Implementation of Total Quality Management in Mongolian Universities
Southern Taiwan University Southern Taiwan University
Fenghueih Huarng & Oyunchimeg Zagd
OUTLINEOUTLINE
Motivations and Objectives
Literature Review
Research Design & Methodology
Analysis & Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
Motivations Many higher education institutions have been stimulated
and influenced by a total quality framework for both teaching and administrative support functions in Mongolia.
Changes in higher education: students' requirements and needs, increasing demands from business and industry, increasing demands from governing boards and the public
sector, decreasing funds, and increasing competition among higher
education institutions.
In addition, no research has been conducted for developing a TQM implementation model that can be used by Mongolian universities to improve their TQM implementation efforts.
ObjectivesObjectives
1. To obtain the effects of TQM implementation on overall business performance in Mongolian Universities
2. To obtain a TQM implementation model for Mongolian Universities.
Research Questions: Research Questions: 1. What are the effects of TQM implementation on overall
business performance in Mongolian universities?2. What kind of TQM implementation model should be
developed to guide Mongolian universities?3. How can this TQM implementation model be
demonstrated in practice?
LITERATURE REVIEWLITERATURE REVIEW
Framework Comparison of TQM ConstructsFramework Comparison of TQM ConstructsSaraph et al. Saraph et al.
framework (1989)framework (1989)Flynn et al. Flynn et al.
framework (1994)framework (1994)Ahire et al. Ahire et al.
Framework (1996)Framework (1996)Proposed Proposed frameworkframework
11 Role of divisional topRole of divisional topmanagement and management and
qualityquality policypolicy
Quality leadershipQuality leadership Top managementTop management commitmentcommitment
LeadershipLeadership
22 Role of qualityRole of quality departmentdepartment
Quality improvementQuality improvement rewardsrewards
Customer focusCustomer focus Supplier quality Supplier quality managementmanagement
33 TrainingTraining Process controlProcess control Supplier quality Supplier quality management management
Strategic planningStrategic planning
44 Product/service Product/service designdesign
Cleanliness andCleanliness andOrganization Organization
Design quality Design quality managementmanagement
AssessmentAssessment
55 Supplier QualitySupplier Quality ManagementManagement
FeedbackFeedback BenchmarkingBenchmarking Process control andProcess control and improvementimprovement
66 Process management/Process management/ operatingoperating
New product qualityNew product quality Internal quality Internal quality information usageinformation usage
Product designProduct design
77 Quality data andQuality data and reportingreporting
Interfunctional design Interfunctional design process
Statistical Process Statistical Process Control usageControl usage
Quality systemQuality systemimprovementimprovement
88 Employee relationsEmployee relations Selection forSelection forteamwork potentialteamwork potential
Employee Employee empowermentempowerment
EmployeeEmployee participationparticipation
99 TeamworkTeamwork Employee Employee involvementinvolvement
Recognition and Recognition and rewardreward
1100
Supplier relationshipSupplier relationship Employee training Employee training Employee trainingEmployee training
1111
Customer involvementCustomer involvement Product qualityProduct quality Customer focusCustomer focus
12
Supplier performanceSupplier performance
Not included in the Not included in the proposed proposed framework. They framework. They represented TQM represented TQM outcomesoutcomes.
similarsimilarRelatively Relatively the same the same elementelement
Was excluded in the Was excluded in the proposed framework, proposed framework, since every since every department in department in organization was organization was involved in quality involved in quality management.management.
TQM Definition – in this StudyTQM Definition – in this Study
A management philosophy for continuously A management philosophy for continuously improving overall business performance based on improving overall business performance based on
leadership, leadership, supplier quality management, supplier quality management, strategic planning, strategic planning, assessment, assessment, process control and improvement, process control and improvement, product design, product design, quality system improvement, quality system improvement, employee participation, employee participation, recognition and reward, recognition and reward, employee training, employee training, & customer focus.& customer focus.
Definitions of TQM ConstructsDefinitions of TQM ConstructsConstructsConstructs DefinitionsDefinitions
1. Leadership1. Leadership The ability of top management to lead the organization in continuously pursuing long-term overall business success.
2. Supplier 2. Supplier qualityquality ManagementManagement
The set of supplier-related quality management practices for improving suppliers’ quality of products and services. This is exemplified by firm-supplier partnership, product quality as the criterion for supplier selection, participation in suppliers, communication with suppliers, understanding of supplier performance, and supplier quality audit (Mann, 1992; Zhang, 2000).
3. Strategic3. Strategic planningplanning
The process of identifying an organization’s long-term goals and objectives and then determining the best approach for achieving those goals and objectives.
4. Evaluation4. Evaluation The systematic examination of the extent to which an entity is capable of fulfilling specified requirements.
5. Process 5. Process controlcontrol and and improvementimprovement
Process control and improvement connotes a set of methodological and behavioral practices, which are implemented to control and improve processes that produce products and services (Juran and Gryna, 1993).
6. Product 6. Product designdesign
A certain special techniques or methods should be used to achieve successful product design (Juran and Gryna, 1993). An experimental design is a widely used tool in product design. Its application has significantly reduced the time and expense needed to develop the new product, greatly improved the performance of the new product, and led to the success of new product design.
Definitions of TQM Constructs Definitions of TQM Constructs (cont’.)(cont’.)
ConstructsConstructs DefinitionsDefinitions7. Quality system7. Quality system improvement improvement
The organizational structure, procedures, processes and resources needed to implement quality management (ISO 8402, 1994).
8. Employee8. Employee participationparticipation
The degree to which employees in an organization engage in various quality management activities. By personally participating in quality management activities, employees acquire new knowledge, see the benefits of the quality disciplines, and obtain a sense of accomplishment by solving quality problems. Participation is decisive in inspiring action on quality management (Juran and Gryna, 1993).
9. Recognition 9. Recognition andand rewardreward
Recognition: the public acknowledgment of superior performance of specific activities. Reward: benefits, such as increased salary, bonuses and promotion, which are conferred for generally superior performance with respect to goals (Juran and Gryna, 1993). Public recognition is an important source of human motivation (Deming, 1986).
10. Education and10. Education and trainingtraining
Training refers to the acquisition of specific skills or knowledge. Training programs attempt to teach employees how to perform particular activities or a specific job. Education, on the other hand, is much more general, and attempts to provide employees with general knowledge that can be applied in many different settings (Cherrington, 1995).
11. Customer 11. Customer focusfocus
The degree to which an organization continuously satisfies customer needs and expectations. A successful firm recognizes the need to put the customer first in every decision made (Philips Quality, 1995).
Definitions of Overall Business Definitions of Overall Business Performance ConstructsPerformance Constructs
ConstructsConstructs DefinitionsDefinitions
1. Employee satisfaction
The degree to which employees like their jobs (Spector, 1997); it is simply how employees feel about their jobs and different aspects of their jobs.
2. Product quality The development, design, production and service of a product that is most economical, most useful, and always satisfactory to the consumer (Ishikawa ,1985)
3. Customer satisfaction
The degree to which an organization’s customers continually perceive that their needs are being met by the organization’s products and services (Anderson et al., 1994).
4. Strategic business performance
The final result of running an organization, which can reveal the effects of doing business, show the competitive capability of the organization in the marketplace and its financial health, and predict its future success or failure. Strategic business performance is a good indicator to test the effects of TQM implementation and of an organization’s efforts in pursuing employee satisfaction, product quality, and customer satisfaction.
RESEARCH DESIGN & RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODOLOGYMETHODOLOGY
Research ModelResearch ModelLeadership
Employee Participation
Employee Training
Recognition and Reward
Supplier Quality Management
Strategic Planning
Assessment
Process Control and Improvement
Product Design
Quality System Improvement
Customer Focus
Employee Satisfaction
Product Quality
Strategic Business
Performance
Customer Satisfaction
H2
H3
H4
H5
H7
H9
H10H15
H14
H17
H1
H6
H8
H11
H12
H13
H16
Hypotheses Between TQM Hypotheses Between TQM Implementation Constructs and Overall Implementation Constructs and Overall
Business PerformanceBusiness PerformanceHypothesesHypotheses
H1: Leadership has a positive effect on strategic business Leadership has a positive effect on strategic business performance. performance.
H2: Leadership has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.Leadership has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.
H3: Employee participation has a positive effect on employee Employee participation has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.satisfaction.
H4: Employee training has a positive effect on employee Employee training has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.satisfaction.
H5: Recognition and reward has a positive effect on employee Recognition and reward has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.satisfaction.
H6: Supplier quality management has a positive effect on product Supplier quality management has a positive effect on product quality.quality.
H7: Strategic planning has a positive effect on product quality.Strategic planning has a positive effect on product quality.
H8: Assessment has a positive effect on product quality.Assessment has a positive effect on product quality.
H9: Process control and improvement has a positive effect on Process control and improvement has a positive effect on product quality.product quality.
H10: Product design has a positive effect on product quality.Product design has a positive effect on product quality.
H11: Quality system improvement has a positive effect on product Quality system improvement has a positive effect on product quality.quality.
H12: Customer focus has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.Customer focus has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.
Hypotheses Among Overall Business Performance Constructs
HypothesesHypotheses
H13:
Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on product quality.
H14:
Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.
H15:
Product quality has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.
H16:
Product quality has a positive effect on strategic business performance.
H17:
Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on strategic business performance.
Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire of this research comprises of 3 parts: Part (1): demographic information, such as gender, age and occupation. Part (2): TQM implementation has 11 sections
Leadership (7 items), Employee participation (4 items), Employee training (5 items), Recognition and reward (5 items), Supplier quality management (3 items), Strategic planning (5 items),
Assessment (7 items), Process control & improvement (7 items), Product design (5 items), Quality system improvement (5 items) & Customer focus (5 items).
Part (3): Overall Business Performance consists of 4 parts: Employee satisfaction (5 items), Product quality (7 items), Strategic Business Performance Product quality (8 items) and Customer satisfaction (2 items).
A survey questionnaire (both in English and Mongolian) with 78 items was distributed to university lecturers in Mongolia.
5-point Likert scale, 5 for Strongly agree, 4 for Agree, 3 for Neutral, 2 for Disagree and 1 for Strongly disagree.
Analysis ProceduresAnalysis Procedures
Confirmatory Factor Analysis § Measurement TQM Implementation Model§ Measurement Overall Business
Performance Model
Reliability and Validity (For Two Measurement Models)
§ Reliability: - Cronbach’s alpha ≥ 0.7 - Composite reliability ˃ 0.7 - AVE ˃ 0.5§ Convergent Validity: - AVE ≥ 0.5 - Factor loadings ≥ 0.6 - C.R ˃ 1.96§ Discriminant Validity: - Correlation among factors ≤0.85 - Squared correlation among factors ˂ AVE - Dc2 ˃ 3.84
Assessment Research Model(SEM)
§ Assessment of model fit for SEM§ Hypothesis testing for SEM
§ Descriptive Statistics§ Estimation of Intra-Class Correlation
Coefficient (For 3 data sets)
Model Modification§ SEM test for each TQM implementation
construct§ Modified TQM implementation model test§ Modified SEM test § Hypothesis testing for the modified SEM
Goodness of Fit Indices – in this Study (Byrne, 2001)
Goodness-of-fit Index Recommended Value
c2 (Chi-square)
df (degrees of freedom)
p (p-value)
c2/df (Chi-square/degrees of freedom) <3
RMR (Root mean squared residual) <0.05
GFI (Goodness of fit index) ≥ 0.9
NFI (Normed fit index) >0.9
IFI (Incremental fit index) >0.9
TLI (Tucker – Lewis coefficient index) >0.9
CFI (Comparative fit index) >0.9
RMSEA (Root mean square error of approximation)
Between 0.05 and 0.08
RESEARCH ANALYSES RESEARCH ANALYSES AND AND
RESULTSRESULTS
Dataset of the RespondentsDataset of the Respondents
Dataset Frequency Percent
1. Health Science University of Mongolia 155 58.3
2. National University of Mongolia 54 20.3
3. Mongolian University of Science and Technology
57 21.4
Total 266 100.0
The data was collected between February and March 2010. 300 questionnaire was distributed to a total of 3 universities and 266 completed forms received giving a response rate of 88.7%.
Characteristics of the Characteristics of the Respondents (n=266)Respondents (n=266)
Frequency Percentage
Occupation
Director 2 0.8
Vice Director 18 6.8
Lecturer 246 92.4
Gender
Male 95 35.7
Female 171 64.3
Age
< 30 years old 56 21.1
31- 40 years old 98 36.8
41-50 years old 65 24.4
51-60 years old 35 13.2
> 61 years old 12 4.5
Estimation of Estimation of Intra-Class Correlation Coefficient Intra-Class Correlation Coefficient
(ICC)(ICC) Intra-class correlation coefficient ( ) is a measure of agreement
between observers that can be used when your observations are scaled on an interval or ratio scale of measurement.
“J” - a number of groups, “F” - the value using F-test in ANOVA, “np” - a sample size of the research.
Based on Cohen (1988), the following criteria are used to decide whether the ICC (ρ) is high enough to use hierarchical liner model: 0.059 > ≥ 0.01 - low correlated among different groups 0.138 > ≥ 0.059 - medium correlated among different groups ≥ 0.138 - high correlated among different groups
:
The results for estimation of ICC provided the requirement , therefore the datasets were combined.
= ሺ𝑱−𝟏ሻ(𝐅−𝟏)ሺ𝑱−𝟏ሻሺ𝑭−𝟏ሻ+𝒏𝒑
j np F ICC
Employee Satisfaction 3 266 1.420 0.003
Product Quality 3 266 7.790 0.049
Customer Satisfaction 3 266 2.579 0.012
Strategic Business Performance
3 266 6.835 0.042
≥ 0.059
Confirmatory Confirmatory Factor AnalysisFactor Analysis
1. For the Measurement TQM Implementation Model2. For the Measurement Overall Business
Performance Model
Assessment of the Measurement TQM Implementation Model - 1st
RUN
.47
EMP_P3i10
Leadership
EmployeeParticipation
.59
LEAD1i1 .48
LEAD3i3
.77.69
.58
LEAD2i2
.26
EMP_P2i9
.54
EMP_T2i13
.76.58
LEAD4i4
.76
.37
EMP_P1i8
.68
EMP_P4i11
.63
EMP_T3i14 .04
EMP_T4i15
EmployeeTraining.67
EMP_T5i16
.64
REC_R2
i18
.63
REC_R4
i20
.71
REC_R3
i19 Recognitionand Reward
.56
LEAD5i5
.75.45
LEAD6i6.58
LEAD7i7
.48
REC_R1
i17
.58
REC_R5
i21
.67
SUP_Q_M1
i22
.27
EMP_T1
i12
.67
.76
.73
SupplierQuality
Management
.48
SUP_Q_M3
i24
.71
SUP_Q_M2
i23
StrategicPlanning.51
STRA_P5
i29
.63
STRA_P4
i28
.59
STRA_P3
i27
.56
STRA_P2
i26.41
STRA_P1
i25
Assessment
.34
ASS7
i36
.65
ASS6
i35
.75
ASS5
i34
.72
ASS4
i33
.46
ASS3
i32.21
ASS2
i31.35
ASS1
i30
.76.80
.84.80.70
.46
Process ControlImprovement
.55
PRO_C_I7i43
.47
PRO_C_I6i42
.34
PRO_C_I5i41
.57
PRO_C_I4
i40
.53
PRO_C_I3
i39
.46
PRO_C_I2
i38
.37
PRO_C_I1
i37
ProductDesign
.44
PRO_D3i46
.73
PRO_D2i45
.75
PRO_D1i44
.86
Quality SystemImprovement.67
QUA_S_I4i50
.77
QUA_S_I3i49
.80
QUA_S_I2i48
.37
QUA_S_I1i47
CustomerFocus
.50
CUS_F6i56
.53
CUS_F5i55
.61
CUS_F4i54
.51
CUS_F3i53
.50
CUS_F2i52
.44
CUS_F1
i51
.61
.72
.74
.57
.43
.76
.60
.60
.49
.51
.65
.68
.54
.81
.68
.73
.63
.55
.78
.58
.68
.44
.60
.73
.70
.61
.48
.57
.39.77
.65
.59.65
.55
.72.61
.73
.66
.59
.76
.71
.78
.71
.73
.67
.71
.73
.64
.79
.69.51 .61
.83
.79.20
.52
.82
.84
.82
.69
.72
.77.75
.85
.68
.58.87
.81
.59
.76.59.69.74
.68.61
.88.89.61
.82
.66
.86
.56
.45
.75
.78
.53
.51
.59
.75
.47
.62
.74
.78
.70
.76
.78
The results of CFA:
c2=2831.692, df=1429, p<0.001, c2/df=1.982, RMSEA=0.06. GFI=0.723, NFI=0.736, IFI=0.849, TLI=0.836, CFI=0.847, RMR=0.061
24 items were omitted “Loadings≥0.71”
Originally EMP_P3 was with a low loading (0.67), however one indicator cannot form a factor by itself. Therefore, it was not omitted.
Assessment of the Measurement TQM Implementation Model - 2nd
RUN
.44
EMP_P3i10
Leadership
EmployeeParticipation
.58
LEAD1i1 .58
LEAD2i2
.55
EMP_T2i13
.58
LEAD4i4
.72
EMP_P4i11
.63
EMP_T3i14EmployeeTraining.71
EMP_T5i16
.64
REC_R2i18
.62
REC_R4i20
.74
REC_R3i19Recognitionand Reward
.56
LEAD5i5 .57
LEAD7i7
.59
REC_R5i21
.72
SUP_Q_M1i22
.75
.74
SupplierQuality
Management
.70
SUP_Q_M2i23
StrategicPlanning
.63
STRA_P4i28
.65
STRA_P3i27
.59
STRA_P2i26
Assessment.66
ASS6i35
.80
ASS5i34
.75
ASS4i33
Process ControlImprovement
.47
PRO_C_I7i43
.62
PRO_C_I4i40
ProductDesign
.70
PRO_D2i45
.79
PRO_D1i44
Quality SystemImprovement.66
QUA_S_I4i50
.80
QUA_S_I3i49
.81
QUA_S_I2i48
CustomerFocus.56
CUS_F6i56
.60
CUS_F5i55
.63
CUS_F4i54
.58
.62
.71
.56
.40
.75
.58
.68
.54
.50
.64
.68
.50
.78
.62
.80
.62
.49
.75
.53
.69
.41
.56
.68
.67
.57
.43
.50
.36.73
.62
.59.59
.50
.57.62
.71
.62
.54
.70
.79
.79
.85
.80.77
.52
.41
.64
.77
.51
.46
.58
.87
.43
.59
.73
.75
.67
.77
.74
.79.77.75
.81.89.90
.89.84
.87.89.81
.86
.76.76.75
.76
.67.85
.84
.79
.77
.80
.84
.69.79
c2 =664.329, df=409,
p<0.001, c2/df=1.624
, RMR=0.037
, RMSEA=0.0
49, IFI=0.953,
CFI=0.952, TLI=0.942, GFI=0.873, NFI=0.886
Assessment of the Measurement TQM Implementation Model – 3rd
RUN
.44
EMP_P3i10
Leadership
EmployeeParticipation
.54
LEAD1i1 .52
LEAD2i2
.55
EMP_T2i13
.58
LEAD4i4
.73
EMP_P4i11
.63
EMP_T3i14EmployeeTraining.71
EMP_T5i16
.64
REC_R2i18
.61
REC_R4i20
.75
REC_R3i19Recognitionand Reward
.58
LEAD5i5 .58
LEAD7i7
.58
REC_R5i21
.69
SUP_Q_M1i22
.76
.74
SupplierQuality
Management
.73
SUP_Q_M2i23
StrategicPlanning
.66
STRA_P4i28
.57
STRA_P3i27
.51
STRA_P2i26
Assessment.66
ASS6i35
.80
ASS5i34
.75
ASS4i33
Process ControlImprovement
.47
PRO_C_I7i43
.63
PRO_C_I4i40
ProductDesign
.68
PRO_D2i45
.82
PRO_D1i44
Quality SystemImprovement.66
QUA_S_I4i50
.79
QUA_S_I3i49
.81
QUA_S_I2i48
CustomerFocus.55
CUS_F6i56
.58
CUS_F5i55
.63
CUS_F4i54
.58
.67
.72
.57
.41
.78
.58
.71
.54
.51
.65
.68
.50
.81
.62
.79
.62
.49
.77
.53
.68
.42
.57
.69
.70
.57
.43
.49
.36.75
.63
.61.59
.51
.57.61
.70
.61
.55
.74
.81
.79
.83
.76.71
.54
.40
.64
.77
.52
.48
.56
.87
.44
.60
.75
.75
.67
.78
.75
.80.76.74
.81.89.90
.90.82
.87.89.81
.86
.72.76.76
.73
.66.85
.84
.78
.76
.80
.86
.68.80
.28
.26
-.22
-.27
.27
-.26
.29
.25
c2/df=1.437 RMR = 0.034 RMSEA = 0.041 NFI=0.901, IFI=0.968,TLI=0.959 CFI=0.967 GFI=0.888
M.I. i28 <--> i45 13.784 i1 <--> i2 12.665 i1 <--> i43 9.481
i19 <--> i54 8.354 i45 <--> i48 7.736 i28 <--> i50 7.969 i27 <--> i26 8.614 i22 <--> i55 7.608
Assessment of the Measurement Overall Business Performance
Model – 1st RUN
.38
PRO_Q5i66
EmployeeSatisfaction
ProductQuality
.65
EMP_S1i57
.60
EMP_S3i59
.61
EMP_S2i58
.50
PRO_Q4i65
.80
CUS_S1i69
.48
EMP_S4i60
.70
PRO_Q3i64
.35
PRO_Q6i67
.80
CUS_S2i70.61
ST_B_P1i71
CustomerSatisfaction
.68
.52
ST_B_P2i72
.65
ST_B_P4i74
.57
ST_B_P6i76
.75
ST_B_P5i75
StrategicBusiness
Performance
.75
.68
.62
.71
.80
.75
EMP_S5i61.69
PRO_Q1i62 .47
PRO_Q2i63
.58
ST_B_P3i73
.77
ST_B_P7i77.68
ST_B_P8i78
.54
PRO_Q7i68
.88
.83
.75
.86
.80
.76
.72
.78
.89
.89
.84.71
.69
.83
.59
.73
.61
.77
.69
.87
.78
.80
c2/df=4.5 RMSEA=0.115 RMR=0.059, GFI=0.720, NFI=0.807, IFI=0.844, CFI=0.843 TLI=0.821.
Assessment of the Measurement Overall Business Performance
Model – 2nd RUN
EmployeeSatisfaction
ProductQuality
.67
EMP_S1i57
.59
EMP_S3i59
.65
EMP_S2i58
.79
CUS_S1i69
.82
PRO_Q3i64
.80
CUS_S2i70
.60
ST_B_P1i71
CustomerSatisfaction
.52
ST_B_P2i72
.65
ST_B_P4i74
.57
ST_B_P6i76
.75
ST_B_P5i75
StrategicBusiness
Performance
.72
EMP_S5i61
.55
PRO_Q1i62.60
PRO_Q2i63
.58
ST_B_P3i73
.78
ST_B_P7i77 .68
ST_B_P8i78
.78
.72
.76
.80
.83
.88
.86
.75
.72
.80
.75
.69
.71
.64
.77
.80
.82
.89
.90
.90.77
.74
.85
“Loadings≥0.71”
For better fit model, the following 5 items were removed: PRO_Q6(0.59), PRO_Q5(0.60), EMP_S4(0.69), PRO_Q7(0.70), PRO_Q4(0.63)
c2/df=4.880 RMSEA=0.121 GFI=0.764, IFI=0.880, CFI=0.880TLI=0.855 NFI=0.854. Only RMR=0.048
Assessment of the Measurement Overall Business Performance
Model – 3rd RUN
EmployeeSatisfaction
ProductQuality
.66
EMP_S1i57
.59
EMP_S3i59
.65
EMP_S2i58
.80
CUS_S1i69
.80
PRO_Q3i64
.79
CUS_S2i70
.59
ST_B_P1i71
CustomerSatisfaction
.42
ST_B_P2i72
.59
ST_B_P4i74
.57
ST_B_P6i76
.72
ST_B_P5i75
StrategicBusiness
Performance
.71
EMP_S5i61
.57
PRO_Q1i62.57
PRO_Q2i63
.48
ST_B_P3i73
.85
ST_B_P7i77 .68
ST_B_P8i78
.77
.65
.69
.77
.83
.92
.85
.75
.71
.80
.73
.69
.72
.64
.77
.80
.81
.89
.89
.90.75
.75
.56
.42
.46
.43
.34
.37
.29
.29
.28
-.22
-.31
.84
Covariances M.I. i72 <--> i73 70.262 i76 <--> i63 37.034 i74 <--> i73 33.160 i71 <--> i72 28.747 i71 <--> i73 29.606 i75 <--> i78 15.322 i72 <--> i74 14.150 i70 <--> i75 14.410 i61 <--> i63 11.096 i57 <--> i76 9.593 i71 <--> i77 9.793
c2/df = 2.104 RMR=0.043, GFI=0.908, NFI=0.943, IFI=0.969, TLI=0.959, CFI=0.969RMSEA=0.065
Reliability and ValidityReliability and Validity
(For Two Measurement Models)
Reliability
Cronbach’s alpha ranged between 0.704 and 0.933, indicating a high reliability of the scales.
Also each construct manifests a composite reliability greater than the recommended threshold value of 0.7.
The AVE range between 0.560 and 0.796, above the recommended 0.50 level.
- Cronbach’s alpha ≥ 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978)- Composite reliability ≥ 0.7 - AVE ≥ 0.5 (Hair et al., 1999)
ConstructsComposite Reliability
AVECronbach's
Alpha Leadership 0.864 0.560 0.868 Employee Participation 0.894 0.584 0.717 Recognition and Reward 0.878 0.643 0.879 Employee Training 0.835 0.628 0.834 Supplier Quality Management
0.830 0.710 0.829
Strategic Planning 0.805 0.581 0.830 Assessment 0.894 0.737 0.891 Process Control Improvement
0.709 0.550 0.704
Product Design 0.855 0.748 0.853 Quality System Improvement
0.901 0.753 0.901
Customer Focus 0.810 0.588 0.808 Employee Satisfaction 0.882 0.652 0.885 Product Quality 0.845 0.646 0.841 Customer Satisfaction 0.886 0.796 0.887 Strategic Business Performance
0.926 0.614 0.933
Composite reliability = (sum of standardized loadings)2/ [(sum of standardized loadings)2 + (sum of indicator measurement error)]
Average variance extracted (AVE) = (sum of squared standardized loading)/[(sum of squared standardized loadings) + (sum of indicator measurement error)]
Indicator measurement error = [1– (standardized loading)2].
1. Convergent Validity
All AVE were greater than threshold value of 0.50.
All loadings exceeded the suggested value of 0.6 for all constructs.
Also critical ratio (C.R) for all constructs were larger than 1.96.
Therefore, all items used proved to achieve convergent validity in their respective scales.
- AVE ≥ 0.5 (Bollen, 1989) - Factor loadings ≥ 0.6 (Hatcher, 1994) - C.R ≥ 1.96 (Byrne, 2001)
Constructs Items LoadingsCritical Ratio
(C.R.)Composite Reliability
AVECronbach's
Alpha
LEAD1 0.733 11.717LEAD2 0.724 11.621LEAD4 0.760 *LEAD5 0.759 12.300LEAD7 0.764 12.312EMP_P3 0.664 *EMP_P4 0.853 10.736REC_R2 0.797 *REC_R3 0.863 15.888REC_R4 0.783 13.816REC_R5 0.762 13.295EMP_T2 0.742 12.313EMP_T3 0.792 *EMP_T5 0.840 13.977
SUP_Q_M1 0.829 10.189SUP_Q_M2 0.856 *STRA_P2 0.713 13.393STRA_P3 0.755 *STRA_P4 0.814 12.737
ASS4 0.868 *ASS5 0.893 18.375ASS6 0.812 15.743
PRO_C_I4 0.795 11.340PRP_C_I7 0.684 *PRO_D1 0.903 13.117PRO_D2 0.824 *
QUA_S_I2 0.899 17.024QUA_S_I3 0.888 17.002QUA_S_I4 0.814 *
CUS_F4 0.796 12.066CUS_F5 0.762 11.758CUS_F6 0.741 *EMP_S1 0.814 13.893EMP_S2 0.804 13.777EMP_S3 0.768 *EMP_S5 0.843 13.925PRO_Q1 0.753 14.437PRO_Q2 0.754 13.767PRO_Q3 0.897 *CUS_S1 0.893 17.578CUS_S2 0.891 *ST_B_P1 0.768 13.310ST_B_P2 0.648 12.850ST_B_P3 0.694 15.874ST_B_P4 0.770 *ST_B_P5 0.850 15.158ST_B_P6 0.753 13.063ST_B_P7 0.924 16.691ST_B_P8 0.827 14.519
Note: (*) Indicates a parameter fixed at 1.0 in the original solution
Strategic Business Performance 0.926 0.614 0.933
Product Quality 0.845 0.646 0.841
Customer Satisfaction 0.886 0.796 0.887
Customer Focus 0.810 0.588 0.808
Employee Satisfaction 0.882 0.652 0.885
Product Design 0.855 0.748 0.853
Quality System Improvement 0.901 0.753 0.901
Assessment 0.894 0.737 0.891
Process Control Improvement 0.709 0.550 0.704
Supplier Quality Management 0.830 0.710 0.829
Strategic Planning 0.805 0.581 0.830
Recognition and Reward 0.878 0.643 0.879
Employee Training 0.835 0.628 0.834
Leadership 0.864 0.560 0.868
Employee Participation 0.894 0.584 0.717
Discriminant Validity Test Using Correlations between Constructs
Table 4.9 Correlations between the TQM Implementation Constructs
Relationship Correlation
Assessment <--> Strategic_Planning 0.666 Assessment <--> Employee_Participation 0.622 Assessment <--> Product_Design 0.588 Assessment <--> Quality System_Improvement 0.508 Assessment <--> Customer_Focus 0.575 Assessment <--> Process Control_Improvement 0.767 Customer_Focus <--> Employee_Participation 0.746 Employee_Training <--> Supplier_Quality_Management 0.494 Employee_Training <--> Strategic_Planning 0.774 Employee_Training <--> Assessment 0.528 Employee_Training <--> Process Control_Improvement 0.685 Employee_Training <--> Product_Design 0.420 Employee_Training <--> Quality System_Improvement 0.566 Employee_Training <--> Customer_Focus 0.693 Employee_Training <--> Employee_Participation 0.751 Employee_Training <--> Recognition_and Reward 0.672 Leadership <--> Employee_Training 0.724 Leadership <--> Recognition_and Reward 0.568 Leadership <--> Supplier_Quality_Management 0.412 Leadership <--> Strategic_Planning 0.781 Leadership <--> Assessment 0.583 Leadership <--> Process Control_Improvement 0.705 Leadership <--> Product_Design 0.540 Leadership <--> Quality System_Improvement 0.515 Leadership <--> Customer_Focus 0.654 Leadership <--> Employee_Participation 0.780
Process Control_Improvement <--> Employee_Participation 0.787 Process Control_Improvement <--> Quality System_Improvement 0.611 Process Control_Improvement <--> Customer_Focus 0.701 Process Control_Improvement <--> Product_Design 0.639 Product_Design <--> Employee_Participation 0.623 Product_Design <--> Customer_Focus 0.612 Product_Design <--> Quality System_Improvement 0.398 Quality System_Improvement <--> Employee_Participation 0.549 Quality System_Improvement <--> Customer_Focus 0.540 Recognition_and Reward <--> Employee_Participation 0.680 Recognition_and Reward <--> Strategic_Planning 0.696 Recognition_and Reward <--> Assessment 0.572 Recognition_and Reward <--> Process Control_Improvement 0.868 Recognition_and Reward <--> Product_Design 0.438 Recognition_and Reward <--> Quality System_Improvement 0.598 Recognition_and Reward <--> Customer_Focus 0.754 Strategic_Planning <--> Employee_Participation 0.810 Strategic_Planning <--> Process Control_Improvement 0.754 Strategic_Planning <--> Product_Design 0.631 Strategic_Planning <--> Quality System_Improvement 0.607 Strategic_Planning <--> Customer_Focus 0.738 Supplier_Quality_Management <--> Recognition_and Reward 0.576 Supplier_Quality_Management <--> Employee_Participation 0.503 Supplier_Quality_Management <--> Assessment 0.430 Supplier_Quality_Management <--> Process Control_Improvement 0.492 Supplier_Quality_Management <--> Product_Design 0.357 Supplier_Quality_Management <--> Strategic_Planning 0.520 Supplier_Quality_Management <--> Quality System_Improvement 0.482 Supplier_Quality_Management <--> Customer_Focus 0.556 All correlations between TQM implementation constructs are in the range from 0.357 to
0.868. The highest correlation (0.868) was appeared between Recognition and reward and Process control improvement. Only this correlation exceeded the threshold of 0.85. Other 54 correlations between TQM implementation constructs were below the recommended value of 0.85. Thus, these correlations proved the discriminant validity in the TQM implementation model.
Correlations between the constructs ≤0.85 (Kline,2005)
Table 4.10 Correlations between the Overall Business performance Constructs
Relationship Correlation
Strategic_Business_ Performance <--> Product_Quality 0.713
Strategic_Business_ Performance <--> Employee_Satisfaction 0.795
Strategic_Business_ Performance <--> Customer_Satisfaction 0.726
Product_Quality <--> Customer_Satisfaction 0.694
Employee_Satisfaction <--> Customer_Satisfaction 0.720
Product_Quality <--> Employee_Satisfaction 0.643
Discriminant Validity Test Using Correlations between Constructs
(cont’.)
All correlations between overall business performance constructs are in the range from 0.643 to 0.795. This result indicated that correlations of these constructs below the recommended value of 0.85. Therefore, discriminant validity proved in the overall business performance model.
Discriminant Validity Test Using AVE
Table 4.11 Squared Correlations between TQM Implementation Constructs
Employee Training
Supplier Quality
Management
Recognition and Reward
AssessmentStrategic Planning
Process Control
Improvement
Product Design
Quality System Improvement
Customer Focus
Employee Participation
Leadership 0.560 0.524 0.170 0.323 0.340 0.610 0.497 0.292 0.265 0.428 0.608
Employee Training 0.628 0.244 0.452 0.279 0.599 0.469 0.176 0.320 0.480 0.564
Supplier Quality Management 0.710 0.332 0.185 0.270 0.242 0.127 0.232 0.309 0.253Recognition and Reward 0.643 0.327 0.484 0.753 0.192 0.358 0.569 0.462Assessment 0.737 0.444 0.588 0.346 0.258 0.331 0.387
Strategic Planning 0.581 0.569 0.398 0.368 0.545 0.656
Process Control Improvement 0.550 0.408 0.373 0.491 0.619
Product Design 0.748 0.158 0.375 0.388Quality System Improvement 0.753 0.292 0.301Customer_Focus 0.588 0.557
Employee Participation 0.584
Squared correlations
AVEMeasures
“ Squared correlation among factors AVE”
This criterion did not provide the following 5 cases: 1.Leadership and Strategic planning (0.610). 2.Leadership and Employee participation (0.608). 3.Recognition and reward and Process control improvement (0.753)4.Strategic planning and Employee participation (0.656). 5.Process control improvement and Employee participation (0.619). Other 50 squared correlations between TQM implementation constructs were provided this criterion.
Discriminant Validity Test Using AVE (cont’.)
Table 4.12 Squared Correlations between Overall Business Performance Constructs
Measures AVE
Squared Correlations
Product Quality
Employee Satisfaction
Customer Satisfaction
Strategic Business Performance 0.614 0.508 0.632 0.527
Product Quality 0.646 0.413 0.482
Employee Satisfaction 0.652 0.518
Customer Satisfaction 0.796
For overall business performance model, only one case did not provide the criterion “squared correlations among factors < AVE”: The squared correlation between Strategic business performance and Employee satisfaction
Other 5 squared correlations among factors for overall business performance model were provided this criterion.
Assessment of the Research Model (SEM)
First Run of SEM
.36
EMP_P3i10
Leadership
EmployeeParticipation
.52
LEAD1i1 .53
LEAD2i2
.55
EMP_T2i13
.57
LEAD4i4
.58
EMP_P4i11
.63
EMP_T3i14 EmployeeTraining
.70
EMP_T5i16
.64
REC_R2i18
.62
REC_R4i20
.74
REC_R3i19Recognitionand Reward
.56
LEAD5i5 .58
LEAD7i7
.58
REC_R5i21
.71
SUP_Q_M1i22 SupplierQuality
Management
.71
SUP_Q_M2i23
StrategicPlanning
.56
STRA_P3i27
.52
STRA_P2i26
Assessment.66
ASS6i35
.80
ASS5i34
.76
ASS4i33
Process ControlImprovement
.47
PRO_C_I7i43
.64
PRO_C_I4i40
ProductDesign
.67
PRO_D2i45
.82
PRO_D1i44
Quality SystemImprovement.66
QUA_S_I4i50
.79
QUA_S_I3i49
.81
QUA_S_I2i48
CustomerFocus.57
CUS_F6i56
.60
CUS_F5i55
.62
CUS_F4i54
.85
.74.79
.76
.75
.75
.72
.75
.80
.60.76
.79.77
.89.90
.81
.82.91
.84
.78
.86.80
.84
.72
EmployeeSatisfaction
.67
EMP_S1 i57.66
EMP_S2 i58.59
EMP_S3 i59.70
EMP_S5 i61
.48
ProductQuality
.58
PRO_Q1 i62.76 .56
PRO_Q2 i63.75
.80
PRO_Q3 i64
.90
.70
CustomerSatisfaction
.77
CUS_S270
.80
CUS_S1i69
.76
StrategicBusiness
Performance
.34
.77
.82.82
.73
ST_B_P5i75
.85
.60
ST_B_P4i74
.77
.49
ST_B_P3i73 .70
.43
ST_B_P2i72 .66
.60
ST_B_P1i71
.78
.48
.42
.88.89
.84
1.46
-.30
.76
-.08
.12
.00
.72
.89.81
.87
.12
.05
.47
.75
d1
d4
d3
.66
STRA_P4I28
.81
.57
ST_B_P6I76
.75
.86
ST_B_P7I77
.93
.68
ST_B_P8I78
.83
.19
d2
.29
.27
-.21
-.24
.26
-.25
.28
.56
.41
.45
.41.33
.37
.29
.26
.27
-.18-.33
-.16.69
.20
.29
.26
.91
.73
.60
.21
.73
.43
.81
.59
.73
.55
.53
.65
.85
.76
.59
.90
.63
.83
.68
.60
.83
.67
.49
.77
.53
.70
.42
.57
.66
.57
.70
.58
.86
.44
.60
.74
.52
.43
.49
.36
.48
.57
.67
.75
.63
.61
.73
.76
.59.51
.57
.63.61
.67 .40
.61
.54
-.36
c2/df=1.654 RMR = 0.051 RMSEA = 0.050 IFI=0.931, TLI=0.921 CFI=0.930 GFI=0.801 NFI=0.842
Second Run of SEM
.36
EMP_P3i10
Leadership
EmployeeParticipation
.54
LEAD1i1 .52
LEAD2i2
.54
EMP_T2i13
.57
LEAD4i4
.56
EMP_P4i11
.63
EMP_T3i14 EmployeeTraining
.71
EMP_T5i16
.59
REC_R2i18
.64
REC_R4i20
.70
REC_R3i19Recognitionand Reward
.58
LEAD5i5 .60
LEAD7i7
.60
REC_R5i21
.76
SUP_Q_M1i22 SupplierQuality
Management
.66
SUP_Q_M2i23
StrategicPlanning
.57
STRA_P3i27
.53
STRA_P2i26
Assessment.67
ASS6i35
.80
ASS5i34
.74
ASS4i33
Process ControlImprovement
.47
PRO_C_I7i43
.62
PRO_C_I4i40
ProductDesign
.65
PRO_D2i45
.85
PRO_D1i44
Quality SystemImprovement.68
QUA_S_I4i50
.78
QUA_S_I3i49
.80
QUA_S_I2i48
CustomerFocus.56
CUS_F6i56
.59
CUS_F5i55
.64
CUS_F4i54
.81
.73.80
.77
.76
.76
.73
.75
.79
.60.75
.80.77
.88.90
.82
.81.92
.87
.80
.84.77
.85
.70
EmployeeSatisfaction
.68
EMP_S1 i57.68
EMP_S2 i58.59
EMP_S3 i59.68
EMP_S5 i61
.45
ProductQuality
.57
PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57
PRO_Q2 i63.76
.79
PRO_Q3 i64
.89
.69
CustomerSatisfaction
.79
CUS_S270
.80
CUS_S1i69
.48
StrategicBusiness
Performance
.13
.77
.82.82
.71
ST_B_P5i75
.83
.59
ST_B_P4i74
.76
.49
ST_B_P3i73 .70
.42
ST_B_P2i72 .76
.63
ST_B_P1i71
.79
.43
.15
.89.90
.82
1.47
-.29
.78
-.19
.19
.12
.72
.90.82
.86
.12
.10
.24
.75
d1
d4
d3
.65
STRA_P4I28
.81
.54
ST_B_P6I76
.73
.84
ST_B_P7I77
.92
.62
ST_B_P8I78
.79
.16
d2
.25
.26
-.19
-.21
.27
-.24
.27
.53
.43
.46
.39.29
.44
.30
.24
.23
-.14-.35
.06.68
-.01
.36
.94
.89
.72
.58
.18
.72
.41
.78
.58
.71
.53
.51
.84
.80
.60
.90
.64
.86
.67
.61
.84
.68
.47
.74
.53
.68
.40
.61
.68
.59
.71
.57
.89
.44
.62
.71
.52
.43
.49
.36
.40
.57
.64
.76
.64
.61
.71
.76
.58.51
.58
.59.62
.69 .41
.62
.55
-.30
.22
.17
.24
.20
.24
.64-.33
-.20
.18
.13-.18
-.26
-.74
.17
-.12
.18.26
-.25
.31
-.19
.20
-.18
-.19
.14
.12
-.21
-.18
.25
-.26
.20
.18.18
c2/df=1.345 RMR = 0.041 RMSEA = 0.036 IFI=0.965, TLI=0.958CFI=0.964 GFI=0.838 NFI=0.876
Covariances M.I. i10 <--> i11 13.550 i74 <--> Customer focus 15.571 i5 <--> i58 12.127 i55 <--> d2 12.950 i61 <--> d2 11.157 i43 <--> i77 10.332 i33 <--> Strategic Planning 11.432 i23 <--> i75 10.598 i7 <--> d2 8.380 i72 <--> d4 9.930 i55 <--> i71 12.574 d4 <--> d2 8.872 i45 <--> Process Control and
Improvement 9.348
i10 <--> Recognition and Reward 9.334 i76 <--> i78 8.161 i77 <--> i78 10.634 i16 <--> i75 9.360 i14 <--> d1 9.309 i5 <--> i75 8.355 i18 <--> i55 8.106 i56 <--> i59 7.690 i14 <--> Quality System Improvement 8.275 i20 <--> i27 7.215 i56 <--> d2 7.080 i75 <--> Product Design 7.313 i18 <--> i19 6.891 i16 <--> i48 6.267 i28 <--> i77 6.238 i13 <--> i50 6.086 i23 <--> Quality System Improvement 5.929
Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Second SEM
Hypotheses C.R. P Assessment H1 Leadership has a positive effect on strategic business
performance. 2.225 .026 Supported
H2 Leadership has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.
-1.186 .236 Not supported
H3 Employee participation has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.
3.806 *** Supported
H4 Employee training has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.
-1.497 .135 Not supported
H5 Recognition and reward has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.
-1.088 .276 Not supported
H6 Supplier quality management has a positive effect on product quality.
2.545 .011 Supported
H7 Strategic planning has a positive effect on product quality.
2.113 .035 Supported
H8 Assessment has a positive effect on product quality. -.220 .826 Not supported H9 Process control and improvement has a positive
effect on product quality. .659 .510 Not supported
H10 Product design has a positive effect on product quality.
2.111 .035 Supported
H11 Quality system improvement has a positive effect on product quality.
2.143 .032 Supported
H12 Customer focus has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.
5.270 *** Supported
H13 Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on product quality.
3.320 *** Supported
H14 Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.
2.032 .042 Supported
H15 Product quality has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.
5.578 *** Supported
H16 Product quality has a positive effect on strategic business performance.
6.842 *** Supported
H17 Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on strategic business performance.
2.073 .038 Supported
Note: A critical ratio greater than 1.96 or a p-value smaller than .05 signifies the parameter is statistically
discernable from zero at the .05 significance level. Three asterisks (***) indicate that the p-value is smaller than .001.
Twelve of the 17 SEM hypothesis tests were fully supported.
This finding indicated that the second SEM model fitted quite well in representing the data.
Three hypotheses regarding to employee satisfaction and two hypotheses regarding to product quality were not supported by the data in this study.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Research Question 1: What are the effects of TQM implementation on overall
business performance in Mongolian universities? First, leadership is the decisive factor in determining the success of
organizational overall business performance. Mongolia is now trying to establish modern higher education system. All universities, especially state-owned have received more decision making autonomy than ever before. Regarding day-to-day operations, the government has no direct administrative authority. It is the role of top management to determine the university’s vision, strategy, policy, long-term goals, and the way to achieve these objectives. Top management is in charge of managing employees, motivating them to participate in quality improvement activities, encouraging them to share in the university’s vision, empowering them to solve quality problems, arranging resources for their education and training, and rewarding them for their quality improvement efforts. In other words, without strong leadership, it is impossible for a university to achieve a good overall business performance.
Second, the research findings can suggest that it is not necessary for all the TQM elements to be present to ensure the success of the TQM implementation and overall business performance. In other words, even if a few of the elements are not present, it is possible to obtain the required level of overall business performance.
Third, in this study, 5 hypotheses were not supported by the questionnaire survey data. This disconfirmation does not imply these constructs are unimportant or useless. Instead, universities should identify the problem areas of these constructs and implement them more effectively. For example, (1) assessment, (2) process control and improvement, and (3) quality system improvement are nearly alike functions for Mongolian universities.
Research Question1: (cont’.) Because,
the university products are created using certain processes. Student knowledge is gained by learning, courses are taught, and new knowledge is achieved by researching.
In a university environment, there is an interrelationship among these processes that has an impact on the quality of the products. The quality of teaching/learning/researching is inspected against specifications.
A process quality system must be documented with an appropriate quality manual, procedures, instructions and records. This allows proper communication, audits and verification activities.
Therefore, the author preferred to combine these 3 constructs. Due to this solution, they should emphasize the implementation of actions that are formulated on the basis of various evaluation activities and establish their quality management systems according to the requirements of higher education institutions effectively. Thus, quality management systems will be effectively implemented in practice.
Fourth, Also university’s employees have the capacity to do their jobs better and study by themselves. In fact, improving employee satisfaction and overall business performance were not the major goal of training. Therefore, the author decided to remove the construct “Employee training”.
Research Question 2: What kind of TQM implementation model should be
developed in order to guide Mongolian universities in implementing TQM?
Based on the results of testing the model of TQM implementation and overall business performance (Research model), the author decided to modify TQM implementation model for Mongolian universities in implementing TQM.
Modification of the model should be based on theory; modifications to the original model should be made only after deliberate consideration (Hair et al., 1992).
To modify the theoretical model of TQM implementation, the author tested SEM for all TQM implementation constructs one by one. Consequently, SEM test is conducted for each TQM implementation construct and the results are presented as follows:
1. Run for the Leadership SEM
Leadership
.58
LEAD1i1 .57
LEAD2i2 .57
LEAD4i4 .55
LEAD5i5 .57
LEAD7i7 .76
.74
.75
.76
.50
EmployeeSatisfaction
.66
EMP_S1 i57.66
EMP_S2 i58.60
EMP_S3 i59.70
EMP_S5 i61
.42
ProductQuality
.57
PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57
PRO_Q2 i63.76
.80
PRO_Q3 i64
.90
.62
CustomerSatisfaction
.78
CUS_S270
.80
CUS_S1i69
.74
StrategicBusiness
Performance
.34
.77
.81.81
.72
ST_B_P5i75
.85
.59
ST_B_P4i74
.77
.48
ST_B_P3i73 .69
.42
ST_B_P2i72 .65
.59
ST_B_P1i71
.77
.40
.89.89
.83
.59
d1
d4
d3
.58
ST_B_P6I76
.76
.86
ST_B_P7I77
.93
.69
ST_B_P8I78
.83
.51
d2
.56
.42
.45
.42.34
.37
.29
.28
.28
-.20-.31
.39
.28
.76
.71
.08
-.06
c2 = 356.630 (df=189, p<0.001), c2/df = 1.887, NFI=0.923, IFI=0.962, TLI=0.954 CFI=0.962, RMSEA=0.058 & RMR=0.049 GFI=0.891
Table 5.1 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Leadership SEM
C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Leadership 9.706 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Leadership .849 .396 Not supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Leadership -.709 .478 Not supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Leadership 7.209 *** Supported
“Leadership has a positive effect on strategic business performance and on employee satisfaction”.
O SEM: “Leadership has a positive effect on employee satisfaction” was not supported. “Leadership has a positive effect on strategic business performance”
2. Run for the Employee Participation SEM
.42
EMP_P3i10 EmployeeParticipation
.66
EMP_P4i11
.64.81
.61
EmployeeSatisfaction
.66
EMP_S1 i57.66
EMP_S2 i58.59
EMP_S3 i59.71
EMP_S5 i61
.43
ProductQuality
.57
PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57
PRO_Q2 i63.75
.80
PRO_Q3 i64
.90
.61
CustomerSatisfaction
.79
CUS_S270
.80
CUS_S1i69
.76
StrategicBusiness
Performance
.24
.77
.81.81
.72
ST_B_P5i75
.85
.59
ST_B_P4i74
.77
.48
ST_B_P3i73 .70
.42
ST_B_P2i72 .65
.59
ST_B_P1i71
.76
.89.89
.84
.78
.55
d1
d4
d3
.57
ST_B_P6I76
.75
.86
ST_B_P7I77
.93
.69
ST_B_P8I78
.83
.44
d2
.56
.41
.45
.43.34
.37
.29
.29
.28
-.19-.31
.39
.27
.13
.04
.50
c2/df=2.034, GFI =0.901, NFI=0.943, IFI=0.965, TLI=0.955, CFI=0.965. RMR=0.044 and RMSEA=0.062
“Employee Participation has a positive effect on strategic business performance and on employee satisfaction”
O SEM the hypothesis “Employee Participation has a positive effect on employee satisfaction”
Table 5.2 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Employee Participation SEM C.R. P Assessment
Employee_Satisfaction <--- Employee_Participation 7.963 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Employee_Participation .949 .343 Not supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Employee_Participation .383 .701 Not supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Employee_Participation 5.556 *** Supported
3. Run for the Employee Training SEM
.55
EMP_T2i13 .68
EMP_T3i14 EmployeeTraining
.65
EMP_T5i16
.74.82
.81
.43
EmployeeSatisfaction
.66
EMP_S1 i57.65
EMP_S2 i58.59
EMP_S3 i59.71
EMP_S5 i61
.41
ProductQuality
.57
PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57
PRO_Q2 i63.75
.81
PRO_Q3 i64
.90
.61
CustomerSatisfaction
.79
CUS_S270
.80
CUS_S1i69
.72
StrategicBusiness
Performance
.19
.77
.81.82
.72
ST_B_P5i75
.85
.60
ST_B_P4i74
.77
.48
ST_B_P3i73 .70
.42
ST_B_P2i72 .65
.60
ST_B_P1i71
.77
.89.89
.84
.66
.67
d1
d4
d3
.56
ST_B_P6I76
.75
.85
ST_B_P7I77
.92
.68
ST_B_P8I78
.83
.47
d2
.56
.41
.46
.42.34
.38
.30
.29
.27
-.19-.34
.39
.27
-.04
-.01
.41.11
Table 5.3 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Employee Training SEM
C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Employee_Training 9.427 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Employee_Training -.445 .656 Not supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Employee_Training -.067 .946 Not supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Employee_Training 1.756 .079 Supported
c2/df=2.031, GFI =0.894, NFI=0.929, IFI=0.963, TLI=0.952, CFI=0.963, RMR=0.045, RMSEA=0.062
“Employee Training has a positive effect on strategic business performance and on employee satisfaction”. O SEM: “Employee Training has a positive effect on employee satisfaction” was not supported. Also, this study was concluded that “improving employee satisfaction and strategic business performance was not the major goal of training”.
Thus, this construct omitted for the modified model.
4. Run for the Recognition and Reward SEM
.66
REC_R2i18
.63
REC_R4i20
.69
REC_R3i19Recognitionand Reward.60
REC_R5i21
.79
.83.81
.42
EmployeeSatisfaction
.67
EMP_S1 i57.67
EMP_S2 i58.61
EMP_S3 i59.69
EMP_S5 i61
.43
ProductQuality
.57
PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57
PRO_Q2 i63.75
.80
PRO_Q3 i64
.89
.62
CustomerSatisfaction
.79
CUS_S270
.79
CUS_S1i69
.72
StrategicBusiness
Performance
.31
.78
.82.82
.72
ST_B_P5i75
.85
.60
ST_B_P4i74
.78
.49
ST_B_P3i73 .70
.42
ST_B_P2i72 .65
.60
ST_B_P1i71
.77
.89.89
.83
.77
.65
.56
d1
d4
d3
.56
ST_B_P6I76
.75
.86
ST_B_P7I77
.93
.68
ST_B_P8I78
.82
.42
d2
.56
.41
.45
.42.32
.38
.30
.28
.27
-.18-.34
.37
.31
.14
.39
.10
c2/df = 2.180, NFI=0.920, IFI=0.955, TLI=0.944, CFI=0.955, RMSEA=0.067, RMR=0.054 GFI=0.883
Table 5.4 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Recognition and Reward SEM
C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Recognition_and Reward 9.241 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Recognition_and Reward 1.701 .089 Not supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Recognition_and Reward 1.424 .154 Not supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Recognition_and Reward 6.751 *** Supported
“Recognition and Reward has a positive effect on strategic business performance and on employee satisfaction”.
O SEM: “Recognition and reward has a positive effect on employee satisfaction” was not supported.
“Recognition and Reward has a positive effect on strategic business performance”.
5. Run for the Supplier Quality Management SEM
.82
SUP_Q_M1i22 SupplierQuality
Management
.61
SUP_Q_M2i23
.78.91
.27
EmployeeSatisfaction
.67
EMP_S1 i57.65
EMP_S2 i58.59
EMP_S3 i59.71
EMP_S5 i61
.41
ProductQuality
.57
PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57
PRO_Q2 i63.75
.81
PRO_Q3 i64
.90
.63
CustomerSatisfaction
.78
CUS_S270
.81
CUS_S1i69
.73
StrategicBusiness
Performance
.14
.77
.80.82
.72
ST_B_P5i75
.85
.59
ST_B_P4i74
.77
.48
ST_B_P3i73 .70
.42
ST_B_P2i72 .65
.59
ST_B_P1i71
.77
.89.90
.84
.61
d1
d4
d3
.56
ST_B_P6I76
.75
.86
ST_B_P7I77
.93
.68
ST_B_P8I78
.83
.39
d2
.56
.42
.45
.42.34
.37
.29
.29
.28
-.22-.32
.38
.28
.52
.06
.17
.14
.44
c2/df=2.079, GFI=0.901, NFI=0.934, IFI=0.964, TLI=0.953, CFI=0.964. RMR=0.043, RMSEA=0.064.
Table 5.5 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Supplier Quality Management SEM
C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Supplier_Quality_Management 7.274 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Supplier_Quality_Management .796 .426 Not supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Supplier_Quality_Management 2.778 .005 Supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Supplier_Quality_Management 2.789 .005 Supported
“Supplier Quality Management has a positive effect on product quality” was not supported.
O SEM the hypothesis “Supplier quality management has a positive effect on product quality”. author prefers “Supplier Quality Management has a positive effect on employee satisfaction”.
6. Run for the Strategic Planning SEM
StrategicPlanning
.66
STRA_P3i27
.62
STRA_P2i26
.81
.51
EmployeeSatisfaction
.66
EMP_S1 i57.65
EMP_S2 i58.59
EMP_S3 i59.71
EMP_S5 i61
.45
ProductQuality
.57
PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57
PRO_Q2 i63.75
.80
PRO_Q3 i64
.89
.61
CustomerSatisfaction
.79
CUS_S270
.80
CUS_S1i69
.77
StrategicBusiness
Performance
.17
.77
.81.81
.72
ST_B_P5i75
.85
.60
ST_B_P4i74
.77
.49
ST_B_P3i73 .70
.43
ST_B_P2i72 .65
.60
ST_B_P1i71
.77
.89.89
.84
.26
.79
.45
d1
d4
d3
.59
STRA_P4I28
.77
.56
ST_B_P6I76
.75
.86
ST_B_P7I77
.93
.68
ST_B_P8I78
.82
.44
d2
.56
.42
.46
.41.33
.38
.29
.29
.28
-.21-.34
.38
.20
.72
.33
.05
.30
c2/df=2.026, GFI=0.894, NFI=0.931, IFI=0.964, TLI=0.953, CFI=0.963, RMR=0.042, RMSEA=0.062
Table 5.6 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Strategic Planning SEM
C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Strategic_Planning 9.680 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Strategic_Planning 2.717 .007 Supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Strategic_Planning .593 .553 Not supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Strategic_Planning 4.823 *** Supported
“Strategic Planning has a positive effect on customer satisfaction” was not supported.
O SEM: “Strategic planning has a positive effect on product quality” was supported.
However, in university practice, strategic planning more influences to Strategic Business Performance than product quality and employee satisfaction. Thus, “Strategic Planning has a positive effect on strategic business performance” selected for the modified model.
7. Run for the Assessment SEM
Assessment.66
ASS6i35
.84
ASS5i34
.72
ASS4i33
.23
EmployeeSatisfaction
.66
EMP_S1 i57.65
EMP_S2 i58.59
EMP_S3 i59.71
EMP_S5 i61
.45
ProductQuality
.57
PRO_Q1 i62.76 .56
PRO_Q2 i63.75
.81
PRO_Q3 i64
.90
.61
CustomerSatisfaction
.79
CUS_S270
.80
CUS_S1i69
.73
StrategicBusiness
Performance
.17
.77
.80.81
.72
ST_B_P5i75
.85
.60
ST_B_P4i74
.77
.49
ST_B_P3i73 .70
.43
ST_B_P2i72 .65
.60
ST_B_P1i71
.78
.89.89
.84
.91.81
.85
.53
d1
d4
d3
.56
ST_B_P6I76
.75
.85
ST_B_P7I77
.92
.68
ST_B_P8I78
.82
.44
d2
.56
.43
.45
.42.33
.38
.29
.29
.28
-.22-.33
.37
.23
.48
.09
.14
.46
.23
c2/df = 2.004, NFI=0.933, IFI=0.965, TLI=0.955, CFI=0.965, RMR=0.044, RMSEA=0.062, GFI=0.896
Table 5.7 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Assessment SEM
C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Assessment 7.097 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Assessment 3.444 *** Supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Assessment 1.495 .135 Not supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Assessment 2.845 .004 Supported
“Assessment has a positive effect on customer satisfaction” was not supported. O SEM: “Assessment has a positive effect on product quality” was not supported.
This study concluded that “assessment, process control and improvement, and quality system improvement are nearly alike functions for Mongolian universities. Thus, the author combined these 3 constructs under the name assessment. “Assessment has a positive effect on product quality”.
8. Run for the Process Control Improvement SEM
Process ControlImprovement
.52
PRO_C_I7i43
.56
PRO_C_I4i40 .75
.47
EmployeeSatisfaction
.66
EMP_S1 i57.65
EMP_S2 i58.59
EMP_S3 i59.71
EMP_S5 i61
.42
ProductQuality
.57
PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57
PRO_Q2 i63.75
.80
PRO_Q3 i64
.90
.61
CustomerSatisfaction
.79
CUS_S270
.80
CUS_S1i69
.74
StrategicBusiness
Performance
.18
.77
.81.81
.72
ST_B_P5i75
.85
.60
ST_B_P4i74
.77
.49
ST_B_P3i73 .70
.43
ST_B_P2i72 .65
.60
ST_B_P1i71
.78
.89.89
.84
.57
d1
d4
d3
.56
ST_B_P6I76
.75
.85
ST_B_P7I77
.92
.68
ST_B_P8I78
.82
.44
d2
.56
.43
.45
.42.33
.38
.29
.29
.29
-.21-.33
.11.72
.39
.25
.35
.69
.05
.22
c2/df=2.228, GFI=0.892, NFI=0.928, IFI=0.959, TLI=0.946,CFI=0.959, RMR=0.045, RMSEA=0.068.
Table 5.8 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Process Control Improvement SEM
C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Process
Control_Improvement 7.924 *** Supported
Product_Quality <--- Process Control_Improvement
1.071 .284 Not supported
Customer_Satisfaction <--- Process Control_Improvement
.526 .599 Not supported
Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Process Control_Improvement
2.823 .005 Supported
“Process Control and Improvement has a positive effect on employee satisfaction and on strategic business performance”. O SEM: “Process control and improvement has a positive effect on product quality” was not supported. Also, this construct combined with the assessment and quality system improvement under the name assessment. Thus, the construct “process control and improvement” removed.
9. Run for the Product Design SEM
ProductDesign
.64
PRO_D2i45
.87
PRO_D1i44 .80.94
.38
EmployeeSatisfaction
.66
EMP_S1 i57.65
EMP_S2 i58.58
EMP_S3 i59.71
EMP_S5 i61
.44
ProductQuality
.57
PRO_Q1 i62.76 .57
PRO_Q2 i63.75
.80
PRO_Q3 i64
.90
.61
CustomerSatisfaction
.79
CUS_S270
.80
CUS_S1i69
.72
StrategicBusiness
Performance
.18
.76
.81.81
.72
ST_B_P5i75
.85
.59
ST_B_P4i74
.77
.48
ST_B_P3i73 .70
.42
ST_B_P2i72 .65
.59
ST_B_P1i71
.77
.89.90
.84
.52
d1
d4
d3
.56
ST_B_P6I76
.75
.85
ST_B_P7I77
.92
.68
ST_B_P8I78
.83
.42
d2
.56
.42
.46
.42.34
.37
.29
.28
.28
-.21-.32
.38
.26
.46
.08
.07
.62
.19
c2/df=1.967, GFI=0.903, NFI=0.938, IFI=0.969, TLI=0.958, CFI=0.968, RMR=0.041, RMSEA=0.060
Table 5.9 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Product Design SEM
C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Product_Design 8.680 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Product_Design 2.446 .014 Supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Product_Design 1.219 .223 Not supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Product_Design 1.167 .243 Not supported
“Product design has a positive effect on employee satisfaction and on product quality”
O SEM the hypothesis “Product design has a positive effect on product quality.” was supported.
“Product design has a positive effect on product quality”
10. Run for the Quality System Improvement SEM
Quality SystemImprovement.66
QUA_S_I4i50
.81
QUA_S_I3i49
.80
QUA_S_I2i48.90
.90
.81
.20
EmployeeSatisfaction
.67
EMP_S1 i57.65
EMP_S2 i58.59
EMP_S3 i59.71
EMP_S5 i61
.42
ProductQuality
.57
PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57
PRO_Q2 i63.75
.80
PRO_Q3 i64
.90
.62
CustomerSatisfaction
.80
CUS_S270
.80
CUS_S1i69
.73
StrategicBusiness
Performance
.15
.77
.80.82
.72
ST_B_P5i75
.85
.60
ST_B_P4i74
.77
.49
ST_B_P3i73 .70
.43
ST_B_P2i72 .65
.61
ST_B_P1i71
.78
.89.89
.84
.12
.59
d1
d4
d3
.56
ST_B_P6I76
.75
.85
ST_B_P7I77
.92
.68
ST_B_P8I78
.82
.42
d2
.56
.42
.46
.41.33
.38
.29
.29
.28
-.22-.35
.37
.26.45
.15
.13
.45
c2/df=2.029, GFI=0.894, NFI=0.932, IFI=0.964, TLI=0.954,CFI=0.964, RMR=0.047, RMSEA=0.062.
Table 5.10 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Quality System Improvement SEM
C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Quality System_Improvement 6.529 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Quality System_Improvement 1.774 .076 Not
Supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Quality System_Improvement 2.251 .024 Supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Quality System_Improvement 3.195 .001 Supported
“Quality system improvement has a positive effect on product quality” was not supported. O SEM: “Quality system improvement has a positive effect on product quality” was supported. However, the author preferred it to combine with constructs assessment and process control and improvement under the name assessment. Thus, the construct “quality system improvement” removed.
11. Run for the Customer Focus SEM
CustomerFocus.56
CUS_F6i56
.64
CUS_F5i55
.59
CUS_F4i54.77.80
.54
EmployeeSatisfaction
.67
EMP_S1 i57.65
EMP_S2 i58.59
EMP_S3 i59.71
EMP_S5 i61
.47
ProductQuality
.57
PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57
PRO_Q2 i63.75
.81
PRO_Q3 i64
.90
.71
CustomerSatisfaction
.79
CUS_S270
.81
CUS_S1i69
.77
StrategicBusiness
Performance
-.02
.77
.80.82
.72
ST_B_P5i75
.85
.60
ST_B_P4i74
.78
.49
ST_B_P3i73 .70
.43
ST_B_P2i72 .65
.59
ST_B_P1i71
.77
.49
.89.90
.84
.39
.75
d1
d4
d3
.56
ST_B_P6I76
.75
.85
ST_B_P7I77
.92
.68
ST_B_P8I78
.83
.19
d2
.56
.41
.45
.42.34
.37
.29
.28
.27
-.21-.31
.26
.24
.73
.35
.40
.36
c2/df=2.246, GFI=0.880, NFI=0.924, IFI=0.956, TLI=0.944, CFI=0.956, RMR=0.047, RMSEA=0.069
Table 5.11 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Customer Focus SEM
C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Customer_Focus 9.538 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Customer_Focus 3.418 *** Supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Customer_Focus 5.358 *** Supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Customer_Focus 4.108 *** Supported
“Customer focus has a positive effect on employee satisfaction, product quality, customer satisfaction and strategic business performance” were supported.
O SEM, the hypothesis “Customer focus has a positive effect on customer satisfaction” was supported.
“Customer focus has a positive effect on customer satisfaction”.
First Run of the Modified TQM Implementation Model
.47
EMP_P3i10
Leadership
EmployeeParticipation
.59
LEAD1i1 .48
LEAD3i3
.77.69
.58
LEAD2i2
.26
EMP_P2i9
.76.58
LEAD4i4
.76
.37
EMP_P1i8
.69
EMP_P4i11
.65
REC_R2
i18
.63
REC_R4
i20
.70
REC_R3
i19 Recognitionand Reward
.56
LEAD5i5
.75.45
LEAD6i6.58
LEAD7i7
.48
REC_R1
i17
.58
REC_R5
i21
.69
SUP_Q_M1
i22
.67
.76
SupplierQuality
Management
.48
SUP_Q_M3
i24
.69
SUP_Q_M2
i23
StrategicPlanning.51
STRA_P5
i29
.63
STRA_P4
i28
.59
STRA_P3
i27
.57
STRA_P2
i26.40
STRA_P1
i25
Assessment
.34
ASS7
i36
.66
ASS6
i35
.75
ASS5
i34
.71
ASS4
i33
.46
ASS3
i32.21
ASS2
i31.35
ASS1
i30
.76.79
.84.81.70
.46
ProductDesign
.42
PRO_D3i46
.71
PRO_D2i45
.78
PRO_D1i44
.84
CustomerFocus
.50
CUS_F6i56
.53
CUS_F5i55
.61
CUS_F4i54
.51
CUS_F3i53
.50
CUS_F2i52
.44
CUS_F1
i51
.61
.72
.57
.43
.76
.60
.50
.65
.68
.54
.81
.68
.63
.70
.61
.48
.39
.65
.65
.72
.67
.76
.71
.78
.71
.73
.66
.71
.64
.79
.69.51 .61
.83
.83
.83
.69
.72
.77.75
.84
.68
.58.87
.81
.59
.65
.88
.53
.60
.47
.74
.76
.78
c2/df=1.950 RMR=0.05 RMSEA=0.060 GFI=0.796, NFI=0.801, IFI=0.892, TLI=0.880CFI=0.891 the model was not acceptable.
“ Loadings≥0.71”
16 items were omitted
Second Run of Modified TQM Implementation Model
Leadership
EmployeeParticipation
.59
LEAD1i1 .77.57
LEAD2i2 .58
LEAD4i4
.76
.32
EMP_P1i8 .65
EMP_P4i11
.66
REC_R2
i18
.62
REC_R4
i20
.72
REC_R3
i19 Recognitionand Reward
.55
LEAD5i5
.74
.56
LEAD7i7
.59
REC_R5
i21
.78
SUP_Q_M1i22
.75
SupplierQuality
Management
.65
SUP_Q_M2i23
StrategicPlanning
.63
STRA_P4i28
.64
STRA_P3i27
.58
STRA_P2
i26
Assessment.67
ASS6i35
.81
ASS5i34
.74
ASS4
i33
.77.79.85
.81
ProductDesign
.67
PRO_D2i45
.83
PRO_D1i44
.82
CustomerFocus
.56
CUS_F6i56
.61
CUS_F5i55
.62
CUS_F4i54
.56
.62
.56
.39
.75
.57
.54
.64
.69
.47
.82
.67
.67
.67
.57
.42
.36
.61
.59
.57
.61
.70
.79.78.75
.80
.80
.88
.80.76
.86.90
.82
.91
.51
.59
.44
.73
.84
.74
.57.81
.76
c2/df=1.682 RMR=0.035, RMSEA=0.051, GFI=0.901, NFI=0.906, IFI=0.960, CFI=0.959 TLI=0.950
The modified TQM Implementation Model was accepted.
Third Run of the Modified TQM Implementation Model
Leadership
EmployeeParticipation
.54
LEAD1i1 .73.52
LEAD2i2 .59
LEAD4i4
.77
.32
EMP_P1i8 .65
EMP_P4i11
.66
REC_R2
i18
.62
REC_R4
i20
.71
REC_R3
i19 Recognitionand Reward
.57
LEAD5i5
.75
.58
LEAD7i7
.59
REC_R5
i21
.80
SUP_Q_M1i22
.76
SupplierQuality
Management
.62
SUP_Q_M2i23
StrategicPlanning
.63
STRA_P4i28
.65
STRA_P3i27
.58
STRA_P2
i26
Assessment.67
ASS6i35
.81
ASS5i34
.74
ASS4
i33
.77.79.84
.81
ProductDesign
.64
PRO_D2i45
.86
PRO_D1i44
.80
CustomerFocus
.56
CUS_F6i56
.61
CUS_F5i55
.62
CUS_F4i54
.54
.62
.57
.40
.75
.58
.53
.65
.69
.47
.82
.67
.67
.68
.57
.42
.36
.60
.58
.57
.60
.70
.79.78.75
.79
.79
.90
.81.76
.86.90
.82
.93
.51
.59
.44
.74
.85
.74
.56.81
.72
.31
.27
.26
M.I.
i28 <--> i45 15.316i1 <--> i2 11.672
i19 <--> I23 9.608
c2/df=1.523 RMR=0.033 RMSEA=0.044 GFI=0.911, NFI=0.916, IFI=0.970, TLI=0.961 CFI=0.969
Modified SEM
Research Question 3: How can this TQM
implementation model be demonstrated in practice?
Modified Model Original Model
Leadership
Employee Participation
Strategic Planning
Supplier Quality Management
Assessment
Product Design
Recognition and Reward
Customer Focus
Employee Satisfaction
Product Quality
Strategic Business
Performance
Customer Satisfaction
H2
H3
H5
H7
H8
H10
H11
H12
H1
H6
H9
H13
H4
Leadership
Employee Participation
Employee Training
Recognition and Reward
Supplier Quality Management
Strategic Planning
Assessment
Process Control and Improvement
Product Design
Quality System Improvement
Customer Focus
Employee Satisfaction
Product Quality
Strategic Business
Performance
Customer Satisfaction
H2
H3
H4
H5
H7
H9
H10H15
H14
H17
H1
H6
H8
H11
H12
H13
H16
First Run of Modified SEM
.27
EMP_P1i8
Leadership
EmployeeParticipation
.54
LEAD1i1 .52
LEAD2i2 .58
LEAD4i4
.58
EMP_P4i11
.66
REC_R2i18
.62
REC_R4i20
.70
REC_R3i19Recognitionand Reward
.56
LEAD5i5 .59
LEAD7i7
.59
REC_R5i21
.81
SUP_Q_M1i22 SupplierQuality
Management
.62
SUP_Q_M2i23
StrategicPlanning
.64
STRA_P3i27
.59
STRA_P2i26
Assessment.66
ASS6i35
.81
ASS5i34
.74
ASS4i33
ProductDesign
.65
PRO_D2i45
.85
PRO_D1i44
CustomerFocus.57
CUS_F6i56
.61
CUS_F5i55
.62
CUS_F4i54
.79
.77
.75
.76
.73
.80
.52.76
.79.78
.80.92
.90
.79
.84.81
.69
EmployeeSatisfaction
.67
EMP_S1 i57.66
EMP_S2 i58.59
EMP_S3 i59.70
EMP_S5 i61
.47
ProductQuality
.58
PRO_Q1 i62.76 .55
PRO_Q2 i63.74
.82
PRO_Q3 i64
.90
.69
CustomerSatisfaction
.77
CUS_S270
.81
CUS_S1i69
.79
StrategicBusiness
Performance
.23
.77
.81.82
.72
ST_B_P5i75
.85
.60
ST_B_P4i74
.78
.50
ST_B_P3i73 .71
.44
ST_B_P2i72 .66
.61
ST_B_P1i71
.78
.47
.19
.88.90
.84
.73
.77
.77
.90.81
.86
.49
.76
d1
d4
d3
.63
STRA_P4I28
.79
.55
ST_B_P6I76
.74
.86
ST_B_P7I77
.93
.67
ST_B_P8I78
.82
.19
d2
.56
.45
.40.31
.39
.29
.26
.27
-.19-.36
.30
.22
.89
.57
.72
.40
.75
.58
.54
.64
.73
.50
.88
.64
.73
.81
.55
.68
.57
.44
.73
.52
.41
.36
.60
.62
.60
.69.58
.56
.61
.31
.27
.26
.24
.17
.20
.17
.12
.40
c2/df=1.672 RMR=0.046 RMSEA=0.50 IFI=0.940, TLI=0.931 CFI=0.939 GFI=0.822 NFI=0.863
Second Run of Modified SEM
.27
EMP_P1i8
Leadership
EmployeeParticipation
.53
LEAD1i1 .52
LEAD2i2 .57
LEAD4i4
.58
EMP_P4i11
.59
REC_R2i18
.65
REC_R4i20
.64
REC_R3i19Recognitionand Reward
.57
LEAD5i5 .60
LEAD7i7
.62
REC_R5i21
.81
SUP_Q_M1i22 SupplierQuality
Management
.62
SUP_Q_M2i23
StrategicPlanning
.56
STRA_P3i27
.51
STRA_P2i26
Assessment.67
ASS6i35
.81
ASS5i34
.73
ASS4i33
ProductDesign
.65
PRO_D2i45
.85
PRO_D1i44
CustomerFocus.57
CUS_F6i56
.59
CUS_F5i55
.64
CUS_F4i54
.79
.77
.76
.76
.73
.75
.52.76
.80.77
.81.92
.90
.81
.80.77
.69
EmployeeSatisfaction
.68
EMP_S1 i57.68
EMP_S2 i58.59
EMP_S3 i59.67
EMP_S5 i61
.43
ProductQuality
.57
PRO_Q1 i62.75 .56
PRO_Q2 i63.75
.81
PRO_Q3 i64
.90
.69
CustomerSatisfaction
.78
CUS_S270
.81
CUS_S1i69
.78
StrategicBusiness
Performance
.20
.77
.82.83
.71
ST_B_P5i75
.84
.59
ST_B_P4i74
.76
.49
ST_B_P3i73 .70
.42
ST_B_P2i72 .73
.61
ST_B_P1i71
.78
.45
.17
.88.90
.82
.74
.79
.72
.90.82
.85
.42
.75
d1
d4
d3
.66
STRA_P4I28
.81
.54
ST_B_P6I76
.73
.86
ST_B_P7I77
.93
.66
ST_B_P8I78
.81
.18
d2
.53
.45
.41.30
.39
.28
.25
.20
-.17-.40
.34
.25
.88
.59
.72
.40
.77
.57
.53
.63
.75
.50
.89
.64
.73
.81
.56
.70
.57
.46
.73
.53
.41
.37
.59
.62
.63
.69.58
.58
.62
.28
.27
.21
.27
.15
.19
.15
.19
.42
.25
.33.31
.26
.24
.18
-.20
.17
.28
-.23
.20
.29.19
.17
Covariances M.I.i5 <--> i58 12.861
i55 <--> i63 13.921i55 <--> i76 16.109i61 <--> d4 12.850i61 <--> d2 9.303i74 <--> Customer
Focus16.799
i23 <--> i75 10.175i33 <--> Strategic
Planning10.820
i27 <--> i26 9.604i72 <--> d4 8.124i8 <--> i4 8.050
i18 <--> i19 7.988i7 <--> d2 7.269
i55 <--> d2 5.149
c2/df=1.455 RMR=0.042 RMSEA=0.041 IFI=0.960, TLI=0.953CFI=0.960 GFI=0.848 NFI=0.883
Results of Hypotheses Testing for Second Run of the Modified
SEMHypotheses C.R. P Assessment
H1 Leadership has a positive effect on strategic business performance.
2.415 .016 Supported
H2 Strategic planning has a positive effect on strategic business performance.
2.973 .003 Supported
H3 Recognition and reward has a positive effect on strategic business performance.
3.057 .002 Supported
H4 Employee participation has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.
7.100 *** Supported
H5 Supplier quality management has a positive effect on employee satisfaction
2.144 .032 Supported
H6 Assessment has a positive effect on product quality. 2.148 .032 Supported H7 Product design has a positive effect on product quality. 2.360 .018 Supported H8 Customer focus has a positive effect on customer satisfaction. 5.755 *** Supported H9 Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on product quality. 5.271 *** Supported
H10 Product quality has a positive effect on customer satisfaction. 5.251 *** Supported H11 Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on customer
satisfaction. 2.170 .030 Supported
H12 Product quality has a positive effect on strategic business performance.
4.329 *** Supported
H13 Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on strategic business performance.
3.275 .001 Supported
ConclusionsNo research has been conducted for developing a TQM implementation model that can be used by Mongolian universities to improve their TQM implementation efforts. Therefore, the research objectives of this study were:
- To obtain the effects of TQM implementation on overall business performance in Mongolian Universities;- To obtain a TQM implementation model for Mongolian Universities.
In order to achieve the two research objectives, three research questions were proposed as follows: (1)What are the effects of TQM implementation on overall business performance in Mongolian universities?(2)What kind of TQM implementation model should be developed in order to guide Mongolian universities in implementing TQM? (3)How can this TQM implementation model be demonstrated in practice?
These research questions were answered completely in this study for the research framework. Due to answers of research questions, the TQM implementation model for Mongolian Universities was obtained.
The TQM implementation model for Mongolian universities
Leadership
Employee Participation
Strategic Planning
Supplier Quality Management
Assessment
Product Design
Recognition and Reward
Customer Focus
Employee Satisfaction
Product Quality
Strategic Business
Performance
Customer Satisfaction
H2
H3
H5
H7
H8
H10
H11
H12
H1
H6
H9
H13
H4
This model tested in this study. - This model fits the data well. - All hypotheses of this model were fully supported.
Therefore, we can implement this model in Mongolian higher education institutions’ practice.
Limitations of this StudyIt is important to view this study in the context
of its limitations. First, data used to test the model came from only
3 state-owned universities. Therefore, the generalization is limited.
Second, the measure of perceived employee satisfaction in particular is relatively weak, because it asked respondents for their general perceptions of overall employee satisfaction in their respective universities. Thus, research findings might have been biased.
Contribution of this Study
In this study, the two theoretical models were formulated mainly on the literature that was developed in Western manufacturing contexts. However, the models were tested using data in universities (higher education institutions) of Mongolia. Therefore, a theory of quality management related to Mongolian higher education institutions was developed.
Recommendations
The TQM implementation model for Mongolian Universities could better meet the requirements of Mongolian higher education institutions. On this background, benefits and practical implications would be evident, and this model will deliver useful information for continuous quality improvement of study programs, teaching and support services in higher education institutions.
Thank you for your attention!
Thank you for your attention!