全面品管哲學與方法對品質績效的相關性研究
Relationships of TQM Philosophy, Methods
and Performance: A Survey in Taiwan
NSC 89-2416-H-218-005
黃峰蕙(Fenghueih Huarng)1
1南台科技大學企管系
(Department of Business Administration, Southern
Taiwan University of Technology, Tainan, Taiwan 710)
1
Literature Review
• The relationships of CSF and performances
– Powell (1995)__USA, N=63
• open culture
• employee empowerment
• executive commitment
• quality training
• process improvement
• benchmarking
Produce advantage
No help
– Control variables:
• years since TQM adoption (experience)
• number of employees (firm size)
• industry (manufacturing vs. service)
2
– Samson & Terziovski (1999)__ Australian and New Zealand,
N=1024, No control variable
• leadership
Current operational
• management of people
performance
• customer focus
– Sun(1999)__Norway, N=316, No control variable
• quality leadership
Increase customer
satisfaction & business
• human resource development
performance
• quality information
3
– Huarng, Horng & Chen(1999) __ISO in Taiwan,
N=376
• all employee’ empowerment
• open culture
• use of information system
• documentation through auditing
Quality, cost
internationalization
sales
• quality control activity before ISO
– Control variables
• the age of corporation (experience)
• the number of employee (firm size)
• the percentage of overseas sales
4
Research
Method
literature review & pre-tested by two site managers
•
• top 1000 manufacturing firms 1999 on China Credit
Information Service,Ltd.
• data collected in Summer 2000
• 42 items for implementation practices (cronbach a =
0.9604), 1:highly disagree, 4: indifferent, 7: highly agree
• 16 items for performance (cronbach a = 0.8997), 1: highly
worsen, 4: remain the same, 7: highly improved
• Non-response test (73 TQM vs. 142 TQM non-response)
-No difference in total sales, # of employees, industry distribution
• TQM have greater size than non-TQM
TQM
Sample frame 215
Respondents
73
Return Rate 34.0%
Non-TQM
785
71
9.0%
Total
1000
144
14.4%
5
Results
• Factor analysis
– Table:performance variables
– Table: implementation practices
• Factor 1 : employee empowerment
• Factor 2 : all employee perception through top
executive support
• Factor 3 : training
• Factor 4 : measuring product and service
• Factor 5 : benchmarking on quality and service
• Factor 6 : statistical method
• Factor 7 : benchmarking on cost
• Factor 8 : supplier co-operation
• Factor 9 : employee involvement.
6
• Table: performance variables
I
t
e
m
Factor 1: cost reduction (cronbach a = 0.9251)
B14 Reducing customer complaints
B12 Reducing defect rate
B4 Reducing cost of reworks and waste
B9 Reducing process variance
B10 Reducing manufacturing cost
B13 Reducing quality cost
B3 Reducing delivery time
B1 Reducing management cost
Factor 2: business performance (cronbach a = 0.8851)
B7 Improving capacity of machinery and equipment
B16 Increasing market share
B5 Increasing orders
B11 Speeding new product introduction
B6 Improving product functionality
B8 Improving overall profitability
B2 Improving product reliability
Loading
.884
.861
.839
.834
.786
.772
.744
.578
.858
.837
.808
.718
.713
.699
.686
7
Table: implementation practice
Item
Factor 1: employee empowerment (cronbach a = 0.9374)
P26
A more active employee suggestion system
P7
Ideas from production operators are actively used in production management
P16
These customer requirements are effectively disseminated and understood
throughout the workforce
P40
Employee training in problem-solving skills
P8
Database is built for analysis
P17
All employees believe that quality is their responsibility
P15
Environmental (‘green’) protection issues are proactively managed
Factor 2: all employee quality perception through top executive support(cronbach a = 0.9228)
P38
Our plan always incorporate external customers, suppliers and other stakeholders
P1
Top manager clearly understand the fundamental spirits and principles of quality
management
P5
Written statement of strategy clearly articulated and agreed to
P39
Increased employee autonomy in decision-making
P41
Employee satisfaction is formally and regularly measured
P11
We proactively pursue continuous improvement rather than reacting to crisis ‘firefighting’
P3
A top executive decision to commit fully to a quality program
P4
Employees clearly understand the fundamental spirits and
principles of TQM
P21
Employee training in teamwork
P23
Data is analyzed using computer for managers to make decisions
Loading
.822
.784
.671
.665
.646
.636
.580
.682
.678
.674
.641
.633
.618
.510
.454
.432
.401
8
Table: implementation practice
Item
Factor 3: training
(cronbach a = 0.91)
P35
Management training in quality principles
P33
Customer complaints are used as a method to initiate improvements in our current
processes
P36
Statistical methods to measure and monitor quality
P27
Have organization-wide training & development process for all employees
P28
Production operators training regularly in quality
P34
Mission statement communicated and supported by employees
P12
Measurement of quality performance in all area
Factor 4: measuring product and service (cronbach a = 0.7232)
P24
We have well established methods to measure the quality of our product and
services
P30
We have side-wide standardized and documented operating procedure
P13
Use of computer to record daily data
P2
We know our external customers’ current and future requirements (both in terms
of volume and product characteristics
P37
We work closely with our suppliers to improve each others’ processes
Factor 5: benchmarking on quality and service (cronbach a = 0.8253)
P10
We are engaged in extensive benchmarking of competitors’ quality procedures
P19
We are engaged in extensive benchmarking of competitors’ operating processes
P31
We are engaged in extensive benchmarking of competitors’ customer service
Loading
.818
.718
.550
.550
.545
.532
.494
.787
.735
.635
.622
.453
.855
.825
.646
9
Table: implementation practice
Item
Factor 6: statistical method (cronbach a = 0.7456)
P29 Use of Statistical Process Control (SPC)
P22 Charts and graphs to measure and monitor quality
P25 We have an effective process for resolving external customers’ complaints
Factor 7: benchmarking on cost (cronbach a = 0.7049)
P6
We are engaged in extensive benchmarking of competitors’ relative cost position
P20 Building database system with our suppliers
P18 Have a comprehensive and structured planning process
P32 We are engaged in extensive benchmarking of competitors’ sale dollars
Factor 8: supplier co-operation
P14 Our suppliers work closely with us in product development
Factor 9: employee involvement
P9
Employees involve in design and planning
P42 We proactively champion certification of quality management system
Loading
.782
.621
.494
.751
.556
.502
.484
.874
.738
.588
10
• Linear Regression analysis (stepwise)
– two control variables
• C1:starting date of TQM adoption
• C2:the corporate sales
– VIF is 1.222 for 2 CV & 9 independent variables
– α=0.05
• BF1: cost reduction
• BF2: business performance
• Regression : interaction models
• BF1:cost reduction
• BF2:business performance
11
Discussions & conclusions
• Both TQM philosophy & tools help
business performance
– Two P’s:
• employee empowerment (PP1)
• all employee quality perception through top
executive support (PP2)
– Four M’s:
•
•
•
•
training (PM1)
use of statistical method (PM4)
benchmark on cost (PM5)
supplier co-operation (PM6)
12
• The relationship may vary from country to
country
– confirm Sun (Norway, 1999)
– different from Powell (USA, 1995) & Dow et al
(Australian, 1999)
• Integration of P & M help
– PP1 & PM1 integration help cost down
» capable employee with empowerment
– PP2 & PM6 integration help business perform
» cooperation of top executive, employees & suppliers
• TQM P & M help in all sizes of firms with
or without experience of TQM adoption
13
~ The End ~
Fenghueih Huarng1
14
Stepwise regression analysis for BF1: cost reduction
Total
Removed
38
28.40502800
Parameter
Standard
Type II Step 2
R-square = 0.17497146
C(p) = -0.32275978
DF
Sum of Squares
Variable PM3
Mean Square
F
Prob>F
Regression
Error
2
36
Variable
Prob>F
Estimate
INTERCEP
C1
C2
1.03111045
-0.01222440
0.00001748
4.97006916
23.43495884
Error
0.69260951
0.00832172
0.00001009
2.48503458
0.65097108
3.82
Sum of Squares
1.44276358
1.40472186
1.95244855
0.0314
F
2.22
2.16
3.00
0.1453
0.1505
0.0919
15
Stepwise regression analysis for BF2:business performance
Step 6
Variable PP2 Entered
DF
R-square = 0.77875330
Sum of Squares
C(p) =
6.04972662
Mean Square
F
Prob>F
Regression
Error
Total
8
30
38
Variable
Parameter
Estimate
INTERCEP
C1
C2
PP1
PP2
PM1
PM4
PM5
PM6
-0.12140026
-0.00052287
0.00002242
0.30132279
0.20107267
0.39869318
0.37898169
0.29009042
0.27021406
29.74715928
8.45127831
38.19843759
3.71839491
0.28170928
Standard
Type II
Error
Sum of Squares
0.49484736
0.00593385
0.00000728
0.08916881
0.09605692
0.09756178
0.09969803
0.08382673
0.08585940
0.01695500
0.00218731
2.67586120
3.21691180
1.23438301
4.70456343
4.07065629
3.37367214
2.79023880
13.20
0.0001
F
Prob>F
0.06
0.01
9.50
11.42
4.38
16.70
14.45
11.98
9.90
0.8079
0.9304
0.0044
0.0020
0.0449
0.0003
0.0007
0.0016
0.0037
16
Interaction regression analysis for (BF1) cost reduction
Dependent Variable: BF1
Source
Model
Error
C Total
Root MSE
Dep Mean
C.V.
Variable
INTERCEP
C1
C2
PP1
PM1
INT11
DF
1
1
1
1
1
1
DF
5
33
38
Analysis of Variance
Sum of
Mean
Squares
Square
F Value
9.63959
1.92792
3.390
18.76543
0.56865
28.40503
0.75409
R-square
0.3394
0.21200
Adj R-sq
0.2393
355.70213
Parameter Estimates
Parameter
Standard
T for H0:
Estimate
Error
Parameter=0
1.039845
0.65116048
1.597
-0.012329
0.00779727
-1.581
0.000012789
0.00000988
1.295
0.131120
0.12489734
1.050
0.272192
0.16965090
1.604
0.299498
0.10702288
2.798
Prob>F
0.0140
Variance
Prob > |T| Inflation
0.1198
0.00000000
0.1234
1.12515107
0.2043
1.22757722
0.3014
1.11286691
0.1182
1.59782785
0.0085
1.63222334
17
Interaction regression analysis for (BF2) business performance
Dependent Variable: BF2
Source
Model
Error
C Total
Root MSE
Dep Mean
C.V.
Variable
DF
INTERCEP
1
C1
1
C2
1
PP2
1
PM6
1
INT26
1
DF
5
33
38
Analysis of Variance
Sum of
Mean
Squares
Square
17.77247
3.55449
20.42597
0.61897
38.19844
0.78675
0.03390
2320.95928
R-square
Adj R-sq
F Value
5.743
Prob>F
0.0006
0.4653
0.3842
Parameter Estimates
Parameter
Standard
T for H0:
Estimate
Error
Parameter=0
-0.082211
0.70708157
-0.116
-0.002021
0.00845772
-0.239
0.00003188
0.00001014
3.144
0.379872
0.13900000
2.733
0.309924
0.13250136
2.339
0.286577
0.10385201
2.759
Variance
Prob > |T| Inflation
0.9081 0.00000000
0.8126
1.21621001
0.0035 1.18848112
0.0100 1.13216780
0.0255
1.14217095
0.0094 1.15005292
18