A STUDY ON QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND

INNOVATIONS IN MANUFACTURING COMPANIES

PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by
HAROON HUZAIN

872181072

under the guidance of

Dr. B SHAJI

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Award of the

Degree
Of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Of

UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

TRIVANDRUM

SEPTEMBER 2021
 DECLARATION

I understand, hereby declare that the project titled “A STUDY ON QUALITY

MANAGEMENT AND INNOVATIONS IN MANUFACTURING COMPANIES ” submitted in
partial fulfilment for the award of Degree of Master of Business Administration of University of
Kerala is a bonafide record of work done by me under the guidance of Dr.B Shaji Coordinator of
MBA. This report has not previously formed the basis for the award of any degree, diploma, or similar
title or any university.

05 -09 -2021 HAROON HUZAIN

 SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
TRIVANDRUM

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the report titled “A STUDY ON INNOVATIONS IN QUALITY

MANAGEMENT PROCESS IN MANUFACTURING COMPANIES ” being submitted by
HAROON HUZAIN, 872181072 in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of
degree of master of business administration, is a bonafide record of the project work done by
HAROON HUZAIN of SCHOOL DISTANCE EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
TRIVANDRUM.

Dr. B SHAJI Dr. VASANTHA KUMAR

COORDINATOR Director
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Through this acknowledgement I express my sincere gratitude towards all those people who
helped me in this project, which has been a learning experience. This space wouldn’t be
enough my warm gratitude towards my project guide Dr. B Shaji for his efforts in
coordinating with my work and guiding in right decision. It would be injustice to proceed
without acknowledging those vital support I received from my beloved classmates and
friends, without whom I would have been half done I also use this space to offer my sincere
love to my parents and all other who had been there, helping me walk through this work.

Haroon Huzain
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This project is about the study on the innovations in quality management in manufacturing
industries. As part of this study, I have collected secondary data on innovations in quality
improvement processes to the employees in two companies KELTRON AND MILMA. This
study helps to know about the quality management and innovations in the manufacturing
industry culminating in an implementation framework detailing the order in which certain
tools and techniques should be implemented. The secondary data about manufacturing
companies gives a thorough understanding about the tools and techniques used in the quality
improving process and also get the idea about how these new changes in the organization is
received by the employees or how it affect and improve their working nature. This study
gives a deep understanding about how the innovative products reached to the customers and
how they accept the newly quality updated products and their satisfaction about the product.
Quality management has the potential to invigorate an organization’s product, process and
administrative innovation when strategically aligned with internal contingencies. This project
seeks to address the relationship between work environment, quality standards, customer
purchasing behavior, employee engagement, production processes logistical partners
relationship with innovation. These secondary data analyzed on the basis of correlation
analysis and get an result of a strong relationship between these factors and innovation.
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

In an increasingly competitive market, companies have the need to seek and implement best
practices to continuously improve their processes. Recently, several quality management
tools and quality improvement methodologies have emerged. However, there is a gap
between theory and practice. This study aims to assess to what extent the methodologies and
tools are used by industrial companies in India. The motivational factors and barriers to their
implementation were also investigated. The questionnaire was sent to industrial companies
analyzed based on descriptive statistics and statistical tests. Results show evidence about the
perceived importance and implementation level of quality improvement practices in
industries in India. It also contributes to understand the factors that influence the use of such
quality improvement techniques. In this market context, to ensure competitiveness,
companies have to continually seek best practices in order to improve processes, products and
services and to achieve agile and flexible costumer services and competitive costs. Quality
continuous improvement programs in the country and identify the advantages of their
implementation and the difficulties that arise in obtaining such advantages. In order to
investigate the continuous improvement practices used by manufacturing companies in India,
a questionnaire was developed with the following objectives:

 Find out the continuous improvement methodologies and tools known and more often
used in Indian manufacturing companies.

 Identify the motivational factors underlying their implementation.

 Identify the factors that discourage companies to adopt quality improvement

methodologies and the difficulties faced in the implementation stage.

 Identify differences between companies with different sizes and between companies
which have a certified quality management system and companies which do not have.

1
With increasing market competition, organizations are striving for greater innovation in
products and services. Quality management has the potential to invigorate an
organization’s product, process and administrative innovation when strategically aligned
with internal contingencies. This project seeks to address the relationship between social
and technical quality management with innovation.

Moreover, this paper empirically assesses contingency factors including organization size,
task and managerial ethics which play roles in moderating the relationship between
quality management and innovation. Based on an empirical study we find social quality
management practices, not technical quality management practices, are positively
associated with innovation. We also find a reciprocal positive relationship between social
quality management and technical quality management. In addition, our research reveals
the positive relationship between quality management and innovation is moderated by the
effects of organizational size, task and managerial ethics.

2
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

In an increasingly competitive environment, factors such as innovation and quality

management can lead to competitive advantage. A recent survey of the Boston Consulting
Group found that innovation was among the top three strategic priorities for 71% of
companies. This is in part due to innovation’s being able to provide unique products and
processes which create greater value for consumers as well as financial benefits for the
organization. Other research suggests quality management is a known driver of innovation in
organizations. Quality management practices have also been associated with operational and
financial performance allowing firms to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. The
importance of innovation and quality management has motivated researchers to identify
various driving forces of innovation and to seek new ways of creating it through quality
management practices. The current research defining the relationship between quality
management and invigorating innovation appears to possess some shortcomings.

First and foremost is the presentation of mixed results. While some studies found a positive
association between quality management practices and innovation others showed no such
connection. We contend a reasonable explanation for these mixed results is due to a lack of
understanding of potential contingency factors. To survive in a dynamic and competitive
environment, organizations need practices that are aligned with their own individual
organizations. As such this study seeks to address several contingency factors using a
theoretical basis of structural contingency theory. These factors include organizational size
and task as well as managerial ethical evaluation. Secondly, while some studies express the
importance of managerial leadership as a basis for enhancing the value of quality
management in innovation there is limited development on this construct, especially when it

comes to motivational factors like ethical evaluation. Thus, we seek to also highlight the
importance of managerial ethics (via managerial deontological and teleological evaluation)
on improving innovation through quality management. Third, prior research suggests the
need for more studies to analyze the different dimensions of quality management on each
other as well as on other variables like innovation. We therefore distinguish two dimensions
(social and technical) of quality management and seek to address their relationship with
innovation. We also seek to assess the impact of quality management on various aspects of
innovation including product, process and administrative innovation.
3
In summary this project seeks to address the following questions: do quality management
practices impact innovation, and more specifically, do social quality management practices
(i.e., cross-functional cooperation, cross-training, long-term supply chain relationships) and
technical quality management practices (i.e., just in time (JIT) manufacturing and design for
manufacturing) impact innovation (i.e., radical and incremental product and process
innovation and administrative innovation). Do social quality management practices impact
technical quality management practices and vice versa. Do certain contingency factors (i.e.,
organizational size, task and managerial ethical evaluation) play a role in the relationship
between quality management and innovation. Next, we address our conceptual model and
explain how structural contingency theory explains the relationships within the model. Then
we discuss the results of our study analysis. Finally, we address research and practical
implications in our discussion and conclusion.

4
Need and Significance of the study

 Innovation is defined as the ways in with an organization update, changes, and

improves its internal processes, manufacturing techniques, and management
methods.

 Innovations must meet certain criteria to be successful, including meeting

customer needs, satisfying expense and return on investment requirements,
improving
 employee satisfaction, and product quality. Innovations help introduce new
concepts, knowledge, products, services, and processes into organizations and
the outside marketplace.
 Innovative products are those that replace or build on current offerings; they
provide new features or other advantages that allow users to operate more
efficiently and/or
 less expensively.

 Innovation adds value, and it is probable that a successful innovative solution

will be the one that improves the process and/or its output.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

 New changes happened in the quality of the products and services of Indian
companies and how they affect the purchasing power of customers.
 Strategies adopted to implement quality innovations affect the employee’s work
quantity.

 Impact of the quality improvement tools and techniques in production process

used by the companies.

 The involvement of logical partners in the innovation process decision in

quality management practices.

5
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

i. To analyses the innovation techniques used in the continuous improvement of

quality of products in manufacturing companies.

ii. To understand the relationship of logistic partners on quality innovation process.

iii. To analyses the impact of innovations in quality affect the customers buying power.

iv. To analyses the whether the quality standards fulfils the

requirements of the innovation practices.

v. To study about the employee engagement in innovation process.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study is limited on the innovations in quality management processes in

manufacturing countries. The study gives thorough understanding about the quality
improvement techniques and tools which boosts innovations in this competitive business
world. Also helps to know about the employee’s involvement in innovation process to
make it successful. Moreover, this study enhances the idea about the increasing buying
nature of employees with the newly quality products.

6
ABOUT QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND INNOVATIONS IN MANUFACTURING
COMPANIES:

Manufacturers who choose to incrementally add quality to their operations invite mediocrity,
while those that choose to ingrain quality management at an enterprise level, deep into the
DNA of their business models profitably excel. Quality is the one attribute any manufacturer
cannot hide – it screams who they are louder than any marketing campaign or PR strategy.
Nothing says more about a manufacturer than how they prioritize quality management in
manufacturing and information, intelligence, systems and processes necessary to excel in this
critical area. In service industries, the higher the quality and more consistent a customers’
experience the higher the profitability of a business (Kimes, 2001). A study by Accenture and
the National Small Business United Group (NSBU) showed that mid-tier manufacturers who
attained the highest level of quality also were more profitable than their peer group
companies (Quality, 1993).

Manufacturers who choose to embed quality deep into their enterprises, doing the hard work
of making it a core part of their DNA over time see the following benefits:

Reduced manufacturing costs attributable to less material waste;

Greater efficiency of tools and manufacturing equipment;
Greater optimization of skilled workers’ time and talents;
Improved supplier quality;
Improved traceability across the entire production process;
Continual reductions in non-compliance.

Orchestrating all of these measurable gains together to create a unified enterprise quality
strategy makes any manufacturer significantly more agile, enabling the ability to reconfigure
operations, processes and business relationships in real-time (Alexander, 2002).

7
QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND INNOVATIONS IN
KELTRON AND MILMA:

MILMA

ABOUT THE COMPANY

Well-known by the popular sobriquet ‘MILMA’, Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation
(KCMMF) was formed in 1980 as a state adjunct of the National Dairy Program ‘Operation Flood’. It
is a three-tiered organization. The farmer memberships that stood at 45000 during take over from the
erstwhile KLD&MM Board during 1983 has grown to over 9.77 lakhs through 3315 milk Co-
operatives by February 2019. These primary societies are grouped under three Regional Co- operative
Milk Producers’ Unions viz TRCMPU for Thiruvananthapuram region, ERCMPU for Ernakulam
region and MRCMPU for Malabar region. At the apex level KCMMF functions from the headquarters
at Thiruvananthapuram. From the different units managed directly by KCMMF and the various units
under regional unions MILMA produces and distributes pasteurized Vitamin – A enriched milk and
various milk-based products as well as mango drink throughout the state. MILMA has been
instrumental in achieving the national goal of self-sufficiency in milk production in the state. The goal
of KCMMF is "The socio-economic progress of the dairy farmer through procuring, processing and
marketing of milk". Still the goal is receding as Kerala enjoys one of the highest ranges of per capita
milk consumption. KCMMF is totally content in the realization of this vision which was set before it.
KCMMF has achieved the distinction in its performance by close association and bond with National
Dairy Development Board, Animal Husbandry Department and Dairy Development Department of
the State and Kerala Livestock Development Board. Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation
(KCMMF), popularly called ‘MILMA’ was established in April, 1980 with is head office at
Thiruvananthapuram for the successful implementation of ‘Operation Flood’ Program in Kerala.

Milma are committed to produce and market quality milk, milk products and balance cattle feed at the
lowest price possible to the satisfaction of customer in our fully automated Plants. To achieve this
goal we plan and implement strict quality control management and continual improvement by use of
good quality raw materials, strict manufacturing process, and by ensuring hygienic conditions to
ensure our customers' satisfaction.

8
INNOVATIONS IN QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROCESS IN MILMA

With the active participation of its employees, it is aimed to meet the requirements of ISO 9001
Quality Management System, to ensure effectiveness of the system, to cooperate with the peer
institutions in the world, to be a preferred industrial enterprise by the customer continuously, to
produce innovative, creative and continuously developing solutions, develop, produce and present
services and products aimed at customer satisfaction.
NX-TEAMCENTER PLM program for Quality Standards is used to manage our configuration
management, risk management and quality systems to increase our process efficiency in all our
products and services.
FIGES Technologies Inc., the manufacturer of MILMAST is a leading service provider in its field. In
these terms, it has a policy to follow the global and local business trends and examine its potential
customers’ orientations in order to apply them in its continuous development process .
FIGES Technologies Inc. guarantees to;
 Follow all the legal regulations, take permissions and apply them accordingly.
 Appliance of the quality system and prepare the needed foundation in order to make the
employees take part in it.
 Make risk management, configuration management, specify the control point in each process
step and to manufacture the product to meet the customer products.
 Respond to the customers’ needs exactly as asked for and as fast as it can.
 Keep the customer satisfaction factor on the top of the list concerning its every product and
service.
 Provide a system and follow through to develop the system it already established, which is
capable of collecting feedback from each customer and business partners.
 By following and examining each process step, finding out the fields that can be made better
and acting through.
 Acknowledge continuous development as a lifestyle, to keep up with the competitive and
innovative areas.
 Acknowledge objectiveness as a principle.
 Provide and develop a place which is human centric, technological innovation and product
development based, open to new ideas that are necessities of time and keep it working.

9
KELTRON

ABOUT THE COMPANY

KELTRON Corporation is a leading manufacturer of fire and security alarm monitoring solutions that
enable organizations and companies to provide dependable, scalable, life safety event response
services. Since 1967, Keltron has maintained a reputation for innovation and the reliability and high
performance of its fire and security systems and products. Our life safety event management systems
protect lives in colleges and university campuses, healthcare centers, industrial plants, commercial
and cultural facilities, government and military complexes and municipalities worldwide.
Keltron's management team brings over one hundred years of experience in the fire and security alarm
monitoring industry. Our team's unique understanding of market requirements and technology and
long-term relationship with Underwriters Laboratories and the National Fire Protection Association
enables Keltron to provide solutions that meet the highest standards in the industry and are made in
the USA.Our technically proficient sales and services teams approach each project with a can-do
attitude and a solid knowledge base. Keltron's unique ability to interface to an unparalleled variety of
legacy fire alarm systems reduces our customers’ capital expense and increases ROI.Keltron's
corporate offices are located near Boston in Waltham, Massachusetts, the heart of the Massachusetts
technology sector.

INNOVATIONS IN QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROCESSES IN KELTRON

ISO 9001:2015 Quality Management System at Keltron:

Keltron is dedicated to providing customer satisfaction through overall system and product integrity
and effective quality management.
Our life safety event management systems protect lives and property at multi-building facilities and
municipalities worldwide. Our unique understanding of market requirements and technology and our
long-term relationship with UL and NFPA enables Keltron to provide systems that meet the highest
standards in the industry and our quality management enables us to meet these stringent requirements.
ISO 9001:2015 sets out the criteria for a quality management system. This standard is based on a
number of quality management principles including a strong customer focus, the motivation and
implication of top management, the process approach and continual improvement. Using ISO
9001:2015 helps ensure that customers get consistent, good quality products and services

Keltron's ISO Goals and Objectives

 Provide our customers with the highest quality solutions, products and services

10
  Meet or exceed customer expectations
 Continuously improve our products and services
 Meet our customers' expectations with on-time delivery
 Train and motivate employees to ensure observe of our philosophy of total quality.

Strategies For Improving Quality Management

This is the first post in a series that explains why manufacturers need to adopt a more
enterprise-wide approach to quality, not allowing these systems to be siloed, delivering
limited effectiveness as a result. The series will focus on how manufacturers can use the Six
Sigma DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control) methodologies to get the
most value from their quality management efforts. Three of the five elements of DMAIC are
covered in this first post. Complex manufacturers need to get beyond the myopic mindset that
isolated, non-integrated quality management systems are good enough. That mindset invites
mediocre performance when what’s needed is a strong focus on enterprise-wide results. Of
the many strategies manufacturers are using for improving quality management performance,
the following five are delivering solid, long-term results

Creating and reinforcing a strategic framework of quality that permeates every aspect
of a manufacturer’s value chain is essential.

Taking a piecemeal, incremental approach to quality management leads to information

silos and fuels political infighting over quality performance, creating more problems than
it solves (Gunasekaran, Goyal, Martikainen, Yli-Olli, 1998). A unified framework of
quality management that integrates common practices, TQM, JIT and TPM techniques at
a minimum is essential (Cua, McKone-Sweet, Schroeder, 2006). The graphic to the right
shows how one suggested framework can be used for defining an integrated
manufacturing program that leads to greater manufacturing performance.

Supplier quality management objectives need to be defined before procurement and

strategic sourcing is undertaken and integrated into inbound inspection, traceability
and audits.

11
 Manufacturers who make the deliberate decision to invest in supplier quality management
from procurement and strategic sourcing through fulfillment have greater control over cost
of quality and greater visibility into overall manufacturing quality performance
(Gunasekaran, Goyal, Martikainen, Yli-Olli, 1998). For complex manufacturers who
have mixed-mode manufacturing strategies that have a multiplicative effect on supplier
breadth and depth, ingraining supplier quality management is crucial to their success.

Quality Control and compliance departments need to get beyond just reacting to quality
management problems and take a much more proactive, strategic approach instead.

Conrad Leiva’s great white paper Proactive Quality Management Requires Integrated
Execution illustrates this point. He points out how siloed applications like FRACAS
(Failure Reporting, Analysis and Corrective Action System) can make manufacturers more
myopic and siloed in how they manage quality. He points out that too much focus on
reactive processes including final product inspection, documenting problems and failures,
and tracking failure and correction metrics can rob manufacturers of the benefits of a
proactive approach to quality management. These include greater focus on process
standardization, visual aids, process control, configuration verification, in-process
inspection, Statistical Process Control (SPC), and several others. You can find his entire
white paper here Proactive Quality Management Requires Integrated Execution.

Measurements of quality performance are the baseline that supplier management,

production, fulfillment and services measure themselves by.

Manufacturers who improve the most on the most critical dimensions of quality are using
metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs) to evaluate the entire value chain, not just
selected functional areas (Gunasekaran, Goyal, Martikainen, Yli-Olli, 1998). The most
valuable metrics according to studies conducted of quality metrics’ impact on profitability
include defect rates, cost of rework, warranty expenses, after-sales service costs, opportunity
costs and costs of good and bad quality (Gunasekaran, Goyal, Martikainen, Yli-Olli, 1998).

Quality process control programs need to be based on metrics and KPIs that serve as
guard rails to keep quality management on track to meeting and exceeding customer
requirements first.
12
 Reducing product variability based on unique customer requirements using Six Sigma’s
DMAIC methodology galvanized a manufacturer to what matter most, which is keeping
existing customers purchasing products and attracting new ones through superior quality
(West, 2003). Quality process controls need to be engrained into the overall DNA of a
manufacturing company to strengthen and sustain business model agility in the face of
economic uncertainty and turbulence (Gunasekaran, Goyal, Martikainen, Yli-Olli, 1998).

13
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The need for quality as a fundamental component in the formulation of strategies for
institutions to implement TQM is clearly outlined by

Bilich & Neto (2000:5) who state that quality, as a macro function of institutions, must be
present in the day-to-day running of an institution, in aspects such as establishment of
policies, the decision process, selection of personnel, allocation of resources, definition of
priorities and service delivery to satisfy customer requirements. The two authors continue and
state that the quality approach, as a strategic element, has brought to institutions a new
manner of conceiving quality, as it engages the top decision-makers of the institution in the
effort for better performance in service delivery.

According to Djerdjour & Patel (2000:26), quality is no longer an optional extra; it is an

essential strategy to survive. TQM is therefore a solution for improving the quality of
products and services. Before one can discuss the concept of TQM, one first needs to discuss,
understand and analyse the concept of ‘quality’ itself.

According to Dale (2003:12) and Evans & Dean (2003:11) quality, reliability, delivery and
price build the reputation enjoyed by an institution. Quality is the most important of these
competitive weapons and is an extremely difficult concept to define in a few words in order
to agree on a consensus definition; a trait it shares with many phenomena in business and
social sciences (Hoyer & Hoyer 2001:54).

Quality does not only refer to goods and services but includes qualiy of time, place,
equipment and tools, processes, people, the environment and safety, information and
measurement (Dale 2003:5; Schonberger 1990:9). Quality is an ongoing process that has to
be so persasive throughout the institution, that it becomes the philosophy and culture of the
whole institution.

All institutions and each department within the institution need to adopt the same strategy, to
serve the customer with even better quality, lower cost, quicker response and greater
flexibility (Schonberger 1990:11). There appears to be no uniform understanding and
definition of the meaning of the term quality and even well-known authors seem to have
different perspectives on this issue.

14
According to Reeves & Bednar (1994:419), a search for the definition of quality has yielded
inconsistent results. The two researchers emphasise that regardless of the time period or
context in which quality is examined, the concept has had multiple and 32 often muddled
definitions and has been used to describe a wide variety of phenomena.

The strategies and tools for assuring quality may have changed, but the basic customer
expectations have been fairly constant for a long time (Hoyer & Hoyer 2001:54). From a
holistic perspective, all institutions produce and sell products and services, with varying
proportions of both; as a result the management of quality must pay attention to both product
and service quality and the synergy effects between them.

Although many definitions of quality exist, it is prudent to create a deeper insight into the
definitions of researchers such as the quality gurus, Deming, Crosby, Feigenbaum, Ishikawa
and Juran. These gurus claim that their definitions, prescriptions, conclusions and
recommendations work equally well for producing products and delivering services . From
the various definitions of quality indicated by these gurus in literature, there seem to be two
levels in the concept of quality (Hoyer & Hoyer 2001:54), namely: · level one, by producing
products or delivering services whose measurable characteristics satisfy a fixed set of
specifications; and · level two, products and services that satisfy customer expectations for
their use or consumption. In short, level one quality means conformance of specifications and
level two means satisfy the customer.

Evans & Dean (2003:11), Garvin (1993:16) and Reeves & Bednar (1994:420) note that
quality is much more than that stated at level one, namely conformance to specifications.
They identify eight attributes for category one, namely: (1) performance, (2) features, (3)
reliability, (4) conformance, (5) durability, (6) serviceability, (7) aesthetics, and (8) perceived
quality. Coupled to the two types of quality levels, quality is defined differently by each of
the five gurus on quality, namely (Hoyer & Hoyer 2001:55-59): · Crosby’s definition of
quality is “conformance to requirements”, which is a level one formulation. Crosby’s
essential points in his definition of quality are

it is necessary to define quality

one must know what the requirements are and be able to translate these requirements into
measurable product or service 33 characteristics

Aksu (2003:591) defines quality as: “the conformance to a set of customer requirements

15
that, if met, result in a product or service that is fit for its intended use.” Wiele, Dale &
Williams (2003:20) presents a slightly different perspective with their emphasis on the
artistic and energetic properties of quality: “Quality is what surprises and delights the
customer.”

Pycraft, Singh & Phihlela (2000:613) and Stamatis (2003:11) try to reconcile some of
these different views in their definition of quality: “Quality is consistent conformance to
customers’ expectations.” With reference to Pycraft and Stamatis’s definition of quality, the
use of the word “conformance” implies that there is a need to meet a clear specification (the
manufacturing approach).

The definitions of Crosby (1979:7) and Aksu (2003:591) on support this viewpoint of
quality. The use of “customers’ expectations” attempts to combine the user- and value based
approaches.

The definitions of Feigenbaum (1983:7) and Ishikawa (1985:44) has this viewpoint of
quality. It recognises that the product or service must meet the expectations of customers,
which may be influenced by price. By consistently meeting customer requirements, the
definition can move to a different plane of satisfaction – delighting the customer.

Goodman, O’Brein & Segal (2000:49) support the aforementioned viewpoints by defining
quality as consistently producing what the customer wants, while reducing errors before and
after delivery to the customer. The quality definition of fulfilling or exceeding customers’
needs has become an ideological trailblazer driving the pursuit of customer satisfaction. In
the embedding of quality thinking this ideological core plays an important role. More
importantly, however, quality is not so much an outcome as a 35 never-ending process of
continually improving the quality of what an institution produces. There is no doubt that
many institutions have so well ordered their capability to meet their customers’ requirements,
time and time again, that this has created a reputation for “excellence”. Institutions must
“delight” the customer by consistently meeting customer requirements, and then achieve a
reputation of “excellence”. Quality should be viewed from the perspective of the customers
and potential customers. The aim of institutions should be to satisfy existing needs of
customers with quality products or services, and to identify, anticipate and create new needs.
This requires the cultivation of a close relationship between the institution and its customers.

Ackoff (1992:3-7), Henshall (1990:356) and Savolainen (2000:213) argue that it is critical

16
for TQM to have a definition of quality other than the normal “Quality is meeting or
exceeding the expectations of the customer”. Their criticism is based on two factors, namely:
The customer is not always the customer and between the institution and the ultimate
user, there exists a chain of customers and other stakeholders who are all equally
important. Therefore, proposes a definition of quality as “meeting or exceeding the
expectations of all the stakeholders”.

17
 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

o To analyse the innovation techniques used in the continuous improvement of quality

of products in manufacturing companies.

o To understand the relationship of logistic partners on quality innovation process.

o To analyse the impact of innovations in quality affect the customers buying power.

o To analyse the whether the quality standards fulfils the requirements of the
innovation practices.

o To study about the employee engagement in innovation process.

3.2 HYPOTHESIS

H1: There is no significant relationship between work environment and innovation.

H2: There is no significant relationship between quality standards techniques and innovation.

H3: There is no significant relationship between work customer purchasing power and
innovation.

H4: There is no significant relationship between production processes and innovation.

H5: There is no significant relationship between logistical partners and innovation.

H6: There is no significant relationship between employee engagement and innovation.

H7: There is no significant relationship between age and innovation.

H8: There is no significant relationship between work experience and innovation.

3.3 SAMPLE SIZE

Secondary data collected from the different manufacturing companies of Trivandrum city.

18
3.4 SAMPLING SCHEME
The sampling scheme related with the census data

previously collected.

3.5 PERIOD OF STUDY

The study is conducted for 2 months.

3.6 SOURCES OF STUDY

SECONDARY DATA
The secondary data, on the other hand, is those which have already been collected by
someone else and which have already been passed through statistical processes.
Secondary data is the information that already exists. For collecting secondary data
researcher used internet, magazines, newspapers and various books. Researcher also
consulted faculties for getting valuable information.

19
3.7 DATA ANALYSIS TOOL

For the study a non-parametric test is conducted where population data not have normal.
Under non parametric test, Karl Pearson correlation is used to measure the level of relation
between linear related variables.

Correlation coefficient can be defined as a measure of the relationship between two quantitative
or qualitative variables, i.e. X and Y. It serves as a statistical tool that helps to analyse and in turn,
measure the degree of the linear relationship between the variables.

example, a change in the monthly income (X) of a person leads to a change in their monthly
expenditure (Y). With the help of correlation, you can measure the degree up to which such a
change can impact the other variables.

Depending on the direction of the relationship between variables, correlation can be of three
types, namely –

 Positive Correlation (0 to +1) – In this case, the direction of change between X and Y is the
same. For instance, an increase in the duration of workout leads to an increase in the number
of calories one burns.

 Negative Correlation (0 to -1) – Here, the direction of change between X and Y variables is
opposite. For example, when the price of a commodity increases its demand decreases.

 Zero Correlation (0) – There is no relationship between the variables in this case. For
instance, an increase in height has no impact on one’s intelligence.

What is Karl Pearson’s Coefficient of Correlation?

This method is also known as the Product Moment Correlation Coefficient and was developed by
Karl Pearson. It is one of three most potent and extensively used methods to measure the level of
correlation, besides the Scatter Diagram and Spearman’s Rank Correlation.

20
The Karl Pearson correlation coefficient method, is quantitative and offers numerical value to
establish the intensity of the linear relationship between X and Y. Such a coefficient correlation is
represented as ‘r’.

The Karl Pearson Coefficient of Correlation formula is expressed as -

r=n(Σxy)−(Σx)(Σy)[nΣx2−(Σx)2][nΣy2−(Σy)2]−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−√

In this formula,

X−−
is mean of X variable.

Y−−
is mean of Y variable.

21
 Data analysis
Data analysis was done on basis of the secondary data it was noted that 80% of the surveyed
companies have a certified quality management system. It was also supposed that the size of the
organization may influence the use of methodologies and tools, the motivational factors and the
barriers to the adoption or implementation of quality programs. Therefore, the results for
companies with different sizes were compared using t test: companies that employ between 10
and 50 full-time employees (small companies), those that employs between 50 and 250 full-time
employees (medium companies), and those with more than 250 employees (large companies).

3.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

 Due to covid 19 pandemic situation the primary data collection was not possible to me. So I
collect appropriate data from different industrial websites and another second hand sources

 So the major limitation is, there is no personal interaction between employees.

22
 CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

CORRELATION ANALYSIS
The Correlation Analysis is the statistical tool used to study the closeness of the relationship
between two or more variables. The variables are said to be correlated when the movement of
one variable is accompanied by the movement of another variable. Correlation analysis is a
vital tool in the hands of any Six Sigma team. As the Six Sigma team enters the analyze
phase they have access to data from various variables. They now need to synthesize this data
and ensure that they are able to find a conclusive relationship. In order to perform the
correlation analysis, there must be sufficient data for the variables under question. Once there
is sufficient data, this data was plugged into a formula developed by Karl Pearson. This
formula was famously called Karl Pearson’s co-efficient of correlation. This involved
complex calculation and mandated the presence of a statistician in the Six Sigma team.
Correlation analysis typically gives us a number result that lies between +1 and -1. The + ve
or – ve sign denotes the direction of the correlation. The positive sign denotes direct
correlation whereas the negative sign denotes inverse correlation. Zero signifies no
correlation. And the closer the number moves towards 1, the stronger the correlation is.
Usually for the correlation to be considered significant, the correlation must be 0.5 or above
in either direction. The correlation analysis is used when the researcher wants to determine
the possible association between the variables and to begin with; the following steps are to be
followed: Determining whether the relation exists and then measuring it (The measure of
correlation is called as the Coefficient of Correlation).Testing its significance and
establishing the cause-and-effect relation, if any. In the correlation analysis, there are two
types of variables- Dependent and Independent. The purpose of such analysis is to find out
if any change in the independent variable results in the change in the dependent variable or
not. Now the question arises that what is the need to study the correlation? The study of
correlation is very useful in the practical life due to the following reasons:

23
1. Several variables show some kind of relationship, such as income and expenditure, demand
and sales, etc. and hence, with the help of correlation analysis the degree of relationship
between these variables can be measured in one figure.
2. Once the closeness of variables is determined, we can estimate the value of unknown variable
provided the value of another variable is given. This can be done using the regression
analysis.
3. The correlation analysis helps the manufacturing firm in estimating the price, cost, sales of its
product on the basis of the other variables that are functionally related to it.
4. It contributes towards the economic behavior as it helps an economist in identifying the
critically important variables on which several other economic variables depend on.

The correlation analysis is the most widely used method and is often the most abused
statistical measures. This is because the researcher may overlook the fact that the correlation
only measures the strength of linear relationships and does not necessarily imply a
relationship between the variables.

Karl Pearson’s Coefficient of Correlation is widely used mathematical method wherein the
numerical expression is used to calculate the degree and direction of the relationship between
linear related variables. Pearson’s method, popularly known as a Pearson Ian Coefficient of
Correlation, is the most extensively used quantitative methods in practice. The coefficient of
correlation is denoted by “r”.

24
 Relationship between innovation and various factors

TABLE 1. Relationship between innovation and various factors

Correlations
Customer
Quality purchasin Productio Employee Logistic
Work environment standard g n process engagemen s Innovation
s behaviour t partners
Work Pearson Correlation 1 .389** .334** .133 .213** .204* .481**
Environmen Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .107 .009 .012 .000
t

N 149 149 149 149 149 149 149

Quality Pearson Correlation .389 **
1 .505 **
.387 **
.204 *
.252 **
.634**
Standard Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .012 .002 .000
s

N 149 149 149 149 149 149 149

Customer Pearson Correlation .334** .505** 1 .597** .382** .425** .784**
Purchasing Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
power

N 149 149 149 149 149 149 149

Production process Pearson .133 .387** .597** 1 .500** .436** .766**
Correlation Sig. (2- .107 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)

N 149 149 149 149 149 149 149

Employee Pearson .213 **
.204 *
.382 **
.500 **
1 .577 **
.702**
Engagemen Correlation Sig. (2- .009 .012 .000 .000 .000 .000
t tailed)

N 149 149 149 149 149 149 149

Logistic Pearson Correlation .204* .252** .425** .436** .577** 1 .746**
s Sig. (2-tailed) .012 .002 .000 .000 .000 .000
Partners

N 149 149 149 149 149 149 149

Innovation Pearson Correlation .481 **
.634 **
.784 **
.766 **
.702 **
.746 **
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 149 149 149 149 149 149 149

25
CORRELATION BETWEEN INNOVATION AND VARIABLES

Table 2. Correlation table between innovation and factors

Work Quality Customer Production Employee Logistical

environment standards purchasing process engagement partners
behaviour

.481 .634 .784 .766 .702 .746

Innovation

The factors like work environment, quality standards, customer purchasing behavior,
production process, employee engagement, logistical partners and innovation is positively
correlated each other . There is a strong correlation between them.

Relationship between age and innovation

26
Table3. Age and Innovation
Correlations

Innovation
Age

Innovation Pearson
1 .187*
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .022
N 149 149
Age Pearson
.187* 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .022
N 149 149
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The age and innovation is positively correlated each other. But there is a weak correlation
value of .187.

27
Relationship between Work experience and innovation

Table 4. Innovation and work experience

Correlations

Innovation Experience
Innovation Pearson
1 .165
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .095

N 149 149
Experience Pearson
.165 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .095

N 149 149

The work experience and innovation is positively correlated each other. But there is a weak
correlation value of .165.

28
 CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS

 Hypothesis 1examined the relationship between work environment and innovation.

Here H1 is rejected and there is a significant relationship between work environment
and innovation. Since its correlation value is positive (.481)at 5% significant level.
 Hypothesis 2 examined the relationship between quality standards and innovation.
Here H2 is rejected and there is a significant relationship between quality standards
and innovation. Since its correlation value (.634) is positive at 5% significant level.
 Hypothesis 3 examined the relationship between customer purchasing behaviour and
innovation. Here H3 is rejected and there is a significant relationship between
customer purchasing behaviour and innovation. Since its correlation value(.784) is
positive at 5% significant level.
 Hypothesis 4 examined the relationship between production process and innovation.
Here H4 is rejected and there is a significant relationship between production process
and innovation. Since its correlation value is positive (.766) at 5% significant level.
 Hypothesis5 examined the relationship between employee engagement and
innovation. Here H5 is rejected and there is a significant relationship between
employee engagement and innovation. Since its correlation value is positive (.702) at
5% significant level.
 Hypothesis 6 examined the relationship between logistical partners and innovation.
Here H6 is rejected and there is a significant relationship between employee
engagement and innovation. Since its correlation value is positive(.746) at 5%
significant level.
 Hypothesis 7 examined the relationship between age and innovation. Here H7 is
rejected and there is a significant relationship between age and innovation. Since its
correlation value is positive but the value is low(.187) at 5% significant level.
 Hypothesis 8 examined the relationship between work experience and innovation.
Here H8 is rejected and there is a significant relationship between work experience
and innovation. Since its correlation value is .165 , it is low 9(weak correlation)at 5%
significant level.

29
 CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS

The study gives an understanding about the relationship between various factors like
working environment, quality standards, customer purchasing behaviour, production
processes, employee engagement, logistical partners, age, work experience with the
innovations in quality management practices in manufacturing companies.
I collect secondary data from two manufacturing companies Keltron and Milma and
analysing the data from the survey. The results indicates there is a positive relationship
between all these variables working environment, quality standards, customer purchasing
behaviour, production processes, employee engagement , logistical partners with the
innovations and there is a weak correlation between age, work experience and innovation.
New changes happened in the quality of the products and services of Indian companies
and how they affect the purchasing power of customers and the new strategies adopted by
the company influences the amount of work done by the employees and there by impacts
on the employee engagement and it affects the production process and quality
management practices. So these all the factors are correlated each other.
There is a strong co relationship between all these factors and innovation. But age and
work experience has at least effect on the innovation. With increasing market
competition, organizations are striving for greater innovation in products and services.
Innovations must meet certain criteria to be successful, including meeting customer
needs, satisfying expense and return on investment requirements, improving employee
satisfaction, and product quality.
Innovations help introduce new concepts, knowledge, products, services, and processes
into organizations and the outside marketplace. Innovative products are those that replace
or build on current offerings; they provide new features or other advantages that allow
users to operate more efficiently and/or less expensively.
Innovation adds value, and it is probable that a successful innovative solution will be the
one that improves the process and/or its output. This study gives thorough understanding
about the factors influenced, techniques used and give a framework to the innovations in

30
quality management happened in manufacturing companies.

31
 REFERENCES

1. Slater SF, Mohr J, Sengupta S (2014) Radical product innovation capability: literature review,
synthesis and illustrative research propositions. J Prod Innov Manag 31(3):552–566.
2. Kim DY, Kumar V, Kumar U (2012) Relationship between quality management practices and
innovation. J Oper Manag 30:295–315.
3. Singh PJ, Smith A (2004) Relationship between TQM and innovation: an empirical study. J
Manuf Technol Manag 15(5):394–401
4. Martinez-Costa M, Martinez-Lorente AR (2008) Does quality management foster or hinder
innovation? an empirical study of spanish companies. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell
19(3):209–221.
5. Kull TJ, Wacker JG (2010) Quality management effectiveness in Asia: the influence of
culture. J Oper Manag 28(3):223–239.
6. Ketokivi MA, Schroeder RG (2004) Strategic, structural contingency and institutional
explanations in the adoption of innovative manufacturing practices. J Oper Manag 22:63–89.
7. Saraph JV, Benson PG, Schroeder RG (1989) An instrument for measuring the critical factors
of quality management. Decis Sci 20(4):810–829.
8. Schonberger RJ (2007) Japanese production management: an evolution with mixed success. J
Oper Manag 25(2):403–419.
9. Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1967) Organization and environment. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA
10. Graubner M (2006) Task, firm size, and organizational structure in management consulting:
an empirical analysis from a contingency perspective. Deutscher Universitats-Verlag,
Germany.
11. Hoang DT, Igel B, Laosirihongthong T (2006) The impact of total quality management on
innovation: findings from a developing country. Int J Qual Reliability Manag 23(8–9):1092–
1117
12. Perdomo-Ortiz J, Gonzalez-Benito J, Galende J (2006) Total quality management as a
forerunner of business innovation capability. Technovation 26(10):1170–1185.
13. Lea R, Parker B (1989) The JIT spiral of continuous improvement. IMDS 4:10–13

32
33