The relationship between TQM and project performance: Empirical evidence from Malaysian construction industry

Jong, Cherng-Yee; Adriel K. S. Sim; Yew, Lew Tek Article The relationship between TQM and project performance: Empirical evidence from Malaysian construction industry Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Jong, Cherng-Yee; Adriel K. S. Sim; Yew, Lew Tek (2019) : The relationship between TQM and project performance: Empirical evidence from Malaysian construction industry, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 6, pp. 1-31, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/206152 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ MANAGEMENT | RESEARCH ARTICLE The relationship between TQM and project performance: Empirical evidence from Malaysian construction industry Cherng-Yee Jong 1 , Adriel K. S. Sim 1 *and Tek Yew Lew 1 Abstract: Many studies have suggested the adaptation and implementation of Total Quality Management (TQM) is likely to improve an organization’s performance. A considerable amount of literature has examined the relationship between TQM and other elements like business performance, organizational performance, and marketing performance in different industries. However, little is known of the influence of TQM in project performance in the context of Malaysian construction organizations. The objective of the study is to examine the relationship between TQM and project performance in Malaysian construction organizations. Data were collected from member list of companies from the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) Malaysia. A total of 161 valid responses has been returned for data analysis. The findings revealed that TQM practices were partially correlated with project performance of Malaysian construction organizations. Specifically, operation focus and workforce focus were perceived as dominant TQM practices on project performance. This study contributes to the knowledge on TQM and project performance by providing empirical evidence on their ability to improve Malaysian construction industry. Besides, this study provides further insight for ABOUT THE AUTHORS Cherng-Yee Jong is a Mphil candidate at the Faculty of Business. Her research interest include total quality management, project performance, and project management. Adriel K. S. Sim is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Business, Curtin University Malaysia. He has published extensively in his areas of research i.e. human resource development, project management, work-life balance and psychological capital. He serves as reviewer for journals such as International Journal of Human Resource Management, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Management Development, and International Journal of Manpower. Tek Yew Lew is a senior lecturer in human resource management in the Department of Management, Faculty of Business, Curtin University Malaysia. He has published extensively in his areas of specialization ie. HRM practices, employee commitment and behaviour and psychological capital. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT Construction organizations would be interested to examine the critical success factors of project performance to avoid cost overruns, delays in projects’completion and not meeting clients’ quality expectations. Hence, this study was conducted to examine the impact of Total Quality Management (TQM) practices (leadership, strategic planning, customer focus, workforce focus, operation focus, and measurement, analysis & knowledge management) on project performance. Data was collected from established Malaysian construction organizations registered with the Construction Industry Development Board. The findings revealed that operation focus and workforce focus impacted project performance. This study provides insights for contractors on the critical TQM success factors of project performance. Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 © 2019 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Received: 16 August 2018 Accepted: 07 January 2019 First Published: 14 January 2019 *Corresponding author: Adriel K. S. Sim, Department of Management, Faculty of Business, Curtin University Malaysia, Miri, Malaysia E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Fabio Nonino, Universita degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza, Italy Additional information is available at the end of the article Page 1 of 31 industrial practitioners to understand the roles of TQM and its ability in enhancing project performance. Subjects: Construction Business Management; Project Management; Quality Management Keywords: total quality management; project performance; construction industry; TQM practices; quality improvement; business excellence 1. Introduction TQM originated in the manufacturing industry and there is a considerable body of TQM literature that has examined TQM implementation in this industry all over the world. Studies were conducted to investigate TQM in various performance dimensions, including firm performance, operational performance, quality performance, financial and market performance, innovation performance, and customer satisfaction (Ebrahimi & Sadeghi, 2013). In Malaysia, there has been a number of research studies conducted on TQM in manufacturing (Arumugam, Ooi, & Fong, 2008; Rahman & Tannock, 2005; Talib, Rahman, & Qureshi, 2013) and services industries (Ooi, Lin, Tan, & Chong, 2011; Samat, Ramayah, & Mat Saad, 2006). However, research that specifically focuses on TQM and project environments is still lacking (Bryde & Robinson, 2007), especially in Malaysia. Leong has indicated that limited studies have been conducted in the construction industry but one of the areas worth further exploration include, what types of quality practices (i.e. TQM) are recommended for improved project performance. There have been a few TQM studies conducted in the construction industry. Altayeb and Alhasanat (2014) studied the TQM implementation in the Palestinian construction industry. Meanwhile, Harrington, Voehl, Wiggin, and Sinha (2012) examined the TQM implementation of in the construction industry in general. Bakar, Ali, and Onyeizu (2011) examined the TQM practices in Oman construction companies, while Mir and Pinnington (2014) determined the relationship between project management performance and project success in UAE project-based organizations. T. H. Kuo and Kuo (2010) investigated the relationship of corporate culture, TQM, and project performance in Taiwan. However, all these studies are limited to different regions in which the characteristics and practices in these developed countries are very different from Malaysia, which is a developing country. Notably, none of the studies focused exclusively on the link between TQM and project performance of the construction organizations. A few Malaysian studies have been conducted on the construction industry. Abdul Aziz (2002) completed a study on the realities of applying TQM in the construction industry. Din et al. (2011) studied the elements of performance between certified and non-certified construction organizations. Leong et al. (2014) reviewed on the quality management system research in the construction industry. There is no evidence to suggest there has been any empirical and statistical research examining the relationship between project performance and TQM in Malaysia. There is also a lack of studies, which have examined the association of quality management and project management in Malaysia. As mentioned by Thiagaragan, Zairi, and Dale (2001), the development of empirical research on TQM still lags far behind, especially in the construction industry (Leong et al., 2014). Hence, there is a gap detected in the existing TQM literature in the context of the Malaysian construction industry. Therefore, this study focuses on explaining the empirical evidence for the relationship between TQM and project performance in the Malaysian project environment. Coupled with the current pressure to improve the level of quality in the construction industry in Malaysia, there is indeed a need and urgency for research to determine if TQM implementation can improve project performance. This research not only focuses on investigating if a link exists, but also providing a more refined and detailed examination on how any links may provide a possible contribution to the construction organizations in terms of improving their project performance through TQM implementation. Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 Page 2 of 31 2. Literature review and hypotheses development 2.1. TQM Many researchers have defined TQM in various ways although they are generally complementary to each other. The number and significance of TQM elements vary from one author to another. This leads to dis-agreement regarding the design of TQM from the literature (Dahlgaard-Park, 2011). Problems appeared when a diversity of TQM dimensions occurred. Many researchers have preferred to develop their own model instead of using a proven constructed model, which has been tested by preceding authors. As a result, agreement on a set of common TQM practices defining the wide range of TQM frameworks is problematic (Prajogo & McDermott, 2005; Psomas, Vouzas, & Kafetzopoulos, 2014). Quality awards have been adopted as the TQM framework in many studies conducted in other countries. There are more than a hundred quality awards existing in various countries. All these quality awards have been derived from earlier prestigious awards: the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award (MBNQA), the European Quality Award, and the Deming Prize (Jaeger, Adair, & Al- Qudah, 2013). Taking into consideration the widespread acceptance of the MBNQA quality criteria, these criteria best represent TQM and were chosen for the analysis of construction organizations in Malaysia. The rationale for adopting MBNQA in this study is that it is widely recognized as one of the benchmarks of TQM and many scholars have validated this system of TQM practices (Ooi et al., 2011; Prajogo & McDermott, 2005; Sabella, Kashou, & Omran, 2014; Terziovski, 2006). This framework is also relevant and appropriate to both manufacturing (Ooi, Lee, Chong, & Lin, 2013) and non-manufacturing sectors (Bouranta, Psomas, & Pantouvakis, 2017). MBNQA’s framework incorporates seven independent quality criteria: leadership, strategic planning, customer/market focus, operation focus, workforce focus, measurement/analysis and knowledge management, and results. In this study, TQM practices based on the MBNQA model were adopted for the following reasons: (1) It contains both soft and hard elements of TQM (Lee & Ooi, 2015; Lee, Ooi, & Choong, 2013; Talib et al., 2013) (2) It has been adopted by many researchers in their empirical research (Lee & Ooi, 2015; Lee et al., 2013; Talib et al., 2013) (3) It has been implemented in both developing and developed countries (Lee & Ooi, 2015; Lee et al., 2013) (4) It has been applied in construction projects (Jaeger et al., 2013; K. C. Lam, Lam, & Wang, 2008). 2.2. Project performance The Project Management Institute (1996) defines a project as “a temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product or services”. Projects are unique, novel, specifically aimed at a certain goal, and have a clear finishing date. The complex and unpredictable nature of projects generates serious challenges to the project-based organizations and fundamentally differed project-based organizations from standard organizations. With the complexity of construction projects, defining project success itself is a complex issue (Alzahrani & Emsley, 2013). Within the context of a construction project, the success of a project may be judged differently by the construction organizations depending on their own objectives (Neyestani, 2016). What is viewed as a measure of success on one project may be perceived as an indication of abject failure on another project. In fact, it is difficult to measure whether the performance of a project is a success or a failure due to the fact that the concept of success remains vague among project participants (Alzahrani & Emsley, 2013). Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 Page 3 of 31 In addition, there is no commonly agreed framework for performance measurements on projects (Toor & Ogunlana, 2010). Research on project success shows that it is impossible to generate a universal checklist of project success criteria that are suitable for all projects as the projects differ from each other in terms of size, location, uniqueness, and complexity (Westerveld, 2003). Time, cost, and quality or the so-called iron triangles are the commonly accepted performance indicator to measure the success of construction projects (Mane & Patil, 2015; Meredith & Mantel, 2011). Over the years, the “iron triangle”criteria (time, cost, and quality) have been criticized because they seemed to be inadequate. Toor and Ogunlana (2010) reported that the same old-fashioned performance criteria are no longer the sole dominant of project success due to the evolving project environments. The measurement of customer satisfaction and the overall satisfaction of stakeholders should be considered in performance evaluation criteria (Neyestani, 2016; Proust, 2011). Due to the complexity of the process success concept and the lack of consensus among authors in the field, the traditional dimensions of the iron triangle, albeit criticized, are still considered central to the measurement of project success (Neyestani, 2016; Papke-Shields, Beise, & Quan, 2010). This research uses the basic dimensions, denoted as project efficiency by Shenhar, Dvir, Levy, and Maltz (2001). Project performance will be evaluated according to the planned budget, schedule, technical specifications (product/service requirements), and the ability to meet customer service requirements. So, in this research we will measure the project performance in terms of project efficiency (time, cost, and quality). 2.3. TQM and project performance Table 1illustrates a summary of studies on the link between TQM and the elements of performance. These studies were identified through the Scopus search engine from 2010 onwards with the main key words of TQM and performance. From the table, it is clear the TQM studies from the literature were not from one single area but were conducted all across the world, from Taiwan, Malaysia, India, and Pakistan, to the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, the United States, and Iran. The industries involved also varied, such as construction, manufacturing, and services. The TQM framework adopted in each study was diverse as well as the measurements of performance being investigated. TQM framework and dimensions of performance in each study are summarized in Table 2. A few studies have conducted TQM research in the construction industry, such as T. H. Kuo and Kuo (2010); Ali and Rahmat (2010), Din et al. (2011), Mir and Pinnington (2014) and Leong et al. (2014). T. H. Kuo and Kuo (2010) considered the link between TQM and project performance in Taiwan using structural equation modelling (SEM). The study confirmed that TQM had a positive and direct influence on project performance. A study conducted by Ali and Rahmat (2010) investigated the performance measurements of construction projects managed by ISO-certified contractors in Malaysia. The study concluded that functionality and clients’satisfaction are the most important criteria for measuring construction project performance whereas time and cost were the least important. In this study, mean statistics were used to rank the importance of project performance measurements as perceived by the contractors in the ISO-certified companies. There was no analysis conducted of an association between TQM and project performance. Din et al. (2011) measured the difference between Malaysian ISO 9000 certified companies and non-certified companies in project management practices, financial management practices, and project success. The study indicated that certified companies outperformed non-certified companies in project management practices and financial management practices and ISO 9000 certification showed a positive moderating effect on the casual relationship between TQM practices and project success. The casual relationship between project management practices and project success were explained by comparing the project management practices between certified and non-certified companies. Furthermore, any links between project management practices and project success were not identified. Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 Page 4 of 31 Table 1. Studies of TQM and elements of performance (2010 onwards) Author Elements of performance Analysis procedure TQM framework adopted Sample Size Region Industry specific T. H. Kuo and Kuo (2010) Project performance Structural equation modelling TQM N = 371 Taiwan Construction Ali and Rahmat (2010) Project performance Mean TQM N = 30 Malaysia Construction Bakar et al. (2011) Quality performance Chi square TQM N = 67 Oman Construction Din, Abd-Hamid, and Bryde (2011) Project management practices Financial management practices Project success MANOVA ISO 9000 N = 336 Malaysia Construction Agus (2011) Product performance & customer-related performance Pearson’s correlation & Structural equation modelling TQM Not mentioned Malaysia Manufacturing Teh, Tritos, and Dotun (2012) Technology management Structural equation modelling TQM N = 115 ASEAN (Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam) Automotive manufacturing Harrington et al. (2012) In general Not mentioned TQM Not mentioned USA Construction Talib et al. (2013) Quality performance Pearson’s correlation & Multiple regression TQM N = 172 India Service Irfan and Kee (2013) Service quality Structural equation modelling TQM N-255 Pakistan Service Ooi et al. (2013) Innovation performance Multiple regression MBNQA N = 206 Malaysia Manufacturing Altayeb and Alhasanat (2014) Project success Factor and Pareto analysis TQM N = 98 Palestine Construction Mir and Pinnington (2014) Project success Bi-variate correlation & Multiple Regression PMPA N = 154 United Arab Emirates Construction Sadikoglu and Olcay (2014) Firm performance Multiple regression TQM N = 242 Turkey Not mentioned Leong et al. (2014) Project performance Correlation & regression analysis TQM N = 1030 Malaysia Construction Banna, Ahmad, and Koh (2018) Bank loan quality FAMA-MacBeth regression TQM N = 581 United State Bank Shafiq, Lasrado, and Hafeez (2017) Organizational performance Structural equation modelling EFQM N = 210 Pakistan Textile Mehralian, Nazari, Nooriparto, and Rasekh (2017) Organizational performance Structural equation modelling TQM N = 933 Iran Pharmaceutical Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 Page 5 of 31 Table 2. TQM practices and elements of performance adopted Author TQM adopted Dimensions of performance T. H. Kuo and Kuo (2010) (1) Leadership ability (2) Human research management (3) Process management (1) Continuous quality improvement & information (2) Cooperation firms’management Project performance (1) Technology innovation (2) Successful ratio (3) Product quality (1) Cost/benefit analysis (2) Process improvement Ali and Rahmat (2010)ISO 9000 certification Project performance (1) Cost performance (2) Time performance (3) Quality performance (1) Client’s satisfaction (2) Health and safety (3) Functionality Din et al. (2011)ISO 9000 certification (1) Project management practices (2) Financial management practices (1) Project success Agus (2011) (1) Supplier relations (2) Benchmarking (1) Quality measurement (2) Continuous process improvement (1) Product performance (2) Customer-related performance Teh et al. (2012)Hard TQM elements (1) Customer focus (2) Information & analysis (1) Process management Technology management Talib et al. (2013) (1) Top management commitment (2) Customer focus (3) Training and education (4) Continuous improvement and innovation (5) Supplier management (6) Employee involvement (7) Information & analysis (8) Process management (1) Quality system (2) Benchmarking (3) Quality culture (4) Human resource management (5) Strategic planning (6) Employee encouragement (7) Teamwork (8) Communication (9) Product & service design Quality performance (1) Product quality (2) Service quality (3) Process quality (4) Employee service quality (1) Employee satisfaction (2) Customer satisfaction (3) Supplier performance (Continued) Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 Page 6 of 31 Table 2. (Continued) Author TQM adopted Dimensions of performance Irfan and Kee (2013) (1) Top management commitment & visionary leadership (2) Customer focused (3) Information, analysis & system (1) Service culture (2) Human resource management (3) Social responsibility Service quality (1) Customer satisfaction (2) Employee satisfaction Ooi, Lin, Teh, and Chong (2012) (1) Leadership (2) Strategic planning (3) Customer focus (1) Information analysis (2) People management (3) Process management Innovation performance Mir and Pinnington (2014) (1) PM leadership (2) PM staff (3) PM policy & strategy (1) PM partnership & resources (2) PM KPI’s Project success (1) Project efficiency (2) Impact on customer (1) Impact on the team (2) Business success (3) Preparing for the future Sadikoglu and Olcay (2014) (1) Leadership (2) Knowledge and process management (3) Training (1) Supplier quality management (2) Customer focus (3) Strategic quality planning Firm performance (1) Operational performance (2) Inventory management performance (3) Employee performance (1) Innovation performance (2) Social responsibility (3) Customer results (4) Market and financial performance Leong et al. (2014) ISO 9000 certification Project performance (1) Cost performance (2) Time performance (3) Time performance (1) Quality performance (2) Safety and health (3) Clients’satisfaction Banna et al. (2018) (1) Bank efficiency (2) Income-to-cost ratio Bank loan quality (1) Non-performing loans Shafiq et al. (2017)EFQM (1) Leadership (2) Strategy (1) Partnership & resources (2) Process (3) People Organizational performance (1) Financial results (2) Non-financial results (Continued) Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 Page 7 of 31 Table 2. (Continued) Author TQM adopted Dimensions of performance Mehralian et al. (2017) (1) Top management commitment (2) Strategic planning process (3) Quality information and usage (4) Employee training (1) Process design (2) Supplier quality (3) Benchmarking (4) Customer focus Organizational performance (Balanced Scorecard Approach) (1) Financial perspective (2) Customer perspective (1) Internal process perspective (2) Learning and growth perspective Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 Page 8 of 31 Table 4. The summary of questionnaire items Section Constructs Dimensions Sources No. of Items Rating Scale 1 Leadership The commitment to quality practices by top management Flynn, Schroeder, and Sakakibara (1995); Ahire, Golhar, and Waller (1996); Anderson, Jerman, and Crum (1998); Lau, Zhao, and Xiao (2004); Saraph, Benson, and Schroeder (1989) 6 1 = very low, 5 = very high 2 Strategic planning The propensity to develop and implement organizational strategic actions Lau et al. (2004); Lee, Ooi, Sohal, and Chong (2012) 5 1 = very low, 5 = very high 3 Customer focus The ability to assess and meet customer expectations Flynn et al. (1995); Ahire, Golhar, and Waller (1996); Lau et al. (2004); Fotopoulos and Psomas (2010); Lee et al. (2012) 6 1 = very low, 5 = very high 4 Measurement, analysis and knowledge management The effects to gather, measure, analyze work performance and improvements Saraph et al. (1989); Anderson et al. (1998); Lau et al. (2004); Lee et al. (2012) 7 1 = very low, 5 = very high 5 Workforce focus The assessment of employee capability and capacity needs Saraph et al. (1989); Flynn et al. (1995); Lau et al. (2004); Fotopoulos and Psomas (2010) 7 1 = very low, 5 = very high 6 Operation focus The efforts to improve product and work processes and achieve organizational success Saraph et al. (1989); Flynn et al. (1995); Lau et al. (2004); Lee et al. (2012) 71 = very low, 5 = very high 7 Project performance The objective of a construction project Shenhar et al. (2001); Ling, Low, Wang, and Egbelakin (2008); Yeung, Chan, and Chan (2009) 4 1 = very low, 5 = very high Total number of measurement scale items 42 Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 Page 15 of 31 3.3. Validity and reliability 3.3.1. Factor analysis A principal component analysis (PCA) was run on a 38-question survey that measured TQM practices of 145 respondents. The suitability of a PCA was assessed before analysis. Inspection of the correlation matrix showed all of the variables had at least one correlation greater than 0.3. The overall Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure was 0.928 with individual KMO measures all greater than 0.8, classification of meritorious to marvelous according to Kaiser (1974). Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant (p < .0005), indicating that the data was likely factorizable. A PCA with forced factor 6 was applied with the rationale to retain as many of the components established as TQM factors. Five components had eigen-values greater than 1, and the 6th component had an eigen-value (0.98) of close to one as well. Thus, the decision was made to retain the six components. The 6-component solution explained 72.67% of the total variance. The results of the PCA revealed all of the items loadings were above 0.4. A Promax oblique rotation was employed to aid interpretability. The rotated solution exhibited simple structure (Thurstone, 1947). The interpretation of the data was consistent with the TQM attributes, which the questionnaire was designed to measure. Measurement, analysis and knowledge management items were loaded on component 1, workforce focus items on component 2, leadership items on component 3, customer focus items on component 4, strategic planning items on component 5, and finally, operation focus items on component 6. The rotation output retained all six constructs of TQM according to the literature. Component loadings and communalities of the rotated solution are presented in Table 5and structure matrix showing the correlations between variables and factors are shown in Table 6. Table 5. Rotated pattern matrix for PCA with promax rotation Items Component 123456Communalities Eigenvalues 20.17 2.46 1.54 1.38 1.08 0.99 - Var % 53.07 59.55 63.61 67.23 70.08 72.67 - Factor 1: Measurement, analysis & knowledge management mm3 .903 .788 mm4 .888 .830 mm5 .875 .811 mm2 .830 .767 mm1 .756 .809 mm6 .593 .796 mm7 .570 .408 .687 of7 .570 .707 of2 .515 .643 of1 .465 .651 Factor 2: Workforce management wf2 .941 .744 wf5 .863 .732 wf6 .386 .847 .668 wf3 .752 .758 wf1 .726 .706 (Continued) Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 Page 16 of 31 Items Component 123456Communalities wf7 .640 .707 wf4 .539 .679 of6 .475 .508 .695 Factor 3: Leadership ls4 .856 .782 ls5 .813 .699 ls2 .794 .712 ls3 .770 .632 ls6 .726 .624 ls1 .585 .643 Factor 4: Customer focus cf2 .804 .793 cf5 −3.00 .790 .714 cf3 .380 .777 .765 cf4 .414 .535 .302 .728 cf1 .486 .541 Factor 5: Strategic planning cf6 .439 −.442 .711 .596 sp4 .559 .704 sp3 .346 .439 .654 sp2 .411 .695 sp5 .346 .376 .714 sp1 .359 .643 Factor 6: Operation focus of3 .993 .440 of4 .611 .674 of5 .343 .511 .698 Rotation converged in 8 iterations. Table 6. Correlation Rotated Component Coefficients Items Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4 Component 5 Component 6 mm3 .898 .576 .524 .438 .486 .521 mm4 .900 .620 .466 .438 .550 .534 mm5 .892 .564 .502 .467 .541 .537 mm2 .879 .597 .495 .584 .485 .494 mm1 .878 .620 .550 .627 .550 .531 mm6 .829 .701 .556 .607 .643 .556 mm7 .740 .594 .383 .398 .631 .566 of7 .798 .662 .471 .468 .418 .655 of2 .723 .510 .407 .520 .219 .634 of1 .741 .640 .496 .538 .323 .618 wf2 .497 .853 .542 .501 .426 .491 (Continued) Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 Page 17 of 31 3.3.2. Reliability The Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was tested on both independent and dependent variables after factor analysis. Values range from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating greater reliability. The minimum acceptable level for the reliability coefficient is 0.7 (Nunnally, Bernstein, & Berge, 1967). Table 7shows that each of the variable constructs exceeded the minimum alpha value of 0.7, which indicates good internal consistency and reliability. The reliability statistics for all of the variables can be found in Table 7 Table 3shows that each of the variable constructs exceeded the minimum alpha value of 0.7, which indicates good internal consistency and reliability. The reliability statistics for all of the variables can be found in Table 7 4. Results This study seeks to describe the association between TQM practices and project performance in Malaysian construction organizations by analyzing the 6 TQM constructs, specifically leadership, Table 6. (Continued) Rotated Component Coefficients Items Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4 Component 5 Component 6 wf5 .527 .854 .608 .484 .485 .463 wf6 .645 .802 .525 .370 .416 .412 wf3 .558 .865 .604 .530 .592 .525 wf1 .626 .804 .613 .539 .357 .521 wf7 .538 .823 .583 .526 .638 .508 wf4 .635 .751 .472 .333 .604 .558 of6 .751 .754 .506 .471 .484 .572 ls4 .362 .565 .860 .443 .544 .338 ls5 .559 .526 .840 .480 .395 .343 ls2 .442 .568 .830 .460 .381 .486 ls3 .459 .490 .783 .402 .400 .466 ls6 .358 .564 .768 .378 .478 .275 ls1 .473 .658 .773 .506 .488 .403 cf2 .520 .496 .568 .875 .450 .328 cf5 .553 .358 .426 .800 .306 .407 cf3 .402 .625 .428 .835 .472 .354 cf4 .430 .714 .432 .743 .657 .498 cf1 .451 .551 .490 .681 .557 .380 cf6 .538 .323 .361 .396 .682 .330 sp4 .529 .692 .640 .441 .790 .506 sp3 .667 .618 .577 .523 .698 .508 sp2 .631 .693 .622 .594 .728 .505 sp5 .506 .707 .717 .603 .720 .499 sp1 .616 .683 .580 .563 .685 .422 of3 .485 .425 .315 .333 .359 .883 of4 .654 .668 .587 .398 .490 .829 of5 .722 .604 .566 .413 .374 .783 Rotation converged in 8 iterations. Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 Page 18 of 31 strategic planning, customer focus, measurement, analysis and knowledge management, workforce focus and operation focus. The research hypotheses were structured according to the research objectives, which were to identify the relationship between TQM and project performance and to determine which TQM practices have a greater association with project performance. This study used the regression analysis technique to test the regression model. Table 8summarizes the hypotheses of the study. The multiple regression model was statistically significant, F (6, 135) = 17.702, p < .0005. Table 9shows the coefficient of determination (R 2 ) for the overall model was 44% with an adjusted R 2 of 41.5%, a large size effect according to (Cohen et al., 2013). The individual model variables revealed that workforce focus (β= 0.463, p < 0.01) and operation focus (β= 0.225, p < 0.05) were found to have a significant and positive effect on project performance. While, measurement, analysis, and knowledge management (β=−0.321, p < 0.05) was found to have a significant negative effect on project performance. Therefore, hypotheses H4 and H5 were supported. The results of multiple regression analysis indicated that measurement, analysis, and knowledge management (β=−.321, p = .016) had a significant but negative relationship with project performance. Therefore, hypothesis H 6 is not supported. Hence, H1, H2, H3, and H6 were not supported. 5. Discussion Six hypotheses were developed to examine whether the dimensions of TQM, i.e. leadership, strategic planning, customer focus, measurement, analysis, and knowledge management, Table 7. Cronbach’s alpha of the various constructs Variables Number of items Number of deleted items Cronbach’s alpha Leadership 6 - 0.901 Strategic planning 6 - 0.897 Customer focus 5 - 0.869 Workforce focus 8 - 0.935 Operation focus 3 - 0.845 Measurement, analysis & knowledge management 10 - 0.957 Project performance 4 - 0.900 Table 8. Summary of hypotheses Hypotheses H 1 There is a significant positive relationship between leadership and project performance. H 2 There is a significant positive relationship between strategic planning and project performance. H 3 There is a significant positive relationship between customer focus and project performance. H 4 There is a significant positive relationship between workforce focus and project performance. H 5 There is a significant positive relationship between operation focus and project performance. H 6 There is a significant positive relationship between measurement, analysis and knowledge management and project performance. Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 Page 19 of 31 workforce focus, and operation focus were significantly related to project performance within the construction organizations in Malaysia. The findings of each hypothesis are discussed in the following subsections. 5.1. Hypothesis 1—Relationship of leadership and project performance The initial conclusion that can be derived from this research is that leadership, one of the TQM practices, has demonstrated an insignificant impact on project performance. This indicates that the level of management leadership in the construction industry is still not intensive enough to influence project performance. The outcome of this study is consistent with but also contradicts other recent studies. A recent study by Shafiq et al. (2017) found leadership had a significant relationship with organizational performance both in financial and non-financial measurements. The study was conducted in the textile sector in Pakistan using a structural equation model (SEM), which is different in context of region, industry and analysis method from this study. This may explain the contradictory results derived from the study. A study by Talib et al. (2013) found top management commitment had no significant effect on quality performance. In their study, Sadikoglu and Olcay (2014) also concluded, leadership was not significant to all of the firm’s performance measurements which included operational performance, inventory performance, employee performance, innovation performance, social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market and financial performance. The insignificant relationship of leadership in project performance is explained in some of the literature. In project success literature, leadership is not regarded as one of the success factors in project management (Turner, 2014). In Yang, Huang, and Wu (2011) the researchers explained leadership is indirectly related to project performance through the relationship between team members. This is a similar conclusion to one of the studies conducted in Malaysia (Fung & Ramasamy, 2015), who also claimed, while the execution of leadership does not directly influence project performance, the team effectiveness resulting from leadership enhancement is likely to lead to better performance. This explains why leadership is not significant to project performance as the relationship is amplified by the factor of teamwork. One of the findings in Yang et al. (2011), stated that the higher the complexity level of the projects the more likely the projects are to be successful compared to those with lower complexity. The complexity of the project plays a moderating role in enhancing project performance and if applied to this study, project complexity could be an influencing factor that explains the relationship between leadership and project performance. In other words, the project conducted by the contractors in this study may consist of residential or shop lots with a lower level of complexity and where the role of leadership has not improved project performance. Fung and Ramasamy Table 9. Regressions predicting project performance B S.E. βp (Constant) 1.016 0.326 0.002 H1—Leadership 0.104 0.113 0.094 0.357 H2—Strategic planning 0.238 0.138 0.231 0.085 H3—Customer focus 0.013 0.100 0.013 0.894 H4—Workforce focus 0.465 0.124 0.463 0.000 H5—Operation focus 0.214 0.094 0.225 0.025 H6—Measurement, analysis & knowledge management −0.276 0.113 −0.321 0.016 R 2 0.440 R 2 Change 0.440 F Change 17.702 p < 0.001 Adj. R 2 0.415 N 145 Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 Page 20 of 31 (2015) explained that project performance is not directly dependent on leadership but on other factors. There are other factors that a play a mediating role in the relationship between leadership and project performance (Lo, Ramayah, & De Run, 2010). It is understandable not all TQM practices have a significant relationship with project performance. It may be the case some TQM practices affect performance rather indirectly through the application of other, additional TQM practices or factors. In this study, it can be concluded leadership does not have a direct significant effect on project performance. There is a possibility the role of leadership on project performance is mediating through other factors and this may explain why leadership does not play a significant role in enhancing project performance as claimed in the general management literature. 5.2. Hypothesis 2—Relationship of strategic planning and project performance The results from this study demonstrate strategic planning does not have a significant relationship in improving project performance in the Malaysian companies. The assertion that planning is one of the critical success factors for project success, found in almost all strategic management and project management literature (Johnson, Boucher, Connors, & Robinson, 2001; Meredith & Mantel, 2011; Pinto & Slevin, 1988; Turner, 2014) does not apply in this study. Talib et al. (2013) in their study investigating TQM in Indian service companies found strategic planning was not significant to quality performance. A study conducted by Zwikael et al. (2014) in Fiji tried to determine the moderating effect of risk on the relationship between planning and success in project environment. The results of their regression analysis revealed project planning was not significantly correlated with project efficiency and effectiveness. Another study by Sadikoglu and Olcay (2014) also discovered that strategic planning was only partially correlated with organizational performance in Turkish firms. Out of seven measurements of organizational performance, strategic planning only positively related to employee performance and social responsibility. Despite the different regions, the results of these three studies show the same outcomes, where strategic planning is not significantly or only partially correlated with performances. This means that efforts in enhancing planning do not improve project performance. Zwikael et al. (2014) discovered risk factors play a moderating role in correlating project planning with success. They found the existence of a highrisk increases the quality of planning and improves project efficiency while a low-risk improves project effectiveness. This explains why strategic planning is found to have no significant association with project performance in this study, where the presence of risk factors plays a mediating role. In addition, construction practices such as engagement of multiple professionals, reliance on subcontractors, and constant changes to project descriptions and goals make planning even more challenging. Laird (2016) observed the increasing size and complexity of the project enhanced the correlation between project planning and project success. When size and complexity increases, more effective planning is necessary to coordinate the interrelated efforts of team members to success. This finding is parallel to the finding for leadership where the factor of size, complexity, and risk of a project impacts the performance indirectly. The outcome of this hypothesis implies strategic planning is still not intensive enough to improve project performance. The implication of strategic planning may exist through the existence of other factors, which need to be further explored. 5.3. Hypothesis 3—Relationship of customer focus and project performance The findings of this study show customer focus is not a vital determinant of project performance. This signifies understanding customer needs and the efforts of fulfilling customer satisfaction are not a priority in the construction industry and they do not affect project performance. Talib et al. (2013) discovered customer focus was one of the TQM factors not significant to quality performance for Indian service companies. In their study, customer focus had an indirect relationship with quality performance through continuous improvement. Another study by Sadikoglu and Olcay (2014) also revealed customer focus was partially correlated with organizational performance in Turkish manufacturing and service industries. In their study, customer focus only significantly related to two out of seven organizational measurements (i.e. operational performance and social responsibility). Although both Talib et al. (2013) and Sadikoglu and Olcay (2014) conducted studies in different countries and industries, they both showed similar outcomes to this study. According Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 Page 21 of 31 to Talib et al. (2013) customer focus related indirectly to quality performance through other factors. This is supported by a previous study by Tari, Molina, and Castejon (2007) which demonstrated customer focus did not show a significant relationship with performance. However, the relationship is indirectly linked to performance through process management. Nair (2006) once again showed the impact of customer focus on performance measurements is influenced by moderating factors. The customer-oriented activities are designed to improve products and services with the goal of satisfying customers. The outcomes of customer-focused activities will then be transferred to process management to be implemented and eventually be reflected in the overall project performance. The relationship between customer focus and performance with the moderating effect of process management is applicable in the construction industry. As in this current study, customer focus is not being prioritised in the construction industry. The effect of customer focus on project performance could be a presence through process management, which requires further study. 5.4. Hypothesis 4—Relationship of workforce focus and project performance The outcome of this research illustrates workforce focus is significantly linked to project performance in the Malaysian construction organizations. Workforce related practices include employee involvement, human resource management, and employee encouragement. In the studies of Naqvi, Bokhari, and Aziz (2011) and Zwikael and Unger-Aviram (2010), human resource management has been regarded as one of the core elements of project management. Other than that, one of the elements of workforce focus, which is the performance management of employees, also has gained significance in project performance (Naqvi, Bokhari & Aziz 2011). In Sadikoglu and Olcay (2014) study, employee training was the only significant effect on operational management. Other organization measurements such as inventory performance, innovation performance, social responsibility, and market and financial performance were not related to employee training in the Turkish manufacturing and service industry (Sadikoglu & Olcay, 2014). Furthermore, a study in the automotive industry of Thailand by Popaitoon and Siengthai (2014) demonstrated human resource management practices had a positive association with project-related performance in the long term. However, Talib et al. (2013) in their study investigating TQM practices at Indian service companies showed workforce related practices have no significant effect on quality performance. This can be explained in which the repetitive work process in manufacturing and service industries disregards the needs of workforce focus, as shown in both Talib et al. (2013) and Sadikoglu and Olcay (2014) . However, the construction industry, which depends greatly on its workforce in the building process, says that workforce focus is related to project performance. Overall, providing more intensive workforce focus practices could trigger a greater contribution by employees to achieving the desired project performance. 5.5. Hypothesis 5—Relationship of operation focus and project performance Clear objectives and goals set by the organization with well-defined processes will lead workers towards a better performance. The finding in this study has confirmed this statement. ISO status certifies that Malaysian construction organizations under G7 have a standardized process management system for their business. Similarly, in other studies, process management has been confirmed as having a statistically significant relationship with performance (Sadikoglu & Zehir, 2010; Zehir et al., 2012). Mir and Pinnington (2014) studied United Arab Emirates (UAE) project based organizations and observed one of the process management practices, KPIs (Key performance indicators) was significantly correlated with project success. Similarly, in Sadikoglu and Olcay (2014), their study revealed that process management partially contributed to firm performance in the Turkish manufacturing and service industry, through inventory performance, innovation performance, and customer service. Zeng et al. (2015), looked at management practices and their impact on manufacturing performance in eight countries and discovered that process management was as one of the quality management practices that had a direct effect on quality performance. Process management has been shown to have a significant correlation in enhancing project performance not only in Malaysia but in other countries as well (Mir & Pinnington, 2014). Process performance has also shown significant contributions in the manufacturing and service Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 Page 22 of 31 industry (Sadikoglu & Olcay, 2014; Zeng et al., 2015). Regardless of country or industry, process management has proven its importance in improving performance. The results of these findings have highlighted the importance of implementing the appropriate procedure throughout the project life cycle. A study by Tari, Molina, and Castejon (2007) asserted quality outcomes are achieved through the continuous improvement from process management activities. Process management activities such as developing key work processes at every project level, establishing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), monitoring performance, approaches and tools to improve process performance, reducing variability, and preparing emergency plans will lead the organization to continuous improvement and ultimately have a positive impact on project performance. Their findings have also indicated process management activities must derive from suppliers and customers. Appropriate and effective work process activities can only be defined and implemented through the understanding of customer needs and a good relationship with suppliers. Particularly in a construction project, the uncertain nature of the industry requires work processes to be defined, managed, monitored, and controlled properly. 5.6. Hypothesis 6—Relationship of measurement, analysis and knowledge management and project performance The current study’s results show measurement, analysis, and knowledge management has a negative influence in improving the performance of the Malaysian construction organizations. This result is surprising as the more time and effort focused on measurement, analysis, and knowledge management, the less it will be in resulting the project performance. This result is also contradictory to the findings of other studies. In Mehralian et al. (2017), quality information availability and usage were found to be one of the TQM practices significantly affecting the performance of the pharmaceutical industry in Iran. Valmohammadi and Roshanzamir (2015)in their study investigating pharmaceutical manufacturing in Tehran showed measurement, analysis and knowledge management was one of the TQM practices associated with organizational performance. Zeng et al. (2015) in their study discovered quality information had a direct effect on the manufacturing industry’s quality performance. In those studies, the importance of decision-making by managers based on real data analysis had been emphasized. Reliable and timely data information through appropriate tools or measurements is vital for upper management to decide the organization’s direction and to drive excellence. On the other hand, some of the studies revealed contradictory outcomes. Ooi et al. (2012) in their study investigating Malaysian manufacturing revealed information analysis had a negative association with innovation performance. Likewise in Teh et al. (2012), information analysis had a negative relationship with the ASEAN (Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam) automotive industry. It is not surprising that measurement, analysis and knowledge management is not significant in improving project performance as there are other studies showing a similar relationship in their respective sector and country. The result of this hypothesis indicates the Malaysian construction industry still does not recognize the importance of using quality measurements and data in decision-making. Project managers in Malaysian construction organizations should look into reallocating their resources wisely to take advantage of adopting measurement, analysis, and knowledge management practices to improve their project performance. To accomplish this, the management of the organizations, especially the upper management decision-makers should rely more on statistical measurements, and reliable analysed data and encourage an information sharing culture in the organization to gain competitive advantage and maintain a leadership position in the industry. 6. Conclusion The Malaysian construction industry has recognized the importance of continuous quality improvement of TQM in its practices. One TQM recommendation in the construction industry is the application for ISO 9000 certification. The ISO 9000 certification is only compulsory for those in the construction industry in Grade 7, according to the CIDB. Other smaller scale construction organizations are still lacking in TQM awareness and implementation. The continuous effort of Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 Page 23 of 31 promoting and implementing quality management practices in Malaysia, especially in the construction sector, need to be encouraged. The current management practices show the recognition of the importance of the workforce is essential to the Malaysian construction industry. The workforce is the core factor that sustains the overall operation of a construction project, where every stage of the project depends greatly on the workforce. This study suggests that by providing training, a good working environment, by encouraging teamwork, problem solving, a culture of “quality”, recognition, a rewards system, and fair compensation will increase workforce satisfaction. In addition, continuous monitoring and measuring of employee performance and job satisfaction are also essential to keep the workforce motivated and hence perform their jobs to their ability. They are the valuable assets that need great attention to improve the performance outcomes in the construction industry. Furthermore, operation related functions are important in this unique, dynamic, and unpredictable industry. Developing key work processes, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), a report system, new approaches and tools, improved communication with suppliers, and emergency plans are important to develop the operation process of the Malaysian construction organizations. Wellprepared operation functions enhance productivity. Project performance in the Malaysian construction industry depends directly on process management. Another significance of this study is measurement, analysis and knowledge management has a negative influence in improving the performance of the Malaysian construction organizations. Similar implications are found in other sectors such as the manufacturing sector in Malaysia (Ooi et al., 2012) and the automotive industry of ASEAN (Teh et al., 2012). Measurements of performance, data collection and analysis, and knowledge management are the process of minimizing and reducing variability and changes; hence, a negative relationship exists between measurement, analysis and knowledge management and project performance. One other significance arising from this finding, there is a lack of knowledge in the use of measurement and analysis tools and a lack of support from management to instil a culture of information sharing in the construction organizations. The organizations have to reallocate their resources in this respect, as this is how reliable decision-making should be based. Other TQM practices such as leadership, strategic planning and customer focus do not have a direct impact on project performance. However, other studies showed the possibility of other mediating factors influencing these features and ultimately performance (Fung & Ramasamy, 2015; Laird, 2016; Lo et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2011; Zwikael et al., 2014). Overall TQM has a significant impact on Malaysian construction project performance. The implication is that TQM is a holistic approach, which should be implemented collectively because each practice is interdependent with the other practices (Zwain, Lim, & Othman, 2017). The findings of this study provide observations and insights to enable policy makers and regulators, such as the CIDB, to assess and consider any relevant revisions and amendments to current policies in Malaysia to improve quality performance in the Malaysian construction industry. For instance, one suggestion is for workforce focus and operation focus which have shown significant impact on project performance, be incorporated into current Malaysian construction industry policy. The workforce and operation focus related activities can be included as a source of reference to improve project performance and upgrade the status of the Malaysian construction industry globally. 7. Limitations and future research The results of this research had to address some data weaknesses due to resource and time constraints. The first limitation was the study only focused on Malaysian organizations. It is suggested this study could be broadened to other countries including developed, developing, and underdeveloped countries. A comparison study between Malaysia, a developing country, and Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 Page 24 of 31 © 2019 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share —copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt —remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution —You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Cogent Business & Management (ISSN: 2331-1975) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures: •Immediate, universal access to your article on publication •High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online •Download and citation statistics for your article •Rapid online publication •Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards •Retention of full copyright of your article •Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article •Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com Jong et al., Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1568655 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1568655 Page 31 of 31