Total quality management practices and its impact on Indian construction projects

C. Vijayabanu; S. Karthikeyan; P. Vijay Surya

doi:10.2478/otmcj-2022-0013

Figures & Tables

Conceptual research model – factors determining TQM. TQM, Total quality management.

PLS-SEM Model. BM, Benchmarking; COMMU, Communication; EMPINV, Employee Involvement and Empowerment; INNOV, Innovation; OUTPU, Outcome due to Quality Improvement Efforts; PLS, Partial least square; QO, Quality Objectives; QSS, Quality Supervision; SEM, Structural equation model; SPQM, Supplier Quality Management; TEAM, Team Effectiveness; TECHN, Technical; TPMGT, Top Management Commitment.

Accuracy analysis statistics for factors determining the total quality of construction projects_

Factors	Items	Factor loadings	CR	AVE	Cronbach's α
QSS	The supervisor gives credit to people when they do a good job.	0.78	0.79	0.51	0.68
	The supervisor gives feedback on the work I have done.	0.50
	Quality improvement is their responsibility.	0.73
	My supervisor rewards being cooperative and a good team player.	0.85
COMMU	Top Management information and interaction	0.85	0.86	0.67	0.74
	Middle management support	0.90
	Periodic Feedback	0.69
BM	Best practices	0.81	0.86	0.60	0.78
	Material comparison	0.79
	Cost Comparison	0.69
	Quality of the supplies	0.80
QO	Statutory provisions	0.53	0.77	0.47	0.64
	Proper prior testing with sample materials	0.72
	Workmanship quality	0.87
	Quality of the supplies	0.57
TPMGT	Quality as primary objective	0.90	0.94	0.74	0.93
	Quality as being more important than deadlines	0.91
	Frequent performance evaluation	0.89
	Timely allocation of resources	0.84
	Clear quality goals objectives	0.85
	Quality is the primary agenda in all the company meetings.	0.76
INNOV	Creative and innovative suggestions for work improvements	0.77	0.87	0.69	0.77
	Autonomy to use new methods	0.90
	Contemporary methods are encouraged	0.81
SPQM	Quality is a more important criterion than the price in selecting suppliers	0.76	0.87	0.57	0.80
	The supplier's delivery performance is considered before ordering	0.86
	The supplier's market stability is considered	0.77
	Maintenance of long-term supplier relationship management	0.81
	Supplier audit and evaluation	0.54
EMPINV	Participative work culture	0.85	0.86	0.56	0.79
	Employee suggestion schemes	0.73
	Employees are encouraged to give more suggestions.	0.86
	Awards (financially or otherwise) are provided to individuals for their excellent suggestions.	0.79
	Employee participation in quality audit	0.50
TEAM	Team work	0.73	0.91	0.68	0.87
	Team Problem solving	0.85
	Team skills and knowledge	0.92
	Synergy and team effectiveness	0.85
	Cohesive team	0.76
TECHN	Initial cracks’ visibility	0.51	0.77	0.47	0.67
	Plumb checking is always done before and after concreting	0.85
	Honeycomb structures’ visibility	0.51
	Platform vibrator is used during the compaction of roof slab	0.64
	Cutting of rebars is done using machinery	0.68
OUTPU	Productivity	0.81	0.82	0.50	0.73
	Cost Reduction	0.51
	Quality of Service	0.73
	Timeliness of Service	0.61
	Customer Satisfaction	0.83

Results of SEM analysis using bootstrap_

	Entire sample estimate	T-Statistic	Result
QO ⇒ OUTPU	0.13	1.65	Supported by 10%
TPMGT ⇒ OUTPU	0.17	1.84	Supported by 10%
INNOV ⇒ OUTPU	0.38	2.20	Supported by 5%
QSS ⇒ OUTPU	0.15	1.65	Supported by 10%
COMMU ⇒ OUTPU	0.16	1.71	Supported by 10%
BM ⇒ OUTPU	0.27	2.82	Supported by 1%
TECHN ⇒ OUTPU	0.43	3.87	Supported by 1%
TEAM ⇒ OUTPU	0.21	1.8	Supported by 10%
SPQM ⇒ OUTPU	0.23	2.13	Supported by 5%
EMPINV ⇒ OUTPU	0.25	2.39	Supported by 5%

Apparent elements included in the study and its reliability statistics_

S No.	Factors	Author	Cronbach's α
1	BM	Saraph et al. (1989) and Nwabueze (2001)	0.939
2	COMMU	Delgado et al. (2005)	0.939
3	INNOV	Juran (1974) and Nwabueze (2001)	0.938
4	EMPINV	Oakland (1993) and Zhang (2000)	0.940
5	QO	Saraph et al. (1989)	0.940
6	QSS	Saraph et al. (1989)	0.940
7	SPQM	Delgado et al. (2005)	0.938
8	TEAM	Delgado et al. (2005)	0.939
9	TECHN factors	Delgado et al. (2005)	0.937
10	TPMGT	Juran (1974) and Motwani (2001)	0.939
11	Project Outcome (Productivity, Cost Reduction, Quality of Service, Customer Satisfaction, Timeliness)	Delgado et al. (2005)	0.940

Latent variable correlations for factors determining the total quality of construction projects_

Factors	QSS	COMMU	BM	QO	TPMGT	INNOV	SPQM	EMPINV	TEAM	TECHN
QSS	0.75^*
COMMU	0.7	0.82^*
BM	0.2	0.3	0.77^*
QO	0.4	0.2	0.4	0.69^*
TPMGT	0.6	0.8	0.3	0.1	0.86^*
INNOV	0.3	0.5	0.6	0.3	0.3	0.83^*
SPQM	0.4	0.6	0.6	0.2	0.6	0.4	0.76^*
EMPINV	0.2	0.3	0.6	0.4	0.4	0.6	0.5	0.75^*
TEAM	0.2	0.3	0.7	0.3	0.3	0.8	0.6	0.6	0.82^*
TECHN	0.7	0.6	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.2	0.5	0.2	0.3	0.68^*
OUTPU	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.3	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.6

Total quality management practices and its impact on Indian construction projects

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Accuracy analysis statistics for factors determining the total quality of construction projects_

Results of SEM analysis using bootstrap_

Apparent elements included in the study and its reliability statistics_

Latent variable correlations for factors determining the total quality of construction projects_

Paradigm

My account