Implementation of Total Quality
Management in Mongolian
Universities
Fenghueih Huarng & Oyunchimeg Zagd
Southern Taiwan University
OUTLINE
Motivations and Objectives
Literature Review
Research Design & Methodology
Analysis & Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
Motivations
Many higher education institutions have been stimulated and
influenced by a total quality framework for both teaching and
administrative support functions in Mongolia.

Changes in higher education:





students' requirements and needs,
increasing demands from business and industry,
increasing demands from governing boards and the public sector,
decreasing funds, and increasing competition among higher education
institutions.
In addition, no research has been conducted for developing a TQM
implementation model that can be used by Mongolian universities
to improve their TQM implementation efforts.
Objectives
To obtain the effects of TQM implementation on overall
business performance in Mongolian Universities
To obtain a TQM implementation model for Mongolian
Universities.
1.
2.
Research Questions:
1.
2.
3.
What are the effects of TQM implementation on overall
business performance in Mongolian universities?
What kind of TQM implementation model should be developed
to guide Mongolian universities?
How can this TQM implementation model be demonstrated in
practice?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Framework Comparison of TQM Constructs
Saraph et al.
framework (1989)
Flynn et al.
framework (1994)
Ahire et al.
Framework (1996)
Proposed
framework
Role of divisional top
management and quality
policy
Quality leadership
Top management
commitment
Leadership
2
Role of quality department
Quality improvement
rewards
Customer focus
Supplier quality
management
3
Training
Process control
Supplier quality
management
Strategic planning
4
Product/service design
Cleanliness and
Organization
5
Supplier Quality
Management
Feedback
6
Process management/
operating
New product quality
Internal quality
information usage
Product design
7
Quality data and reporting
Interfunctional design
process
Statistical Process Control
usage
Quality system
improvement
8
Employee relations
Selection for
teamwork potential
Employee empowerment
Employee participation
Teamwork
Employee involvement
Recognition and reward
Supplier relationship
Employee training
Employee training
Customer involvement
Product quality
9
10
11
12
Was excluded in the
proposed framework,
since every department in
organization was involved
in quality management.
Relatively Design quality
the same management
element
Benchmarking
Supplier performance
Assessment
similar
Process control and
improvement
Customer focus
Not included in the
proposed framework.
They represented
TQM outcomes.
Included 2 more elements, which
were not found in their framework
1
TQM Definition – in this Study
A management philosophy for continuously improving overall
business performance based on
leadership,
supplier quality management,
strategic planning,
assessment,
process control and improvement,
product design,
quality system improvement,
employee participation,
recognition and reward,
employee training,
& customer focus.
Definitions of TQM Constructs
Constructs
Definitions
1. Leadership
The ability of top management to lead the organization in continuously
pursuing long-term overall business success.
2. Supplier quality
Management
The set of supplier-related quality management practices for improving
suppliers’ quality of products and services. This is exemplified by firm-supplier
partnership, product quality as the criterion for supplier selection,
participation in suppliers, communication with suppliers, understanding of
supplier performance, and supplier quality audit (Mann, 1992; Zhang, 2000).
3. Strategic
planning
The process of identifying an organization’s long-term goals and objectives and
then determining the best approach for achieving those goals and objectives.
4. Evaluation
The systematic examination of the extent to which an entity is capable of
fulfilling specified requirements.
5. Process control
and improvement
Process control and improvement connotes a set of methodological and
behavioral practices, which are implemented to control and improve processes
that produce products and services (Juran and Gryna, 1993).
6. Product design
A certain special techniques or methods should be used to achieve successful
product design (Juran and Gryna, 1993). An experimental design is a widely
used tool in product design. Its application has significantly reduced the time
and expense needed to develop the new product, greatly improved the
performance of the new product, and led to the success of new product design.
Definitions of TQM Constructs (cont’.)
Constructs
Definitions
7. Quality system
improvement
The organizational structure, procedures, processes and resources needed to
implement quality management (ISO 8402, 1994).
8. Employee
participation
The degree to which employees in an organization engage in various quality
management activities. By personally participating in quality management
activities, employees acquire new knowledge, see the benefits of the quality
disciplines, and obtain a sense of accomplishment by solving quality problems.
Participation is decisive in inspiring action on quality management (Juran and
Gryna, 1993).
9. Recognition and
reward
Recognition: the public acknowledgment of superior performance of specific
activities. Reward: benefits, such as increased salary, bonuses and promotion,
which are conferred for generally superior performance with respect to goals
(Juran and Gryna, 1993). Public recognition is an important source of human
motivation (Deming, 1986).
10. Education and
training
Training refers to the acquisition of specific skills or knowledge. Training
programs attempt to teach employees how to perform particular activities or a
specific job. Education, on the other hand, is much more general, and attempts
to provide employees with general knowledge that can be applied in many
different settings (Cherrington, 1995).
11. Customer focus
The degree to which an organization continuously satisfies customer needs and
expectations. A successful firm recognizes the need to put the customer first in
every decision made (Philips Quality, 1995).
Definitions of Overall Business Performance
Constructs
Constructs
Definitions
1. Employee
satisfaction
The degree to which employees like their jobs (Spector, 1997); it
is simply how employees feel about their jobs and different
aspects of their jobs.
2. Product quality
The development, design, production and service of a product
that is most economical, most useful, and always satisfactory to
the consumer (Ishikawa ,1985)
3. Customer
satisfaction
The degree to which an organization’s customers continually
perceive that their needs are being met by the organization’s
products and services (Anderson et al., 1994).
4. Strategic business
performance
The final result of running an organization, which can reveal the
effects of doing business, show the competitive capability of the
organization in the marketplace and its financial health, and
predict its future success or failure. Strategic business
performance is a good indicator to test the effects of TQM
implementation and of an organization’s efforts in pursuing
employee satisfaction, product quality, and customer
satisfaction.
RESEARCH DESIGN &
METHODOLOGY
Research Model
Leadership
H2
Employee Participation
H3
Employee
Satisfaction
H4
Employee Training
H5
H1
Recognition and Reward
H13
Supplier Quality
Management
H6
H7
Strategic Planning
Product
Quality
H16
Strategic
Business
Performance
H8
H14
Assessment
H9
H11
H10
H17
H15
Process Control and
Improvement
Customer
Satisfaction
Product Design
Quality System
Improvement
Customer Focus
H12
Hypotheses Between TQM Implementation
Constructs and Overall Business Performance
Hypotheses
H1:
Leadership has a positive effect on strategic business performance.
H2:
Leadership has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.
H3:
Employee participation has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.
H4:
Employee training has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.
H5:
Recognition and reward has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.
H6:
Supplier quality management has a positive effect on product quality.
H7:
Strategic planning has a positive effect on product quality.
H8:
Assessment has a positive effect on product quality.
H9:
Process control and improvement has a positive effect on product quality.
H10:
Product design has a positive effect on product quality.
H11:
Quality system improvement has a positive effect on product quality.
H12:
Customer focus has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.
Hypotheses Among Overall Business
Performance Constructs
Hypotheses
H13:
Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on product quality.
H14:
Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.
H15:
Product quality has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.
H16:
Product quality has a positive effect on strategic business performance.
H17:
Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on strategic business performance.
Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire of this research comprises of 3 parts:



Part (1): demographic information, such as gender, age and occupation.
Part (2):TQM implementation has 11 sections
Leadership (7 items),
Employee participation (4 items),
Employee training (5 items),
Recognition and reward (5 items),
Supplier quality management (3 items), Strategic planning (5 items),
Assessment (7 items),
Process control & improvement (7 items),
Product design (5 items),
Quality system improvement (5 items)
& Customer focus (5 items).
Part (3): Overall Business Performance consists of 4 parts:





Employee satisfaction (5 items), Product quality (7 items),
Strategic Business Performance Product quality (8 items)
and Customer satisfaction (2 items).
A survey questionnaire (both in English and Mongolian) with 78 items was
distributed to university lecturers in Mongolia.
5-point Likert scale, 5 for Strongly agree, 4 for Agree, 3 for Neutral, 2 for
Disagree and 1 for Strongly disagree.
Analysis Procedures
§
§
Descriptive Statistics
Estimation of Intra-Class Correlation
Coefficient (For 3 data sets)
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
§
§
Measurement TQM Implementation Model
Measurement Overall Business
Performance Model
Reliability and Validity
(For Two Measurement Models)
§
§
§
Reliability:
- Cronbach’s alpha ≥ 0.7
- Composite reliability ˃ 0.7
- AVE ˃ 0.5
Convergent Validity:
- AVE ≥ 0.5
- Factor loadings ≥ 0.6
- C.R ˃ 1.96
Discriminant Validity:
- Correlation among factors ≤0.85
- Squared correlation among factors ˂ AVE
- Dc2 ˃ 3.84
Assessment Research Model
(SEM)
§
§
§
§
§
§
Assessment of model fit for SEM
Hypothesis testing for SEM
Model Modification
SEM test for each TQM implementation
construct
Modified TQM implementation model test
Modified SEM test
Hypothesis testing for the modified SEM
Goodness of Fit Indices – in this Study (Byrne, 2001)
Goodness-of-fit Index
Recommended Value
c2 (Chi-square)
df (degrees of freedom)
p (p-value)
c2/df (Chi-square/degrees of freedom)
<3
RMR (Root mean squared residual)
<0.05
GFI (Goodness of fit index)
≥0.9
NFI (Normed fit index)
>0.9
IFI (Incremental fit index)
>0.9
TLI (Tucker – Lewis coefficient index)
>0.9
CFI (Comparative fit index)
>0.9
RMSEA (Root mean square error of approximation)
Between 0.05 and 0.08
RESEARCH ANALYSES
AND
RESULTS
Dataset of the Respondents
Dataset
Frequency
Percent
1. Health Science University of Mongolia
155
58.3
2. National University of Mongolia
54
20.3
3. Mongolian University of Science and Technology
57
21.4
266
100.0
Total
The data was collected between February and March 2010.
300 questionnaire was distributed to a total of 3 universities and 266
completed forms received giving a response rate of 88.7%.
Characteristics of the Respondents (n=266)
Frequency
Percentage
Occupation
Director
2
0.8
Vice Director
18
6.8
Lecturer
246
92.4
Gender
Male
95
35.7
Female
171
64.3
Age
< 30 years old
56
21.1
31- 40 years old
98
36.8
41-50 years old
65
24.4
51-60 years old
35
13.2
> 61 years old
12
4.5
Estimation of
Intra-Class Correlation Coefficient (ICC)

Intra-class correlation coefficient ( ̂ ) is a measure of agreement between observers
that can be used when your observations are scaled on an interval or ratio scale of
measurement.
̂ =
𝑱−𝟏 (𝐅−𝟏)
𝑱−𝟏 𝑭−𝟏 +𝒏𝒑
“J” - a number of groups, “F” - the value using F-test in ANOVA, “np” - a sample size of the research.
 Based on Cohen (1988), the following criteria are used to decide whether the ICC (ρ) is high
enough to use hierarchical liner model:
 0.059 > ̂ ≥ 0.01 - low correlated among different groups
 0.138 > ̂
≥ 0.059 - medium correlated among different groups
 ̂ ≥ 0.138 - high correlated among different groups
j
np
F
ICC
Employee Satisfaction
3
266
1.420
0.003
Product Quality
3
266
7.790
0.049
Customer Satisfaction
3
266
2.579
0.012
Strategic
Business Performance
:
3
266
6.835
0.042
̂ ≥ 0.059
The results for estimation of ICC provided the requirement , therefore the datasets were combined.
Confirmatory
Factor Analysis
1.
2.
For the Measurement TQM Implementation Model
For the Measurement Overall Business Performance Model
Assessment of the Measurement TQM
Implementation Model - 1st RUN
.59
i1
i2
LEAD1
LEAD2
i3
LEAD3
i4
LEAD4
i5
i6
LEAD5
LEAD6
i7
LEAD7
i8
i9
i10
i11
EMP_P1
EMP_P2
EMP_P3
EMP_P4
i12
i13
EMP_T1
i14
EMP_T2
i15
i16
EMP_T3
EMP_T4
EMP_T5
i17
i18
REC_R1
i19
REC_R2
i20
REC_R3
i21
REC_R4
i22
REC_R5
i23
SUP_Q_M1
i24
SUP_Q_M2
i25
SUP_Q_M3
i26
i27
i28
STRA_P1
STRA_P2
STRA_P3
i29
STRA_P4
i30
STRA_P5
i31
i32
ASS1
i33
ASS2
i34
i35
i36
i37
ASS3
ASS4
ASS5
ASS6
ASS7
i38
PRO_C_I1
i39
PRO_C_I2
i40
PRO_C_I3
i41
PRO_C_I4
PRO_C_I5
i42
i43
i44
PRO_C_I6
PRO_C_I7
PRO_D1
i45
PRO_D2
i46
PRO_D3
i47
i48
i49
i50
QUA_S_I1
QUA_S_I2
QUA_S_I3
QUA_S_I4
i51
i52
CUS_F1
i53
CUS_F2
i54
i55
i56
CUS_F3
CUS_F4
CUS_F5
CUS_F6
.58
.77
.76
.48
.58 .76 .69
.56 .75
.45 .67
.58
The results of CFA:
Leadership
.76
.37 .76
.26
.61
.47 .69 .51
Employee
.68 .83
Participation
.27
.54
.52
.73
.63
.04 .20 .79
.67 .82
.48
.64
.70
.80
.71
.63 .80 .84
.58 .76
.67
.82
.71
.48 .69 .84
.41
.56
.64
.75
.59
.63 .79 .77
.51 .72
.35
.21
.59
.46
.46
.72
.68
.85
.75
.65 .81 .87
.34 .58
.37
.46
.61
.53
.68
.73
.57
.34 .59 .76
.47 .69
.55 .74
.75
.86
.73
.44 .66 .86
.37
.61
.80
.89
.77 .88
.67 .82
.44
.67
.50
.51 .71 .71
.61 .78
.53 .73
.50 .71
.57
.78
Employee
Training
.43
.68
Recognition
and Reward
.76
.54
.70
.81
.55
.61
.78
Supplier
Quality
Management
.60
.60
.68
.70
.53
.58
.49
.73
.51
.61
Strategic
Planning
.68
.48
.65
.44
.57
Assessment
.63
.75
.72
.77
.47
.39
.65
.78
.59
.78
.60
.62
.73
.51
.59
24 items were omitted
“Loadings≥0.71”
.74
.59
.65
Process Control
Improvement
.55
.75
.61
Product
Design
.45
Quality System
Improvement
.72
.73
.66
.56
Customer
Focus
c2=2831.692, df=1429, p<0.001,
c2/df=1.982, RMSEA=0.06.
GFI=0.723, NFI=0.736,
IFI=0.849, TLI=0.836,
CFI=0.847, RMR=0.061
.74
.76
Originally EMP_P3 was with a low loading (0.67),
however one indicator cannot form a factor by
itself. Therefore, it was not omitted.
Assessment of the Measurement TQM
Implementation Model - 2nd RUN
.58
i1
LEAD1
i2
LEAD2
i4
LEAD4
i5
LEAD5
i7
LEAD7
i10
EMP_P3
i11
EMP_P4
i13
EMP_T2
i14
EMP_T3
i16
EMP_T5
i18
REC_R2
.58
.58 .76
.56 .75
.57
.76
.76
Leadership
.75
.44
.67
.72 .85
.55
.63 .79
.71 .84
i19
REC_R3
REC_R4
i21
REC_R5
i22
SUP_Q_M1
i23
SUP_Q_M2
.75
Employee
Training
STRA_P2
.72
.85
.70 .84
i27
STRA_P3
i28
STRA_P4
.65
i33
ASS4
i34
ASS5
i35
ASS6
.80 .89
.66 .81
.62
i40
PRO_C_I4
i43
PRO_C_I7
i44
PRO_D1
i45
PRO_D2
i48
QUA_S_I2
i49
QUA_S_I3
i50
QUA_S_I4
i54
CUS_F4
i55
CUS_F5
i56
CUS_F6
.77
.80
.63 .79
.75
.47 .69
.56
.68
.50
.75
.58
.63
.79
.60 .77
.56 .75
.54
.80
.50
.67
.51
Strategic
Planning
Process Control
Improvement
.46
.59
.64
.50
.62 .57
.41
Quality System
Improvement
.71
.62
.52
.68
.59
.36
.62
.54
.74
.56
.43
.50
.59
Product
Design
.64
.41
.87
.43
.73
.62
.69
.57
.62
Customer
Focus
.62
.53
Supplier
Quality
Management
.77
.81
.90
.80
.89
.66 .81
.58
.68
Assessment
.79
.89
.70 .84
.75
.78
.49
Recognition
and Reward
.87
.79
.40
.67
.59
i26
.71
Employee
Participation
.74
.64
.74
.80
.86
.62 .79
.59 .77
i20
.77
.73
.58
.70
c2 =664.329,
df=409,
p<0.001,
c2/df=1.624,
RMR=0.037,
RMSEA=0.049,
IFI=0.953,
CFI=0.952,
TLI=0.942,
GFI=0.873,
NFI=0.886
Assessment of the Measurement TQM
Implementation Model – 3rd RUN
.54
.26
i1
LEAD1
i2
LEAD2
i4
LEAD4
i5
LEAD5
i7
LEAD7
i10
EMP_P3
i11
EMP_P4
i13
EMP_T2
i14
EMP_T3
i16
EMP_T5
i18
REC_R2
.52
.58 .76
.58 .76
.58
.55
.63 .79
.71 .84
REC_R3
REC_R4
i21
REC_R5
i22
SUP_Q_M1
i23
SUP_Q_M2
.78
.75
Employee
Training
i26
STRA_P2
.69
.83
.73 .86
i27
STRA_P3
i28
STRA_P4
i33
ASS4
i34
ASS5
i35
ASS6
.57
.75
-.27
.63
.28
.25
-.26
i40
PRO_C_I4
i43
PRO_C_I7
i44
PRO_D1
i45
PRO_D2
i48
QUA_S_I2
.27
i49
QUA_S_I3
i50
QUA_S_I4
i54
CUS_F4
i55
CUS_F5
i56
CUS_F6
.71
.76
.66 .81
.80 .89
.66 .81
.47 .68
.57
.68
.50
.77
.58
.63
.80
.58 .76
.55 .74
.54
.79
.51
.70
.52
Strategic
Planning
.65
.61
.64
.51
.61 .57
.40
Quality System
Improvement
.70
.61
.54
.69
.60
.63 .48
.59
.55
.75
.57
.44
.49
.75 .36
Product
Design
.42
.87
.43
Process Control
Improvement
.62
.68
.57
.67
Customer
Focus
.62
.53
Supplier
Quality
Management
.77
.81
.90
.79
.89
.66 .81
.58
.71
Assessment
.82
.90
.68 .82
.78
.81
.49
Recognition
and Reward
.87
.80
.41
.67
.51
.29
.72
Employee
Participation
.74
.64
.75
.80
.86
.61 .78
.58 .76
i19
c2/df=1.437
RMR = 0.034
RMSEA = 0.041
NFI=0.901,
IFI=0.968,
TLI=0.959
CFI=0.967
GFI=0.888
Leadership
.76
.44
.66
.73 .85
i20
-.22
.73
.72
.75
.56
.74
i28
i1
i1
i19
i45
i28
i27
i22
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
i45
i2
i43
i54
i48
i50
i26
i55
M.I.
13.784
12.665
9.481
8.354
7.736
7.969
8.614
7.608
Assessment of the Measurement Overall
Business Performance Model – 1st RUN
.65
i57
EMP_S1.61
i58
EMP_S2.60
i59
EMP_S3.48
i60
EMP_S4.75
i61
EMP_S5.69
i62
PRO_Q1.47
i63
PRO_Q2.70
i64
PRO_Q3.50
i65
PRO_Q4.38
i66
PRO_Q5.35
i67
PRO_Q6.54
i68
PRO_Q7
.80
.78
.77
Employee
Satisfaction
.69
.87
.62
.83
.69
.84
.71
Product
Quality
.71
.61
.59
.73
.80
.68
.80
i69
.89
CUS_S1
.80
i70
CUS_S2.61
i71
ST_B_P1.52
i72
ST_B_P2.58
i73
ST_B_P3.65
.78
.75
.72
.76
.80
i74
ST_B_P4.75
.86
i75
ST_B_P5.57
.75
i76
ST_B_P6.77
i77
ST_B_P7.68
i78
ST_B_P8
.88
.83
.68
Customer
Satisfaction
.89
Strategic
Business
Performance
c2/df=4.5
RMSEA=0.115
RMR=0.059,
GFI=0.720,
NFI=0.807,
IFI=0.844,
CFI=0.843
TLI=0.821.
Assessment of the Measurement Overall
Business Performance Model – 2nd RUN
.67
i57
EMP_S1.65
i58
EMP_S2.59
i59
i61
.82
.80
.77
EMP_S3
.72
Employee
Satisfaction
.85
“Loadings≥0.71”
EMP_S5
.64
.55
i62
PRO_Q1.60
i63
PRO_Q2
i64
PRO_Q3
.82
.74
.77
.90
Product
Quality
.71
.69
.80
.79
i69
i70
CUS_S1.80
.89
.90
CUS_S2
Customer
Satisfaction
.72
.60
i71
ST_B_P1.52
i72
ST_B_P2.58
i73
.75
.78
ST_B_P3.65
.72
.76
.80
i74
ST_B_P4.75
.86
i75
ST_B_P5.57
.75
i76
ST_B_P6.78
i77
ST_B_P7.68
i78
ST_B_P8
.88
.83
For better fit model, the following 5
items were removed:
PRO_Q6(0.59),
PRO_Q5(0.60),
EMP_S4(0.69),
PRO_Q7(0.70),
PRO_Q4(0.63)
Strategic
Business
Performance
c2/df=4.880
RMSEA=0.121
GFI=0.764,
IFI=0.880,
CFI=0.880
TLI=0.855
NFI=0.854.
Only RMR=0.048
Assessment of the Measurement Overall
Business Performance Model – 3rd RUN
.66
i57
EMP_S1.65
i58
EMP_S2.59
i59
EMP_S3
i61
EMP_S5
Covariances
i72 <--> i73
i76 <--> i63
i74 <--> i73
i71 <--> i72
i71 <--> i73
i75 <--> i78
i72 <--> i74
i70 <--> i75
i61 <--> i63
i57 <--> i76
i71 <--> i77
.81
.80
.77
Employee
Satisfaction
.71 .84
.64
.57
.28
i62
PRO_Q1.57
i63
PRO_Q2
i64
PRO_Q3
.80
.75
.75
.90
Product
Quality
.72
.69
.80
.80
-.22
i69
i70
CUS_S1.79
.89
.89
CUS_S2
Customer
Satisfaction
.71
.42
.59
.29
.43
.34
.56
.29
.46
-.31
i71
ST_B_P1.42
i72
ST_B_P2.48
i73
.73
.77
ST_B_P3.59
.65
.69
.77
i74
ST_B_P4.72
.85
i75
ST_B_P5.57
.75
i76
ST_B_P6.85
i77
ST_B_P7.68
i78
ST_B_P8
.92
.37
M.I.
70.262
37.034
33.160
28.747
29.606
15.322
14.150
14.410
11.096
9.593
9.793
.83
Strategic
Business
Performance
c2/df = 2.104
RMR=0.043,
GFI=0.908,
NFI=0.943,
IFI=0.969,
TLI=0.959,
CFI=0.969
RMSEA=0.065
Reliability and Validity
(For Two Measurement Models)
Reliability
Constructs
Composite
Reliability
AVE
Cronbach's
Alpha
Leadership
Employee Participation
Recognition and Reward
Employee Training
Supplier Quality Management
Strategic Planning
Assessment
Process Control Improvement
Product Design
Quality System Improvement
Customer Focus
Employee Satisfaction
Product Quality
Customer Satisfaction
Strategic Business Performance
0.864
0.894
0.878
0.835
0.830
0.805
0.894
0.709
0.855
0.901
0.810
0.882
0.845
0.886
0.926
0.560
0.584
0.643
0.628
0.710
0.581
0.737
0.550
0.748
0.753
0.588
0.652
0.646
0.796
0.614
0.868
0.717
0.879
0.834
0.829
0.830
0.891
0.704
0.853
0.901
0.808
0.885
0.841
0.887
0.933
Composite reliability = (sum of standardized loadings)2/ [(sum of standardized
loadings)2 + (sum of indicator measurement error)]
Average variance extracted (AVE) = (sum of squared standardized loading)/[(sum
of squared standardized loadings) + (sum of indicator measurement error)]
Indicator measurement error = [1– (standardized loading)2].
- Cronbach’s alpha ≥ 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978)
- Composite reliability ≥ 0.7
- AVE ≥ 0.5 (Hair et al., 1999)
Cronbach’s
alpha
ranged
between 0.704 and 0.933,
indicating a high reliability of the
scales.
Also each construct manifests a
composite reliability greater
than the recommended threshold
value of 0.7.
The AVE range between 0.560
and
0.796,
above
the
recommended 0.50 level.
1. Convergent Validity
Constructs
Items
Loadings
Critical Ratio
(C.R.)
LEAD1
0.733
11.717
LEAD2
0.724
11.621
Leadership
LEAD4
0.760
*
LEAD5
0.759
12.300
LEAD7
0.764
12.312
EMP_P3
0.664
*
Employee Participation
EMP_P4
0.853
10.736
REC_R2
0.797
*
REC_R3
0.863
15.888
Recognition and Reward
REC_R4
0.783
13.816
REC_R5
0.762
13.295
EMP_T2
0.742
12.313
Employee Training
EMP_T3
0.792
*
EMP_T5
0.840
13.977
SUP_Q_M1
0.829
10.189
Supplier Quality Management
SUP_Q_M2
0.856
*
STRA_P2
0.713
13.393
Strategic Planning
STRA_P3
0.755
*
STRA_P4
0.814
12.737
ASS4
0.868
*
Assessment
ASS5
0.893
18.375
ASS6
0.812
15.743
PRO_C_I4
0.795
11.340
Process Control Improvement
PRP_C_I7
0.684
*
PRO_D1
0.903
13.117
Product Design
PRO_D2
0.824
*
QUA_S_I2
0.899
17.024
Quality System Improvement
QUA_S_I3
0.888
17.002
QUA_S_I4
0.814
*
CUS_F4
0.796
12.066
Customer Focus
CUS_F5
0.762
11.758
CUS_F6
0.741
*
EMP_S1
0.814
13.893
EMP_S2
0.804
13.777
Employee Satisfaction
EMP_S3
0.768
*
EMP_S5
0.843
13.925
PRO_Q1
0.753
14.437
Product Quality
PRO_Q2
0.754
13.767
PRO_Q3
0.897
*
CUS_S1
0.893
17.578
Customer Satisfaction
CUS_S2
0.891
*
ST_B_P1
0.768
13.310
ST_B_P2
0.648
12.850
ST_B_P3
0.694
15.874
ST_B_P4
0.770
*
Strategic Business Performance
ST_B_P5
0.850
15.158
ST_B_P6
0.753
13.063
ST_B_P7
0.924
16.691
ST_B_P8
0.827
14.519
Note: (*) Indicates a parameter fixed at 1.0 in the original solution
Composite
Reliability
AVE
Cronbach's
Alpha
0.864
0.560
0.868
0.894
0.584
0.717
0.878
0.643
0.879
0.835
0.628
0.834
0.830
0.710
0.829
0.805
0.581
0.830
0.894
0.737
0.891
0.709
0.550
0.704
0.855
0.748
0.853
0.901
0.753
0.901
0.810
0.588
0.808
0.882
0.652
0.885
0.845
0.646
0.841
0.886
0.796
0.887
0.926
0.614
0.933
- AVE ≥ 0.5 (Bollen, 1989)
- Factor loadings ≥ 0.6 (Hatcher, 1994)
- C.R ≥ 1.96 (Byrne, 2001)
All AVE were greater than threshold
value of 0.50.
All loadings exceeded the suggested
value of 0.6 for all constructs.
Also critical ratio (C.R) for
constructs were larger than 1.96.
all
Therefore, all items used proved to
achieve convergent validity in their
respective scales.
Discriminant Validity Test Using Correlations
between Constructs Correlations between the constructs ≤0.85
Table 4.9 Correlations between the TQM Implementation Constructs
Relationship
Assessment
<-->
Strategic_Planning
Assessment
<-->
Employee_Participation
Assessment
<-->
Product_Design
Assessment
<-->
Quality System_Improvement
Assessment
<-->
Customer_Focus
Assessment
<-->
Process Control_Improvement
Customer_Focus
<-->
Employee_Participation
Employee_Training
<-->
Supplier_Quality_Management
Employee_Training
<-->
Strategic_Planning
Employee_Training
<-->
Assessment
Employee_Training
<-->
Process Control_Improvement
Employee_Training
Employee_Training
<-->
<-->
Product_Design
Quality System_Improvement
Employee_Training
<-->
Customer_Focus
Employee_Training
<-->
Employee_Participation
Employee_Training
<-->
Recognition_and Reward
Leadership
<-->
Employee_Training
Leadership
<-->
Recognition_and Reward
Leadership
<-->
Supplier_Quality_Management
Leadership
<-->
Strategic_Planning
Leadership
Leadership
Leadership
Leadership
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
Assessment
Process Control_Improvement
Product_Design
Quality System_Improvement
Leadership
<-->
Customer_Focus
Leadership
<-->
Employee_Participation
(Kline,2005)
Correlation
0.666
0.622
0.588
0.508
0.575
0.767
0.746
0.494
0.774
0.528
0.685
0.420
0.566
0.693
0.751
0.672
0.724
0.568
0.412
0.781
0.583
0.705
0.540
0.515
0.654
0.780
Process Control_Improvement
<-->
Employee_Participation
Process Control_Improvement
<-->
Quality System_Improvement
Process Control_Improvement
<-->
Customer_Focus
Process Control_Improvement
<-->
Product_Design
Product_Design
<-->
Employee_Participation
Product_Design
<-->
Customer_Focus
Product_Design
<-->
Quality System_Improvement
Quality System_Improvement
<-->
Employee_Participation
Quality System_Improvement
<-->
Customer_Focus
Recognition_and Reward
<-->
Employee_Participation
Recognition_and Reward
<-->
Strategic_Planning
Recognition_and Reward
Recognition_and Reward
<-->
Assessment
<-->
Process Control_Improvement
Recognition_and Reward
<-->
Product_Design
Recognition_and Reward
<-->
Quality System_Improvement
Recognition_and Reward
<-->
Customer_Focus
Strategic_Planning
<-->
Employee_Participation
Strategic_Planning
<-->
Process Control_Improvement
Strategic_Planning
<-->
Product_Design
Strategic_Planning
<-->
Quality System_Improvement
Strategic_Planning
<-->
Customer_Focus
Supplier_Quality_Management
<-->
Recognition_and Reward
Supplier_Quality_Management
<-->
Employee_Participation
Supplier_Quality_Management
<-->
Assessment
Supplier_Quality_Management
<-->
Process Control_Improvement
Supplier_Quality_Management
<-->
Product_Design
Supplier_Quality_Management
<-->
Strategic_Planning
Supplier_Quality_Management
<-->
Quality System_Improvement
Supplier_Quality_Management
<-->
Customer_Focus
0.787
0.611
0.701
0.639
0.623
0.612
0.398
0.549
0.540
0.680
0.696
0.572
0.868
0.438
0.598
0.754
0.810
0.754
0.631
0.607
0.738
0.576
0.503
0.430
0.492
0.357
0.520
0.482
0.556
All correlations between TQM implementation constructs are in the range from 0.357 to 0.868. The highest
correlation (0.868) was appeared between Recognition and reward and Process control improvement. Only this
correlation exceeded the threshold of 0.85. Other 54 correlations between TQM implementation constructs were
below the recommended value of 0.85. Thus, these correlations proved the discriminant validity in the TQM
implementation model.
Discriminant Validity Test Using Correlations
between Constructs (cont’.)
Table 4.10 Correlations between the Overall Business performance Constructs
Relationship
Correlation
Strategic_Business_ Performance
<-->
Product_Quality
0.713
Strategic_Business_ Performance
<-->
Employee_Satisfaction
0.795
Strategic_Business_ Performance
<-->
Customer_Satisfaction
0.726
Product_Quality
<-->
Customer_Satisfaction
0.694
Employee_Satisfaction
<-->
Customer_Satisfaction
0.720
Product_Quality
<-->
Employee_Satisfaction
0.643
All correlations between overall business performance constructs are in the range from
0.643 to 0.795. This result indicated that correlations of these constructs below the
recommended value of 0.85. Therefore, discriminant validity proved in the overall
business performance model.
Discriminant Validity Test Using AVE
Table 4.11 Squared Correlations between TQM Implementation Constructs
Squared correlations
Measures
AVE
Employee
Training
Leadership
Employee Training
Supplier Quality Management
Recognition and Reward
Assessment
Strategic Planning
0.560
0.628
0.710
0.643
0.737
0.581
0.524
Process Control Improvement
0.550
Product Design
0.748
Quality System Improvement
0.753
Customer_Focus
Employee Participation
0.588
0.584
Supplier
Quality
Management
0.170
0.244
Recognition
and Reward
Assessment
Strategic
Planning
0.323
0.452
0.340
0.279
0.610
0.599
0.332
0.185
0.327
0.270
0.484
0.444
Process
Control
Improvement
0.497
0.469
0.242
0.753
0.588
0.569
Product
Design
Quality System
Improvement
Customer
Focus
Employee
Participation
0.292
0.176
0.265
0.320
0.428
0.480
0.608
0.564
0.127
0.192
0.232
0.358
0.309
0.569
0.253
0.462
0.346
0.258
0.331
0.398
0.368
0.545
0.387
0.656
0.408
0.373
0.158
0.491
0.375
0.292
0.619
0.388
0.301
0.557
“Squared correlation among factors  AVE”
This criterion did not provide the following 5 cases:
1.Leadership and Strategic planning (0.610).
2.Leadership and Employee participation (0.608).
3.Recognition and reward and Process control improvement (0.753)
4.Strategic planning and Employee participation (0.656).
5.Process control improvement and Employee participation (0.619).
Other 50 squared correlations between TQM implementation constructs were provided
this criterion.
Discriminant Validity Test Using AVE
(cont’.)
Table 4.12 Squared Correlations between Overall Business Performance Constructs
Squared Correlations
Measures
AVE
Product
Quality
Employee
Satisfaction
Customer
Satisfaction
Strategic Business Performance
0.614
0.508
0.632
0.527
Product Quality
0.646
0.413
0.482
Employee Satisfaction
0.652
Customer Satisfaction
0.796
0.518
For overall business performance model, only one case did not provide the criterion
“squared correlations among factors < AVE”: The squared correlation between Strategic
business performance and Employee satisfaction
Other 5 squared correlations among factors for overall business performance model
were provided this criterion.
Assessment of the Research
Model (SEM)
First Run of SEM
.52
.27
.53
i1
LEAD1
i2
LEAD2
i4
LEAD4
i5
LEAD5
i7
LEAD7
i10
EMP_P3
i11
EMP_P4
.57
.75
.75
.56
.60
i18
i19
i20
.73
.28
i22
.68
.83
.42
.57
I28
.52
STRA_P2.58.56 .72 .52
.75
Strategic
STRA_P3 .66
.81
.86
Planning
.43
.60
.74
i35
.29
i40
.21
i43
-.25
i44
i45
.26
i48
i49
.49
ASS4
.36
ASS5
i34
-.24
ST_B_P2
ST_B_P3
.60
ST_B_P4
I76
ST_B_P6
I77
ST_B_P7
.68
I78
ST_B_P8
.37
.00
.48
.76
.80 .87
.89
.66
.81
.75
.26
.58
Assessment
.48
.76
.75
.20
.64
.76
.80
-.16
PRO_C_I4 .47
.61
Process Control
.69
.57 PRO_C_I7
.26
Improvement
.59
.12
.82
.73
.51 .91
.05
PRO_D1
.67
.63
.82
Product
PRO_D2 .61
Design
.57
.81
.40
.67 .79 .90
QUA_S_I2
.89
Quality System
QUA_S_I3 .66
Improvement
.61 .81
i54
CUS_F4
i55
CUS_F5
i56
CUS_F6
.62
.79
.60
.77
.57.75
.76
Strategic
Business
Performance
.12
.63
QUA_S_I4
.78
.66
.70
.77 -.18
.19
.67
ASS6
i50
i59
d4
.73 .85
.75
.57 .93
.83
.86 .41
ST_B_P5
i57
i58
i61
.60
.43
.49
ST_B_P1
i75
STRA_P4
.44
.66
i33
EMP_S5
Management
.70
.67
.66
EMP_S1
.82
.77 EMP_S2 .59
.42
.84 EMP_S3 .70
Employee
Satisfaction
.41
.77
i72
.63
.71
.33
.57
.56
.84
i73
SUP_Q_M1 .71
Supplier
.83
.85
.29.45 .47
.53
Quality-.33
.70
SUP_Q_M2
i74
.60i26
i27
.72
.82
REC_R5
.55
.65
1.46
.85
.74
-.30
.79 Employee
c2/df=1.654
RMR = 0.051
RMSEA = 0.050
IFI=0.931,
TLI=0.921
CFI=0.930
GFI=0.801
NFI=0.842
d1
i71
i21
i23
-.36
Employee
Participation
EMP_T3
.70
.84
.43
Training
EMP_T5
.76
-.08
.64
.81
REC_R2
.59.74 .80.67
.59
REC_R3
.62 .86
.78 Recognition
.90
.49
REC_R4
.58.76
and Reward
i16
.53
.63
EMP_T2
i14
-.21
Leadership
.58
.91
.76
.36
.60
.58
.73
.76
.55
i13
.72
.73
.54
Customer
Focus
Product
Quality
.90
PRO_Q1
.56
PRO_Q2
.80
i62
i63
.34
PRO_Q3
i64
d2
.29
.80
i69
CUS_S1
70
CUS_S2
.48
.77
d3
.89
.88
.70
Customer
Satisfaction
.27
Second Run of SEM
.24
.54
.26
.52
i1
LEAD1
i2
LEAD2
i4
LEAD4
i5
LEAD5
i7
LEAD7
i10
EMP_P3
i11
EMP_P4
i13
EMP_T2
.22
.57
.76
.31
.76
.58
i19
i20
.71
i22
.86
.61i26
i27
.18 -.26
.40
.61
I28
STRA_P4
.62
.71
i35
.25
i40
.18
i43
-.24
i44
i45
.27
i48
i49
i50
.49
ASS4
.40
.74
.80 .86
.90
.67
.82
.76
.59
ST_B_P4
I76
ST_B_P6
.44
I77
.18
.12
.26
ST_B_P7
.62
Assessment
.45
.75
.76
.64
.62
.76
.79
.06
.20
.47
.61
Process Control
.68
.57 PRO_C_I7
.24
Improvement
.20
.58
.12
.85
.71 .14 .51
.92
.10
PRO_D1
.65
.59
.81
Product
PRO_D2 .62
Design
.58
.80
.41
.69 .78 .90
QUA_S_I2
.88
Quality System
QUA_S_I3 .68
.82
Improvement
.62 .17
QUA_S_I4
i55
CUS_F5
i56
CUS_F6
.16
Product
Quality
PRO_Q1
.57
.12PRO_Q2
.79
.89
PRO_Q3
.24
i62
i63
.13
-.74
i64
.17
d2
.36
-.26
-.18
.80
CUS_S1
i69
.55
.48
Strategic
Business
Performance
.57
-.01
.80
.59
.77
.56.75
.79
.76
.70
.76 -.14
.19
PRO_C_I4
CUS_F4
.94
ST_B_P8
.64
ASS6
.64
i54
ST_B_P3
d4
.71 .83
.73
.54 .92
.79
.84 .43
I78
.36
ASS5
i34
.20
-.21
ST_B_P2
ST_B_P5
i75
i59
i61
.63
.42
.49
ST_B_P1
Management
.53
.52
STRA_P2.57.57 .72
.75
Strategic
STRA_P3
.65
.81
.89
Planning
.43
.18
.44
.68
i33
.13
.39
.74
i72
.76
.29
.59
.53
.87
i73
SUP_Q_M1 .66
Supplier
.81
.30.46-.21
.24
.53
Quality
.71
SUP_Q_M2
-.35
i74
.18
.68 -.33
.67
i57
i58
EMP_S5
-.18
REC_R5
.64
.53
.27
EMP_S1
i71
i21
.68
.68
.82
.77 EMP_S2 .59
.15
.82 EMP_S3 .68
Employee
Satisfaction
.71
.85
Training
.80
-.19
.59
.78
.68
REC_R2
.77
.60.70
.84
.58
REC_R3
.64 -.20
.80 Recognition
.90
.47
REC_R4
.60
.78
and Reward
.25
.84
.84
.73
-.29
.80 Employee
-.25
.70
.82
EMP_T5
i18
.64
.63
EMP_T3
.41
i16
i23
-.30
-.19 d1
1.47
Participation
.58
i14
-.19 .51
Leadership
.60
.89
.77
.36
.60-.12
Employee
.56
.72
.75
.54
-.19
.73
.72
CUS_S2
70
.43
Customer
Focus
-.18
.79
d3
.90
.89
.69
Customer
Satisfaction
.23
i10
i74
i5
i55
i61
i43
i33
i23
i7
i72
i55
d4
i45
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
i10
i76
i77
i16
i14
i5
i18
i56
i14
i20
i56
i75
i18
i16
i28
i13
i23
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
Covariances
i11
Customer focus
i58
d2
d2
i77
Strategic Planning
i75
d2
d4
i71
d2
Process Control and
Improvement
Recognition and Reward
i78
i78
i75
d1
i75
i55
i59
Quality System Improvement
i27
d2
Product Design
i19
i48
i77
i50
Quality System Improvement
c2/df=1.345
RMR = 0.041
RMSEA = 0.036
IFI=0.965,
TLI=0.958
CFI=0.964
GFI=0.838
NFI=0.876
M.I.
13.550
15.571
12.127
12.950
11.157
10.332
11.432
10.598
8.380
9.930
12.574
8.872
9.348
9.334
8.161
10.634
9.360
9.309
8.355
8.106
7.690
8.275
7.215
7.080
7.313
6.891
6.267
6.238
6.086
5.929
Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Second SEM
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
H8
H9
H10
H11
H12
H13
H14
H15
H16
H17
Hypotheses
Leadership has a positive effect on strategic business
performance.
Leadership has a positive effect on employee
satisfaction.
Employee participation has a positive effect on
employee satisfaction.
Employee training has a positive effect on employee
satisfaction.
Recognition and reward has a positive effect on
employee satisfaction.
Supplier quality management has a positive effect on
product quality.
Strategic planning has a positive effect on product
quality.
Assessment has a positive effect on product quality.
Process control and improvement has a positive
effect on product quality.
Product design has a positive effect on product
quality.
Quality system improvement has a positive effect on
product quality.
Customer focus has a positive effect on customer
satisfaction.
Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on
product quality.
Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on
customer satisfaction.
Product quality has a positive effect on customer
satisfaction.
Product quality has a positive effect on strategic
business performance.
Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on
strategic business performance.
C.R.
P
2.225 .026
Assessment
Supported
-1.186 .236
Not supported
3.806
***
Supported
-1.497 .135
Not supported
-1.088 .276
Not supported
2.545 .011
Supported
2.113 .035
Supported
-.220 .826
.659 .510
Not supported
Not supported
2.111 .035
Supported
2.143 .032
Supported
5.270
***
Supported
3.320
***
Supported
2.032 .042
Supported
5.578
***
Supported
6.842
***
Supported
2.073 .038
Supported
Note:
§
§
A critical ratio greater than 1.96 or a p-value smaller than .05 signifies the parameter is statistically
discernable from zero at the .05 significance level.
Three asterisks (***) indicate that the p-value is smaller than .001.
Twelve of the 17 SEM
hypothesis tests were fully
supported.
This finding indicated that
the second SEM model fitted
quite well in representing
the data.
Three hypotheses regarding
to employee satisfaction and
two hypotheses regarding to
product quality were not
supported by the data in this
study.
CONCLUSIONS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Research Question 1:
What are the effects of TQM implementation on overall business
performance in Mongolian universities?



First, leadership is the decisive factor in determining the success of organizational overall
business performance. Mongolia is now trying to establish modern higher education
system. All universities, especially state-owned have received more decision making
autonomy than ever before. Regarding day-to-day operations, the government has no
direct administrative authority. It is the role of top management to determine the
university’s vision, strategy, policy, long-term goals, and the way to achieve these objectives.
Top management is in charge of managing employees, motivating them to participate in
quality improvement activities, encouraging them to share in the university’s vision,
empowering them to solve quality problems, arranging resources for their education and
training, and rewarding them for their quality improvement efforts. In other words,
without strong leadership, it is impossible for a university to achieve a good
overall business performance.
Second, the research findings can suggest that it is not necessary for all the TQM
elements to be present to ensure the success of the TQM implementation and overall
business performance. In other words, even if a few of the elements are not
present, it is possible to obtain the required level of overall business
performance.
Third, in this study, 5 hypotheses were not supported by the questionnaire survey data.
This disconfirmation does not imply these constructs are unimportant or useless. Instead,
universities should identify the problem areas of these constructs and implement them
more effectively. For example, (1) assessment, (2) process control and improvement, and
(3) quality system improvement are nearly alike functions for Mongolian universities.
Research Question1: (cont’.)



Because,
 the university products are created using certain processes. Student
knowledge is gained by learning, courses are taught, and new knowledge is achieved by
researching.
 In a university environment, there is an interrelationship among these processes
that has an impact on the quality of the products. The quality of
teaching/learning/researching is inspected against specifications.
 A process quality system must be documented with an appropriate quality
manual, procedures, instructions and records. This allows proper communication, audits
and verification activities.
Therefore, the author preferred to combine these 3 constructs. Due to this solution,
they should emphasize the implementation of actions that are formulated on the basis of various
evaluation activities and establish their quality management systems according to the
requirements of higher education institutions effectively. Thus, quality management
systems will be effectively implemented in practice.
Fourth, Also university’s employees have the capacity to do their jobs better and study by
themselves. In fact, improving employee satisfaction and overall business
performance were not the major goal of training. Therefore, the author
decided to remove the construct “Employee training”.
Research Question 2:
What kind of TQM implementation model should be developed in
order to guide Mongolian universities in implementing TQM?

Based on the results of testing the model of TQM implementation and
overall business performance (Research model), the author decided to
modify TQM implementation model for Mongolian universities in
implementing TQM.

Modification of the model should be based on theory; modifications to
the original model should be made only after deliberate consideration
(Hair et al., 1992).

To modify the theoretical model of TQM implementation, the author
tested SEM for all TQM implementation constructs one by one.
Consequently, SEM test is conducted for each TQM
implementation construct and the results are presented as
follows:
1. Run for the Leadership SEM
.58
.57
i1
LEAD1
i2
LEAD2
i4
LEAD4
.57
.75
.74
.55
i5
LEAD5
.57
i7
LEAD7
.76
.76
Leadership
.76
.71
d1
.50
.81
.66
.66
EMP_S1
.81
.77 EMP_S2 .60
.40
.83 EMP_S3 .70
Employee
Satisfaction
EMP_S5
i71
ST_B_P2
ST_B_P3
.59
ST_B_P1
.42
i72
.34
.56
i73
.29.45 .59
i57
i58
.72 .85
.76
ST_B_P5
.58 .93
-.06
.83
ST_B_P6 .86 .42
i75
I76
.37
I77
ST_B_P7
I78
ST_B_P8
.28
Table 5.1 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Leadership SEM
d4
.77
.65
.69
.77 -.20
.74
Strategic
Business
Performance
ST_B_P4
i74
Product
Quality
.90
Employee_Satisfaction
Product_Quality
.28 Customer_Satisfaction
Strategic_Business_Performance
<--<--<--<---
Leadership
Leadership
Leadership
Leadership
C.R.
9.706
.849
-.709
7.209
P
***
.396
.478
***
Assessment
Supported
Not supported
Not supported
Supported
.69
.51
“Leadership has a positive effect on strategic business
performance and on employee satisfaction”.
.57
.42
.75
.76
TLI=0.954
i59
i61
.59
.42
.48
.08
-.31
c2 = 356.630 (df=189, p<0.001),
c2/df = 1.887, NFI=0.923, IFI=0.962,
CFI=0.962, RMSEA=0.058 & RMR=0.049
GFI=0.891
PRO_Q1
.57
PRO_Q2
.80
i62
i63
O SEM: “Leadership has a positive effect on employee
satisfaction” was not supported.
.34
PRO_Q3
i64
.28
d2
.39
.80
i69
CUS_S1
70
CUS_S2
.78
d3
.89
.89
.62
Customer
Satisfaction
“Leadership has a positive effect on strategic
business performance”
2. Run for the Employee Participation SEM
i10
EMP_P3
i11
EMP_P4
.42
.64
.66
.81
d1
Employee
Participation
.78
.61
.81
.81
.77
.84
Employee
Satisfaction
EMP_S1
.66
.66
i57
EMP_S2
.59
i58
EMP_S3
.71
i59
EMP_S5
c2/df=2.034, GFI =0.901, NFI=0.943, IFI=0.965, TLI=0.955,
CFI=0.965. RMR=0.044 and RMSEA=0.062
i61
.50
Table 5.2 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Employee Participation SEM
.43
.34
.13
.56
-.31
ST_B_P2
.59
.42
.48
i73
ST_B_P3
.59
i74
ST_B_P4
i75
ST_B_P5
i71
ST_B_P1
i72
.29.45 .55
d4
I76
.72 .85
.75
.57 .93
.83
ST_B_P6 .86 .41
I77
ST_B_P7
I78
ST_B_P8
.37
.76
.65
.76
.70
-.19
Strategic
.77
Business
Performance
.69
.04
.27
.44
Product
Quality
.90
PRO_Q1
.57
PRO_Q2
.80
i62
O SEM the hypothesis “Employee Participation has
a positive effect on employee satisfaction”
i64
.29
d2
.39
.80
i69
CUS_S1
70
CUS_S2
.79
Employee_Participation
Employee_Participation
Employee_Participation
Employee_Participation
Assessment
Supported
Not supported
Not supported
Supported
i63
.24
PRO_Q3
<--<--<--<---
P
***
.343
.701
***
“Employee Participation has a positive effect on
strategic business performance and on employee
satisfaction”
.57
.43
.75
.75
Employee_Satisfaction
Product_Quality
.28Customer_Satisfaction
Strategic_Business_Performance
C.R.
7.963
.949
.383
5.556
d3
.89
.89
.61
Customer
Satisfaction
3. Run for the Employee Training SEM
d1
.43
.82
.55
i13
EMP_T2
.68
i14
EMP_T3
.65
.81
i16
EMP_T5
.74
.82
.66
Employee
Training
.81
.77
.84
Employee
Satisfaction
EMP_S1
.66
.65
i57
EMP_S2
.59
i58
EMP_S3
.71
i59
EMP_S5
.11
i71
.42
i72
.34
.56
i73
.30.46 .67
-.34-.04
i74
.41
ST_B_P2
ST_B_P3
.60
d4
I76
.72 .85
.75
ST_B_P5 .56 .92
.83
ST_B_P6 .85 .41
I77
ST_B_P7
I78
ST_B_P8
.77
.65
.70
.77 -.19
.38
.27
.72
Strategic
Business
Performance
ST_B_P4
i75
Table 5.3 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Employee Training SEM
i61
.60
.42
.48
ST_B_P1
c2/df=2.031, GFI =0.894, NFI=0.929, IFI=0.963,
TLI=0.952, CFI=0.963, RMR=0.045, RMSEA=0.062
.47
.57
.41
.75
.75
Product
Quality
.90
PRO_Q1
.57
PRO_Q2
.81
i62
i64
.39
.80
CUS_S2
Assessment
Supported
Not supported
Not supported
Supported
.27
Also, this study was concluded that “improving
employee satisfaction and strategic business
performance was not the major goal of training”.
d2
70
C.R.
P
9.427 ***
-.445 .656
-.067 .946
1.756 .079
.19
PRO_Q3
CUS_S1
Employee_Training
Employee_Training
Employee_Training
Employee_Training
i63
.29
i69
<--<--<--<---
“Employee Training has a positive effect on
strategic business performance and on employee
satisfaction”.
O SEM: “Employee Training has a positive effect on
employee satisfaction” was not supported.
.68
-.01
Employee_Satisfaction
Product_Quality
Customer_Satisfaction
Strategic_Business_Performance
.79
d3
.89
.89
.61
Customer
Satisfaction
Thus, this construct omitted for the modified
model.
4. Run for the Recognition and Reward SEM
d1
.42
.82
.82
.78
.83
Employee
Satisfaction
i18
REC_R2
i19
REC_R3
i20
REC_R4
i21
REC_R5
.66
.69
.63
.60.77
.65
.81
.83
.79
.67
.67
i57
EMP_S2
.61
i58
EMP_S3
.69
i59
EMP_S5
Recognition
and Reward
.42
i72
.32
.56
i73
.30.45 .56
.14
.38
ST_B_P3
Table 5.4 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Recognition and Reward SEM
d4
.60
I76
.72 .85
.75
.56 .93
.82
ST_B_P6 .86 .41
I77
ST_B_P7
I78
ST_B_P8
i74
ST_B_P4
i75
ST_B_P5
.31
Product
Quality
.89
.77
.65
.72
.70
-.18
Strategic
.78
Business
Performance
.68
Employee_Satisfaction
Product_Quality
.27
Customer_Satisfaction
Strategic_Business_Performance
<--<--<--<---
Recognition_and Reward
Recognition_and Reward
Recognition_and Reward
Recognition_and Reward
C.R.
9.241
1.701
1.424
6.751
P
***
.089
.154
***
Assessment
Supported
Not supported
Not supported
Supported
.42
.57
.10
PRO_Q1 .57
.43
.75
.75
c2/df = 2.180, NFI=0.920, IFI=0.955, TLI=0.944,
CFI=0.955, RMSEA=0.067, RMR=0.054 GFI=0.883
i61
.60
ST_B_P1
.39.42
ST_B_P2 .49
i71
-.34
EMP_S1
PRO_Q2
.80
“Recognition and Reward has a positive effect on
strategic business performance and on employee
satisfaction”.
i62
i63
.31
PRO_Q3
i64
.28
O SEM: “Recognition and reward has a positive
effect on employee satisfaction” was not
supported.
d2
.37
.79
i69
CUS_S1
70
CUS_S2
.79
d3
.89
.89
.62
Customer
Satisfaction
“Recognition and Reward has a positive effect
on strategic business performance”.
5. Run for the Supplier Quality Management SEM
c2/df=2.079, GFI=0.901, NFI=0.934, IFI=0.964, TLI=0.953,
CFI=0.964. RMR=0.043, RMSEA=0.064.
d1
.27
.82
.80
.77
.84
Employee
Satisfaction
EMP_S1
.67
.65
i57
EMP_S2
.59
i58
EMP_S3
.71
i59
EMP_S5
.52
i22
SUP_Q_M1
i23
SUP_Q_M2
Supplier
Quality
-.32
Management
Table 5.5 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Supplier Quality Management SEM
.44
i71
.82
.91
.61
.78
i61
.42
i72
.34
.56
i73
.29.45 .61
.14
ST_B_P3
.59
d4
I76
.72 .85
.75
ST_B_P5 .56 .93
.83
ST_B_P6 .86 .42
I77
ST_B_P7
I78
ST_B_P8
.77
.65
.73
.70
.77 -.22 Strategic
ST_B_P4
i74
i75
.37
.06
ST_B_P2
.59
.42
.48
ST_B_P1
.28
Business
Performance
.68
Employee_Satisfaction
Product_Quality
.28 Customer_Satisfaction
Strategic_Business_Performance
<--<--<--<---
Supplier_Quality_Management
Supplier_Quality_Management
Supplier_Quality_Management
Supplier_Quality_Management
C.R.
7.274
.796
2.778
2.789
P Assessment
*** Supported
.426 Not supported
.005 Supported
.005 Supported
.39
.57
.41
.75
.75
Product
Quality
PRO_Q1
.57
PRO_Q2
.81
.90 .17
“Supplier Quality Management has a positive effect on
product quality” was not supported.
i62
i63
.14
PRO_Q3
i64
.29
O SEM the hypothesis “Supplier quality management
has a positive effect on product quality”.
d2
.38
.81
i69
CUS_S1
70
CUS_S2
.78
d3
.90
.89
.63
Customer
Satisfaction
author prefers “Supplier Quality Management has
a positive effect on employee satisfaction”.
6. Run for the Strategic Planning SEM
d1
.51
.81
.81
.77
.84
Employee
Satisfaction
EMP_S1
.66
.65
i57
EMP_S2
.59
i58
EMP_S3
.71
i59
EMP_S5
c2/df=2.026, GFI=0.894, NFI=0.931, IFI=0.964, TLI=0.953,
CFI=0.963, RMR=0.042, RMSEA=0.062
i61
Table 5.6 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Strategic Planning SEM
.30
ST_B_P2
.60
.43
.49
ST_B_P3
.60
.72
i71
-.34
i26
STRA_P2
i27
STRA_P3
I28
.62
.66 .79
.81
.59
.77
ST_B_P1
.41
i72
.33
.56
i73
.29.46 .45
.33ST_B_P4 .72 .85
.75
ST_B_P5 .56 .93
.82
ST_B_P6 .86 .42
i74
i75
I76
Strategic
Planning
.38
I77
ST_B_P7
I78
ST_B_P8
.20
STRA_P4
d4
.77
.65
.70
.77 -.21
.77
Strategic
Business
Performance
.44
Product
Quality
.89
.57
PRO_Q2
.80
i62
i63
i64
.05
d2
.38
.80
i69
CUS_S1
70
CUS_S2
C.R.
9.680
2.717
.593
4.823
P
***
.007
.553
***
Assessment
Supported
Supported
Not supported
Supported
.28
.17
PRO_Q3
.29
Strategic_Planning
Strategic_Planning
Strategic_Planning
Strategic_Planning
O SEM: “Strategic planning has a positive effect
on product quality” was supported.
.57
PRO_Q1
<--<--<--<---
“Strategic Planning has a positive effect on
customer satisfaction” was not supported.
.68
.26
.45
.75
.75
Employee_Satisfaction
Product_Quality
Customer_Satisfaction
Strategic_Business_Performance
.79
d3
.89
.89
.61
Customer
Satisfaction
However, in university practice, strategic planning
more
influences
to
Strategic
Business
Performance than product quality and employee
satisfaction. Thus, “Strategic Planning has a
positive effect on strategic business
performance” selected for the modified model.
7. Run for the Assessment SEM
c2/df = 2.004, NFI=0.933, IFI=0.965, TLI=0.955,
CFI=0.965, RMR=0.044, RMSEA=0.062, GFI=0.896
d1
.23
.81
.80
.77
.84
Employee
Satisfaction
EMP_S1
.66
.65
i57
EMP_S2
.59
i58
EMP_S3
.71
i59
EMP_S5
Table 5.7 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Assessment SEM
i61
.46
ST_B_P2
.60
.43
.49
ST_B_P3
.60
i74
ST_B_P4
i75
ST_B_P5
.72 .85
.75
.56 .92
.82
.85 .43
i71
.48
-.33
ST_B_P1
.42
i72
.33
.56
i73
.29.45 .53
ST_B_P6
I76
.38
I78
.72
ASS4
i34
ASS5
i35
.84 .85
.91
.66
.81
Assessment
.73
Strategic
Business
Performance
ST_B_P7
.14 .23 .68
ST_B_P8
.44
I77
i33
d4
.78
.65
.70
.77 -.22
.45
.76
.75
ASS6
Product
Quality
.90
PRO_Q1
.56
PRO_Q2
.81
i62
i64
.29
d2
.09
.37
.80
i69
CUS_S1
70
CUS_S2
.79
Assessment
Assessment
Assessment
Assessment
Assessment
Supported
Supported
Not supported
Supported
.28
i63
.17
PRO_Q3
<--<--<--<---
P
***
***
.135
.004
“Assessment has a positive effect on customer
satisfaction” was not supported.
O SEM: “Assessment has a positive effect on product
quality” was not supported.
.57
.23
Employee_Satisfaction
Product_Quality
Customer_Satisfaction
Strategic_Business_Performance
C.R.
7.097
3.444
1.495
2.845
d3
.89
.89
.61
Customer
Satisfaction
This study concluded that “assessment, process
control and improvement, and quality system
improvement are nearly alike functions for
Mongolian universities. Thus, the author combined
these 3 constructs under the name assessment.
“Assessment has a positive effect on product
quality”.
8. Run for the Process Control Improvement SEM
d1
.47
.81
.81
.77
.84
Employee
Satisfaction
EMP_S1
.66
.65
i57
EMP_S2
.59
i58
EMP_S3
.71
i59
EMP_S5
c2/df=2.228, GFI=0.892, NFI=0.928, IFI=0.959,
TLI=0.946,CFI=0.959, RMR=0.045, RMSEA=0.068.
i61
Table 5.8 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Process Control Improvement SEM
.35
i71
.69-.33
ST_B_P2
.60
.43
.49
ST_B_P3
.60
ST_B_P1
.42
i72
.33
.56
i73
.29.45 .57
d4
I76
.72 .85
.75
.56 .92
.82
ST_B_P6 .85 .43
I77
ST_B_P7
i74
ST_B_P4
i75
ST_B_P5
.38
.25
Employee_Satisfaction
.74
Strategic
Business
Performance
.68
ST_B_P8
I78
.78
.65
.70
.77 -.21
.22
.44
.57
i40
i43
PRO_C_I4
PRO_C_I7
.56
.75
.11
.52
Process Control
.72
.29
Improvement
.42
.75
.75
Product
Quality
.90
PRO_Q1
.57
PRO_Q2
.80
i62
i63
.18
PRO_Q3
i64
d2
.05
.39
.80
i69
CUS_S1
70
CUS_S2
.79
d3
.89
.89
.61
Customer
Satisfaction
.29
<--- Process
Control_Improvement
Product_Quality
<--- Process
Control_Improvement
Customer_Satisfaction
<--- Process
Control_Improvement
Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Process
Control_Improvement
C.R. P
7.924 ***
Assessment
Supported
1.071 .284
Not supported
.526
Not supported
.599
2.823 .005
Supported
“Process Control and Improvement has a positive
effect on employee satisfaction and on strategic
business performance”.
O SEM: “Process control and improvement has a
positive effect on product quality” was not
supported.
Also, this construct combined with the
assessment and quality system improvement
under the name assessment. Thus, the construct
“process control and improvement”
removed.
9. Run for the Product Design SEM
d1
.38
.81
.81
.76
.84
Employee
Satisfaction
EMP_S1
.66
.65
i57
EMP_S2
.58
i58
EMP_S3
.71
i59
EMP_S5
c2/df=1.967, GFI=0.903, NFI=0.938, IFI=0.969, TLI=0.958,
CFI=0.968, RMR=0.041, RMSEA=0.060
Table 5.9 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Product Design SEM
i61
.46
ST_B_P2
.59
.42
.48
ST_B_P3
.59
i74
ST_B_P4
i75
ST_B_P5
i71
-.32
ST_B_P1
.42
i72
.34
.56
i73
.29.46 .52
.62
I76
ST_B_P6
.72 .85
.75
.56 .92
.83
.85 .42
I77
ST_B_P7
.68
.37
.26
ST_B_P8
I78
Product
Quality
i44
PRO_D1
i45
PRO_D2
.87
.94
.64
.80
.90
PRO_Q1
.57
PRO_Q2
.80
i62
.38
.08
.80
CUS_S1
70
CUS_S2
.79
Product_Design
Product_Design
Product_Design
Product_Design
O SEM the hypothesis “Product design has a
positive effect on product quality.” was supported.
i64
d2
i69
<--<--<--<---
Assessment
Supported
Supported
Not supported
Not supported
i63
.18
PRO_Q3
Employee_Satisfaction
Product_Quality
Customer_Satisfaction
.28 Strategic_Business_Performance
P
***
.014
.223
.243
“Product design has a positive effect on
employee satisfaction and on product quality”
.57
.19
Product
Design
.72
Strategic
Business
Performance
.42
.07
.44
.76
.75
.28
d4
.77
.65
.70
.77 -.21
C.R.
8.680
2.446
1.219
1.167
d3
.90
.89
.61
Customer
Satisfaction
“Product design has a positive effect on
product quality”
10. Run for the Quality System Improvement SEM
c2/df=2.029, GFI=0.894, NFI=0.932, IFI=0.964,
TLI=0.954,CFI=0.964, RMR=0.047, RMSEA=0.062.
d1
.20
.82
.80
.77
.84
Employee
Satisfaction
EMP_S1
.67
.65
i57
EMP_S2
.59
i58
EMP_S3
.71
i59
EMP_S5
Table 5.10 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Quality System Improvement SEM
i61
Employee_Satisfaction
Product_Quality
.45
ST_B_P2
.61
.43
.49
ST_B_P3
.60
i74
ST_B_P4
i75
ST_B_P5
I76
ST_B_P6
.72 .85
.75
.56 .92
.82
.85 .42
I77
ST_B_P7
.68
I78
ST_B_P8
i71
-.35
ST_B_P1
.41
i72
.33
.56
i73
.29.46 .59
.38
.45
.26
d4
.78
.65
.70
.77 -.22
.73
Strategic
Business
Performance
.42
.57
.42
.75
PRO_Q1 .57
.15
.75
PRO_Q2
.80
Product
.90
Quality
PRO_Q3
i62
i63
.15
i64
.29
.12
d2
.37
.80
i48
QUA_S_I2
i49
QUA_S_I3
i50
QUA_S_I4
.81
.90
.66
.81
.90
Quality System
Improvement
.80
i69
70
CUS_S1
.13
CUS_S2
.80
d3
.89
.89
.62
Customer
Satisfaction
<--- Quality System_Improvement
<--- Quality System_Improvement
Customer_Satisfaction
<--- Quality System_Improvement
Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Quality System_Improvement
C.R. P Assessment
6.529 *** Supported
1.774 .076
Not
Supported
2.251 .024 Supported
3.195 .001 Supported
.28
“Quality system improvement has a positive
effect on product quality” was not
supported.
O SEM: “Quality system improvement has a
positive effect on product quality” was
supported.
However, the author preferred it to combine
with constructs assessment and process
control and improvement under the name
assessment. Thus, the construct “quality
system improvement” removed.
11. Run for the Customer Focus SEM
c2/df=2.246, GFI=0.880, NFI=0.924, IFI=0.956,
TLI=0.944, CFI=0.956, RMR=0.047, RMSEA=0.069
d1
.54
.82
.80
.77
.84
Employee
Satisfaction
EMP_S1
.67
.65
i57
EMP_S2
.59
i58
EMP_S3
.71
i59
EMP_S5
i61
Table 5.11 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Customer Focus SEM
.36
ST_B_P2
.59
.43
.49
ST_B_P3
.60
i74
ST_B_P4
i75
ST_B_P5
i71
-.31
ST_B_P1
.42
i72
.34
.56
i73
.29.45 .39
d4
I76
ST_B_P6
.72 .85
.75
.56 .92
.83
.85 .41
I77
ST_B_P7
.68
I78
ST_B_P8
.37
.24
.77
.65
.70
.78 -.21
.77
Strategic
Business
Performance
.57
.47
.75
.75
Product
Quality
PRO_Q1
.57
PRO_Q2
.81
.90
.40PRO_Q3
i62
-.02
.26
.81
i54
CUS_F4
i55
CUS_F5
i56
CUS_F6
.64
.56.75
.77
.80
Customer
Focus
i69
CUS_S1
70
CUS_S2
.49
.79
C.R.
9.538
3.418
5.358
4.108
P
***
***
***
***
Assessment
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
O SEM, the hypothesis “Customer focus has
a positive effect on customer satisfaction”
was supported.
i64
d2
.59
Customer_Focus
Customer_Focus
Customer_Focus
Customer_Focus
i63
.28
.35
<--<--<--<---
“Customer focus has a positive effect on
employee satisfaction, product quality,
customer satisfaction and strategic business
performance” were supported.
.19
.73
Employee_Satisfaction
Product_Quality
Customer_Satisfaction
Strategic_Business_Performance
.27
d3
.90
.89
.71
Customer
Satisfaction
“Customer focus has a positive effect on
customer satisfaction”.
.59
i1
i2
LEAD1
LEAD2
i3
LEAD3
i4
LEAD4
i5
LEAD5
LEAD6
i6
i7
i8
i9
i10
i11
LEAD7
EMP_P1
EMP_P2
EMP_P3
First Run of the Modified
TQM Implementation Model
.58
.77
.76
.48
.58 .76 .69
.56 .75
.45 .67
.58
c2/df=1.950
RMR=0.05
RMSEA=0.060
GFI=0.796,
NFI=0.801,
IFI=0.892,
TLI=0.880
CFI=0.891
the model was not acceptable.
Leadership
.76
.37
.76
.26
.61
.47 .69 .51
Employee
.69 .83
Participation
EMP_P4
.57
.43
.68
i17
i18
REC_R1
i19
REC_R2
i20
i21
REC_R3
REC_R4
i22
REC_R5
i23
SUP_Q_M1
i24
SUP_Q_M2
i25
SUP_Q_M3
i26
i27
i28
STRA_P1
STRA_P2
STRA_P3
i29
STRA_P4
i30
STRA_P5
i31
i32
ASS1
i33
ASS2
i34
ASS3
ASS4
i35
ASS5
i36
ASS6
.48
.65
.70
.81
.70
.84
.63 .79
.58 .76
.69
.83
.69
.48 .69 .83
.40
.57
.64
.75
.59
.63 .79 .77
.51 .72
.35
.21
.59
.46
.46
.71
.68
.84
.75
.66 .81 .87
.34 .58
.76
.54
.81
Recognition
and Reward
.60
.61
.68
Supplier
Quality
Management
.70
.53
Strategic
Planning
.50
.61
.63
.48
.65
.78
.47
16 items were omitted
Assessment
.39
ASS7
.65
.74
.60
.65
.76
i44
PRO_D1
i45
PRO_D2
i46
PRO_D3
.78
.88
.71
.42 .65 .84
.72
Product
Design
.67
i51
i52
CUS_F1
i53
CUS_F2
i54
i55
i56
CUS_F3
CUS_F4
CUS_F5
CUS_F6
.44
.66
.50
.51 .71 .71
.61 .78
.53 .73
.71
.50
“ Loadings≥0.71”
.72
Customer
Focus
Second Run of Modified
TQM Implementation Model
.59
i1
LEAD1
.57
i2
LEAD2
i4
LEAD4
.58 .76
.55 .74
i5
LEAD5
.56
i7
LEAD7
i8
EMP_P1
i11
EMP_P4
.32
.77
.76
.84
.75
.57
.65 .81
Employee
Participation
.56
.69
.39
.75
.47
i18
i19
REC_R2
i20
REC_R3
i21
REC_R4
REC_R5
i22
i23
SUP_Q_M1
i27
STRA_P2
STRA_P3
i28
.66
.72 .85 .81
.62 .79
.59 .77
.78
.65
.82
Recognition
and Reward
.57
.56
.88
.80
SUP_Q_M2
i26
c2/df=1.682
RMR=0.035,
RMSEA=0.051,
GFI=0.901,
NFI=0.906,
IFI=0.960,
CFI=0.959
TLI=0.950
Leadership
.58
.76
.64
.63 .80 .80
STRA_P4
.67
Supplier
Quality
Management
.67
.51
Strategic
Planning
.54
.57
.67
.42
.64
.62
i33
i34
ASS4
i35
ASS6
ASS5
.74
.86
.81
.67 .82 .90
.74
.44
Assessment
.36
.61
.73
.59
.59
.70
i44
i45
PRO_D1
.83
.67
.91
.82
PRO_D2
.57
Product
Design
.61
i54
i55
i56
CUS_F4
CUS_F5
CUS_F6
.62 .79
.61 .78
.56 .75
Customer
Focus
The
modified
Implementation
was accepted.
TQM
Model
Third Run of the Modified
TQM Implementation Model
.54
.27
i1
LEAD1
.52
i2
LEAD2
i4
LEAD4
.59 .77
.57 .75
i5
LEAD5
.58
i7
LEAD7
i8
EMP_P1
i11
EMP_P4
.32
M.I.
.73
.72
i28
i1
i19
Leadership
.85
.76
.56
.65 .81
Employee
Participation
.40
.75
.47
.26
i19
REC_R2
i20
REC_R3
i21
REC_R4
REC_R5
i22
i23
SUP_Q_M1
i27
STRA_P2
STRA_P3
i28
.66
.71 .84 .81
.62 .79
.59 .77
.80
.62
.82
Recognition
and Reward
.58
.54
.90
.79
SUP_Q_M2
i26
.58
.76
.65
.63 .79 .81
STRA_P4
.67
Supplier
Quality
Management
.68
.51
Strategic
Planning
.53
.57
.67
.42
.65
.62
i33
i34
ASS4
i35
ASS6
ASS5
.74
.86
.81
.67 .82 .90
.74
.44
Assessment
.36
.60
.31
.74
.59
.58
.70
i44
i45
PRO_D1
.86
.64
.93
.80
PRO_D2
.57
Product
Design
.60
i54
i55
i56
CUS_F4
CUS_F5
CUS_F6
i45
i2
I23
.57
.69
i18
<-->
<-->
<-->
.62 .79
.61 .78
.56 .75
Customer
Focus
c2/df=1.523
RMR=0.033
RMSEA=0.044
GFI=0.911,
NFI=0.916,
IFI=0.970,
TLI=0.961
CFI=0.969
15.316
11.672
9.608
Research Question 3:
How can this TQM implementation
model be demonstrated in practice?
Modified SEM
Modified Model
Leadership
Original Model
H1
Leadership
H2
Employee Participation
H2
H3
Strategic Planning
Employee
Satisfaction
H4
Employee Training
H3
Recognition and Reward
H5
H1
Recognition and Reward
H13
H4
Employee Participation
Supplier Quality
Management
Employee
Satisfaction
H5
H6
H7
Supplier Quality
Management
Strategic Planning
Product
Quality
H16
H8
H14
H9
Assessment
H9
H11
Assessment
H6
H7
H10
H11
Product
Quality
H12
Strategic
Business
Performance
Product Design
H17
H15
Process Control and
Improvement
Customer
Satisfaction
Product Design
Quality System
Improvement
H10
H8
Customer Focus
Strategic
Business
Performance
Customer
Satisfaction
H13
Customer Focus
H12
First Run of Modified SEM
.54
.27
i1
LEAD1
i2
LEAD2
i4
LEAD4
i5
LEAD5
i7
LEAD7
i8
EMP_P1
i11
.52
.58
.76
.75
.56
.73
.72
.59
.89
.77
.27
.52
.58
.76
EMP_P4
Leadership
d1
Employee
Participation
.73
.57
.69
.82
.40
i18
i19
i20
.64
.54
i23
.64
SUP_Q_M2
.73
I28
.44
.74
i33
ASS4
i34
.36
ASS5
.73
i35
.81 .86
.90
.66
.81
.50
ST_B_P3
.60
i74
ST_B_P4
i75
ST_B_P5
I76
ST_B_P6
.72 .85
.74
.55 .93
.40
.86 .82
I77
ST_B_P7
.67
I78
ST_B_P8
.24
.22
.17
.47
.76
.74
Product
Quality
.58
.85
.92
.65
.80
.69
i44
PRO_D1
i45
PRO_D2
.56
.90
PRO_Q1
.55
PRO_Q2
.82
i55
CUS_F5
i56
CUS_F6
.79
.61
.78
.57.76
i63
i64
.26
.12
Product
Design
d2
.30
.81
.62
CUS_F4
i62
.23
PRO_Q3
.61
i54
Strategic
Business
Performance
.58
Assessment
.60
.60
.79
.19
.62
ASS6
.31
.78
.66
.71
.78 -.19
ST_B_P2
.39
STRA_P4
d4
ST_B_P1
.20.44
.40
i72
.31
.56
i73
.29.45 .49
STRA_P2
i27
i61
.61
Management
.59
.57.64 .77 .52
.80
Strategic
STRA_P3
.63
.79
Planning
.41
i26
.81
.81
.55
.90
.62
Supplier
.79
Quality-.36
.68
SUP_Q_M1
i22
i59
.17
Recognition
and Reward
REC_R5
i21
i58
EMP_S5
i71
.26
i57
.81
.77 EMP_S2 .59
.19
.84 EMP_S3 .70
Employee
Satisfaction
.73
.66
.75
REC_R2
.50.70 .81
.58
REC_R3
.62 .84
.79
.88
REC_R4
.59
.77
.67
.66
EMP_S1
Customer
Focus
i69
CUS_S1
70
CUS_S2
.47
.77
d3
.90
.88
.69
Customer
Satisfaction
c2/df=1.672
RMR=0.046
RMSEA=0.50
IFI=0.940,
TLI=0.931
CFI=0.939
GFI=0.822
NFI=0.863
.27
Second Run of Modified SEM
.53
.27
.20
i1
LEAD1
i2
LEAD2
i4
LEAD4
i5
LEAD5
i7
LEAD7
i8
EMP_P1
i11
EMP_P4
.52
.57
.76
.76
.57
.73
.72
.60
.88
.77
.27
.52
.58
.76
d1
.74
.59
.69
.83
.40
i18
.29
i19
i20
REC_R5
i21
.64
.53
i23
.63
.28
SUP_Q_M2
.73
.17
i26
i27
.81
.81
.56
.90
.62
Supplier
.79
Quality-.40
.70
SUP_Q_M1
i22
I28
.46
.31
.81 .85
.90
.33
.67
.82
.37
ASS5
i34
.73
i35
.73
ASS4
ST_B_P2
.49
ST_B_P3
.59
i74
ST_B_P4
i75
ST_B_P5
I76
ST_B_P6
I77
ST_B_P7
.66
I78
ST_B_P8
.27
.39
.25
.58
.85
.92
.65
.81
.69
i44
PRO_D1
i45
PRO_D2
.15
.43
.75
.75
.58
.90
PRO_Q1
.56
PRO_Q2
.81
.25
i55
CUS_F5
i56
CUS_F6
.80
.59
.77
.57.75
i64
d2
.34
.81
.64
CUS_F4
i63
.18
.19
.62
i54
i62
.20
PRO_Q3
Customer
Focus
i69
CUS_S1
70
CUS_S2
.45
.78
i27
i72
.20
i8
i18
i7
i55
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
8.050
7.988
7.269
5.149
i4
i19
d2
d2
.24
.57
Assessment
Product
Design
.78
Strategic
Business
Performance
.18
.62
Product
Quality
.17
d4
.78
.73
.70
.76 -.17
.71 .84
.73
.54 .93
.42
.86 .81
.63
.59
.26
ST_B_P1
.19.42
.41
i72
.30
.53
i73
.28.45 .42
ASS6
.28
i61
.61
STRA_P4
i33
i59
.19
Management
.51
.53
STRA_P2.57.56 .72
.75
Strategic
STRA_P3
.66
.81
Planning
.41
i58
EMP_S5
-.23
i71
.21
i57
.82
.77 EMP_S2 .59
.17
.82 EMP_S3 .67
Employee
Satisfaction
.75
.59
.77
REC_R2
.50.64 .77
.80
.15
.57
REC_R3
.65 -.20
.81 Recognition
.89
REC_R4
.62
.79
.25
and Reward
.68
.68
EMP_S1
M.I.
12.861
13.921
16.109
12.850
9.303
16.799
10.175
10.820
i5
i55
i55
i61
i61
i74
i23
i33
Leadership
Employee
Participation
Covariances
<-->
i58
<-->
i63
<-->
i76
<-->
d4
<-->
d2
<--> Customer Focus
<-->
i75
<-->
Strategic
Planning
<-->
i26
<-->
d4
d3
.90
.88
.69
Customer
Satisfaction
c2/df=1.455
RMR=0.042
RMSEA=0.041
IFI=0.960,
TLI=0.953
CFI=0.960
GFI=0.848
NFI=0.883
9.604
8.124
Results of Hypotheses Testing
for Second Run of the Modified SEM
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
H8
H9
H10
H11
H12
H13
Hypotheses
Leadership has a positive effect on strategic business
performance.
Strategic planning has a positive effect on strategic business
performance.
Recognition and reward has a positive effect on strategic
business performance.
Employee participation has a positive effect on employee
satisfaction.
Supplier quality management has a positive effect on
employee satisfaction
Assessment has a positive effect on product quality.
Product design has a positive effect on product quality.
Customer focus has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.
Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on product quality.
Product quality has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.
Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on customer
satisfaction.
Product quality has a positive effect on strategic business
performance.
Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on strategic
business performance.
C.R.
2.415
P
.016
Assessment
Supported
2.973
.003
Supported
3.057
.002
Supported
7.100
***
Supported
2.144
.032
Supported
2.148
2.360
5.755
5.271
5.251
2.170
.032
.018
***
***
***
.030
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
4.329
***
Supported
3.275
.001
Supported
Conclusions
No research has been conducted for developing a TQM implementation model that can be
used by Mongolian universities to improve their TQM implementation efforts. Therefore,
the research objectives of this study were:
- To obtain the effects of TQM implementation on overall business
performance in Mongolian Universities;
- To obtain a TQM implementation model for Mongolian Universities.
In order to achieve the two research objectives, three research questions were proposed
as follows:
(1) What are the effects of TQM implementation on overall business performance in
Mongolian universities?
(2) What kind of TQM implementation model should be developed in order to guide
Mongolian universities in implementing TQM?
(3) How can this TQM implementation model be demonstrated in practice?
These research questions were answered completely in this study for the research
framework. Due to answers of research questions, the TQM implementation
model for Mongolian Universities was obtained.
The TQM implementation model for Mongolian
universities
H1
Leadership
H2
Strategic Planning
This model tested in this study.
- This model fits the data well.
- All hypotheses of this model
were fully supported.
H3
Recognition and Reward
H4
Employee Participation
Therefore, we can implement
this model in Mongolian higher
education institutions’ practice.
Employee
Satisfaction
H5
Supplier Quality
Management
H9
Assessment
H6
H7
H11
Product
Quality
H12
Strategic
Business
Performance
Product Design
H10
H8
Customer Focus
Customer
Satisfaction
H13
Limitations of this Study
It is important to view this study in the context of its
limitations.


First, data used to test the model came from only 3 stateowned universities.Therefore, the generalization is limited.
Second, the measure of perceived employee satisfaction in
particular is relatively weak, because it asked respondents for
their general perceptions of overall employee satisfaction in
their respective universities. Thus, research findings might have
been biased.
Contribution of this Study

In this study, the two theoretical models were formulated
mainly on the literature that was developed in Western
manufacturing contexts. However, the models were tested
using data in universities (higher education institutions) of
Mongolia. Therefore, a theory of quality management
related to Mongolian higher education institutions was
developed.
Recommendations

The TQM implementation model for Mongolian
Universities could better meet the requirements of
Mongolian higher education institutions. On this
background, benefits and practical implications would be
evident, and this model will deliver useful information for
continuous quality improvement of study programs,
teaching and support services in higher education
institutions.
Thank you for your attention!
Thank you for your attention!