Total Quality Management

Vol. 17, No. 7, 811 –824, September 2006

A Critical Study of TQM and TPM

Approaches on Business Performance
of Indian Manufacturing Industry

DINESH SETH & DEEPAK TRIPATHI

 
National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai, India; Indian Railways

ABSTRACT Total Quality Management (TQM) and Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) have
gained considerable acceptance in Indian manufacturing industry to take on the challenge of
transition from protected economy to global competition. These two improvement drives are
being adopted and adapted for raising performance standards of Indian companies to world class
level. TQM and TPM are considered complementary to each other and thereby being
implemented simultaneously by many companies to achieve synergy. This paper aims to provide
empirical evidences on the comparative contributions of two drives to improve business
performance in the context of Indian manufacturing industry. It also tries to establish a
synergetic effect of TQM and TPM, when implemented in tandem. The paper highlights that a
combined application brings out significantly higher improvements than individual drives. The
study is based on data collected through a questionnaire as a research instrument and statistical
analysis using Microsoft EXCEL 2000.

KEY WORDS : TQM, TPM, profitability, performance, manufacturing industry, India

Introduction
The Indian economic reforms, which began in the 1990s, attracted foreign companies
towards its one of the world’s largest markets. This turbulent transition from licence raj
(permit regime) to global competition pressurized Indian manufacturing industry to
improve its competitiveness by upgrading productivity and the quality of products, redu-
cing costs and offering more varieties with improved services (Bhadury & Mandal,
1998; Chandra & Shastri, 1998; Nandi, 1998). In response to this, a large number of
players have already geared up to achieve world class performance through various
business solutions, but the most widely accepted amongst those are TQM and TPM
(Sahay et al., 2000). These two manufacturing centric improvement drives have gained

Correspondence Address: Deepak Tripathi, Director (Quality Assurance), Ministry of Railways, B -3, Railway
Officers Flats, Nirmal Park, Byculla, Mumbai 27, India. Email: dtripathi68@yahoo.com

1478-3363 Print=1478-3371 Online=06=070811–14 # 2006 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080=14783360600595203
812 D. Seth & D. Tripathi

popularity among business captains to take on the challenges of competing in their own
domestic market and also to make India an important manufacturing base, like China,
for the world as a whole.
The rising acceptability of these drives is due to their role in redefining the scope of
two important manufacturing entities, ‘quality’ and ‘maintenance’, to achieve competi-
tive advantage. Since its inception, Indian manufacturing industry has been influenced
by western management practices, which consider ‘quality’ and ‘maintenance’ as
two typical shop floor issues. It was only in the beginning of 1990s that Indian business
captains realized the strategic implications of quality and maintenance to improve
performance. The two erstwhile shop floor entities were brought to the corporate board-
room through Total Quality Management (TQM) and Total Productive Maintenance
(TPM). Now, both have acquired wide acceptance in industry (Bhadury & Mandal,
1998).
TQM is defined as an ‘. . . approach to improving effectiveness and flexibility of
business as a whole. It is a way of organizing and involving the whole organization,
every department and every individual’ (Oakland, 1988). Similarly TPM, as defined by
Nakajima (1988), is ‘. . . plant improvement methodology, which enables continuous
and rapid improvement of manufacturing processes through use of employee involvement,
employee empowerment and closed loop measurement of results’. Both are considered as
comprehensive management strategies, which are built on a common foundation of con-
tinuous improvement and organization-wide involvement, but with different focus areas,
i.e. quality and maintenance respectively.
The advocates of both TQM and TPM claim the effectiveness of their respective drives
in improving business performance (Yamashima, 2000; Hendricks & Singhal, 2001),
which is also endorsed by some authors in the Indian context (Chandra & Krishna,
1998; Nandi, 1998). However, the need for empirical studies to establish the evidence
of effectiveness of these two drives for improving business performance has also
been expressed by experts (Mohanti & Lakhe, 2000). Similarly, a comparative assessment
of impact of both improvement drives in the Indian context is considered equally
important.
In the Indian manufacturing set-up, the implementation of these improvement drives is
seen both individually as well as in combination to achieve synergy. In this context, three
possible modes of implementation are studied. These are TQM alone, TPM alone and
combined approach (TQM and TPM together). These three modes are termed as
‘approaches’ in this paper. This paper aims to make a comparative assessment of the effec-
tiveness of TQM and TPM and to establish their synergetic effects, considering two key
aspects of profitability and operating performance.

Literature Review
Relationship between TQM and TPM
The relationship between TQM and TPM has been addressed in the literature from various
perspectives. The two improvement drives are considered to work with the common objec-
tive of improving business performance (Yamashima, 2000; Hendrick & Singhal, 2001).
The TPM, a comprehensive improvement drive, is considered to have originated from
TQM’s concept of zero production defects applied to equipment (Tajiri & Gotoh,
 A Critical Study of TQM and TPM Approaches 813

1992). As both quality and maintenance go hand in hand in a manufacturing set-up, TPM
shares many threads of commonality with TQM, such as employee involvement, cross-
functional approach, organization wide diffusion and continuous improvement (Cooke,
2000). Therefore, TPM has been considered complementary to TQM (Dale, 1999). It
addresses the vital area of equipment management, which is a major determinant of
process performance in today’s manufacturing companies (Yamashima, 2000). It is
argued that TQM has only limited influence on machine performance, which is effectively
taken care of by TPM (McKone et al., 1999).
Further, TPM itself has evolved as a comprehensive management drive like TQM, by
expanding its scope to other functional areas under ‘office TPM’ (Suzuki, 1994) and
from preventive maintenance to holistic approach for improvement (Yamashima, 2000).
This makes TPM an equally effective improvement drive as TQM.
These research studies support implementation of TPM individually as well as in
tandem with TQM. The simultaneous implementation of the two drives, to achieve
higher gains, has also been endorsed by researchers (McKone et al., 1999). This is also
seen to be in practice both in the global (Patterson et al., 1996) and Indian contexts
(Mathew et al., 2002).

Relationship of TQM and TPM with Business Performance

There is abundant literature on the relationships between TQM, TPM and business per-
formance from different perspectives, including their role in improving the competitive
positions of nations and economic zones (Powell, 1995). Various researches have
focused on these linkages (Steinbatcher & Steinbatcher, 1993; Reed et al., 1996), which
primarily address two important aspects, i.e. profitability and operating performance.
The relationship between TQM and business performance has been advocated by many
researchers (Ross, 1995; Dale & Plunket, 1995; Adam et al., 1997; Chen & Paetsh,
1997; Samson & Terziovski, 1999; Sun, 2000). For example, Dale & Plunket (1995)
concluded that quality is key to improved profitability and a proper quality system can
contribute to generating enormous profits for the company. This also has a direct
bearing on other parameters like cost, delivery, safety, and employee morale. A Study
by the Strategic Planning Institute of Cambridge, MA also established the relationship
between quality, profitability and market share (Ross, 1995). It revealed that quality
drives market share and leads to profitability. Mohanty & Lakhe (2000) also identified
increased market and profitability as the major tangible benefits along with reduction in
cost, improvement in quality and productivity and reduced employee grievances. Soin
(1993) provided a model to explain the linkage between quality, profitability and
market share. According to him, TQM improves the business performance both internally
and externally. Internally, improvement in quality results in higher productivity, which
enables the organization to lower prices, if it wishes to compete on prices. Externally,
higher quality improves customer satisfaction, increases customer loyalty and this
results in increased market share and higher profits. Kano (1993) explained the effective-
ness of TQM in improving profitability by comparing the performance of Deming prize-
winning companies with other companies. Logothetis (1997) also emphasized that TQM
results in improved quality, productivity and value addition, reduced manpower and cost
of production and improved delivery. It also leads to improvement in employee morale
and safety.
814 D. Seth & D. Tripathi

Like TQM, TPM also aims at continuous and long-term improvement in performance
and therefore it also results in improving financial performance and profitability of organi-
zations. According to Steinbatcher & Steinbatcher (1993), the benefits of various com-
ponents of TPM make this comprehensive strategy an extremely powerful management
tool to reduce life cycle costs of equipment and facilities. Such reductions can provide
greatest returns on investment. In addition, these can also boost sales or market share.
Nakajima (1988) considered it as ‘profitable TPM’. He mentioned that decreasing the
cost of maintenance would result in an automatic improvement in profits. Maggard &
Rhyne (1992) established the profitability aspects of TPM through real life cases. In his
findings, Yamashima (2000) concluded that TPM could be a major source of profitability
for manufacturing organizations through effective management of equipment, machines
and support services.
TPM has also been very successful in terms of improving operating performance of
companies. TPM claims to have positive impact on productivity, quality, delivery,
safety and hygiene and employee morale (Nakajima, 1988). According to him, increased
automation has made equipment the major determinant of all process output parameters,
such as cost, quality and delivery. As TPM works on the dual objectives of zero
breakdown and zero defects, this results in improved productivity and quality, reduced
inventory and delivery cycle time, and improved safety and employee morale.
Table 1 exhibits the relationship of TQM and TPM with parameters of performance,
along with the literature supporting it.

The Research Framework

The performance parameters in relation to TQM and TPM have been identified from a
literature review. The parameters of profitability considered for study are market share
(F1), return on investment (F2) and profit margin (F3). The parameters of operating
performance are productivity (P), quality (Q), cost (C), delivery (D), safety and hygiene
(S) and employee morale (M). The details of performance parameters as used in the
questionnaire are given in Appendix A.
As both TQM and TPM are continuous improvement drives and evolutionary in
nature, their effectiveness may change with time and experience. Therefore, in order
to assess both short term and long term effectiveness, three time periods or phases
have been selected. Although the literature does not provide much theoretical or
empirical guidance on time periods for examining the performance of such drives,
the selection is based on those used in earlier studies (Dawson & Patrickson, 1991;
Ahire, 1996).

Period of Transition (up to 3 years of implementation)

This is a period during which initial investment and efforts are made to overcome initial
resistance and to orient organization as per requirements of the approaches (Ahire & Rana,
1995). Similarly, the situation may require developing new performance indicators and
various data capturing, measuring and analyzing tools and concepts. In this phase, the
organization experiences changes in work culture, work practices, policies etc. This
period normally goes for three years since the beginning of implementation (Ahire,
1996). The period of transition is coded as Phase A.
 A Critical Study of TQM and TPM Approaches 815

Table 1. Literature on relationships between TQM, TPM and parameters of business performance

Parameters of business
performance Literature on TQM Literature on TPM

Profitability Soin (1993); Ross (1995); Maggard & Rhyne (1992);

Logothetis (1997); Mohanty
& Lakhe (2000)
Productivity [P] Logothetis (1997); Zink
(1998); Lee (2000); Mohanty
& Lakhe (2000)
Cost [C] Juran & Gryna (1980);
Logothetis (1997); Zink
(1998); Lee (2000)
Quality [Q] Juran & Gryna (1980); Shingo
(1986); Feigenbaum (1994);
Logothetis (1997); Zink
(1998)
Delivery [D] Logothetis (1997); Zink
(1998); Lee (2000)
Safety and hygiene [S] Garvin (1988); Feigenbaum
(1994)
Employee morale [M] Ahire (1996); Logothetis
(1997)
Steinbatcher & Steinbatcher
(1993); Patterson et al.
(1996); Yamashima (2000)
Nakajima (1988);
Takahashi & Osada (1989);
Steinbatcher & Steinbatcher
(1993); Patterson et al.
(1996)
Nakajima (1988);
Takahashi & Osada (1989);
Steinbatcher & Steinbatcher
(1993); Patterson et al.
(1996)
Nakajima (1988);
Takahashi & Osada (1989);
Steinbatcher & Steinbatcher
(1993); Yamashima (2000)
Nakajima (1988);
Takahashi & Osada (1989);
Steinbatcher & Steinbatcher
(1993); Patterson et al.
(1996)
Nakajima (1988);
Takahashi & Osada (1989);
Steinbatcher & Steinbatcher
(1993)
Nakajima (1988);
Takahashi & Osada (1989);
Steinbatcher & Steinbatcher
(1993); Yamashima (2000)

Period of Stability (3 to 5 years of implementation)

This is the period during which the improvement drives get stabilized and the organization
starts realizing the benefits of TQM and TPM. The period of stability is coded as Phase B.

Period of Maturity (more than 5 years of implementation)

Over a long period, the benefits accrued by these improvement drives give a strategic and
competitive edge in terms of cost, delivery, flexibility and customer satisfaction in com-
parison to competitors. This phase represents long term experiences with these two
improvement drives in terms of strategic leverage over other companies. The period of
maturity is coded as Phase C.
The study considers three approaches, i.e. TQM alone, TPM alone and a Combined
approach (TQM and TPM together) to assess the effectiveness of two drives as well as
their synergetic effects.
816 D. Seth & D. Tripathi

Research Objectives and Hypotheses

This paper focuses on following specific aspects.

(1) To make a comparative assessment of the effectiveness of TQM and TPM on business
performance of Indian manufacturing companies over three time periods or phases.
(2) To assess the synergetic effects of TQM and TPM, when these are implemented in
tandem.

The effectiveness is measured on three parameters of profitability and six parameters of

operating performance as described earlier. The following hypotheses have been formu-
lated for the study.

Hypotheses Related to Improvement in Profitability

(a) It is proposed that both TQM and TPM have same level of effects on profitability of
the organizations. The formulated hypothesis is
H 1a: The contributions of TQM and TPM in improving profitability of organiz-
ations in terms of market share (F1), ROI (F2) and profit margin (F3) are
the same in magnitude.
(b) The effect of a combined approach on profitability is proposed to be more than TQM
and TPM alone. The following hypothesis is formulated to test this proposition
H 1b: The contribution of the combined approach in improving profitability is more
than both TQM and TPM alone.

Hypotheses Related to Improvement in Operating Performance

(a) It is proposed that TQM and TPM have same level of effects on parameters of oper-
ating performance. The following hypothesis is formulated to test this proposition.
H 2a: The contributions of TQM and TPM in improving parameters of operating
performance (i.e. P, Q, C, D, S, M) the same in magnitude.
(b) The combined approach is proposed to have a higher contribution in improving
parameters of operating performance. The following hypothesis is formulated to
test this proposition.
H 2b: The contribution of the combined approach in improving the parameters of
operating performance is more than TQM and TPM alone

The improvements in performance parameters are measured on a five-point scale. The

points 1 to 5 in the scale indicate

1 – no improvement at all; 2 – improvement less than 5%; 3 – improvement of 5 to

20%; 4 – improvement of 21% to 100% and 5 – improvement of more than 100%.

Sampling Design and Response Profile

The research is based on empirical data collected through a questionnaire from Indian
companies that have implemented TQM and TPM. The three major sectors of the
 A Critical Study of TQM and TPM Approaches 817

Table 2. Distribution of responding companies according to sector of industry,

improvement approach and geographical area (percentage figures)

Sector of industry Improvement approach Geographical area

Automobile 30% TQM alone 51% East 3%

Engineering 38% TPM alone 23% North 26%
Process 32% Combined 26% South 20%
West 51%

manufacturing industry, i.e. automobile, engineering and process, have been considered
in the domain of study with companies from both public and private sectors. A list of
460 companies was prepared with the help of information collected from leading indus-
try chambers such as the Confederation of Indian industry (CII), Federation of Indian
Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and Indian Merchant Chambers (IMC)
and TPM Club of India. These business chambers follow models based on leading
award criteria for monitoring the implementation of TQM and TPM in their member
companies. Therefore, the responding companies are expected to follow one or more
of these models. In order to make an objective assessment, the questionnaire was
addressed to a senior management level executive in each of 460 selected companies,
who had been involved in TQM and TPM implementation.
The questionnaire clearly asked the respondent to indicate the type of TQM and TPM
based improvement approach, i.e. TQM alone, TPM alone, and a combined approach
adopted by the company. It also required the respondents to rate the improvements contributed
by the selected approach over the period of implementation. This was necessary to filter the
effect of other improvement initiatives. The questionnaire included a five-point scale with a
range of improvements to facilitate ease of response.
The efforts resulted in getting responses from 143 companies. Out of these, 73 have
implemented TQM, 32 have implemented TPM and 38 have implemented both TQM
and TPM. Table 2 shows the distribution of responses on the basis of type of industry,
approach adopted and the geographical area. The lower response in the TPM category is
probably due to the fact that this drive is relatively new in the Indian context. Similarly,
the uneven geographical distribution is also owing to fact that the industrial growth has
been higher in the western part of the country compared to other regions. The situation is
similar to China, where industry concentration is greater in the eastern region, with states
like Shanghai.

Analysis of Data and Tests of Hypotheses

The improvement in parameters of profitability and operating performance contributed by
each approach is determined by calculating means and standard deviations. These values
of means and standard deviations are calculated for each phase by using Microsoft Excel-
2000. The comparative assessment is carried out with two-tailed t tests and single factor
ANOVA techniques. The use of these tests depended on the availability of data for each
phase. As indicated in Table 3, there is only one observation each for a combined approach
in phase A and TPM in phase C. Therefore, these two observations have not been con-
sidered for analysis purposes.
818 D. Seth & D. Tripathi

Table 3. Statistical tools used for comparing the effectiveness of TQM, TPM and
combined approach

Number of Comparative analysis

Phase responses between approaches Statistical tools used

Phase A (less than 3 TQM – 21 TQM and TPM Two-tailed t test with
years of experience) TPM – 13 5% significance
Combined – 1 level
Phase B (3 to 5 years of TQM – 32 TQM, TPM and Single factor ANOVA
experience) TPM – 18 combined approach and two tailed t tests
Combined – 19 with 5% significance
level
Phase C (more than 5 TQM – 20 TQM and Two tailed t tests with
years of experience) TPM – 1 combined approach 5% significance
Combined – 18 level

Results of Analysis for the Transition Phase

The data in Table 4 indicate that the mean values for F1, F2 and F3 are between 1.0 and 2.0
in phase A. This implies that the contributions of both TQM and TPM have been margin-
ally low in this phase in improving profitability. The results of t tests indicate that the
differences on mean values for F1, F2 and F3 are not significant at p ¼ 0.05. The t
values obtained for F1, F2 and F3 are 20.46, 20.49 and 20.37 respectively, whereas
critical t value at p ¼ 0.05 is 2.074. This proves hypothesis H1a and the proposition
that contributions of TQM and TPM in improving parameters of profitability are the
same in the transition phase.
The t values obtained for the parameters of the operating performance are t ¼ 20.73 for
productivity, t ¼ 0.10 for quality, t ¼ 0.50 for cost, t ¼ 0.51 for delivery, t ¼ 20.87 for
safety and hygiene and t ¼ 20.16 for employee morale. These values imply that the differ-
ences in mean values are not significant at p ¼ 0.05. Therefore, the hypothesis H2a is also
proved for all the parameters of operating performances in the transition phase. This

Table 4. Results of two-tailed t tests for parameters of performance in transition phase

TQM (n ¼ 21) TPM (n ¼ 13) t values

Performance Standard Standard t crit

parameters Mean deviation Mean deviation ( p ¼ 0.05) ¼ 2.07

F1 [Market share] 1.54 0.68 1.83 0.75 20.46

F2 [ROI] 1.77 0.78 2.00 0.63 20.49
F3 [Net profit] 1.69 0.75 2.00 0.63 20.37
P [Productivity] 2.33 0.73 2.56 0.76 20.73
Q [Quality] 2.78 0.55 2.74 0.70 0.10
C [Cost] 2.46 0.64 2.31 0.74 0.50
D [Delivery] 2.56 0.70 2.37 0.91 0.51
S [Safety and hygiene] 2.63 0.99 3.06 0.95 20.87
M [Employee morale] 3.30 0.52 3.33 0.43 20.16
 A Critical Study of TQM and TPM Approaches 819

validates the proposition that TQM and TPM have same level of impact on operating
performance parameters.

Results of Analysis for the Stability Phase

The mean and standard deviation values of F1, F2 and F3, as given in Table 5 for TQM and
TPM, are between 2.5 and 3.0. This indicates that both TQM and TPM have been able to
contribute towards improvement in all the parameters of profitability in a span of 3 to 5
years. The corresponding figures for organizations, which have adopted the combined
approach, are more than 3.0 for all three parameters. In order to understand the signifi-
cance of the difference in the improvement contributed by the three approaches, single-
factor ANOVA tests have been carried out. The results of ANOVA tests are shown in
Table 5. The F values obtained are more than the critical F values at p ¼ 0.05 for all
three parameters. Therefore, it can be concluded that the differences in mean values of
F1, F2 and F3 for the three approaches are significant. The significance of difference
between mean values of individual approaches is analyzed with two-tailed t tests
between each pair, i.e. combined and TQM, combined and TPM and TQM and TPM.
The t values, as shown in Table 5, indicate that the contribution of the combined approach
in improving the parameters of profitability is significantly higher than TQM and TPM.
This proves hypotheses H1b and the proposition that the contribution of the combined
approach in improving the parameters of profitability is more than that of TQM and
TPM alone. The results also imply that the effects of TQM and TPM on the parameters
of profitability are also the same in the stability phase.
The results of ANOVA tests for parameters of operating performance indicate that the F
values for productivity, quality, cost and delivery are higher than the critical F value at
p ¼ 0.05. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in improve-
ments in these parameters contributed by three approaches. Individual t test values, as
given in Table 5, establish that mean values for the combined approach on these parameters
are significantly higher than TQM and TPM alone, but there is no significant difference in
mean values for TQM and TPM. However, F values for safety and hygiene and employee
morale indicate that the differences in mean values for these parameters are not significant.
Therefore, hypothesis H2a is proved to show that TQM and TPM have the same contribution
in improving parameters of operating performance. Hypothesis H2b is also proved for pro-
ductivity, quality, cost and delivery parameters to explain a significantly higher contribution
of the combined approach than individual drives. However, the hypothesis H2b could not be
proved for safety and hygiene and employee morale.

Results of Analysis for Maturity Phase

The analysis for improvement in the parameters of profitability in the maturity phase could
be carried out only for TQM and the combined approach, due to lack of sufficient data for
TPM. The mean values of the three variables for the combined approach are higher than
TQM. However, the results of t tests show that the differences between means are not sig-
nificant at p ¼ 0.05. The t values are given in Table 6. The results imply that hypothesis
H1b for improvement in F1, F2 and F3 is not proved for the maturity phase. However,
more reliable results could have been obtained with larger sample sizes, but this was
not possible even after exhausting almost all sources, owing to the limited number of
 820
D. Seth & D. Tripathi
Table 5. Results of single factor ANOVA and t tests for performance parameters in stability phase

t test values

TQM TPM Combined ANOVA test TQM Combined Combined

(n ¼ 32) (n ¼ 18) (n ¼ 19) values and TPM and TQM and TPM

F value t value t value t value

Fcrit ftcrit ftcrit ftcrit
Performance Standard Standard Standard ( p ¼ 0.05) p ( p ¼ 0.05) ( p ¼ 0.05) ( p ¼ 0.05)
parameters Mean deviation Mean deviation Mean deviation ¼ 3.25 value ¼ 2.01g ¼ 2.01g ¼ 2.03g

F1 [Market share] 2.56 0.98 2.16 0.99 3.18 0.60 3.83 0.03 0.51 2.19 2.98
F2 [ROI] 2.52 0.70 2.58 0.73 3.27 0.64 4.44 0.01 2 0.41 2.38 2.21
F3 [Net profit] 2.58 0.87 2.66 0.79 3.27 0.64 3.76 0.04 2 0.21 2.26 2.19
P [Productivity] 3.09 0.71 3.52 0.80 3.69 0.61 3.29 0.04 2 1.63 2.82 2.17
Q [Quality] 3.76 0.89 3.61 0.77 4.24 0.55 4.65 0.03 2 0.51 2.09 2.63
C [Cost] 2.82 0.74 2.98 0.61 3.40 0.33 6.52 0.02 2 0.58 2.41 2.26
D [Delivery] 3.27 0.84 3.47 0.80 3.64 0.54 6.04 0.02 2 0.63 2.10 2.17
S [Safety 3.65 0.94 4.08 0.81 3.82 0.79 0.95 0.39 2 1.04 1.85 2.078
and hygiene]
M [Employee 4.02 0.60 4.08 0.61 4.17 0.86 0.19 0.82 2 0.48 1.24 1.76
morale]

t value obtained . t critical at p ¼ 0.05
 A Critical Study of TQM and TPM Approaches 821

companies adopting a combined approach. The mean values, otherwise, provide an indi-
cation of the combined approach being more effective even in the maturity phase.
However, t values obtained for parameters of operating performance, as shown in
Table 6, imply that the differences between mean values for TQM and the combined
approach are significant for productivity, quality, cost and delivery parameters. Therefore,
hypothesis H2b is proved to be true for these parameters in the maturity phase. The hypoth-
esis H2b again could not be proved for safety and hygiene and employee morale.

Interpretation and Conclusion

The results provide evidences of effectiveness of TQM and TPM in improving business
performance of Indian manufacturing industry, both in terms of profitability and oper-
ational parameters. This is indicated both in the case when these are used individually
as well as simultaneously as a combined approach.
The mean values for parameters of profitability and operating performance show obvious
signs of improvement right from the beginning of implementation, although these have been
very marginal in the transition phase. This is due to the reason that companies in India, both
professionally managed and family-owned business houses, still epitomize the bureaucratic
and top down management style. On the other hand, changing the environment to suit TQM
and TPM is far more challenging in public sector undertakings, where apart from normal
business constraints, managers deal with stiffer government control, large and unwieldy
operations, wary unions and bleeding bottom lines. The status conscious and hierarchy-
bound middle level executives lacking initiatives are also a bottleneck to improvement
initiatives. Both TQM and TPM are process oriented and understanding process require-
ments takes time, especially in the Indian context, where people are mostly conditioned
to work with function centric methodologies. This is because traditional Indian industrial
establishments follow technological and mechanistic imperatives with work breakdowns,
individualized responsibilities and neglect of the process approach.

Table 6. Results of two tailed t tests for parameters of performance in maturity phase

Combined approach
TQM (n ¼ 20) (n ¼ 18) t values

Performance Standard Standard t crit

parameters Mean deviation Mean deviation ( p ¼ 0.05) ¼ 2.15

F1 [Market share] 3.05 0.89 3.50 0.77 21.30

F2 [ROI] 3.12 0.88 3.25 0.86 20.40
F3 [Net profit] 3.28 0.82 3.50 0.89 20.70
P [Productivity] 3.41 0.75 3.76 0.46 22.40
Q [Quality] 4.10 0.74 4.17 0.55 23.00
C [Cost] 3.01 0.75 3.38 0.56 22.50
D [Delivery] 3.61 0.90 3.82 0.55 22.71
S [Safety and hygiene] 3.57 0.33 4.07 0.65 21.40
M [Employee morale] 4.02 0.78 3.96 0.86 0.22

t value obtained . t critical at p ¼ 0.05
822 D. Seth & D. Tripathi

The improvement in stability and the maturity phase has been considerable in justify-
ing the effectiveness of both TQM and TPM in improving business performance. The
comparative assessment of effectiveness of TQM and TPM indicates that both drives
have been able to bring about the same levels of improvements. This may be because
both drives attack inefficiencies, non-value adding activities, and various types of
wastes and defects. Both work on the philosophy of continuous improvement and
cover the entire gamut of business involving all employees from top to bottom.
Although the core focus of TQM is on quality and that of TPM is on equipment or
physical assets, in today’s manufacturing environment of increased automation
and equipment-reliant processes, equipment is the major determinant of quality
performance.
While analyzing the responses, it is observed that in the combined approach TQM is
followed by TPM in most companies, with a time gap of one to two years. However, the
results of TPM implementation are expected to come much faster in the already existing
TQM set-up. The effects of the combined approach have been studied for stability and
the maturity phase. The results verify the synergetic effects of TQM and TPM. This is
especially true in the Indian context, where infrastructure is relatively inferior and the
maintenance function is not given strategic importance. In such a scenario, TPM pro-
vides a more pro-active approach to maintenance to support TQM efforts. However,
the higher effects of a combined approach could not be proved for safety and hygiene
and employee morale. This may be because these aspects are sufficiently addressed in
both TQM and TPM and there is not much difference in the way these issues are
viewed in the Indian context.
This research has addressed two important improvement initiatives, which are funda-
mentally concerned with creating high performing production systems in the Indian
context. The study reveals that both TQM and TPM aim for long-term improvements
in performance and, therefore, practitioners should not judge the effectiveness of these
drives merely by looking at short-term results. It has also provided enough evidence
to indicate the synergetic effects of TQM and TPM, which are equally important to
global practitioners who strive for simultaneous implementation of the two drives.
However, the combined application can be further researched, in both Indian and
global contexts, taking into account various interfacial issues. The outcome of such
studies will definitely be valuable to practitioners, who want to focus attention on
manufacturing centric improvement drives.

Appendix A. The Details of the Performance Parameters Used for the Study
(a) Improvements in Parameters of Profitability
1. Increase in customer base in terms of market share.
2. Increase in profitability in terms of return on investment (ROI).
3. Increase in profitability in terms of net profit
(b) Improvements in Parameters of Operating Performance
Productivity (P)
1. Improvement in labor productivity
2. Improvement in value added per employee
3. Improvement in production capacity
 A Critical Study of TQM and TPM Approaches 823

Quality (Q)
4. Reduction in defects during process
5. Reduction in defects in final product
6. Reduction in claims from customer

Cost (C)
7. Reduction in cost of production
8. Reduction in cost of manpower
9. Reduction in total cost of supply chain (supplier to customer)

Delivery (D)
10. Reduction in total cycle time (from order to delivery)
11. Improvement in inventory turnover (reduction in inventory)
12. Improvement in meeting delivery schedules in time

Safety and hygiene (S)

13. Reduction in accidents and safety failures
14. Improvement in level of pollution and hygiene conditions

Employee morale (M)

16. Improvement in improvement ideas and employee suggestions
17. Increase in small group meetings and employee involvement

References
Adam, E. E. Jr. et al. (1997) An international study of quality improvement approach and firm performance, Inter-
national Journal of Operations & Production Management, 17(9), pp. 842– 873.
Ahire, S. L. (1996) TQM age versus quality: an empirical investigation, Production and Inventory Management
Journal, 1st Qtr., pp. 18– 23.
Ahire, S. L. & Rana, D. S. (1995) TQM pilot projects selection using an MCDM approach, International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management, 12(1), pp. 61–81.
Bhadury, B. & Mandal, P. (1998) Adoption of quality management concepts amongst Indian manufacturers,
Productivity, 39(3), pp. 443– 451.
Chandra, S. & Krishna, M. G. (1998) TPM Implementation in Indian Industry, Indian Management, 37(3).
Chandra, P. & Shastri, T. (1998) Competitiveness of Indian manufacturing: findings of the 1997 manufacturing
futures survey, Vikalpa, 23(3), pp. 25–36.
Chen, I. J. & Paetsh, K. A. (1997) Quality manager involvement and quality performance, International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, 17(4), pp. 399 –412.
Cooke, F. L. (2000) Implementing TPM in plant maintenance: some organizational barriers, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17(9), pp. 1003–1016.
Dale, B. G. (1999) Managing Quality (Boston, MA: Blackwell).
Dale, B. G. & Plunket, J. J. (1995) Quality Costing (London: Chapman and Hall).
Dawson, P. & Patrickson, M. (1991) Total quality management in Australian banking industry, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 8(5), pp. 66–76.
Feigenbaum, A. V. (1994) Quality education and America’s competitiveness, Quality Progress, 27(9), pp. 83–
84.
Garvin, D. A. (1988) Managing Quality (New York: The Free Press, Macmillan).
Hendricks, K. B. & Singhal, V. R. (2001) Firm characteristics, total quality management and financial
performance, Journal of Operations Management, 19, pp. 269–285.
824 D. Seth & D. Tripathi

Juran, J. F. & Gryna, F. M. (1980) Quality Planning and Analysis: from Product Development through Use
(New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill).
Kano, N. (1993) A perspective on quality activities in American firms, California Management Review, Spring,
pp. 12 –31.
Lee, C. Y. (2000) Quality management and manufacturing strategies in China, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 17(8), pp. 876 –898.
Logothetis, N. (1997) Managing for Total Quality: From Deming to Taguchi and SPC (UK: Prentice Hall
International).
Maggard, B. N. & Rhyne, D. M. (1992) Total productive maintenance: a timely integration of production and
maintenance: case of Tennessee Eastman, Production & Inventory Management Journal, 33(4).
Mathew, T. et al. (2002) Performance improvement through transfusion of TQM and TPM in Indian manufactur-
ing industry, Industrial Engineering Journal, 31(7), pp. 4–10.
McKone, K. E. et al. (1999) Total productive maintenance: a contextual view, Journal of Operations Manage-
ment, 17, pp. 123– 124.
Mohanty, R. P. & Lakhe, R. R. (2000) Handbook of Total Quality Management (Mumbai: Jaico Publishing
House).
Nakajima, S. (1988) Total Productive Maintenance (Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press).
Nandi, S. N. (1998) Contribution in implementing quality management in Asian and Pacific firms, Asian
Productivity Organisation, Tokyo, pp. 148–183.
Oakland, J. S. (1988) Total Quality Management (UK: Heinemann Professional Publishing).
Patterson, J. W. et al. (1996) Adapting total productive maintenance to Asten, Inc, Production & Inventory Man-
agement Journal, 4th Qtr., pp. 32 –36.
Powell, T. C. (1995) Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study, Strategic
Management Journal, 16, pp. 15–37.
Reed, R. et al. (1996) Beyond process: TQM content and firm performance, Academy of Management Review,
21(1), pp. 173 –202.
Ross, J. E. (1995) Encyclopedia of Total Quality Management – Text, Cases and Readings (New Delhi: St Lucie
Press).
Sahay, B. S. et al. (2000) World Class Manufacturing – A Strategic Perspective (New Delhi: Macmillan India).
Samson, D. & Terziovsky, M. (1999) The relationship between total quality management practices and
operational performance, Journal of Operations Management, 17(4), pp. 393 –409.
Shingo, S. (1986) Zero Quality Control- Source Inspection and Poka Yoke Systems (Stanford, CA: Productivity
Press).
Soin, S. S. (1993) Total Quality Control Essentials: Key Elements, Methodologies and Managing for Success
(McGraw Hill International, Industrial Engineering Series).
Steinbatcher, H. R. & Steinbatcher, N. L. (1993) TPM for America, What It Is and Why You Need It (Portland,
OR: Productivity Press).
Sun, H. (2000) Total quality management, ISO 9000 certification and performance improvement, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17(2), pp. 168–179.
Suzuki, T. (1994) TPM in Process Industries (MA: Productivity Press).
Tajiri, M. & Gotoh, F. (1992) TPM Implementation: A Japanese Approach (New York: McGraw Hill).
Takahashi, Y. & Osada, T. (1989) TPM: Total Productive Maintenance (MA: Productivity Press).
Yamashima, H. (2000) Challenge to World Class Manufacturing, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 17(2), pp. 132–143.
Zink, K. J. (1998) Total Quality Management as Holistic Management Concept (Berlin: Springer).