indians are not data savvy and rely on
past experience. It is difcult to get maintenance data logging records even with
leading companies. This neglect of equipment management based on inadequate
information system has resulted in poor reliability and availability. Therefore,
signicance of information architecture for implementation of TPM in Indian industry
is rightly emphasized. In case of combined approach also, the complexities involved in
diffusing two drives together in organizations, require effective information
architecture for management.
Equipment management is the core of TPM and, therefore, its signicance in TPM
is rightly justied. This is especially true in Indian context, where maintenance is
considered an expenditure and not an investment. Till 1990s, the implications of
equipment failures, setup and adjustment losses, speed drops on account of idling and
stoppages were not understood. This neglect of maintenance with relatively inferior
status of equipment and physical infrastructure in Indian companies, make equipment
management critical to success of TPM.
The importance of focus on customer satisfaction for TQM is quite obvious because
any improvement activity under TQM starts from customer viewpoint. In India, we
lived by a philosophy where we produced what we wanted and the market would
absorb it. With this myth, the entire focus of the business was on push and not on
pull. A sudden move from regulated environment to a competitive buyers market
made Indian companies aware of the urgency to focus on the real meaning of customer
satisfaction. Within country, a shift from joint family to nuclear family and increase in
disposable income, have raised a demand for quality competitive products and service,
even at a premium. On international front, the image of Indian products continues to be
associated with expectations of low price and low value comparable to their Western
counterparts. Astrong focus on customer satisfaction will help companies to unshackle
themselves from the constraints of ingrained customer expectations
A strong focus on employee involvement is critical to TQM in India, where
companies are characterized with bureaucratic, function based and individualistic work
culture. Recognizing the diversity of human skills, their creativity and entrepreneurship
to capture these valuable human attributes will reinforce TQM efforts.
The high complexity in managing two improvement drives together as combined
approach, justies the signicance of performance measurement system. Indian
companies lack well designed performance indicators at various levels to support
policies, objectives and cross-functional processes. The synergy of TQM and TPM
necessitates developing indicators to effectively align the two drives together towards
corporate goals.
This research paper identies factors, which are signicant to TQM and TPM, both
when implemented individually and in tandem as combined approach. The emphasis
on these factors in the right context can help Indian companies in realizing greater
benets through such improvement strategies. As many companies across the globe
are striving to achieve synergy of TQM and TPM, this study can be of immense
importance to them also. This research work, therefore, makes a valuable contribution
for both academicians and practitioners in Indian and global context.
IJQRM
22,3
270
The study has opened many research avenues on the interfacial aspects of TQM
and TPM. This area has largely remained under researched. The present study has
considered manufacturing industry as a whole. Sector-wise studies can also be
undertaken to extend knowledge base in this eld. This will further improve the
understanding of sector specic dynamics of TQM and TPM issues. Similarly,
intensive case studies can be carried out on various modes of TQM and TPM
implementation. The outcome of such studies will denitely be valuable to both Indian
and global practitioners, who want to focus attention on manufacturing centric
improvement drives.
References
Ahire, S.L. and Rana, D.S. (1995), TQM pilot projects selection using an MCDM approach,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 61-81.
Ahire, S.L., Landeros, R. and Goldhar, Y.D. (1996), Total quality management: a literature
review and agenda for future research, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 277-306.
Anderson, J.C. (1994), A theory of quality management underlying the Deming management
method, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 472-509.
Anderson, M. and Sohal, A.S. (1999), A study of the relationship between quality management
practices and performance in small businesses, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 16 No. 9, pp. 859-77.
Bamber, C.J., Sharp, J.M. and Hides, M.T. (1999), Factors affecting successful implementation of
total productive maintenance: a UK-based case study perspective, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 162-81.
Behnam, N. and Joao, S.N. (1994), The Deming, Baldrige and European Quality Awards,
Quality Progress, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 33-7.
Ben, D.M. (2000), You may need RCM to enhance TPM implementation, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 82-5.
Bhadury, B. and Mandal, P. (1998), Adoption of quality management concepts amongst Indian
manufacturers, Productivity, Vol. 39 No. 3.
Black, S.A. and Porter, L.J. (1996), Identication of critical factors of TQM, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Chandra, P. and Shastri, T. (1998), Competitiveness of Indian manufacturing: ndings of the
1997 Manufacturing Futures Survey, Vikalpa, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 25-36.
Chandra, S. and Krishna, M.G. (1998), TPM implementation in Indian industry, Indian
Management, Vol. 37 No. 3.
Choi, T.Y. and Eboch, K. (1998), The TQM paradox: relations among TQM practices, plant
performance and customer satisfaction, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17,
pp. 59-75.
Cooke, F.L. (2000), Implementing TPM in plant maintenance: some organizational barriers,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 1003-16.
Corbett, L.M. and Rastrick, K.N. (2000), Quality performance and organization culture: a New
Zealand study, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 14-26.
Crosby, P.B. (1979), Quality Is Free, New American Library, New York, NY.
Dale, B.G. (1999), Managing Quality, Blackwell Publishers Inc., Malden, MA.
Relationship
between TQM
and TPM
271
Dale, B.G. and Pluncket, J.J. (1995), Quality Costing, 2nd ed., Chapman & Hall, London.
Feigenbaum, A.V. (1991), Total Quality Control, 3rd ed., International edition, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. (1994), A framework for quality management
research and an associated measurement instrument, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 11, pp. 339-66.
Forker, L.B. (1996), The contribution of quality to business performance, International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 44-62.
Garvin, D.A. (1991), How the Baldrige Award really works, Harward Business Review,
November-December, pp. 80-95.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E. and Tathem, R.L. (1992), Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings,
Macmillan, New York, NY.
Hart, C.W.L. and Bogan, C.E. (1992), The Baldrige, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Hendricks, K.B. and Singhal, V.R. (2001), Firm characteristics, total quality management and
nancial performance, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19, pp. 269-85.
Ireland, F. and Dale, B.G. (2001), A study of total productive maintenance implementation,
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 183-92.
Ishikawa, K. (1985), What Is Total Quality Control? The Japanase Way, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Ismail, S. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2002), An investigation of the total quality management
survey-based research published between 1989 and 2000 a literature review,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 902-70.
Johnson, R.S. (1993), TQM: leadership for quality transformation, Quality Progress, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 47-9.
Juran, J.F. and Gryna, F.M. (1980), Quality Planning and Analysis: From Product Development
through Use, TMH ed., Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Ltd, New Delhi.
Kanji, G.K. and Asher, M. (1993), Total Quality Management Process: A Systematic Approach,
Advances in Total Quality Management Series, Carfex, Abingdon.
Khelada, J.N. (1996), Integrating TQM with Reengineering, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Leonard, F.S. and Sasser, W.E. (1982), The incline of quality, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 60,
pp. 163-71.
Logothetis, N. (1997), Managing for Total Quality: From Deming to Taguchi and SPC,
Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
McKone, K.E., Schroeder, R.G. and Cua, K.O. (1999), Total productive maintenance: a contextual
view, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17, pp. 123-4.
Maggard, B.N. and Rhyne, D.M. (1992), Total productive maintenance: a timely integration of
production and maintenance: case of Tennessee Eastman, Production & Inventory
Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4.
Majumdar, N. (1999), TPM INC, Business Today, New Delhi.
Mathew, T., Seth, D. and Tripathi, D. (2002), Performance improvement through transfusion of
TQM and TPM in Indian manufacturing industry, Industrial Engineering Journal, Vol. 31
No. 7.
Mohanty, R.P. and Lakhe, R.R. (2000), Handbook of Total Quality Management, Jaico Publishing
House, Mumbai.
IJQRM
22,3
272
Motwani, J.G., Mahmoud, E. and Rice, G. (1994), Quality practices of Indian organizations:
an empirical analysis, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Nakajima, S. (1988), Total Productive Maintenance, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Nakajima, S. (1989), TPM Development Program, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Nandi, S.N. (1998), Contribution in Implementing Quality Management in Asian and Pacic
Firms, Asian Productivity Organization Publications, Tokyo, pp. 148-83.
Narang, G.S. (1992), Total productive maintenance for prot, Industrial Engineering Journal,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 5-9.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oakland, J.S. (1989), Total Quality Management, Heinemann, London.
Patterson, J.W., Fredendall, L.D., Kennedy, W.J. and McGee, A. (1996), Adapting total
productive maintenance to Asten, Inc., Production and Inventory Management Journal,
4th qtr, pp. 32-6.
Prabhu, V.B. and Robson, A. (2000), Impact of leadership and senior management commitment
on business excellence: an empirical study in north east of England, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 11 No. 4-6, pp. 399-409.
Punn, K.F. and Chin, K.S. (1999), Bridging the needs and provisions of quality education and
training: an empirical study in Hong Kong industries, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management., Vol. 16 No. 9, pp. 792-810.
Raghunathan, T.S. and Subba Rao, S. (1999), A regional study of quality management
infrastructure practices in USA and Mexico, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 597-613.
Raghunathan, T.S., Subba Rao, S. and Solis, L.E. (1997), A comparative study of quality
practices :USA, China and India, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 97 No. 5,
pp. 192-200.
Robinson, C.J. and Grinder, A.P. (1995), Implementing TPM: The North American Experience,
Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Sahay, B.S., Saxena, K.B.C. and Kumar, A. (2000), World Class Manufacturing A Strategic
Perspective, Macmillan India Limited, New Delhi.
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. and Schroeder, R.G. (1989), An instrument for measuring the critical
factors of quality management, Decision Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 810-29.
Shingo, S. (1986), Zero Quality Control-Source Inspection and Poka Yoke Systems, Productivity
Press, Stanford.
Singh, A. (1991), Total quality management: concepts and practice in India, Productivity, Vol. 32
No. 3, pp. 393-9.
Sohal, A.S. and Terziovski, M. (2000), TQM in Australian manufacturing: factors critical to
success, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 158-68.
Soin, S.S. (1993), Total Quality Control Essentials: Key Elements, Methodologies and Managing
for Success, Industrial Engineering Series, McGraw-Hill International, New York, NY.
Steinbatcher, H.R. and Steinbatcher, N.L. (1993), TPMfor America, What it Is and Why You Need It,
Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Sun, H. (2000), A comparison of quality management practices in Shanghai and Norwegian
companies, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 6,
pp. 636-50.
Relationship
between TQM
and TPM
273
Suzuki, T. (1994), TPM in Process Industries, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Tajiri, M. and Gotoh, F. (1992), TPM Implementation: A Japanese Approach, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Takahashi, Y. and Osada, T. (1989), Total Productive Maintenance, Productivity Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Tsang, A.H.C. (2002), Strategic dimensions of maintenance management, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 7-39.
Tsang, A.H.C. and Chan, P.K. (2000), TPMimplementation in China: a case study, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 144-57.
Umeda, T. (1996), TQM Practices in Asia Pacic Firms, Asian Productivity Organization
Publications, Tokyo.
Wireman, T. (1986), Computerized Maintenance Management Systems, Industrial Press Inc., New
York, NY.
Yamashina, H. (2000), Challenge to world class manufacturing, International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 132-43.
Zhang, Z., Waszink, A. and Wijngaard, J. (2000), An instrument for measuring TQM
implementation for Chinese manufacturing companies, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 730-55.
Zink, K.J. (1998), Total Quality Management as a Holistic Management Concept, Springer, Berlin.
Further reading
Lee, F.C. (2000), Business and Financial Statistics Using Minitab 12 and Microsoft Excel 97,
World Scientic Publishing Co. Pvt Ltd, Singapore.
Appendix. Performance parameters
Five point rating scale (1 No improvement; 2 Very little improvement; 3 Considerable
improvement; 4 Large improvement; 5 Very large improvement).
Productivity (P)
(1) Improvement in labour productivity.
(2) Improvement in value added per employee.
(3) Improvement in production capacity.
Quality (Q)
(4) Reduction in defects during process.
(5) Reduction in defects in nal product.
(6) Reduction in claims from customer.
Cost (C)
(7) Reduction in cost of production.
(8) Reduction in cost of manpower.
(9) Reduction in total cost of supply chain (supplier to customer).
IJQRM
22,3
274
Delivery (D)
(10) Reduction in total cycle time (from order to delivery).
(11) Improvement in inventory turnover (reduction in inventory).
(12) Improvement in meeting delivery schedules in time.
Safety and hygiene (S)
(13) Reduction in accidents and safety failures.
(14) Improvement in level of pollution and hygiene conditions.
Employee morale (M)
(15) Improvement in improvement ideas and employee suggestions.
(16) Increase in small group meetings and employee involvement.
Implementation dimensions
Five point rating scale (1 No emphasis; 2 Very little emphasis; 3 Considerable emphasis;
4 Strong emphasis; and 5 Very strong emphasis).
A: Customer focus and satisfaction
(1) Making use of customer feedback and analysis to understand quality, cost and delivery
requirements of the customer.
(2) Anticipating customer requirements well in advance.
(3) Systematic monitoring and evaluation of customer satisfaction.
(4) Empowerment of employees to anticipate customer needs and take action to satisfy
them.
(5) Integration of all areas like manufacturing, marketing, sales, nance, materials etc. in
process improvement to meet customer requirements.
(6) Customer participation in developing and improving products and services.
B: Leadership for improvement
(1) Personal involvement and commitment of top management towards improvement
strategy so adopted.
(2) Developing vision and strategy for creating competitiveness by aligning individuals and
resources to the customer, competition and market.
(3) Making senior and middle management involved and committed towards the
improvement strategy.
(4) Generating commitment and involvement of upstream and downstream partners
including customers and shareholders.
(5) Effecting mobilization of all people in the organization to get their involvement towards
improvement strategy.
(6) Communicating and deploying improvement policies to all concerned employees.
Relationship
between TQM
and TPM
275
C: Strategic planning for improvement
(1) Linking policies and goals of improvement strategy to the corporate goals.
(2) Developing both long-term and short-term goals from the overall goals of improvement
strategy.
(3) Involving people in developing improvement goals and objectives.
D: Human resource management
(1) Facilitating improvement teams and groups to improve process and operations.
(2) Promoting small group activities and their effective employment on company wide basis.
(3) Transferring the authority to act independently and take decisions to the people lower in
hierarchy.
(4) Promoting involvement and contribution of people for meeting improvement objectives.
(5) Developing a suggestion system to ensure quick evaluation of ideas and their
implementation.
(6) Creating a system of linking recognition and rewards to companys improvement goals
as set under the improvement strategy.
(7) Promoting channels of communications both horizontally across functions and vertically
between management and workers.
(8) Creating an environment that enables employees in personal and career development
and their wellbeing.
(9) Focus on developing human resources through multi-skills, Job rotation, and exible job
assignments.
E: Education and training
(1) Establishment of intensive and continuous training under the improvement strategy.
(2) Coverage of most managers and employees on training in the concepts and tools of
concerned improvement strategy.
(3) Regular reviews and improvement are made in the training system to accommodate
changing requirements.
F: Information architecture
(1) Ensuring that information is made available to people at point of use.
(2) Tracking of continuous improvement in through collection and use of relevant data.
(3) Making effective use of data and information for comparison and benchmarking with
world class standards.
G: Performance measurement system
(1) Modifying accounting system to reinforce improvement program.
(2) Designing performance indicators to develop clear linkage between improvement
programs and the results.
(3) Clear identication of all current and potential problems.
IJQRM
22,3
276
H: Materials management
(1) Optimum utilization of materials (raw, in process and nished) with a focus on
improving quality and reducing inventory.
(2) Improvement in supply chain in terms of cycle time, quality and cost.
(3) Focusing on management of supplier relationship for mutual benets.
I: Equipment management
(1) Developing a system of making modications in the existing equipment for improving
equipment availability and product quality.
(2) Involvement of operators in equipment monitoring, maintenance and improvement.
(3) Creating a system of continuous improvement in maintenance quality and efciency for
improved reliability and cost effective maintenance.
(4) Effective implementation of preventive and predictive maintenance programs.
(5) Making reliability and maintainability as key considerations during equipment selection
and design and in its layout.
(6) In-depth analysis equipment performance and its use in developing maintenance
programs and activities.
J: Process management
(1) Identication of key processes which may involve more than one department and
managing and improving them.
(2) Use of cross-functional teams to manage and improve processes like new product
development.
(3) Ensuring continuous improvement in processes so identied and managed.
K: Management of nancial resources
(1) Developing nancial strategies to support corporate policy towards improvement
strategy.
(2) Regular review and improvement in nancial strategies and practices to support
improvement strategy.
(3) Use of concepts that support and reinforce improvement activities.
Relationship
between TQM
and TPM
277