This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]

On: 19 June 2015, At: 02:56

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Production Planning & Control: The Management of

Operations
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20

Critical success factors of TQM: A select study of Indian

organizations
a a a
Ayoob A. Wali , S. G. Deshmukh & A. D. Gupta
a
Mechanical Engineering Department , Indian Institute of Technology , Delhi Hauz Khas, New
Delhi, 110016, India
Published online: 15 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Ayoob A. Wali , S. G. Deshmukh & A. D. Gupta (2003) Critical success factors of TQM: A select
study of Indian organizations, Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, 14:1, 3-14, DOI:
10.1080/0953728021000034781

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0953728021000034781

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL, 2003, VOL. 14, NO. 1, 3–14

Critical success factors of TQM: a select study of

Indian organizations
AYOOB A. WALI, S. G. DESHMUKH and A. D. GUPTA

Keywords TQM, CSF, Implementation, Survey
Abstract. In the context of TQM, it is essential that the orga-
nizations identify a few key critical success factors, which should
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 02:56 19 June 2015
ported by various philosophies of TQM. Such factors are con-
sidered as conducive to the success of TQM implementation.
Based on an exploratory study of Indian organizations engaged
in manufacturing and services, CSFs have been identified.

be given special attention for ensuring successful implementa-

tion of TQM program. The concept of critical success factors
(CSFs) and their use in supporting planning efforts was
originated from the approach associated with the development
and implementation of management information systems. This
paper represents a review of the literature on CSFs and sup-
1. Introduction
Global competition and economic liberalization are
creating opportunities and posing challenges. Quality

Authors: S. G. Deshmukh, Mechanical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology,

Delhi Hauz Khas, New Delhi; 110016; India
Ayoob Wali Currently at the Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Aden in Yemen. He has vast teaching and research experience. He obtained his PhD
from Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, India. His current areas of interest include TQM, BPR
and Systems.

S. G. Deshmukh Currently at the Mechanical Engineering Department of IIT, Delhi, India. He

has published in several international and national journals. His areas of interest include TQM,
Manufacturing Strategy, and Information Systems.

A. D. Gupta Currently at the Mechanical Engineering Department of IIT, Delhi, India. He has
vast teaching and research experience. His areas of interest include SQC, Value Engineering, PPC.
He has conducted several programs for industry.

Production Planning & Control ISSN 0953–7287 print/ISSN 1366–5871 online # 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0953728021000034781
 4 A. A. Wali et al.
and productivity can be effectively used to meet these
challenges. With the process of liberalization, India has
initiated a comprehensive range of policy initiatives to
provide a suitable environment for industrial investments
and globalization. As impact of these policies is being
increasingly felt, the world is keenly watching India’s
greatest advantages, coupled with the availability of
managerial and technical talent. This has motivated
movement of quality in India. In spite of its many pro-
blems, India has been experiencing high growth rates in
industry higher than many of the developing nations.
Foreign investment has been steadily increasing and the
government has continued to work towards improved
international relations and growth.
The past few years have seen considerable evidence
presented on the importance of product and service qual-
ity for corporate health improvement and survival in
the marketplace. Initially, manufacturing companies
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 02:56 19 June 2015
attempted to implement Total Quality Management
(TQM) in the hope that the resulting shop floor efficien-
cies would solve all existing productivity problems. Later,
these organizations realized significant benefits from
implementation of TQM. This has motivated Indian
organizations to explore the possibilities of adopting
TQM via ISO 9000 route. TQM is probably one of the
best-understood change management program and it is
one of the options to confront the global competitive
challenge both for manufacturing and service organiza-
tions.
Research has confirmed the strategic benefits of
quality. Quality has contributed to greater market shares
and return on investments as well as lower manufactur-
ing costs in the long run and enhance productivity
(Garvin 1983; Motwani and Mohmoud 1994 among
others). There are various quality awards models,
which are used for self-assessment. These award models
are for business excellence, and are manifestations of the
definitions of TQM in a broad sense regarding the entire
organization and all its activities. The criteria in the
awards are well defined and generally accepted as impor-
tant for each organization (Wiele and Brown 1996). The
relevance and impact of TQM is represented by
Jablonski’s (1991) assertion that, those implementing
TQM will realize increased productivity, increased
customer satisfaction, reduced costs, enchanted quality
of work life, and improved competitive position. The
important factors, such as highly changing global
market, changes in customer values, and enormous eco-
nomic pressure, have combined to create a competitive
environment for many companies.
Based on the above observations, it was felt that an
exploratory study of Indian organizations would help
in gaining insights into the process of TQM implementa-
tion, especially the route followed and the benefits (finan-
cial as well as non-financial) the organizations have
derived after pursuing the TQM path.
In the reported literature what seems to be missing is a
strong synthesis of the body of knowledge based on the
practical experience of people involved with TQM in
organization. In the context of TQM, the managers
tend to identify a few key critical success factors (CSFs)
that should be given special attention for ensuring
organizational success through TQM implementation
program. Oakland and Leslie (1996) explain the term
CSFs as a term used to mean the most important sub-
goals of a business organization. They have defined the
term CSFs as what the organizations must accomplish to
achieve the mission, by examination and categorization
of the impacts. CSFs reflect the activities, which are
required to achieve the organizational objectives. These
correspond to stable and higher level processes that must
be operating efficiently and effectively in order to pro-
duces the outputs and measurements, which constitute
the objectives. In this background, it was felt necessary
to study CSFs in Indian context.
The research methodology adopted was based on a
combination of literature review, a questionnaire based
survey, case studies and interviews. The main research
goals were identified as: Identify the critical success fac-
tors for adoption of TQM in Indian context, and propose
a model linking CSFs in line with the TQM paradigm.
Literature review
Critical success factors are those few things that must
go well to ensure success for a manager or an organiza-
tion, and, therefore, they represent those managerial or
enterprise areas that must be give special and continual
attention to bring about high performance (Boynton and
Zmud, 1984).
Alternatively, it can be said that the CSFs are the
select few over arching requirements that must be present
for an organization to be able to attain its vision, and to
be guided towards its vision. The success depends on
customer program, stakeholders, people and process.
These factors should be accompanied by one or more
outcome metrics. The use of CSFs concept started as an
information systems methodology, which was introduced
by Rockart (1982) as a mechanism for defining a chief
executive officer’s information needs where he made an
attempt to define the new Information System (IS)
executive role, where focused on three aspects of sample
of I/S executive; (a) CSFs, (b) key techniques, and (c)
processes they use to manage critical areas, and their
common individual attributes. Taken together, these
aspects provide a profile of an aggressive, proactive, com-
munication-oriented executive who focuses heavily on
 Critical success factors of TQM 5

helping his organization adept to a changing technical
environment. Many researchers (Crosby 1979, Motwani
and Mohmoud 1994, Juran 1974, Lakhe and Mohanty
1994, Saraph 1989, Black and Porter 1995) have dis-
cussed the importance of the critical factors such as top
management leadership for quality, supplier quality
management, process management, employee training,
and employee involvement for successful implementation
of TQM. The literature implies that as the decision-
makers of an organization focus on better management
of such critical factors, improvements will occur in qual-
ity performance and ultimately result in improved finan-
cial performance for the organization. Table 1 gives a list
of factors as listed or recommended by various authors.
To date, there have been only a few systematic
attempts in the literature to organize and synthesize
various sets of critical success indicators identified by
different authors. This is briefly summarized below.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 02:56 19 June 2015
and its implementation in Australia. According to the
authors, factors likely to contribute to success are:
. Identification of the strategic direction of the busi-
ness (mission, vision, and policies)
. Determination of customer expectations and mea-
surement of perceptions (market research, surveys,
and focus groups)
. Formulation of strategy for implementation of the
program (time frame, resources to provide leader-
ship, and training).
. Existence of formal structure to control monitors
and maintains improvement initiatives (through
steering committee, improvement teams etc.)
. Implementation of train-the-trainer concepts
(participants to train their own staff eventually).
. Installation of quality assurance system (ISO 9000,
other standards).

Lu and Sohal (1993) discuss the factors, which contri-
bute to success in a TQM program, and identify
improvement opportunities in the approaches adopted
by Australian organization. The authors also give some
common myths and their clarifications concerning TQM
. Use of external consultants.
Capon et al. (1996) provide evidence in their research
that measuring and displaying results increases the
chance of success in a TQM programs. They took a set

Table 1. List of CSFs as recommended by various authors.

Porter Black
Feigen- Saraph Lu & & Motwani &
Authors
! Juran Ishikawa Crosby baum Deming Garvin et al. Sohal Parker et al. Powel Porter
Factors # 1974 1976 1979 1983 1986 1987 1989 1993 1993 1994 1995 1995 Total
Employee Relation/             12
Empowerment
Top Management           10
Leadership
Quality Polices/Process           10
Management
Quality Measurement           10
System/Quality Data
Training           10
Quality Technology/         8
Process Design (SQC)
Supplier Quality        7
Management
QualityPlanning/        7
Product Design (Service)
Role of Quality        7
Department
Team Work Structures     4
Customer Satisfaction    3
Orientation
Strategic Quality    3
Management
Communication of    3
Information
Benchmarking   2
Zero Defect  1
External Interface  1
Management/
Environment
 6 A. A. Wali et al.
of six monitors based on the Baldrige award and recom-
mend them as the most effective measure to use. Their
work is carried out in one of the industries of UK by
forming different teams and checking the effects of such
monitors. Kasul and Motwani (1996) identify critical
factors and supporting performance measurements of
TQM in the manufacturing environment. This study
was based obly on the review of literature on quality
and world class manufacturing management to identify
the critical factors and measures that constitute TQM.
The study by Saraph et al. (1989) have used data
collected from 162 general mangers and quality
managers from 20 companies in the Minneapolis/St.
Paul area of USA to identify the critical factors for qual-
ity management practice. These authors identify eight
factors: the role of management leadership and quality
policy, role of quality department, training, product/
service design, supplier quality management, process
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 02:56 19 June 2015
management, quality data and reporting, and employee
relations. Black and Porter (1995), in their empirical
study of UK organizations (both manufacturing and
services), identify ten critical factors: strategic quality
management, customer satisfaction, people and customer
management, communication of information, external
interface management, improvement measurement sys-
tems, corporate quality culture, supplier partnerships,
operational quality planing, and teamwork structures
for process improvement. This research provided a source
methodology for a range of research in the field of TQM.
Sink (1991) study shows that the performance of an
organization system is composed of seven interrelated
criteria: Effectiveness, efficiency, total quality, productiv-
ity, quality of work life, innovation, and financial perfor-
mance.
Motwani and Mohmoud (1994), on the basis of study
of 73 executives of Indian manufacturing organizations,
reported that manufacturing quality products is one of
the major objectives of Indian manufacturers. They
found that nearly all (96%) of surveyed organizations
have maintained formal quality policies. Maheshwari
and Zhao (1994) conducted a survey of 42 Indian
Company executives to examine quality-management
practices of India. They found that the majority of the
Indian companies are well aware of modern quality man-
agement concepts and philosophies, and company execu-
tives believe that they are doing a good job of providing
high-quality products or service to their customers.
Mohanty and Lakhe (1994), suggested 4 main factors
for any organization to adopt the philosophy of TQM
such as, (i) Develop a vision, (ii) Promote a policy on
quality, (iii) Create a total quality-oriented culture, and
iv) Invest in training and education. Golhar et al. (1996)
investigated the differences on TQM practices and per-
formance of TQM firms versus non-TQM firms an
empirical study. The study by Flynn et al. (1994) delib-
erates on the measurement instrument. Similarly the
studies done by Badri et al. (1995), and Ahire et al.
(1996), Huq and Justin (1998) are of interest.
Table 2 summarizes the major survey based research as
reported in the literature.
Research methodology
First, a research instrument was developed in the form
of a questionnaire containing several items. This ques-
tionnaire was developed based on a variety of inputs
such as literature review, inputs from practitioners, a
comparative study of quality award models and field
visits. The questionnaire was pilot tested. The question-
naire was sent to people at various levels viz. General
managers, quality managers, and human resource
managers and production managers from a wide range
of Indian companies from both manufacturing and
service sectors. They were asked to respond to the ques-
tionnaire according to how they perceived their company
rating on a five-point interval scale. The first page high-
lighted the objectives of the study. The questionnaire
included:
Part 1. Basic information about the organizational
collection of demographic variables, and
Part 2. A number of (69) statements of different types
of quality related element on a five-point interval scale.
The instrument was tesetd for item, content and con-
struct validity.
The main source for the preparation of the sampling
frame was Q-Prod’s directory (1999) of ISO 9000
certified companies in India. These organizations have
already developed quality culture programmers, and
are significantly involved in the total quality logic. It
was felt that practitioners from these ISO 9000 organiza-
tions would be more practical and less influenced by the
theoretical concepts, and hence their response would be
of valuable. A Postal survey method was adopted to
cover wide range of companies through out the country.
In all 114 organizations responded to the questionnaire
survey representing 22.8 % response rate. Table 3 gives
details about the profile of the respondents. A factor
analysis was carried out using the SPSS-PC software.
Factor Analysis (FA) is a procedure which, relies on
the use of correlation between data variables. Nunnally
(1967) proposes that FA is the most appropriate method
for the researcher to apply. FA is for the determination
of important variables in a given domain (Appendix 1
gives some explanation on basic term used on FA). The
analysis was performed on 114 valid responses returned
from the sample.
 Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 02:56 19 June 2015

Table 2. Survey based research reported in literature.

Saraph et al. Flynn et al. Motwani et al. Black and Porter Powel Badri et al. Ahire et al.
Year 1989 (USA) 1994 (USA) 1994 (INDIA) 1995 (European) 1995 (AUSTRALIA) 1995 (UAE) 1996 (USA)

Construct Quality Management Quality Management Quality Management TQM TQM Quality management Quality management
Item Generation Literature Review/78 Literature Review Based on Saraph Baldrige Award & Literature Review/ Based on Saraph Literature/65 items
items instrument literature review/ 47 items instrument
39 items
Questionnaire 7 manager (3 general Structured interview NA NA Researchers NA Plant manager
Pre-test & 4 Quality at 12 plants with and worker
manager) various manager
& 4 of faculty.
Sample Size 162 from 20 613 employees 73 204 n1 ¼ 24, n2 ¼ 15 424 371
companies from 42 plant
Random Sample Yes Yes No No No No No
Point on Likert scale 5 5 NA 5 5 7
Item placement Grouped Grouped Grouped Random Grouped Grouped Grouped
on questionnaire
Reliability test Yes Yes Yes Yes NA Yes Yes
(Cronbach’s alpha)
Validity test Yes Yes Yes Yes NA Yes Yes
Type of Industry Manufacturing & Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing & Manufacturing & Manufacturing & Manufacturing (only
services services services services (working motor vehicle)
in oil)
No. of factors 8 11 10 12 8 12
Major Factors Role of divisional top Quality leadership, Management Strategic quality Top management Role of divisional Top management
management and Quality improvement leadership and management, leadership, top management commitment,
quality policy, Role rewards, Process quality policy, role Customer satisfaction empowerment, and quality policy, Customer focus,,
of the quality control, Feedback, of quality orientation, People quality polices, Role of the quality Supplier quality
department, Training, cleanliness and department, training, and quality measurement department, management, Design
Critical success factors of TQM

Product/ organization, New product service customer system, training, Training, Product/ quality management,
service design, product quality, design, supplier management, SQC, supplier quality service design, Benchmarking, SPC
Supplier quality Inter-functional quality management, Communication of management, role of Supplier quality usage, Internal
management, Process design process, process management, improvement quality department, management, Process quality information
management/ Selection for quality data and information, team work, customer management/ usage, Employee
operating procedure, teamwork reporting, quality External interface satisfaction, operating procedure, empowerment,
Quality data and management, technology, and management, communication of Quality data and Employee
reporting, Employee Teamwork, Supplier employee relations Improvement information, reporting, Employee involvement,
relations relationship, measurement benchmarking relations Employee training,
Customer interaction systems, Product quality,
Corporate quality Supplier
culture, Supplier Performance,
partnerships,
Operational
quality
management,
Teamwork structures
for process
improvement
7
 8 A. A. Wali et al.

Table 3. Details about the respondent and organization.

Frequency Percent %

Respondent Information
Position or Title
General Manager 38 33.3
Deputy General Manager 32 28.1
Manager (QA,TQM) 17 14.9
Managing Director 8 7.0
Executive 7 6.1
Senior Engineer 6 5.3
Others 6 5.3
Total 114 100

Years of Experience
1 to 5 38 33.3
6 to 10 36 31.6
11 to 15 15 13.2
16 to 20 13 11.4
> 20 12 10.5
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 02:56 19 June 2015

Total 114 100

Characteristics of the Organization

Industry type
Engineering 58 51.0
Processing 32 28.0
Services 24 21.0
Total 114 100.0

Annual turnover (Rs. Crores)

1 to 50 36 31.6
51 to 100 10 8.8
101 to 200 11 9.7
201 to 500 10 8.8
501 to 1000 16 14.0
> 1000 28 24.6
Not reported 03 2.5

Total No. of Employees

More than 2000 55 49.0
Less than 2000 59 51.0
Total 114 100.0

No. of Employee in Quality Department

1–10 29 25.4
11–20 9 7.9
21–30 17 14.9
31–50 20 17.5
51–100 13 11.4
> 100 15 13.5
Not reported 11 9.4
Total 114 100.0

Company Age
More than 10 Years. 96 84.0
Less than 10 Years. 18 16.0
Total 114 100.0
 Critical success factors of TQM 9

Results and discussion
The detailed analysis and presentation of survey results
can be summarized as follows:
. The respondents were categorized into 3 types as:
Engineering ¼ 58 (51%); Processing ¼ 32 (28%);
and Services ¼ 24 (21%).
. The Cronbach’s alpha value for finding internal
consistency (reliability) and Kasier-Moyer-Olkin
IKMO) value to measure sample adequacy were
used. The alpha ranged between 0.91 to 0.95 and
the KMO value was 0.746 indicating a reasonable
adequacy of the sample.
. In the initial factor analysis, we got 18 factors by
method of extraction and deletion. Further using
Principle Component and Varimax rotation with
Kaiser Normalization, we got 12 factors. These
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 02:56 19 June 2015
. It is interesting to note that for some of the factors,
there is no corresponding criteria in the award
model. For example: for the following four factors:
Worker Manager Interactions, Work culture,
Information and Data Management, and Values
and Ethics. The respondents feel that these factors
are important in Indian environment for successful
implementation of TQM.
. Bivariate correlation procedure which computes
Pearson’s correlation coefficient (correlation mea-
sure how factors are related) was carried out using
SPSS program with the two-tailed test. Table 6
shows Factor Correlation Matrix.
. The nature of the interrelationships between the 12
factors is complex, as revealed by the factor- to
factor correlation shown in table 6, which lists 34
significant factor-factor correlation within the cor-
relation matrix at absolute values greater than 0.5

factors are given in table 4. This able also shows
the reliability coefficient (alpha value) and the
KMO value for each factor. Both the tests of relia-
bility and validity for factors are satisfactory. Also
table 3 gives the cumulative percentage variance
explained by these factors and the comparison
with corresponding factors of CII-award (the CII-
award criteria is given in Appendix 2). It may be
noted that this award model is widely used and
followed in India.
. A brief explanation of these factors is given in table
5. The twelve factors account for about 68 percent
of the variation. The most important factor is
Leadership, creativity and quality strategy.
(2-tailed) test. The positive strongest correlation
between these factors are only considered while
drawing the interrelation between the factors. The
remaining negative factor correlations were
ignored.
. Black and Porter (1996) argue that the knowledge
of TQM is still very limited in many areas and it
seems improper and unscientific to provide a com-
plex model of the TQM system without also provid-
ing a method for its testing and refinement. The
nature of the interrelations between the 12 factors
is complex. Figure 1 is a diagrammatic representa-
tion of the significant factor-factor correlation and
relative importance of the factors. This model

Table 4. Critical success factors.

Percentage
variance
explained
by these
Factor Cronbach factors Corresponding
No Factors based on Survey Result  KMO (cumulative) CEBEA criteria
Fac-1 Leadership, Creativity and Quality Strategy 0.909 0.895 8.59 Leadership/Policy & Strategy
Fac-2 Worker Manager Interactions 0.838 0.852 16.74 *
Fac-3 Results and Recognition 0.880 0.852 24.47 Business Result/Impact on Society
Fac-4 Work culture 0.902 0.845 32.02 *
Fac-5 Information and Data Management 0.880 0.697 38.91 *
Fac-6 Customer Focus 0.788 0.789 45.03 Customer Satisfaction
Fac-7 Values and Ethics 0.724 0.621 50.82 *
Fac-8 Communication across the organization 0.698 0.639 55.95 People Satisfaction
Fac-9 Team working 0.574 0.576 60.08 People Management
Fac-10 Congenial inter-personal relations 0.512 0.575 62.97 People Management/People Satisfaction
Fac-11 Delegation and Empowerment 0.505 0.534 65.96 People satisfaction/People Management
Fac-12 Process Improvement 0.704 0.500 68.38 Processes
 ¼ Cronbach reliability coefficient.
KMO ¼ Kasier-Moyer-Olkin value.
* For these factors, there may not be a corresponding matching criteria in the award model.
 10 A. A. Wali et al.

Table 5. Explanation of factors.

Fac1 Leadership, Creativity and Quality Strategy
Successful quality performance requires that the leadership is dedicated to quality. It must also provide initiative and
resource support. It must enable creativity to be nurtured and accordingly chalk out the strategy. Given the importance
of leadership, it is not surprising to find that, in all quality awards, leadership issues are placed at the top of the list of
criteria (see table 4.). Such leadership will drive the quality strategy in an organization and nurture creativity.
Fac2 Worker – Manager Interactions
This means that the healthy interaction between worker and manager is important from quality point of view. The
managers provide the direction for improvement and accordingly workers are motivated to take initiative. In case of any
difficulty workers interact with the manager to improve the situation.
Fac3 Results and Recognition
Crosby (1989) considers recognition as one of the most important steps of the quality improvement process. The
organizations should reward their employees for their contribution to quality. There should be a quick recognition
system for outstanding performance by the employees. These awards and rewards may not be purely financial.
Fac4 Work Culture
The work culture must be very conducive. There should be an active interaction amongst the peers and support from
supervisors. The critical importance of employees’ involvement in the quality process of an organization should be based
on the belief that the best process innovation ideas come from the people actually doing the job. The quality reputation of
Japanese companies is mainly attributed to their success in this area.
Fac5 Information and Data Management
Information is the critical enabler of TQM. This factor emphasizes that the key processes are regularly measured and
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 02:56 19 June 2015

quantified. There should be a focus on benchmarking which provides a stimulus for improvement. The facts and
information should be made available to all. This is especially relevant for managing quality costs.
Fac6 Customer Focus
Quality should be customer driven. In CII-EXIM and other awards, a key criterion is that quality should be ‘based on
the customer’. Nearly one third of the award score is related to the customer. Employees must be well aware of the
concept of internal and external customers. They should care about meeting and exceeding the customer expectations.
There must be a focus on customer feedback and accordingly the processes should be driven.
Fac7 Value, and Ethics
It is important for the people in an organization to live up to the highest ethical standards. There should be a perception
of fair treatment to all. The organization must be guided by the value and ethical standards.
Fac8 Communication across the organization
Effective communication channels must exist in the organization between various work units. With the help of
information technology, the communication can be made effective. Effective communication is vital in aligning the
workforce towards corporate expectations. ‘Communication is part of the cement that holds together the bricks of
total quality process supporting the principle of people-based management’.
Fac9 Team Working
Teamwork is a critical element of TQM according to Crosby (1989). Teamwork delivers synergistic enhancement of
quality efforts Employees must demonstrate cooperative behavior and positive attitude towards working in a team.
Fac10 Congenial Inter-personal Relations
The atmosphere in the organization must be highly congenial to promote active interaction. There must be mutual
respect and faith among employee.
Fac11 Delegation and Empowerment
In TQM setting both delegation and empowerment are required. People must share responsibility for the success or
failure of their work
Fac12 Process improvement
Employees must identify opportunities for continuous improvement. If employee involvement is key to the attainment of
customer satisfaction, managing the process is key to engaging an organization’s employees to take responsibilities for
what they are doing in relation to satisfying the customers.

reveals important information about the factor
structure, which provides the basic information on
the relationships between the various factors and
the strength of those relationships. Figure 1 graphi-
cally illustrates the complexity of interrelationships
between factors. For simplicity, based on the inter-
relationship, some of the CSFs were combined
together in one big box as shown in figure 1.
The twelve factors emerged as CSF may be used by
Indian organizations in the following manner:
(a) Management may decide the relative priority
amongst various TQM initiatives using these
factors.
(b) These factors can also be used in a self-assessment
mode by an organization to assess and improve
 Critical success factors of TQM 11

Table 6. Factor correlation matrix.

Fac1 Fac10 Fac11 Fac12 Fac2 Fac3 Fac4 Fac5 Fac6 Fac7 Fac8 Fac9
Fac1 1
Fac10
0.180 1
Fac11
0.832 0.675 1
Fac12 0.999
0.141
0.815 1
Fac2 0.202 0.980 0.127 0.449 1
Fac3 0.535 0.426
0.427 0.809 0.231 1
Fac4 0.454 0.966
0.140 0.524
0.197 0.381 1
Fac5 0.525
0.986
0.477 0.524 0.158 0.005 0.781 1
Fac6 0.484
0.370
0.780 0.608
0.080 0.545
0.299
0.180 1
Fac7
0.316
0.876
0.236
0.353
0.955
0.809
0.829 0.944
0.123 1
Fac8 0.765
0.838
0.675 0.756 0.426 0.291 0.793 0.953 0.106 0.471 1
Fac9 0.514 0.752 0.021 0.547 0.869 0.917 0.688
0.850 0.334
0.976
0.270 1

Fac8 Fac5 Fac7

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 02:56 19 June 2015

Fac6 Fac3

Fac1 Fac12 Fac9 Fac2

Fac4 Fac10 Fac11

Figure 1. Critical success factors of TQM. Fac1 Leadership, Creativity and Quality Strategy: Fac2 Worker–Manager Interactions;
Fac3 Results and Recognition: Fac4 Work Culture: Fac5 Information and Data management: Fac6 Customer Focus: Fac7 Values and
Ethics: Fac8 Communications across the Organization: Fac9 Team Working: Fac10 Congenial inter-personal relations: Fac11
Delegation and empowerment: Fac12 Process Improvement.

upon these by making concentrated efforts after Concluding remarks

understanding the gaps.
(c) These factors can also be used in an award
model for deciding the relative weightages for
each factor. For example, the template for
CEBEA award model (see Appendix 2) can
include weightages based on the relative
importance of each of the factors (as given in
table 4).
The philosophy of TQM encompasses all the busi-
ness functions within an organization. However, for
effective implementation, it is necessary to align a
few critical success factor (CSFs) with organization’s
philosophy. In this paper, an attempt has been made
to explore critical success factors responsible for initi-
ating quality management. These CSFs are based
 12 A. A. Wali et al.
on the actual practices followed by Indian organiza-
tions.
The investment in quality must also translate into
business results. For this, it is essential to evolve a perfor-
mance measurement system in line with TQM philoso-
phy. This is expected to provide directions for further
research in this important area.
The model and the research method used in this study
have several important implications for Indian managers.
. This method can be very useful to an organization
attempting to identify those characteristics often
mentioned in the huge body of TQM literature
that may provide an opportunity to increase the
level of quality and improve performance.
. Managers can use CSFs to obtain a sharper under-
standing of the existing quality management prac-
tices and link them with the performance measures.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 02:56 19 June 2015
. Managers on can also benchmark themselves each
CSF and identify the gaps.
. The CSFs may provide a rational basis for resource
allocation for improvement.
. The model can also be used for deciding the
weightages in a quality award model.
One of the key contributions of the vast amount of litera-
ture on TQM may also constitute one of the potential
shortcomings of the literature-normative approach to
TQM, i.e. insistence on value driven TQM practices.
The attempt to construct organizational reality may
lead to ignoring reality as it is, a key problem in TQM
implementation. The model proposed in this paper is
based on actual practices followed by Indian organiza-
tions. Contrast this with the previous studies (for exam-
ple: Saraph et al. (1989), Black and Porter (1995)) which
were based on constructing a priori set of pre-defined
CSFs and then matching it with the actual practices.
The novelty of our approach is that the CSFs are derived
based on actual practices followed by Indian organiza-
tions based a statistically validated instrument and factor
analysis.
References
Ahire, S. L., and Kiran, V. 1995, JIT and TQM: a case for
joint implementation. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 15, 84–94.
Ahire, S. L., Golhar, D. Y., and Waller, M. A. 1996,
Development and validation of TQM implementation con-
structs. Decision Sciences, 27, 23–56.
Badri, M. A., Davis, D., and Donald D., 1995, A study of
measuring the CF of quality management. International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 12, 36–53.
Black, S., and Porter, L. J., 1995, An empirical model for
total quality management. Total Quality Management, 6, 149–
164.
Black, S., and Porter, L. J., 1996, Identification of the critical
factors of TQM. Decision Sciences, 27, 1–21.
Boynton, A. C., and Zmud, R. W., 1984, An assessment of
critical success factors. Slogan Management Review, pp. 17–27.
Capon, N., Kaye, M. M., and Wood, M., 1996, Measuring
the success of a TQM program. International Journal of Quality
and Reliability Management, 12, 8–22.
Crosby, P. B., 1979, Quality is Free, New York: New American
Library.
Deming, W. E., 1986, Out of the Crisis, Cambridge, MA: MIT,
Center for Advance Engineering.
Directory of ISO 9000, Certified Companies in India, 1999, Q-
Prod Publishers, New Delhi.
Feigenbaum, A., 1983, Total Quality Control: Engineering and
Management, 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., and Sakakibara, S., 1994,
A framework for quality management research and an
associated measurement instrument. Journal of Operations
Management, 11, 339–366.
Garvin, A. D., 1987, Competing on the eight dimension of
quality. Harvard Business Review, pp. 146–48.
Garvin, A. D., 1983, Quality on the line. Harvard Business
Review, September–October, pp. 65–75.
Golhar, D. Y., Ahire, S. L., and Waller, M. A., 1996,
Quality management in TQM versus non-TQM firms: an
empirical investigation. International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, 13, 8–27.
Huq, Z., and Justin, D. S., 1998, Total quality management
constructs in manufacturing and service industries.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 15,
265–271.
Ishikawa, K., 1976, Guide to Quality Control, Tokyo-Asian
Productivity Organization.
Jablonski, J. R., 1991, Implementing Total Quality Management,
Albuqurque, N.M, Technical Management Consortium.
Juran, J. M., 1974, Quality Control Hand Book, 3rd edition. New:
York: McGraw Hill.
Juran, J. M., and Gryna, F. M., 1993, Quality Planning and
Analysis, 3rd edition. Tata McGraw-Hill, Delhi.
Kasul, R. A., and Motwani, J. G., 1996, TQM in manufac-
turing. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
12, 57–76.
Kim, J., and Mueller, L. W., 1978, Factor analysis: satisfied
methods and practical issues, Beverley Hills and London,
Sage.
Kolay, K., 1993, Measuring the total performance of an
organization. Productivity, 34, 274–280.
Kumar, K., Vizaya, U., and Bhushi, M., 1999,
Implementation of TQM in Indian industries: a review, in:
Operations Management of Global Economic-Challenges and Prospects
(Ed. Kanda et al.), Phoenix publisher, pp. 166–172.
Lakhe, R. R., Mohanty, R. P. 1994, Understanding TQM.
Production Planning and Control, 5, 426–441.
Lokamy, A. N., and Cox, J. F., 1995, An empirical study of
division and plant performance measurement systems in
selected world class manufacturing firms: linkages for compe-
titive advantage. International Journal of Production Research, 33,
221–236.
Lu, E., and Sohal, A., 1993, Success factors, weaknesses and
myths concerning TQM implementation in Australia. Total
Quality Management, 4, 245–255.
 Critical success factors of TQM
Maheswari, S. K., and Zhao, X., 1994, Benchmarking quality
management practice in India. Benchmarking for Quality &
Technology Management, 1, 5–23.
Mohanty, R., and Lakhe, R. R., 1994, Total quality manage-
ment, concepts evaluation and acceptability in developing
economies. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 11, 8–33.
Motwani, J. G., and Mohmoud, E., 1994, Quality practices of
Indian organizations: an empirical analysis. International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 11, 38–52.
Nunnally, J. C., 1976, Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Oakland, J. S., and Leslie, J. P., 1996, Total Quality
Management-Text with Cases, Great Britain, Martins: The
Printer.
Porter, L. J., and Parker, A. J., 1993, Total quality manage-
ment: the critical success factors. Total Quality Management, 4,
13–22.
Powell, T. C., 1995, Total quality management as competitive
advantage: a review and empirical study. Strategic Management
Journal, 16, 15–37.
Rockart, J. F., 1982, The changing role of the information
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 02:56 19 June 2015
systems: a critical success factors perspective. Sloan
Management Review, pp. 3–13.
Saraph, J. V., Benson, P. G., and Schroeder, R. G., 1989,
An instrument for measuring the critical factors of TQM.
Decision Sciences, 20, 810–829.
Sink, D. S., 1991, The role of measurement in achieving world
class quality and productivity management. Industrial
Engineering, pp. 23–28.
Wiele, A. Van der., and Brown, A., 1996, Quality manage-
ment: self-assessment in Australia. Total Quality Management,
7, 293–308.
Appendix 1. Factor analysis
Factory Analysis (FA): Nunnally (1967) described FA
a series of methods for finding clusters of related vari-
ables, FA is essentially a mathematically rather than
statistical tool. It concerns manipulation of a data matrix
produced from the collection of a number of responses.
Data Matrix:
Respondent v1 v2 v3 v69
1 4 3 2 5 3. People Management: The management of the compa-
2 5 3 3 4 ny’s employees with a view to develop and realize
3 1 4 2 3 their full potential to continuously improve organiza-
So factor defined (Nunnally (1967) ‘Any liner combina-
tion of the variables on a data matrix’
A ¼ w1a þ w2b þ w3c þ w4d . . . . . . wnk
w ¼ signifies the weighting to the applied to each item
score (a to k). The weighting w1 to Wn are derived by the
use of factor analytic methods. FA helps variables to be
grouped into meaningful categories.
13
Principle Component Analysis: One method of FA,
involves the generation of liner combination of variables
in such way that they account for as much of the variance
present in the data as possible (Kin & Mueller, 1978).
Factor Rotation: The process of manipulating or
adjusting the factor axes to achieve a simpler and prag-
matically more meaningful factor solution (Kim &
Mueller, 1978).
Eigen Value: The column sum of squares for a factor,
it represent the amount of variance accounted for by a
factor.
Factor: A liner combination of the original variables.
Factors also represent the underlying dimensions that
account for the original set of observed variables.
Alpha: is a coefficient of internal consistency, based on
the average inter-items correlation. It is used to study the
properties of measurement scales and items that make
them up. It also provides information about the relation-
ship between individual items in the scale. This test helps
to show that the factor structure carries some degree of
robustness.
Kaiser-Moyer-Olkin Measure (KMO value): a
measure of sampling adequacy, which is an option
offered by SPSS-PC, was used to measure the adequacy
of the sample for the extraction factors.
Appendix 2. Criteria for CII-EXIM Business
Excellence Award (CEBEA Model)
1. Leadership: Top management’s behavior and perso-
nal involvement in leading quality management func-
tion and efforts in driving the company towards
TQM. By commitment, involve with customers and
supplies work towards the benefit of the society.
2. Polices and Strategies: The company’s mission values,
vision and strategies related to TQM and customer
focus.
tional development, by enhancing employees author-
ity, responsibility and innovation, involvement
towards company’s performance and quality, objec-
tives education and training, and reward systems.
4. Resources: The management utilization and preserva-
tion of resources (financial, information, material) and
application of technology towards continuous business
improvement.
5. Processes: The management of all the value adding
activities within the company including identification
 14 Critical success factors of TQM
review and revision top ensures continuous improve-
ment.
6. People Satisfaction: Company’s success in satisfying
the needs and expectation of its employees (working
environment, health, safety, reward, job security).
7. Customer Satisfaction: Company’s achievements and
projections in terms of customer satisfaction (meeting
the specifications, zero defects, lower rejection rate,
durability, on time delivery, after sale services etc.).
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 02:56 19 June 2015
8. Impact on Society: Company’s success in satisfying
the needs and expectations of the community at
large (quality of life, environment and preservation
or resources, reduction of waste).
9. Business Results: Company’s success in achieving its
planned business performance and in satisfying the
needs and expectations of its stakeholders (financial
measures, and non-financial measures).