Int. J.

Production Economics 55 (1998) 120

TQM impact on quality conformance and customer satisfaction:

A causal model
Cipriano Forza*, Roberto Filippini
Istituto di Ingegneria Gestionale, Universita% di Padova, Viale X Giugno, 22, 36100 Vicenza, Italy
Received 24 January 1996; accepted 30 October 1997

Abstract
Total quality management (TQM) has had considerable success in terms of its implementation in companies. It has
also been the subject of many studies in recent years. It seems, however, that there are some shortcomings in the research
on this subject and in particular the lack of an adequate theoretical formulation suitable for empirical research. This
study proposes and elaborates a model which examines TQM practices (orientation towards quality, TQM links with
customers, TQM links with suppliers, process control, human resources) in relation to two dimensions of quality
performance: quality conformity and customer satisfaction. The model is constructed on the basis of established theory
building approaches and on well-known criteria of evaluation of theoretical contribution. The model is empirically tested
on data gathered on a stratified random sample of manufacturing plants through the application of valid and reliable
measures. The model is tested using structural equation Modelling. The results show the existence of two distinct paths of
direct influences which lead, respectively, to customer satisfaction and quality conformance. ( 1998 Elsevier Science
B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Empirical research; Manufacturing industries; Quality management; Quality performance; Structural equa-
tion modelling; Survey; Theory

1. Introduction f the lack of an adequate theoretical formulation

Total quality management (TQM) has had con-
siderable success in terms of its implementation in
companies. It has also been the subject of many
studies in recent years. It seems, however, that there
are some shortcomings in the research on this sub-
ject. These are some of the most critical aspects:
* Corresponding author: Tel.: #39 444 998731; fax: #39 444
998888; e-mail: forza@gest.unipd.it.
of TQM [14];
f the difficulty of arriving at a theory which high-
lights the various concepts of TQM [1] by
measuring them [3], and then correlates these
concepts to quality performance. Some studies
have begun to develop TQM models, however,
with the associated measures [2,5,6];
f the difficulty of separating out the various qual-
ity performance dimensions and seeing the links
with each other and with the various dimensions
of TQM. As regards this latter point, it should be
noted that some seminal studies do exist, among

0925-5273/98/$19.00 Copyright ( 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

PII S 0 9 2 5 - 5 2 7 3 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 0 7 - 3
2 C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120
which those of Garvin and Ettlie, which distin-
guish between independent, and sometimes con-
flictual, types of quality performance [7,8].
This study would like to make a contribution in
this direction. First, a theoretical model is construc-
ted, which examines TQM practices in relation
to two quality performance categories: quality
conformity and customer satisfaction. In the for-
mulation of the model, account is taken of the
subsequent need to operationalize the model con-
cepts in order then to be able to carry out empirical
tests. The relations between the concepts are exam-
ined and motivated explicitly so that they can then
be either accepted or rejected. Finally, the model is
empirically tested by considering the structure of
the links between the model dimensions and the
adequacy levels of the dimension measures simulta-
neously.
2. The reference model construction
In building the reference model, the quality
awards like the Deming Prize (DP), the Malcolm
Baldrige Award (MB), and the European Quality
Award (EQA), will be taken into account since they
try to characterise TQM and have brought atten-
tion to quality issues and helped to understand the
meaning, dimensions, and requirements of quality
better [9,10]. In particular, the model under con-
struction will comprise the two dimensions cus-
tomer satisfaction and links with customers
which are especially emphasised by the MB and
EQA, and also company wide quality control and
elimination of defects particularly emphasised by
the DP. However, it will not include the criterion of
impact-on-society which characterises EQA. The
reference model proposed is different, however,
from the Awards in its aim: it is intended to contrib-
uted further to the building of a theory on TQM,
while the Awards aim at stimulating national (or
regional) companies to take the appropriate steps
towards quality interpreted as conformance (DP),
customer satisfaction (MB) or customer, people
and environmental perception (EQA). In addition,
it focuses on TQM dimensions which have been
widely recognised as relevant to the achievement of
the two quality measures considered.
Thus, the reference model has been constructed
with the intention of making a contribution to the
development of a TQM theory. In developing an
empirical theory, the first step ought to be the
identification and the definition of the concepts or
basic building blocks: the so-called whats
[11,12]. The second step should establish the
hows of the theory [11,12], which are specified in
a network of relations between the concepts: these
relations can be represented in diagram form, thus
providing a visual aid for the interpretation and
development of the theory. Finally, the whys of
the theory should be made explicit, or, in other
words, it should be explained why the theory is
credible. To provide this justification, the theory
proposed can be compared with the existing litera-
ture, for example [13]. Thus, the three steps what,
how and why will be followed, in order to build
the reference model.
2.1. Identification and definition of the concepts
In order to identify the concepts to be inserted in
the model, an in-depth study of the bibliography on
this subject has been carried out. Five concepts
which constitute TQM levers have been identified
(orientation towards quality, TQM links with cus-
tomers, TQM links with suppliers, process control,
human resources) and two types of quality perfor-
mance measures.
Later on in this section, the concepts with which
the model is constituted are defined, and the
authors who have considered these concepts of
significant importance have been quoted. This clear
and precise definition of the concepts is aimed at
facilitating the operationalisation of these concepts
so that empirical investigation then becomes
possible.
2.1.1. Orientation towards quality
The TQM approach is characterised by an
orientation towards quality which helps to pre-
vent problems and to produce continuous im-
provement of the existing situation. This attention
should permeate all levels of the company right
from the top management down and all company
functions.
 C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120
The top management leadership on quality,
when defined as the involvement in and constant
commitment of the company management in all its
functions to quality improvement, is generally
recognised as one of the fundamental elements
which characterise real orientation towards quality
in a company [9,10,1319].
However, as well as the guiding role played by
the company leadership, a great deal of emphasis is
placed on continuous quality improvement, when
defined as the commitment towards continuous
improvement of quality throughout the organisa-
tion at all levels [1,2,9,10,15,18].
TQM orientation towards quality is also charac-
terised by the dedication of considerable resources
in the design stage to problem prevention and to
the consideration of the varying points of view of
the different functions. Thus, interfunctional design
efforts, when defined as the involvement and co-
operation of the entire staff both individually and
in groups (even interfunctional ones), should also
be taken into account in the design of new products
and in the modification of existing ones [2,9,10].
2.1.2. TQM links with customers
In quality management, it is essential to maintain
very close links with customers [1,2,5,810,16,
2022], in order both to identify their needs and to
receive the feedback necessary to the company if it
is both to understand to what extent it has suc-
ceeded in satisfying those requirements and thus to
initiate the relevant improvement activities.
In particular, it is advisable to achieve attention
to/contact with customers for product design, when
this is defined as active customer involvement, in-
cluding a concentrated effort to analyse their needs
during product design [1,2,810,20,22].
The TQM approach also brings about a recipro-
cal involvement with customers regarding quality,
or, that is, the company is involved within certain
limits in certain customers projects for quality im-
provement, while vice versa, some customers are
involved in the quality improvement process being
implemented in the company [9,10].
When there are closer exchanges with customers
regarding quality, there are also necessarily more
intense information exchanges with customers re-
garding quality, that is, the company is organised
3
to obtain the necessary information for the identi-
fication of their requirements and to obtain re-
liable, fast feedback on the quality levels of
currently available products/services [5,9,10,16,21].
2.1.3. TQM links with suppliers
Suppliers play a well-recognised key role in qual-
ity management and they have a clear influence on
several quality dimensions. Once it is recognised
that the materials and the components purchased
are the main cause of quality problems [14] and
that the blame for this can often be placed on
incorrect relations with suppliers, the logical con-
clusion is that, in order to get adequate quality
control of critical inputs, companies must invest
more in their relations with their suppliers
[9,10,15].
In particular, a relation with suppliers based on
quality has to be constructed, and this process is
characterised by the selection of suppliers on the
basis of quality levels, the supplier certification and
the recourse to a limited number of suppliers with
which it therefore becomes easier to develop lasting
relations based on constructive collaboration
[2,9,10,15,19,21].
For particularly important components, there is
also supplier involvement in product development,
or that is, high levels of interaction with suppliers as
regards design, industrialisation, and product
and/or component simplification and standardisa-
tion [23].
However, TQM links with suppliers also require
information from suppliers about quality control,
i.e. it requires the availability and simplicity of use
of data concerning the materials and components
which are being evaluated for purchase. In particu-
lar, data on quality tests carried out by suppliers or
external laboratories are needed. Statistics on the
process control carried out by the suppliers on
critical components and the results of specific tests
and controls on materials carried out by suppliers
are also necessary [5,9,10,15,24].
2.1.4. Process control
The TQM approach places a great deal of im-
portance on the maintenance of process control; in
other words, it tries to ensure that these processes
do not only behave as expected but also that the
4 C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120
behaviour of these processes does not create prob-
lems for the future. Thus, greater attention is paid
to the control of the behaviour of the processes that
generate the products than to product conformity
control.
To achieve this objective, use is usually made of
statistical process control; in other words, statist-
ical instruments are used (for example, the control
sheet) in order to determine whether the machinery
and the various production processes are under
control or not [2,9,10,13].
These instruments are weak when only used by
quality control specialists, but they become
extremely powerful when the whole staff (and in
particular the shop-floor workers) learn how to use
them and apply them to their own activities. In this
way, timely and visible feedback regarding quality
is supplied to the production personnel, i.e.,
information on the level of quality such as, for
example, the percentages of defectiveness and the
frequency of mechanical breakdowns. In particular,
the process data gathered through quality controls
is supplied in both a visible and timely way (for
example, through charts displayed in the produc-
tion sectors) [2,5,9,10,21,22].
It is in no way certain, however, that the informa-
tion gathered will be perceived as useful, nor that
the data collection and analysis is done in the most
appropriate way and with the final aim of improv-
ing manufacturing processes [2,5,9,10]. This is
particularly serious when a person has to commu-
nicate a vision and take decisions concerning the
progress of the processes and the work of several
people, but has useless or irrelevant information
available. Thus, the usefulness of quality perfor-
mance feedback, when defined as the usefulness
and importance that managers and supervisors
attribute to the information that they receive con-
cerning quality levels, should also be considered.
2.1.5. Human resources
The importance of human resources in TQM is
underlined by so many authors that it can be iden-
tified as one of the fundamental dimensions in
TQM [2,6,9,10,18]. Human resources are no longer
seen as naturally trying to resist supplying work,
but as rather naturally wanting to and indeed hav-
ing to give more as regards the supply of work.
In particular, the ability to operate several ma-
chines, and also to carry out quality controls as
well as resolving problems which may arise should
be looked for and exploited [2,9,10]. In order to
achieve this, it is necessary to create multifunc-
tional employees, or rather to train employees to
carry out a broad range of activities and to increase
these abilities with time [1].
In addition to this, the ability of the single oper-
ator to make proposals for improvements should
not be wasted. Indeed, a positive climate which
offers incentives to the making of such suggestions
should be created. Therefore, employees sugges-
tions should be taken into consideration, and in
particular: (a) whether the suggestions for product
and process improvement are taken into serious
consideration by the management, (b) whether they
are actually implemented and (c) if explanations of
why the suggestions are either accepted or refused
are given [1,9,10].
2.1.6. Performance types
The literature proposes several performance
types or advantages that can be obtained as a result
of the implementation of TQM. The advantages
extend well-beyond quality dimensions [8] and
concern the improvement of the whole organiza-
tion [9,10,25].
In this study the field of investigation has pur-
posely been limited to that of customer satisfaction
and conformity to specifications. This choice is
linked to the conviction that many companies in-
volved in the implementation of TQM share out
their energies in order to achieve these two distinct
objectives. When referring to American companies,
Ettlie has noted that in practice these two objec-
tives are experienced as being conflicting [7]. This
is not particularly surprising in that of these two
performance types, the first is linked to the users
point of view, while the second is linked to the
production point of view [8].
For the purpose of this study, customer satisfac-
tion is defined as the level of customer satisfaction
as far as product quality and services supplied and
the ability to understand their problems is con-
cerned.
And again, in this study conformance is defined
as the level of conformity to specifications which
 C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120
the product reaches at the end of the production
process (before the final inspection). Seen from the
negative point of view, conformance is therefore
determined by the level of defectiveness encoun-
tered in the final inspection and by the level of
defectiveness recorded by the customers.
2.2. The framework
Fig. 1 illustrates the model proposed. The di-
mensions (the blocks) of Framework 1 are also
called constructs in order to maintain uniformity of
language with the terminology of the method which
will be used in the following paragraphs to test the
goodness-of-fit of the model proposed. The con-
structs of a model are usually distinct and separ-
ated into exogenous and endogenous constructs.
The first constructs are not caused by the other
dimensions of the model, but they are prerequisites
for some of these dimensions. Thus, the determin-
ing causes of the exogenous constructs have not
been explicitly specified in the model. Orientation
towards quality is considered exogenous in the
model proposed because in the literature constructs
with a meaning similar to this are generally con-
sidered to be necessary prerequisites for other
dimensions of the models, and are never deter-
mined by other constructs [2,13].
The framework shows that in order to obtain
customer satisfaction one has to act on different
levers from those necessary to obtain conformance,
and vice versa. This set-up is based on the observa-
tions of Garvin and Ettlie. When discussing the
eight dimensions of quality, Garvin has stated that
a consequence of the independence of these dimen-
sions is the possibility to focus on only some of
them and the consequent need to select the most
appropriate areas for effort [8]. Ettlie states that
often in companies there is tension and conflict
between the efforts made to obtain conformity to
specifications and those to obtain customer satis-
faction through focusing on their needs [7].
In particular, in order to obtain customer satis-
faction, it is more important to intervene in the area
of design, links with customers and the systematic
study of customer needs. In order to obtain
conformance, it is necessary to act on links with
5
suppliers, on process control and on the human
resources that are involved with that process.
Having described the framework at a global
level, it is now possible to motivate the linkages
between the constructs. These linkages are present-
ed as propositions.
2.3. The motivation of linkages between concepts
Proposition 1. A strong orientation towards quality
tends to lead to the establishment of QM links with
suppliers (that is, to select suppliers on the basis of the
quality level that they can guarantee, to involve them
actively in quality projects right from the product
design stage and to demand more information demon-
strating the carrying out of quality tests and controls).
This linkage has been emphasised by several
authors [13,19,24]. There are numerous reasons
why quality-oriented companies tend to act more
on linkages with suppliers.
Firstly, the selection of suppliers on the basis of
quality motivates the suppliers to make continuous
improvements in their quality levels [2]. Com-
panies with a greater commitment to quality there-
fore attach greater importance to the evaluation of
suppliers in terms of factors which are different
from that of price (in particular, quality factors) [24].
Secondly, companies are aware that only by act-
ing on suppliers can adequate controls of produc-
tion inputs be guaranteed [15]. The plants which
are quality oriented therefore certify and classify
their suppliers on the basis of the characteristics of
their production processes, their ability to operate
in a group work atmosphere, their ability to effect
statistical process controls and the quality of their
previous deliveries of similar products [19].
Thirdly, orientation towards quality based on
continuous improvement cannot remain within the
confines of the company: these confines must some-
times be overcome in order to get to the root of
problems, and, indeed, the quality problems due to
suppliers are both significant and numerous [14].
Finally, the orientation towards the prevention
of problems which is achieved, for example, by
recourse to interfunctional design once again de-
mands the breaking down of company confines in
6 C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120

Fig. 1. The framework.

order to intervene on the critical components, or
materials, which are purchased and included in the
final product. Design of these components guided
by company requirements permits a structural de-
crease of the problems involved.
Proposition 2. A strong orientation towards quality
tends to lead to the establishment of QM links with
customers (that is, to the analysis of customers needs,
to a reciprocal involvement in quality improvement
programs and to an intense information exchange
 C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120
centred around the identification of needs and
problems).
Dean and Bowen maintain that if there is
a strong orientation towards quality, then focusing
on the customer becomes of fundamental import-
ance [1]. In this case, the organisation will initiate
practices for designing and making available prod-
ucts and services which meet customers needs. To
satisfy customers needs, however, it is necessary to
have in-depth knowledge of these needs; hence,
a quality-oriented company tries to have closer
contact with their customers. Once these needs
have been identified, they must then be transformed
into production specifications attainable through
the company production system. In other words,
customers needs must be made to filter through the
whole organisation [20].
Flynn et al. [2] emphasise that the commitment
of an organisation towards quality leads to the
maintaining of very close contacts with its cus-
tomers. The objective is to determine customers
needs and to receive the necessary feedback in
order to understand to what extent the company
has succeeded in satisfying them. Customer
involvement in product design and, if this is the
case, in process design, leads to the minimisation of
the number of possible quality problems once pro-
duction has started.
By means of an empirical study, Garvin under-
lines that those plants which are quality-oriented
use information sheets which they send to their
customers, and by means of which the customers
send back information on product quality (obvi-
ously following their point of view) [16]. The feed-
back that they receive from their customers makes
it possible to make immediate adjustments in the
process, instead of continuing to produce products
that are not acceptable for the customers. This
interaction is aided by the presence of an atmo-
sphere of reciprocal helpfulness and respect be-
tween the customer and the supplier.
Proposition 3. he QM link with suppliers, which
incorporates an orientation towards quality, guaran-
tees stable inputs for the production process, through
which it is possible to carry out process controls
7
focused on these variables which can thus be kept
under control.
When the company management decides to
orient itself towards conformance, it immediately
realises that it cannot be done if it cannot guarantee
an input with steady, high-quality levels. The tech-
niques for the statistical process control are less
efficacious if the process inputs are very poor. In
this case, in fact, the variance effects due to the
process are superimposed on those due to input
variance. Hence, it becomes extremely difficult to
register the signals which are indicating that the
process is getting out of control. In order to give an
idea of the size of the problem, it should be remem-
bered that some studies have shown that about
50% of quality problems are due to incoming ma-
terials [14].
By eliminating the input variance, the statistical
process control techniques become much more effi-
cacious because it is possible to concentrate on the
variables which can be controlled internally, such
as the conduct of both the machinery and the
workforce.
In order to eliminate input variance, either rela-
tions with suppliers must be intensified and im-
proved, or there must be greater input control.
Some of Demings 14 principles (in particular the
third and the fourth) and the teachings of Garvin
seem to suggest that strongly quality-oriented com-
panies should give precedence to the first of the two
alternatives [15,17].
Proposition 4. A strong orientation towards quality
leads to a high level of process control, through
multifunctional workers and through encouraging
workers to offer useful suggestions.
In TQM plants, the workers participate in the
definition of the production system through the
suggestions they make. They contribute personally
to the improvement of the process capability of the
plant, and are directly responsible for keeping the
process under control. Therefore, there cannot be
valid process control without an adequately able
and motivated workforce. In order to create
a workforce of this type, however, there needs to be
8 C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120
a strong orientation towards quality, in particular
on the part of the top management.
In the Flynn et al. [2] TQM model it is empha-
sised that the support of the top management for
plans for quality improvement provides the foun-
dation for a human resource management which
meets the requirements of a quality system.
In order to obtain valid suggestions for process
improvement the workers have to feel that their
suggestions are taken into serious consideration by
their superiors [2,5]. Feedback to employees,
which explains to them the reasons why a sugges-
tion is accepted or not, is a fundamental means for
learning. This increases the workers understanding
of the process and therefore increases their ability
to solve problems and maintains their motivation
to make suggestions. In the long-term, this im-
proves process capability and therefore the pro-
cesses remain easily controllable. An analogous
effect is obtained with the feedback from the pro-
cess control operation. It has been shown that,
when there is immediate feedback to the single
operator (fast and short cycle feedback), better
quality performance is achieved [2,5,26].
The relation between the leadership of the top
management on quality and process control, me-
diated by the construct internal and external co-
operation, is also hypothesised in the Anderson
et al. [13]. For these authors, in fact, the top
management must favour the creation of an atmo-
sphere of cooperation and learning. To do this, the
leader must emphasise the importance of group
work, and must make sure that the employees feel
that they are part of a system in which everyone can
make his own contribution for the good of the
whole organisation. The effective implementation
and use of statistical process control practices de-
pends on the force with which the organisation
encourages cooperation and learning. In fact, by
training the personnel, by hanging on to personnel
that has know-how and by facilitating cooperation
(which permits the diffusion of knowledge) Hubers
processes are facilitated: i.e., the acquisition of in-
formation, and the interpretation, diffusion and the
memorisation of the knowledge thus generated [13].
Proposition 5. he QM link with customers (recip-
rocal involvement in quality improvement programs
and intense information exchange centred around the
identification of needs and problems), which presup-
poses a strong orientation towards quality, tends to
lead to better customer satisfaction.
Many authors have pointed out this relationship
[1,2,15]. In particular, Deming encourages com-
panies to take account of present and future cus-
tomers needs, so that the products and services can
be designed in such a way as to satisfy these needs.
In order to do this, direct contacts with customers,
the collection of information on the needs of cus-
tomers and the practices which make sure that this
information can be effectively used by employees
are all very useful devices [1].
Flynn et al. [2] maintain that an environment in
which the development of customer collaboration
activities are favoured, in particular in product and
process design, permits the achievement of high
levels of quality performance. This is because cus-
tomers needs are satisfied in a much more targeted
way, and because customer feedback itself makes it
possible to make the adjustments to the product or
to the process which will then be appreciated by the
final users.
Several TQM models underline that customer
collaboration in product design is a key factor in
order to obtain quality performance, which can
then, at a later stage, lead to customer satisfaction
[2,5].
Proposition 6. he use of statistical process control
together with adequate feedback to workers, supervi-
sors and managers leads to a low level of defective-
ness.
All the SPC efforts made to achieve quality im-
provement serve to control and improve produc-
tion process efficiency and to increase conformance
[4]. Statistical control reduces and controls process
variability. The reduction of variability produces
various benefits such as output uniformity and con-
formity, the reduction of parts to be reprocessed or
rejected, the reduction of waste, etc.
Employee feedback for quality improvement is
positively correlated to performance (and in par-
ticular to low defectiveness). The more information
on product quality circulates, the more employees
 C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120
aim at higher quality levels. In particular, the use of
SPC by employees for the documentation and im-
provement of their performance, has shown itself to
be positively correlated with variables of the perfor-
mance type, such as conformance [26]. Finally,
numerous studies have shown that a careful
external evaluation, such as that done by supervi-
sors, improves quality performance [27]. In order
to formulate this evaluation correctly, managers
and supervisors need information on quality levels,
which, when provided in the right form and with
timeliness, constitute a valid support for them in
their guiding role. All this makes it possible to state
that a steady information flow on quality leads to
improvements in performance, amongst which con-
formance is a noticeable element.
3. Method
The empirical research approach followed is that
of the survey. Great attention has been paid to
sampling, approaching companies, and developing
and testing measurement instruments, since each
one of these aspects can strongly influence the re-
sults. These preventive measures will make the
researcher confident about the meaning and the
level of significance of the data used in testing the
proposed model.
3.1. Sample
In order to ensure broad variability in the com-
pany sample, the population has been subdivided
into two strata: (1) companies which are well-
known for their excellence (the so-called world class
manufacturers) and (2) the others. The list of world
class reputation companies has been confirmed by
expert opinions published in trade journals and
industry publications. As regards the size of the
company, 100 employees have been chosen as the
lower limit. As regard location, only companies
with manufacturing plants located in Italy have
been considered.
Initial contact was made in spring 1992 via
formal letter to the company executive officer ex-
plaining the research objectives and assuring them
9
feedback: 80% of companies contacted agreed to
participate, selected one of their plants (located in
Italy) and appointed a plant research coordinator.
Companies which did not accept were facing
restructuring problems or were in the defence in-
dustry: the latter were worried about the problem
of the confidentiality of data. Response was thus
obtained during 1992 from over a total of 43 com-
panies belonging to the electronics and mechanical
sectors, including the producers of components for
cars. Participating plants received a detailed profile
of their practices and performance and a sample
profile for comparison. Of the 43 companies, 38
were Italian, 2 were US companies, 2 were French
and one German.
3.2. Variable operationalisation
The testing of the model through empirical re-
search requires the measurement of model vari-
ables. All data necessary to assign a value to these
variables were collected by structured question-
naires even though plant visits have also been
carried out to deliver questionnaires and to get
a general feeling about the plant through interview-
ing some managers. In developing measures for
variables under study, both perceptual and objec-
tive questions were used. The answers to perceptual
questions (also called items) were measured over
5 points on the Likert scale. In the case of variables
measured through perceptual questions, several
questions for the same variable and several respon-
dents for the same question from the same plant
were used. The value for each plant was obtained
by working out the average between the respon-
dents on the same question and subsequently the
average between questions relative to the same
variable.
3.3. Testing of measurement instruments
All the measures were then tested for reliability
and validity and items which undermined validity
or reliability were eliminated.
Measure reliability is the property of the measure
not to be affected by random error. The reliability
10 C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120
analysis was done through the internal consistency
method. The coefficient Cronbachs alpha was used
as the reliability indicator [28].
Construct validity measures whether a set of
items is an appropriate operational definition of an
abstract variable or a construct. In order to have
construct validity a set of items must represent one
and only one concept and so the common factor
analysis must highlight only one significant factor.
The number of significant factors is equal to the
number of eigenvalues greater than the mean com-
mon variance between items. The percentage of
common variance explained by the first factor can
be used as an indicator of the validity level: high
values indicate that the resulting factor contains
a great part of the information shared between the
pairs of items. The percentage of total variance
explained by the first factor is another useful indi-
cator: high values indicate that the resulting factor
can explain a large part of the information yielded
by the set of items.
For further details concerning the method, see
[5,29]. Table 1 reports the results of the validity
and reliability analyses. For the measure quality
conformance (which has been measured through
objective questions) the validity and reliability tests
have no meaning since the two items which consti-
tute the measure are not supposed to covary. In
fact, the total defectiveness at the end of the process
can be seen as the sum of the defectiveness dis-
covered at final inspection within the plant and the
defectiveness discovered by customers (who there-
fore return products to the plant). In Table 1, refer-
ences to previous work which uses the same (or
very similar) measures are reported in the first
column.
3.4. Model testing technique
The data obtained from the application of the
measures reported above in the sample taken of 43
plants, constitute the available observation of the
real world. The aim is to test the model proposed
by making use of this observation. In particular, the
study is supposed to show whether the measure of
the various dimensions of the model (and therefore
the definition of these) is acceptable and whether
the hypothesized structure of the links between the
model dimensions fits the observation of the real
world. The aim of this study is also to investigate
whether the direct links hypothesised between the
dimensions, when purified of the effect of measure-
ment error, are sufficient in order to explain the
relations which can be empirically observed
between all the model dimensions. To this end,
structural equation modelling (SEM) is the most
suitable statistical technique. In order to use this
technique, an optimal sample is between 100 and
200 observations, but samples with a number of
observations between 50 and 400 are also accept-
able [30]. Nevertheless, there are cases in which
very good results have been obtained with only 22
observations [31]. The reason for the existence of
such different limit values lies in the fact that the
effectiveness of certain indicators that measure the
model goodness-of-fit (for example, the chi
squared) is strictly dependent on the type of model
hypothesised and on the quality of the incoming
data. In this study, the validity and stability of the
measures have been maximised through the use of
internal consistency and univocity tests and
through response aggregation method (in which
one value at plant level is usually the mean of 916
answers at single respondent level). The high level
of stability and reliability of the incoming data
indeed, it is superior to the level usually verifiable
in the studies which have made use of SEM makes
it possible therefore to consider the size of the
sample acceptable, even if it is not optimal.
SEM requires the use both of variables which
have not been directly observed as well as observed
variables. The former (known as latent variables,
latent constructs or simply constructs) are used in
order to represent concepts or abstractions which
explain phenomena which are correlated with each
other. They are measured by using the observed
variables. The latter are often called indicators,
measure variables, manifest variables or simply
measures: the values for these variables are
obtained by using traditional methods of data col-
lection (for example, questionnaires). Both the
latent variables and the manifest ones must have
a normal distribution [15]. In fact, if the variables
do not have a normal distribution, the calculated
estimates, the standard errors associated to them
 C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120 11

Table 1
Measure characteristics

Measure name Code Num. a Total Common Mean Standard

items variance variance deviation
explained explained

Interfunctional design efforts [2] X 3 0.77 40 73 3.36 0.965

1
Continuous quality improvement [5] X 3 0.72 39 68 3.11 1.020
2
Top management leadership on quality [2] X 4 0.92 44 54 3.29 0.908
3
Information from suppliers about quality 4 0.90 58 75 3.25 0.966
1
control [11]
Relation with suppliers based on quality [5,25] 5 0.72 24 49 3.44 1.022
2
Suppliers involvement in product development 4 0.85 43 59 3.017 0.923
3
Involvement with customers regarding 4 0.89 35 47 3.53 0.857
4
quality [5]
Information exchange with customers about 4 0.82 38 59 3.38 0.894
5
quality [2,5]
Attention to/contact with customers for product 4 0.81 55 91 3.10 0.919
6
design
Statistical process control [2,5] 3 0.88 36 49 2.93 1.039
7
Timely and visible feedback regarding 4 0.76 41 64 2.84 1.053
8
quality [2,5]
Usefulness of quality performance feedback [5] 2 0.87 77 100 3.65 0.891
9
Conformance 2 83.47 33.969
10
Customer satisfaction 3 0.91 38 48 3.43 0.734
11
Multifunctional employees 4 0.78 35 59 3.40 0.768
12
Employee suggestions (realisation and feedback) 3 0.81 36 58 3.15 0.923
13

and the goodness-of-fit indicator values could not
be used to evaluate the model [32].
The fundamental elements in the analysis of
SEM are the structural model, which explains the
causal links between the latent constructs, and the
measure model, which expresses how each manifest
variable is connected to its respective latent con-
struct. The structural model and the measurement
model are combined to form the global model. If
they are examined separately, the structural por-
tion is analogous with a path model, and the
measure portion is analogous with a factor model
(with the manifest variables being linked to a con-
struct through a coefficient that expresses the
weight each measure variable has in explaining the
corresponding construct) [15].
SEM makes it possible to evaluate the coeffi-
cients of the structural equations and of the
measure equations, by purifying them of the
measure error effect. SEM also provides indications
which make it possible to evaluate the goodness-
of-fit of the hypothesised model. It does that by
simultaneously taking into consideration the
adequacy of the manifest variables, which define
the latent constructs, and the statistical significance
of the relations hypothesised between the latent
constructs.
It should be remembered that in this study the
primary objective is not to evaluate the intensity or
the importance of the hypothesised relations, so
much as to test their existence. Thus, it is the
statistical significance levels of the relations that are
being considered. When it is stated that a relation is
statistically significant, it is meant that the variance
part of a caused construct explained by a causing
construct is significantly greater than the variance
part of the caused construct which can be at-
tributed to measure and specification errors (speci-
fication error is due to all the omitted causes of the
caused endogenous variable being referred to). It
should also be remembered that if the causing con-
struct is endogenous, then the variance part of the
12 C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120
caused construct explained by the causing con-
structs indirectly takes account of the influence of
the constructs which cause the causing constructs.
In order to develop the structural equation mod-
elling of the model proposed, the CALIS procedure
present in the SAS software is used here. If the
results of the model testing are not satisfactory, the
holistic construal method strategy is followed here
in order to manage to support a model, which is
both supported by data and motivated by theory
[33].
4. Data analysis
All the variables used are close enough to normal
distribution to be adequate for the tests performed
by SEM (the ShapiroWilk test rejected the hy-
pothesis of no normality at p"0.10 level). The only
exception was quality conformance. In order to
get closer to normality, a cubic transformation was
applied to this variable. This transformation affects
the values of the estimated coefficients which in-
volve this variable. This problem is overcome by
analysing the standardised coefficients.
The covariance matrix between the manifest
variables was used as an input. The use of the
covariance matrix makes it possible to account for
differences in the measurement unit of the variables
in the calculation of chi squared, differently from
the correlation matrix.
4.1. The model proposed
When evaluating the strength of the model, the
p-values and chi-squared, which give a global in-
dication of the goodness-of-fit of the model, are
usually taken into consideration. The p-value of the
hypothesised model turned out to be equal to 0.20
(s2"111), which is a value that corresponds to
a very high goodness-of-fit of the model, but an
analysis of the t-value revealed that the relation
between human resources and process control
is not statistically significant (t-value"0.39; stand-
ardized estimate of the coefficient"0.09). The
theory on SEM suggests the suppression of the
non-significant relation in this case [30].
Since the link between orientation towards qual-
ity and human resources is statistically significant
(t-value"2.50; standardised estimate of the coeffic-
ient"0.62), a fact that supports the importance
attributed to human resources by the theory on
TQM, an attempt was made to see whether human
resources have a direct influence on performance.
A first attempt was made by hypothesising a rela-
tion between orientation towards quality and
conformance, averaged with human resources.
This model gave a p-value equal to 0.22, which
corresponds to a very high goodness-of-fit of the
model, (v2"110) but a t-value equal to 1.17 for the
relation between human resources and con-
formance (standardised estimate of the coefficient
"0.26), which indicates its statistical non-signifi-
cance. Finally, the relation between orientation
towards quality and human resources turned
out to be statistically significant (t-value"2.65;
standardised estimate of the coefficient"0.66).
A second attempt was made by hypothesising
a relation between orientation towards quality
and customer satisfaction, mediated with hu-
man resources. This model gave a p-value equal to
0.23, an extremely high goodness-of-fit of the model
(s2"110) but a t-value equal to 1.29 for the rela-
tion between human resources and customer
satisfaction (standardised estimate of the coeffic-
ient"0.25), which indicates that it is not statist-
ically significant (t-value"2.48; standardised
estimate of the coefficient"0.62).
In conclusion, the construct human resources,
even though it has a direct statistically significant
link with orientation towards quality, and yet is
distinct from it, does not present direct significant
links either with process control or with perfor-
mance. On the one hand, this result confirms the
importance of human resources in relation to
orientation towards quality, while, on the other,
it suggests that no further information with respect
to the obtaining of the specific performance types
considered is obtained.
4.2. The modified model
The modified model is represented in Fig. 2,
according to the LISREL notation. The ellipses
C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120 13

Fig. 2. The modified model (in LISREL notation).

14 C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120

contain the name of the latent variables while the sised model with the null model (that is, the most
rectangles contain the measure used to explain each restrictive, theoretically defensible model). The
construct. The arrows characterised by the j para- NFI (normal fit index) has the value of 0.734, so it is
meter represent the weight that each measure vari- almost good in that it has to be greater than 0.8 for
able has in estimating the corresponding construct. the model to be considered good. Finally, the
The parameters j are the ones estimated in the TuckerLewis index, which has the value of 0.941,
measure model. The arrows characterised by the is optimal, since it has to be greater than 0.9 for the
parameters d and e represent the error terms rela- model to be considered very good. Therefore, it can
tive to the exogenous and endogenous constructs, be stated that the model proposed is certainly more
respectively. The arrows characterised by the para- likely than the null model.
meter c represent causality relations between One last criterion for evaluation of a model is its
exogenous and endogenous constructs, while those parsimony. There exist indicators for carrying out
characterised by the parameter b are relative to this measurement, known as parsimony indices,
analogous relations between endogenous con- which measure the goodness-of-fit of the model in
structs. Finally, the arrows characterised by the relation to the number of parameters to be evalu-
parameter f represent the disturbance term in the ated. The ideal situation would be to have a max-
endogenous construct equations. imum goodness-of-fit (minimum chi squared) with
a small number of parameters (df big). The Normed
s2 has the value of 1.15 and this is good, since it
4.3. The global model must be at least lower than 2 for the model to have
good fit. The AGFI only has the value of 0.654,
The goodness-of-fit indicators of the global however, when it should be greater than 0.8 for the
model are examined here. It is important to remem- model to be considered good. This is perhaps deter-
ber that there is not one single index that makes it mined by the fact that the error variance of the
possible to evaluate whether the model is good or manifest variables had to be evaluated, since there
not, nor are there rigid limit values which are com- was no way of fixing them that was not arbitrary.
monly accepted to which the indices of the model This caused the degree of freedom to fall consider-
being examined should make reference. The princi- ably, and the AGFI was thus affected. When the
pal indicator is certainly the p-value, given that, in two indices are examined together, it can be stated
all the bibliography on SEM consulted, this is used that the model is fairly parsimonious, or that every
as the key element for judging the correctness of the level of freedom used contributes considerably to
model, and sometimes, indeed, no other indices are the goodness-of-fit of the model.
considered beyond this.
The hypothesised model is characterised by
4.4. The measurement model
s2"85 and p-value"0.18. Having a p-value
greater than 0.1, it therefore has a very high good-
The equations which comprise the measurement
ness-of-fit. Even the GFI (goodness of fit index)
model of the LISREL notation with the coefficient
provides a satisfying result. Its value is 0.756 and
names, manifest variables and constructs corres-
this is almost good, since it should be higher than
ponding to those used in the model diagram set out
0.8 for the model to be considered good. The fact of
in Fig. 2, are presented below;
having a good chi-squared, and also an accept-
able GFI value, ensures that the preset covariance X "j m #d , "j g #e ,
1 1 1 1 5 8 1 5
matrix from the model is very similar to the X "j m #d , "j g #e ,
2 2 1 2 6 8 1 6
covariance matrix observed between the manifest X "j m #d , "j g #e ,
3 3 1 3 7 10 2 7
variables. "j g #e , "j g #e ,
1 4 3 1 8 11 2 8
As well as the absolute indices just considered, "j g #e , "j g #e ,
2 5 3 2 9 12 2 9
there also exist incremental indices for evaluation "j g #e , "j g #e ,
3 6 3 3 10 13 4 10
of the model. These indices compare the hypothe- "j g #e , "j g #e ,
4 7 1 4 11 14 5 11
 C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120 15

Table 2 sets out the estimated values of the stan-
dardised j coefficients, which are useful for the
assessment of the relative weight of each manifest
variable in the definition of the construct being
referred to, and above all, in order to calculate the
reliability indicators of the measurement model,
that is, the construct reliability and the extracted
variance, the values of which are also reported. The
table also contains, for every j coefficient, the rela-
tive t-value, which makes it possible to evaluate the
statistical significance of the link between the mani-
fest variable and the latent construct. Finally, it
should also be remembered that the limit values for
the t-values are: 1.96 with a significance value of
5% and 2.576 with a significance value of 1%. It is
also expedient, moreover, for the construct reliabil-
ity to be greater than 0.7 and the extracted variance
to be greater than 0.5.
From an initial analysis of this table, it immedi-
ately becomes clear that all the coefficients have
a statistical significance of 1%, with the exception
of the supplier involvement in product develop-
ment variable, which nevertheless has a statistical
significance of 5%. Some variables do not present
t-values in that the relative j was fixed at 1 (for each
latent construct the j with a higher value was set at
1). The constructs with a single manifest variable
have a single coefficient j set equal to 1, and in
addition to this, having set the error variance equal
to 0 as suggested in SEM theory, since any other
type of attribution would be totally arbitrary they
also have both construct reliability and extracted
variance equal to 1. This hypothesis based on
error variance means that the manifest variables
customer satisfaction and conformance,
respectively, are considered as perfect measures of
the homonymous constructs; in other words, that
in both cases, the construct is equivalent to the
measure.
The analysis of the standardised coefficients, as
shown earlier, makes it possible to understand the
weight of each manifest variable within the relative
construct. The single constructs will now be exam-
ined.
The three manifest variables relative to the ori-
entation towards quality construct show standar-
dised coefficients of comparable weight with
a slight prevalence of the continuous quality im-
provement variable. The construct reliability and
extracted variance values, which are generous in
relation to the suggested limits, indicate that the
three manifest variables are closely linked as
regards highlighting the construct.
The three manifest variables relative to the
TQM links with customers construct, all have
considerable weight, and this fact is reflected in the
very high values of construct reliability and extrac-
ted variance. It can be concluded that the reliability

Table 2
Analysis of the measurement model

Construct name j t-value Standardised Construct Extracted

coefficient reliability variance

Orientation towards quality j 4.452 0.758

1
j 0.791 0.811 0.588
2
j 4.408 0.751
3
TQM link with suppliers j 4.005 0.676
4
j 0.843 0.705 0.457
5
j 2.526 0.452
6
TQM link with customers j 5.761 0.789
7
j 6.530 0.848 0.885 0.721
8
j 0.906
9
Process control j 0.883
10
j 5.559 0.835 0.827 0.619
11
j 3.732 0.612
12
Conformance j 1 1 1
13
Customer satisfaction j 1 1 1
14
16 C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120
of the construct is undoubtedly approved. The
manifest variable attention to/contact with cus-
tomers for product design has a slightly more
predominant weight.
The construct TQM links with suppliers seems
to be more problematic. In fact, even if it has
a construct reliability value greater than 0.7, it
shows an extracted variance which is slightly lower
than 0.5. The fact that the construct reliability is
good and that the extracted variance is almost
acceptable, given that all the t-values are good,
suggests that the construct cannot be considered
reliable. On the other hand, even in other studies
[30], constructs which had the same problems were
accepted as valid, since the limits advised were only
indicative. From an analysis of the standardised
coefficients, it can be seen that the problematic
manifest variable is the one known as supplier
involvement in product development, since this
has a standardised coefficient which is much lower
than those of the other two variables. From a test
carried out on the same hypothesised model, this
time without the problematic variable, the follow-
ing result was obtained: that j has the value of
4 5 1 1 5
0.690, j has the value of 0.824 with an extracted
5
variance equal to 0.578 and construct reliability is
0.731. Thus, the model cannot be rejected since it
has a p-value equal to 0.1763 (GFI"0.7776 and
AGFI"0.6735). The theory supports the import-
ance of supplier involvement in product develop-
ment with a quality oriented strategy, however, as
was seen in the first section, and therefore the
problematic variable was not removed. The mani-
fest variable which, within this construct, seems to
have most importance is relation with suppliers
based on quality.
The construct process control shows good
values as far as the reliability coefficients are con-
Table 3
Analysis of the structural model.
Causing construct
Orientation towards quality
Orientation towards quality
TQM link with customers
TQM link with suppliers
Process Control
cerned. Of the three manifest variables the useful-
ness of feedback regarding quality performance
seems to have a marginal importance in compari-
son with the other two. It should be taken into
account that this manifest variable was measured
using only 2 items. In fact, when the number of
items included is inferior, the sensitivity and stabil-
ity of the measure is reduced.
4.5. The structural model
The equations which make up the structural
model of the LISREL notation are presented be-
low, with the coefficient names, the manifest vari-
ables and the constructs corresponding to those
utilised in the diagram of the model presented
earlier:
g "c m #f ,
1 1 1 1
g "c m #f ,
2 2 1 2
g "b g #f ,
3 2 2 3
g "b g #f ,
4 3 3 4
g "b g #f ,
the estimated values of the standardised coefficients
which link with their constructs are reported in
Table 3.
By analysing the table, it can be seen that all the
links between constructs hypothesised from the
theory are statistically significant at a level of 1%,
since all the t-values are greater than 2.576. The
standardised coefficients make it easier to under-
stand the force of the links between the constructs:
for example, a variation equal to a standard devi-
ation of the process control construct produces,
on average, a variation equal to 0.519 standard
deviations in the conformance construct. More
P Caused construct t-value Std coeff.
c TQM link with customers 4.120 0.770
1
c TQM link with suppliers 4.304 0.870
2
b Customer satisfaction 4.675 0.727
1
b Process control 4.125 0.777
2
b Conformance 3.051 0.519
3
 C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120
than the size of the coefficient, the fact that the
hypothesised link with the theory is confirmed by
the actual data collected, is of particular interest.
For each endogenous construct, the CALIS
procedure also reports the extracted variance and
the R2 coefficient, which does not give absolute
indications, but makes it possible for the structural
equations to be compared with each other (see
Table 4).
The values of R2 are all quite high, even if there
are no advised values, and they are all of a compa-
rable size with those obtained in other studies on
structural equation modelling. It can only be noted
that the conformance construct has an R2 a little
lower than that of the other constructs, so the
variance of this construct is only partially explained
by the process control construct. The link
between the two constructs is statistically signifi-
cant anyway, so it can be stated that the data
support the theory, which does require the exist-
ence of this link. It should be remembered that the
manifest variable conformance is the one which
presented most problems in the measure: firstly, the
presence of observations (revealing high defective-
ness) with influence on the correlation coefficient
and, second, absence of normality made a cubic
transformation necessary.
In order to obtain better confidence in the
validity of the model, modification indices pro-
vided by the CALIS procedure have also been
considered. These indices suggest whether it could
be convenient to cancel hypothesised linkages
or to add new linkages missed in the structural
model proposed. The use of these indices therefore
eliminate the problem of using SEM with a
Table 4
Extracted variance and coefficient R2.
Endogenous construct Extracted
variance
TQM link with customers 0.692
TQM link with suppliers 0.793
Process control 0.843
Customer satisfaction 0.489
Conformance 1153.903
17
presumed known structure. The values of the
modification indices suggest that adding or deleting
linkages deteriorate the model fit.
5. Conclusions
In this study a causal model was proposed in
order to compare the various dimensions of TQM
in terms of orientation towards quality and man-
agement practice with two specific performance
types: conformance and customer satisfaction. The
proposed model takes into consideration several
dimensions which are present in the TQM litera-
ture and in the TQM characterisation provided by
quality awards. However, the proposed model dif-
fers in its aim from that of the Quality award
models: the main aim of the proposed model is the
improvement of the TQM theory formulation and
it can only indirectly constitute a tool for the
promotion of quality awareness in the industrial
system. It considers only two specific quality per-
formance types and links these to specific quality
management levers. The aim of the model is to
distinguish direct linkages from indirect linkages
between the various levers and performance types.
This way of facing the problem will permit the
building of a theory on the relationship between
TQM levers and quality performance which make
explicit the dimensions, their linkages and the
motivation for these linkages. The proposed model,
once supported and refined by several tests in dif-
ferent environments, could constitute a useful
guideline for managers: one can understand which
are the prerequisites for a specific action, which are
the levers for a specific performance, and if the
theory is well enough developed, one can also be
made aware of the boundaries within which the
linkages are valid.
The model proposed was developed by clearly
defining the constructs which form it (the set of
R2
these definitions was then translated into a system
of measure equations) and the relations between
0.59 these constructs (the set of these relations was then
0.77 translated into a system of structural equations). In
0.60 addition, the hypothesised relations were moti-
0.53
vated by making recourse to the literature when-
0.27
ever this was possible. To obtain the data necessary
18 C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120
for the empirical testing of the model, a survey was
carried out on a random stratified sample of manu-
facturing companies. Subsequently, the measure
instruments were tested in order to check their
validity (in particular, their unidimensionality) and
their reliability.
The model was tested using structural equation
modelling (SEM). This technique made it possible to
(a) estimate the parameters which link the manifest
variables (i.e., the measures used) to the respective
latent constructs, and (b) to estimate the parameters
of the structural equations which link the latent
constructs to each other. Use of SEM also made it
possible to effect the two estimates contempor-
aneously and to take measure error into account.
The proposed model contains seven dimensions:
orientation towards quality, human resources,
TQM links with suppliers, TQM links with cus-
tomers, process control, customer satisfaction and
conformance. The test of the model initially pro-
posed highlighted the convenience (in order to
obtain a more parsimonious and better fitted
model) of dropping human resource construct even
though this construct was strongly linked to the
orientation towards quality construct. This result
could appear in contrast with what the literature is
saying about the importance of the role of human
resources in TQM. This result, however, should not
be read as implying that human resources are not
relevant in the obtaining of quality. Instead, it sug-
gests that the construct human resources and its
operationalisation should be theoretically revised.
This result could also suggest that the system
design (general orientation towards quality, ad-
equate coordination between design and produc-
tion and between design and marketing, strong
linkages with suppliers and customers, adequate
procedure for the process control) is more impor-
tant than the human resources factor (multifunc-
tional employees and employees suggestions) in the
achievement of conformance and customer satisfac-
tion. In other words, this result could draw atten-
tion to the structural design of the management
system and this is an important issue both for
practitioners and for researchers.
In the modified model, two paths of direct influ-
ence are highlighted. The first path leads to cus-
tomer satisfaction, and the second to conformance.
Obtaining customer satisfaction requires greater
attention to factors which concern downstream
relations with customers (for example, their in-
volvement in the programs for quality improve-
ment, the exchange of information on quality and
contact during design stages). On the other hand,
obtaining conformance requires adjustments to
process control. If the control is to be efficacious,
stable inputs are necessary and this can only be
obtained by means of closer upstream links with
suppliers. Finally, both these paths require strong
orientation towards quality at the outset. This
agrees with the opinion of several authors accord-
ing to whom orientation towards quality and in
particular the leadership of the top management
regarding quality is the lever which should be ap-
plied first of all if TQM implementation is to be
successful.
This study suffers from the fact that cause/conse-
quence relationships between two variables are not
easily identified in a survey. A more stringent test of
the causal relationships requires a longitudinal
study, or field experiment, which, by gathering the
values of both TQM levers and performance on an
appropriate time span, can investigate the associ-
ation between the variation of levers and the vari-
ation of performance. However, the insights
obtained through the tests performed are useful in
the design of such studies.
The modified model showed limited capability in
explaining quality conformance and, with the pres-
ent operationalisation of the considered dimen-
sions, it does not seem possible to improve it, since
the modification indices did not suggest alternative
paths in order to improve the overall fit. This result
may be due to missed constructs (for example,
design for manufacturing and quality checkpoint
criteria and location) or to inadequate opera-
tionalisation of the construct, in particular, the
human resource one and the conformance one. As
far as the quality conformance construct is con-
cerned, it would be better to identify its component
dimensions, by discriminating between defects
which can be observed within the process, at the
end of the process and at the customer site.
In TQM the temporal aspect is very important.
Changes made to a certain area will not have a im-
mediate impact on outcomes such as conformance
 C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120
and customer satisfaction. The implementation of
some changes also requires time (for example,
a change in the orientation towards quality is a cul-
tural change and cultural changes are notoriously
slow moving). These issues are reflected in the
model in two ways. First, time is considered in the
model, because it is included in the indirect path
which starts from the orientation towards quality
and reaches the performance variables through in-
termediate variables. Secondly, the time lag be-
tween the variation in a causal construct and the
consequent variation of the caused construct, is not
great. This means that it takes far less time as the
impact of the change to be observed than it does to
make the change itself. In turn, this reduces the
problems associated with discovering relationships
between variables.
The present study can therefore be continued in
several ways. Firstly, the model can be articulated
further and some constructs operationalised differ-
ently in order to be able to explain the Quality
Confomance and the human resource constructs
better. Secondly, the relationships found should be
investigated in different environments to test
whether they go in different directions or are
caused by any concomitant variables not included
in the present study. Finally, a longitudinal study
would be very valuable both to test cause-effect
relationships better and to investigate the time
dimension of TQM.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Doctors Pietro
Romano and Elena Bortolan for his support
given during data elaboration. Nevertheless, the
authors are solely responsible for what has been
said here.
This research was done with the help of a re-
search grant from the CNR, No. 94.04184.ST74.
References
[1] J.W. Dean, D.E. Bowen, Management theory and total
quality: improving research and practice through theory
development, Academy of Management Review 19 (3)
(1994) 392418.
19
[2] B.B. Flynn, R.G. Schroeder, S. Sakakibara, A framework
for quality management research and associated measure-
ment instrument, Journal of Operations Management
11 (4) (1994) 339366.
[3] A. Parasuraman, V.A. Zeithaml, L.L. Berry, A conceptual
model of service quality and its implications for future
research, Journal of Marketing 49 (1) (1985) 4150.
[4] S.B. Sitkin, K.M. Sutcliffe, R.G. Schroeder, Distinguishing
control from learning in total quality management: a con-
tingency perspective, Academy of Management Review
9 (3) (1994) 537564.
[5] C. Forza, Quality information systems and quality man-
agement: a reference model and associated measures for
empirical research, Industrial Management and Data Sys-
tems 95 (2) (1995) 614.
[6] T.C. Powell, Total quality management as competitive
advantage: a review and empirical study, Strategic Man-
agement Journal 16 (1995) 1537.
[7] J.E. Ettlie, Revisiting the House of Quality Foundations,
Production 26 (April 1993).
[8] D.A. Garvin, Competing on the Eight Dimensions of
Quality, Harvard Business Review 65 (1987) 101109.
[9] B. Nakhai, J.S. Neves, The Deming, Baldrige, and Euro-
pean quality awards, Quality Progress 27 (4) (1994) 3337.
[10] G.A. Bohoris, A comparative assessment of some major
quality awards, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management 12 (9) (1995) 3043.
[11] R. Dubin, Theory Building, The Free Press, New York, 1969.
[12] D.A. Whetten, What constitutes a theoretical contri-
bution?, Academy of Management Review 14 (1989) 490495.
[13] J.C. Anderson, M. Rungtusanatham, R.G. Schroeder,
A theory of quality management underlyng the deming
management method, Academy of Management Review
19 (3) (1994) 472509.
[14] P.C. Crosby, Quality is Free, Hodder and Stoughton,
Sevenoaks, 1979.
[15] W.E. Deming, Out of The Crisis, MIT Center for
Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, 1986.
[16] D.A. Garvin, Japanese quality management, Columbia
Journal of World Business 19 (3) (1984) 312.
[17] D.A. Garvin, Quality problems, policies, and attitudes in
the United States and Japan: an exploratory study, Acad-
emy of Management Journal 29 (4) (1986) 653673.
[18] R.D. Hames, Total quality management: the strategic
advantage, International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Logistic Management 21 (4) (1991) 914.
[19] J.M. Juran, Japanese and western quality: a contrast,
Quality Progress 11 (12) (1978) 1018.
[20] J.R. Hauser, D. Clausing, The house of quality, Harvard
Business Review 60 (3) (1988) 6373.
[21] R.J. Schonberger, World Class Manufacuring: the Lessons
of Simplicity Applied, The Free Press, New York, 1986.
[22] R.J. Schonberger, Builing a Chain of Customers, The Free
Press, New York, 1990.
[23] J. Richardson, Restructuring supplier relationship in U.S.
manufacturing for improved quality, Management Inter-
national Review 33 (1) (1993) 5367.
20 C. Forza, R. Filippini/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 120
[24] M. Ebrahimpour, J.L. Johnson, Quality, Vendor Evalu-
ation and Organizational Performance: A comparison of
U.S. and Japanese firms, Journal of Business Research
25 (2) (1992) 129142.
[25] J.M. Juran, Juran on Planning for Quality, American
Society for Quality Control, Milwaukee, 1988.
[26] L.M. Hanser, P.M. Muchinsky, Work as an information
environment, Organisational Behaviour and Human Per-
formance 21 (1978) 4760.
[27] C. Shalley, G. Oldham, J. Porac, Effects of goal difficulty,
goal setting method and expected external evaluation on
intrinsic motivation, Academy of Management Journal 30
(1987) 553566.
[28] L.J. Cronbach, Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Consist-
ency of Tests, Psychometrika 16 (1951) 297334.
[29] B.B. Flynn, S. Sakakibara, R.G. Schroeder, K.A. Bates,
E.J. Flynn, Empirical research methods in operations
management, Journal of Operations Management 9 (2)
(1990) 250284.
[30] J.F. Hair, R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, W.C. Black, Multi-
variate Data Analysis with Readings, Macmillan Publish-
ing Company, New York, 1992.
[31] L.A. Hayduk, Structural Equation Modeling with
LISREL Essentials and Advances, The Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, 1987.
[32] K.G. Joreskog, D. Sorbom, LISREL 7 A Guide to the
Program and Applications, 2nd ed., SPSS, Chicago, 1989.
[33] R.P. Bagozzi, L.W. Phillips, Representing and testing
organizational theories: a holistic construal, Administra-
tive Science Quarterly 27 (1982) 459489.