Analysis of interaction amongthe barriers to total qualitymanagement implementationusing interpretive structural

modeling approachFaisal Talib

Mechanical Engineering Section, Faculty of Engineering and Technology,University Polytechnic, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

Zillur RahmanDepartment of Management Studies,

Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India, and

M.N. QureshiDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology,

M S University of Baroda, Vadodara, India

Abstract

Purpose – Previous research showed that there are some barriers which hinder the implementationof total quality management (TQM) in organizations. But no study has been undertaken to understandthe interaction among these barriers and to develop a hierarchy of TQM barriers model. There is anurgent need to analyze the behavior of these barriers so that TQM may be successfully implemented.This paper therefore, aims to understand the mutual interaction of these barriers and identify the“driving barriers” (i.e. which influence the other barriers) and the “dependent barriers” (i.e. which areinfluenced by others).

Design/methodology/approach – In this paper, an interpretive structural modeling (ISM) basedapproach has been utilized to understand the mutual influences among the barriers of TQM.

Findings – In the present research work, 12 TQM barriers are identified through the literature reviewand expert opinion. The research shows that there exist two groups of barriers, one having highdriving power and low dependency requiring maximum attention and of strategic importance(such as lack of top-management commitment, lack of coordination between departments) and theother having high dependence and low driving power and are resultant effects (such as high turnoverat management level, lack of continuous improvement culture, employees’ resistance to change).

Practical implications – The adoption of such an ISM-based model on TQM barriers in serviceorganizations would help managers, decision makers, and practitioners of TQM in betterunderstanding of these barriers and to focus on major barriers while implementing TQM in theirorganizations.

Originality/value – Presentation of TQM barriers in the form of an ISM-based model and thecategorization into driver and dependent clusters is a new effort in the area of TQM.

Keywords Total quality management, Interpretive structural modeling, Barriers, Service organization,Managers, Modeling

Paper type Research paper

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

Using ISMapproach

563

Benchmarking: An InternationalJournal

Vol. 18 No. 4, 2011pp. 563-587

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1463-5771

DOI 10.1108/14635771111147641

IntroductionIn the era of economic liberalization and increased competition with the emergence ofnew products and improved services as well as fast growth in customer needs andexpectations for quality service, the service organization face tremendous competitionand are under immense pressure to become more responsive to customer needs and gainan upper edge. There are demands for improvement in the quality of products andservices, transparency in policies and procedures, increased emphasis on pre and postproduct and service delivery procedures, and cost of quality. Service organizations mustimprove the quality of their services, achieve competitive advantage, and move on a pathof growth and excellence. A customer centric philosophy of management needs to be allencompassing throughout the organization with an ultimate objective being customersatisfaction.

In order to achieve and accomplish the above aspects of customer, serviceorganizations are making use of well-known quality approaches like ISO 9000, totalquality management (TQM), Six Sigma, 5S, quality function deployment, and continuousquality improvement (CQI) programs which have helped them in achieving their goals.One of the important quality improvement techniques, which many organizations areusing to achieve excellence in business, is TQM. TQM has been widely accepted as adisciplined management process in different sector in order to cope with the changes inmarketplace and focus on quality in both their products as well as services (Venkatraman,2007). Though TQM was considered and used mainly by manufacturing industry, therehas been a strong push for adopting TQM in service organizations (Kureshi et al., 2010;Kaluarachchi, 2010; Eraqi, 2006; Telford and Masson, 2005; Srikanthan and Dalrymple,2004). Implementation of TQM has given them positive results, particularly towardsachieving enhanced organization performance and customer satisfaction. It is understoodthat the goals of TQM are to satisfy customers, prevent poor quality rather thancorrecting problems, develop an attitude of continuous improvement, understand thevalue of measuring performance to identify opportunities and maintain improvements,and to eliminate chronic sources of inefficiencies and costs (Evans and Lindsay, 1996;Burr, 1993; Mosadegh Rad, 2005). These goals could be achieved if there is a totalcommitment by entire organization (including top-management and employees) as wellas principles of TQM are fully understood by them.

Moreover, TQM is the culture of an organization committed to total customersatisfaction through continuous improvement (Mosadegh Rad, 2005; Gunasekaranand McGaughey, 2003). TQM demands change in organization culture for improvedperformance (Kaluarachchi, 2010). TQM also demands constancy of purpose throughoutthe organization, and persistence in accordance with a clear and widely understoodvision. It is an environment that requires and nurtures total commitment at all levels ofthe organization by providing potential benefits such as customer satisfaction, increasedproductivity and profit, enhanced business competitiveness, and increased market share(Gunasekaran, 1999; Mosadegh Rad, 2004). TQM has enjoyed great popularity in allsectors since its evaluation and is adopted into their regular management activities(Hansson and Eriksson, 2002; Gunasekaran, 1999). Recently, Ho (2010) has proposed an“integrated lean TQM model for global sustainability and competitiveness” to helporganizations to reduce global resource wasting and improve the damages caused by thefinancial tsunami. Study by Leonard (2010) suggested that quality managementsystems and quality award criteria are also making an impact in homebuilding industry.

BIJ18,4

564

Further, the application of world class manufacturing techniques like TQM, JIT, leanmanufacturing in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) enhance the productivity andquality of these industries (Gunasekaran, 2000).

Further, studies showed that TQM was positively associated with performanceoutcome such as financial performance, business performance, and profitability(Brah et al., 2000; Yusuf et al., 2007; Hendricks and Singhal, 1997; Salaheldin, 2009;Reed et al., 1996; Rust et al., 1999; Prajogo and McDermott, 2005; Hafeez et al., 2006;Bou-Llusar and Beltran-Martin, 2005) as well as with human outcome, such as employeesatisfaction, supplier relationship, and customer satisfaction (Mehra and Ranganathan,2008; Yang, 2006; Sila and Ebrahimpour, 2005; Gunasekaran and McGaughey, 2003;Arumugam et al., 2008; Salaheldin, 2009). However, in practice, these TQM benefitsare not easy to achieve. There are quite a number of evidences that suggests TQMimplementation is often unsuccessful due to different focus of organizations in itsimplementation (Venkatraman, 2007; Kendrick, 1993; Eskildson, 1995; Griffin, 1988; Kochand Fisher, 1998; Fuchsberg, 1993). Organizations found some barriers which hinder theimplementation of TQM. Owing to these barriers, they have not achieved the desiredbenefits, which they have expected after implementation of TQM. As a result, many of theTQM initiatives have been abandoned or are in the process of being abandoned. Somestudies even have asserted that approximately two-third of organizations have failed totheir attempt to implement TQM (Hubiak and O’Donnell, 1996; Guangming et al., 2000).

Furthermore, the literature review suggest that no study has been taken thatinvestigate explicitly the interactions among the barriers of TQM and proposes aninterpretive structural modeling (ISM) based model for the TQM barriers. Hence, this isperhaps the first study in this direction. To help address this gap, the present studyattempts to identify the barriers of TQM through extent literature review and expertopinions and further develops the contextual relationships among these identifiedbarriers using ISM approach. It also proposes a hierarchy of TQM barriers model thatwould help the managers and practitioners of service organizations to understand andpay attention to the identified barriers for successful implementation of TQM program.

For this purpose the following objectives have been designed:. to identify and rank the barriers of TQM in service organizations;. to find out the interaction among identified barriers of TQM using ISM

approach; and. to discuss the managerial implications of this research study and suggest

directions for future research.

The remainder of this paper has been organized as follows. The next section provides areview of the literature and discusses the identification of TQM barriers. This isfollowed by discussion of ISM methodology and development of the relationshipsmodel using ISM. Matrice d’Impacts Croises Multiplication Appliquee a un Classement(MICMAC) analysis of developed ISM model is carried out subsequently. Finally, thediscussion and conclusion of this research study are presented, which is followed bymanagerial implications and scope for future work.

Literature reviewDespite the fact that practices related to successful implementation of TQM havehelped in achieving the desired outcomes namely increased organization performance,

Using ISMapproach

565

profitability, and improved customer satisfaction, practicing and implementing TQMpractices is still not free from barriers. This literature review aims to identify thebarriers that need to be addressed during the implementation of TQM in serviceorganizations, which influence organizational performance and customer satisfaction.Based on the extent literature review and discussion with the experts in the serviceorganizations, keeping the service sector in focus, 12 barriers were identified, whichcan serve as invaluable lesson to those organizations that are planning to implementTQM or are in the process of its implementation, and are presented in Table I.

The above listed barriers are often cited in the TQM literature and are found to befrequently used by different researchers in their studies which suggest that thesebarriers hinder the successful implementation of TQM. Beside this, some barrierslike inadequate understanding of customer needs, lack of customer focus, lack ofmeasurement, lack of awareness of quality at management level, lack of vision, lack ofaccounting systems, lack of access to data and result, lack of suppliers/contractorsparticipation and other similar barriers are found to be insignificant in the present era ofdigital technology and mass customization. Utmost importance to such barriers arenowadays given due consideration by management by closely monitoring them throughcompany-wide information network. Therefore, such barriers are closely controlled andmonitored by management and hence, considered to be controllable with varying efforts.

Moreover, the barriers like incompatible organization structure, isolated individualsand departments, inability to change organizational culture, insufficient resources,short-term focus, and inappropriate rewards and recognition system which are oftencited with different names and headings are covered in this study under a commonbarrier name like lack of coordination between departments, lack of continuousimprovement culture, human resource barriers, no benchmarking, poor planning andinadequate use of empowerment and teamwork. Hence, these12 barriers are assumedto be the major TQM barriers that hinder the successful implementation of TQM.

Identification of TQM barriersLack of top-management commitment. A TQM program will succeed only iftop-management is fully committed beyond public announcements (Whalen andRahim, 1994). Ellram (1991) emphasized top-management commitment as an enabler,while lack of top-management commitment as a barrier too. According to Brigham(1993), lack of proper leadership is a common barrier to both manufacturing and serviceindustry in implementing TQM. Kanji (1996) identified management’s failure to lead asthe primary obstacle to successful TQM. Van der Wiele and Brown (2002) foundmanagement-related factors as the core factors that affect the long-term sustainability ofquality management. Lack of top-management commitment may stem from variousreasons like lack of experience and training, resistance to change, and hesitation ininitiating improvement programs.

High turnover at management level. High turnover and absenteeism at managementlevel have plagued many organizations and inhibited their efforts to implement TQMinitiatives effectively (Dowlatshahi, 1998; McDermott, 1994). Employees and managersin most of the organization encounter difficulties in adopting themselves to modernwork environments with new rules and organization hierarchies. Structural problemslike organization culture and performance appraisal problems like lack of rewardsystem and training program were the most often cited explanation for failing to return

BIJ18,4

566

Bar

rier

no.

Bar

rier

sR

efer

ence

s

1L

ack

ofto

p-m

anag

emen

tco

mm

itm

ent

Tam

imi

and

Seb

asti

anel

li(1

998)

,B

hat

and

Raj

ash

ekh

ar(2

009)

,Ju

net

al.

(200

4),

Wh

alen

and

Rah

im(1

994)

,Ven

kat

ram

an(2

007)

,Lju

ng

stro

man

dK

lefs

jo(2

002)

,Sol

tan

iet

al.

(200

5),M

osad

egh

Rad

(200

5),

Sal

egn

aan

dF

azel

(200

0),

Bri

gh

am(1

993)

,K

anji

(199

6),

New

all

and

Dal

e(1

990)

2H

igh

turn

over

atm

anag

emen

tle

vel

Am

aran

dZ

ain

(200

2),J

un

etal.

(200

4),T

amim

ian

dS

ebas

tian

elli

(199

8),S

olta

niet

al.

(200

5),M

osad

egh

Rad

(200

5),T

eag

ard

enet

al.

(199

2),D

owla

tsh

ahi

(199

8),M

cDer

mot

t(1

994)

,Ju

net

al.

(200

6),K

not

tsan

dT

omli

n(1

994)

,Law

ren

cean

dY

eh(1

994)

,Wen

tlin

gan

dP

alm

a-R

ivas

(199

8),L

awre

nce

and

Lew

is(1

993)

3A

ttit

ud

eof

emp

loy

ees

tow

ard

sq

ual

ity

Am

aran

dZ

ain

(200

2),H

elm

san

dM

ayo

(200

8),M

osad

egh

Rad

(200

5),S

aleg

na

and

Faz

el(2

000)

,Tam

imi

and

Seb

asti

anel

li(1

998)

4L

ack

ofp

rop

ertr

ain

ing

and

edu

cati

onT

amim

ian

dS

ebas

tian

elli

(199

8),

Bh

atan

dR

ajas

hek

har

(200

9),

Jun

etal.

(200

4),

Raj

ash

ekh

ar(1

999)

,W

hal

enan

dR

ahim

(199

4),

Hu

q(2

005)

,L

jun

gst

rom

and

Kle

fsjo

(200

2),

Sol

tan

iet

al.

(200

5),

Mos

adeg

hR

ad(2

005)

,T

atik

ond

aan

dT

atik

ond

a(1

996)

,A

deb

anjo

and

Keh

oe(1

998)

,N

ewal

lan

dD

ale

(199

0)5

Lac

kof

coor

din

atio

nb

etw

een

dep

artm

ent

Am

aran

dZ

ain

(200

2),G

un

asek

aran

(199

9),S

aleg

na

and

Faz

el(2

000)

,Tam

imi

and

Seb

asti

anel

li(1

998)

,A

l-Z

aman

yet

al.

(200

2)6

Hu

man

reso

urc

eb

arri

erT

amim

ian

dS

ebas

tian

elli

(199

8),B

hat

and

Raj

ash

ekh

ar(2

009)

,Am

aran

dZ

ain

(200

2),J

un

etal.

(200

4),

Wh

alen

and

Rah

im(1

994)

,Ven

kat

ram

an(2

007)

,L

jun

gst

rom

and

Kle

fsjo

(200

2),M

osad

egh

Rad

(200

5),

New

all

and

Dal

e(1

990)

7N

ob

ench

mar

kin

gA

l-Z

aman

yet

al.

(200

2),

Raj

ash

ekh

ar(1

999)

,T

amim

ian

dS

ebas

tian

elli

(199

8),

Bh

atan

dR

ajas

hek

har

(200

9),

Jun

etal.

(200

4)8

Poo

rp

lan

nin

gT

amim

ian

dS

ebas

tian

elli

(199

8),

Bh

atan

dR

ajas

hek

har

(200

9),

Jun

etal.

(200

4),

Wh

alen

and

Rah

im(1

994)

,M

osad

egh

Rad

(200

5),

Sal

egn

aan

dF

azel

(200

0),

New

all

and

Dal

e(1

990)

9E

mp

loy

ee’s

resi

stan

ceto

chan

ge

Tam

imi

and

Seb

asti

anel

li(1

998)

,B

hat

and

Raj

ash

ekh

ar(2

009)

,Ju

net

al.

(200

4),

Wh

alen

and

Rah

im(1

994)

,V

enk

atra

man

(200

7),

Sol

tan

iet

al.

(200

5),

New

all

and

Dal

e(1

990)

10In

adeq

uat

eu

seof

emp

ower

men

tan

dte

amw

ork

Tam

imi

and

Seb

asti

anel

li(1

998)

,B

hat

and

Raj

ash

ekh

ar(2

009)

,Ju

net

al.

(200

4),

Gu

nas

ekar

an(1

999)

,W

hal

enan

dR

ahim

(199

4),

Lju

ng

stro

man

dK

lefs

jo(2

002)

,M

osad

egh

Rad

(200

5),

Sal

egn

aan

dF

azel

(200

0),A

deb

anjo

and

Keh

oe(1

998)

,N

ewal

lan

dD

ale

(199

0)11

Lac

kof

con

tin

uou

sim

pro

vem

ent

cult

ure

Al-

Zam

any

etal.

(200

2),

Am

aran

dZ

ain

(200

2),

Wh

alen

and

Rah

im(1

994)

,H

uq

(200

5),

Mos

adeg

hR

ad(2

005)

12L

ack

ofco

mm

un

icat

ion

Al-

Zam

any

etal.

(200

2),H

elm

san

dM

ayo

(200

8),H

uq

(200

5),M

osad

egh

Rad

(200

5),S

aleg

na

and

Faz

el(2

000)

,T

amim

ian

dS

ebas

tian

elli

(199

8)

Table I.Barriers and their

references as reported inthe TQM literature

Using ISMapproach

567

to work as scheduled and for absenteeism (Mosadegh Rad, 2005; Jun et al., 2004). Highturnover and absenteeism may also stem from ineffective employee selection practice( Jun et al., 2004). Other explanations such as cultural differences (Lawrence and Yeh,1994), employees family issues (Teagarden et al., 1992), and switching the jobs for aminimal increase in salary (Lawrence and Lewis, 1993), have been offered to explainthe high turnover at management level. Ineffective employee compensation ( Jun et al.,2006) and promotion (Wentling and Palma-Rivas, 1998) are also significant factors thatinfluence turnover and absenteeism in the organization. Appraisal schemes such asfamily finances, basic healthcare facilities, quality and punctuality bonuses, andon-site healthcare clinic for employees and their families could dramatically reduceturnover and absenteeism (Teagarden et al., 1992; Jun et al., 2004).

Attitude of employee towards quality. Employee’s attitude towards quality is anotherimportant hindrance in effective implementation of any quality program. Difficulty inchanging the mindset of employee with regard to quality and urgency among them arereasons which generally obstructs the movement of quality program. Studies showedthat it is important for top-management to take a leadership role and show a strongcommitment at the time of implementing TQM to encourage employee towards quality(Rivers and Bae, 1999; Lee and Asllani, 1997). Change of employee attitude towardsquality requires training and education as well as sense of CQI culture, which can bebuilt through committed leadership efforts. Employees have to be made to feel thatquality adds improvement in productivity, services, and reduce costs and they aredirectly or indirectly responsible for customer satisfaction (Mosadegh Rad, 2004).

Lack of proper training and education. There are evidences that lack of proper trainingand education exists at all levels of an organization, and that it is a large contributor toworker resistance (Whalen and Rahim, 1994). A successful TQM environment requires acommitted, well-trained, and educated work force that participates fully in qualityimprovement activities. Insufficient training on quality as well as training in problemidentification and problem solving techniques leads to failure in TQM implementationprogram. However, it should be noted that training programs that are effectivelydesigned can be incorrectly implemented. For example, Tatikonda and Tatikonda(1996) analyzed such a failure where employees learned statistical process control(SPC) technique, but were not informed as to where to use it. Newall and Dale (1990) andLjungstrom and Klefsjo (2002) have also reported in their studies that poor educationand training acts as a major barrier in the development and implementation of qualityprogram.

Lack of coordination between departments. Poor coordination between departmentsis one of the critical barriers that an organization inhibits. Employee relations andcoordination between departments influence the performance of the organizationalsystem and consequently determine the nature and extent of TQM implementation(Sureshchandar et al., 2001). Amar and Zain (2002) found that the culture andinterdepartmental relations are critical to TQM initiatives. Additionally, lack ofcoordination between departments is seen to be detrimental to successful TQMimplementation. For example, it was observed that there are very wide differences ofopinion between the quality and production departments on many organization-relatedmatters (Amar and Zain, 2002). Weak internal communication within the departmentscan also cause lack of coordination between departments and thus, leads to majorbarrier to TQM implementation.

BIJ18,4

568

Human resource barrier. Human resource problem is an important barrier tosuccessful TQM implementation. Newall and Dale (1990) found that many qualitydepartments were overworked and understaffed leading to TQM failure. Juran (1986)reported that although the return on investment for a quality improvement project isvery high, many organizations fail to provide the adequate human resource necessaryto achieve significant results. Some studies have predicted human resource barrierssuch as non-participation of employees, low knowledge and experience about TQM,lack of culture and geographic homogeneity, lack of non-monetary motivationmechanisms, the tedious aspect of writing procedures, and low wages and salaries, asmajor obstacles to successful TQM implementation (Francois et al., 2003; MosadeghRad, 2004; Huang et al., 1999).

No benchmarking. Benchmarking is a continuous systematic process of measuringthe products, services, and practices against those of competitive organization leaders(Saravanan and Rao, 2006). Absence of benchmarking in the organization leads to lack ofCQI culture and competitiveness. Organization cannot achieve global standards withoutbenchmarking the critical business processes. Al-Zamany et al. (2002) examined thatregular meetings to review and improve the strategic plans will help in achieving thewell defined goals and targets, and results to removal of no-benchmarking barrier inthe organization. A recent study showed that despite the benefits of benchmarking,it is seldom applied within the organization due to lack of feasible tools organizationsdevelop internally which are often unstructured, to compare their business practice withthe practice of others (Bjorklund, 2010). Further, Presley and Meade (2010) present aframework for performance measurement and benchmarking as two tools which canassist organizations to realize the benefits and sustainability in construction industry.Overall, the organization can be transformed to world class status when benchmarkingis directed at the key business processes.

Poor planning. The absence of a sound strategic planning by the top-managementhas often contributed to ineffective quality improvement (Whalen and Rahim, 1994).Juran (1986) reported that some managers even gave quality planning a low priority.Though, the pre-planning stage of developing the right attitude and level of awareness isconsidered crucial in achieving success in a quality improvement program (Oakland,1989). Newall and Dale (1990) observed that a large number of organizations are eitherunable or not willing to plan effectively for quality improvement. Therefore, careful anddetailed planning is needed prior to the implementation of any quality program andorganizations should identify beforehand the stages that their processes undergo.

Employees’ resistance to change. Employees’ resistance to adopt the change is acommon barrier that every organization experiences while implementing any qualityimprovement program. Employees may perceive TQM as controlling rather thanempowering. They feel that TQM ask them to work harder for fewer rewards(Mosadegh Rad, 2005). Newall and Dale (1990) found that aging workers as well asworkers, who suffer from illiteracy or language barrier, may resist the implementation ofnew ideas and new concepts. On the other hand, Blankstein (1996) reported thatprofessionals and educated employees also resist to change as they expect autonomyand academic freedom, as in case of higher education. To resolve these problems,management should clarify organization’s quality strategies and polices, motivateemployees in order to participate actively in quality planning, decision making,

Using ISMapproach

569

processes improvement, and use of employee ideas and suggestions in qualitymanagement (Mosadegh Rad, 2005).

Inadequate use of empowerment and teamwork. Employee empowerment andteamwork are critical factors in TQM. Most TQM programs place substantial emphasison teamwork and problem-solving groups. Newall and Dale (1990) found that teams areseldom-fully used and their individual members are often contended. They suggestedthat these problems are caused by lack of feedback. Likewise, Adebanjo and Kehoe(1998), studied TQM implementation in UK manufacturing organizations, investigatedthe reason for inadequate use of empowerment and teamwork among the organization.They found insufficient teamwork facilitators and absence of team building techniquesin the organization. Oakland (1989) pointed out that it is important for the teams to focuson issues and use time as efficiently as possible.

Lack of continuous improvement culture. Continuous improvement is increasinglybecoming the life-line for a TQM organization. Absence of continuous improvementculture in the organization leads to total failure of TQM program. Deming (1986) andSchneider et al. (1996) emphasized the importance of continuous improvement culturewith the goal of zero defects. Al-Zamany et al. (2002) reported that lack of continuousimprovement culture in the organization may be due to the following reasons:

. unhealthy habits of the managers and executives;

. weak sense of responsibility of the managers;

. absence of assessment activities in the organizations;

. appointment of unqualified managers; and

. lack of effective action to force improvement.

Lack of communication. Poor communication is one of the major barriers found to hinderTQM efforts in an organization. Gunasekaran (1999) identified the enablers of TQMimplementation in one of the British manufacturing company through interview ofemployees from different departments of the organization. He reported that amongpeople oriented factors, communication between managers, supervisor, and staff, wasthe major enabler of TQM implementation, and poor communication betweendepartments was a real barrier to implementation of TQM. Lack of communicationacross the organization often results to unsatisfied customers, unfulfilled customerrequirements, and environment of distrust. Al-Zamany et al. (2002) argued that in mostof the cases the management resists in sharing important information with theemployees for several reasons. This would create the environment of distrust andconflict among management and employees.

ISM methodology and development of the relationship modelISM methodology is an interactive learning process and helps to improve order anddirection on the complex relationships among variables of a system (Sage, 1977). Inthis, a set of different and directly related variables affecting the system underconsideration is structured into a comprehensive systemic model. The model so formedportrays the structure of a complex issue, a system of a field of study, in a carefullydesigned pattern employing graphics as well as words (Singh et al., 2003; Ravi andShankar, 2005; Faisal et al., 2006).

BIJ18,4

570

ISM is a powerful qualitative tool which can be applied in various fields. Saxena et al.(1990) have identified the key variables using direct as well as indirect interrelationshipsamongst the variables and presented the results of the application of ISM methodologyto the case of energy conservation in Indian cement industry. Mandal and Deshmukh(1994) used the ISM methodology to analyze some of the important vendor selectioncriteria and have shown the interrelationships of criteria and their levels. Singh et al.(2003) have utilized this technique for the implementation of knowledge management inengineering industries. Bolanos et al. (2005) applied ISM methodology in improvingdecision making process among executives working in different functional areas whileQureshi et al. (2007) developed a model for the logistics outsourcing relationshipvariables to enhance shipper’s productivity and competitiveness in logistical supplychain using ISM based approach. Faisal et al. (2006) found ISM application in supplychain risk mitigation in Indian manufacturing SMEs. Hasan et al. (2007) exploredvarious barriers in adopting agile manufacturing and established a relationship amongthese barriers through the ISM methodology. Beside this, Raj et al. (2008) conducted acase a study and applied ISM approach for modeling the enablers of flexiblemanufacturing system. Finally, a recent study conducted by Sahney et al. (2010)proposed a quality framework for Indian higher education system particularly foradministrative staff. The framework was developed through the application of ISM.

A number of barriers exist in the implementation of TQM in serviceorganizations. An examination of the direct and indirect relationship between thesebarriers of TQM can give a clear picture of the situation than considering individualfactors alone in isolation. The ISM can be judiciously employed for getting betterinsights into the system under consideration. The process of ISM begins withthe identification of variables that could be related to each other in a system. Direct andindirect relationships are identified between these variables, which are then convertedinto a matrix that is finally structured into a digraph model through a hierarchicalconfiguration (Figure 1).

Figure 1.Digraph depicting the

relationship amongthe TQM barriers

3

10

7

212

8

5

6

4

9

1

11

Using ISMapproach

571

The ISM technique follows a systematic methodology. The various steps involved inISM technique when applied to the 12 identified barriers (or variables) as explained inthe previous section are as follows:

(1) The 12 barriers are listed and numbered as barriers 1-12 (Table I). Thesebarriers are identified through literature review and discussion with the expertsof the relevant area.

(2) Barriers identified in the first step are arranged in rows and columns, a matrixis developed for the barriers, by relating each of the barriers with the otherbarrier, one by one, pair-wise, through rows and columns. A contextualrelationship is thus, established among barriers in terms of “V”, “A”, “X”, and“O” which are explained in the next section.

(3) On the basis of pair-wise relationship between barriers of the system asobtained from step-2, a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) is developed forbarriers (Table II).

(4) A reachability matrix is then developed from the SSIM by converting theinformation in each cell entry of the SSIM obtained from step-3 into binary numbers“1” and “0” and thus, an initial reachability matrix is constructed (Table III).

(5) The initial matrix, obtained from step-4, is checked for transitivity andmodifications (if any) are made. The transitivity of the contextual relationis a basic assumption made in ISM. It states that if a barrier (or variable) “i” isrelated to “j” and “j” is related to “k”, then “i” is necessarily related to “k”. Thus,a final reachability matrix is obtained (Table IV).

(6) The final reachability matrix obtained in step-5 is partitioned into differentlevels on the basis of the reachability and antecedents sets for each of thebarriers and through a series of iterations (Tables V-XII).

(7) On the basis of the levels partitions obtained from step-6 and a finalreachability matrix (step-5), a conical matrix (lower triangular matrix) isconstructed (Table XIII). A directed graph or digraph is drawn and transitive linksare removed.

Barrier no. Barrier 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

1 Lack of top-management commitment V V V V V V V V V V V –2 High turnover at management level A A A O A A O A A A –3 Attitude of employees towards quality V V V V V O V A X –4 Lack of proper training and education X V V V V V O A –5 Lack of coordination between department V V V V V V V –6 Human resource barrier O V A V A O –7 No benchmarking A V A O A –8 Poor planning A V V V –9 Employee’s resistance to change O A A –

10 Inadequate use of empowerment andteamwork

A V –

11 Lack of continuous improvement culture A –12 Lack of communication –

Table II.Structural self-interactionmatrix

BIJ18,4

572

(8) The resultant digraph obtained from step-7 is converted into an ISM, byreplacing barriers nodes with statements (Figure 2).

(9) Finally, the ISM model developed in step-8 is reviewed to check for conceptualinconsistency and necessary modifications are incorporated through expertopinions.

Barrierno. Barriers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Drivingpower Rank

1 Lack of top-managementcommitment 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 I

2 High turnover atmanagement level 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 VIII

3 Attitude of employeestowards quality 0 1 1 1 0 1 1† 1 1 1 1 1 10 III

4 Lack of proper trainingand education 0 1 1 1 0 1† 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 III

5 Lack of coordinationbetween department 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 II

6 Human resource barrier 0 1† 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 VI7 No benchmarking 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1† 0 1 0 4 VI8 Poor planning 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 IV9 Employee’s resistance to

change 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 VIII10 Inadequate use of

empowerment andteamwork 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 6

V

11 Lack of continuousimprovement culture 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 VII

12 Lack of communication 0 1 1† 1 0 1† 1 1 1† 1 1 1 10 IIIDependence Power 1 11 5 5 2 8 8 6 11 7 10 5Rank VIII I VI VI VII III III V I IV II VI

Note: 1† entries are included to incorporate transitivityTable IV.

Final reachability matrix

Barrier no. Barriers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Lack of top-management commitment 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 High turnover at management level 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 Attitude of employees towards quality 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 14 Lack of proper training and education 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 15 Lack of coordination between department 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 Human resource barrier 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 07 No benchmarking 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 08 Poor planning 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 09 Employee’s resistance to change 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

10 Inadequate use of empowerment and teamwork 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 011 Lack of continuous improvement culture 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 012 Lack of communication 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1

Table III.Initial reachability matrix

Using ISMapproach

573

Structural self-interaction matrixAfter identifying and enlisting 12 barriers through literature review and experts opinion,there analysis is carried out. A contextual relationship of “leads to” type is chosen. Thismeans that one variable leads to another variable. Based on this principle, a contextualrelationship is developed. Some experts, both from service organizations and academia,have been consulted in developing the contextual relationship among the barriers. In thisstudy a team of 12 members participated which comprises of three core members,

Barriers (Bi) Reachability set R(Bi) Antecedent set A (Bi) Intersection set R(Bi) > A(Bi) Level

1 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 1 13 3,4,6,7,8,10,11,12 1,3,4,5,12 3,4,124 3,4,6,7,8,10,11,12 1,3,4,5,12 3,4,125 3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 1,5 56 6,11 1,3,4,5,6,8,10,12 67 7,11 1,3,4,5,7,8,10,12 78 6,7,8,10,11 1,3,4,5,8,12 8

10 6,7,10,11 1,3,4,5,8,10,12 1011 11 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 11 II12 3,4,6,7,8,10,11,12 1,3,4,5,12 3,4,12

Table VI.Barrier level iteration ii

Barriers (Bi) Reachability set R(Bi) Antecedent set A (Bi) Intersection set R(Bi) > A(Bi) Level

1 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,12 1 13 3,4,6,7,8,10,12 1,3,4,5,12 3,4,124 3,4,6,7,8,10,12 1,3,4,5,12 3,4,125 3,4,5,6,7,8,10,12 1,5 56 6 1,3,4,5,6,8,10,12 6 III7 7 1,3,4,5,7,8,10,12 7 III8 6,7,8,10 1,3,4,5,8,12 8

10 6,7,10 1,3,4,5,8,10,12 1012 3,4,6,7,8,10,12 1,3,4,5,12 3,4,12

Table VII.Barrier level iteration iii

Barriers (Bi) Reachability set R(Bi) Antecedent set A (Bi) Intersection set R(Bi) > A(Bi) Level

1 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 1 12 2 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 2 I3 2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 1,3,4,5,12 3,4,124 2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 1,3,4,5,12 3,4,125 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 1,5 56 2,6,9,11 1,3,4,5,6,8,10,12 67 2,7,9,11 1,3,4,5,7,8,10,12 78 2,6,7,8,9,10,11 1,3,4,5,8,12 89 9 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 9 I

10 2,6,7,9,10,11 1,3,4,5,8,10,12 1011 2,9,11 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 1112 2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 1,3,4,5,12 3,4,12

Table V.Barrier level iteration i

BIJ18,4

574

two quality experts, three from service organizations, and four from academia, having vastexperience in field of service quality, product quality, TQM, quality implementation, andservice marketing. Expert group is hailed from service organizations namely:

. Banks.

. Hospitals.

. Information and communication technology organizations.

Barriers (Bi) Reachability set R(Bi) Antecedent set A (Bi) Intersection set R(Bi) > A(Bi) Level

1 1,3,4,5,8,10,12 1 13 3,4,8,10,12 1,3,4,5,12 3,4,124 3,4,8,10,12 1,3,4,5,12 3,4,125 3,4,5,8,10,12 1,5 58 8,10, 1,3,4,5,8,12 8

10 10 1,3,4,5,8,10,12 10 IV12 3,4,8,10,12 1,3,4,5,12 3,4,12

Table VIII.Barrier level iteration iv

Barriers (Bi) Reachability set R(Bi) Antecedent set A (Bi) Intersection set R(Bi) > A(Bi) Level

1 1,3,4,5,8,12 1 13 3,4,8,12 1,3,4,5,12 3,4,124 3,4,8,12 1,3,4,5,12 3,4,125 3,4,5,8,12 1,5 58 8 1,3,4,5,8,12 8 V

12 3,4,8,12 1,3,4,5,12 3,4,12Table IX.

Barrier level iteration v

Barriers (Bi) Reachability set R(Bi) Antecedent set A (Bi) Intersection set R(Bi) > A(Bi) Level

1 1,3,4,5,12 1 13 3,4,12 1,3,4,5,12 3,4,12 VI4 3,4,12 1,3,4,5,12 3,4,12 VI5 3,4,5,12 1,5 5

12 3,4,12 1,3,4,5,12 3,4,12 VITable X.

Barrier level iteration vi

Barriers (Bi) Reachability set R(Bi) Antecedent set A (Bi) Intersection set R(Bi) > A(Bi) Level

1 1,5 1 15 5 1,5 5 VII

Table XI.Barrier level iteration vii

Barriers (Bi) Reachability set R(Bi) Antecedent set A (Bi) Intersection set R(Bi) > A(Bi) Level

1 1 1 1 VIIITable XII.

Barrier level iteration viii

Using ISMapproach

575

Barrier no. Barriers 2 9 11 6 7 10 8 3 4 12 5 1

2 High turnover at management level 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 Employee’s resistance to change 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 Lack of continuous improvement culture 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 Human resource barrier 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 No benchmarking 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 Inadequate use of empowerment and teamwork 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 08 Poor planning 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 03 Attitude of employees towards quality 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 04 Lack of proper training and education 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

12 Lack of communication 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 05 Lack of coordination between department 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 01 Lack of top-management commitment 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table XIII.Conical matrix

Figure 2.ISM-based model of TQMbarriers for serviceindustries

Lack of continuousimprovement culture (11)

Employee’s resistanceto change (9)

No benchmarking (7)

Poor planning (8)

Inadequate use of empowermentand teamwork (10)

Human resource barrier (6)

Lack ofcommunication (12)

Lack of propertraining andeducation (4)

Attitude ofemployees towards

quality (3)

Lack of coordination between departments (5)

Lack of top-management commitment (1)

High turnover atmanagement level (2)

BIJ18,4

576

Keeping in mind the contextual relationship for each barrier, the existence of a relationbetween any two barriers (i and j) and the associated direction of this relation has beendecided as depicted in Figure 1. The following four symbols have been used to denotethe direction of the relationship between the two barriers (i and j):

(1) V ¼ is used for the relation from barrier i to barrier j (i.e. if barrier i “will helpachieve” or “will help alleviate” barrier j).

(2) A ¼ is used for the relation from barrier j to barrier i (i.e. if barrier j “will beachieved by” or “will be alleviated by barrier i).

(3) X ¼ is used for both direction relations (i.e. if barriers i and j “help achieve eachother”).

(4) O ¼ is used for no relation between two barriers (i.e. if barriers i and j are notrelated).

Based on the contextual relationship between barriers, the SSIM has been developed.The SSIM is discussed with the experts. Based on their responses, SSIM has beenfinalized and is presented in Table II. The following statements explain the use ofsymbols in SSIM:

. Symbol “V” is assigned to cell (1,5) because barrier “1” (i.e. lack oftop-management commitment) influences or leads to barrier “5” (i.e. lack ofcoordination between department).

. Symbol “A” is assigned to cell (2,11) because removal of barrier 11 (i.e. “lack ofcontinuous improvement culture”) would help alleviate Barrier 2 (i.e. highturnover at management level).

. Symbol “X” is assigned to cell (3,4) because barriers 3 (i.e. “attitude of employeetowards quality”) and 4 (i.e. “lack of proper training and education”) influenceseach other.

. Symbol “O” is assigned to cell (6,7) because barriers 6 (i.e. “human resourcebarrier”) and 7 (i.e. “no benchmarking”) are not related.

Reachability matrix (initial and final)To develop the reachability matrix from SSIM, two sub-steps were followed. In the firstsub-step, the SSIM table is converted into the initial reachability matrix by transformingthe information of each cell of SSIM into binary digits “0s” and “1s” in the initialreachability matrix.

The rules for the substitution are as follows:. If the cell (i,j) is assigned with symbol “V” in the SSIM, then this cell (i,j) entry

becomes “1” and the cell ( j,i) entry becomes “0” in the initial reachability matrix.. If the cell (i,j) is assigned with symbol “A” in the SSIM, then, this cell (i,j) entry

becomes “0” and the cell ( j,i) entry becomes “1” in the initial reachability matrix.. If the cell (i,j) is assigned with symbol “X” in the SSIM, then, this cell (i,j) entry

becomes “1” and the cell ( j,i) entry also becomes “1” in the initial reachability matrix.. If the cell (i,j) is assigned with symbol “O” in the SSIM, then, this cell (i,j) entry

becomes “0” and the cell ( j,i) entry also becomes “0” in the initial reachability matrix.

Using ISMapproach

577

Following these rules, initial reachability matrix for the barriers is developed and isshown in Table III.

In the second sub-step, final reachability matrix is obtained by incorporating thetransitivity as explained in step 5 of the ISM methodology. The final reachability matrixwill then consist of some entries from the pair-wise comparison and some inferredentries. After incorporating the transitivity concept as described earlier, the finalreachability matrix is obtained and is presented in Table IV where in transitivity ismarked as 1†. In this table, the driving power and dependence of each barrier are alsoshown along with the ranking of the barriers is also done. The driving power of aparticular barrier is the total number of barriers (including itself) which it may helpachieve. The dependence is the total number of barriers which may help achieving it.These driving power and dependencies will be used in the MICMAC analysis, where thebarriers will be categorized into four clusters: autonomous (cluster I), dependent(cluster II), linkage (cluster III), and independent also called driver barriers (cluster IV).

Level partitionsBased on the suggestions of Warfield (1974) and Farris and Sage (1975), the reachabilityand antecedent set for each barrier is found out from final reachability matrix. Thereachability set for a particular barrier consists of the barrier itself and the other barriers,which it may help achieve. Similarly, the antecedent set consists of the barrier itself andthe other barriers which may help in achieving them. After finding the reachability setand antecedent set for each barrier, the intersection for these sets is derived for all thebarriers. The barriers for which the reachability and the intersection sets are the same isgiven the top-level barrier in the ISM hierarchy, which would not help achieve any otherbarrier above their own level. After the identification of the top-level barrier, it is removedfrom the other remaining barriers. From Table V, it is seen that “high turnover atmanagement level” (Barrier 2) and “employee’s resistance to change” (Barrier 9) are foundat level I. Thus, it would be positioned at the top of the ISM model. This iteration iscontinued till the levels of each barrier are determined. The levels so determined help inbuilding the digraph and the final model of ISM. The barriers along with their reachabilityset, antecedent set, intersection set, and the different levels, are shown in Tables V-XII.Further, level identification process of these barriers is completed in eight iterations.

Developing conical matrixConical matrix is achieved from partitioned reachability matrix by rearranging thebarriers according to their level, which means all the barriers having same levels areclubbed together. Barriers 2 (high turnover at management level) and 9 (employee’sresistance to change) are found at level I, while Barrier 11 (lack of continuousimprovement culture) is having level II, whereas barriers 7 (no benchmarking) and6 (human resource barrier) are having level III. Similarly, all the barriers are clubbed asper their level partition shown in Tables V-XII. After rearranging, the conical matrix isobtained, which is depicted in Table XIII. The conical matrix helps in the generation ofthe digraph and later on structural model.

Building the ISM-based model (Digraph)Based on the conical matrix, an initial digraph including transitivity links is obtained.This is generated by nodes and lines of edges. After removing the indirect links,

BIJ18,4

578

a final digraph is developed and is than finally converted into the ISM model byreplacing nodes of the barriers with statements as shown in Figure 2. In thisdevelopment, the top level barriers are positioned at the top of the digraph and secondlevel barrier is placed at second position and so on, until the bottom level is placed at thelowest position in the digraph (Figure 2).

The ISM model developed in this research depicts that “lack of top-managementcommitment” (Barrier 1) is very significant barrier to TQM implementation especially inservice organization as it comes at the base of the ISM hierarchy. “High turnover atmanagement level” (Barrier 2) and “employee’s resistance to change” (Barrier 9) are theTQM barriers on which the effectiveness of the TQM program overall depends. Thesebarriers have appeared at the top of the hierarchy (Level I).

“Lack of top-management commitment” (Barrier 1) leads to “lack of coordinationbetween departments” (Barrier 5), which results in “lack of communication” (Barrier 12),“lack of proper training and education” (Barrier 4), and “attitude of employees towardsquality” (Barrier 3). A healthy relationship between department and employees should bemaintained as it influence the performance of the organization and consequentlydetermine the nature and extent of TQM implementation (Sureshchandar et al., 2001) asotherwise it may lead to “lack of communication” (Barrier 12) which would effect theimplementation of effective training and education program (Barrier 4) as both areinterrelated. Beside this “lack of communication” (Barrier 12) also propagate the “attitudeof employee’s towards quality” (Barrier 3) which will hinder the implementation of TQMprogram in the organization. Therefore, “lack of communication” (Barrier 12), “lack ofproper training and education” (Barrier 4), and “attitude of employee’s towards quality”(Barrier 3) should be addressed at the same level.

“Poor planning” (Barrier 8) propagates through Barriers 12, 4 and 3, if there is flow ofcommunication in the organization, proper training and education is imparted andemployee’s attitude towards quality is developed than barrier of poor planning will beremoved and a an effective planning will emerged out. Further, a good strategic planningshould be in place that could benchmark organization’s activities and practices againstthose of competitive organization leaders (Saravanan and Rao, 2006) as well as makeuse of available human resources effectively as otherwise it may lead to problems like“inadequate use of empowerment and teamwork” (Barrier 10), “no benchmarking”(Barrier 7), and “human resource barrier” (Barrier 6) which would counter to theobjective of providing quality products and services to the customers. Also, absence ofbenchmarking in the organization leads to “lack of continuous quality improvementculture” (Barrier 11). Organization cannot achieve global standards withoutbenchmarking critical business processes (Saravanan and Rao, 2006). “Human resourcebarrier” (Barrier 6) enhance the “lack of continuous improvement culture” (Barrier 11), asinsufficient work force as well as incompetent and untrained employees will result in lackof continuous improvement culture. Without development of continuous improvementculture, it would be difficult to improve the “high turnover at management level” (Barrier 2)and barrier of “employee’s resistance to change” (Barrier 9).

MICMAC analysisThe MICMAC principle, also called as cross-impact matrix multiplication applied toclassification, is based on multiplication properties of matrices (Sharma et al., 1995).The purpose of MICMAC analysis is to analyze the driver power and dependence power

Using ISMapproach

579

of variables (Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994). The barriers (or variables) are categorizedinto four clusters (Figure 3). The first cluster (I) contains “autonomous barriers” thathave weak driver power and weak dependence. These barriers are relativelydisconnected from the system, with which they have only few links, which maybe strong. Second cluster (II) contains “dependent barriers” that have weak driver powerbut strong dependence. Third cluster (III) has the linkage barriers that have strongdriving power and also strong dependence. These barriers are unstable in the fact thatany action on these barriers will have an effect on others and also a feedback onthemselves. Fourth cluster (IV) includes the independent barriers having strong drivingpower but weak dependence. Driving power and dependence is the summation of binarydigit “1s” in their respective row and column for each barrier, respectively, in the finalreachability matrix shown in Table IV. Subsequently, the driver power-dependencediagram is constructed which is shown in Figure 3. As an illustration, it is observed fromTable IV that Barrier 1 is having a driver power of “12” and a dependence of “1”.Therefore, in this figure, it is positioned at a place corresponding to a driver power of“12” and a dependence of “1”.

Discussion and conclusionThe main objective of this research is to analyze the interaction among the variousbarriers of TQM which hinder in the successful implementation of TQM and to developa hierarchy of TQM barriers that would help in understanding these barriers in serviceorganizations. Therefore, an ISM-based model on TQM barriers has been developed.These barriers assumes importance because they hinder the TQM implementationprogram and pose considerable challenges both for managers and practitioners of TQMin service organizations. Some of the major barriers have been discussed here and placedinto an ISM model, to analyze the interaction between these barriers. The present

Figure 3.Driving power anddependence diagram

1

5

43,4,12

8

66,7

10

9

11

2,9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Dependence

Dri

ving

pow

er

Weak

IV

StrongWeak

Strong

II

III

I

I autonomous barrier; II dependent barrier; III linkage barrier;

independent (driver) barrierIV

Notes:

BIJ18,4

580

research emphasize that there is need to overcome these barriers for the success of TQMin the service organizations in order to improve organization performance and gaincustomer satisfaction. This study can serve an eye opener for those service organizationsthat lacks top-management commitment and coordination among departments whichare found to be major barriers of TQM implementation program in an organization.

The driver power-dependence matrix diagram (Figure 3) gives some valuableinsights about the relative importance and the interdependencies among the TQMbarriers. This can give better insights to the top-management so that they canproactively deal with these barriers. Some of the observations from the ISM model,which give important managerial implications, are discussed below:

. Figure 3 shows that there are no autonomous barriers seen in thedriver-dependence diagram. The absence of these barriers in the present studyindicates that all the considered barriers play a significant role in hindering theimplementation of TQM program. The management therefore, should payattention to all the considered barriers for a successful implementation of TQMprogram.

. Barriers such as “high turn over at management level”, “employee’s resistance tochange”, “lack of continuous improvement culture”, “no benchmarking”, “humanresource barrier”, and “inadequate use of empowerment and teamwork” arepossessing weak driving powers but strong dependency on other barriers. Theyare seen at the top of the ISM hierarchy (Figure 2). These barriers represent theunfavorable outcome to the managers and practitioners of service organizations.Hence, managers should take special care to handle these barriers.

. No barriers are seen as a linkage barrier that has a strong driving power as wellas strong dependence. Thus, it can be deduced that all the barriers of TQMidentified are stable.

. Finally, the driver power-dependence diagram indicates that independentbarriers such as “lack of top-management commitment”, “lack of coordinationbetween departments”, “lack of communication”, “lack of proper training andeducation”, “attitude of employees towards quality”, and “poor planning” are atthe bottom of ISM hierarchy, having strong driving power and weak dependence.Thus, management should place a high priority in tackling these barriers whichhave capability of influencing other barriers. They may be treated as the “majorbarrier” to TQM implementation.

The main contribution of this research includes the following:. In the present research paper, an attempt has been made to identify the major

barriers to TQM implementation in service organizations and is brought at oneplatform. Though, few research papers are available on TQM barriers, but nostudy is taken to understand the interaction among these major barriers. Also,there is no study on the development of model on barriers of TQM which could helpto develop the relationship between them so that these barriers may be omittedor minimized. The present ISM based model will help managers and practitionersof TQM to understand the relationship crux. Hence, this research assumesimportance in this context.

Using ISMapproach

581

. A key finding of this research is that “lack of top-management commitment” and“lack of coordination between departments” are significant barriers. From theISM model, it is observed that “lack of top-management commitment” and “lackof coordination between various departments” are at the bottom level of thehierarchy implying higher driving power. Therefore, management should focuson developing commitment and leadership within the organization and developcoordinal environment for healthy relationship between different departments tocreate quality culture and awareness about the benefits of TQM program so thesame can be reaped.

. In this research, there are number of barriers responsible for high turnover atmanagement level and employee’s resistance to change. These barriers of TQMare modeled in terms of their driving and dependence powers which have beencarried out. Those barriers possessing higher driving power in the ISM need tobe dealt with care on priority basis because they influence high turnover atmanagement level and employee’s resistance to change.

. In the present research, the proposed ISM-based model for identification andranking of TQM barriers can provide the decision makers and practitioners a morerealistic representation of the problem in the course of implementing TQM in theirorganization. A major contribution of this research paper lies in the development ofcontextual relationship among various identified barriers of TQM through a singlesystemic framework. The utility of the proposed ISM methodology lies in imposingorder and direction on the complexity of relationships among these barriers whichwould help the decision makers and practitioners of TQM to better utilize theiravailable resources for minimizing the barriers in the service organizations.

Finally, it would be useful to suggest the direction of future research in this area. Thepresent model has not been statistically tested and validated. Thus, the model is requiredto be statistically tested and validated using different approaches one of them is the“Structural Equation Modeling” (SEM) approach, also referred to as linear structuralrelationship approach. Statistical software like Amos 16.0, Lisrel 8.8 can be used infuture to build correlation matrix, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and diagrammingto validate the relationships. Comparing ISM and SEM, SEM has the capability ofstatistically testing an already developed theoretical model whereas ISM on the otherhand has the capability to develop an initial model through managerial techniques suchas brainstorming, nominal group techniques and idea engineering. In this way, ISM is asupportive analytic tool for this situation. However, it may be suggested that due tocomplimentary nature of both of these techniques, the future research may be directed infirst developing an initial model using ISM and then testing it using SEM. ISM also helpsin classifying variable into dependent, independent, autonomous, and link categories.Management may use their resources over identified factors thus, optimization of theresources may be accomplished. Further, the systemic framework proposed in this studyhas wide application and can be used to improve performance, administrative abilities,and effectiveness of the organization.

References

Adebanjo, D. and Kehoe, D. (1998), “An evaluation of quality culture problems in UK companies”,International Journal of Quality Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 275-86.

BIJ18,4

582

Al-Zamany, Y., Hoddell, E.J. and Savage, B.M. (2002), “Understanding the difficulties ofimplementing quality management in Yemen”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 240-7.

Amar, K. and Zain, M.Z. (2002), “Barriers to implementing TQM in Indonesian manufacturingorganizations”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 367-72.

Arumugam, V., Ooi, K-B. and Fong, T-C. (2008), “TQM practices and quality managementperformance – an investigation of their relationship using data from ISO 9001:2000 firmsin Malaysia”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 206, pp. 636-50.

Bhat, K.S. and Rajashekhar, J. (2009), “An empirical study of barriers to TQM implementation inIndian industries”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 261-72.

Bjorklund, M. (2010), “Benchmarking tool for improved corporate social responsibility inpurchasing”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 340-62.

Blankstein, A.M. (1996), “Why TQM can’t work-and a school where it did”, Education Digest,Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 27-30.

Bolanos, R., Fontela, E., Nenclares, A. and Paster, P. (2005), “Using interpretive structural modelingin strategic decision making groups”, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 877-95.

Bou-Llusar, J.C. and Beltran-Martin, I. (2005), “TQM, high-commitment human resource strategyand firm performance: as empirical study”, TotalQualityManagement, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 71-86.

Brah, S.A., Wong, J.L. and Rao, B.M. (2000), “TQM and business performance in the servicesector: a Singapore study”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,Vol. 20 No. 11, pp. 1293-312.

Brigham, S.E. (1993), “Lessons we can learn from industry”, Change, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 42-7.

Burr, J.T. (1993), “A new name for a not-so-new concept”, Quality Progress, pp. 87-8.

Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, MIT, Centre for Advanced Engineering, Cambridge, MA.

Dowlatshahi, S. (1998), “The role of purchasing and TQM in the Maquiladora industry”,Production & Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 32-49.

Ellram, L. (1991), “Key success factors and barriers in international purchasing partnerships”,Management Decision, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 38-44.

Eraqi, M.I. (2006), “Tourism services quality (TourServQual) in Egypt – the viewpoints of externaland internal customers”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 469-92.

Eskildson, I. (1995), “TQM’s role in corporate success: analyzing the evidence”, NationalProductivity Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 25-38.

Evans, J.R. and Lindsay, W.M. (1996), The Management and Control of Quality, 3rd ed.,West Publishing Company, St Paul, MN.

Faisal, M.N., Banwet, D.K. and Shankar, R. (2006), “Supply chain risk mitigation: modeling theenablers”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 535-52.

Farris, D.R. and Sage, A.P. (1975), “On the use of interpretive structural modeling for worthassessment”, Computers and Electrical Engineering, Vol. 2 Nos 2/3, pp. 149-74.

Francois, P., Peyrin, J.C., Touboul, M., Labarere, J., Reverdy, T. and Vinck, D. (2003), “Evaluatingimplementation of quality management systems in a teaching hospital’s clinicaldepartments”, International Journal of Quality Health Care, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 47-55.

Fuchsberg, G. (1993), “Total quality is termed only partial success”, The Wall Street Journal,Vol. 1, October, p. B1.

Griffin, R. (1988), “Consequences of quality circles in an industrial setting: a longitudinalassessment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 338-58.

Using ISMapproach

583

Guangming, C., Clarke, S. and Lehaney, B. (2000), “A systemic view of organizational change andTQM”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 186-93.

Gunasekaran, A. (1999), “Enablers of total quality management implementation onmanufacturing: a case study”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 987-96.

Gunasekaran, A. (2000), “World class manufacturing in small and medium enterprises”, InternationalJournal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, Vol. 2 Nos 1-7, pp. 777-89.

Gunasekaran, A. and McGaughey, R.E. (2003), “TQM in supply chain management”, The TQMMagazine, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 361-3.

Hafeez, K., Malak, N. and Abdelmeguid, H. (2006), “A framework for TQM to achieve businessexcellence”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 1213-29.

Hansson, J. and Eriksson, H. (2002), “The impact of TQM on financial performance”, MeasuringBusiness Excellence, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 44-54.

Hasan, M.A., Shankar, R. and Sarkis, J. (2007), “A study of barriers to agile manufacturing”,International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Helms, M.M. and Mayo, D.T. (2008), “Assessing poor quality service: perceptions of customerservice representative”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 610-22.

Hendricks, K.B. and Singhal, V.R. (1997), “Does implementing an effective TQM programactually improve operating performance? Empirical evidence from firms that have wonquality awards”, Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 9, pp. 1258-74.

Ho, S.K.M. (2010), “Integrated lean TQM model for global sustainability and competitiveness”,The TQM Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 143-58.

Huang, J., Lee, Y.W. and Wang, R.Y. (1999), Quality Information and Knowledge, Prentice-Hall,Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hubiak, W.A. and O’Donnell, S.J. (1996), “Do Americans have their minds set against TQM?”,National Productivity Review, Vol. 15, pp. 19-20.

Huq, Z. (2005), “Managing change: a barrier to TQM in implementation in service industry”,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 452-69.

Jun, M., Cai, S. and Peterson, R.T. (2004), “Obstacles to TQM implementation in Mexico’sMaquiladora industry”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 59-72.

Jun, M., Cai, S. and Shin, H. (2006), “Total quality management practice in Maquiladora:antecedents of employee satisfaction and loyalty”, Journal of Operations Management,Vol. 24, pp. 791-812.

Juran, J.M. (1986), “The quality trilogy”, Quality Progress, August, pp. 19-24.

Kaluarachchi, K.A.S.P. (2010), “Organizational culture and TQM practices: a Sri Lankan case”,The TQM Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 41-55.

Kanji, G.K. (1996), “Implementation and pitfalls of total quality management”, Total QualityManagement, Vol. 7, pp. 331-43.

Kendrick, J.J. (1993), “TQM: is it forging ahead or falling behind quality?”, Quality, Vol. 32No. 5, p. 13.

Knotts, R. and Tomlin, S. (1994), “A comparison of TQM practices in US and Mexico companies”,Journal of Production and Inventory Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 53-8.

Koch, J.V. and Fisher, J.L. (1998), “Higher education and total quality management”, Total QualityManagement, Vol. 9 No. 8, pp. 659-68.

Kureshi, N., Qureshi, F. and Sajid, A. (2010), “Current health of quality management practices inservice sector SME – a case study of Pakistan”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 317-29.

BIJ18,4

584

Lawrence, J.J. and Lewis, H.S. (1993), “JIT manufacturing in Mexico: obstacles toimplementation”, Journal of Production and Inventory Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 31-5.

Lawrence, J.J. and Yeh, R. (1994), “The influence of Mexican culture on the use of Japanesemanufacturing techniques in Mexico”, Management International Review, Vol. 34 No. 1,pp. 49-66.

Lee, S.M. and Asllani, A. (1997), “TQM and BPR: symbiosis and a new approach for integration”,Management Decision, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 409-16.

Leonard, D. (2010), “Quality management practices in the US homebuilding industry”, The TQMJournal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 101-10.

Ljungstrom, M. and Klefsjo, B. (2002), “Implementation obstacles for a work-development-orientedTQM strategy”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 13, pp. 621-34.

McDermott, T. (1994), “TQM: the total quality Maquiladora”, Business Mexico, November, pp. 42-5.

Mandal, A. and Deshmukh, S.G. (1994), “Vendor selection using interpretive structural modeling(ISM)”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 52-9.

Mehra, S. and Ranganathan, S. (2008), “Implementing TQM with a focus on enhancing customersatisfaction”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 25 No. 9,pp. 913-27.

Mosadegh Rad, A.M. (2004), “A step to total quality management”, Management andDevelopment Process Quarterly, Vol. 55, pp. 32-41.

Mosadegh Rad, A.M. (2005), “A survey of total quality management in Iran-barriers to successfulimplementation in health care organizations”, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 18 No. 3,pp. 12-34.

Newall, D. and Dale, B. (1990), “The introduction and development of a quality improvementprocess: a study”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 1747-60.

Oakland, J.S. (1989), Total Quality Management, Heinemann, London.

Prajogo, I. and McDermott, C.M. (2005), “The relationship between TQM practices andorganizational culture”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 1101-22.

Presley, A. and Meade, L. (2010), “Benchmarking for sustainability: an application to thesustainable construction industry”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3,pp. 435-51.

Qureshi, M.N., Kumar, D. and Kumar, P. (2007), “Modeling the logistics outsourcing relationshipvariables to enhance shippers’ productivity and competitiveness in logistical supplychain”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 56 No. 8,pp. 689-714.

Raj, T., Shankar, R. and Suhaib, M. (2008), “An ISM approach for modeling the enablers offlexible manufacturing system: the case for India”, International Journal of ProductionResearch, Vol. 46 No. 24, pp. 6883-912.

Rajashekhar, J. (1999), “Total quality management in India-perspective and analysis”, The TQMMagazine, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 321-7.

Ravi, V. and Shankar, R. (2005), “Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverselogistics”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 72 No. 8, pp. 1011-29.

Reed, R., Lemak, D.J. and Montgomery, J.C. (1996), “Beyond process: TQM content and firmperformance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 172-202.

Rivers, P.A. and Bae, S. (1999), “TQM implementation in health care organizations”, Total QualityManagement, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 281-90.

Using ISMapproach

585

Rust, R.T., Keiningham, T.L., Clemens, S. and Zahorik, A.J. (1999), “Return on quality at ChaseManhattan Bank”, Interfaces, March-April, pp. 62-72.

Sage, A.P. (1977), Interpretive Structural Modeling: Methodology for Large-scale Systems,McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 91-164.

Sahney, S., Banwet, D.K. and Karunes, S. (2010), “Quality framework in education throughapplication of interpretive structural modeling: an administrative staff perspective in theIndian context”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 56-71.

Salaheldin, S.I. (2009), “Critical success factors for TQM implementation and their impact onperformance of SMEs”, International Journal of Productivity and PerformanceManagement, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 215-37.

Salegna, G. and Fazel, F. (2000), “Obstacles to implementing TQM”, Quality Progress, Vol. 33No. 7, pp. 53-64.

Saravanan, R. and Rao, K.S.P. (2006), “Development and validation of an instrument formeasuring total quality service”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 733-49.

Saxena, J.P., Sushil and Vrat, P. (1990), “Impact of indirect relationships in classification ofvariables – a MICMAC analysis for energy conservation system”, System Research, Vol. 7No. 4, pp. 245-53.

Schneider, B., Brief, A.P. and Guzzo, R.A. (1996), “Creating a climate and culture for sustainableorganizational change”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 24, pp. 7-19.

Sharma, H.D., Gupta, A.D. and Sushil (1995), “The objectives of waste management in India:a future inquiry”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 285-309.

Sila, I. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2005), “Critical linkages among TQM factors and business results”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 1123-55.

Singh, M.D., Shankar, R., Narain, R. and Agarwal, A. (2003), “An interpretive structural modelingof knowledge management in engineering industries”, Journal of Advances inManagement Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 28-40.

Soltani, E., Lai, P-C. and Gharneh, N.S. (2005), “Breaking through barrier to TQM effectiveness:lack of commitment of upper-level management”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 16Nos 8/9, pp. 1009-21.

Srikanthan, G. and Dalrymple, J. (2004), “A synthesis of a quality management model foreducation in universities”, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 18No. 4, pp. 266-79.

Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Anantharaman, R.N. (2001), “A holistic model for totalquality service”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12,pp. 378-412.

Tamimi, N. and Sebastianelli, R. (1998), “The barriers to total quality management”, QualityProgress, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 57-60.

Tatikonda, L.U. and Tatikonda, R.J. (1996), “Top ten reasons your TQM effort is failing toimprove profit”, Production & Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 5-9.

Teagarden, M.B., Butler, M.C. and Von Glinow, M.A. (1992), “Mexico’s Maquiladora industry:where strategic human resource management makes a difference”, OrganizationalDynamics, Vol. 20, pp. 34-42.

Telford, R. and Masson, R. (2005), “The congruence of quality values in higher education”,Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 107-19.

Van der Wiele, T. and Brown, A. (2002), “Quality management over a decade (a longitudinalstudy)”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 19, pp. 508-23.

BIJ18,4

586

Venkatraman, S. (2007), “A framework for implementing TQM in higher education programs”,Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 89-112.

Warfield, J.W. (1974), “Developing interconnected matrices in structural modelling”,IEEE Transcript on Systems, Men and Cybernetics, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 81-7.

Wentling, R.M. and Palma-Rivas, N. (1998), “Current status and future trends of diversityinitiatives in the workplace: Diversity experts’ perspective”, Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 235-53.

Whalen, M.J. and Rahim, M.A. (1994), “Common barriers to implementation and development ofa TQM process”, Industrial Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 19-24.

Yang, C.C. (2006), “The impact of human resource management practices on the implementationof total quality management”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 162-73.

Yusuf, Y., Gunasekaran, A. and Dan, G. (2007), “Implementation of TQM in China andorganizational performance: an empirical investigation”, Total Quality Management,Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 509-30.

Further reading

Mosadegh Rad, A.M. (2003), The Principles of Health Care Administration, Dibagran Tehran,Tehran.

About the authorsFaisal Talib is an Assistant Professor at Mechanical Engineering Section, UniversityPolytechnic, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India. He holds Masters in Industrial andProduction Engineering and is currently pursuing a PhD in Total Quality Management inService Sector from Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India. He has more than 12 years ofteaching experience. He has more than 30 publications to his credit in national/internationaljournals and conferences. His special interests include quality engineering, TQM, service quality,Quality Concepts Taguchi Methods, and quality management in service industries. Faisal Talibis the corresponding author and can be contacted at: ftalib77@yahoo.co.in

Zillur Rahman is an Associate Professor at Department of Management Studies, IIT, Roorkee.He is a recipient of the Emerald Literati Club Highly Commended Award and one of his paperswas The Science Direct Top 25 Hottest Article. His work has been published and cited in variousjournals including Management Decision, Managing Service Quality, International Journal ofInformation Management, Industrial Management and Data Systems, The TQM Magazine,Business Process Management Journal, International Journal of Service Industry Management,Information Systems Journal, Decision Support Systems, Journal of Business and IndustrialMarketing, and International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, to name a few.

M.N. Qureshi is an Associate Professor at Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty ofEngineering and Technology, M S University of Baroda. He earned his graduation and postgraduation degrees in Mechanical Engineering from M S University of Baroda and later on aPhD from IIT Roorkee, Roorkee. He has more than 50 publications to his credit innational/international journals and in conference proceedings. His areas of interest includelogistics and supply chain management, industrial management, quality management, etc.

Using ISMapproach

587

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints