Post on 23-Sep-2020
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 87 editor@iaeme.com
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET) Volume 11, Issue 8, August 2020, pp. 87-102, Article ID: IJARET_11_08_010
Available online athttp://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/issues.asp?JType=IJARET&VType=11&IType=8
ISSN Print: 0976-6480 and ISSN Online: 0976-6499
DOI: 10.34218/IJARET.11.8.2020.010
© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed
TQM AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE:
EXPERIENCES WITHIN AMMAN’S
ENGINEERING, ELECTRONICS, AND IT
SECTORS
Ayman Abu-Rumman
Lecturer in the Business School, Al Ahliyya Amman University, Amman
ABSTRACT
Purpose: This paper aims to explore the impact that Total Quality Management
(TQM) has on achieving competitive advantage within the engineering, electronics,
and information technology (EEIT) sectors in Amman from the perspective of senior
managers.
Methodology: Following an extensive review of the current literature, and
underpinned by a pragmatic theoretical approach, this study adopted a quantitative
methodology gathering survey data via an online questionnaire from 154 senior
managers across 15 different enterprises operating within the EEIT sectors.
Findings: The study indicated that from the perspective of senior managers, across
the different sectors, TQM has a positive impact on competitive advantage in relation
to reducing waste, increasing efficiency, improving quality and enhancing employee
satisfaction which subsequently results in improved financial performance. The
findings suggested that across the three sectors, TQM practices were relatively well
established, although not many were based on formal TQM models, and that senior
managers support key principles of TQM. However, the study also identified a number
of perceived structural barriers within the TQM implementation process which impact
on competitive advantage including insufficient resources, under-developed systems
and support structures and a lack of access to appropriate training.
Originality: This study makes a valuable contribution to the debate on the
strategic value of TQM in delivering competitive advantage and helps to increase
understanding of the relationship between the two. Its focus on three different
industrial sectors enables diverse views and experiences to be compared and
contrasted therefore making a useful addition to the body of evidence within this field.
Keywords: Competitive Advantage; Total Quality Management; TQM; Service
Quality; Engineering, Electronics; Information Technology.
Ayman Abu-Rumman
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 88 editor@iaeme.com
Cite this Article: Ayman Abu-Rumman, TQM and Competitive Advantage:
Experiences within Amman‟s Engineering, Electronics, and IT Sectors, International
Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), 11(8), 2020,
pp. 87-102.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/issues.asp?JType=IJARET&VType=11&IType=8
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper presents the findings of a quantitative study exploring the impact that Total
Quality Management (TQM) has on achieving competitive advantage within companies
operating within the engineering, electronics, and information technology (EEIT) sectors in
Amman from the perspective of senior managers.
Increasing globalization, international competition and constantly changing customer
demands and expectations have had a significant impact on the business environment over the
last few decades. Jordanian organisations have therefore tried to adapt to this change and the
introduction of different quality management approaches has been one of the ways in which
they have responded. Increasingly, TQM has been seen as a significant factor influencing an
organisation‟s level of competitive advantage through differentiation and cost leadership
(Almansour, 2012). However there have been disagreements over what elements of TQM are
most influential (Al-Ettayyem and Zu‟bi, 2015), and there is evidence that not all
organisations implementing TQM practices have benefitted from its implementation (Álvarez-
García and Rueda-Armengot, 2016).
This study therefore makes a valuable contribution to the debate on the strategic value of
TQM in delivering competitive advantage and helps to increase understanding of the
relationship between the two. Its focus on companies operating within three different and
important industrial sectors in Jordan enables diverse views and experiences to be compared
and contrasted therefore making a useful addition to the existing body of evidence within this
field.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Jordan’s Engineering, Electrical and IT Sector (EEIT)
The overall economy in Jordan has been significantly reformed over the past three decades,
beginning with the liberalisation and reform agenda led by His Majesty King Hussein,
followed by a programme of reforms, during the first decade of the 2000‟s, focusing on
expanding foreign trade and privatised state-owned enterprises led by His Majesty King
Abdullah (Alhajahmad and Lockhart, 2017). The government‟s commitment to increasing
competitive advantage across all sectors in the country is set out in its economic growth plan
which sets out the aim to double the economic growth of Jordan over the coming five years
(The Economic Policy Council, 2018).
The EEIT sector is one of largest sectors in Jordan and comprises of a range of sub-sectors
including electrical home appliances, electronic devices, agricultural and industrial
equipment, vehicles and transport equipment, and electronic hardware. In 2016 in Jordan,
there were over 6,000 companies operating in this sector which was more than in any other
industrial sector in Jordan (Alhajahmad and Lockhart, 2017).
Jordan‟s Information Technology sector in particular has been growing and is starting to
receive acknowledgement for its growing global software outsourcing services. It is estimated
that this industry contributes around 12% of Jordanian national GDP. In the Economic Policy
Council‟s Jordan Economic Growth Plan 2018-2022 (p.12), it is stated that in relation to IT,
Jordan aims to capitalize on its competitive advantages of “having high quality human capital,
TQM and Competitive Advantage: Experiences within Amman‟s Engineering, Electronics, and IT
Sectors
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 89 editor@iaeme.com
favorable project economies, competitive wages and its convenient time-zone”. The
electronics sector has also experienced growth in Jordan and is centered around the industrial
expansion in the kingdom (Qadoumi and Dibie, 2008), and the ratio of engineers to the
population in Jordan is amongst the highest globally.
A key strategic objective of the Jordan Chamber of Industry (2018) is to increase the
competitiveness of the Jordanian industrial sector overall and to use the technological
component of industry as a means for improving comparative and competitive advantages.
The sectors covered in this study make a significant contribution to the Jordanian economy,
and represent an opportunity for the Kingdom to increase its competitive advantage over its
neighboring Arab countries located within the region (Yaseen, Dajani and Hasan, 2016).
2.2. Understanding Total Quality Management (TQM)
Due to the wide range and perspectives of quality management and „total‟ quality
management (TQM), it has been considered difficult to reach a consensus on its definition
(Idris and Zairi, 2006). However, according to Baird, Hu and Reeve (2011), TQM can be
defined as an organisational-wide integrative philosophy which aims to continuously improve
the quality of products, services and processes in order to meet the expectations of customers.
Relatedly, Talib, Rahman and Qureshi (2011) suggest that TQM is a total system approach
which spans across all functions and departments, involves all employees, and which aims to
consistently meet or exceed the requirements of customers.
There are a wide range of TQM practices recognised in current literature which are
focused around a number of different factors including: leadership and management
(Khamalah and Lingaraj, 2007; Talib and Rahman, 2010); customer orientation and
satisfaction (Mahapatra and Khan, 2006); workforce training and development (Ueno, 2008);
employee involvement and engagement (Samat, Ramayah and Saad, 2006; Lakhal, Pasin and
Limam, 2006); and continuous quality improvement and innovation (Fotopoulos and Psomas,
2009).
TQM practices are often categorised into „hard‟ and „soft‟ TQM. „Hard‟ practices are
those where statistical analysis or performance standards are used to assess quality and are
most relevant to production and operations management, whereas „Soft‟ practices have a more
qualitative focus encompassing factors such as leadership, employee involvement in decision
making and team work approaches (Yunis, Jung and Chen, 2013). However, in the current
literature there is some dispute on the relationship between these different practices and over
which of these practices have a direct impact on organisational performance (Zeng, Phan and
Matsui, 2015).
Approaches to TQM have evolved considerably resulting in the creation of a range of
models such as Six Sigma, Kanban, Total Productive Maintenance, Lean, and Just-in-time all
of which are frequently adopted today in different settings and industries (Dhonogade, Singh
and Shrouty, 2013). According to Zakuan et al. (2010), all organisations must implement
quality management practices such as this if they want to be able to compete successfully in
the global market. In Jordan, the King Abdullah II Award for Excellence (KAIIAE) is used in
industry as a measure of quality. It was initially developed to help increase competitiveness
within Jordanian businesses through the promotion of quality and performance excellence,
and by publicly acknowledging the quality and business achievements and successful
performance strategies of the country‟s organisations (Abdallah et al., 2013).
2.3. TQM, Performance and Competitive Advantage
Ayman Abu-Rumman
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 90 editor@iaeme.com
According to Porter (1985), competitive advantage can be defined as the advantage an
organisation has over its competitors. Sigalas et al. (2013) argue that two conditions must be
met in order for competitive advantage to be achieved including above average manifested
exploitation of market opportunities in the industry and the neutralization of all competitive
threats.
Competitive advantage gives an organisation „the edge‟ over its rivals and enables it to
generate greater value for the organisation itself and its shareholders. Over the last few
decades, a range of studies have demonstrated that TQM has benefited organisations and
given them this „edge‟, by improving the quality of products and services, helping to provide
superior products to customers, and increasing performance (Hoang et al., 2010).
Organisational performance is generally referred to as the extent to which an organisation
meets its stated objectives and a wide range of measures exist in the current management
literature to assess levels of performance including both financial and non-financial measures
(Jabeen et al., 2014). Studies evaluating the impact of TQM on organisational performance
highlight a wide range of performance variables including: levels of customer satisfaction
(Lin et al., 2005); financial and market results (Sila, 2007); employee satisfaction, morale and
loyalty (Jun, Cai and Shin, 2006); and innovation and quality outcomes (Prajogo and Sohal,
2004). Other commentators, such as Idris and Zairi (2006) propose the use of established
models such as the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1996) to determine performance
outcomes relating to different key factors of TQM implementation.
According to Tanninen, Puumalainen and Sandström (2010), TQM practices can influence
organisational performance and competitive advantage through two key processes. The first is
via internal performance with an increase in efficiency, reduced waste and a higher return on
assets. The second is via higher levels of customer satisfaction which in turn impacts
positively on brand value and customer loyalty.
Summers (2006) argues that the benefits of adopting TQM practices include:
improvements in the quality of products; better use of resources and reduced costs; and
minimised errors and reduced delays which subsequently facilitate an organisation to enhance
competitive advantage boosting market share. Kumar et al. (2009) share this view and also
claim that the implementation of TQM practices can significantly improve employee morale,
increase efficiency, reduce customer complaints, and ultimately increase profitability.
According to Jiménez-Jiménez et al. (2015), TQM practices also have an impact on
competitive advantage by facilitating organisational learning and promoting innovation; a
view supported by Jung and Chung (2016) in their study of TQM and innovation in Korea and
Kafetzopoulos (2015) in his study conducted in Greece.
From their study of TQM and firm performance in the manufacturing industry in Jordan,
Al-Refaie and Hanayneh (2014) found that Jordanian firms were generally successful in
implementing quality improvement programmes but found that certain formal approaches
such as Six Sigma were less well embedded than others. Another study focusing on the
Jordanian manufacturing industry (Attiany, 2014) found that the use of benchmarking of
internal and external processes as a TQM tool helped organisations gain competitive
advantage in that it helps shift the corporate mind-set from one which is relatively complacent
to one which has a strong sense of urgency for focusing on continuous improvement.
However, despite these identified benefits of TQM on organisational performance, there
have been some mixed findings on its effectiveness in achieving competitive advantage.
According to Sabella, Kashou and Omran (2014), the performance improvements resulting
from implementing different TQM practices are not universal and are very varied. In
particular, previous studies have reported inconsistent results relating to the relationship
between hard and soft TQM practices and organisational performance (Yunis, Jung and Chen,
TQM and Competitive Advantage: Experiences within Amman‟s Engineering, Electronics, and IT
Sectors
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 91 editor@iaeme.com
2013). Rahman and Bullock (2005) argue that when measuring the impact of TQM on
performance, the distinction between these different elements of TQM is essential as they
argue that they can impact affect performance in many ways.
They concluded that the soft TQM elements including workforce commitment, shared
vision, customer focus, team working and cooperative supplier relationships, were all
significantly correlated with organisational performance, and found that for some hard TQM
elements to have an impact on performance, such as the use of technology and other
continuous improvement enablers, the soft TQM elements must first be established. This
implies that organisations should not consider individual TQM practices in isolation, but
instead view them collectively as a means of promoting quality improvement and
acknowledge the unique individual relationships between them (Baird, Hu and Reeve, 2011).
2.4. TQM Enablers and Inhibitors
Within the current literature on TQM and performance, a vast range of enablers and inhibitors
have been proposed (Talib, Rahman and Qureshi, 2012). One of the most commonly
identified factors impacting on the effectiveness of TQM is organisational culture (Kumar and
Sankaran, 2007). According to Bonavía Martín and Marin-Garcia (2006) non-traditional
cultures have been identified as being particularly more receptive to TQM practices.
Employee engagement and involvement has frequently been proposed as being a significant
contributing factor to changing organisational culture into one which embraces quality
improvement (Chuang, Chen, and Tsai, 2015; Gul et al., 2012). Another factor is the
implementation process associated with TQM. According to Talib, Rahman and Qureshi
(2011) this process is crucial to ensuring its long-term success and is something which is
organisation-specific rather than generic.
Similarly, Weingarten et al. (2013) proposed that contextual factors such as an
organisation‟s size, the local and national culture in which it operates, and the scope of its
operations all impact on the success of TQM and that a „one size fits all‟ approach is not
appropriate in relation to TQM implementation. This view is supported by Sila (2007) who
refers to institutional theory and contingency theory to examine the different contexts in
which TQM affects performance.
Another identified enabler of TQM is effective supplier quality management (Zakuan et
al., 2010) which can help organisations achieve competitive advantage in both domestic and
international markets through the establishment of long-term strategic and cooperative
relationships and the integration of logistics to deliver positive outcomes relating to delivery,
flexibility, and cost performance (Mosadeghrad, 2015). A high-quality supplier can improve
the quality of products and services due to the fact that materials and purchased parts are often
a major source of quality problems (Sadikoglu et al., 2014).
Leadership is another factor that has been strongly associated with the impact of TQM on
performance (Ooi, 2014). Leaders have an integral role in promoting the behaviours and
practices in their respective organisations that lead to the achievement of quality goals
(Barouch et al., 2016; Alidrisi and Mohamed, 2012). In addition, they have a responsibility
for creating and cultivating the right environment to support innovation and TQM in order to
achieve competitive performance (Frolova et al., 2015). Ulle and Kumar (2014) argue that
TQM leaders ensure that there are strategies and mechanism in place to promote excellence in
performance and focus on building knowledge and skills amongst employees. They suggest
that one of the most challenging aspects of TQM leaderships is getting everyone within the
organisation to work together with a common vision which emphasises quality and
Ayman Abu-Rumman
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 92 editor@iaeme.com
excellence, and claim that a fundamentally different view of the employee-organisation
relationship is need in order for TQM to be successful.
In their study of TQM and competitive advantage in organisations operating within a
developing country, Ferdousi et al. (2018) found that there was a positive association between
the extent of adoption of TQM practices and competitive advantage. In particular, they
identified two organisational factors that impact on the extent of TQM adoption which
included the intensity of market competition and the maturity and use of IT systems.
With reference to the inhibitors, Polat, Damci, and Tatar (2011) identified: a lack of senior
management commitment to the principles of TQM; problems in transferring TQM
responsibility to the „front-line‟; disinterest and apathy from staff; and perceptions that TQM
is too bureaucratic as barriers to maximizing the potential of TQM. Goetsch and Davis (2014)
also highlighted: weak leadership; insufficiently supported or established teams; poorly
constructed processes to link all of the organisation‟s key functions; and a lack of required
TQM skills and experience as being key inhibitors.
Talib and Rahman (2015) categorised the barriers to TQM into three key areas including:
people-oriented issues; managerial issues; and organisational issues. Within the category of
people-oriented issues, the main barriers they identified included: insufficient training and
education on advanced quality tools and techniques; a lack of a sufficiently resourced quality
department; resistance to change from employees; and inadequate focus on employee
empowerment and team work. Within the category of managerial issues, the main barriers to
TQM highlighted in the study included: a lack of commitment from senior management; poor
coordination between departments; an absence of benchmarking against other organisations;
poor planning prior to the implementation of any quality initiative; and a lack of
communication across the organisation leading to a culture of mistrust and dissatisfaction
from customers. The main barriers found within the final category of organisational issues
included: a high level of turnover and absenteeism amongst managers; the attitudes of
employees relating to quality; and the absence of a culture of continuous improvement which
results in a lack of urgency and a sense of apathy amongst the workforce. Of all the barriers
they identified, Talib and Rahman (2015) argued that „lack of communication‟ was the most
significant, followed by a low level of senior management commitment and resistance to
change by employees.
Another reason why many TQM initiatives fail which has been identified in the current
literature, relates to the allocation of resources to support its implementation. Mosadeghrad
(2013) stresses that TQM can involve high costs, effort and time and therefore a commitment
must be made to adequately resource it. Companies which are struggling financially may not
be able to sustain the benefits from TQM.
3. METHODOLOGY
Underpinned by a pragmatic theoretical approach, this study adopted a quantitative
methodology which involved gathering survey data via an online questionnaire from 155
senior managers across 15 different enterprises operating within the EEIT sectors. The
questions were derived from an extensive review of the current literature on TQM and
competitive advantage and were developed into an online survey using an online survey
provider. This was piloted prior to its full use to ensure the questions were clear and
unambiguous. Questionnaires have been used in a number of studies of TQM and competitive
advantage (Elshaer, 2014; Migdadi, 2017; Sweis et al., 2016) and were considered to be a
pragmatic and efficient tool for this study also.
The questionnaire used in this study was based on the tool used in Zadry and Yusof
(2006) which explored the views of managers working within the automotive industry in
TQM and Competitive Advantage: Experiences within Amman‟s Engineering, Electronics, and IT
Sectors
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 93 editor@iaeme.com
Malaysia in relation to: their general views and experiences of TQM in their company, their
views on critical success factors, the impact of TQM on performance and the barriers faced.
The validity of this questionnaire had been confirmed and the reliability of the different
factors included in the survey was determined by establishing their alpha weighting using
Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient. Construct validity was assessed using factor analysis. The
results confirmed that the questionnaire had a high level of internal consistency and was
therefore a reliable tool to use. For this study, additional questions specific to views on
competitive advantage and TQM were added. A descriptive statistical method was used to
analyse the survey results and identify the key characteristics.
5 organisations in each of the identified sectors (Engineering, Electronics and Information
Technology) based in Jordan were selected at random and were approached for permission to
send the survey to their senior managers. All of those organisations approached agreed to
participate in the study providing the results were anonymised. The link to the survey was
therefore sent to the organisation to disseminate amongst their senior managers along with a
covering email explaining the purpose of the study and giving assurances about anonymity.
4. FINDINGS
4.1. Respondents
It is not possible to determine the exact response rate to the survey as it was distributed by the
selected companies themselves and it is not known how many employees did not read the
email containing the link to the survey due, for example, to being on annual leave during the
survey period. However, 154 individuals responded to the survey with representation across
each of the different companies and sectors. Figure 1 presents a breakdown of the number of
responses per sector.
Figure 1 Number of Respondents by Sector and Company
The age of respondents ranged from 19 to 58 years (mean = 38 years; median = 39 years)
and the majority (78%) were male. 82% of respondents had been in their post for 2 or more
years (mean = 2.96 years; median = 3.0 years). All respondents held „senior‟ posts in their
respective organisations.
4.2. Understanding of TQM
The first set of questions in the survey examined the respondent‟s views and understanding of
different TQM principles. Respondents were asked to rate to what extent they agreed with a
range of statements relating to TQM on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). A mean score was then calculated and aggregated to allow a comparison
against the different sectors to be made. The results are shown in Table 1.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
ENGINEERING ELECTRONICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
No
. o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts Company 5
Company 4
Company 3
Company 2
Company 1
Ayman Abu-Rumman
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 94 editor@iaeme.com
Table 1 Comparison of Mean Scores between Sector Respondents against TQM principles
TQM Principles
Engineering
(mean score)
(n=55)
Electronics
(mean score)
(n=48)
Information
Technology
(mean score)
(n=51)
TQM is a management philosophy
and practice to ensure effective and
efficient use of all available
resources
4.76 4.69 4.18
TQM aims to make customer
satisfaction as the focus of a
business
4.44 4.65 4.18
Teamwork and participation are
important for achieving a
continuous improvement culture
4.80 4.67 4.18
Training and education are vital
elements with respect to TQM
implementation
4.44 4.65 4.18
Statistical techniques are important
to ensure consistency of product
and process quality
4.58 4.60 4.18
Supplier involvement is vital in
supporting quality improvement 4.44 4.65 4.18
Management leadership,
commitment and support determine
the success of new change
initiatives
4.56 4.40 4.18
Management must provide adequate
resources in every aspect of the
business
4.64 4.69 4.18
A work environment, which is
conducive for improvement, is
created through management-
worker partnerships
4.36 4.35 4.18
Initiatives such as Kaizen,
suggestion schemes, quality circles,
etc. will motivate employees to
participate in quality improvement
3.96 4.06 4.18
4.3. Types of TQM Practices
Respondents were then asked about the different TQM practices that exist within their
respective organisations and were asked to indicate the extent to which they were
implemented using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not implemented) to 5 (fully implemented).
They were also asked to indicate how important they felt each of these initiatives were to
improving quality and performance on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not important) to 5
(extremely important). Again, mean scores were calculated to enable a comparison between
the different sectors to be made (see Table 2).
TQM and Competitive Advantage: Experiences within Amman‟s Engineering, Electronics, and IT
Sectors
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 95 editor@iaeme.com
Table 2 Comparison of Mean Scores between Sector Respondents against the level of implementation
of different TQM initiatives and their perceived importance
TQM Initiatives
Engineering
(mean score)
Electronics
(mean score)
Information Technology
(mean score)
Implementation Importance Implementation Importance Implementation Importance
A dedicated quality
department 3.05 4.40 2.98 4.27 3.71 4.18
Customer satisfaction
initiatives 3.62 4.64 3.60 4.65 3.45 4.18
Employee satisfaction
initiatives 3.00 4.64 3.10 4.65 3.82 4.18
Mechanisms for
involving suppliers in
quality
3.17 4.44 3.42 4.21 3.00 3.35
Employee Training
programmes on TQM 3.20 4.78 3.15 4.65 3.69 4.18
Performance
monitoring strategies 4.05 4.64 4.15 4.65 3.57 4.18
Dedicated resources
are allocated to quality
improvement
3.18 4.80 3.06 4.73 3.51 4.29
Communication links
are established
between senior
management and front
line employees
3.40 4.56 3.40 4.40 3.78 4.25
Improvement teams
exist within each
department
3.20 4.44 3.02 4.30 3.82 4.18
Respondents from only 8 of the 15 companies included in the sample confirmed that they
have formal TQM models in place within their organisation. 2 of the companies within the
Engineering industry sample were using Six Sigma in their organisation, and three had
implemented Lean methodology. One company in the Electronics sector had implemented the
King Abdullah II Standards for Excellence and another had implemented Kaizen. Within the
Information Technology industrial sector, one company had implemented the Balanced
Scorecard approach.
4.4. Impact of TQM on Competitive Advantage
The next series of questions focused on respondents‟ perceptions of the impact of TQM on
competitive advantage in their respective organisations. A scale ranging from 1 (significant
negative impact) to 5 (a significant positive impact) was used to gauge respondents‟ views.
Table 3 presents the mean scores for each sector:
Ayman Abu-Rumman
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 96 editor@iaeme.com
Table 3 Comparison of Mean Scores between Sector Respondents against statements of the impact of
TQM on competitive advantage
Impact of TQM on competitive
advantage
Engineering
(mean score)
Electronics
(mean score)
Information
Technology
(mean score)
Customer satisfaction has improved 3.42 3.44 3.18
Customer complaints have reduced 3.42 3.44 3.18
There is a stronger quality culture 3.62 3.60 3.82
Financial results have improved 3.82 3.69 3.82
Wastage has reduced 3.42 3.56 3.82
Partnerships with suppliers have
improved 3.16 3.19 3.18
Employee satisfaction has increased 3.38 3.35 3.82
Employee turnover has reduced 3.18 3.15 3.18
Respondents were then asked to indicate to what extent they felt that the TQM practices in
their organisations had impacted on competitive advantage on a scale ranging from „very
negative impact‟ to „very positive impact‟. Overall, the majority indicated that it had provided
a positive impact on their organisation‟s level of competitive advantage as shown in Figure 2
below:
Figure 2 Perceived Impact of TQM on Level of Competitive Advantage - % of respondents who
indicated „positive‟ or „very positive‟ impact
4.5. Barriers to achieving competitive advantage through TQM
The final section of the questionnaire focused on respondents‟ views of the barriers which can
impact on maximizing the potential of TQM on competitive advantage. Respondents were
asked to rate a list of commonly cited barriers in terms of how much of a barrier they
represented in their own organisation ranging from 1 (no barrier) to 5 (significant barrier).
The results are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Comparison of Mean Scores between Sector Respondents against statements on the barriers
Barriers Engineering
(mean score)
Electronics
(mean score)
Information
Technology
(mean score)
Lack of understanding of TQM 2.96 3.08 4.00
Lack of preparation 2.95 2.81 3.82
Resistance to change 3.25 3.50 4.00
Lack of vision and leadership 2.75 2.77 3.82
78%
60%
45%
0
20
40
60
80
100
ENGINEERING ELECTRONICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
% o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts w
ho
in
dic
ate
d p
osi
tive
or
very
po
siti
ve
Overall % (62%)
TQM and Competitive Advantage: Experiences within Amman‟s Engineering, Electronics, and IT
Sectors
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 97 editor@iaeme.com
Barriers Engineering
(mean score)
Electronics
(mean score)
Information
Technology
(mean score)
Lack of senior commitment 2.73 2.75 4.00
Lack of customer focus 2.78 2.81 3.82
Insufficient resources 3.87 4.27 4.82
Lack of systems and structures for TQM 3.69 4.13 4.65
Lack of training 3.25 3.73 4.82
Lack of rewards and recognition 3.16 3.08 3.00
Lack of effective measurement and
evaluation 3.02 3.06 3.18
5. DISCUSSION
Overall, the responses of 154 senior managers were obtained and all sectors were represented
in the results. Consistent with the age profile of the population in Jordan, the majority of
respondents were aged under 40 years old and were predominantly male.
Across each of the sectors there appeared to be a high level of understanding and
agreement with common TQM principles. Whilst the mean score for the respondents from the
Information Technology sector remained the same across all of the questions, it varied
slightly in the other sectors with the principles of teamwork, philosophy and the provision of
adequate resources. The use of formal quality improvement initiatives to promote employee
motivation received the lowest mean level of support, although was still indicated as being
useful.
The respondents also indicated that within the organisations they work within, the
common TQM initiatives were relatively well implemented, although interestingly, less than
half had adopted a formal TQM model or methodology which is in line with the findings from
other studies such as that of Al-Refaie and Hanayneh (2014) who found that whilst Jordanian
firms were generally successful in implementing TQM, formal approaches and TQM models
were not widely used. Within the sectors of engineering and electronics, however, the
existence of a dedicated quality department appeared to be less prevalent or less embedded
within the different organisations. Within the information technology sector, mechanisms for
involving suppliers appeared to be less well implemented. Across all sectors, performance
monitoring strategies were identified as being generally well implemented, along with
customer satisfaction initiatives. However, in all cases, respondents indicated that the
importance of these different initiatives was higher than the current level of implementation.
In particular, the allocation of sufficient resources for TQM activities was felt to be of great
importance along with employee training in TQM methods and techniques.
The results indicated that across the board, TQM had impacted positively on different
aspects of the respective organisations. For the engineering and electronics sector companies,
positive effects were seen mainly in relation to financial results due to increased efficiency
and improved quality and a stronger organisational quality culture.
For information technology companies, positive results were felt to be in relation to these
two factors along with reduced wastage and increased employee satisfaction which is
consistent with the findings from other studies such as those of Jiménez-Jiménez et al. (2015).
Overall, 62% of respondents felt that in terms of their organisation‟s level of competitive
advantage, there had been a positive impact as a result of implementing TQM practices.
However, less than half of the respondents from companies in the Information Technology
Ayman Abu-Rumman
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 98 editor@iaeme.com
sector felt that the implementation of TQM practices had impacted positively on the level of
competitive advantage in their respective organisations. This may be an area worthy of further
investigation.
The key barriers to successfully implementing TQM to deliver increased competitive
advantage stemmed from having insufficient resources dedicated to quality and having a lack
of systems and structures in place to support TQM; a view supported by Mosadeghrad (2014).
Respondents working within the information technology sector also identified a lack of
training as a key barrier. These findings are consistent with those from other studies such as
that of Talib and Rahman (2015) and Polat, Damci, and Tatar (2011) previously discussed.
6. CONCLUSION
The findings from the study have indicated that from the perspective of senior managers,
across the different sectors, TQM has a positive impact on competitive advantage due to a
reduction in waste, increased efficiency, improved quality and enhanced employee
satisfaction, resulting in improved financial performance.
It was apparent that across the three industrial sectors, common TQM practices are
relatively well established although not based on formal TQM models, and that senior
managers support key TQM principles. However, the study also identified a number of
perceived structural barriers within the TQM implementation process which were felt to
inhibit opportunities to fully maximise competitive advantage. These included a lack of
dedicated resources, under-developed systems and support structures and limited access to
appropriate training in the application of TQM methodology and techniques.
7. LIMITATIONS AND AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
This was a quantitative approach to investigating the impact of TQM practices on companies
within different industrial sectors. The use of a mixed method approach incorporating
interviews with a sample of representatives from each of the identified companies may have
enabled richer data to be elicited. This could represent an area for further research. In
addition, it would be interesting to extend this study to other industrial sectors in Jordan to
enable a comparison of the results to be made.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank all of those who took the time to share their views and
experiences by participating in the survey, and the host organisations who allowed the survey
to take place. This study did not receive any external funding.
REFERENCES
[1] Abdallah, A., Haddadin, B.M., Al-Atiyat, H.M., Haddad, L.J. and Al-Sharif, S.L. (2013),
“Investigating the Applicability of EFQM and KAIIAE in Jordanian Healthcare
Organizations: A Case Study”, Jordan Journal of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,
Vol. 7(1), pp. 49-55.
[2] Al-Ettayyem, R. and Zu‟bi, M.F. (2015), “Investigating the effect of total quality management
practices on organizational performance in the Jordanian banking sector”, International
Business Research, Vol. 8(3), p.79.
[3] Alhajahmad, S. and Lockhart, D. (2017), Jordan’s Recent Economic Performance:
Implications for Future Growth, Investment, Refugee Policy and Refugees, Jordan: WANA.
[4] Alidrisi, H. and Mohamed, S. (2012), “Resource allocation for strategic quality management:
A goal programming approach”. International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, Vol. 29(3), pp. 265-283.
TQM and Competitive Advantage: Experiences within Amman‟s Engineering, Electronics, and IT
Sectors
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 99 editor@iaeme.com
[5] Almansour, Y. M. (2012), “The impact of total quality management components on small and
medium enterprises financial performance in Jordan”, Journal of Arts, Science and Commerce,
Vol. 3(1), pp. 87-91.
[6] Al-Refaie, A. and Hanayneh, B. (2014), “Influences of TPM, TQM, Six Sigma practices on
firms‟ performance in Jordan”, International Journal of Productivity and Quality
Management, Vol. 13(2), pp.219-234.
[7] Álvarez-García, J. and Rueda-Armengot, C. eds. (2016), Achieving competitive advantage
through quality management. Switzerland: Springer.
[8] Attiany, M.S. (2014), “Competitive Advantage Through Benchmarking: Field Study of
Industrial Companies Listed in Amman Stock Exchange”, Journal of Business Studies
Quarterly, Vol. 5(4), p.41.
[9] Baird, K., Jia Hu, K. and Reeve, R. (2011), “The relationships between organizational culture,
total quality management practices and operational performance”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 31 (7), pp.789-814.
[10] Barouch, G. and Kleinhans, S. (2016), “Learning from criticisms of quality management”.
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 7(2/3), pp. 201-216.
[11] Bonavía Martín, T. and Marin-Garcia, J.A. (2006), “An empirical study of lean production in
ceramic tile industries in Spain”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 26 (5), pp.505–531.
[12] Chuang, S.S., Chen, K.S. and Tsai, M.T. (2015), “Exploring the antecedents that influence
middle management employees' knowledge-sharing intentions in the context of total quality
management implementations”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 26
(1-2), pp.108-122.
[13] Dhonogade, P.M., Singh, M. and Shrouty, V.A. (2013), “A Review: Literature Survey for the
Implementation of Kaizen”, International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology
(IJEIT), Vol. 3, pp.57-60.
[14] Elshaer, I.A. and Augustyn, M.M. (2016), “Direct effects of quality management on
competitive advantage”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol.
33(9), pp.1286-1310.
[15] Ferdousi, F., Baird, K., Munir, R. and Su, S. (2018), “Associations between organisational
factors, TQM and competitive advantage: Evidence from an emerging economy”.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25(3), pp.854-873.
[16] Fotopoulos, C.B. and Psomas, E.L. (2009), “The impact of soft and hard TQM elements on
quality management results”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 26 (2), pp. 150-163.
[17] Frolova, I. and Lapina, I. (2015), “Integration of CSR principles in quality management”.
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 7(2/3), pp. 260-273.
[18] Goetsch, D.L. and Davis, S.B. (2014), Quality management for organizational excellence.
Essex: Pearson.
[19] Gul, A., Jafery, S.A.S., Rafiq, J. and Naeem, H. (2012), “Improving Employees Performance
through Total Quality Management”, Management, Vol.1 (8), pp.19-24.
[20] Hoang, D. T., Igel, B. and Laosirihongthong, T. (2010), Total quality management TQM)
strategy and organizational characteristics: Evidence from a recent WTO member”, Total
Quality Management, Vol. 21(9), pp. 931-951.
[21] Idris, M.A. and Zairi, M. (2006), “Sustaining TQM: a synthesis of literature and proposed
research framework”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 17 (9),
pp.1245-1260.
[22] Jabeen, R.U.B.I.N.A., Shehu, M.S., Mahmood, R.O.S.L.I. and Kofarmata, B.A., (2014),
“TQM and Knowledge management impacts on SME performance”, International
Postgraduate Journal Business Journal, Vol. 6 (2), pp.23-43.
Ayman Abu-Rumman
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 100 editor@iaeme.com
[23] Jiménez-Jiménez, D., Martinez-Costa, M., Martínez-Lorente, A.R. and Rabeh, H.A.D. (2015),
“Total quality management performance in multinational companies: A learning
perspective”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 27(3), pp.328-340.
[24] Jordan Chamber of Industry (2018)
https://jordan.gov.jo/wps/portal/Home/GovernmentEntities/Agencies/Agency/Jordan%20Cha
mber%20of%20Industry?nameEntity=Jordan%20Chamber%20of%20Industry&entityType=ot
herEntity [Accessed 19th May 2018].
[25] Jun, M., Cai, S. and Shin, H. (2006), “TQM practice in maquiladora: Antecedents of employee
satisfaction and loyalty”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24, pp. 791–812.
[26] Jung, U. and Chung, B.D., (2016), “Lessons from the history of Samsung‟s SCM innovations:
focus on the TQM perspective”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 27(7-
8), pp.751-760.
[27] Kafetzopoulos, D., Gotzamani, K. and Gkana, V. (2015), “Relationship between quality
management, innovation and competitiveness: Evidence from Greek companies”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 26(8), pp.1177-1200.
[28] Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into
Action, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
[29] Khamalah, J.N. and Lingaraj, B.P. (2007), “TQM in the service sector: a survey of small
business”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 18 (9), pp. 973-982.
[30] Kumar, V., Choisne, F., de Grosbois, D. and Kumar, U. (2009), “Impact of TQM on
company's performance”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol.
26 (1), pp.23-37.
[31] Kumar, M. and Sankaran, S. (2007), “Indian culture and the culture for TQM: a comparison”,
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19 (2), pp. 176-188.
[32] Lakhal, L., Pasin, F. and Limam, M. (2006) “Quality management practices and their impact
on performance”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23 (6), pp.
625-646.
[33] Lin, C., Chow, W.S., Madu, C.N., Kuei, C.H., and Yu, P.P. (2005), “A structural equation
model of supply chain quality management and organizational performance”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 96, pp. 355–365.
[34] Mahapatra, S.S. and Khan, M.S. (2006), “A methodology for evaluation of service quality
using neural networks”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Global
Manufacturing and Innovation, July 27-29, pp. 1-9.
[35] Migdadi, M.M., Zaid, M.K.A., Yousif, M., Almestarihi, R.D. and Al-Hyari, K. (2017), “An
Empirical Examination of Knowledge Management Processes and Market Orientation,
Innovation Capability, and Organisational Performance: Insights from Jordan”, Journal of
Information & Knowledge Management, Vol. 16(01), p.1750002.
[36] Mosadeghrad, A.M. (2014), “Why TQM programmes fail? A pathology approach”. The TQM
Journal, Vol. 26(2), pp.160-187.
[37] Mosadeghrad, A.M. (2015), “Developing and validating a total quality management model for
healthcare organizations”. The TQM Journal, Vol. 27(5), pp. 544-564.
[38] Ooi, K.B. (2014), TQM: A facilitator to enhance knowledge management? A structural
analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 41(11), pp. 5167-5179.
[39] Polat, G., Damci, A. and Tatar, Y. (2011), Barriers and Benefits of Total Quality Management
in The Construction Industry: Evidence from Turkish Contractors. 7th Research/Expert
Conference with International Participants.
[40] Porter, M. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
TQM and Competitive Advantage: Experiences within Amman‟s Engineering, Electronics, and IT
Sectors
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 101 editor@iaeme.com
[41] Prajogo, D.I. and Sohal, A.S. (2004), “The multidimensionality of TQM practices in
determining quality and innovation performance: An empirical examination”. Technovation,
Vol. 24, pp. 443–453.
[42] Qadoumi, H. and Dibie, Z. (2008), Middle East Complex for Engineering, Electronics &
Heavy Industries (MECE), Amman: AMRAQ.
[43] Rahman, S.U. and Bullock, P. (2005), “Soft TQM, hard TQM, and organisational performance
relationships: an empirical investigation”, Omega, Vol. 33 (1), pp.73-83.
[44] Sadikoglu, E. and Olcay, H. (2014). “The effects of total quality management practices on
performance and the reasons of and the barriers to TQM practices in Turkey”. Advances in
Decision Sciences, Vol. 24(6), pp. 948-975.
[45] Sabella, A., Kashou, R. and Omran, O. (2014), “Quality management practices and their
relationship to organizational performance”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 34 (12), pp.1487-1505.
[46] Samat, N., Ramayah, T. and Saad, N.H. (2006), “TQM practices, service quality, and market
orientation-some empirical evidence from a developing country”, Management Research
News, Vol. 29 (11), pp. 713-728.
[47] Sigalas, C. and Pekka Economou, V. (2013), “Revisiting the concept of competitive
advantage: Problems and fallacies arising from its conceptualization”. Journal of Strategy and
Management, Vol. 6(1), pp. 61-80.
[48] Sila, I. (2007), “Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through
the lens of organizational theories: An empirical study”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 25, pp. 83–109.
[49] Summers, D. C. S. (2006), Quality 5th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
[50] Sweis, R.J., Saleh, R.A., Al-Etayyem, R.H., Qasrawi, B.T. and Mahmoud, A.M.A. (2016),
“Total quality management practices and organisational performance in Jordanian courier
services”, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 19(2), pp.258-
276.
[51] Talib, F. and Rahman, Z. (2015), “Identification and prioritization of barriers to total quality
management implementation in service industry: an analytic hierarchy process approach”. The
TQM Journal, Vol. 27(5), pp.591-615.
[52] Talib, F. and Rahman, Z. (2010), “Critical success factors of TQM in service organizations: a
proposed model”, Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 31(3), pp. 363-380.
[53] Talib, F., Rahman, Z. and Qureshi, M.N. (2011), “A study of total quality management and
supply chain management practices”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 60 (3), pp.268-288.
[54] Tanninen, K., Puumalainen, K. and Sandström, J. (2010), “The power of TQM: analysis of its
effects on profitability, productivity and customer satisfaction”, Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, Vol. 21 (2), pp. 171-184.
[55] The Economic Policy Council (2018), Jordan Economic Growth Plan 2018-2022, Amman:
EPC.
[56] Ueno, A. (2008), “Which managerial practices are contributory to service quality?”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 25 (6), pp. 585-603.
[57] Ulle, R.S. and Kumar, A.S. (2014). “A Review on Total Quality Leadership in TQM
Practices-Industrial Management and Organizations”. International Journal of Emerging
Research in Management & Technology, Vol. 3(5).
[58] Wiengarten, F., Fynes, B., Cheng, E.T.C. and Chavez, R. (2013), “Taking an innovative
approach to quality practices: exploring the importance of a company‟s innovativeness on the
success of TQM practices”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 (10), pp.
3055-3074.
Ayman Abu-Rumman
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 102 editor@iaeme.com
[59] Yaseen, S.G., Dajani, D. and Hasan, Y. (2016), “The impact of intellectual capital on the
competitive advantage: Applied study in Jordanian telecommunication companies”.
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 62, pp.168-175.
[60] Yunis, M., Jung, J. and Chen, S. (2013), “TQM, strategy, and performance: A firm-level
analysis”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 30 (6), pp. 690-
714.
[61] Zadry, R. H. and Yusof, M.S.R. (2006), “Total quality management and theory of constraints
implementation in Malaysian automotive suppliers: a survey result”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 17(8), pp. 999-1020.
[62] Zakuan, N. M., Yusof, S. M., Laosirihongthong, T. and Shaharoun, A.M. (2010), “Proposed
relationship of TQM and organisational performance using structured equation modelling”,
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 21 (2), pp. 185-203.
[63] Zeng, J., Phan, C.A. and Matsui, Y. (2015), “The impact of hard and soft quality management
[64] on quality and innovation performance: An empirical study”. International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 162, pp.216-226.