International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

Quality Assurance in the Textile Industry: Part III

Neal AllenJohn S. Oakland
Article information:
To cite this document:
Neal AllenJohn S. Oakland, (1991),"Quality Assurance in the Textile Industry: Part III", International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp.
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719110140971
Downloaded on: 23 November 2016, At: 11:58 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
Downloaded by FUDAN UNIVERSITY At 11:58 23 November 2016 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 112 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1988),"Quality Assurance in the Textile Industry: Part I", International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 5 Iss 5 pp. 25-37 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb002916
(1991),"Quality Assurance in the Textile Industry: Part II", International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. - http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719110141006

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:543096 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well
as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Textile
Quality Assurance in the Industry
Textile Industry: Part III
Neal Allen
Unisys Ltd, UK, and 9
John S. Oakland Received May 1989
Revised January 1990
European Centre for Total Quality Management, University ofBradford, UK

Introduction
Downloaded by FUDAN UNIVERSITY At 11:58 23 November 2016 (PT)

The research described in this article is concerned with an examination of the

practice of quality management in the textile industry. It was carried out in
three stages, which represent different levels of investigation:
(1) A postal questionnaire, to examine the overall state of quality management
in the industry.
(2) In-company interviews, to provide further detailed information on a sample
of companies, and to prepare the ground for the next stage.
(3) In-company work, to give in-depth examination of quality systems and
to develop semi-quantitative assessment procedures.
In Part I of this series[1] the results of the postal questionnaire were presented.
This article is concerned with the results of the in-company work which was
aimed at providing a more detailed picture of the quality management activities
in selected textile companies.
In Part II[2], the inherent weaknesses of the postal questionnaire, identified
by Lockyer et al. [3] were listed. During their research on quality control in the
UK manufacturing industry, to complement their postal questionnaire, they
carried out a large programme of structured interviews. Similarly, Oakland and
Duprey[4] used this methodology in their work on the UK chemical
manufacturing industry. The interviews revealed that the usage of Statistical
Quality Control (SQC) was much lower than indicated by the previous
questionnaire survey. Consequently, it was decided that the same technique
would be used during the second phase of this research.
In the interview programmes carried out previously at the Bradford
Management Centre, the sample sizes were low. The chemical industry interview
programme comprised 16 interviews, whilst the interviewed sample for the UK
manufacturing industry survey was 32. Because of these low sample sizes a
full statistical analysis was inappropriate and qualitative descriptions only were
given. Owing to geographical andfinancialconstraints, the size of the sample
in this research is similar to the surveys referred to above and once again a
qualitative analysis only is made. International Journal of Quality &
In Parts I and II of this series, the results of the postal questionnaire[1] and 2,Reliability Management, Vol. 8 No.
1991, pp. 9-20, © MCB
the in-company interviews were presented [2]. This article is concerned with the University Press, 0265-671X
 IJQRM detailed in-company work, the results of assessments to BS 5750 Part 2[5],
8,2 and the quantification of a quality management system using conjoint analysis.
During the course of the structured interviews described in Part II, each
respondent was asked whether they would be interested in taking part in further
work, which would involve the researcher visiting the respondent's factory site
and assessing the existing quality system. Of the 23 companies taking part in
10 the in-company interviews, five wished to be involved in this detailed work.
The basis for the assessments of the quality systems was BS 5750 Part 2,
"Specification for Manufacture and Installation" (1987)[5].
The results arising from this provided descriptive reports which allowed only
qualitative comparisons to be made between the various companies' quality
systems. A semi-quantitative analysis of the in-company work has been carried
out, however, based on a new method for rating quality management systems.
Downloaded by FUDAN UNIVERSITY At 11:58 23 November 2016 (PT)

This involved the use of "experts" to rank company profiles synthesised from
various quality system attributes, and subjecting the results to conjoint analysis.

Conjoint Analysis
Conjoint analysis is a technique which has been used mainly in the field of market
research. It has enjoyed some popularity in the USA where it has been used
in over 1,000 market research studies[6]. The technique provides organisations
with valuable information about the needs of their customers by indicating:
(1) those product benefits or attributes which are of major concern to the
market;
(2) how much of one product quality a consumer is willing to forego to obtain
some other product quality.
These types of data not only allow management to identify market segments,
but can also provide answers as to what might happen to market share if
attributes of products are increased or decreased. Another area in which this
technique has been found useful is in testing the viability of new products before
they are manufactured.
Green and Srinivasan[7] have identified six steps in a conjoint analysis:
(1) Selection of a model of preference
(2) Collection of data
(3) Construction of a stimulus set on which respondents make their
preference judgements
(4) Presentation of the stimulus set
(5) Selection of the type of measurement scale of preference
(6) Selection of the estimation procedure to calibrate the model.

Reliability and Validity of Conjoint Analysis

In his work on the reliability of conjoint analysis, Robinson[8] stated that the
reliability of the results of a conjoint analysis refers to the ability of the analysis
to reproduce the same parameter values from a second set of preference
 judgements. Very little work has been carried out in the area of reliability. The Textile
little that has been done, however, has shown the technique to be a very reliable Industry
procedure[9,10,11]. The "bridge back" approach, described by Robinson[8],
has been found to be even more reliable than the conventional conjoint
techniques.
Measures of validity reveal the degree to which the model fits the data supplied 11
by the respondent. Two types of validity exist: internal validity and external .
validity. Internal validity can be described as the degree to which the data
collected fit the model. The programme LINMAP[12] caters for this by providing
an index of fit measure, C*. External validity is the ability of a model to predict
actual behaviour. Both types of validation have been performed in this analysis.
Downloaded by FUDAN UNIVERSITY At 11:58 23 November 2016 (PT)

The Bridge Back Method

A number of important findings on conjoint analysis have been reported by
Robinson[8]:
(1) The larger the number of attributes presented on a profile, the greater
the likelihood of respondent error.
(2) The larger the number of concepts that the respondent has to rank at
any one time, the greater the likelihood of respondent error.
If a product was chosen that comprised ten attributes with three levels each,
then using a fractional factorial would generate 27 profiles (basic plan 6[13]).
The ranking of 27 profiles would probably lead to respondent error. The problem
can be solved by splitting the total attribute set into three smaller subsets (see
Table I).

Total set Subset 1 Subset 2 Subset 3

A1 A1
A2 A2
A3 A3
A4 A4 A4
A5 A5
A6 A6
A7 A7 A7
A8 A8
A9 A9
A10 A10 Table I.
Bridge Back Method

Each subset consists of four attributes, each with three levels. With the use
of Addelman's fractional factorial tables[13], this generates only nine profiles
per subset. This makes the respondents' ranking process much easier.
In Table I, attributes A4 and A7 act as bridges between the subsets, i.e.
attribute A4 is contained within subsets 1 and 2, while A7 is contained within
subsets 2 and 3. Robinson predicted that these bridging variables would enable
 IJQRM LINMAPIV tofindconfiguration of importance weights and "partworths" that
8,2 would satisfy all the preference rank orders. If these bridging variables were
not stable, then no one set of importance weights would accurately reproduce
the three input preference rank orders. This would be reflected by poor internal
validity measurement (a high value for C*).
12 Some limitations occur when using the bridge back approach. In the first
instance, at least two attributes must be used for bridging; otherwise the
reliability of the relative importance of the remaining attributes will be totally
dependent on the weight of one bridging variable. Second, the two attributes
(minimum) chosen as the bridging variables should be the most important,
usually decided by group discussion.
On the basis of Robinson's work, it was decided to use this technique in
Downloaded by FUDAN UNIVERSITY At 11:58 23 November 2016 (PT)

an attempt to provide some quantification in the rating of quality management

systems.

Choosing the Preference Model

The "partworth model" [6] has been chosen as a basis for this work. This
describes a product or system in terms of attributes and levels. In Part I of
this series [1] a relationship diagram was constructed from the results of the
questionnaire survey. This was used as a starting-point from which to build
the quality management system assessment model. The final model consisted
of 16 attributes:
(1) Senior management commitment
(2) Existence of a quality manual
(3) Statistical process control used
(4) Quality responsibilities defined in work instructions
(5) Training in quality
(6) Quality audits and reviews
(7) Essential data recorded
(8) Understanding of SPC
(9) Written corrective action procedures
(10) Written inspection procedures
(11) Knowledge of BS 5750
(12) Final product inspection
(13) Quality costs recorded
(14) Documented purchasing system
(15) Inspection of incoming goods
(16) Calibration of measuring instruments.
Each of these attributes comprised two levels: either yes, the attribute existed
as part of the quality system, or no, the attribute did not exist.
 Data Collection Method Textile
The data collection method used for this part of the research was the "full concepts Industry
method" described by Robinson[8].
It is appropriate at this stage to describe how the data were structured in order
to use the bridge back method. First, it was necessary to decide which attributes
were to be considered to be the most important. These were then used as the
bridging variables. The following attributes were chosen to act as bridging variables: 13
(1) Senior management commitment
(2) Existence of a quality manual
(3) Statistical process control used
(4) Knowledge of BS 5750.
Having chosen me bridging variables, the 16 attributes were then divided into
Downloaded by FUDAN UNIVERSITY At 11:58 23 November 2016 (PT)

four groups as shown in Table II.

Group 1
Senior management commitment
Knowledge of BS 5750 or similar
Quality costs recorded
Quality responsibilities defined in work instructions
SPC used
Existence of quality manual
Group 2
Senior management commitment
Knowledge of BS 5750 or similar
Quality audits and reviews
Existence of quality manual
Understanding of SPC
Written inspection procedures
Group 3
Senior management commitment
Existence of quality manual
Training in quality
Written corrective action procedures
Essential data recorded
Calibration of measuring instruments
Group 4
Senior management commitment
SPC used
Existence of quality manual
Documented purchasing system
Inspection of incoming goods Table II.
Final product inspection The Four Groups of
Attributes

From these groupings it can be seen that senior management commitment bridges
across groups 1, 2, 3 and 4; existence of a quality manual bridges across groups
1, 2, 3 and 4; SPC used bridges across groups 1 and 4 and knowledge of BS
5750 bridges across groups 1 and 2.
Respondents
Before construction of the stimuli to be ranked, it was necessary to identify a
group of people who were deemed to be "experts" in the field of quality
 IJQRM management — either well known in the field of quality and/or associates of
8,2 the European Centre for Total Quality Management, at the University of
Bradford. Twenty such people were chosen to participate in this exercise.
Construction of the Stimuli
Each profile within the four sets of cards consisted of six attributes comprising
14 two levels each. Addelman's fractional factorials[13] were used to construct these
profiles. The number of trials needed to be carried out was obtained by xn,
where x is the number of levels used per attribute and n is the total number
of attributes per profile. In this case there were two levels per attribute and6
six attributes per profile. With a full factorial design this would have given 2
= 64 profiles. However, using Addelman's fractional factorials reduces the
number of profiles considerably. The nearest fractional factorial to 26 is basic
Downloaded by FUDAN UNIVERSITY At 11:58 23 November 2016 (PT)

plan 1[13], which reduces the number of profiles to just eight. The profiles were
now ready for the quality "experts" to rank.
Presentation of the Stimuli and Measurement Scale
The data were presented to the respondents using written descriptions on cards.
Each participant was sent a covering letter plus a set of instructions explaining
how to perform the task required. The respondents were required to look at
each set of scenarios in turn. Using their own judgement and experience, they
were then asked to rank each set of cards in the order 1 to 8 on the basis
of the quality systems described, 1 being the "best" quality system, 8 being
the "worst".
A total of 15 experts returned the sets of profiles, a response rate of 75 per
cent. All had been ranked and no incomplete sets were returned.
Estimation Method
LINMAP[10] was used to analyse the data. This linear programming technique
calculated the importance of each of the attributes described on the profiles
on the basis of the ranked data. All 15 were analysed by LINMAPIV and, finally,
the overall importance of the attributes was calculated by the routine.
Validity
The internal validity of the analysis, i.e. the degree to which the data best fit
the model, was measured by LINMAP and indicated by the C* value on the
output of the results. A low C* value reflects a higher internal validity. The
external validity of the analysis, i.e. the ability of the model to predict actual
behaviour, was measured by carrying out a multiple regression analysis of the
rankings made by the respondents, using Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS).
Results
LINMAP Results
The results of the conjoint analysis are shown in Table III. The values contained
in the Table are the "partworth values" calculated by the analysis for each
attribute, as a result of the respondents' rankings. The final value is the goodness
of fit or the C* calculated for each response. The partworth values for each
respondent are quoted as percentages and, therefore, add up to 100. These
 Respondent
Attribute 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Overall

Senior management
commitment 22.70 16.80 7.77 7.76 6.87 10.70 27.70 1.75 10.50 4.87 21.60 19.20 27.40 16.30 26.70 14.70
Knowledge of BS 5750
or similar 1.45 0.00 7.77 6.09 5.42 4.32 8.59 2.05 5.82 3.75 2.37 3.03 6.28 8.75 1.50 6.00
Quality costs 3.24 3.25 2.77 4.89 0.79 9.18 0.00 0.15 1.21 4.87 4.73 5.05 7.93 8.15 4.91 2.32
Job descriptions
Downloaded by FUDAN UNIVERSITY At 11:58 23 November 2016 (PT)

defined 12.30 1.88 3.85 5.73 19.70 8.08 3.44 5.00 2.42 8.07 2.37 13.10 13.90 0.00 1.92 5.06
SPC used 7.58 7.00 0.00 3.70 15.10 4.87 13.90 4.60 8.23 11.40 11.30 4.04 7.59 3.87 17.30 8.75
Existence of quality
manual 1.45 1.88 2.77 6.09 5.81 5.42 1.72 8.25 4.72 9.18 12.20 7.06 3.31 6.22 9.40 6.95
Quality audits and
system reviews 1.45 3.75 3.01 6.92 7.00 7.53 5.15 6.30 2.30 5.83 5.08 9.08 6.28 6.22 1'.50 6.86
SPC understanding 1.45 7.50 6.62 6.09 5.42 4.32 12.00 3.20 7.02 5.99 7.10 5.51 6.28 4.28 4.49 6.00
Written inspection
procedures 5.78 7.50 5.78 6.09 2.78 0.00 3.44 6.40 4.72 5.99 0.34 0.00 5.93 0.00 2.99 2.66
Training in quality 10.10 10.30 8.78 12.20 4.62 11.40 3.44 9.59 8.23 3.20 16.90 7.06 9.24 18.40 8.26 8.69
Corrective action
procedures 4.34 12.10 9.87 11.30 3.43 10.10 0.00 9.60 7.03 7.56 2.37 10.10 0.00 14.20 0.00 6.88
Essential data recorded 7.23 2.81 7.10 6.92 3.43 1.75 8.59 12.30 14.20 5.94 2.37 7.06 2.96 4.01 7.12 7.78
Calibration of measuring
instruments 0.00 11.20 9.87 6.08 3.57 7.25 1.72 0.00 5.93 2.74 2.37 2.02 0.00 8.29 4.13 2.70
Documented purchasing
system 4.34 7.94 2.47 3.22 4.62 6.98 5.15 6.90 4.72 4.31 5.64 3.03 0.00 1.93 6.40 4.12
Incoming goods
inspection 7.58 5.13 6.32 2.87 2.24 6.43 3.44 9.19 7.02 5.43 0.00 2.02 1.66 0.00 1.50 4.12
Final product inspection 9.02 0.94 15.40 4.06 9.25 1.66 1.72 14.70 5.93 10.90 3.27 3.03 1.31 0.00 1.92 6.43
C* 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.13
Conjoint Analysis,
Partworth Values
(LINMAP IV)

Industry
Table III.

Textile
15
 Table IV.
of Rankings (F-values
Multiple Regression
and R2- values)

IJQRM
8,2
16
Downloaded by FUDAN UNIVERSITY At 11:58 23 November 2016 (PT)

Respondent
Attribute 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Overall

Senior management 211.75 75.00 6.56 70.17 NS 72.45 540.14 NS 87.33 NS 148.71 183.55 34.20 144.77 371.55 602.86
commitment (0.000) (0.000) (0.016) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Knowledge of BS 5750 NS NS 7.39 18.68 NS 11.23 19.01 NS 21.25 NS NS NS NS NS NS 39.28
or similar (0.012) (0.001) (0.004) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Quality costs NS NS NS 15.07 NS 39.21 18.16 NS 8.57 NS NS NS NS NS NS 29.09
(0.001) (0.000) (0.000) (0.010) (0.000)
Job descriptions 16.96 NS NS 27.44 NS 22.53 NS 4.16 20.35 12.84 NS 18.40 15.46 NS NS 70.03
defined (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.02) (0.000) (0.002) (0.000) (0.001) (0.000)
SPC used 6.94 NS NS 21.62 3.30 17.76 54.29 NS 24.29 13.58 10.01 NS 15.90 NS 15.03 88.93
(0.014) (0.000) (0.079) (0.001) (0.000) (0.000) (0.001) (0.004) (0.001) (0.001) (0.000)
Existence of quality NS NS NS 32.02 NS 35.61 NS 6.93 25.79 24.29 16.52 9.31 NS NS 9.88 93.11
manual (0.000) (0.000) (0.014) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.005) (0.004) (0.000)
Quality audits and system NS NS NS 21.93 NS 59.83 27.34 6.65 8.76 NS 4.84 18.49 NS NS NS 51.95
reviews (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.016) (0.010) (0.037) (0.000) (0.000)
SPC understanding NS NS NS 15.77 NS 6.64 30.27 NS 18.65 11.51 NS NS 6.59 NS NS 42.63
(0.001) (0.020) (0.000) (0.001) (0.003) (0.017) (0.000)
Written inspection 21.02 NS NS 15.84 NS 4.46 NS NS 15.61 11.24 NS NS 8.39 NS 4.57 39.40
procedures (0.000) (0.001) (0.051) (0.001) (0.003) (0.008) (0.042) (0.000)
Training in quality 19.78 NS NS 28.75 NS 42.45 10.27 NS 14.02 NS 10.38 NS 19.56 6.98 NS 58.17
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.004) (0.002) (0.003) (0.000) (0.013) (0.000)
Corrective action NS NS NS 18.67 NS 30.19 NS NS 8.43 11.75 NS 14.79 NS NS NS 41.01
procedures (0.001) (0.000) (0.011) (0.002) (0.001) (0.000)
Essential data recorded NS NS 4.33 12.54 NS NS 53.83 10.73 38.51 6.17 NS NS NS NS 7.35 48.37
(0.047) (0.003) (0.000) (0.003) (0.000) (0.021) (0.012) (0.000)
Calibration of measuring NS NS 3.90 6.77 NS 4.51 NS NS 8.43 NS NS NS NS 5.70 NS 15.00
instruments (0.059) (0.020) (0.050) (0.011) (0.024) (0.000)
Documented purchasing 7.81 NS NS 10.06 NS 30.09 28.18 NS 11.58 NS NS NS NS NS NS 22.35
system (0.010) (0.006) (0.000) (0.000) (0.004) (0.000)
Incoming goods inspection NS NS NS 16.00 NS 25.02 NS NS 15.53 NS NS NS NS NS NS 20.13
(0.001) (0.000) (0.001) (0.000)
Final product inspection 4.46 NS 12.81 18.23 NS 8.32 NS 8.92 11.58 7.58 NS 5.41 NS NS NS 38.47
(0.045) (0.001) (0.011) (0.006) (0.004) (0.011) (0.028) (0.000)
R2-value 0.91 0.71 0.43 0.86 0.10 0.89 0.97 0.46 0.89 0.71 0.85 0.89 0.88 0.62 0.85 0.50
N.B. If an F-value is shown, then the attribute is significant. Otherwise, NS meaning not significant is indicated. Significance levels are indicated in brackets underneath the F-
statistic values.
 Company
Textile
Attribute A B C D E
Industry
Senior management
commitment + 14.70 + 14.70 + 14.70 + 14.70 + 14.70
Knowledge of BS5750 or
similar + 6.0 + 6.00 + 6.00 + 6.00 + 6.00
17
Quality costs + 2.32 - 2.32 - 2.32 - 2.32 + 2.32
Job descriptions defined + 5.06 - 5.06 + 5.06 + 5.06 - 5.06
SPC used + 8.75 - 8.75 - 8.75 - 8.75 - 8.75
Existence of quality manual + 6.95 + 6.95 - 6.95 - 6.95 - 6.95
Quality audits and system
Downloaded by FUDAN UNIVERSITY At 11:58 23 November 2016 (PT)

reviews + 6.86 - 6.86 - 6.86 - 6.86 - 6.86

SPC understanding + 6.00 - 6.00 + 6.00 + 6.00 - 6.00
Written inspection
procedures + 2.66 - 2.66 - 2.66 - 2.66 - 2.66
Training in quality + 8.69 - 8.69 - 8.69 - 8.69 - 8.69
Corrective action
procedures + 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88
Essential data recorded + 7.78 + 7.78 + 7.78 + 7.78 + 7.78
Calibration of measuring
instruments + 2.70 - 2.70 - 2.70 + 2.70 - 2.70
Documented purchasing
system + 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 + 4.12 + 4.12
Incoming goods inspection + 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 Table V.
In-company Work
Final product inspection + 6.43 + 6.43 + 6.43 + 6.43 + 6.43 Quantification Using
Totals 100.02 -16.30 - 8.06 + 5.56 -17.32 Partworth Values from
the Conjoint Analysis

values show the relative importance of each attribute per respondent. In addition
to the individual rankings, an overall conjoint analysis on all respondents'
rankings was carried out. These results are also included in Table III.
The internal validity produced for each respondent and the overall analysis
is indicated by the C* value. The nearer this value is to zero the better the
internal validity of the results, i.e. the degree to which the data best fit the
model. The nearer to one this value becomes, the poorer the internal validity.
The highest C* value obtained was 0.06. It may be said, therefore, that a
good fit of the data to the model was obtained. Before these values may be
used to quantify a system, however, they must be externally validated.
Multiple Regression Results
Table IV contains the results of the multiple regression analysis for each
respondent and for the overall analysis. The analysis identified, for each
respondent, those attributes which contributed to the equation and those from
which the contribution was not significant. The table highlights this by including
the .F-statistic for each attribute per respondent, which was significant. The
levels of significance are shown in brackets below these values.
 Table VI.
the Conjoint Analysis

In-company Interview
Partworth Values from
Quantification Using

8,2
IJQRM
18
Downloaded by FUDAN UNIVERSITY At 11:58 23 November 2016 (PT)

Company
Attribute 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Senior management
commitment + 14.70 + 14.70 + 14.70 + 14.70 + 14.70 + 14.70 + 14.70 + 14.70 + 14.70 -14.70 +14.70 + 14.70 + 14.70 + 14.70 + 14.70 + 14.70 + 14.70 + 14.70
Knowledge of BS 5750
or similar + 6.00 - 6.00 + 6.00 + 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 + 6.00 + 6.00 - 6.00 + 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00
Quality costs - 2.32 - 2.32 - 2.32 - 2.32 - 2.32 - 2.32 - 2.32 - 2.32 - 2.32 - 2.32 - 2.32 - 2.32 - 2.32 - 2.32 - 2.32 - 2.32 - 2.32 - 2.32
Job descriptions
defined + 5.02 + 5.06 - 5.06 + 5.06 - 5.06 - 5.06 + 5.06 + 5.06 - 5.06 + 5.06 + 5.06 - 5.06 + 5.06 - 5.06 - 5.06 - 5.06 - 5.06 - 5.06

SPC used + 8.75 - 8.75 - 8.75 - 8.75 - 8.75 - 8.75 - 8.75 + 8.75 - 8.75 - 8.75 - 8.75 - 8.75 - 8.75 - 8.75 - 8.75 - 8.75 - 8.75 - 8.75
Existence of quality
manual - 6.95 - 6.95 - 6.95 - 6.95 + 6.95 - 6.95 - 6.95 - 6.95 - 6.95 - 6.95 - 6.95 - 6.95 - 6.95 - 6.95 - 6.95 - 6.95 - 6.95 - 6.95
Quality audits and system
reviews - 6.86 - 6.86 - 6.86 - 6.86 - 6.86 - 6.86 - 6.86 - 6.86 - 6.86 - 6.86 - 6.86 - 6.86 - 6.86 - 6.86 - 6.86 + 6.86 - 6.86 - 6.86
SPC understanding + 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 + 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00 - 6.00
Written inspection
procedures + 2.66 - 2.66 + 2.66 - 2.66 + 2.66 - 2.66 - 2.66 - 2.66 - 2.66 - 2.66 - 2.66 + 2.66 - 2.66 - 2.66 - 2.66 - 2.66 - 2.66 - 2.66
Training in quality - 8.69 - 8.69 + 8.69 - 8.69 - 8.69 - 8.69 - 8.69 - 8.69 - 8.69 - 8.69 - 8.69 - 8.69 - 8.69 - 8.69 - 8.69 - 8.69 - 8.69 - 8.69
Corrective action
procedures + 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88 - 6.88
Essential data
recorded + 7.78 + 7.78 + 7.78 + 7.78 + 7.78 + 7.78 - 7.78 + 7.78 + 7.78 - 7.78 + 7.78 + 7.78 + 7.78 + 7.78 - 7.78 + 7.78 - 7.78 + 7.78
Calibration of measuring
instruments + 2.70 + 2.70 - 2.70 + 2.70 + 2.70 + 2.70 + 2.70 + 2.70 + 2.70 - 2.70 - 2.70 + 2.70 - 2.70 + 2.70 N/A + 2.70 N/A + 2.70
Documented purchasing
system - 4.12 + 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 + 4.12 - 4.12 + 4.12 + 4.12 + 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 + 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12
Incoming goods
inspection + 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 + 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12 - 4.12
Final product
inspection + 6.43 + 6.43 + 6.43 + 6.43 + 6.43 + 6.43 - 6.43 - 6.43 - 6.43 - 6.43 + 6.43 + 6.43 + 6.43 - 6.43 + 6.43 + 6.43 + 6.43 + 6.43
Totals + 42.14 -18.44 - 7.50 -14.68 - 9.34 -36.80 -46.86 + 10.20 -29.42 -89.90 -20.08 -23.24 -20.08 -49.66 -48.62 -23.08 -46.37 -36.80
 The results obtained variedfromrespondent to respondent. An overall regression Textile
analysis was, therefore, performed on the rankings to ensure an equal input Industry
to the final analysis from each respondent. Table IV indicates that all the
attributes contributed to the overall multivariate prediction equation. Further,
the levels for each of the attributes' F-statistic values were all very highly
significant. In addition, the R2-value of 0.50 is sufficiently high, in social science
research, to indicate adequacy of fit[14]. 19
A New Quantitative Technique for Quality System Assessment
On the basis that the conjoint results were proven valid, both internally and
externally, it is suggested that the partworth values be used in quality system
assessments to:
(1) give weighting to the various system attributes used in the work on the
Downloaded by FUDAN UNIVERSITY At 11:58 23 November 2016 (PT)

textile companies;
(2) quantify the actual assessments, at least on a ranking basis.
Moreover, the method may find wide application in:
(1) the assessment and selection of suppliers;
(2) the comparison of a firm's own system(s) with respect to others working
in the field, including suppliers, customers and competitors.
To quantify each quality management system, the partworth data should be
used as follows. If a company has a particular attribute in place, as part of its
quality management system, then the value of the partworth should be added
to the company's overall score. If that attribute is absent from the company's
quality system, then the partworth value should be subtracted from the overall
score. The overall score then provides a comparative measure of the quality
system assessment.
The validity of the technique has been examined by application to the in-
depth in-company assessments carried out in five textile companies, and to
the results from the in-company interviews described in Part II of this series[2].

Quantitative Comparison of the Data from the In-company Assessments and

Interviews
The partworth values of each attribute for the overall analysis, shown in Table
HI, were used to grade each of the quality systems assessed during the in-company
work. Table V contains the results of the grading (note that the information analysed
includes data gathered during the interviews as well as the in-depth assessments).
Company A achieved the highest score. This is not surprising, since this company
had already been assessed and registered to BS 5750. The next highest score
was that of Company D. Thisfirmwas not assessed or registered to any standards
but had made efforts to set up some parts of a quality system following customer
pressure, although most of these procedures were not documented.
The remaining three companies all achieved negative scores. Some efforts
had been made in these companies in thefieldof quality, but there were many
deficiencies when their quality management systems were assessed using the
British Standard. These three companies were by no means the worst cases
observed in this particular research.
 IJQRM Further investigation was performed on the data collected during the in-company
8,2 interviews[2], and Table VI details each company result. Only two of these
companies achieved a positive score and it is known that one of them (Company
1) was preparing for a BS 5750 assessment. It is perhaps not surprising then
that this company was far ahead of the others in this rating. The worst "Allen-
Oakland" rating was -90 and the average score was -25.
20
Conclusions
When looked at overall, these figures support the findings of the postal
questionnaire described in Part I[1]. A distinct lack of good quality management
practices was found within this sample of the British textile industry. Indeed,
from the very low scores achieved by the participating companies, it could be
argued that there is a distinct lack of quality awareness throughout the industry.
In summary, a technique has been established which provides a quantification
Downloaded by FUDAN UNIVERSITY At 11:58 23 November 2016 (PT)

of quality management system assessment. Conjoint analysis, although

predominantly a marketing tool, has provided an "Allen-Oakland rating" model
for quality systems, which has both internal and external validity. It has been
applied to data collected during both the in-company work and in-company
interviews, enabling "system grading" of these companies to take place.
The results of this work have added more evidence to the conclusions drawn
from the previous work, that there is a lack of good quality management practices
within the textile industry in the UK.
References
1. Allen, N. and Oakland, J.S., "Quality Assurance in the Textile Industry: Part I", International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 5 No. 5, 1988, pp. 25-37.
2. Allen, N. and Oakland, J.S., "Quality Assurance in the Textile Industry: Part II", International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, 1991, pp. 22-30.
3. Lockyer, K.G., Oakland, J.S., Duprey, C.H. and Followell, R.F., "The Barriers to Acceptance
of Statistical Methods of Quality Control in UK Manufacturing Industry", International Journal
of Production Research, Vol. 22 No. 4, 1984, p. 647.
4. Oakland, J.S., and Duprey, C.H., "Quality Control in the UK Chemical Manufacturing Industry
— a Study: Part II", International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 21 No. 1,1983, p. 31.
5. British Standards Institute, "Quality Systems", BS 5750 (ISO 9000), BSI, Hemel Hempstead,
UK, 1987.
6. Cattin, P. and Wittink, D.R., "Commercial Use of Conjoint Measurement: A Survey", Research
Paper Series, Research Paper No. 596, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, 1981.
7. Green, P.E. and Srinivasan, V., "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook",
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 5, September 1978, pp. 103-23.
8. Robinson, I., "An Investigation into the Reliability of Conjoint Analysis", PhD thesis, University
of Bradford, 1983.
9. Parker, B.R. and Srinivasan, V., "A Consumer Preference Approach to the Planning of Rural
Primary Health-care Facilities", Operations Research, Vol. 24 No. 5, September/October 1976,
p. 991.
10. McCullough, J. and Best, R., "Conjoint Measurement Temporal Stability and Structural
Reliability", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February 1979, pp. 26-31.
11. Malhotra, N.K., "Structural Reliability and Stability of Non-metric Conjoint Analysis", Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, May 1982, pp. 199-207.
12. Srinivasan, V. and Shocker, A.D., "LINMAP Version IV — User's Manual", Owen Graduate
School of Management, Vanderbilt University, August 1981.
13. Addelman, S., "Orthogonal Main-effect Plans for Asymmetrical Factorial Experiments",
Technometrics, Vol. 4 No. 1, 1962, pp. 21-30.
14. Makridakis, S. and Wheelwright, S.C., Interactive Forecasting, 2nd ed., Holden-Day, New York,
1978.
 This article has been cited by:

1. ERIC P. JACK, PAUL R. STEPHENS, JAMES R. EVANS. 2001. AN

INTEGRATIVE SUMMARY OF DOCTORAL DISSERTATION RESEARCH IN QUALITY
MANAGEMENT. Production and Operations Management 10:4, 363-382. [CrossRef]
2. Sanjay L. Ahire, Damodar Y. Golhar, Matthew A. Waller. 1996. Development and Validation of
TQM Implementation Constructs. Decision Sciences 27:1, 23-56. [CrossRef]
3. W. Andrew TaylorThe Queen’s University of Belfast, Northern Ireland.. 1995. Organizational
differences in ISO 9000 implementation practices. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management 12:7, 10-27. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. SANJAY L. AHIRE, ROBERT LANDEROS, DAMODAR Y. GOLHAR. 1995. TOTAL
QUALITY MANAGEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW AND AN AGENDA FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH. Production and Operations Management 4:3, 277-306. [CrossRef]
5. Philip A. StreetJune M. Fernie. 1992. BS 5750: The Industry View. International Journal of Quality
Downloaded by FUDAN UNIVERSITY At 11:58 23 November 2016 (PT)

& Reliability Management 9:7. . [Abstract] [PDF]

6. Chris K. Y. LoQuality and Environmental Management Systems in the Fashion Supply Chain
111-129. [CrossRef]
7. Chris K. Y. LoQuality and Environmental Management Systems in the Fashion Supply Chain 21-39.
[CrossRef]