10 1108 - TQM 03 2019 0085

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/339032858
A framework for Crosby’s quality principles using ISM and MICMAC

approaches
Article in TQM Journal · December 2019

DOI: 10.1108/TQM-03-2019-0085
CITATIONS READS
4 2,120
1 author:
Nishant Agrawal
Nirma University
8 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Nishant Agrawal on 26 April 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2731.htm
A framework
A framework for Crosby’s quality for Crosby’s
principles using ISM and quality
principles
MICMAC approaches
Nishant Agrawal 305
Institute of Management, Nirma University, Ahmedabad, India
Received 22 March 2019
Accepted 2 September 2019
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine Philip B. Crosby’s 14 quality principles and analyze the
interaction between them. Hitherto no research has been published on the implementation of total quality
management (TQM) using Crosby’s 14 principles. To fill this gap, interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and
Matrix Impact Cross-Reference Multiplication Applied to a Classification (MICMAC) analysis have been designed
to prioritize, sequence and categorize variables to find both the dependence and driving power of these variables.
Design/methodology/approach – At the initial stage experts from industry as well as from academia were
contacted to provide an input for ISM methodology and examine interactions between identified variables. In
this approach, interpretations of the interrelationships among variables have been discussed, whereas
MICMAC analysis is used to discover dependence and driving power.
Findings – The results of the investigation revealed that “Management Commitment,” “Quality Improvement
Team,” “Quality Awareness,” “Supervisor Training,” “Goal Setting” and “Cost of Quality Evaluation” are
strategic requirements; “Corrective Action,” “Zero Defects Day” and “Error Cause Removal” are tactical
requirements. “Recognition,” “Quality Measurement,” “Quality Councils” and “Do It Over Again” are operational
requirements for TQM applications.
Originality/value – ISM is used as a part of this research to provide valuable insights into interrelationships
among Crosby’s quality principles through a systematic framework. The research opens up a new focus area
on the implementation of TQM for services as well as for the manufacturing industry.
Keywords Total quality management, Interpretive structural modelling, MICMAC analysis,
Philip Crosby, Quality Management, MCDM
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Implementation of total quality management (TQM) is not intended for any specific sector and
it can be applied across all sectors. Feeling passionate about implementing TQM cannot
guarantee the success of a TQM strategy, but firms must also ensure they develop a quality
culture and values to make quality the origin of their competitive advantage (Saleh et al., 2018).
For business excellence, TQM is considered to be a holistic management philosophy which
depends on principles and practices (Dahlgaard-Park, 2011). Manufacturing sectors have
always been the main focus of TQM implementation in the extant literature (Mahmood et al.,
2014), but in recent years TQM has also been applied in the service sector (Talib et al., 2013;
Psomas and Jaca, 2016). In addition, TQM implementation has not always delivered accurate
results even if it has been accepted worldwide. This shows management must continuously
measure results to reflect the need for making changes at the right time.
Moreover, customers’ major considerations are now product quality and service quality;
they want high-quality products, fast delivery and sufficient flexibility. All such factors
have created challenge for companies around the world to improve their goods and services
to become competitive. One way to gain competitiveness is to increase the productivity of
manufacturing operations and respond to the changing taste of customers. These challenges
The TQM Journal
Vol. 32 No. 2, 2020
The author extremely grateful to anonymous referees whose constructive comments led to a pp. 305-330
substantial improvement of the paper. The author also would like to thank Nirma University for © Emerald Publishing Limited
1754-2731
providing an ample resources. DOI 10.1108/TQM-03-2019-0085
TQM can be addressed through the systematic development of the TQM principle model which
32,2 enhances productivity of firm as well as fulfils customer needs. Hence, there is a compelling
reason to study not only suitable enablers, but researchers also need to find contextual
relationships among the enablers. This study has tried to fill this gap to achieve the above
purpose. So, in this paper, we have used Crosby’s 14 quality principles to develop systematic
model to implement TQM in manufacturing as well as service organizations.
306 There were numerous methods available to draw a framework across different disciplines,
but choosing the right methodology depends upon the problem statement as well as the
structure of outputs required by researchers and academicians. Some of the well-known
approaches include analytical hierarchy process (AHP), analytic network process (ANP) and
interpretive structural modeling (ISM) (Drohomeretski et al., 2014). Generally, these approaches
have been used for modeling and multi-criteria decision making (MCDM). As per the
requirements and the feasibility of using these approaches, researchers can use the
combination of all three approaches (Gorane and Kant, 2015). In this research, ISM has been
preferred compared to the other two approaches because ISM portrays a systematic structure
and also uses a level of partition. Henceforth, practitioners can take the advantage of the
visualization of the implementation structure (Yadav and Desai, 2017), whereas AHP and ANP
only help in cases of ranking or prioritizing. In this research, the integration of ISM and Matrix
Impact Cross-Reference Multiplication Applied to a Classification (MICMAC) analysis has been
used to find out the driving and dependence power of enablers in a systematic manner.
The main objectives of this paper are:
• to explore, prioritize, sequence and categorize Crosby’s quality principles that
enhance performance;
• to evaluate the mutual relationships between these quality principles;
• to evaluate the driving power as well as dependence power of these quality
principles; and
• to examine the importance of this research and outline opportunities for further research.
This research paper is focused on developing a framework of modeling enablers for Crosby’s 14
principles with the help of contemporary techniques such as ISM and MICMAC analysis. The
paper is organized as follows: Section 2 explains the theoretical background of Crosby’s
management theories followed by the reasons behind the selection of Crosby’s quality principles.
ISM methodology with the development of framework along with contextual relationship
among the enables is explained in Section 3. MICMAC analysis explains the driving power and
dependence power of enablers in Section 4, followed by results and discussion in Section 5.
Practical and theoretical implications in Section 6 are followed by a final conclusion on the
research, limitations and future research opportunities in Section 7 and Section 8, respectively.
2. Theoretical background
Quality gurus like Deming, Juran, Crosby, Feigenbaum as well as Ishikawa exposure to
quality concepts for more than 40 years without using the adjective “total” in beginning of
1950. They were credited for laying down the principles and practices underlying the
concept. It was defined as “value” (Feigenbaum, 1957), “conformance to requirements”
(Crosby, 1979), “defect avoidance” (Crosby, 1984) and “fitness for use” ( Juran and Gryna,
1988). Feigenbaum coined the word “total quality control” in 1961 and the term “TQM”
appeared in the 1980s when it was suggested it should replace the word “control” with
“management,” as it was understood that quality is to be managed and not to be controlled.
After successful implementation of quality in the USA, Europe and Japan with numerous
association of quality management worldwide in the year 1970s and 1980s, there were
numerous names under which quality management was received popularity like ISO 9000, A framework
business excellence, Six Sigma, benchmarking, TQM and Kaizen with the only one objective for Crosby’s
“total customer satisfaction.” One of the challenging tasks for the quality practitioner is to quality
keep patient as quality improvement cannot be achieved overnight. Here, considered
Crosby’s 14 quality principle is not just for short-term motivation but it helps quality principles
manager and firm to keep focus on long-term employee participation. Quality improvement
idea is always considered to be a great idea but because it is typically so essential, managers 307
may think simply declaring its conception will solve many complex issues.
One of the better ways to assess firm performance is financial measurement in order to
find whether planned objectives have been achieved or not (American Society for Quality,
2000, p. 6). For the continuous improvement, it is much important to report quality system
activities as well as effectiveness in financial terms for the improvement of performance and
it is also considered to be keystone of the Six Sigma approach to quality (Sower et al., 2007).
The organization who implemented quality believed in “Quality is free” (Crosby, 1979).
It has been reported that the Cost of Quality (CoQ) contribute for 5 to 25 percent of sales
revenue (Williams et al., 1999). So, it is important for practitioners to quantifying the CoQ
while implementing TQM. To understand this cost in detail, researchers have operationalize
CoQ by collecting data and validating it with the help of simulations, theoretical models and
case studies (Plewa et al., 2016). For Great Britain companies CoQ has been projected around
5 to 15 percent of total turnover (Kent, 2005) and for the USA, 20–35 percent of sales for
manufacturing and service companies (Crosby, 1984) and at 10 percent of revenues
(Feigenbaum, 2001). The idea of quality cost was first time given in the 1930s in the work of
Shewhart (1931) and to a minor extent Miner (1933) and Crocket (1935) (Giakatis et al., 2001).
Formalization as well as the conceptualization of CoQ established by work of Juran (1951),
Feigenbaum (1957) and Freeman (1960). Finally, a proper formalize structure and concept
was established by The American Society for Quality’s Quality Cost Committee, in 1961, to
promote its use (Bottorff, 1997). One of the biggest boost to promoting the CoQ concept
beyond the quality profession was done by the Crosby’s (1979) publication of “Quality is
Free” (Beecroft, 2001). Several management scholars continue to write, speak and be aware
of the principle of quality across a whole organization. Prominent among them are Juran
(1989) and Crosby (1990, 1992b), and each of them has developed important ideas that have
been accepted by industry.
2.1 Why Crosby’s quality principle?

Crosby (1992a) unlocked his book “Completeness: Quality for the 21st Century” with a
question: “What do we do after Total Quality Management?” He revealed the secret of
quality management specification (MIL-Q-9858) along with a need for a quality assurance
system. But unfortunately, it did not work properly. Still, Crosby continue the Baldrige
Award criteria for (and ISO 9000) for many years. He gave innovative approach in the view
of completeness and gave three main principles (Crosby, 1992a, p. 19): you have to cause
employees to be successful, cause suppliers to be successful and cause customers to be
successful (Van Kemenade and Hardjono, 2019).
There are numerous quality gurus, and many find the late Philip Crosby one of the most
readable. In his very first book in 1979 “Quality is Free” he advocated the use of a simple
tool to show where you are in the quality management spectrum. He called it the Quality
Management Maturity Grid to compare numerous business operations. Crosby’s gave
maturity grid that suggests firm to undergo five successive stages of quality maturity that
attain a highest level of quality in all stages of firm activity: uncertainty, awakening,
enlightenment, wisdom and certainty mentioned in Table I, depending upon how it find
measures on numerous performance metrics such as CoQ as percentage of sales.
Organizations found the maturity grid improved business estimations of quality costs with
TQM a simple and appropriate method (María, 1996; Fraser et al., 2002; Martínez and Selles, 2015;
32,2 Mendes et al., 2016; Moschidis et al., 2018). After successful implementing maturity grid,
Crosby claims that firm can reduce it CoQ by 20 percent of sales to an ideal 2.5 percent
within a five year of duration (María, 1996).
Crosby was not only an idealistic thinker, but also was a plain-speaking pragmatist.
In his speech he always connects humor with a profound message. He is famous for his
308 novel contribution in “zero defects” and his 14 quality principles points that are studied in
business management across the world. Some of Crosby’s teachings pertaining are not only
applicable to quality management to individuals’ professional lives but also help in personal
lives. For Crosby, quality is interwoven with conformance to requirements, and he
emphasizes on prevention instead of estimation, based on the 14 step repetition, with clear
commitment on the part of administration, which is exclusively responsible for continuous
improvement. Crosby does not focus on statistical procedures. Instead he focuses on quality
costing and he classifies cost into compliance and non-compliance costs. He also proposed
the formation of quality improvement groups and quality councils.
Crosby’s main idea governing quality and, therefore, its improvement is contained in his
slogan “zero defects” (Crosby, 1984; Bendell et al., 1995). The philosophy of Crosby is
expressed through four absolutes. According to the first, quality is compliance with
requirement, and second, prevention instead of estimates, third, the standard is zero defects,
and fourth, quality measurement is the value of non-conformities (Crosby, 1984). As per
Crosby, CoQ is nothing but cost of doing wrong things which are the expense of
non-conformance. Likewise Juran’s (1951) concept of the cost of poor quality as “the sum
of all costs that would disappear if there were no quality problems” is similar to Crosby’s
idea. The idea of CoQ, Crosby divided into two different parts. One part is of cost of
conformity and second is cost of non-conformity the former included all costs that were
accrued in an effort to ensure that products conformed to requirements. This classification
was recognized by Cokins (2006), Cosmin and Ana-Maria (2013) and the British Standards
Institute in 1981 (British Standards Institute, 1981; Plunkett and Dale, 1988).
In his book “Quality is Free” (1979), Crosby states that quality does not cost money. What
really costs money is “not doing the job right the first time,” which results in having to fix
defective parts, thereby increasing costs and decreasing productivity. Quality problems are
basically comprised of three types of errors which Crosby, Deming and Feigenbaum, attribute
to the problems of management. The errors are Group I – attitudes, Group II – ability and
Group III – bugs (Crosby, 1984). Workers believe that defects were caused by Group II and
Group III errors. Managers, on the contrary, considered that defects were caused by Group I
errors, as the attitudes of workers have often been developed prior to arriving at the
organization. The attitudes of workers can be changed through training in specific tasks, or
programmes that reward successful performance. Group II errors can be remedied by
training the workers adequately, and specifying which tasks are performed. Training, thus,
becomes an ongoing activity. Group III errors exist in all production processes; however,
Summation of company quality posture
Stage 1: uncertainty “We don’t know why we have problems with quality”
Stage 2: awakening “Is it absolutely necessary to always have problems with quality?”
Stage 3: enlightenment “Through management commitment ad quality improvement we are identifying
Table I. and resolving our problems”
Part of the quality Stage 4: wisdom “Defect prevention is a routine part of our operation”
management Stage 5: certainty “We know why we do not have problems with quality”
maturity grid Source: Crosby (1979, pp. 38-39)
the idea is to find these bugs and eliminate them. This can be done by communicating and A framework
informing the workers of the problems that may result if the prescribed recommendations are for Crosby’s
not implemented. quality
Crosby’s 14 quality principles are shown in Table II. This study follows a three-step
research design to achieve the objectives of this research (Figure 1). principles
2.2 Crosby’s 14 quality principles 309

2.2.1 Corrective action. It is not always inspection, audit or self-evaluation required to find
defects but sometime workers themselves require attention to find it out. As lot of people
are encouraged to discuss about their issues and opportunities for correction come to
light. So, it is important to discuss these issues during supervision meetings at each level.
There are some possibility that problem will not be resolve so it should systematically
passed up to the next level of supervision for review. If a particular functional department
supervisor does not keep such meetings, the team members should take initiatives to
begin them in the department.
2.2.2 Recognition. Most of the people want some form of recognition when they do
something really well. They also want other people to know about their achievement.
A group’s achievements are measured and information can be collated into simple graphs,
S. No. Principle S. No. Principle
B1 Corrective action B8 Quality councils

B2 Recognition B9 Zero defects day
B3 Quality measurement B10 Quality improvement team
B4 Establish an ad hoc committee for the zero defects program B11 Quality awareness
B5 Management commitment B12 Error cause removal Table II.
B6 Cost of quality evaluation B13 Do it over again Crosby’s 14 quality
B7 Goal setting B14 Supervisor training principles
Methods Research Flow Outcomes Section
Crosby’s 14 Task 1: Theoretical Explain each

Section 2
Quality Principles Background principles
Task 2: Provide Understand

Expert explanation of quality principles Section 2.2
quality principles in detail
Task 3: Identify
contextual Developed SSIM Section 3.1
relation
Task 4: Establish ISM diagraph and

ISM Section 3.4
structure model
Task 5: Classify Figure 1.

MICMAC analysis Section 4 Research flow
principles
TQM which are displayed in prominent positions. This system has the additional benefit of
32,2 fostering a competitive spirit among workers, and in addition, organization can begin award
programs to identify those who meet their objectives. Recognition is most important, not
necessary whether it is monetary or non-monetary.
2.2.3 Quality measurement. In order to achieve a system of quality measurement it is
necessary to:
310 (1) determine the standards of quality;
(2) establish a method/routine for collating information especially where performance
falls below the agreed standard; and
(3) communicate, by simple means, the results to the workforce.
Complaints from management about poor quality are often countered by the argument from
employees that they did not know or were not informed of the standard required. In addition,
employees often argue that they do not have the information on whether or not they are
achieving the standard. By collating the number of errors made on a regular basis, employees
can see whether or not they are achieving the required standard. If this information is placed
in an easily accessible place, like a noticeboard, every employee can see his or her
department’s progress toward the standard. The easiest way of showing the information is
through simple graphs – the figures collected by management are translated into information
that employees can easily see and understand. These graphs also act as an incentive to the
employee to strive to achieve the standard of quality required.
2.2.4 Establish an ad hoc committee for the zero defects program. Members of a quality
improvement team, list a program of events leading up to a “Zero Defects Day.” They
appoint a small team from their ranks to add to the program and run it, and then the
investigation of zero defect concept as well as implementation of program will be carried
out by three or four members of the team. Quality manager must take care right from
beginning that zero defect program is not motivation program. The objective is to provide
knowledge and meaning of the word “zero defects” so that each and every employee does
things “right first time.” This must be communicated to entire team and in particular, the
ad hoc group should pursue to match the program as per company’s image.
2.2.5 Management commitment. To have any chance of working, the “Quality System”
needs to be introduced from the top. At board level directors must formulate a quality
policy, and such a policy should state its aims and its requirements. The policy should put
the responsibility for its implementation on all levels of management and supervision. The
directors’ attitude to quality should be a commitment covering all processes, systems and
employees rather than a single operation carried out at the end of a manufacturing process.
The directors themselves must believe that the system will work and be willing to convert
others. They must be seen to implement the system in the decisions that they make – for
example, visits to the workplaces should be made and these visits can be seen as
complementing the implementation of the system by employees.
2.2.6 Cost of quality evaluation. In order to achieve something, it is necessary for the
organization to estimate cost of doing it: whether it is right or wrong. Costing should
be done only as a method of calling attention to priorities, as initial estimates are likely to be
shaky (although low). It is important to get exact numbers and comptroller’s office should put
this together. As they are the right people to receive complete information on how CoQ created
and it is not absolute performance measurement; it is an indication of where corrective action
will be cost-effective for a company. As the cost increased, correction also needs to be increased.
2.2.7 Goal setting. Each employee is interviewed on a regular basis, ideally every
fortnight, and encouraged to set his or her own goal to achieve. The idea is to show
achievement of the goal is not an easy task but it is challenging. The supervisor, having A framework
studied the records, has an idea of what he/she wants the employees to achieve. An for Crosby’s
achievement may be in some activity, e.g. the cleanest machine in the factory. Each quality
supervisor requested to set up the goal which they would like to achieve during meeting
with the staff. Typically, firm should set goal for 30, 60 and 90 days which must be principles
measurable and specific.
2.2.8 Quality councils. A quality council is mainly composed of people from management 311
but also includes representatives from the quality teams. Quality councils have the
responsibility for monitoring and organizing the quality program. It acts as a sort of executive
committee. Quality professional along with team leaders must organized continuous policy
review meeting to determine important aspects that will upgrade and enhance quality-related
program. The status of program as well as ideas for action gathers with the help of these
kinds of initiatives. They also connect the professionals together on a daily basis.
2.2.9 Zero defects day. A day or event should be organized when the focus is on the zero
defects program. It should be a grand event for all the members. Managers and employees
meet each other, share their experience and organized prize distribution ceremony. To keep
awareness of zero defects, firm should establish zero defects as the performance standard,
so that employee take it seriously. Senior supervisor should take initiative to describe the
program to their employees and try to do something innovative so employee will considered
it as “new attitude” day. By participating in such program employees feel motivated and
that memories will be long lasting.
2.2.10 Quality improvement team. A well-established way of dealing with problems in
any industry is to contact quality teams. These teams fall into two main categories:
(1) The team which is formed to deal with a specific problem and, therefore, composed
of specialists and/or employees who actually do the job. This type of team is likely to
have been appointed by a member of management, and it will disband when the
problem has been solved.
(2) The team meets on a regular basis and tries to solve a wide range of problems, many
of which are raised by the team members themselves. Members may have been elected
or appointed, and in this system the team has a number of functions in order to:
• raise problems;
• answer queries;
• be responsible for a department function;
• put into operation any decision which may affect the team members’ department
or function; and
• administrate/plan the quality program.
2.2.11 Quality awareness. Organization must share the knowledge of what a lack of quality
actually costs to the company with the employees. This can be achieve by giving training to
employees and by showing evidence of importance of quality improvement with the help of
booklets, films and posters. It is a sharing procedure which should not include manipulating
people. Administrative along with service employees should participate just like everybody
else. Supervisors and employees discussed positively related to quality which is one of the
advantage of training that helps to change the process, mindset toward quality as well as it
sets the basis for corrective actions.
2.2.12 Error cause removal. In order to achieve quality, a system must be used
that allows employees to record their problems and have a fair chance of getting a
response from management. This is given to the supervisor responsible for the area in
TQM which the problem occurs. The supervisor then has to give the employee an answer within
32,2 24 h. It cannot be claimed that such a system solves all problems, but it does put the
reporting of problems on a formal basis. Employees need to be encouraged to discuss the
problems that they are facing. The problems which prevent them from executing their
duties without errors should be noted in a form. Then the suitable functional group should
acknowledge the problem and formulate an answer in not more than 24 hr.
312 2.2.13 Do it over again. Some items and procedures can be forgotten or neglected. As
such, a final step aims to keep these forgotten items alive. Normally, program can take from
12 months to 18 months, by which turnover and changing circumstances could have beat
most of the education determination. Established new team of councils and start again has
become important. For example, zero defects day could be celebrated as an anniversary or
provide a special dinner to all the employees. Program must not get over, repetition
makes program everlasting rather to organize it once. If quality is not rooted in the firm, it will
never happen.
2.2.14 Supervisor training. Prior to implementation of all the steps, one formal
orientation should be organized with all the team members. All the team members must
know each step well enough to describe to their subordinates with the evidence of
understanding coming with the capability to explain it. Ultimately, all senior supervisors
should be participated into the program and understand its importance for themselves.
They will then essence their actions plan on the program.
The maturity grid should be taught to supervisors, which is nothing but a set series of
steps by which management can measure the status of an operation from a quality
standpoint. Summarized these are:
(1) To study and assess:
• employees for efficiency and promotion;
• their own departments for system efficiency; and
• their own and employees’ attitudes to jobs.
(2) To learn all the terms associated with the system.
(3) Work on solving a problem and putting the solution into practice.
3. Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and model development

There were numerous MCDM techniques available like AHP, ANP, DEMATEL, TOPSIS,
VIKOR, etc., to rank and prioritize the parameter but many a time all these techniques got
failed to deliver systematic hierarchical structure required for the parameters because
numerous quality initiatives in the industries need systematic structuring of parameter to
accomplish smooth a novel quality strategy (Poduval and Pramod, 2015; Yadav and Desai,
2016). ISM provides suitable solution to above-mentioned problem by creating a systematic
hierarchical structure of variables from the top level to bottom level (Piltan and Sowlati, 2016).
Academicians are working very hard to get optimal solutions for complex problems.
A few issues become more complicated due to presence and interactions among large number
of related variables that affect the problem area directly or indirectly ( Jayant et al., 2012).
Some of the advance statistical techniques are available like structural equation modeling
(SEM) to established theories or models (Hair et al., 2006). One of the disadvantages of this
technique is that they cannot be useful in developing an initial model, whereas ISM has that
capability to develop an initial model (Warfield, 1974a).
ISM was first suggested and developed by Warfield (1974a) for “structuring complex
issues” (Malhotra, 2014) and after that developed by Sage (1977). This method was defined
by Raj et al. (2008) as “a process aimed at assisting the human beings for better A framework
understanding of what they believe, and to recognize clearly what they do not know.” for Crosby’s
ISM methodology considered to be a synergistic procedure of learning where a compendious quality
model is developed in a systematic manner to represent complex issues or problems in more
appropriate words and graphics (Sage, 1977). As per the Jharkharia and Shankar (2005), principles
“it is a well-defined technique to identify relationships among different items regarding any
issue.” The purpose of ISM approach is to identify relationship among variable that 313
researchers are not aware and make sure researcher understand their beliefs in a better way.
This procedure transforms unstructured, imprecise and poorly expressive model into more
systematic, clear, well defined as well as better-structured manner. There are numerous
applications where ISM tackle a complicated problem depicted in Table III.
Expert opinion is a base for the ISM technique. From the extensive literature reviewed and
retrieved via their procedures, ISM models can be established with the help of minimum of two
experts (e.g. Ravi and Shankar, 2005). ISM methodology is interpretive because the
brainstorming and opinion of the experts from academia and industry will decide whether and
how variables are related. In aggregating research studies, teams have both industrial
and intellectual experts to provide support. In this way, the research presented in this paper was
conducted using the involvement of two experts. To reduce the personal bias of expert and
provide much detailed information about Crosby’s 14 quality principles, detailed explanation of
quality principles were distributed to both the experts. As per the availability of experts and
mutual understanding between them, after 15 days, session was planned to found mutual
relationships among variables. To develop a framework, a contextual relationship of the type
“achieved to” was chosen (e.g. “does one variable achieved to another variable?”). For simplicity,
experts were asked to provide their opinions in terms of “yes” or “no.” If the answer was “yes” it
was to be more construed (how) in a single line. After five days, contextual relationship between
variables and inter-relationship diagram were distributed for any further validation.
So, depending on the relationships that were achieved, an overall structure about the
complex set of variables can be generated.
In this study, model framework and validation has been shown in two vital parts, with the
most significant ISM framework part available in Figure 2. To keep consistency, similar
experts were used to develop an original ISM framework ladder and validate model (Panahifar
et al., 2014). Mandal and Deshmukh (1994) and Soti et al. (2010) offered the steps in the form of
a flow chart. Figure 2 signifies the numerous stages of ISM as well as MICMAC in the form
of a flow chart. The eight steps involved in the ISM methodology are as follows:
• Step 1: identification of a set of variables affecting a system or which are relevant to
the study. This can be done with the help of a rigorous literature review, support
from an expert from academia and industry, or a brainstorming session with experts.
• Step 2: definition of the contextual relationship between variables that indicates
whether or not one variable leads to another.
S. No. Area of application Contributor
1 Reverse logistics Ravi and Shankar (2005)

2 Six Sigma Soti et al. (2010)
3 Supply chain collaboration Ramesh et al. (2010)
4 Information security management Chander et al. (2013)
5 Lean Six Sigma enablers Yadav and Desai (2017) Table III.
6 Barriers to building information modeling Tan et al. (2019) Application areas
7 Sustainable smart city framework Yadav et al. (2019) of ISM
TQM
32,2 Crosby’s 14 quality
principles
Expert’s opinion
Contextual relationship between variables i and j
314
Develop structural self-interacting matrix (SSIM)
MICMAC
Develop an initial reachability matrix (RM) Determine driving power

and dependence power
ISM
Checked for transitivity, if any in the initial RM Classify enablers into four
clusters
Necessary modifications
Develop a final reachability matrix by incorporating transitivity

Explain characteristic of
clusters
Partition the final reachability matrix into different levels
Develop a diagraph
Remove transitivity links from the diagraph
Replace variables nodes with relationship statements
Yes Check for

conceptual
inconsistency
Figure 2.
No
Flow diagram for
preparing ISM and Represent relationship statement of Crosby’s
MICMAC quality principles
• Step 3: construction of a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) for the variables. SSIM
indicates a pair-wise relationship between variables of the system under consideration.
• Step 4: development of a reachability matrix from the SSIM and a check matrix for
transitivity. Transitivity is the basic assumption made in ISM that leads to the final
reachability matrix; it states that if an attribute A is related to B and B is related to C,
then A is necessarily related to C.
• Step 5: the reachability matrix achieved from fourth step is separated into different
levels.
• Step 6: depending on relationships specified in Step 5 above in the reachability
matrix, a directed graph is drawn and remove the transitive links.
• Step 7: the resultant digraph is transformed into an ISM, by substituting variable
nodes with statements.
• Step 8: the ISM model established in the Step 7 is reviewed to check for conceptual
inconsistency and any essential changes are made.
3.1 Self-structural interaction matrix (SSIM) A framework
An SSIM is developed for enablers as shown in Table IV, which indicates pair-wise for Crosby’s
relationships between the variables of Crosby’s 14 principles for TQM. In the research quality
presented here, an expert from both academia and industry were referred to for the
identification of contextual relationships among the variables. The ISM modeling technique principles
has been using experts’ opinions with the help of various methods such as brainstorming to
develop contextual relationships among the elements (Charan et al., 2008). As suggested in 315
ISM methodology (Warfield, 1974a; Thakkar et al., 2008; Gupta et al., 2013; Sahney, 2015;
Agrawal, 2019), the following four symbols have been used to denote the direction of the
relationship between the elements i and j:
• V ¼ Bi will help to achieve Bj but not in both directions;
• A ¼ Bj will help to achieve Bi but not in both directions;
• X ¼ Bi and Bj will help to achieve each other in both directions;
• O ¼ Bi and Bj have no relation; and
• A similar logic holds for Crosby’s quality principle.
The first case represents unidirectional relationships, where the entry in the SSIM is
indicated by “V”. For example, “Recognition” (B2) leads to achieve a “Management
Commitment” (B5). Thus, B2–B5 entry in the reachability matrix becomes 1 and the B5–B2
entry becomes 0. Similar approach is used for the “A” symbol, which is opposite in its
relationship to “V”. For example, “Corrective Action” (B1) is a result of “Recognition” (B2).
Thus, B1–B2 entry in the reachability matrix becomes 0 and the B2–B1 entry becomes 1.
The second case represents a two-way relationship, which is denoted as “X” in the
SSIM. For example, “Recognition” (B2) and “Do It Over Again” (B13) are the quality
principles leading to each other. Thus, both the entries B2–B13 and B13–B2 in the
reachability matrix become 1.
The third case represents the absence of a relationship between both quality principles,
and it is denoted by “O” in the SSIM. For example, “Corrective Action” (B1) and “Quality
Measurement” (B3) are an unrelated quality principle. Thus, both the entries B1–B3 and
B3–B1 in the reachability matrix become 0.
3.2 Constructing a reachability matrix from SSIM

The SSIM is converted into a binary numbers by replacing V, A, X, O by 1 and 0 called
the initial reachability matrix, a binary matrix is achieved and it is presented in Table V.
B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14
B1 A O X O O A O A O A O O A
B2 O A V A V A O O O X X V
B3 O A O A O A O A V A A
B4 O O A V O O V O V O
B5 O O A O V O X O V
B6 X O O O O V A O
B7 O X A O O V A
B8 A O V A A V
B9 O A O V A Table IV.
B10 X O V A Self-structural
B11 V A V interaction matrix
B12 V A (SSIM) of Crosby’s 14
B13 O quality principles
TQM B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14
32,2
B1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
B2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
B3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
B4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
B5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
316 B6 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
B7 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
B8 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
B9 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
B10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
B11 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1
B12 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
Table V. B13 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Reachability matrix B14 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
The cell value 1 specifies that a relationship exists between two variables, and the cell
value 0 specifies that there is no relationship. Thus, the cell value 0 indicates that the
one variable does not lead to another variable, whereas the cell value 1 indicates that the one
variable does leads to another variable:
• if the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is “V,” then the (i, j) value turns to “1” and the ( j, i) value
turns to “0” in the reachability matrix;
• if the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is “A,” then the (i, j) value turns to “0” and the ( j, i) value
turns to “1” in the reachability matrix;
• if the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is “X,” then the (i, j) value turns to “1” and the ( j, i) value
turns to “1” in the reachability matrix; and
• if the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is “O,” then the (i, j) value turns to “0” and the ( j, i) value
turns to “0” in the reachability matrix.
Applying these rules, the initial reachability matrix for the variables is completed. The
initial reachability matrix for the main variables is, therefore, derived from the SSIM by
replacing the concerned binary values. The dependence power is the total number of
elements, containing itself, which it may benefit to achieve. The driving power of an element
is the total number of elements, containing themselves, which it may benefit to achieve. The
rank of each variable in a final reachability matrix along with the driving power as well as
dependence power is shown in Table VI.
3.3 Transitivity check

The initial reachability matrix is subjected to a transitivity check. The interpretations of
relationships developed in the initial reachability matrix are checked to determine if all
relations have been correctly assessed. For example, if variable Bi leads to variable Bj
(Bi →Bj). The process of bridging these gaps is known as a transitivity check – if variable
Bj leads to variable Bk (Bj →Bk), then variable Bi must lead to variable Bk (Bi →Bk)
(Thakkar et al., 2008). Transitivity of a contextual relation is a basic assumption in ISM
(Singh and Sushil, 2013), and it is very critical to remove the same. In an initial reachability
matrix, B1–B4 is 1 and B4–B2 is 1; hence, B1–B2 must be 1. However, the initial
reachability matrix shows that B1–B2 is 0. All such gaps present in the initial reachability
matrix have been examined and modified to obtain the final reachability matrix, as shown
in Table VI.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 Driving power Rank A framework
for Crosby’s
B1 1 1* 1* 1 0 1* 0 1* 0 0 1* 0 1 0 8 5
B2 1 1 1* 1* 1 1* 1 1* 1* 1* 1* 1 1 1 14 1 quality
B3 0 1* 1 0 1* 0 0 1* 0 0 0 1 1* 0 6 6 principles
B4 1 1 1* 1 1* 1* 1* 1 1* 1* 1 1* 1 1* 14 1
B5 1* 1* 1 0 1 0 1* 1* 1* 1 1* 1 1* 1 12 3
B6 1* 1 1* 1* 1* 1 1 1* 1* 0 0 1 1* 1* 12 3 317
B7 1 1* 1 1 0 1 1 1* 1 0 1* 1* 1 0 11 4
B8 1* 1 1* 1* 1 0 1* 1 1* 1* 1 1* 1* 1 13 2
B9 1 1* 1 1* 1* 1* 1 1 1 0 1* 1* 1 1* 13 2
B10 1* 1* 1* 1* 0 1* 1 1* 1* 1 1 1* 1 1* 13 2
B11 1 1* 1 1 1* 0 1* 1* 1 1 1 1 1* 1 13 2
B12 1* 1 1* 0 1 1* 1* 1 0 1* 1* 1 1 1* 12 3
B13 1* 1 1 1* 1* 1 1* 1 1* 1* 1 1* 1 1* 14 1
B14 1 1* 1 1* 1* 1* 1 1* 1 1 1* 1 1* 1 14 1
Dependence Power 13 14 14 11 11 10 12 14 11 9 12 13 14 11 169 Table VI.
Rank 2 1 1 4 4 5 3 1 4 6 3 2 1 4 Final reachability
Note: 1*, transitivity relationship matrix
3.4 Level partition

One of the most important steps in structuring of enablers is level partitioning. In this step,
from the final reachability matrix, reachability set as well as antecedent sets has been
prepared Warfield (1974a). The antecedent set includes variables itself along with other
variables that may help attaining it, whereas reachability set includes variables itself along
with other variables which may help to achieve. Later the intersection sets are prepared for
each variable. The variables having same the intersection set and the reachability set are top
level variables in the ISM model (Kannan and Haq, 2007; Agrawal, 2019). These top level
variables will not help to attain any other variables in ISM hierarchy above their own level.
As soon as top level is determined, all these variables are eliminate from rest of the variables
and procedure is repeated until the bottom hierarchy is achieved.
These iterations continue until all levels of each variable have been determined, as shown
in Tables VII–XII. After this identification process at all levels, a digraph is developed, as
shown in Figure 3. The identified levels aid the creation of the digraph and the final model of
ISM. As shown in Figure 4, diagraph is transformed in the ISM model after removing
transitivity. Regardless of the detailed structuring of variables, the ISM framework does not
clarify the driving as well as dependence power of these variables, which is one of the
serious aspects that should be considered before applying any quality practice. Therefore, to
overcome this challenge, the ISM model was combined with MICMAC analysis to get a most
improved output that can render the optimal prerequisites.
4. MICMAC analysis
Sharma and Gupta (1995) examined the MICMAC, with the help of multiplication properties
of matrices (Kannan et al., 2009; Diabat and Govindan, 2011). It is a structural investigation
tool to define a system with the help of a matrix and classifies variables into four clusters on
the basis of their contextual relationships (Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994), as well as their
effect on one another, to identified key variables (Hu et al., 2009). The prime goal of MICMAC
analysis is to examine driving and dependence power of variables (Mandal and Deshmukh,
1994) in which all the variables are categorized into four clusters with following
characteristics, as shown in Table XIII (Hussain, 2011):
(1) clusters I contained “autonomous factors” that have neither high dependence nor
high driving power;
TQM Variable
32,2 names Reachability_Set Antecedents_Set Intersection_Set Level
B1 B1 B2 B3 B4 B6 B8 B11 B13 B1 B2 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B1 B2 B4 B6 B8 B11 B13

B10 B11 B12 B13 B14
B2 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 I
B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14
318 B3 B2 B3 B5 B8 B12 B13 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B2 B3 B5 B8 B12 B13 I
B10 B11 B12 B13 B14
B4 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B1 B2 B4 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B1 B2 B4 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10
B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B11 B13 B14 B11 B13 B14
B5 B1 B2 B3 B5 B7 B8 B9 B10 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B8 B9 B11 B2 B3 B5 B8 B9 B11 B12 B13
B11 B12 B13 B14 B12 B13 B14 B14
B12 B13 B14 B13 B14 B14
B11 B12 B13 B11 B12 B13 B14 B13
B8 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B7 B8 B9 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B7 B8 B9 I
B11 B12 B13 B14 B11 B13 B14 B13 B14
B10 B1 B2 B3 B4 B6 B7 B8 B9 B2 B4 B5 B8 B10 B11 B12 B2 B4 B8 B10 B11 B12 B13
B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B13 B14 B14
B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B11 B12 B13 B14 B11 B12 B13 B14
B11 B12 B13 B14 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B12 B13 B14
B13 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 I
Table VII. B14 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B2 B4 B5 B6 B8 B9 B10 B11 B2 B4 B5 B6 B8 B9 B10 B11
Iteration 1 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B12 B13 B14 B12 B13 B14
Variable
names Reachability_Set Antecedents_Set Intersection_Set Level
B1 B1 B4 B11 B1 B4 B5 B6 B7 B9 B10 B11 B1 B4 B11 II

B14
B4 B1 B4 B9 B10 B11 B12 B14 B1 B4 B6 B7 B9 B10 B11 B1 B4 B9 B10 B11 B14
B14
B5 B1 B5 B7 B9 B10 B11 B12 B14 B5 B6 B11 B12 B14 B5 B11 B12 B14
B6 B1 B4 B5 B6 B7 B9 B12 B6 B7 B9 B10 B14 B6 B7 B9
B7 B1 B4 B6 B7 B9 B11 B12 B5 B6 B7 B9 B10 B11 B14 B6 B7 B9 B11
B9 B1 B4 B6 B7 B9 B4 B5 B6 B7 B9 B10 B11 B4 B6 B7 B9
B14
B10 B1 B4 B6 B7 B9 B10 B11 B12 B4 B5 B10 B11 B12 B14 B4 B10 B11 B12 B14
B14
B11 B1 B4 B5 B7 B9 B10 B11 B12 B1 B4 B5 B7 B10 B11 B14 B1 B4 B5 B7 B10 B11
B14 B14
B12 B5 B10 B12 B14 B4 B5 B6 B7 B10 B11 B12 B5 B10 B12 B14 II
B14
Table VIII. B14 B1 B4 B5 B6 B7 B9 B10 B11 B12 B4 B5 B10 B11 B12 B14 B4 B5 B10 B11 B12
Iteration 2 B14 B14
Variable names Reachability_Set Antecedents_Set Intersection_Set Level
A framework
for Crosby’s
B4 B4 B9 B10 B11 B14 B4 B6 B7 B9 B10 B11 B14 B4 B9 B10 B11 B14 III quality
B5 B5 B7 B9 B10 B11 B14 B5 B5 principles
B6 B4 B6 B7 B9 B6 B7 B9 B10 B14 B6 B7 B9
B9 B4 B6 B7 B9 B4 B5 B6 B7 B9 B10 B11 B14 B4 B6 B7 B9 III 319
B11 B4 B7 B9 B10 B11 B14 B4 B5 B7 B10 B11 B14 B4 B7 B10 B11 B14 Table IX.
B14 B4 B6 B7 B9 B10 B11 B14 B4 B5 B10 B11 B14 B4 B10 B11 B14 Iteration 3
B5 B5 B7 B10 B11 B14 B5 B5

B6 B6 B7 B6 B7 B10 B14 B6 B7 IV
B7 B6 B7 B5 B6 B7 B10 B11 B14 B6 B7 IV
B10 B6 B7 B10 B11 B14 B5 B10 B11 B14 B10 B11 B14
B11 B7 B10 B11 B14 B5 B10 B11 B14 B10 B11 B14 Table X.
B14 B6 B7 B10 B11 B14 B5 B10 B11 B14 B10 B11 B14 Iteration 4
B5 B5 B10 B11 B14 B5 B5

B10 B10 B11 B14 B5 B10 B11 B14 B10 B11 B14 V
B11 B10 B11 B14 B5 B10 B11 B14 B10 B11 B14 V Table XI.
B14 B10 B11 B14 B5 B10 B11 B14 B10 B11 B14 V Iteration 5

Table XII.
B5 B5 B5 B5 VI Iteration 6
(2) clusters II contained “dependent factors” that have high dependence and low
driving power;
(3) clusters III contained “linkage factors” (relay variables) which have high dependence
and high driving power; and
(4) clusters IV contained “independent factors” (influence variables) which have low
dependence and high driving power.
The driving power and dependence of each of these variables are shown in Table VI.
A dependence power and driving power diagram is necessary, and this diagram is also
called as MICMAC analysis, which benefits in examining and labeling Crosby’s quality
principles in terms of driving power and dependence (Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994; Singh
and Sushil, 2013). In Table VI, an entry of “1” is added along columns and rows to show
driving power and dependence power respectively. Subsequently, the driving power and
dependence power diagrammatic representation is shown in Figure 5. The dependence
power is plotted on the X-axis and the driving power is plotted on the Y-axis.
TQM B3 B2 B8 B13
32,2
B1 B12
320 B4 B9
B6 B7
B10 B14 B11
Figure 3.
Diagraph B5
B3. Quality
Level I Measurement
B2. Recognition B8. Quality Councils B13. Do It Over Again
Level II B12. Error Cause

B1. Corrective Action
Removal
B4. Establish an Ad
Level III Hoc Committee for the B9. Zero Defects Day
Zero Defects Program
B6. Cost of Quality

Level IV Evaluation B7. Goal Setting
Level V B10. Quality B14. Supervisor B11. Quality

Improvement Team Training Awareness
Figure 4.
ISM-based model for
Crosby’s 14 quality B5. Management
principles Level VI Commitment
The first cluster consists of “autonomous variables” having less driving power with less
dependence because these variables do not have much effect on the system. After the analysis
was performed, none of the variables found in this cluster. In the current study, the lack of
variables in the first clusters confirms that all considered variables were significant.
The second cluster consists of “dependent variables” having a weak driving power but strong
dependence. These variables generally depend on other variables and, therefore, any action taken
Cluster Driving
A framework
No. Cluster Characteristics power Dependence Variables for Crosby’s
quality
1 Autonomous Variables are independent in nature having Weak Weak
variables low driving and low dependence power which principles
do not affect the system to a great extent. They
more or less remain extraneous variables
2 Dependent Variables are strongly influenced by the Weak Strong B1, B3 321
variables system but do not influence the system. These
variables are less drivers but highly depend on
one another
3 Linkage They have more driving power as well as Strong Strong B2, B4, B7,
variables strong dependence power; so they are B8, B11,
important B12, B13
4 Independent Strongly influences the system but is not Strong Weak B5, B6, B9,
(influence) influenced by the system. Any action on these B10, B14 Table XIII.
variables variables will affect other variables which are Clusters and its
dependent on these variables characteristics
High B02
B10 B14 B04
B13
B09 B11
s B12 B08
iable
B05 B06 Var
ke
B07 Sta Relay Variables
Influent Variables
(Cluster IV) (Cluster III)
Target Variables
B01
Depending Figure 5.
Driving
Autonomous Variables (Cluster II)

Variables Driving power and
(Cluster I) B03 dependence diagram
Low
for Crosby’s quality
Low High
principles
Dependence
on other variables would affect these variables. From the MICMAC analysis, “Corrective Action”
(B1) and “Quality Measurement” (B3) were dependent performance measures.
The third cluster has “linkage variables” (relay variables) having both strong driving
power and a strong dependence power. These variables cause variability in the system as
their power of affecting and being affected by the other variable is high. They are also
considered to be unstable and any action on them will have an effect on others as well as a
feedback effect on themselves. As shown in Figure 5, “Recognition,” “Establish an Ad Hoc
Committee for the Zero Defects Program,” “Goal Setting,” “Quality Councils,” “Quality
Awareness,” “Error Cause Removal” and “Do It Over Again” were linkage performance
measures. Relay variables are further recognized as stake variables and target variables.
The variables situated around the diagonal within the cluster three are considered to be
stake variables, whereas variables under the diagonal rather than along the north–south
frontier located in cluster three considered to be target variables. These variables are rather
more dependent than influential (Veltmeyer and Mohamed, 2017).
TQM The fourth cluster consists of “independent variables” (influence variables) that have a
32,2 strong driving power but weak dependence power. It is usually considered to be a
performance measure with a very strong driving power, called the “key performance
measure,” part of category of independent or linkage performance measures. It has been
observed that “Management Commitment,” “Cost of Quality Evaluation,” “Zero Defects Day,”
“Quality Improvement Team” and “Supervisor Training” were key performance measures.
322
5. Results and discussion
In this study, Crosby’s 14 quality principles were used to identify relationships among the
stated variables. The relations between the certain variables were also evaluated with the
help of industry experts as well as academicians. By examining ISM methodology, a
systematic structural hierarchy model was established. In this paper, we found that
management commitment is the important to strategic planning. A TQM implementation
will do well only if top management is fully dedicated beyond public announcements
(Whalen and Rahim, 1994; Pheng and Teo, 2004; Metri, 2005; Johnson, 2015; Jraisat et al.,
2016; Bhatia and Awasthi, 2018; Agrawal, 2019). The lack of top-management considered to
be barrier for the firm, whereas top-management dedication is considered as an enabler
(Ellram, 1991). Some of the past literature shows that top management’s leadership role and
strong dedication considered to be very important while implementing TQM to work toward
quality targets (Lee and Asllani, 1997; Rivers and Bae, 1999). The commitment of top
management also plays a significant role in supervising training, quality awareness and
building quality improvement team (Badri et al., 1995; Lam et al., 2008; Majumdar and
Manohar, 2016; Basu et al., 2018; Sawant et al., 2018; Ajayi and Osunsanmi, 2018). Poor
training and education is considered as one of the major barriers in the development of
quality program (Newall and Dale, 1990; Ljungstrom and Klefsjo, 2002).
A detailed comparison summary of ISM and MICMAC analysis is shown in Table XIV
which gives further insights.
Previous studies also support the findings of this research work where effective top-
management commitment plays an important role in the successful implementation of TQM
in an organization (Thakkar et al., 2008; Singh and Sushil, 2013; Dubey and Singh, 2015;
Digalwar et al., 2015; Dewangan et al., 2015; Goyal et al., 2017). The study can help the top
management in giving priorities and emphasis on those variables that lead to preferred results
in the form of outcome variables. Quality begins and ends with training (Thiagarajan and
Zairi, 1997) and successful implementation of TQM is also depending upon the education
ISM MICMAC
Variables Level Dependence on Dependence power Driving power Cluster
B1 II B4, B5, B6, B7, B9, B10, B11, B14 High Low II
B2 I B1, B4, B5, B6, B7, B9, B10, B11, B12, B14 High High III
B3 I B1, B4, B5, B6, B7, B9, B10, B11, B12, B14 High Low II
B4 III B5, B6, B7, B10, B11, B14 High High III
B5 VI – Low High IV
B6 IV B5, B10, B11, B14 Low High IV
B7 IV B5, B10, B11, B14 High High III
B8 I B1, B4, B5, B6, B7, B9, B10, B11, B12, B14 High High III
B9 III B5, B6, B7, B10, B11, B14 Low High IV
B10 V B5 Low High IV
Table XIV. B11 V B5 High High III
Summary of ISM and B12 II B4, B5, B6, B7, B9, B10, B11, B14 High High III
MICMAC for Crosby’s B13 I B1, B4, B5, B6, B7, B9, B10, B11, B12, B14 High High III
quality principles B14 V B5 Low High IV
and training of employees; therefore, total quality must be planned and provided (Thiagarajan A framework
and Zairi, 1997; Baidoun, 2003) As per Figure 4, “Zero Defect Day” (B9) and “Establish an Ad for Crosby’s
Hoc Committee for the Zero Defects Program” (B4) lead to “Cost of Quality Evaluation” (B6) quality
along with “Goal Setting” (B7). Variables such as “Management Commitment” (B5), “Cost of
Quality Evaluation” (B6), “Zero Defects Day” (B9), “Quality Improvement Team” (B10) and principles
“Supervisor Training” (B14) are combined together into the fourth cluster of MICMAC
analysis having stronger driving power with weak dependence power, and are denoted as 323
driver variables (influence variables).
As shown in Figure 4, top-management commitment variable placed at the bottom level
of the ISM model having strongest driving power which considered to be one of the most
significant variable for TQM implementation. Variables such as “Recognition” (B2), “Quality
Measurement” (B3), “Quality Councils” (B8) and “Do It Over Again” (B13) are included the
classified as outcome variables. These variables are a part of higher level of the ISM model
and they are dependent upon middle as well as lower level variables. Therefore, to achieve
desired result, top management must emphasis on high driving power variables and
implement TQM strategies depending on these results and findings.
The next objective of this research work was to explore the driving and dependence
power of Crosby’s quality principles using MICMAC analysis. The MICMAC analysis
shows that the top-management commitment (B5) variable is an independent variable, as
it holds high driving power – organizations should focus on this, as they have the
capability to influence or affect other variables. Also, the absence of enablers in the first
quadrant shows that all considered enablers are significant. “Corrective Action” (B1), and
“Quality Measurement” (B3) are dependent performance measures. These variables
generally depend on other variables and, therefore, any action taken on other variables
would affect these variables.
6. Practical and theoretical implications

The research presented here shows the development of a novel framework to implement
TQM using Crosby’s 14 principles through industry as well as academia’s opinion. The
major implication of the present research lies in suggesting a direction to managers
and practitioners through the investigation of relationships among different quality
principles. These provide a systematic way to initiate and implement a TQM program.
After implementing step-by-step quality principles in industry, successful implementation
of TQM firm compared to a firm that does not follow these steps. It also
helps to develop coherence between researchers, practitioners and policymakers. This
research work planned to monitor decision makers, while framing effective strategies to
overcome identified problems and the systematic timeframe mandatory for their
effective execution. It can also fill the gap between the practical application and the
theoretical model for enhancing efficiency by using some of the strategies suggested.
Variables like B2, B3, B8 and B13 having weak drivers but strongly dependence
on other quality variables. Therefore, these variables describe some of the preferred
objectives of TQM. Linkage variables required to be wisely controlled by top
management, as they having strong driving power with strong dependence power.
In this study, total seven quality principles were part of linkage variables (Cluster III) and
thus these variables need to be focused by companies.
The identified variables in this ISM framework are quite general and hence with minimal
changes they can be helpful in the context of any supply chain for improving its efficiency
as well as performance. The effective use of the framework can lead to breakthrough
strategies in TQM implementation, which can help to increase the resources of management
that eventually deliver substantial financial benefits.
TQM 7. Conclusion
32,2 In the era of globalization, quality is considered to be one of the most challenging issues for
manufacturers to discover areas for distributing products at minimum cost. To overcome
this challenge, companies need to maintain quality at marginal cost and implement total
quality principles as an optimum solution. To achieve this objective, this paper has
considered Crosby’s quality principles and developed a systematic framework that can help
324 managers achieve better performance. Crosby’s 14 quality principles have been used to find
interactions among variables to implement TQM. Although a numerous literature is
available on TQM enablers, no previous work has been undertaken to examine the
interactions among Crosby’s 14 quality principles. An ISM-based model has been developed
so that contextual interrelations among these variables can be analyzed for the successful
implementation of TQM programs in service and manufacturing organizations to improve
customer satisfaction, efficiency and increase market share. This framework determines the
systematic hierarchy of different actions that can be used by top management to manage
factors that have a significant effect on their organization. The output of ISM model should
help to initiate an MICMAC analysis with the intention of describing driving and
dependence power.
The current study proposes a framework for Crosby’s 14 quality principles by
integrating an ISM–MICMAC approach that can help decision makers in an organization.
This hybrid analysis starts with the ISM model allocating binary numbers to define
relationships between two variables. However, the relationship between two variables
cannot be always same, as some variables have a larger effect than others. Later on in the
paper, the outcomes (see Table VI) are analyzed via MICMAC analysis to explore driving
and dependence power.
This is an original study that has developed a framework of Crosby’s 14 quality
principles in a systematic manner for manufacturing problems and contributes to the
body of knowledge in recognizing a hierarchy model of variables deploying an
ISM–MICMAC approach for successful TQM implementation. The findings of this
research work deliver a roadmap to practitioners to implement quality principles in their
organizations as well as for academics to carry out further research. The major
contribution of this research work is to develop contextual relationships between
variables with the help of a systematic framework that can be used by any service and
manufacturing organizations. Another major finding of this work was that “Management
Commitment,” “Quality Improvement Team,” “Quality Awareness” and “Supervisor
Training” considered to be significant variables for successful TQM implementation in
service and manufacturing organizations having strong driving power with the weakest
dependence power, which lies at the bottom of the ISM model. The management of firms
must place high importance on design characteristics which have a high driving power
and retain the capability to influence other elements (Roshani et al., 2019).
This research work achieves its research objectives by exploring the ranking
of Crosby’s quality principles that enhance performance and highlights their
inter-relationship as well as their driving and dependence power with the help of ISM
and MICMAC analysis. With the meaningful insights provided in this research, both
academics and industry practitioners can design action plans by choosing combinations
of driving and dependence variables.
8. Limitations and future prospects of the study

The basis of the ISM method depends on the contextual relationships between variables
which are derived from experts’ knowledge and their experience in understanding variables.
The framework may differ in some real-world situations because the ISM approach does not
quantify the influence of each variable. Outcomes of models can be affected by any kind of
judgment bias in the contextual relationship. There may be incidents of judgment bias A framework
because of a development of contextual relationships among variables depending upon for Crosby’s
domain expertise and understanding of variables that limit its generalizability to other quality
contexts of this study. The study explicitly focused on the variables which affect the
successful implementation of TQM in manufacturing problems; however, the framework principles
might replicate different results if the environment is something other than manufacturing.
Finally, the framework developed in this study has not been validated statistically. Future 325
research can examine the reliability and validity of the framework. The overall ISM model
could also be validated statistically using SEM by AMOS as this tool has capability to
explain complex models. Graph theory could also be used to find quantitative measures for
these variables.
References
Agrawal, N.M. (2019), “Modeling Deming’s quality principles to improve performance using interpretive
structural modeling and MICMAC analysis”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 1159-1180, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-07-2018-0204
Ajayi, O. and Osunsanmi, T. (2018), “Constraints and challenges in the implementation of total quality
management (TQM) in contracting organisations”, Journal of Construction Project Management
and Innovation, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1753-1766.
American Society for Quality (2000), ANSI/ISO/ASQ 9004-2000, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Badri, M.A., Davis, D. and Davis, D. (1995), “A study of measuring the critical factors of
quality management”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 36-53.
Baidoun, S. (2003), “An empirical study of critical factors of TQM in Palestinian organizations”,
Logistics Information Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 156-171.
Basu, R., Bhola, P., Ghosh, I. and Dan, P.K. (2018), “Critical linkages between quality management
practices and performance from Indian IT enabled service SMEs”, Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, Vol. 29 Nos 7-8, pp. 881-919.
Beecroft, G. (2001), “Cost of quality and quality planning affect the bottom line”, The Quality
Management Forum, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Bendell, T., Penson, R. and Carr, S. (1995), “The quality gurus – their approaches described and
considered”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 44-48.
Bhatia, M.S. and Awasthi, A. (2018), “Assessing relationship between quality management systems
and business performance and its mediators: SEM approach”, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 1490-1507.
Bottorff, D. (1997), “COQ systems: the right stuff”, Quality Progress, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 33-35.
British Standards Institute (1981), BS 6143-1:1981, Guide to the Economics of Quality: Process Cost
Model, BSI, London.
Chander, M., Jain, S.K. and Shankar, R. (2013), “Modeling of information security management
parameters in Indian organizations using ISM and MICMAC approach”, Journal of Modelling in
Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 171-189.
Charan, P., Shankar, R. and Baisya, R.K. (2008), “Analysis of interactions among the variables of
supply chain performance measurement system implementation”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 512-529.
Cokins, G. (2006), “Measuring the cost of quality for management”, Quality Progress, Vol. 39 No. 9,
pp. 45-54.
Cosmin, D. and Ana-Maria, S. (2013), “Quality cost system an excellent tool in the overall management
business”, Revista Economica, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 37-45.
Crocket, H. (1935), “Quality, but just enough”, Factory Management and Maintenance, Vol. 93 No. 6,
pp. 245-246.
TQM Crosby, P. (1979), Quality is Free, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
32,2 Crosby, P. (1984), Quality Without Tears: The Art of Hassle Free Management, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Crosby, P. (1990), Let’s Talk Quality, Plume, New York, NY.
Crosby, P. (1992a), Completeness: Quality for the 21st Century, Dutton Adult, MT.
Crosby, P. (1992b), The Eternally Successful Organization: The Art of Corporate Wellness, Mentor,
326 New York, NY.
Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2011), “The quality movement: where are you going?”, Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 493-516.
Dewangan, D.K., Agrawal, R. and Sharma, V. (2015), “Enablers for competitiveness of Indian
manufacturing sector: an ISM-Fuzzy MICMAC analysis”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 189, pp. 416-432, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.200
Diabat, A. and Govindan, K. (2011), “An analysis of drivers affecting the implementation of green
supply chain management”, Resources Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 659-667.
Digalwar, A.K., Jindal, A. and Sangwan, K.S. (2015), “Modeling the performance measures of world
class manufacturing using interpreting structural modeling”, Journal of Modelling in
Drohomeretski, E., Gouvea da Costa, S.E., Pinheiro de Lima, E. and Garbuio, P.A.D.R. (2014), “Lean, Six
Sigma and Lean Six Sigma: an analysis based on operations strategy”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 804-824.
Dubey, R. and Singh, T. (2015), “Understanding complex relationship among JIT, lean behaviour, TQM
and their antecedents using interpretive structural modelling and fuzy MICMIC analysis”, The
TQM Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 42-62, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-09-2013-0108
Ellram, L. (1991), “Key success factors and barriers in international purchasing partnerships”,
Management Decision, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 38-44.
Feigenbaum, A. (1957), “The challenge of total quality control”, Industrial Quality Control, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 22-23.
Feigenbaum, A. (2001), “How to manage for quality in today’s economy”, Quality Progress, Vol. 34
No. 5, pp. 26-26.
Fraser, P., Moultrie, J. and Gregory, M. (2002), “The use of maturity models/grids as a tool in assessing
product development capability”, IEEE International Engineering Management Conference,
Vol. 1, pp. 244-249.
Freeman, H. (1960), “How to put quality costs to use”, Transactions of the Metropolitan Conference,
ASQC, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Giakatis, G., Enkawa, T. and Washitani, K. (2001), “Hidden quality costs and the distinction between
quality cost and quality loss”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 179-190.
Gorane, S.J. and Kant, R. (2015), “Modelling the SCM implementation barriers: an integrated ISM-fuzzy
MICMAC approach”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 158-178.
Goyal, G., Samalia, H.V. and Verma, P. (2017), “Interpretive structural modeling for integrating quality
management in manufacturing and service counterparts”, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 1568-1591.
Gupta, V., Acharya, P. and Patwardhan, M. (2013), “A strategic and operational approach to assess the
lean performance in radial tyre manufacturing in India: a case based study”, International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 634-651.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data
Analysis, 6th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hu, H.H., Kandampully, J. and Juwaheer, T.D. (2009), “Relationships and impacts of service quality,
perceived value, customer satisfaction, and image: an empirical study”, The Service Industries
Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 111-125.
Hussain, M. (2011), “Modelling the enablers and alternatives for sustainable supply chain A framework
management”, master of applied science thesis, Concordia University, Montreal, available at: for Crosby’s
http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/7199/1/Hussain_MASc_S2011.pdf (accessed 30 July 2019).
quality
Jayant, A., Gupta, P. and Garg, S.K. (2012), “Reverse logistics: perspectives, empirical studies and
research directions”, International Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 369-388. principles
Jharkharia, S. and Shankar, R. (2005), “IT-enablement of supply chains: understanding the barriers”,
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 11-27. 327
Johnson, M.P. (2015), “Sustainability management and small and medium-sized enterprises: managers’
awareness and implementation of innovative tools”, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 271-285.
Jraisat, L., Jreisat, L. and Hattar, C. (2016), “Quality in construction management: an exploratory study”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 920-941.
Juran, J.M. (1951), Quality Control Handbook, 1st ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Juran, J.M. (1989), Juran on Leadership for Quality: An Executive Handbook, Free Press, New York, NY.
Juran, J.M. and Gryna, F.M. (1988), Juran’s Quality Control Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Kannan, G. and Haq, A.N. (2007), “Analysis of interactions of criteria and sub-criteria for the selection
of supplier in the built-order supply chain environment”, International Journal of Production and
Research, Vol. 45 No. 17, pp. 3831-3852.
Kannan, G., Pokharel, S. and Sasi Kumar, P. (2009), “A hybrid approach using ISM and fuzzy TOPSIS
for the selection of reverse logistics provider”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 54
No. 1, pp. 28-36.
Kent, R. (2005), “Manufacturing strategy for window fabricators 14 – the cost of quality”, Tanagram
Technology, available at: www.tanagram.co.uk
Lam, K.C., Wang, D. and Lam, M.C.K. (2008), “The TQM journey of Hong Kong building contractors:
from a self-assessment perspective”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 556-569.
Lee, S.M. and Asllani, A. (1997), “TQM and BPR: symbiosis and a new approach for integration”,
Management Decision, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 409-416.
Ljungstrom, M. and Klefsjö, B. (2002), “Implementation obstacles for a work-development-oriented
TQM strategy”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 621-634.
Mahmood, K., Qureshi, I.M.A. and Nisar, A. (2014), “An empirical study on measurement of
performance through TQM in Pakistani aviation manufacturing industry”, International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 665-680.
Majumdar, J.P. and Manohar, B.M. (2016), “Why Indian manufacturing SMEs are still reluctant in
adopting total quality management”, International Journal of Productivity and Quality
Malhotra, V. (2014), “Analysis of factors affecting the reconfigurable manufacturing system using an
interpretive structural modelling technique”, International Journal of Industrial and Systems
Engineering, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 396-413.
Mandal, A. and Deshmukh, S.G. (1994), “Vendor selection using interpretive structural management”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 52-61.
María, R.C.L. (1996), “The evolution of strategic quality management”, International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, Vol. 13 No. 9, pp. 19-37.
Martínez, J.M.B. and Selles, M.E.S. (2015), “A fuzzy quality cost estimation method”, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, Vol. 266, pp. 157-170.
Mendes, P. Jr, Leal, J.E. and Thomé, A.M.T. (2016), “A maturity model for demand-driven supply chains
in the consumer product goods industry”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 179, pp. 153-165.
Metri, B.A. (2005), “TQM critical success factors for construction firm”, Management Magazine, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 61-77.
TQM Miner, D. (1933), “What price quality?”, Product Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 300-302.
32,2 Moschidis, O., Chatzipetrou, E. and Tsiotras, G. (2018), “Quality costing and quality management
maturity in Greece: an exploratory multi-dimensional data analysis”, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 171-191.
Newall, D. and Dale, B. (1990), “The introduction and development of a quality improvement process: a
study”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 1747-1760.
328 Panahifar, F., Byrne, P.J. and Heavey, C. (2014), “ISM analysis of CPFR implementation barriers”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 18, pp. 5255-5272.
Pheng, L.S. and Teo, J.A. (2004), “Implementing total quality management in construction firms”,
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 8-15.
Piltan, M. and Sowlati, T. (2016), “A multi-criteria decision support model for evaluating the
performance of partnerships”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 45, pp. 373-384,
available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.10.002
Plewa, M., Kaiser, G. and Hartmann, E. (2016), “Is quality still free? Empirical evidence on quality cost
in modern manufacturing”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 33
No. 9, pp. 1270-1285.
Plunkett, J.J. and Dale, B.G. (1988), “Quality costs: a critique of some ‘economic cost of quality models’ ”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 26 No. 11, pp. 1713-1726.
Poduval, P.S. and Pramod, V.R. (2015), “Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and its application in
analyzing factors inhibiting implementation of total productive maintenance (TPM)”,
Psomas, E. and Jaca, C. (2016), “The impact of total quality management factors on performance
dimensions of service companies”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 380-398.
Raj, T., Shankar, R. and Suhaib, M. (2008), “An ISM approach for modelling the enablers of flexible
manufacturing system: the case for India”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46
No. 24, pp. 6883-6912.
Ramesh, A., Banwet, D.K. and Shankar, R. (2010), “Modeling the barriers of supply chain
collaboration”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 176-193.
Ravi, V. and Shankar, R. (2005), “Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverse logistics”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 72 No. 8, pp. 1011-1029.
Rivers, P.A. and Bae, S. (1999), “TQM implementation in health care organizations”, Total Quality
Roshani, K., Owlia, M.S. and Abooie, M.H. (2019), “A research note on the article of quality framework
in education through application of interpretive structural modeling”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 31
No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Sage, A.P. (1977), “Interpretive structural modeling: methodology for large-scale systems”,
Methodology for Large-Scale Systems, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 91-164.
Sahney, S. (2015), “Critical success factors in online retail – an application of quality function
deployment and interpretive structural modeling”, International Journal of Business and
Information, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 144-163.
Saleh, R.A., Sweis, R.J. and Mahmoud Saleh, F.I. (2018), “Investigating the impact of hard total quality
management practices on operational performance in manufacturing organizations: evidence
from Jordan”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 2040-2064.
Sawant, M.A., Yadav, O.P. and Rokke, C. (2018), “A practical quality management system
implementation framework for small-sized companies”, International Journal of Intelligent
Enterprise, Vol. 5 Nos 1-2, pp. 173-193.
Sharma, H.D. and Gupta, A.D. (1995), “The objectives of waste management in India: a futures inquiry”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 285-309.
Shewhart, W. (1931), Economic Control of Manufactured Product, D. Van Nostrand, New York, NY. A framework
Singh, A.K. and Sushil (2013), “Modeling enablers of TQM to improve airline performance”, for Crosby’s
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 250-275, quality
available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401311309177
principles
Soti, A., Shankar, R. and Kaushal, O.P. (2010), “Modeling the enablers of six sigma using ISM”,
Journal of Modeling in Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 124-141.
Sower, V.E., Quarles, R. and Broussard, E. (2007), “Cost of quality usage and its relationship to quality 329
system maturity”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 121-140.
Talib, F., Rahman, Z. and Qureshi, M.N. (2013), “An empirical investigation of relationship between
total quality management practices and quality performance in Indian service companies”,
Tan, T., Chen, K., Xue, F. and Lu, W. (2019), “Barriers to building information modeling (BIM)
implementation in China’s prefabricated construction: an interpretive structural modeling (ISM)
approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 219, pp. 949-959.
Thakkar, J., Kanda, A. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2008), “Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) of
IT-enablers for Indian manufacturing SMEs”, Information Management & Computer Security,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 113-136, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/09685220810879609
Thiagarajan, T. and Zairi, M. (1997), “A review of total quality management in practice: understanding
the fundamentals through examples of best practice applications – part-I”, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 270-289.
Van Kemenade, E. and Hardjono, T.W. (2019), “Twenty-first century total quality management: the
emergence paradigm”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 150-166.
Veltmeyer, J. and Mohamed, S. (2017), “Investigation into the hierarchical nature of TQM variables
using structural modelling”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 34
No. 4, pp. 462-477.
Warfield, J.N. (1974a), “Developing interconnected matrices in structural modeling”, IEEE Transcript
on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-4 No. 1, pp. 81-87.
Whalen, M.J. and Rahim, M.A. (1994), “Common barriers to implementation and development of a TQM
process”, Industrial Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 19-24.
Williams, A.R.T., van der Wiele, A. and Dale, B.G. (1999), “Quality costing: a management review”,
International Journal of Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 441-461.
Yadav, G. and Desai, T.N. (2016), “Lean Six Sigma: a categorized review of the literature”, International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
Yadav, G. and Desai, T.N. (2017), “Analyzing lean six sigma enablers: a hybrid ISM-fuzzy MICMAC
approach”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 488-511.
Yadav, G., Mangla, S.K., Luthra, S. and Rai, D.P. (2019), “Developing a sustainable smart city
framework for developing economies: an Indian context”, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 47
No. 5, p. 101462.
Further reading
Warfield, J.N. (1974b), “Developing subsystem matrices in structural modeling”, IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-4 No. 1, pp. 74-80.
About the author

Nishant Agrawal is pursuing his PhD in Operations Management from the Institute of Management,
Nirma University, Ahmadabad. He received the Bachelor of Engineering with Electronics and
Telecommunication specialization from the Dr D.Y. Patil College of Engineering, Akurdi, Pune and MBA
from Durgadevi Saraf Institute of Management Studies, Mumbai with Operations Management
specialization. He has two years of academic experience as an Assistant Professor with around
TQM 30 months of full time and part time corporate experience. He has presented various papers at national
32,2 and international level conferences. His research paper accepted in reputed journals like International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, International Journal of Process Management and
Benchmarking and International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment. He has reviewed
articles for couple of international journals like Benchmarking: An International Journal, International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, International Journal of Operational Research,
Journal of Cleaner Production and Journal of Big Data. He has completed many online courses on
330 different topics from international universities like University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan,
Stanford University, etc. He is also active member of Production and Operations Management Society
(POMS), American Production and Inventory Control Society (APICS) and Decision Sciences Institute
(DSI). Nishant Agrawal can be contacted at: nishant.agrawal@nirmauni.ac.in
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
View publication stats

10 1108 - TQM 03 2019 0085

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1108 - TQM 03 2019 0085

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

A framework for Crosby’s quality principles using ISM and MICMAC

Article in TQM Journal · December 2019

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2.1 Why Crosby’s quality principle?

Summation of company quality posture

2.2 Crosby’s 14 quality principles 309

S. No. Principle S. No. Principle

B1 Corrective action B8 Quality councils

Methods Research Flow Outcomes Section

Crosby’s 14 Task 1: Theoretical Explain each

Task 2: Provide Understand

Task 4: Establish ISM diagraph and

Task 5: Classify Figure 1.

3. Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and model development

S. No. Area of application Contributor

1 Reverse logistics Ravi and Shankar (2005)

Contextual relationship between variables i and j

Develop an initial reachability matrix (RM) Determine driving power

Develop a final reachability matrix by incorporating transitivity

Remove transitivity links from the diagraph

Replace variables nodes with relationship statements

Yes Check for

3.2 Constructing a reachability matrix from SSIM

B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14

3.3 Transitivity check

3.4 Level partition

B1 B1 B2 B3 B4 B6 B8 B11 B13 B1 B2 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B1 B2 B4 B6 B8 B11 B13

B1 B1 B4 B11 B1 B4 B5 B6 B7 B9 B10 B11 B1 B4 B11 II

Variable names Reachability_Set Antecedents_Set Intersection_Set Level

B5 B5 B7 B10 B11 B14 B5 B5

Variable names Reachability_Set Antecedents_Set Intersection_Set Level

B5 B5 B10 B11 B14 B5 B5

Variable names Reachability_Set Antecedents_Set Intersection_Set Level

B10 B14 B11

Level II B12. Error Cause

B6. Cost of Quality

Level V B10. Quality B14. Supervisor B11. Quality

Autonomous Variables (Cluster II)

6. Practical and theoretical implications

8. Limitations and future prospects of the study

About the author

View publication stats

You might also like