International Journal of Production Research

Vol. 51, No. 4, 15 February 2013, 10721083

Integrated analysis of the performance of TQM tools and techniques: a case study
in the Taiwanese motor industry
Shun-Hsing Chen*

Department of Marketing and Logistics Management, Yu-Da University, Miao-Li County, Taiwan, ROC
(Received 29 October 2011; final version received 9 March 2012)

Most studies of total quality management (TQM) have focused on the managerial aspects and associated
success factors of TQM programmes, whereas relatively few studies have examined the appropriateness and
performance of the large number of available tools and techniques that actually implement TQM practices.
To assist in determining the best strategy for improving the performance of TQM tools and techniques, the
present study integrates a modified importanceperformance matrix with elements of failure mode and effects
analysis (FMEA) to provide a comprehensive methodology for assessing and improving the performance of
TQM tools and techniques in the Taiwanese motor industry. The methodology presented here can be applied
in a variety of industries, including the Taiwanese motor industry, to enable efficient utilisation of TQM tools
and techniques and thus improve quality, reduce costs and shorten cycle times.
Keywords: failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA); performance control matrix; total quality management
(TQM)

1. Introduction
Increasing competition, complexity and technological development in the business environment have enhanced the
importance of total quality management (TQM). Ever since the late 1980s, when a positive correlation between
TQM and enhanced competitiveness first became apparent, evidence has accumulated that the majority of
organisations that have introduced TQM believe that it has helped them to increase their market share, enhance the
satisfaction of their customers and improve their competitive advantage (Powell 1995, Taylor and Wright 2003, Cho
and Pucik 2005, McAdam et al. 2008, Vanichchinchai and Igel 2011). It is now generally agreed that there is a cause-
and-effect relationship between TQM practices and healthy or improved business performance (Pinho 2008,
Ablanedo-Rosas et al. 2010).
The critical elements of TQM can be divided into two broad categories: (1) the management (or soft) aspects of
TQM; and (2) the technical (or hard) aspects of the programme (Wilkinson et al. 1998, Evans and Lindsay 1999,
Tar and Sabater 2004). In the latter category, numerous tools and techniques have been developed to implement the
quality-improvement process (Feigenbaum 1991, Bunney and Dale 1997, Stephens 1997, Hellsten and Klefsjo 2000,
Tar and Sabater 2004). However, despite the plethora of TQM tools and techniques that have now been developed,
a review of the literature reveals that the vast majority of studies of TQM have analysed the managerial aspects of
TQM such as critical factors for successful implementation of TQM and its influence on operational performance
with relatively few studies having focused on the choice and implementation of appropriate TQM tools and
techniques (Saraph et al. 1989; Powell 1995; Hendricks and Singhal 1997, Taylor and Wright 2003, Bayazit and
Karpak 2007, Sila 2007, Stock et al. 2007).
Because the available tools and techniques of TQM are plentiful, diverse and frequently utilised, many
businesses are liable to choose the wrong tools or implement them at an inappropriate time. These errors inevitably
diminish the supposed predictability of the performance of the chosen tools and techniques. It is the contention of
the present study that, if business is to utilise the tools and techniques of TQM effectively, it is essential to choose the
right tools at the right time and to implement them in the right way. Against this background, the present study
undertakes an analysis of the utilisation of TQM tools and techniques in the motor industry of Taiwan. The
intensely competitive motor industry demands high-quality, low-cost, flexible production if it is to achieve customer

*Email: chen88@ydu.edu.tw

ISSN 00207543 print/ISSN 1366588X online

2013 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.676216
http://www.tandfonline.com
 International Journal of Production Research 1073

satisfaction (Roy et al. 2005). To achieve these objectives, the motor industry must employ the right tools and
techniques of TQM at the appropriate time.
The importanceperformance matrix has been widely used by service providers in various industries to assess key
quality attributes with a view to devising strategies for quality improvement. The matrix has been applied in higher
education sectors (Chen et al. 2006) and banking industries (Chen 2009). It is an excellent service quality evaluation
method for managers seeking to determine the best improvement strategies. To determine the best strategy for
implementing and improving the performance of the many available tools and techniques of TQM, the present study
utilises a performance matrix based on Hung et al. (2003), as modified by the contribution of Chen et al. (2007). This
matrix is used to identify which tools and techniques are under-performing compared with their level of importance.
The study also utilises the so-called risk priority number (RPN) of failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA; Ford
Motor Company 1988) to determine the order of priority for improvement among the under-performing tools and
techniques identified in the performance matrix.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. The next section provides a review of the relevant literature
on: (1) the tools and techniques of TQM; (2) some aspects of failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA); and (3) the
development of an appropriate importanceperformance matrix of the identified tools and techniques. The
following section of the paper describes the methodology of the empirical study of the Taiwanese motor industry.
The results of the study are then presented, followed by a discussion of the implications. The paper concludes with a
summary of the major findings and contributions of the paper.

2. Literature review
2.1 Tools and techniques of TQM
It is difficult to provide a definitive list of the very large number of tools and techniques that have been utilised in
implementing TQM programmes. The diversity of tools and techniques that have been applied to TQM
programmes in various industries is reflected in the quite different lists that various scholars have suggested over the
years (Crosby 1979, Ishikawa 1985, Imai 1986, McConnell 1989, Lemak and Montgomery 1996, Dale 1999, Evans
and Lindsay 1999, Tar and Sabater 2004, Chen 2009).
One of the earliest lists of TQM tools and techniques is the so-called seven old quality-control (QC) tools
(Ishikawa 1985; McConnell 1989): (1) flow charts; (2) cause-and-effect diagrams; (3) Pareto charts; (4) histograms;
(5) run charts and graphs; (6) X bar and R control charts; and (7) scatter diagrams.
Dale and McQuater (1998) and Tar and Sabater (2004) subsequently identified a list of the tools and techniques
that have been most widely used by businesses in implementing TQM in various ways. This list included:
. The seven old QC tools (noted above).
. The seven new management tools: (1) affinity diagram; (2) arrow diagram; (3) matrix diagram; (4) matrix
data analysis; (5) process decision programmer chart; (6) relations diagram; and (6) systematic diagram.
. Various other tools and techniques: benchmarking, control plan, design of experiments (DOE), fault-tree
analysis (FTA), force-field analysis, problem-solving methodology, questionnaires, sampling, statistical
process control (SPC), brainstorming, departmental purpose analysis, FMEA, flow charts, pokayoke,
quality costing, quality function deployment (QFD), and quality-improvement teams.
More recently, Prajogo and Sohal (2006) identified a different list of TQM tools: (1) SPC; (2) the seven old QC
tools (noted above); (3) QFD; and (4) FMEA. Other suggested lists of tools and techniques have come from Lee
and Ho (2003), who included the seven old QC tools, together with quality-control circle (QCC), suggestion
system, benchmarking, business process reengineering (BPR) and Six Sigma. Sheu (2006) proposed the seven old
QC tools and various other tools and techniques including ISO 9000, QFD, QCC, quality costing, SPC, Six
Sigma, Demings (1982) plandocheckaction (PDCA) cycle, and so on.
In the specific context of Taiwan, Dai (2006) proposed: (1) the seven old QC tools; (2) the seven new
management tools; and (3) various other tools and techniques including ISO 9000, brainstorming, benchmarking,
QFD, QCC, quality costing, SPC, 5S, 5W1H (who, what, when, where, why, how), VA/VE (value analysis/value
engineering), FMEA, DOE, Six Sigma, PDCA and so on.
On the basis of this review of the literature and consultation with expert practitioners in the field, the present
study identified a list of 32 tools and techniques as those most widely used by manufacturing industries in Taiwan.
The 32 tools and techniques that were identified as relevant to the present study were as shown in Table 1.
1074 S.-H. Chen
Table 1. The tools and techniques of TQM in the Taiwanese manufacturing industry.

5S methodology Problem-solving methodology

5W1H methodology Quality control circle (QCC)
Benchmarking Quality costing
Brainstorming Quality function deployment (QFD)
Business process re-engineering (BPR) Quality-improvement teams
Control plan Sampling planning
Concurrent engineering (CE) Seven old QC tools
Deming plandocheckact (PDCA) cycle Seven new management tools
Design of experiments (DOE) Six Sigma
Design for x (DFX) Statistical process control (SPC)
Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) Suggestion system
Fault-tree analysis (FTA) Taguchi method
Flow chart TRIZ
ISO 9000 Value analysis/value engineering (VA/VE)
Just-in-Time (JIT) Work-flow analysis (WFA)
Pokayoke Zero-defects programme

2.2 Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA)

The present study utilised aspects of failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to analyse the 32 TQM tools and
techniques listed above. FMEA was originally introduced in the late 1940s for military purposes by the US armed
forces. Although it was initially developed by the military, FMEA methodology has since been utilised extensively to
deal with manufacturing and design problems in a variety of industries including semiconductor manufacturing
(Yang et al. 2006, Wang et al. 2010) and mechanical engineering (Korayem and Iravani 2008, Vinodh and Chintha
2011), among many others.
FMEA is a systematic process of reliability analysis that improves the operational performance of production
cycles and reduces their overall level of risk (Yang et al. 2006, Kumar and Schmitz 2011). By applying systematic
procedures to locate the potential failure modes of products at an early stage of a product lifecycle, the reliability of
products or processes can be increased and the costs of follow-up corrective and improvement actions can be
minimised (Tay and Lim 2006).
FMEA assesses risk by generating a so-called risk priority number (RPN) (from 1 to 1000), which is obtained
by multiplying three risk parameters (each of which is based on a scale from 1 to 10) (Lin et al. 2006, Huang et al.
2009). These risk parameters can be summarised as follows:
. Severity: the worst potential outcome resulting from failure of safety and system functions (see Appendix 1
for scale of 1 to 10).
. Occurrence: relative probability that the failure will occur (see Appendix 2 for scale of 1 to 10).
. Detection: probability that the failure mode will be detected and/or corrected by the applicable controls
installed on the production lines (see Appendix 3 for scale of 1 to 10).
The RPN can then be calculated in accordance with Equation (1):

RPNi Si  Oi  Di 1
in which:
Si degree of severity
Oi frequency of occurrence
Di chance of detection
i FMEA factor (110)
It is obvious that a greater RPN implies a greater risk (Dong 2007). Depending on the size of the RPN,
differential judgements can be made about the degree of risk and the appropriate response in accordance with
standardised FMEA applications (Lin et al. 2006, Tay and Lim 2006). The RPN is utilised in the present study to
prioritise the TQM tools and techniques identified as being in need of improvement on a modified importance
performance matrix.
 International Journal of Production Research 1075
1.0

B13 B23 B33

j=3 Appropriate
Improvement Improvement
Performance Zone
(Maintain)

2/3

B22
j=2 B12 Appropriate B32
Improvement Performance Zone Improvement
Importance (PI) (Maintain)

1/3

B11
B21 B31
j=1 Appropriate
Improvement Improvement
Performance Zone
(Maintain)

0 i=1 1/3 i=2 2/3 i=3 1.0

Satisfaction (PS)

Figure 1. Basic importanceperformance matrix (Hung et al. 2003).

2.3 Modified importanceperformance matrix

Importanceperformance matrices have been applied in a number of settings to determine the best strategy for
improving service quality by assessing two aspects of selected quality attributes: (1) the importance of a given
attribute; and (2) the level of satisfaction with the performance of that attribute. Although the details of such
matrices can vary from context to context, the essential framework compares the level of importance of an attribute
with the level of satisfaction with its performance. The matrix developed for the present study utilises the matrix
suggested by Hung et al. (2003), as modified by the addition of: (1) the indices of Lin et al. (2006) and Chen et al.
(2007); and (2) the control chart of Montgomery (1991).
In essence, the importanceperformance matrix of Hung et al. (2003) plots the level of importance (PI) (assessed
on a scale of 1 to 3) of various attributes against the level of satisfaction with the performance of those attribute (PS)
(also assessed on a scale of 1 to 3), thus obtaining nine zones that represent the effectiveness of the various attributes
(see Figure 1).
The designation Bij (i, j 1, 2, 3) is used to represent the various performance zones in Figure 1. For example, an
item that falls into zone B13 has the lowest level of satisfaction regarding performance (i 1), but the highest level of
importance (j 3). Conversely, an item in zone B31 has the highest level of satisfaction regarding performance
(i 3), but the lowest level of importance (j 1).
The implications of the nine zones can thus be summarised as follows:
. When i 3, the three performance zones (B31 , B32 and B33 ) represent the highest level of satisfaction with
performance (greatest satisfaction zones).
. When i 2, the three performance zones (B21 , B22 and B23 ) represent a medium level of satisfaction with
performance (moderate satisfaction zones).
. When i 1, the three performance zones (B11 , B12 and B13 ) represent the lowest level of satisfaction with
performance (least satisfaction zones).
. When j 3, the three performance zones (B13 , B23 and B33 ) represent the highest level of importance (most
important zones).
. When j 2, the three performance zones (B12 , B22 and B32 ) represent a medium level of importance
(moderately important zones).
1076 S.-H. Chen
1.0

Excellent
Zone
PCCL
PUCL

Performance of execution (PP)

2/3
Maintain Zone

PLCL

1/3
Improvement
Zone

0 1/3 Importance (PI) 2/3 1.0

Figure 2. Modified importanceperformance control matrix.

. When j 1, the three performance zones (B11 , B21 and B31 ) represent the lowest level of importance (least
important zones).
. When i j, the three performance zones (B11 , B22 and B33 ) represent zones in which the level of importance
equals the level of satisfaction with performance (appropriate performance zones).
In theory, the target levels of satisfaction with the performance of a particular quality attribute should be
proportional to the importance of that attribute. To achieve this objective, the present study adopts the indices
suggested by Lin et al. (2006) and Chen et al. (2007). The author has redefined the indices of importance that were
plotted along the horizontal axis and the indices of execution performance that were plotted along the vertical axis.
Therefore, these indices of importance (PI) and performance of execution (PP) are defined as follows:
X I  min
PI 2
5

X P  min
PP 3
5
in which:
PI: index of importance;
PP: index of execution performance
X I : mean of importance
X P : mean of performance
min the minimum value of the k scale (1 to 5)
The present study also adopted the control chart of Montgomery (1991), whereby the acceptable range of the
performance matrix is limited to an area within two bold oblique lines to obtain an appropriate performance control
zone (Figure 2). Between these two lines is an oblique line representing the performance control centre limit (PCCL).
This line and the two bold oblique lines the performance upper control limit (PUCL) and the performance lower
control limit (PLCL) are established according to the coordinates that enable objective diagnosis and judgement of
the required improvements to be performed. Based on heuristics, 99.73% of the indices can be expected to fall within
 International Journal of Production Research 1077

3 standard deviations (which indicates a failure rate of about 0.27%), 95.44% of the indices can be expected to fall
within 2 standard deviations (which indicates a failure rate of 4.56%) and 68.26% can be expected to fall within
1 standard deviations (which indicates a failure rate of about 31.74%).
Therefore, in the present case, a line indicating 3 standard deviations was used to establish the oblique lines of
the PUCL and PLCL, as follows:
PUCL T 3s
PCCL T 0 4
PLCL T  3s

The tools and techniques identified previously can then be mapped onto the performance control matrix. The
two bold diagonal lines in the performance control matrix indicate the limits of the performance control zone
(maintain zone); the tools and techniques within this zone can be maintained in accordance with the present
situation. The tools and techniques that fall into the bottom-right zone (improvement zone) have greater
importance than performance; more resources must be invested in these tools and techniques to improve
performance. The tools and techniques that fall into the upper-left zone (excellent zone) have less importance than
performance; these tools and techniques are already performing well (given their level of importance). Generally
speaking, managers should seek to improve only those tools and techniques that are located within the
improvement zone.

3. Methodology
3.1 Questionnaire design and structure
The questionnaire for the present study was based on: (1) a review of the relevant literature (Dale and McQuater
1998, Lee and Ho 2003, Tar and Sabater 2004, Dai 2006, Sheu 2006); (2) discussions with experts (including quality-
management scholars and consultants); and (3) discussions with 10 experienced senior engineers in the Taiwanese
motor industry.
The final questionnaire was divided into three parts, as follows:
. Demographics: gender, age, education and years of service.
. Survey of importance: responses requested on a Likert-type scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 representing extremely
unimportant and 5 representing extremely important).
. Survey of satisfaction with performance: responses requested on a Likert-type scale of 1 to 5 (with 1
representing extremely unsatisfactory execution performance and 5 representing extremely satisfactory
execution performance).

3.2 Data collection and analysis

The questionnaire was distributed by hand in September 2008 to engineers and middle-level managers of firms
engaged in the motor industry in Taiwan. In all, 200 questionnaires were randomly distributed and 186 were
returned (a response rate of 93%). Among the returned questionnaires, nine were incomplete and therefore
discarded; this left a total of 177 questionnaires for analysis.
Reliability was assessed by Cronbachs alpha using SPSS software. Cronbachs alpha for importance was 0.886
and that for satisfaction with execution performance was 0.871. These results, which were both above the criterion
value of 0.8, demonstrated that the scales were extremely reliable (Gay 1992).
In terms of validity, the questionnaire had been designed on the basis of related studies, consultation with
quality-management professionals and consultants, and discussion with employees. The questionnaire thus had high
reliability and validity. The demographics of the final sample are shown in Table 2. The majority of
respondents (87%) were male, and the largest proportion (49.15%) was aged 3039 years. More than half
(58.76%) had completed college/university. The largest proportion (44.63%) had been in their present employment
for 410 years.
1078 S.-H. Chen
Table 2. Demographics of sample.

Items No. %

Gender Male 154 87

Female 23 13
Age 2029 18 10.17
3039 87 49.15
4049 38 21.47
Above 50 34 19.21
Education High school 32 18.08
College/university 104 58.76
Above Master 41 23.16
Years of service Below 3 36 20.33
410 79 44.63
1120 49 27.68
Above 20 13 7.34

3.3 Calculation of PI and PP

The means of the response scores for importance and execution performance for each of the 32 items (that is, the
32 TQM tools and techniques identified above) were calculated. These mean scores for each dimension were then
transformed to indices of importance (PI) and performance (PP) using Equations (2) and (3) (see Table 3). The
standard deviation was then calculated as being 0.0984. This was entered into Equation (4) to provide a PUCL of
0.2952 and a PLCL of 0.2952 for the modified matrix described above.

3.4 Performance control matrix

The tools and techniques were then entered into the modified performance control matrix (see Figure 3). Six tools
and techniques (items 3, 6, 19, 25, 27 and 29) were found to fall in the improvement zone (the bottom-right zone
outside the PLCL). These tools and techniques (Six Sigma, BPR, QCC, seven new management tools, suggestion
system and TRIZ) had a relatively high level of importance but a relatively low level of satisfaction with
performance; more resources must be invested in these tools and techniques.
Only one tool/technique (item 24) fell into the excellent area (low importance; high satisfaction with
performance); this result indicates that no action is required with regard to this item (seven old QC tools). The
remainder of the tools and techniques fell into the maintain zone, which indicates that the level of importance of
these items was proportional to the level of satisfaction with performance; business resources for these tools and
techniques need only to be maintained at the present level.

3.5 Determination of improvement priority by RPNs

If an organisation possesses abundant resources, general improvement can be made; however, if resources are
limited and only a few items can be improved, some items have to be selected as priorities (Chen et al. 2007). As
noted above, the present study had identified six tools and techniques (items 3, 6, 19, 25, 27 and 29) as being located
in the improvement zone of the performance control matrix. For these items (Six Sigma, BPR, QCC, seven new
management tools, suggestion system and TRIZ), importance exceeded execution performance which indicates
that they should be a priority for improvement. However, because the resources of most businesses are limited, it is
likely that all six tools and techniques cannot be improved simultaneously to the required level. It is therefore
necessary to determine priorities for improvement.
Six expert practitioners and scholars in the field were invited to assist in determining the risk priority numbers
(RPNs) of these tools and techniques. The expert participants included: (1) two senior Taiwanese professors with
experience of TQM, (2) two senior administrators from the Taiwanese motor industry and (3) two consultants from
Taiwanese quality-management firms. Table 4 shows the RPNs of the improvement items calculated by using
 International Journal of Production Research 1079
Table 3. Mean scores, indices and performance zones of TQM tools and techniques.

Items Tools and techniques X I X P PI PP Performance zones

1 5S 4.26 4.09 0.82 0.77 Maintain zone

2 5W1H 4.39 3.97 0.85 0.74 Maintain zone
3 6 4.42 4.08 0.86 0.77 Improvement zone
4 Benchmarking 4.28 4.15 0.82 0.79 Maintain zone
5 Brainstorming 3.75 3.67 0.69 0.67 Maintain zone
6 Business process re-engineering 4.62 3.28 0.91 0.57 Improvement zone
7 Control plan 4.09 3.98 0.77 0.75 Maintain zone
8 Concurrent engineering 4.74 4.29 0.94 0.82 Maintain zone
9 Deming cycle (PDCA) 4.67 4.36 0.92 0.84 Maintain zone
10 Design of experiments 4.14 3.98 0.79 0.75 Maintain zone
11 Design of X 4.05 3.87 0.76 0.72 Maintain zone
12 Failure mode and effects analysis 4.13 4.08 0.78 0.77 Maintain zone
13 Fault tree analysis 3.48 3.55 0.62 0.64 Maintain zone
14 Flow chart 3.92 3.78 0.73 0.70 Maintain zone
15 ISO 9000 4.89 4.64 0.97 0.91 Maintain zone
16 JIT 4.81 4.58 0.95 0.90 Maintain zone
17 Pokayoke 3.77 4.35 0.69 0.84 Maintain zone
18 Problem-solving methodology 3.89 3.76 0.72 0.69 Maintain zone
19 QCC 4.06 2.76 0.77 0.44 Improvement zone
20 Quality costing 3.97 3.84 0.74 0.71 Maintain zone
21 Quality function deployment 4.24 4.27 0.81 0.82 Maintain zone
22 Quality improvement teams 4.49 4.39 0.87 0.85 Maintain zone
23 Sampling planning 4.27 3.79 0.82 0.70 Maintain zone
24 Seven old quality control tools 3.58 4.77 0.65 0.94 Excellent area
25 Seven new management tools 3.46 3.06 0.62 0.52 Improvement zone
26 Statistical process control 4.56 3.98 0.89 0.75 Maintain zone
27 Suggestion system 4.34 3.29 0.84 0.57 Improvement zone
28 Taguchi method 4.16 3.58 0.79 0.65 Maintain zone
29 TRIZ 3.41 2.96 0.60 0.49 Improvement zone
30 VA/VE 3.75 3.54 0.69 0.64 Maintain zone
31 work flow analysis 3.52 3.49 0.63 0.62 Maintain zone
32 zero defects programme 3.75 3.57 0.69 0.64 Maintain zone

1.0
24
1615
17 22 9
21 8
.8
Excellent Zone 12 41
710 2 26
Performance of execution (PP)

PUCL= 0.2952
2011 23
14
18
5 28
13
31 32
30
.6
27
Maintain Zone PLCL= -0.2952

PCCL= 0 19
.4 6
25
29 3

.2
Improvement Zone

0.0
0.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
Importance (PI)

Figure 3. Performance control matrix of case study.

1080 S.-H. Chen
Table 4. RPNs of tools and techniques in improvement zone.

Improvement tools and techniques Si Oi Di RPNs Priority

6 9 8 9 648 2
Business process reengineering 10 9 10 900 1
QCC 7 10 8 560 4
Seven new management tools 8 9 8 576 3
Suggestion system 7 10 7 490 6
TRIZ 8 7 9 504 5

Equation (1). It is apparent that the order of priority of the six tools and techniques was as follows: (1) BPR, (2) Six
Sigma, (3) seven new management tools, (4) QCC, (5) TRIZ and (6) suggestion system.

4. Discussion
The three tools and techniques that achieved the highest level of satisfaction with execution performance were: (1)
seven old QC tools (PP 0.94); (2) ISO 9000 (PP 0.91); and (3) JIT (PP 0.90). In the case of the first of these,
the Taiwanese motor industry has a long history of utilising these seven old QC tools to accomplish the traditional
industry goals of high quality and low cost. In the case of ISO 9000, the Taiwanese motor industry has a high level
of certification because ISO 900 provides clear operating criteria that enable the achievement of high quality
standards. In the case of JIT, it should be noted that the Taiwanese motor industry generally considers this to be the
most important productivity-enhancing innovation since the turn of the century because it reduces manufacturing
costs continuously through better quality, lower inventory and shorter lead times (Fullerton and McWatters 2001);
as a consequence, JIT has been widely adopted throughout the Taiwanese motor industry.
Priorities for improvement strategies for under-performing tools and techniques vary depending on the
availability of appropriate resources. When the resources of an enterprise are limited, they must first be allocated to
the tools and techniques that most urgently require improvement. The tools and techniques in the maintain zone
(25 items) and excellent zone (1 item) in the present case study do not require attention when resources are limited.
Those in the improvement zone must therefore be prioritised for improvement measures. In the present study, these
just-do items, in order of priority, were: (1) BPR, (2) Six Sigma, (3) seven new management tools, (4) QCC, (5)
TRIZ and (6) suggestion system. Education and training in the use of these tools and techniques should be improved
to ensure that all employees are familiar with their correct operation. The aim is to see these items promoted to the
maintain zone.
If an enterprise has abundant resources, items that fall into the improvement zone must retain their high
priority, but those that fall into the maintain zone should also be considered for improvement actions. The ultimate
aim is that all tools and techniques can be upgraded to the excellent zone. Many enterprises utilise a variety of tools
in an attempt to improve the quality of their products or services, but if the tools are applied inappropriately or the
timing of the application is not optimal, the expected performance is unlikely to be achieved. Strategies for
improvement should be based on the available resources and the nature of the firms products and industry sector.
For example, in the present case study, which dealt with mass-production products, the improvement strategy
should allocate the available resources with the aim of ensuring that all items fall into the maintain zone. In
contrast, if a firm specialises in customised products, the aim should be to surpass the customers expectations to
ensure customer satisfaction; in this instance, the infusion of more resources is required to ensure all items are
upgraded to the excellent zone. In both cases, resources must be allocated to the tools that are located in zones of
highest priority for improvement. The adoption of this approach ultimately ensures that resources are used
efficiently to improve performance while maintaining the enterprises competitive advantage.

5. Conclusions
To obtain maximum value from the use of the many tools and techniques that are available for quality
improvement, businesses should establish a planned approach to their choice of appropriate tools and the
 International Journal of Production Research 1081

application of limited resources to these tools and techniques. The present study has made a contribution to such a
planned approach by integrating elements of the FMEA methodology and a modified performanceevaluation
matrix to provide a methodology for assessing priorities for improvement of the performance of TQM tools and
techniques. The study has demonstrated that this integrated approach provides an excellent measuring instrument
for prioritising an improvement strategy in relation to the wide variety of tools and techniques that are available for
quality management. Once priorities are established, firms can direct their resources appropriately to ensure that
employees understand the tools and techniques and are committed to their proper application. Appropriate training
should be undertaken to assist employees to practise what has been taught in a step-by-step process.
This study has thus made four major contributions to knowledge in this important area. First, the study has
identified and delineated the available TQM tools and techniques that are suitable for application in the Taiwanese
motor industry. Second, the study has provided an analysis of the performance of the tools and techniques of TQM
currently used in the Taiwanese motor industry. Third, the study has provided valuable guidance for appropriate
improvement strategies among the identified tools and techniques in this particular industry. Finally, by integrating
the FMEA methodology and a modified performanceevaluation matrix, the study has provided a useful and
convenient methodology for assessing TQM tools and techniques that could be successfully applied in a variety of
other industries.

Acknowledgement
The author thanks the National Science Council of Taiwan, ROC for providing financial support for this study in 2010 (Number:
NSC 99-2221-E-412 -001).

References

Ablanedo-Rosas, J.H., et al., 2010. Quality improvement supported by the 5S: an empirical case study of Mexican organisations.
International Journal of Production Research, 48 (23), 70637087.
Bayazit, O. and Karpak, B., 2007. An analytical network process-based framework for successful total quality management
(TQM): an assessment of Turkish manufacturing industry readiness. International Journal of Production Economics,
105 (1), 7996.
Bunney, H.S. and Dale, B.G., 1997. The implementation of quality management tools and techniques: a study. TQM Magazine,
9 (3), 183189.
Chen, C.C., 2009. Integration of quality function deployment and process management in the semiconductor industry.
International Journal of Production Research, 47 (6), 14691484.
Chen, S.H., et al., 2007. Service quality attributes determine improvement priority. TQM Magazine, 19 (2), 162175.
Chen, S.H., et al., 2006. The development of an employee satisfaction model for higher education. TQM Magazine, 18 (5),
484500.
Cho, H. and Pucik, V., 2005. Relationship between innovativeness, quality, growth, profitability, and market value. Strategic
Management Journal, 26 (6), 555575.
Crosby, P.B., 1979. Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. New York: Hodder & Stoughton.
Dai, J.Y., 2006. Managing quality of principles and methods. Taipei, Taiwan: Tsang-Hai Publishing.
Dale, B.G., 1999. Managing quality. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dale, B.G. and McQuater, R., 1998. Managing business improvement and quality: Implementing key tools and techniques. Oxford:
Blackwell Business.
Deming, W.E., 1982. Quality, productivity and competitive position. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering.
Dong, C., 2007. Failure mode and effects analysis based on fuzzy utility cost estimation. International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, 24 (9), 958997.
Evans, J.R. and Lindsay, W.M., 1999. The management and control of quality. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College
Publishing.
Feigenbaum, A.V., 1991. Total quality control. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ford Motor Company, 1988. Potential failure mode and effects analysis (instruction manual). Dearborn, MI: Ford Motor
Company.
Fullerton, R.R. and McWatters, C.S., 2001. The production performance benefits from JIT implementation. Journal of
Operations Management, 19 (6), 8196.
Gay, L.R., 1992. Educational research competencies for analysis and application. New York: Macmillan.
1082 S.-H. Chen

Hellsten, U. and Klefsjo, B., 2000. TQM as a management system consisting of values, techniques and tools. TQM Magazine,
12 (4), 238244.
Hendricks, K. and Singhal, V., 1997. Does implementing an effective TQM program actually improve operating
performance? Empirical evidence from firms that have won quality awards. Management Science, 43 (9),
12581274.
Huang, C.T, et al., 2009. A fuzzy AHP-based performance evaluation model for implementing SPC in the Taiwanese LCD
industry. International Journal of Production Research, 47 (18), 51635183.
Hung, Y.H., Huang, M.L., and Chen, K.S., 2003. Service quality evaluation by service quality performance matrix. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 14 (1), 7989.
Imai, M.K., 1986. The key to Japans competitive success. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ishikawa, K., 1985. What is total quality control? The Japanese way. London: Prentice Hall.
Korayem, M.H. and Iravani, A., 2008. Improvement of 3P and 6R mechanical robots reliability and quality applying FMEA
and QFD approaches. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 24 (3), 472487.
Kumar, S. and Schmitz, S., 2011. Managing recalls in a consumer product supply chain root cause analysis and measures to
mitigate risks. International Journal of Production Research, 49 (1), 235253.
Lee, Y.C. and Ho, L.H., 2003. Quality management: An integrative approach. Taipei, Taiwan: Gian-Cheng Publishing.
Lemak, R.R.D.J. and Montgomery, J.C., 1996. Beyond process: TQM content and firm performance. Academy of Management
Review, 21 (1), 173202.
Lin, W.T., et al., 2006. Performance evaluation of introducing QS-9000 to the Taiwanese semiconductor industry. International
Journal Advance Manufacture Technology, 27 (910), 10111020.
McAdam, R., et al., 2008. A grounded theory research approach to building and testing TQM theory in operations management.
Omega, 36 (5), 825837.
McConnell, J., 1989. The seven tools of TQC. 3rd ed. Sydney, Australia: Delaware Group.
Montgomery, D.C., 1991. Statistical quality control. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley.
Pinho, J.K., 2008. TQM and performance in small and medium enterprises. International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, 25 (3), 256275.
Powell, T.C., 1995. Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study. Strategic Management
Journal, 6 (1), 1537.
Prajogo, D.I. and Sohal, A.S., 2006. The integration of TQM and technology/R&D management in determining quality and
innovation performance. Omega, 34 (3), 296312.
Roy, R., Colmer, S., and Griggs, T., 2005. Estimating the cost of a new technology intensive automotive product: a case study
approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 97 (2), 210226.
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G., and Schroeder, R.G., 1989. An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management.
Decision Sciences, 20 (4), 810829.
Sheu, S.H., 2006. Total quality management. Taipei, Taiwan: Hwa-Tai Publishing.
Sila, L., 2007. Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the lens of organizational theories:
an empirical study. Journal of Operations Management, 25 (1), 83109.
Stephens, B., 1997. Implementation of ISO 9000 or Fords Q1 award: effects on organizational knowledge and application of
TQM principles and quality tools. TQM Magazine, 9 (3), 190200.
Stock, G.N., McFadden, K.L., and Gowen III, C.R., 2007. Organizational culture, critical success factors, and the reduction of
hospital errors. International Journal of Production Economics, 106 (2), 368392.
Tar, J.J. and Sabater, V., 2004. Quality tools and techniques: are they necessary for quality management? International Journal
of Production Economics, 92 (3), 267280.
Tay, K.M. and Lim, C.P., 2006. Fuzzy FMEA with a guided rules reduction system for prioritization of failures. International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 23 (8), 10471066.
Taylor, W.A and Wright, G.H., 2003. A longitudinal study of TQM implementation: factors influencing success and failure.
Omega, 31 (2), 97111.
Vanichchinchai, A. and Igel, B., 2011. The impact of total quality management on supply chain management and firms supply
performance. International Journal of Production Research, 49 (11), 34053424.
Vinodh, S. and Chintha, S.K., 2011. Application of fuzzy QFD for enabling leanness in a manufacturing organisation.
International Journal of Production Research, 49 (6), 16271644.
Wang, K.J., et al., 2010. Agent-based knowledge management system with APQP: implementation in semiconductor
manufacturing services industry. International Journal of Production Research, 48 (10), 29132936.
Wilkinson, A., et al., 1998. Managing with total quality management: Theory and practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Yang, C.C., et al., 2006. A study on applying FMEA to improving ERP introduction: an example of semiconductor related
industries in Taiwan. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 23 (23), 298322.
 International Journal of Production Research 1083

Appendix

Appendix 1. Severity (S). Appendix 2. Occurrence (O).

Severity level Grade Chance of occurrence Grade Probability of occurrence

Customer may not pay attention 1 Almost impossible 1 0

Customer is slightly troubled 2 Very low 2 1/20000
3 3 1/10000
Customer is not satisfied 4 Medium 4 1/2000
5 5 1/1000
6 6 1/200
Customer is tremendously unsatisfied 7 High 7 1/100
8 8 1/20
Life and safety of customer are affected 9 Very high 9 1/10
10 10 1/2

Source: Huang et al. (2009). Source: Huang et al. (2009).

Appendix 3. Detection (D).

Failure detection level Grade Probability of defects (%)

Almost impossible 1 05
Very low 2 615
3 1625
Medium 4 2635
5 3645
6 4655
High 7 5665
8 6675
Very high 9 7685
10 86100

Source: Huang et al. (2009).

Copyright of International Journal of Production Research is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.