1. Introduction

Quality management has come forth as a management theory for heightening

organizational efficiency and competitiveness (Dow et al., 1999; Grandzol and

Greshon, 1997; Sila, 2007; Sanchez-Rodriguez and Martinez-Lorente, 2004).

Several experimental surveys and studies propose that organizations attain

higher levels of productivity and organizational functioning via successful

execution of quality management (Easton and Jarrell, 1998; Powell, 1995;

Das et al., 2000; Yeung et al., 2006; Santos-Vijande and Álvarez-González,

2009; Kaynak, 2003).

Quality management (QM) is delineated and calculated in experimental

studies as the practices of firms that put into practice the doctrine such as

focusing on customer, constant progression and improvement, and the

teamwork to enhance the service and product quality (Prajogo and

McDermott, 2005; Sousa and Voss, 2002; Dean and Bowen, 1994). Some

studies, however, put forward demonstrate that Quality Management

practices, particularly, infrastructure Quality Management practices and its

core practices, affect performance (Sousa and Voss, 2002). (Dow et al., 1999;

Powell, 1995; Samson and Terziovski, 1999 argue that just the Quality

Management’s infrastructure practices, for example the dedication of

executive, empowerment of employee, and focus of customer, impart to

improvement of the quality, but the core Quality Management practices, for

example the analysis and information, improvement of process, setting of

benchmark, apparently do not. Contrariwise, Forza and Flippini, 1998;

Rahman and Bullock, 2005; Sanchez-Rodriguez and Martínez-Lorente, 2004;

Motwani et al. 1994; Adam et al., 1997 argue that they have discovered

positive relationships among the core Quality Management performance and

practices, and some analyses determined that the Quality Management

practices, for example the job of superior management, the relations of

employees, involvement of employee, and the selection and development of

employee are not much related to performance.

1

2. Proposed Process: Total Quality Management (TQM)

The core values for Total Quality Management are that of “continuous

improvement”, “focus on processes”, “participation of all”, “customer focus”,

“commitment of leadership”, and “focus on facts”. (Dale, 1999; Dahlgaard et

al., 1998; Bergman and Klefsjö, 2003). If the centre values in the business

excellence models (BEM) are engaged as Total Quality Management

examples, then a significant number of values, for example, “valuing partners

and employees”, “focus on results and creating value” “social responsibility”,

and “systems perspective”, could also be appended in TQM (EFQM, 2003).

The word “methodology” is generally employed to define activities that are

done in a firm order. Some methodologies employed to Total Quality

Management include self-assessment, six sigma, benchmarking, and

business process management. A significant methodology inside the Total

Quality Management is the self-appraisal process based on criterion in

Business Excellence Models (BEM). The European Foundation for Quality

Management (EFQM) Excellence Model, the SIQ Model for Performance

Excellence and the American Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award

(MBNQA) specify criteria based on TQM core values (MBNQA, 2004; EFQM,

2003; SIQ, 2003). The author believes that by successfully employing these

criterions it has proven to improve economic performance (Hendricks and

Singhal, 1997, 1999; Wrolstad and Krueger, 2001; Hansson and Eriksson,

2002).

The tools used in TQM involve control charts, process maps, and cause and

effect diagrams. Sila and Ebrahimpour (2003) state that the surveys

conducted between the period of 1980 to 2000 it was discovered that the

process management was characterised as a crucial factor in the three.

2

There is not a single or generically accepted description on the process

(Armistead et al., 1999; Garvare, 2002; Lindsay et al., 2003). However,

various definitions of process are laid down in the literature. Some of them

include the conversion from input to output, adding value for a customer, or

interlinked activities. These are things contribute to the process management.

Processes in the organizations are categorized with regards to different

principles. There are two frequent theories used for classification. They are

the hierachies of details and the nature of process. It is argued by Rentzhog,

(1996). An illustration of the nature of the process is the arrangement into

management, and support and operative process Cakar et al. (2003),

Bergman and Klefsjö (2003) and Ould (1995).

Operative processes are often named as main processes or core processes,

and are delineated as those that convey output to the stakeholders who are

external. The support processes are those that offer back up to the processes

that are operative and the management processes addressing the strategy,

control and planning stakeholders that are internal. Another case in point

exemplifying the classification by hierarchy, can be determined in Harrington

(1991), who assorts processes into a series of ordered groupings and

separates them into activities, tasks and sub-processes.

Melan (1992) argues that process measurement constitutes a significant part

of process management. The process performance of different organizations

can be estimated from the outcome of the process, which is basically the

output, but it can furthermore be based on the process performance level, as

the facilitator of the output. The EFQM excellence model distinguishes

amongst results and facilitators. Usual facilitator comprises processes, people

and leadership (EFQM, 2003), at the same time as that the satisfaction of the

customer is viewed as an outcome of the output. The criterion for the SIQ

representation constitutes this difference in having one major principle for

outcomes and one for the satisfaction of customer (SIQ, 2003).

General efforts for problems related to quality could be defined by employing

a theory of the cause-and-effect diagram which is also named as the “7M”

3

(Bergman and Klefsjö, 2003). This diagram suggests the classes of

management, method, man, measurement, material, milieu and machine as

possible origins of frequent causes. In this context, the author of this

assignment identifies that the facilitators referred in the EFQM-model of

leadership, people and process could be viewed as being fraction of the M’s

of method, man and management and stretching this logic would suggest that

every M’s in here could be viewed as facilitators. A substitute of enablers

could be to view all of them as available resources for the firm. Some

frequently cited resources in the organization are that of equipment, which

could be machines, and employees, the men, leads to a functioning theory

that all M’s are able to believe as available resources (Isaksson and Garvare,

2003b). Based on this, the author of this assignment believes that it gets

capable of happening to present significant change components such as

facilitators, outcome and output in a process model, as viewed in the Figure 1.

The values such as “processes focusing” and “perspective of systems” are

believed to play a significant part in the synergies among SD and TQM. The

reason is to demonstrate how process management could be employed to

backup the work in order to improve the sustainability.

4

Figure 1: Proposed organisational system in reference to Total Quality

Management-Sustainable Development, showing the different processes,

elements and measurements.

2.1 A Process Model Which is System-Based

All organisations cope with their project processes to diverse degrees. They

all translate the input into output within a network of activities. Process

mapping can be applied to any organisation as a way of identifying

performance measurements and assessing actual performance.

Melan, 1992; Ould, 1995 argue that the pronouncements and criteria for

process modelling and mapping frequently pertain to symbols that are

5

technical in nature and fit the idea of elaborated graphing for exact

development applications. Such an apparatus is helpful while viewing at any

element which is a part of the transformational process. The author of this

assignment believes that the mapping method which is based on operative

and support process and management, with fastidious spotlight on

recognizing the processes admitted in the system. This approach, the author

of this assignment believes, work effectively for all kinds of processes. The

proposed model in as demonstrated in Figure 2 symbolizes a system vision,

where the process of transformation is balanced with a quantity of factors

striking the system and acting within it.

Figure 2: The proposed central model of the process suggesting different

kinds of processes and the available resources inclusive of a few distinctive

illustrations. Support processes and the operative process in order to uphold

equipment have been described. The boxes suggest support and

management processes as illustrations.

6

Project Quality Management involves the procedures, activities and

processes of the acting firm that conclude the policies with regards to quality,

responsibilities and objectives in order to satisfy the needs of the project. It

enforces the system based on the quality management via procedures and

policies with continuous process improvement (CI) activities carried

throughout suitably.

Project Quality Management processes comprises of the following:

Plan Quality:

It is the process of describing quality standards or the demands for the

product or the project. It further documents on how the project will show

fulfilment.

Quality Assurance Performing:

It is the process which includes inspecting the requirement of the quality and

the outcome gained via measurements of quality control in order to make sure

suitable standards of operational and quality resolutions are used.

Performing the Quality Control:

It is the process which involves the registering and supervising the results

which came after the execution of quality standards ad implemented.

Figure 3 shows the chart of Quality Assurance Process (QAP)

7

Figure 3: Quality Assurance Process

3. Stakeholders

As highlighted by the author in the above part of the assignment, the

operative processes are repeatedly called as major processes or core

processes, and are described as those that transmit output to the

stakeholders who are external. The support processes are those that tender

endorsement to the processes that are operative and the management

processes covering the strategy, control and planning stakeholders that are

internal. Another case in point exemplifying the classification by hierarchy, can

be determined in Harrington (1991), who assorts processes into a series of

ordered groupings and separates them into activities, tasks and sub-

processes.

8

Briner et al. (1996) described four kinds of stakeholders, namely, the project

leader’s organization, client, invisible team members, and outside services.

Cleland (1995, p. 151) acknowledged the demand to build up an

organisational structure of stakeholders from end to end realizing each the

interest of every stakeholder, and how to deal with them. Stakeholders are

defined as “The ones who grip the beef” (Dinsmore, 1999), those who have a

concern, necessary in “people-oriented project cultures” and efficiently coping

these stakeholders is indispensable at all points in the project from “start” to

“shut out” (Cleland, 1995).

Figure 4 furnishes a model with regards to stakeholders that aids to envisage

where they may emerge from, and as argued by the Walker (2003, p. 261). It

is noticeable that there are those stakeholders who are invisible but they can

still influence the project or process.

Figure 4: Stakeholder Model

9

4. Achieving Quality Attributes

Quality can be achieved via the Performance Objectives. They are as follows:

1. Quality – directly dealing the standards of the project or product, and

making sure that the project or product has meet the needs of

customer, consumers and the stakeholders.

2. Speed – how fast the project or product has reached to the customer or

consumer.

3. Dependability – it deals with the fact that the project is dependable on

stakeholders and external factors as well as the customers.

4. Cost – it is the major factor in making sure the quality is achieved. Cost

should be kept to minimum but the standards of the project or product

must not be slashed down.

5. Flexibility – it deals with how flexible the manufacturer is or how flexible

the project manager is while leading the project to success.

6. Safety – it deals with the hazard analysis and system safety

engineering.

5. PDCA Structure

The incorporation of sustainability into business processes demand constant

communication and collaboration with stakeholders, and innovative ways of

reviewing, updating business processes and designing. The very dynamic

nature of it demands expansion of internal competences and the knowledge

of institution to deal with up-and-coming problems and consequences and

their influence on the firm. The structure for commercial sustainability is set up

upon the PDCA (Plan Do Check Act) cycle which furnishes the basis for the

higherlevel-management of sustainability incorporation. To summarize, the

higherlevel-management approach to sustainability following steps are

detailed by the author of this assignment:

10

Begins from stakeholder discussion to make sure successful

communique with stakeholders;

encourages horizontal and vertical incorporation to make sure it fits

with variety of processes at different levels and stages of organizations;

Formulates the competences and knowledge of institution for

sustainability;

Formulates higherlevel-routines to provide constant improvement.

It is proposed by Daft and Weick, 1984; Weick, 1987 that companies need to

deduce a collective understanding of knowledge to efficiently cope with up-

and-coming issues and to comprehend their firm and their surroundings

healthier.

Author of this assignment believes that the employing of the plan-do-check-

act (PDCA) cycle, where P=defining the strategies, processes, indicators and

objectives; D=measure, execute and rectify the problem and process when

needed; C=executing analytical self-appraisal of the preceding two stages,

final outcomes are; A=post- appraisal activities, chiefly stabilisation of the

accomplished betterments. Organizations that have furnished themselves with

a decent model and progress it in time via use – and methodically employing

the PDCA cycle – are well again furnished to advance the knowledge of

themselves and then identify own illness and the right treatment.

Organizational illness, when unidentified and then not treated, incite arbitrary

vibrations of performance (left-hand diagram of Figure 5). Use of an effective

model in conjunction with the PDCA cycle, can lead to a improved control and

sustained presentation improvement (right-hand diagram of Figure 5).

11

Figure 5: PDCA Cycles based on Systematic Application of an Appropriate Excellence Model

6. Conclusion

In this assignment the author has find out the Quality Management process

and the stakeholders in the project process. The author has delineated the

TQM methodology to ensure the Quality.

12

References:

Dow, D., Samson, D., Ford, S. (1999), "Exploding the myth: do all quality

management practices contribute to superior quality performance?",

Production and Operations Management, Vol. 8 No.1, pp.1-27.

Grandzol, J.R., Greshon, M. (1997), "Which TQM practices really matter: an

empirical investigation", Quality Management Journal, Vol. 4 No.4, pp.43-59.

Sila, I., Ebrahimpour, M. (2003), "Examination and comparison of the critical

factors of total quality management (TQM) across countries", International

Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41 No.2, pp.235-68.

Sanchez-Rodriguez, C., Martinez-Lorente, A.R. (2004), "Quality management

practices in the purchasing function: an empirical study", International Journal

of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No.7, pp.666-87.

Easton, G.S., Jarrell, S.L. (1998), "The effects of total quality management on

corporate performance: an empirical investigation", Journal of Business, Vol.

71 No.2, pp.253-307.

Powell, T.C. (1995), "Total quality management as competitive advantage: a

review and empirical study", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16 No.1,

pp.15-37.

Das, A., Handfield, R.B., Calantone, R.J., Ghosh, S. (2000), "A contingent

view of quality management – the impact of international competition on

quality", Decision Sciences, Vol. 31 No.3, pp.649-90.

Yeung, A.C.L., Edwin Cheng, T.C., Lai, K. (2006), "An operational and

institutional perspective on total quality management", Production and

Operations Management, Vol. 15 No.1, pp.156-70.

13

Santos-Vijande, M., Álvarez-González, L. (2009), "TQM's contribution to

marketing implementation and firm's competitiveness", Total Quality

Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 20 No.2, pp.171-96.

Kaynak, H. (2003), "The relationship between total quality management

practices and their effects on firm performance", Journal of Operations

Management, Vol. 21 No.4, pp.405-35.

Prajogo, D.I., McDermott, D.M. (2005), "The relationship between total quality

management practices and organizational culture", International Journal of

Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No.11, pp.1101-22.

Sousa, R., Voss, C.A. (2002), "Quality management re-visited: a reflective

review and agenda for future research", Journal of Operations Management,

Vol. 20 No.1, pp.91-109.

Dow, D., Samson, D., Ford, S. (1999), "Exploding the myth: do all quality

management practices contribute to superior quality performance?",

Production and Operations Management, Vol. 8 No.1, pp.1-27.

Dean, H.W., Bowen, D.E. (1994), "Management theory and total quality:

improving research and practice through theory development", Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 19 No.3, pp.392-418.

Powell, T.C. (1995), "Total quality management as competitive advantage: a

review and empirical study", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16 No.1,

pp.15-37.

Samson, D., Terziovski, M. (1999), "The relationship between total quality

management practices and operational performance", Journal of Operations

Management, Vol. 17 No.4, pp.393-409.

14

Forza, C., Flippini, R. (1998), "TQM impact on quality conformance and

customer satisfaction: a causal model", International Journal of Production

Economics, Vol. 55 No.1, pp.1-20.

Rahman, S., Bullock, P. (2005), "Soft TQM, hard TQM, and organizational

performance relationships: an empirical investigation", Omega, Vol. 33 No.1,

pp.73-83.

Sánchez-Rodriguez, C., Martínez-Lorente, A.R. (2004), "Quality management

practices in the purchasing function: an empirical study", International Journal

of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No.7, pp.666-87.

Motwani, J.G., Mahmoud, E., Rice, G. (1994), "Quality practices of Indian

organizations: an empirical analysis", International Journal of Quality &

Reliability Management, Vol. 1 No.1, pp.38-52.

Adam, E.E. Jr, Corbett, L.M., Flores, B.E., Harrison, N.J., Lee, T.S., Rho,

B.H., Ribera, J., Samson, D., Westbrook, R. (1997), "An international study of

quality improvement approach and firm performance", International Journal of

Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No.9, pp.842-73.

Dale, B.G. (1999), Managing Quality, 3rd ed., Blackwell Publishers Ltd,

Oxford, .

Dahlgaard, J., Kristensen, K., Gopal, K. (1998), Fundamentals of Total Quality

Management, Chapman & Hall, London, .

Bergman, B., Klefsjö, B. (2003), Quality from Customer Needs to Customer

Satisfaction, 2nd ed., Studentlitteratur, Lund, .

EFQM (2003), The EFQM Excellence Model, European Foundation for

Quality Management, Brussels, .

15

MBNQA (2004), "The criteria for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality

Award", available at: www.quality.nist.gov, .

SIQ (2003), Swedish Institute for Quality, The Swedish Quality Award,

Gothenburg, .

Hendricks, K.B., Singhal, V.R. (1997), "Does implementing an effective TQM

program actually improve operating performance?", Management Science,

Vol. 43 No.9, pp.1258-74.

Hendricks, K.B., Singhal, V.R. (1999), "Don't count TQM out – evidence

shows implementation pays off in a big way", Quality Progress, Vol. 32 No.4,

pp.35-42.

Wrolstad, M.A., Krueger, T.M. (2001), "Study shows that quality pays

winners", The Quality Management Forum, Summer, pp.11-14.

Hansson, J., Eriksson, H. (2002), "The impact of TQM on financial

performance", Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 6 No.4, pp.44-54.

Sila, I., Ebrahimpour, M. (2003), "Examination and comparison of the critical

factors of total quality management (TQM) across countries", International

Journal of Productivity Research, Vol. 41 No.2, pp.235-68.

Armistead, C., Pritchard, J-P., Machin, S. (1999), "Strategic business process

management for organisational effectiveness", Long Range Planning, Vol. 32

No.1, pp.96-106.

Garvare, R. (2002), "Process management and sustainable development in a

quality perspective – implementation and measurement related to small and

medium sized enterprises", Division of Quality Technology and Statistics,

Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, .

16

Lindsay, A., Downs, D., Lunn, K. (2003), "Business processes – attempts to

find a definition", Information & Software Technology, Vol. 45 No.15, pp.1015-

9.

Melan, E.H. (1992), Process Management. Methods for Improving Products

and Service, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, .

Hammer, M. (1996), Beyond Reengineering, Harper Collins Publishers, New

York, NY, .

Harrington, J.H., Esseling, E.K.C., van Nimwegen, H. (1997), Business

Process Improvement Workbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, .

Freeman, R.E., Reed, D.L. (1983), "Stockholders and stakeholders: a new

perspective on corporate governance", California Management Review, Vol.

25 No.3, pp.88-106.

Rentzhog, O. (1996), "Core process management", Linköping University,

Division of Quality Technology, Linköping, .

Cakar, F., Bititci, U.S., MacBryde, J. (2003), "A business process approach to

human resource management", Business Process Management Journal, Vol.

9 No.2, pp.190-207.

Ould, M.A. (1995), Business Processes: Modelling and Analysis for Re-

engineering and Improvement, Wiley, Chichester, .

Harrington, J.H. (1991), Business Process Improvement – The Breakthrough

Strategy for Total Quality, Productivity, and Competitiveness, McGraw-Hill,

New York, NY, .

Isaksson, R., Garvare, R. (2003b), "Drivers, enablers and barriers towards

sustainable organisational performance", Proceedings of the 6th International

17

Conference on Quality Management and Organisational Development-

Focusing On Sustainable Development, 1-3 October, Paris, .

Briner, W., Hastings, C., Geddes, M. (1996), Project Leadership, Gower,

Aldershot, .

Cleland, D.I. (1995), "Leadership and the project management body of

knowledge", International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 13 No.2,

pp.82-8.

Dinsmore, P.C. (1999), Winning in Business With Enterprise Project

Management, American Management Association, New York, NY, .

Cleland, D.I. (1995), "Leadership and the project management body of

knowledge", International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 13 No.2,

pp.82-8.

Walker, D.H.T. (2003), "Implications of human capital issues", in Walker,

D.H.T., Hampson, K.D. (Eds),Procurement Strategies: A Relationship Based

Approach, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp.258-95.

Daft, R.L., Weick, K.E. (1984), "Towards a model of organizations as

interpretation systems", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No.2,

pp.284-95. khan

Weick, K.E. (1987), "Organizational culture and high reliability", California

Management Review, Vol. 29 No.2, pp.112-27.

18