The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2731.htm

QCs
Problems, success factors and implementation
benefits of QCs implementation:
a case of QASCO
87
Salaheldin Ismail Salaheldin
Department of Management and Economics,
College of Business and Economics, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to attempt to: explore the problems that the production division
of Qatar Steel Company (QASCO) typically encounter in implementing QCs, identify the critical success
factors promoting QCs implementation and discern the real benefits of QCs implementation.
Design/methodology/approach – Data for this study were collected using a self-administered
questionnaire that was distributed to 400 QCs members within the five departments (i.e.
Manufacturing, Maintenance, Direct Reduction, Material Control and Technical departments) which
comprised the production division of QASCO. Of the 400 questionnaires posted, a total of 197 were
returned and used for the analysis.
Findings – The results of the study indicated that lack of support from top management was
reported as the biggest problem impeding the implementation, and also commitment and support from
top management were reported as the most important success factor of QCs implementation in the five
departments. More importantly, the findings indicated that QCs implementation has created an
atmosphere of cooperation within QASCO and produced many positive results including improving
quality, increasing productivity, and improving the management style.
Research limitations/implications – The sample is restricted to only a single division, i.e. the
production division of QASCO, so it would be strongly recommended that data be gathered from
various divisions of QASCO, i.e. replications of this study are required to generalize its findings.
Studying the deriving and inhibiting forces to QCs implementation in practice remains a task that
requires further attention from researchers, whatever their motivations.
Practical implications – The findings are important and relevant to all the departments in QASCO.
The study hopes to create more awareness among management and employees of the strategic
importance of QCs to operational processes. More importantly, the benefits attained would be a
motivating factor for managers to use QCs.
Originality/value – The research provides empirical insights to the growing body of knowledge on
QCs implementation. Most of QCs research has been done in developed countries. The study presents
the successful adoption and implementation of QCs in a manufacturing firm in a developing country of
the Middle East where published research results on the successful use of QCs have been rather scarce.
Keywords Quality circles, Critical success factors, Qatar
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The current competitive environment and globalization of business have created new
challenges that can affect and alter manufacturing environment. Therefore, adopting
and implementing new management techniques and approaches is a strategic option
for manufacturing companies that might help them survive under global competition.
The TQM Journal
One of the most popular management techniques adopted by organizations around the Vol. 21 No. 1, 2009
world has been the Continuous Improvement (CI) which is thought to play an pp. 87-100
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
important role in maintaining a company’s competitiveness. CI generally takes account 1754-2731
of the activities performed under the names of Statistical Quality Control (SQC), DOI 10.1108/17542730910924772
TQM Quality Circles (QCs), Quality Improvement Team (QIT), Six Sigma, etc. The significance
of QCs as one of the most effective means to Continuous Improvement cannot be over
21,1 emphasized (Zailani, 1998). Accordingly, more has been written about QCs technique
than any other technique about Japanese management during the past three decades.
There is a consensus among academics and practitioners that QCs implementation
leads to increasing productivity, improving product quality, narrowing the gap
88 between workers and administration, enhancing worker pride, allowing subordinates
to air their concerns about working conditions and instilling a spirit of democracy. The
results are a mutual trust and respect, an atmosphere of cooperation and the
attainment of a proud, productive, and profitable organization (Zailani, 1998; Goh,
2000; Canel and Kadipasaoglu, 2002).
However, review of the literature indicated that there are very few case studies
which explore and illustrate, in detail, how QC is implemented and used in
manufacturing firms whether in developed or less developed countries (Al-Khatib and
Radi, 2003; Salaheldin and Zain, 2007). In particular, there have not been any reported
studies of success in the use of QCs in any of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
countries. Responding to this need, the current study fills this gap and contributes to
the extant literature by reporting a success story of the effective use of the technique in
the State of Qatar, a member of the GCC countries. From previous research in this area
done in the Far East, USA and Japan, manufacturing firms in less developed countries
may not be in a position to benefit from their findings since they were based on a
different manufacturing environment.
Considering the literature findings, the following research questions are addressed
in this study:
RQ1. Do quality circles work equally well as in the Japanese, USA and Western
companies?
RQ2. If so, how can QCs be implemented successfully in Qatar?
To answer the aforementioned questions, this study attempts to explore the problems
that the production division of Qatar Steel Company (QASCO) typically encounters in
implementing QCs, to identify the critical success factors promoting QCs
implementation in the production division of QASCO and to discern the real benefits
of QCs implementation.
After this introduction, the profile of QASCO is presented followed by the review of
the literature pertaining to our study. Next, we present the contribution of this study to
current knowledge. This is followed by the research methodology. Next, we present the
data analysis and hypotheses testing. Finally, we provide conclusion, implications and
limitations and directions for future research.

QASCO profile
Qatar Steel Company (QASCO) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Industries Qatar (a
Qatari shareholding company) and is the first integrated steel plant in the whole
Arabian Gulf. The company was established on 14 December 1974, but steel
production at the plant started only in 1978. The mill is located in Mesaieed Industrial
City, 45 kilometers south of Doha, the capital of Qatar (Salaheldin and Zain, 2007).
The integrated plant consists primarily of four units: Direct Reduction, Electric Arc
Furnace, Continuous Casting, and Rolling Mill. Other auxiliaries include the Material
Receiving/Handling, Main Power Substation, Quality Control Centre, Maintenance
Shops, and other facilities as sea/fresh water, compressed air, natural gas and a clinic.
The whole plant including its administrative offices occupies a land area of QCs
707,000 sq.m. Adjacent to the land is a further land area of 375,000 sq.m reserved for
future development and expansion of the plant. implementation
With its latest production technology and equipment, the plant generates an annual
production of 1.2 million tons of molten steel and 740,000 tons of rolled iron per year.
The plant employed a total workforce of approximately 1,250 employees comprising 12
different nationalities. With the exception of the office staff, the mill is run on a 89
three-shift system. Since the start of its first production, the company has undergone
rapid growth and expansion and has achieved many milestones, certifications and
awards.
Over the years, QASCO has gained a reputation as a manufacturer of first class
products. Its product quality is tailored in accordance with international standards. For
example, in addition to getting ISO 9002 certification in 1992, the product and
management quality of the company has been endorsed by the UK-based Certificate
Authority for Reinforcing Steels (CARES), an authority which is accredited by the
United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) to ISO Guide 65 (product certification)
and ISO Guide 62 (quality management systems certification using ISO 9001 (www.
qasco.com.qa/, 14 October 2006). The product is supported by an effective and reliable
delivery and after sales service. Its proximity to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
countries enables it to supply a sizeable portion of the region’s requirements, as well as
Qatar’s own domestic need.

Review of relevant literature

QCs were defined by Ishikawa (1985) as “small group of workers, from the same work
place, who meet together on a regular, voluntary basis to perform quality control
activities and engage in self and mutual development”. A QC is a team of up to 12
people who usually work together and who meet voluntarily on a regular basis “to
identify, investigate, analyze and solve their work-related problems” (The Department
of Trade and Industry, UK, 1992; Millson and Kirk-Smith, 1996; and Davis et al., 2003).
These people are trained to structure problem identification, evaluation, solution and
presentation stages and to use associated techniques such as Ishikawa’s seven tools –
process flowcharting, histograms, check sheets, Pareto analysis, cause and effect
diagrams and control charts (Stevenson, 2007).
According to Piczak (1988), Harris (1995), Hill (1996), Pinnington and Hammersley
(1997), Olberding (1998), Goh (2000), Canel, and Kadipasaoglu (2002), Konidari and
Abernot (2006), and Stevenson (2007), among the potential advantages of QCs include:
increased self-confidence for both workers and staff, improved quality of product, Staff
are better motivated in QCs departments, staff are more productive in QCs
departments, customers are happier at QCs departments, saved time on operational
matters, saved money, increased staff satisfaction, increased empowerment, reduced
the number of errors in the department, improved the work environment, increased the
work accountability, improved organizational climate, improved the work integrity,
improved the management style and improved staff awareness of organizational goals,
meeting customer expectations and increased workers satisfaction.
An extensive review of the literature reveals that the successful implementation of
QCs programs require commitment and support from top management, commitment
and support from middle and first – line managers, circles members training,
involvement and support of employees, circles leaders training, and organizational
stability (Hill, 199; Pinnington and Hammersley, 1997; French, 1998; Goh, 2000; Davis
et al., 2003; Stevenson, 2007).
TQM Although advantages of QC implementation are inspiring, possible negative
repercussions may occur. Various writers (e.g., Millson, and Kirk-Smith, 1996; Goh,
21,1 2000, Canel, and Kadipasaoglu, 2002; Konidari and Abernot, 2006; Slack et al., 2006)
have claimed that lack of support from top management, lack of involvement from
employees, lack of members experience with QCs, poor training/education on QCs, lack
of clear goals for QCs effort, lack of co-operation from middle management, lack of
90 financial and morale extrinsic rewards, lack of co-operation from first line supervisors,
circle members disillusioned with QCs philosophy, delay in responding to QCs
recommendations, circles leaders take long time to organize meeting and high labor
turnover (transfers, promotions, retirements, etc.), present obstacles to the successful
implementation of QCs programs.

Research methodology
Survey instrument
The survey instrument used in this study was largely derived from the literature
review. These include the adoption of questions from successful studies previously
conducted in related field of study such as: Hill (1997); Pinnington and Hammersley
(1997); Canel and Kadipasaoglu (2002); Zetie (2006). The questionnaire distributed
contained eight questions in four different categories as follows:
(1) Questions 1-5 – preliminary information on the respondent (i.e. title, work
experience, experience on QCs, specialization and QCs meetings).
(2) Question 6 – data on the critical factors promoting QCs implementation.
(3) Question 7 – data on QCs implementation problems.
(4) Question 8 – data on the benefits have been achieved.

The sample
Data for this study were collected using a self-administered questionnaire that was
distributed to 400 QCs members within the five departments (i.e. Manufacturing,
Maintenance, Direct Reduction, Material Control and Technical departments) which
comprised the production division of QASCO. The study focused on the production
division, since it has been a leader in implementing QCs in Qatar. Although one could
claim that a focus on one division may make the results less generalizable, we ensured
a high level of internal consistency.
It was requested that the questionnaire be completed by QCs members i.e. workers
and their mangers participating in the QCs implementation. Of the 400 questionnaires
distributed, a total of 203 questionnaires were returned after two follow-up. About 6
questionnaires were unusable because they had missing values. The overall response
rate was thus 49.25 per cent (197/400), which was considered satisfactory for
subsequent analysis. Care was taken to include the five departments which comprised
the production division in the sample. Consequently, the final usable sample was
drawn from all the departments as follows: 43 members from manufacturing
department, 34 from maintenance department, 38 from direct reduction department, 49
from material control department and 33 from technical department.
A majority of the respondents were workers (74 per cent), and approximately 26
per cent were managers. With respect to years of working with QCs programs,
approximately 72.3 per cent of the sample had used QCs programs for more than
ten years, and 27.7 per cent had used it for less than ten years. In terms of working
years in the production division 60.56 per cent of the respondents had worked for
more than 15 years, 28.14 per cent had worked in it between 10 and 15 years and QCs
22.40 per cent had worked for less than 10 years. Finally, a majority of the
respondents indicated that they had met voluntarily under the leadership of their
implementation
supervisor on a regular basis, usually for about one hour every month or week (93.3
per cent), and the rest of the respondents (6.7 per cent) had met on a daily basis or
when there was a problem.
91
Reliability and validity of the instrument
The instrument was examined by Cronbach’s alpha which is a widely accepted index
to indicate the reliability of the instruments. These coefficients are represented for each
of the constructs in (Table I). All scales have reliability coefficients ranging from 0.83
to 0.91, which exceed the cut-off level of 0.60 set for basic research (Nunnally, 1978),
and all the alpha values indicate that the study’s instrument is reliable. Moreover, the
questionnaire was pre-tested to ensure that the wording and sequencing of questions
were appropriate and it was also validated (face validity) by 24 QCs members in the
production division of the QASCO.

Hypotheses
Thus, in order to shed light on the perception of QCs members and their managers
concerning QCs implementation in the five departments which comprise the
production division of QASCO, the following hypotheses were set up:
H1. There is no significant difference between workers and their managers
participating in QCs programs in the production division concerning the
critical factors promoting QCs implementation.
H2. There is no significant difference between workers and their managers
participating in QCs programs in the production division concerning the
problems of QCs implementation.
H3. There is no significant difference between workers and their managers
participating in QCs programs in the production division concerning the
benefits obtained from QCs implementation.
H4. There is no significant difference among QCs members in the five
departments concerning the critical factors promoting QCs implementation.
H5. There is no significant difference among QCs members in the five
departments concerning the problems of QCs implementation.
H6. There is no significant difference among QCs members in the five
departments concerning the benefits obtained from QCs implementation.

Constructs Number of items Alpha

Table I.
Factors affecting QCs implementation 6 0.86 Internal consistency
QCs implementation problems 12 0.83 coefficients of the study
The benefits obtained from QCs implementation 15 0.92 variables
TQM Statistical analysis
Preliminary analysis was carried out in terms of frequency and means and it covered
21,1 respondent’s profile, factors promoting QCs implementation, QCs implementation
problems and the benefits obtained from the implementation of QCs.
Procedures for testing H1, H2 and H3. They were tested using the Mann- Whitney
test and the T-test (for double accuracy) to find out whether or not there is a difference
92 between workers and their managers participating in QCs programs in the production
division of QASCO.
Procedures for testing H4, H5 and H6. They were tested using the Kruskal Wallis
test and One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test (for double accuracy) to find out
whether or not there is a difference among QCs members participating in QCs
programs in the five departments.
To ensure that valid responses were representatives of the larger population, a
non-response bias test was used to compare the early and late respondents. x2 tests
show no significant difference between the two groups of respondents at the 5 per cent
significance level, implying that a non-response bias is not a concern.

Analysis and discussion

QCs formation at QASCO
The respondents were asked to identify how QCs were formed at QASCO. They
indicated that foremen were instructed, during the period from January to March of
every year to form QCs. The tasks of these circles are varied (technical or quality
improvement or cost saving or safety). A circle consists of a small group of workers (less
than ten workers) who do similar work or who are from the same work unit, and who
meet voluntarily under the leadership of their supervisors on a regular basis, usually for
about one hour every week or month. During these meetings the circle selects a problem,
analyses the causes (using Pareto analysis), recommends a solution to the management,
and after obtaining management approval, implements the solution.

Factors promoting QCs implementation

Workers and their managers participating in QCs programs were asked to identify
how important each of the following critical factors is that might promote QCs
implementation in their departments. Notably, commitment and support from top
management was reported as the most important factor, with a high level of agreement
between respondents about this (SD 0.21), that promote the implementation of QCs in
the production division of QASCO (Table II). To a large extent this result is similar to
Boaden and Dale (1993); Goulden (1995); Goh (2000); and Lagrosen and Lagrosen
(2006), where they found that top management support (i.e. providing the required
resources, offering some back-seat guidance if required, etc) is an essential factor to the
success and continuity of any improvement program such as QCs. This supposes that
when manufacturing firms engage in continuous improvement strategy, they must be
aware of the competitive benefits that can be derived from the impact of improvement
tools such as QCs on continuous improvement.
Moreover, it appears from Table III that the organizational learning was the second
important factor in promoting QCs implementation. This finding can be interpreted in
light of fact that QCs members will be exposed to new ideas, will expand their
knowledge of quality issues and will encourage them to think differently about the
nature of their gobs (Hill, 1997; and Goh, 2000). Accordingly, QC can be used as both a
quality tool and a knowledge management tool (Zetie, 2002).
 QCs
Problems Mean scorea SDb
implementation
A lack of support from top management 4.6 0.18
Lack of involvement from employees to be part of the circle 3.9 0.88
Lack of members’ experience with QCs 3.5 0.25
Poor training/education on QCs 4.5 0.21
Lack of clear goals for QCs effort
Lack of co-operation from middle management
4.4
4.3
0.30
0.31
93
Lack of financial and morale extrinsic rewards 2.8 2.80
Lack of co-operation from first line supervisors 3.6 0.31
Circle members disillusioned with QCs programs 3.8 0.98
Delay in responding to QCs recommendations 4.1 0.33
Circles leaders take long time to organize meeting 3.7 1.08
High labor turnover (transfers, promotions, retirements, etc.) 4.0 0.39
Table II.
Notes: aBased on a Likert scale: 1 ¼ “weak problem”; 5 ¼ “strong problem”; bthe standard deviation QCs implementation
is used in order to state the degree of consistency problems

Factors Mean scorea SDb

Commitment and support from top management 4.8 0.21

Commitment and support from middle and first-line managers 3.5 1.51
Circles members’ training 4.4 0.26
Involvement and support of employees 4.1 0.31
Circles leaders training 3.7 1.43
Organizational learning 4.7 0.23
Table III.
Notes: aBased on a Likert scale: 1 ¼ “extremely unimportant”; 5 ¼ “extremely important”; Critical factors promoting
b
the standard deviation is used in order to state the degree of consistency QCs implementation

On the contrary, Table III suggests that support from middle and first line managers is
not a major factor (SD 1.51) in promoting QCs implementation. This may stem back
from the fact that QCs programs at QASCO are embraced as a strategic approach for
improving quality and increasing productivity to remain competitive in the market
place, rather than as a technique in isolation or as a special activity or quick prelude to
TQM (Goh, 2000).

QCs implementation problems

Lack of support from top management was reported as the biggest problem impeding
the implementation of QCs in the five departments (Table II). This result may stem
from the fact that top-level managers have a better understanding of the needs of QCs
programs because they are the most cognizant of the firm’s continuous improvement to
remain competitive in the market place. Moreover, they must commit the time,
personnel and financial resources to support the workers or middle managers who are
willing to participate in QCs programs.
Likewise, Table II shows that there is a consensus among respondents that poor
training/education on QCs (SD 0.21) is considered as one of the strongest problems
impeding the implementation of QCs. This supports the literature review concerning
the need to design QC education and training programs and which reflect the
TQM important ingredients of QCs implementation, the correct use of it and how QC
constitutes a form of knowledge and skills development to its members (Boaden and
21,1 Dale, 1993; Zailani, 1998; and Goh, 2000).
In contrast, the findings in Table II indicate that lack financial and morale extrinsic
rewards received a low level of agreement among respondents (SD 2.80). To a large
extent this result is similar to Boaden and Dale (1993), where they found that there is no
94 agreement in the literature about whether QCs members should be rewarded for their
membership of a QC or for successful improvements which result from the QC’s
activities.

Benefits obtained from QCs implementation

The respondents were asked to give their opinions about the benefits obtained from
QCs implementation based on a five – point scale, score “1” for strongly disagree, “5”
for strongly agree. Table IV shows that the highest ratings were given to increasing
productivity, improving product quality and increasing self-confidence for both
workers and staff which support the claim that the major reasons for implementing
QCs programs are, improving product quality, creating high level of enthusiasm,
saving costs, increasing productivity, allowing subordinates to survive a spirit of
democracy as well as enhanced worker pride (Zailani, 1998; and Canel and
Kadipasaoglu, 2002).
There is a big deviation among respondents about the effect of QCs implementation
on empowerment, as shown by the large standard deviation (2.63). In contrast, Zailani
(1998) and Canel and Kadipasaoglu (2002) reported in their studies that increased
empowerment is one of the major desired outcomes of QCs implementation. This result
suggests that QCs members in QASCO do not understand that the effective
implementation of QCs could lead to increasing the decision making direction of
workers and which is the proper mechanism to facilitate empowerment (Margulies and
Kleiner, 1995; Robbins and DeCenzo, 2005).

Benefits Mean scorea SDb

QCs increased self-confidence for both workers and staff 4.7 0.15
Staff are better motivated in QCs departments 4.4 0.35
Customers are happier at QCs departments 3.8 0.68
QCs improved product quality 4.8 0.11
QCs saved time on operational matters 4.2 0.57
QCs increased staff satisfaction 4.5 0.23
QCs increased productivity 4.9 0.08
QCs increased empowerment 3.1 2.63
QCs reduced the number of errors in the department 3.5 0.23
QCs improved the work environment 4.3 0.48
QCs increased the work accountability 4.0 0.98
QCs improved organizational climate 3.9 0.07
QCs improved the work integrity 4.6 0.22
QCs improved the management style 3.6 0.81
QCs improved staff awareness of organizational goals 4.1 0.69
Table IV.
QCs implementing Notes: aBased on a Likert scale: 1 ¼ “strongly disagree”; 5 ¼ “strongly agree”; bthe standard
benefits deviation is used in order to state the degree of consistency
Hypotheses testing QCs
H1. It appears from Table V that there are no significant differences between workers
and their mangers participating in QCs programs concerning the critical factors
implementation
promoting QCs implementation (i.e. H1 is supported). This result is supported by prior
research that have noted that QCs programs can only flourish in an organization where
management is open to genuine two-way communication with the workers, where
there is a reasonably good level of industrial relations, and where there is a total 95
organizational commitment towards quality and productivity (Zailani, 1998).
H2. The results indicate that real differences exist between workers and their
managers participating in QCs programs with respect to two implementation problems
i.e. lack of clear goals for QCs effort and delay in responding to QCs recommendations
(H2 is relatively supported). Using Mann-Whitney and T-test to find out if these
differences are statistically significant or not showed the following findings:
.
The findings indicate that there are some respondents who pointed out that lack
of clear goals for QCs effort was not one of the problems that hinder the
implementation of QCs in the production division. This may stem from the fact
that the majority of QCs at QASCO meet on a regular basis whether or not there
is a specific goal for such a meeting i.e. some of QCs members felt that QCs were
running out of clear goals.
.
It appears from Table VI that delay in responding to QCs recommendations was
not regarded as one of the problems that impede QCs implementation based the
points of view of some of respondents. That is not surprising, because some QCs
members realize that the role of QCs is consultancy i.e. top management can take
into account their recommendations or ignore them.
H3. The results of Mann-Whitney and T-test in Table VII support H3, that there is a
consensus between workers and their managers that all benefits, except for one,
mentioned below have been achieved.
There is a significant difference between workers and their managers concerning the
impact of QCs implementation on improving the management style i.e. developing a more
participative style of management and increasing the departmental interaction. This
result is supported by the results of Zailani (1998), where she found that there was little
doubt that QCs programs have made a significant impact on the management styles and
organizational climate of many companies in Malaysia. However, it is important to bear in
mind that one of the major tasks of top management is to influence the setting of
organizational values and develop suitable management styles to improve the firm’s
performance.

Factors Mann-Whitneya t-testa

Commitment and support from top management 0.812 0.641

Commitment and support from middle and first-line managers 0.562 0.352 Table V.
Circles members training 0.934 0.613 Significant levels
Involvement and support of employees 0.141 0.100 (p values) for the
Circles leaders training 0.426 0.273 differences between
Organizational learning 0.683 0.412 workers and their
managers concerning
Notes: Based on a Likert scale: 1 ¼ “extremely unimportant”; 5 ¼ “extremely important”; ausing factors promoting QCs
Mann-Whitney and t-test; *significant at level 0.05 Implementation
TQM H4. The results of Kruskal Wallis and ANOVA in Table VIII clearly support H4, that
21,1 there is a consensus among QCs members in the five departments that all critical
factors mentioned below are regarded as forces that promote the implementation of
QCs programs in manufacturing firms. This result suggests that manufacturing firms
can have successful QCs programs only if they can get the relevant management
support, the support of middle and first line managers and the proper training on QCs
96 for both workers and managers.
H5. It appears from Table IX that real differences exist between QCs members in
the five departments with respect to two problems that impede QCs implementation
scored by the respondents (i.e. the results provide only partial support for H5). Using
Kruskal Wallis and ANOVA to find out if these differences are statistically significant
or not showed the following findings:

Problems Mann-Whitneya t-testa

A lack of support from top management 0.841 0.632
Lack of involvement from employees to be part of the circle 0.436 0.263
Lack of members’ experience with QCs 0.461 0.241
Poor training/education on QCs 0.681 0.432
Lack of clear goals for QCs effort 0.001 * 0.000 *
Lack of co-operation from middle management 0.312 0.142
Table VI. Lack of financial and moral extrinsic rewards 0.345 0.211
Significant levels Lack of co-operation from first-line supervisors 0.156 0.096
Circle members disillusioned with QCs programs 0.213 0.167
(p values) for the
Delay in responding to QCs recommendations 0.021 * 0.013 *
differences between Circles leaders take long time to organize meeting 0.421 0.263
workers and their High labor turnover (transfers, promotions, retirements, etc.) 0.659 0.369
managers concerning
QCs implementation Notes: Based on a Likert scale: 1 ¼ “weak problem”; 5 ¼ “strong problem”; ausing Mann-Whitney
problems and T-test; *significant at level 0.05

Benefits Mann-Whitneya t-testa

QCs increased self-confidence for both workers and staff 0.592 0.298
Staff are better motivated in QCs departments 0.345 0.245
Customers are happier at QCs departments 0.463 0.234
QCs improved product quality 0.642 0.359
QCs saved time on operational matters 0.591 0.361
QCs increased staff satisfaction 0.367 0.210
QCs increased productivity 0.532 0.412
QCs increased empowerment 0.436 0.299
QCs reduced the number of errors in the department 0.534 0.325
Table VII. QCs improved the work environment 0.328 0.198
Significant levels QCs increased the work accountability 0.538 0.301
QCs improved organizational climate 0.732 0.467
(p values) for the QCs improved the work integrity 0.347 0.214
differences between QCs improved the management style 0.008 * 0.001 *
workers and their QCs improved staff awareness of organizational goals 0.423 0.225
mangers regarding the
benefits obtained from Notes: Based on a Likert scale: 1 ¼ “strongly disagree”; 5 ¼ “strongly agree”; ausing Mann-Whitney
QCs implementation and t-test; *significant at level 0.05
 .
It appears from Table IX that lack of financial and morale extrinsic rewards is QCs
not regarded as one of the problems that inhibits QCs implementation based on
the points of view of some of the respondents. That is not surprising, because QC
implementation
is a great opportunity provided by the management for those workers who want
to contribute, albeit voluntarily, to something towards the betterment of the
organization (Zailani, 1998).
.
The findings indicate that some QCs members pointed out that circles leaders 97
take long time to organize meeting is not one of the problems that hinder the
implementation of QCs in QASCO. This may stem from the fact that QCs
members and their supervisors meet on a regular basis, usually for about one
hour every week or month.
H6. The results of Kruskal Wallis and ANOVA in Table X support H6, that there is a
consensus among QCs members in the five departments that all benefits mentioned
below are regarded as the benefits have been achieved as a result of QCs
implementation by the five departments.
This result is consistent with the previous literature that indicated that serious
benefits from the QCs programs have been clearly demonstrated, not only in terms of
the ability of the QC members to identify and eliminate problems, but also in terms of

Factors ANOVAa K-Wa

Commitment and support from top management 0.471 0.393

Commitment and support from middle and first-line managers 0.144 0.146 Table VIII.
Circles members training 0.375 0.396 Significant levels
Involvement and support of employees 0.213 0.215 (p values) for the
Circles leaders training 0.141 0.164 differences among the
Organizational learning 0.621 0.451 five departments
concerning factors
Notes: Based on a Likert scale: 1 ¼ “extremely unimportant”; 5 ¼ “extremely important”; ausing promoting QCs
Kruskal-Wallis and One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA); *significant at level 0.05 Implementation

Problems ANOVAa K-Wa

A lack of support from top management 0.341 0.373

Lack of involvement from employees to be part of the circle 0.453 0.455
Lack of members’ experience with QCs 0.250 0.271
Poor training/education on QCs 0.540 0.550
Lack of clear goals for QCs effort 0.131 0.143
Lack of co-operation from middle management 0.244 0.287
Lack of financial and moral extrinsic rewards 0.001 * 0.009 *
Lack of co-operation from first line supervisors 0.326 0.337
Circle members disillusioned with QCs programs 0.230 0.250 Table IX.
Delay in responding to QCs recommendations 0.124 0.135 Significant levels
Circles leaders take long time to organize meeting 0.004 * 0.007 * (p values) for the
High labor turnover (transfers, promotions, retirements, etc.) 0.421 0.441 differences among the
five departments
Notes: Based on a Likert scale: 1 ¼ “weak problem”; 5 ¼ “strong problem”; ausing Kruskal-Wallis concerning QCs
and One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA); *significant at level 0.05 implementation problems
TQM
Benefits ANOVAa K-Wa
21,1
QCs increased self-confidence for both workers and staff 0.401 0.420
Staff are better motivated in QCs departments 0.221 0.234
Customers are happier at QCs departments 0.424 0.436
QCs saved time on operational matters 0.161 0.215
98 QCs increased staff satisfaction
QCs increased empowerment
0.153
0.213
0.177
0.267
QCs reduced the number of errors in the department 0.211 0.231
QCs improved the work environment 0.513 0.571
Table X. QCs increased the work accountability 0.612 0.623
Significant levels QCs improved organizational climate 0.241 0.250
(p values) for the QCs improved the work integrity 0.312 0.324
differences among the QCs improved the management style 0.513 0.583
five departments QCs improved staff awareness of organizational goals 0.424 0.431
concerning the benefits
obtained by QCs Notes: Based on a Likert scale: 1 ¼ “strongly disagree”; 5 ¼ “strongly agree”; ausing Kruskal-Wallis
implementation and One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA); *significant at level 0.05

the increased readiness of the QC members to overcome future quality problems and
the possibility of advancement in the organization, increased productivity, increased
job satisfaction and increased employees involvement, (Dean and Bowen,1994;
Olberding, 1998; Zailani, 1998; and Konidari and Abernot, 2006).

Conclusion, managerial implications, and contribution to current

knowledge
It is evident from the above data analysis that QCs implementation has helped the
production division of QASCO in improving product quality, increasing productivity,
improving organizational climate and improving working relationship among staff
within the five departments and may boost the demand for QASCO products in
international markets.
Many believe that QCs are only successful in electronics industry, while others
suggest that they can be successful only in Japanese and American companies. It is
true that many of the early successful circles were established in electronics companies
due to the labour intensive nature of their operations. However, the practical example
given within this paper clearly proves that QCs programs can be successfully
implemented in steel industry in developing countries as in the Japanese, USA and
Western companies. More importantly, our findings indicated that manufacturing
firms can have successful QC only if there is a total organizational commitment i.e. top
management support, middle management support and employees involvement,
towards improving product quality and increasing productivity.
One of the most precious lessons brought about by QCs implementation is that
creative and problem-solving talents are not the monopoly of managers, but workers at
the operative level are also capable of providing great ideas. Managers should perceive
that there is a need for all employees to work in teams, and to measure and chart out
the quality of their own work in order to enable them to identify and solve quality
problems and to eventually enhance its manufacturing operations.
Training became the heart of quality improvement. Therefore, improving workers’
skills and quality consciousness and supporting the use of problem – solving tools
through enhancing training programs is important for QCs implementation. Policy
makers should realize that QCs are not appropriate for everyone. Accordingly, they QCs
have to consider its pros and cons before its implementation.
This study makes several important contributions. Notably, it helps to provide implementation
important ideas and insights to academics and practitioners for undertaking a deeper
investigation into the impact of QCs implementation on continuous improvement of
manufacturing firms.
This study is one of the few that provides a structured overview of the state-of-
the-art of the adoption and implementation of QCs in a manufacturing firm in 99
developing countries where published research results on the use of QCs have been
rather scarce. Such studies are equally important in a global context. It helps illustrate
that operations management is not just technical problems but also deals with
behavioral issues such as team work and quality circles.
Finally, the current study is distinguished from previous studies in investigating
the holistic benefits obtained from QCs implementation. Moreover, the results of this
study provide recognition for the importance of QCs implementation in increasing
productivity and improving product quality.

Research limitations and recommendations for future research

Despite the interesting results of this research, several limitations need to be
emphasized. First, the study considered data from a single informant i.e. the production
division of QASCO. Although the use of single informants is widespread in operations
research, using multiple informants creates better quality data and achieves an
external validity (Hogarth, 1978; Hill, 1982). Therefore, replications of this study are
required to generalize its findings.
Second, the data on QCs implementation benefits were based on the respondents’
perceptions and not on hard data. Objective measures of QCs benefits could provide a
better test of the proposed hypothesis concerning QCs implementation benefits.
Third, developing a deeper understanding of the deriving and inhibiting forces to
QCs implementation in practice remains a task that requires further attention from
researchers, whatever their motivations.
Finally, the role of organizational culture is not considered. Possibly, different
organizational cultures affect how can QCs programs be implemented? Further, research
can study the effect of organizational culture on this relationship in more depth.

References
Al-Khatib, F. and Radi, A. (2003), “Effects of applying quality circles on organizational
performance: the case of the Qatari steel company”, Journal of Al-Ta’awon Al-Sina’e,
Vol. 92, pp. 21-52.
Boaden, J. and Dale, G. (1993), “Teamwork in services: quality circles by another name?”,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5-24.
Canel, C. and Kadipasaoglu, S. (2002), “Quality control circles in the veterans administration
hospital”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 238-48.
Davis, M., Aquilano, N. and Chase, R. (2003), Fundamentals of Operations Management, intl ed.,
McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Dean, W. and Bowen, E. (1994), “Management theory and quality control”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 392-418.
(The) Department of Trade and Industry, UK (1992), Quality Circles – An Executive Guide,
an Enterprise Initiative, booklet from the “Managing into the ’90s” programme, DTI,
London.
French, L. (1998), Human Resource Management, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
TQM Goh, M. (2000), “Quality circles: journey of an Asian public enterprise”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 784-99.
21,1 Goulden, C. (1995), “Supervisory management and quality circle performance: an empirical
study”, Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 61-74.
Harris, R. (1995), “The evolution of quality management: an overview of the TQM literature”,
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 95-105.
Hill, F. (1997), “En route to TQM: organizational learning through quality circles”, Training for
100 Quality, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 84-7.
Hill, H. (1996), “Organizational learning for TQM through quality circles”, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 53-7.
Hill, W. (1982), “Group versus individual performance: are N þ 1 heads better than one?”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 517-39.
Hogarth, M. (1978), “A note on aggregating opinions”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 40-6.
Ishikawa, K. (1985), What is Total Quality Control? (Trans. Lu, D.J.), Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Konidari, V. and Abernot, Y. (2006), “From TQM to learning organization”, International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 8-26.
Lagrosen, S. and Lagrosen, Y. (2006), “A dive into the depths of quality management”, European
Business Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 84-96.
Margulies, J. and Kleiner, B. (1995), “New designs of work groups: applications of
empowerment”, Journal of Empowerment in Organizations, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 12-18.
Millson, F. and Kirk-Smith, M. (1996), “The effects of quality circles on perceived service quality
in financial services”, Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 2
No. 4, pp. 75-88.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Olberding, R. (1998), “Toyota on competition and quality circles”, The Journal of Quality and
Participation, Vol. 21 No. 2, p. 52.
Piczak, W. (1988), “Quality circles come home”, Quality Progress, December, pp. 37-9.
Pinnington, A. and Hammersley, G. (1997), “Quality circles under the new deal at Land-Rover”,
Employee Relations, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 415-29.
Robbins, S. and DeCenzo, D. (2005), Fundamentals of Management: Essential Concepts and
Applications, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Salaheldin, I. and Zain, M. (2007), “How quality control circles enhance work safety: a case
study”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 229-44.
Slack, N., Chambers, S. and Johnston, R. (2006), Operations Management, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall,
London.
Stevenson, W. (2007), Operations Management, 9th ed., McGraw-Hill, London.
Zailani, M. (1998), “Quality control circles: the implementation of QCC in Malaysia”, OR Insight,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 20-3.
Zetie, S. (2006), “The quality circle approach to knowledge management”, Managerial Auditing
Journal, Vol. 17 No 6, pp. 317-21, available at:www.qasco.com.qa/ (accessed 14 October
2006).

Corresponding author
Salaheldin Ismail Salaheldin can be contacted at: salahialy@qu.edu.qa

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints