Benchmarking: An International Journal: Article Information

Benchmarking: An International Journal
Benchmarking of TQM practices in the Jordanian pharmaceutical industry(a comparative study)

Maysoon Mohammed Yaseen, Rateb J Sweis, Ayman Bahjat Abdallah, Bader Yousef Obeidat, Nadia J Sweis,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Maysoon Mohammed Yaseen, Rateb J Sweis, Ayman Bahjat Abdallah, Bader Yousef Obeidat, Nadia J Sweis,
"Benchmarking of TQM practices in the Jordanian pharmaceutical industry(a comparative study)", Benchmarking: An
International Journal, https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-04-2017-0076
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-04-2017-0076
Downloaded on: 02 November 2018, At: 13:58 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:380143 []
For Authors
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 13:58 02 November 2018 (PT)
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Benchmarking of TQM practices in the Jordanian pharmaceutical
industry
(a comparative study)
Abstract
Purpose:
The purpose of this paper is to establish practical guidelines for benchmarking eight Total
Quality Management (TQM) practices vital to pharmaceutical companies’ performance.
The paper also proposes the use of an analytic Total Quality Index (TQI) as a
benchmarking tool and illustrates the importance and effectiveness of this benchmarking
methodology by applying it in two comparative studies of three Jordanian pharmaceutical

companies
Design/methodology/approach – In order to achieve the above-mentioned purpose

the data gathered through a questionnaire that used to evaluate the gap between the ideal
and current status of the quality management system and distributed to the quality units
from three companies: pharmaceutical manufacturing company, a pharmaceutical
manufacturing company working in the same field and a pharmaceutical service providing
research services to a pharmaceutical manufacturing companies. And the mean differences
between the current and ideal states for the eight critical TQM practices were compared for
these two comparative studies using t-test.
Findings –Each of the two comparisons reveals statistically significant differences
regarding perceptions of actual and ideal scores for (manufacturing and service companies)
on five out of eight critical factors and, on two out of eight critical factors for (
manufacturing and manufacturing companies).
Practical implications – The pharmaceutical companies, regardless of whether they are
manufacturing or service company, can adopt benchmarking techniques which were
applied in this case study to improve their performance and their product/service quality.
Originality/value –The consequences of this research can support organization managers
and policy makers in effectively benchmarking the identified TQM practices in their
organizations using the proposed TQI benchmarking tool.
Keywords: Benchmarking, Total Quality Management (TQM), Total Quality Index

(TQI), Jordanian Pharmaceutical Industry.
Paper type Case study
1
Introduction
Benchmarking is an effective management tool used by many companies worldwide to identify
and apply best practices for filling in gaps and accomplishing continuous process improvement
to increase competitiveness (Rohlfer, 2004). As Jochem and Landgraf (2010) noted,
“Benchmarking means orienting a company in the best market position, aiming to be the best of
the best in the business field" (p. 690). It is a tool that improves organizational performance by
identifying competitive advantages and learning about products, services, own operations, by
comparison with the best (Ionescu and Bigio, 2016).
In today’s dynamic business environment, change is an inevitable factor that forces companies to
reinvent themselves and their capabilities to remain competitive. For this reason, total quality
management (TQM) has attracted global attention as a vital strategy for enhancing
competitiveness in both manufacturing and service organizations (Gunasekaran, 1999). Chao et
al., (2015) define the TQM as a management philosophy working to improve quality across
different cultures and industries ,TQM also plays an increasingly important role in the survival
and growth of companies in the pharmaceutical sector, which is "considered the second
largest export industry in Jordan" (Sweis et al., 2015, p. 489). , This sector is committed to
quality and is also continually exposed to competitive pressures. Thus, pharmaceutical
companies must apply, maintain and constantly improve their strategies in order to maintain
compliance with the newest local and international requirements and regulations. Jordanian
pharmaceutical companies, like pharmaceutical companies in other countries, are similarly
exposed to these factors; thus, they must find ways to efficiently implement quality management
systems.
Benchmarking has gained global acceptance as a tool of continuous development and a method
of enhancing competitiveness in the context of TQM (Carpinetti and de Melo, 2002). It is widely
known that benchmarking accelerates TQM achievement by allowing companies to learn from
other companies that have demonstrated excellence. Benchmarking is also a vital tool for
exposing competitive organizations’ internal activities to external organizations (Lema and Price,
1995). It is a methodical search for best practices that lead to superior performance (Attiany,
2014). In other words, benchmarking involves gathering information to generate production
and/or performance averages against which managers and producers can compare themselves to
discover operational strengths and weaknesses with the specific goal of enhancing performance
(Kahan,2010) It is necessary for companies to know where they stand compared to others, as
well as to understand why others are ahead. With such understandings, companies can adjust
their procedures to pull ahead of their competitors (Mouton, 2006).
Many studies (Andersen, 1999; Chi Lai et al., 2011; Elmuti and Kathawala, 1997) have
shown that there are four types of benchmarking: internal benchmarking, competitive
benchmarking, functional benchmarking and generic benchmarking. In this case study, the
benchmarking focused on how TQM practices are implemented by different pharmaceutical
organizations in Jordan. The study identified two types of benchmarking: generic benchmarking
between non-competing companies (a pharmaceutical manufacturing and a pharmaceutical
service provider) and competitive benchmarking between direct competitors (two
pharmaceutical manufacturing companies). As an aspect of TQM, benchmarking has become a
powerful competitive tool that is used by many successful companies (Talebi et al., 2014). Since
this study is concerned specifically with the benchmarking of TQM, benchmarking was used to
analyze the gap between current practices and best practices (Kelessidis, 2000). The total
quality index (TQI) designed for this study is a TQM benchmarking tool. This TQI tool was
applied to determine ideal and
actual quality management along eight critical TQM practices to assess improvements in quality
management within the studied pharmaceutical companies. Many organizations now use
2
benchmarking as a strategy to make significant improvements to their TQM maturity (Chung,
2001). In sum, benchmarking is critical for improving the execution of quality management
systems, improving companies’ performance and enhancing companies’ competitive advantage.
The purpose of this study is to develop an approach for companies to get ahead of their
competitors using benchmarking by capturing employees’ perceptions of the current status of
existing quality management systems and comparing these perceptions to their beliefs regarding
the ideal practice of TQM in their companies to improve quality management systems and
achieve this ideal state. Through this comparison of TQM problems and issues, practices can be
identified and improvements can be suggested to implement TQM practices more effectively in
order to achieve the ultimate goal of improving quality and enhancing competitiveness.
Literature review
The benchmarking concept has been examined intensively in a great deal of research. Many
scholars (e.g. Bisp et al., 1998) define benchmarking as a continuous process of determining the
best practices to learn and improve ways of manufacturing, distributing and marketing products.
Comparing a company with its competitors with respect to key success factors is considered a
reasonable way to establish measures for which goals to achieve. As Carpinetti and de Melo
(2002, p. 1) note:"Benchmarking has gained acceptance worldwide as an instrument of
continuous improvement in the context of total quality management and as a means of enhancing
competitiveness".
Attiany and Nour (2014) pointed out that many previous studies have focused on the role of
TQM benchmarking in pharmaceutical companies. They found a high relationship between
benchmarking and continuous product and process improvement in Jordanian pharmaceutical
firms. By contrast, Swies et al. (2015) focused on the role of internal benchmarking process in
improving companies’ performance.
This study explores the knowledge exchange of two pharmaceutical companies concerned with
quality management. These two companies learned from one another’s experiences and the
competences. It is widely argued that benchmarking is a way to understand what is critical to
organizations’ accomplishment, through choosing what to be benchmarked, understanding
current exclusions, planning, studying others, learning from information and utilizing discoveries
(Besterfield et al., 2003).
The results of Jochem and Landgraf (2010) confirm that benchmarking supports the exchange of
information and improves the competitiveness of different enterprises. Different researchers have
identified the quality gap as a difference between the current situation and the ideal situation
(Tavana et al., 2003). Accordingly, benchmarking an organization’s quality management system
can include comparing the actual state of critical quality management areas to an ideal desired
state using the TQI benchmarking tool to obtain data, identify potential gaps and then analyze the
information and derive subsequent improvement.
Benchmarking
The literature has developed several definitions of benchmarking; however, it has reached no
consensus. In general, benchmarking is considered an efficient and continuous tool for
identifying best practices in other organizations through comparison (with the focal organization)
and measurement (American Productivity and Quality Centre [APQC], 1999; Andersen and
Pettersen, 1996; Bogan, 1994; Naumova, 2014). It involves comparing a company's products,
services and practices with those of rival or acknowledged industry leaders (Camp, 1989, 1993),
comparing numerical performance levels across organizations (Dattakumar and Jagadeesh, 2003)
and contrasting identified areas of organizational performance with others (Maire et al., 2005).
Furthermore, benchmarking concerns identifying the essential success factors that distance the
3
most successful firms from their competitors (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1995), understanding
and implementing excellent practices from within an organization or from other businesses
(Cook, 1995; Kumar et al., 2006). Importing best practices (Keehley et al.,1997). Businesses can
use benchmarking to identify operational strengths and weaknesses to achieve specific end goals
(Voss et al., 1997) and to recognise partners that have accomplished these goals (Kleine, 1994).
Types of Benchmarking
Benchmarking involves comparing processes, practices or procedures either within an
organization (i.e. against internal operations) or with external partners. The literature identifies
many types of benchmarking. As Andersen (1999) described, these ways of classifying
benchmarking reflect “Benchmarking against whom?” and “Benchmarking of what?"
Benchmarking against whom? In response to this first question, four types of benchmarking can
be defined: internal benchmarking, competitive benchmarking, functional benchmarking and
generic benchmarking (Andersen, 1999; Chi Lai et al., 2011; Elmuti and Kathawala, 1997).
Internal benchmarking is a comparison against the best within the same organization with the
goal of finding and applying best practice information. It seeks to identify the best performances
of a specific activity within a company (Early and Colette, as cited in Naumova, 2014). Internal
benchmarking leverages two-way communication and the sharing of opinions across
organizational sections or between organizations working as a part of a chain across different
countries (Breiter and Kline, 1995; Cross and Leonard, as cited in Kay, 2007). Once one
organizational department achieves a superior performance indicator, the others should
determine how this was accomplished. These internal benchmarking findings can then be utilized
as a standard for expanding benchmarking into external organizations (Karlof and Ostblom,
1993; McNair and Leibfried, 1992).f. Since data are frequently accessed for comparison, this
type of benchmarking is considered the least complex type of benchmarking and supports the
development of deep understanding of how benchmarking can be applied (Early and Colett, as
cited in Naumova, 2014). For these reasons, all benchmarking processes should begin with
internal benchmarking. In other words, an organization seeking to improve must first evaluate it
self in order to develop a solid basis for comparison with others (Breiter and Kline, 1995).
Competitive benchmarking is a comparison against an organization’s best direct competitors

(Andersen, 1999; Attiany, 2014). In competitive benchmarking, an organization compares its
own performance/results against those of its best competitors manufacturing the same product or
delivering the same service (Mollaee et al., 2009). This allows the organization to determine how
well (or poorly) it is doing in relation to its main competition, particularly with respect to
critically important properties, functions or qualities related to its products or services (American
Society for Quality [ASQ], 2004). This activity typically follows an internal benchmarking
activity, since internal information must be collected and analyzed before it can be contrasted
with external data (Swies et al., 2015; Yasin and Zimmere, 1995).
Competitive benchmarking is considered the most challenging type of benchmarking, since it is
difficult to get data from competitors and to implement lessons learned from them (Karlof and
Ostblom, 1993). It is also extremely hard to engage in healthy cooperation with a direct
competitor to tap into significant sources of information (Cook, 1995).
Functional benchmarking"is a comparison of processes or functions against non-competing
companies within the same industry or technological area" (Mollaee et al., 2009, p. 528). Magd
(2008) pointed out that functional benchmarking should be used among organizations with
similar processes and functions. Davies, Breiter and Kline (as cited in Kay, 2007) characterize
this kind of benchmarking as comparative study focused on the search for world class excellence
across different industries. Thus, functional benchmarking involves comparing performance
against more companies than simply competitors, and encourages companies to examine the best
4
businesses operating in similar fields, performing comparable activities or having similar
problems in different industries. Specifically, functional benchmarking focuses on those
functions of which a company is especially aware, pushing the company to compare itself with
leaders in these functional areas (Naumova, 2014). In sum, the purpose of functional
benchmarking is to identify best practices regardless of industry and to become the best with
respect to the function in question. As Andersen and Pettersen (1996) emphasize, the studied
partners can include customers, suppliers or other companies, many of which are easy to contact
and easy to compare (since they are facing similar problems).
Generic benchmarking compares a main company’s processes against best practices anywhere
and in any type of organization (Chandra, 2010). Kelessidis (2000) defined generic
benchmarking as “Process benchmarking that compares a particular business function or process
at two or more companies independent of their industries” (p. 29). Thus, generic benchmarking
involves comparisons with companies from completely different schools, industries or markets
(Andersen, 1999; Attiany, 2014). As Carpinetti and de Melo (2002) noted, in this way, generic
benchmarking and functional benchmarking are similar; however, the goal of generic
benchmarking is to compare a company with the best in class, regardless of industry. Possible
comparative partners include any and all companies that have gained a reputation of excellence
within the benchmarked parameters.
Furthermore, it is easier to gather data for generic benchmarking than competitive benchmarking
because it is easier to cooperate with companies in different industries and fields (Naumova,
2014). In other words, best-in-class organizations are more likely to share their experiences with
companies that are not competitors. Furthermore, through generic benchmarking, companies can
examine comparable process in companies in totally unrelated industries, which increases the
potential for identifying new technologies or practices (Andersen and Pettersen, 1996).
Benchmarking of what? In response to this second question, three types of benchmarking can be
defined, depending on what is being compared: process benchmarking, which compares
operations, work practices and business processes; product benchmarking, which compares
products and services; and strategic benchmarking, which compares organizational structures,
management practices and business strategies (Carpinetti and Oiko, 2008).
As Kumar and Chandra (2001) recommend, the benchmarking procedure and type of should be
selected and used carefully to yield the required results. Based on the above information and the
objective of this study, the two types of benchmarking that have been adopted are generic
benchmarking and competitive benchmarking. Through generic benchmarking, this study will
compare a process or function (TQM practice implementation) in two non-competing companies
(Company 1 and Company 2) within the same industry (pharmaceuticals). Through competitive
benchmarking, this study will compare a process or function (TQM practice implementation) in
two directly competing pharmaceutical manufacturing companies (Company 1 and Company 3).
Benchmarking Process
There are numerous benchmarking process models that differ in the number and names of
phases. As Ross (1995) noted, "there is no standard or commonly accepted approach to the
benchmarking process" (p. 242).
For example, Bendell et al. (as cited in Attiany, 2014) developed a benchmarking process based
on Xerox. This process is divided into ten steps: 1) identify benchmarking subject, 2) identify
comparative companies, 3) determine data collection method and collect data, 4) determine
current competitive gap, 5) project future performance, 6) communicate findings and gain
acceptance, 7) establish functional goals, 8) develop action plans, 9) implement plans and
monitor progress and 10) recalibrate benchmark. Mollaee and Rahimi (2009) argued that the
benchmarking process comprises five steps: 1) deciding what to benchmark by making priorities
and determining a certain process, 2) analyzing the starting position and the aim of identifying
5
measurement tools that facilitate the identification of improvements, 3) selecting a suitable
partner, 4) retrieving the necessary information from the partner and 5) applying the lessons
learned and taking action to improve. Several other process models also exist. For example,
Henning et al. (2011) also described five phases: initiation, planning, information gathering,
analyzing and implementing for effects. Similarly, Drew (1997) identified the following five
stages: 1) identify the object of study, 2) select benchmarking partners, 3) collect and analyze
data, 4) set performance goals for improvement, and 5) implement plans and monitor results.
Camp (1989) Ohinata (1994) and Wilkerson et al. (1992) identified four phases (planning,
analysis, integration and action), and Kelessidis (2000) added an additional phase (maturity).
Fuller et al. (2011) also identified four phases: internal assessment, data gathering, data analysis
and action.
Diversity, Markovic et al. (2011) argued that there is no one way to execute a benchmarking
process. They stated that all models, regardless of differences in size and/or names of steps, are
similar; thus, each benchmarking study should adopt the scheme that best fits its specific
purpose. Alosani et al. (2016) agreed with Markovic et al.’s (2011) assessment and argued that,
despite their differences, most models followed the following general set of steps: planning and
analysis, choosing the right partnership, determining best practices and applying the proposed
improvements. In principle, this process is common and equally valid across all types of
benchmarking. Camp and Tweet, (1994) concluded that both the philosophy of benchmarking
and its related process are simple. In essence, benchmarking supports the tracking of valuable
goals in a planned way. The effectiveness of any benchmarking process also depends on the tools
used to collect and analyze information and derive subsequent improvements (Dey, 2002).
TQM Practices
TQM is a subject that sparks several perspectives with regard to meaning, benefits and related
practices (Zairi and Yousse, 1995). TQM comprises three approaches. First, the term ‘total’
assumes that all individuals associated with an organization (e.g. employees, customers and
suppliers) contribute to quality management. Second, ‘quality’ refers to an integral part of
corporate philosophy. Third, the term ‘management’ refers to executive responsibility and the
relevance of managerial commitment (Ho, as cited in Hietschold et al., 2014).
Zairi et al. (1994) and Zairi and Youssef (1995) defined TQM as a positive effort by
organizations interested in improving their structural, infrastructural, attitudinal, behavioural and
methodological ways of delivering to the end customer, while Demirbag et al. (2006)
characterized it as a comprehensive management philosophy designed by top management to
satisfy customer requirements and to provide quality services and continuous improvement
across all functions of an organization
TQM has gained increased popularity as a key strategy to improve organizational performance
(Mensah et al., 2012); achieve organizational excellence (Goetsch and Davis, 2013); decrease or
eliminate variations in production processes or service-delivery systems in order to develop
efficiency, reliability, and quality (Steingrad and Fitzgibbons, 1993); and satisfy or delight the
end customer (Zairi et al., 1994). Several authors have offered diverse perspectives on what
comprises TQM practices. This study performed an exhaustive review of the theoretical,
empirical and practitioner literature to determine TQM practices. The TQM practices chosen for
review were adapted from Saraph et al. (1989) and, later, Swies et al. (2015) and Tavana et al.
(2003). This search yielded eight practices of TQM that can be measured as part of the
evaluation of the state of the TQM system. These eight practices include:
(1) The role of management leadership and quality policy;
(2) The role of the quality department;
(3) Training;
6
(4) Product/service design;
(5) Supplier quality management;
(6) Process management /operating procedures;
(7) Quality data and reporting; and
(8) Employee relations
Saraph et al. (1989) proposed the concept of applying TQM practices in service industries and
was the first study to apply this set of identifying TQM practices in both manufacturing and
service industries. Organizations around the world, regardless of size or the sectors
(manufacturing or service), engage in quality strategies; thus, TQM represents a major part of
every manager’s ‘tool kit’ (Dow et al., 1999). Although the specific practices of manufacturing
and service organizations differ in several ways, TQM has become an essential strategy for both
types of companies (Gunasekaran, 1999).
Benchmarking of TQM
According to Karloff and Ostblom (1993), there are three main areas that can be benchmarked:
quality, productivity and time. Since the main values of benchmarking are derived from
Deming’s theory of quality management, the application of benchmarking has focused primarily
on quality management (Kozak, 2002). Dattakumar and Jagadeesh (2003) also noted that the
term ‘benchmarking’ refers to the process of evaluating and applying best practices with the goal
of improving quality.
There is an enormous amount of literature on TQM and benchmarking. Longbottom et al. (2000)
found that benchmarking is essentially a research method specific to TQM. As TQM
benchmarking has been increasingly introduced into different industries, the body of research in
this area of benchmarking has similarly grown. Early work by Sweis et al. (2015) was concerned
with TQM benchmarking in pharmaceutical companies. Their general results noted that the
benefits of benchmarking with regard to supporting the continuous improvement of
pharmaceutical industries are similar to benefits reported in previous research (e.g. Attiany,
2009; Attiany and Nour, 2014; Jochem and Landgraf, 2010). Furthermore, several other
researchers have addressed the benchmarking of TQM practices in different industries and fields,
such as clinical and non-clinical hospital departments (Tavana et al., 2003), international non-
governmental organizations (INGOs) (Sweis et al., 2016),automotive repair shops (Sung, 1998)
and hotels (Breiter and Kline, 1995; Hokey and Hyesung, 1997).An important conclusion of
this body of literature is that benchmarking is considered a critical part of TQM and an important
strategy for organizations to make progress in their TQM accomplishment (Chung, 2001).
Zairi (2001) defined benchmarking for best practice as a combination of process management
(i.e. asking about behaviours or practices) and process performance (i.e. identifying the gap
within which benchmarking can be successfully applied). Wynn-Williams (2005) noted that
several organizations have adopted benchmarking as a part of a TQM approach .Sung (1998)
argued proposed “ benchmarking may determine the strengths and weaknesses of their
companies’ implementation of TQM practices and the relationship between TQM
implementation and organizational performance. Moreover, organizations may discover ways of
improvement from those comparisons” (p.40).
Based on the above, this study is specifically concerned with the benchmarking of TQM
practices in pharmaceutical companies. Since a wide range of business successes can be
achieved through benchmarking, especially in manufacturing and service industries, this
research aims to identify the different advantages an organization can achieve by applying a
benchmarking tool. To accomplish this, it has compared three Jordanian pharmaceutical
7
companies using a TQM approach to identify and explore the weaknesses and strengths of their
work quality.
The Total Quality Index (TQI) Benchmarking Tool

Tavana et al. (2003) define the TQI as "an information technology-supported benchmarking tool.
TQI utilizes the analytic hierarchy process and the Delphi technique to measure ideal and actual
quality management along eight critical practices synthesized by seraph et al. (1989)"(p. 507).
Furthermore, Ahmed and Raﬁq (1998) identify the gap analysis as one of several different
techniques that can be used for benchmarking. Thus, this study, uses the TQI tool proposed by
Tavana et al. (2003) to benchmark TQM practices by assessing and comparing actual and ideal
(gap) quality management systems in the selected pharmaceutical companies across eight TQM
practices included in a questionnaire (presented in Appendix 1). The questionnaire was generated
to assess quality management in either manufacturing or service organizations. A generic
benchmarking approach will be used to compare two different types of pharmaceutical
companies (manufacturing and service). A Competitive benchmarking approach will be used to

compare two pharmaceutical companies of the same type (manufacturing and manufacturing).
Methodology
Population and Sample
Data for this case study were obtained from three pharmaceutical companies in Jordan. For the
purposes of this study, the companies were given code names. Manufacturing Company 1
focused primarily on the production of pharmaceutical products in different dosages and forms
(e.g. tablets, capsules, dry suspension syrups, creams and ointments). Service Company2 was a
Contract Research Organization (CRO) that provided several research services for
pharmaceutical manufacturing companies. Some of its key research services included
bioequivalence and bioavailability studies, formulation optimization studies and pre-human
clinical studies, all of which were performed on various types of drugs. Manufacturing Company
3 was a newer and smaller manufacturing company whose main activity was the production of
pharmaceutical products in the form of tablets, dry suspension syrups and capsule dosages.
These three selected companies all adopted strategies of continuous improvement in order to stay
compliant with the latest local and international requirements and regulations. The three
companies are active in quality management and have secured the commitment of top
management. The employees also recognized and accepted the essential philosophy and terms of
quality management. As part of the companies’ commitment to quality, Companies 1, 2 and 3
had strong quality units and had implemented TQM across different aspects of their business
processes.
Care was taken in selecting the respondents and their departments to ensure that all participants
had relevant domain experience, allowing them to respond to questionnaires that measured their
attitudes and opinions regarding their companies’ current versus ideal states of quality
management. The participants were chosen randomly from the quality units contains different
departments in each company with different job levels (officers , supervisors, and managers),
with different educational backgrounds (including diploma, bachelor, and post-graduate in the
science field)., as follows: 45 respondents were selected from the company 1 ,with 15 employees
from the quality control (QC), 18 employees from the quality assurance (QA), 3 employees from
validation and 9 employees from production departments.; 45 participants were selected from
the company 2 with 10 employees from QC, 10 employees from QA, 8 employees from clinical,
10 employees from bio-analytical laboratory, 2 employees from validation and 5 employees from
pharmacy unit departments 2; And for Company 3, 30 respondents were selected 9 employees
from QC, 8 employees from QA, 4 employees from Research and Development (R&D), 2
employees from validation and 7 employees from production departments.
8
A total of 120 questionnaires were distributed, and 111 of these were collected. Of the 111
collected questionnaires, 12 (2 from Company 1, 5 from Company 2 and 5 from Company 3)
were rejected due to insufficient or incomplete responses, and 99 were used for the data analysis.
Willingness to participate in the study was high across all three companies. The final response
rate was 93.3% percent for Company 1, 93.3% percent for Company 2 and 90% for Company3.
The TQI benchmarking tool
To achieve the aims of this study, the TQI benchmarking tool was applied according to the
model proposed by Tavana et al. (2003). This model was used to measure both actual and ideal
quality management along the eight TQM practices. Since previous research has shown that
external benchmarking can be achieved using a direct comparison questionnaire (Iacobucci and
Nordhielm, 2000), this research used a questionnaire tool for its data collection. The chosen
structured questionnaire was developed by Saraph et al. (1989) (presented in Appendix 1) to
evaluate quality management in either manufacturing or service organizations. The content

validity of this instrument has been supported by previous research (Kumar et al., 2006). As
Tavana et al. (2003) further noted, "an inherent advantage of the Saraph’s questionnaire is that it
minimizes the time and cost of developing the concepts and operational measures essential for
the benchmarking approach to TQM"(p. 510).
Saraph’s questionnaire was utilized to evaluate the gap between the ideal and current statuses of
the quality management systems in each company. The quality assurance managers from the
three companies were responsible for determining the weights for each of the eight critical
practices and their specific elements through a series of pairwise comparisons. Each of the eight
critical quality management practices was compared with the other seven practices, such that the
practice with the highest score was assigned the largest weight, and so on for the remaining
practices. The same procedure was used to assign the weights to the elements associated with
each of the quality management practices. The employees from each company were asked to
answer the questions posed in the questionnaire in Appendix 1. Their responses were used to
analyze their perceptions of the ideal rating R*ij and the actual rating Rtij for each element. The
data collected for the three compared companies were used to compute the difference (dt)
between perceptions of actual quality management (TQIt) and ideal quality management scores
(TQI*) between Company 1 and Company 2 and between Company 1 and Company 3 using the
TQI model. Following Swies et al. (2015) and Tavana et al. (2003), the algebraic model included
the following items:
Fi : The importance weight of a TQM practice (for i =1; . . .; 8).
fij : The importance weight of an element associated with a TQM practice (for i = 1; . . .; 8; and
j =1; . . .; ki).
R*ij: The ideal rating of an element associated with the TQM practice (for i=1; . . .; 8; and j = 1; .
. .; ki).
Rtij: The actual rating of an element associated with the TQM practice for a given time period
(for me =1; . . .; 8; j = 1; . . .; ki ; and t =1; . . .; n).
TQI*: The ideal total quality index.
TQIt : The actual total quality index for a given time period.
dt : The gap between the ideal and actual total quality index for a given time period.
Ki: The number of items within each TQM practice.
n: The number of time periods where the total quality index is measured.
The objective of the model is to:
*
Minimize 𝑑𝑡 = TQI ― TQI𝑡 (1)
9
Where:
𝐾𝑖
( )
8
TQI * = ∑𝐹 ∑ 𝑓 𝑅
𝑖 ij
*
ij (2)
𝑖=1 𝑗=1
𝐾𝑖
( )
8
TQI𝑡 = ∑𝐹 ∑ 𝑓 𝑅
𝑖 ij
𝑡
ij (3)
𝑖=1 𝑗=1
and
8 𝐾𝑖
∑𝐹 = 1𝑖 ∑𝑓 ij =1 1 ≤ 𝑅 * ij ≤ 5 1 ≤ 𝑅𝑡ij ≤ 5
𝑖=1 𝑗=1
After the dt values were calculated for each participant for all TQM practices, these were treated
as an observation.
The study drew two independent samples from two populations (Company1 and Company 2) for
the generic benchmarking approach and did the same for two populations (Company 1 and
Company 3) for the competitive benchmarking approach.
Company 1 had a mean of (µ Company 1) and a variance of (σ2 Company 1), Company 2 had a
mean of (µ Company 2) and a variance of (σ2 Company 2), and Company 3 had a mean of (µ
Company 3) and a variance of (σ2 Company 3).
The hypothesis for the first case study (i.e. generic benchmarking) was that there was no
significant difference between perceptions of actual and ideal quality management for Company
1 and Company 2. The hypothesis for the second case study (i.e. the competitive benchmarking)
was that there was no significant difference between perceptions of actual and ideal quality
management for Company 1 and Company 3.
The following hypotheses were also formulated:
Case Study 1 (Generic Benchmarking)

H01: µ Company 1 = µ Company 2
HA1: µ Company 1 ≠ µ Company 2
And
Case Study 2 (Competitive Benchmarking)
H02: µ Company 1 = µ Company 3
HA2: µ Company 1 ≠ µ Company 3
Data Analysis and Results
The statistical procedures used to test the hypotheses were an analysis of variance test (t- test).
Table (1) shows the ideal and actual perception means for the eight TQM practices for Company
10
1 and Company 2, and Table (3) shows the ideal and actual perception means for the eight TQM
practices for Company 1 and Company 3.
The results are shown in Table (2) (Company 1 versus Company 2) and Table (4) (Company 1
versus Company 3), both of which illustrate t-tests for equalities of means.
Two different t-tests were used to test the differences between the means for Company 1 and
Company 2 and the means for Company 1 and Company 3. The first t-test assumed an equality
of error variances, while the second t-test allowed for an inequality in variances.
Levene’s test for the equality of variances was performed to determine which t-test assumption
was most appropriate to use. The results of this test showed a difference between the variances of
Company 1 and Company 2 for Practice 7 (sig. 0.002). They also showed a difference between
the variances of Company 1 and Company 3 for Practices 7 (sig. 0.034) and Practice 4 (sig.
0.033). All of these comparisons yielded values less than 0.05 and, thus, were significant
(Cooper and Schindler, 2006).
For these practices, the (t-test not assuming equal variance) was used because the equality of the
variances could not be assumed. For the rest of the practices, the( t-test assuming equal
variances) was used.
Results of Comparison of Manufacturing Company 1 and Service Company 2 (Generic

Benchmarking)
The statistical analysis showed a difference between Manufacturing Company 1 and Service
Company 2 with respect to five critical practices: Practice 1, Practice 4, Practice 6, Practice 7
and Practice 8 ,on these practices , Service Company 2 had a larger gap than the Manufacturing
Company 1.
For Practice 1 (role of departmental management and quality policy), the significance level was
0.007. (lower than 0.05) (Cooper and Schindler, 2006), for this practice, the difference between
the ideal and actual is higher for Service Company 2 (0.203) than Manufacturing Company 1
(0.135) as shown in Table (2).
This finding is consistence with the findings of (Antony et al., 2004) that there are significantly
different between manufacturing and service industries in the top management commitment
and quality policies, while this finding is different to the research of (Woon,2000) that did not
find significant differences for the soft aspects of quality, such as the role of management
leadership .
This result is reliable, suggesting that Service Company 2’s management is not currently playing
an optimal role in the application of the quality management leadership. The results measure the
level of required support, continuous monitoring and follow-up of management. Moreover, the
results show that the company 2’s quality policy is not well addressed and is not obviously
defined.
Table1. Ideal versus Actual TQM Practices Means (Company 1vs. Company 2)/Generic Benchmarking
11
Practice Practice Practice Practice Practice Practice Practice Practice 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Employee
Role of Role of the Training Product/ Supplier Process Quality Relations
Divisional Quality Service Quality Management Data and
Top Department Design Management /Operating Reporting
Management Procedures
and Quality
Policy
Manufacturing /Company 1
TQI * 0.611964 0.613375 0.577969 0.571474 0.546094 0.533100 0.477296 0.438125
TQI t 0.476541 0.445025 0.386859 0.446368 0.417969 0.428700 0.363391 0.339688

Mean
0.135422 0.168350 0.191109 0.125106 0.128125 0.104400 0.113905 0.098437
of dt
Service/ Company 2
TQI * 0.611515 0.623757 0.583328 0.569786 0.527872 0.528000 0.466739 0.435811
TQI t 0.408370 0.427189 0.342973 0.395319 0.375845 0.377189 0.295662 0.256419
Mean
0.203145 0.196568 0.240355 0.174467 0.152027 0.150811 0.171077 0.179392
of dt
Table2. t-test For Equality of Means (Company 1vs. Company 2)/ Generic Benchmarking
Levene's test for

Equality of t-test for Equality of Means
(t -test Variances
TQM Practice Assumption) Sig. Mean Mean
F Sig. t df level dt Difference
* Value ****
P1: Role of Equal variances 1.508 0.223 **Co. 1:
assumed 2.781 75.000 0.007
Divisional Top 0.135422
0.068
Management and Equal variances not ***Co. 2:
2.753 67.608 0.008
Quality Policy assumed 0.203145
Equal variances 0.641 0.426 Co.1:
assumed 1.066 75.000 0.290
P2: Role of the 0.168350
0.028
Quality Department Equal variances not Co.2:
assumed 1.066 74.454 0.290
0.196568
assumed 1.762 75.000 0.082
0.191109
P3: Training 0.049
Equal variances not Co.2:
assumed 1.749 70.195 0.085
0.240355
assumed 2.059 75.000 0.043
P4: Product/Service 0.125106
0.049
Design Equal variances not Co.2:
assumed 2.027 61.503 0.047
0.174467
assumed 1.077 75.000 0.285
P5: Supplier Quality 0.128125
0.024
Management Equal variances not Co.2:
assumed 1.065 66.667 0.291
0.152027
P6: Process Equal variances 0.279 0.599 Co.1:
assumed 2.169 75.000 0.033 0.046
management/ 0.104400
12
Operating Procedures Equal variances not Co.2:
2.145 66.820 0.036
assumed 0.150811
assumed 2.740 75.000 0.008
P7: Quality Data and 0.113905
0.057
Reporting Equal variances not Co.2:
assumed 2.692 59.335 0.009
0.171077
assumed 4.303 75.000 0.000
P8: Employee 0.098437
0.081
Relations Equal variances not Co.2:
assumed 4.253 65.828 0.000
0.179392
Notes: * Significant at the 0.05 level of confidence –two tail test,**Co.1: Company 1,
***Co.2: Company 2,**** Company 2 minus Company 1.
The results for Practice 2 (role of the quality department) had a significance level of 0.290. there
was no significant difference between the Manufacturing Company 1 and Service Company 2 for
this practice. Instead, the results indicate the presence of high levels of cooperation between
quality departments and suggest that other units are adequately playing their roles in the effective
implementation of quality within the two companies.
For Practice 3 (training), the significance level was 0.082; thus, there was no significant
difference between the Manufacturing Company 1and Service Company 2 for this practice. This
supports the same finding by (Pino, 2008) that found that the training level in quality techniques
and tools are the same in both service and manufacturing companies.
The same result was noticed for Practice 4 (product/service design), the significance level was
0.043. The difference between the ideal and actual is higher for Service Company (0.174) than
Manufacturing Company 1 (0.125).
is logical because the intangibility of a service as compared to a tangible product in
manufacturing environments considered the most significant and notable characteristic while the
tangible goods can be measured and are standardized in their specifications and that it more
difficult in intangible goods in the service company (Mensah et al., 2012).
The gap in employees’ perceptions of this practice for Service Company 2 may be related to the
need for further coordination among affected departments in the service development process, as
well as the need to enhance the clarity of the specifications and checking procedures for services
provided. Service Company 2 should also focus on providing proper training for tools,
techniques and procedures related to product and service design prior to implementation.
For Practice 5 (supplier quality management), the significance level was 0.285, and there was no
significant difference between the companies’ mean scores. This finding is different from the
resraerch of ( Huq and Stolen1998), however in general the manufacturing companies foucs on
the supplier management than the service company.
The companies’ supplier management systems were highly compatible with system
requirements, such that the companies’ evaluation, selection and coordination with suppliers
included the provision of clear specifications to suppliers.
Practice 6 (process management/operating procedures) yielded a significance level of 0.033. .,

the difference between the ideal and actual was higher for Service Company 2 (0.151) than for
Manufacturing Company 1 (0.104). The findings are consistant with result of (Talib, 2012) study
in which the manufacturing comapnies show a significantly higher score of use of this practice
than the service companies. A possible explanation for the gap is a lack of process management
13
through a well-defined system. Additionally, employees lacked comprehensive standard
operating procedures and clear work instructions.
Also,for Practice 7 (quality data and reporting), the significance level was 0.009.. and the
difference between the ideal and actual is higher for Service Company 2 (0.171) than
Manufacturing Company 1 (0.114).
The results align with the works of (Huq and Stolen ,1998; Pino, 2008; Solis et al. ,1998 and
Woon ,2000). These studies found that service organisations generally showed a lower level of
TQM implementation than the manufacturing, particularly in terms of availability of quality
related data (defects, error rates, ... etc.), the accessibility of quality data to managers and
supervisors and the implementation of the techniques and tools of quality.
The gap in employees’ perceptions regarding this practice could be related to an inadequate
awareness of the concept of quality data among employees. The result could also reflect an
absence of a management philosophy that uses collected information to positively impact
quality. There is a need to clarify types of quality data by identifying the different quality costs
and control charts at employee work stations.
For Practice 8 (employee relations), the significance level was zero;, there was a significant
difference between the ideal and actual for this practice. the difference was higher for Service
Company 2 (0.179) than for Manufacturing Company 1 (0.098).This finding is different from the
research of (Woon, 2000) that did not find significant differences, in this practice between
manufacturing and service company .
This reflects the companies’ levels of personnel management. The service company also failed to
empower and involve its employees in decision making and problem solving. The officer
employees felt that they were not included in quality decision-making processes and were not
recognized for their superior quality performance. In addition, the results may also have been
affected by the environment, which has always created tension within this service company. This
tension can be explained as a gap between where an employee might wish to be and where they
observe they are at a given point in time.
Results of Comparison of Manufacturing Company 1 and Manufacturing Company 3

(Competitive Benchmarking)
14
The statistical analysis showed a significant difference between Manufacturing Company 1 and
Manufacturing Company 3 with respect to two critical practices: Practice 6 and Practice 8, on
these two practices, Manufacturing Company 3 had a larger gap than the Manufacturing
Company 1 as shown in Table 4
Table3. Ideal versus Actual TQM Practices Means (Company 1vs. Company 3)/ Competitive Benchmarking
Practice Practice Practice Practice Practice Practice Practice Practice 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Employee
Role of Role of the Training Product/ Supplier Process Quality Relations
Divisional Quality Service Quality Management Data and
Top Department Design Management /Operating Reporting
Management Procedures
and Quality
Policy
Manufacturing /Company 1
TQI * 0.611964 0.613375 0.577969 0.571474 0.546094 0.533100 0.477296 0.438125
TQI t 0.476541 0.445025 0.386859 0.446368 0.417969 0.428700 0.363391 0.339688

Mean
0.135422 0.168350 0.191109 0.125106 0.128125 0.104400 0.113905 0.098437
of dt
Manufacturing / Company3
TQI * 0.624606 0.640182 0.574517 0.584114 0.526278 0.540545 0.462900 0.442045
TQI t 0.471890 0.454364 0.353608 0.436339 0.400568 0.378545 0.306450 0.298295
Mean
0.152716 0.185818 0.220909 0.147775 0.125710 0.162000 0.156450 0.143750
of dt
For Practice 6 (process management/operating procedures), the significance level was 0.017. the
significant difference between the ideal and actual was higher for Manufacturing Company 3
(0.162) than Manufacturing Company 1 (0.104).
Table4. t-test For Equality of Means (Company 1vs. Company 3)/ Competitive Benchmarking
15
Levene's test for
Equality of t-test for Equality of Means
(t -test Variances
TQM Practice Assumption) Sig. Mean Mean
F Sig. t df level dt Difference
* Value ****
P1: Role of Equal variances 0.017 0.897 **Co.1:
assumed 0.682 60.000 0.498
Divisional Top 0.135422
0.017
Management and Equal variances not ***Co.3:
0.665 40.388 0.51
Quality Policy assumed 0.152716
assumed 0.538 60.000 0.593
P2: Role of the 0.168350
0.017
Quality Department Equal variances not Co.3:
assumed 0.516 38.351 0.609
0.185818
0.956 60.000 0.343
assumed 0.191109
P3: Training 0.030
assumed 0.916 38.356 0.365
0.220909
assumed 0.845 60.000 0.402 0.125106
P4:Product/Service
0.023
Design Equal variances not Co.3:
assumed 0.746 30.661 0.462
0.147775
assumed -0.095 60.000 0.924
P5: Supplier Quality 0.128125
-0.002
Management Equal variances not Co.3:
assumed -0.087 33.442 0.931
0.125710
P6: Process assumed 2.462 60.000 0.017
0.104400
management/ 0.058
Operating Procedures 2.304 35.843 0.027
assumed 0.162000
assumed 1.903 60.000 0.062
P7: Quality Data and 0.113905
0.043
Reporting Equal variances not Co.3:
assumed 1.683 30.817 0.102
0.156450
assumed 2.266 60.000 0.027
P8: Employee 0.098437
0.045
Relations Equal variances not Co.3:
assumed 2.136 36.589 0.039
0.143750
Notes: * Significant at the 0.05 level of confidence–two tail test, **Co.1: Company 1,
***Co.3: Company 3, **** Company 3 minus Company 1.
A possible explanation for the gap is the process that not being managed through a well-defined
system. There is also a need to comprehensive standard operating procedures and clear work
instructions. It is referred to the fact related to the Manufacturing Company 3 (Being a small
sized pharmaceutical company, is still in the growth phase, it's more than a start up less than a
mature company; and thus they are still focusing on implementing and mastering their own
quality system and the Process Management/ Quality Operating Procedures are still under
preparation) and these results are consistant with the findings of Powell (1995) study, who
indicated that large companies had begun implementation of TQM before small companies.
The same result was noticed for for Practice 8 (employee relations),the significance level ) was
(0.027) and there was a significant difference between the mean scores of two companies on this
practice. And the difference between the ideal and actual score was higher for Manufacturing
16
Company 3 (0.144) than Manufacturing Company 1 (0.098). According (Roberts and Thomson,
as cited in Nonxuba, 2010) the reason for the lack of TQM implementation in small size
companies that the responsibility for implementing TQM process, is given to quality manager or
quality department, and not involving anyone in the organisation and another possible
explanation for the gap is managers not aware about the importance of employee
empowerment, involvement and participation in effective TQM practices implementation.
Conclusion
The study highlights the importance of the generic and competitive benchmarking processes as
effective tools for identifying organizational gaps and weaknesses in order to improve quality
management systems within Jordanian pharmaceutical companies (both manufacturing and
service companies). The regulatory quality requirements for the pharmaceutical industry are
changing constantly, prompting a need for the continuous application of benchmarking tools to
examine potential gaps between current practice and best practice, to increase the rate of
organizational learning, and to facilitate experience sharing to achieve superior, high-quality

performance.
Since employee participation is the most influential factor in the effectiveness of
benchmarking adoption, the main advantage of the data collection instrument used in this study
is its relation to employee involvement. Specifically, the study questionnaire considered the
employees’ perceptions regarding the ideal and current statuses of their companies’ TQM
systems. Employee involvement should highly affect the improvement stage, where employees
should urge companies to fill quality gaps and be more prepared to accept change.
Analyzing the TQM practices that reflected significant differences between the three companies
fulfilled the expectation. The study results demonstrated that five out the eight TQM practices
are significantly different between manufacturing Company 1 and Service company 2, They
are the responsibility of divisional top management and quality policy, product/service design,
process management/operating procedures, quality data and reporting and employee relations
.
This is contrary to the findings of (Chung, 2001) that levels of best TQM practices attained in
the Manufacturing and Services companies were found to be similar. Also in consitance with the
(Antony et al.,2004 ; Beaumont et al. ,1997; Hoang et al., 2010; Woon ,2000) studies that found
the service organisations generally showed a lower level of TQM implementation than the
manufacturing. The possible explanation behind this outcome from (Pino,2008) point of view is
because theorists developed the concept of TQM for manufacturing companies. The expected
result was that manufacturing companies would reflect a higher use of quality practices than
service companies,
Manufacturing Company 1 and Manufacturing Company 3 differed for two critical TQM
practices: process management/operating procedures and employee relations. Specifically, for
each of these practices, Company 3 had a larger gap than Company 1. This supports the same
finding by (Powell, 1995) that large companies had begun implementation of TQM before small
companies.
The general outcomes demonstrate the advanced status of the three companies’ quality
management systems, suggesting that Manufacturing Company 1 implemented a higher level of
quality management system than Service Company 2 or Manufacturing Company 3. Based on
the study results, the following recommendations are proposed:
• Companies 2 and 3 should work on reducing the gap between the actual and ideal states of the
above practices.
17
• Companies 2 and 3 should focus on systematizing and organizing their roles in the
product/service design process.
• Company 1 should increase awareness of the importance of data and reporting analyses.
• Company 3 should increasing employee involvement and commitment to quality activities in
the company to implement its quality management system more effectively and successfully.
• Companies 2 and 3 should improve their process management and operating procedures.
• Company 2 should recognize the importance of the role of divisional top management and
quality policies in implementing TQM practices.
•.
Benchmarking evaluations of the gap between current and ideal status should be conducted
frequently in especially in pharmaceutical companies to support continuous development and
successfully implement the quality management system.
Research implications
This case study provide a guide for pharmaceutical company managers and policy-makers in
ways to apply benchmarking techniques using the TQI tool in their organizations. This study
will emphasize the importance of external (generic and competitive) benchmarking processes as
tools for developing quality management systems within pharmaceutical manufacturing and
pharmaceutical service companies. and illustrate the importance of applying benchmarking to
achieve continuous improvement Furthermore, quality management systems are considered an
essential part of pharmaceutical organizations, and the use of benchmarking to improve the
implementation of these systems is gaining increasing because of its effectiveness in improving
companies’ performance and enhancing competitiveness.
The study provides a method for companies to identify external gaps in the quality system using
existing internal information and comparisons.
In general, pharmaceutical organizations face constant change, since they must respond to
continuously updated quality regulations. In such circumstances, perceptions of an ideal quality
system change constantly and companies are raised to continuously and considerably higher
standard levels. This, in turn, prompts a need for regular benchmarking to determine any possible
gaps and to develop suitable solutions.
Study Limitations
This study faced several limitations. First, this case study was limited by samples in terms of
companies (three) and countries (one: Jordan). Since the sample was limited to these three
companies’ respondents, the results are therefore cannot be generalized. However, this isn't a
problem; especially the generalization is not one of the study's goals. Second, the respondents
may have favoured their own companies’ success, creating a bias. This is especially relevant
because all information was collected solely through a questionnaire instrument. These study
limitations identify avenues for future research on this subject.
References
18
Ahmed, P.K.and Rafiq, M. (1998)," Integrated benchmarking: a holistic examination of select
techniques for benchmarking analysis", Benchmarking for Quality Management and Technology,
Vol. 5 No.3, pp.225-242.
Alosani, M., Al-Dhaafri, H. and Yusoff, R. (2016),"Mechanism of benchmarking and its impact on
organizational performance". International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 11 No.10, p.
172.
American Productivity and Quality Centre (1999), available at: www.apqc.org (accessed February
2017).
American Society for Quality (2004), available at: http://asq.org/learn-about-

quality/benchmarking/overview/overview.html (accessed March 2017).
Andersen (1999), "Industrial benchmarking for competitive advantage,"Human Systems

Management Journal, Vol. 18 No.3/4, pp. 287-296.
Andersen, B. and Pettersen, P. (1996), The Benchmarking Handbook, Chapman & Hall, London.
Antony, J., Fergusson, C., Warwood, S. and Hing Yee Tsang, J. (2004), "Comparing total quality
management success factors in UK manufacturing and service industries: some key findings from a
survey", Journal of Advances in Management Research,Vol. 1No.2, pp.32-45.
Attiany, M. (2009), "The role of benchmarking in improving institutional performance of the

Jordanian pharmaceutical firms", Unpublished Doctoral thesis, The Arab Academy for Banking and
Financial Sciences, Jordan.
Attiany, M. (2014), "Competitive advantage through benchmarking: field study of industrial

companies listed in Amman stock exchange", Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 6,
pp. 507 - 527.
Attiany, M. and Nour, A. (2014)," The impact of benchmarking in achieving continuous process
and product quality improvement: a field study on the Jordanian pharmaceutical companies",
Jordanian Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 10 No.2, pp.276- 296.
Beaumont, N.B., Sohal, A.S. and Terziovski, M. (1997),"Comparing quality management practices
in the Australian service and manufacturing industries", International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp.814–833.
Besterfield, D.H., Besterfield-Michna, C., Besterfield, G.H. and Besterfield-Sacre,

M. (2003), Total Quality Management, Pearson Prentice-Hall ,New Jersey, USA.
Bisp, S., Sorensen, E. and Grunert. K. G. (1998)," Using the key success factor concept in
competitor intelligence and benchmarking", Competitive Intelligent, Vol. 9 No.3,pp. 55-67.
Bogan, C. (1994), Benchmarking for Best Practices, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Breiter, D. and Kline, S. (1995), "Benchmarking quality management in hotels", FIU Hospitality,
Vol. 13 (2), pp.45-52.
Camp, R. (1989), Benchmarking: The Search For Industry Best Practices That Lead To Superior
Performance, Wis.: Quality Press, Milwaukee.
19
Camp, R.C. and Tweet, A.G. (1994),"Benchmarking applied to health care", The Joint Commission
Journal on Quality Improvement, Vol. 20 No.5, pp.229-238.
Camp, Robert, C. (1993), "A bible for benchmarking, by xerox", Financial Executive, Vol.9 No.4,
pp.23-27.
Carpinetti, L. and de Melo, A. (2002), "What to benchmark? systematic approach and cases",
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No.3, pp.244 -255.
Carpinetti, L. and Oiko, O. (2008), "Development and application of a benchmarking information

system in clusters of SMES", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No.3, pp.292-306.
Chandra, Sekhar, S. (2010), "Benchmarking", African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 4

No.6, pp.882-885.
Chi Lai, M., Huang, H. and Wang, W. (2011), "Designing a knowledge-based system for
benchmarking: a DEA Approach", Knowledge-Based Systems,Vol. 24 No.5, pp.662-671.
Chao, C., Hsu,H., Hung ,F., Lin ,K. and Liou, J.(2015), "Total quality management and human
resources selection: A case study of the national teacher selection in Taiwan", Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, Vol.26 No.1-2, pp.157-172,
Chung, K.W. (2001), "Benchmarking Singapore’s high-TQM maturity organizations",

Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No.1, pp.8 - 35.
Cook, S. (1995), Practical Benchmarking: a Manager's Guide to Creating a Competitive

Advantage, Kogan Page,London.
Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1995),"Benchmarking the firm’s critical success factors in
new product development", Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 12 No.5, pp.374–
391.
Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (2006). Business research method, McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Dattakumar, R. and Jagadeesh, R. (2003),"A review of literature on benchmarking", Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 10 No.3,pp. 176 - 209.
Demirbag, M.,Tatoglu, E., Tekinkus, M. and Zaim, S. (2006)," An analysis of the relationship
between TQM implementation and organizational performance", Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 17 No.6, pp.829-47.
Dey, P. (2002)," Benchmarking project management practices of Caribbean organizations using the
analytic hierarchy process", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No.4, pp.326 - 356.
Dow, D., Swanson, D. and Ford, S. (1999)," Exploding the myth: do all quality management
practices contribute to superior quality performance?" ,Production and Operations Management,
Vol. 8 No.1,pp. 1-27.
Drew, S.A.W. (1997)," From knowledge to action: the impact of benchmarking on organizational
performance", Long Range Planning, Vol.30 No.3, pp.427-84.
Elmuti, Dean and Kathawala, Yunus (1997)," An overview of benchmarking process: a tool for
continuous improvement and competitive advantage", Benchmarking for Quality Management
and Technology, Vol. 4 No.4, pp.229 - 243.
20
Figueiredo Filho, D., Paranhos, R., Rocha, E., Batista, M., Silva Jr., J., Santos, M. and Marino, J.
(2013)," When is statistical significance not significant?,”Brazilian Political Science Review, Vol. 7
No.1, pp.31-55.
Fuller, J., Bessette, R. and Freier, M. (2011)," Performance benchmarking: a literature review and
analysis for atmospheric fluidized bed combustion plants", International Business and Economics
Study Journal (IBER), Vol. 1 No.9, pp.91-100.
Gerald, J., Balm (1996), "Benchmarking and gap analysis: what is the next milestone?",
Benchmarking for Quality Management and Technology ,Vol. 3 No.4, pp.28 - 33.
Goetsch, D. and Davis, S. (2013), Quality Management For Organizational Excellence, Pearson
Education Limited ,USA.
Gunasekaran, A. (1999)," Enablers of total quality management implementation in manufacturing:

a case study", Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 No.7,pp. 987–996.
Henning, T., Essakali, M. D. and Oh, J. E. (2011), A Framework For Urban Transport
Benchmarking, The World Bank, Washington.
Hietschold, N., Reinhardt, R. and Gurtner, S. (2014), "Measuring critical success factors of tqm
implementation successfully – a systematic literature review", International Journal of Production
Study, Vol.52 No.21, pp. 6254-6272.
Hoang, D.T., Igel, B. and Laosirihongthong, T. (2010), " Total quality management (TQM) strategy
and organisational characteristics: Evidence from a recent WTO member", Total quality
management, vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 931-951.
Hokey, M. and Hyesung, M. (1997)," Benchmarking the quality of hotel services: managerial
perspectives", International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol.14 No.6,
pp.582 – 597.
Huq, Z., and Stolen, J. D. (1998)," Total quality management contrasts in manufacturing and
service industries", International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol.15
No.2, pp.138-161.
Iacobucci, D. and Nordhielm, C. (2000)," Creative benchmarking", Harvard Business Review,

November/December,pp .24 -25.
Ionescu, A. and Bigio, C. (2016), "The importance of benchmarking in making management

decisions", Challenges of the Knowledge Society, Vol. 6, pp.746-750.
Jochem, R. and Landgraf, K. (2010)," Quality management benchmarking: FDA compliance in

pharmaceutical industry", International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol.23 No.8,pp.
690 -698.
Kahan ,D.(2010) ,Farm business analysis using benchmarking, Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations.
Karlof, B. and Ostblom, S. (1993), Benchmarking: A Signpost of Excellence in Quality and

Productivity. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Kay, J.F. (2007), "Health care benchmarking", Medical Bulletin, Vol.12 No.2, pp.22-27.
21
Keehley Patricia, Steven Medlin, Sue MacBride and Laura Longmire (1997), Benchmarking for
Best Practices in the Public Sector: Achieving Performance Breakthroughs in Federal, State, and
Local Agencies, Jossey Bass ,San Francisco, USA.
Kelessidis, V. (2000)," Benchmarking: report produced for the EC funded project",Thessaloniki

Technology Park, January , pp. 3-5
Kleine, B. 1(994), "Benchmarking for continuous performance improvement: tactics for success",
Total Quality Environmental Management, Vol. 3 No.3, pp.283-295.
Kozak, M. (2002), "Destination benchmarking", Annals of Tourism Study, Vol.29 No.2, pp.497-519.
Kumar, A., Antony, J. and Dhakar, T. S. (2006)," Integrating quality function deployment and
benchmarking to achieve greater profitability", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 13
No.3, pp.290-310.
Kumar, S. and Chandra, C. (2001)," Enhancing the effectiveness of benchmarking in

manufacturing organizations", Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol.101 No.2, pp.80
– 89.
Lema, N. and Price, A. (1995), "Benchmarking: performance improvement toward competitive

advantage", Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 11 No.1, pp.28-37.
Longbottom, D., Mayer, R. and Casey, J. (2000), "Marketing, total quality management and
benchmarking: exploring the divide case", Journal of Strategic Marketing ,Vol. 8 No.4 , pp.327–
340.
Magd, H. (2008)," Understanding benchmarking in Egyptian organizations: an empirical

analysis", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No.6, pp.742 – 764.
Maire, J. L., Bronet, V. and Pillet, M. (2005), "A typology of “best practices” for a benchmarking
process", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No.1, pp.45-60.
Markovic, L., Dutina, V. and Kovacevic, M. (2011), "Application of benchmarking method in the
construction companies", Facta Universitatis-Series: Architecture and Civil Engineering ,Vol. 9
No.2, pp.301-314.
McNair, C. and Leibfried, K. (1992), Benchmarking; A Tool For Continuous Improvement, Harper
Business ,NewYork.
Mensah, J.O., Copuroglu, G. and Fening, F.A. (2012),"The status of total quality management
(TQM) in Ghana: a comparison with selected quality awards winners from Turkey", International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol.29 No.8, pp.851–871.
Mollaee, N., Rahimi, R., and Tavassoli, S. (2009), "Conforming benchmarking to project
management, in proceeding book of the 5th international conference on innovation and
management, UNU-MERIT, Maastricht, 2009.
Mollaee, N. and Rahimi, R. (2009), "New method for effective benchmarking in health, safety and
environment management" , proceeding book of the environment 2009 seminar in Abu Dhabi,
UAE, 2009.
Mouton, D. M. (2006),"Benchmarking in the South African corporate environment", MA Thesis,
22
University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Naumova, K. (2014), "Benchmarking in organizing producers' associations of organic production in

the republic of Macedonia," Economic Development, Vol.16 No.3, pp. 171-186.
Nonxuba, A. (2010), “The application of total quality management within small and medium
enterprises", MA Thesis, Cape Peninsula University of Technology.
Ohinata, Y. (1994)," Benchmarking: the Japanese experience", Long Range Planning, Vol. 27 No.4
, pp.48-53.
Pino, R. (2008)," TQM practices in manufacturing and service companies in Peru", Journal of
CENTRUM Cathedra: The Business and Economics Study Journal, Vol.1 No.2, pp.47-56.
Powell, T.C. (1995)," Total quality management as competitive advantage: A review and empirical
study", Strategic Management Journal, Vol.16 No.1, pp.15-37.
Rohlfer, S. (2004),"Benchmarking concepts in the UK and Germany: a shared understanding among

key players?", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No.5 , pp.521-539.
Ross, J. E. (1995), The Total Quality Management: Text, Cases, and Readings, St. Lucie Press Boca
Raton, Florida.
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. and Schroeder, R.G. (1989), " An instrument for measuring the critical
factors of quality management", Decision Sciences, Vol.20 No.4 , pp.810-829.
Small, E., Ayyash, L. and Hamouri, K. (2017)," Benchmarking Performance of TQM Principals in
Electrical Subcontracting in Dubai: A Case Study" , Procedia Engineering, Vol.196, pp.622-629.
Solis, L.E., Rao, S.S., Raghu-Nathan, T.S., Chen, C-Y. and Pan, S-C. (1998),"Quality management
practices and quality results: a comparison of manufacturing and service sectors in Taiwan",
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp.46–54.
Steingrad, D.S. and Fitzgibbons, D.E. (1993), "A postmodern deconstruction of total
quality management," Journal of Organization Change Management, Vol. 6 No.5, pp. 27–42.
Sung, Hsiu-Te. (1998),"Benchmarking the implementation of total quality management and

customer satisfaction in general automotive repair shops in Iowa, Doctoral thesis", Iowa State
University, USA.
Sweis, R., Mahmoud Saleh, F., Dahiyat, S., Sweis, N., Saleh, R. and Diab, H. (2016),
"Benchmarking of TQM Practices in INGOs: a literature review", Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 23 No.1, pp.236-261.
Sweis. J.R, Al-Ghawi.J.H, AlSaleh.Noor, Al-Zu'bi.Z, Obeidat.Bader, (2015), "Benchmarking of

TQM: the case of Hikma pharmaceuticals company", Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol.22 No.3, pp.488 - 504.
Talebi, D., Farsijani, H., Sedighi, F. and Shafiei, Nikabadi, M. (2014), "The role of quality
benchmarking deployment to world-class manufacturing", Quality Engineering, Vol.26 No.2,
pp.206–214.
Talib, F. and Rahman, Z. (2012), "Total quality management practices in manufacturing and service
23
industries: a comparative study", Int. J. Advanced Operations Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp.155–
176.
Tavana, M., Mohebbi, B., and Kennedy, T. D. (2003)," Total quality index: a benchmarking tool
for total quality management", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No.6, pp.507 -
527.
Voss, C. A., Ahlstrom, P. and Blackmon, K. (1997),"Benchmarking and operational performance:

some empirical results", International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol.17
No.10, pp.1046- 1058.
Wilkerson, D., Kuh, A. and Wilkerson, T. (1992), "A tale of change ",TQM Magazine, Vol.4,
pp.185-190.
Woon, K.C. (2000) ,"TQM implementation: comparing Singapore’s service and manufacturing
leaders", Managing Service Quality, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp.318–332.
Wynn-Williams, K. (2005), "Performance assessment and benchmarking in the public sector: an

example from New Zealand," Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol.12 No.5, pp. 482-
492.
Yasin, M.M. and Zimmerer, W.T. (1995), "The role of benchmarking in achieving continuous
service quality", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 7 No.4
, pp.27-32.
Zairi, M. (2001), Benchmarking for best practice -Continuous Learning Through Sustainable
Innovation ,Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford,UK.
Zairi, M., Letza, S. and Oakland, J. (1994), "Does TQM impact on bottom line results?", The TQM
Magazine,Vol. 6 No.1, pp.38-43.
Zairi, M. and Yousse. F.A. (1995), "Benchmarking critical factors for TQM," Benchmarking for
Quality Management and Technology, Vol. 2 No.2, pp.3 – 19.
24
Appendix (1)
Evaluation of Quality Management
The purpose of this questionnaire is to assess your perceptions of the extent of effective quality
management in your department. The questionnaire captures the most important aspects of
effective quality management as espoused by the leading practitioners and researchers. This is a
confidential survey. Your name is not required to complete it.
The questionnaire includes two sections; please follow the instructions that precede each section.
Section One:
Please read each question carefully and tick only one box for each question that you think best
suits you.
1. Age:
□ Less than 30 □ 30- 40 □ 41 and above
2. Level of education:
□ Diploma and less □ Bachelor □ Post-Graduate
3. How long have you worked at the company?

□Less than one year □1-2 years □ 3-5 years □More than 5 years
4. Which of the following best describes your level?

□ Officer □ Supervisor □ Managerial
Section Two:
Please read each statement carefully and circle the number that best describes:
a) The current practice of quality management within your company.
25
b) The ideal level of quality management in your company.
Answer each statement as accurately as possible and remember that you are assessing your own
perceptions of how quality management is practiced in your company, and how do you think
should it be practiced.
Rating of current practice in your Rating of the ideal level of Quality

TQM Practices company Management (QM) in your company
Very Very Very Mediu Very
Low Medium High Low High
Low High Low m High
1) Role of Divisional Top
Management and Quality Policy

Extent to which the top division
executive (responsible for division
profit and loss) assumes 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
responsibility for quality
performance
Acceptance of responsibility for
quality by major department heads 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
within the division
Degree to which divisional top
management (top divisional
executive and major department 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
heads) is evaluated for quality
performance
Extent to which the division top
management supports long-term 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
quality improvement process
Degree of participation by major
department heads in the quality 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
improvement process
Extent to which the divisional top
management has objectives for 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
quality performance
Specificity of quality goals within
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
the division
Comprehensiveness of the goal-
setting process for quality within the 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
division
Extent to which quality goals and
policy are understood within the 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
division
Importance attached to quality by
the divisional top management in
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
relation to cost and schedule
objectives
Amount of review of quality issues
in divisional top management 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
meetings
Degree to which the divisional top
management considers quality 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
improvement as a way to increase
26
Low High Low m High
profits
Degree of comprehensiveness of the
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
quality plan within the division
2) Role of The Quality Department
Visibility of the quality department 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Quality department’s access to
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
divisional top management
Autonomy of the quality department 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Amount of coordination between
the quality and other departments 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Effectiveness of the quality

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
department in improving quality
3) Training
Specific work-skills training
(technical and vocational) given to 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
employees throughout the division
Quality-related training given to
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
employees throughout the division
Quality-related training given to
managers and supervisors 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
throughout the division
Training in the “total quality
concept” (i.e. philosophy of
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
company-wide responsibility for
quality) throughout the division
Training in the basic statistical
techniques (such as histograms and
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
control charts) in the division as a
whole
Training in advanced statistical
techniques (such as design of
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
experiments and regression
analysis) in the division as a whole
Commitment of the divisional top
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
management to employee training
Availability of resources for
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
employee training in the division
4) Product/Service Design
Thoroughness of new product
design reviews before the product is 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
produced and marketed
Coordination among affected
departments in the product 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
development process
Quality of new products emphasized
in relation to cost or schedule 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
objectives
Clarity of product specifications and
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
procedures
Extent to which implementation
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
/producibility is considered in the
27
Low High Low m High
product design process
Quality emphasis by sales, customer
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
service, marketing personnel
5) Supplier Quality Management
(Supplier of Goods)
Extent to which suppliers are
selected based on quality rather than 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
price or schedule
Thoroughness of the supplier rating
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
System
Reliance on reasonably few
dependable suppliers 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Amount of education of supplier by

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
division
Technical assistance provided to the
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Suppliers
Involvement of the supplier in the
product 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
development process
Extent to which longer term
relationships 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
are offered to suppliers
Clarity of specifications provided to
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Suppliers
6) Process Management/Operating
Procedures
Use of acceptance sampling to
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
accept/reject lots or batches of work
Amount of preventative equipment
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
maintenance
Extent to which inspection, review,
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
or checking of work is automated
Amount of incoming inspection,
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
review, or checking
Amount of in-process inspection,
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
review, or checking
Amount of final inspection, review,
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
or checking
Stability of production
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
schedule/work distribution
Degree of automation of the process 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Extent to which process design is
“foolproof” and minimizes the 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
chances of employee errors
Clarity of work or process
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
instructions given to employees
7) Quality Data and Reporting
Availability of cost of quality data
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
in the division
Availability of quality data (error
rates, defect rates, scrap, defects, 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
etc.)
28
Low High Low m High
Timeliness of the quality data 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Extent to which quality data (cost of
quality, defects, errors, scrap, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
are available to employees
Extent to which quality data are
available to managers and 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
supervisors
Extent to which quality data are
used to evaluate supervisor and 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
managerial performance
Extent to which quality data, control
charts, etc., are displayed at 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
employee work stations

8) Employee Relations 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Extent to which quality circle or
employee involvement type
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
programs are implemented in the
division
Effectiveness of quality circle or
employee involvement type 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
programs in the division
Extent to which employees are held
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Responsible for error-free output
Amount of feedback provided to
employees on their quality 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
performance
Degree of participation in quality
decisions by non-supervisory 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
employees
Extent to which quality awareness
building among employees is 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
ongoing
Extent to which employees are
recognized for superior quality 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
performance
Effectiveness of supervisors in
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
solving problems/issues
Thanks
29

Benchmarking: An International Journal: Article Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Benchmarking: An International Journal: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benchmarking: An International Journal

Benchmarking of TQM practices in the Jordanian pharmaceutical industry(a comparative study)

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

methodology by applying it in two comparative studies of three Jordanian pharmaceutical

Design/methodology/approach – In order to achieve the above-mentioned purpose

Keywords: Benchmarking, Total Quality Management (TQM), Total Quality Index

Paper type Case study

Competitive benchmarking is a comparison against an organization’s best direct competitors

The Total Quality Index (TQI) Benchmarking Tool

companies (manufacturing and service). A Competitive benchmarking approach will be used to

The TQI benchmarking tool

evaluate quality management in either manufacturing or service organizations. The content

The following hypotheses were also formulated:

Case Study 1 (Generic Benchmarking)

Data Analysis and Results

Results of Comparison of Manufacturing Company 1 and Service Company 2 (Generic

TQI * 0.611964 0.613375 0.577969 0.571474 0.546094 0.533100 0.477296 0.438125

TQI t 0.476541 0.445025 0.386859 0.446368 0.417969 0.428700 0.363391 0.339688

TQI * 0.611515 0.623757 0.583328 0.569786 0.527872 0.528000 0.466739 0.435811

TQI t 0.408370 0.427189 0.342973 0.395319 0.375845 0.377189 0.295662 0.256419

Levene's test for

Practice 6 (process management/operating procedures) yielded a significance level of 0.033. .,

Results of Comparison of Manufacturing Company 1 and Manufacturing Company 3

TQI * 0.611964 0.613375 0.577969 0.571474 0.546094 0.533100 0.477296 0.438125

TQI t 0.476541 0.445025 0.386859 0.446368 0.417969 0.428700 0.363391 0.339688

TQI * 0.624606 0.640182 0.574517 0.584114 0.526278 0.540545 0.462900 0.442045

TQI t 0.471890 0.454364 0.353608 0.436339 0.400568 0.378545 0.306450 0.298295

organizational learning, and to facilitate experience sharing to achieve superior, high-quality

American Society for Quality (2004), available at: http://asq.org/learn-about-

Andersen (1999), "Industrial benchmarking for competitive advantage,"Human Systems

Management Journal, Vol. 18 No.3/4, pp. 287-296.

Attiany, M. (2009), "The role of benchmarking in improving institutional performance of the

Attiany, M. (2014), "Competitive advantage through benchmarking: field study of industrial

Besterfield, D.H., Besterfield-Michna, C., Besterfield, G.H. and Besterfield-Sacre,

Bogan, C. (1994), Benchmarking for Best Practices, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Carpinetti, L. and Oiko, O. (2008), "Development and application of a benchmarking information

Chandra, Sekhar, S. (2010), "Benchmarking", African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 4

Chung, K.W. (2001), "Benchmarking Singapore’s high-TQM maturity organizations",

Cook, S. (1995), Practical Benchmarking: a Manager's Guide to Creating a Competitive

Gunasekaran, A. (1999)," Enablers of total quality management implementation in manufacturing:

a case study", Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 No.7,pp. 987–996.

Iacobucci, D. and Nordhielm, C. (2000)," Creative benchmarking", Harvard Business Review,

Ionescu, A. and Bigio, C. (2016), "The importance of benchmarking in making management

Jochem, R. and Landgraf, K. (2010)," Quality management benchmarking: FDA compliance in

Karlof, B. and Ostblom, S. (1993), Benchmarking: A Signpost of Excellence in Quality and

Kelessidis, V. (2000)," Benchmarking: report produced for the EC funded project",Thessaloniki

Kumar, S. and Chandra, C. (2001)," Enhancing the effectiveness of benchmarking in

Lema, N. and Price, A. (1995), "Benchmarking: performance improvement toward competitive

Magd, H. (2008)," Understanding benchmarking in Egyptian organizations: an empirical

Mouton, D. M. (2006),"Benchmarking in the South African corporate environment", MA Thesis,

Naumova, K. (2014), "Benchmarking in organizing producers' associations of organic production in

study", Strategic Management Journal, Vol.16 No.1, pp.15-37.

Rohlfer, S. (2004),"Benchmarking concepts in the UK and Germany: a shared understanding among

Sung, Hsiu-Te. (1998),"Benchmarking the implementation of total quality management and

Sweis. J.R, Al-Ghawi.J.H, AlSaleh.Noor, Al-Zu'bi.Z, Obeidat.Bader, (2015), "Benchmarking of

Voss, C. A., Ahlstrom, P. and Blackmon, K. (1997),"Benchmarking and operational performance:

Wynn-Williams, K. (2005), "Performance assessment and benchmarking in the public sector: an

Evaluation of Quality Management

3. How long have you worked at the company?

4. Which of the following best describes your level?

Rating of current practice in your Rating of the ideal level of Quality

Management and Quality Policy