Development of an Objective Quality Measurement Model for Measuring and Evaluating Quality of a...

7/30/2019 Development of an Objective Quality Measurement Model for Measuring and Evaluating Quality of a Manufacturin

1/20

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online),Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012)

222

DEVELOPMENT OF AN OBJECTIVE QUALITY MEASUREMENT MODEL

FOR MEASURING AND EVALUATING QUALITY OF A MANUFACTURING

ORGANIZATION

Jayakumar.kMangalam College of Engineering Ettumanoor (Kerala) INDIA

[email protected]

Preethi Sebastian

Mangalam College of Engineering Ettumanoor (Kerala) INDIA

[email protected]

G.S.Santhosh

Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Co Ltd. Kundara (Kerala) INDIA

[email protected]

T.K.Sreekumar

Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Co Ltd. Kundara (Kerala) INDIA

[email protected]

Key to success of an organization depends up on the quality of the products and services provided bythe organization. Even though there are many methods for measurement of quality of products and

services a proper measurement model for quality of organization is yet to be developed. This paper

tries to define quality of an organization and attempts to develop an objective quality measurement

model for measuring and evaluating the quality of a manufacturing organization. Employs a case

study approach, featuring an electrical equipment manufacturing organization which provides a rangeof brushless alternators and generators to various customers. The case study organization represents

only one industry sector. However it is claimed that the methodology can be adopted for any

organization with necessary modifications suited to the organization. The model presented is

important in that it can be used to measure and evaluate quality of not only organizations but alsoprocesses, systems, products and services with suitable modifications.

Key words: objective quality measurement model, objective quality evaluation, quality index, quality

improvement factor.

1. INTRODUCTION

Quality of products and services is a key factor for success of an organization. It is important torecognize that when we speak of quality we are not just talking about the quality of the end product or

service. Quality also refers to the quality of the process by which that product or service was created

(Charles Tatum, Karyll N shaw and Ray E Main, 1996).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT (IJM)

ISSN 0976 6367(Print)

ISSN 0976 6375(Online)

Volume 3, Issue 2, May- August (2012), pp. 222-241

IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijm.html

Journal Impact Factor (2012): 3.5420 (Calculated by GISI)www.jifactor.com

IJM I A E M E


2/20


223

The different perspectives of Crosby, Deming and Juran make it clear that quality must permeate

entire organization and must be a management imperative (Charles Tatum, Karyll N shaw and

Ray E Main, 1996). Crosby defines quality as conformance to requirements. Any product that

conforms to requirements is a quality product and any product that does not is not (Crosby, 1979). To

Deming quality is a relative term that can only be defined by the customer and will change in

meaning depending on the customer needs (Saurez 1992). Improvement of quality envelops the entire

production line from incoming materials to the consumer (Deming, 1986). Juran has definedquality as fitness for use (Juran and Gryna, 1988).

Almost all definitions now available on quality are based on the quality of product, service or

system. This paper attempts to define quality in the organizations perspective. Combining all above

definitions quality of an organization can be defined as the degree of effectiveness and efficiency at

which an organization achieves its planned goals and objectives. Efficiency is traditionally defined as

the use of resources to create outputs and effectiveness is usually defined as outputs relative to some

standard or expectation (Pritchard, 1990). Pritchard argues that productivity should include both

efficiency and effectiveness, and points out that either efficiency or effectiveness measures used alone

can be dysfunctional to the organization. The view in this paper is that effectiveness is the broader

concept and efficiency and productivity are components of effectiveness. The reasoning is that for an

organization to be effective ( ie to fulfill its mission and meet its goals, it must be productive, manageits resources, keep its stakeholders happy, balance its books and run an efficient operation ( Nebecker et

al 1996, Tatum et al 1996).

Even though there are a lot of attempts to measure performance and effectiveness, attempts to

measure quality of an organization is rare. Measuring performance under stakeholder theory (Freeman,

1984) involves identifying the stakeholders and defining the set of performance outcomes that measure

their satisfaction (Connolly et al, 1980; Hitt, 1988; Zammuto, 1984). Freeman (1984) defines stakeholder

as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by achievement of the organizations objectives.

This approach is adopted in identifying the planned and desired outputs of the organization in this paper.

Superior financial performance is a way to satisfy investors (Chakravarthy, 1986) and can be

represented by profitability, growth and market value (Cho & Pucik, 2005, Venkataraman &

Ramanujam, 1986). Customers and employee satisfaction are two further aspects to consider. Customerswant companies to provide them with goods and services that match their expectations (Fornell, Johnson,

Anderson, Cha & Bryant, 1996). Customer satisfaction increases the willingness to pay and thus the

value created by a company (Barney & Clark 2007). Employee satisfaction is related to investments in

human resource practices (Juliana Bonomi Santos et al, 2012). The satisfaction of these stakeholders

according to Chakravarthy (1986), translates itself into a firms ability to attract and retain employees and

lower turnover rates. Indirect stakeholders like governments and communities are affected by a number

of firm actions especially social and environmental ones. Societal and environmental performance can

considered a way to satisfy communities (Chakravarthy, 1986) and governments (Waddock &

Graves,1979).In the book Industrial Engineering and Management O.P.Khanna describes production as

any process or procedure developed to transform a set of input elements like men, material, capital,

information and energy into a specified set of output elements like finished products and services inproper quantity and quality, thus achieving the objectives of the enterprise. This approach is adopted inthis paper to identify the planned and desired inputs required to produce planned and desired outputsrequired to satisfy the various stakeholders of the organisation. The inputs required are classified intovarious resource groups for their effective and efficient utilization. The various resource groups are menand organization, money and capital, plant and machinery, and material and energy. Men andorganization include all employees and managers and different departmental offices and theirinfrastructure required for smooth functioning of the organization. Money and capital include funds andcapital required for various operations of the organization and that are not part of other resource groups.Plant and machinery include the production area or factory, material handling systems,manufacturing machines, tools, jigs, fixtures and other equipments required for production process.


3/20


224

Material and energy include all raw materials, semi finished goods and energy required to produce orprovide the product or service.

2. METHODOLOGY ADOPTED FOR OBJECTIVE QUALITY MEASUREMENT

A participative methodology has been adopted for objective quality measurement for the manufacturing

organization. This methodology has been developed with very close and active participation of managersand engineers of the organization as shown in Figure 1 (Sahay, 1997). The methodology is as follows:

1. Defining quality of an organization.

2. Determining goals, objectives and quality policy of the organization.

3. Study organization and departments or sections and find various resource groups to satisfy

various stakeholders of organization for achieving the goals and objectives of the organization.

4. Determine required output parameters to satisfy various stakeholders of the organization.

5. Determine required input parameters to various resource groups of the organization for required

output parameters.

6. Design objective quality measurement model.

7. Determine different quality elements.

8. Determine actual, planned and desired inputs and outputs for different quality elements.9. Determine the weightages for each quality element.

10. Develop quality indices for base and current periods and calculate quality improvement

factor.

11. Analyze the results and decide the validity and effectiveness of existing quality management

system.

12. Recommendations and suggestions for correction and improvement of existing quality

management system and integrated quality framework if there is any need for it.


4/20

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976

6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012)

225

Figure: 1 FLOW CHART OF METHODOLOGY ADOPTED FOR OBJECTIVE

QUALITY MEASUREMENT AND ITS EVALUATION OF A MANUFACTURING

ORGANIZATION

Define Quality of Organization

Determine goals, objectives and quality policy of the organization

Study Organization and departments/sections and find various resource

groups required to satisfy various stake holders of Organization

Determine required input Determine required outputparameters to various Resource parameters to satisfy various

groups for required output parameters stake holders of Organization

Design objective Quality measurement Model

Determine Quality elements

Determine actual, planned and Determine the weightages for

desired inputs and outputs for each quality element

different quality elements

Develop Quality indices for base and current periods and

calculate Quality improvement Factor

Analyze the results and decide the validity and effectiveness

of existing quality management system.

Recommendations and suggestions for correction and improvement

of Existing Quality Management System and Integrated QualityFrame work if there is any need for it.


5/20

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012)

226

3. OBJECTIVE QUALITY MEASUREMENT MODELQuality of an organization can be defined as the degree of effectiveness and efficiency atwhich the organization achieves its planned objectives.

Quality of an organization can be expressed through a indicator called quality index. Quality

index is the sum of products of coefficient of effectiveness of organization and degree of

effectiveness of organization and coefficient of efficiency of organization and degree of efficiency

of organization.

QI = C1*DE1 (O) + C2*DE2 (O) where,

QI = Quality Index, C1 = coefficient of effectiveness of Organization, DE1 (O) = degree of

effectiveness of organization, C2 = coefficient of efficiency of Organization, DE2 (O) = degree

of efficiency of organization.

Value of coefficient of effectiveness of organization is the ratio of planned output to desired output

of planned input organization.

C1 = PO (O) / D.O = PO (O) / PO (O) + VA (O) where,

C1 = coefficient of effectiveness of Organization, PO (O) = Planned output, D.O = Desired output ofplanned input, VA (O) = value added to planned output by utilization of planned input at desiredefficiency.

D.O = PO (O) + VA (O)

Value of coefficient of efficiency of organization is the ratio of value added by utilization of planned

input at desired efficiency to desired output of planned input.

C2 = VA (O) / D.O = VA (O) / [PO (O) + VA (O)] where,

C2 = coefficient of efficiency of Organization, PO (O) = Planned output, D.O = Desired output of

planned input, VA (O) = value added to planned output by utilization of planned input at desiredefficiency.

Value added by desired efficiency, VA = value added to planned output by utilizing planned input at

desired efficiency = planned input x (desired efficiency planned efficiency) = PI [DES E2- PE2]

Value added to planned output of organization by utilizing planned input at desired efficiency = VA

(O) = value added to planned output of (machinery and plant + material and energy + money and

capital + men and organization) = VA (M&P) + VA (M&E) + VA (M&C) + VA (M&O) = PI

(M&P) [DES E2 (M&P) - PE2 (M&P)] + PI (M&E) [DES E2 (M&E) - PE2 (M&E)] + PI (M&C)

[DES E2 (M&C) - PE2 (M&C)] + PI (M&O) [DES E2 (M&O) - PE2 (M&O)]

Degree of effectiveness of Organization is the ratio of actual output to planned output of

organization.

DE1 (O) = AO (O) / PO (O) where,

DE1 (O) = degree of effectiveness of organization, PO (O) = Planned output of

organization, AO (O) = actual output of organization.

Planned output of organization = PO (O) = planned output of (machinery and plant +material and

energy + money and capital + men and organization) = PO [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)]

Actual output of organization = AO (O) = actual output of (machinery and plant + material and energy +

money and capital + men and organization) = AO [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)]


6/20


227

Degree of efficiency of organization is the ratio of actual efficiency of organization achieved to desired

efficiency of organization.

DE2 (O) = A.E2 (O) / DES.E2 (O) where

DE2 (O) = Degree of efficiency of organization, A.E2 (O) = actual efficiency of organization,

DES.E2 (O) = desired efficiency of organization

DES E2 (O) = DO (O) / DI (O) = desired output of organization / desired input of organization

Desired output of organization = DO (O) = desired output of (machinery and plant + material and energy

+ money and capital + men and organization) = DO [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)]

Desired input of organization = DI (O) = desired input of (machinery and plant + material and energy

+ money and capital + men and organization) = DI [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)]

AE2 (O) = actual efficiency of organization = AO (O) / AI (O) = actual output of organization /

actual input of organization

Actual input of organization = AI (O) = actual input of (machinery and plant + material and energy

+ money and capital + men and organization) = AI [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)]

Quality improvement factor is the degree of improvement to the quality of the organization due to the quality

management system of the organization considered and is the ratio of difference between quality index of theorganization for new period considered and quality index of the organization for the base period considered to

the quality index of the base period.

QIF = QIN QIB / QIB where QIF = Quality improvement factor, QIN = quality index of the organization

for new period considered, QIB = quality index of the organization for the base period considered. Base

period is the period which is taken as basis for comparison of quality index of new period.

If QIF is positive and greater than zero there is improvement in quality of organization. If QIF is negative and

less than zero there is decline in quality of organization. If QIF is zero there is no change in quality of the

organization.

Table 1 Quality index rating table for checking validity of calculated quality index

GRADE PERFORMANCE

ZONE

RESULT ACTION TO BE TAKEN

0.9 1.00 Excellent Very high profit Expansion and new investment

0.8 0.9 Very good High profit Expansion

0.7 0.8 Good Reasonable profit More investment in quality up gradation

0.6 0.7 Satisfactory No loss or low profit margin More investment in cost reduction

and increase of revenue

0.5 0.6 Poor No profit or low loss margin Urgent measures for performance

im rovement

0.4 0.5 Very poor High loss Retrenchment and changes in quality

management system and integrated quality

frame work

0.3-0.4 Worst Very high loss Shut down and diversification


7/20


228

At grade 0.9 1.0 quality of the organization is at or near to the highest level, degree of

effectiveness and efficiency is close to maximum attainable level, the product or service will be

in the growth phase of product life cycle, all stake holders (employer, employee, customer, market,

society and environment) will be highly satisfied, hence can think of expansion and success of new

investment will also be high. At 0.8 0.9 grades even though quality of organization is high there is

scope of more improvement in effectiveness and efficiency which can be achieved in short time,hence it is better to think of expansion than new investment. At 0.7 0.8 grades even though there is

reasonable profit it is desirable to think of improvement in quality before thinking of expansion. At

0.6-0.7 grades there is no loss or low profit hence it is time to think of reduction in cost and increase

in revenue, the phase of product life cycle may be at beginning of decline or end of growth phase.

At 0.5 0.6 grades there is no profit or low loss margin the product will be at the beginning of

decline state hence can think of urgent measures for performance improvement. At grade 0.4

0.5 there is high loss and satisfaction level of different stakeholders will be low and the life cycle

phase will be in the decline and can think of retrenchment and changes in quality management

system and integrated quality framework. At grade 0.3 0.4 there will be very high loss and the

product will be in the death zone and it is time to think of shut down and diversification. For a valid

quality management system this shall be the performance zone, results and action to be taken for

different quality indices of a manufacturing organization.

Conditions for validity of datas for quality measurement

1. Actual output planned output desired output or AO PO DO, for various resource

groups and organization.

2. Actual efficiency planned efficiency desired efficiency OR AE2 PE2

DES E2, for various resource groups and organization.

3. Planned output of a particular resource group or organization shall be the maximum output

possible for the particular resource group or organization for the period considered under

specified conditions.

4. If the actual conditions vary significantly from specified conditions so that it changes

the planned output for the period new planned output shall be calculated based on the actual

conditions.

5. Desired output for a particular resource group or organization shall be maximum theoretical

output possible for a particular resource group or organization by utilizing maximum

capacity of plant and machinery, and organization with least theoretically possible waste

based on the existing quality management system which can be achieved through continuous

improvement of the organization over a fixed period of time.6. Actual output and desired output shall be calculated by taking base as the planned

output.

Conditions for validity and effectiveness of existing quality management system and

integrated quality framework based on quality indices and quality improvement factor.

1. For a valid quality management system and integrated quality framework the analysis

result of quality indices and quality improvement factor should match with ground realities

of the organization and quality index rating table for checking validity of calculated


8/20


229

quality index.

2. For an effective quality management system and integrated quality framework the quality

improvement factor shall be positive.

4. ASSUMPTIONS & NOTATIONS

Following assumptions are taken in the calculation of quality index.

1. Planned outputs are calculated based on past performance of the organization and

incorporating an improvement factor as part of the continuous improvement programme

based on the existing quality management system.

2. Planned outputs are maximum possible outputs of the organization for specified periodto satisfy the various stakeholders of the organization to the maximum possible extent.

3. The various stakeholders of the organization are customer and market, employer and

organization, employee and organization, and society and environment.

4. Planned inputs are calculated based on past performance of the organization and

incorporating an improvement factor as part of the continuous improvement programmebased on the existing quality management system.

5. Planned inputs are minimum possible inputs to various resource groups of the organization for

specified period to produce planned outputs.

6. The various resource groups of the organization are men and organization, money and

capital, plant and machinery, and material and energy.

7. All calculations are done by taking planned input and planned output as the base.

8. All input and output values are in rupees lakhs corrected to two decimal places.9. Desired output is the maximum possible theoretical output of the organization or

particular resource group based on company norms, process maps, work instructions and

quality procedures of the existing quality management system utilizing maximum plant

capacity with minimum possible theoretical rejection or wastage of resources.

10. Desired input is the minimum possible theoretical input of the organization orparticular resource group based on company norms, process maps, work instructions and

quality procedures of the existing quality management system utilizing maximum plant

capacity with minimum possible theoretical rejection or wastage of resources to produce the

desired output.

11. All variable costs are assumed to be directly proportional to production and sales.

Following notations are used in calculations.

O Organization, The various resource groups are M&P machinery and plant, M&E

material and energy, M&C money and capital, M&O men and organization.

The various stakeholders are E&O employer and organization, EE&O employee and

organization, C&M customer and market, and S&E society and environment PO plannedoutput, PI planned input, AO actual output AI actual input,. DO desired output, DI

desired input, AE2 actual efficiency, DEI Degree of effectiveness PE2 Planned efficiency

DES E2 desired efficiency, O (O) = output of organization, I (O) = input of organization,

DE1= degree of effectiveness, DE2 = degree of efficiency, VA = value added by utilizing

planned input at desired efficiency.


9/20


230

5. CASE STUDY

The case study has been carried out in one of the Keralas leading electrical equipment

manufacturing company engaged in providing brushless alternators and generators to various

customers.

Company policy (vision and mission)

The policy of company is to achieve customer satisfaction by providing the right product and

services at the right time, every time as per customer requirements.

This shall be achieved through

Ensuring teamwork at all levels.

Establishing and maintaining supplier evaluation and rating.

Establishing and maintaining a quality system suitable for meeting customer

requirements.

Continual improvement through constant up gradation of technology/process

and skilled manpower.

Table 2 Planned input and output to satisfy different stakeholders of the organization

Planned input for Men and

Organization

Planned output for Men

and

For employer and

organization satisfaction

Planned cost of administration of

different offices for planned production

and sales (cost of transportation,

communication, stationery, facilities,

infrastructure, wages and remuneration)

Value added by

planned

production, sales and

collection of payments

Planned value added by

(money and capital +material and energy + plant

and machinery )

For employee and

organization satisfaction

Planned cost of increase in

incentives, allowances and other benefits

for employees, Planned cost of

providing improved facilities , working

conditions, organization intervention

techniques, training and development,

safety and security, working

environment for improved motivation,

job satisfaction and planned productivity

of employees

Value added by planned

availability and productivity

of employees = value

added by reduction of

accidents, strikes, employee

problems rework ,rejection

and overtime

For customer and

market satisfaction

Planned cost of (Total quality

management) measures taken for

reducing customer complaints, timely

and proper after sales services, timely

delivery of required quantiy of quality

products, development of new products

and reduction of cost of products and

increase in value by value analysis.

Value added by reduction

in cost of money and capital

due to reduction in

penalties due to timely

delivery, reduction in after

sales costs due to reduction

in complaints, increase in

order and increase in timely

payment due to improved

quality, cost, value


10/20


231

For environmental and

societal satisfaction

Planned cost of measures taken to

reduce pollution to required level,

environmental protection programmes,training and project to students, welfare

measures to society.

Value added by reduction

in cost of capital and money

due to better environmental

and societal image of the

company and training and

project fee from students

Output parameters of employer satisfaction are planned production, sales and profit. Since

degree of efficiency is calculated which incorporates profit factor, profit is avoided and only

production and sales is used for calculating output of employer satisfaction.

Output parameters of customer satisfaction are decrease in after sales cost, increase in order and

increase in timely payment. Since value added by increase in order and timely payment is very low or

nil only decrease in after sales cost is considered for calculating output of customer satisfaction.

Reduction in overtime and outsourcing due to increased availability of employees is considered forcalculating output of employee satisfaction since all other factors are negligible or nil. Since

productivity of employees is already very high due to high experience and familiarity with their

machines and operations. Rejection is also negligible. Since value added by reduction of cost of

capital and money due to better environmental and societal image of the company nil or negligible

and is not accounted only training and project fee from students is considered as output of societal andenvironmental satisfaction.

Since output of pollution control measures and factory licence costs are reflected in production

and sales in this company it is included in input parameters for employer satisfaction than in societal

and environmental satisfaction. Since ISO expenditure and R&D contributes more to production

and sales than customer satisfaction it is also included as office expenses in employer satisfaction

6. SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

Quality index for two consecutive years are calculated. The period 2010 -2011 is taken as baseperiod and the period 2011 2012 is taken as the current or new period. Sample calculation done

here is for the period 2010-2011.

Table 3 Cost of machinery and plant (in Rs lakhs)

Planned input

PI (M&P)

Actual input

AI (M&P)

Desired input

DI (M&P)

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

Operating cost 75.00 73.00 71.23 66.61 79.90 75.44

Maintenance cost 1.06 2.04 1.6 1.47 1.37 2.14

Investment cost 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 76.06 75.04 72.83 68.08 81.27 77.58

Table 4 Output of machinery and plant (in Rs lakhs)

Planned output

PO (M&P)

Actual output

AO (M&P)

Desired output

DO (M&P)

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

Output (M&P) 76.06 75.04 61.11 55.87 86.35 86.76

Planned output of machinery and plant, PO (M&P) = planned cost or input of machinery and


11/20


232

plant for planned production and sales, PI (M&P).

PO (M&P) (2010 2011) = PI (M&P) (2010 2011) = 76.06

Actual output of machinery and plant, AO (M&P) = planned cost or input of machinery and plant for

actual production and sales + planned cost or input of machinery and plant for actual production and

sales actual cost or input of machinery and plant for actual production and sales = [(PI (M&P) /planned production and sales] x actual production and sales) x 2 - AI (M&P).

AO (M&P) (2010 2011) = (76.06 / 2985.72) X 2628.88 X 2 72.83 = 61.11

Desired sales, DS = (planned sales / planned capacity utilization) x total achievable capacity of plant

DS (2010 2011) = (2985.72 / 15900kw) X 17520kw = 3289.93

Desired output of machinery and plant, DES O (M&P) = planned cost or input of machinery and plant

for desired production and sales + planned cost or input of machinery and plant for desired

production and sales desired cost or input of machinery and plant for desired production and sales =

[(PI (M&P) / planned production and sales] x desired production and sales x 2 DI (M&P).

DO (M&P) (2010 2011) = (76.06 / 2985.72) X 3289.93 X 2 81.27 = 86.35

Table 5 Efficiency of machinery and plant

Planned efficiency

PE2(M&P) =

PO(M&P)/PI(M&P)

Actual efficiency

AE2(M&P) =

AO(M&P)/AI(M&P)

Desired efficiency

DES E2(M&P) =

DO(M&P)/DI(M&P)

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

(M&P) 1 1 0.8391 0.8207 1.0625 1.1183

Table 6 DE1(M&P), DE2(M&P) and VA(M&P) (in Rs lakhs)

Degree of effectiveness

DE1(M&P)

= AO(M&P)/

PO(M&P)

Degree of efficiency

DE2(M&P)

= AE2(M&P)/

DES E2(M&P)

Value added by desired

efficiencyVA(M&P) = PI(M&P)[ DESE2(M&P)- PE2(M&P)]

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

(M&P) 0.8034 0.7445 0.7897 0.7339 4.75 8.88

Table 7 Cost of material and energy (in Rs lakhs)

Planned inputPI (M&E)

Actual input

AI (M&E)

Desired inputDES I (M&E)

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

Transportation cost 32.04 39.00 35.66 32.19 33.06 42.00

Storage cost

Material cost 1310.16 1264.76 1252.86 1145.34 1355.55 1355.76

Energy cost

Total 1342.20 1303.76 1288.52 1177.53 1388.61 1397.76

Energy cost is included in operating cost of machinery and plant and storage cost is negligible and

not accounted. Hence these values are not included here.


12/20


233

Table 8 Output of material and energy (in Rs lakhs)

Planned output

PO (M&E)

Actual output

AO (M&E)

Desired output

DES O(M&E)

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

Output (M&E) 1342.2 1303.76 1075.05 975.94 1569.30 1457.47

Planned output of material and energy, PO (M&E) = planned cost or input of material and energy

for planned production and sales, PI (M&E).

PO (M&E) (2010 2011) = PI (M&E) (2010 2011) = 1342.2

Actual output of material and energy, AO (M&E) = planned cost or input of material and energy

for actual production and sales + planned cost or input of m material and energy for actual

production and sales actual cost or input of material and energy for actual production

and sales = [PI (M&E) / planned production and sales x actual production and sales] x 2 - AI

(M&E).

AO (M&E) (2010 2011) = (1342.2 / 2985.72) X 2628.88 X 2 1288.52 = 1075.05

Desired output of material and energy, DO (M&E) = planned cost or input of material and energy

for desired production and sales + planned cost or input of material and energy for desired

production and sales desired cost or input of material and energy for desired production and

sales = (PI (M&E) / planned production and sales x desired production and sales) X 2 - DI

(M&E).

DO (M&E) (2010 2011) = (1342.2 / 2985.72) X 3289.93 X 2 1388.61 = 1569.3

Table 9 Efficiency of material and energy

Planned efficiency

PE2(M&E) =

PO(M&E)/PI(M&E)

Actual efficiency

AE2(M&E) =

AO(M&E)/AI(M&E)

Desired efficiency

DES E2(M&E) = DO

(M&E)/ D I(M&E)

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

(M&E) 1 1 0.8343 0.8288 1.1301 1.0427

Table 10 DE1(M&E), DE2(M&E) and VA(M&E) (in Rs lakhs)

Degree

of

effectiveness

DE1(M&E)

= AO(M&E)

/ PO(M&E)


DE2(M&E) =

AE2(M&E)/ DE2(M&E)

Value added by

desired

efficiency

VA(M&E) =

PI(M&E)[ DESE2(M&E) -

PE2 (M&E)]

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12(M&E) 0.801 0.7486 0.7383 0.7949 174.62 55.67

Table 11 Cost of money and capital (in Rs lakhs)

Planned input

PI (M&C)

Actual input

AI (M&C)

Desired input

DI (M&C)

PARTICULARS 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

FINANCIAL

CHARGES

90.16 157.80 87.13 157.74 98.35 168


13/20


234

INSURANCE 0.16 0.28 0.14 0.26 0.18 0.3

DEPRECIATION 6.96 6.96 6.96 6.96 6.96 6.96

TOTAL 97.28 165.04 94.23 164.96 105.49 175.26

Table 12 Output of money and capital (in Rs lakhs)

Planned outputPO(M&C)

Actual outputAO(M&C)

Desired outputDO (M&C)

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

Output (M&C) 97.28 165.04 78.74 110.07 107.48 184.86

Planned output of money and capital, PO (M&C) = planned cost or input of money and capital

for planned production and sales, PI (M&C).

PO (M&C) (2010 2011) = PI (M&C) (2010 2011) = 97.28

Actual output of money and capital, AO (M&C) = planned cost or input of money and capital for

actual production and sales + planned cost or input of money and capital for actual production and

sales actual cost or input of money and capital for actual production and sales = {[(PI (M&C)

depreciation) / planned production and sales x actual production and sales] + depreciation} X 2 - AI

(M&C). Here depreciation is fixed cost.

AO (M&C) (2010 2011) = {(90.32 / 2985.72) X 2628.88 + 6.96} X 2 94.23 = 78.74

Desired output of money and capital, DO (M&C) = planned cost or input of money and capital for

desired production and sales + planned cost or input of money and capital for desired production

and sales desired cost or input of money and capital for desired production and sales =

{[(PI (M&C) depreciation) / planned production and sales x desired production and sales] +

depreciation} X 2 DI (M&C).

DO (M&C) (2010 2011) = {[(90.32 / 2985.72) X 3289.93] + 6.96} X 2 105.49 = 107.48

Table 13 Efficiency ofmoney and capital

Planned efficiency

PE2(M&C) =

PO(M&C)/PI(M&C)

Actual efficiency

AE2(M&C) =

AO(M&C)/AI(M&C)

Desired efficiency

DES E2(M&C) =

DO(M&C)/DI(M&C)

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

(M&C) 1 1 0.8356 0.6673 1.0189 1.0548

Table 14 DE1(M&C), DE2(M&C) and VA(M&C) (in Rs lakhs)

Degree

of

effectiveness

DE1(M&C)= AO(M&C)/

PO(M&C)

Degree of

efficiency

DE2(M&C) =

AE2(M&C)/ DESE2(M&C)


efficiency

VA(M&C) = PI(M&C)[

DES E2(M&C)-PE2(M&C)]

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

(M&C) 0.8094 0.6669 0.8201 0.6326 1.84 9.04

Cost of men and organization

Planned input of men and organization, PI (M&O) = planned input for employer satisfaction,

PI (M&O) E&O.S + planned input for employee satisfaction, PI (M&O) EE&O.S + planned input


14/20


235

for customer and market satisfaction, PI (M&O) C&M.S + planned input for societal and

environmental satisfaction, PI (M&O) S&E.S

Input for customer and market satisfaction, I (M&O) C&M.S

Table 15 (in Rs lakhs)

Planned inputPI (M&O) C&M.S

Actual inputAI (M&O) C&M.S

Desired inputDI (M&O) C&M.S

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

After sales cost 2.52 0.8 4.3 0.73 2.64 0.82

Total 2.52 0.8 4.3 0.73 2.64 0.82

Output of men and organization for customer and market satisfaction


PLANNED

OUTPUT

PO (M&O) C&M.S

ACTUAL OUTPUT

AO (M&O) C&M.S

DESIRED OUTPUT

DO (M&O) C&M.S

PARTICULARS 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

OUTPUT(M&O) C&M.S

2.52 0.8 -1.23 0.58 2.91 0.932

Planned output of men and organization for customer satisfaction = PO (M&O) C&M.S = planned

input of men and organization for customer satisfaction = planned after sales cost = PI (M&O)

C&M.S

PO (M&O) C&M.S (2010-2011) = PI (M&O) C&M.S (2010-2011) = 2.52

Actual output of men and organization for customer satisfaction = AO (M&O) C.S =

planned after sales cost for actual sales + (planned after sales cost for actual sales actual after sales

cost) = (planned after sales cost for actual sales) x 2 actual after sales cost = (planned after sales

cost / planned sales) x actual sales) x 2 actual after sales costAO (M&O) C.S (2010-2011) = (2.52 / 2985.72) X (2628.88 28) X 2 3 = 1.39

Actual sales = actual production and sales closing stock


Input to men and organization for employer and organizational satisfaction, I (M&O) E&O.S

Planned input

PI (M&O) E&O.S

Actual input

AI (M&O) E&O.S

Desired input

DI (M&O) E&O.S

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

Transportation cost 13.61 13.81 16.62 11.9 16.93 17.87

Communication cost 3.04 2.44 3.02 2.26 3.4 2.7

Wages and salary 780.8 880.66 784.23 863.69 790.38 887.89

Office expenses 407.36 456.57 399.65 394.89 437.14 486.08Total 1204.81 1353.48 1203.52 1272.74 1247.85 1394.54

Table 18 Output to men and organization for employer satisfaction (in Rs lakhs)

Planned output

PO (M&O) E&O.S

Actual output

AO (M&O) E&O.S

Desired output

DO (M&O) E&O.S

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

Output (M&C) 1467.66 1497.16 1412.59 1369.67 1523.89 1600.75

Planned output of men and organization for employer satisfaction = PO (M&O) E&O.S = total


15/20


236

planned production and sales (planned output of (P&M + M&E + M&C + (M&O) C&M.S)

Since input and output for customer and market satisfaction depends and influence input and

output of employer satisfaction (production and sales), it is treated in the same way as plant and

machinery, material and energy, and money and capital.

PO (M&O) E.S (2010-2011) = 2985.72 (76.06 + 1342.2 + 97.28 + 2.52) = 1467.66

Actual output of men and organization for employer satisfaction = AO (M&O) E&O.S =

actual production and sales (actual output of (P&M + M&E + M&C + (M&O) C&M.S) AO

(M&O) E.S (2010-2011) = 2628.88 (61.11 + 1075.05 + 78.74 + 1.39) = 1412.59

Desired output of men and organization for employer satisfaction = DO (M&O) E&O.S = desired

production and sales (Desired output of (P&M + M&E + M&C + (M&O) C&M.S)

DO (M&O) E.S (2010-2011) = 3289.93 (86.35 + 1569.3 + 107.48 + 2.91) = 1523.89

Input for employee and organizational satisfaction, I (M&O) EE&O.STable 19 (in Rs lakhs)

Planned input

PI (M&O) EE.S

Actual input

AI (M&O) EE.S

Desired input

DI (M&O) EE.S

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

Training and

development

1.6 1.56 1.21 1.85 3.6 2.2

Welfare expenses 1.08 1.56 1.51 0.62 3.6 2.4

Bonus 16.80 30 20.80 30 24 32

Facilities for jobimprovement

6 6 5.98 4.87 8 6.4

Total 25.48 39.12 29.5 37.34 39.2 43

Output of men and organization for employee satisfaction


Planned output

PO (M&O) EE&O.S

Actual output

AO (M&O) EE&O.S

Desired output

DO (M&O) EE&O.S

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

Output

(M&O) EE.S

34 42.5 19.26 20 93.66 63.33

Planned output of men and organization for employee satisfaction = PO (M&O) EE&O.S =value added by planned decrease in overtime and outsourcing

PO (M&O) EE&O. S (2010-2011) = 30 + 4 = 34

Actual output of men and organization for employee satisfaction = AO (M&O) EE.S = (planned

value of overtime for actual production actual overtime) + (planned value of outsourcing for

actual production actual outsourcing) = (planned overtime / planned production and sales)

x actual production and sales actual overtime + (planned outsourcing / planned production

and sales) x actual production and sales actual outsourcing


16/20


237

AO (M&O) EE&O.S (2010-2011) = (70.08 / 2985.72) X 2628.88 - 53.18 + (15 / 2985.72) X

2628.88 2.47 = 61.70-53.18 + 13.21 2.47 = 19.26

Desired output of men and organization for employee satisfaction = DO (M&O) EE.S = (planned

value of overtime for desired production and sales) + (planned value of outsourcing for

desired production and sales) = (planned overtime / planned production and sales) x desiredproduction and sales + (planned outsourcing / planned production and sales) x desired production

and sales.

DO (M&O) EE.S (2010-2011) = (70.08 / 2985.72) X 3289.93 + (15 / 2985.72) X 3289.93 =

77.13 + 16.53 =93.66

Input for societal and environmental satisfaction, I (M&O) S&E.S


PLANNED INPUT

PI (M&O) S&E.S

ACTUAL INPUT

AI (M&O) S&E.S

DESIRED INPUT

DI (M&O) S&E.S

PARTICULARS 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

COST OFTRAINING

FACILITIES TO

STUDENTS

0.24 0.18 0.2 0.16 0.24 0.18

TOTAL 0.24 0.18 0.2 0.16 0.24 0.18

Output of men and organization for societal and environmental satisfaction


PLANNED

OUTPUT

PO (M&O) S&E.S

ACTUAL OUTPUT

AO (M&O) S&E.S

DESIRED OUTPUT

DO (M&O) S&E.S

PARTICULARS 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

OUTPUT(M&O) S&E.S

TRAINING FEE 1.8 1.8 1.49 1.6 1.8 1.8

Planned output of men and organization for societal and environmental satisfaction = PO

(M&O) S&E.S = planned training fee from students

Actual output of men and organization for societal and environmental satisfaction = AO

(M&O) S&E.S = actual training fee from students

Desired output of men and organization for societal and environmental satisfaction = AO

(M&O) S&E.S = desired training fee from students

Table 23 Input for men and organization, I (M&O) (in Rs lakhs)

PLANNED INPUT

PI (M&O)

ACTUAL INPUT

AI (M&O)

DESIRED INPUT

DI (M&O)

PARTICULARS 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

INPUT

(M&O)

1233.05 1393.58 1236.22 1310.97 1289.93 1438.54


17/20


238

Table 24 Output of men and organization (in Rs lakhs)

Planned output

PO (M&O)

Actual output

AO (M&O)

Desired output

DO (M&O)

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

Output (M&O) 1505.98 1542.26 1434.73 1391.85 1622.26 1666.81

Input of men and organization = I (M&O) = Input of men and organization for (employer

satisfaction + employee satisfaction + customer satisfaction + societal and environmental

satisfaction) = I (M&O) (E.S + EE.S + C.S + S&E.S)

Planned input of men and organization = PI (M&O) = PI (M&O) (E&O.S + EE&O.S + C&M.S +

S&E.S)

Actual input of men and organization = AI (M&O) = AI (M&O) (E.S + EE.S + C.S + S&E.S)

Desired input of men and organization = DI (M&O) = DI (M&O) (E.S + EE.S + C.S + S&E.S)

Output of men and organization = O (M&O) = output of men and organization for

(employer satisfaction + employee satisfaction + customer and market satisfaction + societaland environmental satisfaction) = O (M&O) (E.S + EE.S + C.S + S&E.S)

Planned output of men and organization = PO (M&O) = PO (M&O) (E.S + EE.S + C.S + S&E.S)

Actual output of men and organization = AO (M&O) = AO (M&O) (E.S + EE.S + C.S + S&E.S)

Desired input of men and organization = DO (M&O) = DO (M&O) (E.S + EE.S + C.S + S&E.S)

Table 25 Efficiency ofmen and organization

Planned efficiency

PE2(M&O) =

PO(M&O)/PI(M&O)

Actual efficiency

AE2(M&O) =

AO(M&O)/AI(M&O)

Desired efficiency

DES E2(M&O) =

DO(M&O)/DI(M&O)

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12(M&O) 1.22 1.11 1.16 1.06 1.26 1.16

Table 26 DE1(M&O), DE2(M&O) and VA(M&O) (in Rs lakhs)

Degree

of

effectiveness

DE1(M&O)

= AO(M&O)/

Degree of

efficiency

DE2(M&O) =

AE2(M&O)/ DES

E2(M&O)

Value added by desiredefficiency

VA(M&O) = PI(M&O)[

DES E2(M&O)-

PE2(M&O)]

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

(M&O) 0.9677 0.8992 0.9091 0.9045 109.9 109.37

Planned output of organization = PO (O) = planned output of (machinery and plant +

material and energy + money and capital + men and organization) = PO [(M&P) + (M&E) +

(M&C) + (M&O)]

PO (O) 2010- 2011 = PO [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)] = 76.06 + 1342.2 + 97.28

+ 1505.98 = 3021.52

Actual output of organization = AO (O) = actual output of (machinery and plant + material and

energy + money and capital + men and organization) = AO [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)]

AO (O) 2010- 2011 = AO [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)] = 61.11 + 1075.05 + 78.74


18/20


239

+ 1434.73 = 2649.43

Desired output of organization = DO (O) = desired output of (machinery and plant +

material and energy + money and capital + men and organization) = DO [(M&P) + (M&E) +

(M&C) + (M&O)]

DO (O) 2010- 2011 = DO [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)] = 86.35 + 1569.3 + 107.48

+ 1622.26 = 3385.39

Planned input of organization = PI (O) = planned input of (machinery and plant + material and

energy + money and capital + men and organization) = PI [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)]

PI (O) 2010- 2011 = PI [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)] = 76.06 + 1342.2 + 97. 24 +1221.16 = 2736.66

AI (O) 2010- 2011 = AI [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)] = 72.83 + 1288.52 + 94.23

+1196.03 = 2651.61

DI (O) 2010- 2011 = DI [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)] = 81.29 + 1163.26 +105.44

+ 1298.74 = 2648.73

Table 27 Input for organization, I (O) (in Rs lakhs)

Planned input

PI (O)

Actual input

AI (O)

Desired input

DI (O)

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

Input organization

I (O)

2748.59 2937.42 2691.8 2721.54 2865.3 3098.74

Table 28 Output of organization (in Rs lakhs)

Planned output

PO (O)

Actual output

AO (O)

Desired output

DO (O)

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

Output organization

O (O)

3021.52 3086.10 2649.63 2533.73 3385.39 3395.90

Degree of effectiveness of organization = DE1 = actual output of organization / planned output

of organization = AO (O) / PO (O)

DE1 (2010 2011) = AO (O) / PO (O) = 2649.63 / 3021.52 = 0.88

Degree of efficiency of organization = DE2 = actual efficiency of organization / desired

efficiency of organization = AE2 (O) / DE2 (O)

DE2

(2010 2011) = AE2

(O) / DE2

(O) = [AO (O) / AI (O)] / [DO (O) / DI (O)] = (2649.63

/ 2691.8) / (3385.39 / 2865.3) = 0.98 / 1.18 = 0.83

Table 29Efficiency oforganization

Planned efficiency

PE2(O) =

PO(O)/PI(O)

Actual efficiency

AE2(O) =

AO(O)/AI(O)

Desired efficiency

DES E2(O) =

DO(O)/DI(O)

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

Organization (O) 1.10 1.05 0.98 0.93 1.18 1.1


19/20


240

Table 30 DE1(O), DE2(O) and VA(O) (in Rs lakhs)

Degree of

effectiveness

DE1(O) = AO(O)/

PO(O)


DE2(O) = AE2(O)/

DES E2(O)


efficiency

VA(O) = PI(O)[

DE2(O)- PE2(O)]

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12Organization (O) 0.88 0.82 0.83 0.85 230.53 143.27

Value added by desired efficiency, VA = value added to planned output by utilizing planned input at

desired efficiency = planned input x (desired efficiency planned efficiency) = PI [DE2- PE2]

Value added to planned output of organization = VA (O) = value added to planned output of

(machinery and plant + material and energy + money and capital + men and organization) =

VA (M&P) + VA (M&E) + VA (M&C) + VA (M&O)

VA (O) (2010 - 2011) = VA (M&P) + VA (M&E) + VA (M&C) + VA (M&O) = 4.75 +

174.62 + 1.84 + 49.32 = 230.53

Quality index = QI = C1 [DE1 (O)] + C2 [DE2 (O)]

C1 = coefficient of degree of effectiveness of organization = planned output of organization /

(planned output of organization + value added to planned output by utilizing resources at desired

efficiency) = P O (O) / [PO (O) + VA (O)]

C1 (2010 2011) = PO (O) / [PO (O) + VA (O)] = 3021.52 / (3021.52 + 230.53) = 0.93

C2 = coefficient of degree of efficiency of organization = value added to planned output by

utilizing resources at desired efficiency) / (planned output of organization + value added to plannedoutput by utilizing resources at desired efficiency) = VA (O) / [PO (O) + VA (O)]

C2 (2010 2011) = VA (O) / [PO (O) + VA (O)] = 230.53 / (3021.52 +230.53) = 0.07

Quality index = QI = C1 [DE1 (O)] + C2 [DE2 (O)]

QI (2010 2011) = C1 [DE1 (O)] + C2 [DE2 (O)] = 0.93 X 0.88 + 0.07 X 0.83 = 0.88

Table 31 Quality index

Coefficient of degree

of effectivenessC1

Coefficient of degree

of efficiencyC2

Quality index

QI

Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12

Organization (O) 0.93 0.96 0.07 0.04 0.88 0.82

Quality improvement factor = QIF = (QICURRENT QIBASE) / QIBASE = (QI (2011-2012) QI

(2010- 2011)) / QI (2010- 2011) = (0.82 0.88) / 0.88 = -0.0 682 = 6.82 % decrease in QI


20/20


7. EVALUATION OF RESULTS

Quality indices for base year (2010-2011) and current year (2011-2012) are 0.88 and 0.82 respectively which

is in the very good performance zone according to quality index rating table for checking validity of

calculated quality index. According to table at this zone the manufacturing organization should have high

profit and can think of expansion. But in actual case the actual efficiency for both periods are 0.98 and

0.93 which are below one and hence they are in loss. Since the ground realities does not match with the

quality index rating table the quality management system based up on which quality index is calculated is not

valid. As all the conditions for validity of datas used for quality measurement are satisfied the quality index

calculated based on the existing quality management system is valid. This shows that the cost of production

is very high and the selling price of product is lesser compared to cost of production. Hence the quality

management system and integrated quality frame work are not valid and effective since they were unable for

timely reduction of cost of production in comparison with the selling price. This was mainly due to the

absence of timely value analysis process and modernization and automation of plant and machinery. Quality

improvement factor shows a 6.82 % decrease in quality index which shows the existing quality

management system is not effective in maintaining and improving quality of the organization. The quality

management system is not effective is mainly due to the factor that it failed in ensuring proper

implementation of all quality management procedures of the existing quality management system.

8. CONCLUSION & FURTHER RESEARCH

In this paper, an objective quality measurement model for measuring and evaluating quality index of a

manufacturing organization was developed. A quality index rating table for checking the validity of the

existing quality management system was also developed. Quality improvement factor can be used for

checking the effectiveness of the quality management system. The methodology used for quality

measurement can be used for other organizations, products, services and systems with necessary

modifications. Further research is necessary for developing quality index for measuring quality of service

organizations, systems, processes, services etc. The proposed model can be a powerful tool for quality

managers for measuring and evaluating quality of organizations and opens new frontiers in quality research.

REFERENCES

[1] Crosby P.B. (1979). Quality is free. New york, NY:Mac Graw Hill

[2] Deming W.E (1986). Out of crisis, Cambridge, MA, Massachutets Institute of technology, Centre for

advanced engineering study

[3] Juran, J.M & Gryna, F.M.(Eds) (1988). The quality control handbook. Newyork, NY,Mc Graw Hill.

[4] Pritchard R.D (1990). Organizational productivity.In M.D.Dunnette and L.M Hough (Eds), Hand

book of industrial and organizational psychology (vol.3, pp-443-371(2nd ed) Palo Alto, CA, Consulting

psychologists press

[5] Saurez, J.G (1992) Three experts on quality management: Philip Crosby, W. Edwards Deming &

Joseph M Juran (TQLO Publication No 92-02, Arlington VA: Department of navy total quality leadership

office.

[6] B.Charles Tatum, Karyl N Shaw , Ray.E.Main (1996) Integrating measurement approaches in gain

sharing and total quality, Navy personnel research and development centre, San Diego Callifornia 92152-

7250 TN-96-31

[7] Juliana Bonomi Santos, Luiz Artur Ledur Brito (2012); Toward a subjective measurement model forfirm performance,BAR, Rio de jeniro, v.9,special issue art.6, pp.95-117

[8] O.P.Khanna (1999), Industrial Engineering and Mnanagement, Page 2.1, Dhanpat Rai publications (p)

Ltd.

[9] B.S.Sahay (2004), Multifactor productivity measurement model for service organization;

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-040/.htm.

Development of an Objective Quality Measurement Model for Measuring and Evaluating Quality of a...

Documents

Transcript of Development of an Objective Quality Measurement Model for Measuring and Evaluating Quality of a...