The TQM Magazine

Graph theory and matrix approach for performance evaluation of TQM in Indian
industries
Sushma Kulkarni
Article information:
To cite this document:
Sushma Kulkarni, (2005),"Graph theory and matrix approach for performance evaluation of TQM in Indian
industries", The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17 Iss 6 pp. 509 - 526
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09544780510627615
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

Downloaded on: 31 January 2016, At: 02:32 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 8 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1267 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Fairul Anwar Abu Bakar, Khairanum Subari, Mohd Amran Mohd Daril, (2015),"Critical success factors of
Lean Six Sigma deployment: a current review", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 6 Iss 4 pp.
339-348 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-04-2015-0011
David Pollard, Sabine Hotho, (2006),"Crises, scenarios and the strategic management process",
Management Decision, Vol. 44 Iss 6 pp. 721-736 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740610673297
T. Gowrani, J. Yamuna, K. Parameswari, S. Chitra, A. Selvaraj, A. Subramania, (2004),"The
influence of benzoyl hydrazine and some of its substituents on corrosion inhibition of carbon steel
in sulphuric acid solution", Anti-Corrosion Methods and Materials, Vol. 51 Iss 6 pp. 414-419 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00035590410560967

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:382916 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0954-478X.htm

RESEARCH AND CONCEPTS TQM in Indian

industries
Graph theory and matrix
approach for performance
509
evaluation of TQM in Indian
industries
Sushma Kulkarni
Rajarambapu Institute of Technology, Sangli, Maharashtra, India
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – Once the decision is taken to implement total quality management (TQM) in any
organization, achieving TQM is a journey. It takes significant effort over an extended period of time.
Seeks to propose a TQM performance index.
Design/methodology/approach – An industry TQM performance index evaluates and ranks the
various industries practicing TQM for a given period of time. Uses graph theory and a matrix
approach.
Findings – The index is obtained from industry performance function, which is useful for
identification and comparison of the different industries for their TQM performance. If the TQM
evaluation is done correctly, the evaluation will present the profile of the organization to different
audience, i.e. the customers, governments, other industries, funding agencies and public.
Originality/value – The model suggested for evaluation presents a logical approach to rank the
industries and other organization practicing TQM or other quality program.
Keywords Project evaluation, Total quality management, Graph theory
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Total quality management (TQM) is an all encompassing dynamic process in an
organization to promote never ending improvement in the effectiveness and efficiency
of all elements of a business (Hradesky, 1995). TQM is the integration of functions and
processes within an organization in order to achieve continuous improvement of the
quality of goods and services. The goal is customer satisfaction (CS) (Ross, 1996). A
company’s continued success requires repeat business, which in turn depends upon the
customers. A strong customer focus is therefore imperative. TQM is a means to this
end, and an attribute of good management. TQM is essentially customer driven. It
takes a total system view. TQM measures are not merely confined to traditional rejects,
reworks, down grades and the like. They also include global, balance sheet parameters
such as profits, stock in trade, market share, etc.
The approach touches every operation, every individual and every activity. Each is
a link with the ultimate purpose to provide durable satisfaction to the existing and
potential customers. The concept of TQM hinges on continuous, improvement as the The TQM Magazine
Vol. 17 No. 6, 2005
core mission of the upper management. Zero defect or non-conformance is the pp. 509-526
operational objective of an organization. It is not a static restrictive concept. In its q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0954-478X
policy perspective and specification, the top management forges harmony between DOI 10.1108/09544780510627615
 TQM zero defects as the operational, objective and continuous improvements as the
17,6 dynamics pursuit of the management (Bounds et al., 1994).
Some common principles that run through TQM interpretations (Dale and Cooper,
1997):
.
Every one in the organization is involved continuously improving the process
under his or her control and takes responsibility for his or her own quality
510 assurance.
.
Each person is committed to satisfying his or her customer (internal or external).
.
Team work is practiced in a number of forms. There is a commitment to the
development of employees through involvement.
.
Participation by everyone in the business is positively encouraged and practiced.
.
A formal program of education and training is in place and this is viewed as an
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

investment in developing people’s ability and knowledge and helping them

realize their potentials.
.
Suppliers and customers are integrated into the improvement process.
. Honesty, sincerity, and care are integral part of daily business life and simplicity
in process, systems, procedures and work instructions are pursued.

Graph theory and matrix approach

Once the decision is taken to implement TQM in any organization, achieving TQM is a
journey (Juran Institute, 1992). It takes significant effort over an extended period of
time. The journey can be divided into five phases as per Dr Juran namely decide,
prepare, start, expand, integrate with a sixth phase as evaluation which will indicate as
to how effective the implementation is as compared to other organizations practicing
TQM. The model suggested for evaluation presents a logical approach to rank the
industries (other organization practicing TQM or other quality up gradation program)
using graph theory and matrix approach. Industry TQM performance index (ITQMpi)
is proposed which evaluates and ranks the various industries practicing TQM for a
given period of time. The index is obtained from industry performance function (IPF),
which is useful for identification and comparison of the different industries for their
TQM performance.
If the TQM evaluation is done correctly, the evaluation will present the profile of the
organization to different audience, i.e. the customers, governments, other industries,
funding agencies and public. The purpose served is given below.
.
Customer – choice of best product from market and worth for money.
.
Government – accountability, funding, policy and planning, national growth
and development.
.
Society – accountability.
.
Funding agency – funding R & D, expansion projects, new projects feasibility,
etc.
.
Industry – for comparison in the competitive market.

Presently, bodies responsible for industrial development, quality control, etc. in India
like CII, QCFI, TPM, etc. have already started propagating TQM and its benefits by
 conducting various training programs and various awards are also instituted at TQM in Indian
national and international level to propagate and inculcate quality culture in Indian industries
organization. There is Malcom Balridge Award, European Quality Award, Japanese
Quality Award (Deming prize) at international level, Indian Juran Award, Dr Shah
Trust Award, etc. at national level.
But their evaluation procedure for award is elaborate, and still it is felt that there is a
need for simple and effective evaluation procedures. When TQM is implemented in any 511
organization, to evaluate its performance it is a total effect of large number of
parameter on each other as well as on the TQM performance. Thus the
interrelationship between the attributes (parameter) according to the importance of
one attribute over the other needs to be studied along with the independent effect of
each parameter on TQM performance evaluation. Thus, efforts need to be extended to
determine factors which influence an industry’s performance based on TQM practice in
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

that particular organization for a particular period, using a logical approach to

appraise the organization of their standing in the national and international scenario
for improvement or sustaining the performance according to the performance of TQM
process evaluated.
Graph theory is a logical and system approach (Narsingh, 2001). The advanced
theory of graph and its application are very well documented. Graph theory is a very
natural and powerful tool in combinatorial operation research, transport network,
activity of stochastic process useful for modeling representation proved to be useful for
modeling and analyzing various kinds of system in many fields of science and
engineering. A graph G ¼ ðV ; EÞ consists of a set of objects V ¼ {v1 ; v2 ; . . .} called
vertices, and another set E ¼ {e1 ; e2 ; . . .}; whose elements are called edges, such that
edge ek is identified with an unordered pair (vi, vj) of vertices. The vertices vi, vj
associated with edge ek are called end vertices of ek. The most common representation
of a graph is by means of a diagram, in which the vertices are represented as points and
each edge as a line segment joining its end vertices. Often this diagram itself is referred
to as graph. The object shown in Figure 1, e.g. is a graph. Matrix approach useful in
analyzing the graph models expeditiously is applied to derive useful system function
and system index to meet the objectives. The representations of graphs by matrices
offer case in computer handling. In view of their advantages, graph theory and
matrix approach is proposed for the evaluation and comparison of TQM in an
organization.

TQM performance evaluation attributes

For the purpose of evaluation of TQM in an organization which is a set of process
implemented at all stages right from input to the final output going out from the

Figure 1.
Graph with five vertices
and six edges
 TQM system. Let us consider an industry as a system; the system input, process and output
17,6 variables for implementation of TQM is top management, infrastructure employee
empowerment (EE), supplier involvement (SI), strategic planning (SP) for TQM
vision/mission and goals, measurement and analysis of products and processes,
evaluation of cost of poor quality, quality culture, benchmarking and CS, etc. The
performance attribute can be defined as the system variable, input, output or the
512 process variable.

TQM evaluation attributes digraph

TQM evaluation attributes digraph is defined, which models the importance or
presence of attributes and their interrelationship for a given organization. Tracking
TQM can be tough. As one rolls out total quality initiative, one must continuously
monitor it on every front to ensure that the process is delivering the right results.
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

Concentrate on planning for quality but ignore infrastructure (IN) and the TQM
initiative will collapse. Allocate resources but forget to communicate with employees
and one will have a well budgeted, but utterly ineffective TQM exercise. May be
this is the reason that over 70 percent of the TQM initiatives in the world
eventually fail. To ensure that your TQM implementation is really working,
measure it not just in overall terms, but in each area covered by the TQM process
along with the importance of each parameter (attribute) over the other with all
attributes considered at a time.
A digraph (also called directed graph) G consists of a set of vertices V ¼
{v1 ; v2 ; . . .}; a set of edges E ¼ {e1 ; e2 ; . . .} and a mapping function that maps every
edge onto some ordered pair of vertices (vi, vj). As in the case of undirected graphs,
a vertex is represented by a point and an edge by a line segment between vi and vj
with an arrow from vi to vj. In Figure 2, an edge for which the initial and terminal
vertices are the same forms the self loop, such as e7 and for edge e4, v3 is initial
vertex from where the edge is incident out and v4 is terminal vertex where the edge
is incident into.
Thus, TQM evaluation attribute diagraph consists of a set of nodes. E ¼ {ei };
with i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; M and a set of edges, r ¼ {r ij }: A node Ei represents ith TQM
performance attribute (i.e. A i) and the edges represent the interrelationship among
the attributes. The number of nodes, M is equal to the number of TQM performance
evaluation attributes node j in the selection, then a directed edge or arrow is drawn
from node i to node j (i.e. rij). If j is having relative importance over i, then directed
edge or arrow is drawn from node j to node i (i.e. rij), e.g. for two nodes e1 and e2
the graph can be represented as follows as shown in Figure 3 with r12
indicating relative importance of e1 over e2 and r21 indicating relative importance of
e2 over e1.

Figure 2.
Diagraph with five
vertices and seven edges
 To demonstrate the TQM evaluation attributes diagraph, an example of TQM TQM in Indian
evaluation for a particular organization is considered. Suppose the most important
attributes for TQM evaluation are:
industries
.
infrastructure (IN);
.
top management support (TMS);
.
strategic planning (SP); 513
.
employee empowerment (EE); and
.
customer satisfaction (CS).

TMS is more important for TQM performance as compared to IN, however, IN is also
important in TQM performance, even though less important than the TMS. Thus, there
exists relative importance between these attributes in both directions. Similarly, the
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

attributes, EE and CS are equally important for the success of TQM in any
organization. Thus, the interrelations can be represented among the other attributes. A
TQM performance evaluation attribute diagraph is developed based on the above and
is shown in Figure 3. The five nodes represent the five selected attributes and the edges
their relative importance.
TQM performance evaluation attributes diagraph gives a graphical representation
of the attributes and their relative importance for quick visual appraisal. As the
number of nodes and their interrelations increases, the digraph becomes complex. In
such a case the visual analysis of the diagraph is expected to be difficult and complex.
To overcome this constraint, the diagraph is represented in matrix form as shown in
(1), where E 1 ; . . . ; E 5 are nodes showing attributes. r 12 ; r 13 ; r 14 ; . . . ; r 51 are edges
showing relative importance of attributes over each other.

Matrix representation
Matrix representation of TQM evaluation attributes diagraph gives its one to one
representation. A matrix called the TQM performance attributes matrix (TQMpam) is
defined. This is M £ M matrix and considers the presence of attributes (i.e. Ei) and
their relative importance (i.e. rij). This matrix A1 for TQM performance attributes
diagraph Figure 3 is represented as:
Attributes IN TMS SP EE CS
IN Ei r 12 r 13 r 14 r 15
TMS r 21 E2 r 23 r 24 r 25
A¼ ð1Þ
SP r 31 r 32 E3 r 34 r 35
EE r 41 r 42 r 43 E4 r 45
CS r 51 r 52 r 53 r 54 E5

Figure 3.
Relative importance
between edge and node
 TQM Where, Ei is the value of its attribute (A 1) represented by node and Ei and rij is the
relative importance of ith attribute over jth represented by the edge rij. Permanent of
17,6 this matrix A, i.e. per (A), is defined as TQM performance evaluation function.
Permanent is a standard matrix function and is used in combination mathematics
(Venkate Rao, 2000).
TQM performance evaluation function for matrix expression (1) is written as per
514 Jurkat and Ryser (1966) formula as:

Y
5
PerðAÞ ¼ E i þ Si Sj Sk Sl Sm ðr ij r ji ÞE k E l E m þ E i E j E k E l E m ðr ij r jk r ki
i¼1

þ r ik r kj r ji ÞE l E m
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

ð2Þ
{Si Sj Sk Sl Sm ðr ij r ji Þðr kl r lk ÞE m þ SSSSSðr ij r jk r kl r li þ r il r ik r kj r ji ÞE m }

þ {Si Sj Sk Sl Sm ðr ij r ji Þðr kl r lm r mk þ r km r ml r lk Þ

þ Si Sj Sk Sl Sm ðr ij r jk r kl r lm r mi þ r im r ml r lk r kj r ji Þ}

Expression (2) is a complete expression as it considers attributes presence and at the

possible relative importance among attributes. The term is the sets of distinct diagonal
elements (i.e. Ei’s) and loops of off diagonal elements of different size (i.e. rijrji, rijrjkrkl,
etc.).
In general, if there are M number of TQM performance evaluation attribute for a
given organization and the interrelationship exist among all the TQMpea, there the
TQM performance evaluation attributes matrix B for the considered TQM
performance evaluation attribute digraph is written as expression (3):

Attribute 1 2 3 ··· M
1 E1 r 12 r 13 · · · r 1M
2 r 21 E2 r 23 · · · r 2M
3 r 31 r 32 E3 · · · r 3M
B¼ ð3Þ
.. .. .. .. ..
. . . . ··· .
.. .. .. .. ..
. . . . ··· .
M rM 1 rM 2 rM 3 ··· EM

TQMP attribute functions for this matrix, B contains (M1) number of terms. In sigma
form, the TQM performance evaluation function is written as expression (4). This
expression contains (M þ 1) groupings.
 Y
M TQM in Indian
PerðBÞ ¼ þ Si Sj Sk · · ·Sm ðr ij ÞE l E k · · ·E m þ SSS· · ·Sðr ij r ji ÞE k E l · · ·E m industries
a¼1

þ Si Sj Sk · · ·Sm ðr ij r jk r kl þ r ik r kj r ji ÞE l E m · · ·E M

þ{Si Sj Sk · · ·SM ðr ij r ji Þðr kl r lk ÞE m E n · · ·E M þ ½Si Sj Sk · · ·SM ðr ij r jk r kl r li ð4Þ 515

þ r il r lk r ki r ji ÞE m E n · · ·E M
}

þ {½Si Sj Sk · · ·SM ðr ij r ji Þðr kl r lm r mk þ r km r ml r lk ÞE n E o . . .E M

þ ½Si Sj Sk · · ·SM ðr ij r jk r kl r lm r mi þ r im r ml r lk r kj r ji ÞE n E o . . .E M
}
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

Expression (4) is a TQM performance evaluation function that ensures a realistic TQM
performance evaluation in terms of evaluation attributes. The expression contains
terms arranged in (M þ 1) groupings. The first grouping contains only one term and is
a set of presence of M attributes. The second grouping, is absent as there are no
self-loops in the digraph. The terms of the third grouping represent a set of two
attribute relative importance loops (i.e. rijrji) and is the resultant causality of attribute
i and j, and the severity of remaining ðM 2 2Þ attributes. Each term of the fourth
grouping is a set of three event relative importance loops (i.e. rijrjkrki or its pair rikrkjrji)
and the severity of remaining ðM 2 3Þ attributes. The terms of the fifth grouping are
arranged in two subgroupings, each term of the first subgrouping is a set of two
2-attribute relative importance loops [(i.e. rijrji) and (rklrlk)] and the severity of ðM 2 4Þ
attributes. Each term of the second subgrouping is a set of 4-attributes relative
importance loop [(i.e. rijrjkrkirli) or its pair rilrlkrkirji)] and the severity of ðM 2 4Þ
attributes. Similarly other terms of the expression are defined. Thus, the TQM
performance evaluation function characterizes an organization for its performance
evaluation as it contains all possible structural components of the attributes and their
relative importance.

TQM performance evaluation index (TQMpei)

TQMpei is a measure of the performance of an organization for its TQM processes. A
higher value of the index means better performance. The TQM performance evaluation
function defined above, i.e. expression (4) is appropriate for evaluation of the TQMpei as
it contains presence of their attributes and their relative importance. The numerical
value of the TQMpef (TQM performance evaluation function) is called the TQMpei. As
the TQMpef contains only the positive terms, therefore higher values of Ei’s and rij’s
will result in increased value of the TQMpei. To calculate the TQMpei the required
information is the values of Ei’s and rij’s.
The value of Ei’s should be obtained from the data provided by the organization
practicing TQM on the prescribed attributes evaluation from the ith attribute and such
quantitative value is then converted into a ranked value judgment on a scale, e.g. 0-10
may be adopted. Table I is suggested which represents the TQMpea on a qualitative
scale. It is seen that some of the attributes were not easy to measure in terms of
qualitative scale hence a questionnaire has been designed to measure each attribute in
terms of weightage (questionnaire enclosed in appendix). Each attribute has been
 TQM
Qualitative measure of TQM performance Attribute value of TQM performance
17,6 evaluation attribute evaluation (Ei)

Exceptionally low 0
Extremely low 1
Very low 2
516 Below average 3
Average 4
Above average 5
High 6
Table I. Very high 7
Value of TQM Most high 8
performance evaluation Extremely high 9
attributes (Ei’s) Exceptionally high 10
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

measured in terms of eight subquestions each having a specified weightage. These

quantitative weightage are then required to normalize the quantitative value of the Ei
on the same scale as the qualitative value, i.e. 0-10. If E1 has range Eii and Eiu. The other
intermediate value Eii of the TQMpea is assigned the value in between 0 and 10 as per
the following:
E i ¼ {10=E iu }E ii for E ii ¼ 0
ð5Þ
¼ {10=ðE iu 2 E il Þ}ðE ii 2 E il ÞÞ for E il . 0
Expression (5) is applicable for general beneficial attributes only, e.g. CS means, its
higher attribute values are more desirable for the given TQM performance evaluation
for a particular organization, whereas, non-beneficial attributes, e.g. decrease in market
share is the one, whose lower attribute values are desirable. Therefore, in case of non
beneficial TQMpea, the attribute value 0 (zero) on scale 0-10, is assigned to the highest
range value (Eiu) and value if 10 is assigned to the lower range value (Eii). The other
intermediate value (Eii) of the TQMpea is assigned the values in between 0 and 10 as per
the following.
E i ¼ 10{1 2 ðE ii =E iu Þ} for E i ¼ 0
ð6Þ
¼ 10{10=ðE iu =E ii Þ}ðE iu 2 E ii Þ for E i . 0
The relative importance between two attributes (i.e. rij) is also assigned value on the
scale 0-10. The relative importance rij implies that an attribute i is compared with
another attribute j in terms of relative importance for the given organization. The
relative importance between i, j and j, i is distributed on the scale 0-10 and is defined as
r ji ¼ S 2 r ij ð7Þ
It means that a scale is adopted (0 to S) on which the relative importance values are
compared. If rij represents the relative importance of ith attribute over jth attribute,
then the relative importance of the jth attribute over ith attribute is evaluated using
 expression (7). For example, if the jth attribute is slightly more important than ith TQM in Indian
attribute then rji ¼ 6 and rij ¼ 4. Table II is suggested which aids in assigning rij
values based on the above.
industries
The TQMpei value for each organization evaluated using expression (4) and
substituting the values of Ei’s and rij’s. The organizations can be arranged in the
descending or ascending order of TQMpei, to rank them for their performance. The
organization, for which the values of TQMpei are highest, is the best TQM performance 517
standard organization. However, the final decision may depend on factors like
personnel interview of CEO, employees and some of the direct customers’ etc. and other
constrains. But TQMpei can surely guide and help to select the best standards of TQM
today.

Methodology
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

A methodology for the selection of best TQM performing organization is suggested

based on digraph and matrix method. The main steps of the methodology are:
(1) Identify the TQM performance evaluation attributes (i.e. A1, A2, . . . ,AN) for the
given organization. Also consider relative importance among the attributes.
Obtain also the value of the attributes (Ei). Refer questionnaire Appendix and
their relative importance (rij). Refer Tables I and II for details.
(2) Develop the TQMpea diagraph considering the identified TQMpe attributes and
their relative importance. The number of nodes shall be equal to the number of
attributes considered in step 1. The edges and their directions will be decided
based on the interrelations among the attributes (rij’s) (as explained earlier).
(3) Develop the TQMpea matrix for the TQMpea diagraph. This will be M £ M
matrix with diagonal elements as Ei’s and off diagonal elements as rij’s.
(4) Obtain the TQMpe function for the matrix on the lines of expression (4).
(5) Substitute the values of Ei and rij, obtained in step 1, in expression (4) to
evaluate TQMpei for the organizations to be evaluated.
(6) Arrange the organizations in the descending order of the TQMpei. The
organization having the highest values of TQMpei is the best standard of TQM
organization. However, the final decision may depend on other factors like
personnel interview, etc.

Relative importance of
attributes
Class description rij rij ¼ 10 2 rij

Two attributes are of equal importance 5 5

One attribute is slightly important 6 4
One attribute is very important over the other 7 3
One attribute is most important over the other 8 2
One attribute is extremely important over the other 9 1 Table II.
One attribute is exceptionally important over the Relative importance of
other 10 0 attributes (rij’s)
 TQM Model suggested for TQM performance evaluation based on the data collected from
present research study
17,6 As per the methodology defined above, the first step is to identify the attributes
affecting the TQMpe for any organization or (industry):
.
strategic planning for TQM in organization (SPO);
.
top management support;
518 .
employee empowerment;
.
supplier involvement; and
.
customer satisfaction.

The data regarding the above attributes can be collected from the organization with the
help of questionnaire (Appendix) formulated on the basis of weightage. Each attribute
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

is evaluated on the basis of eight subquestions each carrying a maximum weightage of

five points hence maximum weightage given to each attribute is 40 points. Therefore,
for five attributes maximum total weightage is 40 £ 5 ¼ 200 points. Thus (for this
evaluation of Ei attributes one can use Malcom Balridge award criteria also) but the
questionnaire is designed as per study of TQM in Indian context.
Once the attributes are identified and the Ei are calculated, next step is to define the
relative importance of the attribute rij suggested as per Table II. With Ei’s and rij’s
identified draw the TQMpea digraph showing the presence of Ei as well as relative
importance of the above attributes as shown in Figure 4. This diagraph consists of five
nodes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 representing the above mentioned attributes, respectively. TQMpe
matrix, C, of this diagraph is written as matrix expression (8) on the lines of matrix
expression (3). The TQMpea are abbreviated as SPO, TM, EE, SI, and CS.
The quantitative values of these attributes as collected by the questionnaire
(Appendix) are tabulated in Table III (the data used in Table III are assumed values of
weightage). These values are to be normalized in the interval scale 0-10. In our five
attributes identified all the attributes are beneficial attributes (the questions in
questionnaire are formatted in that manner Appendix and higher values are desirable.

Figure 4.
Diagraph for TQMpef (five
attribute model) showing
relationship of one node
with all the other four
nodes
 The attribute values are obtained using expression (5) and Table I. The values of these TQM in Indian
attributes are normalized and given in Table IV in the respective columns. industries
Relative importance of attributes (i.e. rij’s) is also assigned the values in the range
0-10, based on Table II and is given in Table V. Information collected from literature
review and based on data from present study, relative importance of attributes has
been assigned. For example, TMS is more important than the SI so a high value of
relative importance is assigned to the TMS over the SI, and the low value of relative 519
importance is assigned to the SI over the TMS. Similarly, the relative importance
among the other attributes can be explained. It may be mentioned here that the
relative values assigned are as per author’s perception of TQM implementation
effectiveness. The award committee or various national institute can have their own
perception to decide properly the relative importance among the performance
evaluation attributes.
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

The TQMpef for the matrix, expression (8), can be written on the lines of expression
(4), and the value of TQMpei is calculated using Tables III and IV and the values of Ei’s

Organization SPO TM EE SI CS
Table III.
1 27 36 28 30 30 Ei’s for various attributes
2 29 26 31 25 29 of the organization (five
3 26 34 37 29 35 attribute model) (collected
4 24 20 24 27 28 as per questionnaire in
5 32 36 34 37 36 annexure)

Attributes SPO TM EE SI CS

SPO – 5 5 5 5
TM 5 – 6 4 4 Table IV.
EE 5 4 – 5 3 rij’s for various attributes
SI 5 6 5 – 5 of the organization (five
CS 5 6 7 5 – attribute model)

Organization SPO TM EE SI CS Table V.

TQMpea values (Ei’s) for
1 4 10 3 4 3 the organization (five
2 6 4 5 0 1 attribute model)
3 3 9 10 3 9 (normalized in the
4 0 0 0 2 0 interval scale of 0-10 from
5 10 10 8 10 10 Table III)
 TQM and rij’s for each organization. A computer program has been developed for calculation
17,6 of the results to evaluate 5 £ 5 matrix. The TQMpei values of different organizations
are then arranged in descending order.

Conclusions
520 (1) The proposed graph theory and matrix approach model is applicable to any
type of industry.
(2) TQM performance evaluation function is proposed and is characteristic of an
industry. This helps to obtain the TQM performance evaluation index, which
evaluates and ranks industries for a given period.
(3) The proposed method strengthens the existing procedures by proposing a
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

logical and rational method of performance evaluation of an industry with TQM

processes.

Sample calculations for TQMPEI for a five attribute model

I. Attributes defined

E1 – strategic planning for TQM in organization (SPO);

E2 – top management support (TM);
E3 – employee empowerment (EE);
E4 – supplier involvement (SI); and
E5 – customer satisfaction (CS).

II. Diagraph for TQMpef (five attribute model) showing relationship of one
node with all the other four nodes (e.g. for node (1) – (r12r21), (r13r31), (r14r41),
(r15r51), (r11)
III. Matrix-TQMpem for the diagraph (five attribute model)

Attributes SPO TM EE SI CS
SPO Ei r 12 r 13 r 14 r 15
TM r 21 E2 r 23 r 24 r 25
A¼ ð8Þ
EE r 31 r 32 E3 r 34 r 35
SI r 41 r 42 r 43 E4 r 45
CS r 51 r 52 r 53 r 54 E5

IV. TQMpef for matrix expression (8) is written as

 Y
5 TQM in Indian
PerðAÞ ¼ E i þ Si Sj Sk Sl Sm ðr ij ÞE j E k E l E m þ Si Sj Sk Sl Sm ðr ij r ji ÞE k E l E m industries
i¼1

{Si Sj Sk Sl Sm ðr ij r jk r kl þ r ik r kj r ji ÞE l E m
ð9Þ
þ {Si Sj Sk Sl Sm ðr ij r ji Þðr kl r lm ÞE m þ Si Sj Sk Sl Sm ðr ij r jk r kl r li Þ þ ðr il r lk r kj r ji ÞE m 521
þ {Si Sj Sk Sl Sm ðr ij r ji Þðr kl r lm r mk þ r km r ml r lk Þ

þ SSSSSðr ij r jk r kl r lm r mi þ r im r ml r lk r kj r ji Þ}

V. Using the data from Tables III-V and the expression (9) the TQMpei can be
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

calculated with the following method for organization (1).

First grouping ¼ E 1 £ E 2 £ E 3 £ E 4 £ E 5 ¼ 4 £ 10 £ 3 £ 4 £ 3 ¼ 1; 440

Second grouping ¼ 0 ðself loopÞ

X
5
Third grouping ¼ ðr ij r ji ÞE l E m E n ¼ 20; 814:
i¼1

Fourth grouping ¼ Si Sj Sk Sl Sm ðr ij r jk r ki þ r ik r kj r ji ÞE l E m ¼ 53; 490:

Fifth grouping Va þ Vb

VðaÞ ¼ Si Sj Sk Sl Sm ðr ij r ji Þðr kl r lk ÞE m ¼ VðaÞ ¼ 42; 416:

VðbÞ ¼ Si Sj Sk Sl Sm ðr ij r jk r ki r lm þ r il r lk r kj r ji ÞE m ¼ 59; 400:

VðaÞ þ VðbÞ ¼ 42; 416 þ 59; 400 ¼ 101; 816:

Grouping
Org I II III IV Va Vb VIa VIb Total

1 1,440 0 20,814 53,430 42,416 59,400 10 125 277,605

2 0 0 4,820 16,970 28,274 39,400 31,250 68,875 189,589
3 7,290 0 64,985 103,710 60,154 84,550 100 125 421,594
4 0 0 0 0 3,400 4,900 32,100 125 108,475
5 89,000 0 83,400 218,560 84,890 118,500 100 125 795,475 Table VI.
 TQM Sixth grouping
17,6 VIðaÞ Si Sj Sk Sl Sm ðr ij r ji Þðr kl r lm r mk þ r km r ml r lk Þ ¼ 31; 250:

VIðbÞ Si Sj Sk Sl Sm ðr ij r jk r kl r lm r mi þ r im r ml r lk r kj r ji Þ ¼ 68; 875:

522 [Total of I þ II þ III þ IV þ VðaÞ þ VðbÞ þ VIðaÞ þ VIðbÞ

TQMpei PerðAÞ ¼ 277; 685:

VI. Similarly for other organization calculations can be performed. The values of the
grouping are tabulated in Table VI.
VII. Therefore, the ranks of the organization as per their TQMpei are given in
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

descending order.
(1) TQMpei (5)
(2) TQMpei (3)
(3) TQMpei (1)
(4) TQMpei (2)
(5) TQMpei (4)
Hence from the values of TQMpei, it is clear that the Fifth organization, i.e. TQMpei(5) is
indicating the best TQM performance and TQM has been implemented in the best way
in that particular organization.

References
Hradesky, J.L. (1995), TQM Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 2-3.
Ross, J.E. (1996), TQM Text, Cases and Readings, Vanity Books International, New Delhi, pp. 1-2.
Bounds, G., Yorks, L., Meladams and Ranney, G. (1994), Beyond TQM towards the Emerging
Paradigm, McGraw-Hill International Edition, New York, NY, pp. 44-62.
Dale, B. and Cooper, C. (1997), Human Resource and Total Quality – An Executive’s Handbook,
Beacon Books, A Blackwell Asia Imprint, New Delhi, pp. 19-21.
Juran Institute (1992), Total Quality Management – A Practical Guide, Qimpro Consultants Pvt
Ltd, Mumbai, April.
Narsingh, D. (2001), Graph Theory with Applications to Engineering and Computer Science, 22nd
ed., Prentice Hall of India private limited, New Delhi.
Venkate Rao, R. (2000), “Graph theory and matrix approach for the performance evaluation of
technical institutions”, Indian Journal of Technical Education, Vol. 23.
Jurkat, W.B. and Ryser, H.J. (1966), “Matrix factorization of determinants and permanents”,
Journal of Algebra, Vol. 3.
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

Appendix
industries
TQM in Indian

523
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

17,6

524
TQM
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

industries
TQM in Indian

525
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

17,6

526
TQM
 This article has been cited by:

1. Rajesh Kr Singh, Pravin Kumar, Blesson Joseph, Himanshu Sharma. 2015. Evaluation of Maintainability
Index of a Mechanical System using Graph Theoretic Approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
189, 303-313. [CrossRef]
2. Kanwal Nasim, Muhammad Zahid Iqbal, Iram A. Khan. 2014. Antecedents of TQM implementation
capability: a review with a conceptual model. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1-15.
[CrossRef]
3. Nicholas Kingsley Graham, Yarhands Dissou Arthur, Duke Peprah Mensah. 2014. Managerial role in
ensuring successful total quality management programme in Ghanaian printing firms. The TQM Journal
26:5, 398-410. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Rajesh Attri, Sandeep Grover, Nikhil Dev. 2014. A graph theoretic approach to evaluate the intensity of
barriers in the implementation of total productive maintenance (TPM). International Journal of Production
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)

Research 52, 3032-3051. [CrossRef]

5. Nikhil Dev, Samsher, S.S. Kachhwaha, Rajesh Attri. 2014. Development of reliability index for combined
cycle power plant using graph theoretic approach. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 5, 193-203. [CrossRef]
6. Nikhil Dev, Samsher, S. S. Kachhwaha, Rajesh Attri. 2014. Development of reliability index for
cogeneration cycle power plant using graph theoretic approach. International Journal of System Assurance
Engineering and Management . [CrossRef]
7. Anand Gurumurthy, Prasoon Mazumdar, Sowmiya Muthusubramanian. 2013. Graph theoretic approach
for analysing the readiness of an organisation for adapting lean thinking. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis 21:3, 396-427. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Kamalakanta Muduli, Kannan Govindan, Akhilesh Barve, Yong Geng. 2013. Barriers to green supply
chain management in Indian mining industries: a graph theoretic approach. Journal of Cleaner Production
47, 335-344. [CrossRef]
9. Victor Gambhir, N. C. Wadhwa, Sandeep Grover, Sanjeev GoyalApplying Fuzzy MADM approach for
the selection of technical institution 1405-1408. [CrossRef]
10. G. Anand, Bikram K. Bahinipati. 2012. Measuring horizontal collaboration intensity in supply chain: a
graph–theoretic approach. Production Planning & Control 23, 801-816. [CrossRef]
11. Adil Baykasoglu. 2012. A review and analysis of “graph theoretical-matrix permanent” approach to
decision making with example applications. Artificial Intelligence Review . [CrossRef]
12. Mohit Singh, I. A. Khan, Sandeep Grover, S.C. GuptaAssessing quality of manufacturing organizations
- a Graph Theoretic Approach 1740-1744. [CrossRef]
13. Kamal Jangra, Sandeep Grover, Felix T. S. Chan, Aman Aggarwal. 2011. Digraph and matrix method to
evaluate the machinability of tungsten carbide composite with wire EDM. The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 56, 959-974. [CrossRef]
14. Kamal Jangra, Sandeep Grover, Aman Aggarwal. 2011. Digraph and matrix method for the performance
evaluation of carbide compacting die manufactured by wire EDM. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 54, 579-591. [CrossRef]
15. R. Anbanandam, D.K. Banwet, Ravi Shankar. 2011. Evaluation of supply chain collaboration: a case of
apparel retail industry in India. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 60:2,
82-98. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 16. V. Paramasivam, V. Senthil. 2009. Analysis and evaluation of product design through design aspects using
digraph and matrix approach. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM) 3,
13-23. [CrossRef]
17. Subhash Kakkar, A.S. Narag. 2007. Recommending a TQM model for Indian organizations. The TQM
Magazine 19:4, 328-353. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 02:32 31 January 2016 (PT)