The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm

QUALITY PAPER Implications of

TQM
Implications of TQM in firm’s
innovation capability
Daniel Jiménez-Jiménez 279
Department of Business Management, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
Micaela Martínez-Costa Received 8 September 2018
Revised 15 February 2019
Department of Business and Finance Organization, 23 May 2019
Universidad de Murcia, Murcia, Spain, and 22 July 2019
Accepted 11 September 2019
Lorena Para-Gonzalez
Economics and Juridical Faculty, University Isabel I, Burgos, Spain

Abstract
Purpose – Over the last few decades, some researchers have analysed the role of total quality management
(TQM) as a precursor of innovation. However, the relationship between TQM and organisational innovation
remains unclear and contradictory. The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework intended to clarify
the complex effect that the implementation of a TQM system has on organisational innovation, where market
orientation (MO) and knowledge management (KM) play a mediator role.
Design/methodology/approach – Data in this study come from a survey of 706 Spanish CEOs. The results
were analysed employing structural equation modelling to determine how TQM, MO and KM influence innovation.
Findings – The results of the empirical study show that there is a curvilinear effect between TQM and
organisational innovation. Both MO and KM perspectives play a mediator role between TQM and innovation.
Practical implications – Managers should be aware that management based on TQM help organisations
not only to get higher quality but also to be market oriented and better manage their knowledge; what will
help them to develop innovations.
Originality/value – This research sheds light on the question of the relationship between TQM and
organisational innovation that has received mixed conclusions in the literature. There is evidence in this
research that the relationship between TQM and innovation responds to a curvilinear relationship, where
high levels of TQM favour a more than proportionate effect on the development of innovation. It also clarifies
the mechanisms by which this effect is produced, with MO and KM as mediator variables.
Keywords Total quality management, Knowledge management, Innovation, Market orientation
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Innovation is nowadays an important issue in order to acquire competitive advantages and
growth (Silva et al., 2014). In consequence, companies should implement processes and
strategies that facilitate the germination of new ideas and lead to the generation of
innovations (Tontini and Picolo, 2014; Visnjic et al., 2016).
Regarding this, the present paper focuses on some variables that the literature has
appointed as possible facilitators of innovation in companies: total quality management
(TQM), market orientation (MO) and knowledge management (KM).
Beginning with the first concept, TQM is defined as a company’s philosophy that is focussed
on employees and customer satisfaction (Ahmad et al., 2014). There is no agreement on literature
on the dimensions that composes TQM and these dimensions or elements vary depending on the
researcher (Corredor and Goñi, 2011). It can be said that there exist eight elements that combine
International Journal of Quality &
The authors would like to thank the Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad of the Spanish Reliability Management
Vol. 37 No. 2, 2020
Government for financing the research project ECO2017-88987-R (MINECO/FEDER;UE), co-financed pp. 279-304
from the European Union FEDER. Also, the authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from © Emerald Publishing Limited
0265-671X
CajaMurcia Foundation. DOI 10.1108/IJQRM-09-2018-0233
IJQRM between them, generate different classifications of TQM dimensions around the world (Rashid
37,2 et al., 2016). These are the following: leadership, strategic planning, supplier quality management,
process management, product and service design, employee management, customer relationship
management, as well as information and analysis. In the case of this research, it is focussed on
continuous improvement activities, tools for QM, suppliers’ selection based on quality criteria,
quality training, leadership and quality circles, following the studies of Saraph et al. (1989) and
280 Flynn et al. (1994).
In the literature, there has been an on-going debate on whether the TQM stimulates
innovation or, on the contrary, slows it down. Some authors (Hung et al., 2011; Moreno-Luzón
et al., 2013) state that organisational innovation shares several practices with TQM as it is
fundamentally based on continuous improvement activities, and includes some tools that can
be useful for innovation such as statistical process control, supplier selection based on quality
criteria, employee training in QM, quality leadership and teamwork. In this line, the cited
authors support that TQM will improve the development of innovations (Hung et al., 2011;
Moreno-Luzón et al., 2013). Yet, the relationship between TQM and innovation remains
unresolved. Although prescriptive models suggest this relationship, the empirical literature
has not found enough evidence about it and only a few studies have found a positive relation
between both constructs (e.g. Yli-Renko et al., 2001; Hult et al., 2004; Rhee et al., 2010).
With the aim of understanding this relationship, some approaches that foster the
creation of knowledge, such as, MO or KM are studied (Yusr et al., 2017). On the one hand,
MO is considered as a business management philosophy focussed mainly on meeting
customers’ demands (Aziz and Omar, 2013), allowing firms to achieve a higher performance
(Narver and Slater, 1990). On the other hand, KM can be defined as a mechanism by which
the organisation transforms the individual knowledge of employees into social knowledge
(Grant, 1996; Spender, 1996; Dalkir and Beaulieu, 2017). It allows companies to acquire new
knowledge from both external and internal sources for current and future operations
(Leonard-Barton, 1992; Schmitz et al., 2014). To date, no studies have provided a framework
of study for all these concepts as a whole (TQM, MO, KM and innovation). Therefore, this
study provides a framework intended to clarify the complex effect that the implementation
of a TQM system has on organisational innovation.
First, the direct effect of this management strategy on innovation is analysed. Given the
contradictory results of the literature, a new approach is followed that considers a
curvilinear effect. Companies will experience higher levels of innovation in the first stage of
TQM implementation, when they begin to use the technical aspects of TQM (the considered
“hard dimensions”), and in the last stage, when there has been enough time for the basic
principles of TQM (the considered “soft dimensions”) to be deeply installed in the company.
The curvilinear figure is presented in the paper.
Second, this document considers the mediating effect of MO and KM on organisational
innovation. Previously, the literature had analysed its effect on innovation separately, in
different investigations. For example, Arnold et al. (2011) demonstrate that a company’s
focus on customer acquisition improves its radical innovation performance but hinders
incremental innovation. These effects are mediated both by the development of customer
knowledge and by the company’s resource configuration decisions, but they do not analyse
MO in their computation or the presence of a management model such as TQM, which could
generate organised resource-level strategies for organsational improvement.
As a consequence, this research aims to shed light on the mechanisms by which TQM is
able to improve innovation, arguing the importance that this management system attaches
to customer orientation and tools capable of creating knowledge. Consequently, this
research will answer the questions:
RQ1. Does TQM promote MO?
 RQ2. Are continuous improvement approaches compatible with creative perspectives? Implications of
RQ3. Does KM and MO mediate the relationship between TQM and innovation? TQM
Therefore, this study offers a model for understanding the relationship between TQM and
innovation, providing alternative explanations of innovation outcomes and a curvilinear
figure to help better understand this relationship.
The document is organised as follows: the first section presents the theoretical 281
background related to the analysis of TQM, MO, KM and innovation. The model and
hypotheses are presented below. Then the methodology is explained and the results are
presented. Finally, empirical results, discussion of findings and future research directions
are presented.

2. Literature review
2.1 Innovation
Innovation is seen as a crucial driver for firms operating in dynamic markets (Wu et al.,
2015). This strategy facilitates the creation of new products to compete with and render
obsolete those of competitors, also improving internal production and management
processes. The conclusion is that the most innovative companies will obtain more benefits
than their adversaries (Lyon and Ferrier, 2002; Archibugi, 2017).
While there is some agreement on the advantages of innovation, it has not always been
so simple to specify a definition of innovation. Nonetheless, an extensive revision shows that
it can broadly be defined as “the adoption of an idea or behavior, whether a system, policy,
program, device, process, product or service, that is new to the adopting organization”
(Damanpour et al., 1989). Following Damanpour (1991), technical and administrative
innovations can be differentiated. On the one hand, technical innovation refers to new
technologies, products and services (Koren and Palcic, 2015). On the other hand,
administrative innovations include new procedures, policies, organisational structures and
administrative processes (Dewar and Dutton, 1986; Ruiz-Moreno et al., 2016). Technical
innovations aim at the development of new or improved products and/or services and their
successful introduction into the market, as well as the adoption of new or improved methods
of manufacturing and distribution of products or services. However, administrative
innovations seek to improve the company’s management processes by introducing changes
in areas such as decision making, organisational structure, personnel management, product
marketing or the company’s information systems. Moreover, both types of innovation are
related (Volberda et al., 2013) and the literature suggests that technology-based product and
process innovations and non-technological organisational innovations could influence
organisational conduct and outcomes (Walker et al., 2015).
Despite the advantages of organisational innovation, the process of generating new
products, processes or administrative changes is complex. There are different problems that
inhibit the generation of new ideas that could lead to viable innovations. The literature
highlights some internal and external factors (strategy, organisational design, leadership,
human resource practices, organisational culture, MO and organisational learning, financial
resources, etc.) as determinants of innovation. The question that arises is whether these
main determinants could be compatible with companies that follow a TQM system.

2.2 TQM, knowledge management and MO

MO is principally related to exploring customer needs and studying how to satisfy them. In
this regard, organisations should respond to market demands with new products and
services, promoting innovation (Ho et al., 2010). MO is considered as a business philosophy
that tries to meet customers’ demands (Aziz and Omar, 2013).
IJQRM Some authors consider that MO is an organisational culture that improves performance
37,2 (Mahmoud et al., 2016). This concept includes three components: competitor orientation,
customer orientation and inter-functional coordination, its central aim being, however, for
customers to remain and be satisfied (Shehu and Mahmood, 2014). In this sense, companies
are able to identify customer needs and satisfy them better than their competitors, achieving
higher performance. This strategy is often adopted by companies to manage changes in
282 customer demands, and allows them to gain competitive advantages (Chin et al., 2013).
Regarding TQM, these are the seven tools for quality, among which are: histograms, bar
graphs, Pareto Diagram, Ishikawa Diagram, stratification, log and control sheets and
control charts. Broadly speaking, they serve to collect, present and analyse data, making
them a powerful source of information. In this sense, they can serve to improve the quality
of products and services in terms of error detection and resolution, cost optimisation,
timeliness and improved customer satisfaction (Shan et al., 2013).
On the other hand, the suppliers’ selection based on quality criteria refers to the fact of
advising suppliers on quality results, as well as establishing long-term relationships with
them, based on quality products, as a method for choosing the suppliers with whom to work
(Mosadeghrad, 2015).
In addition, quality training refers to the promotion and participation of employees in
development actions that empower them to be excellent in optimising the processes of the
different products and services that may exist (Mahmood et al., 2015).
Moreover, leadership has been considered a key factor in influencing business results (Ooi,
2014). Thus, it is assumed that the support of leaders is fundamental for the development of
continuous improvement actions and is responsible for promoting a culture of innovation within
it, aligning business strategy with the objectives of innovation (Frolova and Lapina, 2015).
Finally, as for the quality circles, the workers of the different or same area meet in small
groups, voluntarily, to give solution to the problems of an organisation. If top management
decides to carry out any of the solutions proposed by the quality circle, this motivates
the workers to be part of the decisions of the company and be able to influence its
results (Kiran, 2017).
Although some prior studies have concluded that MO could facilitate TQM
implementation (Lam et al., 2012), in this research TQM is considered as a philosophy that
offers tools that improve MO in organisations, a vision that other authors have adopted. TQM
has been widely recognised as a strategic philosophy whose main objective is to improve the
competitive position by satisfying customer demands (Pérez and Gutiérrez Gutiérrez, 2013). It
aims to achieve system efficiencies, such as production, design, planning, quality tools,
participation in techniques and customer satisfaction, as it has the potential not only to
strengthen competitiveness but also to strengthen the company’s efficiency and produce more
satisfied customers (Khanam et al., 2015). In consequence, companies implementing TQM will
necessarily adopt a MO strategy. Thus, the following hypothesis is presented:
H1. There is a positive relationship between TQM and MO.
KM has acquired an increasing importance as an engine for the creation of new knowledge
that can be used in the company’s operations. KM is a resource that helps employees to
extract more from the companies’ resources. In fact, it is affirmed that KM plays a mediator
role in connecting the transformation of resources into capabilities (Darroch, 2005). This
paper examines the role of effective KM divided in four ways: knowledge acquisition,
information distribution, information interpretation and organisational memory. In
accordance with previous studies, such as the one of Darroch (2003), KM can be divided
into knowledge acquisition, knowledge dissemination or information distribution and
responsiveness to knowledge, which are closely linked to the four ways taking into account
in this research. Knowledge acquisition comprehends different aspects such as valuing
employees’ attitudes and opinions, retaining people trained or being market oriented. Implications of
Information distribution and interpretation covers various aspects, like communicating TQM
market information around the organisation, promoting knowledge on-the-job, using
technology to or written communication to disseminate knowledge or employing techniques
such as coaching or quality circles to foster knowledge. Finally, organisational memory
makes reference to the information that is stored to foster the organisation’s learning
process. This information can be composed by individual experiences, through documents, 283
files and firm’s data, such as rule books, standards of good practice. In this sense, it is
usually employed the Walsh and Ungson’s repository image or storage bin model which
proposed to include as organisational memory all above mentioned (Rowlinson et al., 2010).
The paper analyses the suggestion that KM supports the enhancement of TQM into
innovation. The relationship between TQM and KM has been widely studied. There are two
main approaches in the current research. On the one hand, there are studies that argue that
knowledge provides a quality culture that promotes quality management (QM) programs. In
this sense, Hung et al. (2010) analysed the study between KM, TQM and innovation, concluding
that KM contributes to innovation through TQM. Moreover, Barber et al. (2006) demonstrated
that KM fosters continuous improvement through the use of the company’s databases.
On the other hand, there are other approaches that certify that TQM is a basis for the
development of KM. In this regard, Colurcio (2009) concluded that TQM practices facilitate
the spread of knowledge in an organisation. In the same line, Jayawarna and Holt (2009)
argued that TQM practices help organisations to create and transform knowledge.
Furthermore, Honarpour et al. (2017) stated in their study that there are common tools
and techniques used by both TQM and KM, suggesting that TQM and KM are positively
associated with each other. In this sense, for example, brainstorming, taxonomy, community
of practice (COP), knowledge bases, blogs, social network services, advanced search tools,
etc., are techniques that have been used in both TQM and KM, sharing a common goal
(APO, 2010). Following Honarpour et al. (2017), for example, quality circles are a TQM
technique similar to the COP, composed of a group of employees who voluntarily identify
organisational problems and seek solutions to present to managers. Following the logic of
the line of conclusions, the improvement in the level of TQM adopted by a company will
necessarily lead to a higher level of KM. Consequently, the following hypothesis is raised:
H2. There is a positive relationship between TQM and KM.
As mentioned above, this study proposes to divide KM into knowledge acquisition, information
distribution, information interpretation and organisational memory. This will facilitate a deeper
analysis of the relationship, such as whether TQM practices improve the exchange of
knowledge related to supplier information or customer-related information as a basis for KM.

2.3 KM, MO and innovation

KM and its output, knowledge, are frequently cited as antecedents of innovation
(Gutierrez-Gutierrez et al., 2018; Nilsson-Witell et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2012). In this regard,
Wang et al. (2013) assert that R&D is essential for the survival of organisations and the
enhancement of innovative practices. The basic assumption is that learning plays a key role
in enabling firms to achieve speed and flexibility in the innovation process (e.g. Brown and
Eisenhardt, 1995; Weerd-Nederhof et al., 2002; Un and Asakawa, 2015; Husain et al., 2016).
Continuous innovation requires a well-planned KM system that enables the firm to excel in
creating technological, market and administrative knowledge. Therefore, innovation
requires the acquisition of knowledge and its transformation and exploitation. However,
there are obstacles that can limit innovation, such as poor consumer-oriented development,
poor interaction within and outside the organisation, and poor concern for the economic
environment (Batterink et al., 2006; Costa and Jongen, 2006).
IJQRM On the other hand, the attention of academics and practitioners has focussed on the
37,2 association between MO and innovation. Several authors, such as Han et al. (1998), Song et al.
(2015) or Oswald and Brettel (2017), empirically established that MO facilitates organisational
innovation. This orientation allows companies to develop strong relationships with key
customers and obtain information about market development opportunities (Slater and
Narver, 2000; Lee et al., 2015). This allows companies to quickly identify customer needs and
284 to respond swiftly, leading to the timely introduction of new products (Baker and Sinkula,
2005). It also encourages knowledge-producing behaviour by providing a source of ideas for
change and improvement (Sangmi, 2012). Wang and Miao (2015) and Yu et al. (2016)
empirically demonstrated that there is a positive relationship between the magnitude of MO
and an organisation’ s relative emphasis on developing more innovative products.
Consequently, the following hypotheses have been established as the baseline of the
present research:
H3. There is a positive relationship between KM and innovation.
H4. There is a positive relationship between MO and innovation.

2.4 The relationship between TQM and innovation

Over the last three decades, there has been a growing interest in TQM as a strategy capable
of providing companies with a competitive advantage (Calvo-Mora et al., 2014; Corredor and
Goñi, 2011; Walley, 2000; Sila and Ebrahimpour, 2005). It can be understood as an
organisation-wide philosophy requiring all employees at every level of the organisation to
focus their efforts on the continual improvement of products and processes quality
(Corredor and Goñi, 2010; Dean and Bowen, 1994).
Some of the main elements of a TQM system could encourage the generation of innovation
in enterprises. The first is customer orientation. TQM companies are customer oriented and,
therefore, place their needs and preferences at the centre of their management. Since knowledge
is the first step in the process of guiding a company’s innovative efforts, it is logical to believe
that TQM companies will use the knowledge gained by customers to innovate their products
and services. The second element that fosters innovation is process management, with the
main objective of reducing inefficiencies and increasing productivity and product quality. This
aspect of TQM will necessarily lead the company to innovation in processes. Finally, one of the
most important principles of TQM is continuous improvement (Sanchez and Blanco, 2014).
This is one of the basic pillars of TQM’s philosophy. The process of continuous improvement
usually causes changes in companies, which translates into the development of new products,
services and processes. According to this principle, TQM companies will promote employee
empowerment and participation in continuous improvement, which can support creative staff.
Flexibility is considered very important, as it is essential to adapt quickly to customers.
Despite the logical arguments presented above, some of the literature argues that the
importance given to standardisation and the focus on cost efficiency can inhibit creativity
and change (Prajogo and Sohal, 2003). Some empirical evidence has been offered to back this
proposition that TQM and innovation are conflicting processes (Singh and Smith, 2004).
At the same time, in the literature on innovation management, some of the views on
innovation management seem to contrast sharply with those of organisational rules, i.e. with
those of established, persistent, standardized and measurable processes (Wright et al., 2012).
Standards and standardisation seem to represent the “iron cages” of organisational control
and regulation that impede innovation (Wright et al., 2012).
Indeed, conventional conceptions of standardisation (looking for the same steps and
materials in job tasks) appear immiscible with the calls for “generating truly novel ideas”
(Hamel, 2006), which are “new to the state of the art” (Birkinshaw et al., 2008). At the same
time, however, some have argued otherwise and pointed out how closely related dimensions
of bureaucracy, such as formalization (following specific procedures in job tasks), can Implications of
actually support innovation by providing a “enabling” structure through which to capture, TQM
exploit or implement existing knowledge (Ståhl et al., 2015). The standardisation of products
and processes, for example, through the specialisation of employees in a few tasks, reduces
variety and creates order, but this offers the possibility of improving performance through
routine, simplification and cost economy (Shalley and Gilson, 2017).
The literature examining the effect of TQM on innovation is not conclusive. Authors 285
such as Singh and Smith (2004) did not find a firm link while other studies have found a
positive relationship between quality and innovation (Abrunhosa and Moura E Sá, 2008;
Prajogo and Sohal, 2003; Prajogo and Hong, 2008).
Thai Hoang et al. (2006) analysed three measures of innovation in their research on TQM
and innovation: the level of novelty, the number of new products and the share of turnover.
They found that TQM’s practices generally promote a company’s innovation, but especially
the level of novelty and the number of new products and services developed. In spite of this,
they detected that of the 11 second level TQM constructions they had built, only three were
positively related to innovation: leadership and people management, process and strategic
management and open organisation. In other words, only three TQM practices were related
to innovation. In the case of this research, three dimensions of innovation have been
considered: product innovation, process innovation and innovation in administration.
According to the literature, TQM presents two sides composed of hard and soft factors.
The soft side of TQM refers to social factors, while the hard side relates to technical factors
(Black and Porter, 1996; Bou-Llusar et al., 2009). Yet, the difference between these two sides
is difficult to explain, since there is not a consensus in the literature about their content (Zairi
and Alsughayir, 2011). More precisely, soft factors include organisational culture, leadership
styles, employee engagement and HR practices. On the other hand, difficult factors include
quality planning, supplier management, process control and management, and product and
service design (Prajogo and Mcdermott, 2005). Specifically, hard factors can be defined as
tools or techniques that aid decision making, such as Pareto’s analysis, quality function
deployment, Ishikawa diagrams, control graphs, statistical control of processes,
standardisation, etc. (Gadenne and Sharma, 2009). The literature considers the hard
factors of the TQM as mediators of the soft factors, contemplating the latter as the main
triggers of organisational improvements (Prajogo and Mcdermott, 2005; Irefin et al., 2011),
although the time necessary to develop soft factors in an organisation is longer than the time
required for hard factors.
The link between hard and soft factors in TCM organisations is process management, as
the TQM needs a structure (hard factors) in which social factors can operate (Calvo-Mora
et al., 2014). In the early stages of the TQM, hard factors are needed to build the base
structure that will help develop the soft factors of the TQM.
Regarding the effect of both kind of factors on organisational innovation, Escrig-Tena
et al. (2018) found that both hard and soft factors motivate innovation. However, according
to their findings, soft practices encourage this through proactive behaviours, such as
employee initiatives and ideas that are generated if there is an environment of trust in the
organisation. While hard factors may be necessary to implement and support the TQM in
the early stages, they do not allow organisations to improve innovation or performance as
much as can be done through soft factors. In any case, hard factors can encourage
innovation because they are based on information, organisational learning and resource
management (Calvo-Mora et al., 2013). In addition, these aspects are related to productivity,
error prevention, compliance with customer requirements, zero-defect search and
improvement of innovation (Sila and Ebrahimpour, 2003; Yasin et al., 2004).
Since companies that implement the TQM generally do so by implementing the hard
factors in the first stage and progressively achieving higher levels of the soft factors, the
IJQRM relationship between the TQM and the innovation proposed in this document is curvilinear.
37,2 It is proposed that low levels of TQM (hard factors) can promote innovation in less time, but
soft practices achieve higher and deeper results in innovation, although they require more
implementation time and an atmosphere of trust. Consequently, a TQM approach is
expected to facilitate the creation of innovations through hard and soft curvilinear form
factors. Therefore, we propose that:
286 H5. There is a curvilinear relationship between TQM and innovation.

2.5 The mediating effects of KM and MO in the relationship between TQM and
innovation
The nature of the TQM and innovation relationships is, according to the literature, more
complex. On the one hand, there are authors who maintain that the TQM encourages direct
innovation, without the need for intermediate variables (Thai Hoang et al., 2006). On the
other hand, some authors suggest that this relation is not direct but indirect through diverse
variables. Some studies have focussed on several variables, such as the innovation capacity
of companies, technology management, organisational learning, innovativeness, etc. (Hung
et al., 2011; Prajogo and Sohal, 2006; Perdomo-Ortiz et al., 2009), which act as intermediate
variables. In general, the literature agrees that innovation is a key source of competitive
advantage based on knowledge (Wu et al., 2015).
TQM practices function as an interdependent system that, combined with other
organisational assets, generates a competitive advantage (Ferdousi et al., 2018).
The literature argues that there is likely to be a strong logical relationship between MO
and the implementation of TQM practices, since both constructs explicitly focus on
customer satisfaction (San Miguel et al., 2016; Pattanayak et al., 2017). According to Sparks
(1993), TQM increases the organisation’s responsiveness to customer needs, which is part of
MO, and will ultimately lead to a longer relationship between the organisation and the
customer. Thus, MO and TQM have in common the customer focus, one of the basic pillars
of the TQM philosophy and considered by many researchers as the most fundamental
aspect of MO (Heiens, 2000; Wuyts et al., 2015). Another point that they have in common is
the need for close co-ordination among departments in the organisation and the need for
systematic data collection for the purpose of satisfying customer expectations. In this sense,
Slater and Narver (1995), Lai (2003) and Elina and Matthew (2014) suggest that value
creation for customers also calls for close co-ordination between marketing and quality
departments. In fact, following Wang et al. (2012), TQM has an identifiable effect on MO. In
this sense, TQM offers a wide range of tools that the organisation can transform to achieve
MO (Yam et al., 2005). MO can be a catalyst to help design products and services and offer a
range of products and services that customers perceive as superior quality, which in turn
improves performance. This requires close coordination between marketing and quality
departments, not only using TQM strategies, but also strengthening marketing strategies to
satisfy customers.
Wang et al. (2012) conclude that adopting QM and MO as a business strategy is critical,
especially when external environmental factors are unpredictable and changing. All this
helps to improve products, services and processes, as well as to give responses to
competitors’ actions and to track customers. Accordingly, organisations should adopt
technical QM and MO as a measure to achieve a variety of resources and more flexible ways
to meet changing market needs.
In this sense, the implementation of TQM and MO share a common platform based on the
organisational structure designed around the flow of value-added activities linked to the
ability to manage organisational change. All of these elements, together with the need to
collect data, transform the organisation into a market-oriented organisation.
 In this respect, Pinho (2008) carried out a study on the analysis of the importance of Implications of
developing a QM approach as a way of improving the bottom line of organisations. Its TQM
results reveal that the most relevant dimensions of TQM that impact on organisational
performance and MO are performance measurement, quality assurance systems, training
programs and leadership. The results also confirm the impact of MO on innovation.
Consequently, the author concludes the importance of QM, MO and innovation to improve
performance and organisational growth. 287
In terms of the relationship between TQM and MO practices, Samat et al. (2006) found
that customer focus and employee empowerment were the dimensions most closely related
to MO. The results of Yam et al. (2005) indicate that the influence of the TQM on MO is
positive and significant, and found empirically that the TQM is an effective approach to
shift towards MO. In conclusion, the organisations that apply TQM in their corporate
strategy and culture are, by nature, market-oriented organisations.
Consequently, we propose in this paper that the MO may act as a mediating variable
between the TQM and innovation. Since the implementation of TQM leads companies
towards a market-oriented strategy, this will indirectly encourage innovation. The following
hypothesis is therefore proposed:
H6. MO mediates the relationship between TQM and innovation.
Finally, the role of KM as another intermediate variable between TQM and innovation
is analysed. Theoretically, there are elements embedded in the TQM philosophy that
involve learning. First, TQM emphasises staff development, motivation (every worker’s
right to be proud of their work, according to Deming) and training. All these elements
encourage individual learning. The use of quality circles or interdisciplinary team
sessions for problem solving using quality tools will also enhance group learning
(Hill, 1996; Seo et al., 2016). Leadership and management support, as well as management
understanding of the whole system, are pillars of the TQM philosophy. It constitutes a
climate that is a good starting point for KM (Simatupang and White, 1998; Amir et al.,
2017). In addition, the need for continual improvement helps the organisation to develop
new techniques and abilities (Ross, 2017). Karthikeyan (2015) identified several points
that TQM has in common with the creation of a “learning organisation”. In this regard,
introducing quality systems in an organisation should align quality actions to KM
activities (Maistry et al., 2017). All the discussion above leads us to conclude that the
implementation of a TQM system is able to reinforce and promote KM in a company
(Ooi, 2014). The results of the study of Honarpour et al. (2012) confirm that there is a
possible interaction between TQM and KM. They stated that TQM and KM relate
synergistically to each other and that this interaction can have a positive effect on their
possible outcomes, especially innovation.
The relationship between TQM and KM and its impact on possible performance
outcomes has been neglected in literature. In this sense, these authors argue that to be stable
and creative at the same time is a desire of many organisations.
In this sense, on the one hand, stability is necessary to achieve task efficiency in order to
compete with current systems in the current market and, on the other hand, organisations
that want to compete in the future require the advancement of new ideas and products
(Trott, 2008). Therefore, a highly organised and routine environment is needed to minimise
slack in the cost reduction process. In addition, organisations need to be open to creativity.
The problem arises when organisations try to find “how to do it”.
Honarpour et al. (2012) suggest that to overcome this dilemma, through the application of
the TQM and KM simultaneously, companies are able to improve innovation and efficiency.
On the one hand, the implementation of QM increases the efficiency of companies and
reduces production costs.
IJQRM On the other hand, TQM’s synergy with KM will have a positive impact on innovation.
37,2 Therefore, practitioners who want to improve innovation are recommended to encourage
TQM and KM simultaneously to improve innovative activities and reduce costs in their
organisations through synergistic collaboration.
As a consequence, we propose that TQM could foster innovation through the
development of KM. Therefore, the following hypothesis is established:
288 H7. KM mediates the relationship between TQM and innovation.

3. Methodology
3.1 Data collection and sample
The sample, which was drawn from the SABI database, includes Spanish companies from
the most sectors (excluding the agricultural sector). The sample was composed of companies
with more than 15 employees. Many of these companies are engaged in international
activity, while others form part of international companies or groups of companies. A total
of 1,554 companies constituted the population.
Data were collected by means of a personal interview with the top executive of the
company, using a structured questionnaire. That is to say, the top executives answered the
questionnaire orally through a telephone interview. After sending a letter that encouraged
organisations to participate in the study, a company that specialises in surveys contacted
the organisations in the population in order to carry out the interview that consisted in oral
answers to the items of a questionnaire. A total of 706 respondents correctly completed the
questionnaires, yielding a response rate of 45.4 per cent (57.9 per cent were manufacturing
companies and the rest were service companies). Respondent and non-respondent
companies were compared in terms of general characteristics and model variables. These
comparisons did not reveal any significant differences, suggesting no response bias.

3.2 Measures
In order to test the hypotheses, four variables were measured. All of them were measured as
constructs, as will be explained below.
As many authors have shown in the past (Saraph et al., 1989; Flynn et al., 1994), TQM is a
multidimensional construct. In those works, the dimensions generally accepted are
leadership, quality information, process control, continuous improvement, quality training
and teamwork, and the supplier’s relationships based on quality and customer orientation.
The six items chosen for this scale (Table I) were aligned to these dimensions: continuous
improvement activities, tools for quality improvement (Pareto charts, histograms, etc.),
suppliers selection based on quality criteria, quality training, Leadership and quality circles.
The items selected are a result of the confirmatory factor analysis (scale composite
reliability rSCR
c ¼ 0:88, average variance extracted rAVEc ¼ 0:54).
MO was made up of three dimensions: intelligence generation, intelligence dissemination
and responsiveness, from an adaptation of the MARKOR scale (Kohli et al., 1993). The
confirmatory factor analysis suggested the use of three items to measure intelligence
generation (scale composite reliability rSCR c ¼ 0:80, average variance extracted
rAVE
c ¼ 0:58), another three to measure intelligence dissemination (rSCR
c ¼ 0:81,
rc ¼ 0:59) and finally another three to quantify responsiveness (rSCR
AVE
c ¼ 0:86,
rAVE
c ¼ 0:67). In the present research, MO is considered as a single construct made up of
the three behavioural dimensions represented by the above three measures. A second-order
factor analysis was conducted to demonstrate that the three dimensions can be modelled by
the second-order construct. We estimated this model using LISREL 8.54. The results
suggest a good fit of the second-order specification for our measure of MO ( χ2 ¼ 86.93,
df ¼ 24, p o0.001; goodness of fit index (GFI) ¼ 0.97; root mean square error of
 Standardised t-
Implications of
Item description loading value Reliability TQM
Total quality management α ¼ 0.88
1. Continuous improvement activities 0.78 21.13 SCR ¼ 0.88
2. Tools for quality improvement (Pareto charts, histograms, etc.) 0.65 17.57 AVE ¼ 0.54
3. Suppliers selection based on quality criteria 0.66 15.61
4. Quality training 0.79 30.08 289
5. Leadership 0.76 25.45
6. Quality circles (scale: 1 ¼ not used at all; 5 ¼ often used) 0.77 19.38
Intelligence generation α ¼ 0.80
1. Company do a lot of in-house market research 0.69 19.59 SCR ¼ 0.80
2. The effect of the shift in the business environment on the company is 0.79 31.85 AVE ¼ 0.58
periodically analysed
3. Company adapts quickly to the shift in the business environment 0.79 28.42
(scale: 1 ¼ strongly disagree; 5 ¼ strongly agree)
Intelligence dissemination α ¼ 0.81
1. When something important happens to a major customer of market, 0.74 22.36 SCR ¼ 0.81
the whole business unit knows about it within a short period
2. Data on customer satisfaction are disseminated at all levels in this 0.79 22.27 AVE ¼ 0.59
business unit on a regular basis
3. When one department finds out something about competitors, it is 0.77 20.75
quickly to inform another departments (scale: 1 ¼ strongly disagree;
5 ¼ strongly agree)
Responsiveness α ¼ 0.86
1. Company react quickly changes in its customers’ product or service 0.78 29.94 SCR ¼ 0.86
needs
2. Periodically review our product development efforts to ensure that 0.80 31.90 AVE ¼ 0.67
they are in line with what the customer wants
3. If a major competitor were to launch an intensive campaign targeted at 0.87 39.05
our customers, we would implement a response immediately (scale:
1 ¼ strongly disagree; 5 ¼ strongly agree)
Knowledge acquisition α ¼ 0.76
1. There is a consolidated and resourceful R&D policy 0.70 20.47 SCR ¼ 0.76
2. New ideas and approaches on work performance are experimented 0.72 18.91 AVE ¼ 0.51
continuously
3. Organisational systems and procedures support innovation. (scale: 0.72 17.46
1 ¼ strongly disagree; 5 ¼ strongly agree)
Information distribution α ¼ 0.78
1. All members are informed about the aims of the company 0.70 20.42 SCR ¼ 0.78
2. Meetings are periodically held to inform all the employees about the 0.67 19.42 AVE ¼ 0.55
latest innovations in the company
3. Company has formal mechanisms to guarantee the sharing of the best 0.84 27.08
practices among the different fields of the activity (scale: 1 ¼ strongly
disagree; 5 ¼ strongly agree)
Information interpretation α ¼ 0.79
1. All the members of the organisation share the same aim to which they 0.82 29.57 SCR ¼ 0.79
feel committed
2. Employees share knowledge and experience by talking to each order 0.66 17.78 AVE ¼ 0.56
3. Team work is a very common practice in the company (scale: 1 ¼ 0.76 26.55
strongly disagree; 5 ¼ strongly agree)
Organisational memory α ¼ 0.85
1. The company has directories or e-mails filed according to the field they 0.79 17.23 SCR ¼ 0.85
belong to, so as to find an expert on a concrete issue at any time
2. The company has up-to-date databases of its clients 0.78 17.43 AVE ¼ 0.66 Table I.
Confirmatory factor
analysis and scale
(continued ) reliability
IJQRM Standardised t-
37,2 Item description loading value Reliability

3. Databases are always kept up-to-date (scale: 1 ¼ strongly disagree; 0.87 20.96
5 ¼ strongly agree)
Product innovation α ¼ 0.82
1. Number of new products/services introduced 0.75 23.05 SCR ¼ 0.82
290 2. Pioneer disposition to introduce new products/services 0.81 24.51 AVE ¼ 0.60
3. Efforts on innovation in terms of hours/person, teams and training 0.77 17.28
involved in innovation (scale: 1 ¼ below competitors; 5 ¼ above
competitors)
Process innovation α ¼ 0.82
1. Number of changes in the process introduced 0.73 20.83 SCR ¼ 0.82
2. Pioneer disposition to introduce new process 0.84 31.68 AVE ¼ 0.61
3. Quick response to the introduction of competitors’ new processes 0.77 23.14
(scale: 1 ¼ below competitors; 5 ¼ above competitors)
Administrative innovation α ¼ 0.92
1. Novelty of the management systems 0.85 37.59 SCR ¼ 0.92
2. Search of new management systems 0.92 42.07 AVE ¼ 0.80
3. Pioneer disposition to introduce new management systems (scale: 0.92 44.87
1 ¼ below competitors; 5 ¼ above competitors)
Notes: α, Cronbach’s α; SCR, scale composite reliability (ρc ¼ (∑λi)2 var (ξ)/[(∑λi)2 var (ξ) + ∑θii] (Bagozzi and
Table I. Yi, 1998)); AVE, average variance extracted (ρc ¼ (∑λ2i var (ξ))/[∑λ2i var (ξ) + ∑θii] (Fornell and Larcker, 1981))

approximation (RMSEA) ¼ 0.060; comparative fit index (CFI) ¼ 0.98; Tucker–Lewis index
(TLI) ¼ 0.97; incremental fit index (IFI) ¼ 0.98). The GFI, CFI, NNFI and IFI statistics exceed
the recommended 0.90 threshold level. Furthermore, the RMSEA is below 0.080 and the root
mean square residual RMR and the standardised RMR are 0.037 and 0.041, respectively,
which are considered acceptable.
KM was computed using the four phases of Huber’s (1991) model. We measured them,
after a CFA, with 12 five-point Likert scales, using the study of Perez Lopez et al. (2004). The
CFA shows the reliability of the four sub-processes of the KM model: three items for
knowledge acquisition (rSCRc ¼ 0:76, rAVE
c ¼ 0:51), three items for knowledge distribution
(rSCR
c ¼ 0:78, rAVE
c ¼ 0:55), three items for knowledge interpretation (rSCR c ¼ 0:79,
rAVE
c ¼ 0:56) and three items for organisational memory (rSCR c ¼ 0:85, rAVE
c ¼ 0:66). A
second-order factor has been applied in order to consider these four measures as one single
construct. The results suggest a good fit of the second-order specification for the measure of
KM ( χ2 ¼ 187.76, df ¼ 50; GFI ¼ 0.965; RMSEA ¼ 0.063; CFI ¼ 0.96; NNFI ¼ 0.95; IFI ¼ 0.96;
RMR ¼ 0.052 and standardised RMR ¼ 0.045).
Organisational innovation has been measured following the suggestions of Manu (1992).
For each second-order construction, three items were used, related to changes in the
products, processes or administrative systems that the company has developed, the
proactive or reactive nature of the innovations and the company’s effort in innovation in
terms of resources allocated to innovation or R&D. The CFA suggested the use of three
items to measure product innovation (ρcSCR ¼ 0.82, ρcAVE ¼ 0.60), three to measure process
innovation (ρcSCR ¼ 0.82, ρcAVE ¼ 0.61) and another three to quantify administrative
innovation (ρcSCR ¼ 0.92, ρcAVE ¼ 0.80). Innovation has been measured as a unique
construct. A second-order factor analysis demonstrated that the three dimensions can be
modelled by a higher-order construct. Our results suggest a reasonable fit of second-order
specification for our measure of innovation ( χ 2 ¼ 65.79, df ¼ 24; GFI ¼ 0.98;
RMSEA ¼ 0.049; CFI ¼ 0.99; NNFI ¼ 0.98; IFI ¼ 0.99; RMR ¼ 0.021 and the standardised
RMR ¼ 0.028).
3.3 Confirmatory factor analysis Implications of
In order to evaluate the unidimensionality of each construct, a CFA of the 11 constructs TQM
using 36 elements was carried out (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The measurement model
provides a reasonable fit to the data ( χ2 ¼ 1,846.06, df ¼ 674, p o0.001; GFI ¼ 0.88;
RMSEA ¼ 0.050; CFI ¼ 0.94; NNFI ¼ 0.91; IFI ¼ 0.92). The traditionally reported fit indexes
are within the acceptable range. The reliability of the measures is calculated with Bagozzi
and Yi’s (1998) composite reliability index and with Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) average 291
variance extracted index (see Table I). For all the measures, both indices are higher than the
evaluation criteria of 0.6 for the composite reliability and 0.5 for the average variance
extracted (Bagozzi and Yi, 1998). Furthermore, all items load on their hypothesised factors,
and the estimates are positive and significant (the lowest t-value is 17.23), which provides
evidence of convergent validity (Bagozzi and Yi, 1998).
The discriminant validity of the measures was then evaluated. First, we analyse that the
confidence interval (± 2 SE) around the correlation estimate between any two latent
indicators never includes 1.0 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Second, as Fornell and Larcker
(1981) suggested, the AVE for each construct should be greater than the correlations of
squared latent factors between pairs of constructs. In addition, Table II shows that the
Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) values (elements above the diagonal) are below 0.85.
The results of these three tests provided strong evidence for the discriminant validity
among the constructs.

4. Analysis and results

Structural equations modelling (SEM) methodology was employed to test the hypotheses.
Conventional maximum likelihood estimation techniques were used to test the model
( Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1996). The fit of the model is satisfactory ( χ2 ¼ 2,154.44, df ¼ 722;
GFI ¼ 0.87; RMSEA ¼ 0.054; CFI ¼ 0.90; NNFI ¼ 0.90; IFI ¼ 0.90), thereby suggesting that
the nomological network of relationships fits the data (Figure 1).
In terms of hypotheses, our findings support most relationships (Table III). First, we have
obtained evidence of a direct relationship between TQM and MO (H1) (γ11 ¼ 0.58, p o0.01).
As we have argued, TQM promotes the use of customers’ knowledge to offer products or
services that meet their needs, taking into account that TQM philosophy helps to meet
customers’ demands. In addition, our results suggest positive evidence of the relationship

TQM IGE IDI RES KAD IDI IIN OME IPD IPC IAD

TQM 0.738 0.644 0.450 0.577 0.486 0.404 0.415 0.321 0.393 0.466 0.463
IGE 0.640 0.759 0.632 0.783 0.459 0.479 0.476 0.319 0.421 0.465 0.421
IDI 0.452 0.628 0.770 0.677 0.384 0.370 0.510 0.276 0.268 0.358 0.373
RES 0.579 0.782 0.678 0.819 0.450 0.343 0.462 0.368 0.383 0.434 0.428
KAD 0.486 0.459 0.383 0.451 0.713 0.414 0.525 0.397 0.421 0.469 0.481
IDI 0.404 0.481 0.370 0.347 0.413 0.739 0.748 0.294 0.373 0.374 0.346
IIN 0.418 0.480 0.509 0.466 0.527 0.752 0.748 0.390 0.406 0.387 0.389
OME 0.315 0.317 0.275 0.370 0.396 0.294 0.386 0.812 0.296 0.313 0.408
IPD 0.393 0.419 0.267 0.382 0.420 0.374 0.407 0.294 0.777 0.705 0.454
IPC 0.467 0.462 0.357 0.433 0.467 0.370 0.387 0.311 0.702 0.781 0.620
IAD 0.465 0.421 0.372 0.428 0.480 0.345 0.390 0.407 0.452 0.616 0.897
Notes: TQM, total quality management; IGE, intelligence generation; IDI, intelligence dissemination; RES,
responsiveness; KAD, knowledge acquisition; IID, information distribution; IIN, intelligence dissemination;
OME, organisational memory; IPD, product innovation; IPC, process innovation; IAD, administrative
innovation. Diagonal elements (italics) are the square root of the variance shared between the constructs and Table II.
their measures. Below diagonal elements are the correlations between constructs. Above diagonal elements Correlation matrix and
are the Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) values discriminant validity
IJQRM IG1 IG2 IG3 ID1 ID2 ID3 RE1 RE2 RE3

37,2
2 3 4
Intelligence Intelligence Responsiveness
generation dissemination

21 31 41 PD1 PD2 PD3 PR1 PR2 PR3 AD1 AD2 AD3

292
1 11 12 13
Market Product Process Administrative
Orientation Innovation Innovation Innovation

1110 1210 1310

11
TQ1 101
TQ2
TQ3 1 101 10
TQ4 TQM Innovation

TQ5
105
TQ6
51

5 Significant path
Knowledge
Management Non-significant path

65 75 85 95

6 7 8 9
Knowledge Information Information Organizational
Acquisition Distribution Interpretation Memory
Figure 1.
Results of the
hypotheses testing
KA1 KA2 KA3 KD1 KD2 KD3 KI1 KI2 KI3 OM1 OM2 OM3

between MO and innovation (H3) (β101 ¼ 0.35, p o0.01), demonstrating that it is important
to develop strong customer relationships in order to quickly identify customer needs and
respond to them with the required innovations.
Similarly, our results show how TQM relates to KM (H2) (γ51 ¼ 0.68, p o0.01), but also
how KM promotes innovation (H4) (β105 ¼ 0.45, p o0.01). These results highlight the
importance of acquiring and using information from any source to promote innovations, for
instance, brainstorming, COP, knowledge bases, social network services, advanced search
tools, quality circles, etc.
Additional analyses also show that both MO and KM have positive indirect effects on
product innovation (κMO ¼ 0.25***; κKM ¼ 0.32***), process innovation (κMO ¼ 0.29***;
κKM ¼ 0.37***) and administrative innovation (κMO ¼ 0.24***; κKM ¼ 0.30***).
Also, the model shows that there is no direct relationship between TQM and innovation
(TQM → innovation; γ61 ¼ 0.04, non-significant). As could be derived from the literature, we
have attempted to test a curvilinear effect between both variables by introducing the linear and
quadratic terms of TQM in a regression analysis to explain the innovation (Table IV ). In this
case, without mediating variables, both the linear coefficients (β ¼ 0.490, po0.001) and the
quadratic (β ¼ 0.107, po0.001) supporting H5 are significant. This shows a curvilinear
relationship (Figure 2), confirming a positive relationship between TQM and innovation, but
also observing a growth in the slope of the curve that models the relationship between the
 Hypotheses Standardised parameter estimates
Implications of
Linkages in the model Number Sign Parameter Estimate t-value TQM
Hypothesis
TQM → MO H1 + γ11 0.68 13.27***
TQM → KM H2 + γ51 0.58 11.13***
TQM → innovation H3 + γ101 0.04 0.53
MO → innovation H4 + β101 0.35 5.28*** 293
KM → innovation H5 + β105 0.45 6.71***
Second-order construct
MO → intelligence generation + β21 0.86 13.25***
MO → intelligence dissemination + β31 0.71 14.28***
MO → responsiveness + β41 0.86 18.23***
KM → knowledge acquisition + β65 0.60 12.16***
KM → information distribution + β75 0.75 13.41***
KM → information interpretation + β85 0.79 15.61***
KM → organisational memory + β95 0.51 10.73***
Innovation → product innovation + β1,110 0.72 13.86***
Innovation → process innovation + β1,210 0.83 14.77***
Innovation → administrative innovation + β1,310 0.68 14.26***
Indirect effect
TQM → innovation + π101 0.50 6.99***
TQM → product innovation + π111 0.39 6.99***
TQM → process innovation + π121 0.45 6.99***
TQM → administrative innovation + π131 0.36 6.99***
MO → product innovation + κ111 0.25 5.45***
MO → process innovation + κ121 0.29 5.54***
MO → administrative innovation + κ131 0.24 5.47***
KM → product innovation + κ115 0.32 7.20***
KM → process innovation + κ125 0.37 7.41***
KM → administrative innovation + κ135 0.30 7.26*** Table III.
Notes: Fit statistics for measurement model of 40 indicators for 15 constructs: χ2(722) ¼ 2,154.44; GFI ¼ 0.87; Construct structural
RMSEA ¼ 0.054; CFI ¼ 0.90; NNFI ¼ 0.90. *p o0.1; **p o0.05; ***p o0.01 model

Innovation
H5 Model 0 Model 1

TQM 0.447*** 0.490***

TQM×TQM 0.107***
F 175.332*** 92.874***
R2 0.199 0.207 Table IV.
ΔR2 0.200*** 0.010** Curvilinear effect of
Notes: *p o0.05; **p o 0.01; ***p o 0.001 TQM on innovation

two variables. This implies that with low levels of TQM the increase in this variable does not
translate into improvements in innovation with the same intensity. On the other hand, in
companies with higher levels of TQM, greater investments in quality management translate
into higher innovation results. This suggests that the effect of TQM on innovation is noticeably
greater in companies with high TQM levels than in companies with lower quality levels.
Finally, we have additionally analysed the indirect effects of TQM on innovation
(TQM → innovation; π101 ¼ 0.50, p o0.01) through the MO (H6) and KM (H7) processes.
IJQRM 5
37,2 y = 0.107x 2 + 0.49x

294 Innovation 3

Figure 2.
U shape relationship
between innovation 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
and TQM
TQM

These results suggest that both constructs play an intermediate role in the link between
TQM and innovation. This means that the knowledge-producing behaviour and the
information of market costumers provide a basis for the development and improvement of
innovations. Nonetheless, to test the mediation role of MO and KM in the relationship
between TQM and innovation, we followed Hayes and Scharkow’s (2013) procedure and
used the data software tool PROCESS v2.16. Using the latent variables scores obtained from
the PLS analysis, PROCESS generates 95% confidence intervals corrected for bias for
indirect effects. As can be seen in Table V, the confidence intervals for the mediating effect
do not contain the zero value, thus, indicating the existence of a mediating effect at the
significance level of 0.05. Therefore, both MO (κ ¼ 0.096; p o0.001) and KM (κ ¼ 0.116;
p o0.001) explain how TQM can influence innovation.

5. Discussion of results, limitations and future research issues

It is generally accepted that innovation has a positive effect on companies’ performances
and allows them to survive in the current changing markets.
Notwithstanding, for TQM to function effectively, a firm’s organisational culture must
undergo a global change. Among the changes required, it is worth highlighting the need for
MO and KM for continuous improvement.
For example, although continual improvement is a way to generate incremental
innovation, TQM does not always promote radical innovation, which implies a rupture with

Confidence interval
Mediation paths Indirect effect Boot SE LL UL

H6: TQM → MO→ innovation 0.096** 0.020 0.060 0.141

H7: TQM → KM→ innovation 0.116** 0.017 0.085 0.152
Table V. Notes: Bootstrapping based on n ¼ 5.000 subsamples; LL, lower bias corrected bootstrap 95% confidence
Mediating effects interval; UL, upper bias corrected bootstrap 95% confidence interval. *p o0.05; **p o0.01; ***p o0.001
the prevailing situation. This is one of the main arguments used in the literature to justify Implications of
the mixed results when examining this relationship. The main objective of the present paper TQM
has been to shed light on the relationship between TQM and innovation, clarifying the
mechanisms by which this effect can be produced and the elements that intervene.
The results of the empirical study do not indicate a significant linear relationship between
TQM and innovation as expected, but confirm a curvilinear relationship, as it can be seen in
Figure 2. This finding may help to understand the contradictory results that exist in the 295
literature so far. Consequently, as a theoretical implication, the conclusions are that, in the first
stages of implementation of a TQM system, when companies start to implement the technical
aspects of TQM, they will have a very weak effect on innovation. This could be explained by
the fact that the emphasis on the routinisation and control of defects will reduce creativity and,
therefore, innovation. However, when the company has a consolidated QM policy, TQM
practices that favour collaboration with suppliers or customers, training and empowerment of
staff or the emphasis of continuous improvement will allow the company to be more
predisposed to the capture and application of new knowledge that allows the development of
innovations. Moreover, companies would have fully implemented the culture and principles
that characterize the TQM and would have fostered an environment of trust capable of
generating innovations. Thus, the effect of TQM on the innovation of products and processes
will be greater and growing, showing a trend of progressive growth. Consistently, the
relationship is positive and growing with high levels of TQM in the company. Additionally, as
another theoretical implication, evidence of a positive relationship between TQM, MO and KM
has been found. TQM has been considered as the philosophy basis that boosts MO
(San Miguel et al., 2016). That means that TQM companies must focus on the three
components of MO: competitive orientation, customer orientation and cross-functional
coordination, always pursuing the goal of increasing customer satisfaction. Besides, TQM
emphasises the generation of knowledge in order to improve the organisation’s actual
products, services and operations. These results would support assumptions of authors such
as Sabella et al. (2014), who suggested that this fact could occur, since organisations would
invest more in their employees, information and its analysis. These findings also confirm the
importance of new knowledge for TQM and the results are consistent with the previous
literature (Weerawardena and O’Cass, 2004; Yusr et al., 2017).
As a final theoretical implication, the results support that the effect of TQM on innovation
is mediated by MO and KM. These findings help to clarify how this effect occurs, TQM
companies innovate more, among other reasons because they need to establish customer
needs as the focus of their objectives and because they are able to manage more efficiently the
knowledge they acquire, to improve the quality of their products and processes.
These findings lead to practical implications for companies. In order to foster innovation,
companies should develop various mechanisms to identify customer needs and satisfy them
better than their competitors. In effect, TQM requires an orientation to the customers
intended to develop products and services that satisfy their needs. Consequently, TQM will
foster the acquisition and use of knowledge from customers and markets.
On the other side, KM embraces knowledge acquisition, information distribution,
information interpretation and organisational memory. In this sense, it would be interesting as
a practical implication for companies, to implement tools and techniques that use both TQM
and KM, such as brainstorming, taxonomy, COP, social networking services or advanced
search tools, etc., as a basis to spread knowledge in an organisation. In this regard, the first
hypothesis confirms these arguments, namely, that TQM fosters the KM process.
In addition, as a final practical implication, evidence has been obtained of the positive
relationships between both MO and KM and innovation. On the one hand, in terms of KM
and innovation, this positive relationship means that retaining people, being market
oriented, valuing employee opinions, disseminating information within the organisation,
IJQRM implementing techniques such as quality circles, coaching or similar, and establishing
37,2 procedures for documenting work routines and standards of good practice, encourage
innovation. On the other hand, concerning MO and innovation, companies must establish
frequent communication channels with customers so that they can quickly identify and
respond to their needs, for example, through the creation of new products. This also
helps to generate ideas and encourage creativity by providing a source of ideas for
296 change and improvement, such as previous studies have suggested (Sangmi, 2012). These
results support the idea that both strategic orientations are valuable sources for
producing ideas and could contribute to the generation of new products, processes or
organisational changes.
The results should be interpreted taking into account the limitations of empirical
research. First, the study data were collected by a single respondent and could therefore be
affected by the variance of the common method. Second, the study had a cross-sectional
design, which inhibits the observation of the effects of these long-term variables or the study
of causality in these relationships. This could be overcome by using a longitudinal design.
Moreover, TQM is the result of the answers to the questions of the questionnaire on the use
of certain practices, corresponding to the dimensions of this concept, shaping the responses
of the respondents between five levels, from nothing to widely used. Although the items are
combined, the original answers are more qualitative than quantitative, as is the case with
innovation. In this sense, the use of regression with these data may be problematic
(Chatterjee and Hadi, 2015), so the data should be interpreted with caution and it is
recommended that future studies investigate more in-depth these aspects.
In addition, the scales used in the survey are subjective. Future research could use
objective data and other company sources for triangulation. Multiple informants would
improve the validity of the results. Future research could also consider that TQM, KM and
innovation could be fostered by a culture which promotes experimentation, risk adoption,
failure tolerance, information access, creativity, learning and innovation among their
employees (Lau and Ngo, 2004).
Further research could also analyse whether innovations in the early stages of TQM
implementation are primarily incremental and then become radical. Furthermore, arguing
that “hard aspects” could improve innovations, it would be of interest for research if other
quality systems, based more on technical aspects (e.g. ISO 9000), are also able to improve
innovation and compare them with more ambitious systems, such as EFQM.
Finally, in this research, we have used a systemic point of view considering TQM as a
system. Future research could study which specific TQM dimensions may enhance KM and
MO most.

6. Conclusions
Based on the relationship between TQM and innovation, this study has provided evidence
that there is a curvilinear effect between TQM and organisational innovation, and MO and
KM perspectives play a mediating role between TQM and innovation. Specifically, what
could be done with respect to TQM and KM to drive innovation in an organization would be
to implement tools and techniques that use both TQM and KM, such as brainstorming,
taxonomy, COP, social networking services or advanced search tools and so on. In addition,
this research reveals that, as far as MO and innovation are concerned, companies need to
establish frequent communication channels with customers so that they can identify and
respond quickly to their needs. Overall, this research has contributed to confirming a
positive relationship between TQM and innovation, which remained unclear in the
literature, and to suggesting that the effect of TQM on innovation is notably greater in
companies with high TQM levels than in companies with lower quality levels.
References Implications of
Abrunhosa, A. and Moura E Sá, P. (2008), “Are TQM principles supporting innovation in the TQM
Portuguese footwear industry?”, Technovation, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 208-221.
Ahmad, M.F., Zakuan, N., Jusoh, A., Yusof, S.M., Takala, J. and Arif, M.S.M. (2014), “Comparative study
of TQM practices between Japanese and non-Japanese companies: proposed conceptual
framework”, Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 903 No. 1, pp. 371-377.
Amir, H., Ahmad, J. and Sang, L.C. (2017), “Knowledge management and total quality management: a 297
reciprocal relationship”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 91-102.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modelling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
APO (2010), Knowledge Management Tools and Techniques, Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo.
Archibugi, D. (2017), “Blade runner economics: will innovation lead the economic recovery?”, Research
Policy, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 535-543.
Arnold, T.J., Fang, E. and Palmatier, R.W. (2011), “The effects of customer acquisition and retention
orientations on a firm’s radical and incremental innovation performance”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 234-251.
Aziz, N.A. and Omar, N.A. (2013), “Exploring the effect of internet marketing orientation, learning
orientation and market orientation on innovativeness and performance: SME (exporters)
perspectives”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 14 No. S1, pp. S257-S278.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1998), “On the evaluation of structural equation model”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (2005), “Market orientation and the new product paradox”, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 483-502.
Barber, K.D., Eduardo Munive-Hernandez, J. and Keane, J.P. (2006), “Process-based knowledge
management system for continuous improvement”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 1002-1018.
Batterink, M., Wubben, E. and Omta, S. (2006), “Factors related to innovative output in the Dutch
agrifood industry”, Journal on Chain and Network Science, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 31-44.
Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G. and Mol, M.J. (2008), “Management innovation”, Academy of management
Review, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 825-845.
Black, S.A. and Porter, L.J. (1996), “Identification of the critical factors of TQM”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Bou-Llusar, J.C., Escrig-Tena, A.B., Roca-Puig, V. and Beltrán-Martín, I. (2009), “An empirical
assessment of the EFQM excellence model: evaluation as a TQM framework relative to the
MBNQA model”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1995), “Product development: past research, present findings, and
future directions”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 343-378.
Calvo-Mora, A., Picón, A., Ruiz, C. and Cauzo, L. (2013), “The relationships between soft-hard TQM
factors and key business results”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 115-143.
Calvo-Mora, A., Ruiz-Moreno, C., Picón-Berjoyo, A. and Cauzo-Bottala, L. (2014), “Mediation effect of
TQM technical factors in excellence management systems”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67
No. 5, pp. 769-774.
Chatterjee, S. and Hadi, A.S. (2015), Regression Analysis by Example, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Chin, C.-H., Lo, M.-C. and Ramayah, T. (2013), “Market orientation and organizational performance: the
moderating role of service quality”, Sage Open, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 1-14.
Colurcio, M. (2009), “TQM: a knowledge enabler?”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 236-248.
IJQRM Corredor, P. and Goñi, S. (2010), “Quality awards and performance: is there a relationship?”, The TQM
37,2 Journal, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 529-538.
Corredor, P. and Goñi, S. (2011), “TQM and performance: is the relationship so obvious?”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 8, pp. 830-838.
Costa, A.I. and Jongen, W. (2006), “New insights into consumer-led food product development”,
Trends in Food Science & Technology, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 457-465.
298 Dalkir, K. and Beaulieu, M. (2017), Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice,
MIT Press, Oxford.
Damanpour, F. (1991), “Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 550-590.
Damanpour, F., Szabat, K.A. and Evan, W.M. (1989), “The relationship between types of innovation
and organizational performance”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 587-601.
Darroch, J. (2003), “Developing a measure of knowledge management behaviors and practices”, Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 41-54.
Darroch, J. (2005), “Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 101-115.
Dean, J.W. and Bowen, D.E. (1994), “Management theory and total quality: improving research and
practice through theory development”, The Academy of Management Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 392-418.
Dewar, R.D. and Dutton, J.E. (1986), “The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: an empirical
analysis”, Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 11, pp. 1422-1433.
Elina, J. and Matthew, A. (2014), “The role of customer engagement behavior in value co-creation: a
service system perspective”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 247-261.
Escrig-Tena, A.B., Segarra-Ciprés, M., García-Juan, B. and Beltrán-Martín, I. (2018), “The impact of
hard and soft quality management and proactive behaviour in determining innovation
performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 200 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Ferdousi, F., Baird, K., Munir, R. and Su, S. (2018), “Associations between organisational factors, TQM
and competitive advantage: evidence from an emerging economy”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 854-873.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. (1994), “A framework for quality management research
and an associated measurement instrument”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 339-366.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXVII No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Frolova, I. and Lapina, I. (2015), “Integration of CSR principles in quality management”, International
Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 7 Nos 2/3, pp. 260-273.
Gadenne, D. and Sharma, B. (2009), “An investigation of the hard and soft quality management factors
of Australian SMEs and their association with firm performance”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 865-880.
Grant, R.M. (1996), “Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17 No. S2, pp. 109-122, doi: 10.2307/2486994.
Gutierrez-Gutierrez, L.J., Barrales-Molina, V. and Kaynak, H. (2018), “The role of human resource-related
quality management practices in new product development: a dynamic capability perspective”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 43-66.
Hamel, G. (2006), “The why, what, and how of management innovation”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 84 No. 2, p. 72.
Han, J.K., Kim, N. and Shrivastava, R. (1998), “Market orientation and organizational performance: is
innovation a missing link?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 30-45.
Hayes, A.F. and Scharkow, M. (2013), “The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect Implications of
effect in statistical mediation analysis: does method really matter?”, Psychological Science, Vol. 24 TQM
No. 10, pp. 1918-1927.
Heiens, R.A. (2000), “Market orientation: toward an integrated framework”, Academy of Marketing
Science Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-4.
Hill, F.M. (1996), “Organizational learning for TQM through quality circles”, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 53-57. 299
Ho, S.-H., Wu, J.-J. and Chen, Y. (2010), “Influence of corporate governance and market orientation on
new product preannouncement: evidence from Taiwan”, Asia Pacific Management Review,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Honarpour, A., Jusoh, A. and Long, C.S. (2017), “Knowledge management and total quality
management: a reciprocal relationship”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 91-102.
Honarpour, A., Jusoh, A. and Md Nor, K. (2012), “Knowledge management, total quality management and
innovation: a new look”, Journal of technology management & innovation, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 22-31.
Huber, G.P. (1991), “Organizational learning the contributing processes and the literatures”,
Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 88-115.
Hult, G.T.M., Hurley, R.F. and Knight, G.A. (2004), “Innovativeness: its antecedents and impact on
business performance”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 429-438.
Hung, R.Y.-Y., Lien, B.Y.-H., Fang, S.-C. and Mclean, G.N. (2010), “Knowledge as a facilitator for
enhancing innovation performance through total quality management”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 425-438.
Hung, R.Y.Y., Lien, B.Y.-H., Yang, B., Wu, C.-M. and Kuo, Y.-M. (2011), “Impact of TQM and
organizational learning on innovation performance in the high-tech industry”, International
Business Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 213-225.
Husain, Z., Dayan, M. and Di Benedetto, C.A. (2016), “The impact of networking on competitiveness
via organizational learning, employee innovativeness, and innovation process: a mediation
model”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 15-28.
Irefin, I.A., Abdul-Azeez, I.A. and Hammed, G.O. (2011), “A study of the effect of total quality
management (TQM) practices on organizational performance in Nigeria”, Interdisciplinary
Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, Vol. 3 No. 7, pp. 466-484.
Jayawarna, D. and Holt, R. (2009), “Knowledge and quality management: an R&D perspective”,
Technovation, Vol. 29 No. 11, pp. 775-785.
Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1996), LISREL 8 User’s Reference Guide, Scientific Software
International, Chicago, IL.
Karthikeyan, S. (2015), “The link between total quality management (TQM) and developing learning
organizations: strategic implications for organizational transformation in hospitals”, Quality
Management Practices for Global Excellence, Pearson, Essex, p. 225.
Khanam, S., Talib, F. and Siddique, J. (2015), “Identification of total quality management enablers and
information technology resources for ICT industry: a Pareto analysis approach”, International
Journal of Information Quality, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 18-41, doi: 10.1504/IJIQ.2015.071675.
Kim, D.-Y., Kumar, V. and Kumar, U. (2012), “Relationship between quality management practices and
innovation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 295-315.
Kiran, D.R. (2017), “Chapter 15 – quality circles”, in Kiran, D.R. (Ed.), Total Quality Management,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 213-218.
Kohli, A.K., Jaworski, B.J. and Kumar, A. (1993), “MARKOR: a measure of market orientation”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 467-477.
Koren, R. and Palcic, I. (2015), “The impact of technical and organisational innovation concepts on
product characteristics”, Advances in Production Engineering & Management, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 27-39.
IJQRM Lai, K.-H. (2003), “Market orientation in quality-oriented organizations and its impact on their
37,2 performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 17-34.
Lam, S.-Y., Lee, V.-H., Ooi, K.-B. and Phusavat, K. (2012), “A structural equation model of TQM, market
orientation and service quality: evidence from a developing nation”, Managing Service Quality:
An International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 281-309.
Lau, C.M. and Ngo, H.Y. (2004), “The HR system, organizational culture, and product innovation”,
300 International Business Review, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 685-703.
Lee, Y.-K., Kim, S.-H., Seo, M.-K. and Hight, S.K. (2015), “Market orientation and business performance:
evidence from franchising industry”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 44
No. 1, pp. 28-37.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992), “The factory as a learning laboratory”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 23-38.
Lyon, D. and Ferrier, W. (2002), “Enhancing performance with product-market innovation: the influence
of the Top Management Team”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 14 No. 14, pp. 452-469.
Mahmood, S., Qadeer, F. and Ahmed, A. (2015), “The role of organizational learning in understanding
relationship between total quality management and organizational performance”, Pakistan
Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 282-302.
Mahmoud, M.A., Blankson, C., Owusu-Frimpong, N., Nwankwo, S. and Trang, T.P. (2016), “Market
orientation, learning orientation and business performance: The mediating role of innovation”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 623-648.
Maistry, K., Hurreeram, D.K. and Ramessur, V. (2017), “Total quality management and innovation:
relationships and effects on performance of agricultural R&D organisations”, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 418-437.
Manu, F.A. (1992), “Innovation orientation, environment and performance: a comparison of US and
European markets”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 333-359.
Moreno-Luzón, M.D., Gil-Marques, M. and Valls-Pasola, J. (2013), “TQM, innovation and the role of
cultural change”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 113 No. 8, pp. 1149-1168.
Mosadeghrad, A.M. (2015), “Developing and validating a total quality management model for
healthcare organisations”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 544-564.
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), “The effect of a market orientation on business profitability”, The
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 20-35.
Nilsson-Witell, L., Antoni, M. and Dahlgaard, J.J. (2005), “Continuous improvement in product
development: improvement programs and quality principles”, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 753-768.
Ooi, K.-B. (2014), “TQM: a facilitator to enhance knowledge management? A structural analysis”,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 41 No. 11, pp. 5167-5179.
Oswald, M. and Brettel, M. (2017), Alignment of Market Orientation and Innovation as a Success Factor
a Five-Country Study. The Customer is NOT Always Right? Marketing Orientationsin a Dynamic
Business World, Springer, Cham, p. 611.
Pattanayak, D., Pattanayak, D., Koilakuntla, M., Koilakuntla, M., Punyatoya, P. and Punyatoya, P.
(2017), “Investigating the influence of TQM, service quality and market orientation on customer
satisfaction and loyalty in the Indian banking sector”, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 362-377.
Perdomo-Ortiz, J., González-Benito, J. and Galende, J. (2009), “The intervening effect of business
innovation capability on the relationship between total quality management and technological
innovation”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 47 No. 18, pp. 5087-5107.
Perez Lopez, S., Montes Peon, J.M. and Vazquez Ordas, C.J. (2004), “Managing knowledge: the link
between culture and organizational learning”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 6,
pp. 93-104.
Pérez, V.F. and Gutiérrez Gutiérrez, L. (2013), “External managerial networks, strategic flexibility and Implications of
organisational learning: a comparative study among non-QM, ISO and TQM firms”, Total TQM
Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 24 Nos 3-4, pp. 243-258.
Pinho, J.C. (2008), “TQM and performance in small medium enterprises: the mediating effect of
customer orientation and innovation”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 256-275.
Prajogo, D.I. and Hong, S.W. (2008), “The effect of TQM on performance in R&D environments: a 301
perspective from South Korean firms”, Technovation, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 855-863.
Prajogo, D.I. and Mcdermott, C.M. (2005), “The relationship between total quality management
practices and organizational culture”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 1101-1122.
Prajogo, D.I. and Sohal, A.S. (2003), “The relationship between TQM practices, quality performance,
and innovation performance: an empirical examination”, The International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, Vol. 20 Nos 8/9, pp. 901-918.
Prajogo, D.I. and Sohal, A.S. (2006), “The integration of TQM and technology/R&D management in
determining quality and innovation performance”, Omega, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 296-312.
Rashid, F., Bin Taib, C.A. and Hj Ahmad, M.A. (2016), “An evaluation of supply chain management and
total quality management (TQM) practices in Bangladesh ready-made garments industry: a
conceptual model”, International Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 85-96.
Rhee, J., Park, T. and Lee, D.H. (2010), “Drivers of innovativeness and performance for innovative SMEs
in South Korea: mediation of learning orientation”, Technovation, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 65-75.
Ross, J.E. (2017), Total Quality Management: Text, Cases, and Readings, Routledge, Boca Raton, FL.
Rowlinson, M., Booth, C., Clark, P., Delahaye, A. and Procter, S. (2010), “Social remembering and
organizational memory”, Organization Studies, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 69-87.
Ruiz-Moreno, A., Haro-Domínguez, C., Tamayo-Torres, I. and Ortega-Egea, T. (2016), “Quality
management and administrative innovation as firms’ capacity to adapt to their environment”,
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 27 Nos 1-2, pp. 48-63.
Sabella, A., Kashou, R. and Omran, O. (2014), “Quality management practices and their relationship to
organizational performance”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 34 No. 12, pp. 1487-1505.
Samat, N., Ramayah, T. and Saad, N.M. (2006), “TQM practices, service quality, and market orientation:
some empirical evidence from a developing country”, Management Research News, Vol. 29
No. 11, pp. 713-728.
Sanchez, L. and Blanco, B. (2014), “Three decades of continuous improvement”, Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 25 Nos 9-10, pp. 986-1001.
Sangmi, C. (2012), “Learning orientation and market orientation as catalysts for innovation in nonprofit
organizations”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 393-413.
San Miguel, E., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. and Tarí, J.J. (2016), “TQM and market orientation in care home
services”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 1076-1098.
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. and Schroeder, R.G. (1989), “An instrument for measuring the critical factors
of quality management”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 810-829.
Schmitz, S., Rebelo, T., Gracia, F.J. and Tomá, I. (2014), “Learning culture and knowledge management
processes: to what extent are they effectively related?”, Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las
Organizaciones, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 113-121.
Seo, Y., Lee, C. and Moon, H. (2016), “An organisational learning perspective of knowledge creation and
the activities of the quality circle”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 27
Nos 3-4, pp. 432-446.
Shalley, C.E. and Gilson, L.L. (2017), “Creativity and the management of technology: balancing creativity
and standardization”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 605-616.
IJQRM Shan, S., Zhao, Q. and Hua, F. (2013), “Impact of quality management practices on the knowledge
37,2 creation process: the Chinese aviation firm perspective”, Computers & Industrial Engineering,
Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 211-223.
Shehu, A.M. and Mahmood, R. (2014), “An empirical analysis of market orientation and business
performance relationship in the context of developing economy”, International Journal of
Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 9, pp. 219-232.
302 Sila, I. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2003), “Examination and comparison of the critical factors of total quality
management (TQM) across countries”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41
No. 2, pp. 235-268.
Sila, I. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2005), “Critical linkages among TQM factors and business results”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 1123-1155.
Silva, G.M., Gomes, P.J., Lages, L.F. and Lopes Pereira, Z. (2014), “The role of TQM in strategic product
innovation: an empirical assessment”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 34 No. 10, pp. 1307-1337.
Simatupang, T.M. and White, A.J. (1998), “A policy resolution model for knowledge acquisition in
quality management”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 9 No. 8, pp. 767-779.
Singh, P.J. and Smith, A.J.R. (2004), “Relationship between TQM and innovation: an empirical study”,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 394-401.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), “Market orientation and the learning organization”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 63-74.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (2000), “Intelligence generation and superior customer value”, Journal of
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 120-127.
Song, J., Wei, Y.S. and Wang, R. (2015), “Market orientation and innovation performance: the
moderating roles of firm ownership structures”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 319-331.
Sparks, R.E. (1993), “A definition of quality for total customer satisfaction”, SAM Advanced
Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 16-27.
Spender, J.C. (1996), “Organizational knowledge, learning and memory: three concepts in search of a
theory”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 63-78, doi: 10.1108/
09534819610156813.
Ståhl, A.-C.F., Gustavsson, M., Karlsson, N., Johansson, G. and Ekberg, K. (2015), “Lean production
tools and decision latitude enable conditions for innovative learning in organizations: a
multilevel analysis”, Applied ergonomics, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 285-291.
Thai Hoang, D., Igel, B. and Laosirihongthong, T. (2006), “The impact of total quality management on
innovation: findings from a developing country”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 1092-1117.
Tontini, G. and Picolo, J.D. (2014), “Identifying the impact of incremental innovations on customer
satisfaction using a fusion method between importance-performance analysis and Kano model”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 32-52.
Trott, P. (2008), Innovation Management and New Product Development, Pearson Education, London.
Un, C.A. and Asakawa, K. (2015), “Types of R&D collaborations and process innovation: the benefit of
collaborating upstream in the knowledge chain”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 138-153.
Visnjic, I., Wiengarten, F. and Neely, A. (2016), “Only the brave: Product innovation, service business
model innovation, and their impact on performance”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 36-52.
Volberda, H., Van Den Bosch, F. and Heij, K. (2013), “Management innovation: management as fertile
ground for innovation”, European Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Walker, R.M., Chen, J. and Aravind, D. (2015), “Management innovation and firm performance: an
integration of research findings”, European Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 407-422.
Walley, K. (2000), “TQM in non-manufacturing SMEs: evidence from the UK farming sector”, Implications of
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 46-61. TQM
Wang, C.-H., Chen, K.-Y. and Chen, S.-C. (2012), “Total quality management, market orientation and
hotel performance: the moderating effects of external environmental factors”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 119-129.
Wang, C.-H., Lu, Y.-H., Huang, C.-W. and Lee, J.-Y. (2013), “R&D, productivity, and market value: an
empirical study from high-technology firms”, Omega, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 143-155. 303
Wang, G. and Miao, C.F. (2015), “Effects of sales force market orientation on creativity, innovation
implementation, and sales performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 11,
pp. 2374-2382.
Weerawardena, J. and O’cass, A. (2004), “Exploring the characteristics of the market-driven firms and
antecedents to sustained competitive advantage”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33
No. 5, pp. 419-428.
Weerd-Nederhof, P., Pacitti, B., Da Silva Gomes, J. and Pearson, A. (2002), “Tools for the improvement
of organization learning processes in innovation”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 14 No. 8,
pp. 320-331.
Wright, C., Sturdy, A. and Wylie, N. (2012), “Management innovation through standardization:
consultants as standardizers of organizational practice”, Research Policy, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 652-662.
Wu, L.-W., Lii, Y.-S. and Wang, C.-Y. (2015), “Managing innovation through co-production in interfirm
partnering”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 11, pp. 2248-2253.
Wuyts, S., Rindfleisch, A. and Citrin, A. (2015), “Outsourcing customer support: the role of provider
customer focus”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 40-55.
Yam, R.C.M., Tam, A.Y.K., Tang, E.P.Y. and Mok, C.K. (2005), “TQM: a change management model for
market orientation”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 439-461.
Yasin, M.M., Alavi, J., Kunt, M. and Zimmerer, T.W. (2004), “TQM practices in service organizations: an
exploratory study into the implementation, outcome and effectiveness”, Managing Service
Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 377-389.
Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E. and Sapienza, H.J. (2001), “Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge
exploitation in young technology-based firms”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 Nos 6-7,
pp. 587-613.
Yu, X., Nguyen, B. and Chen, Y. (2016), “Internet of things capability and alliance: entrepreneurial
orientation, market orientation and product and process innovation”, Internet Research, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 402-434.
Yusr, M.M., Mokhtar, S.S.M., Othman, A.R. and Sulaiman, Y. (2017), “Does interaction between TQM
practices and knowledge management processes enhance the innovation performance?”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 955-974.
Zairi, M. and Alsughayir, A.A. (2011), “The adoption of excellence models through cultural and social
adaptations: an empirical study of critical success factors and a proposed model”, Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 641-654.

Further reading
Dost, M., Badir, Y.F., Ali, Z. and Tariq, A. (2016), “The impact of intellectual capital on innovation
generation and adoption”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 675-695.
Elshaer Ibrahim, A. and Augustyn Marcjanna, M. (2016), “Direct effects of quality management on
competitive advantage”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 33 No. 9,
pp. 1286-1310.
Kanapathy, K., Bin, C.S., Zailani, S. and Aghapour, A.H. (2017), “The impact of soft TQM and hard
TQM on innovation performance: the moderating effect of organisational culture”, International
Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 429-461.
IJQRM López-Mielgo, N., Montes-Peón, J.M. and Vázquez-Ordás, C.J. (2009), “Are quality and innovation
37,2 management conflicting activities?”, Technovation, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 537-545.
Molina-Azorín, J.F., Tarí, J.J., Pereira-Moliner, J., López-Gamero, M.D. and Pertusa-Ortega, E.M. (2015),
“The effects of quality and environmental management on competitive advantage: a mixed
methods study in the hotel industry”, Tourism Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 41-54.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1996), “Competitive strategy in the market-focused business”, Journal of
Market-Focused Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 159-174.
304
Corresponding author
Lorena Para-Gonzalez can be contacted at: lorena.para@cud.upct.es

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com