Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

A proposal for a scale measuring innovation in a

total quality management context

Juan José Tarí & Mariano García-Fernández

To cite this article: Juan José Tarí & Mariano García-Fernández (2020) A proposal for a scale
measuring innovation in a total quality management context, Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 31:15-16, 1703-1717, DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2018.1504622

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1504622

Published online: 27 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 570

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctqm20
Total Quality Management, 2020
Vol. 31, No. 15, 1703–1717, https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1504622

A proposal for a scale measuring innovation in a total quality

management context
Juan José Tarí* and Mariano García-Fernández

Department of Business Management, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain

The aim of this study is to propose a measure of innovation dimensions (incremental

product innovation, incremental process innovation, radical product innovation,
radical process innovation) in a total quality management context. There is a lack of
studies developing reliable and valid measurement instruments of innovation to assess
innovation dimensions in a total quality culture. The paper identifies the dimensions
of innovation and items under each dimension on the basis of a literature review, and
examines validity and reliability of the measures using empirical data from 105
organisations in Spain. Empirical results show that the four dimensions of innovation
identified are reliable and valid and show the most important types of innovation for
improving operational performance. The instrument can be used by managers to
assess their innovation level and identify areas for improvement in order to
understand the innovation results derived from total quality management practices.
Researchers can use the measures to assess the effects of total quality management
practices in different innovation dimensions in future studies.
Keywords: scale; incremental and radical innovation; total quality management;
operational performance; validity; reliability

1. Introduction
Literature has found that total quality management (TQM) practices generate positive
effects on operational and business performance (Kaynak, 2003; Sila, 2007; Salaheldin,
2009). Part of this literature has also shown that TQM can introduce innovations (Palm,
Lilja, & Wiklund, 2016; Rafailidis, Trivellas, & Polychroniu, 2017; Zeng, Ahang,
Matsui, & Zhao, 2017). Innovation is a critical aspect for many companies to improve com-
petitiveness (Akgün, Keskin, & Byrne, 2009; Hallstedt, Thompson, & Lindahl, 2013; Zeng
et al., 2017), and this is why we need to understand which the different types of innovation
are, for example, in a TQM context, and how they can be measured in order to identify
improvement opportunities.
In this context, previous studies about the effects of TQM on innovation have measured
innovation from different perspectives. Most works have considered innovation in products
and/or processes (Terziovski & Guerrero, 2014; Chang, Bai, & Li, 2015), but few studies
have gone beyond and have analyzed incremental and radical innovation (Moreno-Luzón,
Gil-Marques, & Valls-Pasola, 2013) or incremental and radical product and process inno-
vation (Kim, Kumar, & Kumar, 2012). As less attention has been paid to incremental and
radical innovation in TQM studies, it is interesting to identify what dimensions are necess-
ary to measure innovation dimensions in order to help managers to better understand the
effects of TQM practices on innovation. For this purpose, managers need to have measures
that include a set of dimensions of innovation (e.g. incremental and radical dimensions).

*Corresponding author. Email: jj.tari@ua.es

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

1704 J.J. Tarí and M. García-Fernández

As there are no well-established measures to that end, the aim of this paper is to propose
a measure of innovation dimensions in a TQM context. On this basis, some contributions of
the present paper can be suggested. First, there is a lack of studies that analyzes validity and
reliability of innovation dimensions including incremental and radical parts in a total quality
management context. Although previous studies about the effects of TQM on innovation
have defined the domains of TQM and innovation, these studies focus on the relationship
between TQM and innovation (Prajogo & Sohal, 2006a; Abrunhosa & Sá, 2008; Parra,
Jimenez-Jimenez, & Martínez-Lorente, 2014; Voon-Hsien & Keng-Boon, 2015;
Ruiz-Moreno, Haro-Domínguez, Tamayo-Torres, & Ortega-Egea, 2016) rather than on
developing reliable and valid instruments for innovation. Considering the above, this
paper complements previous studies about TQM and innovation by proposing a scale
(based on a set of items and dimensions for innovation) in order to provide a better under-
standing of innovation as an outcome of TQM practices.
Second, few scholars have examined the relationship between TQM practices and incre-
mental and radical innovation (Kim et al., 2012), as most studies about TQM and inno-
vation have considered mainly two kinds of innovations: product and process
(Terziovski & Guerrero, 2014; Chang et al., 2015). As the quality literature shows that
the improvements from quality practices can be incremental and radical in products and
processes (Imai, 1989; EFQM, 2012), it is interesting to identify the dimensions and
items for each dimension of innovation for future studies. Accordingly, this paper considers
incremental and radical dimensions extending the previous studies that show TQM scales
(Saraph, Benson, & Schroeder, 1989; Flynn, Schroeder, & Sakakibara, 1994; Conca,
Llopis, & Tarí, 2004; Xiong, He, Ke, & Zhang, 2016) and innovation scales (Green,
Gavin, & Aiman-Smith, 1995; Gatignon, Tushman, Smith, & Anderson, 2002), and
those works that analyze the relationship between TQM and innovation (García & Calan-
tone, 2002; Koberg, Detienne, & Heppard, 2003; Kim et al., 2012).
The paper proceeds as follows. An initial literature review about TQM and innovation is
presented. Then, the paper describes the method used in this study, followed by the pres-
entation of empirical results. Finally, the discussion and conclusions section indicates
implications, limitations and directions for future research.

2. Literature review
The aim of this paper is to propose innovation dimension measures. For this reason, first a
definition of innovation is provided. Innovation is understood as the changes made to pro-
ducts and/or processes in order to improve results (OECD, 2005). Thus, a difference is
made between product and process innovation. Product innovation is a change (e.g. an
improvement) in the functions of a good and/or service, whereas process innovation is a
change (e.g. an improvement) in an organisational process, for instance, in production tech-
niques (OECD, 2006).
Although most studies have identified mainly these two kinds of innovations, quality
theory (Imai, 1989) and quality models (e.g. EFQM, 2012) have suggested that TQM prac-
tices also lead to incremental and radical changes. For example, the European Foundation
for Quality Management (EFQM) model suggests in criterion 5 that organisations should
introduce minor improvements in their products and processes, and create new products
and processes in order to adapt to changes in the market and the demands of interest
groups (EFQM, 2012). Accordingly, TQM practices may have positive effects on incre-
mental and radical product and process innovation across organisations (Kim et al.,
2012). Thus, incremental and radical innovations should be considered in a TQM context.
 Total Quality Management 1705

In this case, when a product or process innovation implies a progressive improvement in

the features of a product or in production costs, and does not require new knowledge for
such changes to take place it can be said that this innovation is incremental (Green et al.,
1995; García & Calantone, 2002; Gatignon et al., 2002; Parra et al., 2014). For its part,
radical product and/or process innovation implies an abrupt change because the products
and/or processes are completely new and require new knowledge or competencies
(Tushman & Nadler, 1986; Kim et al., 2012; Rönbäck & Ericksson, 2012).

2.1. TQM and innovation

Second, as has been said, TQM practices facilitate product innovation (Perdomo-Ortíz,
González-Benito, & Galende, 2006; Santos-Vijande & Álvarez-González, 2007; López-
Mielgo, Montes-Peón, & Vázquez-Ordás, 2009; Salaheldin, 2009; Foster, 2014;
Miranda, Gomes, Filipe, & Lopes, 2014) because they help to minimise those activities
which do not create value and make it possible to reduce time and costs in the development
of operations (Kim et al., 2012) and, as a result, improve products.
TQM practices also have a positive influence on process innovation (Prajogo & Sohal,
2006a; Perdomo-Ortíz et al., 2006). For instance, when an organisation identifies a custo-
mer’s needs, it generates knowledge that can improve processes. Similarly, when employ-
ees contribute ideas, work processes may be improved (Abrunhosa & Sá, 2008).
Both kinds of innovation can be incremental or radical. For example, organisations can
analyse customer/stakeholder feedback and introduce minor changes in their products/ser-
vices and/or processes to adjust to needs suggested by customers or other stakeholders
using their current resources, capabilities and technologies. Similarly, suggestions by
employees may allow organisations to include minor improvements in the work processes
(Watson, 2012; Pérez-Aróstegui, Bustinza-Sánchez, & Barrales-Molina, 2015). Leaders
can also analyse their environment and then introduce radical changes in product/services
or processes (Gowen, Mcfadden, & Settaluri, 2012) to face the radical needs in the market,
for example, using new resources or technologies. These ideas suggest that TQM practices
can lead to incremental and radical changes in products and processes as some scholars
have shown (Kim et al., 2012; Moreno-Luzón et al., 2013; Parra et al., 2014).
Although this review suggests that few studies consider incremental and radical inno-
vation in products and/or processes (Sadikoglu & Zehir, 2010; Kim et al., 2012) innovation
dimensions and items under each dimension in a TQM context can be identified based on
prior works. Accordingly, two dimensions of innovation (product and process innovations)
have been identified based on TQM-innovation studies and general studies on innovation
(see Table 1) in which incremental and radical parts can be included according to studies
that have considered incremental and radical innovations (see Appendix). Thus, four inno-
vation dimensions and 14 items can be identified.
These four dimensions identified supplement prior measurement instruments. For
example, regarding measurement instruments in the TQM field, several studies can be
found examining the validity and reliability of TQM dimensions for manufacturing and/
or service organisations (Saraph et al., 1989; Flynn et al., 1994; Conca et al., 2004;
Xiong et al., 2016). Similarly, in the innovation field, some studies can be identified that
focus on the development of a measurement instrument for innovation (Green et al.,
1995; Gatignon et al., 2002). Also, previous studies that focus on the effects of TQM on
innovation have defined the domains of TQM and innovation and then have identified a
set of items considering a one-dimensional or multidimensional construct of TQM and
innovation (Kim et al., 2012; Moreno-Luzón et al., 2013).
1706 J.J. Tarí and M. García-Fernández

Table 1. Most common dimensions of innovation according to the literature.

Product Process
Authors Innovation innovation
1. Prajogo and Sohal (2003)* x x
2. Prajogo and Sohal (2004)* x
3. Singh and Smith (2004)* x x
4. Feng, Prajogo, Tan, and Sohal (2006)* x
5. Fuentes-Fuentes, Llorens-Montes, and Molina-Fernández x x
(2006)*
6. Hoang, Igel, and Laosirihongthong (2006)* x x
7. Prajogo and Sohal (2006a)* x x
8. Prajogo and Sohal (2006b)* x x
9. Sá and Abrunhosa (2007)* x x
10. Santos-Vijande and Álvarez-González (2007)* x x
11. Abrunhosa and Sá (2008)* x x
12. Pinho (2008)* x x
13. Martínez-Costa and Martínez-Lorente (2008)* x x
14. Prajogo and Hong (2008)* x
15. Prajogo, Mc Dermott, and Goh (2008)* x
16. Akgün et al. (2009)** x x
17. Company, Contero, Varley, Aleixos, and Naya (2009)** x x
18. Kok and Biemans (2009)** x x
19. Lambertini and Mantovani (2009)** x x
20. López-Mielgo et al. (2009)* x x
21. Pekovic and Galia (2009)* x x
22. Li, Li, Wang, and Liu (2010)* x x
23. Hung, Lien, Fang, and Lean (2010)* x x
24. Hong and Huang (2011)* x
25. Hung, Lien, Yang, Wu, and Kuo (2011)* x x
26. Neugebauer (2011)** x x
27. Castillo-Rojas et al. (2012)* x
28. Chenavaz (2012)** x x
29. Goedhuys and Veugelers (2012)** x x
30. Maine, Lubick, and Garnsey (2012)** x x
31. Santamaría, Nieto, and Miles (2012)** x x
32. Tohidi and Jabbari (2012)** x
33. Birasnav, Albufalasa, and Bader (2013)* x x
34. Hallstedt et al. (2013)** x x
35. Killip (2013)** x x
36. Sener and Hobikoglu (2013)** x x
37. Miranda et al. (2014)* x
38. Terziovski and Guerrero (2014)* x x
39. Hervás-Oliver and Sempere-Ripoll (2015)** x x
*Papers about quality management and innovation.
**Papers about innovation.

3. Research methodology
Previous studies about the development of measurement instruments have used different
ways to assess validity and reliability. Some authors have developed scales using method-
ology used by psychologists for examining validity and reliability in social sciences
(reliability, detailed item analysis, content validity, criterion-related validity and construct
validity) (Nunnally, 1978; Saraph et al., 1989; Conca et al., 2004; Xiong et al., 2016), while
others have first carried out an exploratory factorial analysis and then a confirmatory
 Total Quality Management 1707

factorial analysis (e.g. Pérez-Rave & Muñoz-Giraldo, 2016), or only confirmatory factorial
analysis (e.g. Curkovic, Vickery, & Droge, 2000). In general terms, regardless of the meth-
odology used, researchers develop first a literature review in order to identify dimensions
and items and then examine the validity and reliability of the dimensions identified. In
this paper the methodology used by Saraph et al. (1989), Conca et al. (2004) and Xiong
et al. (2016) in which the following steps are performed, is considered to propose a
scale: reliability, detailed item analysis, content validity, construct validity and criterion-
related validity.
Accordingly, the present paper consists of a first step in which the dimensions of inno-
vation and items under each dimension are identified according to a literature review, and
interviews to eight managers in five organisations were performed to supplement this litera-
ture review. These five organisations were chosen following the following criteria: firms
that do not compete between each other, firms with different sizes, firms located in the pro-
vince of Alicante (to facilitate the visit to the companies) in Spain, firms with a stable
growth over the past three years and firms which are leaders in their respective industries
(Table 2).
Managers were asked, amongst other questions, whether any new product or production
process had been introduced, whether they had any patents or whether they had any new
products and/or process, or on the contrary, whether they tried to improve those already
in existence:
Every year there is some idea that improves some product or work process.
Innovations make it possible to save time on most occasions, for instance, through contests on
innovative ideas. And as these ideas come from the employees themselves, they try to make
them lead to improvements in their own tasks.
On many occasions, innovations do not only come from the management; rather, it is the
employee him/herself that proposes such innovations, because they allow improvements in
their daily work
Creating or modifying products and processes entails a novelty effect, and that novelty leads to
increased sales in most cases.
Based on their answers, it can be said that companies carry out product and process inno-
vations and that managers indicate the importance of both minor changes (e.g. modifying
current products or processes) and abrupt ones (e.g. creating new products and/or pro-
cesses). These answers support the incremental and radical dimensions in products and pro-
cesses that the quality literature suggests.
The paper uses the databases Web of Science, Proquest and EBSCOhost, using the
terms TQM, Quality, Innovation to carry out the literature review. Theoretical, qualitative
and quantitative peer review articles were identified. After a first reading, some papers were
discarded that clearly did not fit with the purposes of this study, and the references of the

Table 2. Characteristics of organisations interviewed in the qualitative analysis

Firm Size Activity ISO 9001 certificate
A Large Quality control in construction Yes
B Large Financing Yes
C Small Environmental management In process
D Small Environmental consulting No
E Medium Construction No
Note: Large: > 250 employees, medium: 50–250 employees, small: < 50 employees.
1708 J.J. Tarí and M. García-Fernández

papers selected were reviewed in order to identify more works. Based on papers, dimen-
sions and items were identified, as the literature review section has shown.
In a second step a quantitative analysis is performed to examine validity and reliability
of the dimensions identified in the first step. In this case, after items selection, a pretest is
carried out to refine the measures in order to obtain the final questionnaire and then examine
reliability, detailed item analysis and validity.
As the aim of this study is to examine reliability and validity of innovation as an
outcome of TQM, companies concerned about TQM were selected. The population
includes 999 firms from the database of the ‘Club Excelencia en Gestión’ (partner of
EFQM in Spain), by January 8, 2015. Firms committed to EFQM were selected because
the EFQM model is a model that covers the TQM practices (Bou-Llusar, Escrig-Tena,
Roca-Puig, & Beltrán-Martín, 2009) and then it can be said that the firms that belong to
‘Club Excelencia en Gestión’ can be firms committed to TQM. These 999 firms are organ-
isations with the EFQM certificate and firms without the EFQM certificate, but which have
had it at some stage. The survey was sent to the 999 firms in two waves, and 108 firms
answered (study carried out between January and April 2015). In the first wave, 68 firms
answered, while 40 did in the second one. The questionnaire was answered by the
person responsible for quality. The items were measured on a 7-point scale from 1 to 7
(1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree). Out of the 108 firms, 3 were ruled out
due to incomplete information. Therefore, the final sample on which subsequent analysis
was performed was 105 firms (Table 3).
Once the data had been collected, the bias was analyzed. Firstly, it was checked whether
the sample was representative of the population, considering the EFQM certificate variable,
since it is the only variable available, both for the sample and for the population. This is the
only variable available due to data protection, as the ‘Club Excelencia en Gestión’ (partner
of EFQM in Spain) only provided a list of companies of its database that includes the name
of the company and whether it had an EFQM certificate or not, in order to comply with data
protection regulations. The results indicate that there are no differences in the response rates
between the sample and the population (Table 4).

Table 3. Characteristics of the sample.

Size Public-private
Large Medium Small Public Private
No. of firms 43 26 36 29 76
% 40.95 24.76 34.29 27.62 72.38
Note: Large: > 250 employees, medium: 50–250 employees, small: < 50 employees.

Table 4. Differences between the population and the sample (EFQM certificate)
Population Sample
With EFQM Without EFQM With EFQM Without EFQM
certificate certificate certificate certificate
No. of firms 817 182 86 19
% 81.78 18.22 81.90 18.1
 Total Quality Management 1709

Secondly, the non-response bias was checked, following the method proposed by Arm-
strong and Overton (1977). The sample was divided into three groups, with 35 cases each,
and it was checked whether the firms that answered first (first group) showed differences
with those who were the last to answer (third group), by means of the Student’s t test.
The results obtained show that there are no statistically significant differences in the
mean values of all the variables measured between these two groups.

4. Results
4.1. Identification of innovation dimensions and items
First, a literature review is carried out in order to identify four innovation dimensions and
items under each dimension, as the literature review section has shown (see Appendix).

4.2. Reliability and validity

Second, based on 105 respondents, reliability and validity analyses are performed following
the steps proposed in the methodology section: reliability, detailed item analysis, content
validity, construct validity and criterion-related validity.

4.2.1. Reliability
It can be assessed using Cronbach’s alpha as the most used reliability coefficient in empiri-
cal research (Cronbach, 1951; Peterson, 1994). The minimum value should be 0.7 (Nunn-
ally, 1978) and the results show the ratings for each dimension of innovation are higher than
0.7. Cronbach’s alphas range from 0.882 to 0.950.

4.2.2. Detailed item analysis

This analysis shows how each item is related to each dimension of innovation using the
item’s correlations with each scale (Nunnally, 1978). This explains if one item belongs
to its dimension or if it has been associated to some other dimension. As can be seen in
Table 5, all items have the highest correlation with the dimension assigned previously.
Therefore, they have been satisfactory assigned to their scales.

4.2.3. Content validity

This validity is fulfilled when the instrument includes items that cover those aspects that
should be measured. This validity is suitable because the dimensions and items identified
have been obtained from the literature review as previous studies developing measurement
instruments have done (Saraph et al., 1989; Xiong et al., 2016).

4.2.4. Construct validity

This validity is calculated using a factor analysis for each dimension of innovation pre-
viously identified (see Table 6). The principal component analysis using Varimax rotation
is used considering eigenvalues greater that 1 (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2014). All
dimensions are one-dimensional and the item loads are higher than the cutoff value of
0.40 suggested in previous studies proposing a measurement instrument (Xiong et al.,
2016; Heo & Kim, 2017).
1710 J.J. Tarí and M. García-Fernández

Table 5. Detailed item analysis.

Dimension / Incremental Radical product Incremental Radical process
Item number product innovation innovation process innovation innovation
Incremental product innovation
1 0.783** 0.533** 0.495** 0.520**
2 0.920** 0.800** 0.567** 0.679**
3 0.885** 0.841** 0.598** 0.639**
4 0.939** 0.827** 0.629** 0.692**
Radical product innovation
1 0.822** 0.912** 0.568** 0.718**
2 0.804** 0.956** 0.516** 0.701**
3 0.819** 0.964** 0.554** 0.686**
4 0.770** 0.915** 0.534** 0.636**
Incremental process innovation
1 0.608** 0.549** 0.910** 0.700**
2 0.653** 0.580** 0.935** 0.678**
3 0.497** 0.438** 0.852** 0.601**
Radical process innovation
1 0.590** 0.610** 0.671** 0.915**
2 0.689** 0.710** 0.714** 0.950**
3 0.730** 0.721** 0.663** 0.930**

4.2.5. Criterion-related validity

This is calculated through the correlation between innovation dimensions and other vari-
ables, for example, a performance variable. In this paper, the four dimensions of innovation
have been related to an operational performance measure. This operational performance
measure includes six items based on Kaynak (2003), Conca et al. (2004), Martínez
(2005), García-Morales, Llorens-Montes, and Verdú-Jover (2007), and Sila (2007):
increased customer satisfaction with products and/or services, error reduction in products
or services, lower cost of quality, increased employee satisfaction, increased product or
service quality and increased productivity. The correlation coefficients show that there is
a relationship between the innovation dimensions and operational performance. All corre-
lations are higher than 0.65 (p = 0.000) exceeding the satisfactory levels of 0.30 suggested
in previous studies (Grandzol & Gershon, 1998).
This analysis is expanded using a regression analysis to show the relationship between
innovation dimensions and each operational performance result in order to show the most
important type of innovation for operational results. The findings show that innovation has
a positive effect on the whole of operational performance and that incremental product
innovation is the most important innovation to increase customer satisfaction with products
and/or services (β = 0.559; p < 0.001), reduce the cost of quality (β = 0.431; p < 0.01),
increase employee satisfaction (β = 0.411; p < 0.01), increase product or service quality
(β = 0.328; p < 0.05), and increase productivity (β = 0.317; p < 0.05). Incremental process
innovation is the most important type of innovation to reduce errors in products and ser-
vices (β = 0.380; p < 0.01) although incremental product innovation also impacts on error
reduction (β = 0.308; p < 0.10). Similarly, incremental and radical process innovation
impacts in a significant way on customer satisfaction, product/service quality and pro-
ductivity. These results indicate that incremental product innovation is a critical element
to improve operational results and that process innovation (incremental and radical) also
leads to operational benefits, although to a lesser extent. In this case, radical product
 Total Quality Management 1711

Table 6. Construct validity.

Dimension / Item number
Incremental product innovation
1 0.786
2 0.923
3 0.881
4 0.939
Eigenvalue per factor 3.127
% of variance explained 78.173
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index 0.798
Barlett’s significance test of sphericity 0.000
Cronbach’s alpha 0.900
Radical product innovation
1 0.916
2 0.957
3 0.963
4 0.910
Eigenvalue per factor 3.512
% of variance explained 87.792
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index 0.848
Barlett’s significance test of sphericity 0.000
Cronbach’s alpha 0.950
Incremental process innovation
1 0.914
2 0.938
3 0.844
Eigenvalue per factor 2.429
% of variance explained 80.959
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index 0.695
Barlett’s significance test of sphericity 0.000
Cronbach’s alpha 0.882
Radical process innovation
1 0.913
2 0.953
3 0.929
Eigenvalue per factor 2.605
% of variance explained 86.842
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index 0.739
Barlett’s significance test of sphericity 0.000
Cronbach’s alpha 0.923

innovation is the least important innovation for operational results. This could be due to the
fact that this type of innovation could be more important for financial results. This should be
an issue to be examined in future studies.

5. Discussion and conclusions

The paper aims to identify valid and reliable measures for innovation dimensions in a TQM
context. This multidimensional scale of innovation includes four dimensions including 14
items: incremental product innovation, incremental process innovation, radical product
innovation and radical process innovation. The results show that the instrument is reliable
and valid as a tool to understand the innovation dimensions as outcomes of TQM. The four
dimensions and 14 items show other outcomes of TQM, different from operational and
1712 J.J. Tarí and M. García-Fernández

business performance. These dimensions are consistent with the quality theory that suggests
the effects of quality initiatives on minor and major changes.
The present paper supports some scholars that agree in considering the four dimensions
of innovation (Kim et al., 2012) when the quality-innovation link is examined, because
incremental and radical changes are needed in a quality culture (Imai, 1989; EFQM,
2012). These measures differ from those identified in previous works in that they have
been empirically examined to test reliability and validity using a sample including compa-
nies interested in the EFQM model. For example, Kim et al. (2012), to analyze the quality-
innovation link, uses a sample of ISO 9001 certified companies in Canada. In addition, our
measures supplement those shown in previous studies (Sadikoglu & Zehir, 2010; Zeng
et al., 2017) because they consider incremental and radical dimensions in product and
process in a total quality management context.
Based on these ideas, the proposal of a scale to measure innovation dimensions as out-
comes of TQM practices can help scholars that wish to examine the effects of TQM prac-
tices on innovation in future studies. Also, it helps managers that desire to assess the
possible effects of TQM practices on different innovation dimensions. The scale can be
used to think about the need to introduce incremental product and process innovation com-
pared to those introduced by competitors and the levels of radical changes needed. Thus, it
can be used by managers to identify both strengths and weaknesses and then areas for
improvement. Based on this exercise, managers can establish improvement actions to
increase innovation and improve operational results. In this context, product and process
innovations are needed to improve operational results but managers should understand
that incremental product innovation is the most important type of innovation for that
end. Although they should balance both types of innovation, they also should consider
the importance of incremental changes and then they should make an effort to introduce
incremental innovations in products and processes continuously as they are more easily
adopted and are important for improving operational results.
Although the measures can be used by managers and other researchers, some limitations
can be identified. The sample includes companies interested in the EFQM model in Spain
and future research could consider other kinds of companies in other countries. In this case,
other methodologies could also be used to test reliability and validity (e.g. confirmatory
factor analysis). The study focuses on the most common effects of TQM on innovation
and other dimensions of innovation can be examined in the future to test reliability and val-
idity, such as administrative innovation.

Acknowledgments
Thanks are due to Dr. Miguel Ángel Campos-Pardillos, from the English Department at the University
of Alicante, for the language revision of this paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Abrunhosa, A., & Sá, P. M. E. (2008). Are TQM principles supporting innovation in the Portuguese
footwear industry? Technovation, 28, 208–221.
 Total Quality Management 1713

Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., & Byrne, J. (2009). Organizational emotional capability, product and
process innovation, and firm performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Engineering
and Technology Management, 26(3), 103–130.
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of
Marketing Research, 14, 396–402.
Birasnav, M., Albufalasa, M., & Bader, Y. (2013). The role of transformational leadership and knowl-
edge management processes on predicting product and process innovation: An empirical study
developed in Kingdom of Bahrain. Tékhne, 11(2), 64–75.
Bou-Llusar, J. C., Escrig-Tena, A. B., Roca-Puig, V., & Beltrán-Martín, I. (2009). An empirical
assessment of the EFQM excellence model: Evaluation as a TQM framework relative to the
MBNQA model. Journal of Operations Management, 27, 1–22.
Castillo-Rojas, S. M., Casadesus, M., Karapetrovic, S., Coromina, L., Heras, I., & Martín, I. (2012). Is
implementing multiple management system standards a hindrance to innovation? Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, 23(9-10), 1075–1088.
Chang, J., Bai, X., & Li, J. J. (2015). The influence of leadership on product and process innovations
in China: The contingent role of knowledge acquisition capability. Industrial Marketing
Management, 50, 18–29.
Chenavaz, R. (2012). Dynamic pricing, product and process innovation. European Journal of
Operational Research, 222(3), 553–557.
Company, P., Contero, M., Varley, P., Aleixos, N., & Naya, F. (2009). Computer-aided sketching as a
tool to promote innovation in the new product development process. Computers in Industry, 60
(8), 592–603.
Conca, F. J., Llopis, J., & Tarí, J. J. (2004). Development of a measure to assess quality management
in certified firms. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(3), 683–697.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16
(September), 297–334.
Curkovic, S., Vickery, S., & Droge, C. (2000). Quality-related action programs: Their impact on
quality performance and firm performance. Decision Sciences, 31(4), 885–902.
European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM). (2012). EFQM excellence model. Brussels:
EFQM.
Feng, J., Prajogo, D. I., Tan, K. C., & Sohal, A. S. (2006). The impact of TQM practices on perform-
ance: A comparative study between Australian and Singaporean organizations. European
Journal of Innovation Management, 9(3), 269–278.
Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S. (1994). A framework for quality management
research and an associated measurement instrument. Journal of Operations Management, 11
(4), 339–366.
Foster, C. (2014). Does quality matter for innovations in low income markets? The case of the Kenyan
mobile phone sector. Technology in Society, 38, 119–129.
Fuentes-Fuentes, M. M., Llorens-Montes, F. J., & Molina-Fernández, L. M. (2006). Total quality
management, strategic orientation and organizational performance: The case of spanish com-
panies. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 17, 303–323.
García, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innova-
tiveness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2),
110–132.
García-Morales, V. J., Llorens-Montes, F. J., & Verdú-Jover, A. (2007). Influence of personal mastery
on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation in large firms
and SMEs. Technovation, 27, 547–568.
Gatignon, H., Tushman, M. L., Smith, W., & Anderson, P. (2002). A structural approach to assessing
innovation: Construct development of innovation locus, type and characteristics. Management
Science, 48(9), 1103–1122.
Goedhuys, M., & Veugelers, R. (2012). Innovation strategy, process and product innovations and
growth: Firm-level evidence from Brazil. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23
(4), 516–529.
Gowen, C., Mcfadden, K. L., & Settaluri, S. (2012). Contrasting continuous quality, six sigma, and
lean management for enhanced outcomes in US hospitals. American Journal of Business, 27
(2), 133–153.
Grandzol, J. R., & Gershon, M. (1998). A survey instrument for standardizing TQM modeling
research. International Journal of Quality Science, 3(1), 80–105.
1714 J.J. Tarí and M. García-Fernández

Green, S. G., Gavin, M. B., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1995). Assessing a multidimensional measure of
radical technological innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(3),
203–214.
Hair, J. F., Jr, Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Ángeles: Sage.
Hallstedt, S. I., Thompson, A. W., & Lindahl, P. (2013). Key elements for implementing a strategic
sustainability perspective in the product innovation process. Journal of Cleaner Production,
51, 277–288.
Heo, J. Y., & Kim, K. J. (2017). Development of a scale to measure the quality of mobile location-
based services. Service Business, 11, 141–159.
Hervás-Oliver, J. L., & Sempere-Ripoll, F. (2015). Disentangling the influence of technological
process and product innovations. Journal of Business Research, 68(1), 109–118.
Hoang, D. T., Igel, B., & Laosirihongthong, T. (2006). The impact of total quality management on
innovation. Findings from a developing country. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 23, 1092–1117.
Hong, S. W., & Huang, C. L. (2011). Total quality management implementation in research and
development organisations: A competitive study of South Korea and Taiwan. International
Journal of Services and Operations Management, 8(3), 365–389.
Hung, R. Y. Y., Lien, B. Y. H., Fang, S. C., & Lean, M. (2010). Knowledge as a facilitator for enhan-
cing innovation performance through total quality management. Total Quality Management
and Business Excellence, 21, 425–438.
Hung, R. Y. Y., Lien, B. Y. H., Yang, B., Wu, C. M., & Kuo, Y. M. (2011). Impact of TQM and
organizational learning on innovation performance in the high-tech industry. International
Business Review, 20(2), 213–225.
Imai, M. (1989). KAIZEN, la clave de la ventaja competitiva japonesa. Mexico: CECSA.
Kaynak, H. (2003). The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on
firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(4), 405–435.
Killip, G. (2013). Products, practices and processes: Exploring the innovation potential for low-
carbon housing refurbishment among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the UK
construction industry. Energy Policy, 62, 522–530.
Kim, D. Y., Kumar, V., & Kumar, U. (2012). Relationship between quality management practices and
innovation. Journal of Operations Management, 30, 295–315.
Koberg, C. S., Detienne, D. R., & Heppard, K. A. (2003). An empirical test of environmental, organ-
izational, and process factors affecting incremental and radical innovation. The Journal of High
Technology Management Research, 14(1), 21–45.
Kok, R. A. W., & Biemans, W. G. (2009). Creating a market-oriented product innovation process: A
contingency approach. Technovation, 29(8), 517–526.
Lambertini, L., & Mantovani, A. (2009). Process and product innovation by a multiproduct monopo-
list: A dynamic approach. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27(4), 508–518.
Li, W., Li, Y., Wang, J., & Liu, X. (2010). The process model to aid innovation of products conceptual
design. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(5), 3574–3587.
López-Mielgo, N., Montes-Peón, J. M., & Vázquez-Ordás, C. J. (2009). Are quality and innovation
management conflicting activities? Technovation, 29, 537–545.
Maine, E., Lubick, S., & Garnsey, E. (2012). Process-based vs. product-based innovation: Value cre-
ation by nanotech ventures. Technovation, 32(3-4), 179–192.
Martínez, J. F. (2005). Estrategia medioambiental de la empresa y rendimiento: el rol intermedio de
aprendizaje organizativo. Una aplicación a las industrias minerales (Tesis Doctoral).
Universidad de Valencia.
Martínez-Costa, M., & Martínez-Lorente, A. R. (2008). Does quality management foster or hinder
innovation? An empirical study of Spanish companies. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 19, 209–221.
Miranda, G., Gomes, P. J., Filipe, L., & Lopes, Z. (2014). The role of TQM in strategic product inno-
vation: An empirical assessment. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 34(10), 1307–1337.
Moreno-Luzón, M. D., Gil-Marques, M., & Valls-Pasola, J. (2013). TQM, innovation and the role of
cultural change. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 113(8), 1149–1168.
Neugebauer, R. (2011). Energy-Efficient product and process innovations in production engineering.
CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 4(2), 127–128.
 Total Quality Management 1715

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

OECD-EUROSTAT. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). The
measurement of scientific and technological activities. Proposed guidelines for collecting
and interpreting technological data. Paris: Oslo Manual.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2005). Oslo Manual.
Palm, K., Lilja, J., & Wiklund, H. (2016). The challenge of integrating innovation and quality man-
agement practice. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 27(1-2), 34–47.
Parra, L., Jimenez-Jimenez, D., & Martínez-Lorente, A. R. (2014, junio, 20–25). Incremental and
radical innovation: An approachment to them through TQM. European operations manage-
ment association conference 2014, Palermo, Italia.
Pekovic, S., & Galia, F. (2009). From quality to innovation: Evidence from two French employer
surveys. Technovation, 29(12), 829–842.
Perdomo-Ortíz, J., González-Benito, J., & Galende, J. (2006). Total quality management as a forerun-
ner of business innovation capability. Technovation, 26, 1170–1185.
Pérez-Aróstegui, M. N., Bustinza-Sánchez, F., & Barrales-Molina, V. (2015). Exploring the relation-
ship between information technology competence and quality management. BRQ Business
Research Quarterly, 18(1), 4–17.
Pérez-Rave, J., & Muñoz-Giraldo, L. (2016). Classroomqual: A scale for measuring the use-of-class-
rooms-for-teaching–learning service quality. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 27, 1063–1090.
Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Journal of Consumer
Research, 21(September), 381–391.
Pinho, J. C. (2008). TQM and performance in small medium enterprises. The mediating effect of cus-
tomer orientation and innovation. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
25(3), 539–558.
Prajogo, D. I., & Hong, S. W. (2008). The effects of TQM on performance in R&D environments: A
perspective from South Korean firms. Technovation, 28, 855–863.
Prajogo, D. I., Mc Dermott, P., & Goh, M. (2008). Impact of value chain activities on quality and
innovation. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 28(7), 615–635.
Prajogo, D. I., & Sohal, A. S. (2003). The relationship between TQM practices, quality performance,
and innovation performance. An empirical examination. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 20(8), 901–918.
Prajogo, D. I., & Sohal, A. S. (2004). The multidimensionality of TQM practices in determining
quality and innovation performance — an empirical examination. Technovation, 24, 443–453.
Prajogo, D. I., & Sohal, A. S. (2006a). The integration of TQM and technology/R&D management in
determining quality and innovation performance. Omega, 34, 296–312.
Prajogo, D. I., & Sohal, A. S. (2006b). The relationship between organization strategy, total quality
management (TQM), and organization performance-the mediating role of TQM. European
Journal of Operational Research, 168, 35–50.
Rafailidis, A., Trivellas, P., & Polychroniu, P. (2017). The mediating role of quality on the relation-
ship between cultural ambidexterity and innovation performance. Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence, 28(10), 1134–1148.
Rönbäck, A., & Ericksson, H. (2012). A case study on quality management and digital innovation.
Relationship and learning aspects. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 4
(4), 408–422.
Ruiz-Moreno, A., Haro-Domínguez, C., Tamayo-Torres, I., & Ortega-Egea, T. (2016). Quality man-
agement and administrative innovation as firms’ capacity to adapt to their environment. Total
Quality Management and Business Excellence, 27(1-2), 48–63.
Sá, P. M. E., & Abrunhosa, A. (2007). The role of TQM practices in technological innovation: The
Portuguese footwear industry case. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 18(1),
57–66.
Sadikoglu, E., & Zehir, C. (2010). Investigating the effects of innovation and employee performance
on the relationship between total quality management practices and firm performance: An
empirical study of Turkish firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 127(1),
13–26.
Salaheldin, S. I. (2009). Critical success factors for TQM implementation and their impact on per-
formance of SMEs. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
58, 215–237.
1716 J.J. Tarí and M. García-Fernández

Santamaría, L. L., Nieto, M. J., & Miles, I. (2012). Service innovation in manufacturing firms:
Evidence from Spain. Technovation, 32, 144–155.
Santos-Vijande, M. L., & Álvarez-González, L. I. (2007). Innovativeness and organizational inno-
vation in total quality oriented firms: The moderating role of market turbulence.
Technovation, 27, 514–532.
Saraph, J. V., Benson, P. G., & Schroeder, R. G. (1989). An instrument for measuring the critical
factors of quality management. Decision Sciences, 20, 810–829.
Sener, S., & Hobikoglu, E. H. (2013). Structural effect of enterprises open-closed innovation models
tendencies in product output process: A study on the enterprises located in the IMES industrial
estate – Turkey example. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99(6), 986–996.
Sila, I. (2007). Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the lens
of organizational theories: An empirical study. Journal of Operations Management, 25,
83–109.
Singh, P. J., & Smith, A. J. R. (2004). Relationship between TQM and innovation: An empirical
study. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 15, 394–401.
Terziovski, M., & Guerrero, J. L. (2014). ISO 9000 quality system certification and its impact on
product and process innovation performance. International Journal of Production
Economics, 158, 197–207.
Tohidi, H., & Jabbari, M. M. (2012). Presenting new product in the process innovation. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 508–518.
Tushman, M., & Nadler, D. (1986). Organizing for innovation. California Management Review, 28
(3), 74–92.
Voon-Hsien, L., & Keng-Boon, L. (2015). Applying the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
criteria: An approach to strengthen organisational memory and process innovation. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26(12), 1373–1386.
Watson, G. H. (2012). A comprehensive approach to quality aims at inclusive growth: Integrating
innovation into the process of management. The Journal for Quality Participation, 35(2),
35–38.
Xiaosong, D., Schrodeder, R. G., & Shah, R. (2008). Linking routines to operations capabilities: A
new perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 26, 730–748.
Xiong, B., He, Z., Ke, B., & Zhang, M. (2016). Development and validation of a measurement instru-
ment for assessing quality management practices in hospitals: An exploratory study. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, 27, 465–478.
Zeng, J., Ahang, W., Matsui, Y., & Zhao, X. (2017). The impact of organizational context on hard and
soft quality management and innovation performance. International Journal of Production
Economics, 185, 240–251.
 Total Quality Management 1717

Appendix.

Product innovation
Incremental product innovation (Xiaosong, Schrodeder, & Shah, 2008; Kim et al., 2012;
Moreno-Luzón et al., 2013)
1 Our new products differ slightly from those already in existence
2 Incremental product innovations are introduced more often than by our competitors
3 The percentage of incremental product innovations is higher than that of competitors
4 We are recognised by customers because of incremental product innovations
Radical product innovation (Xiaosong et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2012; Moreno-Luzón et al.,
2013)
1 Our new products differ substantially from those already in existence
2 Radical product innovations are introduced more often than by our competitors
3 The percentage of radical product innovations is higher than that of competitors
4 We are recognised by customers because of radical product innovations
Process innovation
Incremental process innovation (Xiaosong et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2012; Moreno-Luzón
et al., 2013)
1 Our organisation introduces minor changes in its machinery and equipment
2 Our organisation introduces minor changes in production processes
3 Minor changes are introduced in information technologies
Radical process innovation (Xiaosong et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2012; Moreno-Luzón et al.,
2013)
1 Our introduction has introduced new machinery and equipment
2 Our organisation has introduced new processes
3 Our organisation uses the latest technological innovations