The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-5771.htm

Aligning operational practices to Operational

practices and
competitive strategies to enhance competitive
strategies
the performance of Indian
manufacturing firms 131
Saumyaranjan Sahoo Received 30 March 2020
Revised 5 July 2020
Jaipuria Institute of Management Jaipur, Jaipur, India 27 July 2020
3 August 2020
Accepted 11 August 2020
Abstract
Purpose – The main purpose of this study is to understand how collective operational practices are adapted or
stimulated by a firm’s competitive strategy.
Design/methodology/approach – This study employed a data set drawn from 124 plant managers and
directors of Indian manufacturing firms. Multiple regression was used to examine the impact of operational
practices of lean, total quality management (TQM) and supply chain management (SCM) within competitive
clusters of cost leadership, differentiation and focus strategy.
Findings – Results of the study show that the pattern of impact of operational practices on firm’s performance
varies according to type of the competitive strategy employed. All the three competitive strategy clusters have
reported that TQM is the most important trigger for Indian manufacturing firms with relative effect of TQM
practices on firm’s performance being higher than that of lean and SCM practices.
Research limitations/implications – Cross-sectional data from Indian manufacturing firms were used, and
it would be interesting to test the analytical framework of the study for more sectors and countries. Future
studies can take a longitudinal research approach to strengthen the findings of the study.
Practical implications – The findings explain how operational practices are aligned with competitive
strategies for practitioners so that they can assign limited resources to build diverse operational capabilities
based on their strategic choices.
Originality/value – Although very few classical studies are reported in various contexts involving
competitive strategy, operational practices and firm’s performance, no existing study focuses on how these
three domains are linked together in the context of Indian manufacturing sector.
Keywords Competitive strategy, Lean, Total quality management, Supply chain management, Contingency
theory, Resource-based view
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Recent trend of globalization challenges manufacturing firms to become more than ever
competitive (Hallgren and Olhager, 2009; Jung et al., 2009; Yunis et al., 2013; Deif and Beek,
2019). In response to such rapidly changing marketplace environment, most firms are likely
to form a business strategic orientation in response to their market reality and this strategic
orientation is about the business direction and objectives driven by the top management of
the firm (Morgan and Strong, 2003; Hong et al., 2014). Competitive strategies are concerned
about how a firm develops a competitive advantage in an industry relative to its competitors
(Danso et al., 2019). Competitive priorities of a company are measures of market
competitiveness (external) and operational competence (internal) (Singh et al., 2008). With
the emergence of several operational improvement philosophies, the alignment of firm’s
competitive strategy (external) and operational practices (internal) becomes a challenging
new task (Qi et al., 2011; Kharub et al., 2019). Competitive strategy refers to the basis on which
Benchmarking: An International
a firm can achieve and maintain a competitive advantage through differentiation, cost Journal
leadership or focus (Porter, 1980; Miller and Roth, 1994; Qi et al., 2011; Jayaram et al., 2014; Vol. 28 No. 1, 2021
pp. 131-165
Herzallah et al., 2017). A firm’s competitive strategy drives its manufacturing (or operational) © Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
strategy leading to operations decision that results in some desired business performance DOI 10.1108/BIJ-03-2020-0128
BIJ (Prajogo and Sohal, 2006; Amoaka-Gyampah and Acquaah, 2008; Qi et al., 2011; Jayaram et al.,
28,1 2014; Kharub et al., 2019).
In operations management (OM) literature, three operational practices namely lean
practices (LEAN), total quality management practices (TQM) and supply chain management
practices (SCM) are widely adopted by manufacturers in developed countries, and share a
common theme consistent with sustainable creation of customer value and continuous
improvement that are replicable across a variety of departments, projects, processes and
132 products within an organization and across the value chain (Jayaram et al., 2014). The
alignment between the firm’s competitive strategy and operational practices has gained
considerable attention since Skinner’s (1969) seminal article. One assumption is that the
competitive strategy and operational practices of the organization complement each other
basically as both are considered to establish a competitive advantage for the business that is a
cumulative outcome of deliberate actions and decisions made by senior management
personnel and several employees from various functional departments on a regular basis and
over the years (Jayaram et al., 2014; Dubey et al., 2018). The development of operational
strategies in alignment to firm’s competitive strategy can serve to improve and tailor the
product offering for customers as well as improve the internal efficiency and effectiveness of
manufacturing plants (Robson et al., 2013). Therefore, an operational strategy is a subset of a
firm’s competitive strategy.
However, in OM literature, there are conflicting pieces of evidence concerning the strategic
orientation that drives a firm’s business performance. One group of scholars argue that TQM
fits the differentiation strategy (Prajogo and Sohal, 2006; Prajogo, 2007; Amoaka-Gyampah
and Acquaah, 2008; Jung et al., 2009; Yunis et al., 2013; Jayaram et al., 2014; Herzallah et al.,
2017), and thus the other group hold that quality is positively related to cost reduction, and
thus TQM supports the cost leadership strategy (Zatzick et al., 2012; Yunis et al., 2013;
Jayaram et al., 2014; Kurt and Zehir, 2016; Herzallah et al., 2017; Kharub et al., 2019). While
Hallgren and Olhager (2009) have argued that lean practices fit the cost leadership strategy.
To the contrary, Jayaram et al. (2014) have argued that operational practices of lean are not
related to the competitive strategy of cost leadership and differentiation. However, in their
research, they found that the operational practices of SCM are positively related to the
competitive strategy of differentiation and focus. More importantly, the OM literature has
shown conflicting arguments concerning the strategic orientation that drives quality
management adoption, particularly between differentiation and cost leadership. While
numerous classical studies (Table 1) are conducted in different contexts involving
competitive strategy, operational practices and the performance (FP) of the firm,
researchers either reported ambiguous results or did not focus on how these three
management domains are linked together. Research has also been deficient in understanding
the linkages between competitive strategy and operational practices in emerging economies
such as India (Shavarini et al., 2013; Jayaram et al., 2014; Bayraktar et al., 2016; Kharub et al.,
2019). As a consequence, the confusion and ambiguity about the linkages between
competitive priorities and operational practices seriously inhibit its effective dissemination in
the practical world.
The increased competition brought about by globalization and economic reforms requires
that manufacturing companies in India and similar dynamic environment not only have to
develop appropriate strategies but they also need to understand how these strategies affect
performance. In economic environments when manufacturers are undergoing several
changes, Hayes (1985) argued that building operational competence can be a means by which
their competitive strategy can be developed and leveraged to enhance the firm performance
(FP) (Amoaka-Gyampah and Acquaah, 2008). In many cases, manufacturing firms are not
able to adapt an operational approach to their unique competitive priorities, which results in a
lack of strategic alignment (Brown et al., 2007; Shavarini et al., 2013; Yunis et al., 2013;
Sr. Article – Author (Year) and
No. research objectives Variables (constructs) of the study
1 (1) Prajogo and Sohal (2006) (1)
(2) To examine the
relationship among
organization strategy, (2)
TQM, and organizational
performance
(3) To examine the mediating
role of TQM between
organization strategy and (3)
organizational
performance
2 (1) Prajogo (2007) (1)
(2) To examine the link
between quality
performance and two (2)
competitive strategies
(cost leadership and
differentiation)
(3) To examine the co-
alignment between
differentiation and cost
leadership strategies in
predicting quality
performance
and operational
Research evidences on
competitive strategy,
the linkages between
Table 1.
performance
operational practices
Organization strategy
(differentiation strategy/cost
leadership strategy)
TQM practices (leadership,
strategic planning, customer
focus, information and
analysis, people management
and process management)
Organizational performance
(product quality, product
innovation and process
innovation)
Competitive strategy
(differentiation strategy/cost
leadership strategy)
Quality performance
(reliability, performance,
durability and conformance to (3)
specification)
Research approach/Methodology
(1) Empirical survey data of 194 (1)
Australian firms (manufacturing
and non-manufacturing)
(2) Survey data were collected from (2)
middle/senior-level managers
(3) Survey data analyzed using (3)
structural equation modeling
(1) Empirical survey data of 102
Australian manufacturing firms
(2) Majority of the respondents was (2)
small- and medium-sized
enterprises
Survey data were collected from
middle/senior-level managers
(4) Statistical tools such as bivariate
correlation and hierarchical
multiple regression was used to
examine the hypothesized
relationship between competitive
strategy and quality
performance
Research findings
TQM practices shown to have a significant and
positive relationship with differentiation
strategy
TQM practices shown to have an insignificant
(no) relationship with cost leadership strategy
TQM practices and differentiation strategy are
significantly and positively related to three
organizational performance measures
(4) Cost leadership strategy is shown to have an
insignificant (no) relationship with three
organizational performance measures
(5) TQM partially mediates the relationship
between differentiation strategy and
organizational performance measures
(1) Quality performance is strongly predicted by
differentiation strategy
Cost leadership strategy did not show a
significant effect on quality performance
(3) Examining the co-alignment between cost
leadership and differentiation strategy, the
results of the study indicate that when cost
leadership is high, the positive relationship
between differentiation and quality
performance is stronger
(continued )
strategies
competitive
Operational
133
practices and
 BIJ
28,1

134

Table 1.
Sr. Article – Author (Year) and
No. research objectives Variables (constructs) of the study Research approach/Methodology Research findings

3 (1) Amoaka-Gyampah and (1)
Acquaah (2008)
(2) To examine the
relationship between (2)
manufacturing strategy
and competitive strategy (3)
and their influence on firm
performance
4 (1) Hallgren and Olhager (1)
(2009)
(2) To investigate internal (2)
and external factors that
drive the choice of lean and (3)
agile operations
capabilities and their (4)
respective impact on
operational performance
(3) To analyze the differences
between lean and agile
manufacturing practices
Competitive strategy (1)
(differentiation strategy/cost
leadership strategy)
Manufacturing strategy (cost, (2)
delivery, flexibility and quality)
Firm performance (market
share and sales growth)
Competitive intensity of (1)
industry
Competitive strategy
(differentiation/cost leadership)
Operations characteristics
(lean/agile)
Operational performance (cost,
quality, delivery and flexibility) (2)
Empirical survey data of 180 (1)
manufacturing and service
organizations in Ghana (2)
Survey data analyzed using
structural equation modeling
(3)
(4)
(5)
Empirical survey data collected (1)
from 211 manufacturing plants
(from electronics, machinery, and
auto suppliers operating sectors)
located in Austria, Finland, (2)
Germany, Japan, South Korea,
Sweden and USA
Survey data analyzed using (3)
structural equation modeling
(4)
Competitive strategy of a firm is positively
associated with manufacturing strategy
Out of four manufacturing strategy
components, only quality appears to influence
firm performance
Competitive strategy does not directly affect
firm performance, it does so indirectly through
quality
Among the four manufacturing strategy
components, a low-cost manufacturing
strategy provides the strongest link with cost
leadership strategy
All the four manufacturing strategy
components are strongly related to
differentiation strategy, the strongest links are
with quality and flexibility
Competitive intensity positively impacts both
cost leadership (moderate impact) and
differentiation (weak impact) as competitive
strategies
The choice of a cost leadership strategy fully
mediates the impact of competitive intensity of
industry as a driver of lean manufacturing
Agile manufacturing is directly affected by
both internal and external drivers, i.e. a
differentiation strategy as well as the
competitive intensity of the industry
Lean manufacturing is positively associated
with cost leadership strategy (moderate) and
differentiation strategy (weak)

(continued )
Sr. Article – Author (Year) and
No. research objectives
5 (1) Jung et al. (2009)
(2) To explore the relationship
between competitive
strategy, TQM and
continuous improvement
of international project
management (CIIPM)
Table 1.
Variables (constructs) of the study
(1) Competitive strategy
(differentiation strategy/cost
leadership strategy)
(2) TQM practices (employee
relations, leadership, customer/
supplier relations and product/
process management)
(3) CIIPM measures (continuous
improvement in project
management performance,
continuous improvement in
project management processes,
continuous improvement in
project management maturity
and improvement in project
teamwork)
Research approach/Methodology
(1) Empirical survey data collected
from multinational companies
with international project
management experiences
operating in US, Mexico, Korea
and China
(2) Survey data were collected from
268 middle/senior-level
managers
(3) Survey data analyzed using
structural equation modeling
Research findings
(5) Agile manufacturing is positively associated
(moderate) with differentiation strategy and
negatively associated (moderate) with cost
leadership strategy
(6) Lean manufacturing has a significant impact
on cost performance (while agile
manufacturing has not)
(7) Agile manufacturing has a stronger
relationship with volume and product mix
flexibility (while lean manufacturing has not)
(1) The direct relation between competitive
strategy of the organization and CIIPM is not
significant
(2) Differentiation strategy has a stronger impact
on TQM practices
(3) Cost leadership strategy has a weaker impact
on TQM practices
(4) Competitive strategy does not directly affect
CIIPM, it does so indirectly through TQM
(continued )
strategies
competitive
Operational
135
practices and

Table 1.
Sr. Article – Author (Year) and
No. research objectives Variables (constructs) of the study
6 (1) Qi et al. (2011) (1) Competitive strategy
(2) To investigate the (differentiation/cost leadership)
relationships among (2) Environmental uncertainty
competitive strategy, (demand uncertainty, supply
supply chain strategy, and uncertainty, and technological
business performance uncertainty)
while examining the (3) Supply chain strategy (lean
moderating effect of supply chain strategy and agile
environmental uncertainty supply chain strategy)
(4) Business performance (return (3)
on investment, return on assets,
market share, growth in ROI,
growth in ROA and growth in
market share
7 (1) Zatzick et al. (2012) (1)Performance
(2) This paper explores how (2)TQM
fit with the organization’s (3)Cost leadership
strategic orientation (4)Differentiation
relates to performance (5)Layoff rate
following TQM (6)Prior performance
implementation (7)Union density
(8)Organization size
(9)Multisite operations
(10) Organization age
(11) New technology
implementation
(12) Compete internationally
(13) Compete nationally
Research approach/Methodology
(1) Empirical survey data collected
from Chinese manufacturing
firms
(2) 604 responses were collected
from middle/senior-level
managers (in most case plant
manager, general manager,
president or production
manager)
Survey data analyzed using
structural equation modeling
(1) Survey data collected from 780
Canadian manufacturing firms
(2) Use of longitudinal data for
analysis
(3) Survey data analyzed using
hierarchical ordinary least
square (OLS) regression
statistical tool
BIJ
28,1
136
Research findings
(1) The results of the study show significant
moderating effects of external environment on
the relationship among competitive strategy,
supply chain strategy and business
performance
(2) Firms that primarily focus on a differentiation
strategy emphasize an agile supply chain
strategy
(3) Cost leaders are inclined to implement both
lean and agile supply chain strategies, but their
emphasis on agile strategy is significantly
greater in a volatile environment than in a
stable environment
(4) The choice of supply chain strategy does not
appear to be an “either-or” decision and firms
could adopt either a lean or an agile strategy, or
both, depending on the environment
(1) TQM is positive related to performance of cost
leaders
(2) TQM is negatively related to performance of
differentiators
(continued )
Sr. Article – Author (Year) and
No. research objectives Variables (constructs) of the study
8 (1) Yunis et al. (2013) (1)
(2) To examine the role of
TQM in strategy-TQM-
performance relationship (2)
model
(3) Theoretical Support:
Resource-based view of (3)
firm theory and
contingency theory
(4)
9 (1) Jayaram et al. (2014) (1)
(2) To examine the direct
influence of three types of
operations management (2)
practices, namely TQM,
Lean and SCM on (3)
operational performance
(3) To understand whether
the relationship between
operations management
practices and operational
performance varies by the
type of business strategy
being pursued by the
organization
Table 1.
Cost leadership strategy (low
prices, price-cut decisions and
cost control system)
Differentiation strategy
(aggressive competition,
innovation and risk taking)
Quality management
(leadership, customer/supplier
relationship, employee relations
and product/process
management)
Operational performance
(continuous improvement,
meeting specification, timely
delivery and within budget)
Business strategy (cost
leadership, differentiation and
focus)
Operations practices (TQM,
lean, and SCM)
Operational performance
(ability to deliver on time,
manufacturing/production
costs and overall efficiency)
Research approach/Methodology
(1) Survey data collected from
companies located in USA,
Mexico, Korea and China
(2) 268 responses were collected
from middle/senior-level
managers
(3) Survey data analyzed using
structural equation modeling
(1) Survey data collected from 329 (1)
Thai manufacturing firms
(2) Survey data were collected from
middle/senior-level managers
(3) Survey data analyzed using
hierarchical cluster analysis and
multiple linear regression
statistical tool
Research findings
(1) TQM influences strategy formulation process
and it is dynamic resources that contributes to
the achievement of a sustainable competitive
advantage
(2) Soft TQM has a higher impact than hard TQM
on competitive strategy formulation and on
performance
(3) Soft TQM is positively related to both cost
leadership strategy and differentiation
strategy
(4) Hard TQM is not significantly related to both
cost leadership strategy and differentiation
strategy
The operational practices of TQM, Lean and
SCM are significantly associated with
operational performance
(2) Operational practices of TQM are positively
related to cost leadership strategy (strong) and
differentiation strategy (moderate)
(3) Operational practices of TQM are not related to
business strategy of focus
(4) Operational practices of lean are positively
related to business strategy of focus
(5) Operational practices of lean are not related to
cost leadership and differentiation
(6) Operational practices of SCM are positively
related to business strategy of differentiation
and focus
(continued )
strategies
competitive
Operational
137
practices and

Table 1.
Sr. Article – Author (Year) and
No. research objectives
(4) Theoretical Support:
Contingency theory and
institutional theory
10 (1) Kurt and Zehir (2016)
(2) To examine the
relationship between cost
leadership strategy, total
quality management
practices and firm’s
financial performance
(3) Theoretical Support:
Resource-based view of
firm theory and
positioning theory
11 (1) Herzallah et al. (2017)
(2) To examine the
relationship between
quality ambidexterity,
competitive strategy and
firm performance
(3) To analyze the
combination of quality
exploitation and quality
exploration associated
with the different levels of
each competitive strategy
Variables (constructs) of the study Research approach/Methodology
(1) Competitive strategy (cost (1)
leadership strategy)
(2) TQM practices (participation of
employees, leadership, decision (2)
making, education, process
approach, relations with
suppliers, customer focus and (3)
continuous improvement
approach)
(3) Financial performance
(1) QM practices (quality (1)
ambidexterity, quality
exploitation, quality (2)
exploration, customer focus,
process management,
teamwork and training)
(2) Competitive strategy (cost
leadership, differentiation, and
focus)
(3) Financial performance
(economic profitability or ROA,
financial profitability or ROE,
percentage of profit over billing
volume, firms market share and
growth in sales)
Survey data collected from 142 (1)
Turkish medium and large-sized
manufacturing firms
Survey data was collected from
449 middle/senior-level
managers
Survey data analyzed using
structural equation modeling
and AMOS
Survey data collected from 205
Palestinian industrial firms
Survey data analyzed using
structural equation modeling
and AMOS
BIJ
28,1
138
Research findings
(7) Operational practices of SCM are negatively
related to cost leadership strategy
Cost leadership strategy is positively related to
TQM practices
(2) Cost leadership strategy is positively related to
financial performance with TQM practices as
the mediator
(1) Quality ambidexterity is positively related to
three competitive strategy
(2) Competitive strategy of cost leadership and
differentiation are positively related to
financial performance, whereas competitive
strategy of focus is not significantly related to
financial performance
(3) Balanced combination with similar levels of
quality exploitation and quality exploration is
found to be suitable for higher levels of
competitive strategies implementation,
whereas an excess of quality exploration over
quality exploitation is associated with lower
levels of strategies implementation
(continued )
Sr. Article – Author (Year) and
No. research objectives Variables (constructs) of the study
12 (1) Kharub et al. (2019) (1)
(2) To examine the impact of
competitive strategy of (2)
cost leadership on firm
performances
(3) To examine the mediating
role of quality
management practices on (3)
the relationship between
competitive strategy and
firm performances
Table 1.
Research approach/Methodology
Competitive strategy (cost (1)
leadership)
Quality management (supplier
management, continuous (2)
management, information and
analysis and design and (3)
development)
Firm performance (product
quality improvement and
process improvement)
Research findings
Survey data collected from 245 (1)
Indian micro, small and medium
enterprises (MSMEs) (2)
The respondent firms are ISO
9000 certified MSMEs
Survey data analyzed using
structural equation modeling
No direct relationship exists between cost
leadership strategy and firm performances
Quality management practices completely
mediates the relationship between cost
leadership strategy and firm performances
strategies
competitive
Operational
139
practices and
BIJ Herzallah et al., 2017). Furthermore, the role of competitive strategy in implementing
28,1 operational practices in the context of manufacturing firms is both not clear and evident.
Having regard to the above topic, the author is motivated to clarify how the success of the
company is achieved by aligning competitive strategy with operational practices. However,
the research remains open to debate on the linkages between operational practices and the
performance of the firm, as conflicting findings have been recorded in the literature, in
particular on the ties between competitive strategies, Lean (Bai et al., 2019) and TQM
140 (Valmohammadi and Roshanzamir, 2015) on performance. To summarize, the present study
addresses two primary research questions:
(1) Whether there is a positive relationship between operational practices and firm’s
performance in the context of Indian manufacturing sector?
(2) Whether this relationship varies by the type of competitive strategy being pursued
by the firm?
Hence, the present study examines whether the pattern of operational practice–performance
relationships within three different competitive strategic orientation (according to Porter’s
(1980) classification) that were established in the context of developed countries is also
applicable to the context of developing countries like India. The research paper has been
organized into six sections. Section 1 has been discussed with the introduction to the research
study. Section 2 encapsulates the review of literature, formulation of hypotheses and presents
the research model of the study. Section 3 presents the research methodology of the study.
Section 4 presents the analysis and results of the study. Section 5 includes a discussion of the
findings, discusses the theoretical and practical implications of the findings and concludes
(Section 6) with outlining the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research.

2. Literature review and hypotheses development

This section of the literature review is divided into four sub-sections. Section 2.1 reflects the
theoretical framework for the context of the current study. Section 2.2 presents the discussion
on the existing literature on Lean, TQM and SCM operating practices and their independent
as well as interactional impact on firm performance. Section 2.3 then explores the
classification of competitive strategies by Porter and their relations documented in the
existing literature with operational practices. Section 2.4 then focuses on reviewing past
research that gives evidence of how competitive strategy of cost leadership, differentiation
and focus are associated with bundles of operational practices of Lean, TQM and SCM.
Hypotheses are formulated based upon the discussion in each of subsection (2.1–2.4).

2.1 Theoretical background

This research study explores the proposed research questions by drawing on the resource-
based view of the firm (RBVF) and contingency theory literature for insights in the constructs
and the relationship amongst them as stated in the research questions. The theoretical
foundation from RBVF helped to guide the study. This theory deals with the resource-based
view of the business itself as a starting point (Kurt and Zehir, 2016). The RBVF has been
incredibly popular in strategy and operations management research for several reasons
(Bromiley and Rau, 2016), as it has an extremely compelling logic. Firm’s resources include all
values, skills, organizational processes and knowledge controlled by a company and enable
strategies to increase effectiveness and productivity in the business (Bromiley and Rau, 2016;
Kurt and Zehir, 2016). As an extension of Porter’s Five Forces within the strategic
management literature (Wenerfelt, 1984), the RBVF suggests that a firm’s sustainable
competitive advantage can be reached if internal resources are leveraged to guard against
competitors and other external market forces that may negatively impact performance Operational
(Porter, 1980; Campbell and Park, 2017). Competitive advantage refers to the firm’s capability, practices and
which acquires from the attributes and resources to perform at a higher level within the
industry (Wu et al., 2017). RBVF theorists argued that firms need to achieve competitive
competitive
advantage to give responses to ever-changing market conditions through strategically strategies
deploying resources and functional capabilities within the firm and adding new capabilities
to existing one (Kurt and Zehir, 2016). In brief, the RBVF attempts to explain firm sustainable
competitive advantage as stemming from firm resources that are rare, valuable, hard or 141
impossible to imitate or duplicate and hard to substitute (Bromiley and Rau, 2016; Camanzi
and Giu, 2020). Competitive advantage can be achieved through operational practices such as
lean (Hallam et al., 2018), TQM (Wilson and Campbell, 2018; Ahmed and Ferdousi, 2020), SCM
(Wu et al., 2017) and innovation through product and processes (Terziovski, 2010; Coccia,
2017), among others. It is through these perspectives of RBVF that the current inquiry is
directed.
Contingency theory suggests that “organizational effectiveness results from fitting
characteristics of the organization to contingencies that reflect the situation of the
organization” (Donaldson, 2001; McAdam et al., 2019). Contingencies (also known as
contingency variables) are the characteristics of a particular context, which makes every
situation different from another (Netland, 2015). Using this viewpoint, organizations aim to
enhance their efficiency by improving fitness and alignment using their defined set of
contingency variables (Yunis et al., 2013; Netland, 2015; Lucianetti et al., 2018; McAdam et al.,
2019). This process of fit is viewed as a dynamic and ongoing process especially in fast-
moving business environments (Donaldson, 2006; Daft et al., 2010; McAdam et al., 2019).
Studies in operations management have shown that competitive strategy plays an essential
role in designing and executing an operational structure and allows a company to gain a
competitive advantage (Yunis et al., 2013; Jayaram et al., 2014; Netland, 2015; Acquaah and
Amoako-Gyampah, 2016; Bayraktar et al., 2016; McAdam et al., 2019). The competitive
strategy has been defined as the match an organization makes between its internal resources
and skills and the opportunities and risk created by its external environment (Grant, 1991). In
reality, firms formulate and implement various competitive strategies to achieve either cost
leadership, product differentiation or niche recognition in the marketplace (Porter, 1980;
Porter, 1985; Schlie and Goldhar, 1995; Shavarini et al., 2013; Jayaram et al., 2014). These
instances become meaningful in broad (Industry target) and limited (Segment target) market.
The first dimension represents competitive strategies in terms of market range (strategic
target), i.e. broad or limited and the second dimension represents the resource of competitive
advantage, i.e. low cost or differentiation (Shavarini et al., 2013). Therefore, Porter’s
classification of business (or competitive) strategies is presented by a two-by-two matrix
(Figure 1).
The competitive strategy is defined as the strategy which looks for a preferable
competitive situation for the organization it acts in (Herzallah et al., 2014). It aims to establish
certain levels of profits and sustain that competitive atmosphere of industry (Porter, 1980).

Competitive Advantage

Low Cost Uniqueness

Strategic Industry Target Cost leadership Differentiation Figure 1.

Porter’s three-generic
Target Segment Target strategies
Focus (or Concentration)
BIJ Cost leadership strategy aims to realize the least possible cost of a certain industry and avoid
28,1 the flaws and wastes (Belohlav, 1993; Chung et al., 2010), through reducing operational and
production costs (Porter, 1980, 1985), controlling indirect costs, material supply or product
distribution (Prajogo, 2007), or increasing their capacity utilization and production efficiency
(Fuentes et al., 2006; Herzallah et al., 2014). Differentiation aims to provide better products or
services to satisfy the customer’s need (Belohlav, 1993; Chung et al., 2010; Herzallah et al.,
2014). This strategy includes creating differentiated products or services provided by the
142 firm that is different from the products or services of competitors (Herzallah et al., 2014).
These products or services must be accepted by customers as unique and different from any
products or services which serve the same purpose in the market (Porter, 1980). The focus
strategy targets a small market, especially when the target market is large, profitable and
growing. A focus strategy is usually employed where the company knows its segment and
has competitive product offerings (low cost or uniqueness) to competitively satisfy its needs.
These competitive strategies classified as per Porter’s categorization frames the vision and
mission of a manufacturing firm which in turn guides development of operational systems of
the firm which is used to co-ordinate functional decision making, including the selection of
technologies, suppliers, production planning and control systems, work-force and quality
practices, among others (Bates et al., 1995; Shavarini et al., 2013; Jayaram et al., 2014). This
means that an organization, therefore, has to decide which operational capabilities among
Lean, TQM and SCM are most suitable to support its competitive priorities (Miltenburg, 2005;
Nurcahyo and Wibowo, 2015). Hence, in line with the contingency theory model, the study
aims to examine the propositions suggested in research question 2. Contingency theory is
especially useful when there is a lack of an established overarching theoretical framework
(Simpson et al., 2012; Clercq et al., 2014; Lucianetti et al., 2018) with an emphasis on a
contextually grounded approach based on contingency fit rather than a single best way to
manage an organization (Donaldson, 2001; McAdam et al., 2019). Hence this study explores,
based on the contingency view, the strategic formulation and aspect of top management
choices of implementation of operational practices, which are based on the availability of
resources and an assessment of the internal and external environment in which the
organization competes in the marketplace.

2.2 Relationship between operational practices and firm performance

2.2.1 Lean manufacturing practice and performance. Key principles of lean manufacturing
practices include the identification and elimination of all non-value-added activities (or waste)
and involve employees toward continuous improvement (Ghosh, 2013; Das et al., 2014;
Hallam et al., 2018; Bai et al., 2019; Hernandez-Matias et al., 2020). Lean manufacturing
endeavors to use less of everything: less investment in equipment and tools, less
manufacturing space, fewer workers and less engineering time in product and process
design, among others (Das et al., 2014; Shi et al., 2020). These changes in operational strategy
are associated with increased operational efficiency and effectiveness, which positively
impacts firm’s business performance (Kaynak, 2003; Pramod et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2011;
Belekoukias et al., 2014; Drohomeretski et al., 2014; Hallam et al., 2018; Shrafat and Ismail,
2019). For these reasons, lean has become a popular strategy for improving the
competitiveness of industrial firms (Netland, 2015). While the benefits of lean practices are
well-documented, some of the negative effects of lean on employee outcomes, work
characteristics, product design and an organization’s innovation capability have also been
studied (Lewis, 2000; Parker, 2003; Mehri, 2006; Lindeke et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2010). Lean
manufacturing practices have both negative and positive effects on firm’s performance (FP),
resulting in inconsistent and clouded results (Bai et al., 2019). There is a strong consensus that
implementation of a lean manufacturing system is a prolonged investment that pays off if
done correctly (Netland and Ferdows, 2016). In accordance to this discussion, the researcher Operational
proposes the following hypothesis: practices and
H1a. LEAN practices have a positive and significant impact on FP. competitive
2.2.2 Total quality management and performance. A firm should have customer orientation strategies
and must be aware about expectations before offering any product or service and these
expectations should also be continuously monitored (Sharma and Modgil, 2019). Improving
the quality of an organization’s product and services is fundamental to business success 143
(Androwis et al., 2018; Yaseen et al., 2018; McAdam et al., 2019). TQM is considered as one of
the most important management strategies that participate in gaining the quality of products
and services (Al-Dhaafri and Al-Swidi, 2016). TQM is an integrated management philosophy
and set of manufacturing practices that emphasize continuous improvement, meeting
customer’s requirements, reducing re-work, long-range thinking, increased employee
involvement and teamwork, process redesign, competitive benchmarking, team-based
problem solving, constant measurement of results and closer relationship with suppliers
(Temtime and Solomon, 2002; Wang et al., 2012). The principles and contents of TQM
philosophy would increase a firm’s commitment to quality and if they are applied correctly
enhances the firm’s competitiveness (Youssef and Youssef, 2018; Sharma and Modgil, 2019).
Any decline in customer satisfaction due to poor product and service quality would be a
serious cause of organizational failure (Demirbag et al., 2006; Kafetzopoulos et al., 2015;
Yaseen et al., 2018). A thorough review of TQM literature reveals that the majority of the
literature supports the positive and significant relationship between TQM and firm’s
performance (Miyagawa and Yoshida, 2010; Faisal et al., 2011; Al-Dhaafri et al., 2016;
Androwis et al., 2018). While, other studies have found adverse results (Prajogo and Sohal,
2004; Kannan and Tan, 2005; Kober et al., 2012; Patyal and Koilakuntla, 2018; Cho and
Linderman, 2019). Hence, research articles have reported failure of TQM, which have created
problems serious enough that the survival of the organization was threatened
(Valmohammadi and Roshanzamir, 2015; Talapatra and Uddin, 2019). Therefore, several
inconsistencies are being reported in scholarly articles, which further calls for empirical
examination of relationship between TQM practices and manufacturing firm’s performance.
Thus, the following hypothesis is introduced to be examined:
H1b. TQM has a positive and significant impact on FP.
2.2.3 Supply chain management and performance. Nowadays, production processes are
mostly dispersed around the globe (Seuring and M€ uller, 2008). Organizations are not
competing with each other but with their competitor’s supply chains (Sharma and Modgil,
2019). Irrespective of the business domain, organizations must focus on speed, efficiency and
customer value to be globally competitive (Cudney and Elrod, 2011; Phan et al., 2019). In
recent decades, globalization has offered manufacturers even greater opportunities to lower
costs through sourcing, by capitalizing on the differences in labor and material costs among
regions and countries (Jiang, 2015). To compete among supply chains, it is necessary to have
the best practices that support and create the value in entire value chain (Sharma and Modgil,
2019). Such supply chain practices include strategic supplier relationship, customer
relationship, information sharing and quality (Christopher, 2005; Stadtler, 2015; Sharma
and Modgil, 2019). Effective management of the supply chain is viewed as the driver of
reductions in lead times and material costs, and improvement in product quality and
responsiveness (Kannan and Tan, 2005). The objective governing all endeavors within a
supply chain is seen as increasing competitiveness (Stadtler, 2015; Phan et al., 2019). SCM
seeks to create a stream of activities linked with manufacturers, customers and suppliers that
demand long-term partnership links to be developed (Stock and Boyer, 2009; N€aslund and
Hulthen, 2012). SCM thus helps firms to allocate resources and produce products
BIJ appropriately and proportionately (Oghazi et al., 2018). This will also help firms produce
28,1 products at right time and in the right location by having an integrated network of
manufacturers, suppliers, dealers and warehouses (Vanichchinchai and Igel, 2011; Sharma
and Modgil, 2019). SCM also acts as a means for minimizing total cost while satisfactory
meeting service-level requirements (Marino et al., 2018). Coordinating material, information,
logistics and purchasing functions with manufacturing processes for a multinational large
company in an efficient manner is still a formidable task (Stadtler, 2015). Problems in supply
144 chains can hit businesses negatively. This argument leads to the following hypothesis:
H1c. SCM practices have a positive and significant impact on FP.
2.2.4 Interaction effect of operational practices and performance. Lean, TQM and SCM
represent alternate approaches to improve the competitiveness and efficiency of a
manufacturing firm’s operations. Lean is a manufacturing philosophy which focuses on
“reduction of waste across all functional levels” through the participation of workforce,
whereas TQM seeks to optimize functional processes, rather than the whole system, which
are concerned with quality and customer satisfaction. SCM on the other hand is equally
essential in any business to plan, control and execute a product’s flow, which is essentially the
management of all networks of business processes and activities. While differences in their
motivation and objectives have sometimes led them being represented as being distinct and
separate, it is short-sighted to view them as being unrelated (Kannan and Tan, 2005; Jayaram
et al., 2014). Most quantitative research in operations management have examined a single
dimension of operational practices and its effect on the firm’s performance, while ignoring
evaluation of the interaction between different operational practices on performance. In
reality, “set” or bundles of operational practices consistently appear together to form a
manufacturing strategy and work synergistically to achieve better firm performance (Furlan
et al., 2011; Singh and Ahuja, 2015; Sahoo, 2018). In this context, it is necessary to explore the
relationship between the pairwise interactional effect of operational practices and their
impact on the firm’s performance (Konecny and Thun, 2011). However, to stay competitive,
manufacturing firms continuously need to search and implement best practices through the
adoption of an integrated and coherent system of continuous improvement practices to
improve their performance (Schroeder and Flynn, 2002; Pont et al., 2008).
The philosophy of integrated manufacturing promotes the idea that manufacturing
technologies can work together to boost the production output (Furlan et al., 2011;
Khanchanapong et al., 2014; Dubey and Singh, 2015; Sahoo, 2020). Some studies suggest that,
although Lean and TQM work separately, their combination may yield synergies that lead to
further operational improvements (Belekoukias et al., 2014; Pont et al., 2008; Pramod et al.,
2006; Singh and Ahuja, 2015). Along this line, Dubey and Singh’s research (2015) shows that
Lean and TQM must be used together if zero defects and zero wastes are to be achieved.
However, Konecny & Thun (2011) in a similar study of bundled practices have argued that a
bundled implementation may not necessarily lead to superior performance, as their study
have highlighted a potential reason for this is human-resource-related conflict. In light of
these divergent views, an objective of this research review is to investigate the gaps in
performance contribution between the stand-alone and combined interaction of lean and
TQM practices. Therefore, based upon the above discussion and growing recognition of
future studies to investigate the bundled approach of lean and TQM practices (Belekoukias
et al., 2014; Chiarini and Baccarani, 2016; Ho, 2010a; Ho, 2010b; Jayaram et al., 2014; Modgil
and Sharma, 2016; Sahoo, 2020), the researcher postulates the following hypothesis:
H1d. The interaction of lean and TQM (Lean 3 TQM bundle) has a positive and
significant impact on FP.
When lean and SCM methods in operational management literature are discussed together, Operational
the definition of the lean supply chain is considered. Lean supply chain is about applying lean practices and
principles to the whole supply chain (Nadal, 2017). The lean supply chain approach moves
away from the current “trading mentality”, in which profit targets are short term and highly
competitive
dependent on market prices and the ability to negotiate strongly with suppliers or customers, strategies
to a strategy based on a long-term commitment to supply chain partners, with a cooperative
and systematic waste elimination along the supply chain (Tortorella et al., 2017). Lean
implementation helps SCM by achieving significant improvement in resource productivity 145
(Ruiz-Benıtez et al., 2018). Moreover, leanness in a SC maximizes profits through cost
reductions (Singh and Pandey, 2015). Extending lean principles from manufacturing to SCM
can leverage the SC’s competitiveness further with increased responsiveness to demand
changes and reduced operating costs (Ruiz-Benıtez et al., 2018). However, many organizations
have struggled to implement lean SCM practices due to lack of awareness and improper
implementation approach (Tortorella et al., 2017). The joint influence of lean and SCM
practices on firm’s performance also has not yet been examined in depth (Nadal, 2017;
Tortorella et al., 2017; Ruiz-Benıtez et al., 2018). In order to bridge this research gap, the
following hypothesis is developed in the present study.
H1e. The interaction of lean and SCM (Lean 3 SCM bundle) has a positive and significant
impact on FP.
As management philosophies, both TQM and SCM emphasize customer satisfaction
(Vanichchinchai and Igel, 2009). TQM is an integral part of creating sustainable quality in
products and services throughout the supply chain (Kannan and Tan, 2005; Talib et al.,
2011b; Kaur et al., 2019; Talapatra and Uddin, 2019). TQM adoption in firm’s supply chains
helps to increase inventory turnover, reduce logistics costs, helps firms ensure on-time
delivery, promotes a close collaboration with suppliers and exchange of information through
information technology (Vanichchinchai and Igel, 2011; Sharma and Modgil, 2019). The
literature also reveals that a firm’s TQM approaches and SCM practices complement each
other and need to be integrated to achieve superior financial, manufacturing performance and
supply chain performance (Terziovski and Hermel, 2011; Kaur et al., 2019). The
understanding of the way in which TQM and SCM practices are related and the impact of
their integration on the firm’s performance is still very limited (Zeng et al., 2013; Dellana and
Kros, 2014; Kaur et al., 2019; Sharma and Modgil, 2019). So, in this paper, attempt has been
made to explore the synergy between TQM and SCM practices. Hence the hypothesis follows:
H1f. The interaction of TQM and SCM (TQM 3 SCM bundle) has a positive and
significant impact on FP.

2.3 Relationship between competitive strategies and operational practices

Several research studies on lean practices have sought to discuss the genealogy of lean
production and points out that lean is the result of a dynamic learning process that adapted
practices from the automotive and textile sectors in response to an environment with various
contingencies in Japan after Second World War (Drohomeretski et al., 2014). Lean
manufacturing, often coined as Toyota production system (TPS) in academic literature,
started in Toyota Motor Manufacturing Company after the second world war, when most
Japanese organizations including Toyota were confronted with the challenge of managing
production facilities with limited resources (Liker, 2004; Ghosh, 2013). This challenge
motivated Toyota managers to develop various elements of TPS aimed at reducing waste and
minimizing cost (Ghosh, 2013). Over the years since then, lean has evolved as a
manufacturing method that visually identifies and measures waste resulting from the
inefficiencies, unreliability and/or incapability of information, time, money, space, people,
BIJ machines, material and tools during the transformation process of a product (Belekoukias
28,1 et al., 2014; Hernandez-Matias et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2020). To gain cost leadership, a firm must
execute its production and distribution activities in less expensive ways than its competitors
do (Koren, 2010). Such lean tools and techniques form an important backbone to most well-
structured strategic cost-reduction programs in manufacturing. Low-cost manufacturers
may attract price-conscious buyers in great numbers and may reduce costs further by
increasing economies of scale (Koren, 2010). Since the literature suggest that lean strategies
146 are vital for cost-reduction efforts (Jayaram et al., 2010), therefore it is hypothesized as follows:
H2a. Manufacturing firms pursuing competitive strategy of “Cost Leadership” have a
higher level of association with LEAN operations practices, as compared to TQM
or SCM.
The content of TQM has two basic orientations, namely, the process orientation and customer
orientation (Reed et al., 1996). With customer orientation, manufacturing firms focus on
gaining a market advantage, where they can outperform in terms of attracting more
customers with distinguished products and charge a premium price (Prajogo and Sohal,
2006). Whereas under process orientation, manufacturing firms focus on continuous
improvement, involve and motivate employees to achieve quality output and focus on
satisfying customer’s needs and are more likely to outperform firms that do not have this
focus (Valmohammadi and Roshanzamir, 2015; Androwis et al., 2018). Although not
implicitly stated, this notion suggests that under customer orientation, TQM is associated
with a differentiation strategy (Prajogo and Sohal, 2006). TQM can be applied at all firm
levels, often showing that costs can be reduced and the level of product differentiation is
increased (Abdullah et al., 2008). TQM adopting firms obtain a competitive advantage over
those that do not adopt TQM (Valmohammadi and Roshanzamir, 2015; Kurt and Zehir, 2016;
Modgil and Sharma, 2016; Youssef and Youssef, 2018). Smart demands from customers to
have better quality enforce the organizations to provide products and services with high
quality to meet the expectations of their customers and gain successfulness in the
marketplace (Al-Dhaafri and Al-Swidi, 2016). TQM have a positive impact on firm’s
competitive advantage (Modgil and Sharma, 2016; Youssef and Youssef, 2018). Hence, the
researcher deduces that methodology of TQM is capable of producing a differentiation-based
advantage for the manufacturing firm, therefore postulating the following hypothesis:
H2b. Manufacturing firms pursuing competitive strategy of “Differentiation” have a
higher level of association with TQM operations practices, as compared to LEAN
or SCM.
Pre-liberalization (before 1990), most manufacturers emphasized mass production as the
primary operational strategy to minimize unit cost of production, with little product or
process flexibility, which resulted in slower development of a new product, inefficient in-
house technological development and unbalanced line flow (Tan, 2002). The level of supply
chain integration was very poor and wasn’t a complex ecosystem of supply chain partners, as
it is today. Thereafter, as the competition in the 1990s intensified in India, and markets
became global, so did the challenges associated with getting a product and service to the right
place at the right time, and that too at the lowest cost, rose among all operational concerns of
most manufacturers (Li et al., 2006). There are two broad means for improving the
competitiveness of a supply chain. One is a closer integration (or cooperation) of the
organizations involved and the other is better coordination of material, information and
financial flows (Stadtler, 2015). Although SCM is the essence of every manufacturing
business following a specific competitive strategy, it is assumed by many researchers
(Jayaram et al., 2014; Larsen et al., 2018) that level of supply chain management and
integration with manufacturing firms following a focused strategy are relatively more
complex as compared to firms following a differentiation or cost leadership strategy, as they Operational
are required to concentrate their effort on multiple suppliers and sales channels. This practices and
suggests that a higher level of excellence is achieved when firms focus exclusively on certain
market segments as opposed to mass segments (Jayaram et al., 2014). In benchmarking
competitive
supply chain integration and management, it is assumed that many manufacturing firms strategies
following a focus strategy achieve competitive advantage by leveraging the management of
their multiple suppliers and sales chains, relatively as compared to firms following a cost
leadership or differentiation strategy. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated: 147
H2c. Manufacturing firms pursuing competitive strategy of “Focus” have a higher level
of association with SCM operations practices, as compared to TQM or LEAN.

2.4 Relationship between competitive strategies and interaction of operational practices

High-performance manufacturing requires the adoption of an integrated and coherent system
of operational practices, and therefore the interlinkages between various operational
paradigms must be taken into account and explored (Pont et al., 2008; Furlan et al., 2011;
Konecny and Thun, 2011; Singh and Ahuja, 2015; Wickramasinghe and Wickramasinghe,
2017). The literature suggests organization should introduce a bundle of multifaceted
continuous improvement operational practices that work synergistically to minimize waste,
reduce cost, enhance product/service quality and improve manufacturing efficiency (Furlan
et al., 2011; Bortolotti et al., 2015; Wickramasinghe and Wickramasinghe, 2017). Studies by
Pont et al. (2008), Furlan et al. (2011) and Modgil and Sharma (2016) provide unambiguous
evidence that the synergistic effects of lean and TQM practices are associated with better
manufacturing performance. In two research articles (Ho, 2010a, 2010b) authored by Samuel
K.M. Ho, where an integrated lean TQM model was proposed to help organizations overcome
the damages caused by financial tsunami ignited by 2008 oil crisis. In their proposed model
tested in Hong Kong, China and Japan, the lean “5S” models were updated to “5Sþ” by
synthesizing the best practices of TQM, which helped firms to reduce operational cost while
improvising quality standards. This hints, TQM focuses on producing high-quality
competitive products while lean trims costs through close examination of waste processes
(Konecny and Thun, 2011; Jayaram et al., 2014). By eliminating waste in the process and
improving quality, the entire process becomes more efficient. Improvising quality standards
of products/services is an act of differentiation that can promote global sustainability and
manufacturing competitiveness for manufacturing firms, by reducing production and
operational costs. It is not necessary that such a strategy of reducing manufacturing cost by
the firm following a differentiation strategy shall reduce the final price being offered to the
customer. The firm may choose to offer a premium pricing on the differentiated product to
their customers, as long as their product meets customer’s expectation. Based on these
discussions, it is logical to associate lean and TQM practices with a differentiation strategy.
Hence the following hypothesis is proposed.
H3a. The interaction of LEAN and TQM operations practices is more likely to be
associated with the competitive strategy of differentiation rather than cost
leadership or focus.
Competitive priorities are expressed as dimensions of manufacturing strategy, goals for
manufacturing and manufacturing tasks (Shavarini et al., 2013). Supply at the right time,
place and cost is also a critical competitive advantage (Chin et al., 2004; Robinson and
Malhotra, 2005; Vanichchinchai and Igel, 2011). TQM and SCM have been identified as two
most important strategies for manufacturing, which plays an important role in strengthening
organizational competitive priorities and competitiveness in market (Vanichchinchai and
Igel, 2009; Lo et al., 2007). Successful companies over the years have not only fundamentally
BIJ redefined the word “quality”, but have expanded it to supply, service and design quality
28,1 (Kumar et al., 2009). TQM and SCM in any manufacturing unit rely a great deal on suppliers
and their relationship with the organization internally and externally (Talib et al., 2011b).
Incorporating the customer’s requirement into production design and services requires
companies to change the way they treat their customers and manage their supply partners
(Kumar et al., 2009). This requires manufacturing firms to adopt quality management
practices across the entire value chain, including the suppliers’ network. In one research
148 study, Vanichchinchai and Igel (2011) investigated the impact of TQM on SCM and firm’s
supply performance, where they present empirical insights regarding the ability of TQM
practices to directly influence the implementation of SCM practices, which directly enhances
firm’s supply performance. Similarly, Lo et al. (2007) examined the influence of supply quality
management on the quality performance of Chinese manufacturing firms, where they found
quality-conscious management practices speed up the implementation of supplier quality
management (SQM), thereby positively impacting firm’s quality performance. In a recent
research study, Peng et al. (2020) revealed the integration of SCM and TQM has a significant
positive direct influence of organizational results. These evidence from both studies hints that
TQM and SCM are interlinked. TQM and SCM consist, in an integrated approach, of
principles and practices to improve the efficiency of client goods and services and to reduce
logistic costs by integrating the internal functions of the enterprise with external operations
of vendors, customers and other members of the supply chain (Talib et al., 2011b; Peng et al.,
2020). While none of the cited studies specifically discuss the interaction of TQM and SCM
based on strategy type, it is clear that manufacturing firm that seeks to adopt TQM and SCM
simultaneously, prioritize their manufacturing intention to produce quality products
following a low-cost supply structure to compete successfully (Talib et al., 2011b; Jayaram
et al., 2014; Kurt and Zehir, 2016). Hence, it is logical to associate TQM and SCM practices with
a cost leadership strategy. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H3b. The interaction of TQM and SCM operations practices is more likely to be
associated with the competitive strategy of cost leadership rather than
differentiation or focus.
To make the best of lean principles, the organization must look for new opportunities (Cudney
and Elrod, 2011). Manufacturing firms in a variety of economic sectors have adopted lean
management in recent decades and in many cases has improved their competitiveness, while
some of them are not able to sustain the performance results (Martınez-Jurado and Moyano-
Fuentes, 2014). This has created an interest among the researcher to examine why they are
unable to sustain performance results. The influence of information technology and
communication among various internal functional groups and external network associates is
equally necessary for lean success (Ward and Zhou, 2006). SCM involves managing complex
flow of information, materials and money across multiple functional areas both within and
among network companies (Faisal et al., 2006). The research literature also points out the
significance of the interaction between LEAN and SCM on manufacturing business
performance (Lee et al., 2008; Cudney and Elrod, 2011). For example, Lee et al. (2008)
integrated TPS (component of lean) and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP – component of
SCM) in their case study of a South Korean firm and found that utilizing ERP supply chain
system provided more opportunities in aiding the implementation of lean principles. It is also
vital for lean principles and practices to be spread throughout the whole supply chain to
derive potential benefits of lean manufacturing (Martınez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes, 2014).
Lean SCM is all about lowering waste and reducing cost as much as possible across the entire
supply chain. In another study, Cudney and Elrod (2011) assessed the integration of lean
philosophy with SCM principles, where they highlighted the benefits gained from suppliers
leaning their processes resulted in significant time and financial benefits. However, they also
highlighted that the majority of firms in their sample are not extending their lean training to Operational
suppliers (Cudney and Elrod, 2011). Further supporting this indication, the researcher practices and
assumes the higher level of interaction of lean and SCM principles is associated with
manufacturing firms with the business domain of niche market customers. In adopting a
competitive
focused strategy, a firm should focus on a few niche markets while simultaneously cut cost strategies
(Jayaram et al., 2014). One of the main challenges that companies following a competitive
strategy of focus are faced with is increased integration with their key suppliers and
customers (Martınez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes, 2014). This is why an analysis of lean 149
manufacturing should be addressed both from organizational focus and supply chain focus
(Hines et al., 2004; Martınez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes, 2014). Lean principles adoption in
firms practicing focus strategy requires strategic supplier relationship while balancing
cooperation and competition. Therefore, strategic alliances and partnership with suppliers
represent a key feature of lean supply chain management. Lean SCM represents a new way of
thinking about suppliers and other external networks. Therefore, it is evident that lean
principles supported by SCM practices have enabled manufacturing firms to achieve
significant economic benefits while improving quality, costs and cycle time (Cudney and
Elrod, 2011). Manufacturing firm practicing focus strategy, deal with several clientele bases,
and their product offering may vary from one customer to others. Focus on core competencies
has increased the firm’s dependence on outsourcing for both product and services, and
therefore in adopting a focused strategy, manufacturing firms should focus on a specialized
market of customized products/services while simultaneously cutting cost and building
strong alliances with suppliers’ network base. Hence, in this sense, it is logical to associate
focused competitive strategy with lean and SCM. Therefore, the following hypothesis is
proposed.
H3c. The interaction of LEAN and SCM operations practices is more likely to be
associated with the competitive strategy of Focus rather than cost leadership or
differentiation.

3. Research methodology
3.1 Questionnaire design
The researcher surveyed the literature to identify valid measures for constructs of the study
variable and adapted extant items. The researcher submitted the items to academicians and
executives for review and pre-tested them in a sample of about 20 firms with face-to-face
discussions. Based on the feedback, the questionnaire was modified with the wording of some
questions and added or deleted items to ensure that the questionnaire was understandable
and relevant to practices in India. Three dimensions of competitive strategies were adopted in
this study: cost leadership, differentiation and focus. The measurement items for these
competitive strategies were majorly adopted from Hallgren and Olhager (2009), Qi et al. (2011)
and Herzallah et al. (2017). In the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to indicate the
importance of the listed competitive methods with their overall strategy on a five-point Likert
scale (1 – least important and 5 – most important). The measures for lean (Shah and Ward,
2007; Konecny and Thun, 2011; Bortolotti et al., 2015), TQM (Jayaram et al., 2010; Konecny
and Thun, 2011) and SCM practices (Li et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2017) which were mainly adopted
from the mentioned literature. The five constructs of lean practices are autonomous and
preventive maintenance, team-based maintenance, pull production system, technical
emphasis and quick changeovers. TQM is conceptualized using measures of cross-
functional product design, process quality management, quality empowerment, employee
training and quality information usage, whereas SCM is conceptualized using measures of
strategic supplier partnership, customer relationship, level of information sharing, quality of
BIJ information sharing and postponement. The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to
28,1 which operational practices had been implemented by sharing their level of agreement on a
five-point Likert scale (1 – strongly disagree and 5 – strongly agree). The two measures of
firm’s performance, i.e. organizational performance and operational performance, were adopted
from those featured in Kannan and Tan (2005), Li et al. (2006), Belekoukias et al. (2014) and
Al-Dhaafri et al. (2016). The respondents were asked to indicate their performance on these
measures relative to their competitors on a five-point Likert scale (1 – poor or low, 2 – below
150 average, 3 – average or equal to competition, 4 – better than average, and 5 5 superior).
For questions related to measurement aspects of constructs/criteria under each theme,
scoring rubrics were defined for each Likert-type scale, which also served as a guide for
respondents in grading their responses to each question asked by the interviewer. The usage
of Likert scales with rubrics across each section of the assessment tool is an effort to force
respondents to make an exclusive and decisive choice. Questionnaires rated with five-point
Likert scale are simple to answer and are not confusing (Leung, 2011).

3.2 Data collection

To be included in the data collection as a respondent, the company must also meet the
following criteria: (1) registered as large firms under Ministry of Corporate Affairs; (2) had a
legal business identity and operations in India; (3) has ISO compliance certificates and
practicing continuous improvement manufacturing practices since last five years. For the
study, survey data were collected from 124 large manufacturing plants in India. The
responses to the questionnaire were collected by visiting the manufacturing plants and
through personal interaction with senior management personnel, preferably plant managers
and directors. The survey instrument was moderately long and the researcher ensured
effective participation by the respondent by verbally dictating each question in the
instrument and noting and recording their responses. Since the questionnaire was to be filled
by senior management personnel, most of the respondents of the study were identified
through known acquaintances of the researcher, while others were identified through
referrals of already visited respondents. The 124 respondent manufacturing plants were from
operating sectors of food and beverages (17.7%), electrical and electronics (15.3%), metals
and machinery (12.1%), pharmaceuticals (11.3%), automobiles (9.6%), plastic (6.5%), textiles
(5.6%), chemicals (4.8%), cement and ceramics (4%), among others.
The Mann–Whitney test was used to compare the early and late responses for all the
survey items. No significant differences were found in any of the comparisons, indicating a
likely absence of nonresponse bias (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). Because the data were
collected from a single informant within each firm, common method bias was a threat to the
validity of our results. The researcher followed some procedural remedies to avoid common
method bias (e.g. the respondents’ anonymity was protected, the researcher used concise and
simple items) as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003). Based on Harman’s one-factor test, it
is found that the unrotated factor solution reveals no single factor, which accounts for more
than 50% of the variance, indicating the non-significance of the issue of common method bias
(Podsakoff et al., 2003).

3.3 Construct reliability and validity

Table 2 summarizes the reliability and validity results for all constructs of the study. For each
construct of the variables, the Cronbach’s α score, Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) values and
percentage variance were calculated to gauze the reliability and validity of constructs used in
the study. All constructs that accounted for more than 50% of the variance were retained.
Thereafter, an inter-item analysis is used to check the construct’s scales for internal
consistency or reliability. Cronbach’s reliability coefficient α values for competitive strategies
 No. of Cronbach’s KMO %
Operational
Variables Constructs items α value Variance practices and
competitive
Competitive Cost leadership 5 0.812 0.769 62.66
Strategy Differentiation 5 0.865 0.832 65.17 strategies
Focus 4 0.767 0.728 60.50
Lean Practices Autonomous and preventive 5 0.862 0.840 64.44
maintenance 151
Team based maintenance 4 0.809 0.779 63.70
Pull production process flow 6 0.858 0.873 58.73
Technical emphasis 5 0.804 0.830 56.43
Quick changeover 5 0.858 0.819 63.84
TQM Practices Cross-functional product design 5 0.868 0.858 60.58
Process quality management 7 0.873 0.874 56.87
Quality empowerment 4 0.789 0.715 61.45
Organization-wide employee 4 0.794 0.702 61.78
training
Quality information usage 5 0.824 0.841 58.95
SCM Practices Strategic supplier partnership 6 0.861 0.876 59.02
Customer relationship 5 0.851 0.811 62.76
Level of information sharing 6 0.856 0.873 58.31
Level of information quality 5 0.821 0.810 58.39
Postponement 3 0.802 0.706 71.60 Table 2.
Firm’s Operational performance 6 0.827 0.838 53.69 Reliability and validity
Performance Organizational performance 7 0.885 0.876 59.39 of constructs

of cost leadership, differentiation and focus are 0.812, 0.865 and 0.767 respectively. Similarly,
Cronbach’s reliability coefficient α values for each construct of independent variables (i.e.
lean, TQM and SCM) ranged from 0.789 to 0.873. The Cronbach’s α values for the measures of
dependent variable, i.e. operational performance and organizational performance have
α values of 0.827 and 0.885 respectively. Hence, α values of competitive strategy, operational
practices and firm’s performance scales exceeded by a comfortable margin with respect to
0.70 criteria generally considered adequate for exploratory work, thereby exhibiting an
acceptable level of reliability. The validity of these constructs was also gauzed by KMO test
with values greater than 0.60 in each case, demonstrating that all these scales are valid and
reliable for analysis.

4. Analysis and results

Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to classify the respondent firms based on the
competitive strategy being pursued. The three competitive strategy items that inquired
responses from the respondent to indicate the extent to which their firms seek to supply
products at a lower cost to a broad range of market segments (cost leadership), seek to
differentiate products to supply to a broad range of market segments (differentiation
strategy) or seek to develop products for specific customer group only (focused strategy) were
used to cluster the cases. Additional questions were also included in the survey questionnaire
to gauze their competitive intent. There were a total of 124 cases, of which there are 30 cases in
cost leadership cluster, 38 cases in differentiation cluster and 56 cases in focused cluster.
Multiple regression was used to examine the impact of lean, TQM and SCM practices and
their interaction effects on firm’s performance parameters in each of these three clusters. The
analysis results are shown in Table 3. The regression model considering all 124 cases
(irrespective of their clustering) revealed that the model is statistically significant at α 5 1%,
BIJ with lean (β 5 0.327), TQM (β 5 0.507) and SCM (β 5 0.277) being significant. Also bundled
28,1 practices of Lean 3 TQM (β 5 0.583), Lean 3 SCM (β 5 0.458) and TQM 3 SCM (β 5 0.555)
were also statistically significant. Within the cost leadership cluster, both lean (β 5 0.502) and
TQM variables (β 5 0.588) were significant at α 5 1%. The bundled operational practices
were also statistically significant with Lean 3 TQM, Lean 3 SCM and TQM 3 SCM
reporting a β score of 0.543, 0.541 and 0.650 respectively. However, within the cost leadership
cluster, the firm’s performance is not statistically significant with SCM practices (β 5 0.149).
152 Now, analyzing the cluster for differentiation revealed that the regression model results are
similar to the results obtained from the cost leadership cluster. The regression model for
differentiation cluster is significant for Lean (β 5 0.394, α 5 0.01), TQM (β 5 0.521, α 5 0.01),
Lean 3 TQM (β 5 0.519, α 5 0.01), Lean 3 SCM (β 5 0.319, α 5 0.05) and TQM 3 SCM
(β 5 0.460, α 5 0.01). Here also, for firms pursuing the competitive strategy of differentiation,
their performances are not statistically significant with SCM variable (β 5 0.29), and it is
observed to be a negatively correlated relationship. The negative coefficient for SCM
suggests that SCM implementation is detrimental to the performance of firms following
differentiation strategy. Also bundled practices of Lean 3 TQM (β 5 0.684), Lean 3 SCM
(β 5 0.674) and TQM 3 SCM (β 5 0.633) were also statistically significant at α 5 0.01. Within
all the three clusters, the clusters achieved additional benefits if Lean and TQM, Lean and
SCM and TQM and SCM were implemented concurrently. Based on the analysis results of the
regression model, the results of hypotheses H1–H3 are summarized in Tables 4–6.

5. Discussions and implications

5.1 Discussion on the results of Hypotheses H1a–H1f
In hypotheses H1, the researcher argued that Indian manufacturing firms have a positive
association between operations practices of Lean (H1a), TQM (H1b) and SCM (H1c) on the
firm’s performance. Also, hypotheses were developed to analyze the positive association
between bundled practices of Lean 3 TQM (H1d), Lean 3 SCM (H1e) and TQM 3 SCM (H1f)

Operational Total sample Cost leadership Differentiation Focused

practices (n 5 124) (n 5 30) (n 5 38) (n 5 56)

Lean 0.327* 0.502* 0.394* 0.457*

Table 3. TQM 0.507* 0.588* 0.521* 0.673*
Hierarchical OLS
SCM 0.277* 0.149 0.29 0.532*
regression of
operational practices Lean 3 TQM 0.583* 0.543* 0.519* 0.684*
on business Lean 3 SCM 0.458* 0.541* 0.319** 0.674*
performance TQM 3 SCM 0.555* 0.650* 0.460* 0.633*
(Standardized β) Note(s): * Significant at α 5 0.01, ** Significant at α 5 0.05

Hypothesis Result Observation

H1a Lean → FP Supported β 5 0. 327, p 5 0.00

H1b TQM → FP Supported β 5 0. 507, p 5 0.00
H1c SCM → FP Supported β 5 0. 277, p 5 0.00
Table 4. H1d Lean 3 TQM → FP Supported β 5 0. 583, p 5 0.00
Results of Hypotheses H1e Lean 3 SCM → FP Supported β 5 0. 458, p 5 0.00
H1a–H1f H1f TQM 3 SCM → FP Supported β 5 0. 555, p 5 0.00
and the firm’s performance. The results of regression analysis (Table 4) suggest that there is a Operational
positive relationship between all three operational practices and firm’s performance, thereby practices and
inferring hypotheses H1a, H1b and H1c are supported. Similarly, for the hypothesized
relationship between bundled operational practices and the firm’s performance (Table 4), the
competitive
hypotheses H1d, H1e and H1f are supported. If the research labels the strength of association strategies
for the absolute values of multiple-R, then those pairs having β > 0.50 are regarded as having
a significant relationship, while those pairs having β < 0.50 are regarded as having a weaker
relationship. The results of the analysis show that TQM (β 5 0.507) is having a significant 153
relationship with firm’s performance, whereas LEAN (β 5 0.327) and SCM (β 5 0.277) are
having a weaker relationship. From a management perspective, the focus of manufacturing is
shifted to the principle of TQM to meet customer requirements, so that the manufacturing
firms remain competitive. TQM tools are designed to ensure quality of the company’s
processes and dramatically increase profit. It is now evident from the results of both business
perspective and production perspective studies that TQM is the management philosophy,
whereas lean has been the science of machinery health. TQM is more related to planning and
organizing and lean is more related to technical execution. Quality-focus has endeavored to
reduce defects by establishing a lean production system that focuses on health and condition
of manufacturing equipment and systems. A significant portion of TQM strategy also
focuses on planning a profitable supply chain. In the case of analysis of the impact of bundled
practices on business performance, the Lean 3 TQM (β 5 0.583) and TQM 3 SCM (β 5 0.555)
practices are having a significant relationship with business performance, whereas
Lean 3 SCM (β 5 0.458) is having a weaker relationship. Similarly, in these cases, the
bundled implementation of operational practices associated with TQM practices is found to
be significant holding a stronger relationship with business performance parameters.
Evolution of manufacturing environment oriented towards ISO-standardized quality
management systems helps manufacturing organizations ensure that they meet the needs
of customers and other stakeholders while meeting statutory and regulatory requirements
related to a product or service. Therefore, TQM remains the main driving principle.

Hypothesis Result Observation

H2a: Cost Leadership (Lean > TQM Not TQM: β 5 0.588 > Lean: β 5 0. 502 > SCM:
or SCM) Supported β 5 0.149
H2b: Differentiation (TQM > Lean or Supported TQM: β 5 0.521 > Lean: β 5 0. 394 > SCM:
SCM) β 5 0.29 Table 5.
H2c: Focus (SCM > Lean or TQM) Not TQM: β 5 0.673 > SCM: β 5 0. 532 > Lean: Results of Hypotheses
Supported β 5 0.457 H2a–H2c

Hypothesis Result Observation

H3a: LEAN 3 TQM (Differentiation > Cost Not Focus: β 5 0.684 > Cost Leadership: β 5 0.
Leadership or Focus) Supported 543 > Differentiation: β 5 0.519
H3b: TQM 3 SCM (Cost Supported Cost Leadership: β 5 0.650 >: Focus: β 5 0.
Leadership > Differentiation or Focus) 633 > Differentiation: β 5 0.460 Table 6.
H3c: LEAN 3 SCM (Focus > Cost Leadership Supported Focus: β 5 0.674 > Cost Leadership: β 5 0. Results of Hypotheses
or Focus) 541 > Differentiation: β 5 0.319 H3a–H3c
BIJ 5.2 Discussion on the results of Hypotheses H2a–H2c
28,1 The analysis results for Hypotheses H2a–H2c are summarized in Table 5. Hypothesis H2a
stated that for firms pursuing the competitive strategy of cost leadership, the relative effect of
operational practices on performance should be significant for lean rather than TQM or SCM.
This hypothesis was not supported as TQM (β 5 0.588) reported being the stronger predictor
variable as compared to lean (β 5 0.502) and SCM (β 5 0.149). Within the cost leadership
cluster, TQM (β 5 0.588) and lean (β 5 0.502) have a significant influence on firm’s
154 performance, whereas the least important practice SCM (β 5 0.149) was not statistically
significant. The cost leadership cluster suggests that TQM is the most important trigger of
bringing the cost down for manufacturing firms in India. Also, an interesting pattern of
results, concerning the sample is the minimal influence of SCM on performance of firm
pursing cost leadership strategy. The results of hypothesis H2a have complemented the
findings of research study by Jayaram et al. (2014), while these findings are not in sync with
findings of study by Hallgren and Olhager (2009) and Qi et al. (2011). In hypothesis H2b, the
researcher argued that for firm pursuing the competitive strategy of differentiation, the
relative impact of operational practices on performance will be higher for TQM as opposed to
Lean or SCM. This hypothesis was supported, although the least important practice SCM
(β 5 0.29) was not statistically significant in influencing the firm’s performance for the
differentiation cluster. The results of hypothesis H2b have complemented the finding of
previous studies by Prajogo and Sohal (2006), Prajogo (2007) and Jung et al. (2009), whereas
these results are not in agreement with the finding of Zatzick et al. (2012) and Yunis et al.
(2013). Interestingly, SCM has a negative influence on performance, signifying that it is
detrimental to business performance. As hypothesized, the operational practices to affect
performance in the differentiation cluster was TQM (β 5 0.521), followed by lean (β 5 0.394)
and then SCM (β 5 0.29). This result is indicative of TQM being an order qualifier for
Indian manufacturing firms pursuing differentiation. It appears that lean practices for the
differentiation cluster have elusive performance benefits. There seem to be a catalytic
association with lean and TQM practices. Finally, in hypothesis H2c, the researcher argued
that for Indian manufacturing firms pursuing a focused strategy, the relative impact of
operational practices on performance is higher for SCM as opposed to TQM or lean. This
hypothesis was not supported with the operational practices of SCM. Instead, TQM
(β 5 0.673) has the highest influence on the performance of the firms in the focused strategy
cluster, followed by Lean (β 5 0.532) and SCM (β 5 0.457). The results of hypothesis H2c are
not in sync with the findings of Jayaram et al. (2014). Hence from the results of hypotheses
H3a–H3c, it is clear that the Indian manufacturing firms operating in the competitive clusters
of cost leadership, differentiation and focus appear to be influenced by the operational
practice of TQM. Over the evolution of increased competitiveness in the manufacturing
sector, the emphasis upon quality has increased and is focused on the customer and meeting
the customer’s demand.

5.3 Discussion on the results of Hypotheses H3a–H3c

The analysis results for Hypothesis H3a–H3c are summarized in Table 6. Hypothesis H3a
stated that the interaction of lean and TQM operations practices is more likely to be
associated with the competitive strategy of differentiation rather than cost leadership or
focus. This hypothesis is not supported as the bundled effects of lean and TQM practices are
more with the firms pursuing a competitive strategy of focus (β 5 0.684), followed by cost
leadership (β 5 0.543) and differentiation (β 5 0.519). Hypothesis H3b argued that the
interaction effect of TQM and SCM on a firm’s performance is to have a higher association
with firm pursuing the competitive strategy of cost leadership. The results of analysis
supported researcher’s supposition, which indicates that the TQM and SCM have a relatively
more combinatorial influence on the performance of firms pursuing the competitive strategy Operational
of cost leadership (β 5 0.650), compared to firms pursuing focused (β 5 0.633) and practices and
differentiation (β 5 0.460) strategies. Hence, the hypothesis H3b is supported. TQM
implementation eventually leads to cost leadership strategy, which includes an emphasis on
competitive
supply chains that results in efficient sourcing and delivery, thereby leading to cost- strategies
effectiveness in the supply chain. Finally, for hypothesis H3c, the researcher argued that Lean
and SCM have a conjoint influence on firm’s performance, which is strong for firms pursuing
the competitive strategy of focus, as compared to firms pursuing cost leadership or 155
differentiation. Hypothesis H3c is supported with Lean and SCM programs combine to
increase its joint influence on the performance of firms pursuing focused strategy (β 5 0. 674),
which is higher than firms pursuing cost leadership (β 5 0. 541) or differentiation strategy
(β 5 0.319). The focus of lean thinking has essentially been on the reduction of manufacturing
waste, whereas the focus of SCM is on efficient and streamlined operations. The bundled
implementation of Lean and SCM is not exclusively for those companies who manufacture
products in masses, but by niche-market businesses who want to streamline their processes
by eliminating waste and non-value-added activities. The results of hypotheses H3a–H3c
are not in complete alignment with the findings of Jayaram et al. (2014), who tested these
propositions in the context of Thailand. Analytical test results of hypotheses H3a and H3b
have reported contradictory results. Jayaram et al. (2014) reported a stronger association of
interaction of lean and TQM practices with cost leadership strategy (H3a), while this study
reports lean 3 TQM practices to have a stronger association with differentiation strategy.
Similarly, in the context of hypothesis H3b, Jayaram et al. (2014) reported this proposition is
not supported, whereas the present study supports this proposition. The result of
hypothesis H3c is in line with findings of Jayaram et al. (2014).

5.4 Theoretical implications

The most essential theoretical contribution of this study is the linkage of the Porter’s
theory of competitive strategy with concepts of operational practices. Different strategic
groups emphasize the implementation of different bundles of operational practices and
this affects their firm’s performance. The mixed results found in this study provide further
evidence that established theories that tend to hold true earlier, needs to be modified to be
made applicable for the current competitive market context. The study posits that TQM
practices as a primary enabler of continuous improvement practices in any manufacturing
set up and highlights its potential to revive the competitive image of the company.
However, lean has also evolved as an equally essential manufacturing technique, when the
intentions are to compete not on product aesthetic design, but on low-cost attribute. Also,
to the best of author’s knowledge, it is the first research in the Indian context to empirically
test and build a theoretical model linking competitive strategies to operational practices.
The findings of this study expand the conceptual understanding of the linkages between
competitive strategy and operational practices, and their effects on firm’s performance
parameters. From a theoretical perspective, the study contributes to the manufacturing
strategy and operations management literature that seeks to identify the drivers of high
performance.

5.5 Managerial implications

The findings of the study are grounded in empirical data. Various research propositions
presented using simple formalisms is capable of providing rich practical insights in
aggregate terms. The research framework improves the understanding of the organizational
dynamics of operational strategy formation, it’s linking with competitive institutionalization
of organization processes and other strategic discourses. The study has managerial
BIJ implications for manufacturing firms. Primarily, the study provided empirical insights for
28,1 senior managers of manufacturing firms into how to manage operations with varying
competitive orientation in the context of manufacturing industries. Manufacturers across the
globe can use the results of this study to deploy appropriate operations management
practices to enhance their competitive edge. From the viewpoint of practitioner’s preferred
course of action, senior managers based upon their competitive preferences shall adopt a
vertical integration strategy to configure the endorsed operational strategies, action plans
156 and decision throughout the various levels of the organization. Thereafter for operational
alignment, the firm shall focus upon horizontal integration to strengthen the coordination of
efforts across the organization.

6. Conclusions
Summarizing, the present research explores the proposed research questions in the
introduction section by drawing on the resource-based view of the firm, competitive strategy,
operational practices and contingency theory literature for insights into the constructs and
the relationships among them as stated in the research questions. Addressing the first
research question has provides insights whether operational practices of TQM, lean and SCM
can be considered as a driver of strategic choice, while the second research question has
provided insights about how operational structures and manufacturing practices are adopted
by the firm based upon the competitive strategy being pursued. Hence, based upon RBVF
and contingency theory, this research takes into consideration the operational practices
within the strategic clusters of generic competitive strategies and investigates their
relationship with the firm’s performance. Addressing the second question, the study
examined the relationship between operational practices and firm’s performance within the
conceptual clusters of cost leadership, differentiation and focus. Results of the study support
the researcher’s notion that the pattern of operational practices on performance varies
according to the type of competitive strategy employed. This study also shows that all three
operational practices, i.e. lean, TQM and SCM, are significantly associated with firm’s
performance. TQM has evolved as an approach of success to bring out the quality focus
throughout all phases of an organizational system. Modern TQM programs focus on assuring
that the product design satisfies customer’s primary needs, i.e. it fundamentally focuses on
how well the product or services suits the requirement of the customer. Most manufacturing
firms being a customer-focused organization nowadays lay great emphasis on quality
management system which uses continuous improvement strategy, data and effective
communication to integrate the quality discipline into the culture and activities of the
organization. TQM continues to emerge as a predominant management philosophy among all
competitive strategic clusters of cost leadership, differentiation and focus.
Despite its important contributions, the results of this study must be viewed in the light of
study’s limitation. First, the quantitative data in this study were collected from the senior
management personnel based on their subjective evaluation. More comprehensive objective
indicators should be employed for the proposed research model for future studies. Second, the
anonymity clause requested by respondents and committed by the researcher impedes the
possibility of longitudinal inspection of the study model. Also, our data are cross-sectional,
longitudinal data could be helpful to test the true causality of the proposed research model.
Third, the generalizability of this study may be limited to the manufacturing sector to some
extent by the nature of the sample. Researchers may choose to conduct similar research
considering other sectors and examine the similarities and differences. Also, it would be
interesting to test the analytical framework adopted for this study in different countries. This
specific research study could be extended to further analysis of two different sectors of
manufacturing or between two different countries and with a triangulation methodology,
which enables simultaneous quantitative and qualitative approach toward data collection. It Operational
is also clear that the qualitative assessment should be carried out with case studies to further practices and
generalize the findings of this study.
competitive
strategies
References
Abdullah, M.M.B., Uli, J. and Tarı, J.J. (2008), “The influence of soft factors on quality improvement
and performance”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 436-452. 157
Acquaah, M. and Amoako-Gyampah, K. (2016), “Manufacturing strategy, competitive strategy,
and performance: testing differences between family and nonfamily firms in Ghana”,
in Acquaah, M. (Ed.), Family Businesses in Sub-Saharan Africa, Palgrave Macmillan,
New York, pp. 231-254.
Ahmed, A. and Ferdousi, F. (2020), “TQM components as a source of competitive advantage in a
beverage organization: a resource based view”, International Journal of Business Strategy and
Automation, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 25-36.
Al-Dhaafri, H.S. and Al-Swidi, A. (2016), “The impact of total quality management and entrepreneurial
orientation on organizational performance”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 597-614.
Al-Dhaafri, H.S., Al-Swidi, A.K. and Yusoff, R.Z.B. (2016), “The mediating role of total quality
management between the entrepreneurial orientation and the organizational performance”, The
TQM Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1754-2731.
Amoaka-Gyampah, K. and Acquaah, M. (2008), “Manufacturing strategy, competitive strategy, and
firm performance: an empirical study in a developing economy environment”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 575-592.
Androwis, N., Sweis, R.J., Tarhini, A. and Moarefi, A. (2018), “Total quality management practices and
organizational performance in the construction chemical companies in Jordan”, Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 3180-3205.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Bai, C., Satir, A. and Sarkis, J. (2019), “Investing in lean manufacturing practices: an environmental
and operational perspective”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 57 No. 4,
pp. 1037-1051.
Bates, K.A., Amundson, S.D., Schroeder, R.G. and Morris, W.T. (1995), “The crucial interrelationship
between manufacturing strategy and organization culture”, Management Science, Vol. 41
No. 10, pp. 1565-1580.
Bayraktar, C.A., Hancerliogullari, G., Centinguc, B. and Calisir, F. (2016), “Competitive strategies,
innovation, and firm performance: an empirical study in a developing economy environment”,
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Belekoukias, I., Garza-Reyes, J.A. and Kumar, V. (2014), “The impact of lean methods and tools on the
operational performance of manufacturing organisations”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 52 No. 18, pp. 5346-5366.
Belohlav, J. (1993), “Quality, strategy and competitiveness”, California Management Review, Vol. 35
No. 3, pp. 55-67.
Bortolotti, T., Boscari, S. and Danese, P. (2015), “Successful lean implementation: organizational
culture and soft lean practices”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 160,
pp. 182-201.
Bromiley, P. and Rau, D. (2016), “Operations management and the resource based view: another view”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 41, pp. 95-106.
BIJ Brown, S., Squire, B. and Blackmon, K. (2007), “The contribution of manufacturing strategy
involvement and alignment to world-class manufacturing performance”, International Journal
28,1 of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 282-302.
Camanzi, L. and Giu, C. (2020), “SME network relationships and competitive strategies in the agri-food
sector: some empirical evidence and a provisional conceptual framework”, European Business
Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 405-424.
Campbell, J.M. and Park, J. (2017), “Extending the resource-based view: effects of strategic orientation
158 toward community on small business performance”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 34, pp. 302-308.
Chen, H., Lindeke, R.R. and Wyrick, D.A. (2010), “Lean automated manufacturing”, Assembly
Automation, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 117-123.
Chiarini, A. and Baccarani, C. (2016), “TQM and lean strategy deployment in Italian hospitals: benefits
related to patient satisfaction and encountered pitfalls”, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 377-391.
Chin, K.-S., Tummala, V.R., Leung, J.P. and Tang, X. (2004), “A study on supply chain management
practices : the Hong Kong Perspective”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 505-524.
Cho, Y.S. and Linderman, K. (2019), “Metacognition-based process improvement practices”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 211 No. 1, pp. 132-144.
Christopher, M. (2005), Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Creating Value-Adding Networks,
Financial Times Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Chung, Y., Hsu, Y. and Tsai, C. (2010), “Research on correlation between implementation strategies of
TQM, organizational culture, TQM activities and operational performance in high-tech firms”,
Information Technology Journal, Vol. 9 No. 8, pp. 1696-1705.
Clercq, D.D., Thongpapanal, N. and Dimov, D. (2014), “Contextual ambidexterity in SMEs: the roles of
internal and external rivalry”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 191-205.
Coccia, M. (2017), “Sources of technological innovation: radical and incremental innovation problem-
driven to support competitive advantage of firms”, Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 1048-1061.
Cudney, E. and Elrod, C. (2011), “A comparative analysis of integrating lean concepts into supply
chain management in manufacturing and service industries”, International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 5-22.
Daft, L., Murphy, J. and Willmott, H. (2010), Organization Theory and Design, Cengage Learning,
EMEA ed. s.l, Singapore.
Danso, A., Adomako, S., Amankwah-Amoah, J., Owusu-Agyei, S. and Konadu, R. (2019),
“Environmental sustainability orientation, competitive strategy and financial performance”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 885-895.
Das, B., Venkatadri, U. and Pandey, P. (2014), “Applying lean manufacturing system to improving
productivity of air-conditioning coil manufacturing”, International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 71 Nos 1-4, pp. 307-323.
Deif, A. and Beek, M.V. (2019), “National culture insights on manufacturing competitiveness and
talent management relationship”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 30
No. 5, pp. 862-875.
Dellana, S. and Kros, J. (2014), “An exploration of quality management practices, perceptions and
program maturity in the supply chain”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 786-806.
Demirbag, M., Tatoglu, E., Tekinkus, M. and Zaim, S. (2006), “An analysis of the relationship between
TQM implementation and organizational performance: evidence from Turkish SMEs”, Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 829-847.
Donaldson, L. (2001), The Contingency Theory of Organizations, Sage, London. Operational
Donaldson, L. (2006), “The contingency theory of organizational design: challenges and practices and
opportunities”, in Burton, R.M., Eriksen, B., Hakonsson, D.D. and Snow, C.C. (Eds),
Organization Design, Springer, Boston, MA, pp. 19-40.
competitive
Drohomeretski, E., Costa, S.E.G.d., Lima, E.P.d. and Garbuio, P.A.d. R. (2014), “Lean, six sigma and
strategies
lean six sigma: an analysis based on operations strategy”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 804-824.
159
Dubey, R. and Singh, T. (2015), “Understanding complex relationship among JIT, lean behaviour,
TQM and their antecedents using interpretive structural modelling and fuzzy MICMAC
analysis”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 42-62.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Papadopoulos, T., Hazen, B.T. and Roubaud, D. (2018),
“Examining top management commitment to TQM diffusion using institutional and
upper echelon theories”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 8,
pp. 2988-3006.
Faisal, M.N., Banwet, D. and Shankar, R. (2006), “Mapping supply chains on risk and customer
sensitivity dimensions”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 6, pp. 878-895.
Faisal, T., Rahman, Z. and Qureshi, M. (2011), “Analysis of interaction among the barriers to total
quality management implementation using interpretive structural modeling approach”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 563-587.
Fuentes, M.M., Montes, F.L. and Molina, L. (2006), “Total quality management, strategic orientation
and organizational performance: the case of Spanish companies”, Total Quality Management,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 303-323.
Furlan, A., Vinelli, A. and Pont, G.D. (2011), “Complementarity and lean manufacturing bundles: an
empirical analysis”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 31
No. 8, pp. 835-850.
Ghosh, M. (2013), “Lean manufacturing performance in Indian manufacturing plants”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 113-122.
Grant, R.M. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy
formulation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-135.
Hallam, C.R., Valerdi, R. and Contreras, C. (2018), “Strategic lean actions for sustainable competitive
advantage”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 481-509.
Hallgren, M. and Olhager, J. (2009), “Lean and agile manufacturing: external and internal drivers and
performance outcomes”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 976-999.
Hayes, R. (1985), “Strategic planning - forward in reverse”, Harvard Business Review, November-
December, pp. 111-119.
Hernandez-Matias, J.C., Ocampo, J.R., Hidalgo, A. and Vizan, A. (2020), “Lean manufacturing and
operational performance: interrelationships between human-related lean practices”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 217-235.
Herzallah, A.M., Gutierrez-Gutierrez, L. and Rosas, J.F.M. (2014), “Total quality management practices,
competitive strategies and financial performance: the case of the Palestinian industrial SMEs”,
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 25 Nos 5-6, pp. 635-649.
Herzallah, A., Gutierrez-Gutierrez, L.J. and Rosas, J.F.M. (2017), “Quality ambidexterity, competitive
strategies, and financial performance: an empirical study in industrial firms”, International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 1496-1519.
Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), “Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean
thinking”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10,
pp. 994-1011.
BIJ Ho, S.K. (2010a), “Integrated lean TQM model for global sustainability and competitiveness”, The
TQM Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 143-158.
28,1
Ho, S.K. (2010b), “Integrated lean TQM model for sustainable development”, The TQM Journal,
Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 583-593.
Hong, P., Yang, M.G. and Dobrzykowski, D.D. (2014), “Strategic customer service orientation, lean
manufacturing practices and performance outcomes: an empirical study”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 699-723.
160
Jayaram, J., Ahire, S.L. and Dreyfus, P. (2010), “Contingency relationships of firm size, TQM duration,
unionization and industry context on TQM implementation - a focus on total effects”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 345-356.
Jayaram, J., Tan, K.C. and Laosirihongthong, T. (2014), “The contingency role of business strategy on
the relationship between operations practices and performance”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 690-712.
Jiang, L. (2015), “Managing supplier competition and sourcing sequence for component
manufacturing”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 287-310.
Jung, J.Y., Wang, Y.J. and Wu, S. (2009), “Competitive strategy, TQM practice, and continuous
improvement of international project management: a contingency study”, International Journal
of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 164-183.
Kafetzopoulos, D., Gotzamani, K. and Gkana, V. (2015), “Relationship between quality management,
innovation and competitiveness: evidence from Greek companies”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 1177-1200.
Kannan, V.R. and Tan, K.C. (2005), “Just in time, total quality management, and supply chain
management: understanding their linkages and impact on business performance”, Omega,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 153-162.
Kaur, M., Singh, K. and Singh, D. (2019), “Synergetic success factors of total quality management
(TQM) and supply chain management (SCM): a literature review”, International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 842-863.
Kaynak, H. (2003), “The relationship between total quality management practices and their effect on
firm performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 405-435.
Khanchanapong, T., Prajogo, D., Soha, A.S., Cooper, B.K., Yeung, A.C. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2014), “The
unique and complementary effects of manufacturing technologies and lean practices on
manufacturing operational performance”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 153, pp. 191-203.
Kharub, M., Mor, R.S. and Sharma, R. (2019), “The relationship between cost leadership competitive
strategy and firm performance: a mediating role of quality management”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 920-936.
Kober, R., Subraamanniam, T. and Watson, J. (2012), “The impact of total quality adoption on small and
medium enterprise’s financial performance”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 161-182.
Konecny, P. and Thun, J.-H. (2011), “Do it separately or simultaneously - an empirical analysis of a
conjoint implementation of TQM and TPM on plant performance”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 133 No. 2, pp. 496-507.
Koren, Y. (2010), The Global Manufacturing Revolution: Product-Process-Business Integration and
Reconfigurable Systems, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Kumar, R., Garg, D. and Garg, T. (2009), “Total quality management in Indian industries: relevance,
analysis and directions”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 607-622.
Kurt, A. and Zehir, C. (2016), “The relationship between cost leadership strategy, total quality
management applications and financial performance”, Dogus University Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 97-110.
Larsen, S.B., Masi, D., Jacobsen, P. and Godsell, J. (2018), “How the reverse supply chain contributes to Operational
a firm’s competitive strategy: a strategic alignment perspective”, Production Planning and
Control, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 452-463. practices and
Lee, S.M., Olson, D.L., Lee, S.H., Hwang, T. and Shin, M.S. (2008), “Entrepreneurial applications of the
competitive
lean approach to service industries”, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 973-987. strategies
Leung, S.-O. (2011), “A comparison of psychometric properties and normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-point
Likert Scales”, Journal of Social Service Research, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 412-421.
161
Lewis, M.A. (2000), “Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 959-978.
Li, S., Ragu-Nathan, B., Ragu-Nathan, T. and Rao, S.S. (2006), “The impact of supply chain
management practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance”, Omega,
Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 107-124.
Liker, J. (2004), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer,
McGraw-Hill, New Delhi.
Lindeke, R., Wyrick, D. and Chen, H. (2008), “Effecting change and innovation in a highly automated
and lean organization: the Temporal Think Tank (T3)”, Proceedings of Flexible Automation and
Intelligent Manufacturing FAIM 2008, Sk€ovde, Sweden.
Lo, V., Yeung, A. and Yeung, A. (2007), “How supply quality management improves an organization’s
quality performance: a study of Chinese manufacturing forms”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 10, pp. 2219-2243.
Lucianetti, L., Jabbour, C.J.C., Gunasekaran, A. and Latan, H. (2018), “Contingency factors and
complementary effects of adopting advanced manufacturing tools and managerial practices:
effects on organizational measurement systems and firms’ performance”, International Journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 200, pp. 318-328.
Marino, G., Zotteri, G. and Montagna, F. (2018), “Consumer sensitivity to delivery lead time: a
furniture retail case”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 610-629.
Martınez-Jurado, P.J. and Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2014), “Lean management, supply chain management
and sustainability: a literature review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 85, pp. 134-150.
McAdam, R., Miller, K. and McSorley, C. (2019), “Towards a contingency theory perspective of quality
management in enabling strategic alignment”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 207, pp. 195-209.
Mehri, D. (2006), “The darker side of lean: an insider’s perspective on the realities of the Toyota
Production System”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 21-42.
Miller, J.G. and Roth, A. (1994), “A taxonomy of manufacturing strategies”, Management Science,
Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 285-304.
Miltenburg, J. (2005), Manufacturing Strategy: How to Formulate and Implement a Winning Plan, 2nd
ed., Productivity Press, New York.
Miyagawa, M. and Yoshida, K. (2010), “TQM practices of Japanese-owned manufacturers in the USA
and China”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 27 No. 7,
pp. 736-755.
Modgil, S. and Sharma, S. (2016), “Total productive maintenance; total quality management and
operational performance : an empirical study of Indian pharmaceutical industry”, Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 353-377.
Morgan, R. and Strong, A. (2003), “Business Performance and dimensions of strategic orientation”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 163-176.
N€aslund, D. and Hulthen, H. (2012), “Supply chain management integration : a critical analysis”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 19 Nos 4/5, pp. 481-501.
BIJ Nadal, J.O. (2017), “Lean management and supply chain management: common practices”, in Povoa,
A.P.B., Corominas, A. and Miranda, J.L.d. (Eds), Optimization and Decision Support Systems for
28,1 Supply Chains, Springer, Cham, pp. 117-129.
Netland, T.H. and Ferdows, K. (2016), “The S-curve effect of lean implementation”, Production and
Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1106-1120.
Netland, T.H. (2015), “Critical success factors for implementing lean production: the effect of
contingencies”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54 No. 8, pp. 2433-2448.
162
Nurcahyo, R. and Wibowo, A.D. (2015), “Manufacturing capability, manufacturing strategy and
performance of Indonesia automotive component manufacturer”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 26,
pp. 653-657.
Oghazi, P., Rad, F., Karlsson, S. and Haftor, D. (2018), “RFID and ERP systems in supply chain
management”, European Journal of Management and Business Economics, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 171-182.
Parker, S. (2003), “Longitudinal effects of lean production on employee outcomes and the
mediating role of work characteristics”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 620-634.
Patyal, V. and Koilakuntla, M. (2018), “Impact of organizational culture on quality management
practices: an empirical investigation”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 1406-1428.
Peng, X., Prybutok, V. and Xie, H. (2020), “Integration of supply chain management and quality
management within a quality focused organizational framework”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 448-466.
Phan, A.C., Nguyen, H.A., Trieu, P.D., Nguyen, H.T. and Matsui, Y. (2019), “Impact of supply chain
quality management practices on operational performance: empirical evidence from
manufacturing companies in Vietnam”, Supply Chain Management: International Journal,
Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 855-871.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Pont, G.D., Furlan, A. and Vinelli, A. (2008), “Interrelationships among lean bundles and their effects
on operational performance”, Operations Management Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 150-158.
Porter, M. (1980), Competitive Strategy, Free Press, New York, NY.
Porter, M. (1985), Competitive Advantage, Free Press, New York.
Prajogo, D. and Sohal, A. (2004), “The multidimensionality of TQM practices in determining quality
and innovation performance - an empirical examination”, Technovation, Vol. 24 No. 6,
pp. 443-453.
Prajogo, D. and Sohal, A. (2006), “The relationship between organizational strategy, total quality
management (TQM) and organization performance - the mediating role of TQM”, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 168 No. 1, pp. 35-50.
Prajogo, D.I. and Sohal, A.S. (2006), “The relationship between organization strategy, total quality
management (TQM), and organization performance - the mediating role of TQM”, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 168 No. 1, pp. 35-50.
Prajogo, D. (2007), “The relationship between competitive strategies and product quality”, Industrial
Management and Data Systems, Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 69-83.
Pramod, V.R., Devadasan, S.R., Muthu, S., Jagathyraj, V.P. and Moorthy, G.D. (2006), “Integrating
TPM and QFD for improving quality in maintenance engineering”, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 150-171.
Qi, Y., Zhao, X. and Sheu, C. (2011), “The impact of competitive strategy and supply chain strategy on
business performance: the role of environmental uncertainty”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 371-389.
Reed, R., Lemak, D.J. and Montgomery, J.C. (1996), “Beyond process: TQM content and firm Operational
performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 173-202.
practices and
Robinson, C. and Malhotra, M. (2005), “Defining the concept of supply chain quality management and
its relevance to academic and industrial practice”, International Journal of Production
competitive
Economics, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 315-337. strategies
Robson, K., MacIntyre, J. and Trimble, R. (2013), “Measuring the status and alignment of maintenance
and manufacturing strategies - the development of a new model and diagnostic tool”, Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 381-397. 163
Ruiz-Benıtez, R., Lopez, C. and Real, J.C. (2018), “The lean and resilient management of the supply
chain and its impact on performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 203,
pp. 190-202.
Sahoo, S. (2018), “An empirical exploration of TQM, TPM and their integration from Indian
manufacturing industry”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 29 No. 7,
pp. 1188-1210.
Sahoo, S. (2020), “Exploring the effectiveness of maintenance and quality management strategies in
Indian manufacturing enterprises”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 1399-1431.
Schlie, T. and Goldhar, J. (1995), “Advanced manufacturing and new directions for competitive
strategy”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 103-114.
Schroeder, R. and Flynn, B. (2002), High Performance Manufacturing: Global Perspectives, 1st ed.,
Wiley, New York, NY.
uller, M. (2008), “From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable
Seuring, S. and M€
supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15, pp. 1699-1710.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2007), “Defining and developing measures of Lean production”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 785-805.
Sharma, S. and Modgil, S. (2019), “TQM, SCM and operational performance: an empirical study of
Indian pharmaceutical industry”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 331-370.
Shavarini, S.K., Salimian, H., Nazemi, J. and Alborzi, M. (2013), “Operations strategy and business
strategy alignment model (case of Iranian industries)”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 33 No. 9, pp. 1108-1130.
Shi, Y., Wang, X. and Zhu, X. (2020), “Lean manufacturing and productivity changes: the moderating
role of R&D”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 69 No. 1,
pp. 169-191.
Shrafat, F.D. and Ismail, M. (2019), “Structural equation modeling of lean manufacturing practices in a
developing country context”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 122-145.
Simpson, M., Padmore, J. and Newman, N. (2012), “Towards a new model of success and performance
in SMEs”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 264-285.
Singh, K. and Ahuja, I. (2015), “An evaluation of transfusion of TQM–TPM implementation initiative”,
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 134-153.
Singh, S.C. and Pandey, S.K. (2015), “Lean supply-chain: a state-of-the-art literature review”, Journal of
Supply Chain Management Systems, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 33-46.
Singh, R.K., Garg, S.K. and Deshmukh, S. (2008), “Strategy development by SMEs for competitiveness:
a review”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 525-547.
Skinner, W. (1969), “Manufacturing - missing link in corporate strategy”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 136-145.
BIJ Stadtler, H. (2015), “Supply chain management: an overview”, in Stadtler, H., Kilger, C. and Meyr, H.
(Eds), Supply Chain Management and Advanced Planning, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
28,1 Heidelberg, pp. 3-28.
Stock, J.R. and Boyer, S.L. (2009), “Developing a consensus definition of supply chain management: a
qualitative study”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 690-711.
Talapatra, S. and Uddin, M.K. (2019), “Prioritizing the barriers of TQM implementation from the
164 perspective of garment sector in developing countries”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 2205-2224.
Talib, F., Rahman, Z. and Qureshi, M. (2011b), “A study of total quality management and supply chain
management practices”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 268-288.
Tan, K.C. (2002), “Supply chain management: practices, concern, and performance issues”, Journal
of Supply Chain Management: A Global Review of Purchasing and Supply, Vol. 38 No. 1,
pp. 42-53.
Temtime, Z.T. and Solomon, G.H. (2002), “Total quality management and the planning behaviour of
SMEs in developing economies”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 181-191.
Terziovski, M. and Hermel, P. (2011), “The role of quality management practices in the performance of
integrated supply chains: a multiple cross-case analysis”, Quality Management Journal, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 10-25.
Terziovski, M. (2010), “Innovation practice and its performance implications in small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing sector: a resource-based view”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 892-902.
Tortorella, G.L., Miorando, R. and Marodin, G. (2017), “Lean supply chain management: empirical
research on practices, contexts and performance”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 193, pp. 98-112.
Valmohammadi, C. and Roshanzamir, S. (2015), “The guidelines of improvement: relations among
organizational culture, TQM and performance”, Internal Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 164, pp. 167-178.
Vanichchinchai, A. and Igel, B. (2009), “Total quality management and supply chain management:
similarities and differences”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 3 Nos 249-260, p. 21.
Vanichchinchai, A. and Igel, B. (2011), “The impact of total quality management on supply chain
management and firm’s supply performance”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 49 No. 11, pp. 3405-3424.
Wang, C.-H., Chen, K.-Y. and Chen, S.-C. (2012), “Total quality management, market orientation and
hotel performance : the moderating effects of external environment factors”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 119-129.
Ward, P. and Zhou, H. (2006), “Impact of information technology integration and lean/just-in-time
practices on lead-time performance”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 177-203.
Wenerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 171-180.
Wickramasinghe, G. and Wickramasinghe, V. (2017), “Implementation of lean production practices
and manufacturing performance: the role of lean duration”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 531-550.
Wilson, J.P. and Campbell, L. (2018), “ISO 9001:2015: the evolution and convergence of quality
management and knowledge management for competitive advantage”, Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, pp. 1-16.
Wu, K.-J., Tseng, M.-L., Chiu, A.S. and Lim, M.K. (2017), “Achieving competitive advantage through
supply chain agility under uncertainty: a novel multi-criteria decision-making structure”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 190, pp. 96-107.
Yang, M.G., Hong, P. and Modi, S. (2011), “Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental Operational
management on business performance: an empirical study of manufacturing firms”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 129 No. 2, pp. 251-261. practices and
Yaseen, M.M., Sweis, R.J., Abdallah, A.B., Obeidat, B.Y. and Sweis, N.J. (2018), “Benchmarking of TQM
competitive
practices in the Jordanian pharmaceutical industry (a comparative study)”, Benchmarking: An strategies
International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 4058-4083.
Youssef, M.A. and Youssef, E.M. (2018), “The synergistic impact of ISO 9000 and TQM on operational
performance and competitiveness”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 165
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 614-634.
Yunis, M., Jung, J. and Chen, S. (2013), “TQM, strategy and performance : a firm-level analysis”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 690-714.
Zatzick, C.D., Moliterno, T.P. and Fang, T. (2012), “Strategic (MIS)FIT: the implementation of TQM in
manufacturing organizations”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 11, pp. 1321-1330.
Zeng, J., Phan, C. and Matsui, Y. (2013), “Supply chain quality management practices and
performance: an empirical study”, Operations Management Research, Vol. 6 Nos 1/2, pp. 19-31.

Corresponding author
Saumyaranjan Sahoo can be contacted at: saumya8989@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com