International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

Operationalizing productivity improvement programs through total quality management

Joyce M. Hoffman Satish Mehra
Article information:
To cite this document:
Joyce M. Hoffman Satish Mehra, (1999),"Operationalizing productivity improvement programs through total quality
management", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 16 Iss 1 pp. 72 - 84
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719910250890
Downloaded on: 03 September 2016, At: 21:19 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 16 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2084 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:19 03 September 2016 (PT)

(2003),"Impact of total quality management on productivity", The TQM Magazine, Vol. 15 Iss 6 pp. 374-380 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09544780310502705
(1997),"Productivity improvement", Work Study, Vol. 46 Iss 2 pp. 49-51 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00438029710162854
(1998),"Total quality management: a new perspective for improving quality and productivity", International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, Vol. 15 Iss 8/9 pp. 947-968 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719810199033

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:216788 []
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.

 IJQRM
16,1
72
Received December 1997
Revised April 1998
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:19 03 September 2016 (PT)
International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management,
Vol. 16 No. 1, 1999, pp. 72-84,
© MCB University Press, 0265-671X
Operationalizing productivity
improvement programs
through total quality
management
Joyce M. Hoffman
College of Business, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches,
Texas, USA and
Satish Mehra
The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
Keywords Improvement, Productivity, TQM
Abstracts The intent of this empirical research is to identify the critical factors that are
potentially “fatal” to productivity improvement programs and to analyze these factors relative to
documented quality concepts. From this analysis we determine that these “fatal” factors can be
prevented by the pre-existence of a quality program, specifically total quality management,
which requires participative involvement of all members of an organization, continuous
improvement, and customer satisfaction.
Introduction
Over the past two decades, the subject of productivity has been discussed,
analyzed, criticized, and attacked owing to the slowed growth of productivity
in the American manufacturing sector. Frequently people have been the target
and the workforce has been categorized as lacking in interest, skills, and
motivation. Resource usage has also been a focus of discussion as well as the
slower implementation of technology in both the product and the process.
Management has not been spared. Management has been referred to as
unconcerned, uninvolved, uneducated and lacking in responsibility toward
considering operations and productivity as a key element of corporate
strategy (Deming, 1981; Juran, 1988; Roach, 1996; Skinner, 1986).
There is a bright side to the entire issue. The fact that productivity and its
slowed growth have been recognized and acknowledged shows concern.
Organizations have discussed, analyzed, planned, and attempted the
productivity revivals through the implementation of productivity
improvement programs (PIP). But are the programs working? Are they as
successful as intended? Questions have been provoked about PIP successes
including the dilemma of why PIPs work better for some organizations and
why some organizations are more productive than others (Hayes and Clark,
1986; Roach, 1996).
 Current focus on productivity and quality Operationalizing
We consider productivity enhancement as a process to achieve higher levels of productivity
output while consuming same or lesser amounts of input resources. Also, we improvement
believe that if the same output level is reached in a shorter time period, it
indicates improved productivity. It is in this respect, that projects designed to
improve productivity must also consider time as a key resource. Productivity
improvement programs that result in higher output levels while ignoring 73
increased time consumption cannot be considered successful PIPs. Today’s
global competition requires increased throughput levels over lesser time
horizons.
Issues related to analyzing and solving productivity problems are complex
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:19 03 September 2016 (PT)

and often confusing. Considering that so much has been written about
productivity by so many (from varied disciplines), it is easy to speculate about
the severity of the problem. It appears that productivity improvement programs
have frequently produced disappointing results. Perhaps what is needed is a
systematic and logical attempt at identifying productivity problems that
accompany PIPs.
The intent of this empirical research is to identify the critical factors that are
potentially fatal to PIPs and to analyze these factors relative to the documented
quality concepts. From this analysis we can determine if these “fatal” factors
can be prevented by the pre-existence of a total quality program, specifically
total quality management, which requires participative involvement of all
members of an organization, continuous improvement, and customer
satisfaction.
Total quality management (TQM) is about leadership, planning and
improvement and it is defined as “Managing the entire organization so that it
excels on all dimensions of products and services that are important to the
customer” (Chase and Aquilano, 1995, p. 163). An integral part of a TQM
system is continuous improvement through a philosophy of product and
process improvement as a never-ending journey. Increased levels of
productivity result from improvement. “Is there any relationship between TQM
and the critical factors of productivity improvement programs?” is the
question.

Productivity in detail
In order to identify those probable factors considered to be fatal to productivity
improvement programs, an exploratory study was developed and administered
within the regional manufacturing community. The development stage of the
study consisted of forming an expert panel to be interviewed by the Delphi
method. The panel had five participants each having significant experience in
the productivity related issues. All members of the panel came from medium-
sized (approximately 500 employees) manufacturing organizations
representing a variety of businesses (i.e. heavy machinery, chemical, electrical
equipment, and material handling systems). If the members of the panel were all
of one mind or philosophy and responding within a framework of only one
 IJQRM quality philosophy (such as the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria or The Deming
16,1 Prize), despite their level of professional expertise, then they would yield a set of
biased constraints to the list. The key critical factors produced by this panel fell
into categories that dominated the documented works of major researchers,
thereby validating the ability of the panel (Ahire et al., 1996; Black and Porter,
1996; Deming, 1981; Flyn et al., 1994; Saraph et al., 1989).
74 Using the knowledge and personal experience of the productivity personnel
and existing literature, our study arrived at a list of possible critical factors that
can cause the failure of productivity improvement programs. In arriving at the
list of critical factors, we consulted the documented works of various authors
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:19 03 September 2016 (PT)

(Crosby, 1979; Deming, 1982; Garvin, 1983; Hayes and Clark, 1986; Juran, 1988;
McClelland, 1986; Mehra et al., 1998; Shetty, 1982; Skinner, 1986) to validate and
confirm the views of our expert panel. This step provided the necessary basis
to the questioning procedure used in the study. The resulting list of critical
factors is shown below (note that the numbers do not represent ranking or
priority):
(1) Insufficient investment in workforce training.
(2) Poor financial controls and/or information systems.
(3) Weak middle managers.
(4) Decline of the work ethic.
(5) Lack of incentives or appropriate regards (or disincentives).
(6) Insufficient capital for improvement plant and equipment.
(7) Poor employee relations..
(8) Poor relationship with union leaders.
(9) Insufficient awareness by engineering of the manufacturing
implications of product and process designs.
(10) Weakness in industrial and manufacturing engineering.
(11) Weak first-line supervision.
(12) Poor communication organization-wide.
(13) A piecemeal, unplanned approach to improving productivity.
(14) Inadequate/ineffective coordination among departments or functional
areas (excessive functional of departmental autonomy).
(15) Insufficient investment in management and supervisor training and
development.
(16) Lukewarm commitment and involvement by top management.
(17) Lack of loyal, skilled workforce.
(18) Uncooperative union leadership.
 (19) Poorly trained supervisory personnel in the area of productivity related Operationalizing
problems. productivity
(20) Programs just cannot be implemented improvement
Using this list as a foundation, a questionnaire was designed to solicit response
from various production operations managers about the critical productivity
factors that influence the outcomes of PIPs. This questionnaire was tested and 75
validated by our expert panel to avoid redundancy (and poor language). Each
question was designed so as to enable the participants to rank order their
responses. This questionnaire was mailed to 100 randomly selected production
operations managers within the regional American Production and Inventory
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:19 03 September 2016 (PT)

Control (APICS) group. Our survey resulted in a 41 percent response rate. A

typical respondent in our study has a college degree with five or more years of
experience in the production operations area, and he/she was employed by a
manufacturing company with 300-500 employees.

Results
The research instrument used in this study asked the participants to rank order
the possible sources of productivity program failures based on their
experiences. Also, using open ended questions, participants were requested to
provide input to the causes of high productivity as well as low productivity in
their companies. First, let us analyze the responses regarding the main causes
of PIP failures.
Based on the average ranking of the various causes of PIP failure, the survey
findings revealed seven critical factors that can cause PIP failure. These factors
fall into the issues of top management, planning, coordination, communication,
training, and employee relationships. Other factors receiving lower rankings are
considered to be secondary factors by the survey results. However, a closer look
reveals that they are basically extensions of the seven critical factors. Table I lists
the seven critical factors (by priority ranking) along with the secondary elements.
To analyze these results, we now compare findings from our study with the
documented productivity related issues from the literature (Deming, 1981; 1982;
Hayes and Clark, 1986; Juran, 1988; McClelland, 1986; Shetty, 1982; Skinner,
1986), and to the documented critical elements of a TQM system (Black and
Porter, 1996; Crosby, 1979; Garvin, 1983; Juran, 1988; Mehra et al., 1998; Saraph
et al., 1989).

Top management commitment and TQM

Lack of top management commitment and involvement seems to be the major
obstacle in successfully implementing a productivity improvement project.
Given this priority ranking raises the question, “If productivity is critical to the
survival of the organization, then why does top management not realize its
responsibilities toward productivity?” This lack of responsibility accompanied
by lukewarm commitment and involvement falls directly in line with Shetty’s
(1982) contention about management’s role in productivity. In the early 1980s,
 IJQRM
Ranking
16,1
Major factors
Lukewarm commitment and involvement by top management 1
A piecemeal, unplanned approach to improving productivity 2
Poorly trained supervisory personnel in the area of productivity related problems 3
76 Inadequate/ineffective coordination among departments of functional areas 4
Insufficient investment in workforce training 5
Poor communication organization-wide 6
Poor employee relations 7
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:19 03 September 2016 (PT)

Secondary factors
Table I. Weak middle managers/weak first-line supervision
Factors causing Lack of incentives/rewards
productivity Weakness in industrial and manufacturing engineering
improvement Insufficient investment in management and supervisory training
program failure Poor financial controls and/or information systems

Shetty presented evidence for assigning responsibility for productivity

problems to top management. By analyzing several specifics of management
practices and behaviors, he concluded that management attitudes and practices
had a serious impact on productivity. Shetty recommended a fundamental
rethinking. Management must give attention to productivity at all levels and
must be aware of the total picture of the organization. Skinner (1986) also
addressed the management issue in the 1980s by attacking management’s
definition of productivity programs as results-oriented projects instead of
process-oriented improvements. Top management was accused of projecting a
narrow vision of the organization. Roach (1996) in his article, “Productivity
revival” indirectly addresses the issues of 1980s management approach to PIPs
by questioning the issues of 1990s management’s attempts at productivity
improvement programs. He challenges management’s understanding of
corporate performance and the resulting goal setting for productivity. Roach,
using the 1990s tactics of PIPs, reemphasizes the problems of management’s
focus on results-oriented projects.
The close ties of productivity to management as stated by Shetty, Skinner
and Roach are reinforced by the works of men prominent in the philosophy and
applications of quality to productivity issues. Even through there are quite a
few scholars in the quality and productivity arena, to argue our case in brief, we
looked into the works of four such scholars. Deming (1982) states that causes of
inefficiency and quality are in the system and management is responsible for
the system. Juran (1988) holds management responsible for goal setting and for
creating and sustaining change as needed to correct deficiencies. Top managers,
according to Crosby (1979), carry the primary responsibility for commitment to
quality and willingness to support efforts necessary to achieve the goals.
Garvin (1983) labels top management as architects of change who provide a
sense of direction for the workers and for the organization. All four experts link
 top management involvement and commitment to both productivity and Operationalizing
quality. A summary of the emphasis that these experts put on management and productivity
the relationship between quality and productivity is illustrated in Table II. This improvement
dependency of productivity on quality opens the door for establishing a TQM
program prior to embarking on a journey of improving productivity.
TQM can be viewed as an organization-wide philosophy requiring all
employees at every level of an organization to focus their efforts to help improve 77
each business activity of the organization. Everyone is involved and top
management is the leader. The job of improving and assuring quality is no
longer solely the responsibility of certain people or for just a few departments
of the organization. It is the responsibility of everyone. TQM becomes the
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:19 03 September 2016 (PT)

answer for the fundamental rethinking suggested by Shetty (1982). TQM makes
top management aware of all levels and the total picture of the organization
which answers Skinner’s attack on results-oriented productivity projects. In
addition, TQM gives middle and supervisory management a reason for
admitting to a total picture and a recognition that every decision needs to be
directed to the total.

Piecemeal productivity programs and TQM

The second factor for failure in productivity programs points to a piecemeal
approach, i.e. a lack of a planned systematic approach to the design of the PIP.
A systematic approach addresses all program issues; problem identification,
selection of alternative solutions, design of implementation procedures,
operating management of the implementation, and the overall ability of the
management and workforce. Planning requires responsibility and authority,
and therefore must be tied to levels other than the workforce. The critical
factors ranking on both sides of this element of planning, top management
commitment/involvement, and poorly trained supervisory personnel in
productivity problems illustrate strong relations with planning neglect. If the
commitment by top management appears to stop at the authorizing of the

Author Relationship

Deming Quality means improved productivity

Quality means improved operating measures
Crosby Quality means prevention
Prevention implies improved productivity
Juran Analytical tools improve quality
Improved quality means improved productivity
Garvin Quality and productivity have similar roots:
Both rely on reduction of disruptions and rework, improvement to work processes, Table II.
and a well-trained workforce Quality-productivity
Quality and productivity reflect how workers feel about their jobs relationships as per
Productivity and quality are positively related various authors
 IJQRM design of a program, then the actual design (systematic plan) and the
16,1 subsequent implementation are neglected. If the supervisory personnel are
deficient in productivity issues, then the implementation is again neglected.
Unfortunately the process of improving productivity is not complete unless a
productivity improvement program is properly designed and successfully
implemented.
78 Skinner (1986) created a productivity paradox that directs attention to
productivity planning. The paradox was based on the efforts of organizations
attempting productivity projects and placing tremendous efforts in
implementing productivity projects, but not realizing significant long-term
results. His observations were centered on the scope of the projects. If the
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:19 03 September 2016 (PT)

objectives of the productivity project focus on cost cutting, efficiency of factory

workers, and direct labor costs, instead of focussing on a carefully planned
attack on manufacturing issues that matter competitively, then the projects
quickly reach limitations. Employees begin to feel strained, abused, neglected
and resentful. Creativity and innovation are discouraged. The planning has to
consider manufacturing as a strategic resource and attack areas of quality,
reliability, flexibility, rapid product introduction, capacity, and customer
satisfaction. Roach (1996) reinforces the planning deficiency factor by
developing a paradox that hinges on the distinction of efficiency and
productivity. He parallels Skinner’s attack on conventional cost cutting-based
PIPs. Roach suggests using planning-based programs that focus on efficiency
levels with downsizing instead of investment-based productivity programs.
Once again, it appears that a quality program should precede a productivity
program.
A TQM program when properly implemented in an organization can direct
the productivity projects towards achieving the competitive strategies of higher
customer service and better quality in both product and process. It directs the
objectives away from the conventional focus of cost cutting and directs the
efforts toward efficient use of resources (materials, equipment, manpower,
facilities). Given that TQM stresses continuous improvement, creativity and
innovation are not lost. Therefore, a PIP that flows from a continuous
improvement environment will emphasize creative ways of improving the use of
resources.

Productivity problem dilemma

The third element identified by this study is the lack of proper understanding of
the productivity problem (and issues) by supervisory personnel. This
complements the second element identified as systematic planning. If a problem
is not clearly understood, a proper solution cannot be designed and, hence, the
solution cannot be successfully implemented. It appears that an attempt must
be made to educate people in proper understanding of the concepts of
productivity and the need to improve it, including the reasons why productivity
is not currently improving (Shetty, 1982). In addition, this third element of
poorly trained personnel in the area of productivity is related to the training of
 the workforce and the subsequent element of poor employee relationships. Operationalizing
People are an integral part of the system. If people lack proper training (the fifth productivity
critical element in Table I), then the people become part of the productivity improvement
problem. Lack of proper training to carry out a job is always a crucial factor. It
appears from the findings of this study that there seems to be insufficient
investment in the training of people to help understand the productivity
problem, and then make an attempt to alleviate the problem. Training of people 79
in accurately understanding productivity problems is extremely critical if these
same people have to design programs to solve the problem. It is imperative that
organizations allocate resources to train the workforce properly; otherwise,
chances for improving productivity are quite slim.
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:19 03 September 2016 (PT)

Directly related to the element of insufficient investment in workforce

training is the element of poor employee relationships. Productivity is affected
by how workers view themselves, the type of job they perform, and the
environment in which the work is performed (McClelland, 1986). Employees
without proper direction in the workplace develop resentment which leads to
relationship issues. The resulting poor employee relationships can contribute to
motivational problems, lack of interest in problem solving, decreased
cooperation and therefore, a lack of support for PIPs. Employees are valuable
assets in any organization, and when this asset develops problems, it affects
both quality and the resulting productivity. Conventional cost-cutting
productivity projects of the Skinner productivity paradox of the 1980s (Skinner,
1986) and the Roach productivity paradox of the 1990s (Roach, 1996) would not
recognize the value of training and investments in training, nor would such
planning recognize quality training as a probable solution to poor employee
relationships. In contrast, the Japanese have had a national campaign of
training every employee in the basic concepts of quality improvement. This
campaign is considered the core of their phenomenal productivity success
(Ahire et al., 1996; Deming, 1982).
A productivity program can be a program that introduces an innovative
approach to solving employee problems. Consider TQM and its focus on
customer satisfaction. If an employee is considered the internal customer in an
organization, then a program for improving internal customer satisfaction will
solve employee problems and it will result in improved productivity. This is
especially true since the system cannot be separated from the people who
comprise the system. Nor can the assumption be made that every individual has
an inherent interest in achieving continuous improvement, nor can we
automatically assume that every employee wants to be an internal customer.
However, we would like to assume that most people will want to achieve
continuous improvement (in quality/productivity) if they believe that they will
be personally better off as a result. TQM programs establish a culture that
makes the employee a stakeholder and treats the employee as a stakeholder.
TQM focusses on satisfying both internal and external customers as well as
continuous improvement and total involvement. Therefore, TQM programs can
be used as a catalyst to PIPs.
 IJQRM Functional coordination and organizational communication
16,1 The fourth and sixth sources of failures of productivity programs found by this
study should not be new to people who study organizations frequently. Lack of
organization-wide communication and lack of coordination among
departments (or along various levels of management) can create serious
functioning problems for a business. Looking from a productivity paradox
80 point of view, proper communication and effective coordination among all
concerned are extremely important. It is necessary that new ideas for
improving productivity be given a fair chance to be analyzed and subsequently
tested. Productivity enhancement is a strategically planned continuous change
effort requiring participation and cooperation of the entire workforce. It is the
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:19 03 September 2016 (PT)

communication and the coordination that provide the reasoning behind

participation and cooperation.
TQM stresses total organizational involvement through continuous
improvement. Involvement through continuous improvement means every
participating member, top management level to the floor level, stresses positive
incremental changes. There are two essential features that distinguish a
continuous improvement system from the traditional system. The first is
management’s view of the performance standards of the organization as a
continuous challenge. The second feature is management’s view of the
contribution and role of its workforce (Chase and Aquilano, 1995). These two
features, combined with total involvement, help establish an environment that
attacks (prevents from occurring) the potentially fatal factors and thereby
destroy any possibility of not successfully implementing productivity
improvement programs.
In addition to soliciting response to the questionnaire, respondents were
asked to provide any other reasons for poor productivity as well as reasons for
good achievements from their respective experiences. These can be grouped in
ways that resemble the survey outcome and, therefore, reinforce our findings.
The lists below provide these additional comments supplied by the
respondents.

Management support and poor productivity. I believe the main cause of poor
productivity is the lack of management support for the following:
• developing an effective system such as TQC;
• failing to convey expectations to managers and employees through
management speeches, meetings, and training activities;
• failing to establish and maintain control systems such as statistical
analysis of quality, cost, employee absenteeism, etc.;
• middle management involvement/commitment;
• ineffective leadership;
• poor race relations;
• lack of clear-cut goals and objectives;
 • employee morale; Operationalizing
• not necessarily monetary awards but lack of appreciation; productivity
• lack of measurement for clerical service work; improvement
• poor regard for standards of materials;
• reworking/absenteeism;
81
• no quality circle programs/participative management;
• no teaching of problem-solving techniques;
• no building of problem prevention attitude.
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:19 03 September 2016 (PT)

Reasons for high productivity. Our organization enjoys high productivity while
manufacturing quality products because it has:
• a system of total quality control (TQC);
• commitment from management and employees;
• training for employees and managers;
• involvement of management and employees in problem solving through
“quality circles”;
• a control system, such as:
– “quality” meetings to monitor manufacturing performance;
– statistical analysis of quality and productivity achievement;
– strict budgetary controls;
– policies and procedures which are adhered to;
– orientation training for every new manager and employee (two-day
minimum classroom).

TQM and PIPS: a sequential approach

In one of the recent scholarly works on TQM, Mehra et al. (1998) have presented
a synthesis of total quality management implementation. Utilizing a careful
analysis and thorough review of the documented TQM studies to this date,
these authors have outlined a hierarchical structure of TQM elements that are
contained in a set of five factors critical to the success of TQM programs. These
factors and their respective elements are presented below (adopted from Mehra
et al., 1998). We now compare findings of this study with the TQM factors
outlined below.

Human resource focus:

• Teams – with group incentive system;
• Training;
• Total employee involvement;
• Empowerment and ownership;
 IJQRM • Reward system;
16,1 • Recognition.

Management structure:
• Top management involvement;
82 • Key information to all employees;
• Leadership;
• Business culture;
• Mechanism to set priorities;
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:19 03 September 2016 (PT)

• Mechanism to coordinate activities.

• Quality tools:
• Quality goals and quality planning;
• Process orientation;
• Measurement of key result areas;
• Statistical process control;
• Data-based decisions;
• Quality audit.

Supplier support:
• Supplier involvement;
• Small supplier base;
• Customer orientation.

Customer Focus:
• Benchmarking (competition);
• Continuous improvement process;
• Customer oriented product development.
In our study the lack of top management involvement was cited as a major
source of PIP failure. Top management involvement is a necessary ingredient
for quality improvement programs. Through their direct involvement, and
through creating a business culture that encourages improvements, top
management can effectively encourage productivity enhancements via
continuous quality improvements. Unplanned and uncoordinated piecemeal
approaches to overcome productivity decline were two other major obstacles
found in our research. As shown by Mehra et al. (1998), a successful TQM
program sets quality goals through sound quality planning. Such a program
includes a mechanism to set priorities and a mechanism to coordinate activities.
These elements of a TQM approach provide functional communications as well
as coordination through total employee involvement. Teamwork, therefore,
 becomes a norm and the quality and quantity of communication increases both Operationalizing
vertically and horizontally. These are also some of the needs of a program to productivity
successfully improve productivity. Hence, a well established TQM program can improvement
assure success of a PIP to a great extent.
Poorly trained supervisors and insufficient investment in workforce training
were other PIP problems in our findings. As shown in the above list, a TQM
program requires sound training in quality tools and performance 83
measurement techniques. Such prior training and education can enhance both
the supervisory skills and the workforce intelligence via profound process
orientation which leads to better understandings of productivity issues. In
essence, knowing quality issues will ensure better tackling of productivity
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:19 03 September 2016 (PT)

bottlenecks.
Our study revealed seven major obstacles to the success of a PIP. We argue
that if a business establishes a TQM philosophy prior to addressing its
productivity problems, it will find higher levels of success in improving
productivity. Otherwise stated, the existence of a TQM culture in a company
can act as a strong facilitator to the success of a productivity improvement
program.

Concluding comments
In summary, this study identifies critical factors that are potentially fatal to
productivity improvement programs. The lack of top management support,
coordination among functions, and organizational communications in
combination with project planning, training and employee relationships form a
framework that discourage success in productivity projects at all levels of the
organization. Combining the findings of the survey with the literature of the
1980s and 1990s and with the documented elements of TQM, we conclude that
high productivity effects are impossible to sustain without a quality-based
process-oriented environment which emanates from the support of employees,
upper management, and the organization. This support comes first from an
organizational atmosphere of quality excellence. The second component is a
clearly communicated and well understood set of organizational performance
goals focussing on the total organization. Finally, support flows from a cohesive
organizational climate that promotes creativity and innovation through well
trained employees. This may require a matrix type of project management
approach to improving productivity.
Further research should detail and refine these roles and the relationship of
TQM to productivity improvement programs. Possible areas to explore are:
quality and productivity at the top management level and its response to a total
quality management system; the redirection of results-oriented productivity
projects to process-oriented productivity projects; employee relationships that
are possible when the employees are trained to be internal customers focussing
on satisfaction through quality; the impact of the investment in technologically
advanced information systems to deliver quality and productivity programs
needs to be addressed. Although change and its effect on an organization were
 IJQRM not an issue addressed in this paper, it may be another factor to investigate.
16,1 Additionally, the size and industry-type of a business may affect its ability to
successfully deliver a PIP.
If quality is the determinant of successful productivity improvements, then
from this study we can conclude that “fatal factors” of PIPs can be prevented by
a pre-established quality program. Specifically, a TQM program and its
84 promotion of total employee involvement and commitment to continuous
improvement is definitely a key to successful productivity improvement
programs. We have, hopefully, shown that businesses facing complex
productivity programs should establish a sound TQM program first, and then
embark on the journey to improve productivity. If such an approach is adopted,
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:19 03 September 2016 (PT)

we expect businesses to have minimal productivity problems.

References
Ahire, S.L., Golhar, D.Y. and Waller, M.A. (1996), “Development and validation of TQM
implementation constructs,” Decision Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-56.
Black. S.A. and Porter, L.J. (1996), “Identification of the critical factors of TQM”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Chase, R.B. and Aquilano, N.J. (1995), Production and Operations Management, Irwin,
Homewood, IL.
Crosby, P.P. (1979), Quality Is Free, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Deming, W.E. (1981), Japanese Methods for Productivity and Quality, George Washington
University Press, Washington, DC.
Deming, W.E. (1982), Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Flyn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. (1994), “A framework of quality management
research and an associated measurement instrument”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 339-66.
Garvin, D.A. (1983), “Quality on the line”, Harvard Business Review, September-October,
pp. 64-75.
Hayes, R.H. and Clark, K.B. (1986), “Why some factories are more productive than others”,
Harvard Business Review, September-October, pp. 66-73.
Juran, J.M. (1988), Juran’s New Quality Roadmap, Free Press, New York, NY.
McClelland, S. (1986), “The human performance side of productivity improvement”, Industrial
Management, September-October, pp. 14-17.
Mehra, S., Sirias, D. and Hoffman, J.M. (1998), “A critical analysis of total quality management
implementation”, International Journal of Applied Quality Management, Vol. 1 No. 1,
(forthcoming).
Roach, S.S. (1996), “Productivity revival”, Harvard Business Review, November-December,
pp. 81-9.
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. 457-78.
Shetty, Y. K. (1982), “Management’s role in declining productivity”, California Management
Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 33-47.
Skinner, W. (1986), “The productivity paradox”, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 55-9.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Anne-Karen Hueske, Jan Endrikat, Edeltraud Guenther. 2015. External environment, the innovating organization, and its
individuals: A multilevel model for identifying innovation barriers accounting for social uncertainties. Journal of Engineering
and Technology Management 35, 45-70. [CrossRef]
2. Mohammad Munir Ahmad School of Science and Engineering, Teesside University, Middlesborough, UK Redha Elhuni
Quality Department, Libyan Petroleum Institute, Tripoli, Libya . 2014. Critical quality factors for successful TQM
implementation in Libyan oil and gas sector. Benchmarking: An International Journal 21:5, 713-733. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
3. Nguyen Thi Duc Nguyen, Atsushi Aoyama. 2014. Achieving efficient technology transfer through a specific corporate culture
facilitated by management practices. The Journal of High Technology Management Research 25:2, 108-122. [CrossRef]
4. Hamdi A. Bashir, Khalid Alzebdeh, Amur M. A. Al Riyami. 2014. Factor Analysis of Obstacles Restraining Productivity
Improvement Programs in Manufacturing Enterprises in Oman. Journal of Industrial Engineering 2014, 1-7. [CrossRef]
5. Dr Stuart Roper, Dr Leonor Vacas de Carvalho, Dr Francisco Guzman Mathieu Dunes UMR CNRS 7088 Université Paris
Dauphine Paris France Bernard Pras Department of Marketing Université Paris dauphine and Essec Business School Paris
France . 2013. Practices in the brand management system: identification and considerations for five business sectors. Journal
of Product & Brand Management 22:7, 444-461. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Sarminah SamadUnraveling the different effects of quality and human resource management aspectson organizational
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:19 03 September 2016 (PT)

performance 162-167. [CrossRef]

7. Khanyapuss Punjaisri, Alan Wilson, Heiner Evanschitzky. 2008. Exploring the Influences of Internal Branding on Employees'
Brand Promise Delivery: Implications for Strengthening Customer–Brand Relationships. Journal of Relationship Marketing
7:4, 407-424. [CrossRef]
8. Khanyapuss Punjaisri, Alan Wilson. 2007. The role of internal branding in the delivery of employee brand promise. Journal
of Brand Management 15:1, 57-70. [CrossRef]
9. Samir BaidounAssistant Professor of and a Lecturer in Operations and Quantitative Management, Department of Business
Administration, Birzeit University, Jerusalem, Palestine. 2004. The implementation of TQM philosophy in Palestinian
organization: a proposed non‐prescriptive generic framework. The TQM Magazine 16:3, 174-185. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
10. Satish MehraFogelman College of Business and Economics, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA Surendra
P. AgrawalFogelman College of Business and Economics, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. 2003. Total
quality as a new global competitive strategy. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 20:9, 1009-1025.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Samir Baidoun, Mohamed Zairi. 2003. A proposed model of TQM implementation in the Palestinian context. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence 14:10, 1193-1211. [CrossRef]
12. Ismail SilaFinance and Management Science, College of Commerce, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada Maling
EbrahimpourRoger Williams University, Gabelli School of Business, One Old Ferry Road, Bristol, RI, USA. 2002. An
investigation of the total quality management survey based research published between 1989 and 2000. International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management 19:7, 902-970. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Joyce M. HoffmanStephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas, USA, and Satish MehraUniversity of Memphis,
Memphis, Tennessee, USA. 2000. Efficient consumer response as a supply chain strategy for grocery businesses. International
Journal of Service Industry Management 11:4, 365-373. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]