The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

[Link]

Identifying critical success factors Total quality

management
of total quality management via
comprehensive assessment of soft
and hard factors 679
Jih Kuang Chen Received 5 September 2021
Revised 14 March 2022
Economics and Management College, Zhaoqing University, Zhaoqing, China 2 August 2022
30 October 2022
29 January 2023
Abstract Accepted 19 March 2023
Purpose – Effective total quality management (TQM) practices rely on the accurate classification of critical
success factors (CSFs). The impact matrix cross-reference multiplication technique for classification (MICMAC)
or/and fuzzy MICMAC (FMICMAC) can be used to identify key factors in the complex set. However, TQM
includes both “hard” and “soft” factors, limiting application of the traditional MICMAC/FMICMAC method.
Design/methodology/approach – Previous literature on TQM was reviewed, CSFs were identified, and
factors were sorted into soft and hard categories. The combined fuzzy integration and dual-aspect MICMAC
(fuzzy dual-aspect MICMAC approach) was then applied to identify, cluster and prioritize the CSFs of TQM.
Findings – A total of 20 factors (10 soft and 10 hard) were identified and isolated to assess the manufacturing-
and service-related TQM practices of the Pearl River Delta Region of China. Seven driver factors and one
linkage factor emerged as the key CSFs that managers should prioritize.
Research limitations/implications – A major limitation of this study is the dependency of the results on
the definitions of linguistic labels. If the linguistic definitions of TQM CSFs do not closely correspond to the
expert opinion data, then the analysis results may be inaccurate. Additionally, although expert opinions are
utilized in the proposed method for comprehensive assessments, these opinions may influence the final results
due to their inherent subjectivity.
Originality/value – A novel fuzzy dual-aspect MICMAC approach was developed to identify and classify
CSFs for optimal TQM practices. This approach allows clustering of CSFs so that decision-makers can
prioritize factors according to their dependence and driving powers. Practitioners should concentrate on the
CSFs with higher driving powers for successful TQM.
Keywords Total quality management, Critical success factor, MICMAC
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Total quality management (TQM) was first popularized in Japan as a strategy to enhance the
performance and international competitiveness of Japanese enterprises. TQM embraces a
total commitment to customer satisfaction through continuous improvement and innovation
in all aspects of a business (Ershadi et al., 2019). Jimoh et al. (2018) found that TQM practices
have significant effects on organizational performance when organizations implement the
right continuous improvement strategies. Previous scholars explored a wide array of tools
and methods for TQM application and effectively defined abstract TQM concepts. However,
there is no clear approach to concentrate valuable (and potentially limited) resources of an
enterprise in areas that require prioritized management. Critical success factors (CSFs), when
appropriately defined, can facilitate resource prioritization. A workable and comprehensive
understanding of CSFs is necessary for effective TQM (Yusof and Aspinwall, 1999). The
importance of CSFs has increased during the evolution of improvement initiatives
(Sreedharan and Sunder, 2018). The identification of CSFs is fundamental in the strategic
planning process, because these factors are used to evaluate the achievement of objectives The TQM Journal
(Julianelli et al., 2020). Vol. 36 No. 3, 2024
pp. 679-701
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1754-2731
This research was funded by the scientific research fund of Zhaoqing college (No: 202002). DOI 10.1108/TQM-03-2020-0058
TQM Previous studies have described many different CSFs of TQM. CSFs may differ in
36,3 number, object, or methodology in different contexts. Most researchers classify the
importance of CSFs in TQM practices based on the frequency of text analysis or/and their
use in previous studies. According to Tan et al. (2014), CSFs are the variables that provide
the most value to customers and that best differentiate competitors in a given industry.
Modern factor decomposition analysis methods can differentiate the effects of individual
TQM dimensions on other variables (Prajogo and McDermott, 2005; Idris and Zairi, 2006).
680 Although there have been extensive studies of TQM and CSFs, there is no defined
comprehensive list of CSFs that can be universally applied for successful TQM practice
regardless of national or industrial context. Additionally, studies have been limited by a
lack of consensus of the appropriate classification of hard and soft factors, especially
interaction relationships between factors.
Wilkinson (1992) pointed out that TQM has both “hard” and “soft” components. Hard
TQM is often linked to the tools and techniques necessary for quality improvement,
encompassing a variety of production technologies such as statistical process control,
organizational programming, just-in-time, and basic quality control tools (Thiagaragan et al.,
2001). A hard TQM analysis is more systematic and quantitative than a soft TQM analysis,
and most previous studies have focused on hard factors (Habtoor, 2016). Soft factors are
fundamental, but require time-consuming inputs and management, limiting their study. Soft
TQM uses organizational development techniques to facilitate changes, whereas hard TQM
adopts specific methodological and technical strategies for design, implementation, and
improvement (Kanapathy et al., 2017). Soft TQM encompass behavioral characteristics,
focusing on people and the organizational culture, and hard TQM focuses on scientific
methods and the utilization of statistical tools (Sciarelli et al., 2020). Previous scholars have
explored the relationship between soft and hard TQM approaches. Powell (1995), for
example, proposed that soft TQM is more useful than hard TQM for the successful
implementation of quality management strategies. In contrast, Thiagarajan and Zairi (1997)
suggested that hard TQM provides support for soft TQM. Lewis et al. (2006) applied an
Analytic Hierarchy Process to determine that hard TQM practices, such as system
development and continuous improvement, are more popular in modern companies. Rahman
and Bullock (2005) found that both soft and hard TQM practices have positive impacts on
organizational performance.
Hard and soft classifications interact, so a failure to effectively combine hard and soft
factors will reduce the effectiveness of TQM practices. Ali and Johl (2022) used the Pareto
technique to classify the CSFs of TQM as soft and hard factors based on the impact matrix
cross-reference multiplication technique for classification (MICMAC). MICMAC is a
structural classification method that allows systematic factor analysis based on graph
theory and matrix tools. MICMAC can be used to calculate the driving power and dependence
values of various factors. A “driving-dependence graph” can be used to divide the factors into
five categories according to driving power and dependence: stakes, input, excluded, output,
and regulation clusters. The direct binary relation between factors (0 or 1) is evaluated to
obtain an adjacency matrix, and then, a reachable matrix containing the direct and indirect
relations between factors can be obtained. However, the adjacency matrix is a binary
evaluation that may deviate from the actual evaluation results due to its subjectivity.
Recently, scholars have combined fuzzy theory with MICMAC operations to establish fuzzy
MICMAC (FMICMAC) for enhanced evaluation accuracy. However, the FMICMAC method is
more complex and difficult to use than the MICMAC method. Hence, in this study, a more
easily applied novel fuzzy integration method was developed to integrate expert opinions in
combination with MICMAC. In addition, traditional MICMAC and FMICMAC methods do not
account for the dual aspects (e.g., satisfaction/dissatisfaction, interests/risks) of certain
factors, limiting mixed analyses in the TQM context. The factors for two aspects should be
considered separately and then integrated analysis to better classify relevant factors Total quality
(Wu et al., 2011). The CSFs of TQM can be divided into soft and hard categories, hence, a dual- management
aspect MICMAC process is proposed to address this shortcoming.
This study began with a review of the extant literature on TQM, identifying appropriate
CSFs and sorting factors into soft and hard categories. The fuzzy integration method was
combined with the dual-aspect MICMAC process (fuzzy dual-aspect MICMAC approach) and
used to identify, cluster, and prioritize the selected soft and hard factors of TQM. This type of
analysis should allow practitioners to identify the CSFs with higher driving power so these 681
factors can be prioritized for successful TQM. The analysis object is business in the Pearl
River Delta of China. This region is an important base of advanced manufacturing and
modern service industry, and is a key location of economic importance.

2. Literature review
2.1 Critical TQM factors
Many scholars have proposed various CSFs. Porter and Parker (1993), for example, examined
eight critical factors that influence TQM implementation: management behaviors, strategy,
organization, communication, training and education, employee involvement, process
management, and systems and quality technologies (tools and techniques). Porter and
Black (1994) examined nine major factors of TQM: management-led quality culture, employee
involvement programs, employee training, strategic role of quality department, operational
quality requirements, operational quality responsibilities, operational role of quality
department, quality performance data, and external quality strategies. They also identified
lower level factors of quality data availability, inspection review and checking, statistical
training, and automation.
Flynn et al. (1995) studied the relationships among TQM practice factors, including top
management support, customer relationships, work force management, work attitudes,
supplier relationships, product design process, process flow management, statistical control
and feedback, competitive advantage, perceived quality market outcomes, and passing
percentage of final inspections without rework. Black and Porter (1996) extracted 10 critical
factors of TQM from the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award model: strategic quality
management, corporate quality culture, people and customer management, quality
improvement measurement systems, operational quality planning, teamwork structures,
external interface management, customer satisfaction orientation, supplier partnerships, and
communication of improvement information. Belhadi et al. (2019) evaluated CSFs for small
and medium-sized companies. Wang and Meckl (2022) prioritized 15 CSFs of TQM in an
autonomous driving (AD)-ecosystem, and the CSFs were derived from VDA (Verband der
Automobilindustrie) and IATF (International Automotive Task Force) 16,949. The critical
factors of TQM identified in previous studies are listed in Table 1.

2.2 Soft and hard TQM CSFs

Zairi and Youssef (1995) defined two classes of critical TQM factors: hard factors, including
measurement, systems, procedures, specifications, standards, tools, and techniques; and soft
factors, including continuous improvement philosophy, problem-resolving approach,
innovation/creativity, empowerment, teamwork, incentives, and process-based approaches.
Lau and Idris (2001) tested the effects of soft CSFs on TQM implementation in Malaysia.
Vouzas and Psychogios (2007) identified nine soft TQM factors in quality management
literature. Georgiev and Ohtaki (2020) identified nine soft factors of the TQM implementation
process. Do et al. (2021) considered 13 CSFs (six and seven in the human and functional
categories, respectively). There has been other notable work from Singh and Dubey (2013),
TQM Number of critical
36,3 Authors (Year) factors Subject/method

Tamimi (1998) 8 critical factors 173 manufacturing and service firms in the US
Thiagarajan and Zairi 22 critical factors Organizations in the USA
(1998)
Sohal and Terziovski 6 critical factors Manufacturing industry in the Australian
682 (2000)
Douglas and Judge (2001) 7 critical factors American hospital
Chin et al. (2002) 4 critical factors and The state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and foreign joint
16 sub-factors ventures (FJVs) in Shanghai manufacturing industries of
China
Antony et al. (2002) 11 success factors 32 companies in Hong Kong
with 72 elements
Khoo and Tan (2002) 34 critical factors Russian manufacturing
Sila and Ebrahimpour 25 critical factors 76/347 TQM survey studies
(2002)
Sila and Ebrahimpour 18 critical factors 76 studies and the 23 country/MBAQA
(2003)
Wali et al. (2003) 12 critical factors Indian organizations engaged in manufacturing and
services
Prajogo and Sohal (2003) 9 critical factors Australian-wide and encompassed various industry
sectors
Seetharaman et al. (2006) 6 critical factors The secondary data includes journals and articles
published/Identified
Karuppusami and 56 critical factors Systematic literature review
Gandhinathan (2006)
Fryer et al. (2007) 7 critical factors 24 papers reviewed for continuous improvement in
service/public sector organizations/Identified
Al-Khalifa and Aspinwall 10 critical factors Automotive sector in UK
(2008)
Bayraktar et al. (2008) 11 critical factors Higher education institutes
Salaheldin (2009) 24 critical factors SMEs
Sadikoglu and Zehir 8 critical factors Turkish firms
(2010)
Phan et al. (2011) 11 critical factors Japanese manufacturing companies
Lee et al. (2012) 6 critical factors Malaysia’s manufacturing industry
Sahu et al. (2013) 7 critical factors Technical education domain
Ooi et al. (2013) 6 critical factors ISO 9001:2000 certified Malaysian manufacturing firms
Hietschold et al. (2014) 11 critical factors 145 studies/Identified
Ahmad and Elhuni (2014) 11 critical factors Libyan oil and gas companies
with 42 element
Kutlu and Kadaifci (2014) 17 critical factors Fuzzy cognitive maps (FCMs)
Talib et al. (2014) 8 critical factors Small and medium-sized enterprises
Mehralian et al. (2016) 9 critical factors In pharmaceutical sector/similarity to ideal solution
(TOPSIS)
Nadim and Al-Hinai 11 critical factors Higher education Institutions
(2016)
Beshah and Berhan (2017) 10 critical factors Ethiopian organizations/Hotelling’s T2-statistics
Table 1. Aquilani et al. (2017) 59 critical factors Systematic literature review
Critical TQM factors Kulenovi
c et al. (2021) 6 critical factors Systematic literature review of 116 articles
identified previously Source(s): Table by author

Dubey and Singh (2015), Bari et al. (2016), Arunachalam and Palanichamy (2017), and Jabbour
and Renwick (2018). A summary of previously reported soft and hard TQM factors is
provided in Table 2.
Authors (Year) Soft factors Hard factors
Total quality
management
Rahman (2004) Top management leadership, Employee Use of advanced manufacturing systems,
involvement, Employee empowerment, Usage of JIT principles, Process
Employee training, Teamwork and management, Quality data and reporting,
communication, Strategic quality Design quality management, SPC usage,
management, Customer focus Benchmarking, Zero defect mentality
Rahman and Workforce commitment, Shared vision, Computer based technologies, Just-in-time 683
Bullock (2005) Customer focus, Use of term, Personnel (JIT) principles, Technology utilization,
training, Cooperative supplier relation Continues improvement enablers
Lewis et al. (2006) Customer focus and satisfaction, People Quality culture, Quality systems, Quality
training, Teamwork, Employee assurance, Flexibility, Benchmarking,
involvement, Communication; Rewards Just-in-Time, Zero defect, Process
and recognition; Employee empowerment; management, Information and
Employee satisfaction, Social performance measurement, Continuous
responsibility, Human resource improvement and innovation, Product and
management, Top management service design, Suppler management
commitment, Strategic planning
Psychogios and Total Employee Involvement, Continuous Statistical Process Control, ISO 9000
Priporas (2007) Improvement, Continuous Training, series, Pareto Analysis, Matrix Diagram,
Teamwork, Empowerment, Top- Histograms, Tree Decision Diagram,
management Commitment and Support, Critical Path Analysis, Fishbone or
Democratic Management Style, Customer/ Ishakawa Diagram
Citizen Satisfaction, Culture Change
Jung and Hong Leadership, People management, Customer Planning, Process management,
(2008) focus Information and analysis
Fotopoulos and Top management commitment, Strategic Cause and effect diagram, Scatter diagram,
Psomas (2009) quality planning, Employee involvement, Affinity diagram, Relations diagram,
Supplier management, Customer focus, Force-field analysis, Run chart, Control
Process orientation, Continuous charts, Quality function deployment,
improvement, Facts-based decision Failure mode and effect analysis
making, Human resource development
Gadenne and Top management philosophy and supplier Benchmarking and quality measurement,
Sharma (2009) support, Employee training, Increased Continuous improvement, and Efficiency
interaction with employees and customers improvement
Garcia (2011) Employee involvement, Employee Quality control, Quality improvement,
commitment, Customer focus, Continues Quality assurance, Technology utilization,
improvement Planning for quality
Abdullah and Management commitment, Customer focus, Feedback, Interfunctional design, New
Tar
ı (2012) Employee involvement, Training and product quality, Process control, Process
education, Reward and recognition, management
Supplier relationship
Dubey and Singh Leadership, HR focus, Relationship with Statistical process control, Inventory
(2012) partners, Quality culture control, Flexible manufacturing system
Abdallah (2013) Customer focus, Training, Top Continues improvement, Information
management, Leadership, Workforce feedback, Statistical process control,
management, Supplier relationship Process management, Tools and
techniques
Yunis et al. (2013) Management support, Mission statement, Anticipate customer needs, Supplier
Unity of purpose, Effective planning, partnership, Customer/supplier process,
Employee compensation, Employee Customer satisfaction measure, Product/
involvement, Effective communication, process methodology, Employee
Employee training performance measures, Quality data, Table 2.
Scientific management Soft and hard factors
discussed in TQM
(continued ) literature
TQM Authors (Year) Soft factors Hard factors
36,3
Al-Khalili and Leadership, Vision and plan statement, Supplier quality management, Process
Subari (2013) Evaluation, Employee participation, control and improvement, Product design,
Recognition and reward, Education and Quality system improvement, TQM tools
training, Customer focus and techniques usage in case of
purchasing/product/sales/customer
684 service
Psomas et al. Continuous improvement, Top Run chart, Relations diagram, Quality
(2014) management commitment, Customer focus, function deployment, Failure mode and
Human resource development, Fact-based effect analysis, Stem and leaf diagram,
decision making, Strategic quality Control charts, Scatter diagram, Cause and
planning, Process focus, Employee effect diagram, Benchmarking
involvement, Supplier involvement
Imeri et al. (2014) Continues improvement, Strategies quality Statistical process control, ISO 9000 series,
planning, Continuous training, Teamwork, HACCP, Kaizen approach, JIT, Six sigma,
Empowerment, Customer satisfaction, EFQM, SS, Scatter diagrams,
Information and analysis, Supplier Benchmarking, Quality function
management, Top management deployment, Run chart and control chart,
commitment and support, Democratic Pareto analysis, Matrix diagram,
management style, Culture change Histogram and process chart, Tree
decision diagram, Critical path analysis,
Fishbone or Ishikawa diagram
Kanapathy et al. Employee involvement, Employee training, Quality information availability, Quality
(2017) Top management support information usage, Customer orientation,
Supplier quality, Process/product design
Saleh and Sweis Customer focus, Education and training, Continuous improvement, Statistical
(2017) Top management leadership, Supplier process control, Process management,
relationship Quality tools and techniques, Product
design
Modgil and Top management support, Customer focus, Research and development, Product
Sharma (2017) Training and development, Employee quality, Total productivity management,
empowerment Quality data and report
Ratny et al. (2018) Top management support, Customer Continues improvement, ICT usage,
service, Service culture, Knowledge sharing Information system
Saleh et al. (2018) Customer focus, Education and training, Continues improvement, Statistical
Top management leadership, Supplier process control, Process management,
relationship Quality tools and techniques, Product
design
Khan and Naeem Workforce commitment, Shared vision, Quality policy and target objectives,
(2018) Customer focus, Personnel training, Information and Analysis, Quality system
Cooperative supplier relations processes, Continuous improvement
Ershadi et al. Focus on customer, Human resource Strategic management, Process
(2019) management, Leadership management, Quality management tools
Table 2. Source(s): Table by author

2.3 Related MICMAC and FMICMAC studies

Many previous scholars have explored MICMAC applications. Chine et al. (2017) identified
the key variables of foreign direct investment inflows to Algeria using MICMAC. Attri and
Grover (2017) ascertained the relationships among enabled factors affecting the initiation
stage of a production system. Singh et al. (2019) investigated barriers against the Lean Six
sigma and the interrelationships among them. Barati et al. (2019) used this approach to
classify key factors in an agricultural strategy.
There have been many previous empirical applications of FMICMAC. Khan et al. (2014)
ranked critical factors for corporate social responsibility using this method. Dubey and Singh
(2015) used this approach to investigate the complex relationships among just-in-time, lean Total quality
behavior, TQM, and their antecedents. Dube and Gawande (2016) analyzed the barriers of a management
green supply chain, and Raut et al. (2017) identified the CSFs of sustainable supply chain
management practices in the oil and gas industries.

3. Methodology
This study combined the fuzzy integration method with the dual-aspect MICMAC process
685
(Fuzzy dual-aspect MICMAC approach) to identify the soft and hard factors of TQM
practices. The insights of experts who are familiar with and have experience and professional
knowledge of TQM practices were solicited to determine the interaction relationships
between selected soft and hard factors of TQM practice. The application steps of the Fuzzy
dual-aspect MICMAC approach are described in detail below.

3.1 Traditional FMICMAC method

Fuzzy theory can be utilized to increase the sensitivity of the traditional MICMAC method by
introducing possibilities of additional inputs for relationships among factors on a 0–1 scale.
Linguistic labels are defined to create a scale for the evaluation of alternatives. The
FMICMAC method assigns the possibility of an interaction on a linguistic scale: no, very low,
low, medium, high, very high, and complete influence. The typical triangular fuzzy numbers
on a typical linguistic scale are shown in Table 3.
The value of the relationship between two factors after conversion of the fuzzy linguistic
scale can be determined using a linguistic assessment direct relationship matrix (LADRM).
However, the fuzzy number form is not suitable for matrix operations, so defuzzication is
necessary to convert fuzzy numbers to crisp numbers for the final direct relationship matrix.
The defuzzified value (Bij) of the fuzzy triangular number is defined as Bij ¼ fðr − lÞ þ3 ðm − lÞg þ l.
The final direct relationship matrix calculation process is initialized by repeatedly
multiplying the matrix until the hierarchies of the driving power and dependence power
stabilize. The multiplication process follows the Boolean principle C ¼ A 3 B
¼ maxk½minðaik ; bkj Þ; whereA ¼ ½aik  ∧ B ¼ ½bjk . The stabilized FMICMAC matrix is
obtained after the multiplication of fuzzy matrices. Obviously, this method is more
complex and difficult to use.

3.2 Fuzzy integration method

This study proposes a fuzzy integration method that can effectively integrate expert opinion
data. This method is much easier to use than the traditional FMICMAC method. This method
is applied in the following step-wise process:

Linguistic scale Triangular fuzzy number

No influence (0, 0, 0)
Very low influence (0, 0.1, 0.3)
Low influence (0.1, 0.3, 0.5)
Medium influence (0.3, 0.5, 0.7)
High influence (0.5, 0.7, 0.9)
Very high influence (0.7, 0.9, 1)
Complete influence (1, 1, 1) Table 3.
Source(s): Table by author Fuzzy linguistic scale
TQM 3.2.1 Evaluation on a fuzzy linguistic scale. First, a series of linguistic labels must be defined
36,3 and assigned to the linguistic scale to evaluate alternatives using triangular fuzzy numbers
between factors. The five grades are defined as “no influence”, “low influence”, “medium
influence”, “high influence”, and “complete influence” and expressed as l1, l2, l3, l4, and l5,
respectively. The linguistic function is defined as F(li) 5 i∼, i 5 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1. The
fuzzy linguistic labels produced in this step are listed in Table 4.
3.2.2 Integration of expert opinions. Alternatives between factors can be evaluated based
686 on expert opinions. These data must be integrated with the results of multiple decision-
making iterations, as shown in Equation (1), where eijp denotes the evaluation value
(triangular fuzzy number) of the pth expert. The integrated fuzzy numbers A e ij ¼ ðAij ; Bij ; Cij Þ
are obtained after this conversion.
8
>
> AIJ ¼ minfeijp g
>
>
>
> Pn
< eijp
p¼1 (1)
>
> B ¼
>
>
ij
p
>
>
:
Cij ¼ maxfeijp g

3.2.3 Defuzzication. As described above, defuzzication is needed to convert fuzzy numbers

into crisp numbers because the fuzzy number form is not suitable for matrix operations. The
graded mean method was used to convert the property average (PA) to a crisp number:
ðAij þ 4Bij þ Cij Þ
PAij ¼ (2)
6
3.2.4 Establishment of initial adjacency matrix. In this step, each PA value is compared with
the central fuzzy number 0.5 to create an initial adjacency matrix. For a PA value greater than
0.5, the value is changed to 1; a value less than 0.5 is changed to 0. The resulting initial
adjacency matrix can be further analyzed in accordance with the traditional MICMAC
method.

3.3 MICMAC process

The MICMAC process is applied according to the following step-wise process:
3.3.1 Specify influences among factors. If a system is defined as a set consisting of n factors,
then Si can be set as a pair-to-pair comparison between factors. When a certain factor has a
direct influence on another factor, the corresponding elements are given a value of 1;
otherwise the elements are given a value of 0. If element Si on row i is directly influencing
element Sj in column j, then A 5 [Sij] is defined as the adjacency matrix as in the following
example:

Fuzzy number Linguistic labels

e
0 ¼ ð0; 0; 0:25Þ No influence
g ¼ ð0; 0:25; 0:5Þ
0:25 Low influence
f ¼ ð0:25; 0:5; 0:75Þ
0:5 Medium influence
g ¼ ð0:5; 0:75; 1Þ
0:75 High influence
e
1 ¼ ð0:75; 1; 1Þ Complete influence
Table 4.
Fuzzy linguistic labels Source(s): Table by author
  
s s2 s3 s4  Total quality
s1  1
0 1 0 0  management
s 
A ¼ 2  0 0 0 0 
s3 
1 0 0 1 
s4 
0 1 0 0

3.3.2 Construct reachability matrix. Adding the adjacency matrix (A) to the identity matrix (I) 687
creates an element-connection matrix (N). The matrix N can then be repeatedly multiplexed
until its ascending power equals itself via Boolean algebra: N ≠ N 2 ≠ N 3 ≠ . . . ≠ N r−1 ¼ N r.
Nr is then defined as the reachability matrix (M).

3.4 Fuzzy dual-aspect MICMAC approach

A Fuzzy dual-aspect MICMAC process was developed in this study and its implementation
flow is shown in Figure 1.
The steps of fuzzy dual-aspect MICMAC implementation are as follows:
(1) Appropriate soft and hard factors of TQM should be selected from past relevant
studies.
(2) Experts provide evaluations of the interactions between the respective factors.
(3) The fuzzy integration method is used to obtain an adjacency matrix.
(4) The MICMAC method is applied to obtain the respective driving and dependence
powers of the factors.
(5) The average values of the soft and hard factors’ driving power values are represented
by two straight distinction lines of the Y-axis. The average soft and hard factors’
dependence power values are represented by two straight distinction lines of the
X-axis. The resulting cooperation driving-dependence graph is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 1.
Fuzzy dual-aspect
MICMAC process flow
TQM 3.5 Factor classification
36,3 Factors are classified based on their cluster in the cooperation driving-dependence graph
(Figure 2), and they are defined as follows:
(1) Stake cluster (I): linkage/relay factors
Factors located in quadrant I (upper right portion of the graph) have high influence and high
dependence. These factors influence other factors and are also greatly influenced by other
688 factors. Any action on these factors will impact others in the graph and feedback to the acting
factor, thereby amplifying or supporting the original effect. These factors are unstable and
have linkage or relay characteristics; consequently, they form the so-called “stake cluster.”
(2) Input cluster (II): driver/independent factors
These factors are located in quadrant II (upper left portion of the graph) and have high
influence and low dependence. These factors are very influential and relatively uninfluenced
by other factors in the system. These factors are the most critical factors as they can
markedly affect the entire system depending on how effectively they are controlled. They are

Figure 2.
Cooperation driving-
dependence graph

Figure 3.
Cooperation driving-
dependence graph
considered “entry enablers” in the system, are driver/independent factors, and form the Total quality
so-called “input cluster.” management
(3) Excluded cluster (III): autonomous/excluded factors
These factors are located in quadrant III (lower left portion of the graph) and have low
influence and dependence. These factors are less connected to the rest of the system and have
little impact on other parts of the system. They are autonomous and excluded, forming the
so-called “excluded cluster”. 689
(4) Output cluster (IV): dependent factors
These factors are located in quadrant IV (lower right portion of the graph) and have low
influence and high dependence. These factors are very sensitive to changes in driver and
linkage factor, and form the so-called “output cluster,” so can serve as an indicator to evaluate
the effectiveness of the whole system.
(5) Regulation cluster (V): adjustment factors
These factors are located in the central region of the driving-dependence graph; they have
little effect on the overall changes or other effects in the system and are not strongly
influenced by other factors. These factors are close to the average position of influence and/or
dependence, so it is difficult to classify these factors or exert effective actions on these factors.
With corruption control and regulation characteristics, they form the so-called “regulation
cluster”.

3.6 Soft and hard TQM CSFs

Of factors that have extensive use/high frequency in the literature and that are relevant to
China’s national conditions, the author selected 10 soft and 10 hard factors, to assess
manufacturing/service TQM practices (as shown in Table 5) for the Pearl River Delta of
Guangdong Province in China.

4. Result
Invitations were issued to 43 experts with experience or professional knowledge to share their
insights on interaction relationships between the selected soft and hard factors of TQM
practice from for the Pearl River Delta of Guangdong Province in China. This region includes
nine cities: Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Foshan, Huizhou, Dongguan, Zhongshan,
Jiangmen, and Zhaoqing. This is an economically dynamic region in China, and the
companies reported implementation of TQM. These 43 experts included people responsible
for managing and carry out TQM practices in their organization, as well as academic experts
who teach TQM courses or study TQM. In total, 32 valid responses were obtained;
23 respondents work in industry and nine work in academia. We discussed the definition of
factors and how to present factor interactions to the experts during the visit. We used the
expert responses to create an adjacency matrix and then applied the fuzzy dual-aspect
MICMAC method to obtain the driving and dependence powers of the CSFs. According to the
cooperation driving-dependence graph, the CSFs were split into five clusters (linkage, driver,
autonomous, dependent, and adjustment). The results of this process suggest workable
recommendations for managers and researchers, as discussed in greater detail below.
We first transformed the 32 valid responses into triangular fuzzy numbers in accordance
with the labels shown in Table 4. A fuzzy adjacency matrix was obtained after integration
using Equation (1), as shown in Table 6. The top of the matrix contains the soft factors, and
the hard factors are on the bottom.
TQM Code Factors Description
36,3
Soft S1 Top management It involves articulating a vision for the future that is clear and
commitment compelling, as well as providing. Strategic planning
S2 Leadership Establish goals and strategies, provide and allocate the necessary
resources, contribute to quality improvement work, and evaluate
the implementation and performance of TQM
690 S3 Customer focus The planning and operation of the system can effectively identify
and continuously meet customer. Needs
S4 Supplier relationship Entails working together toward a common aim, and each party
can gain more through cooperation
S5 Strategic quality The company integrates quality in its organizational strategy to
planning achieve sustained and lasting excellence
S6 Human resource HR system enables the creation of a company-wide quality culture
development
S7 Employee Employees have the required authority to resolve quality-related
empowerment issues
S8 Employee involvement Employees actively participate and cooperate within a team
S9 Employee training Employees are well-trained to engage in TQM-related activities
S10 Reward and A motivational system that gives praise and rewards to employees
recognition who perform well
Hard H1 Continues The regular measurement, evaluation, and improvement of
improvement products and processes achieving continuous improvement in
performance, cost, and quality
H2 Benchmarking The analysis of best practices of leading competitors in the
organization and operates using similar processes
H3 ISO 9000 series An international document of standards written by a worldwide
organization known as the ISO/Technical Committee 176
H4 Information and Collecting and sharing timely data on quality issues to be used and
analysis analyzed for quality improvement, and the use of advanced IT
technology, such as 5G, blockchain etc.
H5 New product quality Effective approaches and processes for new product design lead to
a high level of quality
H6 Process management Process-oriented instead of result-oriented management approach,
so that it operates as expected
H7 Statistical process SPC is a statistical method through which managers can control the
control production or the service delivery process to improve it
H8 Quality tools and Common used tools and techniques include Pareto Analysis,
techniques Matrix Diagram, Tree diagram, Critical Path Analysis, FMEA,
QFD etc.
H9 Quality data and report There are available (defects, defect rates, scrap, etc.), timely,
accurate data and reports used to analyze and manage
Table 5. H10 Customer satisfaction Methods for developing a deeper understanding of the customers’
Soft and hard factors of measure satisfaction are sufficiently integrated into TQM practice
TQM practice Source(s): Table by author

The initial adjacency matrix was obtained by transforming every integrated triangle fuzzy
number into a crisp number (PA) using Equation (2), and then each value was compared with
the central fuzzy number 0.5. Soft and hard factors were calculated independently using the
traditional MICMAC method. This involved adding identity matrix I into an element
connection matrix N. A matrix of N products was obtained to secure the matrix to the power n
calculated by Boolean algebra to confirm N ≠ N2 ≠ N3 ≠ . . . ≠ N(r1) 5 Nr, where Nr
represents reachability matrix M. The result is shown in Table 7. Soft factors are on the left,
and hard factors are on the right.
 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

S1 - (0, 0.08, 0.5) (0, 0.14, 0.25) (0.25, 0.67, 1) (0.25, 0.42, 1) (0.5, 0.65, 1) (0, 0.23, 0.5) (0, 0.17, 0.75) (0, 0.23, 0.5) (0.5, 0.65, 1)
S2 (0.25, 0.67, 1) – (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.08, 0.5) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.25, 0.75) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.08, 0.5)
S3 (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) – (0, 0.08, 0.5) (0, 0.55, 1) (0, 0.23, 0.5) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.12, 0.5) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25)
S4 (0, 0.06, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.08, 0.5) – (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.12, 0.5) (0, 0.09, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.17, 0.75) (0,0.17, 0.75)
S5 (0, 0.12, 0.5) (0, 0.16, 0.5) (0, 0, 0.25) (0.5, 0.65, 1) – (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.17, 0.75) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25)
S6 (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.16, 0.5) (0, 0.08, 0.5) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) – (0.25, 0.67, 1) (0.25, 0.67, 1) (0, 0.58, 0.75) (0, 0.08, 0.5)
S7 (0,0.17, 0.75) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.08, 0.5) (0, 0.16, 0.5) (0, 0, 0.25) – (0, 0.25, 0.75) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25)
S8 (0, 0.09, 0.25) (0, 0.09, 0.25) (0, 0.25, 0.75) (0, 0, 0.25) (0,0.17, 0.75) (0, 0.23, 0.5) (0, 0.08, 0.5) – (0, 0.08, 0.5) (0, 0.25, 0.75)
S9 (0, 0.14, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.12, 0.5) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.25, 0.75) (0, 0, 0.25) (0.5, 0.65, 1) – (0, 0, 0.25)
S10 (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.08, 0.5) (0.25, 0.67, 1) (0.5, 0.65, 1) (0, 0.14, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.26, 0.75) (0.5, 0.83, 1) (0.5, 0.65, 1) –

H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10
H1 – (0, 0.02, 0.25) (0, 0.06, 0.25) (0,0.17, 0.75) (0, 0, 0.25) (0.25, 0.73, 1) (0, 0.08, 0.5) (0.5, 0.83, 1) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.09, 0.25)
H2 (0, 0, 0.25) – (0, 0, 0.25) (0.25, 0.56, 1) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.16, 0.5) (0, 0.06, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0.5, 0.78, 1) (0.5, 0.83, 1)
H3 (0.5, 0.83, 1) (0, 0, 0.25) – (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.55, 1) (0.5, 0.65, 1) (0, 0.08, 0.5) (0, 0.08, 0.5) (0.25, 0.42, 1) (0, 0, 0.25)
H4 (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.06, 0.25) (0, 0.16, 0.5) – (0, 0.26, 0.75) (0.25, 0.56, 1) (0.5, 0.65, 1) (0, 0, 0.25) (0.5, 0.78, 1) (0, 0.14, 0.25)
H5 (0, 0.06, 0.25) (0, 0.08, 0.5) (0, 0.06, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) – (0, 0, 0.25) (0.5, 0.83, 1) (0, 0.58, 0.75) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.16, 0.5)
H6 (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.08, 0.5) – (0, 0, 0.25) (0.5, 0.78, 1) (0, 0.16, 0.5) (0, 0.06, 0.25)
H7 (0, 0.26, 0.75) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.14, 0.25) (0, 0.12, 0.5) (0.5, 0.83, 1) – (0.25, 0.73, 1) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25)
H8 (0, 0.08, 0.5) (0, 0.06, 0.25) (0, 0.16, 0.5) (0, 0, 0.25) (0.5, 0.65, 1) (0, 0.26, 0.75) (0, 0.14, 0.25) – (0, 0.12, 0.75) (0, 0.12, 0.75)
H9 (0, 0.14, 0.25) (0, 0.14, 0.25) (0, 0.14, 0.25) (0, 0.14, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.16, 0.5) (0, 0.23, 0.5) – (0, 0.14, 0.25)
H10 (0, 0.12, 0.75) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0.02, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0.25, 0.62, 1) (0, 0, 0.25) (0,0.17, 0.75) (0, 0.25, 0.75) (0.25, 0.67, 1) –
Source(s): Table by author
Total quality

691
management

matrix
Table 6.
Fuzzy adjacency
 36,3

692
TQM

Table 7.

soft and hard factors

Reachability matrix of
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10

S1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
S2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H2 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
S3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 H3 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
S4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 H4 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
S5 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 H5 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
S6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 H6 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
S7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 H7 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
S8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 H8 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
S9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 H9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
S10 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 H10 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Source(s): Table by author
The driving and dependence powers of soft and hard factors were determined using the Total quality
MICMAC method as shown in Table 8. management
A cooperation driving-dependence graph was developed using the data shown in Table 8.
The driving power includes the average soft and hard factors and the dependence power, as
discussed above. The X-axis represents the average dependence powers of soft and hard
factors; the Y-axis represents the average driving powers of soft and hard factors. Factors
were then classified by the cluster in which they are located, as shown in Figure 3.
693
5. Findings and discussion
The factors located in cluster I of the cooperation driving-dependence graph are linkage
factors (or “stake factors”), with high driving power and high dependence. The “customer
satisfaction measure” is the only factor in this cluster. Managers must be careful in handling
this factor, because any action on this factor will have an impact on others in the system, and
feedback onto itself to amplify or support the initial expected estimates.
The factors located in cluster II are driver factors (“input factors”) that act on the system as
key effects. These factors are independent and have relatively high driving powers but
relatively low dependence powers. “Top management commitment,” “leadership,” “reward
and recognition,” “continuous improvement,” “benchmarking,” “ISO 9000 series,” and
“information and analysis” were clustered as driver factors, as shown in Figure 3. These are
the most critical factors in the system and should be consistently prioritized by managers
because they can act as decision-making tools for strategy-makers for effective TQM
practices.
The factors located in cluster III have relatively low dependence and driving powers. They
are the “excluded cluster,” as they do not affect the whole system. In this study, only “quality
data and report” fell into this cluster. These factors have limited links with the rest of the
system. These factors are located near the origins of axes, have low influence and
dependence, and are autonomous from the rest of the system.
The factors located in cluster IV are dependent factors, which are sensitive to action on
driving and linkage factors. They are referred to as the “output cluster” of the system.
As shown in Figure 3, “supplier relationship,” “strategic quality planning,” “employee
involvement,” and “employee training” fell into this cluster. These require other factors in the
system to be acted upon for effective TQM. Managers should investigate the dependence of
these factors on other related factors and accord them high priority when conducting TQM
practices.

Soft factors Hard factors

No. I D I D

1 8 2 5 2
2 10 1 8 1
3 3 4 7 1
4 1 6 6 2
5 2 5 4 9
6 4 3 4 9
7 1 4 4 9
8 1 6 4 9
9 2 5 1 1 Table 8.
10 6 3 6 6 Driving and
Average 3.9 3.9 4.9 4.9 dependence powers of
Source(s): Table by author soft and hard factors
TQM The factors that do not fall in clusters I–IV are adjustment factors that may have average
36,3 influence and/or dependence values and are distributed very close to the center of the graph.
These factors may have no significant cluster identifier, because soft and hard factors are
considered simultaneously. In this study, “customer focus,” “human resource development,”
“employee empowerment,” “new product quality,” “process management,” “statistical
process control,” and “quality tools and techniques” fell into this category. After further
analysis, we found the driving power of “Human resource” is above average, making it more
694 of a driver factor that can be treated with similar driving factors. The dependence power
values of “Customer focus” and “Employee empowerment” are also above average, making
them more like dependence factors that can be treated with similar actions. The driving
power values of “New product quality,” “Process management,” “Statistical process control,”
and “Quality tools and techniques” are above average. These factors are more like
dependence factors and can be treated with similar actions.

5.1 Discussion
The assessment of the TQM CSFs indicates that the management and implementation of the
following seven driver factors should be prioritized: S1 “top management commitment,” S2
“leadership,” S10 “reward and recognition,” H1 “continuous improvement,” H2
“benchmarking,” H3 “ISO 9000 series,” H4 “information and analysis,” and the linkage
factor H10 “customer satisfaction measure.” The “customer satisfaction measure” factor is
regarded as a major performance indicator of TQM practices and must be constantly and
carefully monitored. Second, S6 “human resource development,” H5 “new product quality,”
H6 “process management,” H7 “statistical process control,” and H8 “quality tools and
techniques,” are adjustment factors, but close to driver/linkage factors; consequently, they
should be implemented as per their significant impacts on other factors. Third, S4 “supply
relationship,” S5 “strategy quality planning,” S8 “employment involvement,” and S9
“employee training” do not merit active improvement because these factors will improve as
the other driver/linkage factors improve. Fourth, S3 “customer focus” and S7 “employee
empowerment” are adjustment factors, but close to autonomous factors, and autonomous
factor H9 “quality data and report” can be deprioritized. The detailed results are shown in
Table 9.
These CSFs were all demonstrated by past studies, but there are some minor differences in
results owing to differences in selected CSFs or differences in targeted industries or regions.
For example, Continues improvement and Benchmarking were classified as dependent
factors in Al Zawati et al. (2020). However there are some similarities among the results. For
example, among first tier priority factors, top management involvement and leadership are
very often obtained by many TQM studies (Aquilani et al., 2017; Georgiev and Ohtaki, 2020;
Elsafty and Seddek, 2022). Continuous improvement was adopted by Do et al. (2021), and
benchmarking was proposed by Belhadi et al. (2019). The few factors to be particularly
explained are as follows: (1) ISO 9000 series: This factor was used in earlier studies, but has
not been used frequently in recent years. However, perhaps owing to China’s national
conditions, it is widely believed that this set of standards ensures that a company has clear
guidance, including a specific quality policy and a plan to implement excellent QM systems as
a foundation for TQM practices; (2) Reward and recognition: according to the study of
Beckford (2010) on large Japanese firms, Japanese management places less emphasis on
material aspects (i.e. salary bonuses), while Chinese companies utilize a monetary reward
approach; (3) Information and analysis: Chinese companies prefer to adopt advanced IT
technology to collect and share timely data on quality issues to be analyzed; and (4) Customer
satisfaction measure: excellent customer satisfaction should be the ultimate goal of an
Category Code Factors Priority
Total quality
management
Driver factors S1 Top management commitment 1
S2 Leadership 1
S10 Reward and recognition 1
H1 Continues improvement 1
H2 Benchmarking 1
H3 ISO 9000 series 1 695
H4 Information and analysis 1
Linkage factors H10 Customer satisfaction measure 1
Adjustment factors S6 Human resource development 2
H5 New product quality 2
H6 Process management 2
H7 Statistical Process control 2
H8 Quality tools and techniques 2
Dependent factors S4 Supply relationship 3
S5 Strategy quality planning 3
S8 Employment involvement 3
S9 Employee training 3
Adjustment factors S3 Customer focus 4
S7 Employee empowerment 4 Table 9.
Autonomous factor H9 Quality data and report 4 Priority rankings of
Source(s): Table by author TQM CSFs

organization. Thus, the measurement of customer satisfaction should be a direct indicator of

continuous monitoring and improvement as a way for an organization to implement TQM.

6. Conclusions and implications

This study began with a review of the extant literature on TQM, identified appropriate CSFs,
and sorted factors into soft and hard categories. We identified 20 CSFs (10 soft and 10 hard
factors) related to TQM practices. A novel fuzzy dual-aspect MICMAC approach was
developed to identify and classify CSFs for optimal TQM practices. This approach clustered
CSFs so that decision-makers can prioritize them according to their dependence and driving
powers. Practitioners should concentrate on CSFs with higher driving powers for successful
TQM, because these factors affect the entire system so targeting these factors can improve
the overall TQM system.
The results of this study indicate that “top management commitment,” “leadership,”
“reward and recognition,” “continuous improvement,” “benchmarking,” “ISO 9000 series,”
“information and analysis,” and “customer satisfaction measures” are key CSFs of TQM
practices. The fuzzy dual-aspect MICMAC approach incorporated expert opinions regarding
interactions among the selected CSFs. Thus, the results of this study represent important
guidelines for managers and/or researchers involved in TQM implementation base on the
study to has implemented TQM enterprises and experts in Pearl River Delta region of China.

6.1 Research implications

Theoretical implications: Hard and soft classifications interact, so a failure to effectively
combine hard and soft factors will reduce the effectiveness of TQM practices. In this study,
previous literature on TQM was reviewed, and CSFs were identified, and were sorted into soft
and hard categories. The combined fuzzy integration and dual-aspect MICMAC (fuzzy dual-
aspect MICMAC approach) was then applied to identify, cluster, and prioritize the CSFs of
TQM TQM. This approach allows clustering of CSFs so that decision-makers can prioritize factors
36,3 according to their dependence and driving powers.
Practical implications: A total of 20 factors (10 soft and 10 hard) were identified and
isolated to assess the manufacturing- and service-related TQM practices of the Pearl River
Delta Region of China. Seven driver factors and one linkage factor emerged as the key CSFs
that managers should prioritize, including top management commitment, leadership, reward
and recognition, continuous improvement, benchmarking, ISO 9000 series, information and
696 analysis and customer satisfaction measure.

6.2 Research limitations and future research

The fuzzy dual-aspect MICMAC method has limitations that should be noted when
considering its practical application: (1) whether the selected analysis factors are complete
and sufficient; (2) application of this method requires a basic knowledge of fuzzy sets, so those
who are not familiar with this concept may find the method difficult to implement; (3) expert
opinions are incorporated into the method for comprehensive assessment, but these opinions
may influence the final results owing to their inherent subjectivity.
In future work, the fuzzy dual-aspect MICMAC method may be expanded to more
industries/regions or/and CSFs to further probe interactions among CSFs in TQM practices.
Future work should also determine the hierarchical structure of key CSFs in TQM using
Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory–Interpretive Structural Modeling
(DEMATEL-ISM). Additionally, empirical study could be used to detect the impact
between the key CSFs of TQM for various innovation categories (e. g. disruptive innovation
and open innovation).

References
Abdallah, A.B. (2013), “The influence of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ total quality management (TQM) practices on
total productive maintenance (TPM) in Jordanian manufacturing companies”, International
Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 8 No. 21, pp. 1-13.
Abdullah, M.M.B. and Tar
ı, J.J. (2012), “The influence of soft and hard quality management practices
on performance”, Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 177-193.
Ahmad, M. and Elhuni, R. (2014), “Critical quality factors for successful TQM implementation in
Libyan oil and gas sector”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 713-733.
Al Zawati, O.K., Bashir, H. and Alsyouf, I. (2020), “Modelling and analyzing of critical success factors
for implementing UAE’s Government Excellence Model in the public sector: an ISM and Fuzzy-
MICMAC approach”, International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management,
Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 1107-1132.
Ali, K. and Johl, S.K. (2022), “Soft and hard TQM practices: future research agenda for industry 4.0”,
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 33 Nos 13-14, pp. 1625-1655.
Al-Khalifa, K. and Aspinwall, E. (2008), “Critical success factors of TQM: a UK study”, International
Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 430-443.
Al-Khalili, A. and Subari, K. (2013), “Understanding the linkage between soft and hard total quality
management: evidence from Malaysian manufacturing industries”, Jordan Journal of
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 57-65.
Antony, J., Leung, K., Knowles, G. and Gosh, S. (2002), “Critical success factors of TQM
implementation in Hong Kong industries”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 551-566.
Aquilani, B., Silvestri, C., Ruggieri, A. and Gatti, C. (2017), “A systematic literature review on total
quality management critical success factors and the identification of new avenues of research”,
The TQM Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 184-213.
Arunachalam, T. and Palanichamy, Y. (2017), “Does the soft aspects of TQM influence job satisfaction Total quality
and commitment? An empirical analysis”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 385-402.
management
Attri, R. and Grover, S. (2017), “Modeling the quality enabled factors in initiation stage of production
system life cycle”, Benchmarking: an International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 163-183.
Barati, A.A., Azadi, H., Pour, M.D., Lebailly, P. and Qafori, M. (2019), “Determining key agricultural
strategic factors using AHP-MICMAC”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 14, p. 3947, doi: 10.3390/
su11143947.
697
Bari, M.W., Fanchen, M. and Baloch, M.A. (2016), “TQM soft practices and job satisfaction; mediating
role of relational psychological contract”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 235
No. 24, pp. 453-462.
Bayraktar, E., Tatoglu, E. and Zaim, S. (2008), “An instrument for measuring the critical factors of
TQM in Turkish higher education”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 19
No. 6, pp. 551-574.
Beckford, J. (2010), Quality: A Critical Introduction, 3rd ed., Routledge, New York, NY; London.
Belhadi, A., Touriki, F.E. and Elfezazi, S. (2019), “Evaluation of critical success factors (CSFs) to lean
implementation in SMEs using AHP: a case study”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 803-829.
Beshah, B. and Berhan, E. (2017), “Critical success factors for TQM implementation”, International
Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 490-499.
Black, S.A. and Porter, L.J. (1996), “Identification of the critical factors of TQM”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Chin, K.S., Pun, K.F., Xu, Y. and Chan, J.S.F. (2002), “An AHP based study of critical factors for TQM
implementation in Shanghai manufacturing industries”, Technovation, Vol. 22 No. 11,
pp. 707-715.
Chine, L., Djeddi, T. and Haidouchi, A. (2017), “Foreign direct investment as an instrument to promote
entrepreneurship in Algeria: structural analysis using MICMAC Method”, Journal of Business
and Management Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 120-124.
Do, M.H., Huang, Y.F. and Do, T.N. (2021), “The effect of total quality management-enabling factors on
corporate social responsibility and business performance: evidence from Vietnamese coffee
firms”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1296-1318.
Douglas, T.J. and Judge, W.Q. (2001), “Total quality management implementation and competitive
advantage: the role of structural control and exploration”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 158-169.
Dube, A.S. and Gawande, R.R. (2016), “Analysis of green supply chain barriers using integrated ISM-
fuzzy MICMAC approach”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 6,
pp. 1558-1578.
Dubey, R. and Singh, T.A. (2012), “Theoretical framework of soft TQM in successful implementation”,
International Journal of Advanced Operations Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 195-218.
Dubey, R. and Singh, T.A. (2015), “Understanding complex relationship among JIT, Lean behavior,
TQM and their antecedents using interpretive structural modeling and Fuzzy MICMAC
analysis”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 42-62.
Elsafty, A. and Seddek, A. (2022), “Investigating the critical success factors of excellence model
implementation in the public sector ^aVœ Egypt Government excellence award”, International
Journal of Social Science Studies, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 24-45.
Ershadi, M.J., Najafi, N. and Soleimani, P. (2019), “Measuring the impact of soft and hard total quality
management factors on customer behavior based on the role of innovation and continuous
improvement”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 1093-1115.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakilbara, S. (1995), “The impact of quality management practices
on performance and competitive advantage”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 659-691.
TQM Fotopoulos, C. and Psomas, E. (2009), “The impact of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ TQM elements on quality
management results”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 26 No. 2,
36,3 pp. 150-163.
Fryer, K., Antony, J. and Douglas, A. (2007), “Critical success factors of continuous improvement in the
public sector: a literature review and some key findings”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 497-517.
Gadenne, D. and Sharma, B. (2009), “An investigation of the hard and soft quality management factors
698 of Australian SMEs and their association with firm performance”, International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 865-880.
Garcia, I. (2011), “Knowledge management, soft TQM and hard TQM, and organizational
performance”, International Forum, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 70-85.
Georgiev, S. and Ohtaki, S. (2020), “Critical success factors for TQM implementation among
manufacturing SMEs: evidence from Japan”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 473-498.
Habtoor, N. (2016), “Influence of human factors on organizational performance: quality improvement
practices as a mediator variable”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 460-484.
Hietschold, N., Reinhardt, R. and Gurtner, S. (2014), “Measuring critical success factors of TQM
implementation successfully-a systematic literature review”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 52 No. 21, pp. 6254-6272.
Idris, M.A. and Zairi, M. (2006), “Sustaining TQM: a synthesis of literature and proposed research
framework”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 1245-1260.
Imeri, S., Kekale, T., Takala, J. and Liu, Y. (2014), “Understanding the impact of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’
element of TQM in south-east European firms”, Management and Production Engineering
Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 9-13.
Jabbour, C. and Renwick, D. (2018), “The soft side of environmentally sustainable organizations”,
RAUSP Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 622-627.
Jimoh, R., Oyewobi, L., Isa, R. and Waziri, I. (2018), “Total quality management practices and
organizational performance: the mediating roles of strategies for continuous improvement”,
International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 162-177.
Julianelli, V., Caiado, R.G.G., Scavarda, L.F. and Cruz, S.P.D.M.F. (2020), “Interplay between reverse
logistics and circular economy: critical success factors-based taxonomy and framework”,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 158, 104784.
Jung, J.Y. and Hong, S. (2008), “Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), TQM and performance at
the Maquiladora”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 25 No. 8,
pp. 793-808.
Kanapathy, K., Bin, C.S., Zailani, S. and Aghapour, A.H. (2017), “The impact of soft TQM and hard
TQM on innovation performance: the moderating effect of organizational culture”, International
Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 429-461.
Karuppusami, G. and Gandhinathan, R. (2006), “Pareto analysis of critical success factors of total
quality management: a literature review and analysis”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 372-385.
Khan, B.A. and Naeem, H. (2018), “Measuring the impact of soft and hard quality practices on service
innovation and organizational performance”, Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, Vol. 29 Nos 11/12, pp. 1402-1426.
Khan, M.I., Khan, U. and Haleem, A. (2014), “Corporate social responsibility: modeling of critical
factors using an integrated ISM and Fuzzy-MICMAC approach”, International Journal of Global
Business and Competitiveness, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Khoo, H.H. and Tan, K.C. (2002), “Critical success factors for quality management implementation in
Russia”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 263-268.
Kulenovi
c, M., Folta, M. and Veselinovi
c, L. (2021), “The analysis of total quality management critical Total quality
success factors”, Quality Innovation Prosperity, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 88-102.
management
Kutlu, A.C. and Kadaifci, C. (2014), “Analyzing critical success factors of total quality management by
using fuzzy cognitive mapping”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 27 No. 5,
pp. 561-575.
Lau, H. and Idris, M. (2001), “The soft foundation of the critical success factors on TQM
implementation in Malaysia”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 51-62.
699
Lee, V.H., Ooi, K.B., Sohal, A.S. and Chong, A.Y.L. (2012), “Structural relationship between TQM
practices and learning organization in Malaysia’s manufacturing industry”, Production
Planning and Control, Vol. 23 Nos 10/11, pp. 885-902.
Lewis, W.G., Pun, K.F. and Lalla, T.R.M. (2006), “Exploring soft versus hard factors for TQM
implementation in small and medium-sized enterprise”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 55 No. 7, pp. 539-554.
Mehralian, G., Nazari, J., Rasekh, H. and Hosseini, S. (2016), “TOPSIS approach to prioritize critical
success factors of TQM: evidence from the pharmaceutical industry”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 28
No. 2, pp. 235-249.
Modgil, S. and Sharma, S. (2017), “Impact of hard and soft TQM on supply chain performance:
empirical investigation of pharmaceutical industry”, International Journal of Productivity and
Quality Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 513-533.
Nadim, Z.S. and Al-Hinai, A.H. (2016), “Critical success factors of TQM in higher education institutions
context”, International Journal of Applied Sciences and Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 147-156.
Ooi, K.B., Lee, V.H., Chong, A.Y.L. and Lin, B. (2013), “Does TQM improve employees’ quality of work
life? Empirical evidence from Malaysia’s manufacturing firms”, Production Planning and
Control, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 72-89.
Phan, A.C., Abdallah, A.B. and Matsui, Y. (2011), “Quality management practices and competitive
performance: empirical evidence from Japanese manufacturing companies”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 133 No. 2, pp. 518-529.
Porter, L.J. and Black, S. (1994), Total Quality Management: Research into the Critical Factors, Vol. 145,
Special Publication of the Royal Society of Chemistry, London, pp. 156-168.
Porter, L.J. and Parker, A.J. (1993), “Total quality management-the critical success factors”, Total
Quality Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 13-22.
Powell, T.C. (1995), “Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical
study”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Prajogo, D.I. and McDermott, C. (2005), “The relationship between total quality management practices
and organizational culture”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 1101-1122.
Prajogo, D.I. and Sohal, A.S. (2003), “The Relationship between TQM practices, quality performance
and innovation performance: an empirical examination”, The International Journal of Quality
and Reliability Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 901-918.
Psomas, E., Vouzas, F. and Kafetzopoulos, D. (2014), “Quality management benefits through the ‘soft’
and ‘hard’ aspect of TQM in food companies”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 431-444.
Psychogios, A.G. and Priporas, C.A. (2007), “Understanding total quality management in context:
qualitative research on managers’ awareness of TQM aspects in the Greek Service Industry”,
The Qualitative Report, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 40-66.
Rahman, S.U. (2004), “The future of TQM is past. Can TQM be resurrected?”, Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 411-422.
Rahman, S.U. and Bullock, P. (2005), “Soft TQM, hard TQM and organizational performance
relationships: an empirical investigation”, Omega-international Journal of Management Science,
Vol. 33, pp. 73-83.
TQM Ratny, S., Arshad, A.M. and Tian, G.L. (2018), “Studying the relationship of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ TQM
elements with service quality in service firms”, The Journal of Developing Areas, Vol. 52 No. 4,
36,3 pp. 213-226.
Raut, R.D., Narkhede, B. and Gardas, B.B. (2017), “To identify the critical success factors of
sustainable supply chain management practices in the context of oil and gas industries: ISM
approach”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 68, pp. 33-47.
Sadikoglu, E. and Zehir, C. (2010), “Investigating the effects of innovation and employee performance on
700 the relationship between total quality management practices and firm performance: an empirical
study of Turkish firms”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 127 No. 1, pp. 13-26.
Sahu, A.R., Shrivastava, R.R. and Shrivastava, R.L. (2013), “Development and validation of an
instrument for measuring critical success factors (CSFs) of technical education-a TQM approach”,
International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 29-56.
Salaheldin, S.I. (2009), “Critical success factors for TQM implementation and their impact on
performance of SMEs”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 215-237.
Saleh, R.A. and Sweis, R.J. (2017), “The relationships between soft/hard total quality management
practices and operational performance in Jordanian manufacturing organizations”,
International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 345-377.
Saleh, R.A., Sweis, R.J. and Saleh, F.I.M. (2018), “Linking soft and hard total quality management
practices: evidence from Jordan”, International Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 49-87.
Sciarelli, M., Gheith, M.H. and Tani, M. (2020), “The relationship between soft and hard quality
management practices, innovation and organizational performance in higher education”, The
TQM Journal, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 1349-1372.
Seetharaman, A., Sreenivasan, J. and Boon, L.P. (2006), “Critical success factors of total quality
management”, Quality and Quantity, Vol. 40, pp. 675-695.
Sila, I. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2002), “An Investigation of the total quality management survey based
research published between 1989 and 2000”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 902-970.
Sila, I. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2003), “Examination and comparison of the critical factors of total
quality management (TQM) across countries”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 235-268.
Singh, T. and Dubey, R. (2013), “Soft TQM practices in Indian cement industry-an empirical study”,
International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Singh, M., Kumar, P. and Rathi, R. (2019), “Modeling the barriers of Lean Six Sigma for Indian micro-
small medium enterprises: an ISM and MICMAC approach”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 31 No. 5,
pp. 673-695.
Sohal, A. and Terziovski, M. (2000), “TQM in Australian manufacturing: factors critical to success”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 158-167.
Sreedharan, V.R. and Sunder, M.V. (2018), “Critical success factors of TQM, six sigma, lean and lean
six sigma: a literature review and key findings”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 3479-3504.
Talib, H.H.A., Ali, K.A.M. and Idris, F. (2014), “Critical success factors of quality management
practices among SMEs in the food processing industry in Malaysia”, Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 152-176.
Tamimi, N. (1998), “A second order factor analysis of critical TQM factors”, International Journal of
Quality Science, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-79.
Tan, Y., Shen, L., Langston, C., Lu, W. and Yam, M.C.H. (2014), “Critical success factors for building
maintenance business: a Hong Kong case study”, Facilities, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 208-225.
Thiagaragan, T., Zairi, M. and Dale, B. (2001), “A proposed model of TQM implementation based on Total quality
an empirical study of Malaysian industry”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 289-306. management
Thiagarajan, T. and Zairi, M. (1997), “A review of total quality management in practice:
understanding the fundamentals through examples of best practice applications-part I”, The
TQM Magazine, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 270-286.
Thiagarajan, T. and Zairi, M. (1998), “An empirical analysis of critical factors of TQM: a proposed tool
for self-assessment and benchmarking purposes”, Benchmarking for Quality Management and 701
Technology, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 291-303.
Vouzas, F. and Psychogios, A.G. (2007), “Assessing managers’ awareness of total quality
management”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 62-75.
Wali, A.A., Deshmukh, S.S. and Gupta, A.D. (2003), “Critical success factors of TQM: a select study of
Indian organizations”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Wang, Z. and Meckl, R. (2022), “Prioritizing critical success factors of total quality management in
autonomous driving business models: a comparison between Germany and China”, Cogent
Business and Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, 2016096.
Wilkinson, A. (1992), “The other side of quality: ‘soft’ issues and the human resource dimension”,
Total Quality Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 323-330.
Wu, W.W., Lan, L.W. and Lee, Y.T. (2011), “Exploring decisive factors affecting an organization’s
SaaS adoption: a case study”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 31,
pp. 556-563.
Yunis, M., Jung, J. and Chen, S. (2013), “TQM, strategy, and performance: a firm-level Analysis”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 690-714.
Yusof, S.M. and Aspinwall, E. (1999), “Critical success factors for total quality management
implementation in small and medium enterprise”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 Nos 4/5,
pp. 803-809.
Zairi, M. and Youssef, M. (1995), “Benchmarking critical factors for TQM: part I-theory and
foundations”, Benchmarking for Quality Management and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 5-20.

Corresponding author
Jih Kuang Chen can be contacted at: jkchen1146@[Link]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
[Link]/licensing/[Link]
Or contact us for further details: permissions@[Link]