TQM AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE: EXPERIENCES WITHIN … · Purpose: This paper aims to explore the...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 87 [email protected]

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET) Volume 11, Issue 8, August 2020, pp. 87-102, Article ID: IJARET_11_08_010

Available online athttp://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/issues.asp?JType=IJARET&VType=11&IType=8

ISSN Print: 0976-6480 and ISSN Online: 0976-6499

DOI: 10.34218/IJARET.11.8.2020.010

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

TQM AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE:

EXPERIENCES WITHIN AMMAN’S

ENGINEERING, ELECTRONICS, AND IT

SECTORS

Ayman Abu-Rumman

Lecturer in the Business School, Al Ahliyya Amman University, Amman

ABSTRACT

Purpose: This paper aims to explore the impact that Total Quality Management

(TQM) has on achieving competitive advantage within the engineering, electronics,

and information technology (EEIT) sectors in Amman from the perspective of senior

managers.

Methodology: Following an extensive review of the current literature, and

underpinned by a pragmatic theoretical approach, this study adopted a quantitative

methodology gathering survey data via an online questionnaire from 154 senior

managers across 15 different enterprises operating within the EEIT sectors.

Findings: The study indicated that from the perspective of senior managers, across

the different sectors, TQM has a positive impact on competitive advantage in relation

to reducing waste, increasing efficiency, improving quality and enhancing employee

satisfaction which subsequently results in improved financial performance. The

findings suggested that across the three sectors, TQM practices were relatively well

established, although not many were based on formal TQM models, and that senior

managers support key principles of TQM. However, the study also identified a number

of perceived structural barriers within the TQM implementation process which impact

on competitive advantage including insufficient resources, under-developed systems

and support structures and a lack of access to appropriate training.

Originality: This study makes a valuable contribution to the debate on the

strategic value of TQM in delivering competitive advantage and helps to increase

understanding of the relationship between the two. Its focus on three different

industrial sectors enables diverse views and experiences to be compared and

contrasted therefore making a useful addition to the body of evidence within this field.

Keywords: Competitive Advantage; Total Quality Management; TQM; Service

Quality; Engineering, Electronics; Information Technology.

Ayman Abu-Rumman


Cite this Article: Ayman Abu-Rumman, TQM and Competitive Advantage:

Experiences within Amman‟s Engineering, Electronics, and IT Sectors, International

Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), 11(8), 2020,

pp. 87-102.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/issues.asp?JType=IJARET&VType=11&IType=8

1. INTRODUCTION

This paper presents the findings of a quantitative study exploring the impact that Total

Quality Management (TQM) has on achieving competitive advantage within companies

operating within the engineering, electronics, and information technology (EEIT) sectors in

Amman from the perspective of senior managers.

Increasing globalization, international competition and constantly changing customer

demands and expectations have had a significant impact on the business environment over the

last few decades. Jordanian organisations have therefore tried to adapt to this change and the

introduction of different quality management approaches has been one of the ways in which

they have responded. Increasingly, TQM has been seen as a significant factor influencing an

organisation‟s level of competitive advantage through differentiation and cost leadership

(Almansour, 2012). However there have been disagreements over what elements of TQM are

most influential (Al-Ettayyem and Zu‟bi, 2015), and there is evidence that not all

organisations implementing TQM practices have benefitted from its implementation (Álvarez-

García and Rueda-Armengot, 2016).

This study therefore makes a valuable contribution to the debate on the strategic value of

TQM in delivering competitive advantage and helps to increase understanding of the

relationship between the two. Its focus on companies operating within three different and

important industrial sectors in Jordan enables diverse views and experiences to be compared

and contrasted therefore making a useful addition to the existing body of evidence within this

field.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Jordan’s Engineering, Electrical and IT Sector (EEIT)

The overall economy in Jordan has been significantly reformed over the past three decades,

beginning with the liberalisation and reform agenda led by His Majesty King Hussein,

followed by a programme of reforms, during the first decade of the 2000‟s, focusing on

expanding foreign trade and privatised state-owned enterprises led by His Majesty King

Abdullah (Alhajahmad and Lockhart, 2017). The government‟s commitment to increasing

competitive advantage across all sectors in the country is set out in its economic growth plan

which sets out the aim to double the economic growth of Jordan over the coming five years

(The Economic Policy Council, 2018).

The EEIT sector is one of largest sectors in Jordan and comprises of a range of sub-sectors

including electrical home appliances, electronic devices, agricultural and industrial

equipment, vehicles and transport equipment, and electronic hardware. In 2016 in Jordan,

there were over 6,000 companies operating in this sector which was more than in any other

industrial sector in Jordan (Alhajahmad and Lockhart, 2017).

Jordan‟s Information Technology sector in particular has been growing and is starting to

receive acknowledgement for its growing global software outsourcing services. It is estimated

that this industry contributes around 12% of Jordanian national GDP. In the Economic Policy

Council‟s Jordan Economic Growth Plan 2018-2022 (p.12), it is stated that in relation to IT,

Jordan aims to capitalize on its competitive advantages of “having high quality human capital,

TQM and Competitive Advantage: Experiences within Amman‟s Engineering, Electronics, and IT

Sectors


favorable project economies, competitive wages and its convenient time-zone”. The

electronics sector has also experienced growth in Jordan and is centered around the industrial

expansion in the kingdom (Qadoumi and Dibie, 2008), and the ratio of engineers to the

population in Jordan is amongst the highest globally.

A key strategic objective of the Jordan Chamber of Industry (2018) is to increase the

competitiveness of the Jordanian industrial sector overall and to use the technological

component of industry as a means for improving comparative and competitive advantages.

The sectors covered in this study make a significant contribution to the Jordanian economy,

and represent an opportunity for the Kingdom to increase its competitive advantage over its

neighboring Arab countries located within the region (Yaseen, Dajani and Hasan, 2016).

2.2. Understanding Total Quality Management (TQM)

Due to the wide range and perspectives of quality management and „total‟ quality

management (TQM), it has been considered difficult to reach a consensus on its definition

(Idris and Zairi, 2006). However, according to Baird, Hu and Reeve (2011), TQM can be

defined as an organisational-wide integrative philosophy which aims to continuously improve

the quality of products, services and processes in order to meet the expectations of customers.

Relatedly, Talib, Rahman and Qureshi (2011) suggest that TQM is a total system approach

which spans across all functions and departments, involves all employees, and which aims to

consistently meet or exceed the requirements of customers.

There are a wide range of TQM practices recognised in current literature which are

focused around a number of different factors including: leadership and management

(Khamalah and Lingaraj, 2007; Talib and Rahman, 2010); customer orientation and

satisfaction (Mahapatra and Khan, 2006); workforce training and development (Ueno, 2008);

employee involvement and engagement (Samat, Ramayah and Saad, 2006; Lakhal, Pasin and

Limam, 2006); and continuous quality improvement and innovation (Fotopoulos and Psomas,

2009).

TQM practices are often categorised into „hard‟ and „soft‟ TQM. „Hard‟ practices are

those where statistical analysis or performance standards are used to assess quality and are

most relevant to production and operations management, whereas „Soft‟ practices have a more

qualitative focus encompassing factors such as leadership, employee involvement in decision

making and team work approaches (Yunis, Jung and Chen, 2013). However, in the current

literature there is some dispute on the relationship between these different practices and over

which of these practices have a direct impact on organisational performance (Zeng, Phan and

Matsui, 2015).

Approaches to TQM have evolved considerably resulting in the creation of a range of

models such as Six Sigma, Kanban, Total Productive Maintenance, Lean, and Just-in-time all

of which are frequently adopted today in different settings and industries (Dhonogade, Singh

and Shrouty, 2013). According to Zakuan et al. (2010), all organisations must implement

quality management practices such as this if they want to be able to compete successfully in

the global market. In Jordan, the King Abdullah II Award for Excellence (KAIIAE) is used in

industry as a measure of quality. It was initially developed to help increase competitiveness

within Jordanian businesses through the promotion of quality and performance excellence,

and by publicly acknowledging the quality and business achievements and successful

performance strategies of the country‟s organisations (Abdallah et al., 2013).

2.3. TQM, Performance and Competitive Advantage

Ayman Abu-Rumman


According to Porter (1985), competitive advantage can be defined as the advantage an

organisation has over its competitors. Sigalas et al. (2013) argue that two conditions must be

met in order for competitive advantage to be achieved including above average manifested

exploitation of market opportunities in the industry and the neutralization of all competitive

threats.

Competitive advantage gives an organisation „the edge‟ over its rivals and enables it to

generate greater value for the organisation itself and its shareholders. Over the last few

decades, a range of studies have demonstrated that TQM has benefited organisations and

given them this „edge‟, by improving the quality of products and services, helping to provide

superior products to customers, and increasing performance (Hoang et al., 2010).

Organisational performance is generally referred to as the extent to which an organisation

meets its stated objectives and a wide range of measures exist in the current management

literature to assess levels of performance including both financial and non-financial measures

(Jabeen et al., 2014). Studies evaluating the impact of TQM on organisational performance

highlight a wide range of performance variables including: levels of customer satisfaction

(Lin et al., 2005); financial and market results (Sila, 2007); employee satisfaction, morale and

loyalty (Jun, Cai and Shin, 2006); and innovation and quality outcomes (Prajogo and Sohal,

2004). Other commentators, such as Idris and Zairi (2006) propose the use of established

models such as the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1996) to determine performance

outcomes relating to different key factors of TQM implementation.

According to Tanninen, Puumalainen and Sandström (2010), TQM practices can influence

organisational performance and competitive advantage through two key processes. The first is

via internal performance with an increase in efficiency, reduced waste and a higher return on

assets. The second is via higher levels of customer satisfaction which in turn impacts

positively on brand value and customer loyalty.

Summers (2006) argues that the benefits of adopting TQM practices include:

improvements in the quality of products; better use of resources and reduced costs; and

minimised errors and reduced delays which subsequently facilitate an organisation to enhance

competitive advantage boosting market share. Kumar et al. (2009) share this view and also

claim that the implementation of TQM practices can significantly improve employee morale,

increase efficiency, reduce customer complaints, and ultimately increase profitability.

According to Jiménez-Jiménez et al. (2015), TQM practices also have an impact on

competitive advantage by facilitating organisational learning and promoting innovation; a

view supported by Jung and Chung (2016) in their study of TQM and innovation in Korea and

Kafetzopoulos (2015) in his study conducted in Greece.

From their study of TQM and firm performance in the manufacturing industry in Jordan,

Al-Refaie and Hanayneh (2014) found that Jordanian firms were generally successful in

implementing quality improvement programmes but found that certain formal approaches

such as Six Sigma were less well embedded than others. Another study focusing on the

Jordanian manufacturing industry (Attiany, 2014) found that the use of benchmarking of

internal and external processes as a TQM tool helped organisations gain competitive

advantage in that it helps shift the corporate mind-set from one which is relatively complacent

to one which has a strong sense of urgency for focusing on continuous improvement.

However, despite these identified benefits of TQM on organisational performance, there

have been some mixed findings on its effectiveness in achieving competitive advantage.

According to Sabella, Kashou and Omran (2014), the performance improvements resulting

from implementing different TQM practices are not universal and are very varied. In

particular, previous studies have reported inconsistent results relating to the relationship

between hard and soft TQM practices and organisational performance (Yunis, Jung and Chen,


Sectors


2013). Rahman and Bullock (2005) argue that when measuring the impact of TQM on

performance, the distinction between these different elements of TQM is essential as they

argue that they can impact affect performance in many ways.

They concluded that the soft TQM elements including workforce commitment, shared

vision, customer focus, team working and cooperative supplier relationships, were all

significantly correlated with organisational performance, and found that for some hard TQM

elements to have an impact on performance, such as the use of technology and other

continuous improvement enablers, the soft TQM elements must first be established. This

implies that organisations should not consider individual TQM practices in isolation, but

instead view them collectively as a means of promoting quality improvement and

acknowledge the unique individual relationships between them (Baird, Hu and Reeve, 2011).

2.4. TQM Enablers and Inhibitors

Within the current literature on TQM and performance, a vast range of enablers and inhibitors

have been proposed (Talib, Rahman and Qureshi, 2012). One of the most commonly

identified factors impacting on the effectiveness of TQM is organisational culture (Kumar and

Sankaran, 2007). According to Bonavía Martín and Marin-Garcia (2006) non-traditional

cultures have been identified as being particularly more receptive to TQM practices.

Employee engagement and involvement has frequently been proposed as being a significant

contributing factor to changing organisational culture into one which embraces quality

improvement (Chuang, Chen, and Tsai, 2015; Gul et al., 2012). Another factor is the

implementation process associated with TQM. According to Talib, Rahman and Qureshi

(2011) this process is crucial to ensuring its long-term success and is something which is

organisation-specific rather than generic.

Similarly, Weingarten et al. (2013) proposed that contextual factors such as an

organisation‟s size, the local and national culture in which it operates, and the scope of its

operations all impact on the success of TQM and that a „one size fits all‟ approach is not

appropriate in relation to TQM implementation. This view is supported by Sila (2007) who

refers to institutional theory and contingency theory to examine the different contexts in

which TQM affects performance.

Another identified enabler of TQM is effective supplier quality management (Zakuan et

al., 2010) which can help organisations achieve competitive advantage in both domestic and

international markets through the establishment of long-term strategic and cooperative

relationships and the integration of logistics to deliver positive outcomes relating to delivery,

flexibility, and cost performance (Mosadeghrad, 2015). A high-quality supplier can improve

the quality of products and services due to the fact that materials and purchased parts are often

a major source of quality problems (Sadikoglu et al., 2014).

Leadership is another factor that has been strongly associated with the impact of TQM on

performance (Ooi, 2014). Leaders have an integral role in promoting the behaviours and

practices in their respective organisations that lead to the achievement of quality goals

(Barouch et al., 2016; Alidrisi and Mohamed, 2012). In addition, they have a responsibility

for creating and cultivating the right environment to support innovation and TQM in order to

achieve competitive performance (Frolova et al., 2015). Ulle and Kumar (2014) argue that

TQM leaders ensure that there are strategies and mechanism in place to promote excellence in

performance and focus on building knowledge and skills amongst employees. They suggest

that one of the most challenging aspects of TQM leaderships is getting everyone within the

organisation to work together with a common vision which emphasises quality and

Ayman Abu-Rumman


excellence, and claim that a fundamentally different view of the employee-organisation

relationship is need in order for TQM to be successful.

In their study of TQM and competitive advantage in organisations operating within a

developing country, Ferdousi et al. (2018) found that there was a positive association between

the extent of adoption of TQM practices and competitive advantage. In particular, they

identified two organisational factors that impact on the extent of TQM adoption which

included the intensity of market competition and the maturity and use of IT systems.

With reference to the inhibitors, Polat, Damci, and Tatar (2011) identified: a lack of senior

management commitment to the principles of TQM; problems in transferring TQM

responsibility to the „front-line‟; disinterest and apathy from staff; and perceptions that TQM

is too bureaucratic as barriers to maximizing the potential of TQM. Goetsch and Davis (2014)

also highlighted: weak leadership; insufficiently supported or established teams; poorly

constructed processes to link all of the organisation‟s key functions; and a lack of required

TQM skills and experience as being key inhibitors.

Talib and Rahman (2015) categorised the barriers to TQM into three key areas including:

people-oriented issues; managerial issues; and organisational issues. Within the category of

people-oriented issues, the main barriers they identified included: insufficient training and

education on advanced quality tools and techniques; a lack of a sufficiently resourced quality

department; resistance to change from employees; and inadequate focus on employee

empowerment and team work. Within the category of managerial issues, the main barriers to

TQM highlighted in the study included: a lack of commitment from senior management; poor

coordination between departments; an absence of benchmarking against other organisations;

poor planning prior to the implementation of any quality initiative; and a lack of

communication across the organisation leading to a culture of mistrust and dissatisfaction

from customers. The main barriers found within the final category of organisational issues

included: a high level of turnover and absenteeism amongst managers; the attitudes of

employees relating to quality; and the absence of a culture of continuous improvement which

results in a lack of urgency and a sense of apathy amongst the workforce. Of all the barriers

they identified, Talib and Rahman (2015) argued that „lack of communication‟ was the most

significant, followed by a low level of senior management commitment and resistance to

change by employees.

Another reason why many TQM initiatives fail which has been identified in the current

literature, relates to the allocation of resources to support its implementation. Mosadeghrad

(2013) stresses that TQM can involve high costs, effort and time and therefore a commitment

must be made to adequately resource it. Companies which are struggling financially may not

be able to sustain the benefits from TQM.

3. METHODOLOGY

Underpinned by a pragmatic theoretical approach, this study adopted a quantitative

methodology which involved gathering survey data via an online questionnaire from 155

senior managers across 15 different enterprises operating within the EEIT sectors. The

questions were derived from an extensive review of the current literature on TQM and

competitive advantage and were developed into an online survey using an online survey

provider. This was piloted prior to its full use to ensure the questions were clear and

unambiguous. Questionnaires have been used in a number of studies of TQM and competitive

advantage (Elshaer, 2014; Migdadi, 2017; Sweis et al., 2016) and were considered to be a

pragmatic and efficient tool for this study also.

The questionnaire used in this study was based on the tool used in Zadry and Yusof

(2006) which explored the views of managers working within the automotive industry in


Sectors


Malaysia in relation to: their general views and experiences of TQM in their company, their

views on critical success factors, the impact of TQM on performance and the barriers faced.

The validity of this questionnaire had been confirmed and the reliability of the different

factors included in the survey was determined by establishing their alpha weighting using

Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient. Construct validity was assessed using factor analysis. The

results confirmed that the questionnaire had a high level of internal consistency and was

therefore a reliable tool to use. For this study, additional questions specific to views on

competitive advantage and TQM were added. A descriptive statistical method was used to

analyse the survey results and identify the key characteristics.

5 organisations in each of the identified sectors (Engineering, Electronics and Information

Technology) based in Jordan were selected at random and were approached for permission to

send the survey to their senior managers. All of those organisations approached agreed to

participate in the study providing the results were anonymised. The link to the survey was

therefore sent to the organisation to disseminate amongst their senior managers along with a

covering email explaining the purpose of the study and giving assurances about anonymity.

4. FINDINGS

4.1. Respondents

It is not possible to determine the exact response rate to the survey as it was distributed by the

selected companies themselves and it is not known how many employees did not read the

email containing the link to the survey due, for example, to being on annual leave during the

survey period. However, 154 individuals responded to the survey with representation across

each of the different companies and sectors. Figure 1 presents a breakdown of the number of

responses per sector.

Figure 1 Number of Respondents by Sector and Company

The age of respondents ranged from 19 to 58 years (mean = 38 years; median = 39 years)

and the majority (78%) were male. 82% of respondents had been in their post for 2 or more

years (mean = 2.96 years; median = 3.0 years). All respondents held „senior‟ posts in their

respective organisations.

4.2. Understanding of TQM

The first set of questions in the survey examined the respondent‟s views and understanding of

different TQM principles. Respondents were asked to rate to what extent they agreed with a

range of statements relating to TQM on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree). A mean score was then calculated and aggregated to allow a comparison

against the different sectors to be made. The results are shown in Table 1.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

ENGINEERING ELECTRONICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

No

. o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts Company 5

Company 4

Company 3

Company 2

Company 1

Ayman Abu-Rumman


Table 1 Comparison of Mean Scores between Sector Respondents against TQM principles

TQM Principles

Engineering

(mean score)

(n=55)

Electronics

(mean score)

(n=48)

Information

Technology

(mean score)

(n=51)

TQM is a management philosophy

and practice to ensure effective and

efficient use of all available

resources

4.76 4.69 4.18

TQM aims to make customer

satisfaction as the focus of a

business

4.44 4.65 4.18

Teamwork and participation are

important for achieving a

continuous improvement culture

4.80 4.67 4.18

Training and education are vital

elements with respect to TQM

implementation

4.44 4.65 4.18

Statistical techniques are important

to ensure consistency of product

and process quality

4.58 4.60 4.18

Supplier involvement is vital in

supporting quality improvement 4.44 4.65 4.18

Management leadership,

commitment and support determine

the success of new change

initiatives

4.56 4.40 4.18

Management must provide adequate

resources in every aspect of the

business

4.64 4.69 4.18

A work environment, which is

conducive for improvement, is

created through management-

worker partnerships

4.36 4.35 4.18

Initiatives such as Kaizen,

suggestion schemes, quality circles,

etc. will motivate employees to

participate in quality improvement

3.96 4.06 4.18

4.3. Types of TQM Practices

Respondents were then asked about the different TQM practices that exist within their

respective organisations and were asked to indicate the extent to which they were

implemented using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not implemented) to 5 (fully implemented).

They were also asked to indicate how important they felt each of these initiatives were to

improving quality and performance on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not important) to 5

(extremely important). Again, mean scores were calculated to enable a comparison between

the different sectors to be made (see Table 2).


Sectors


Table 2 Comparison of Mean Scores between Sector Respondents against the level of implementation

of different TQM initiatives and their perceived importance

TQM Initiatives

Engineering

(mean score)

Electronics

(mean score)

Information Technology

(mean score)

Implementation Importance Implementation Importance Implementation Importance

A dedicated quality

department 3.05 4.40 2.98 4.27 3.71 4.18

Customer satisfaction

initiatives 3.62 4.64 3.60 4.65 3.45 4.18

Employee satisfaction

initiatives 3.00 4.64 3.10 4.65 3.82 4.18

Mechanisms for

involving suppliers in

quality

3.17 4.44 3.42 4.21 3.00 3.35

Employee Training

programmes on TQM 3.20 4.78 3.15 4.65 3.69 4.18

Performance

monitoring strategies 4.05 4.64 4.15 4.65 3.57 4.18

Dedicated resources

are allocated to quality

improvement

3.18 4.80 3.06 4.73 3.51 4.29

Communication links

are established

between senior

management and front

line employees

3.40 4.56 3.40 4.40 3.78 4.25

Improvement teams

exist within each

department

3.20 4.44 3.02 4.30 3.82 4.18

Respondents from only 8 of the 15 companies included in the sample confirmed that they

have formal TQM models in place within their organisation. 2 of the companies within the

Engineering industry sample were using Six Sigma in their organisation, and three had

implemented Lean methodology. One company in the Electronics sector had implemented the

King Abdullah II Standards for Excellence and another had implemented Kaizen. Within the

Information Technology industrial sector, one company had implemented the Balanced

Scorecard approach.

4.4. Impact of TQM on Competitive Advantage

The next series of questions focused on respondents‟ perceptions of the impact of TQM on

competitive advantage in their respective organisations. A scale ranging from 1 (significant

negative impact) to 5 (a significant positive impact) was used to gauge respondents‟ views.

Table 3 presents the mean scores for each sector:

Ayman Abu-Rumman


Table 3 Comparison of Mean Scores between Sector Respondents against statements of the impact of

TQM on competitive advantage

Impact of TQM on competitive

advantage

Engineering

(mean score)

Electronics

(mean score)

Information

Technology

(mean score)

Customer satisfaction has improved 3.42 3.44 3.18

Customer complaints have reduced 3.42 3.44 3.18

There is a stronger quality culture 3.62 3.60 3.82

Financial results have improved 3.82 3.69 3.82

Wastage has reduced 3.42 3.56 3.82

Partnerships with suppliers have

improved 3.16 3.19 3.18

Employee satisfaction has increased 3.38 3.35 3.82

Employee turnover has reduced 3.18 3.15 3.18

Respondents were then asked to indicate to what extent they felt that the TQM practices in

their organisations had impacted on competitive advantage on a scale ranging from „very

negative impact‟ to „very positive impact‟. Overall, the majority indicated that it had provided

a positive impact on their organisation‟s level of competitive advantage as shown in Figure 2

below:

Figure 2 Perceived Impact of TQM on Level of Competitive Advantage - % of respondents who

indicated „positive‟ or „very positive‟ impact

4.5. Barriers to achieving competitive advantage through TQM

The final section of the questionnaire focused on respondents‟ views of the barriers which can

impact on maximizing the potential of TQM on competitive advantage. Respondents were

asked to rate a list of commonly cited barriers in terms of how much of a barrier they

represented in their own organisation ranging from 1 (no barrier) to 5 (significant barrier).

The results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Comparison of Mean Scores between Sector Respondents against statements on the barriers

Barriers Engineering

(mean score)

Electronics

(mean score)

Information

Technology

(mean score)

Lack of understanding of TQM 2.96 3.08 4.00

Lack of preparation 2.95 2.81 3.82

Resistance to change 3.25 3.50 4.00

Lack of vision and leadership 2.75 2.77 3.82

78%

60%

45%

0

20

40

60

80

100

ENGINEERING ELECTRONICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

% o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts w

ho

in

dic

ate

d p

osi

tive

or

very

po

siti

ve

Overall % (62%)


Sectors


Barriers Engineering

(mean score)

Electronics

(mean score)

Information

Technology

(mean score)

Lack of senior commitment 2.73 2.75 4.00

Lack of customer focus 2.78 2.81 3.82

Insufficient resources 3.87 4.27 4.82

Lack of systems and structures for TQM 3.69 4.13 4.65

Lack of training 3.25 3.73 4.82

Lack of rewards and recognition 3.16 3.08 3.00

Lack of effective measurement and

evaluation 3.02 3.06 3.18

5. DISCUSSION

Overall, the responses of 154 senior managers were obtained and all sectors were represented

in the results. Consistent with the age profile of the population in Jordan, the majority of

respondents were aged under 40 years old and were predominantly male.

Across each of the sectors there appeared to be a high level of understanding and

agreement with common TQM principles. Whilst the mean score for the respondents from the

Information Technology sector remained the same across all of the questions, it varied

slightly in the other sectors with the principles of teamwork, philosophy and the provision of

adequate resources. The use of formal quality improvement initiatives to promote employee

motivation received the lowest mean level of support, although was still indicated as being

useful.

The respondents also indicated that within the organisations they work within, the

common TQM initiatives were relatively well implemented, although interestingly, less than

half had adopted a formal TQM model or methodology which is in line with the findings from

other studies such as that of Al-Refaie and Hanayneh (2014) who found that whilst Jordanian

firms were generally successful in implementing TQM, formal approaches and TQM models

were not widely used. Within the sectors of engineering and electronics, however, the

existence of a dedicated quality department appeared to be less prevalent or less embedded

within the different organisations. Within the information technology sector, mechanisms for

involving suppliers appeared to be less well implemented. Across all sectors, performance

monitoring strategies were identified as being generally well implemented, along with

customer satisfaction initiatives. However, in all cases, respondents indicated that the

importance of these different initiatives was higher than the current level of implementation.

In particular, the allocation of sufficient resources for TQM activities was felt to be of great

importance along with employee training in TQM methods and techniques.

The results indicated that across the board, TQM had impacted positively on different

aspects of the respective organisations. For the engineering and electronics sector companies,

positive effects were seen mainly in relation to financial results due to increased efficiency

and improved quality and a stronger organisational quality culture.

For information technology companies, positive results were felt to be in relation to these

two factors along with reduced wastage and increased employee satisfaction which is

consistent with the findings from other studies such as those of Jiménez-Jiménez et al. (2015).

Overall, 62% of respondents felt that in terms of their organisation‟s level of competitive

advantage, there had been a positive impact as a result of implementing TQM practices.

However, less than half of the respondents from companies in the Information Technology

Ayman Abu-Rumman


sector felt that the implementation of TQM practices had impacted positively on the level of

competitive advantage in their respective organisations. This may be an area worthy of further

investigation.

The key barriers to successfully implementing TQM to deliver increased competitive

advantage stemmed from having insufficient resources dedicated to quality and having a lack

of systems and structures in place to support TQM; a view supported by Mosadeghrad (2014).

Respondents working within the information technology sector also identified a lack of

training as a key barrier. These findings are consistent with those from other studies such as

that of Talib and Rahman (2015) and Polat, Damci, and Tatar (2011) previously discussed.

6. CONCLUSION

The findings from the study have indicated that from the perspective of senior managers,

across the different sectors, TQM has a positive impact on competitive advantage due to a

reduction in waste, increased efficiency, improved quality and enhanced employee

satisfaction, resulting in improved financial performance.

It was apparent that across the three industrial sectors, common TQM practices are

relatively well established although not based on formal TQM models, and that senior

managers support key TQM principles. However, the study also identified a number of

perceived structural barriers within the TQM implementation process which were felt to

inhibit opportunities to fully maximise competitive advantage. These included a lack of

dedicated resources, under-developed systems and support structures and limited access to

appropriate training in the application of TQM methodology and techniques.

7. LIMITATIONS AND AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This was a quantitative approach to investigating the impact of TQM practices on companies

within different industrial sectors. The use of a mixed method approach incorporating

interviews with a sample of representatives from each of the identified companies may have

enabled richer data to be elicited. This could represent an area for further research. In

addition, it would be interesting to extend this study to other industrial sectors in Jordan to

enable a comparison of the results to be made.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank all of those who took the time to share their views and

experiences by participating in the survey, and the host organisations who allowed the survey

to take place. This study did not receive any external funding.

REFERENCES

[1] Abdallah, A., Haddadin, B.M., Al-Atiyat, H.M., Haddad, L.J. and Al-Sharif, S.L. (2013),

“Investigating the Applicability of EFQM and KAIIAE in Jordanian Healthcare

Organizations: A Case Study”, Jordan Journal of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,

Vol. 7(1), pp. 49-55.

[2] Al-Ettayyem, R. and Zu‟bi, M.F. (2015), “Investigating the effect of total quality management

practices on organizational performance in the Jordanian banking sector”, International

Business Research, Vol. 8(3), p.79.

[3] Alhajahmad, S. and Lockhart, D. (2017), Jordan’s Recent Economic Performance:

Implications for Future Growth, Investment, Refugee Policy and Refugees, Jordan: WANA.

[4] Alidrisi, H. and Mohamed, S. (2012), “Resource allocation for strategic quality management:

A goal programming approach”. International Journal of Quality and Reliability

Management, Vol. 29(3), pp. 265-283.


Sectors


[5] Almansour, Y. M. (2012), “The impact of total quality management components on small and

medium enterprises financial performance in Jordan”, Journal of Arts, Science and Commerce,

Vol. 3(1), pp. 87-91.

[6] Al-Refaie, A. and Hanayneh, B. (2014), “Influences of TPM, TQM, Six Sigma practices on

firms‟ performance in Jordan”, International Journal of Productivity and Quality

Management, Vol. 13(2), pp.219-234.

[7] Álvarez-García, J. and Rueda-Armengot, C. eds. (2016), Achieving competitive advantage

through quality management. Switzerland: Springer.

[8] Attiany, M.S. (2014), “Competitive Advantage Through Benchmarking: Field Study of

Industrial Companies Listed in Amman Stock Exchange”, Journal of Business Studies

Quarterly, Vol. 5(4), p.41.

[9] Baird, K., Jia Hu, K. and Reeve, R. (2011), “The relationships between organizational culture,

total quality management practices and operational performance”, International Journal of

Operations & Production Management, Vol. 31 (7), pp.789-814.

[10] Barouch, G. and Kleinhans, S. (2016), “Learning from criticisms of quality management”.

International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 7(2/3), pp. 201-216.

[11] Bonavía Martín, T. and Marin-Garcia, J.A. (2006), “An empirical study of lean production in

ceramic tile industries in Spain”, International Journal of Operations & Production

Management, Vol. 26 (5), pp.505–531.

[12] Chuang, S.S., Chen, K.S. and Tsai, M.T. (2015), “Exploring the antecedents that influence

middle management employees' knowledge-sharing intentions in the context of total quality

management implementations”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 26

(1-2), pp.108-122.

[13] Dhonogade, P.M., Singh, M. and Shrouty, V.A. (2013), “A Review: Literature Survey for the

Implementation of Kaizen”, International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology

(IJEIT), Vol. 3, pp.57-60.

[14] Elshaer, I.A. and Augustyn, M.M. (2016), “Direct effects of quality management on

competitive advantage”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol.

33(9), pp.1286-1310.

[15] Ferdousi, F., Baird, K., Munir, R. and Su, S. (2018), “Associations between organisational

factors, TQM and competitive advantage: Evidence from an emerging economy”.

Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25(3), pp.854-873.

[16] Fotopoulos, C.B. and Psomas, E.L. (2009), “The impact of soft and hard TQM elements on

quality management results”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,

Vol. 26 (2), pp. 150-163.

[17] Frolova, I. and Lapina, I. (2015), “Integration of CSR principles in quality management”.

International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 7(2/3), pp. 260-273.

[18] Goetsch, D.L. and Davis, S.B. (2014), Quality management for organizational excellence.

Essex: Pearson.

[19] Gul, A., Jafery, S.A.S., Rafiq, J. and Naeem, H. (2012), “Improving Employees Performance

through Total Quality Management”, Management, Vol.1 (8), pp.19-24.

[20] Hoang, D. T., Igel, B. and Laosirihongthong, T. (2010), Total quality management TQM)

strategy and organizational characteristics: Evidence from a recent WTO member”, Total

Quality Management, Vol. 21(9), pp. 931-951.

[21] Idris, M.A. and Zairi, M. (2006), “Sustaining TQM: a synthesis of literature and proposed

research framework”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 17 (9),

pp.1245-1260.

[22] Jabeen, R.U.B.I.N.A., Shehu, M.S., Mahmood, R.O.S.L.I. and Kofarmata, B.A., (2014),

“TQM and Knowledge management impacts on SME performance”, International

Postgraduate Journal Business Journal, Vol. 6 (2), pp.23-43.

Ayman Abu-Rumman


[23] Jiménez-Jiménez, D., Martinez-Costa, M., Martínez-Lorente, A.R. and Rabeh, H.A.D. (2015),

“Total quality management performance in multinational companies: A learning

perspective”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 27(3), pp.328-340.

[24] Jordan Chamber of Industry (2018)

https://jordan.gov.jo/wps/portal/Home/GovernmentEntities/Agencies/Agency/Jordan%20Cha

mber%20of%20Industry?nameEntity=Jordan%20Chamber%20of%20Industry&entityType=ot

herEntity [Accessed 19th May 2018].

[25] Jun, M., Cai, S. and Shin, H. (2006), “TQM practice in maquiladora: Antecedents of employee

satisfaction and loyalty”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24, pp. 791–812.

[26] Jung, U. and Chung, B.D., (2016), “Lessons from the history of Samsung‟s SCM innovations:

focus on the TQM perspective”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 27(7-

8), pp.751-760.

[27] Kafetzopoulos, D., Gotzamani, K. and Gkana, V. (2015), “Relationship between quality

management, innovation and competitiveness: Evidence from Greek companies”, Journal of

Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 26(8), pp.1177-1200.

[28] Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into

Action, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

[29] Khamalah, J.N. and Lingaraj, B.P. (2007), “TQM in the service sector: a survey of small

business”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 18 (9), pp. 973-982.

[30] Kumar, V., Choisne, F., de Grosbois, D. and Kumar, U. (2009), “Impact of TQM on

company's performance”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol.

26 (1), pp.23-37.

[31] Kumar, M. and Sankaran, S. (2007), “Indian culture and the culture for TQM: a comparison”,

The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19 (2), pp. 176-188.

[32] Lakhal, L., Pasin, F. and Limam, M. (2006) “Quality management practices and their impact

on performance”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23 (6), pp.

625-646.

[33] Lin, C., Chow, W.S., Madu, C.N., Kuei, C.H., and Yu, P.P. (2005), “A structural equation

model of supply chain quality management and organizational performance”, International

Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 96, pp. 355–365.

[34] Mahapatra, S.S. and Khan, M.S. (2006), “A methodology for evaluation of service quality

using neural networks”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Global

Manufacturing and Innovation, July 27-29, pp. 1-9.

[35] Migdadi, M.M., Zaid, M.K.A., Yousif, M., Almestarihi, R.D. and Al-Hyari, K. (2017), “An

Empirical Examination of Knowledge Management Processes and Market Orientation,

Innovation Capability, and Organisational Performance: Insights from Jordan”, Journal of

Information & Knowledge Management, Vol. 16(01), p.1750002.

[36] Mosadeghrad, A.M. (2014), “Why TQM programmes fail? A pathology approach”. The TQM

Journal, Vol. 26(2), pp.160-187.

[37] Mosadeghrad, A.M. (2015), “Developing and validating a total quality management model for

healthcare organizations”. The TQM Journal, Vol. 27(5), pp. 544-564.

[38] Ooi, K.B. (2014), TQM: A facilitator to enhance knowledge management? A structural

analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 41(11), pp. 5167-5179.

[39] Polat, G., Damci, A. and Tatar, Y. (2011), Barriers and Benefits of Total Quality Management

in The Construction Industry: Evidence from Turkish Contractors. 7th Research/Expert

Conference with International Participants.

[40] Porter, M. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance,

The Free Press, New York, NY.

https://jordan.gov.jo/wps/portal/Home/GovernmentEntities/Agencies/Agency/Jordan%20Chamber%20of%20Industry?nameEntity=Jordan%20Chamber%20of%20Industry&entityType=otherEntity




Sectors


[41] Prajogo, D.I. and Sohal, A.S. (2004), “The multidimensionality of TQM practices in

determining quality and innovation performance: An empirical examination”. Technovation,

Vol. 24, pp. 443–453.

[42] Qadoumi, H. and Dibie, Z. (2008), Middle East Complex for Engineering, Electronics &

Heavy Industries (MECE), Amman: AMRAQ.

[43] Rahman, S.U. and Bullock, P. (2005), “Soft TQM, hard TQM, and organisational performance

relationships: an empirical investigation”, Omega, Vol. 33 (1), pp.73-83.

[44] Sadikoglu, E. and Olcay, H. (2014). “The effects of total quality management practices on

performance and the reasons of and the barriers to TQM practices in Turkey”. Advances in

Decision Sciences, Vol. 24(6), pp. 948-975.

[45] Sabella, A., Kashou, R. and Omran, O. (2014), “Quality management practices and their

relationship to organizational performance”, International Journal of Operations &

Production Management, Vol. 34 (12), pp.1487-1505.

[46] Samat, N., Ramayah, T. and Saad, N.H. (2006), “TQM practices, service quality, and market

orientation-some empirical evidence from a developing country”, Management Research

News, Vol. 29 (11), pp. 713-728.

[47] Sigalas, C. and Pekka Economou, V. (2013), “Revisiting the concept of competitive

advantage: Problems and fallacies arising from its conceptualization”. Journal of Strategy and


[48] Sila, I. (2007), “Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through

the lens of organizational theories: An empirical study”, Journal of Operations Management,

Vol. 25, pp. 83–109.

[49] Summers, D. C. S. (2006), Quality 5th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

[50] Sweis, R.J., Saleh, R.A., Al-Etayyem, R.H., Qasrawi, B.T. and Mahmoud, A.M.A. (2016),

“Total quality management practices and organisational performance in Jordanian courier

services”, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 19(2), pp.258-

276.

[51] Talib, F. and Rahman, Z. (2015), “Identification and prioritization of barriers to total quality

management implementation in service industry: an analytic hierarchy process approach”. The

TQM Journal, Vol. 27(5), pp.591-615.

[52] Talib, F. and Rahman, Z. (2010), “Critical success factors of TQM in service organizations: a

proposed model”, Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 31(3), pp. 363-380.

[53] Talib, F., Rahman, Z. and Qureshi, M.N. (2011), “A study of total quality management and

supply chain management practices”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance

Management, Vol. 60 (3), pp.268-288.

[54] Tanninen, K., Puumalainen, K. and Sandström, J. (2010), “The power of TQM: analysis of its

effects on profitability, productivity and customer satisfaction”, Total Quality Management &

Business Excellence, Vol. 21 (2), pp. 171-184.

[55] The Economic Policy Council (2018), Jordan Economic Growth Plan 2018-2022, Amman:

EPC.

[56] Ueno, A. (2008), “Which managerial practices are contributory to service quality?”,

International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 25 (6), pp. 585-603.

[57] Ulle, R.S. and Kumar, A.S. (2014). “A Review on Total Quality Leadership in TQM

Practices-Industrial Management and Organizations”. International Journal of Emerging

Research in Management & Technology, Vol. 3(5).

[58] Wiengarten, F., Fynes, B., Cheng, E.T.C. and Chavez, R. (2013), “Taking an innovative

approach to quality practices: exploring the importance of a company‟s innovativeness on the

success of TQM practices”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 (10), pp.

3055-3074.

Ayman Abu-Rumman


[59] Yaseen, S.G., Dajani, D. and Hasan, Y. (2016), “The impact of intellectual capital on the

competitive advantage: Applied study in Jordanian telecommunication companies”.

Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 62, pp.168-175.

[60] Yunis, M., Jung, J. and Chen, S. (2013), “TQM, strategy, and performance: A firm-level

analysis”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 30 (6), pp. 690-

714.

[61] Zadry, R. H. and Yusof, M.S.R. (2006), “Total quality management and theory of constraints

implementation in Malaysian automotive suppliers: a survey result”, Total Quality


[62] Zakuan, N. M., Yusof, S. M., Laosirihongthong, T. and Shaharoun, A.M. (2010), “Proposed

relationship of TQM and organisational performance using structured equation modelling”,

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 21 (2), pp. 185-203.

[63] Zeng, J., Phan, C.A. and Matsui, Y. (2015), “The impact of hard and soft quality management

[64] on quality and innovation performance: An empirical study”. International Journal of

Production Economics, Vol. 162, pp.216-226.

TQM AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE: EXPERIENCES WITHIN … · Purpose: This paper aims to explore the...

Documents

Transcript of TQM AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE: EXPERIENCES WITHIN … · Purpose: This paper aims to explore the...