The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0954-478X.htm

TQM
19,4 Recommending a TQM model for
Indian organizations
Subhash Kakkar and A.S. Narag
328 Faculty of Management Studies, University of Delhi, Delhi, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the meaning of TQM implementation in India and
its impact on the Indian organizations’ overall performance. This study also aims to prescribe a TQM
model for Indian organizations in order to maximize the impact of TQM with predefined concentrated
efforts.
Design/methodology/approach – A detailed questionnaire, based on current practices and
unexplored areas identified by a literature survey, was designed and administered. The questionnaire
consists of 11 “Contributing Variables” and nine “Contribution Variables”. The scores for these 20
variables were obtained from different organizations and put to factor analysis.
Findings – The result of factor analysis shows the existence of clusters of large correlation
coefficients between subsets of these variables. This suggests that these variables could be measuring
aspects of the same underlying dimensions. These underlying dimensions, or extracted factors, are
four in number and are related to, respectively, efficiency, customer, people, and teambuilding. This
shows that all the 20 TQM variables in India can be summarized into these four dimensions, which are
taken as the four pillars of the suggested TQM model for Indian organizations. The proposed model is
named TQMEF (TQM-efficiency model).
Research limitations/implications – This study is based on a single respondent from each
organization, so it adds individuality to the scores. This can be avoided in future by having
cross-sectional data through more than one respondent from each organization. This will also help in
avoiding error due to the tendency of respondents sometime to give over-ambitious answers.
Practical implications – The paper identifies four pillars on which TQM implementations should
yield positive results for Indian organizations, implying that these organizations can gain by
concentrating efforts in these areas.
Originality/value – The paper identified the importance of safety and resources conservation as
crucial factors. Hitherto, in most models, only the other three aspects of TQM were given importance.
Efficiency has emerged as a key issue in the Indian context.
Keywords Total quality management, Factor analysis, India
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Indian organizations had started adopting the TQM philosophy about a decade and a
half back. It is yet to be seen whether Indians, with their less aggressive and more
complacent attitude, have gained more or less from TQM, when compared with US
organizations, which want quick results. Indians have adopted the TQM philosophy in
the recommended copybook style. Until recently, very few studies had examined the
TQM philosophy in the Indian context. However, there has been a recent spurt in the
literature on TQM, particularly in this context (Desai, 2006; Klefsjo et al., 2006;
Kulkarni, 2005; Mani et al., 2003; Seth and Tripathi, 2005; Shrivastava et al., 2006;
Siddiqui and Rahman, 2006; Singh et al., 2006; Tripathi, 2005; Wali et al., 2003).
The TQM Magazine
Vol. 19 No. 4, 2007
In the present study, the guidelines of the different quality awards (The European
pp. 328-353 Quality Award, The Deming Prize, The European Foundation for Quality
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0954-478X
Management Award, The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, The Golden
DOI 10.1108/09544780710756232 Peacock National Quality Award-India, The Rajiv Gandhi National Quality
Award-India) and our own experience were taken into account to arrive at a A TQM model
comprehensive list of “Contributing Variables” (also described variously in the
literature as Critical Factors/Parameters or TQM practices or Enablers) and
for Indian
“Contribution Variables” (also referred to as Performance Indicators or Results in organizations
the literature). Moreover, a few critical variables were added to the list from our
perception of the unexplored areas, as these may further clarify the correct TQM
practices. For example, other researchers measured the variables of leadership and top 329
management commitment as one variable: top management leadership. The
measurement of these variables in this study, however, required a more in-depth
examination. Therefore, the items pertaining to the two variables, leadership and top
management commitment were separated, since the TQM leader need not be a member
of the top management. A lack of attention to the elements of safety, cost and waste
reduction, resource conservation, tools and techniques, etc. in earlier studies was also
noticed. By including these parameters, it is hoped to bridge the gap left by earlier
studies.

Research methodology
A questionnaire survey was conducted. We intended to take respondents from a
broader spectrum of the industry, including all types of manufacturing organizations,
service organizations and Government undertakings, to get an overall view of the
TQM activities in India. Respondents from among the part-time experienced MBA
students of the Faculty of Management Studies, University of Delhi, India, were taken,
as they are from all types of organizations, and not from any specific industry.

Questionnaire administration
The convenience sampling technique was adopted. To make the sampling random, the
questionnaire was administered without prior intimation to the respondents.
Pre-testing of the questionnaire was first carried out and discrepancies found were
removed. The final questionnaire was given to 80 participants and, on checking the
filled in questionnaires, it was found that 67 are valid.

Respondents
All the 67 respondents are middle level managers, pursuing post-graduation in
management. Most of them are of the rank of manager, a few are deputy managers and
assistant managers, and some are even general managers. Most of them have technical
qualifications.

Respondent firms
Our sample consisted of organizations manufacturing electric goods, electronic goods,
instruments, refineries, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, food items, and services like
banking, communication, power, defence, educational institutes, government offices,
etc. In total, 82 percent of the organizations replied “yes” to the question: “Do you
benchmark your performance with others in the industry?” 63 percent of organizations
are working to get a quality award, 63 percent of organizations’ suppliers also have
TQM activities and ISO 9001:2000 certificates, 46 percent of organizations have
self-assessment systems implemented, 33 percent of organizations also have Six Sigma
and 37 percent of organizations have already won some quality award. On the question
of style of management, 25 percent of the respondents replied that it is “Autocratic”
and 40 percent answered that it is “Participative”. A total of 4 percent of the
TQM respondents perceive that the style of functioning is “Charismatic”, while 12 percent
each said that it is “Transactional and Transformational” or “Management by Facts”.
19,4 A total of 6 percent replied that the style is “Management by Exceptions”.
Out of these 67 organizations, 31 are manufacturing units, 30 are service
organizations, and six are Government Departments, which were treated along with
the service organizations, making the service organizations total 36. This reasonably
330 random sample represents the population.

Contributing and contribution variables

The list of contributing and contribution variables identified for the purpose of the
present study is given in the following, and the abbreviation used for each
contributing/contribution variable is given alongside in parentheses.

Contributing variables
.
Leadership (LDR).
.
Top Management Commitment (TMC).
.
Quality as a Policy (QP).
.
People Management and Training (PMT).
. Supplier Development (SD).
.
Team Building and Problem Solving (TBPS).
.
Communication and Feedback (CF).
. Resources, Planning Conservation and Utilization (RPCU).
.
Product Design (PD).
.
Resources Value Addition Process (RVAP).
.
Systems, Tools and Techniques (STT).

Contribution variables
The following contribution variables were identified:
.
Product Quality (PQ).
.
Customer Satisfaction (CS).
.
Market Performance (MP).
.
Employees Satisfaction (ES).
.
Business Results (BR).
. Cost and Waste Reduction (CWR).
.
Safety (SFTY).
.
Productivity Improvement (PI).
.
Impact on Society (IS).
In the discussions that follow, we have used the abbreviated forms for the identified
contributing and contribution variables.
Based on these parameters, a detailed structured questionnaire was prepared
covering the current practices in TQM. The questionnaire, along with the scoring
pattern, is presented in the Appendix.
Analysis A TQM model
The first part of the analysis concerns test of reliability, data screening, assumption
testing and checking sampling adequacy. The SPSS 11.0 software[1] was used for all
for Indian
the data analysis reported here. organizations
Tests for reliability and validity
The reliability of each scale of “Contributing Variables” and “Contribution Variables” 331
was estimated by calculating Cronbach’s a (Cronbach, 1951). The variables were put to
the “Scale Reliability” test. The a value obtained is 0.93 (n ¼ 67), showing the high
reliability levels of the scales used for recording the scores of “Contributing Variables”
and “Contribution Variables” given by the respondents of different organizations.
Values of a equal to 0.70 or higher are considered acceptable (Nunnally and Bernstein,
1994).

Sampling adequacy
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index (Kaiser, 1970) measures the sampling adequacy
which should be greater than 0.5 for a satisfactory factor analysis to proceed. In the
present case, the KMO measure is 0.848. This value being close to unity, indicates that
patterns of correlations are comparatively compact, and so factor analysis should yield
distinct and reliable factors.

Initial screening
The correlation (R) matrix (Table I) was obtained and analyzed, to determine which
sets of variables, if any, cluster together. In factor analysis, the redundant (highly
correlated) variables are removed, replacing the entire data file with a smaller number
of uncorrelated variables. In the present case, it can be seen from the table that no
variable perfectly correlates with any of the other variables (correlation coefficient
. 0:9); hence singularity and multicollinearity are not present in the data. As none of
the correlation coefficients is too high, no variable needs to be removed from the
analysis.
However, there should be some relationships between the variables in order for
factor analysis to work. This was checked using Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which
tests the null hypothesis that the original correlation matrix is an identity matrix, is
found highly significant (p , 0:001) for the present data. A significant test
(significance value , 0:05) indicates that the R-matrix is not an identity matrix;
therefore, there are some relationships between the variables included in the analysis,
which is required for factor analysis to work. This test is not recommended for samples
of substantial size, for which it is likely to be significant even if correlations are very
low. However, it works for small sample sizes, as in the present case. The R-matrix
(Table I) also shows that all the variables correlate with each other to varying extents,
and no variable is such that it does not correlate with any of the other variables. The
assumption of normality was checked from the skewness statistics and found to hold
good. All the 20 variables were thus retained for further analysis.

Extraction of principal components

Principal component analysis (PCA) was then used to reduce the dimensionality and to
aid the interpretation of the results of the survey. Among linear dimension reducing
techniques, PCA is optimal in at least two ways: principal components extract the
maximum of the variability of the original variables, and they are uncorrelated.
 19,4

332
TQM

Table I.

Correlation Matrix
Lower triangle of the
Factor LDR TMC QP PMT SD TBPS CF RCU PD RVAP STT PQ CS MP ES BR CWR SFTY PI IS

LDR 1.000 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
TMC 0.467 1.000 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
QP 0.334 0.598 1.000 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
PMT 0.244 0.571 0.469 1.000 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
SD 0.131 0.148 0.246 0.530 1.000 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
TBPS 0.296 0.558 0.425 0.659 0.481 1.000 – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CF 0.444 0.598 0.536 0.459 0.372 0.564 1.000 – – – – – – – – – – – – –
RCU 0.180 0.304 0.407 0.342 0.344 0.349 0.355 1.000 – – – – – – – – – – – –
PD 0.180 0.257 0.398 0.421 0.484 0.510 0.319 0.692 1.000 – – – – – – – – – – –
RVAP 0.240 0.268 0.424 0.506 0.536 0.509 0.420 0.573 0.643 1.000 – – – – – – – – – –
STT 0.375 0.347 0.316 0.362 0.066 0.424 0.396 0.283 0.338 0.326 1.000 – – – – – – – – –
PQ 0.242 0.269 0.360 0.496 0.482 0.299 0.334 0.492 0.529 0.556 0.297 1.000 – – – – – – – –
CS 0.160 0.250 0.307 0.463 0.360 0.361 0.264 0.451 0.544 0.511 0.308 0.579 1.000 – – – – – – –
MP 0.262 0.289 0.414 0.356 0.380 0.452 0.546 0.363 0.433 0.473 0.204 0.514 0.446 1.000 – – – – – –
ES 0.408 0.652 0.524 0.542 0.262 0.599 0.563 0.437 0.300 0.321 0.299 0.174 0.229 0.368 1.000 – – – – –
BR 0.249 0.350 0.279 0.216 0.340 0.371 0.358 0.555 0.528 0.521 0.301 0.593 0.469 0.468 0.180 1.000 – – – –
CWR 0.196 0.345 0.417 0.463 0.355 0.544 0.386 0.567 0.408 0.490 0.274 0.249 0.377 0.419 0.453 0.408 1.000 – – –
SFTY 0.357 0.330 0.389 0.383 0.483 0.483 0.485 0.482 0.464 0.675 0.261 0.422 0.302 0.473 0.459 0.470 0.532 1.000 – –
PI 0.211 0.458 0.443 0.401 0.422 0.661 0.565 0.520 0.482 0.455 0.261 0.240 0.221 0.394 0.521 0.503 0.501 0.484 1.000 –
IS 0.152 0.381 0.374 0.406 0.456 0.529 0.439 0.509 0.545 0.504 0.309 0.441 0.445 0.373 0.338 0.461 0.548 0.541 0.594 1.000
Table II shows the eigenvalues obtained, i.e. the variance on the new factors that were A TQM model
successively extracted by principal component analysis. The proportion of total
variance in all the variables accounted for by that factor is also given. The Table shows
for Indian
twenty factors, on be for each variable, under the heading “Initial Eigenvalues”. As can organizations
be seen from the table, successive eigenvalues rapidly drop off in importance. For
example, the first component accounts for 8.856 of the original 20 factors, i.e. 44
percent, but subsequent components account for much less. 333
The decision of how many factors to retain is often subjective, but two methods are
generally used. In the first, only factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 are retained.
In essence this amounts to dropping all factors that extract less than the equivalent of
one original variable. This criterion was proposed by Kaiser (1960), and is probably the
one most widely used. In our case, using this criterion, we retain four factors (principal
components); and these cumulatively account for 65.4 percent of the total variance
(Table II).
An alternative criterion that may be used to decide how many components are
above noise level is the Cattell Scree test. This is a graphical method, first proposed by
Cattell (1966). We can plot the eigenvalues shown above in a simple line plot. In the
Cattell scree test (Figure 1), the components are plotted as the x-axis and the
corresponding eigenvalues as the y-axis. As one moves to the right, toward later
components, the eigenvalues drop. When the drop ceases, the curve makes an elbow
toward less steep decline. According to the Cattell scree test criterion, all components
after the one starting the elbow are dropped. In this case (Figure 1), one would probably
decide only the first three or four factors were worth retaining in the analysis.
Kaiser’s criterion may overestimate or underestimate the true number of factors.
Most simulation studies suggest that it is a conservative criterion, which usually
overestimates the true number of factors (Lance et al., 2006). On the other hand, the

Initial eigenvalues Rotation sums of squared loadings

Component Total Percent of variance Cumulative % Total Percent of variance Cumulative %

1 8.856 44.282 44.282 4.030 20.149 20.149

2 1.969 9.846 54.128 3.518 17.592 37.742
3 1.214 6.070 60.198 3.493 17.465 55.207
4 1.031 5.156 65.353 2.029 10.147 65.353
5 0.932 4.660 70.013
6 0.789 3.946 73.959
7 0.719 3.597 77.556
8 0.648 3.242 80.799
9 0.569 2.844 83.642
10 0.537 2.683 86.325
11 0.458 2.291 88.616
12 0.414 2.070 90.685
13 0.404 2.021 92.706
14 0.340 1.701 94.407
15 0.283 1.416 95.823
16 0.255 1.274 97.097
17 0.185 0.926 98.022
18 0.172 0.858 98.881 Table II.
19 0.126 0.628 99.509 Explanation of total
20 0.098 0.491 100.000 variance
TQM
19,4

334

Figure 1.
Scree plot

Scree criterion tends to result in even more factors than the Kaiser criterion. Moreover,
picking the “elbow” can be subjective, particularly if the curve has multiple elbows or
is a smooth curve. In the present case, both criteria give similar results, and so we have
retained the first four factors for further analysis and interpretation.

Principal factors analysis

The next step is to identify the underlying or latent relationship between variables.
Each variable measures some part of this common aspect, and also captures a unique
aspect that is not addressed by any other variable. The factors will not extract all
variance from our variables; rather, only that proportion that is due to the common
factors and shared by several variables. The proportion of variance that is unique to
each item is the respective item’s total variance minus the communality. Thus, the
communalities (Table III) measure the proportion of variance that each variable has in
common with other variables, and is an indicator of the reliability of each variable. The
communalities in Table III range from 0.454 for MP (Market performance) to 0.826 for
PMT (People’s management and training), indicating that the variance of the variable
PMT is due to common factors (shared with other items).
It can be seen from Table III that none of the communalities is too low. When a
variable has a low communality, it implies that the factor model is not working well for
that variable and possibly it should be removed from the model. However, it may be
said that what is critical is not the communality coefficient per se, but rather the extent
to which the variable plays a role in the interpretation of the factor, though often this
role is greater when the communality is high. If the communality exceeds 1.0, there is a
spurious solution, which may reflect too small a sample or the researcher has too many
or too few factors. In this case, the communalities are neither too low nor too high,
indicating that the principal factor analysis will yield good results.
 A TQM model
Variablesa Extraction
for Indian
MP 0.454 organizations
STT 0.485
QP 0.525
SFTY 0.564
CWR
LDR
0.587
0.592
335
IS 0.604
CF 0.639
CS 0.640
PD 0.666
RVAP 0.675
RPCU 0.689
BR 0.705
SD 0.713
ES 0.715
TBPS 0.726
TMC 0.730
PI 0.748 Table III.
PQ 0.787 Communalities obtained
PMT 0.826 by Principal Component
Analysis extraction
Note: aSee text for full forms of abbreviations used method

Rotation of the factor structure

The goal of rotation is to obtain a clear pattern of loadings, that is, factors that are
somehow clearly marked by high loadings for some variables and low loadings for
others. Typical rotational strategies are varimax, quartimax, and equamax. We have
used the varimax method for the analysis given in the following. The goal is to find a
rotation that maximizes the variance on the new axes; put another way, we want to
obtain a pattern of loadings on each factor that is as diverse as possible, lending itself
to easier interpretation. Varimax rotation minimizes the number of variables, which
have high loadings on each given factor. Rotation maximizes the loadings of each
variable on one of the extracted factors whilst minimizing the loading on all other
factors.
The right hand side of Table II also gives the “Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings”,
which are the eigenvalues after rotation. These values improve the interpretability of
the factors. The total percent of variance explained is the same (cumulative value for
factor #4 – 65.353 percent) but rotation changes the eigenvalues for each of the
extracted factors. That is, after rotation each extracted factor counts for a different
percentage of variance explained, even though the total variance explained is the same.
Before rotation, most variables loaded highly onto the first factor (44 percent) and the
remaining factors did not really get a representation, but after rotation, all components
have perceptible contributions.
The correlations in the reproduced matrix and residuals were also examined. There
are 72 (37 percent) nonredundant residuals with absolute values greater than 0.05 for
these data. Although there are no hard and fast rules about what proportion of
residuals should be below 0.05; it is generally recommended that they be below 50
percent, which is true in the present case.
TQM Rotated component matrix
19,4 The “Rotated Component Matrix” (Table IV) gives the factor loadings. This is the
central output for factor analysis. The factor loadings, also called component loadings
in PCA, are the correlation coefficients between the variables (rows) and factors
(columns). Factor loadings are the basis for inputting a label to the different factors.
Loadings above 0.6 are usually considered “high” and those below 0.4 are “low”. In
336 Table IV, only loadings $ 0:4 are given.
Looking at the rotated matrix, the first factor has high loadings from five variables:
PI, CWR, RPCU, IS and SFTY. Because these items sort on the same factor, as all are
related to some process efficiency or performance measure, this is a justification for
combining these items in a scale, which might be called “Processes and Efficiency”.
Naming the factor is a matter of subjectivity in many cases. The all-positive values
indicate that organizations with higher mean values for RPCU do well on these
variables. This component also has moderate loadings from BR, PD, RVAP, and ES.
PQ, CS, PD, RVAP, and MP are associated strongly with the second factor. These
are all associated with the customer and are hence named “Customer Focused
Performance”.
TMC, LDR, CF, ES, STT, and QP are associated strongly with the third factor, but
there is a moderate tie to PMT and TBPS. In fact, there is a strong “Peoples” aspect in
this factor, be they the employees, customers, leaders or the top management, hence it
is named as “People Management”
The fourth factor is strongly associated with PMT, SD and TBPS, and is similar to
the third, but involves that component of the “Team Building” which also interacts

Component
Variablesa 1 2 3 4

PI 0.784
CWR 0.685
RPCU 0.669 0.462
IS 0.654
SFTY 0.601
PQ 0.841
CS 0.742
BR 0.504 0.616
PD 0.515 0.608
RVAP 0.482 0.591
MP 0.472
TMC 0.786
LDR 0.739
CF 0.644
ES 0.408 0.643
STT 0.591
QP 0.590
PMT 0.405 0.740
SD 0.657
Table IV. TBPS 0.490 0.437 0.527
Rotated component
a
matrix (four components Notes: See text for full form of factors Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation
extracted) Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
with the outside world, i.e. the suppliers, hence it is named as “Team Building and A TQM model
Business Partner Development”.
The factor score covariance matrix is the covariance matrix of factor scores, with its
for Indian
diagonal elements being the variances of the factor scores in the given sample, which organizations
are all found to be unity. The largest magnitude of an off-diagonal element is the
covariance score (5:8 · 10216 ) of factors 1 and 2, and this is negligible. This illustrates
that the four factors are orthogonal. That is, the factor scores for the four factors do not 337
covary with each other, and are hence independent.

Discussion
Before beginning an analysis of the results, a brief discussion about the bearing of the
sample size on the present results seems in order. It may be argued that the sample size
of 67 is rather small. In cases of small sample sizes, the subject to variable ratio is an
important criterion. In recent years, empirical research is also being done in the form of
experiments using simulated data (Monte Carlo studies). Arrindell and van der Ende
(1985) used real-life data to investigate the effect of different subject-to-variable ratios.
They concluded that changes in this ratio made little difference to the stability of factor
solutions. Guadagnoli and Velicer (1988) found that the most important factors in
determining reliable factor solutions were the absolute sample size and the absolute
magnitude of factor loadings. In short, they argue that if a factor has four or more
loadings greater than 0.6, then it is reliable regardless of sample size. More recently,
MacCallum et al. (1999) have shown that the minimum sample size or sample to
variable ratio depends on other aspects of the design of the study. In short, their study
indicated that, as communalities become lower, the importance of sample size
increases. With all communalities above 0.6, relatively small samples may be perfectly
adequate. In the present case, the communalities (Table III) are all much greater than
0.6 or close to this value; hence, a sample size of approximately 60 subjects is adequate
to carry out Factor Analysis or Principal Component Analysis.
The principal component extraction has yielded interesting results. More than 20
percent of the variance (Table II) comes from factors related to quality improvement
through cost and waste reduction, resources conservation, etc. This is expected, as the
quality of the product, and the process leading to it are the topmost characteristics of
TQM. This is also one of the top two key characteristics of TQM, but has been largely
ignored in the literature. Safety also comes under this category. Thus, our perception
that this would be important in the Indian context is validated. This result is not
surprising, considering that India faces resource shortage. It remains to be seen
whether this is particular to India or applies to other countries as well, and further
work is required by researchers in the west and other regions to determine this.
The second and third components contribute almost equally, and these are related
to the customers and employees of the organization, including the top management.
The fourth component involves both the suppliers and has a strong emphasis on team
building and human resource development. The focus on widespread employee
involvement in improvement through teams, the emphasis on employee development
through training and the deployment of systematic fact-based decision making, driven
by objective data and information, is also clear from these components.
In fact, teamwork is a unifying force between almost all components. The existence
of the contribution of a variable in two factors is a sign of multidimensionality. The
seven such variables in the present case are RPCU, BR, PD, RVAP, ES, PMT, and
TBPS, which is in fact associated with three components. For example, RPCU has two
TQM dimensions, one applying to “Processes and Efficiency” and the other to the “Customer
Focused Performance”. Similarly, business results are derived from the “efficiency”
19,4 and the “customer”. The index of ES may yield ambiguous results if, in fact, “task
satisfaction” and “workgroup satisfaction” are separate dimensions which behave
differently, yet have been forced together in the “Employee Satisfaction” index. In this
case, we see that this is the case, as a component of employee satisfaction appears in
338 the “Processes and Efficiency” group, while the other appears in the “People
Management” group. Similarly, PD may have different meanings for manufacturing,
and service organizations, as in the latter case, the product is not tangible.

Naming the four components

(1) Component #1. Processes and Efficiency.
(2) Component #2. Customer Focused Performance.
(3) Component #3. People Management.
(4) Component #4. Team Building and Business Partner Development.

Proposal of a new model for Indian organizations – TQMEF

Whilst the award models provide frameworks for understanding quality and
excellence, their non-prescriptive nature makes them unsuitable for bridging the
“quality gap” – they are not implementation models. Oakland (1989) originated the
idea of a three-cornerstone model. The present study has shown, by factor analysis for
all organizations, that TQM in Indian organizations can be summed up in four
components i.e. Process and Efficiency, Customer Focused Performance, People
Management and Team Building and Business Partner Development. These four
components are the four basic pillars of the Indian TQM movement. These pillars are
to be strongly built in the organizations’ operations structure to maximize the impact of
TQM on the performance of the organizations. Factor analysis has shown priority to
processes and efficiency; hence this may be considered as a synergic model
incorporating the concept of efficiency into it, and named TQMEF (TQM-Efficiency)
model. The basic structure of this model is shown in Figure 2.
A crucial element of TQM that has emerged is processes and efficiency. Without
adequate attention to efficiency, there will be no product improvement and all TQM
effort will be wasted. The TQM managers must keep an eye on cost and waste
reduction, resources planning, conservation and utilization, and, above all, safety, to
have a positive impact on society and growth of the organization.
The next element, in order of priority, is customer satisfaction; to be attained
through better product quality and resources development, and this will be reflected in
improved business results and market performance. Strategic operations management
should be practised so as to have customer satisfaction at all levels. Both process
design and product design should be reviewed following the principles of BPR
(Business Process Reengineering). Product quality with respect to market performance
should also be strategized to improve the market share and to expand it.
The important role of the top management and TQM leaders emerges in the third
factor. This TQMEF model states that the TQM implementation process begins with
senior management and, more important, the CEO’s commitment. Leadership is
important and essential during every phase of the implementation process, particularly
having systems tools and techniques at the shop floor. This also helps in keeping the
employees satisfied. It is important for TQM leaders to communicate TQM to the entire
 A TQM model
for Indian
organizations

339

Figure 2.
TQMEF (TQM-efficiency)
model

organization. Communication is important not only during the implementation stage,

but it is a never-ending process. Communication is necessary to create TQM
awareness, interest, desire, and action. If there is a union, there should be early
discussions with the representatives on TQM. It is the job of the managers to involve
union leaders by sharing with them the implementation strategy for TQM. Managers
and union leaders work together on quality improvement projects as the quality effort
progresses. Everyone needs to be trained in quality awareness, problem solving and
mistake proofing. This training is conducted when the employees are on a project team
or the work group is ready for training. Therefore, it should be the first step.
Finally, the suppliers must also be made a part of the TQM implementation. They
are to be considered as business partners, and involved in making the quality policy,
product development, process improvement, and cost and waste reduction projects.
They are also to be trained on various Q7 tools. Customer, employee, and supplier
surveys should be conducted to benchmark the attitude of these three stakeholders.
Information from these surveys provides ideas for quality improvement projects.
Efforts are made to acquire systems like ISO 9001:2000, ISO-14001, etc.
Team-building and problem solving has emerged as a unifying aspect of the pillars
of the TQMEF model. Senior management must initiate all efforts to have a cohesive
team at all levels. Employee involvement is optimised by the use of team building.
Process improvement teams, cross-functional teams, natural work-teams and
self-directed/self-managed work teams are encouraged. There is some overlap
between these four main types. Organizations may modify them to accommodate their
own culture.
Finally, it may be pointed out that the present results reinforce our belief in TQM
and suggest that it should be adopted in a step-wise manner and not abandoned
TQM mid-way. There should be concerted and sustained effort on everyone’s part,
particularly the Top Management.
19,4
Conclusions
In this study, a questionnaire survey on diverse Indian organizations was carried out to
find out the impact of TQM on Indian organizations, as well as to suggest methods for
340 improving the results. Starting with 20 variables, some of them pertaining to
contributing variables, and the rest to their contributions, principal component
extraction was used to detect four factors, which account for the bulk (65 percent) of the
variance. Varimax rotation of the factors revealed that the four extracted factors relate
to, respectively, efficiency, customer, people and team building.
The proposed TQMEF model has taken customer process efficiency and focused
performance into the system. These two are vital issues focusing on customer
satisfaction and making the operations efficient. Efficiency in all the activities is to be a
built-in parameter. Cost of inaction should also be considered while evaluating
different actions. Customer needs and desires are constantly changing, based on media
stimulation, new products/substitutes, changing life styles and market segmentation.
Therefore, the need for identifying customer reaction to the product immediately is of
utmost importance in the present scenario. “People” involved in the organization’s
processes are to be empowered and encouraged to be action oriented all the time.
“Team Building” is the concept which keeps all the members glued to the
organization’s main goal and it should not be ignored at any level.
Hence, an efficiency model, built on these four pillars, can be suggested for Indian
organizations. It is hoped that TQM implementation in India, giving importance to
these four factors, should yield quick and better results. Above all, the importance of
team building cannot be overstressed. Top management should emphasise on building
a strong and cohesive team, impressing upon every member of the team to keep
process efficiency at maximum, by optimum resource conservation. In today’s
competitive world, where product prices are determined by the market, optimum
resource utilization is the only way to gain profits.
Before concluding, it may be stated that although the sample size is small, it passes
the sampling adequacy test and so one can generalize the findings with care. Further,
this study is based on a single respondent from each organization, as it adds
individuality to the scores and can be avoided in future by having cross-sectional data
through more than one respondent from each organization. This will also help in
avoiding error due to the tendency of respondents to give over-ambitious answers
sometimes (see Appendix, Table AI and Figure A1).

Note
1. SPSS Inc. Headquarters, 233 S. Wacker Drive, 11th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60606.

References
Arrindell, W.A. and van der Ende, J. (1985), “An empirical test of the utility of the
observations-to-variables ratio in factor and component analysis”, Applied Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 9, pp. 165-78.
Cattell, R.B. (1966), “The scree test for the number of factors”, Multivariate Behavioral Research,
Vol. 1, pp. 629-37.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika,
Vol. 16, pp. 297-334.
Desai, D.A. (2006), “Improving customer delivery commitments the Six Sigma way: case study of A TQM model
an Indian small scale industry”, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive
Advantage, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 23-47. for Indian
Guadagnoli, E. and Velicer, W.F. (1988), “Relation of sample size to the stability of component organizations
patterns”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 10, pp. 265-75.
Kaiser, H.F. (1960), “The application of electronic computers to factor analysis”, Educational and
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 20, pp. 141-51. 341
Kaiser, H.F. (1970), “A second generation little jiffy”, Psychometrika, Vol. 35, pp. 401-15.
Klefsjo, B., Bergquist, B. and Edgeman, R.L. (2006), “Six Sigma and Total Quality Management:
different day, same soup?”, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 162-78.
Kulkarni, S. (2005), “Graph theory and matrix approach for performance evaluation of TQM in
Indian industries”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 509-26.
Lance, C.E., Butts, M. and Michels, L. (2006), “The sources of four commonly reported cut-off
criteria: what did they really say?”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9, pp. 202-20.
MacCallum, R.C., Widaman, K.F., Zhang, S. and Hong, S. (1999), “Sample size in factor analysis”,
Psychological Methods, Vol. 4, pp. 84-99.
Mani, T.P., Murugan, N. and Rajendran, C. (2003), “TQM is a must for success, but not sufficient
for survival: a conceptual framework as contemplated in ancient Tamil literature in India”,
Total Quality Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 395-405.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
Oakland, J. (1989), Total Quality Management, Heinemann, London.
Seth, D. and Tripathi, D. (2005), “Relationship between TQM and TPM implementation factors
and business performance of manufacturing industry in Indian context”, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 256-77.
Shrivastava, R.L., Mohanty, P. and Lakhe, R.R. (2006), “Linkages between total quality
management and organisational performance: an empirical study for Indian industry”,
Production Planning and Control, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 13-30.
Siddiqui, J. and Rahman, Z. (2006), “Interdisciplinary journal of information”, Knowledge and
Management, Vol. 1, pp. 125-36.
Singh, P.J., Feng, M. and Smith, A. (2006), “ISO 9000 series of standards: comparison of
manufacturing and service organizations”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 122-42.
Tripathi, D. (2005), “Influence of experience and collaboration on effectiveness of quality
management practices: the case of Indian manufacturing”, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 23-33.
Wali, A.A., Deshmukh, S.G. and Gupta, A.D. (2003), “Critical success factors of TQM: a select
study of Indian organizations”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 3-14.

Further reading
Osada, T. (1991), The 5S: Five Keys to a Total Quality Environment, Asian Productivity
Organization, Tokyo.

Appendix
See Table AI and Figure A1 overleaf.
 19,4

342
TQM

Table AI.

organizations
Scores achieved by
S. No. Contributing variables Contribution variables
LDR TMC QP PMT SD TBP CF RCU PD RVAP STT PQ CS MP ES BR CWR SFTY PI IS
Data for all the organizations under study
1 31 39 34 18 6 26 27 36 40 0 32 0 20 29 32 34 42 0 32 40
2 34 24 17 16 18 10 7 10 0 13 14 14 16 8 22 28 26 24 15 28
3 37 36 28 44 22 20 42 12 6 38 36 46 42 48 17 41 34 30 20 32
4 30 23 34 30 36 40 30 40 39 47 36 30 44 38 23 39 26 24 33 10
5 40 36 36 48 44 44 42 26 44 50 42 40 42 24 35 47 42 46 48 42
6 35 32 32 26 18 20 23 24 33 38 44 18 48 34 38 33 22 36 39 42
7 26 36 35 38 12 28 35 38 22 44 30 24 46 37 35 33 46 36 39 44
8 28 34 36 30 26 18 30 14 22 44 26 32 36 37 13 31 26 36 21 30
9 31 38 31 28 26 34 23 14 33 31 34 32 36 27 34 41 10 46 13 18
10 29 36 39 28 26 32 41 36 22 28 34 46 22 36 27 41 46 38 41 44
11 33 35 40 48 36 50 50 28 50 50 26 32 42 42 42 33 32 46 50 44
12 17 30 23 36 20 40 28 2 0 0 32 8 16 26 33 15 26 2 44 40
13 26 21 22 12 12 28 35 2 6 6 26 8 12 30 17 24 10 28 26 14
14 40 44 33 48 44 38 37 8 22 9 30 48 36 42 41 34 8 10 31 22
15 22 41 39 36 26 40 32 12 22 31 28 24 28 42 37 28 40 40 32 38
16 36 40 35 18 18 26 33 12 11 9 18 16 18 41 30 36 20 34 34 34
17 38 44 37 44 38 40 37 34 33 41 24 38 40 41 45 39 34 42 43 48
18 36 29 40 26 18 28 38 16 11 38 24 28 22 39 35 27 34 42 26 38
19 29 34 30 28 24 34 32 6 33 3 30 28 28 35 18 37 8 4 30 38
20 31 30 33 30 36 10 30 20 28 25 22 38 20 42 27 35 22 18 28 16
21 17 32 26 30 20 18 29 28 28 25 26 36 36 26 14 32 14 6 19 38
22 34 36 41 40 28 32 32 28 39 19 28 32 36 33 37 39 34 34 40 40
23 36 39 40 38 22 46 34 20 44 41 30 44 38 40 31 40 28 34 47 40
24 31 41 36 20 10 28 32 12 11 22 30 28 28 38 33 33 0 34 39 32
25 38 31 28 26 16 30 30 10 28 16 30 12 38 36 23 41 32 20 38 34
26 35 26 31 34 50 30 35 2 28 38 30 40 36 37 16 28 4 26 15 46
27 37 39 45 44 30 28 31 38 28 25 32 46 34 44 35 40 38 44 38 22
28 33 40 34 40 50 40 31 38 28 25 34 46 40 35 35 40 38 44 41 46
29 34 45 35 42 30 38 42 32 33 44 28 30 36 26 44 30 22 38 40 28
30 35 40 42 32 24 32 41 30 39 31 34 36 34 35 36 50 26 46 44 50
31 38 46 38 30 16 28 47 35 35 30 37 32 32 38 38 38 0 34 40 46
32 29 50 34 46 26 38 46 6 11 19 26 28 42 34 40 39 22 24 27 30
33 29 26 32 38 14 14 24 16 11 19 32 46 26 24 32 24 0 6 20 22
(continued)
S. No. Contributing variables Contribution variables
34 44 41 38 42 12 36 36 4 22 25 40 28 28 41 34 7 22 30 12 22
35 32 29 30 32 26 26 24 2 16 19 20 16 22 39 24 16 6 28 18 16
36 31 32 30 30 0 14 20 8 10 9 34 10 8 16 27 22 10 40 12 10
37 28 35 37 32 20 28 43 14 17 28 36 22 40 30 36 22 34 30 17 28
38 36 32 24 32 24 22 35 10 0 9 30 16 10 22 22 20 14 26 28 22
39 33 47 37 34 18 34 35 20 17 44 28 20 18 14 38 27 24 36 43 38
40 32 35 36 28 42 34 31 10 17 44 34 6 22 32 30 23 22 26 33 38
41 34 40 37 30 0 32 17 0 0 0 34 24 28 24 29 26 24 4 15 14
42 33 38 37 40 22 22 19 4 6 3 28 8 22 6 22 11 10 0 17 28
43 34 45 35 38 6 38 33 4 17 22 42 14 12 23 30 31 26 2 37 14
44 35 42 41 48 36 46 43 34 39 47 38 46 6 41 41 38 26 46 44 46
45 30 20 15 20 14 8 26 10 17 9 30 18 10 20 22 10 10 24 12 20
46 29 34 40 42 36 42 37 20 50 47 38 48 48 39 33 31 26 28 39 46
47 27 40 28 34 14 34 32 0 6 0 30 4 0 7 21 19 0 18 37 22
48 32 26 23 16 18 16 16 10 6 6 22 26 16 19 22 14 6 2 17 18
49 28 20 23 8 14 14 15 4 17 31 26 24 4 24 13 41 0 22 23 20
50 29 41 40 38 26 34 40 10 28 16 26 24 20 46 38 13 24 36 39 40
51 35 29 32 12 6 14 37 18 11 9 34 28 22 35 23 35 0 10 28 22
52 31 42 32 50 50 48 46 28 39 47 32 22 18 50 44 38 46 50 49 38
53 37 31 39 32 34 46 46 10 6 38 32 16 18 43 40 30 38 46 50 38
54 24 28 30 14 0 12 23 6 6 3 28 12 14 22 22 31 4 0 17 4
55 15 14 32 10 18 4 11 0 11 6 14 6 10 19 6 12 6 0 20 2
56 36 33 34 22 30 26 44 10 0 0 30 2 4 32 46 22 22 32 29 12
57 36 35 37 24 22 16 41 4 0 0 26 2 18 9 28 7 0 0 29 10
58 33 37 26 14 12 22 35 2 0 6 26 20 16 38 23 37 6 20 39 22
59 42 35 30 18 20 22 37 18 39 19 30 26 28 31 29 23 16 32 32 20
60 39 37 28 38 16 28 31 4 6 31 32 26 30 38 30 32 8 20 29 2
61 37 41 46 30 2 18 36 16 11 19 28 12 6 31 40 9 12 4 20 8
62 18 18 30 28 20 14 15 2 11 0 32 20 26 24 18 10 6 20 22 32
63 28 37 35 22 18 14 43 6 0 0 30 30 30 35 32 31 14 12 21 22
64 30 24 16 24 0 36 21 14 11 0 28 4 26 31 33 9 14 0 16 12
65 41 43 46 42 16 36 44 16 17 22 34 26 36 45 35 32 30 30 37 34
66 41 37 32 26 14 26 33 4 0 0 32 16 16 21 32 14 26 30 29 34
67 15 23 23 30 18 10 11 2 0 0 10 6 18 22 26 7 0 0 21 0
organizations
for Indian
A TQM model

Table AI.
343
TQM
19,4

344

Figure A1.
Questionnaire after
pre-testing
A TQM model
for Indian
organizations

345

Figure A1.
TQM
19,4

346

Figure A1.
A TQM model
for Indian
organizations

347

Figure A1.
TQM
19,4

348

Figure A1.
A TQM model
for Indian
organizations

349

Figure A1.
TQM
19,4

350

Figure A1.
A TQM model
for Indian
organizations

351

Figure A1.
TQM
19,4

352

Figure A1.
 A TQM model
for Indian
organizations

353

Figure A1.

Corresponding author
Subhash Kakkar can be contacted at: subhashckakkar@ gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints