Open Access

Total quality management practices and its impact on Indian construction projects

C. Vijayabanu
C. Vijayabanu
, 
S. Karthikeyan
S. Karthikeyan
 and 
P. Vijay Surya
P. Vijay Surya
   | Nov 26, 2022
Organization, Technology and Management in Construction: an International Journal's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Article Category: Research article
Published Online: Nov 26, 2022
Page range: 2697 - 2709
Received: Jul 09, 2021
Accepted: Jun 17, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/otmcj-2022-0013
Keywords
© 2022 C. Vijayabanu et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Fig. 1

Research process.
Research process.

Fig. 2

Conceptual research model – factors determining TQM. TQM, Total quality management.
Conceptual research model – factors determining TQM. TQM, Total quality management.

Fig. 3

PLS-SEM Model. BM, Benchmarking; COMMU, Communication; EMPINV, Employee Involvement and Empowerment; INNOV, Innovation; OUTPU, Outcome due to Quality Improvement Efforts; PLS, Partial least square; QO, Quality Objectives; QSS, Quality Supervision; SEM, Structural equation model; SPQM, Supplier Quality Management; TEAM, Team Effectiveness; TECHN, Technical; TPMGT, Top Management Commitment.
PLS-SEM Model. BM, Benchmarking; COMMU, Communication; EMPINV, Employee Involvement and Empowerment; INNOV, Innovation; OUTPU, Outcome due to Quality Improvement Efforts; PLS, Partial least square; QO, Quality Objectives; QSS, Quality Supervision; SEM, Structural equation model; SPQM, Supplier Quality Management; TEAM, Team Effectiveness; TECHN, Technical; TPMGT, Top Management Commitment.

Accuracy analysis statistics for factors determining the total quality of construction projects.

Factors Items Factor loadings CR AVE Cronbach's α
QSS The supervisor gives credit to people when they do a good job. 0.78 0.79 0.51 0.68
The supervisor gives feedback on the work I have done. 0.50
Quality improvement is their responsibility. 0.73
My supervisor rewards being cooperative and a good team player. 0.85
COMMU Top Management information and interaction 0.85 0.86 0.67 0.74
Middle management support 0.90
Periodic Feedback 0.69
BM Best practices 0.81 0.86 0.60 0.78
Material comparison 0.79
Cost Comparison 0.69
Quality of the supplies 0.80
QO Statutory provisions 0.53 0.77 0.47 0.64
Proper prior testing with sample materials 0.72
Workmanship quality 0.87
Quality of the supplies 0.57
TPMGT Quality as primary objective 0.90 0.94 0.74 0.93
Quality as being more important than deadlines 0.91
Frequent performance evaluation 0.89
Timely allocation of resources 0.84
Clear quality goals objectives 0.85
Quality is the primary agenda in all the company meetings. 0.76
INNOV Creative and innovative suggestions for work improvements 0.77 0.87 0.69 0.77
Autonomy to use new methods 0.90
Contemporary methods are encouraged 0.81
SPQM Quality is a more important criterion than the price in selecting suppliers 0.76 0.87 0.57 0.80
The supplier's delivery performance is considered before ordering 0.86
The supplier's market stability is considered 0.77
Maintenance of long-term supplier relationship management 0.81
Supplier audit and evaluation 0.54
EMPINV Participative work culture 0.85 0.86 0.56 0.79
Employee suggestion schemes 0.73
Employees are encouraged to give more suggestions. 0.86
Awards (financially or otherwise) are provided to individuals for their excellent suggestions. 0.79
Employee participation in quality audit 0.50
TEAM Team work 0.73 0.91 0.68 0.87
Team Problem solving 0.85
Team skills and knowledge 0.92
Synergy and team effectiveness 0.85
Cohesive team 0.76
TECHN Initial cracks’ visibility 0.51 0.77 0.47 0.67
Plumb checking is always done before and after concreting 0.85
Honeycomb structures’ visibility 0.51
Platform vibrator is used during the compaction of roof slab 0.64
Cutting of rebars is done using machinery 0.68
OUTPU Productivity 0.81 0.82 0.50 0.73
Cost Reduction 0.51
Quality of Service 0.73
Timeliness of Service 0.61
Customer Satisfaction 0.83

Results of SEM analysis using bootstrap.

Entire sample estimate T-Statistic Result
QO ⇒ OUTPU 0.13 1.65 Supported by 10%
TPMGT ⇒ OUTPU 0.17 1.84 Supported by 10%
INNOV ⇒ OUTPU 0.38 2.20 Supported by 5%
QSS ⇒ OUTPU 0.15 1.65 Supported by 10%
COMMU ⇒ OUTPU 0.16 1.71 Supported by 10%
BM ⇒ OUTPU 0.27 2.82 Supported by 1%
TECHN ⇒ OUTPU 0.43 3.87 Supported by 1%
TEAM ⇒ OUTPU 0.21 1.8 Supported by 10%
SPQM ⇒ OUTPU 0.23 2.13 Supported by 5%
EMPINV ⇒ OUTPU 0.25 2.39 Supported by 5%

Apparent elements included in the study and its reliability statistics.

S No. Factors Author Cronbach's α
1 BM Saraph et al. (1989) and Nwabueze (2001) 0.939
2 COMMU Delgado et al. (2005) 0.939
3 INNOV Juran (1974) and Nwabueze (2001) 0.938
4 EMPINV Oakland (1993) and Zhang (2000) 0.940
5 QO Saraph et al. (1989) 0.940
6 QSS Saraph et al. (1989) 0.940
7 SPQM Delgado et al. (2005) 0.938
8 TEAM Delgado et al. (2005) 0.939
9 TECHN factors Delgado et al. (2005) 0.937
10 TPMGT Juran (1974) and Motwani (2001) 0.939
11 Project Outcome (Productivity, Cost Reduction, Quality of Service, Customer Satisfaction, Timeliness) Delgado et al. (2005) 0.940

Latent variable correlations for factors determining the total quality of construction projects.

Factors QSS COMMU BM QO TPMGT INNOV SPQM EMPINV TEAM TECHN
QSS 0.75*
COMMU 0.7 0.82*
BM 0.2 0.3 0.77*
QO 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.69*
TPMGT 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.86*
INNOV 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.83*
SPQM 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.76*
EMPINV 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.75*
TEAM 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.82*
TECHN 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.68*
OUTPU 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6
eISSN:
1847-6228
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
Volume Open
Journal Subjects:
Engineering, Introductions and Overviews, other
Journal RSS Feed