Benchmarking of TQM

Transcription

Benchmarking of TQM

Benchmarking: An International Journal
Benchmarking of TQM: the case of Hikma Pharmaceuticals company:
Rateb J Sweis Hala Jamal ElGhawi Noor Abdel-Aziz AlSaleh Zu'bi M.F Al-Zu'bi Bader Y Obeidat
Article information:
To cite this document:
Rateb J Sweis Hala Jamal ElGhawi Noor Abdel-Aziz AlSaleh Zu'bi M.F Al-Zu'bi Bader Y Obeidat , (2015),"Benchmarking of
TQM: the case of Hikma Pharmaceuticals company", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp. Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-05-2013-0059
Downloaded on: 22 March 2015, At: 02:44 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 26 times since 2015*
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 02:44 22 March 2015 (PT)
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Domenico Laise, Laura Marraro, Gianpaolo Iazzolino, (2015),"Metachoice for benchmarking: a case study", Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp. Muhammad Asif, (2015),"Determining improvement needs in higher education benchmarking", Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 1 pp. 56-74 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-02-2013-0025
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 492215 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Benchmarking of TQM: The case of Hikma
Pharmaceuticals Company
Introduction
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in benchmarking; which is known as a process of
continuous quality improvement that organizations adopt to judge their internal strengths and
weaknesses, evaluate comparative advantages of best and leading competitors, identify best practices
and incorporate them into a strategic action plan to achieve a position of superiority (Wynn- Williams,
2005). Therefore it is a helpful and realistic process to modify operations in a structured manner again
to achieve peak performance. Nowadays tough competition and technology advancement have forced
many firms to improve their processes, products, and services to stay in business. Benchmarking has
been proven for its effectiveness to enhance performance in different areas as previous studies reported
(Lee et al., 2006). However, firm’s can make more revenue and derive increased productivity when
workers at all levels embrace benchmarking (Williams et al., 2012).Benchmarking is a total quality
management (TQM) strategic tool (Lee et al., 2006). Similarly, benchmarking is a tool that is largely
used for executing diagnostic analysis and guidance improvements efforts (Camp, 1989; Southard and
Parente, 2007; Dervitsiotis, 2000). Consequently, benchmarking was traditionally used as a problem
solving exercise (problem based benchmarking). During the previous years, in the course of extensive
efforts, leading firms have come to recognize that there is a superior method to focus benchmarking
activities for better payback. The most valuable instrument to guarantee continuous improvement is to
focus on the basic processes that run the firm. It is this concentration that will deliver the outputs that
will accomplish the firm’s objectives, priorities, and mission. This (process based benchmarking) is a
revolution perception in benchmarking (Bhutta and Huq, 1999). It involves probing processes and
practices that are employed, and founding metrics for evaluating a firm’s performance (Camp, 1989).
In this study, Total Quality Index (TQI): a benchmarking tool for total quality management has been
adopted which compares actual and ideal quality management systems. Quality management systems
are becoming an integral part of pharmaceutical companies worldwide. The use of benchmarking to
improve the implementation of quality management systems inside these companies is gaining more
importance, since it has a major role in improving the company’s performance, and gaining competitive
advantage.
The pharmaceutical industry is the second largest export industry in Jordan, exporting around 80% of
production to 60 countries worldwide. Jordanian pharmaceutical firms own plants around the world, and
are venturing into bio-technology. (http://www.jordaninvestment.com).
Considering the above, it is of high importance to emphasize the benefits of benchmarking the status of
the total quality management systems versus the ideal status, in order to identify the possible gaps, and
to take the proper actions to improve the current status of it. This will develop the performance of these
pharmaceutical companies, and shall enhance their introduction into worldwide markets. Although
extensive research has been carried out on TQM, no single study exists which involves benchmarking in
the country of Jordan specially in the pharmaceutical industry .
This study intends to fill this gab and it is applied on one of the pharmaceutical companies in Jordan,
which is Hikma Pharmaceuticals. The purpose of the study is to capture the perception of the employees
about the current status of the quality management system versus the ideal state, in two of the quality
departments within the company in order to improve the quality management system to reach the ideal
state.
Literature Review
There has been a renewed stress on benchmarking to grasp the growing complexity of the unstable
business environment.Organizations attempt to improve their performance outcomes on each and every
level through different means and techniques. For example, research has been conducted in the area of
TQM and its relationship to manufacturing; Gunasekaran( 1998) integrated quality management systems
with product development. Moreover, Gunasekaran (1999), identified enablers of TQM implementation
in Manufacturing. Furthermore, Herron and Braiden (2006) devised a methodology for developing a
sustainable quantifiable productivity improvement for manufacturing companies while Khanna et al
(2002) developed a causal relationship for a TQM index for the Indian automobile sector, Also, Haffer
and Kristensen (2010) explored people management as indicator of business excellence from a Polish
and Danish perspectives. The focus of benchmarking is on identifying, understanding, and assessing a
wide range of performance measures. In the unstable business environment, organizations have become
dedicated to their organizational identity, purpose, mission, and direction with dynamism and strength
(Hong et al., 2012). Fernandez et al. (2001) defined benchmarking as a process that facilitates learning
and comprehension of the firm and its operations. It enables firms to identify the key processes that
require improvement, and to search for applicable solutions from the best in class. In addition,
benchmarking has been identified as a process of identifying the highest standards of excellence for
products, services, or processes, and then performing the required enhancements to reach those
standards (Bhutta and Huq, 1999). Moreover, benchmarking is known as a process of continuous quality
improvement that organizations adopt to judge their internal strengths and weaknesses, evaluate
comparative advantages of best and leading competitors, identify best practices and incorporate them
into a strategic action plan to achieve a position of superiority (Wynn- Williams, 2005).
Consequentially, benchmarking was a valuable tool aiding in setting the goals that are necessary to
achieve competitive advantage and in learning new ideas (Balm, 1996). Ramabadran, et al., (2004) and
Braadbaart,( 2007), added that benchmarking may increase the return on investment (ROI), improved
market competitiveness, cost cuts, superior chance of identifying new business opportunities, and
improved transparency and performance .It presents insights necessary to effectively pinpoint the
critical success factors that place the most successful firms apart from their competitors, or to a greater
extent, that take apart the winners from the losers in the market (Cooper and Kleinschmidt,
1995).Accordingly, an essential fact that should be highlighted is that, as time passes , the organization
and the competitors condition will surely change. Therefore, benchmarking process should be dynamic
(Raharjo, et al., 2010). Elmuti and Kathawala (1997) identified four kinds of benchmarking:
internal
benchmarking, competitive benchmarking, functional or industry benchmarking, and process
benchmarking.
-
Internal benchmarking. Conducting a comparison between related operations within an
organization. This is a preliminary step for organizations, since organizations must understand
their own products, services, or processes before they can be compared to other organizations.
Internal benchmarking activity launches operating standards within organizations (Spendolini,
1992).
-
Competitive benchmarking. Conducting a comparison between the organization and the best of
the direct competitors. This activity usually follows an internal benchmarking activity, since the
internal information must be gathered and analyzed before it can be compared to external data
(Fink, 1988; Yasin and Zimmere, 1995).
-
Functional benchmarking. A comparison technique with organizations having similar process in
the same function from an outside industry (Magd, 2008).
-
Generic benchmarking. A comparison of work processes with others who have innovative,
example work processes. This activity can be used across different organizations. It is thought to
be extremely effective and not easy to implement. It requires an extensive conceptualizing of the
entire process and careful understanding of the procedures (Elmuti and Kathawala, 1997).
Kumar and Chandra (2001) recommended that the benchmarking procedure and the type of
benchmarking should be selected and used carefully in order to obtain the desired outcomes. It is evident
from previous researches that most of the work for benchmarking is focused on external benchmarking
and few researches addresses the importance of internal benchmarking. Internal benchmarking is
obviously much simple than its external alternatives (Moriarty, 2011). Moreover, Soni and Kodali,
(2010) and Southard and Parente (2007) mentioned some advantages for the use
of Internal
benchmarking, including:
-
Easy access to data and information
-
Transferability of practices from one firm to another
-
Provides a stepping stone towards external benchmarking
Different researchers have analyzed the multi criteria modeling and problem solving using the gap
analysis in their literature. Pounds (1969) identified the problem situation as the difference between the
current situation and the desired situation. (Bartee, 1973; MacCrimmon and Taylor, 1976; Reitman,
1964) identified the problem as the difference between the current and the ideal situation. In terms of
organizations, the problem defined as the difference between the current performance and the ideal
performance (Cyert and March, 1963). Quality management engages the acknowledgment of the gap for
the difference between the actual and ideal performance. This gap is the difference between the
indications that managers notice in the environment on different characteristics of the quality
management process and their own idea of what the process should be (Tavana et al., 2003).
The Total Quality Index (TQI) Benchmarking Tool
Benchmarking the quality management system inside an organization can include comparing the actual
state of the critical quality management areas versus an ideal desired state. Saraph et al proposed eight
elements of quality management that can be measured as part of the evaluation process for the quality
management system state (Okrah and Fening, 2012). The eight elements proposed by Saraph include:
-
The role of management leadership and quality policy,
-
The role of the quality department,
-
Training,
-
Product/service design,
-
Suppler quality management,
-
Process management,
-
Quality data and reporting, and
-
Employee relations.
Saraph et al (1989) also created sets of specific requirements for each of the eight critical factors. These
eight factors along with their sets of specific requirements were included in a questionnaire (presented in
Appendix -A), that can be used to assess and compare actual and ideal quality management with the sets
of requirements as operational measures of the critical factors. The questionnaire was developed for
evaluating quality management in either manufacturing or service organizations. Empirical tests showed
the measures to be both reliable and valid.
In their study “Total Quality index: a benchmarking tool for total quality management” Tavana et al
(2003) relied on Saraph’s eight critical factors, and proposed a benchmarking model that helps managers
evaluate a quality management program by enabling the cost-effective measurement of critical
organizational processes. The model utilizes AHP and Delphi methods to measure both actual and ideal
quality management along the eight critical success factors.
Methodology
Population and Sample
The case study was performed in one of the pharmaceutical companies in the Middle East (Hikma
Pharmaceuticals). The company was founded in 1978, and has steadily evolved as a leading
multinational pharmaceutical company, with a steadfast reputation for quality. The Company’s initial
focus was on developing a branded pharmaceuticals business across the MENA region, where it worked
on creating its quality system since the very beginning of its development stage. The company adopted a
continuous improvement strategy, in order to stay in compliance with the latest local and international
requirements and regulations. This resulted in the company being the first Arab company to receive
FDA approval in 1996. Moreover, Hikma acquired a generic pharmaceuticals business in the United
States and established an injectable pharmaceutical operation in Portugal, thereby expanding the
Company’s outreach beyond the MENA region. The Company has since continued to expand
significantly, through organic growth and acquisition.
Hikma’s business involves three major types, including:
1) Branded
2) Generics
3) Injectables
and it is committed to quality manufacturing, through its multiple manufacturing facilities which provide
it with the flexibility to select the most appropriate manufacturing strategy for a particular product,
taking into account factors such as cost, regulatory requirements and capacity. (http://www.hikma.com).
The company has believed since its very beginnings the importance of investing in the “quality” of its
products, in achieving competitive advantage in the pharmaceutical industry, through satisfying the
needs of its customers, and being in compliance with the authorities regulations. This was accomplished
through the implementation of total quality management in different aspects of the company’s processes,
which transferred it form a small, local business, into an international company, with territories
distributed in different parts of the world.
As part of the company’s investment in quality, Hikma Pharmaceuticals – Jordan has a strong quality
unit, managed by the Quality Unit Director, directly reporting to the Company’s general manager. The
Quality unit contains five departments: Quality Assurance, Quality Control, Regulatory Affairs,
Validation and Calibration, and Compliance Department, each managed by a dedicated manager, and
directly reporting to the Quality Unit Director. Two departments (Quality Assurance - QA and Quality
Control - QC) were selected from the Quality Unit, where 33 participants were chosen randomly from
Quality Assurance department, in addition to 34 participants from Quality Control Department, covering
different job levels (Quality managers, supervisors, and quality staff members), with different
educational backgrounds (including Diploma, Bachelor, and Master Degrees in the Science Field).
The Total Quality Management benchmarking model
The benchmarking tool applied in this study was the Total Quality Index model proposed by Tavana et
al ( 2003). While the model utilizes AHP and Delphi methods to measure both actual and ideal quality
management along the eight critical success factors, this research will use a questionnaire tool for the
measurement purpose..
Saraph’s questionnaire was used to assess the gap between the ideal and current status of the quality
management system in Hikma Pharmaceuticals. The weights for each of the eight critical factors in
addition to their sets of specific requirements were assigned by the departments’ managers, through a
series of pair-wise comparisons. Each one of the eight critical quality management elements was
compared with the other seven elements, where the element with the highest score was assigned the
largest weight, and so on for the remaining elements. The same procedure was applied to assign the
weights for the factors that are associated with each of the quality management elements.
The managers and staff in each department completed the quality management questionnaire in
Appendix (A) to capture their perceptions of the ideal rating R*ij and the actual rating Rtij for each item.
The response rate was high, and the respondents were willing to participate in the study. However, 3
questionnaires from the QA department, in addition to 4 from QC department were excluded, due to
incomplete answers in the questionnaires. This resulted in a response rate of 90.9% for the QA
department, and 88.2% for the QC department.
The data collected from both departments (QA, and QC) was used to calculate the difference (dt)
between the actual (TQIt) and ideal scores (TQI*) using the TQI model
The algebraic model includes the following factors:
Fi : The importance weight of a quality management critical factor (for i =1; . . .; 8).
fij : The importance weight of an item associated with a quality management critical factor (for i = 1; . .
.; 8; and j =1; . . .; ki).
R*ij: The ideal rating of an item associated with critical factor (for i=1; . . .; 8; and j = 1; . . .; ki ).
Rtij: The actual rating of an item associated with a critical factor for a given time period (for i =1; . . .; 8;
j = 1; . . .; ki ; and t =1; . . .; n).
TQI*: The ideal total quality index.
TQIt : The actual total quality index for a given time period.
dt : The gap between the ideal and actual total quality index for a given time period.
Ki: The number of items within each quality management critical factor.
n: The number of time periods where the total quality index is measured.
The objective of the model is to:
Minimize dt = TQI* - TQIt
where:
And
(1)
At the end of the study, the dt s for each participant were treated as an observation. Assuming that these
observations are two independent random samples from two populations with mean and variance µQA;
σ2QA for the QA department and µQC; σ2QC for the QC department, the hypothesis that there is a
difference between the perception of actual and ideal quality management for the QA and QC
populations can be stated as:
H0 : µQA = µQC
HA : µQA ≠ µQC
Table (I) shows the ideal and actual means on the eight critical factors for QA and QC departments.
*Table (I) Ideal versus actual critical factor means (QA department versus QC department)
Two different t-tests were performed on the data to test for a difference between the means of the QA
and QC groups. The first assumes equality of error variances while the second allows for the inequality
of variances. The results of both tests are shown in
Table (II).
*Table (II) t-test for equality of means (QA department versus QC department)
Data analysis and Results
The statistical analysis shows that for factor 1 (Role of departmental management and quality Policy),
the significance of the t-test was 0.397 (higher than 0.05), which means that there is no significant
difference between the mean scores of both departments on this factor.
This result is consistent with the fact that both departments’ management are playing an important role
in the implementation of the quality management system, in terms of providing the required support and
continuous monitoring and follow up. Moreover, this result also points out the fact that the quality
policy is well addressed, and is clearly communicated within the company. The survey results also show
that this response was received from employees from different levels, including non-supervisory
employees.
The results for factor 2 (Role of quality department), significance level was (0.067), and there was no
significant difference between the mean scores of both departments on this factor.
Both quality departments are playing their role in the effective implementation of quality within the
company; which is being achieved due to the support of the top management, and the high level of
cooperation between the quality departments, and the other units.
For factor 3 (Training), the significance level was zero. For this factor, the difference between the ideal
and actual is higher for QC (0.162) than QA (0.079).
A possible explanation for the gap in employees’ perception between the actual and ideal states for the
training factor in QC department is the high turnover rate in this section, which increases the load on
management to continuously train newly hired employees. Moreover, since the workload is high,
training during the working hours is not preferable by management, and employees are not willing to
enroll in training after the working hours. The need for further training was noticed in the responses
from newly hired employees.
The same result was noticed for factor 4 (Product Design), where the significance level was also zero.
The difference between the ideal and actual is higher for QC (0.062) than QA (0.033).
The gap in employees’ perception for this factor in QC department may be related to the need for further
coordination among affected departments in the product development process, in addition to enhancing
the clarity of the product specifications and testing procedures, and concentrate on the proper training on
these procedures before actual implementation.
For factor 5 (Supplier Quality Management), significance level was (0.943), and there was no significant
The supplier management system within the company is highly compatible with the quality management
system requirements; suppliers are being rated and validated based on the quality of their supplies. In
addition, clear specifications are being communicated to the supplier.
Factor 6 (Process management / operating procedures), the significance level was (0.419), and there was
no significant difference between the mean scores of both departments on this factor.
The process is being managed through a well defined system. Comprehensive standard operating
procedures and clear work instructions are available for employees to ensure the correctness of the
processes and the continuous reproducibility. Clear guidelines are in place for accepting and/or rejecting
raw materials, in process materials, and finished products. Supervisory and non-supervisory level
employees have both agreed on the clarity of the operating procedures.
Also, for factor 7, Quality Data and Reporting, the significance level was 0.021, and the difference
between the ideal and actual is higher for QC (0.068) than QA (0.052).
The gap in employees’ perception for this factor may be related to the incomplete awareness of the
quality data concept by the department employees. There is a need to clarify the types of quality data,
through displaying the different types of quality costs, and control charts, at employee work stations.
For factor 8 (Employee Relations) the significance level was (0.143), and there was no significant
These results are also compatible with the fact that the quality policy is clearly defined within the
company; this is reflected in the increased quality awareness building among employees. Also, nonsupervisory employees feel that they are being involved in the quality decision-making process, and they
are being recognized for their superior quality performance.
Conclusion:
The study highlights the importance of the internal benchmarking process, as a tool for improving the
status of the quality management system within companies. Specifically, in pharmaceutical industry, the
regulatory requirements are changing on a continuous basis, which renders pharmaceutical companies in
a status of constant improvement, to be able to achieve customer satisfaction and competitive advantage.
In such circumstances, companies will continually change their perceptions of the ideal status of a
quality system; lifting them into even higher standard levels, which will lead to a regular need to
implement the benchmarking tool applied in this study, in order to identify any possible gaps, and laying
down the suitable plans to overcome them.
The tool applied in this study has the advantage of employee participation and involvement, where their
perceptions of the ideal and current status were taken into considerations. This involvement shall have a
high impact on the improvement phase, where it will encourage them to place the needed effort to fill
the quality gaps, and be more ready to accept the change.
The results of the study showed that there was a difference between the mean scores of the QA and QC
department for the following critical factors: training, product design, and Quality Data and Reporting.
On these three factors, QC has a larger gap than QA department.
The overall results are somehow indicative of the advanced status of the quality management system
implementation within Hikma Pharmaceuticals Company, and it actually reflects the importance of
applying a well defined quality management system in improving the company’s performance.
However, and based on the results of the study the following recommendations are introduced:
-
QC department should work on minimizing the gap that exists between the actual and ideal
states of the above three factors.
-
The training system should be improved, since it is one of the critical factors affecting the
proper implementation of any quality management system.
-
QC department should work on organizing and coordinating their role in the product design
process.
-
Further studies are recommended to use the competitive benchmarking which follows an internal
benchmarking.
-
Increase the ideal level of QM to be close or similar to the global ideal level.
-
This benchmarking process should be conducted more frequently, due to the fact that the
evaluation of the current status and the continuous improvement are critical parts of a successful
quality management system.
Research Implications:
The case study presented in this paper provides a useful method for performing internal benchmarking,
with benefits that over compensated for the expense involved, using a simple, previously validated
benchmarking tool.
It provided a method for the company to identify the internal quality system gaps, using information that
is already found inside the organization’s own walls.
This not only reduced the resistance to transferring changes from “foreign” organizational cultures but
also opened the door to the knowledge that superior processes can actually be found within the
organization.
This will encourage the search for other “best practices” internally, leading to further improvements in
the organization’s competitive position.
Moreover, the continuous implementation of the internal benchmarking process, will lift the company’s
quality standards to a higher level, through linking the ideal status of the quality system with the
worldwide international standards. Moreover, it will highlight the importance of comparing the level of
its quality system with the company’s external performance in the market along with its competitive
position.
Research Limitations:
The study was a one-shot study, and therefore, could not provide an idea about the change in employees’
perception about the difference between the current state of the quality management system, and the
ideal state, which is expected to vary with the introduction of new world-wide requirements. Therefore,
benchmarking the implementation of a quality management system should be a continuous process.
References
Balm, G.J., (1996), “Benchmarking and gap analysis: what is the next milestone?”, Benchmarking for
Quality Management & Technology, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 28-33.
Bartee, E.M., (1973), “A holistic view of problem solving”, Management Science, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.
439-48.
Bhutta, K.S. and Huq, F. (1999), Benchmarking - best practices: an integrated approach, Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 254 - 268
Braadbaart, O. (2007), “Collaborative benchmarking, transparency and performance: evidence from The
Netherlands water supply industry”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp.
677-92.
Camp, R.C., (1989), “Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior
performance”. ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1995), “Benchmarking the firm’s critical success factors in new
product development”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 374-91.
Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G., (1963), “A behavioral theory of the firm”, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Dervitsiotis, K.N., (2000), “Benchmarking and business paradigm shifts”, Total Quality Management.
Vol.11 No. 4/5/6, pp. 641-46
Elmuti, D. and Kathawala, Y., (1997), “An overview of benchmarking process: a tool for continuous
improvement and competitive advantage”, Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 229-43.
Fernandez, P., McCarthy, I.P., and Rakotobe-Joel, T. (2001), ”An evolutionary approach to
benchmarking”, Benchmarking, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 281-98
Fink, R., (1988), “Group therapy”, Financial World, Vol. 162 No. 19, pp. 42-8.
Gunasekaran, A. (1998) ‘An integrated product development- quality management system for
manufacturing’, The TQM Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.115–123.
Gunasekaran, A. (1999) ‘Enablers of total quality management implementation in manufacturing: a case
study’, Total Quality Management, Vol.10, No.7, pp.987-996.
Haffer,R and Kristensen,K. (2010) "People management as indicator of business excellence: the Polish
and Danish perspectives", The TQM Journal, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp.386 – 398.
Herron,C. and Braiden,P.M.(2006), ‘A methodology for developing a sustainable quantifiable
productivity improvement in manufacturing companies’, International Journal of Production
Economics,Vol.104,No.1,pp.143-153.
Hong, P., Hong, S.O., Roh, J.J., and Park, K. (2012), “Evolving benchmarking practices: a review for
research perspectives”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4/4 pp. 444-462.
Khanna, V.K, Vrat, P, Shankar, R & Sahay, BS (2002), ‘Developing casual relationship for a TQM
index for the Indian automobile sector’, Work Study, Vol. 51, No. 7, pp. 364-73.
Kumar, S. and Chandra, C. (2001), “Enhancing the effectiveness of benchmarking in manufacturing
organizations”, Industrial Management and Ddata Ssystems, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 80-9.
Lee, P.Y., Zzailani, S. and Soh, L.K., (2006), “Understanding factors for benchmarking adoption: new
evidence from Malaysias”, International Journal of Benchmarking, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 548-65.
MacCrimmon, K.R. and Taylor, R.N., (1976),” Decision making and problem solving”. In Dunnette,
M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL,
pp. 1397-453.
Magd, H.A.E., (2008), “Understanding benchmarking in Egyption organizations: an empirical analysis”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 742-764
Min, H. and Min, H. (1997), “Benchmarking the quality of hotel services: managerial perspectives”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 582-97.
Moriarty, J.P., (2011), “A theory of benchmarking”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 588-612.
Okrah, G. and Fening, F. (2012) “TQM implementation: a case of a mining company in Ghana”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 743-759.
Pounds, W.F., (1969), “The process of problem finding”. Industrial Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 1-19.
Raharjo, H.,Chai, K.H., Xie, M., and Brombacher, A.C.(2010), “Dynamic benchmarking methodology
for quality function deployment”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No.1, pp. 2743.
Ramabadran, R., Dean, J.W. Jr, Evans, J.R. and Raturi, A.S. (2004), “Testing the relationship between
team and partner characteristics and cooperative benchmarking outcomes”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 208-25.
Reitman, W.R., (1964), “Heuristic decision procedures, open constraints, and the structure of ill-defined
problems.” In Shelly, M. II and Bryan, G.L. (Eds). Human Judgments and Optimality, Wiley, New
York, NY.
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. and Schroeder, R.G. (1989), “An instrument for measuring the critical factors
of quality management”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 810-29.
Soni, G. and Kodali, R. (2010), “Internal benchmarking for assessment of supply chain performance”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1 pp. 44-76
Southard, P. and Parente, D. (2007), “A model for internal benchmarking: when and how?”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 161-71.
Spendolini, M.J., (1992), “The benchmarking Book”, American management association
communications, AMACOM, New Yosr, NY.
Tavana, M., Mohebbi, B., and Kennedy, D.T., (2003), “Total Quality Index: a benchmarking tool for
total quality management”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 507-527.
Williams, J., Brown, C., and Springer, A., (2012), “Overcoming benchmarking reluctance: a literature
review”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 255-276
Wynn-Williams, H.L.K., (2005), “Performance assessment and benchmarking in the public sector: an
example from New Zeland”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 482-92.
Yasin, M.M and Zimmerer, W.T. (1995), “The role of benchmarking in achieving continuous service
quality”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 2732.
Table (I) Ideal versus actual critical factor means (QA vs QC departments)
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 5
Factor 6
Factor 7
Factor 8
Role of
departmental
Role of
Supplier
Process
management
quality
Quality
management
Quality
and quality
management
Service
Manage
/ operating
Data and
Employee
Policy
personnel
Training
Design
ment
procedures
Reporting
Relations
TQI*
0.722206
0.670353
0.655859
0.622365
0.535571
0.569129
0.511435
0.527288
TQIt
0.677559
0.649271
0.574388
0.587341
0.519006
0.534494
0.458182
0.491929
0.044647
0.021082
0.081471
0.035024
0.016565
0.034635
0.053253
0.035359
TQI*
0.723
0.66885
0.654675
0.678825
0.530544
0.579225
0.52305
0.522706
TQIt
0.659813
0.624313
0.495163
0.61705
0.513494
0.538725
0.453888
0.478638
0.063188
0.044538
0.159513
0.061775
0.01705
0.0405
0.069163
0.044069
QA
Mean
of dt
QC
Mean
of dt
Table (II) t-test for equality of means (QA versus QC)
Critical
t-test
F
significance t
Significance
factor
F1
Mean
difference
Role
of 1
departmental
0.047
0.830
2
-0.853
0.397
-0.853
0.397
-1.869
0.067
-1.869
0.067
-5.679
0
-5.679
0
-5.549
0
-5.549
0
-0.072
0.943
-0.072
0.943
-0.813
0.419
-0.813
0.419
-2.368
0.021
-2.368
0.021
-1.486
0.143
-1.486
0.143
-0.016
management
and
quality
Policy
F2
Role of quality 1
management
0.952
0.333
2
-0.022
personnel
F3
Training
1
0.315
0.577
2
F4
Product Design 1
7.401
0.009
2
F5
Supplier
1
Quality
2
0.027
0.871
-0.0828
-0.018
-0.00026
Management
F6
Process
1
0.029
0.865
management / 2
-0.0052
operating
procedures
F7
F8
Quality
Data 1
and Reporting
2
Employee
1
Relations
2
0.221
4.129
0.640
0.047
-0.0165
-0.0087
1. Age:
Less than 30
31-40
41 and above
Please read each question carefully and tick only one box for each question that you think best suits you.
Section One:
The questionnaire includes two sections; please follow the instructions that precede each section.
researchers. This is a confidential survey. Your name is not required to complete it.
questionnaire captures the most important aspects of effective quality management as espoused by the leading practitioners and
The purpose of this questionnaire is to assess your perceptions of the extent of effective quality management in your department. The
Evaluation of Quality Management
Appendix (A)
Bachelor
1-2 years
Officer
Supervisor
4. Which of the following best describes your level?
More than 5 years
Less than one year
3. How long have you worked at the company?
Tawjihi and less
2. Level of education:
Managerial
3-5 years
Post-Graduate
1) Role of divisional top
management and quality policy
Extent to which the top division executive
(responsible for division profit and loss)
assumes responsibility for quality
performance
Acceptance of responsibility for quality
by major department heads within the
division
Degree to which divisional top
management (top divisional executive and
major department heads) is evaluated for
quality performance
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
Rating of current practice in your
department
Very Low
Medium High
low
5
5
5
Very
high
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
Rating of the ideal level of QM
in your department
Very Low
Medium High
low
Answer each statement as accurately as possible and remember that you are assessing your own perceptions of how quality
management is practiced in your department, and how do you think should it be practiced.
a) The current practice of quality management within your department.
b) The ideal level of quality management in your department.
Please read each statement carefully and circle the number that best describes:
Section Two:
5
5
5
Very
high
Extent to which the division top
management supports long-term quality
improvement process
Degree of participation by major
department heads in the quality
improvement process
Extent to which the divisional top
management has objectives for quality
performance
Specificity of quality goals within the
division
Comprehensiveness of the goal-setting
process for quality within the division
Extent to which quality goals and policy
are understood within the division
Importance attached to quality by the
divisional top management in relation to
cost and schedule objectives
Amount of review of quality issues in
divisional top management meetings
Degree to which the divisional top
management considers quality
improvement as a way to increase profits
Degree of comprehensiveness of the
quality plan within the division
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
2
1
3
Very
low
5
department
Very Low
Very
Low
low
low
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
in your department
Low
Very Low
Very
low
low
1
2
3
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Low
3) Training
Specific work-skills training (technical
and vocational) given to employees
throughout the division
Quality-related training given to
employees throughout the division
Quality-related training given to managers
and supervisors throughout the division
Training in the “total quality concept” (i.e.
philosophy of company-wide
responsibility for quality) throughout the
division
Training in the basic statistical techniques
(such as histograms and control charts) in
the division as a whole
2) Role of the quality department
Visibility of the quality department
Quality department’s access to divisional
top management
Autonomy of the quality department
Amount of coordination between the
quality and other departments
Effectiveness of the quality department in
improving quality
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
department
Very Low
Very
Low
low
low
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Very
low
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
in your department
Low
Very Low
Very
low
low
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Low
Thoroughness of new product design
reviews before the product is produced
and marketed
Coordination among affected departments
in the product development process
Quality of new products emphasized in
relation to cost or schedule objectives
Clarity of product specifications and
procedures
Extent to which implementation
/producibility is considered in the product
design process
Quality emphasis by sales, customer
service, marketing personnel
4) Product/service design
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
department
Very Low
Very
Low
low
low
Training in advanced statistical techniques 1
2
3
4
(such as design of experiments and
regression analysis) in the division as a
whole
Commitment of the divisional top
1
2
3
4
management to employee training
Availability of resources for employee
1
2
3
4
training in the division
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
3
1
Very
low
5
2
in your department
Low
Very Low
Very
low
low
1
2
3
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Low
Use of acceptance sampling to
accept/reject lots or batches of work
6) Process management/operating
procedures
5) Supplier quality management
(supplier of goods )
Extent to which suppliers are selected
based on quality rather than price or
schedule
Thoroughness of the supplier rating
system
Reliance on reasonably few dependable
suppliers
Amount of education of supplier by
division
Technical assistance provided to the
suppliers
Involvement of the supplier in the product
development process
Extent to which longer term relationships
are offered to suppliers
Clarity of specifications provided to
suppliers
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
department
Very Low
Very
Low
low
low
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Very
low
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
in your department
Low
Very Low
Very
low
low
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Low
7) Quality data and reporting
Availability of cost of quality data in the
division
Availability of quality data (error rates,
defect rates, scrap, defects, etc.)
Timeliness of the quality data
Amount of preventative equipment
maintenance
Extent to which inspection, review, or
checking of work is automated
Amount of incoming inspection, review,
or checking
Amount of in-process inspection, review,
or checking
Amount of final inspection, review, or
checking
Stability of production schedule/work
distribution
Degree of automation of the process
Extent to which process design is “foolproof” and minimizes the chances of
employee errors
Clarity of work or process instructions
given to employees
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
2
1
3
Very
low
5
department
Very Low
Very
Low
low
low
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
in your department
Low
Very Low
Very
low
low
1
2
3
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Low
Extent to which quality circle or employee
involvement type programs are
implemented in the division
Effectiveness of quality circle or
employee involvement type programs in
the division
Extent to which employees are held
responsible for error-free output
Amount of feedback provided to
employees on their quality performance
8) Employee relations
Extent to which quality data (cost of
quality, defects, errors, scrap, etc.) are
available to employees
Extent to which quality data are available
to managers and supervisors
Extent to which quality data are used to
evaluate supervisor and managerial
performance
Extent to which quality data, control
charts, etc., are displayed at employee
work stations
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
2
1
3
Very
low
5
department
Very Low
Very
Low
low
low
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
in your department
Low
Very Low
Very
low
low
1
2
3
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Low
Thank you for your time ☺
Degree of participation in quality
decisions by non-supervisory employees
Extent to which quality awareness
building among employees is ongoing
Extent to which employees are recognized
for superior quality performance
Effectiveness of supervisors in solving
problems/issues
2
2
1
1
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
4
2
1
3
Very
low
5
department
Very Low
Very
Low
low
low
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
in your department
Low
Very Low
Very
low
low
1
2
3
4
5
5
5
5
Low

Benchmarking of TQM

Transcription

Similar documents

Sample MBA SEM 4

Value of MHEDA PDF Brochure

Customer Experience (CX)

WMPA Low Carbon Delivery Plan - Sustainability West Midlands

Wireless LAN Experiments

How to Succeed in the Future Business Monograph

WHY Global Track Complete Apr 2013

open local government data