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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1754-2731.htm

Critical factors for total quality Total quality

management
management implementation in implementation

the Brazilian construction industry

L
ıvia da Silveira Pereira Reinaldo and Julio Vieira Neto
Department of Management Systems, Universidade Federal Fluminense,
Niteroi, Brazil Received 20 May 2020
Revised 27 September 2020
Rodrigo Goyannes Gusm~ao Caiado Accepted 13 October 2020

Tecgraf Institute, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro,

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and
Sustainable Management Systems, Universidade Federal Fluminense,
Niteroi, Brazil, and
Osvaldo Luiz Gonçalves Quelhas
Production Engineering, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niteroi, Brazil

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to identify the critical success factors (CSFs) that affect the implementation of total
quality management (TQM) and to investigate, from the perspective of Brazil, the latent factors for TQM
implementation in the construction industry.
Design/methodology/approach – The methodology consists of two methods. First, a literature review was
conducted to identify CSFs for TQM implementation. Then, empirical research was conducted from a survey
questionnaire applied to 130 professionals who have experience in the Brazilian construction industry. SPSS
version-25 was used for data analysis, using descriptive statistics, and, finally, principal component analysis
for identifying the latent factors.
Findings – The study findings portray convergences regarding the practitioners’ perception in the light of the
20 critical factors identified in the literature, which can serve to make construction professionals aware of the
key factors to TQM implementation. In addition, two latent factors, quality practices and human factor were
identified, and they can assist the leaders and decision-makers for the implementation of TQM in the
construction industry of a developing country.
Originality/value – It fills the gap of practical studies that compare the academic and practitioners’
perspectives regarding the CSFs for TQM implementation in construction industry.
Keywords Total quality management (TQM), Critical success factors (CSFs), Construction industry, Brazil
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The construction industry plays a key role in the development of any nation (Thomas and
Jayakumar, 2017). According to Altayeb and Alhasanat (2014), this industry has been
characterized as one of the most important for driving the development of infrastructure and
economy of developing countries. However, it is a complex, competitive and high-risk
business due to the limitations of traditional project delivery systems (Harrington et al., 2012).
Delivering quality projects is a challenge for the industry because of insufficient
information and studies to develop quality improvement initiatives. In developing countries,
the construction industry also suffers from shortages of skilled labour, low quality and low
productivity (Shoshan and Çelik, 2018), as well as accumulating problems, such as
manufacturing defects and time and cost overrun, which lead to poor performance, a history
of waste and rework, along with chronically low levels of customer satisfaction. The need for
The TQM Journal
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1754-2731
Disclosure statement: The authors reported no potential conflict of interest. DOI 10.1108/TQM-05-2020-0108
TQM change and adoption of total quality management (TQM) becomes latent and inevitable to
improve the conditions of the construction industry (Harrington et al., 2012).
TQM is a strategic philosophy, adopted by an organization and implementing
continuously, even if the organization is waiting to undertake a new project. The total
quality culture varies from company to company and from industry to industry, but
regardless of its differences, it aims to achieve common goals: cost reduction, reputation
enhancement and increased market share. In this way, total quality objectives are dynamic in
nature, and this requires continual updating (Dikko, 2013).
In recent years, TQM has become very popular with construction companies worldwide.
Empirical evidence suggests a positive relationship between TQM adoption and performance
improvements in construction projects (Harrington et al., 2012). Based on this evidence and
coupled with the fact that many construction customers are not satisfied with the quality
performance achieved on their projects, TQM has been widely adopted in the construction
industry. TQM is believed to help raise quality and productivity in the construction industry
(Shoshan and Çelik, 2018).
On the other hand, the introduction of TQM in the construction industry is more
challenging because development will be different from TQM applied in the manufacturing
industry. While a unique steady-state process characterizes the manufacturing industry, the
construction industry is generally a junction of dynamic processes and has unique
characteristics such as staff mobility, diversity in project types and forms, geographical
dispersion, contractual relationships, frequent prototyping of projects and small wastes that
are difficult to identify and control (Harrington et al., 2012).
Jimoh et al. (2018) point out that TQM practices have significant effects on organizational
performance when organizations implement the right continuous improvement strategies.
Thus, the mediating roles of continuous improvement strategies are necessary to ensure
better organizational performance (Ershadi et al., 2019). It is imperative that organizations
that crave competitive advantage value TQM practices and ensure that the right business
strategies are in place.
In Brazil, the scenario of the construction industry was aggravated by an
unprecedented crisis that hit the construction industry from 2016, when a major
economic recession began in the country, and the Operation Car Wash (Operaç~ao Lava-
Jato), which led to arrests of executives of the largest contractors in the country. Since then,
the sector has registered about 430,000 layoffs in a year and a reduction of 3,972 in the
number of active companies, with a fall of R $55.3 billion in real estate development, works
and services (IBGE, 2016).
Thus, it becomes evident that the adoption of the TQM is one of the most important
strategic decisions of the Brazilian construction industry today, as these organizations are
struggling to survive and maintain market competitiveness in the face of the sector crisis.
Many of these companies have realized that quality is the key to product, service and support
development for their organizations’ continued success as competition increases and frequent
changes occur in the business world (Shibani et al., 2010).
Besides that, the identification of critical success factors (CSFs) becomes fundamental in
the strategic planning process, as these will determine the greater or lesser achievement of the
established objectives (Julianelli et al., 2020). When a company has a certain CSF as its
strength, it has a competitive advantage. According to Tan et al. (2014), CSFs are the variables
that provide the most value to customers and which best differentiate competitors in a given
industry. They are the elements that determine the greater or lesser success of companies in
the market.
However, construction companies faced difficulties in implementing TQM approach
(Abdullah et al., 2015), and it can be observed that there is still a lack of research on the critical
factors for TQM implementation in the construction industry (Ershadi et al., 2019). Although
surveys of this nature were conducted in countries such as Malaysia, Turkey and Palestine Total quality
(Altayeb and Alhasanat 2014; Abdullah et al., 2015; Shoshan and Çelik 2018), no studies of management
this type were identified with Brazilian construction companies. In this sense, the present
study aims to identify the CSFs in the current literature and compare it with those identified
implementation
by professionals who have experience in Brazilian construction, and then identify the latent
factors that may help the leaders of these organizations in decision-making and provide a
comprehensive theoretical framework that can be used in future research.

2. Literature review
2.1 TQM background
During the 1980s, the North American industry was undergoing far-reaching changes
stemming from the adoption of TQM, primarily in response to intense Japanese competition
in the USA (Kutlu and Kadaifci, 2014). By contrast, in the global marketplace, increased levels
of competition have resulted in the increasing importance of quality for organizations, and, as
a result, TQM has become a key organizational performance issue (Suwandej, 2015). Altayeb
and Alhasanat (2014) point out that at this time in history, TQM has helped companies regain
their advantage in highly competitive business environments. In addition, since then, the
relationship between TQM practices and organizational performance has been widely
reported in the literature without consensus on their nature (Jimoh et al., 2018). Formoso and
Revelo (1999) emphasize that the correct implementation of TQM in processes tends to be
difficult and time-consuming.
TQM is an old and complex theme that is studied to this day. It presents a comprehensive
concept that involves not only quality aspects but also management strategy aimed at
creating quality awareness in all organizational processes (Jimoh et al., 2018). Therefore,
examining the definitions of the term TQM is not an easy task, since almost all writers have
their own definition on the subject, generally drawing it up according to their own beliefs,
prejudices and business and academic experiences. To some extent, this is also true in
organizations that have introduced a TQM approach to managing the business. The result is
a proliferation of unique definitions that confuses comparisons and increases the difficulties
of understanding and analysis (Shibani et al., 2010).
Lau et al. (2016) define TQM as an integrated management philosophy and set of practices that
emphasize continuous improvement, the pursuit of customer needs, long-term thinking, waste
and rework elimination, worker involvement, work in a team, new process designs,
benchmarking, employee analysis and troubleshooting, outcome measures and close supplier
relationships. In a more current view, Sreedharan and Sunder (2018) describe TQM as a mindset
and a pair of ongoing processes and improvements for individuals, groups and entire
organizations. Its main techniques provide some general principles of governance: customer
satisfaction, people-based management, continuous improvement and focus on management
(Caiado et al., 2021). Moreover, TQM produces excellence and achieves results that delight all
stakeholders of the organization.
TQM’s main objectives are to achieve customer satisfaction, minimize cost-effectiveness
and work without defects, which advocate a tireless pursuit of non-waste. The customer is
satisfied only if the product has a very low defect rate (literally none or zero) and is price-
competitive with offers from other suppliers. TQM achieves customer satisfaction through a
focus on process improvement, customer and supplier engagement, teamwork, training and
education. TQM is a culture that stands for a total commitment to customer satisfaction
through continuous improvement and innovation in all aspects of the business (Ershadi et al.,
2019). The customer, in the ideal culture, does not just mean the end recipient of the
organization’s end products or services, but an individual or department and a stakeholder
within the organization (Harrington et al., 2012).
TQM 2.2 TQM in the construction industry
TQM was first adopted in the manufacturing industry and is currently being implemented
in other industries (Jimoh et al., 2018). In the construction industry, the TQM
implementation is a real challenge, as it is a unique industry in each project, with
variations in the workforce and numerous stakeholders, exposed to the effects of various
parameters, such as weather conditions and formal project regulations (Shoshan and
Çelik, 2018).
Customers demand from construction companies better quality of service, faster
construction and technology innovations (Thomas and Jayakumar, 2017). Driven by
customer demands for quality, more and more companies operating in this industry are
engaging in TQM implementation with the aim of improving the quality of their products
and increasing customer satisfaction (Suwandej, 2015). However, companies in the
construction industry faced difficulties in implementing TQM in their projects (Abdullah
et al., 2015).
Shibani et al. (2010) point out that over the past decade, TQM has been used to improve
profits, market share and competitiveness. Although TQM is used as a proven approach to
building success in manufacturing, services and the public sector, many organizations have
failed to implement TQM, and this is due to many reasons such as lack of senior management
commitment or lack of attention to customer demands.
According to Santos et al. (2002b), the implementation of TQM is feasible in the
construction industry, but managers will have to deal with technical and human learning
issues. It is possible to clearly observe in the literature the fusion between “Technique” and
“Human”, where technical and technological knowledge is inserted side by side with human
issues. However, most managers are not prepared and motivated to carry out this merger,
coupled with the fact that there are inadequate conditions that make learning in the
construction industry impossible.
Corroborating, Santos et al. (2002a) state that construction industry managers need to
understand and learn standardization as a continuous process that does not end when a
written document is produced, that is, the standards must be revised as best work practices
are being identified, and this is the principle of continuous improvement so studied by TQM.
Nonetheless, Oliveira et al. (2019) highlight that Brazilian companies are not evolving in
results based on TQM because they lack awareness of TQM at all organizational levels, so an
organization cannot move towards something it does not know.
The challenge of implementing and maintaining TQM is big. Importantly, the
development of the TQM concept originally occurred in the manufacturing industry,
which is characterized by a stable process, while the construction industry has dynamic
processes that may change depending on the project to be developed. Importantly, TQM’s
culture changes from one company to another and from one industry to another, but
regardless of their differences, TQM aims to achieve common goals in any industry: waste
removal, cost reduction, improved reputation and increased market share (Harrington
et al., 2012).
Tey and Ooi (2014) point out that there are six key potential barriers to TQM
implementation in the construction industry: lack of skilled staff, low supply mindset, lack of
effective communication, extra cost and time-consuming, lack of top management support
and difficulties in the measurement. The authors also point out that only lack of effective
communication and lack of support from senior management are not significantly associated
with the level of TQM implementation. In addition to the difficulties mentioned, Garc
ıa-Bernal
and Garc
ıa-Casarejos (2014) point out that the construction sector has been negatively
affected by the current recession, and demand has shrunk significantly. In this scenario,
identifying CSFs for TQM implementation is the seed for TQM success in the construction
industries (Tan et al., 2014).
2.3 CSFs of TQM implementation Total quality
The concept of CSFs was not conceived recently; it dates back to 1978. Its forerunner was management
John F. Rockart who inserted the concept of CSF into the hierarchy of management tools.
CSFs are the variables that provide the most value to customers and best differentiate
implementation
competitors in a particular industry (Lins et al., 2019). They are the elements that determine
the greater or lesser success of companies in the market. The identification of CSFs becomes
fundamental in the strategic planning process, as these will determine the greater or lesser
achievement of the established objectives. When a company has as its strong point a certain
CSF, that company has a competitive advantage (Kutlu and Kadaifci, 2014).
According to Tan et al. (2014), several definitions for CSFs can be found in the literature;
however, it has a dynamic definition, and there is no consensus in the literature on the best set,
but there is an agreement that it is better to focus attention on some critical characteristics
that may interfere in business and thus increase the likelihood of success. For Abdullah et al.
(2015), CSFs can be considered as a limited number of factors whose results, if satisfactory,
will ensure a competitively successful performance for the organization. Given that the CSFs
identified can be managed to best use available resources, thus allowing the organization to
adopt a more appropriate strategic stance in its management.
According to Sreedharan and Sunder (2018), CSFs, as a concept, are growing rapidly in the
evolution of continuous improvement initiatives. In recent years, there has been a significant
improvement in CSF-based research articles, which implies that organizations require the use
of CSFs for their continuous improvement programme and that their assessment ranges from
a simple qualitative method to a sophisticated approach.
TQM CSFs can be used to gain a better understanding of effective quality management
practices. However, the implementation of TQM is becoming a complex practice due to the
increasing number of effective factors and key areas labelled as CSFs (Kutlu and Kadaifci,
2014). Table 1 presents a summary of the main CSFs of TQM implementation in multiple
sectors and specific to the construction industry, pointing out authors’ references and total of
citations. Among the TQM CSFs identified through a narrative review, the following factors
can be highlighted because they were most cited in the literature: senior management’s
commitment and leadership to quality management, commitment to education, training and
people development, clear communicating inside and outside the organization, information
and analysis system, use of ICTs to manage information and focus on meeting
customer needs.

3. Methodology
3.1 Research steps
The first step of the research encompasses a narrative review to identify the CSFs and was
performed in the Scopus and Web of Science databases, using the keywords: “total quality
management”, “TQM”, “critical factors”, “critical success factors” and “construction”. As
inclusion criteria, only journals articles published in English were considered from a total of
350 articles to a bibliographic portfolio (BP) of 60 articles, selected after reading titles and
abstracts. Based on BP, CSFs were identified, as the literature review section has shown.
Hence, these were all the articles that, to a certain extent, referred to factors of TQM
implementation related to construction. In order to synthesize knowledge in a replicable and
transparent way, the technique of content analysis was used. The content analysis was based
on the work of Lins et al. (2019), through the following steps: (1) discussion and delimitation of
the relevant material to be analyzed: 32 selected articles, (2) descriptive analysis of formal
characteristics, using Microsoft Excel worksheet, (3) selection of CSFs for TQM
implementation in construction industry in an inductive way and (4) evaluation of the
material according to the factors.
 TQM

Table 1.

TQM initiatives
CSFs in implementing
Multiple sectors Construction sector
Kutlu Kiombile Altayeb Formoso
Sreedharan and Shoshan and Abdullah and Shibani and Total
CSFs of TQM and Sunder Suwandej Kadaifci Dikko Metri and Çelik Ndume et al. Alhasanat et al. Hoonakker Revelo citations
Id implementation (2018) (2015) (2014) (2013) (2005) (2018) (2018) (2015) (2014) (2010) et al. (2010) (1999) per factor

1 Top management C C C C C C C C C C C 11
commitment and
leadership for
quality
management
2 Focus on strategic C C C 3
quality
management
planning
3 Quality C C C C C 5
management based
on process
management
4 Integration of the C 1
quality plan with
other
organizational
processes
5 Focus on C C C C C 5
continuous process
improvement and
results
6 Implementation of C C C C 4
process
measurement and
monitoring through
performance
indicators
7 Project quality C 1
management
8 Quality C C C 3
management in the
workplace

(continued )
 Multiple sectors Construction sector
Kutlu Kiombile Altayeb Formoso
Sreedharan and Shoshan and Abdullah and Shibani and Total
CSFs of TQM and Sunder Suwandej Kadaifci Dikko Metri and Çelik Ndume et al. Alhasanat et al. Hoonakker Revelo citations
Id implementation (2018) (2015) (2014) (2013) (2005) (2018) (2018) (2015) (2014) (2010) et al. (2010) (1999) per factor

9 Investments in C 1
organizational
infrastructure
10 Clear C C C C C C C C C C 10
communication
within and outside
the organization,
information and
analysis system,
use of ICTs to
manage
information
11 Organizational C C C C C 5
culture focused on
quality
management
12 Natural use of full C 1
quality tools and
techniques
13 Commitment to C C C C C C C C C C C 11
education, training
and people
development
14 Understanding C C 2
quality
management tools
and techniques
15 Encouraging C C C C C C C C 8
teamwork and
human resource
management

(continued )
Total quality

Table 1.
implementation
management
 TQM

Table 1.
Multiple sectors Construction sector
Kutlu Kiombile Altayeb Formoso
Sreedharan and Shoshan and Abdullah and Shibani and Total
CSFs of TQM and Sunder Suwandej Kadaifci Dikko Metri and Çelik Ndume et al. Alhasanat et al. Hoonakker Revelo citations
Id implementation (2018) (2015) (2014) (2013) (2005) (2018) (2018) (2015) (2014) (2010) et al. (2010) (1999) per factor

16 Employee C C C C C C C C 8
satisfaction,
involvement,
encouragement and
evaluation
17 Focus on meeting C C C C C C C 7
customer needs
18 Supplier C C C C C C C 7
management, long-
term relationship
and supplier
evaluation
procedure
19 Business C 1
performance
required for quality
management
system
implementation
20 Quality C C 2
management
system
implementation
independent of
certification
Number of factors 10 4 8 12 9 9 7 7 7 6 11 6
cited
 Besides that, we also employed a quantitative analysis through an empirical study with Total quality
the purpose to verify which of the CSFs to implement TQM individualized in the literature management
review are considered more relevant to construction companies (Laureani and Antony, 2012).
In this sense, we aimed to compare the most cited CSFs in the literature with the CSFs
implementation
considered more relevant from the practical point of view. To do this, we designed a
questionnaire based on the critical factors found in the narrative review. First, a pilot
questionnaire was applied to three experts having high experience and knowledge of TQM
initiatives to examine content validity and test readability of the dimensions identified
(Kruger et al., 2018). The pilot questionnaire provided a better refinement of the questions,
ensuring that there were clarity and objectivity in answering the questions that would
compose the web questionnaire (Lins et al., 2019).

3.2 Questionnaire survey and data collection

The research instrument was a web questionnaire structured in two parts: (1) background of
the respondent and the organization, and (2) the relevance of CSFs for TQM implementation.
It was answered online by professionals who work or who have worked in Brazilian
construction companies. In the first part of the questionnaire, there were six questions about
the respondents and the company in which they operate to give more authenticity to the
survey (Tortorella et al., 2019). It is noteworthy that, to maximize the reliability of the answers
received, the research instrument addressed a specific question: about having experience in
the Brazilian construction industry, which if not, closes the questionnaire.
Then, the questionnaire presented 20 questions based on the factors identified in the
literature, according to Table 1. A 5-point Likert scale was used (1 5 extremely irrelevant,
2 5 irrelevant, 3 5 indifferent, 4 5 relevant, 5 5 extremely relevant). The neutral point of the
scale is the “indifferent” option as it is the expected answer for all options, since the literature
already provides this information. In addition, the "Nothing to say" option was also included
but did not enter the response statistic. Any deviation from this response, positively or
negatively, represented an addition of knowledge to the existing literature.
The web survey was sent from 16 April 16 to 21 May 2019, to the most relevant and
representative professional groups existing on LinkedIn®, one of the largest social networks
focused on professional relationships, and to a group of experts in construction business by
email. According to Ines (2013), LinkedIn is among the most popular online networks and is a
relationship tool, focused on the corporate environment, used by information professionals in
different organizations as well as by various other areas of knowledge.
After a period of four weeks of research, 224 experts agreed to participate. Of this total, 94
responses were excluded, totalling 130 valid responses, which represent a return of 58% and
fit the minimum sample size criteria of 100 respondents, which means at least five times the
number of variables (20 items) analyzed (Hair et al., 2009). In addition, this study also exceeds
the minimum size of 119 respondents, to cover the largest possible population (with a margin
of error 5 3% and α 5 5%), according to Bartlett et al. (2001).
As in Krugger et al. (2018), the sample is considered non-probabilistic (convenience
sampling) since the researcher does not know the probability that an element of the
population should belong to the sample (Sekaran and Bougie, 2010) and that the sample
audiences were selected according to the criteria of accessibility and availability (Megliorini
et al., 2004, p. 42).

3.3 Data analysis

A logical sequence was adopted for analysis, using the software Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS, version 25). Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and
percentages, were used to describe the characteristics of the analyzed sample. To
TQM determine the reliability, validity and objectivity of the collected data, certain specific tests
were applied, for example, Cronbach’s alpha, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin criterion (KMO) and
Bartlett’s sphericity test. Then, a principal component analysis is performed, using the latent
root criterion. According to Hongyu et al. (2016), the multivariate analysis generally refers to
statistical methods that simultaneously analyze various measures on each individual or
object under investigation. Among the multivariate techniques, PCA is one of the most used
statistical techniques for data analysis in several areas of knowledge.
Hair et al. (2009) state that the PCA is a statistical technique that can be used to analyze the
interrelationships between a large number of variables and to explain them in terms of their
inherent common dimensions. Thus, the PCA aims to find a way of condensing the
information contained in several original variables into a smaller set of statistical variables
(not correlated), so that each new variable in this set is called the main component with
minimal loss of information. According to Shirali et al. (2016), the PCA identifies linear
combinations of variables that are useful in accounting for variation in the original variables,
reducing the number of variables and recognizing the eigen covariance structure or single
value decomposition of the original data.

3.4 Reliability and validity

Reliability and validity analyses were performed following some important steps proposed
by Tar
ı and Garc
ıa-Fern
andez (2018). First, the reliability of the questionnaire was verified by
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α). According to Hair et al. (2009), Cronbach’s alpha is a
reliability coefficient that assesses the consistency of the entire scale, where the lower limit for
generally accepted Cronbach’s alpha is 0.70, although it may decrease to 0.60 in exploratory
research. One issue in Cronbach’s alpha assessment is its positive relationship to the number
of items on the scale. Gliem and Gliem (2003) state that, when using the Likert scale, it is
mandatory to calculate and record Cronbach’s alpha to measure the internal consistency of
this scale. In the present study, the value of α 5 0.7 will be adopted as the acceptable
minimum and α 5 0.9 as the acceptable maximum, since an acceptable or good internal
consistency is desired (Caiado et al., 2019). It is noteworthy that question 1 will not enter this
application because it is only a security issue for the desired profile to be respected.
Moreover, as in previous studies (Saraph et al., 1989; Xiong et al., 2016), content analysis
was also achieved as the dimensions and items identified have been obtained from the
narrative literature review. Besides, as in Tar
ı and Garc
ıa-Fern
andez (2018), construct
validity was calculated with PCA, which uses varimax rotation, considering eigenvalues
greater than 1 (Hair et al., 2009). Factorability was examined by the KMO test (which
measures the sampling adequacy) (KMO > 0.50) and Bartlett’s sphericity test (significant at
the 5% level) (Blok et al., 2015). In addition, as suggested in previous studies (Xiong et al.,
2016), all dimensions are one-dimensional.

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Descriptive results
The profile of the participants in the empirical study was the topic questioned in the first part
of the survey. Table 2 presents the frequency obtained for the variables associated with
respondents’ profile.
It is worth mentioning that most of the respondents have experience in the area of quality
(62.73%) – 56.50% are engineers and 59.19% have leadership roles – which shows the
credibility and quality of the research carried out.
Furthermore, to ascertain the internal reliability of the issues related to the survey’ second
part, Cronbach’s alpha was used. For the study sample and considering a total of 20 items, the
Variables Percentage
Total quality
management
Experience in quality implementation
Yes 62.73%
No 37.27%
Occupation
Engineer 56.50%
Architect 8.97%
Administrator 6.73%
Technician 12.11%
Consultant 4.48%
Other 11.21%
Position in the company
Leadership 59.19%
Led 40.81%
Professional experience
Under 5 years 25.45%
5–10 years 26.34%
10–15 years 17.86%
Over 15 years 30.36%
Sector
Private 87.00% Table 2.
Public 8.97% Respondents’
Third sector 4.04% profile (n 5 130)

alpha of the entire set was 0.958, which shows high reliability (Hair et al., 2009) and is totally
within the pre-established range, as acceptable for the survey (between 0.7 and 0.9). Thus, it is
possible to state that there was satisfactory validation of the instrument as a whole. To verify
the behaviour of the variables individually, the frequency of responses for each CSF was
analyzed. Table 3 shows the descriptive results by pointing out the mode and percentage of
answers to the majority classification per question obtained.
Table 3 indicates that all respondents considered the variables (CSFs) surveyed by the
literature exposed in this paper as relevant to the successful implementation of TQM in
organizations. In addition, it is noteworthy that some of the variables did not obtain any “not
relevant” answer, which further reinforces the foregoing paragraph. These variables were 1,
2, 5 and 8. Besides that, variable 17 was the only one not getting any “indifferent” answer. The
next section presents the inferential results obtained from the second part of the survey.

4.2 Inferential results

The correlation matrix was the basis for calculating commonalities, which, according to Hair
et al. (2009), is the amount of variance explained by the factor solution for each variable.
Table 4 shows the obtained community matrix:
For the purposes of this research, at least 30% of the variance must be explained by each
item, that is, for the variable to be considered in the principal component analysis, its
commonality must be greater than 0.3. Otherwise, it will be ignored. After obtaining the
commonality matrix, the Bartlett’s sphericity test was applied. This test identifies the
presence of correlations between variables and determines the appropriateness of principal
component analysis for a sample. It provides the statistical probability that the correlation
matrix has significant correlations between at least some of the variables (Hair et al., 2009).
TQM Majority
Nº Mode classification Percentage

1. Top management commitment and leadership to quality 5 Extremely relevant 63.72%

management
2. Focus on strategic quality management planning 5 Extremely relevant 52.59%
3. Quality management based on process management 5 Extremely relevant 48.28%
4. Integration of the quality plan with other organizational 5 Extremely relevant 42.24%
processes
5. Focus on continuous process improvement and results 5 Extremely relevant 53.45%
6. Implementation of process measurement and monitoring 5 Extremely relevant 49.14%
through performance indicators
7. Project quality management 5 Extremely relevant 52.59%
8. Quality management in the workplace 5 Extremely relevant 48.28%
9. Investments in organizational infrastructure 5 Extremely relevant 41.38%
10. Clear communication within and outside the organization, 4 Relevant 44.35%
information and analysis system, use of ICTs to manage
information
11. Organizational culture focused on quality management 4 Relevant 42.24%
12. Natural use of full quality tools and techniques 4 and Relevant / extremely 40.52%
5 relevant
13. Commitment to education, training and people 5 Extremely relevant 58.62%
development
14. Understanding quality management tools and techniques 4 Relevant 43.97%
15. Encouraging teamwork and human resource management 5 Extremely relevant 46.96%
16. Employee satisfaction, involvement, encouragement and 5 Extremely relevant 47.41%
evaluation
17. Focus on meeting and meeting customer needs 5 Extremely relevant 62.07%
18. Supplier management, long-term relationship and supplier 4 Relevant 42.24%
evaluation procedure
19. Business performance required for quality management 4 Relevant 49.14%
Table 3. system implementation
Higher incidence of 20. Quality management system implementation independent 4 Relevant 43.10%
answers per question of certification

According to Gliem and Gliem (2003), the Bartlett’s sphericity test is a measure of the degree
to which the correlation matrix differs from the identity matrix. The resulting value
approximates a chi-square distribution with pðp − 1Þ=2 degrees of freedom (df). This test
should be used as a minimum condition for evaluating the suitability of the matrix to apply
principal component analysis. This means that if the test returns unsatisfactory values, there
is no need to subject the matrix to any further analysis, as it is proven to be inadequate to
apply PCA (Bartlett et al., 2001).
The value of the chi-square approximation obtained was 2003.840, and the correlations are
significant at the level 0.0001 and therefore at a level higher than the significance established
in this research. Thus, the result of the Bartlett’s test can be considered satisfactory for this
sample. The KMO test also quantifies the degree of intercorrelations between variables and
the appropriateness of PCA. According to Hair et al. (2009), the value of 0.927, verified in
Table 5, is considered in the “meritorious” range for the KMO test, which means that there is a
significant correlation between the variables and that there is the adequacy of principal
component analysis to the sample.
PCA was applied because the objective of the study is to summarize the variables into
latent factors. The analysis adopted considers the total variance and indicates the factors that
contain small percentages of specific variance. The full variance is brought into the factorial
matrix.
Factor Initial Extraction
Total quality
management
1. Top management commitment and leadership to quality management 0.572 0.485 implementation
2. Focus on strategic quality management planning 0.745 0.666
3. Quality management based on process management 0.721 0.662
4. Integration of the quality plan with other organizational processes 0.791 0.791
5. Focus on continuous process improvement and results 0.645 0.57
6. Implementation of process measurement and monitoring through performance 0.596 0.446
indicators
7. Project quality management 0.714 0.636
8. Quality management in the workplace 0.72 0.641
9. Investments in organizational infrastructure 0.605 0.556
10. Clear communication within and outside the organization, information and analysis 0.623 0.439
system, use of ICTs to manage information
11. Organizational culture focused on quality management 0.667 0.447
12. Natural use of full quality tools and techniques 0.667 0.562
13. Commitment to education, training and people development 0.724 0.699
14. Understanding quality management tools and techniques 0.741 0.653
15. Encouraging teamwork and human resource management 0.714 0.733
16. Employee satisfaction, involvement, encouragement and evaluation 0.756 0.813
17. Focus on meeting and meeting customer needs 0.586 0.503
18. Supplier management, long-term relationship and supplier evaluation procedure 0.657 0.574
19. Business performance required for quality management system implementation 0.656 0.611 Table 4.
20. Quality management system implementation independent of certification 0.624 0.524 Community matrix

KMO and Bartlett’s test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.927

Bartlett’s sphericity test Chi-square approximation 2003.84 Table 5.
Df 190 KMO and
Sig 0 Bartlett’s test

According to Hair et al. (2009), the higher the absolute value of the factorial load, the more
important the load in the interpretation of the factorial matrix. Using practical significance as
a criterion, we can evaluate the loads as follows:
(1) Factorial loads in the range of ±0.30 to ±0.40 are considered to meet the minimum
level for structure interpretation.
(2) Loads of ±0.50 or greater are considered to be virtually significant.
(3) Loads exceeding þ0.70 are considered indicative of well-defined structure and are the
goal of any factor analysis.
As indicated in Table 6, the factorial load of the present research was 60.053%, considered
significant because it is greater than 50%. To extract the factors, the latent root criterion was
adopted, which establishes that only components with eigenvalues greater than 1 should be
considered significant Hair et al. (2009). The eigenvalue indicated in Figure 1 symbolizes the
choice of two factors greater than 1 to be considered in this research.
After checking the unrotated data, we proceeded to the Oblimin rotation step of the matrix
in question. The purpose of the rotation is to simplify the rows and columns of the factorial
matrix to simplify their interpretation. It is noteworthy that the columns of the matrix
TQM Initial eigenvalues Sums of squared loads extraction
% of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Component Total variance % Total variance %

1. Top management commitment 11.22 56.098 56.098 10.83 54.152 54.152

and leadership to quality
management
2. Focus on strategic quality 1.499 7.493 63.591 1.18 5.901 60.053
management planning
3. Quality management based on 0.994 4.968 68.559
process management
4. Integration of the quality plan 0.794 3.971 72.531
with other organizational
processes
5. Focus on continuous process 0.743 3,717 76.248
improvement and results
6. Implementation of process 0.595 2.973 79.22
measurement and monitoring
through performance indicators
7. Project quality management 0.524 2.622 81.842
8. Quality management in the 0.5 2.499 84.341
workplace
9. Investments in organizational 0.478 2.389 86.73
infrastructure
10. Clear communication within 0.371 1.854 88.584
and outside the organization,
information and analysis
system, use of ICTs to manage
information
11. Organizational culture focused 0.333 1.664 90.248
on quality management
12. Natural use of full quality tools 0.314 1.569 91.817
and techniques
13. Commitment to education, 0.296 1.481 93.298
training and people
development
14. Understanding quality 0.263 1.315 94.613
management tools and
techniques
15. Encouraging teamwork and 0.239 1.197 95.81
human resource management
16. Employee satisfaction, 0.212 1.061 96.871
involvement, encouragement
and evaluation
17. Focus on meeting and meeting 0.203 1.015 97.886
customer needs
18. Supplier management, long- 0.179 0.895 98.782
term relationship and supplier
evaluation procedure
19. Business performance 0.136 0.678 99.459
required for quality
management system
implementation
20. Quality management system 0.108 0.541 100
Table 6. implementation independent
Total variance of certification
explained Note(s): Extraction method: PCA
represent the factors, and the rows represent loads of each variable along with the factors. Total quality
The pattern matrix can be found in Table 7: management
For reliability analysis, Cronbach’s alpha was found for each identified factor. Latent
factor 1 had a Cronbach’s alpha equal to 0.941 and latent factor 2 had a Cronbach’s alpha
implementation
equal to 0.884. Thus, it is possible to state, once again, that there was satisfactory reliability of
the research instrument. After rotating the matrix (Table 7), it was possible to infer what
variables are more linked to each dimension. From the variables most related to dimension 1,
it is possible to verify a greater link to the practical questions, that is, the main concepts and

12.000

10.000

8.000
Eigenvalue

6.000

4.000
Figure 1.
2.000 Scree plot of critical
factors for the
0.000 implementation of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 TQM in the
construction industry
Component number

Latent
factors
(components)
Factor 1 2

1. Top management commitment and leadership to quality management 0.54

2. Focus on strategic quality management planning 0.474
3. Quality management based on process management 0.708
4. Integration of the quality plan with other organizational processes 0.925
5. Focus on continuous process improvement and results 0.59
6. Implementation of process measurement and monitoring through performance indicators 0.547
7. Project quality management 0.723
8. Quality management in the workplace 0.714
9. Investments in organizational infrastructure 0.772
10. Clear communication within and outside the organization, information and analysis 0.571
system, use of ICTs to manage information
11. Organizational culture focused on quality management 0.484
12. Natural use of full quality tools and techniques 0.791
13. Commitment to education, training and people development 0.771
14. Understanding quality management tools and techniques 0.73
15. Encouraging teamwork and human resource management 0.811
16. Employee satisfaction, involvement, encouragement and evaluation 0.951
17. Focus on meeting and meeting customer needs
18. Supplier management, long-term relationship and supplier evaluation procedure 0.731
19. Business performance required for quality management system implementation 0.914
20. Quality management system implementation independent of certification 0.753
Note(s): Extraction method: principal axis factorization; rotated matrix: Oblimin with Kaiser normalization; Table 7.
a. rotation converged in 6 iterations Pattern matrix
TQM requirements for the implementation of the TQM, so that this latent dimension can be called
"Quality Practices". Similarly, by analyzing dimension 2, it is possible to identify factors that
are closely linked to internal relationship issues within the organization, so this dimension,
therefore, can be termed as the “Human Factor”.
Hence, for the 20 CSFs assessed, the two components extracted were: (1) quality practices and
(2) human factor. These results somewhat converge to previous studies from Sreedharan and
Sunder (2018), Suwandej (2015), Kutlu and Kadaifci (2014), Dikko (2013), Metri (2005), Shoshan
and Çelik (2018), Altayeb and Alhasanat (2014) and Shibani et al. (2010) which highlighted the
factors: (1) top management commitment and leadership to quality management, (2) clear
communication within and outside the organization, information and analysis system, use of
ICTs to manage information and commitment to education and (3) training and people
development as the key CSFs for TQM implementation. It is possible to observe that the first and
third most-cited factors are directly related to dimension 2 called “Human Factor” and that the
second most cited factor is related to dimension 1 called “Quality Practices”.
Therefore, from the results, it can be concluded that the total variance explained by the
two latent factors found was 60.05%, which gives significant value to the research, and the
research did not show variables with commonalities below 0.3, so no variable was
disregarded from the latent structure. Thus, there was no exclusion of variables by PCA.

5. Conclusions
The purpose of this paper was to present a proposal of critical factors that affect the TQM
implementation and to identify the latent factors for TQM implementation in the construction
industry from the perspective of a developing country.
The contributions of this article are as follows. First, a thorough study was carried out of
the existing literature by identifying 20 critical factors for the implementation of TQM. These
factors were validated with professionals working in the construction industry in Brazil
through survey research. Second, two latent factors, called quality practices and human
factor, were identified through principal component analysis. These factors can guide
decision-making at the strategic level of organizations when it comes to implementing TQM.
Third, the article shows a comprehensive theoretical framework that analyzes the existence
of critical factors in the literature and practice for the implementation of TQM.
Therefore, future studies are expected to be carried out more comprehensively, comparing
critical and latent factors of TQM implementation in different countries so that the research
becomes more generalizable in a global scenario. It is also suggested that in future studies, the
latent dimensions found in this paper should be applied to a case study to verify the market
response to research and to further improve each latent factor.
The main limitations of this article are the delimitation of the survey to professionals
working in the construction industry in Brazil and the size of the sample that was conditioned
by the number of respondents of the questionnaire distributed electronically. Although it
presents the above limits, it is possible to consider research as academically important
because it presents content that can serve as a source of future studies in synergy with the
theme quality management. It is also significant for the construction industry, since
leaderships of organizations can, from the identified critical factors and latent factors,
promote actions that prioritize them and assist the implementation of TQM.

References
Abdullah, M.N., Asmoni, M., Mohammed, A.H., Mei, J.L.Y. and Ting, L.S. (2015), “Critical success
factors of project quality management system for Malaysian construction industry”, Jurnal
Teknologi, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 123-131.
Altayeb, M.M. and Alhasanat, M.B. (2014), “Implementing total quality management (TQM) in the Total quality
Palestinian construction industry”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,
Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 878-887. management
Bartlett, J.E., Kotrlik, J.W. and Higgings, C.C. (2001), “Organizational research: determining
implementation
appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research”,
Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 43-50.
Blok, V., Wesselink, R., Studynka, O. and Kemp, R. (2015), “Encouraging sustainability in the
workplace: a survey on the pro-environmental behaviour of university employees”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 106, pp. 55-67.
Caiado, R.G.G., Quelhas, O.L.G., Nascimento, D.L.D.M., Anholon, R. and Leal Filho, W. (2019),
“Towards sustainability by aligning operational programmes and sustainable performance
measures”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 30 Nos 5-6, pp. 413-425.
Caiado, R.G.G., Scavarda, L.F., Gavi~ao, L.O., Ivson, P., Nascimento, D.L.M. and Garza-Reyes, J.A.
(2021), “A fuzzy rule-based industry 4.0 maturity model for operations and supply chain
management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 231, p. 107883.
Dikko, K. (2013), “Establishing status of Nigerian building design firms based on European
Construction. institute total quality management matrix”, Proceedings of the 29th Annual
Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) Conference, pp. 2-4.
Ershadi, M.J., Najafi, N. and Soleimani, P. (2019), “Measuring the impact of soft and hard total quality
management factors on customer behavior based on the role of innovation and continuous
improvement”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 1093-1115.
Formoso, C.T. and Revelo, V.H. (1999), “Improving the materials supply system in small-sized building
firms”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 8, pp. 663-670.
Garc
ıa-Bernal, J. and Garc
ıa-Casarejos, N. (2014), “Economic analysis of TQM adoption in the
construction sector”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 25 Nos 3-4,
pp. 209-221.
Gliem, J.A. and Gliem, R.R. (2003), “Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha
reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales”, Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult,
Continuing, and Community Education, pp. 82-88.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2009), “An
alise multivariada de
dados”, Bookman Editora, 6th ed., p. 688.
Harrington, H., Voehl, F. and Wiggin, H. (2012), “Applying TQM to the construction industry”, The
TQM Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 352-362.
Hongyu, K., Sandanielo, V.L.M. and de Oliveira Junior, G.J. (2016), “An
alise de componentes principais:
resumo te
orico, aplicaç~ao e interpretaç~ao”, E&S Engineering and Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 83-90.
Hoonakker, P., Carayon, P. and Loushine, T. (2010), “Barriers and benefits of quality management in
the construction industry: an empirical study”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 21 No. 9,
pp. 953-969.
IBGE - Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (2016), Annual Survey of the Construction
Industry (Paic), available at: https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas-novoportal/economicas/
industria/9018-annual-research-of-industry-of instruction.html? 5 & T 5 about (accessed 25
January 2019).
Ines, M. (2013), “Disseminaç~ao da informaç~ao profissional no Linkedin: uma an
alise sob a
otica das
redes sociais of social networks”, Biblionline, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 40-51.
Jimoh, R., Oyewobi, L., Isa, R. and Waziri, I. (2018), “Total quality management practices and
organizational performance: the mediating roles of strategies for continuous improvement”,
International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 162-177.
Julianelli, V., Caiado, R.G.G., Scavarda, L.F. and Cruz, S.P.D.M.F. (2020), “Interplay between reverse
logistics and circular economy: critical success factors-based taxonomy and framework”,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 158, p. 104784.
TQM Kiombile, M. and Ndume, V. (2018), “Assessment of critical success factors that contribute to the total
quality management in construction process: a case study in dar es Salaam city”, 11a
International Conference Naura Springs Hotel Arusha, Tanzania.
Kruger, C., Caiado, R.G.G., França, S.L.B. and Quelhas, O.L.G. (2018), “A holistic model integrating
value co-creation methodologies towards the sustainable development”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 191, pp. 400-416.
Kutlu, A.C. and Kadaifci, C. (2014), “Analyzing critical success factors of total quality management by
using fuzzy cognitive mapping”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 27 No. 5,
pp. 561-575.
Lau, A.W., Li, Y.S., Tang, S.L. and Chau, K.W. (2016), “TQM application by engineering consultants in
Hong Kong”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 561-587.
Laureani, A. and Antony, J. (2012), “Standards for lean six sigma certification”, International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 110-120.
Lins, M.G., Zotes, L.P. and Caiado, R. (2019), “Critical factors for lean and innovation in services: from
a systematic review to an empirical investigation”, Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, pp. 1-26, doi: 10.1080/14783363.2019.1624518.
Megliorini, E., Weffort, E.F.J. and Holanda, V.B.D. (2004), “Amostragem”, Pesquisa operacional para
decis~ao em contabilidade e administraç~ao: contabilometria, Atlas, S~ao Paulo, pp. 19-74.
Metri, B.A. (2005), “TQM critical success factors for construction firms”, Management: Journal of
Contemporary Management Issues, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 61-72.
Oliveira, G.S., Corr^ea, J.E., Balestrassi, P.P., Martins, R.A. and Turrioni, J.B. (2019), “Investigation of
TQM implementation: empirical study in Brazilian ISO 9001- registered SMEs”, Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 30 Nos 5-6, pp. 641-659.
Santos, A., Formoso, C.T. and Tookey, J.E. (2002a), “Expanding the meaning of standardisation within
construction processes”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 25-33.
Santos, A., Powell, J.A. and Sarshar, M. (2002b), “Evolution of management theory: the case of
production management in construction”, Management Decision, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 788-796.
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. and Schroeder, R.G. (1989), “An instrument for measuring the critical factors
of quality management”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 810-829.
Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. (2010), “Theoretical framework in theoretical framework and hypothesis
development”, Research Methods For Business: A Skill Building Approach, Vol. 80, pp. 13-25.
Shibani, A., Ganjian, E. and Soetanto, R. (2010), “Implementation of total quality management in the
Libyan construction industry”, International Journal of Project Organisation and Management,
Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 382-403.
Shirali, G.A., Shekari, M. and Angali, K.A. (2016), “Quantitative assessment of resilience safety
culture using principal components analysis and numerical taxonomy: a case study in a
petrochemical plant”, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 40,
pp. 277-284.
Shoshan, A.A.A. and Çelik, G. (2018), “Application of TQM in the construction industry of developing
countries - case of Turkey”, Anadolu University Journal of Science and Technology A - Applied
Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 177-191.
Sreedharan, V.R. and Sunder, M.V. (2018), “Critical success factors of TQM, six sigma, lean and lean
six sigma: a literature review and key findings”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 3479-3504.
Suwandej, N. (2015), “Factors influencing total quality management”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 197, pp. 2215-2222.
Tan, Y., Shen, L., Langston, C., Lu, W. and CH Yam, M. (2014), “Critical success factors for building
maintenance business: a Hong Kong case study”, Facilities, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 208-225.
Tar
ı, J.J. and Garc
ıa-Fern
andez, M. (2018), “A proposal for a scale measuring innovation in a total Total quality
quality management context”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, pp. 1-15,
doi: 10.1080/14783363.2018.1504622. management
Tey, L.S. and Ooi, T.L. (2014), “Exploring the barriers and the level of TQM implementation in
implementation
Malaysian construction industry”, Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 7 No. 16, pp. 3419-3424.
Thomas, B. and Jayakumar, A. (2017), “Overseeing quality management in construction industries”,
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 792-800.
Tortorella, G., Nascimento, D., Caiado, R., Posada, J.G.A. and Sawhney, R. (2019), “How do different
generations contribute to the development of a learning organization in companies undergoing
a lean production implementation?”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 101-115.
Xiong, J., He, Z., Ke, B. and Zhang, M. (2016), “Development and validation of a measurement
instrument for assessing quality management practices in hospitals: an exploratory study”,
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 27 Nos 5-6, pp. 465-478.

Further reading
Heo, J.Y. and Kim, K.J. (2017), “Development of a scale to measure the quality of mobile location based
services”, Service Business, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 141-159.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Corresponding author
Rodrigo Goyannes Gusm~ao Caiado can be contacted at: rodrigocaiado@tecgraf.puc-rio.br

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