DOCUMENT RESUME ED 474 298 CE 084 687 Performance, Productivity and Continuous Improvement. TITLE Symposium. No-42 REPORT NO PUB DATE 2002-00-00 33p.; In: Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) NOTE Conference Proceedings (Honolulu, Hawaii, February 27-March 3, 2002); see CE 084 635. PUB TYPE Opinion Papers (120) Reports Research (143) -- Speeches /Meeting Papers (150) EDRS Price MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. EDRS PRICE Adult Education; Adult Learning; College Faculty; Comparative DESCRIPTORS Analysis; Competence; Factor Analysis; Foreign Countries; Human Resources; Influences; *Job Performance; *Labor Force Development; Literature Reviews; Manufacturing Industry; Organizational Change; Organizational Culture; Organizational Development; Organizational Effectiveness; *Performance Factors; *Performance Technology; Postsecondary Education; Predictor Variables; Private Sector; *Productivity; Public Agencies; Public Sector; Quality Control; Research; Research and Development; Supervisor Supervisee Relationship; Teacher Researchers; *Total Quality Management Thailand; United Kingdom; United States IDENTIFIERS ABSTRACT This document contains four papers from a symposium on performance, productivity, and continuous improvement. "Investigating the Association between Productivity and Quality Performance in Two Manufacturing Settings" (Constantine Kontoghiorghes, Robert Gudgel) summarizes a study that identified the following quality management variables as the strongest predictors of productivity and performance: internal process satisfaction; external customer satisfaction; and consistent delivery of work output in a complete fashion. "Tri-Dimensional Social Support from Supervisor and Multilevel Performance in Government Units in Thailand" (Duchduen Bhanthumnavin) reports on a study of 355 supervisor-subordinate pairs working in health centers in Thailand. "Continuous Improvement through TQM (Total Quality Management) A Case Study in Rhetoric" (John Stuart Walton, Prabhjot Kaur Basra) discusses the relationship between TQM, organization- wide change initiatives, and continuous improvement at large organizations in the United Kingdom over a 15-year period. "An Analysis of Factors Associated with Research Productivity of Human Resource Development Faculty" (Heather A. Williams, James E. Bartlett III, Joe W. Kotrlik, Chadwick Higgins) reports on a study of the research productivity of HRD faculty that identified the following five variables as accounting for 50% of the variance in the faculty members' research productivity: teaching; research; service; administrative allocation; and amount of graduate assistant hours. All four papers contain substantial bibliographies. (MN) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS CENTER (ERIC) BEEN GRANTED BY This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization att Od/ originating it. Minor changes have been made to ga.4,4 improve reproduction quality. 6k.--ALIIA=haizzA TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES Points of view or opinions stated in this INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. 1 2002 AHRD Conference Performance, Productivity and Continuous Improvement Symposium 42 Honolulu, Hawaii March 3, 2002 February 27 - EST COPY AVAILABLE 2 Quality Performance in Two Investigating the Association Between Productivity and Manufacturing Settings Constantine Kontoghiorghes Oakland University Robert Gudgel Pennsylvania College of Technology between productivity and quality The main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship have ascertained the close performance in two manufacturing settings. In all, the results of this study that investments in quality should association between quality and productivity performance and suggested that were found to be the strongest indeed result in productivity gains. The quality management variables satisfaction, external predictors of productivity performance were those pertaining to internal process complete fashion. customer satisfaction, and consistent delivery of work output in a Keywords: Productivity, Quality, Performance 1989), the ultimate desired outcome of HRD As highlighted by ASTD's "Human Resource Wheel" (McLagan, fulfillment, or readiness for interventions is improvements in productivity, quality, innovation, human resource driven markets both productivity and change. It is also widely known that in today's very competitive and customer Yet, despite their importance, HRD quality have become a very important strategic priority for most organizations. almost non-existent. The main purpose of this research in the area of productivity and quality performance has been the relationship between productivity empirical study is to address this limitation of HRD research and thus examine and quality performance in two manufacturing organizations. be attributed to the Perhaps the lack of research in the productivity and quality improvement area can and quality improvement approaches. conflicting points of view pertaining to the compatibility of the productivity argued that improvements in product Manufacturing managers in the U.S. and Western Europe have traditionally productivity (Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990; quality are costly and do not result in commensurate improvements in by quality experts who have Mohanty, 1998). This belief has been challenged since the mid twentieth century One of the earliest experts to suggest a suggested that improvements in quality also result in productivity increases. who stated that "productivity is increased by link between productivity and quality was Feigenbaum (1961) detection and rework of failures" (p. 20). emphasizing the positive control of quality rather than after -the- fact corresponding improvements in productivity by Deming (1982, 1986) argued that improvements in quality do create indicated that "with the balanced manufacturing reducing costs, errors, rework, and delays. Feigenbaum (1961) unit decrease" (p. 20). capability for quality production in place, productivity rises as costs per conformance of a product to established Quality has been described as satisfying customers (Spencer,1994), desired characteristics and value of a product standards (Crosby, 1979, Garvin, 1984, Lindsay & Petrick, 1997), and Jones, 1996). Womack and Jones (1996) further suggest that "value can as defined by the customer (Womack and expressed in terms of a specific product (a only be defined by the ultiniate customer and it is only meaningful when customer's needs at a specific price at a specific time" (p. good or a service, and often both at once) which meets the providing services when requested by customers, 16). Quality of services has been described as timeliness of service quality and responsiveness to customer completeness of services provided, courtesy to customers, consistent Masaaki Imai (1986) suggested that "in its needs (Lindsay & Petrick, 1997). Finally, Japanese quality expert broadest sense, quality is anything that can be improved" (p. 9). (Sumanth, 1981a, 198 lb), the number of Productivity is commonly defined in terms of output to input ratios simply as the time necessary for producing one unit (Monden,1993), or processes a worker can handle during 1996). Productivity has also been described efficient use of production resources (Monden, 1993; Womack & Jones, schedule performance, and cost variances (Huge, by various performance measures such as machine utilization, organization's total headcount (Huge, 1990). By 1990). Another description of productivity is output divided by an expended to viewed as an outcome which is measured against resources any of these definitions, productivity is create that outcome. typically used approaches such Organizations that have succeeded in improving productivity and quality have principles continuous improvement (also called kaizen), or lean manufacturing as total quality management (TQM), defined as a customer focused strategy involving all (also called the Toyota production system). TQM has been services (Herron, Bohan, & Meyer, 1997). TQM employees in continuous improvement of processes, products, and Copyright © 2002 Constantine Kontoghiorghes and Robert Gudgel 42-1 3 competitive performance by methods and techniques for enhancing has also been described as "a group of service industries, (Grant, Shani, & ICrisn, 1994, p. 26). Relative to improving the quality of products and services commitment to operationalizing quality service (TQS) and defined as "a true the TQM concept has been called total measuring performance against establishing service performance standards, the concept of customer focus, share" (Stamatis, behavior so as to increase sales and market benchmarks, recognizing and rewarding exemplary 1996, p. 43). called 5 S's has been used as part of lean Relative to creating and maintaining effective work areas, a process to eliminate principles require employees within their work areas manufacturing practices (Monden, 1993). 5 S tools and equipment (set in place), (sort), organize work areas for ease of using unnecessary equipment and clutter work (standardize), standard procedures and visual aids to process maintain cleanliness of work areas (shine), use of 5 S principles is an Womack and Jones (1996) suggest that use and comply with the first four S's (Sustain). productivity. work areas which promote better quality and important step towards creating and maintaining of Kaizen or Continuous Improvement (Monden, Related to TQM and lean manufacturing are the concepts improvement of 1986). Kaizen means continuous incremental Shibakawa, Takayanagi, & Nagao, 1985; Imai, using organizational goals (Imai, 1986). Kaizen also means quality and productivity processes to help meet (Imai, 1986). these quality and productivity improvements employee ideas and participation to accomplish characteristics and kaizen seem to incorporate many common In all, the concepts of TQM, lean manufacturing, summarized as process productivity. These common elements can be that help organizations improve quality and benchmarking against of waste, performance measurement, improvement, employee involvement, reduction control of needs, control of product and service quality, competitors and the best organizations, focus on customer provide quality inputs in a timely manner. costs, a learning culture, and mutual help to revealed that industry by Massachusetts Institute of Technology A five year worldwide study of the automotive (Womack et al., 1990). These achieved high quality and high productivity certain assembly plants had concurrently (Monden, (Womack et al., 1990) or the Toyota production system plants were managed using lean manufacturing and synchronized by prevention of errors and defects, simple 1993). Lean manufacturing is characterized and a major focus on from production of one product to another, manufacturing processes, speed in changing of products. Lean unneeded inventory and unnecessary movement elimination of various forms of waste such as decisions, employee involvement to improve processrs, error- Manufacturing includes employee control of quality (Womack et al., 1990; Monden, 1993). proofing of work output, and use of 5S principles. in a manufacturing documented a quality management intervention A case study by Gudgel and Feitler (2000) A single quality of 57% in quality and 81% in productivity. firm that resulted in concurrent improvements in both quality and produce a dramatic and simultaneous improve management intervention was able to better quality resulting in improvements support Deming's concept of productivity. The documentation of these study. and productivity variables proposed in this better productivity and the link between quality quality and productivity and Bryant (2001) examined the link between An empirical study by Kontoghiorghes Positive and strong correlations were health care insurance industry. in a service non-profit organization in the and Bryant study further productivity indicators. The Kontoghiorghes found between the investigated quality and complete fashion" to be the by peers is consistently delivered in a identified the quality indicator "work output (work output by peers exceeds three productivity indicators investigated strongest predictor of two of the satisfaction with internal timely fashion). This study also found expectations; inputs from peers are received in a effective production". Other quality predictor of the productivity indicator of "cost processes, to be the strongest productivity indicators were: be strong predictors of the investigated indicators and variables that were found to of product emphasis on doing things right the first time; measurement satisfaction with quality of peer work output; improvement; and, decision making of the process; organization focus on process or service quality at every step and productivity highlighted the close association between quality involvement. In all, the results of this study indeed result in productivity suggested that investments in quality should performance in a service environment and gains. and productivity strong association between quality Despite some anecdotal evidence that suggests a it, "folklore has it antithetical approaches. As Deming (1986) put performance, still many today consider the two as will tell you incompatible: that you can not have both. A plant manager in America that quality and production are If he pushes production, his pushes quality, he falls behind in production. that it is either or. In his experience, if he is productivity (value addition) and quality According to Mohanty (1998), however, "it quality suffers" (p. 1). organizations need to integrate and competitiveness. To remain competitive, (value enhancement) that determine the quality and Despite the need to integrate and synthesize 759). synergize both productivity and quality" (p. commonality between the research has been conducted to examine the productivity approaches, very little empirical two (Mohanty, 1998). 42-1 4 Purpose of the Study relationship between main purpose of this study was to examine the As it was stated in the introduction, the organizations. In doing so, the relationship between productivity and quality performance in two manufacturing identify and and described. Further, this study attempted to distinct quality and productivity indicators was assessed Lastly, this important for quality and productivity performance. describe organizational variables that are commonly study in a findings of the Kontoghiorghes and Bryant (2001) study attempted to determine the extent to which the in a manufacturing setting as well. service non-profit organization could be validated quality this study were: continuous improvement practices, The organizational dimensions that were assessed in organizational organization, management practices, employee involvement, management, the learning culture of the management, and innovation practices, technology management, knowledge structure, reward systems, job design, external customer satisfaction; customer loyalty, teamwork. The quality indicators considered in this study were: internal by peers is consistently delivered accurately; satisfaction with quality of work output by peers; work output established specifications; on-time which all products or services produced meet process satisfaction; the extent to problems; the employees react quickly to resolve unexpected delivery of products or services; the extent to which produced; and, the is needed after the final products or services are extent to which no further changes or rework extent to which no scrap is produced. of following indicators: the extent to which the amount Productivity in this study was measured in terms of the effective which products or services are produced in a cost work output by peers exceeds expectations; the extent to received from others in a timely fashion. manner; and, the extent to which inputs are Research Questions The main research questions for this study were: productivity and quality indicators? What is the relationship between the identified 1. for incorporated in the study can also serve as predictors Which of the quality management variables 2. productivity performance? those of conducted in the manufacturing domain, validate To what extent do the results of this study, which was 3. conducted in a service non-profit organization? the Kontoghiorghes and Bryant study, which was Methodology designed to of a 108 Likert item questionnaire, which was Instrument. The instrument of this study consisted Many of the dimensions and the earlier described dimensions and indicators. assess the organization in terms of & described in previous literature or research (Buckingham indicators were assessed with scales that were used or & 2001a; Kontoghiorghes, 2001b; Kontoghiorghes Coffman; 1999; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Kontoghiorghes, while Izumi, 1993; Pasmore, 1988; Whitney & Pavett, 1998), Dembeck, 2001; Lindsay & Petrick, 1997; Macy & determine other studies. In all, the questionnaire attempts to several were custom-designed specifically for this and and high performance system and according to TQM the extent to which the organization is functioning as a which the organizational Further, the instrument assesses the extent to sociotechnical systems theory principles. continuous learning culture. environment is conducive to training transfer and a The first ranged from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree". The instrument utilized a six-point scale that of 15 99 Likert items, was originally pilot-tested on a group version of the questionnaire, which consisted of organization development, human resource Furthermore, a group of seven experts in the participants for clarity. Upon revision, the the instrument for content validity. development, or quality management areas reviewed members of five different organizations. Reliability tests were instrument was then administered to a group of 323 instrument expanded. As stated earlier, in its final format the conducted and the instrument was further refined and alpha and was instrument was measured in terms of coefficient consisted of 108 Likert items. The reliability of the found to be 0.98. Texas and of 179 employees of a manufacturing facility in Subjects. The sampling frame of this study consisted Both facilities manufactured different organization in Michigan. 60 employees of manufacturing facility of a Organization Development The surveys were administered internally by an products used in the auto industry. given to all members Human Resource manager in Michigan. The surveys were manager in the Texas facility and a (91.6%) of the Texas facility (74.8%) and 55 of the Michigan one of both facilities. In all, 134 of the employees thus the overall possible 239 participants returned the surveys and returned the surveys. Collectively, 189 of the hourly employees, 1.8% In short, 81.1% of all respondents were response rate is calculated at 79.08%. 42-1 BEST COPY AVAILABLE management, and 0.6% senior professional, 4.7% supervisors, 4.1% middle administrative personnel, 7.7% salaried of the In terms of education, 64.3% male and 24.1% female. management. 75.9% of all respondents were and 1.5% a Ph.D. associates, 7.6% a bachelors, 3.2% a masters, respondents had a high school degree, 19.1% an the use of correlational and of this study were answered through Data Analysis. The research questions between the identified productivity Pearson correlations the relationship regression analyses. In particular, through analyses the most important quality Further, through stepwise regression and quality indicators was described. performance were identified and described. management variables for productivity Results and Findings indicators are displayed in between the productivity and quality Correlational Analysis. The Pearson correlations the respective productivity correlation of each quality indicator with Table 1. Table 1 further depicts the average the respective quality ones. As between each productivity indicator and indicators as well as the average correlation correlated with every one of the found to be positively and significantly shown, all quality indicators were the 0.01 level. In sum, from 0.292 to 0.739 and were significant at productivity indicators. The correlations ranged exhibited an average correlation of 0.46 or that each productivity indicator the correlational data in Table 1 indicates close association between indicators. This result indeed confirms the higher with the corresponding quality the highest correlations with quality indicator that was found to exhibit productivity and quality performance. The The especially < 0.01). internal process satisfaction (Avg r = 0.603; g the respective productivity indicators was (& = 0.739; g < 0.01) satisfaction and cost effective production high correlation between internal process of total quality improvement, which is one of the cornestones demonstrates that an emphasis on continuous process and and thus improved productivity in more cost effective production management, will ultimately result profitability. with the productivity measures was the second highest average correlation The quality indicator that exhibited (Avg E = 0.532; g < 0.01). This finding is consistently delivered accurately the extent to which work output by peers in the organization will result in more quality of work output by everybody suggests that an emphasis on the satisfaction was the positively affect productivity. External customer efficient and timely operations which in turn (Avg r = 0.519; g < 0.01). This be highly associated with the productivity third quality indicator that was found to assertion that a quality driven culture hypothesis of this study and Deming's finding in essence validates the main function in productive ways as number one priority will ultimately which makes external customer satisfaction a and functional products demand timely services as well as reliable well. It is widely known that external customers by driven are the ones that are characterized organizations that are truly customer at a reasonable price. Thus, Given that streamlined, quality. well as a special focus on product streamlined, timely, and efficient processes as and rework, it is not surprising product quality result in speed, less waste timely, and efficient processes as well as productivity indicators. found to be highly associated with all that external customer satisfaction was correlation of 0.5 or higher with the that were found to exhibit an average The other three quality indicators delivered complete (AvgE = 0.513; work output by peers is consistently productivity ones were the extent to which Productivity and Quality Indicators Table 1. Pearson Correlations Between Productivity Indicators Quality Indicators Average Products or Inputs are Amount of work correlation of services are received from output by peers each quality produced in a others in a exceeds indicator cost effective timely fashion expectations manner .739 .603* .502** .569* Internal process satisfaction .5328* .616* .516** A658* accurately Work output by peers is consistently delivered .519* .387 .547* .623 .513* External customer satisfaction .465* .653** .422* complete .494 .511" Work output by peers is consistently delivered .590 .450** .52 Satisfied with quality of peer work output .503* .406* .580** products are produced .485 No change or rework needed after final .623* .345* .486* Produced products/services meet specifications .481** .540* .471** .431** .433* On-time delivery of products/services .498** .391** .409** .402* External customer loyalty .342** .411** .4528* problems Employees react quickly to resolve unexpected .318* .348** .2928* .315** No scrap produced .518" .467* .460** Average correlation of each productivity indicator (2-tailed). Listwise N=I82 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level 42-1 AVAILABLE BEST COPY quality of work output they receive from their peers < 0.01), the extent to which employees are satisfied with the needed after the final products are (Avg r = 0.511; 2 < 0.01), and the extent to which no change or rework is Again these three correlations together empirically validate the strong produced (Avg r = 0.503; g < 0.01). making quality a top priority. In association between productivity and quality performance and the importance of indicators below were found to exhibit the terms of the remaining correlations displayed in Table 1, the quality on-time 0.01); following correlations: produced products or services meet specifications (Avg r = 0.485; 2 < (Avg r = 0.433; 2 < 0.01); delivery of products or services (Avg r = 0.481; g < 0.01); external customer loyalty produced (Avg r = employees react quickly to resolve unexpected problems (Avg r = 0.402; g < 0.01); and, no scrap indicate a high association 0.318; 2 < 0.01). In all, the results of the correlational matrix displayed in Table 1 quality management and between quality and productivity performance and thus the compatibility of the In sum, the correlational data in Table 1 empirically validates Deming's productivity improvement interventions. mistakes, and fewer delays. assertion that as quality improves, costs decrease because of less rework, fewer identified the stronger Regression Analyses. As shown in Table 2, the three stepwise regression models Interestingly enough, the strongest predictor for each predictors of each one of the productivity indicators. association between productivity indicator pertained to a quality indicator, which once again demonstrates the strong productivity and quality performance. expectations", the five With regard to the first productivity indicator, "amount of work output by peers exceeds Accounting for predictors selected by the stepwise regression model accounted for 50.4% of its total variance. the strongest predictor of work 35.5% of the total variance, external customer satisfaction was found to be by far importance of having an organizational culture output exceeding expectations. This finding in essence confirms the Quality does that is customer driven and highlights that quality and productivity are not antithetical constructs. the extent to which indeed yield productivity gains. The second predictor selected by the regression model was this finding validates employees in the organization receive rewards based on their performance. In a way that his or her performance will result in expectancy theory and demonstrates that when an employee believes into the model was the desired outcomes then he or she will be more motivated to perform. The third predictor This result is important in the sense in today's extent to which the organization does not have turnover problems. secondary concern. constantly downsizing and restructuring corporate world employee commitment has become a be detrimental to productivity Yet, as the results of this regression model show, employee turnover problems can Turnover causes disruptions to operations, especially when key and and hence organizational competitiveness. training before newcomers reach the talented people leave the organization. It takes a while and often considerable capable of attracting and retaining employees can be same proficiency level. Thus, building organizational systems considered very important when employee output is of prime concern. which no change or rework The last two variables selected by the stepwise regression model were the extent to employee is motivated to transfer is needed after the final products are produced as well as the extent to which the former variable, it is clear that the less the newly learned skills and knowledge back to the job. With regard to the the more productive it will be. the organization invests its energies and manpower to redoing defective work quality will ultimately result in Further, this finding once again validates Deming's philosophyi.e. a focus on delaysand thus reinforces the productivity gains and cost reduction due to less rework, fewer mistakes, and fewer In terms of motivation to notion there is a strong association between quality and productivity performance. training transfer and why the transfer, its inclusion in the regression model exemplifies the importance of Simply put, the more employees transfer what they organizational environment should be designed to facilitate it. learn back to the job, the more productive they will be. indicator of "cost effective The second stepwise regression model in Table 2 pertains to the productivity accounted for 65.4% of the total variance production". In all, the five predictors selected by this regression model satisfaction, which accounted for of this productivity indicator. The strongest predictor by far was internal process consideration the fact that internal process 54.7% of the total variance of cost effective production. Taking also into productivity indicators (Avg r = 0.603; g < satisfaction was found to exhibit the highest average correlation with all ICaizen, or 5S practices, that are 0.01), it is safe to conclude that interventions, such as TQM, lean manufacturing, yield the biggest productivity gains. designed to improve the processes in the organization will be the most likely to the extent to which the employee has The remaining independent variables selected by the regression model were: services meet established influence on the performance ratings his or her peers receive; produced product or and, product or service specifications; the employee has learning and growth opportunities in the organization; reveal that an organization will be quality is measured at every step of the process. Collectively the five predictors if there is a great emphasis on process improvement, quality more likely to operate in a cost effective manner evaluate the performance of each other, measurement, a high performance team environment that allows peers to 42-1 7 characteristics of a quality In short, all these predictors reflect and plenty of learning and growth opportunities. productivity. the strong association between quality and driven culture and thus once again demonstrate "inputs are received 2 belongs to the productivity indicator The last regression model incorporated in Table 65.4% of the total predictors included in the model accounted for from others in a timely fashion". The nine model pertained to a quality Once again, the strongest predictor in the variance of the dependent variable. in turn consistently delivered in a complete fashionwhich indicatorthe extent to which work output by peers is selected by the regression In total, four of the nine independent variables accounted for 43.1% of the total variance. between which again demonstrates the strong association model were quality management (QM) variables, work outputs by peers are consistently In particular, aside from the extent to which productivity and quality. reaction to resolve quality of peer work output, quick employee delivered in a complete fashion, satisfaction with be significant the other QM variables that were found to unexpected problems, and quality neasurement were that emphasizes QM variables reflect an organizational culture predictors of the dependent variable. Together, these and quality work. the key TQM components of measurement, speed, Indicators Table 2. Stepwise Regression Models for Productivity receiVerffroiii *OP. ii:iii,i0e)i. {«Amotrnt.of w orlc oWput.by Work output by peers is consistently Internal rrocess satisfaction External customer satisfaction delivered in a complete fashion R2= 0.431 122= 0.547 R2= 0.355 Receive praise and recognition when doing Have influence on performance ratings peers Rewards are based on perfomuince good work receive AR2= 0.066 AR2= 0.049 AR2= 0.067 Knowledge of expectations Produced products/services meet No turnover specifications de= 0.031 de= 0.032 AR2= 0.042 Satisfied with quality of peer work output Learning and growth opportunities No change or rework needed after final products are produced AR2= 0.029 0.012 Ae. 0.019 AR2 Multiskill work environment Product or service quality is measured at Motivated to transfer newly learned skills every step of the process and knowledge back to the job AR2= 0.027 de= 0.014 AR2= 0.022 Receive supervisory feedback about performance AR2= 0.020 Someone at work has talked to me about my progress de = 0.018 Employees react quickly to resolve unexpected problems de = 0.0178 Product or service quality is measured at every step of the process AR2= 0.013 , .;._:... ,- R2= 0.654 R2= 0.654 R2 = 0.504 Adjusted R2 = 0.629 Adjusted R2 = 0.640 Adjusted R2 = 0.484 F == 25.67 F - 47.55 F = 25.61 N = 131 N = 131 N =131 <.001 p employee: a) receives model pertained to the extent to which the The remaining five variables in the regression her at work; c) functions in a work; b) knows of what is expected of him or praise and recognition when doing good and, e) has discussed supervisory feedback about his or her performance; multiskill work environment; d) receives that inputs from organization. In all, these five variables together suggest his or her progress with someone in the environment within which if performance takes place in a multiskill work others will be received in a timely manner 42-1 8 BEST COPY AVAILABLE her receives frequent feedback and recognition for his or job expectations are made clear and the employee the importance of a multiskill work environment, performance and progress. Special attention should be given to First, research has shown that a multiskill work environment since it affects performance in at least two ways. performance (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Pasmore, facilitates job motivation, which in turn positively affects job work environment is especially important in a It should also be noted however, that a multiskill 1988). and delay related problems. It is no secret that manufacturing setting because it assists in alleviating absenteeism thus the speed of their operations can be severely nowadays most facilities function with a very lean workforce and manufacturing organizations use is to train their employees undermined by absenteeism problems. A strategy many his or her role. That employee is absent a colleague can quickly step in and assume on multiple skills so that if an in a timely manner. avoided and the system is still able to conduct its operations way any operational delays are has found the variable pertaining to a multiskill work Thus, it should not be considered a surprise that this study this result follows and validates existing manufacturing environment to be a predictor of timely operations. In short, practices. Summary and Conclusions the of a strong link between quality and productivity. Both The results of this study provide empirical evidence significant relationships between quality and productivity correlation and regression analyses indicated positive and indicated that each of the three productivity indicators indicators. In particular, the correlational data in Table 1 eleven quality indicators included in the study. The exhibited an average correlation of 0.46 or higher with the correlations with the corresponding productivity indicators quality indicators that were found to exhibit the highest external by peers is consistently delivered in an accurate fashion; were: internal process satisfaction; work output with quality consistently delivered in a complete fashion; satisfaction customer satisfaction; work output by peers is of after the final products or services are produced. In terms of peer work output; and, no change or rework needed that the quality indicators of external customer satisfaction, the regression analyses, the results in Table 2 show consistently delivered in a complete fashion were proven to internal process satisfaction, and work output by peers is be the strongest predictors of productivity performance. of this study is that organizational emphasis on Another important conclusion that stems from the results ultimately result in more cost-effective production, which in continual improvement of processes and quality will is the latest profitability. A practical example that pertains to this approach turn improves both productivity and reliance on continuous process improvement, which is a achievement of Toyota Motor Corporation. Due to heavy such principles, Toyota has been able to reduce its production costs to cornerstone of TQM and Lean Manufacturing 3-7% less than last year's manufacture a more advanced and improved vehicle at an extent that it will be able to interesting about Toyota's achievement is that other major model (Toyota information seminar, 2001). What is most and profits at this time. competitors face higher costs and shrinking market shares predicted productivity outcomes were quality management In all, ten of nineteen variables that most strongly accounted for the majority of the variance of the variables. Overall these ten quality management variables this finding one can thus conclude that quality and corresponding productivity regression models. Based on and one should not consider them as antithetical productivity performance are indeed closely interrelated perceived as a means to higher customer satisfaction , greater phenomena. Rather, investments in quality should be market share, and ultimately productivity gains. performance rating of peers, performance based rewards, The importance of organizational variables such as had a of expectations are also seen in this study. All of these praise and recognition for good work, and knowledge in the regression analysis. These organizational variables positive impact on productivity indicators as demonstrated motivation activites, which underscore the importance of employee represent classic TQM and STS social system and satisfaction for organizational success. consistent with the results of the Kontoghiorghes and In terms of previous research, the results of this study are and all productivity and quality indicators to be positively Bryant (2001) study. In short, both studies have found and the quality indicators of "internal process satisfaction" significantly correlated. Further, both studies identified complete fashion" to be the strongest predictors of "cost "work output by peers is consistently delivered in a the in a timely fashion" respectively. Therefore, despite effective production" and "inputs are received from others environments, one may conclude that they both ascertain the fact both studies were conducted in very different work such as quality performance and support the assertion by quality experts strong association between productivity and Lastly, in quality do also create improvements in productivity. Deming, Feigenbaum, and Imai that improvements in a and "work outputs by peers is consistently delivered both studies identify "internal process satisfaction" for productivity performance. complete fashion" as the most important quality indicators 42-1 Research Implications for HRD practice, Limitations, and Future is empirical evidence this study provides that Deming's concept An important implication for HRD practice is the TQM productivity. This means HRD practitioners must draw upon valid that quality improvement also improves competitive and in order to assist their organizations to be and related concepts that support quality improvement facilities limited, however, to this sample of manufacturing productive. The results and conclusions of this study are evidence about the is suggested to gather additional empirical in the automotive parts industry. Further research organizational settings and industries. relationships between quality and productivity in other References the rules: what the world's greatest managers do Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First break all differently. New York: Simon & Schuster. Crosby, P. (1979). Quality isfree. New York, Dutton MIT, Center for Advanced Engineering Study. Deming, E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Position. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Deming, E. (1982). Quality, productivity, and competitive York: McGraw-Hill. Feigenbaum, A.V. (1961). Total quality control. New Sloan Management Review, 34-52. Garvin, D. (1984). What does product quality really mean? challenge to management theory and practice. Sloan Grant, R., Shani, R., & Krishnan, R. (1994). TQM's Management Review, 25-35. learning to facilitate immediate organizational improvement. Gudgel, R., & Feitler, F. (2000). Kaizen Blitz: Rapid International Conference, March, 11-1 Proceedings, Academy of Human Resource Development Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. make the difference. Akron, OH: Oakhill Press. Heron,T., Meyer, R., & Bohan, G. (1997). People for the 1990s, Dow Jones-Irwin/APICS Series. Huge, E.C. (1990). Total quality: an executive's guide New York: McGraw-Hill. Imai, M. (1996). Kaizen, the key to Japan's competitive success, York: Free Press. Juran, J. (1989). Juran on leadership for quality. New effectiveness in the context of the introduction of new Kontoghiorghes, C. (2001a). Factors affecting training Training and Development, 5 (4), 248-260. technology-a US case study. International Journal of motivation to learn in the workplace. Performance Kontoghiorghes, C. (2001b). A Holistic approach toward Improvement Quarterly, 14 (4), 3-17. Press. organization Development. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Lindsay, W., & Petrick, J. (1997). Total quality and design, and work innovation: A meta-analysis of 131 Macy, B.A., & Izumi, H. (1993). Organizational change, organizational change and development, 7, 235-313. North American field studies - 1961-1991. Research in Society for for HRD practice. Alexandria, VA: American McLagan, P. (1989). The models. A volume in models Training and Development. Management, linkage: Quality and productivity. Total Quality Mohanty, R.P. (1998). Understanding the integrated 9(8), 753-765. integrated approach to just-in-time. Norcross, GA: Industrial Mondan, Y. (1993). Toyota production system, An Engineering and Management Press. T. (1985). Innovations in management, the Japanese Mondan, Y., Shibakawa, R., Takayanagi, S., & Nagao, and Management Press. corporation. Norcross, GA: Industrial Engineering The sociotechnical systems perspective. New York: Pasmore, A.W. (1988). Designing effective organizations: Wiley & Sons. St. practices and implementation. Delray Beach, FL: Stamatis, D.H. (1996). Total quality service, principle, Lucie Press. of a by major U.S. manufacturing companies: The results Sumanth, J.D. (1981a). Productivity indicators used 70-73. survey. Industrial Engineering, (5), non-industrial corporations measure their productivity. Sumanth, J.D. (1981b). Survey results: How major Industrial Engineering (9), 32-34. organizational change: Predictors of successful Whitney, G., & Pavett, C. (1998). Total quality management as an 9-22. implementation. Quality Management Journal, 5 (4), York: Simon & Schuster. Womak, J., Jones, D. (1990). Lean thinking, New Macmillan. machine that changed the world. New York: Womak, J., Jones, D., & Roos, D. (1992). The 42-1 .10

ERIC ED474298: Performance, Productivity and Continuous Improvement. Symposium.

Similar ERIC ED474298: Performance, Productivity and Continuous Improvement. Symposium.