implementation of total quality management in mongolian universities

Implementation of Total Quality Management in Mongolian Universities

Southern Taiwan University Southern Taiwan University

Fenghueih Huarng & Oyunchimeg Zagd

OUTLINEOUTLINE

Motivations and Objectives

Literature Review

Research Design & Methodology

Analysis & Results

Conclusions and Recommendations

Motivations Many higher education institutions have been stimulated

and influenced by a total quality framework for both teaching and administrative support functions in Mongolia.

Changes in higher education: students' requirements and needs, increasing demands from business and industry, increasing demands from governing boards and the public

sector, decreasing funds, and increasing competition among higher

education institutions.

In addition, no research has been conducted for developing a TQM implementation model that can be used by Mongolian universities to improve their TQM implementation efforts.

ObjectivesObjectives

1. To obtain the effects of TQM implementation on overall business performance in Mongolian Universities

2. To obtain a TQM implementation model for Mongolian Universities.

Research Questions: Research Questions: 1. What are the effects of TQM implementation on overall

business performance in Mongolian universities?2. What kind of TQM implementation model should be

developed to guide Mongolian universities?3. How can this TQM implementation model be

demonstrated in practice?

LITERATURE REVIEWLITERATURE REVIEW

Framework Comparison of TQM ConstructsFramework Comparison of TQM ConstructsSaraph et al. Saraph et al.

framework (1989)framework (1989)Flynn et al. Flynn et al.

framework (1994)framework (1994)Ahire et al. Ahire et al.

Framework (1996)Framework (1996)Proposed Proposed frameworkframework

11 Role of divisional topRole of divisional topmanagement and management and

qualityquality policypolicy

Quality leadershipQuality leadership Top managementTop management commitmentcommitment

LeadershipLeadership

22 Role of qualityRole of quality departmentdepartment

Quality improvementQuality improvement rewardsrewards

Customer focusCustomer focus Supplier quality Supplier quality managementmanagement

33 TrainingTraining Process controlProcess control Supplier quality Supplier quality management management

Strategic planningStrategic planning

44 Product/service Product/service designdesign

Cleanliness andCleanliness andOrganization Organization

Design quality Design quality managementmanagement

AssessmentAssessment

55 Supplier QualitySupplier Quality ManagementManagement

FeedbackFeedback BenchmarkingBenchmarking Process control andProcess control and improvementimprovement

66 Process management/Process management/ operatingoperating

New product qualityNew product quality Internal quality Internal quality information usageinformation usage

Product designProduct design

77 Quality data andQuality data and reportingreporting

Interfunctional design Interfunctional design process

Statistical Process Statistical Process Control usageControl usage

Quality systemQuality systemimprovementimprovement

88 Employee relationsEmployee relations Selection forSelection forteamwork potentialteamwork potential

Employee Employee empowermentempowerment

EmployeeEmployee participationparticipation

99 TeamworkTeamwork Employee Employee involvementinvolvement

Recognition and Recognition and rewardreward

1100

Supplier relationshipSupplier relationship Employee training Employee training Employee trainingEmployee training

1111

Customer involvementCustomer involvement Product qualityProduct quality Customer focusCustomer focus

12

Supplier performanceSupplier performance

Not included in the Not included in the proposed proposed framework. They framework. They represented TQM represented TQM outcomesoutcomes.

similarsimilarRelatively Relatively the same the same elementelement

Was excluded in the Was excluded in the proposed framework, proposed framework, since every since every department in department in organization was organization was involved in quality involved in quality management.management.

TQM Definition – in this StudyTQM Definition – in this Study

A management philosophy for continuously A management philosophy for continuously improving overall business performance based on improving overall business performance based on

leadership, leadership, supplier quality management, supplier quality management, strategic planning, strategic planning, assessment, assessment, process control and improvement, process control and improvement, product design, product design, quality system improvement, quality system improvement, employee participation, employee participation, recognition and reward, recognition and reward, employee training, employee training, & customer focus.& customer focus.

Definitions of TQM ConstructsDefinitions of TQM ConstructsConstructsConstructs DefinitionsDefinitions

1. Leadership1. Leadership The ability of top management to lead the organization in continuously pursuing long-term overall business success.

2. Supplier 2. Supplier qualityquality ManagementManagement

The set of supplier-related quality management practices for improving suppliers’ quality of products and services. This is exemplified by firm-supplier partnership, product quality as the criterion for supplier selection, participation in suppliers, communication with suppliers, understanding of supplier performance, and supplier quality audit (Mann, 1992; Zhang, 2000).

3. Strategic3. Strategic planningplanning

The process of identifying an organization’s long-term goals and objectives and then determining the best approach for achieving those goals and objectives.

4. Evaluation4. Evaluation The systematic examination of the extent to which an entity is capable of fulfilling specified requirements.

5. Process 5. Process controlcontrol and and improvementimprovement

Process control and improvement connotes a set of methodological and behavioral practices, which are implemented to control and improve processes that produce products and services (Juran and Gryna, 1993).

6. Product 6. Product designdesign

A certain special techniques or methods should be used to achieve successful product design (Juran and Gryna, 1993). An experimental design is a widely used tool in product design. Its application has significantly reduced the time and expense needed to develop the new product, greatly improved the performance of the new product, and led to the success of new product design.

Definitions of TQM Constructs Definitions of TQM Constructs (cont’.)(cont’.)

ConstructsConstructs DefinitionsDefinitions7. Quality system7. Quality system improvement improvement

The organizational structure, procedures, processes and resources needed to implement quality management (ISO 8402, 1994).

8. Employee8. Employee participationparticipation

The degree to which employees in an organization engage in various quality management activities. By personally participating in quality management activities, employees acquire new knowledge, see the benefits of the quality disciplines, and obtain a sense of accomplishment by solving quality problems. Participation is decisive in inspiring action on quality management (Juran and Gryna, 1993).

9. Recognition 9. Recognition andand rewardreward

Recognition: the public acknowledgment of superior performance of specific activities. Reward: benefits, such as increased salary, bonuses and promotion, which are conferred for generally superior performance with respect to goals (Juran and Gryna, 1993). Public recognition is an important source of human motivation (Deming, 1986).

10. Education and10. Education and trainingtraining

Training refers to the acquisition of specific skills or knowledge. Training programs attempt to teach employees how to perform particular activities or a specific job. Education, on the other hand, is much more general, and attempts to provide employees with general knowledge that can be applied in many different settings (Cherrington, 1995).

11. Customer 11. Customer focusfocus

The degree to which an organization continuously satisfies customer needs and expectations. A successful firm recognizes the need to put the customer first in every decision made (Philips Quality, 1995).

Definitions of Overall Business Definitions of Overall Business Performance ConstructsPerformance Constructs

ConstructsConstructs DefinitionsDefinitions

1. Employee satisfaction

The degree to which employees like their jobs (Spector, 1997); it is simply how employees feel about their jobs and different aspects of their jobs.

2. Product quality The development, design, production and service of a product that is most economical, most useful, and always satisfactory to the consumer (Ishikawa ,1985)

3. Customer satisfaction

The degree to which an organization’s customers continually perceive that their needs are being met by the organization’s products and services (Anderson et al., 1994).

4. Strategic business performance

The final result of running an organization, which can reveal the effects of doing business, show the competitive capability of the organization in the marketplace and its financial health, and predict its future success or failure. Strategic business performance is a good indicator to test the effects of TQM implementation and of an organization’s efforts in pursuing employee satisfaction, product quality, and customer satisfaction.

RESEARCH DESIGN & RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODOLOGYMETHODOLOGY

Research ModelResearch ModelLeadership

Employee Participation

Employee Training

Recognition and Reward

Supplier Quality Management

Strategic Planning

Assessment

Process Control and Improvement

Product Design

Quality System Improvement

Customer Focus

Employee Satisfaction

Product Quality

Strategic Business

Performance

Customer Satisfaction

H2

H3

H4

H5

H7

H9

H10H15

H14

H17

H1

H6

H8

H11

H12

H13

H16

Hypotheses Between TQM Hypotheses Between TQM Implementation Constructs and Overall Implementation Constructs and Overall

Business PerformanceBusiness PerformanceHypothesesHypotheses

H1: Leadership has a positive effect on strategic business Leadership has a positive effect on strategic business performance. performance.

H2: Leadership has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.Leadership has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.

H3: Employee participation has a positive effect on employee Employee participation has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.satisfaction.

H4: Employee training has a positive effect on employee Employee training has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.satisfaction.

H5: Recognition and reward has a positive effect on employee Recognition and reward has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.satisfaction.

H6: Supplier quality management has a positive effect on product Supplier quality management has a positive effect on product quality.quality.

H7: Strategic planning has a positive effect on product quality.Strategic planning has a positive effect on product quality.

H8: Assessment has a positive effect on product quality.Assessment has a positive effect on product quality.

H9: Process control and improvement has a positive effect on Process control and improvement has a positive effect on product quality.product quality.

H10: Product design has a positive effect on product quality.Product design has a positive effect on product quality.

H11: Quality system improvement has a positive effect on product Quality system improvement has a positive effect on product quality.quality.

H12: Customer focus has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.Customer focus has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.

Hypotheses Among Overall Business Performance Constructs

HypothesesHypotheses

H13:

Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on product quality.

H14:

Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.

H15:

Product quality has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.

H16:

Product quality has a positive effect on strategic business performance.

H17:

Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on strategic business performance.

Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire of this research comprises of 3 parts: Part (1): demographic information, such as gender, age and occupation. Part (2): TQM implementation has 11 sections

Leadership (7 items), Employee participation (4 items), Employee training (5 items), Recognition and reward (5 items), Supplier quality management (3 items), Strategic planning (5 items),

Assessment (7 items), Process control & improvement (7 items), Product design (5 items), Quality system improvement (5 items) & Customer focus (5 items).

Part (3): Overall Business Performance consists of 4 parts: Employee satisfaction (5 items), Product quality (7 items), Strategic Business Performance Product quality (8 items) and Customer satisfaction (2 items).

A survey questionnaire (both in English and Mongolian) with 78 items was distributed to university lecturers in Mongolia.

5-point Likert scale, 5 for Strongly agree, 4 for Agree, 3 for Neutral, 2 for Disagree and 1 for Strongly disagree.

Analysis ProceduresAnalysis Procedures

Confirmatory Factor Analysis § Measurement TQM Implementation Model§ Measurement Overall Business

Performance Model

Reliability and Validity (For Two Measurement Models)

§ Reliability: - Cronbach’s alpha ≥ 0.7 - Composite reliability ˃ 0.7 - AVE ˃ 0.5§ Convergent Validity: - AVE ≥ 0.5 - Factor loadings ≥ 0.6 - C.R ˃ 1.96§ Discriminant Validity: - Correlation among factors ≤0.85 - Squared correlation among factors ˂ AVE - Dc2 ˃ 3.84

Assessment Research Model(SEM)

§ Assessment of model fit for SEM§ Hypothesis testing for SEM

§ Descriptive Statistics§ Estimation of Intra-Class Correlation

Coefficient (For 3 data sets)

Model Modification§ SEM test for each TQM implementation

construct§ Modified TQM implementation model test§ Modified SEM test § Hypothesis testing for the modified SEM

Goodness of Fit Indices – in this Study (Byrne, 2001)

Goodness-of-fit Index Recommended Value

c2 (Chi-square)

df (degrees of freedom)

p (p-value)

c2/df (Chi-square/degrees of freedom) <3

RMR (Root mean squared residual) <0.05

GFI (Goodness of fit index) ≥ 0.9

NFI (Normed fit index) >0.9

IFI (Incremental fit index) >0.9

TLI (Tucker – Lewis coefficient index) >0.9

CFI (Comparative fit index) >0.9

RMSEA (Root mean square error of approximation)

Between 0.05 and 0.08

RESEARCH ANALYSES RESEARCH ANALYSES AND AND

RESULTSRESULTS

Dataset of the RespondentsDataset of the Respondents

Dataset Frequency Percent

1. Health Science University of Mongolia 155 58.3

2. National University of Mongolia 54 20.3

3. Mongolian University of Science and Technology

57 21.4

Total 266 100.0

The data was collected between February and March 2010. 300 questionnaire was distributed to a total of 3 universities and 266 completed forms received giving a response rate of 88.7%.

Characteristics of the Characteristics of the Respondents (n=266)Respondents (n=266)

Frequency Percentage

Occupation

Director 2 0.8

Vice Director 18 6.8

Lecturer 246 92.4

Gender

Male 95 35.7

Female 171 64.3

Age

< 30 years old 56 21.1

31- 40 years old 98 36.8

41-50 years old 65 24.4

51-60 years old 35 13.2

> 61 years old 12 4.5

Estimation of Estimation of Intra-Class Correlation Coefficient Intra-Class Correlation Coefficient

(ICC)(ICC) Intra-class correlation coefficient ( ) is a measure of agreement

between observers that can be used when your observations are scaled on an interval or ratio scale of measurement.

“J” - a number of groups, “F” - the value using F-test in ANOVA, “np” - a sample size of the research.

Based on Cohen (1988), the following criteria are used to decide whether the ICC (ρ) is high enough to use hierarchical liner model: 0.059 > ≥ 0.01 - low correlated among different groups 0.138 > ≥ 0.059 - medium correlated among different groups ≥ 0.138 - high correlated among different groups

:

The results for estimation of ICC provided the requirement , therefore the datasets were combined.

= ሺ𝑱−𝟏ሻ(𝐅−𝟏)ሺ𝑱−𝟏ሻሺ𝑭−𝟏ሻ+𝒏𝒑

j np F ICC

Employee Satisfaction 3 266 1.420 0.003

Product Quality 3 266 7.790 0.049

Customer Satisfaction 3 266 2.579 0.012

Strategic Business Performance

3 266 6.835 0.042

≥ 0.059

Confirmatory Confirmatory Factor AnalysisFactor Analysis

1. For the Measurement TQM Implementation Model2. For the Measurement Overall Business

Performance Model

Assessment of the Measurement TQM Implementation Model - 1st

RUN

.47

EMP_P3i10

Leadership

EmployeeParticipation

.59

LEAD1i1 .48

LEAD3i3

.77.69

.58

LEAD2i2

.26

EMP_P2i9

.54

EMP_T2i13

.76.58

LEAD4i4

.76

.37

EMP_P1i8

.68

EMP_P4i11

.63

EMP_T3i14 .04

EMP_T4i15

EmployeeTraining.67

EMP_T5i16

.64

REC_R2

i18

.63

REC_R4

i20

.71

REC_R3

i19 Recognitionand Reward

.56

LEAD5i5

.75.45

LEAD6i6.58

LEAD7i7

.48

REC_R1

i17

.58

REC_R5

i21

.67

SUP_Q_M1

i22

.27

EMP_T1

i12

.67

.76

.73

SupplierQuality

Management

.48

SUP_Q_M3

i24

.71

SUP_Q_M2

i23

StrategicPlanning.51

STRA_P5

i29

.63

STRA_P4

i28

.59

STRA_P3

i27

.56

STRA_P2

i26.41

STRA_P1

i25

Assessment

.34

ASS7

i36

.65

ASS6

i35

.75

ASS5

i34

.72

ASS4

i33

.46

ASS3

i32.21

ASS2

i31.35

ASS1

i30

.76.80

.84.80.70

.46

Process ControlImprovement

.55

PRO_C_I7i43

.47

PRO_C_I6i42

.34

PRO_C_I5i41

.57

PRO_C_I4

i40

.53

PRO_C_I3

i39

.46

PRO_C_I2

i38

.37

PRO_C_I1

i37

ProductDesign

.44

PRO_D3i46

.73

PRO_D2i45

.75

PRO_D1i44

.86

Quality SystemImprovement.67

QUA_S_I4i50

.77

QUA_S_I3i49

.80

QUA_S_I2i48

.37

QUA_S_I1i47

CustomerFocus

.50

CUS_F6i56

.53

CUS_F5i55

.61

CUS_F4i54

.51

CUS_F3i53

.50

CUS_F2i52

.44

CUS_F1

i51

.61

.72

.74

.57

.43

.76

.60

.60

.49

.51

.65

.68

.54

.81

.68

.73

.63

.55

.78

.58

.68

.44

.60

.73

.70

.61

.48

.57

.39.77

.65

.59.65

.55

.72.61

.73

.66

.59

.76

.71

.78

.71

.73

.67

.71

.73

.64

.79

.69.51 .61

.83

.79.20

.52

.82

.84

.82

.69

.72

.77.75

.85

.68

.58.87

.81

.59

.76.59.69.74

.68.61

.88.89.61

.82

.66

.86

.56

.45

.75

.78

.53

.51

.59

.75

.47

.62

.74

.78

.70

.76

.78

The results of CFA:

c2=2831.692, df=1429, p<0.001, c2/df=1.982, RMSEA=0.06. GFI=0.723, NFI=0.736, IFI=0.849, TLI=0.836, CFI=0.847, RMR=0.061

24 items were omitted “Loadings≥0.71”

Originally EMP_P3 was with a low loading (0.67), however one indicator cannot form a factor by itself. Therefore, it was not omitted.

Assessment of the Measurement TQM Implementation Model - 2nd

RUN

.44

EMP_P3i10

Leadership


.58

LEAD1i1 .58

LEAD2i2

.55

EMP_T2i13

.58

LEAD4i4

.72

EMP_P4i11

.63

EMP_T3i14EmployeeTraining.71

EMP_T5i16

.64

REC_R2i18

.62

REC_R4i20

.74

REC_R3i19Recognitionand Reward

.56

LEAD5i5 .57

LEAD7i7

.59

REC_R5i21

.72

SUP_Q_M1i22

.75

.74

SupplierQuality

Management

.70

SUP_Q_M2i23

StrategicPlanning

.63

STRA_P4i28

.65

STRA_P3i27

.59

STRA_P2i26

Assessment.66

ASS6i35

.80

ASS5i34

.75

ASS4i33


.47

PRO_C_I7i43

.62

PRO_C_I4i40

ProductDesign

.70

PRO_D2i45

.79

PRO_D1i44


QUA_S_I4i50

.80

QUA_S_I3i49

.81

QUA_S_I2i48

CustomerFocus.56

CUS_F6i56

.60

CUS_F5i55

.63

CUS_F4i54

.58

.62

.71

.56

.40

.75

.58

.68

.54

.50

.64

.68

.50

.78

.62

.80

.62

.49

.75

.53

.69

.41

.56

.68

.67

.57

.43

.50

.36.73

.62

.59.59

.50

.57.62

.71

.62

.54

.70

.79

.79

.85

.80.77

.52

.41

.64

.77

.51

.46

.58

.87

.43

.59

.73

.75

.67

.77

.74

.79.77.75

.81.89.90

.89.84

.87.89.81

.86

.76.76.75

.76

.67.85

.84

.79

.77

.80

.84

.69.79

c2 =664.329, df=409,

p<0.001, c2/df=1.624

, RMR=0.037

, RMSEA=0.0

49, IFI=0.953,

CFI=0.952, TLI=0.942, GFI=0.873, NFI=0.886

Assessment of the Measurement TQM Implementation Model – 3rd

RUN

.44

EMP_P3i10

Leadership


.54

LEAD1i1 .52

LEAD2i2

.55

EMP_T2i13

.58

LEAD4i4

.73

EMP_P4i11

.63

EMP_T3i14EmployeeTraining.71

EMP_T5i16

.64

REC_R2i18

.61

REC_R4i20

.75


.58

LEAD5i5 .58

LEAD7i7

.58

REC_R5i21

.69

SUP_Q_M1i22

.76

.74

SupplierQuality

Management

.73

SUP_Q_M2i23

StrategicPlanning

.66

STRA_P4i28

.57

STRA_P3i27

.51

STRA_P2i26

Assessment.66

ASS6i35

.80

ASS5i34

.75

ASS4i33


.47

PRO_C_I7i43

.63

PRO_C_I4i40

ProductDesign

.68

PRO_D2i45

.82

PRO_D1i44


QUA_S_I4i50

.79

QUA_S_I3i49

.81

QUA_S_I2i48

CustomerFocus.55

CUS_F6i56

.58

CUS_F5i55

.63

CUS_F4i54

.58

.67

.72

.57

.41

.78

.58

.71

.54

.51

.65

.68

.50

.81

.62

.79

.62

.49

.77

.53

.68

.42

.57

.69

.70

.57

.43

.49

.36.75

.63

.61.59

.51

.57.61

.70

.61

.55

.74

.81

.79

.83

.76.71

.54

.40

.64

.77

.52

.48

.56

.87

.44

.60

.75

.75

.67

.78

.75

.80.76.74

.81.89.90

.90.82

.87.89.81

.86

.72.76.76

.73

.66.85

.84

.78

.76

.80

.86

.68.80

.28

.26

-.22

-.27

.27

-.26

.29

.25

c2/df=1.437 RMR = 0.034 RMSEA = 0.041 NFI=0.901, IFI=0.968,TLI=0.959 CFI=0.967 GFI=0.888

M.I. i28 <--> i45 13.784 i1 <--> i2 12.665 i1 <--> i43 9.481

i19 <--> i54 8.354 i45 <--> i48 7.736 i28 <--> i50 7.969 i27 <--> i26 8.614 i22 <--> i55 7.608

Assessment of the Measurement Overall Business Performance

Model – 1st RUN

.38

PRO_Q5i66

EmployeeSatisfaction

ProductQuality

.65

EMP_S1i57

.60

EMP_S3i59

.61

EMP_S2i58

.50

PRO_Q4i65

.80

CUS_S1i69

.48

EMP_S4i60

.70

PRO_Q3i64

.35

PRO_Q6i67

.80

CUS_S2i70.61

ST_B_P1i71

CustomerSatisfaction

.68

.52

ST_B_P2i72

.65

ST_B_P4i74

.57

ST_B_P6i76

.75

ST_B_P5i75

StrategicBusiness

Performance

.75

.68

.62

.71

.80

.75

EMP_S5i61.69

PRO_Q1i62 .47

PRO_Q2i63

.58

ST_B_P3i73

.77

ST_B_P7i77.68

ST_B_P8i78

.54

PRO_Q7i68

.88

.83

.75

.86

.80

.76

.72

.78

.89

.89

.84.71

.69

.83

.59

.73

.61

.77

.69

.87

.78

.80

c2/df=4.5 RMSEA=0.115 RMR=0.059, GFI=0.720, NFI=0.807, IFI=0.844, CFI=0.843 TLI=0.821.


Model – 2nd RUN


ProductQuality

.67

EMP_S1i57

.59

EMP_S3i59

.65

EMP_S2i58

.79

CUS_S1i69

.82

PRO_Q3i64

.80

CUS_S2i70

.60

ST_B_P1i71


.52

ST_B_P2i72

.65

ST_B_P4i74

.57

ST_B_P6i76

.75

ST_B_P5i75

StrategicBusiness

Performance

.72

EMP_S5i61

.55

PRO_Q1i62.60

PRO_Q2i63

.58

ST_B_P3i73

.78

ST_B_P7i77 .68

ST_B_P8i78

.78

.72

.76

.80

.83

.88

.86

.75

.72

.80

.75

.69

.71

.64

.77

.80

.82

.89

.90

.90.77

.74

.85

“Loadings≥0.71”

For better fit model, the following 5 items were removed: PRO_Q6(0.59), PRO_Q5(0.60), EMP_S4(0.69), PRO_Q7(0.70), PRO_Q4(0.63)

c2/df=4.880 RMSEA=0.121 GFI=0.764, IFI=0.880, CFI=0.880TLI=0.855 NFI=0.854. Only RMR=0.048


Model – 3rd RUN


ProductQuality

.66

EMP_S1i57

.59

EMP_S3i59

.65

EMP_S2i58

.80

CUS_S1i69

.80

PRO_Q3i64

.79

CUS_S2i70

.59

ST_B_P1i71


.42

ST_B_P2i72

.59

ST_B_P4i74

.57

ST_B_P6i76

.72

ST_B_P5i75

StrategicBusiness

Performance

.71

EMP_S5i61

.57

PRO_Q1i62.57

PRO_Q2i63

.48

ST_B_P3i73

.85

ST_B_P7i77 .68

ST_B_P8i78

.77

.65

.69

.77

.83

.92

.85

.75

.71

.80

.73

.69

.72

.64

.77

.80

.81

.89

.89

.90.75

.75

.56

.42

.46

.43

.34

.37

.29

.29

.28

-.22

-.31

.84

Covariances M.I. i72 <--> i73 70.262 i76 <--> i63 37.034 i74 <--> i73 33.160 i71 <--> i72 28.747 i71 <--> i73 29.606 i75 <--> i78 15.322 i72 <--> i74 14.150 i70 <--> i75 14.410 i61 <--> i63 11.096 i57 <--> i76 9.593 i71 <--> i77 9.793

c2/df = 2.104 RMR=0.043, GFI=0.908, NFI=0.943, IFI=0.969, TLI=0.959, CFI=0.969RMSEA=0.065

Reliability and ValidityReliability and Validity

(For Two Measurement Models)

Reliability

Cronbach’s alpha ranged between 0.704 and 0.933, indicating a high reliability of the scales.

Also each construct manifests a composite reliability greater than the recommended threshold value of 0.7.

The AVE range between 0.560 and 0.796, above the recommended 0.50 level.

- Cronbach’s alpha ≥ 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978)- Composite reliability ≥ 0.7 - AVE ≥ 0.5 (Hair et al., 1999)

ConstructsComposite Reliability

AVECronbach's

Alpha Leadership 0.864 0.560 0.868 Employee Participation 0.894 0.584 0.717 Recognition and Reward 0.878 0.643 0.879 Employee Training 0.835 0.628 0.834 Supplier Quality Management

0.830 0.710 0.829

Strategic Planning 0.805 0.581 0.830 Assessment 0.894 0.737 0.891 Process Control Improvement

0.709 0.550 0.704

Product Design 0.855 0.748 0.853 Quality System Improvement

0.901 0.753 0.901

Customer Focus 0.810 0.588 0.808 Employee Satisfaction 0.882 0.652 0.885 Product Quality 0.845 0.646 0.841 Customer Satisfaction 0.886 0.796 0.887 Strategic Business Performance

0.926 0.614 0.933

Composite reliability = (sum of standardized loadings)2/ [(sum of standardized loadings)2 + (sum of indicator measurement error)]

Average variance extracted (AVE) = (sum of squared standardized loading)/[(sum of squared standardized loadings) + (sum of indicator measurement error)]

Indicator measurement error = [1– (standardized loading)2].

1. Convergent Validity

All AVE were greater than threshold value of 0.50.

All loadings exceeded the suggested value of 0.6 for all constructs.

Also critical ratio (C.R) for all constructs were larger than 1.96.

Therefore, all items used proved to achieve convergent validity in their respective scales.

- AVE ≥ 0.5 (Bollen, 1989) - Factor loadings ≥ 0.6 (Hatcher, 1994) - C.R ≥ 1.96 (Byrne, 2001)

Constructs Items LoadingsCritical Ratio

(C.R.)Composite Reliability

AVECronbach's

Alpha

LEAD1 0.733 11.717LEAD2 0.724 11.621LEAD4 0.760 *LEAD5 0.759 12.300LEAD7 0.764 12.312EMP_P3 0.664 *EMP_P4 0.853 10.736REC_R2 0.797 *REC_R3 0.863 15.888REC_R4 0.783 13.816REC_R5 0.762 13.295EMP_T2 0.742 12.313EMP_T3 0.792 *EMP_T5 0.840 13.977

SUP_Q_M1 0.829 10.189SUP_Q_M2 0.856 *STRA_P2 0.713 13.393STRA_P3 0.755 *STRA_P4 0.814 12.737

ASS4 0.868 *ASS5 0.893 18.375ASS6 0.812 15.743

PRO_C_I4 0.795 11.340PRP_C_I7 0.684 *PRO_D1 0.903 13.117PRO_D2 0.824 *

QUA_S_I2 0.899 17.024QUA_S_I3 0.888 17.002QUA_S_I4 0.814 *

CUS_F4 0.796 12.066CUS_F5 0.762 11.758CUS_F6 0.741 *EMP_S1 0.814 13.893EMP_S2 0.804 13.777EMP_S3 0.768 *EMP_S5 0.843 13.925PRO_Q1 0.753 14.437PRO_Q2 0.754 13.767PRO_Q3 0.897 *CUS_S1 0.893 17.578CUS_S2 0.891 *ST_B_P1 0.768 13.310ST_B_P2 0.648 12.850ST_B_P3 0.694 15.874ST_B_P4 0.770 *ST_B_P5 0.850 15.158ST_B_P6 0.753 13.063ST_B_P7 0.924 16.691ST_B_P8 0.827 14.519

Note: (*) Indicates a parameter fixed at 1.0 in the original solution

Strategic Business Performance 0.926 0.614 0.933

Product Quality 0.845 0.646 0.841

Customer Satisfaction 0.886 0.796 0.887

Customer Focus 0.810 0.588 0.808

Employee Satisfaction 0.882 0.652 0.885

Product Design 0.855 0.748 0.853

Quality System Improvement 0.901 0.753 0.901

Assessment 0.894 0.737 0.891

Process Control Improvement 0.709 0.550 0.704

Supplier Quality Management 0.830 0.710 0.829

Strategic Planning 0.805 0.581 0.830

Recognition and Reward 0.878 0.643 0.879

Employee Training 0.835 0.628 0.834

Leadership 0.864 0.560 0.868

Employee Participation 0.894 0.584 0.717

Discriminant Validity Test Using Correlations between Constructs

Table 4.9 Correlations between the TQM Implementation Constructs

Relationship Correlation

Assessment <--> Strategic_Planning 0.666 Assessment <--> Employee_Participation 0.622 Assessment <--> Product_Design 0.588 Assessment <--> Quality System_Improvement 0.508 Assessment <--> Customer_Focus 0.575 Assessment <--> Process Control_Improvement 0.767 Customer_Focus <--> Employee_Participation 0.746 Employee_Training <--> Supplier_Quality_Management 0.494 Employee_Training <--> Strategic_Planning 0.774 Employee_Training <--> Assessment 0.528 Employee_Training <--> Process Control_Improvement 0.685 Employee_Training <--> Product_Design 0.420 Employee_Training <--> Quality System_Improvement 0.566 Employee_Training <--> Customer_Focus 0.693 Employee_Training <--> Employee_Participation 0.751 Employee_Training <--> Recognition_and Reward 0.672 Leadership <--> Employee_Training 0.724 Leadership <--> Recognition_and Reward 0.568 Leadership <--> Supplier_Quality_Management 0.412 Leadership <--> Strategic_Planning 0.781 Leadership <--> Assessment 0.583 Leadership <--> Process Control_Improvement 0.705 Leadership <--> Product_Design 0.540 Leadership <--> Quality System_Improvement 0.515 Leadership <--> Customer_Focus 0.654 Leadership <--> Employee_Participation 0.780

Process Control_Improvement <--> Employee_Participation 0.787 Process Control_Improvement <--> Quality System_Improvement 0.611 Process Control_Improvement <--> Customer_Focus 0.701 Process Control_Improvement <--> Product_Design 0.639 Product_Design <--> Employee_Participation 0.623 Product_Design <--> Customer_Focus 0.612 Product_Design <--> Quality System_Improvement 0.398 Quality System_Improvement <--> Employee_Participation 0.549 Quality System_Improvement <--> Customer_Focus 0.540 Recognition_and Reward <--> Employee_Participation 0.680 Recognition_and Reward <--> Strategic_Planning 0.696 Recognition_and Reward <--> Assessment 0.572 Recognition_and Reward <--> Process Control_Improvement 0.868 Recognition_and Reward <--> Product_Design 0.438 Recognition_and Reward <--> Quality System_Improvement 0.598 Recognition_and Reward <--> Customer_Focus 0.754 Strategic_Planning <--> Employee_Participation 0.810 Strategic_Planning <--> Process Control_Improvement 0.754 Strategic_Planning <--> Product_Design 0.631 Strategic_Planning <--> Quality System_Improvement 0.607 Strategic_Planning <--> Customer_Focus 0.738 Supplier_Quality_Management <--> Recognition_and Reward 0.576 Supplier_Quality_Management <--> Employee_Participation 0.503 Supplier_Quality_Management <--> Assessment 0.430 Supplier_Quality_Management <--> Process Control_Improvement 0.492 Supplier_Quality_Management <--> Product_Design 0.357 Supplier_Quality_Management <--> Strategic_Planning 0.520 Supplier_Quality_Management <--> Quality System_Improvement 0.482 Supplier_Quality_Management <--> Customer_Focus 0.556 All correlations between TQM implementation constructs are in the range from 0.357 to

0.868. The highest correlation (0.868) was appeared between Recognition and reward and Process control improvement. Only this correlation exceeded the threshold of 0.85. Other 54 correlations between TQM implementation constructs were below the recommended value of 0.85. Thus, these correlations proved the discriminant validity in the TQM implementation model.

Correlations between the constructs ≤0.85 (Kline,2005)

Table 4.10 Correlations between the Overall Business performance Constructs

Relationship Correlation

Strategic_Business_ Performance <--> Product_Quality 0.713

Strategic_Business_ Performance <--> Employee_Satisfaction 0.795

Strategic_Business_ Performance <--> Customer_Satisfaction 0.726

Product_Quality <--> Customer_Satisfaction 0.694

Employee_Satisfaction <--> Customer_Satisfaction 0.720

Product_Quality <--> Employee_Satisfaction 0.643

Discriminant Validity Test Using Correlations between Constructs

(cont’.)

All correlations between overall business performance constructs are in the range from 0.643 to 0.795. This result indicated that correlations of these constructs below the recommended value of 0.85. Therefore, discriminant validity proved in the overall business performance model.

Discriminant Validity Test Using AVE

Table 4.11 Squared Correlations between TQM Implementation Constructs

Employee Training

Supplier Quality

Management


AssessmentStrategic Planning

Process Control

Improvement

Product Design


Customer Focus


Leadership 0.560 0.524 0.170 0.323 0.340 0.610 0.497 0.292 0.265 0.428 0.608

Employee Training 0.628 0.244 0.452 0.279 0.599 0.469 0.176 0.320 0.480 0.564

Supplier Quality Management 0.710 0.332 0.185 0.270 0.242 0.127 0.232 0.309 0.253Recognition and Reward 0.643 0.327 0.484 0.753 0.192 0.358 0.569 0.462Assessment 0.737 0.444 0.588 0.346 0.258 0.331 0.387

Strategic Planning 0.581 0.569 0.398 0.368 0.545 0.656

Process Control Improvement 0.550 0.408 0.373 0.491 0.619

Product Design 0.748 0.158 0.375 0.388Quality System Improvement 0.753 0.292 0.301Customer_Focus 0.588 0.557

Employee Participation 0.584

Squared correlations

AVEMeasures

“ Squared correlation among factors AVE”

This criterion did not provide the following 5 cases: 1.Leadership and Strategic planning (0.610). 2.Leadership and Employee participation (0.608). 3.Recognition and reward and Process control improvement (0.753)4.Strategic planning and Employee participation (0.656). 5.Process control improvement and Employee participation (0.619). Other 50 squared correlations between TQM implementation constructs were provided this criterion.

Discriminant Validity Test Using AVE (cont’.)

Table 4.12 Squared Correlations between Overall Business Performance Constructs

Measures AVE

Squared Correlations

Product Quality



Strategic Business Performance 0.614 0.508 0.632 0.527

Product Quality 0.646 0.413 0.482

Employee Satisfaction 0.652 0.518

Customer Satisfaction 0.796

For overall business performance model, only one case did not provide the criterion “squared correlations among factors < AVE”: The squared correlation between Strategic business performance and Employee satisfaction

Other 5 squared correlations among factors for overall business performance model were provided this criterion.

Assessment of the Research Model (SEM)

First Run of SEM

.36

EMP_P3i10

Leadership


.52

LEAD1i1 .53

LEAD2i2

.55

EMP_T2i13

.57

LEAD4i4

.58

EMP_P4i11

.63

EMP_T3i14 EmployeeTraining

.70

EMP_T5i16

.64

REC_R2i18

.62

REC_R4i20

.74


.56

LEAD5i5 .58

LEAD7i7

.58

REC_R5i21

.71

SUP_Q_M1i22 SupplierQuality

Management

.71

SUP_Q_M2i23

StrategicPlanning

.56

STRA_P3i27

.52

STRA_P2i26

Assessment.66

ASS6i35

.80

ASS5i34

.76

ASS4i33


.47

PRO_C_I7i43

.64

PRO_C_I4i40

ProductDesign

.67

PRO_D2i45

.82

PRO_D1i44


QUA_S_I4i50

.79

QUA_S_I3i49

.81

QUA_S_I2i48

CustomerFocus.57

CUS_F6i56

.60

CUS_F5i55

.62

CUS_F4i54

.85

.74.79

.76

.75

.75

.72

.75

.80

.60.76

.79.77

.89.90

.81

.82.91

.84

.78

.86.80

.84

.72


.67

EMP_S1 i57.66

EMP_S2 i58.59

EMP_S3 i59.70

EMP_S5 i61

.48

ProductQuality

.58

PRO_Q1 i62.76 .56

PRO_Q2 i63.75

.80

PRO_Q3 i64

.90

.70


.77

CUS_S270

.80

CUS_S1i69

.76

StrategicBusiness

Performance

.34

.77

.82.82

.73

ST_B_P5i75

.85

.60

ST_B_P4i74

.77

.49

ST_B_P3i73 .70

.43

ST_B_P2i72 .66

.60

ST_B_P1i71

.78

.48

.42

.88.89

.84

1.46

-.30

.76

-.08

.12

.00

.72

.89.81

.87

.12

.05

.47

.75

d1

d4

d3

.66

STRA_P4I28

.81

.57

ST_B_P6I76

.75

.86

ST_B_P7I77

.93

.68

ST_B_P8I78

.83

.19

d2

.29

.27

-.21

-.24

.26

-.25

.28

.56

.41

.45

.41.33

.37

.29

.26

.27

-.18-.33

-.16.69

.20

.29

.26

.91

.73

.60

.21

.73

.43

.81

.59

.73

.55

.53

.65

.85

.76

.59

.90

.63

.83

.68

.60

.83

.67

.49

.77

.53

.70

.42

.57

.66

.57

.70

.58

.86

.44

.60

.74

.52

.43

.49

.36

.48

.57

.67

.75

.63

.61

.73

.76

.59.51

.57

.63.61

.67 .40

.61

.54

-.36

c2/df=1.654 RMR = 0.051 RMSEA = 0.050 IFI=0.931, TLI=0.921 CFI=0.930 GFI=0.801 NFI=0.842

Second Run of SEM

.36

EMP_P3i10

Leadership


.54

LEAD1i1 .52

LEAD2i2

.54

EMP_T2i13

.57

LEAD4i4

.56

EMP_P4i11

.63


.71

EMP_T5i16

.59

REC_R2i18

.64

REC_R4i20

.70


.58

LEAD5i5 .60

LEAD7i7

.60

REC_R5i21

.76


Management

.66

SUP_Q_M2i23

StrategicPlanning

.57

STRA_P3i27

.53

STRA_P2i26

Assessment.67

ASS6i35

.80

ASS5i34

.74

ASS4i33


.47

PRO_C_I7i43

.62

PRO_C_I4i40

ProductDesign

.65

PRO_D2i45

.85

PRO_D1i44


QUA_S_I4i50

.78

QUA_S_I3i49

.80

QUA_S_I2i48

CustomerFocus.56

CUS_F6i56

.59

CUS_F5i55

.64

CUS_F4i54

.81

.73.80

.77

.76

.76

.73

.75

.79

.60.75

.80.77

.88.90

.82

.81.92

.87

.80

.84.77

.85

.70


.68

EMP_S1 i57.68

EMP_S2 i58.59

EMP_S3 i59.68

EMP_S5 i61

.45

ProductQuality

.57

PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57

PRO_Q2 i63.76

.79

PRO_Q3 i64

.89

.69


.79

CUS_S270

.80

CUS_S1i69

.48

StrategicBusiness

Performance

.13

.77

.82.82

.71

ST_B_P5i75

.83

.59

ST_B_P4i74

.76

.49

ST_B_P3i73 .70

.42

ST_B_P2i72 .76

.63

ST_B_P1i71

.79

.43

.15

.89.90

.82

1.47

-.29

.78

-.19

.19

.12

.72

.90.82

.86

.12

.10

.24

.75

d1

d4

d3

.65

STRA_P4I28

.81

.54

ST_B_P6I76

.73

.84

ST_B_P7I77

.92

.62

ST_B_P8I78

.79

.16

d2

.25

.26

-.19

-.21

.27

-.24

.27

.53

.43

.46

.39.29

.44

.30

.24

.23

-.14-.35

.06.68

-.01

.36

.94

.89

.72

.58

.18

.72

.41

.78

.58

.71

.53

.51

.84

.80

.60

.90

.64

.86

.67

.61

.84

.68

.47

.74

.53

.68

.40

.61

.68

.59

.71

.57

.89

.44

.62

.71

.52

.43

.49

.36

.40

.57

.64

.76

.64

.61

.71

.76

.58.51

.58

.59.62

.69 .41

.62

.55

-.30

.22

.17

.24

.20

.24

.64-.33

-.20

.18

.13-.18

-.26

-.74

.17

-.12

.18.26

-.25

.31

-.19

.20

-.18

-.19

.14

.12

-.21

-.18

.25

-.26

.20

.18.18

c2/df=1.345 RMR = 0.041 RMSEA = 0.036 IFI=0.965, TLI=0.958CFI=0.964 GFI=0.838 NFI=0.876

Covariances M.I. i10 <--> i11 13.550 i74 <--> Customer focus 15.571 i5 <--> i58 12.127 i55 <--> d2 12.950 i61 <--> d2 11.157 i43 <--> i77 10.332 i33 <--> Strategic Planning 11.432 i23 <--> i75 10.598 i7 <--> d2 8.380 i72 <--> d4 9.930 i55 <--> i71 12.574 d4 <--> d2 8.872 i45 <--> Process Control and

Improvement 9.348

i10 <--> Recognition and Reward 9.334 i76 <--> i78 8.161 i77 <--> i78 10.634 i16 <--> i75 9.360 i14 <--> d1 9.309 i5 <--> i75 8.355 i18 <--> i55 8.106 i56 <--> i59 7.690 i14 <--> Quality System Improvement 8.275 i20 <--> i27 7.215 i56 <--> d2 7.080 i75 <--> Product Design 7.313 i18 <--> i19 6.891 i16 <--> i48 6.267 i28 <--> i77 6.238 i13 <--> i50 6.086 i23 <--> Quality System Improvement 5.929

Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Second SEM

Hypotheses C.R. P Assessment H1 Leadership has a positive effect on strategic business

performance. 2.225 .026 Supported

H2 Leadership has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.

-1.186 .236 Not supported

H3 Employee participation has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.

3.806 *** Supported

H4 Employee training has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.


H5 Recognition and reward has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.


H6 Supplier quality management has a positive effect on product quality.

2.545 .011 Supported

H7 Strategic planning has a positive effect on product quality.


H8 Assessment has a positive effect on product quality. -.220 .826 Not supported H9 Process control and improvement has a positive

effect on product quality. .659 .510 Not supported

H10 Product design has a positive effect on product quality.


H11 Quality system improvement has a positive effect on product quality.


H12 Customer focus has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.

5.270 *** Supported

H13 Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on product quality.

3.320 *** Supported

H14 Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.


H15 Product quality has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.

5.578 *** Supported

H16 Product quality has a positive effect on strategic business performance.

6.842 *** Supported

H17 Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on strategic business performance.


Note: A critical ratio greater than 1.96 or a p-value smaller than .05 signifies the parameter is statistically

discernable from zero at the .05 significance level. Three asterisks (***) indicate that the p-value is smaller than .001.

Twelve of the 17 SEM hypothesis tests were fully supported.

This finding indicated that the second SEM model fitted quite well in representing the data.

Three hypotheses regarding to employee satisfaction and two hypotheses regarding to product quality were not supported by the data in this study.

CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Research Question 1: What are the effects of TQM implementation on overall

business performance in Mongolian universities? First, leadership is the decisive factor in determining the success of

organizational overall business performance. Mongolia is now trying to establish modern higher education system. All universities, especially state-owned have received more decision making autonomy than ever before. Regarding day-to-day operations, the government has no direct administrative authority. It is the role of top management to determine the university’s vision, strategy, policy, long-term goals, and the way to achieve these objectives. Top management is in charge of managing employees, motivating them to participate in quality improvement activities, encouraging them to share in the university’s vision, empowering them to solve quality problems, arranging resources for their education and training, and rewarding them for their quality improvement efforts. In other words, without strong leadership, it is impossible for a university to achieve a good overall business performance.

Second, the research findings can suggest that it is not necessary for all the TQM elements to be present to ensure the success of the TQM implementation and overall business performance. In other words, even if a few of the elements are not present, it is possible to obtain the required level of overall business performance.

Third, in this study, 5 hypotheses were not supported by the questionnaire survey data. This disconfirmation does not imply these constructs are unimportant or useless. Instead, universities should identify the problem areas of these constructs and implement them more effectively. For example, (1) assessment, (2) process control and improvement, and (3) quality system improvement are nearly alike functions for Mongolian universities.

Research Question1: (cont’.) Because,

the university products are created using certain processes. Student knowledge is gained by learning, courses are taught, and new knowledge is achieved by researching.

In a university environment, there is an interrelationship among these processes that has an impact on the quality of the products. The quality of teaching/learning/researching is inspected against specifications.

A process quality system must be documented with an appropriate quality manual, procedures, instructions and records. This allows proper communication, audits and verification activities.

Therefore, the author preferred to combine these 3 constructs. Due to this solution, they should emphasize the implementation of actions that are formulated on the basis of various evaluation activities and establish their quality management systems according to the requirements of higher education institutions effectively. Thus, quality management systems will be effectively implemented in practice.

Fourth, Also university’s employees have the capacity to do their jobs better and study by themselves. In fact, improving employee satisfaction and overall business performance were not the major goal of training. Therefore, the author decided to remove the construct “Employee training”.

Research Question 2: What kind of TQM implementation model should be

developed in order to guide Mongolian universities in implementing TQM?

Based on the results of testing the model of TQM implementation and overall business performance (Research model), the author decided to modify TQM implementation model for Mongolian universities in implementing TQM.

Modification of the model should be based on theory; modifications to the original model should be made only after deliberate consideration (Hair et al., 1992).

To modify the theoretical model of TQM implementation, the author tested SEM for all TQM implementation constructs one by one. Consequently, SEM test is conducted for each TQM implementation construct and the results are presented as follows:

1. Run for the Leadership SEM

Leadership

.58

LEAD1i1 .57

LEAD2i2 .57

LEAD4i4 .55

LEAD5i5 .57

LEAD7i7 .76

.74

.75

.76

.50


.66

EMP_S1 i57.66

EMP_S2 i58.60

EMP_S3 i59.70

EMP_S5 i61

.42

ProductQuality

.57

PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57

PRO_Q2 i63.76

.80

PRO_Q3 i64

.90

.62


.78

CUS_S270

.80

CUS_S1i69

.74

StrategicBusiness

Performance

.34

.77

.81.81

.72

ST_B_P5i75

.85

.59

ST_B_P4i74

.77

.48

ST_B_P3i73 .69

.42

ST_B_P2i72 .65

.59

ST_B_P1i71

.77

.40

.89.89

.83

.59

d1

d4

d3

.58

ST_B_P6I76

.76

.86

ST_B_P7I77

.93

.69

ST_B_P8I78

.83

.51

d2

.56

.42

.45

.42.34

.37

.29

.28

.28

-.20-.31

.39

.28

.76

.71

.08

-.06

c2 = 356.630 (df=189, p<0.001), c2/df = 1.887, NFI=0.923, IFI=0.962, TLI=0.954 CFI=0.962, RMSEA=0.058 & RMR=0.049 GFI=0.891

Table 5.1 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Leadership SEM

C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Leadership 9.706 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Leadership .849 .396 Not supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Leadership -.709 .478 Not supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Leadership 7.209 *** Supported

“Leadership has a positive effect on strategic business performance and on employee satisfaction”.

O SEM: “Leadership has a positive effect on employee satisfaction” was not supported. “Leadership has a positive effect on strategic business performance”

2. Run for the Employee Participation SEM

.42

EMP_P3i10 EmployeeParticipation

.66

EMP_P4i11

.64.81

.61


.66

EMP_S1 i57.66

EMP_S2 i58.59

EMP_S3 i59.71

EMP_S5 i61

.43

ProductQuality

.57

PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57

PRO_Q2 i63.75

.80

PRO_Q3 i64

.90

.61


.79

CUS_S270

.80

CUS_S1i69

.76

StrategicBusiness

Performance

.24

.77

.81.81

.72

ST_B_P5i75

.85

.59

ST_B_P4i74

.77

.48

ST_B_P3i73 .70

.42

ST_B_P2i72 .65

.59

ST_B_P1i71

.76

.89.89

.84

.78

.55

d1

d4

d3

.57

ST_B_P6I76

.75

.86

ST_B_P7I77

.93

.69

ST_B_P8I78

.83

.44

d2

.56

.41

.45

.43.34

.37

.29

.29

.28

-.19-.31

.39

.27

.13

.04

.50

c2/df=2.034, GFI =0.901, NFI=0.943, IFI=0.965, TLI=0.955, CFI=0.965. RMR=0.044 and RMSEA=0.062

“Employee Participation has a positive effect on strategic business performance and on employee satisfaction”

O SEM the hypothesis “Employee Participation has a positive effect on employee satisfaction”

Table 5.2 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Employee Participation SEM C.R. P Assessment

Employee_Satisfaction <--- Employee_Participation 7.963 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Employee_Participation .949 .343 Not supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Employee_Participation .383 .701 Not supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Employee_Participation 5.556 *** Supported

3. Run for the Employee Training SEM

.55

EMP_T2i13 .68


.65

EMP_T5i16

.74.82

.81

.43


.66

EMP_S1 i57.65

EMP_S2 i58.59

EMP_S3 i59.71

EMP_S5 i61

.41

ProductQuality

.57

PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57

PRO_Q2 i63.75

.81

PRO_Q3 i64

.90

.61


.79

CUS_S270

.80

CUS_S1i69

.72

StrategicBusiness

Performance

.19

.77

.81.82

.72

ST_B_P5i75

.85

.60

ST_B_P4i74

.77

.48

ST_B_P3i73 .70

.42

ST_B_P2i72 .65

.60

ST_B_P1i71

.77

.89.89

.84

.66

.67

d1

d4

d3

.56

ST_B_P6I76

.75

.85

ST_B_P7I77

.92

.68

ST_B_P8I78

.83

.47

d2

.56

.41

.46

.42.34

.38

.30

.29

.27

-.19-.34

.39

.27

-.04

-.01

.41.11

Table 5.3 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Employee Training SEM

C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Employee_Training 9.427 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Employee_Training -.445 .656 Not supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Employee_Training -.067 .946 Not supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Employee_Training 1.756 .079 Supported

c2/df=2.031, GFI =0.894, NFI=0.929, IFI=0.963, TLI=0.952, CFI=0.963, RMR=0.045, RMSEA=0.062

“Employee Training has a positive effect on strategic business performance and on employee satisfaction”. O SEM: “Employee Training has a positive effect on employee satisfaction” was not supported. Also, this study was concluded that “improving employee satisfaction and strategic business performance was not the major goal of training”.

Thus, this construct omitted for the modified model.

4. Run for the Recognition and Reward SEM

.66

REC_R2i18

.63

REC_R4i20

.69

REC_R3i19Recognitionand Reward.60

REC_R5i21

.79

.83.81

.42


.67

EMP_S1 i57.67

EMP_S2 i58.61

EMP_S3 i59.69

EMP_S5 i61

.43

ProductQuality

.57

PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57

PRO_Q2 i63.75

.80

PRO_Q3 i64

.89

.62


.79

CUS_S270

.79

CUS_S1i69

.72

StrategicBusiness

Performance

.31

.78

.82.82

.72

ST_B_P5i75

.85

.60

ST_B_P4i74

.78

.49

ST_B_P3i73 .70

.42

ST_B_P2i72 .65

.60

ST_B_P1i71

.77

.89.89

.83

.77

.65

.56

d1

d4

d3

.56

ST_B_P6I76

.75

.86

ST_B_P7I77

.93

.68

ST_B_P8I78

.82

.42

d2

.56

.41

.45

.42.32

.38

.30

.28

.27

-.18-.34

.37

.31

.14

.39

.10

c2/df = 2.180, NFI=0.920, IFI=0.955, TLI=0.944, CFI=0.955, RMSEA=0.067, RMR=0.054 GFI=0.883

Table 5.4 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Recognition and Reward SEM

C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Recognition_and Reward 9.241 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Recognition_and Reward 1.701 .089 Not supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Recognition_and Reward 1.424 .154 Not supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Recognition_and Reward 6.751 *** Supported

“Recognition and Reward has a positive effect on strategic business performance and on employee satisfaction”.

O SEM: “Recognition and reward has a positive effect on employee satisfaction” was not supported.

“Recognition and Reward has a positive effect on strategic business performance”.

5. Run for the Supplier Quality Management SEM

.82


Management

.61

SUP_Q_M2i23

.78.91

.27


.67

EMP_S1 i57.65

EMP_S2 i58.59

EMP_S3 i59.71

EMP_S5 i61

.41

ProductQuality

.57

PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57

PRO_Q2 i63.75

.81

PRO_Q3 i64

.90

.63


.78

CUS_S270

.81

CUS_S1i69

.73

StrategicBusiness

Performance

.14

.77

.80.82

.72

ST_B_P5i75

.85

.59

ST_B_P4i74

.77

.48

ST_B_P3i73 .70

.42

ST_B_P2i72 .65

.59

ST_B_P1i71

.77

.89.90

.84

.61

d1

d4

d3

.56

ST_B_P6I76

.75

.86

ST_B_P7I77

.93

.68

ST_B_P8I78

.83

.39

d2

.56

.42

.45

.42.34

.37

.29

.29

.28

-.22-.32

.38

.28

.52

.06

.17

.14

.44

c2/df=2.079, GFI=0.901, NFI=0.934, IFI=0.964, TLI=0.953, CFI=0.964. RMR=0.043, RMSEA=0.064.

Table 5.5 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Supplier Quality Management SEM

C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Supplier_Quality_Management 7.274 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Supplier_Quality_Management .796 .426 Not supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Supplier_Quality_Management 2.778 .005 Supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Supplier_Quality_Management 2.789 .005 Supported

“Supplier Quality Management has a positive effect on product quality” was not supported.

O SEM the hypothesis “Supplier quality management has a positive effect on product quality”. author prefers “Supplier Quality Management has a positive effect on employee satisfaction”.

6. Run for the Strategic Planning SEM

StrategicPlanning

.66

STRA_P3i27

.62

STRA_P2i26

.81

.51


.66

EMP_S1 i57.65

EMP_S2 i58.59

EMP_S3 i59.71

EMP_S5 i61

.45

ProductQuality

.57

PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57

PRO_Q2 i63.75

.80

PRO_Q3 i64

.89

.61


.79

CUS_S270

.80

CUS_S1i69

.77

StrategicBusiness

Performance

.17

.77

.81.81

.72

ST_B_P5i75

.85

.60

ST_B_P4i74

.77

.49

ST_B_P3i73 .70

.43

ST_B_P2i72 .65

.60

ST_B_P1i71

.77

.89.89

.84

.26

.79

.45

d1

d4

d3

.59

STRA_P4I28

.77

.56

ST_B_P6I76

.75

.86

ST_B_P7I77

.93

.68

ST_B_P8I78

.82

.44

d2

.56

.42

.46

.41.33

.38

.29

.29

.28

-.21-.34

.38

.20

.72

.33

.05

.30

c2/df=2.026, GFI=0.894, NFI=0.931, IFI=0.964, TLI=0.953, CFI=0.963, RMR=0.042, RMSEA=0.062

Table 5.6 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Strategic Planning SEM

C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Strategic_Planning 9.680 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Strategic_Planning 2.717 .007 Supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Strategic_Planning .593 .553 Not supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Strategic_Planning 4.823 *** Supported

“Strategic Planning has a positive effect on customer satisfaction” was not supported.

O SEM: “Strategic planning has a positive effect on product quality” was supported.

However, in university practice, strategic planning more influences to Strategic Business Performance than product quality and employee satisfaction. Thus, “Strategic Planning has a positive effect on strategic business performance” selected for the modified model.

7. Run for the Assessment SEM

Assessment.66

ASS6i35

.84

ASS5i34

.72

ASS4i33

.23


.66

EMP_S1 i57.65

EMP_S2 i58.59

EMP_S3 i59.71

EMP_S5 i61

.45

ProductQuality

.57

PRO_Q1 i62.76 .56

PRO_Q2 i63.75

.81

PRO_Q3 i64

.90

.61


.79

CUS_S270

.80

CUS_S1i69

.73

StrategicBusiness

Performance

.17

.77

.80.81

.72

ST_B_P5i75

.85

.60

ST_B_P4i74

.77

.49

ST_B_P3i73 .70

.43

ST_B_P2i72 .65

.60

ST_B_P1i71

.78

.89.89

.84

.91.81

.85

.53

d1

d4

d3

.56

ST_B_P6I76

.75

.85

ST_B_P7I77

.92

.68

ST_B_P8I78

.82

.44

d2

.56

.43

.45

.42.33

.38

.29

.29

.28

-.22-.33

.37

.23

.48

.09

.14

.46

.23

c2/df = 2.004, NFI=0.933, IFI=0.965, TLI=0.955, CFI=0.965, RMR=0.044, RMSEA=0.062, GFI=0.896

Table 5.7 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Assessment SEM

C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Assessment 7.097 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Assessment 3.444 *** Supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Assessment 1.495 .135 Not supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Assessment 2.845 .004 Supported

“Assessment has a positive effect on customer satisfaction” was not supported. O SEM: “Assessment has a positive effect on product quality” was not supported.

This study concluded that “assessment, process control and improvement, and quality system improvement are nearly alike functions for Mongolian universities. Thus, the author combined these 3 constructs under the name assessment. “Assessment has a positive effect on product quality”.

8. Run for the Process Control Improvement SEM


.52

PRO_C_I7i43

.56

PRO_C_I4i40 .75

.47


.66

EMP_S1 i57.65

EMP_S2 i58.59

EMP_S3 i59.71

EMP_S5 i61

.42

ProductQuality

.57

PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57

PRO_Q2 i63.75

.80

PRO_Q3 i64

.90

.61


.79

CUS_S270

.80

CUS_S1i69

.74

StrategicBusiness

Performance

.18

.77

.81.81

.72

ST_B_P5i75

.85

.60

ST_B_P4i74

.77

.49

ST_B_P3i73 .70

.43

ST_B_P2i72 .65

.60

ST_B_P1i71

.78

.89.89

.84

.57

d1

d4

d3

.56

ST_B_P6I76

.75

.85

ST_B_P7I77

.92

.68

ST_B_P8I78

.82

.44

d2

.56

.43

.45

.42.33

.38

.29

.29

.29

-.21-.33

.11.72

.39

.25

.35

.69

.05

.22

c2/df=2.228, GFI=0.892, NFI=0.928, IFI=0.959, TLI=0.946,CFI=0.959, RMR=0.045, RMSEA=0.068.

Table 5.8 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Process Control Improvement SEM

C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Process

Control_Improvement 7.924 *** Supported

Product_Quality <--- Process Control_Improvement

1.071 .284 Not supported

Customer_Satisfaction <--- Process Control_Improvement

.526 .599 Not supported

Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Process Control_Improvement


“Process Control and Improvement has a positive effect on employee satisfaction and on strategic business performance”. O SEM: “Process control and improvement has a positive effect on product quality” was not supported. Also, this construct combined with the assessment and quality system improvement under the name assessment. Thus, the construct “process control and improvement” removed.

9. Run for the Product Design SEM

ProductDesign

.64

PRO_D2i45

.87

PRO_D1i44 .80.94

.38


.66

EMP_S1 i57.65

EMP_S2 i58.58

EMP_S3 i59.71

EMP_S5 i61

.44

ProductQuality

.57

PRO_Q1 i62.76 .57

PRO_Q2 i63.75

.80

PRO_Q3 i64

.90

.61


.79

CUS_S270

.80

CUS_S1i69

.72

StrategicBusiness

Performance

.18

.76

.81.81

.72

ST_B_P5i75

.85

.59

ST_B_P4i74

.77

.48

ST_B_P3i73 .70

.42

ST_B_P2i72 .65

.59

ST_B_P1i71

.77

.89.90

.84

.52

d1

d4

d3

.56

ST_B_P6I76

.75

.85

ST_B_P7I77

.92

.68

ST_B_P8I78

.83

.42

d2

.56

.42

.46

.42.34

.37

.29

.28

.28

-.21-.32

.38

.26

.46

.08

.07

.62

.19


Table 5.9 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Product Design SEM

C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Product_Design 8.680 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Product_Design 2.446 .014 Supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Product_Design 1.219 .223 Not supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Product_Design 1.167 .243 Not supported

“Product design has a positive effect on employee satisfaction and on product quality”

O SEM the hypothesis “Product design has a positive effect on product quality.” was supported.

“Product design has a positive effect on product quality”

10. Run for the Quality System Improvement SEM


QUA_S_I4i50

.81

QUA_S_I3i49

.80

QUA_S_I2i48.90

.90

.81

.20


.67

EMP_S1 i57.65

EMP_S2 i58.59

EMP_S3 i59.71

EMP_S5 i61

.42

ProductQuality

.57

PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57

PRO_Q2 i63.75

.80

PRO_Q3 i64

.90

.62


.80

CUS_S270

.80

CUS_S1i69

.73

StrategicBusiness

Performance

.15

.77

.80.82

.72

ST_B_P5i75

.85

.60

ST_B_P4i74

.77

.49

ST_B_P3i73 .70

.43

ST_B_P2i72 .65

.61

ST_B_P1i71

.78

.89.89

.84

.12

.59

d1

d4

d3

.56

ST_B_P6I76

.75

.85

ST_B_P7I77

.92

.68

ST_B_P8I78

.82

.42

d2

.56

.42

.46

.41.33

.38

.29

.29

.28

-.22-.35

.37

.26.45

.15

.13

.45

c2/df=2.029, GFI=0.894, NFI=0.932, IFI=0.964, TLI=0.954,CFI=0.964, RMR=0.047, RMSEA=0.062.

Table 5.10 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Quality System Improvement SEM

C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Quality System_Improvement 6.529 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Quality System_Improvement 1.774 .076 Not

Supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Quality System_Improvement 2.251 .024 Supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Quality System_Improvement 3.195 .001 Supported

“Quality system improvement has a positive effect on product quality” was not supported. O SEM: “Quality system improvement has a positive effect on product quality” was supported. However, the author preferred it to combine with constructs assessment and process control and improvement under the name assessment. Thus, the construct “quality system improvement” removed.

11. Run for the Customer Focus SEM

CustomerFocus.56

CUS_F6i56

.64

CUS_F5i55

.59

CUS_F4i54.77.80

.54


.67

EMP_S1 i57.65

EMP_S2 i58.59

EMP_S3 i59.71

EMP_S5 i61

.47

ProductQuality

.57

PRO_Q1 i62.75 .57

PRO_Q2 i63.75

.81

PRO_Q3 i64

.90

.71


.79

CUS_S270

.81

CUS_S1i69

.77

StrategicBusiness

Performance

-.02

.77

.80.82

.72

ST_B_P5i75

.85

.60

ST_B_P4i74

.78

.49

ST_B_P3i73 .70

.43

ST_B_P2i72 .65

.59

ST_B_P1i71

.77

.49

.89.90

.84

.39

.75

d1

d4

d3

.56

ST_B_P6I76

.75

.85

ST_B_P7I77

.92

.68

ST_B_P8I78

.83

.19

d2

.56

.41

.45

.42.34

.37

.29

.28

.27

-.21-.31

.26

.24

.73

.35

.40

.36


Table 5.11 Results of Hypotheses Testing for the Customer Focus SEM

C.R. P Assessment Employee_Satisfaction <--- Customer_Focus 9.538 *** Supported Product_Quality <--- Customer_Focus 3.418 *** Supported Customer_Satisfaction <--- Customer_Focus 5.358 *** Supported Strategic_Business_Performance <--- Customer_Focus 4.108 *** Supported

“Customer focus has a positive effect on employee satisfaction, product quality, customer satisfaction and strategic business performance” were supported.

O SEM, the hypothesis “Customer focus has a positive effect on customer satisfaction” was supported.

“Customer focus has a positive effect on customer satisfaction”.

First Run of the Modified TQM Implementation Model

.47

EMP_P3i10

Leadership


.59

LEAD1i1 .48

LEAD3i3

.77.69

.58

LEAD2i2

.26

EMP_P2i9

.76.58

LEAD4i4

.76

.37

EMP_P1i8

.69

EMP_P4i11

.65

REC_R2

i18

.63

REC_R4

i20

.70

REC_R3


.56

LEAD5i5

.75.45

LEAD6i6.58

LEAD7i7

.48

REC_R1

i17

.58

REC_R5

i21

.69

SUP_Q_M1

i22

.67

.76

SupplierQuality

Management

.48

SUP_Q_M3

i24

.69

SUP_Q_M2

i23

StrategicPlanning.51

STRA_P5

i29

.63

STRA_P4

i28

.59

STRA_P3

i27

.57

STRA_P2

i26.40

STRA_P1

i25

Assessment

.34

ASS7

i36

.66

ASS6

i35

.75

ASS5

i34

.71

ASS4

i33

.46

ASS3

i32.21

ASS2

i31.35

ASS1

i30

.76.79

.84.81.70

.46

ProductDesign

.42

PRO_D3i46

.71

PRO_D2i45

.78

PRO_D1i44

.84

CustomerFocus

.50

CUS_F6i56

.53

CUS_F5i55

.61

CUS_F4i54

.51

CUS_F3i53

.50

CUS_F2i52

.44

CUS_F1

i51

.61

.72

.57

.43

.76

.60

.50

.65

.68

.54

.81

.68

.63

.70

.61

.48

.39

.65

.65

.72

.67

.76

.71

.78

.71

.73

.66

.71

.64

.79

.69.51 .61

.83

.83

.83

.69

.72

.77.75

.84

.68

.58.87

.81

.59

.65

.88

.53

.60

.47

.74

.76

.78

c2/df=1.950 RMR=0.05 RMSEA=0.060 GFI=0.796, NFI=0.801, IFI=0.892, TLI=0.880CFI=0.891 the model was not acceptable.

“ Loadings≥0.71”

16 items were omitted

Second Run of Modified TQM Implementation Model

Leadership


.59

LEAD1i1 .77.57

LEAD2i2 .58

LEAD4i4

.76

.32

EMP_P1i8 .65

EMP_P4i11

.66

REC_R2

i18

.62

REC_R4

i20

.72

REC_R3


.55

LEAD5i5

.74

.56

LEAD7i7

.59

REC_R5

i21

.78

SUP_Q_M1i22

.75

SupplierQuality

Management

.65

SUP_Q_M2i23

StrategicPlanning

.63

STRA_P4i28

.64

STRA_P3i27

.58

STRA_P2

i26

Assessment.67

ASS6i35

.81

ASS5i34

.74

ASS4

i33

.77.79.85

.81

ProductDesign

.67

PRO_D2i45

.83

PRO_D1i44

.82

CustomerFocus

.56

CUS_F6i56

.61

CUS_F5i55

.62

CUS_F4i54

.56

.62

.56

.39

.75

.57

.54

.64

.69

.47

.82

.67

.67

.67

.57

.42

.36

.61

.59

.57

.61

.70

.79.78.75

.80

.80

.88

.80.76

.86.90

.82

.91

.51

.59

.44

.73

.84

.74

.57.81

.76

c2/df=1.682 RMR=0.035, RMSEA=0.051, GFI=0.901, NFI=0.906, IFI=0.960, CFI=0.959 TLI=0.950

The modified TQM Implementation Model was accepted.

Third Run of the Modified TQM Implementation Model

Leadership


.54

LEAD1i1 .73.52

LEAD2i2 .59

LEAD4i4

.77

.32

EMP_P1i8 .65

EMP_P4i11

.66

REC_R2

i18

.62

REC_R4

i20

.71

REC_R3


.57

LEAD5i5

.75

.58

LEAD7i7

.59

REC_R5

i21

.80

SUP_Q_M1i22

.76

SupplierQuality

Management

.62

SUP_Q_M2i23

StrategicPlanning

.63

STRA_P4i28

.65

STRA_P3i27

.58

STRA_P2

i26

Assessment.67

ASS6i35

.81

ASS5i34

.74

ASS4

i33

.77.79.84

.81

ProductDesign

.64

PRO_D2i45

.86

PRO_D1i44

.80

CustomerFocus

.56

CUS_F6i56

.61

CUS_F5i55

.62

CUS_F4i54

.54

.62

.57

.40

.75

.58

.53

.65

.69

.47

.82

.67

.67

.68

.57

.42

.36

.60

.58

.57

.60

.70

.79.78.75

.79

.79

.90

.81.76

.86.90

.82

.93

.51

.59

.44

.74

.85

.74

.56.81

.72

.31

.27

.26

M.I.

i28 <--> i45 15.316i1 <--> i2 11.672

i19 <--> I23 9.608

c2/df=1.523 RMR=0.033 RMSEA=0.044 GFI=0.911, NFI=0.916, IFI=0.970, TLI=0.961 CFI=0.969

Modified SEM

Research Question 3: How can this TQM

implementation model be demonstrated in practice?

Modified Model Original Model

Leadership


Strategic Planning


Assessment

Product Design


Customer Focus


Product Quality

Strategic Business

Performance


H2

H3

H5

H7

H8

H10

H11

H12

H1

H6

H9

H13

H4

Leadership


Employee Training



Strategic Planning

Assessment

Process Control and Improvement

Product Design


Customer Focus


Product Quality

Strategic Business

Performance


H2

H3

H4

H5

H7

H9

H10H15

H14

H17

H1

H6

H8

H11

H12

H13

H16

First Run of Modified SEM

.27

EMP_P1i8

Leadership


.54

LEAD1i1 .52

LEAD2i2 .58

LEAD4i4

.58

EMP_P4i11

.66

REC_R2i18

.62

REC_R4i20

.70


.56

LEAD5i5 .59

LEAD7i7

.59

REC_R5i21

.81


Management

.62

SUP_Q_M2i23

StrategicPlanning

.64

STRA_P3i27

.59

STRA_P2i26

Assessment.66

ASS6i35

.81

ASS5i34

.74

ASS4i33

ProductDesign

.65

PRO_D2i45

.85

PRO_D1i44

CustomerFocus.57

CUS_F6i56

.61

CUS_F5i55

.62

CUS_F4i54

.79

.77

.75

.76

.73

.80

.52.76

.79.78

.80.92

.90

.79

.84.81

.69


.67

EMP_S1 i57.66

EMP_S2 i58.59

EMP_S3 i59.70

EMP_S5 i61

.47

ProductQuality

.58

PRO_Q1 i62.76 .55

PRO_Q2 i63.74

.82

PRO_Q3 i64

.90

.69


.77

CUS_S270

.81

CUS_S1i69

.79

StrategicBusiness

Performance

.23

.77

.81.82

.72

ST_B_P5i75

.85

.60

ST_B_P4i74

.78

.50

ST_B_P3i73 .71

.44

ST_B_P2i72 .66

.61

ST_B_P1i71

.78

.47

.19

.88.90

.84

.73

.77

.77

.90.81

.86

.49

.76

d1

d4

d3

.63

STRA_P4I28

.79

.55

ST_B_P6I76

.74

.86

ST_B_P7I77

.93

.67

ST_B_P8I78

.82

.19

d2

.56

.45

.40.31

.39

.29

.26

.27

-.19-.36

.30

.22

.89

.57

.72

.40

.75

.58

.54

.64

.73

.50

.88

.64

.73

.81

.55

.68

.57

.44

.73

.52

.41

.36

.60

.62

.60

.69.58

.56

.61

.31

.27

.26

.24

.17

.20

.17

.12

.40

c2/df=1.672 RMR=0.046 RMSEA=0.50 IFI=0.940, TLI=0.931 CFI=0.939 GFI=0.822 NFI=0.863

Second Run of Modified SEM

.27

EMP_P1i8

Leadership


.53

LEAD1i1 .52

LEAD2i2 .57

LEAD4i4

.58

EMP_P4i11

.59

REC_R2i18

.65

REC_R4i20

.64


.57

LEAD5i5 .60

LEAD7i7

.62

REC_R5i21

.81


Management

.62

SUP_Q_M2i23

StrategicPlanning

.56

STRA_P3i27

.51

STRA_P2i26

Assessment.67

ASS6i35

.81

ASS5i34

.73

ASS4i33

ProductDesign

.65

PRO_D2i45

.85

PRO_D1i44

CustomerFocus.57

CUS_F6i56

.59

CUS_F5i55

.64

CUS_F4i54

.79

.77

.76

.76

.73

.75

.52.76

.80.77

.81.92

.90

.81

.80.77

.69


.68

EMP_S1 i57.68

EMP_S2 i58.59

EMP_S3 i59.67

EMP_S5 i61

.43

ProductQuality

.57

PRO_Q1 i62.75 .56

PRO_Q2 i63.75

.81

PRO_Q3 i64

.90

.69


.78

CUS_S270

.81

CUS_S1i69

.78

StrategicBusiness

Performance

.20

.77

.82.83

.71

ST_B_P5i75

.84

.59

ST_B_P4i74

.76

.49

ST_B_P3i73 .70

.42

ST_B_P2i72 .73

.61

ST_B_P1i71

.78

.45

.17

.88.90

.82

.74

.79

.72

.90.82

.85

.42

.75

d1

d4

d3

.66

STRA_P4I28

.81

.54

ST_B_P6I76

.73

.86

ST_B_P7I77

.93

.66

ST_B_P8I78

.81

.18

d2

.53

.45

.41.30

.39

.28

.25

.20

-.17-.40

.34

.25

.88

.59

.72

.40

.77

.57

.53

.63

.75

.50

.89

.64

.73

.81

.56

.70

.57

.46

.73

.53

.41

.37

.59

.62

.63

.69.58

.58

.62

.28

.27

.21

.27

.15

.19

.15

.19

.42

.25

.33.31

.26

.24

.18

-.20

.17

.28

-.23

.20

.29.19

.17

Covariances M.I.i5 <--> i58 12.861

i55 <--> i63 13.921i55 <--> i76 16.109i61 <--> d4 12.850i61 <--> d2 9.303i74 <--> Customer

Focus16.799

i23 <--> i75 10.175i33 <--> Strategic

Planning10.820

i27 <--> i26 9.604i72 <--> d4 8.124i8 <--> i4 8.050

i18 <--> i19 7.988i7 <--> d2 7.269

i55 <--> d2 5.149

c2/df=1.455 RMR=0.042 RMSEA=0.041 IFI=0.960, TLI=0.953CFI=0.960 GFI=0.848 NFI=0.883

Results of Hypotheses Testing for Second Run of the Modified

SEMHypotheses C.R. P Assessment

H1 Leadership has a positive effect on strategic business performance.


H2 Strategic planning has a positive effect on strategic business performance.


H3 Recognition and reward has a positive effect on strategic business performance.


H4 Employee participation has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.

7.100 *** Supported

H5 Supplier quality management has a positive effect on employee satisfaction


H6 Assessment has a positive effect on product quality. 2.148 .032 Supported H7 Product design has a positive effect on product quality. 2.360 .018 Supported H8 Customer focus has a positive effect on customer satisfaction. 5.755 *** Supported H9 Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on product quality. 5.271 *** Supported

H10 Product quality has a positive effect on customer satisfaction. 5.251 *** Supported H11 Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on customer

satisfaction. 2.170 .030 Supported

H12 Product quality has a positive effect on strategic business performance.

4.329 *** Supported

H13 Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on strategic business performance.


ConclusionsNo research has been conducted for developing a TQM implementation model that can be used by Mongolian universities to improve their TQM implementation efforts. Therefore, the research objectives of this study were:

- To obtain the effects of TQM implementation on overall business performance in Mongolian Universities;- To obtain a TQM implementation model for Mongolian Universities.

In order to achieve the two research objectives, three research questions were proposed as follows: (1)What are the effects of TQM implementation on overall business performance in Mongolian universities?(2)What kind of TQM implementation model should be developed in order to guide Mongolian universities in implementing TQM? (3)How can this TQM implementation model be demonstrated in practice?

These research questions were answered completely in this study for the research framework. Due to answers of research questions, the TQM implementation model for Mongolian Universities was obtained.

The TQM implementation model for Mongolian universities

Leadership


Strategic Planning


Assessment

Product Design


Customer Focus


Product Quality

Strategic Business

Performance


H2

H3

H5

H7

H8

H10

H11

H12

H1

H6

H9

H13

H4

This model tested in this study. - This model fits the data well. - All hypotheses of this model were fully supported.

Therefore, we can implement this model in Mongolian higher education institutions’ practice.

Limitations of this StudyIt is important to view this study in the context

of its limitations. First, data used to test the model came from only

3 state-owned universities. Therefore, the generalization is limited.

Second, the measure of perceived employee satisfaction in particular is relatively weak, because it asked respondents for their general perceptions of overall employee satisfaction in their respective universities. Thus, research findings might have been biased.

Contribution of this Study

In this study, the two theoretical models were formulated mainly on the literature that was developed in Western manufacturing contexts. However, the models were tested using data in universities (higher education institutions) of Mongolia. Therefore, a theory of quality management related to Mongolian higher education institutions was developed.

Recommendations

The TQM implementation model for Mongolian Universities could better meet the requirements of Mongolian higher education institutions. On this background, benefits and practical implications would be evident, and this model will deliver useful information for continuous quality improvement of study programs, teaching and support services in higher education institutions.

Thank you for your attention!

Thank you for your attention!

implementation of total quality management in mongolian universities

Documents

total quality framework

effects of tqm implementation

tqm implementation efforts

quality system improvement

supplier quality managementthe

supplierrelated quality

tqm outcomes

overall business performance