Assessing relationship between quality management systems and business performance and its mediators

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between implementation of quality management systems (QMS) and business performance, through mediating factors (operating performance, information quality, product quality, design performance, environmental performance and competitive priorities). Most of the published literature examines the direct impact of implementation of QMS on business performance, and on some of the above stated factors. However, the impact of implementation of QMS on business performance, through these mediating factors has not received much attention. Accordingly, the authors develop a theoretical framework depicting impact of implementation of QMS on business performance through the above stated factors. Design/methodology/approach The paper proposes several hypotheses linking implementation of QMS, mediating factors and business performance. The hypothesized model is empirically tested using data collected from 120 professionals working in quality engineering/management in India and North America. The collected data are analyzed with the aid of structural equation modeling (SEM) technique. Findings Information quality and design performance have emerged as the important factors in the research. Information quality directly effects design performance, operating performance and environmental performance. The model indicates that besides a well-designed product, managers need to focus on the operating performance to improve overall product quality. Empirical evidence is found regarding direct and indirect effect of implementation of QMS on above stated mediating factors and on business performance. Originality/value The research fills a gap in the literature by considering several mediating factors that aid in improving business performance with implementation of QMS.

Environmental management accounting practices, management system, and performance

“…According to Chawla and Saxena (2016) and Antunes et al (2017), KMO results displayed values of more than 0.5 as accepting values. Meanwhile, Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant at ( po0.001) for the EFA (Ho and Fan, 2014;Ho et al, 2016;Fuzi et al, 2017;Bhatia and Awasthi, 2018). This indicates that the KMO and Bartlett's test results for EMAP, EMS and OPM were adequate in conducting the next stage of factor analysis.…”

The association between environmental sustainable development and internalization of a quality standard

“…For example, a higher degree of internalization allows companies to have employees with more knowledge and information. Trained employees can be better informed about indicators related to waste or other environmental indexes, which will help them to improve work environment and environmental performance (Bhatia & Awasthi, 2018). Training and involving employees help them to identify waste and pollution, participate in improvement in order to reduce water and other resource consumption, and reduce waste and emissions (Alsawafi et al, 2021; Chavez et al, 2020; Roscoe, Subramanian, Jabbour, & Chong, 2019).…”

A framework for Crosby’s quality principles using ISM and MICMAC approaches

“…In this paper, we found that management commitment is the important to strategic planning. A TQM implementation will do well only if top management is fully dedicated beyond public announcements (Whalen and Rahim, 1994; Pheng and Teo, 2004; Metri, 2005; Johnson, 2015; Jraisat et al , 2016; Bhatia and Awasthi, 2018; Agrawal, 2019). The lack of top-management considered to be barrier for the firm, whereas top-management dedication is considered as an enabler (Ellram, 1991).…”