tqm & tpm implementation

5/24/2018 TQM & TPM Implementation

1/22

Relationship between TQM andTPM implementation factors and

business performance ofmanufacturing industry in Indian

contextDinesh Seth and Deepak Tripathi

National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai, India

Abstract

Purpose To study the strategic implications of TQM and TPM in an Indian manufacturing set-upand to detail literature reviews to highlight gap areas. To examine the relationship between factorsinfluencing the implementation of TQM and TPM and business performance for the following threeapproaches in an Indian context: TQM alone; TPM alone; both TQM and TPM together. This is doneto extract significant factors for the above three approaches.

Design/methodology/approach Empirical survey-based research on a sample size of 108manufacturing companies. Uses bivariate correlation and multiple regression analysis techniques toextract significant factors using SPSS.

Findings The research identifies two sets of factors which are critical for the effectiveness of TQMand TPM: universally significant factors for all the three approaches like leadership, processmanagement and strategic planning; and approach-specific factors like equipment management andfocus on customer satisfaction. The study also highlights the complexities involved in implementingTQM and TPM together.

Practical implications The emphasis on extracted factors will help companies in realizinggreater benefits through TQM and TPM. This study is equally important in a global context also, ascompanies across the globe are striving to achieve synergy of TQM and TPM.

Originality/value The preparedness/status of Indian manufacturing industry for TQM and TPMimplementation, as India is becoming a major sourcing base for the world and there is a paucity ofsuch studies. The study of TQM and TPM in all the three modes simultaneously has not beeninvestigated in the context of developing countries. Such studies are equally important in a globalcontext.

KeywordsTotal quality management, Productive maintenance, Operations management,Manufacturing industries, India

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionTo emerge as a leading manufacturing base for the world market, a tough competitionfrom global players is being faced by Indian manufacturing industry (Nandi, 1998;Sahayet al., 2000). Though efforts have been made to boost industrial development, yetmuch needs to be done by reducing costs, improving quality, offering more variety ofproducts with improved services (Chandra and Shastri, 1998). It was only in thebeginning of 1990s that Indian business captains realized the strategic implications ofquality and maintenance to improve performance. The two erstwhile shop floor entities

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm

IJQRM22,3

256

Received August 2003Revised January 2004

International Journal of Quality &

Reliability Management

Vol. 22 No. 3, 2005

pp. 256-277

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0265-671X

DOI 10.1108/02656710510582480
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisterhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htmhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htmhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister


2/22

were brought to the corporate boardroom through total quality management (TQM)and total productive maintenance (TPM). Now, both have acquired wide acceptance inindustry (Singh, 1991; Bhadury and Mandal, 1998; Umeda, 1996; Sahay et al., 2000).

These quality and maintenance improvement initiatives are the outcome of the need

to prohibit poor practices in the wake of customers giving preferences to qualitycompetitive products. Today, a strong middle class of about 300 million customers iswilling to pay a premium for quality, which the manufacturing industry cannot affordto overlook especially in presence of multinationals. The pressure to compete indomestic market and a zeal to become global sourcing base, has compelled Indianexecutives to start quality initiatives. This is also supported by certificationrequirements and institutionalization of quality awards like the Golden Peacock andRamakrishna Bajaj awards. Although, these awards are not as prestigious as Demingor Malcolm Baldrige awards, but have definitely created an environment ofconsciousness and competitiveness in Indian industry.

Like quality, on the maintenance front also, major initiatives have been taken

particularly after 1990s. Initially, due to protected and controlled economy, Indianexecutives did not pay much attention towards equipment related failures and losses.Maintenance was viewed as a reactive problem fixing and an operating expense to beminimized. But, the burgeoning pressure from customers to reduce costs, defects andlead time have forced management to pay attention towards maintenance and alliedissues through improvement drives like TPM. It is now clear to the Indian executivesthat TPM is not a waste, but an investment like TQM. It helps in zeroing down thedefectives and failures to ensure quality at reduced cost. This philosophy has gainedacceptance by transforming business and a few flagship companies like Sundramfasteners and Vikram Cement have even claimed prestigious JIPM TPM award. Thereason for increasing acceptance of both TQM and TPM also lies in the roots of Indianculture, which is attuned to slow and steady changes.

As both quality and maintenance go hand in hand in a manufacturing set up, TQMand TPM share many threads of commonalties like employee involvement,cross-functional approach and continuous improvement (Cooke, 2000). On the otherhand, TPM is considered as an application of TQM concepts to equipment, for zerobreakdowns and minimal production loss (Tajiri and Gotoh, 1992). These twocomplementary drives have been implemented together in many companies to leveragethe prowess of both. In Indian context, adoption of TQM and TPM can be found inthree modes i.e. TQM alone, TPM alone and combined mode. These modes are termedas approach in this paper.

The growing concern for improving the effectiveness of these drives in Indian contexthas created an urge for this type of research work. Though such studies have beencarried out in other countries for TQM (Choi and Eboch, 1998; Sohal and Terziovski,2000) and for TPM (Bamberet al., 1999), but simultaneous implementation of two driveshas not been adequately addressed through research. Therefore, this research isimportant from global perspective also. It aims to establish relationships betweenimplementation factors and business performance for each of the three approaches inIndian context. As both TQM and TPM have similar background, some factors areexpected to be common for the three approaches, while others may be approach specific.

The complexities involved in managing two drives together may justify emphasison some factors, which are otherwise not significant. The understanding of these

Relationshbetween TQ

and TP

25


3/22

factors becomes more important, when TQM and TPM are applied in tandem. Thistype of research work is highly significant not only in context of developing economieslike India, but to a large extent for other countries also.

Review of previous studiesA large number of studies are available on relationship between TQM practices andbusiness performance (Ismail and Ebrahimpour, 2002). These include development ofresearch frameworks to study the effects of TQM on business performance (Saraphet al., 1989; Anderson, 1994; Flynn et al., 1994; Ahire et al., 1996). Various recentresearches across the globe have also focused on identification of factors, which arecritical to the success of TQM (Anderson and Sohal, 1999; Corbett and Rastrick, 2000;Prabhu and Robson, 2000) in a country specific scenario. For example, Anderson andSohal (1999) carried out an empirical study to identify factors critical to the success ofTQM in Australian manufacturing industry. The study revealed the importance offactors like leadership, strong customer focus, quality systems and availability of

information. Raghunathan and Subba Rao (1999) also addressed the relationshipbetween TQM practices like leadership, strategic planning, human resourcemanagement and quality performance. Sun (2000) identified the importance ofleadership, information, strategy, human resources, processes, suppliers, and customerfocus for quality management practices in Shanghai and Norwegian companies.Similar studies were also carried out in different national frameworks (Forker, 1996;Choi and Eboch, 1998; Hendricks and Singhal, 2001).

Though TPM is relatively under-researched, but there are some studies reported onits implementation issues. These studies are related to the benchmarking ofimplementation practices to explore key areas (Ireland and Dale, 2001), identification ofcritical factors (Tsang, 2002) and strategies to support its implementation (Ben, 2000).The relationship of TPM with business performance has also been addressed in some

recent studies (Bamber et al., 1999; Cooke, 2000; Tsang and Chan, 2000). For example,Tsang and Chan (2000) revealed the importance of management leadership, employeeinvolvement, education and training, strategic planning and communication for TPMin Chinese setup. Cooke (2000) also identified top management support, alignment ofmanagement initiatives and change, employee training, autonomy to employees andcommunication as important factors for the success of TPM in a European context.

The studies on TQM in Indian context have not addressed the vital issue ofrelationship between implementation factors and business performance. These studiesmainly cover identification of quality management practices (Bhadury and Mandal,1998) and their benchmarking among Indian companies (Motwani et al., 1994). ThoughMohanty and Lakhe (2000) made efforts to identify critical factors for TQMimplementation based on five sub-sectors of manufacturing industry, but theirrelationship with performance was not studied. Further, until recently, only a fewstudies could be found on TPM implementation in Indian context. These studiesmainly address the overall scenario of TPM in industry (Majumdar, 1999), issuespertaining to implementation (Chandra and Krishna, 1998) and company specific casestudies (Narang, 1992). The complementary nature of TQM and TPM as emphasizedby experts (Dale, 1999) is being practised in many companies to achieve synergy(Patterson et al., 1996; Mathew et al., 2002). However, this aspect is not researched indetail except for few studies (McKone et al., 1999).

IJQRM22,3

258


4/22

Therefore, an empirical study on these issues in Indian context is consideredimportant. It not only contributes in improving the effectiveness of two drives, but alsoaddresses a vital but under-researched area.

Research framework and methodologyThe research framework developed and used for this study is presented in Figure 1.This framework explains the relationships between implementation factors andperformance parameters for TQM, TPM and combined approach. The objective is toextract those factors for each approach, which significantly contribute to improvementin performance.

The two basic inputs required for this research are implementation factors(independent variables) and parameters of performance (dependent variables). Theimplementation factors have been identified with the help of factor analysis on 11dimensions. These dimensions are cohesive groups of various implementation issuesof TQM and TPM. The six operating performance parameters are considered in the

study. Both dimensions and performance parameters form the part of questionnaire asshown in the Appendix.

FigureThe research framew


and TP

25


5/22

Identification of dimensions and performance parametersAn extensive literature review has been carried out to identify all such issues, which have abearing on effectiveness of TQM and TPM. The major TQM and TPM awards likeMalcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA), European Quality Award (EQA),

JIPM TPM and Deming Prize were also considered. These awards follow models of TQMand TPM. Based on comprehensive review of literature, 11 dimensions have been identified.

(1) Focus on customer satisfaction.

(2) Leadership for improvement.

(3) Strategic planning for improvement.

(4) Human resource management.

(5) Education and training.

(6) Information architecture.

(7) Performance measurement system.

(8) Materials management.(9) Equipment management.

(10) Process management.

(11) Management of financial resources.

The management of resources is considered important for the success of TQM andTPM. The resources are divided in three categories:

(1) Materials.

(2) Equipment.

(3) Finances.

This division is quite logical as both TQM and TPM are centered on management ofprocesses. The effective management of these is emphasized in criteria of EuropeanQuality Award, Deming Prize and JIPM TPM award (Benham and Joao, 1994; Zink,1998) and is also supported by literature. The description of each dimension withsupporting literature is presented in Table I.

The effect of TQM and TPM can be on both external performance realized throughproducts and services to customers and on internal environment performance. The sixparameters have been considered for the study, which include productivity (P), quality(Q), cost (C), delivery (D) as external parameters and safety and hygiene (S) and employeemorale (M) as internal environment parameters. These internal parameters are viewed asimportant outcome of TQM and TPM implementation (Nakajima, 1988; Steinbatcher andSteinbatcher, 1993; Ahire and Rana, 1995; Forker, 1996). The improvement in these

parameters is assessed with the help of 16 indicators as given in the Appendix.

Survey questionnaire and respondent profileThe questionnaire used for this study incorporates 11 dimensions of implementationand six performance parameters as discussed above. The questions framed are basedon five points scale ranging from 1 to 5. Each dimension and performance parameter istaken as a group of many related items as given in the Appendix. The domain of thestudy is restricted to manufacturing industry only. A list of 460 companies practising

IJQRM22,3

260


6/22

Dimension

Description

Literaturesupportingimportancein

TQM


TPM

1.Focusoncustomer

satisfaction

Knowledgeofcurrentandemerging

customerrequirementsand

expectations.Effectivecustomer

relationshipandensuringcustomer

satisfaction

Crosby(1979);JuranandGry

na(1980);

Oakland(1989);Feigenbaum

(1991);

Raghunathanetal.(1997);Zh

angetal.

(2000)

Nakajima(1988);Suzuki(1994);

RobinsonandGrinder(1995)

2.Leadershipfor

improvement

Seniormanagementspersonal

involvement,guidance,support

and

settingdirectionforimprovement

efforts

Crosby(1979);Oakland(1989

);

Feigenbaum(1991);Johnson(1993);

Raghunathanetal.(1997);Zh

angetal.

(2000)

TakahashiandOsada(1989);

SteinbatcherandSteinbatcher(1993);

Cooke(2000);TsangandC

han(2000);

Yamashina(2000)

3.Strategicplanningfor

improvement

Thewayacompanysetsstrategic

directionstostrengthenitsbusiness

performanceandcompetitivepo

sition

Soin(1993);Logothetis(1997);

Raghunathanetal.(1997);Su

n(2000);

Zhangetal.(2000)

TakahashiandOsada(1989);Tajiri

andGotoh(1992);Robinso

nand

Grinder(1995)

4.Humanresource

management

Ensuringemployeescontributio

nto

achievecompanysperformance

throughworkdesign,compensa

tion,

recognitionanddevelopmentof

employees.Italsoincludesteam

work,

groupproblem-solvingactivities,

decentralizationofdecisionmak

ing

andparticipatoryworkculture

Crosby(1979);Saraphetal.(1989);

KanjiandAsher(1993);Flynnetal.

(1994);BlackandPorter(1996);Sun

(2000)


Yamashina(2000);Tsang

andChan

(2000)

5.Educationandtrainin

g

Traininginsmallgroupproblem

solving,communication,

toolsand

techniquesofTQMandTPMinc

luding

on-the-jobtraining

LeonardandSasser(1982);O

akland

(1989);Flynnetal.(1994);Punnand

Chin(1999)

TakahashiandOsada(198

9);Maggard

andRhyne(1992);Suzuki(1994);Cooke

(2000);TsangandChan(2

000)

6.Informationarchitectu

re

Companysselection,management,and

useofinternalandexternal

informationanddataneededto

supportkeyprocesses,actionplans

andperformanceimprovement

Saraphetal.(1989);Hartand

Bogan

(1992);Sun(2000)

RobinsonandGrinder(199

5);Patterson

etal.(1996);Cooke(2000)

(continued)

TablThe 11 dimensions

literature supporttheir importance in T

and T


and TP

26


7/22

Dimension

Description


TQM


TPM

7.Performance

measurementsystem

Providesanunderstandingofth

esize

oftheissuesandareasdemanding

attention.

Aneffectiveperforma

nce

measurementsystemprovidesa

base

andsetsdirectionforimprovem

entin

productsandprocesses

Crosby(1979);Feigenbaum(1991);Dale

andPluncket(1995);Khelada

(1996);

AndersonandSohal(1999)

Nakajima(1989);TakahashiandOsada

(1989);Wireman(1986);Su

zuki(1994)

8.Materialsmanagemen

t

Thewayacompanydevelopssupplier

relationshipsinlinewithTQMand

TPMpoliciesandstrategies,improves

thesupplychain,optimizesinventory

andreducesconsumptionofutilities

Ishikawa(1985);Saraphetal.(1989);

Flynnetal.(1994)


Yamashina(2000)

9.Equipmentmanagement

Relatestomaintenanceandplanningof

equipment.Itiscriticalforqualityand

productivityofprocesses

Shingo(1986);Feigenbaum(1991);

Garvin(1991);Zink(1998)

Nakajima(1988);TakahashiandOsada

(1989);TajiriandGotoh(1

992);Suzuki

(1994)

10.

Processmanagement

Thewayproductsandservices

includingproduction/delivery

processesaredesigned,

implemented

andimproved

Shingo(1986);Oakland(1989

);

Feigenbaum(1991);Flynnet

al.(1994);

Sun(2000);Zhangetal.(2000

)

Suzuki(1994);RobinsonandGrinder

(1995);Yamashina(2000)

11.

Managementoffinancial

resources

Includesuseoffinancialsuppor

tto

implementpolicy,

includingallo

cation

ofresourcestoreinforceTQMa

nd

TPM

HartandBogan(1992);Khela

da(1996);

Zink(1998)

Suzuki(1994);RobinsonandGrinder

(1995)

Table I.

IJQRM22,3

262


8/22

TQM and TPM was prepared based on the information made available from authenticsources like Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Indian Merchant Chambers (IMC),Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries (FICCI), TPM Club of Indiaand Automobile Manufacturers Association of India (AMAI). These business

chambers follow models based on leading awards criteria for monitoring theimplementation of TQM and TPM in their member companies. Therefore, theresponding companies are expected to follow one or more of these models. The surveyresulted in obtaining 121 responses, out of which 58 have implemented only TQM, 22only TPM and 28 both TQM and TPM combined. The remaining 13 respondentsreplied partially and were therefore excluded from the study.

Tests of reliability, validity and identification of factorsTest for reliability of instrument: internal consistency methodTest of reliability on a measurement instrument is carried out to determine its ability toyield consistent measurements. Internal consistency reliability is the most commonly

used psychometric measures in assessing survey instrument and scales (Zhang et al.,2000). Cronbach alpha (a) is the basic formula for determining the reliability based oninternal consistency. The values of alpha (a) obtained for 11 dimensions are 0.901,0.874, 0.904, 0.875, 0.869, 0.856, 0.786, 0.868, 0.927, 0.858 and 0.753. The value of alphafor each dimension is much higher than minimum acceptance level of 0.6 Nunnally(1978). Thus, all the 11 dimensions are accepted for reliability.

Test for content validityContent validity represents the adequacy with which a specific domain of content hasbeen sampled, in other words whether the instrument is truly a comprehensivemeasure of area under study. Its determination is subjective and judgmental (Nunnally,1978). The questionnaire is based on extensive literature survey, considering major

award criteria and opinions of experts and, hence, it demonstrates content validity.

Test for construct validity: factor analysisConstruct validity measures the extent to which the items in a scale measure the sameconstruct. It is established with the help of principal component factor analysis andvarimax rotation technique. The factor analysis was carried out for each scaleindividually to examine the construct validity. The scale wise factor analysis was alsoadopted during development of earlier quality management measurement instruments(Flynn et al., 1994; Zhang et al., 2000). The factors with eigenvalues of more than 1.0only have been retained. All factors with eigenvalues less than 1.0 are consideredinsignificant and hence dropped.

The analysis resulted in extraction of one factor for each dimension, except forhuman resource management, where two factors were obtained. The principalcomponent method could not come out with clear assignment of variables to eitherfactor. Therefore, varimax rotation technique was used for extraction of factors. Thetwo factors extracted from human resource management are named as employeeinvolvement and empowerment (items 1, 2, 3 and 4 of human resource managementscale) and organizational system and human development (items 5, 6, 7 and 8 of humanresource management scale). The summary of factor analysis on all dimensions alongwith factor loadings is shown in Table II.


and TP

26


9/22

Av

erage

loading

Eigen

value

Factorloadingsofitems

Sr.No

Dimensions/factors

No.of

factors

Factor1

Factor2

Item#1

Item#2

Item#3

Item#4

Item#5

Item#6

Item#7

Item#8

Item#9

1

Focusoncustomer

satisfaction[CS]

1

0.837

4.049

0.781

0.8110

.842

0.824

0.830

0.839

2

Leadershipforimprovement[L]

1

0.787

3.722

0.813

0.8030

.817

0.782

0.793

0.714

3

Strategicplanning[SP]

1

0.750

2.896

0.716

0.7210

.813

4

Humanresourcemanagement

2

Employeeinvolvem

entand

empowerment[EE]

(factor1)

0.723

3.766

0.915

0.9250

.473

0.582

Organizationsystemandhuman

development[OS](factor2)

0.807

2.425

0.684

0.719

0.872

0.871

0.869

5

Education&training[ET]

1

0.901

2.438

0.916

0.8950

.893

6

Informationarchite

cture[IA]

1

0.883

2.344

0.859

0.9060

.886

7

Performancemeasu

rementsystem

[PM]

1

0.832

2.088

0.774

0.8160

.907

8

Materialsmanagem

ent[MM]

1

0.890

2.377

0.876

0.9020

.892

9

Equipmentmanage

ment[EM]

1

0.861

4.461

0.889

0.8970

.868

0.835

0.820

0.862

10

Processmanagement[PRM]

1

0.887

2.366

0.860

0.8910

.912

11

Managementoffinancialresources

[FM]

1

0.894

2.403

0.905

0.9340

.844

Note:Theitems#mentionedaregenericinnatureandactuallyaredifferentforeachfactorordim

ension

Table II.Twelve extracted factorsfrom 11 dimensions andtheir factor loadings

IJQRM22,3

264


10/22

The 12 factors are:

(1) Focus on customer satisfaction (CS).

(2) Leadership for improvement (L).

(3) Strategic planning for improvement (SP).(4) Employee involvement and empowerment (EE).

(5) Organization systems and human development (OS).

(6) Education and training (ET).

(7) Information architecture (IA).

(8) Performance measurement system (PM).

(9) Materials management (MM).

(10) Equipment management (EM).

(11) Process management (PRM).

(12) Management of financial resources (FM).

Hypotheses formulatedThe factors among those identified are expected to have significant relationships withperformance parameters for each improvement approach. The significance of theserelationships needs to be examined in Indian context. Following hypotheses areformulated for this purpose.

H1. There will be significant relationships between TQM factors and performanceparameters.

H2. There will be significant relationships between TPM factors and performanceparameters.

H3. There will be significant relationships between factors and performanceparameters in combined approach.

The analysis for extraction of significant factors is carried out in three parts i.e. forTQM, for TPM and for combined approach.

Analysis and resultsIn order to establish relationships between performance parameters (dependentvariables) and factors of implementation (independent variables), bivariate correlationand multiple regression techniques are used. The objective has been to extract thosefactors, which are significantly associated with parameters of performance. Theanalysis is carried out separately for TQM, TPM and combined approach. As an initialstep, the bivariate correlation values are calculated to find the level of inter correlationamong independent variables (factors). The high inter correlations betweenindependent variables create a problem of multi-collinearity and this affects theresults of multiple regression analysis. In order to reduce this effect one or more factorswith high correlation values have been omitted from regression analysis (Hair et al.,1992).


and TP

26


11/22

Bivariate correlation values are calculated between factors and performanceparameters to determine the strength of relationship between the two. A 5 per centsignificance level (p 0:05) is considered to test significance of correlation. The resultsare explained later in this section for each improvement approach separately. Further,

multiple regression analysis is carried out to extract those factors, which aresignificantly associated to each of the performance parameters. SPSS 10.0 and Excel2000 software are used for carrying out statistical analysis

The notations used and their meanings are given below:

r Pearson correlation coefficient

b Regression coefficient (beta coefficient)

R Multiple correlation coefficient

Results for TQM

Simple correlation between factors and performance parameters is used for judgment.The correlation coefficients (r) are found to be high and significant atp 0:05 in mostof the cases. This indicates that most factors are significantly related to improvementin performance parameters and hypothesis H1 is proved to be partially true. Thecorrelation values (significant at p 0:05) are shown below for each dependentvariable.

. Productivity [P] CS (0.805), PRM (0.808), SP (0.723), L (0.641)

. Quality [Q] L (0.802), SP (0.724), PRM (0.769), CS (0.693)

. Cost [C] SP (0.761), ET (0.701), OS (0 .685)

. Delivery [D] EE (0.715), ET (0.712), L (0.684)

. Safety and hygiene[S] ET (0.751), OS (0.640), IA (0.593)

. Employee morale [M] CS (0.741), SP (0.537).

The results of multiple regression analysis are shown in Table III. The significantfactors with (b) significance level,R, andFvalues for each performance parameter aregiven. The results imply that focus on customer satisfaction (CS) is found to havesignificant association with improvement in productivity (P) and employee morale (M).

Performance parameters Significant factors Beta valueb tvalueSignificance

(pvalue) Rvalue Fvalue

Productivity (P) CS 0.475 2.675 0.015 0.847 25.419PRM 0.431 2.414 0.025

Quality (Q) L 0.456 4.494 0.001 0.982 32.935SP 0.438 5.454 0.001

PRM 0.887 5.942 0.001Cost (C) SP 0.730 3.930 0.001 0.867 19.205Delivery (D) EE 0.485 3.136 0.005 0.917 52.830

ET 0.527 3.082 0.006Safety and hygiene (S) ET 0.851 7.433 0.001 0.851 25.252Employee morale (M) CS 0.471 2.499 0.021 0.879 23.943

SP 0.450 2.387 0.027

Table III.Results of multipleregression betweenperformance parametersand factors in TQM

IJQRM22,3

266


12/22

The process management (PRM) is associated with improvement in both productivity(P) and quality (Q). Leadership for improvement (L) is another important factor, whichis significant for quality performance (Q) of the companies. Other significant factorsare strategic planning (SP), employee involvement and empowerment (EE) and

education and training (ET).

Results for TPMThe correlation co-efficient (r) between factors and performance parameters for TPMare given below. Only those factors are indicated for which thervalues are significantat p 0:05. The correlation coefficients (r) are shown in parentheses next to eachindependent variable:

. Productivity [P] L (0.847); SP (0.779); IA (0.675); EM (0.656); PRM (0.783)

. Quality [Q] L (0.619); EE (0.643); EM (0.645); PRM (0.627)

. Cost [C] L (0.577); SP (0.724)

.

Delivery [D] L (0.665); SP (0.723); OS (0.582); ET (0.609); IA (0.705). Safety and hygiene [S] ET (0.777); IA (0.812)

. Employee morale [M] L (0.564), ET (0.612).

The correlation values indicate that leadership for improvement (L) has highestrelationships with improvement in productivity (r 0:847), quality (r 0:619), cost(r 0:577), delivery (r 0:665) and employee morale (r 0:564). Similarly, strategicplanning (SP) is strongly correlated with productivity (r 0:779), cost (r 0:724) anddelivery (r 0:723) parameters. Equipment management (EM) is also strongly relatedwith productivity (r 0:656) and quality (r 0:645). Other variables with significantcorrelations are information architecture (IA), process management (PM), employeeinvolvement and empowerment (EE), education and training (ET) and organizationsystems and human development (OS). Therefore,H2is partially proved as some of thefactors have significant relationship with performance parameters.

The results of multiple regression analysis are shown in Table IV. The results implythat leadership for improvement (L) and process management (PRM) are significant forproductivity (P). The association of equipment management (EM) for quality (Q),strategic planning for cost (C) and delivery performance (D) and leadership forimprovement (L) for employee morale (M) is also explained. The other significantfactors are information architecture (IA) and education and training (ET).

Performance parametersSignificant

factorsBeta value

b tvalueSignificance

(p value) Rvalue Fvalue

Productivity (P) L 0.607 4.402 0.001 0.943 35.993PRM 0.479 3.138 0.005

Quality (Q) EM 0.640 2.410 0.024 0.645 7.112Cost (C) SP 0.724 3.317 0.008 0.724 11.01Delivery (D) SP 0.723 3.310 0.008 0.723 10.995Safety and hygiene (S) IA 0.812 4.407 0.001 0.812 19.421

ET 0.672 3.220 0.011Employee morale (M) L 0.532 3.210 0.012 0.689 12.221

Table Results of multregression betw

performance parameand factors in T


and TP

26


13/22

Results for combined approachThe combined approach involves intermingling of both TQM and TPM and thiscreates many complexities in implementation. These complexities arise due to bothsimilarities and differences between the two drives, which are required to be managed

enterprise-wide. Therefore, it is expected that some factors significant for combinedapproach may be different from that of TQM and TPM alone.

The correlations coefficient (r) values between dependent and independentvariables, which are statistically significant (at p 0:05) are given below:

. Productivity (P) CS (0.582); L (0.611); SP (0.661); ET (0.536)

. Quality (Q) CS (.609); L (.614); SP (.604); IA (0.751)

. Cost (C) CS (0.450); EM (0.580)

. Delivery (D) EM (0.581); PRM (0.598)

. Safety and hygiene (S) L (0.603)

. Employee morale (M) CS (0.654); L (0.561).

The values indicate that many of the factors have significant correlation withperformance parameters. This implies that H3 is partially proved.

Table V shows the significant factors for combined approach. The resultsindicate that the importance of leadership for improvement (L), strategic planning(SP), process management (PRM), education and training (ET) and informationarchitecture (IA) is again established in Combined approach. These factors are alsofound to be associated with performance parameters in TQM and TPM. Inaddition, performance measurement system (PM) is also significant in combinedapproach.

A comparative analysis of significance of factors for three approaches shows thatthese factors can be grouped in two categories.

(1) Factors universally significant to all three improvement approaches:. leadership for improvement;. strategic planning;. process management; and

. education and training.

Performance parameters Significant factors Beta valueb tvalueSignificance

(pvalue) Rvalue Fvalue

Productivity (P) SP 0.910 2.710 0.015 0.768 4.80ET 0.491 4.560 0.002

Quality (Q) IA 0.930 4.060 0.004 0.812 4.06Cost (C) L 0.760 2.370 0.016 0.768 6.00

PRM 0.453 2.890 0.017Delivery (D) PRM 0.930 7.390 0.001 0.826 5.27

PM 0.496 2.510 0.013Safety and hygiene (S) L 0.971 4.560 0.002 0.812 6.940Employee morale (M) L 0.858 3.810 0.005 0.754 7.29

Table V.Results of multipleregression betweenperformance parametersand factors in combinedapproach

IJQRM22,3

268


14/22

(2) Factors important to specific improvement approach:

. information architecture for TPM and combined approach;

. equipment management for TPM;

.

focus on customer satisfaction and employee involvement andempowerment for TQM; and

. performance measurement system for Combined approach.

Interpretation and conclusionThe statistical analysis has resulted in extraction of factors, which are grouped in twocategories. The first category includes factors, which are universally significant forperformance in Indian context irrespective of the approach adopted. These areleadership for improvement, strategic planning, process management and educationand training. The second category includes approach specific factors, which are

equipment management for TPM and focus on customer satisfaction as well asemployee involvement and empowerment for TQM. The performance managementsystem comes out to be significant for combined approach, whereas informationarchitecture is critical for both TPM and combined approach.

The importance of leadership for TQM and TPM in Indian context is unquestioneddue to realities of domestic business environment. The companies in India, bothprofessionally managed and family owned business houses, still epitomize thebureaucratic and top down management process. On the other hand, changingenvironment to suit TQM and TPM is far more challenging in public sectorundertakings, where apart from normal business constraints, managers deal withstiffer government control, large and unwieldy operations, wary unions and bleedingbottom lines. The status conscious and hierarchy bound middle level executives

lacking initiatives is also a bottleneck to improvement process. Therefore, a strongleadership is essential to change the mindset of people, especially about quality andmaintenance.

The significance of strategic planning is also justified in view of the many top levelmanagers still acting as companys grand strategists and resource allocators, withoutformal planning and involvement of people. The role of frontline managers is limited toimplementation of what comes from the top. The effective implementation ofimprovement drives requires a change of this mindset, which Indian companies haveinherited from hierarchical and bureaucratic roots of government owned companiesand paternalism oriented family groups.

Education and training addresses the requirements of continuous improvement,which is key to both the drives. In most Indian companies, training is still treated asluxury. The top management views the training expense as a symbol of modernitywhile employees treat the programmes as the next best thing to a paid vacation. Thelower literacy level of workforce makes the role of education and training all the moreimportant in Indian context.

Both TQM and TPM are process centric and emphasize on business processescutting across the organization. In India, however, the trend has largely been opposite.We have still not recognized the dynamics of process based approach, and have fallenvictim of managerial myopia, stifling bureaucracy and compartmentalization of


and TP

26


15/22

divisions. A shift to management of processes built around these improvement drivesis essential.

The information architecture provides necessary infrastructure to facilitatedecisions in right direction. Traditionally, Indians are not data savvy and rely on

past experience. It is difficult to get maintenance data logging records even withleading companies. This neglect of equipment management based on inadequateinformation system has resulted in poor reliability and availability. Therefore,significance of information architecture for implementation of TPM in Indian industryis rightly emphasized. In case of combined approach also, the complexities involved indiffusing two drives together in organizations, require effective informationarchitecture for management.

Equipment management is the core of TPM and, therefore, its significance in TPMis rightly justified. This is especially true in Indian context, where maintenance isconsidered an expenditure and not an investment. Till 1990s, the implications ofequipment failures, setup and adjustment losses, speed drops on account of idling and

stoppages were not understood. This neglect of maintenance with relatively inferiorstatus of equipment and physical infrastructure in Indian companies, make equipmentmanagement critical to success of TPM.

The importance of focus on customer satisfaction for TQM is quite obvious becauseany improvement activity under TQM starts from customer viewpoint. In India, welived by a philosophy where we produced what we wanted and the market wouldabsorb it. With this myth, the entire focus of the business was on push and not onpull. A sudden move from regulated environment to a competitive buyers marketmade Indian companies aware of the urgency to focus on the real meaning of customersatisfaction. Within country, a shift from joint family to nuclear family and increase indisposable income, have raised a demand for quality competitive products and service,even at a premium. On international front, the image of Indian products continues to be

associated with expectations of low price and low value comparable to their Westerncounterparts. A strong focus on customer satisfaction will help companies to unshacklethemselves from the constraints of ingrained customer expectations

A strong focus on employee involvement is critical to TQM in India, wherecompanies are characterized with bureaucratic, function based and individualistic workculture. Recognizing the diversity of human skills, their creativity and entrepreneurshipto capture these valuable human attributes will reinforce TQM efforts.

The high complexity in managing two improvement drives together as combinedapproach, justifies the significance of performance measurement system. Indiancompanies lack well designed performance indicators at various levels to supportpolicies, objectives and cross-functional processes. The synergy of TQM and TPMnecessitates developing indicators to effectively align the two drives together towardscorporate goals.

This research paper identifies factors, which are significant to TQM and TPM, bothwhen implemented individually and in tandem as combined approach. The emphasison these factors in the right context can help Indian companies in realizing greaterbenefits through such improvement strategies. As many companies across the globeare striving to achieve synergy of TQM and TPM, this study can be of immenseimportance to them also. This research work, therefore, makes a valuable contributionfor both academicians and practitioners in Indian and global context.

IJQRM22,3

270


16/22

The study has opened many research avenues on the interfacial aspects of TQMand TPM. This area has largely remained under researched. The present study hasconsidered manufacturing industry as a whole. Sector-wise studies can also beundertaken to extend knowledge base in this field. This will further improve the

understanding of sector specific dynamics of TQM and TPM issues. Similarly,intensive case studies can be carried out on various modes of TQM and TPMimplementation. The outcome of such studies will definitely be valuable to both Indianand global practitioners, who want to focus attention on manufacturing centricimprovement drives.

References

Ahire, S.L. and Rana, D.S. (1995), TQM pilot projects selection using an MCDM approach,International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 61-81.

Ahire, S.L., Landeros, R. and Goldhar, Y.D. (1996), Total quality management: a literaturereview and agenda for future research, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 4

No. 3, pp. 277-306.Anderson, J.C. (1994), A theory of quality management underlying the Deming management

method, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 472-509.

Anderson, M. and Sohal, A.S. (1999), A study of the relationship between quality managementpractices and performance in small businesses, International Journal of Quality &

Reliability Management, Vol. 16 No. 9, pp. 859-77.

Bamber, C.J., Sharp, J.M. and Hides, M.T. (1999), Factors affecting successful implementation oftotal productive maintenance: a UK-based case study perspective, Journal of Quality in

Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 162-81.

Behnam, N. and Joao, S.N. (1994), The Deming, Baldrige and European Quality Awards,Quality Progress, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 33-7.

Ben, D.M. (2000), You may need RCM to enhance TPM implementation, Journal of Quality inMaintenance Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 82-5.

Bhadury, B. and Mandal, P. (1998), Adoption of quality management concepts amongst Indianmanufacturers, Productivity, Vol. 39 No. 3.

Black, S.A. and Porter, L.J. (1996), Identification of critical factors of TQM, Decision Sciences,Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-21.

Chandra, P. and Shastri, T. (1998), Competitiveness of Indian manufacturing: findings of the1997 Manufacturing Futures Survey, Vikalpa, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 25-36.

Chandra, S. and Krishna, M.G. (1998), TPM implementation in Indian industry, IndianManagement, Vol. 37 No. 3.

Choi, T.Y. and Eboch, K. (1998), The TQM paradox: relations among TQM practices, plantperformance and customer satisfaction, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17,

pp. 59-75.Cooke, F.L. (2000), Implementing TPM in plant maintenance: some organizational barriers,

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 1003-16.

Corbett, L.M. and Rastrick, K.N. (2000), Quality performance and organization culture: a NewZealand study,International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 1,pp. 14-26.

Crosby, P.B. (1979), Quality Is Free, New American Library, New York, NY.

Dale, B.G. (1999), Managing Quality, Blackwell Publishers Inc., Malden, MA.


and TP

27


17/22

Dale, B.G. and Pluncket, J.J. (1995), Quality Costing, 2nd ed., Chapman & Hall, London.

Feigenbaum, A.V. (1991), Total Quality Control, 3rd ed., International edition, McGraw-Hill,New York, NY.

Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. (1994), A framework for quality managementresearch and an associated measurement instrument,Journal of Operations Management,Vol. 11, pp. 339-66.

Forker, L.B. (1996), The contribution of quality to business performance,International Journalof Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 44-62.

Garvin, D.A. (1991), How the Baldrige Award really works, Harward Business Review,November-December, pp. 80-95.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E. and Tathem, R.L. (1992), Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings,Macmillan, New York, NY.

Hart, C.W.L. and Bogan, C.E. (1992), The Baldrige, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Hendricks, K.B. and Singhal, V.R. (2001), Firm characteristics, total quality management and

financial performance, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19, pp. 269-85.Ireland, F. and Dale, B.G. (2001), A study of total productive maintenance implementation,

Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 183-92.

Ishikawa, K. (1985),What Is Total Quality Control? The Japanase Way , Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

Ismail, S. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2002), An investigation of the total quality managementsurvey-based research published between 1989 and 2000 a literature review,

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 902-70.

Johnson, R.S. (1993), TQM: leadership for quality transformation, Quality Progress, Vol. 26No. 4, pp. 47-9.

Juran, J.F. and Gryna, F.M. (1980), Quality Planning and Analysis: From Product Development

through Use, TMH ed., Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Ltd, New Delhi.Kanji, G.K. and Asher, M. (1993), Total Quality Management Process: A Systematic Approach,

Advances in Total Quality Management Series, Carfex, Abingdon.

Khelada, J.N. (1996),Integrating TQM with Reengineering, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.

Leonard, F.S. and Sasser, W.E. (1982), The incline of quality, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 60,pp. 163-71.

Logothetis, N. (1997), Managing for Total Quality: From Deming to Taguchi and SPC,Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

McKone, K.E., Schroeder, R.G. and Cua, K.O. (1999), Total productive maintenance: a contextualview, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17, pp. 123-4.

Maggard, B.N. and Rhyne, D.M. (1992), Total productive maintenance: a timely integration of

production and maintenance: case of Tennessee Eastman, Production & InventoryManagement Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4.

Majumdar, N. (1999), TPM INC, Business Today, New Delhi.

Mathew, T., Seth, D. and Tripathi, D. (2002), Performance improvement through transfusion ofTQM and TPM in Indian manufacturing industry, Industrial Engineering Journal, Vol. 31No. 7.

Mohanty, R.P. and Lakhe, R.R. (2000),Handbook of Total Quality Management, Jaico PublishingHouse, Mumbai.

IJQRM22,3

272


18/22

Motwani, J.G., Mahmoud, E. and Rice, G. (1994), Quality practices of Indian organizations:an empirical analysis,International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11No. 1, pp. 38-52.

Nakajima, S. (1988), Total Productive Maintenance, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.

Nakajima, S. (1989), TPM Development Program, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.

Nandi, S.N. (1998), Contribution in Implementing Quality Management in Asian and PacificFirms, Asian Productivity Organization Publications, Tokyo, pp. 148-83.

Narang, G.S. (1992), Total productive maintenance for profit, Industrial Engineering Journal,Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 5-9.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978),Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Oakland, J.S. (1989), Total Quality Management, Heinemann, London.

Patterson, J.W., Fredendall, L.D., Kennedy, W.J. and McGee, A. (1996), Adapting totalproductive maintenance to Asten, Inc., Production and Inventory Management Journal,4th qtr, pp. 32-6.

Prabhu, V.B. and Robson, A. (2000), Impact of leadership and senior management commitment

on business excellence: an empirical study in north east of England, Total QualityManagement, Vol. 11 No. 4-6, pp. 399-409.

Punn, K.F. and Chin, K.S. (1999), Bridging the needs and provisions of quality education andtraining: an empirical study in Hong Kong industries,International Journal of Quality &

Reliability Management., Vol. 16 No. 9, pp. 792-810.

Raghunathan, T.S. and Subba Rao, S. (1999), A regional study of quality managementinfrastructure practices in USA and Mexico,International Journal of Quality & Reliability

Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 597-613.

Raghunathan, T.S., Subba Rao, S. and Solis, L.E. (1997), A comparative study of qualitypractices :USA, China and India, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 97 No. 5,pp. 192-200.

Robinson, C.J. and Grinder, A.P. (1995), Implementing TPM: The North American Experience,Productivity Press, Portland, OR.

Sahay, B.S., Saxena, K.B.C. and Kumar, A. (2000), World Class Manufacturing A StrategicPerspective, Macmillan India Limited, New Delhi.

Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. and Schroeder, R.G. (1989), An instrument for measuring the criticalfactors of quality management,Decision Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 810-29.

Shingo, S. (1986), Zero Quality Control-Source Inspection and Poka Yoke Systems , ProductivityPress, Stanford.

Singh, A. (1991), Total quality management: concepts and practice in India,Productivity, Vol. 32No. 3, pp. 393-9.

Sohal, A.S. and Terziovski, M. (2000), TQM in Australian manufacturing: factors critical tosuccess, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 2,

pp. 158-68.

Soin, S.S. (1993), Total Quality Control Essentials: Key Elements, Methodologies and Managingfor Success, Industrial Engineering Series, McGraw-Hill International, New York, NY.

Steinbatcher, H.R. and Steinbatcher, N.L. (1993), TPM for America, What it Is and Why You Need It,Productivity Press, Portland, OR.

Sun, H. (2000), A comparison of quality management practices in Shanghai and Norwegiancompanies, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 6,pp. 636-50.


and TP

27


19/22

Suzuki, T. (1994), TPM in Process Industries, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.

Tajiri, M. and Gotoh, F. (1992), TPM Implementation: A Japanese Approach, McGraw-Hill,New York, NY.

Takahashi, Y. and Osada, T. (1989), Total Productive Maintenance, Productivity Press,Cambridge, MA.

Tsang, A.H.C. (2002), Strategic dimensions of maintenance management, Journal of Quality inMaintenance Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 7-39.

Tsang, A.H.C. and Chan, P.K. (2000), TPM implementation in China: a case study,InternationalJournal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 144-57.

Umeda, T. (1996), TQM Practices in Asia Pacific Firms, Asian Productivity OrganizationPublications, Tokyo.

Wireman, T. (1986), Computerized Maintenance Management Systems, Industrial Press Inc., NewYork, NY.

Yamashina, H. (2000), Challenge to world class manufacturing, International Journal of Quality& Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 132-43.

Zhang, Z., Waszink, A. and Wijngaard, J. (2000), An instrument for measuring TQMimplementation for Chinese manufacturing companies,International Journal of Quality &

Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 730-55.

Zink, K.J. (1998),Total Quality Management as a Holistic Management Concept, Springer, Berlin.

Further reading

Lee, F.C. (2000), Business and Financial Statistics Using Minitab 12 and Microsoft Excel 97,World Scientific Publishing Co. Pvt Ltd, Singapore.

Appendix. Performance parametersFive point rating scale (1 No improvement; 2 Very little improvement; 3 Considerableimprovement; 4 Large improvement; 5 Very large improvement).

Productivity (P)

(1) Improvement in labour productivity.

(2) Improvement in value added per employee.

(3) Improvement in production capacity.

Quality (Q)

(4) Reduction in defects during process.

(5) Reduction in defects in final product.(6) Reduction in claims from customer.

Cost (C)

(7) Reduction in cost of production.

(8) Reduction in cost of manpower.

(9) Reduction in total cost of supply chain (supplier to customer).

IJQRM22,3

274


20/22

Delivery (D)

(10) Reduction in total cycle time (from order to delivery).

(11) Improvement in inventory turnover (reduction in inventory).

(12) Improvement in meeting delivery schedules in time.

Safety and hygiene (S)

(13) Reduction in accidents and safety failures.

(14) Improvement in level of pollution and hygiene conditions.

Employee morale (M)

(15) Improvement in improvement ideas and employee suggestions.

(16) Increase in small group meetings and employee involvement.

Implementation dimensionsFive point rating scale (1 No emphasis; 2 Very little emphasis; 3 Considerable emphasis;4 Strong emphasis; and 5 Very strong emphasis).

A: Customer focus and satisfaction

(1) Making use of customer feedback and analysis to understand quality, cost and deliveryrequirements of the customer.

(2) Anticipating customer requirements well in advance.

(3) Systematic monitoring and evaluation of customer satisfaction.

(4) Empowerment of employees to anticipate customer needs and take action to satisfythem.

(5) Integration of all areas like manufacturing, marketing, sales, finance, materials etc. inprocess improvement to meet customer requirements.

(6) Customer participation in developing and improving products and services.

B: Leadership for improvement

(1) Personal involvement and commitment of top management towards improvementstrategy so adopted.

(2) Developing vision and strategy for creating competitiveness by aligning individuals and

resources to the customer, competition and market.(3) Making senior and middle management involved and committed towards the

improvement strategy.

(4) Generating commitment and involvement of upstream and downstream partnersincluding customers and shareholders.

(5) Effecting mobilization of all people in the organization to get their involvement towardsimprovement strategy.

(6) Communicating and deploying improvement policies to all concerned employees.


and TP

27


21/22

C: Strategic planning for improvement

(1) Linking policies and goals of improvement strategy to the corporate goals.

(2) Developing both long-term and short-term goals from the overall goals of improvementstrategy.

(3) Involving people in developing improvement goals and objectives.

D: Human resource management

(1) Facilitating improvement teams and groups to improve process and operations.

(2) Promoting small group activities and their effective employment on company wide basis.

(3) Transferring the authority to act independently and take decisions to the people lower inhierarchy.

(4) Promoting involvement and contribution of people for meeting improvement objectives.

(5) Developing a suggestion system to ensure quick evaluation of ideas and theirimplementation.

(6) Creating a system of linking recognition and rewards to companys improvement goalsas set under the improvement strategy.

(7) Promoting channels of communications both horizontally across functions and verticallybetween management and workers.

(8) Creating an environment that enables employees in personal and career developmentand their wellbeing.

(9) Focus on developing human resources through multi-skills, Job rotation, and flexible jobassignments.

E: Education and training

(1) Establishment of intensive and continuous training under the improvement strategy.

(2) Coverage of most managers and employees on training in the concepts and tools ofconcerned improvement strategy.

(3) Regular reviews and improvement are made in the training system to accommodatechanging requirements.

F: Information architecture

(1) Ensuring that information is made available to people at point of use.

(2) Tracking of continuous improvement in through collection and use of relevant data.

(3) Making effective use of data and information for comparison and benchmarking with

world class standards.

G: Performance measurement system

(1) Modifying accounting system to reinforce improvement program.

(2) Designing performance indicators to develop clear linkage between improvementprograms and the results.

(3) Clear identification of all current and potential problems.

IJQRM22,3

276


22/22

H: Materials management

(1) Optimum utilization of materials (raw, in process and finished) with a focus onimproving quality and reducing inventory.

(2) Improvement in supply chain in terms of cycle time, quality and cost.

(3) Focusing on management of supplier relationship for mutual benefits.

I: Equipment management

(1) Developing a system of making modifications in the existing equipment for improvingequipment availability and product quality.

(2) Involvement of operators in equipment monitoring, maintenance and improvement.

(3) Creating a system of continuous improvement in maintenance quality and efficiency forimproved reliability and cost effective maintenance.

(4) Effective implementation of preventive and predictive maintenance programs.

(5) Making reliability and maintainability as key considerations during equipment selection

and design and in its layout.(6) In-depth analysis equipment performance and its use in developing maintenance

programs and activities.

J: Process management

(1) Identification of key processes which may involve more than one department andmanaging and improving them.

(2) Use of cross-functional teams to manage and improve processes like new productdevelopment.

(3) Ensuring continuous improvement in processes so identified and managed.

K: Management of financial resources

(1) Developing financial strategies to support corporate policy towards improvementstrategy.

(2) Regular review and improvement in financial strategies and practices to supportimprovement strategy.

(3) Use of concepts that support and reinforce improvement activities.


and TP

27

tqm & tpm implementation

Documents

tqm tpm implementation

study of tqm

implementation of tqm

synergy of tqm

strategic implications

significant factors

extracted factors

sets of factors