The relationship between TQM and project performance: Empirical evidence from Malaysian construction industry

Figures & data

Table 1. Studies of TQM and elements of performance (2010 onwards)

Author	Elements of performance	Analysis procedure	TQM framework adopted	Sample Size	Region	Industry specific
T. H. Kuo and Kuo (2010)	Project performance	Structural equation modelling	TQM	N = 371	Taiwan	Construction
Ali and Rahmat (2010)	Project performance	Mean	TQM	N = 30	Malaysia	Construction
Bakar et al. (2011)	Quality performance	Chi square	TQM	N = 67	Oman	Construction
Din, Abd-Hamid, and Bryde (2011)	Project management practices Financial management practices Project success	MANOVA	ISO 9000	N = 336	Malaysia	Construction
Agus (2011)	Product performance & customer-related performance	Pearson’s correlation & Structural equation modelling	TQM	Not mentioned	Malaysia	Manufacturing
Teh, Tritos, and Dotun (2012)	Technology management	Structural equation modelling	TQM	N = 115	ASEAN (Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam)	Automotive manufacturing
Harrington et al. (2012)	In general	Not mentioned	TQM	Not mentioned	USA	Construction
Talib et al. (2013)	Quality performance	Pearson’s correlation & Multiple regression	TQM	N = 172	India	Service
Irfan and Kee (2013)	Service quality	Structural equation modelling	TQM	N-255	Pakistan	Service
Ooi et al. (2013)	Innovation performance	Multiple regression	MBNQA	N = 206	Malaysia	Manufacturing
Altayeb and Alhasanat (2014)	Project success	Factor and Pareto analysis	TQM	N = 98	Palestine	Construction
Mir and Pinnington (2014)	Project success	Bi-variate correlation & Multiple Regression	PMPA	N = 154	United Arab Emirates	Construction
Sadikoglu and Olcay (2014)	Firm performance	Multiple regression	TQM	N = 242	Turkey	Not mentioned
Leong et al. (2014)	Project performance	Correlation & regression analysis	TQM	N = 1030	Malaysia	Construction
Banna, Ahmad, and Koh (2018)	Bank loan quality	FAMA-MacBeth regression	TQM	N = 581	United State	Bank
Shafiq, Lasrado, and Hafeez (2017)	Organizational performance	Structural equation modelling	EFQM	N = 210	Pakistan	Textile
Mehralian, Nazari, Nooriparto, and Rasekh (2017)	Organizational performance	Structural equation modelling	TQM	N = 933	Iran	Pharmaceutical

Table 2. TQM practices and elements of performance adopted

Author	TQM adopted		Dimensions of performance
T. H. Kuo and Kuo (2010)	Leadership ability Human research management Process management	Continuous quality improvement & information Cooperation firms’ management	Project performance Technology innovation Successful ratio Product quality	Cost/benefit analysis Process improvement
Ali and Rahmat (2010)	ISO 9000 certification		Project performance Cost performance Time performance Quality performance	Client’s satisfaction Health and safety Functionality
Din et al. (2011)	ISO 9000 certification		Project management practices Financial management practices	Project success
Agus (2011)	Supplier relations Benchmarking	Quality measurement Continuous process improvement	Product performance Customer-related performance
Teh et al. (2012)	Hard TQM elements Customer focus Information & analysis	Process management	Technology management
Talib et al. (2013)	Top management commitment Customer focus Training and education Continuous improvement and innovation Supplier management Employee involvement Information & analysis Process management	Quality system Benchmarking Quality culture Human resource management Strategic planning Employee encouragement Teamwork Communication Product & service design	Quality performance Product quality Service quality Process quality Employee service quality	Employee satisfaction Customer satisfaction Supplier performance
Irfan and Kee (2013)	Top management commitment & visionary leadership Customer focused Information, analysis & system	Service culture Human resource management Social responsibility	Service quality Customer satisfaction Employee satisfaction
Ooi, Lin, Teh, and Chong (2012)	Leadership Strategic planning Customer focus	Information analysis People management Process management	Innovation performance
Mir and Pinnington (2014)	PM leadership PM staff PM policy & strategy	PM partnership & resources PM KPI’s	Project success Project efficiency Impact on customer	Impact on the team Business success Preparing for the future
Sadikoglu and Olcay (2014)	Leadership Knowledge and process management Training	Supplier quality management Customer focus Strategic quality planning	Firm performance Operational performance Inventory management performance Employee performance	Innovation performance Social responsibility Customer results Market and financial performance
Leong et al. (2014)	ISO 9000 certification		Project performance Cost performance Time performance Time performance	Quality performance Safety and health Clients’ satisfaction
Banna et al. (2018)	Bank efficiency Income-to-cost ratio		Bank loan quality Non-performing loans
Shafiq et al. (2017)	EFQM Leadership Strategy	Partnership & resources Process People	Organizational performance Financial results Non-financial results
Mehralian et al. (2017)	Top management commitment Strategic planning process Quality information and usage Employee training	Process design Supplier quality Benchmarking Customer focus	Organizational performance (Balanced Scorecard Approach) Financial perspective Customer perspective	Internal process perspective Learning and growth perspective

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study.

Table 3. Targeted respondents for each state

States	G7 organizations	Percentage	Number of targeted respondents
Johor	450	7.11	129
Kedah	201	3.17	57
Kelantan	142	2.24	41
Labuan	1	0.02	1
Melaka	147	2.32	42
Negeri Sembilan	110	1.74	31
Pahang	145	2.29	41
Perak	189	2.99	54
Perlis	32	0.51	9
Pulau Pinang	410	6.48	117
Sabah	510	8.06	146
Sarawak	514	8.12	147
Selangor	1,567	24.75	448
Terengganu	206	3.25	59
Wilayah Persekutuan	1,707	26.96	488
Total	6.331	100%	1,810

Table 4. The summary of questionnaire items

Section	Constructs	Dimensions	Sources	No. of Items	Rating Scale
1	Leadership	The commitment to quality practices by top management	Flynn, Schroeder, and Sakakibara (1995); Ahire, Golhar, and Waller (1996); Anderson, Jerman, and Crum (1998); Lau, Zhao, and Xiao (2004); Saraph, Benson, and Schroeder (1989)	6	1 = very low, 5 = very high
2	Strategic planning	The propensity to develop and implement organizational strategic actions	Lau et al. (2004); Lee, Ooi, Sohal, and Chong (2012)	5	1 = very low, 5 = very high
3	Customer focus	The ability to assess and meet customer expectations	Flynn et al. (1995); Ahire, Golhar, and Waller (1996); Lau et al. (2004); Fotopoulos and Psomas (2010); Lee et al. (2012)	6	1 = very low, 5 = very high
4	Measurement, analysis and knowledge management	The effects to gather, measure, analyze work performance and improvements	Saraph et al. (1989); Anderson et al. (1998); Lau et al. (2004); Lee et al. (2012)	7	1 = very low, 5 = very high
5	Workforce focus	The assessment of employee capability and capacity needs	Saraph et al. (1989); Flynn et al. (1995); Lau et al. (2004); Fotopoulos and Psomas (2010)	7	1 = very low, 5 = very high
6	Operation focus	The efforts to improve product and work processes and achieve organizational success	Saraph et al. (1989); Flynn et al. (1995); Lau et al. (2004); Lee et al. (2012)	7	1 = very low, 5 = very high
7	Project performance	The objective of a construction project	Shenhar et al. (2001); Ling, Low, Wang, and Egbelakin (2008); Yeung, Chan, and Chan (2009)	4	1 = very low, 5 = very high
Total number of measurement scale items				42

Table 5. Rotated pattern matrix for PCA with promax rotation

Items	Component
	1	2	3	4	5	6	Communalities
Eigenvalues	20.17	2.46	1.54	1.38	1.08	0.99	-
Var %	53.07	59.55	63.61	67.23	70.08	72.67	-
Factor 1: Measurement, analysis & knowledge management
mm3	.903						.788
mm4	.888						.830
mm5	.875						.811
mm2	.830						.767
mm1	.756						.809
mm6	.593						.796
mm7	.570				.408		.687
of7	.570						.707
of2	.515						.643
of1	.465						.651
Factor 2: Workforce management
wf2		.941					.744
wf5		.863					.732
wf6	.386	.847					.668
wf3		.752					.758
wf1		.726					.706
wf7		.640					.707
wf4		.539					.679
of6	.475	.508					.695
Factor 3: Leadership
ls4			.856				.782
ls5			.813				.699
ls2			.794				.712
ls3			.770				.632
ls6			.726				.624
ls1			.585				.643
Factor 4: Customer focus
cf2				.804			.793
cf5		−3.00		.790			.714
cf3		.380		.777			.765
cf4		.414		.535	.302		.728
cf1				.486			.541
Factor 5: Strategic planning
cf6	.439	−.442			.711		.596
sp4					.559		.704
sp3	.346				.439		.654
sp2					.411		.695
sp5			.346		.376		.714
sp1					.359		.643
Factor 6: Operation focus
of3						.993	.440
of4						.611	.674
of5	.343					.511	.698

Rotation converged in 8 iterations.

Table 6. Correlation

	Rotated Component Coefficients
Items	Component 1	Component 2	Component 3	Component 4	Component 5	Component 6
mm3	.898	.576	.524	.438	.486	.521
mm4	.900	.620	.466	.438	.550	.534
mm5	.892	.564	.502	.467	.541	.537
mm2	.879	.597	.495	.584	.485	.494
mm1	.878	.620	.550	.627	.550	.531
mm6	.829	.701	.556	.607	.643	.556
mm7	.740	.594	.383	.398	.631	.566
of7	.798	.662	.471	.468	.418	.655
of2	.723	.510	.407	.520	.219	.634
of1	.741	.640	.496	.538	.323	.618
wf2	.497	.853	.542	.501	.426	.491
wf5	.527	.854	.608	.484	.485	.463
wf6	.645	.802	.525	.370	.416	.412
wf3	.558	.865	.604	.530	.592	.525
wf1	.626	.804	.613	.539	.357	.521
wf7	.538	.823	.583	.526	.638	.508
wf4	.635	.751	.472	.333	.604	.558
of6	.751	.754	.506	.471	.484	.572
ls4	.362	.565	.860	.443	.544	.338
ls5	.559	.526	.840	.480	.395	.343
ls2	.442	.568	.830	.460	.381	.486
ls3	.459	.490	.783	.402	.400	.466
ls6	.358	.564	.768	.378	.478	.275
ls1	.473	.658	.773	.506	.488	.403
cf2	.520	.496	.568	.875	.450	.328
cf5	.553	.358	.426	.800	.306	.407
cf3	.402	.625	.428	.835	.472	.354
cf4	.430	.714	.432	.743	.657	.498
cf1	.451	.551	.490	.681	.557	.380
cf6	.538	.323	.361	.396	.682	.330
sp4	.529	.692	.640	.441	.790	.506
sp3	.667	.618	.577	.523	.698	.508
sp2	.631	.693	.622	.594	.728	.505
sp5	.506	.707	.717	.603	.720	.499
sp1	.616	.683	.580	.563	.685	.422
of3	.485	.425	.315	.333	.359	.883
of4	.654	.668	.587	.398	.490	.829
of5	.722	.604	.566	.413	.374	.783

Rotation converged in 8 iterations.

Table 7. Cronbach’s alpha of the various constructs

Variables	Number of items	Number of deleted items	Cronbach’s alpha
Leadership	6	-	0.901
Strategic planning	6	-	0.897
Customer focus	5	-	0.869
Workforce focus	8	-	0.935
Operation focus	3	-	0.845
Measurement, analysis & knowledge management	10	-	0.957
Project performance	4	-	0.900

Table 8. Summary of hypotheses

Hypotheses
H1	There is a significant positive relationship between leadership and project performance.
H2	There is a significant positive relationship between strategic planning and project performance.
H3	There is a significant positive relationship between customer focus and project performance.
H4	There is a significant positive relationship between workforce focus and project performance.
H5	There is a significant positive relationship between operation focus and project performance.
H6	There is a significant positive relationship between measurement, analysis and knowledge management and project performance.

Table 9. Regressions predicting project performance

	B	S.E.	β	p
(Constant)	1.016	0.326		0.002
H1—Leadership	0.104	0.113	0.094	0.357
H2—Strategic planning	0.238	0.138	0.231	0.085
H3—Customer focus	0.013	0.100	0.013	0.894
H4—Workforce focus	0.465	0.124	0.463	0.000
H5—Operation focus	0.214	0.094	0.225	0.025
H6—Measurement, analysis & knowledge management	−0.276	0.113	−0.321	0.016
R^2	0.440
R^2 Change	0.440
F Change	17.702
	p < 0.001
Adj. R^2	0.415
N	145

Table

Please circle one number per line to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statement, where (1) = strongly agree; (2) = agree; (3) = neutral; (4) = disagree; and (5) = strongly disagree
Leadership
LS1	Top management establishes and sustains clear and visible customer-focused quality vision, values and mission.	1	2	3	4	5
LS2	Top management actively participates in quality management and improvement process	1	2	3	4	5
LS3	Top management regularly held meetings discusses and reviews quality-related issues	1	2	3	4	5
LS4	Top management encourages quality-related concepts and skills	1	2	3	4	5
LS5	Top management allocate adequate resources for quality improvement	1	2	3	4	5
LS6	Top management pursues long-term quality improvement process	1	2	3	4	5

Table

Strategic Planning
SP1	Our organization has a mission statement which has been communicated throughout the company and is supported by our employees	1	2	3	4	5
SP2	Our organization has a comprehensive structured planning process which regularly sets and reviews short and long-term goals	1	2	3	4	5
SP3	Our organizations always incorporates supplier capabilities and needs of other stakeholders including the community when we develop our plans, policies, and objectives	1	2	3	4	5
SP4	Our organization strategic plans and tactical plan are linked to quality values	1	2	3	4	5
SP5	Our organization integrates continuous quality improvements into planning process	1	2	3	4	5
Customer Focus
CF1	Our organization has been customer focused for a long time	1	2	3	4	5
CF2	Our organization provides mechanism for customer feedback	1	2	3	4	5
CF3	Our organization takes customer complaints as continuous improvement process	1	2	3	4	5
CF4	Our organization reviews customer complaints and take into consideration for product innovation	1	2	3	4	5
CF5	Our organization conducts a customer satisfaction survey every year
CF6	Our organizations conducts market study regularly to collect suggestions for improving our product	1	2	3	4	5
Measurement, Analysis and Knowledge Management
MM1	Our organization implements organizational performance measurement system	1	2	3	4	5
MM2	Our organization conducts organizational performance measure at a constant time interval period	1	2	3	4	5
MM3	Data and information collection at all levels and in all parts of our organization	1	2	3	4	5
MM4	Our organization regularly analyzes and reviews the data and information collected	1	2	3	4	5
MM5	Availability of key performance figures for analysis and decision making	1	2	3	4	5
MM6	Performance review findings for continuous improvement and innovation	1	2	3	4	5
MM7	Our organization has undertaken benchmarking of other firms’ product quality and procedures	1	2	3	4	5

Table

Workforce Focus
WF1	Our organization provides training and development process for all our employees	1	2	3	4	5
WF2	Our organization encourage teamwork and problem solving among employees	1	2	3	4	5
WF3	Employee performance are regularly monitored and measured	1	2	3	4	5
WF4	Our organization regularly measures employee satisfaction	1	2	3	4	5
WF5	Our organization maintains a working environment that contributes to the health, safety and well-being of all employees	1	2	3	4	5
WF6	Our organization promotes compensation, recognition, and reward system among employees	1	2	3	4	5
WF7	Our organization instill quality culture on continuous improvement among employees	1	2	3	4	5
Operation Focus
OF1	Our organization develops a set of key work processes	1	2	3	4	5
OF2	Our organization establishes Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for monitoring purpose	1	2	3	4	5
OF3	Our organization practices daily operation work processes report system	1	2	3	4	5
OF4	Our organization regularly monitors and reviews on work processes performance	1	2	3	4	5
OF5	Our organization uses of approaches or tools to improve process performance and reduce variability	1	2	3	4	5
OF6	Our organization exercises two-way communication with suppliers	1	2	3	4	5
OF7	Our organization has a well-prepared disaster and emergency preparedness system to ensure the continuity of our operations	1	2	3	4	5

Table

Please circle one number per line to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statement, where (1) = strongly agree; (2) = agree; (3) = neutral; (4) = disagree; and (5) = strongly disagree
PP1	Generally our projects meet their time objectives	1	2	3	4	5
PP2	We are usually good at delivering projects within budget	1	2	3	4	5
PP3	Project specifications are usually met by the time of handover	1	2	3	4	5
PP4	Key stakeholders and end users are usually happy with the results from our projects	1	2	3	4	5

Kuo, T. H, & Kuo, Y. L. (2010). The effect of corporate culture and total quality management on construction project performance in Taiwan. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 21(6), 617–632. doi:10.1080/14783363.2010.483074

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ali, A. S., & Rahmat, I. (2010). The performance measurement of construction projects managed by ISO-certified contractors in Malaysia. Journal of Retail and Leisure Property, 9(1), 25–35. doi:10.1057/rlp.2009.20

 Google Scholar

Bakar, A. H. B. A., Ali, K. B., & Onyeizu, E. (2011). Total quality management practices in large construction companies: A case of Oman. World Applied Sciences Journal, 15(2), 285–296.

 Google Scholar

Din, S., Abd-Hamid, Z., & Bryde, D. J. (2011). ISO 9000 certification and construction project performance: The malaysian experience. International Journal of Project Management, 29(8), 1044–1056. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.11.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Agus, A. (2011). Enhancing production performance and customer performance through Total Quality Management (TQM): Strategies for competitive advantage. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1650–1662.

 Google Scholar

Teh, P. L., Tritos, L., & Dotun, A. (2012). The complementary of TQM on technology management strategy: A multinational perspective from the Asean automotive industry. Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), 2012 IEEE International Conference, Hong Kong.

 Google Scholar

Harrington, H. J., Voehl, F., & Wiggin, H. (2012). Applying TQM to the construction industry. The TQM Journal, 24(4), 352–362. doi:10.1108/17542731211247373

 Google Scholar

Talib, F., Rahman, Z., & Qureshi, M. N. (2013). An empirical investigation of relationship between total quality management practices and quality performance in Indian service companies. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 30(3), 280–318. doi:10.1108/02656711311299845

 Google Scholar

Irfan, S. M., & Kee, D. M. H. (2013). Critical success factors of TQM and its impact on increased service quality: A case from service sector of Pakistan. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 15(1), 61–74.

 Google Scholar

Ooi, K. B., Lee, V. H., Chong, A. Y. L., & Lin, B. (2013). Does TQM improve employees’ quality of work life? Empirical evidence from Malaysia’s manufacturing firms. Production Planning & Control, 24(1), 72–89. doi:10.1080/09537287.2011.599344

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Altayeb, M. M., & Alhasanat, M. B. (2014). Implementing Total Quality Management (TQM) in the Palestinian construction industry. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 31(8), 878–887. doi:10.1108/IJQRM-05-2013-0085

 Google Scholar

Mir, F. A., & Pinnington, A. H. (2014). Exploring the value of project management: Linking project management performance and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 202–217. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.05.012

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sadikoglu, E., & Olcay, H. (2014). The effects of total quality management practices on performance and the reasons of and the barriers to TQM practices in Turkey. Advances in Decision Sciences, 2014, 1–17. doi:10.1155/2014/537605

 Google Scholar

Banna, H., Ahmad, R., & Koh, E. H. Y. (2018). How does total quality management influence the loan quality of the bank? Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 29(3-4), 287–300. doi:10.1080/14783363.2016.1180954

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shafiq, M., Lasrado, F., & Hafeez, K. (2017). The effect of TQM on organisational performance: Empirical evidence from the textile sector of a developing country using SEM. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 1–22. doi:10.1080/14783363.2017.1283211

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mehralian, G., Nazari, J. A., Nooriparto, G., & Rasekh, H. R. (2017). TQM and organizational performance using the balanced scorecard approach. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 66(1), 111–125. doi:10.1108/IJPPM-08-2015-0114

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ooi, K. B., Lin, B., Teh, P. L., & Chong, A. Y.-L. (2012). Does TQM support innovation performance in Malaysia’s manufacturing industry? Journal of Business Economics and Management, 13(2), 366–393. doi:10.3846/16111699.2011.620155

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S. (1995). The impact of quality management practices on performance and competitive advantage. Decision Sciences, 26(5), 659–691. doi:10.1111/deci.1995.26.issue-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ahire, S. L., Golhar, D. Y., & Waller, M. A. (1996). Development and validation of TQM implementation constructs. Decision Sciences, 27(1), 23–56. doi:10.1111/deci.1996.27.issue-1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Anderson, R. D., Jerman, R. E., & Crum, M. R. (1998). Quality management influences on logistics performance. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 34(2), 137–148. doi:10.1016/S1366-5545(98)00008-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lau, R. S. M., Zhao, X., & Xiao, M. (2004). Assessing quality management in China with MBNQA criteria. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 21(7), 699–713. doi:10.1108/02656710410549064

 Google Scholar

Saraph, J. V., Benson, P. G., & Schroeder, R. G. (1989). An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision Sciences, 20(4), 810–829. doi:10.1111/deci.1989.20.issue-4

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee, V. H., Ooi, K. B., Sohal, A. S., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2012). Structural relationship between TQM practices and learning organisation in Malaysia’s manufacturing industry. Production Planning & Control, 23(10–11), 885–902. doi:10.1080/09537287.2011.642209

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fotopoulos, C. V., & Psomas, E. L. (2010). The structural relationships between TQM factors and organizational performance. The TQM Journal, 22(5), 539–552. doi:10.1108/17542731011072874

 Google Scholar

Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project success: A multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Planning, 34(6), 699–725. doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00097-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ling, F. Y., Low, S. P., Wang, S. Q., & Egbelakin, T. (2008). Models for predicting project performance in China using project management practices adopted by foreign AEC firms. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(12), 983–990. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:12(983)

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yeung, J. F. Y., Chan, A. P. C., & Chan, D. W. M. (2009). A computerized model for measuring and benchmarking the partnering performance of construction projects. Automation in Construction, 18(8), 1099–1113. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2009.07.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar