Relationship Between TQM And Organizational Performance

What is TQM and its history?

Total Quality Management or TQM denotes to managing approaches applied to improve quality and output in corporate establishments (Alghamdi, 2018). TQM is the complete management strategy that works parallel across the business, including all sections and staffs and spreading forward and backward to comprise both providers and customers/users. TQM is the only single of several abbreviations used to tag controlling schemes that concentrate on quality (Bayazit, and Karpak, 2007). Other different acronyms comprise SQC or statistical quality control, CQI or continuous quality improvement, QIDW or quality in daily work, QFD or quality function deployment, TQC or total quality control, etc. Similarly different of these other schemes, TQM delivers an outline for applying actual quality and output creativities that can upsurge the cost-effectiveness and competitiveness of companies. Different advisers and institutes of thought highlight dissimilar aspects of TQM as it has advanced over time (Prajogo, and Sohal, 2006). These aspects might be technical, functioning, or social/managerial. The basic components of TQM, as explained by the American Society for quality regulation, are; policy, planning, and management, product scheme, and design alteration control, control of bought material, manufacturing quality control, user interaction and field presentation, corrective act, and employee choice, training, and inspiration (Alghamdi, 2018).

The past of total quality management (TQM) initiated originally as the word invented by the Naval Air Schemes Facility to define its Japanese-type administration method to quality development. An umbrella practice for repeatedly refining the superiority of all procedures, it attractions on information of the values and does of (Alghamdi, 2018):

• The behavioral disciplines
• The examination of measurable and no measurable data
• Economics philosophies
• Procedure examination

Historically, the first phase was observed in the early 1910s in which the Ford Motor-powered Corporation’s “T” car initiated to employ a set of supervisors to check the creation in contradiction of the regular, casing the manufacture process and distribution (Weckenmann, Akkasoglu, and Werner, 2015). The aim was to discrete the lowly product feature from the satisfactory one and henceforth argued, revised or traded it as low excellence (Fisher, and Nair, 2009). Another phase was from 1924 to 1931 while arithmetical excellence control by examination established. The principal one came from unsystematic reasons, and another came from transferable or distinctive reasons (Shahin, and Dabestani, 2011). It was projected that a procedure can be prepared to function unsurprisingly by arranging out the difference due to distinctive causes. Moreover, it was controlled chart coined for detecting such procedure dissimilarity, therefore defining when to interrelate with the procedure. The third phase encompasses all the previous periods to deliver satisfactory assurance such that creation or facility will satisfy clients’ requirements (Martin, Bulkan, and Klempt, 2011). This phase stressed altering from recognition to stoppage of deprived feature (Androniceanu, 2017). The fourth phase, TQM, comprised the understanding and application of quality managing’s values and ideas in each part of establishments. It stresses that the values of quality controlling have to be realistic at each level, each stage, and in each department of the association (Alghamdi, 2018).

In 1920:

Certain of the principal beginnings of quality administration were recognized as the values of systematic managing cleared through U.S. corporate (Alghamdi, 2018). Industries noticeably unglued the procedures of preparation and following the strategy, and union antagonism arose as employees were deprived of a speech in the situations and determinations of their work. The Hawthorne work in the late 1920s presented how worker output could be impacted by contribution (Alghamdi, 2018).

Dimensions of TQM

1930

Walter Stewart advanced the approaches for statistical investigation and regulation of quality (Alghamdi, 2018).

1950

Edwards Demingdisplayed approaches for statistical investigation and regulation of quality to the Japanese engineers and officials. This can be measured as the start of TQM. Joseph M. Jurantrained the thoughts of directing quality and directorial breakthrough (Osayawe Ehigie, and McAndrew, 2005). Total Quality Control book written by Armand V. Feigenbaum’s, a precursor for the existing information of TQM, was printed. Philip B. Crosby’s advertising of zero flaws paved the method for quality development in many corporations (Osayawe Ehigie, and McAndrew, 2005).

1968

The Japanese called their method to entire quality industry-wide quality regulation. It is about this period that the word quality controlling schemes arising. Kaoru Ishikawa’s development of the viewpoint donated to Japan’s dominance as the quality frontrunner (Pheng, and Teo, 2004)

2018

TQM is the title for the idea of a extensive and complete technique for handling managerial quality. Quality values like the ISO 9000 sequence and excellence reward programs like the Deming Reward and the Malcolm Baldrige Nationwide Quality Reward specify morals and procedures that involve TQM (Alghamdi, 2018).

TQM includes three different dimensions; 1) human resource focus, 2) customer focus, and 3) top management commitment (Alghamdi, 2018)

Human resource focus is the first dimension of total quality managing. This specific section deals with the the humanoid resource efficiency in the association in terms of staffing, training and growth, communication, staff security, and happiness (Sabella, Kashou, and Omran, 2014). The human source has the maximum thoughtful influence on the organizational performance. A productive collaboration between Human resource management and TQM can harvest improved organizational outcomes. The arrangement of HR and quality guidelines, like generating and co-operating the TQM dream, making the association and workers for TQM application and producing quality consciousness amongst the staffs across all stages, roles, and subdivisions, must subsidise to the upsurge business performance. Fascination and holding of the best staffs within the association, growing job gratification, getting advanced level performance from the workers are the most significant jobs in HRM (Yang, 2006). Nonetheless to attain all of these goals and to grasp organizational targets a company must have workers with managerial commitment and job association and that is imaginable only when each stakeholder in the established targets for superiority in each job that they do (Alghamdi, 2018).

Total quality management (TQM) is the firm-wide organization philosophy of unceasingly refining the excellence of the goods/facilities/procedures by concentrating on the clients’ needs and prospects to enhance purchaser gratification and stable performance (Sila, and Ebrahimpour, 2003). TQM firms emphasize helping external clients. They first must know the clients’ prospects and desires and then must offer the goods/facilities, consequently. With the help of positive client focus determinations, creation can be organized with admiration to the clients’ desires, beliefs, and objections. This inspires companies to create great quality and consistent products/facilities on time with augmented efficacy and output. When client hopes are encountered, their gratification might be augmented, and the company’s trades and the marketplace share may upsurge. Previous readings have established that client focus positively affects working performance (Karia, and Hasmi Abu Hassan Asaari, 2006) inventory administration performance, worker performance, novelty performance, client satisfaction/outcomes, deals, and collective company performance and it can be said that consumer concentration is certainly associated to performance (Sadikoglu, and Olcay, 2014) how observant the business is to client necessities and hopes and how actual the company is in aspects of handling customer connections. Becoming a client-oriented business has to turn into one of the main challenges facing establishments tailoring and applying approaches intended at enlightening client fulfilment must be at the core of any company (Agus, Krishnan, and Kadir, 2000).

Nature of impact of TQM on organizational performance

The success and the growth ofan industry are heavily be impacted by the combination of HRM, TQM, executive commitment and work involvement. TQM involves considerable time investments from directors, it is costly (particularly for training and conferences), it rarely creates short-term outcomes, it demands strong CEO commitment, and it creates unrealistic expectations about maximum organizations’ capabilities to alter their cultures (Kannan, and Tan, 2005). TQM achievement seems to depend disapprovingly on managerial commitment. Top management promise plays a vigorous role in applying a quality managing system. Possibly the clearest similarity between the various quality supporters and their programs is the reliable persistence that administration be vigorously included with and dedicated to refining quality inside the organization (Talib, Rahman, and Qureshi, 2011). Simply stating that excellence is significant is not enough. One thing is mutual in all viewpoints that top managing commitment is obligatory nonetheless there is the fewer focus on the area how one can receive the top management assurance. One requires having a whole procedure of getting, performing, calculating, meeting the management commitment (Powell, 1995)

Soft features of TQM associated with behavioural characteristics and usually deal with person’s aspect such as exercise and teaching, loyalty, leadership, collaboration, empowerment, client focus and gratification, human resource application, associates with providers and professional connections, addition of the voice of client and provider, communication, functioning rewards, quality culture and communal duty. Soft features of TQM are behavioral facets of controlling of the human factor which comprises workforce assurance, shared vision, and client focus, use of squads, personal exercise, and cooperative provider relationships (Alghamdi, 2018).

Hard features of TQM are system-leaning and are easier to measure. It normally addresses benchmarking, elasticity, quality schemes, quality reassurance, just-in-time, no defect, unceasing improvement and novelty, information and performance dimension, process controlling, strategic scheduling, process mechanism and product/facility strategy (Alghamdi, 2018). Hard TQM feature as quality supervision tools and methods, such as reason and outcome map, scatter drawing, affinity illustration, associations illustration, force-field examination, run plan, control plans, quality role placement, and failure manner and effect evaluation (Daud, and Yusoff, 2011)

Various authors found that a key important area of making sure that TQM results in sustained development in the organizational profitability is that straight quantitative MEASURES of the manufacturing are applied to analyze the efficacy if the manager’s performance to maintain the growth and implementation of TQM programs. TQM has evolved as methods to create quality goods and reduce costs (Hung, Lien, Yang, Wu, and Kuo, 2011). TQM has changed as the theoretical method that focus on the requirements to deliver consumers with extremely valued goods or goods and to do that by development in the efficacy by the way of eradicating waste, decreasing chief times at every step of the productions process reducing the costs, and growing people, and enhancing the constantly. Whereas the TQM deliver the potential for the company to improve their rivalry there are some indications that various organizations has been dissatisfied in the context to which TQM approach has been related to the nonstop progresses in the organizational productivity (Alghamdi, 2018).  The main thrust of the TQM theory is that the goods feature and its maintenance have to be developed in form the starting and that the accomplishments of the quality levels and enhancements is the accountability of everybody (Fotopoulos, and Psomas, 2009).

Barriers faced by managers when implementing TQM

There is a considerable optimistic result of the TQM uses together on working and structural performance of the SMEs. He also found that the main part of the planned aspects in the successful application of TQM programs within the SMEs. Although some of the researchers also found that most features commonly linked to the TQM like quality training, procedure improvements, and benchmarking do not commonly generate any advantages, but other tacit, behavioral, improperly imitable aspects like exposed culture, worker empowerment, and managerial assurance can deliver advantages (Kumar, Choisne, de Grosbois, and Kumar, 2009). The strength if the association between TQM practice and administrative performance has been tested by different experts and stated that there is a substantial difference in the relations between structural performance and TQM across business sectors and dissimilar size organizations, especially on the impact of defect rates, warranty rates and innovations of novel products. The TQM is effective and beneficial in enlightening the performance of the business but it cannot be said that it is always positive (Alghamdi, 2018).

Considering the influences that are probable to obstruct the application of the TQM permits directors to grow more operative approaches for refining the likelihoods of positively organize TQM and thus to achieve brilliance in the occupation. However, there are some barriers the managers may face in implementing the TQM in the industry, Such as (Alghamdi, 2018);

Strategic barriers: planned matters are important obstacles to the use of TQM and possess the utmost adverse influence on its achievement ((Alghamdi, 2018). These obstacles are primarily linked to the administration and headship of the establishment. Some of the examples of strategic barriers include (Alghamdi, 2018):

• Incorrect TQM program
• barriers to the acceptance of TQM
• impractical hopes lacking leadership
• poor controlling  the deficiency of top management help
• poor participation of managers
• the power of the central management
• insufficient planning
• the lack of constancy of objectives (Subrahmanya Bhat, and Rajashekhar, 2009)
• lack of extended term vision
• the deficiency of a dream and a strong directions
• conflicting goals and the main concern
• the absence of importance of refining the quality (Subrahmanya Bhat, and Rajashekhar, 2009)
• the previous disappointments in terms of initiatives of alteration
• the non-existence of Government help
• Political improbability (Alghamdi, 2018).

Structural barriers: These types of barriers are linked to the structure, schemes and physical resources essential to apply the TQM. Certain of the structural obstacles the managers may face are (Alghamdi, 2018):

• Organizational structure unsuitable
• Lack of administrative flexibility
• Deficiency of bodily resources
• An absence of information schemes
• Lack of economic support, the price of implementation
• Lack of time(Raj, and Attri, 2011)

Human resources barriers: These obstacles are associated with human factors, such as the absence of employee commitment and confrontation to alteration in TQM. The humanoid resources obstacles are (Alghamdi, 2018);

• The lack of attention of employees
• The lack of assurance and participation of employees
• Employee confrontation to change
• A lacking human resources controlling
• Poor allocation at all categorized levels
• Few workers work jobs and progressively higher
• Lack of exercise and teaching of employees
• Lack of inspiration and gratification of employees
• The lack of gratitude and recompensing for success (Talib, Rahman, Siddiqui, and Qureshi, 2011)

Contextual barriers: there are the problems that occur when there are advanced a context and values suitable to achieve the maximum potential of the organizing of the total quality management. The contextual obstacles include;

• Poor administrative culture
• Difficulties in altering the organizational culture
• Lack of leadership teams
• Poor communication and unproductive
• Poor cooperation
• The lack of assurance of workers in the management
• Cultural problems resolution
• Lack of novelty (Talib, Rahman, Siddiqui, and Qureshi, 2011)
• Political behavior
• The variety of staff
• Barriers temperament((Alghamdi, 2018)

Procedural barriers: primarily are created by the density of the methods, the deficiency of concentration on the consumer, the deficiency of corporation with dealers, the administration and the deficiency of a scheme of assessment and self-evaluation. Examples;

• Deficiency of focus
• the absence of suitable practice management
• deficiency of focus on the consumer
• the deficiency of contribution of providers
• administration (Alghamdi, 2018);
• lack of assessment and self-estimation
• the alteration mediator or counsel ineffectiveness in applying quality
• unsuccessful remedial action
• struggles to recover quality are time-intense (C?t?lin, Bogdan, and Dimitrie, 2014)

• Cause-and-effect diagram
• Check sheet
• Control charts
• Histogram
• Pareto chart
• Scatter diagram
• Stratification

(Bernardino, Teixeira, Jesus, Barbosa, Lordelo, and Lepikson, 2016)

Principles are ideas that are organized as psychological signs to deliver a short view of a group of features that are mutual to a type of beings. Inside the outline of TQM, certain of the values were documented in the texts and classified as significant principles: client focus, systemic and holistic opinion, exploration for interaction, humanist visualization, the quest for constant enhancement and movements directed by facts, and information and priorities (Bernardino et al., 2016).

The practices mainly consist of methods, for illustration, the exercise of operating an engine or monitoring a process. Inside the structure of TQM, some of the practices were recognized and characterized into 60 appropriate performs, which are comprised of five subclasses: common practices, advertising management, purchaser/provider association, and human development management and auditing (Sharma, Lawrence, and Lowe, 2010). The first subcategory; general practices is includes sixteen practices: contribution in all regions by the business worker and implementation of TQM; the usage of tools and arithmetical practices; exercise in quality control circles (QCCs); excellence declaration; procedure control; mechanization; ISO documentation; contribution in nationwide quality programs; failure analysis; calibration; obstructive action; shake-down; thinking; action strategy; and study clusters (Green, 2012). The six does of marketing controlling mostly address problems such as: filling the requirements of the clients and benchmarking and growth of new goods. The eleven does in the purchaser/dealer relationship chiefly focus on decreasing the number of sellers; founding relations of collaboration, trust, and continuousness; outsourcing procedures; reduced inventory and improved frequency of acquisitions (Moosa, Sajid, Khan, and Mughal, 2010). Human development management contains 21 practices linked to training; work stability; and inspiration and payment. Six auditing does were recognized are exterior audits, reviews of the seller by the purchaser, president reviews, and checks for ISO authorization, reviews by an adviser and audits to get the Deming Award (Bernardino et al., 2016).

Common tools used in TQM

The tools are assets to be applied in the method. Inside the outline of TQM, there are total seven quality gears were recognized as pertinent tools and dispersed by as: checked sheet (checklist), stratification, Pareto plan, reason and affect illustration, trend chart (connection figure), histogram, and procedure control graph. The seven novel quality gears are infrequently applied in establishments (Soltani, and Wilkinson, 2010) 

Practices are understood to be rational orders to attain a prearranged objective, i.e. phases that need to be tracked to attain a particular influence. Inside the outline of TQM, the some of the relevant procedures were recognized and characterized: numerical procedure control, a method of examination and issue shooting, strategy, do, check and action (PDCA) series and controlling by guidelines. After the revelation of the additional pertinent PPTMs, a transitory examination of the conceivable motives for the weakening of the TQM framework is presented (Aboyassin, Alnsour, and Alkloub, 2011)

Some of the barriers of TQM are;

• Deficiency of knowledge about the broader significance of the TQM framework
• unjustified training
• unpredictable payment system and inappropriate choice of multipliers
• inattentiveness with the inspiration (Suzuki, Tashiro, Fujii, Ushikubo, and Sakata, 2011
• Excessive concentration on calibration and documentation by ISO
• lack of participation of workers in the program
• Barriers met in the western controlling culture
• the appearance of the new executive wave that faster the debility of the framework Incapability of western corporations to exercise “socialization”
• Lack of highlighting specified by the TQM framework to the phenomenon of headship as the motorist of advanced procedures and value development
• High association time and share needed by the program (Bernardino et al., 2016).
• Prioritizing of temporary outcomes and nervousness for nearness results, which makes the opinion of slow development in the outcomes (Bernardino et al., 2016).
• Discords between dissertation and efficiently implemented do (Bernardino et al., 2016).
• Lack of assurance and participation of senior administration
• Negative opinion for employees in relation to the TQM platform (confrontation to the planned changes)
• lack of suitable mechanical and theoretical exercise at the operating level
• Excessive concentration on longstanding outcomes (Soltani, Lai, and Gharneh, 2005)
• Weak goal definition of predictable revenues by the program
• TQM advanced by mechanical staff when the perfect condition would be growth by the bosses Incompatibility between values present in different types of organizational cultures and TQM practices (Bernardino et al., 2016).

The two strategies (TQM and MEM) have numerous connections. They have measured managing viewpoints instead of particular management procedures. Both methodologies accept “systems thinking” and the PDCA series, which was retitled in the MEM to PDCL (plan, do check, learn) sequence. Some of the comparisons are also emphasized: highlighting on “continuous enhancement” and “additional worth for the purchaser”; usage of benchmarking; emphasis on consumer fulfilment and other shareholders; process visualization; management choices founded on facts and information; supporter strategies that worth individuals; emphasis on collaboration, partnership growth and supplier growth; rules for rigorous training of workers and the culture of invention (Ferrante, Gandolfi, and Meneguzzo, 2010). The matters of top administration backing are parallel to the subjects of Headship. The requirement for the individual participation of frontrunners is mutual, as is the requirement to upkeep continuous development. Nonetheless, the EEM does not comprise the word ‘quality’ and does not comprise the requirement to relate approaches for inspiring employees. Furthermore, the TQM framework does not suggest the need to describe the visualization and mission of the company, nor is it worried about queries of social accountability (Bernardino et al., 2016).  

The matters of Client Relations are comprised of the contents of Approach and Procedures, Goods and Facilities. The strategy involves the significance of knowing purchasers’ requirements. Procedures, Goods, and Facilities also comprise this constituent and the necessity to uphold close interaction with clients (Ferrante, Gandolfi, and Meneguzzo, 2010). The substances of Product Scheme Procedure are moderately included among the contents of Procedures, Goods, and Facilities. Both models stressed the requirement to design goods and facilities according to clients’ requirements and the requirement for team-working with as several workers as likely. But, the word quality does not seem as the EEM enabler. The substances of Provider Relations are moderately comprised among the contents of Corporation and Assets. The EEM enabler comprises a common requirement to have cooperative relations with all shareholders, comprised suppliers. Though, it does not identify how to describe these cooperative associations and does not comprise TQM features such as the requirement for long-standing contacts or the concentration on superiority. Furthermore, the Corporation and Assets enabler also comprises how to accomplish economic and substantial resources, components that are not linked to TQM (Bernardino et al., 2016).

Aspects of TQM still in practice

The contents of Staff are comprised amongst the matters of Individuals. These two components are the best similar. The Individuals enabler contains a concentration on work groups, decent communication, teaching and inspiration, the basic components of the create Staff (Bernardino et al., 2016). This enabler also comprises some features that are not particular of TQM, like the inspiration to upkeep for social accountability; nonetheless, they have a low heaviness in the entire weight of Individuals. The substances of Procedures are partially comprised among the contents of Procedures, Goods, and Facilities. The Procedures, Goods and Facilities enabler presents the need to maintain procedures and the requirement for uninterrupted development, but several features of TQM are absent from its substances. For illustration, none of the features of the 5S scheme are comprised in EEM enabler (Talib, Rahman, and Azam, 2011).

The EFQM is quite similar to TQM, concentrated on commercial excellence as the eventual aim. The five values of TQM; headship, concentration on facts, constant development, consumer concentration, and everybody’s contribution have been enclosed in the EFQM brilliance framework. The values of the act are also equal from EFQM to TQM (Kocoglu, Imamoglu, and ?nce, 2011). MEM is organized by applying “bases of excellence” and “values of excellence”: schemes thoughtful, administrative education, the culture of invention, headship, and reliability of purpose, leadership and procedure info, future image, value generation, the significance of individuals, understanding about the consumer and market growth. TQM concentrates on the majority of its moralities, does, tools and practices (PPTM) on a controlled group of academics (Bernardino et al., 2016).

Regardless of these comparisons, there is some dissimilarity. Some of the differences are;

1. Prescriptive model	1. No prescriptive model
2. Driven to the productive system	2. Driven to the management system
3. Importance of quality	3. Importance on excellence
4. Determined to industries	4. Determined to all kinds of companies
5. Driven to middle and large companies	5. Driven to corporations of all sizes
6. Attention to the internal environment	6. Concentration on the external and internal environment
7. Emphasis on official standardization	7. Minimal emphasis on official standardization (Ismyrlis, 2017)
8. Does not assess management or confer Rewards	8. Focus on management assessment and rewards
9. Use of measurements tools	9. Does not prescribe tools
10. Focus on reducing nonconformities (Ivan?i?, and Bosanac, 2012)	10. Minimal emphasis on reduction of nonconformities
11. No focus on self-governing and participative leadership	11. focus on self-governing and participative leadership
12. No Emphasis on planned planning (Bernardino et al., 2016).	12. Emphasis on planned planning (Bernardino et al., 2016).

References 

Aboyassin, N.A., Alnsour, M. and Alkloub, M., 2011. Achieving total quality management using knowledge management practices: A field study at the Jordanian insurance sector. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 21(4), pp.394-409.

Agus, A., Krishnan, S.K. and Kadir, S.L.S.A., 2000. The structural impact of total quality management on financial performance relative to competitors through customer satisfaction: a study of Malaysian manufacturing companies. Total quality management, 11(4-6), pp.808-819.

Alghamdi, F., 2018. Total Quality Management and Organizational Performance: A Possible Role of Organizational Culture. International Journal of Business Administration, 9(4), pp.186-200.

Androniceanu, A., 2017. The three-dimensional approach of total quality management, an essential strategic option for business excellence. Amfiteatru Economic, 19(44), p.61.

Bayazit, O. and Karpak, B., 2007. An analytical network process-based framework for successful total quality management (TQM): An assessment of Turkish manufacturing industry readiness. International Journal of Production Economics, 105(1), pp.79-96.

Bernardino, L.L., Teixeira, F., Jesus, A.R.D., Barbosa, A., Lordelo, M. and Lepikson, H.A., 2016. After 20 years, what has remained of TQM?. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(3), pp.378-400.

C?t?lin, S.H., Bogdan, B. and Dimitrie, G.R., 2014. THE EXISTING BARRIERS IN IMPLEMENTING TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 23(1).

Daud, S. and Yusoff, W.F.W., 2011. The influence of soft and hard TQM factors on knowledge management: perspective from Malaysia. In International Conference on Management and Service Science (Vol. 8, pp. 17-22). Singapore: IACSIT Press.

Ferrante, A., Gandolfi, A. and Meneguzzo, M., 2010. Anticipatory strategies for introducing ISO 26000 in 2010: a comparison between the Italian and Swiss systems of public administration. Economia Aziendale Online, 1(3), pp.311-321.

Barriers of TQM

Fisher, N.I. and Nair, V.N., 2009. Quality management and quality practice: Perspectives on their history and their future. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, 25(1), pp.1-28.

Fotopoulos, C.B. and Psomas, E.L., 2009. The impact of “soft” and “hard” TQM elements on quality management results. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 26(2), pp.150-163.

Green, T.J., 2012. TQM and organisational culture: how do they link?. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(2), pp.141-157.

Hung, R.Y.Y., Lien, B.Y.H., Yang, B., Wu, C.M. and Kuo, Y.M., 2011. Impact of TQM and organizational learning on innovation performance in the high-tech industry. International business review, 20(2), pp.213-225.

Ismyrlis, V., 2017. The contribution of quality tools and integration of quality management systems to the organization. The TQM Journal, 29(5), pp.677-689.

Ivan?i?, I. and Bosanac, N., 2012. MANAGING QUALITY: TQM IMPLEMENTATION IN CROATIAN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING SYSTEM. Interdisciplinary Management Research, 8.

Kannan, V.R. and Tan, K.C., 2005. Just in time, total quality management, and supply chain management: understanding their linkages and impact on business performance. Omega, 33(2), pp.153-162.

Karia, N. and Hasmi Abu Hassan Asaari, M., 2006. The effects of total quality management practices on employees’ work-related attitudes. The TQM magazine, 18(1), pp.30-43.

Kocoglu, I., Imamoglu, S.Z. and ?nce, H., 2011. The relationship between organizational learning and firm performance: The mediating roles of innovation and TQM. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 9(3), pp.72-88.

Kumar, V., Choisne, F., de Grosbois, D. and Kumar, U., 2009. Impact of TQM on company’s performance. International journal of quality & reliability management, 26(1), pp.23-37.

Martin, C., Bulkan, A. and Klempt, P., 2011. Security excellence from a total quality management approach. Total Quality Management, 22(3), pp.345-371.

Moosa, K., Sajid, A., Khan, R.A. and Mughal, A., 2010. An empirical study of TQM implementation: Examination of aspects versus impacts. Asian Business & Management, 9(4), pp.525-551.

Osayawe Ehigie, B. and McAndrew, E.B., 2005. Innovation, diffusion and adoption of total quality management (TQM). Management decision, 43(6), pp.925-940.

Pheng, L.S. and Teo, J.A., 2004. Implementing total quality management in construction firms. Journal of management in Engineering, 20(1), pp.8-15.

Powell, T.C., 1995. Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study. Strategic management journal, 16(1), pp.15-37.

Prajogo, D.I. and Sohal, A.S., 2006. The relationship between organization strategy, total quality management (TQM), and organization performance––the mediating role of TQM. European journal of operational research, 168(1), pp.35-50.

Raj, T. and Attri, R., 2011. Identification and modelling of barriers in the implementation of TQM. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, 8(2), pp.153-179.

Sabella, A., Kashou, R., and Omran, O., 2014. Quality management practices and their relationship to organizational performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 34(12), pp.1487-1505.

Sadikoglu, E. and Olcay, H., 2014. The effects of total quality management practices on performance and the reasons for and the barriers to TQM practices in Turkey. Advances in Decision Sciences, 2014.

Shahin, A. and Dabestani, R., 2011. A feasibility study of the implementation of total quality management based on soft factor. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 4(2), pp.258-280.

Sharma, U., Lawrence, S. and Lowe, A., 2010. Institutional contradiction and management control innovation: A field study of total quality management practices in a privatized telecommunication company. Management Accounting Research, 21(4), pp.251-264.

Sila, I. and Ebrahimpour, M., 2003. Examination and comparison of the critical factors of total quality management (TQM) across countries. International journal of production research, 41(2), pp.235-268.

Soltani, E. and Wilkinson, A., 2010. Stuck in the middle with you: The effects of incongruency of senior and middle managers’ orientations on TQM programmes. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 30(4), pp.365-397.

Soltani, E., Lai, P.C. and Gharneh, N.S., 2005. Breaking through barriers to TQM effectiveness: Lack of commitment of upper-level management. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 16(8-9), pp.1009-1021.

Subrahmanya Bhat, K. and Rajashekhar, J., 2009. An empirical study of barriers to TQM implementation in Indian industries. The TQM Journal, 21(3), pp.261-272.

Suzuki, K., Tashiro, H., Fujii, N., Ushikubo, M. and Sakata, I., 2011, December. TQM organizational development for a global manufacturer. In Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), 2011 IEEE International Conference on(pp. 1461-1465). IEEE.

Talib, F., Rahman, Z. and Azam, M., 2011. Best practices of total quality management implementation in health care settings. Health marketing quarterly, 28(3), pp.232-252.

Talib, F., Rahman, Z. and Qureshi, M.N., 2011. Analysis of interaction among the barriers to total quality management implementation using interpretive structural modeling approach. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 18(4), pp.563-587.

Talib, F., Rahman, Z., Qureshi, MN and Siddiqui, J.(2011)‘Total quality management and service quality: an exploratory study of quality management practices and barriers in service industry’, Int. J. Services and Operations Management, 10(1), pp.94-118.

Weckenmann, A., Akkasoglu, G. and Werner, T., 2015. Quality management–history and trends. The TQM Journal, 27(3), pp.281-293.

Yang, C.C., 2006. The impact of human resource management practices on the implementation of total quality management: An empirical study on high-tech firms. The TQM Magazine, 18(2), pp.162-173.