journal of alasmarya university€¦ · mostafa ahmed shokshok 5 volume (36) issue 2 (december...

1

ISSN: 2706-9524 (Print) ISSN: 2706-9532 (Online)

مجلة الجامعة األسمرية

(2102)ديسمبر 2 العدد (36) المجلد

Journal of Alasmarya University

VALIDATION OF QUALITY CULTURE FRAMEWORK

PROPOSED FOR LIBYAN MANUFACTURING

COMPANIES: LEADERSHIP VARIABLE

Mostafa Ahmed Shokshok

Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering

Alasmarya Islamic University, Zliten - Libya

Email: [email protected]

Abstract:

The paper validates the Leadership variable of the quality

management system (QMS) framework proposed for Libyan

manufacturing companies. Five Libyan companies participated in the

validation process, and followed the implementation process for a

period of six months. Self-assessment had been designed based on

literature reviews and author previous researches. Pre-implementation

leadership values obtained in this study less than 50% of the Malcolm

Baldrige National Quality Award scores (MBNQA), these scores

reflect the need to concentrate on both senior leadership and

governance and societal responsibilities to improve the leadership

criterion. The leadership values obtained six months after-

implementation ranges from 33 to 58%. Four companies have an

effective systematic approach which is responsive to the basic

requirements of the leadership item, and their position in leadership

item is equivalent to companies who are in the early stages of

deployment. Meanwhile, one company has an effective systematic

approach which is well developed and responsive to the requirements

of leadership item.

Keywords: QMS, quality culture, leadership, MBNQA.

mailto:[email protected]

Validation of Quality Culture Framework Proposed for Libyan Manufacturing

Companies: Leadership Variable

2 Journal of Alasmarya University مجلة الجامعة األسمرية

Introduction

Quality management systems (QMS) implementation programs have been

considered by many researchers through several years, all have studied the

issue from different points, and explored different point of views. Tata and

Prasad [1] suggested four steps for QMS implementation, and advised

companies planning to implement QMS to go through certain processes of

diagnosing culture and structure, determine match between organisational

culture / structure and QMS strategy, designing content of change, and

deciding how to implement the change. Najeh and Kara-Zaitri [2] stated that

applying self-assessment tools within manufacturing organisations is a

crucial factor for QMS in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Libya.

Another study conducted by Sayeh et al. [3] concluded that before thinking

of implementing a QMS approach within Libyan manufacturing industries,

it is advised to understand the dominant culture within the related

organisations, this is in line with the findings of Bugdol [4] who stated that

Polish companies including their organisational culture and current methods

of human resources management should become a positive aspect of the

continuing process of QMS implementation. In recent researches, the author

found that Libyan national and organisational culture are not suitable for

QMS implementation [5], and proposed a QMS framework includes the

necessity for culture change [6], and suggested an implementation flowchart

to be followed for successful results and a detailed pre-validation processes

[7, 8].

Chin and Dale [9], and Chin and Pun [10] achieved full implementation of

their QMS framework in Chinese manufacturing companies within a twelve

month period, where on the other hand, Ab Rahman and Tannock [11]

validated their QMS framework in Malaysia within a six months period.

Based on time limitations for this study, the author decided to conduct the

validation processes within six months period, with an assessment

procedure every three months of implementation.

The author conducted an interview with a number of Libyan manufacturing

companies managers [12], and requested the participants to participate in the

quality culture implementation processes. The validation processes

continued with five companies shown in Table 1, which completed the full

implementation period of six months. All five companies participated in the

validation processes are large size companies, and expected to be more able

to adopt quality practices than smaller companies. The author presented the


3 Volume (36) Issue 2 (December 2019) ( 2102 ديسمبر) 2( العدد 63المجلد )

aim of conducting the case study to the top managers, and requested the top

management of the five companies to assign a research coordinator to help

the author in conducting the validation test. The top managers agreed and

arranged a research coordinator to help conducting the study in their

companies.

Table 1 Breakdown of companies participated in the validation

No. Industry Company

symbol Interviewee position

Quality system

Type year

1 Oil and Gas OG1 Quality control manager

ISO 10 OG2 Maintenance manager

2 Cement CE2 Quality control manager

ISO 10 CE3 Production manager

3 Iron and Steel IS1 Quality control manager ISO 10

It is advisable for organisations to carry out a simple self-assessment of their

current status in terms of organisational performance and resources

available before starting the implementation. According to their current

status of quality practices, individual organisations can choose the

appropriate starting point to implement quality culture. In facilitating the

adoption of quality practices, companies need to assess their current status

in terms of organisational performance and resources available. Chin and

Dale [9] suggested a 5-level possible current QMS implementation status,

which needs to be evaluated prior to QMS implementation and during

different stages of implementation. The 5-levels are namely the unaware,

uncommitted, initiators, improvers, and achievers, and suggested a scoring

scheme for these levels as in Table 2. Organisations are considered unaware

if they are not familiar with the basic concepts, practices, and tools and

techniques of continuous improvement. Uncommitted organisations have

some understanding of QMS, and may give impression that they have

implemented QMS, but no real changes have been made. Organisations are

considered initiators if they are aware of continuous improvement, and are

in the earlier stages of putting the basic elements of QMS in place. They still

need guidance in facilitating the QMS adoption process. Organisations that

have made real progress and moving in the right direction of continuous

improvement, but they still have a long way to go, they are considered to be




improvers. These organisations are often vulnerable to short-term pressures

and unexpected difficulties. Achievers are those organisations who have

reached a point of QMS maturity, and attained the kind of culture, values,

trust, relationship and employee involvement required to attain the

internationally recognized standards or specific quality excellence awards

[9, 10].

Table 2 Self-assessment scoring scheme of QMS implementation

Score QMS adoption level

≥ 70 Achievers

≥ 40 but <70 Improver

≥ 20 but < 40 Initiator

< 20 Unaware and/or uncommitted

Source: Chin and Dale 2000

Data Collection, Analysis and Results

A QMS self-assessment is designed based on the work of Ab Rahman and

Tannock [11], Ab Rahman [13], Jung et al. [14] and Lau et al. [15]. The

major aim of the assessment processes is to evaluate the company's quality

practices status by company's management in different time intervals to

diagnose the company's quality status and success. MBNQA [16] indicated

that a process item leadership score of 50% represents an approach that

meets the overall requirements of the item, and deployed consistently to

most work units that has been through some cycles of improvement and

learning, and addresses the key organisational needs. The author had

suggested that all companies evaluate their companies simply by scoring the

appropriate scale which represents the status of their companies prior to the

implementation of the quality culture framework [7, 17] .The main reason

for this assessment was to diagnose the status of MBNQA Leadership

criteria before quality culture implementation for comparison with after-

implementation results. Quality culture implementation process is

implemented in the five chosen Libyan companies and results had been

analysed and summarised in Table 3. First assessment represent pre-

implementation assessment which is conducted before starting the

validation test, second assessment represent quality practices status of the

company after three months of implementation and third assessment



represent the company's final quality practices status after six months of

implementation.

The mean values of the three assessments of leadership element in the five

Libyan industrial companies are shown in Table 3. The values indicate that

all five companies improved their leadership status by time. According to

the assessment scores used in this study, the minimum possible score for

leadership criterion is 24 out of the maximum MBNQA score of 120.

Through the analysis of feedback data from all five companies, as in Table

3, the author summarised the results and remarks in the following points:

Leadership pre-implementation assessment

Companies OG1, OG2, CE2 and IS1, scored respectively values of 32, 32, 27 and

27 out of the maximum MBNQA score of 120, which represents

respectively 27, 27, 23, and 23% on MBNQA scale. Since the percentage of

leadership value in all four companies are less than 27.5, this means that it is

apparent that companies OG1, OG2, CE2 and IS1 are in the beginning of a

systematic approach to the basic requirements of the leadership item, and

that the four companies position in leadership item is equivalent to

companies who are in the early stages of deployment. Company CE3 has a

greater and better leadership score value than the other four companies. It

scored 46 out of the maximum MBNQA score of 120, which represents

38%. It is apparent that this company has an effective and systematic

approach which is responsive to the basic requirements of leadership item, it

seems also that some work units are in an equivalent position of early stages

of deployment [16]. The author concludes from Table 3 and Figure 1 that all

companies scores less than 50% of the MBNQA score. These scores reflect

the need to concentrate on both senior leadership and governance and

societal responsibilities to improve the leadership criterion.

Table 3 Leadership results summary

Company 1st assessment 2

nd assessment 3

rd assessment

OG1 Score 32 38 52

% 27 32 43

OG2 Score 32 42 48

% 27 35 40

CE2 Score 27 32 40

% 23 27 33

CE3 Score 46 53 69

% 38 44 58

ISI Score 27 37 48

% 23 31 40




Leadership three months after-implementation

After three months of quality culture implementation, leadership criterion

seems to be improving in all five companies with different rates. Company

CE2 is improving with a slower rate than the other four companies, it scored

32 out of the maximum MBNQA score of 120, which represent 27%. Since

the percentage of leadership value in this company is less than 27.5, this

means that company CE2 is in the beginning of a systematic approach to the

basic requirements of the leadership item, and that its position in leadership

item is equivalent to companies who are in the early stages of deployment.

Companies OG1, OG2, CE3 and IS1 scored respectively 38, 42, 53 and 37

out of the maximum MBNQA score of 120, which represents 32, 35, 44 and

31% respectively. It is apparent that these companies has an effective and

systematic approach which is responsive to the basic requirements of

leadership item, it seems also that some work units are in an equivalent

position of early stages of deployment [16]. The author concludes from

Table 3, Table 1 and the above discussion that all companies scores less

than 50% of the MBNQA score, which means that all five companies did

not meet the overall requirements of the item leadership. These scores

reflect the need to concentrate on both senior leadership and governance and

societal responsibilities to improve the leadership criterion.

Leadership six months after-implementation

After six months of implementation, leadership criterion again seems to be

improving in all five companies with different rates. Companies OG1, OG2,

CE2 and IS1 scored respectively 53, 48, 40 and 48 out of the maximum

MBNQA score of 120, which represents 43, 40, 33 and 40% respectively.

Company CE3 is improving with a faster rate than the other four companies,

it scored 69 out of the maximum MBNQA score of 120, which represent

58%. The author concludes from Table 3, Figure 1 and the above discussion

that four companies scores less than 50% of the MBNQA score, these

companies are OG1, OG2, CE2, and IS1, which means that these four

companies did not meet the overall requirements of the item leadership.

Only company CE3 met the overall requirements of the item leadership with

a MBNQA percent rate of 58% [16]. The author concludes from Table 3 and

Figure 1 that four companies scores less than 50% of the MBNQA score,

these companies are OG1, OG2, CE2, and IS1, which means that these four

companies did not meet the overall requirements of the item leadership.



Only company CE3 met the overall requirements of the item leadership with

a MBNQA percent rate of 58% [16]. Similar researches in evaluating

MBNQA leadership criteria have been conducted in different countries (e.g.

China, USA, Malaysia, Australia and Singapore). These researches found a

high score level in leadership criteria, which scored a range of 72 to 94% as

been summarised in Table 4. Companies in these countries seem to have an

effective systematic approach which is well developed and responsive to the

multiple requirements of the leadership. The approach is well deployed with

no significant gaps [16].

Table 4 Leadership score values of selected previous researches

Author Lau et

al. [15]

Jung et

al. [14]

Arumugam et

al. [18] Feng et al. [19]

Prajogo and

McDermott [20]

Region China USA Malaysia Australia Singapore Australia

Value 4.7 4.0 3.6 3.7 4.3 3.8

% 94 80 72 74 86 76

Figure 1 Leadership assessment

0102030405060708090

100110120130

Min. score

Pre-implemetation assessment

Assessment after three months

Assessment after six months




Conclusion

Pre-implementation assessment showed that leadership values ranges from

23 to 38%, and values obtained six months after-implementation ranges

from 33 to 58%. Comparing these results with the values in Table 4, it is

clear that all five companies under study did not reach the values of the

selected previous researches values, even though an improvement had been

notices. Companies OG1, OG2, CE2 and IS1 have an effective systematic

approach which is responsive to the basic requirements of the leadership

item, and that the four companies' position in leadership item is equivalent

to companies who are in the early stages of deployment. Meanwhile,

company CE3 has an effective systematic approach which is well developed

and responsive to the requirements of leadership item.

References [1] Tata, J. and S. Prasad, Cultural and structural constraints on total quality

management implementation. Total Quality Management, 1998. 9(8): p.

703-710.

[2] Najeh, R.I. and C. Kara-Zaitri, A comparative study of critical quality

factors in Malaysia, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Libya. Total

Quality Management, 2007. 18(1-2): p. 189–199.

[3] Sayeh, F.S., S. Dani, and E. Swain. TQM management culture within

Libyan organisations. in Quality Conference. 2005. Tripoli, Libya.

[4] Bugdol, M., The implementation of the TQM philosophy in Poland. The

TQM Magazine, 2005. 17(2): p. 113-120.

[5] Shokshok, M.A., M.N. Ab Rahman, and D. Abd Wahab, Diagnosing

culture variables to enable successful TQM implementation in Libyan

manufacturing companies World Applied Science Journal (WASJ), 2011.

12(6): p. 903-911.

[6] Shokshok, M.A., Quality Culture Framework Proposal for Libyan

Industrial Companies. World Academy of Science, Engineering and

Technology, International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational,

Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 2014. 8(7): p. 2236-2239.

[7] Shokshok, M.A., QMS Implementation Flow chart for libyan

Manufacturing Companies, in First Confrence of Industrial Technology

2017: The College of Industrial Technology, Misurata, Libya.

[8] Shokshok, M.A. and O.A.A. Khrais, Valadating Quality System

Framework Through Preimplemntation Procedures in Local and

International Companies. Journal of Alasmarya University, 2019. 36(1): p.

32-42.

[9] Chin, K.S. and B.G. Dale, A TQM implementation framework for Hong

Kong manufacturing industries. Final Report on HKSAR Government, City

University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. 2000: p. 95.



[10] Chin, K.S. and K.F. Pun, A proposed framework for implementing TQM in

Chinese organisations. The International Journal of Quality and Reliability

Management, 2002. 19(3): p. 272-294.

[11] Ab Rahman, M.N. and J. Tannock, Self-assessment and Mini-TQM

framework for Malaysian SMEs. Jurnal Produktiviti, 2008. 25: p. 1-10.

[12] Shokshok, M.A. and O.A. Abu Krais, An Investigation of Quality Practices

in Libyan Industrial Companies. World Academy of Science, Engineering

and Technology, International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational,

Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 2015. 9(8): p. 2745-2751.

[13] Ab Rahman, M.N., The development of a quality management framework

for Malaysian small and medium enterprises, 2004, University of

Nottingham: Nottingham, England. p. .

[14] Jung, J., et al., The effect of organisational culture stemming from national

culture towards quality management deployment. The TQM Journal, 2008.

20(6): p. 622-635.

[15] Lau, R.S.M., X. Zhao, and M. Xiao, Assessing quality management in

China with MBNQA criteria. International Journal of Quality & Reliability

Management, 2004. 21(7): p. 699-713.

[16] Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program, Criteria for performance

excellence. National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). 2010.

2010(16 December).

[17] Shokshok, M.A., Quality Culture Framework Proposal for Libyan

Industrial Companies. World Academy of Science, Engineering and

Technology, International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational,

Economic and Management Engineering, 2014. 8(7): p. 2227-2230.

[18] Arumugam, V., et al., Self-assessment of TQM practices: A case analysis.

The TQM Journal, 2009. 21(1): p. 46-58.

[19] Feng, J., et al., The impact of TQM practices on performance: A

comparative study between Australian and Singaporean organizations.

European Journal of Innovation Management, 2006. 9(3): p. 269-278.

[20] Prajogo, D.I. and C.M. McDermott, The relationship between Total

Quality Management practices and organisational culture. International

Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2005. 25(11): p. 1101-

1122.

journal of alasmarya university€¦ · mostafa ahmed shokshok 5 volume (36) issue 2 (december...

Documents