ARTICLE IN PRESS

Int. J. Production Economics 92 (2004) 267–280

Quality tools and techniques: Are they necessary for

quality management?
Juan Jose! Tar!ı*, Vicente Sabater
Department of Business Management, University of Alicante, AP. Correos 99, Alicante 03080, Spain

Received 10 February 2003; accepted 21 October 2003

Abstract

Total quality management (TQM) has been developed around a number of critical factors. However, TQM is much
more than a number of critical factors; it also includes other components, such as tools and techniques for quality
improvement. In this paper, we carry out an empirical study in order to verify the importance of these tools and
techniques for TQM improvement and their effect upon TQM results. For this purpose, we use the answers provided by
the person in charge of quality in 106 ISO-certified firms in Spain.
r 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: ISO 9000; Quality management; Quality tools

1. Introduction or into the ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ parts (Wilkinson et al.,

The importance of total quality management
(TQM) has considerably increased over the last
years, on both a practical and theoretical level.
TQM has been developed around a number of
critical factors which vary from one author to
another, although the core factors are leadership,
quality planning, human resources management
(training, work teams, employee involvement,
etc.), process management, cooperation with
customers and suppliers, and continuous improve-
ment. According to the literature, the elements of
TQM may be grouped into two dimensions: the
management system (leadership, planning, human
resources, etc.) and the technical system (TQM
tools and techniques) (Evans and Lindsay, 1999);
*Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +34-965903606.
E-mail address: jj.tari@ua.es (J.J. Tar!ı).
1998).
Thus, TQM is much more than a number of
critical factors; it also includes other components,
such as tools and techniques for quality improve-
ment (Hellsten and Klefsjo, . 2000). In fact,
techniques and tools are vital to support and
develop the quality improvement process (Bunney
and Dale, 1997; Stephens, 1997).
The critical factors of TQM are the elements
that may lead to satisfactory performance, as has
been proved by other studies (Saraph et al., 1989;
Badri et al., 1995; Powell, 1995; Ahire et al., 1996;
Adam et al., 1997; Hendricks and Singhal, 1997;
Grandzol and Gershon, 1998; Quazi et al., 1998;
Das et al., 2000). However, on the one hand,
although the data show the existence of connec-
tions between the factors of TQM and a firm’s
performance, it cannot be strictly proven that
TQM leads to increased performance, but simply

0925-5273/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.10.018
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
268 J.J. Tar!ı, V. Sabater / Int. J. Production Economics 92 (2004) 267–280
that such relationship exists (Powell, 1995) and
also that, as many respondents answered, quality
may influence part of the firm’s performance. On
the other hand, in some cases, the impact of TQM
practices on a firm’s performance is weaker and
not always significant (Sousa and Voss, 2002).
Thus, TQM does not always improve perfor-
mance. In spite of its advantages (Sohal et al.,
1991; Kanji, 1998), we can also find problems in its
implementation (Kanji, 1998). Firstly, in order to
have a positive performance in a firm, it is
necessary to develop its intangible resources
(Powell, 1995). Secondly, firms that implement
an effective TQM programme improve their
operating performance (Hendricks and Singhal,
1997). Thirdly, experience has shown that some
firms fail when they implement TQM (Boje and
Winsor, 1993; Spector and Beer, 1994) because the
implementation of TQM cannot be successful
without the use of suitable quality management
methods (Sitkin et al., 1994; Wilkinson et al., 1998;
Zhang, 2000) such as tools and techniques for
quality. According to this view, the management
system of TQM may only have a positive effect on
performance if a technical system has also been
established (Sousa and Voss, 2002). In addition,
these techniques, amongst others, are important
for business survival and continuation (Zackrisson
et al., 1995).
What has been missing from the literature is an
assessment of how quality tools have affected
TQM. In our opinion, the situation makes it
necessary to carry out an empirical study in order
to verify the importance of these tools and
techniques for TQM improvement and their effect
upon TQM results.
Our study analyzes the relationship between the
use of these techniques and tools for TQM
improvement and TQM itself, and will attempt
to check if those firms with a higher TQM level
(higher implementation of critical factors) and best
TQM results, do show a higher interest in the use
of these tools and techniques. For this purpose, we
use the answers provided by the person in charge
of quality in 106 ISO-certified firms in Spain. Our
results are part of a wider research process, aimed
at analyzing quality practices in certified firms by
using TQM elements, which identifies the factors
and results of these firms, classifies them and
establishes different TQM levels.
This paper will be structured as follows: in the
next section, a review is made of the literature, on
the one hand, concerning TQM results and critical
factors, and on the other, regarding the tools and
techniques for quality improvement. The following
section reflects the methodology used for this
paper; this is followed by a presentation and
discussion of the results. A number of conclusions
will be suggested in the final section.
2. Literature review
2.1. Critical factors of quality management
Quality management theory has been influenced
by the contributions made by quality leaders
(Crosby, 1979; Deming, 1982; Ishikawa, 1985;
Juran, 1988; Feigenbaum, 1991). The research by
all these authors shows both strengths and
weaknesses, for none of them offers all the
solutions to the problems encountered by firms
(Dale, 1999), although some common issues can be
observed, such as management leadership, train-
ing, employees’ participation, process manage-
ment, planning and quality measures for
continuous improvement.
These ideas have exerted an influence upon later
studies, in such a way that the literature on TQM
has progressively developed from these initial
contributions, identifying different elements for
effective quality management: customer-based
approach, leadership, quality planning, fact-based
management, continuous improvement, human
resource management (involvement of all members
in the firm, training, work teams, communication
systems), learning, process management, coopera-
tion with suppliers and organizational awareness
and concern for the social and environmental
context.
Alongside these studies, we may mention the
development of formal evaluation models, such as
the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
model in the USA, the European Foundation for
Quality Management (EFQM) model in Europe
and the Deming Application Prize model in Japan.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.J. Tar!ı, V. Sabater / Int. J. Production Economics 92 (2004) 267–280 269

Table 1
Empirical research of quality management

Authors Purpose Critical factors identified

Saraph et al. (1989)
Flynn et al. (1994)
Badri et al. (1995)
Black and Porter (1995)
Ahire et al. (1996)
Grandzol and Gershon (1998)
Quazi et al. (1998)
Rao et al. (1999)
Develop an instrument for measuring critical 8 factors with 66 items
factors of quality management
Develop an instrument based on empirical and 7 major dimensions with 48 items
practitioner literature
Additional assessment of instrument proposed 8 factors with 66 items
by Saraph, Benson and Schroeder
Identify a set of critical factors of TQM 10 factors with 32 items
Identify constructs of TQM and develop scales 12 factors with 50 items
for measuring these constructs
Develop and test an instrument for use in 7 exogenous factors with 39 items and
TQM research 6 endogenous factors with 23 items
Corroborate the results of the study developed 16 factors with 78 items
by Saraph, Benson and Schroeder
Develop a valid instrument for key dimensions 13 factors with 62 items
of quality management in the international
context

Although there are some differences between these
models, they have a number of common elements
(Ritchie and Dale, 2000). We should also quote
here a number of empirical studies leading to a
scale for TQM measurement (Table 1). These
constructs are all present in the framework used
for the national quality awards we have listed.
2.2. Tools and techniques for quality improvement
As pointed out above, according to the litera-
ture on TQM there are two components in a TQM
system: the management system and the technical
system, or the ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ part. The hard part
includes production and work process control
techniques, which ensure the correct functioning
of such processes (amongst others, process design,
the ‘‘just in time’’ philosophy, the ISO 9000 norm
and the seven basic quality control tools) (Evans
and Lindsay, 1999; Wilkinson et al., 1998). The
two dimensions reflect all the issues which a
manager must bear in mind for a successful
TQM implementation.
Researchers have identified a number of tools
and techniques for quality improvement. A single
tool is a device with a clear function, and is usually
applied on its own, whereas a technique has a
wider application and is understood as a set of
tools (McQuater et al., 1995). Thus, Ishikawa
(1985) and McConnell (1989) have identified a list
of seven TQM tools: flow charts, cause and effect
diagrams, Pareto charts, histograms, run charts
and graphs, X bar and R control charts and scatter
diagrams. Also, Imai (1986), Dean and Evans
(1994), Goetsch and Davis (1997), Dale (1999),
and Evans and Lindsay (1999) have offered a list
of tools and techniques for quality improvement.
For their part, Dale and McQuater (1998) have
identified the tools and techniques most widely
used by firms, as shown in Table 2.
This review shows, on the one hand, that there
have been numerous studies analyzing the critical
factors for successful quality management imple-
mentation and its influence upon performance
(Saraph et al., 1989; Powell, 1995; Hendricks and
Singhal, 1997), and on the other, which techniques
and tools might be best suited for quality
improvement. In this latter case, there is a major
gap in research in this area, because there are few
studies which have verified if the use of these
techniques and tools improves the TQM level and
if it has an influence upon performance.
Thus, considering that: (a) an effective TQM
programme has positive effects upon operating
performance (Hendricks and Singhal, 1997), (b)
the use of these techniques and tools is vital to
support and develop the quality improvement
process (Hellsten and Klefsjo,. 2000; Bunney and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
270 J.J. Tar!ı, V. Sabater / Int. J. Production Economics 92 (2004) 267–280
Dale, 1997; Stephens, 1997) and (c) companies in
which these tools have been developed to a greater
extent are likewise the ones which have a greater
implementation of work practices, such as employ-
ee management, continuous improvement (work
teams, suggestion schemes, etc.) (Bayo-Moriones
and Merino-D!ıaz, 2001), the following question is
empirically researched in this study: do techniques
and tools have a positive effect upon a firm’s TQM
level and TQM results?
Answering the above question would help
managers to realize the importance of techniques
and tools in order to improve quality. The
hypotheses we have formulated are the following:
H1. TQM critical factors are positively related
to the tools and techniques for quality improve-
ment.
H2. TQM results are positively related to the tools
and techniques for quality improvement.
These two hypotheses are tested by means of a
correlation analysis, the relationship being verified
in the two senses: a higher TQM level and higher
TQM results imply a greater use of these
techniques, and vice versa. In order to further
clarify the connections, the following hypotheses
are formulated, derived from the two previous
ones:
H3. Firms with a higher TQM level have im-
plemented to a greater extent the tools and
techniques for quality improvement.
H4. Firms with better TQM results have imple-
mented to a greater extent the tools and techniques
for quality improvement.
3. Methodology
3.1. Sample
In order to achieve our objective, and within the
wider analysis mentioned in the introduction, we
selected as the population for our study those firms
carrying out their activity in the Alicante area
(eastern Spain) which received the ISO 9000
certificate. Certified firms were chosen because
we were interested in firms with some kind of
quality system, for the following reasons: (a) these
firms had one person engaged, either full time or
part-time, in quality tasks and (b) these organiza-
tions would be firms which started their path
toward quality management by obtaining an ISO
9000 based system, and this is an objective
criterion guaranteeing that these firms do possess
a quality system. Also, the ISO 9000 quality
management system, like the excellence models,
is improving the understanding of concepts and
practices associated with TQM (Van der Wiele
et al., 2000) and implies compliance with certain
requirements of total quality, which may help to
understand the questions asked, and therefore, to
obtain adequate answers.
Thus, a list of certified firms in the Alicante
area was requested from the organizations in
charge of certification in Spain. Although the total
population (number of certificates) was 175, our
study only includes 154 cases for the following
reasons:
* We eliminated two multinational consultancy
firms, which were not included in the study.
* There were four firms with more than one
certificate for each of them (nine altogether),
and thus the number of answers received was
four.
* It was detected in some cases that there were
various certified firms belonging to the same
group, and thus the person responsible for
quality issues was the same. This reduced a total
of 22 certificates to eight interviews (i.e. eight
answers).
In addition to this, it proved impossible to
obtain data from 12 firms, and hence the final
population considered was 142. The number of
answers recorded was 108, which represents a
response percentage of 76.06%. However, two
answers were not regarded as valid due to
incomplete data; therefore, the number of cases
processed statistically with the SPSS software was
106 firms. The characteristics of these 106 firms are
shown in Table 3.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.J. Tar!ı, V. Sabater / Int. J. Production Economics 92 (2004) 267–280 271

Table 2
Commonly used tools and techniques

The seven basic quality control tools The seven management tools Other tools Techniques

Cause and effect diagram Affinity diagram Brainstorming Benchmarking

Check sheet Arrow diagram Control plan Departmental purpose
Control chart Matrix diagram Flow chart analysis
Graphs Matrix data analysis Design of experiments
Histogram method Force field analysis Failure mode and effects
Pareto diagram Process decision Questionnaire analysis
Scatter diagram programme chart Sampling Fault tree analysis
Relations diagram Poka yoke
Systematic diagram Problem solving methodology
Quality costing
Quality function deployment
Quality improvement teams
Statistical process control

Table 3
Number of certified firms according to number of employees and number of firms per sector

Number of employees Sector (SIC—Standard

Industrial Classification)

Small Medium Large Total Industry Services

o20 20–49 50–99 100–250 >250 >500

No. of firms 17 17 27 24 8 13 106

Total 34 51 21 106 63 43
Total (%) 32% 48% 20% 100% 59% 41%

One sample-related error is that caused by the
lack of response by some firms. Therefore, in order
to verify if the lack of response was significant, we
carried out a comparison between the firms that
did answer and those which did not. It was seen
that there were no significant differences between
them regarding the variable size (p ¼ 0:697) and
sector (p ¼ 0:609). Also, the sampling error was
74.9%.
3.2. Data collection
A questionnaire was designed meeting the
objectives that had been set. The process of
developing the questionnaire finished with a pilot
survey, which was used to modify and eliminate a
number of variables, until the final questionnaire
was designed. Experts on the subject were con-
sulted, to ensure that the questions were properly
phrased, and the suitability of the questionnaire
was tested on a sample of firms (Madu, 1998). In
this way, this test consisted in a first revision of the
questionnaire (pre-test) with four people (an
academic, a small/medium firm manager and two
quality consultants), to ensure a suitable coverage
of the domain of each construct, and a second test
with the first ten firms studied, selected at random,
which allowed us to modify and delete some
variables.
The data were collected by means of a struc-
tured personal interview, based on a closed
questionnaire, plus a set of open questions which
allowed us to clarify certain points. We decided to
combine the interview with the questionnaire and,
due to the need for personal interaction, the
participating firms were limited to the Alicante
area. Although this could place a limitation on any
generalizations, it must be considered that ISO
9000 offers a standard applicable to any firm,
region or country. However, ISO 9000 is a culture-
independent system: the standard is written in
general terms and may be applicable to any
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
272 J.J. Tar!ı, V. Sabater / Int. J. Production Economics 92 (2004) 267–280
organization, but each firm must adapt the
standard to its own characteristics. Nevertheless,
most obstacles, benefits and other issues related to
ISO 9000 do not differ to any great degree from
one country to another (Ebrahimpour et al., 1997;
Withers and Ebrahimpour, 2001).
In this way, the process started with a pilot test,
which allowed us, as has been discussed before, to
modify the initial questionnaire; then we con-
ducted the interviews with 108 firms that agreed to
participate. However, only 106 interviews were
considered because the other two, as has been
mentioned before, yielded incomplete data. The
questionnaire was answered by the persons in
charge of the quality area, for these reasons: (a)
these persons play an active role in the quality
strategy; (b) they possess the knowledge required
to answer the questionnaire, and given their
training and knowledge on the subject, considering
that these firms had quality systems, this would
allow a better understanding of the questions; and
(c) in similar studies, the key person to interview is
the quality manager.
3.3. Measures
By means of a number of measures we
attempted to find out about the usual practices
of firms implementing quality systems. Our inten-
tion was to measure TQM (through the critical
factors), the results of quality management and the
use of tools and techniques of TQM.
Critical factors: By means of these measures we
intended to analyze the usual practice of those
firms implementing quality systems (ISO 9000)
through the factors of quality management. In
order to identify them, we started from the EFQM
model and a review of the literature. We selected
eight critical factors considering the enablers
defined by the EFQM model and a review of the
literature, defining the items from those fixed in
that model and in the empirical work by Saraph
et al. (1989), Badri et al. (1995), Black and Porter
(1995), Powell (1995), Ahire et al. (1996), Grand-
zol and Gershon (1998) and Quazi et al. (1998).
Thirty-seven items were used in our final ques-
tionnaire, grouped within these eight critical
factors. Each of these items was measured within
a 7-point scale (Table 4). Among these categories,
the learning factor is the same as the one used in
the work by Grandzol and Gershon (1998),
formed by its five items.
Results of TQM: These questions are aimed at
discovering which effects quality has had upon
results. We measure the results of TQM consider-
ing the results of the EFQM model and the work
by Powell (1995) and Grandzol and Gershon
(1998). Our final questionnaire contains 15 items,
measured within a 7-point scale, grouped into four
results (Table 5). We consider the customer
satisfaction factor used by Grandzol and Gershon
(1998) and the construct of the TQM programme
performance used by Powell (1995); however, in
both factors we have included in the final
questionnaire one item less than in these studies,
such item being dropped in the pilot test.
Concerning the performance construct of TQM,
the effects of quality on such result may be
evaluated by examining unexpected changes in
financial results, for example, in the five years
following the onset of quality management, as
described in the financial results published by firms
(Easton and Jarrell, 1998); or in a subjective way,
by measuring respondents’ perceptions, these
subjective measurements being widely accepted in
organizational research (Powell, 1995), due to the
difficulty in identifying and obtaining an objective
measurement for firms of different sizes and
sectors (Saraph et al., 1989). In our case, we chose
the second option instead of the sales turnover.
Techniques and tools: A question was asked in
order to study the most frequent techniques and
tools, by means of nominal qualitative variables.
We identified 12 tools and techniques, based on
the research by Ishikawa (1985), Imai (1986),
McConnell (1989), Dean and Evans (1994),
Goetsch and Davis (1997), Dale and McQuater
(1998), Dale (1999), and Evans and Lindsay
(1999). Thus, those responsible for quality were
asked whether they were not familiar with, were
familiar with, used or regarded as a basic tool any
of the following techniques and tools: graphs,
statistical process control (SPC), benchmarking,
quality costs, internal audits, failure mode and
effects analysis (FMEA), cause and effect diagrams,
Pareto diagrams, histograms, scatter diagrams,
Table 4
Elements of the EFQM model and critical factors identified
Enablers (EFQM model) Critical factors (Cronbach’s No. Source
alpha) of
items
Leadership Leadership 5 Strategic quality management (Black and Porter)
(a ¼ 0:76) Executive commitment (Powell)
Leadership (Grandzol and Gershon)
EFQM model

Policy and strategy Quality planning 6 Role of divisional top management and quality police (Saraph, Benson and Schroeder)

J.J. Tar!ı, V. Sabater / Int. J. Production Economics 92 (2004) 267–280

(a ¼ 0:77) Operational quality management (Black and Porter)
Corporate quality culture (Black and Porter)
Top management commitment (Ahire, Golhar and Waller)
EFQM model

People management Employee management 6 Training (Saraph, Benson and Schroeder, Powell)
(a ¼ 0:72) Employee relations (Saraph, Benson and Schroeder)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
People and customer management (Black and Porter)
Employee empowerment (Ahire, Golhar and Waller)
Employee training (Ahire, Golhar and Waller)
EFQM model

Partnership and resources Suppliers managementa 3 Supplier quality management (Saraph, Benson and Schroeder, Ahire, Golhar and Waller)
Supplier partnership (Black and Porter)
Closer to suppliers (Powell)
Internal/external cooperation (Grandzol and Gershon)
EFQM model

Processes Customer focus 3 People and customer management (Black and Porter)
(a ¼ 0:54) Customer satisfaction orientation (Black and Porter)
Closer to customer (Powell)
Customer focus (Ahire, Golhar and Waller, Grandzol and Gershon)
EFQM model

Process management 4 Process management (Saraph, Benson and Schroeder, Grandzol and Gershon)
(a ¼ 0:63) Quality improvement measurement systems (Black and Porter)
EFQM model
Continuous improvement 5 Quality date and reporting (Saraph, Benson and Schroeder)
(a ¼ 0:76) Teamwork structures for process improvement (Black and Porter)
Quality improvement measurement systems (Black and Porter)
Open organization (Powell)
Process improvement (Powell)
Continuous improvement (Grandzol and Gershon)
EFQM model
Learningb 5 Learning (Grandzol and Gershon)
(a ¼ 0:82)
a
a ¼ 0:52: The minimum advisable level is 0.55 (Van de Ven and Ferry, 1979). Then, the alpha is recalculated after eliminating one item, in order to verify if the scale
improves. The new scale is based on two items (a ¼ 0:62).

273
b
Learning is not one of the five enablers in the EFQM model. However, it is implied throughout the nine criteria of the model.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
274 J.J. Tar!ı, V. Sabater / Int. J. Production Economics 92 (2004) 267–280
Table 5
Results of TQM
Results Results
(EFQM model)
Customer satisfaction Customer satisfaction
People satisfaction Employee satisfaction
Impact on society Impact on society
Business results TQM performance
a
a ¼ 0:45: This value is low. However, we can accept it because the literature shows that there are significant differences in this
coefficient, between using a two-category scale and more than two category scales (Churchill and Peter, 1984; Peterson, 1994).
flow charts and problem-solving methodology.
These nominal variables were transformed into
dichotomic ones (does not use/uses the tool
and technique) in order to obtain a summative
scale of the 12 tools and techniques. As the
measurement level in the original scale did not
allow the analyses we intended, we created a
summative scale, where 1 indicated the presence of
a characteristic (use) and 0 indicated the absence
of such characteristic (non-use). The new summa-
tive scale reflects the presence or absence of a
characteristic in each of the items it consists of.
Thus, the value of the new scale is a figure between
0 and 12 (in our case, between 1 and 12, because all
the firms studied use internal audits), which reflects
the use of the tools and techniques for quality
improvement.
4. Results
We shall divide this section into three subsec-
tions: (a) a descriptive analysis of the use of tools
and techniques; (b) differences among firms
according to size and sector; and (c) validation
of the four hypotheses.
The answers we received show that the most
widely used tools and techniques are, mainly,
audits and graphs. SPC and flow charts rank third
and fourth, but with a great difference compared
to the first two instruments. The least used ones
are Pareto curves, cause-effect diagrams and
correlation diagrams (Table 6).
As expected, all firms carry out quality audits,
and 84% of them consider them fundamental for
No. of items Cronbach’s alpha Source
a
3 0.56 Grandzol and Gershon
a
2 Grandzol and Gershon
EFQM model
3 0.65 EFQM model
7 0.82 Powell
the development of their systems; such high
percentage is due to the fact that this is a
requirement of ISO 9000. Similarly, only 18% of
firms do not use graphs and 48% have not
implemented SPC; however, the interviews suggest
a higher percentage because, although we did
mention that we were referring to the use of
control charts, the answers provided show that
many times respondents were actually speaking
about statistical data or percentage tables (reflect-
ing, for instance, defects or other quality-related
issues), without really applying SPC as we under-
stand it. In those firms using them, the employees
collect data—for example, concerning product
refusal—and some manager (the person respon-
sible for production and/or quality) takes mea-
sures and prepares statistics with these data.
Concerning the graphs, they are usually periodic
reports on refused products, statistics, tables, etc.
Flow charts are used in 52% of cases, mostly in
the system documentation, as a method to describe
a specific process. After explaining to respondents
that our interest lied in the formal process, 46% of
them answered in the affirmative regarding the
problem-solving methodology. In this case, we
could see that some firms had a formal, written
problem-solving procedure different from the
methodology used to solve non-conformities.
Therefore, in practice, the flow charts are linked
with problem solving methods.
Regarding quality costs, they are evaluated by
45% of the firms, although very few follow the
procedure as described in the literature (prevention
costs, assessment, internal faults and external
faults), considering that 8% are starting to perform
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.J. Tar!ı, V. Sabater / Int. J. Production Economics 92 (2004) 267–280 275

Table 6
Techniques and tools of TQM

Techniques and tools Percentage of firms

Not familiar Familiar Not Used Regarded as Implemented

with with implemented a basic tool

Internal audits 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 84.0 100

Graphics 2.8 16.0 18.8 62.3 18.9 81.2
SPC 10.4 37.7 48.1 39.6 12.3 51.9
Flow chart 17.9 30.2 48.1 42.5 9.4 51.9
Problem solving methodology 21.7 32.1 53.8 42.5 3.8 46.2
Quality costs 12.3 42.5 54.8 35.8 9.4 45.2
Histograms 27.4 36.8 64.2 31.1 4.7 35.8
Benchmarking 21.7 46.3 68.0 31.1 0.9 32.0
FMEA 40.6 34.0 74.6 20.8 4.6 25.4
Pareto diagrams 40.6 35.8 76.4 17.9 5.7 23.6
Cause and effect diagrams 31.1 47.2 78.3 19.8 1.9 21.7
Scatter diagram 46.3 37.7 84.0 15.1 0.9 16.0

these calculations. Thus, only three firms did
calculate the four categories of the total cost of
quality. The remaining firms only calculated the
costs of non-quality (faults), where they included,
amongst others, non-conformities, errors, com-
plaints, goods returned, total or partial repetition
of orders, reprocessing, faulty parts, defects due to
refusal, lost time and persons involved; this
confirms the findings of other studies (Rayner
and Porter, 1991). Therefore, the system ranges
from a simple calculation of non-conformities or
complaints to the calculation of all the categories
of quality costs as defined by the literature, the
most common case being a calculation of the cost
deriving from faults.
Concerning the other techniques, 32% of firms
carry out benchmarking activities, although the
interviews suggested that this was done in an
informal way; for instance, by analyzing products
manufactured by other firms. 25% of the firms use
FMEA; in fact, after the conversation with the
person in charge of quality, it was found that very
few firms use it, and therefore in practice the value
is even lower, since some of the respondents
associated it with the mere fact of reflecting non-
conformities. Histograms are used by 36% of the
firms, Pareto curves in 23% of the cases, cause-
effect diagrams in 21% and correlation diagrams
in 16% of cases.
In general, the basic tools are those least used by
firms, with significant differences regarding certain
tools and techniques depending on the type of
firm. In order to analyze the differences between
groups of firms (depending on size and sector), we
used a chi-square test, considering that each tool
and technique takes the values zero and one, as
mentioned in the methodology section (not im-
plemented and implemented, respectively).
Thus, size results in significant differences
concerning the use of tools and techniques such
as cause-effect diagrams, flow charts and problem-
solving methods (po0:05), and weaker ones
concerning the benchmarking variable (po0:10).
In these cases, smaller firms use these four tools
and techniques to a lesser extent than larger-sized
firms. As regards the remaining tools and techni-
ques, although no significant differences can be
observed regarding use, it can be nevertheless
detected that small firms also use them to a lesser
extent, with the exception of histograms and
correlations, which are seldom used in all groups.
Regarding the sector (industry vs. tertiary
sector), differences can only be observed in quality
costs and flow charts, with a significance level
lower than 0.05, and in the Pareto curve and
histograms, although accepting a significance level
of less than 0.10. In this respect, industrial firms
usually resort more often to quality improvement
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

276 J.J. Tar!ı, V. Sabater / Int. J. Production Economics 92 (2004) 267–280

tools and techniques, except the problem-solving Table 7

methodology, which is practically the same in the Correlation between critical factor-results of TQM and
techniques and tools
two groups.
After these two analyses, and in order to verify TQMT
Hypotheses 1 and 2, we performed a correlation
TQMF 0.41a
analysis between the TQM critical factors and the TQMR 0.40a
TQM results and the tools and techniques for Leadership 0.10
quality improvement. For this purpose, we created Employee management 0.38a
a variable equivalent to the average of the eight Learning 0.21b
Quality planning 0.25c
critical factors, which we used as the TQM level
Suppliers management 0.18d
for a given firm (TQMF) and we created the Customer focus 0.31a
TQMR variable, as the average of the four TQM Process management 0.33a
results. Such procedure is similar to that used by Continuous improvement 0.47a
Powell (1995) and Mart!ınez et al. (1998). Similarly, a
po0:001:
we developed the variable called TQMT, equiva- b
po0:05:
c
lent to the total of the 12 tools and techniques, po0:01:
d
which was therefore a summative scale whose po0:10:
maximum would be 12. Such procedure is similar
to that used by Bayo-Moriones and Merino-D!ıaz
(2001). The TQM factors taken together (TQMF)
correlate positively and significantly with the use Table 8
of tools and techniques (TQMT), and similarly, Normality test
the TQM results (TQMR) correlate positively and TQMF TQMR
significantly with TQMT, which confirms Hypoth-
Z (Kolmogorov–Smirnov) 0.60 0.66
eses 1 and 2 (Table 7). This shows that, when
Sig. 0.87 0.77
certified firms are more highly committed to a joint Mean 5.24 4.88
implementation of TQM factors, they are likely to Median 5.28 4.86
use the tools and techniques to a higher extent, Standard deviation 0.54 0.52
which can in turn lead to improved performance. Group 1: weak TQM environment 50 (47%) 56 (53%)
Group 2: strong TQM environment 56 (53%) 50 (47%)
The eight critical factors are all significantly
related to TQMT, except the leadership factor,
which may indicate that the management is not
committed enough to a wider usage of these tools
and techniques among the employees. A higher test, which allows us to use the average to establish
commitment to each of the TQM factors may lead two groups of firms. The average value of TQMF
the firm to use these tools and techniques to a is 5.24, which sets the boundary between those
higher extent. This could be due to the fact that a firms with a value lower than this and those with a
higher interest in TQM factors allows firms to value equal to or higher than 5.24. The two groups
understand the need for these tools and techni- express a higher or lower TQM level in the firms
ques, which are often required to develop these studied. The same procedure is applied to the
factors. TQMR variable (Table 8).
In order to verify Hypotheses 3 and 4, the Table 9 shows that those firms with a higher
TQMF and TQMR variables were used. We level of implementation of critical factors use the
analyzed the existence of significant differences TQM tools and techniques to a higher extent,
concerning the use of these tools and techniques in which has a positive influence upon TQM results,
firms with a higher or lower TQM level and in with significant differences in both cases. Such
firms with worse and better TQM results. In this results confirm the previous statements, for a
respect, the TQMF variable passes the normality higher TQM level means a wider use of quality
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.J. Tar!ı, V. Sabater / Int. J. Production Economics 92 (2004) 267–280
Table 9
Use of the tools and techniques in more and less TQM-advanced firms, and with more and less TQM performance (means) and
differences between the two groups
TQMF
Mean
TQMT Weak TQM environment 4.30
Strong TQM environment 6.21
a
po0:001:
b
po0:01:
improvement tools and techniques, which in turn
allows firms to improve their TQM results.
Therefore, Hypotheses 3 and 4 are validated.
5. Discussion
The results indicate that TQM tools and
techniques are, alongside critical factors, another
important component of TQM, which emphasizes
their importance for the improvement of TQM
levels and results. Therefore, firms must develop
both the hard and the soft parts of TQM in order
to succeed. This may indicate that TQM is
effective, which may lead to market orientation
(Lai, 2003) and positive performance (Hendricks
and Singhal, 1997).
A positive correlation has been found between
these tools and techniques and the TQM level and
TQM results of firms, and also that those firms
with higher TQM levels and better results are
those which most widely apply TQM tools and
techniques. Therefore, these findings indicate that
tools and techniques for quality improvement are
necessary for TQM to succeed; and the manage-
ment should also consider these tools and techni-
ques in order to advance towards total quality.
The results particularly seem to stress two aspects:
1. All firms carry out quality audits, as part of the
ISO 9000 norm, and most of them use graphs.
However, few firms use the basic tools, which is
where most emphasis must be made by man-
agers.
277
TQMR
Levene’s test T test Mean Levene’s test T test
F t F t
0.58 3.83a 4.63 0.54 2.83b
6.08
2. There is no significant relationship between the
tools and techniques and the leadership factor.
In this respect, the most important factors in
the successful implementation of these techni-
ques are full management support and commit-
ment and giving the correct training to the right
people at the right time (McQuater et al., 1995;
Bunney and Dale, 1997).
Therefore, the two main weaknesses detected
in certified firms, which their managers must be
aware of if they desire to successfully imple-
ment quality programmes, are the limited use of
basic tools and the low managerial commitment
towards the usefulness of these tools. Thus,
managers must understand the importance of
their commitment in order to spread the use of
these tools and techniques and to improve the
TQM level and TQM results. However, tools
alone cannot provide results by themselves. They
must be developed to reflect the firm’s culture
(Govers, 2001). Then, managers must use them in
an integrated way, connected with the critical
factors.
Once the management is aware of these two
weaknesses, the most important issues that must
be addressed for a successful implementation are
the following (McQuater et al., 1995; Bunney and
Dale, 1997):
* Ensure managerial understanding of and com-
mitment to these techniques and tools.
* Training, which should be undertaken just in
time and given in such a way that employees
can practice what has been taught in a step-by-
step manner.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
278 J.J. Tar!ı, V. Sabater / Int. J. Production Economics 92 (2004) 267–280
* Using a planned approach for the application
and use of tools and techniques. In these last
two cases, the results of Table 7 show how
personnel management (training, employee
recognition and communication) and quality
planning, correlate positively and significantly
with the use of TQM tools and techniques.
Considering the results for this study, the
respondents’ opinions and our experience, we
believe that techniques and tools can contribute
to improving the level of TQM if a climate of
managerial commitment is created. This means
that techniques and tools are a reliable indicator of
a superior level of TQM and therefore, of a
superior performing company in terms of quality,
cost, etc.
Finally, concerning the characteristics of certi-
fied firms (size and sector), it can be observed that
there are significant differences as regards the
TQMT variable. As a rule, in the secondary sector
TQM tools and techniques have a wider applica-
tion (p ¼ 0:018), and smaller firms use the TQM
tools and techniques to a lower extent (p ¼ 0:015).
Therefore, managers of small and service firms
should not forget the tools and techniques for
quality improvement as an important part of
TQM, and should not fail to encourage their use
by a higher number of employees. This applies
mostly to basic tools and techniques, which, as the
results of our study seem to indicate, are the least
used and constitute a weakness in these firms.
6. Conclusions
The results show that there is a positive
correlation, on the one hand, between a firm’s
TQM level and the use of tools and techniques for
quality improvement, and on the other, between
TQM results and such tools and techniques. When
firms have a wider implementation of TQM critical
factors, they are more interested in the usage of
these tools and techniques, which may improve
their TQM results. These results are applicable to
certified firms in the Alicante area, because there
are no significant differences between those firms
which have been interviewed and those firms
which have not. In this respect, although the
results cannot be extrapolated statistically to other
firms in Spain or in Europe, a logical extrapolation
(i.e. a generalization based on qualitative criteria)
can be made, since the factors identified agree with
those established in the EFQM model and we have
identified commonly used tools and techniques.
Therefore, the use of tools and techniques for
quality improvement is necessary for quality
improvement and, although not included in ISO
9000 and frequently disregarded, it is an important
sign of TQM maturity, which managers must
implement in their firms in order to improve their
TQM level and results.
This means that many firms, when they begin
their first steps towards TQM (ISO 9000) can use
few tools (audits, graphics), and they may even be
used only by quality managers or other managers.
When they improve their TQM level, they tend to
use other tools to a greater extent.
In addition, on the one hand, the weakness of
certified firms is a lack of support for and
commitment towards the use of tools and techni-
ques for quality improvement, mainly regarding
the basic tools; on the other hand, it must also be
admitted that there are some companies that have
not benefited from and improved their perfor-
mance by using these techniques and tools. The
solution can be found in a higher managerial
commitment, promoting their use among all the
employees, together with a planning and training
process covering teamwork methods and the use of
these tools and practices; this would increase the
firm’s TQM maturity level and its TQM results. In
other words, managers may encourage a higher
number of employees to use these techniques in a
way that benefits the whole firm.
Perhaps the most interesting point of this study
lies in the fact that, having focused our attention
on a group of certified firms, we have had the
opportunity to offer empirical evidence about the
importance of techniques and tools of TQM in
the quality improvement process. Our work builds
on previous studies in this area, and complements
other research work which generally focused on
techniques and tools of TQM. However, it presents
new results evidencing the importance of these
techniques and tools for quality management,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.J. Tar!ı, V. Sabater / Int. J. Production Economics 92 (2004) 267–280
and may be used by managers to discover the
potential benefits of the use of quality tools and
techniques.
Finally, these contributions could be suitably
complemented by future research work in three
directions: studying these aspects in a larger firm
sample, analyzing case studies in order to verify
the use of these tools and techniques and studying
companies which use a range of quality methods
but are not certified.
References
Adam, E., Corbett, L., Flores, B., Harrison, N., Lee, T., Rho,
B., Ribera, J., Samson, D., Westbrook, R., 1997. An
international study of quality improvement approach and
firm performance. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management 9 (17), 842–873.
Ahire, S.L., Golhar, D.Y., Waller, M.A., 1996. Development
and validation of TQM implementation constructs. Deci-
sion Sciences 27 (1), 23–56.
Badri, M.A., Davis, D., Davis, D., 1995. A study of measuring
the critical factors of quality management. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 12 (2), 36–53.
Bayo-Moriones, A., Merino-D!ıaz, J., 2001. Quality manage-
ment and high performance work practice: Do they coexist?
International Journal of Production Economics 73 (3),
251–259.
Black, S.A., Porter, L.J., 1995. An empirical model for total
quality management. Total Quality Management 6 (2),
149–164.
Boje, D.M., Winsor, R.D., 1993. The resurrection of Taylorism:
Total quality management’s hidden agenda. Journal of
Organizational Change Management 6 (4), 57–70.
Bunney, H.S., Dale, B.G., 1997. The implementation of quality
management tools and techniques: A study. The TQM
Magazine 9 (3), 183–189.
Churchill, G.A., Peter, P., 1984. Research design effects on the
reliability of rating scales: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Marketing Research 21 (4), 98–104.
Crosby, P.B., 1979. Quality is Free, the Art of Making Quality
Certain. Hodder & Stoughton, New York.
Dale, B.G., 1999. Managing Quality. Blackwell Publishers,
Oxford.
Dale, B.G., McQuater, R., 1998. Managing Business Improve-
ment & Quality: Implementing Key Tools and Techniques.
Blackwell Business, Oxford.
Das, A., Handfield, R.B., Calantone, R.J., Ghosh, S., 2000. A
contingent view of quality management—the impact of
international competition on quality. Decision Sciences 31
(3), 649–690.
Dean, J.W., Evans, J.R., 1994. Total Quality, Management,
Organization and Strategy. West Publishing Company,
St. Paul, MN.
279
Deming, W.E., 1982. Quality, Productivity and Competitive
Position. MIT Center for Advanced Engineering, Cam-
bridge, MA.
Easton, G.S., Jarrell, S.L., 1998. The effects of total quality
management on corporate performance, an empirical
investigation. Journal of Business 71 (2), 253–307.
Ebrahimpour, M., Withers, B.E., Hikmet, N., 1997. Experi-
ences of US- and foreign-owned firms: A new perspective on
ISO 9000 implementation. International Journal of Produc-
tion Research 35 (2), 569–576.
Evans, J.R., Lindsay, W.M., 1999. The Management and Control
of Quality. South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
Feigenbaum, A.V., 1991. Total Quality Control. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G., Sakakibara, S., 1994. A frame-
work for quality management research and associated
measurement instrument. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment 11 (4), 339–366.
Goetsch, D.L., Davis, S.B., 1997. Introduction to Total
Quality, Quality Management for Production, Processing,
and Services. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Govers, C.P.M., 2001. QFD not just a tool but a way of quality
management. International Journal of Production Econom-
ics 69 (2), 151–159.
Grandzol, J.R., Gershon, M., 1998. A survey instrument for
standardizing TQM modelling research. International Jour-
nal of Quality Science 3 (1), 80–105.
. B., 2000. TQM as a management system
Hellsten, U., Klefsjo,
consisting of values, techniques and tools. The TQM
Magazine 12 (4), 238–244.
Hendricks, K., Singhal, V., 1997. Does implementing an
effective TQM program actually improve operating perfor-
mance? Empirical evidence from firms that have won quality
awards. Management Science 43 (9), 1258–1274.
Imai, M., 1986. Kaizen, the Key to Japan’s Competitive
Success. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ishikawa, K., 1985. What is Total Quality Control? The
Japanese Way. Prentice-Hall, London.
Juran, J.M., 1988. On Planning for Quality. Collier Macmillan,
London.
Kanji, G.K., 1998. An innovative approach to make ISO 9000
standards more effective. Total Quality Management 9 (1),
67–78.
Lai, K.-H., 2003. Market orientation in quality-oriented
organizations and its impact on their performance. Inter-
national Journal of Production Economics 84 (1), 17–34.
Madu, C.N., 1998. An empirical assessment of quality, research
considerations. International Journal of Quality Science 3
(4), 348–355.
Mart!ınez, A.R., Gallego, A., Dale, B.G., 1998. Total quality
management and company characteristics: An examination.
Quality Management Journal 5 (4), 59–71.
McConnell, J., 1989. The Seven Tools of TQC, 3rd edition. The
Delaware Group, NSW.
McQuater, R.E., Scurr, C.H., Dale, B.G., Hillman, P.G., 1995.
Using quality tools and techniques successfully. The TQM
Magazine 7 (6), 37–42.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
280 J.J. Tar!ı, V. Sabater / Int. J. Production Economics 92 (2004) 267–280
Peterson, R.A., 1994. A meta-analysis of cronbach’s coefficient
alpha. Journal of Consumer Research 21 (2), 381–391.
Powell, T.C., 1995. Total quality management as competitive
advantage, a review and empirical study. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal 16 (1), 15–37.
Quazi, H.A., Jemangin, J., Kit, L.W., Kian, C.L., 1998. Critical
factors in quality management and guidelines for self-
assessment, the case of Singapore. Total Quality Manage-
ment 9 (1), 35–55.
Rao, S.S., Solis, L.E., Raghunathan, T.S., 1999. A framework
for international quality management research: Develop-
ment and validation of a measurement instrument. Total
Quality Management 10 (7), 1047–1075.
Rayner, P., Porter, L.J., 1991. BS5750/ISO 9000—The experi-
ence of small and medium sized firms. International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management 8 (6), 16–28.
Ritchie, L., Dale, B.G., 2000. Self-assessment using the business
excellence model: A study of practice and process. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics 66 (3), 241–254.
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G., Schroeder, R.G., 1989. An
instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality
management. Decision Sciences 20 (4), 810–829.
Sitkin, S.B., Sutcliffe, K.M., Schroeder, R.G., 1994. Distin-
guishing control from learning in total quality management,
a contingency perspective. Academy of Management Re-
view 19 (3), 537–564.
Sohal, A.S., Ramsay, L., Samson, D., 1991. Quality manage-
ment practices in Australian industry. Total Quality
Management 3 (3), 283–299.
Sousa, R., Voss, C.A., 2002. Quality management re-visited: A
reflective review and agenda for future research. Journal of
Operations Management 20 (1), 91–109.
Spector, B., Beer, M., 1994. Beyond TQM programmes.
Journal of Organizational Change Management 7 (2),
63–70.
Stephens, B., 1997. Implementation of ISO 9000 or Ford’s Q1
award: Effects on organizational knowledge and application
of TQM principles and quality tools. The TQM Magazine 9
(3), 190–200.
Van de Ven, A., Ferry, D., 1979. Measuring and Assessing
Organizations. Wiley, New York.
Van der Wiele, A., Dale, B.G., Williams, A.R.T., 2000. ISO
9000 series and excellence models: Fad to fashion to fit.
Journal of General Management 25 (3), 50–66.
Wilkinson, A., Redman, T., Snape, E., Marchington, M., 1998.
Managing With Total Quality Management: Theory and
Practice. MacMillan, London.
Withers, B.E., Ebrahimpour, M., 2001. Impacts of ISO 9000
registration on European firms: A case analysis. Integrated
Manufacturing Systems 12 (2), 139–151.
Zackrisson, J., Franz!en, M., Melbin, M., Shahanavaz, H., 1995.
Quality by a step-by-step program in low scale industries.
International Journal of Production Economics 41 (1–3),
419–427.
Zhang, Z., 2000. Developing a model for quality manage-
ment methods and evaluating their effects on busi-
ness performance. Total Quality Management 11 (1),
129–137.