A Construction and Empirical Study of Quality Management Evaluation Index System in the Internet of Things Industry
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Contexts of the Organizations
2.2. Leadership
2.3. Planning of the QMS
2.4. Support
2.5. Operation
2.6. Performance Evaluation
2.7. The Relationship between Quality Management Activity and Customer Satisfaction
2.8. The Research Model and the Hypothesis
3. Research Design
3.1. Methodology
3.2. Data Collection
3.3. The Measurement Tools
4. Analysis Result
4.1. Demographic Characteristics
4.2. The Factor Analysis
4.3. An Analysis of the Measurement Model
4.4. The Analysis of the Reflection Indicator
4.5. The Verification of the Hypothesis of the Research
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
6.1. Summary of Research Results
6.2. Academic Implications and Empirical Implications
6.3. Limitations and Future Suggestions for Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Juran, J.M. The quality trilogy: A universal approach to managing for quality. Qual. Prog. 1986, 19, 19–24. [Google Scholar]
- Muñoz-Pizza, D.M.; Villada-Canela, M.; Rivera-Castañeda, P.; Osornio-Vargas, Á.; Martínez-Cruz, A.L.; Texcalac-Sangrador, J.L. Barriers and opportunities to incorporate scientific evidence into air quality management in Mexico: A stakeholders’ perspective. Env. Sci Policy 2022, 129, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, T.H.; Kaplan, R.S. Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting; Harvard Business Review Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Russell, S. ISO 9000:2000 and the EFQM Excellence Model: Competition or co-operation? Total Qual. Manag. 2000, 11, 657–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rauch, R.A. Involving the entire enterprise in continual productivig improvement. The Chain of Quality: Market Dominance Through Product Superiority, by John M. Groocock. New York: John Wiley, 1986. 390 pages. $22.95. Natl. Product. Rev. 1986, 6, 89–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flynn, B.B.; Schroeder, R.G.; Sakakibara, S. A framework for quality management research and an associated measurement instrument. J. Oper. Manag. 1994, 11, 339–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, E.W.; Fornell, C.; Lehmann, D.R. Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and Profitability: Findings from Sweden. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ugboro, I.O.; Obeng, K. Top management leadership, employee empowerment, job satisfaction, and customer satisfaction in TQM organizations: An empirical study. J. Qual. Manag. 2000, 5, 247–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ford, M.W. Management standards and institutional influence: An exploratory study using the Baldrige criteria. Qual. Manag. J. 2021, 29, 18–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuliansyah, H.; Rimawan, E.; Setyadi, A. Effect Of The Implementation Of ISO 9001: 2015 Quality Management System on the Performance of Companies and Consumers in the Chemical Industry. J. Posit. Sch. Psychol. 2022, 6, 8195–8205. [Google Scholar]
- Hughes, M.; Chang, Y.; Hodgkinson, I.; Hughes, P.; Chang, C. The multi-level effects of corporate entrepreneurial orientation on business unit radical innovation and financial performance. Long Range Plann. 2021, 54, 101989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wright, P.M.; Sherman, W.S. Failing to find fit in strategic human resource management: Theoretical and empirical problems. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 1999, 4, 53–74. [Google Scholar]
- Pfeffer, J. Producing sustainable competitive advantage through the effective management of people. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 1995, 9, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muruganandham, R.; Venkatesh, K.; Devadasan, S.R.; Harish, V. TQM through the integration of blockchain with ISO 9001:2015 standard based quality management system. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. 2022, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papatsimouli, M.; Lazaridis, L.; Ziouzios, D.; Dasygenis, M.; Fragulis, G. Internet Of Things (IoT) awareness in Greece. SHS Web Conf. 2022, 139, 3013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alenizi, A.S.; Al-Karawi, K.A. Internet of Things (IoT) Adoption: Challenges and Barriers. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress on Information and Communication Technology, London, UK, 21–24 February 2022; Yang, X.S., Sherratt, S., Dey, N., Joshi, A., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, K.; Johl, S.K. Soft and hard TQM practices: Future research agenda for industry 4.0. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. 2022, 33, 1625–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demir, A. Impact of internal marketing on the customer perceptions in SMEs. Int. J. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2022, 42, 379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Green, J. Building the Internet of Things, An Overview of the IoT Reference Model; Internet of Things World Forum: Chicago, IL, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- White, M.A.; Bruton, G.D. The Management of Technology and Innovation: A Strategic Approach; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Garvin, D.A. Quality on the line-reply. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1983, 61, 240. [Google Scholar]
- Saraph, J.V.; Benson, P.G.; Schroeder, R.G. An Instrument for Measuring the Critical Factors of Quality Management. Decis. Sci. 1989, 20, 810–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nandhini, R.S.; Lakshmanan, R. A Review of the Integration of Cyber-Physical System and Internet of Things. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2022, 13, 459–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purba, H.H. A Systematic Literature Review of Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA). J. Technol. Manag. Grow. Econ. 2021, 12, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamamoto, M.; Nof, S.Y. Scheduling/rescheduling in the manufacturing operating system environment. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1985, 23, 705–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tseng, S.; Hung, S. A framework identifying the gaps between customers’ expectations and their perceptions in green products. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 59, 174–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliver, R.L. A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions. J. Mark. Res. 1980, 17, 460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kushwah, R.; Batra, P.K.; Jain, A. Internet of Things Architectural Elements, Challenges and Future Directions; IEEE: Noida, India, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Gotzamani, K. Results of an empirical investigation on the anticipated improvement areas of the ISO 9001:2000 standard. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2010, 21, 687–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rusjan, B.; Alič, M. Capitalising on ISO 9001 benefits for strategic results. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2010, 27, 756–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, Y.; Lee, Y. A study on the customer satisfaction and customer loyalty of furniture purchaser in on-line shop. Asian J. Qual. 2010, 11, 146–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dabholkar, P.A.; Thorpe, D.I.; Rentz, J.O. A measure of service quality for retail stores: Scale development and validation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1996, 24, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernhardt, K.L.; Donthu, N.; Kennett, P.A. A longitudinal analysis of satisfaction and profitability. J. Bus. Res. 2000, 47, 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, E.W.; Sullivan, M.W. The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Mark. Sci 1993, 12, 125–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eklof, J.A.; Westlund, A. Customer satisfaction index and its role in quality management. Total Qual. Manag. 1998, 9, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bass, A.; Brdiczka, D.; Eyer, P.; Hofer, S.; Pette, D. Metabolic Differentiation of Distinct Muscle Types at the Level of Enzymatic Organization. Eur. J. Biochem. 1969, 10, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alzahrani, A.I.; Al-Samarraie, H.; Eldenfria, A.; Dodoo, J.E.; Alalwan, N. Users’ intention to continue using mHealth services: A DEMATEL approach during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hwang, G.; Park, J.; Lee, J.; Park, J.; Chang, T.; Won, J. Analysis of IoT Usage in Korean Key Manufacturing Industries. J. Soc. E-Bus. Stud. 2016, 21, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
HLS Structure ISO9001:2015 | ISO9001:2008 | ISO14001 | ISO18001 | ISO26000 | ISO27001 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Scope | ● | ● | ● | ● | Information security policy |
2 | References | ● | ● | References | Definitions of terms | Risk assessment |
3 | Definition of terms | ● | ● | ● | Social responsibility | Risk management |
4 | Contexts of organization | Quality management | Environmental management | Safety and health | The principle of the social responsibility | The establishment of the security organization |
5 | Leadership | Responsibility of the manager | - | - | - | Assets classification and control |
6 | Planning | Resources management | - | - | - | Personnel affairs security |
7 | Support | Product realization | - | - | - | Data protection |
8 | Operation | Measurement and analysis | Management of security incidents | |||
9 | Performance evaluation | Monitoring and measurements | ||||
10 | Improvements | Improvements management |
Latent Variables | Manipulative Definition | Measurement Method | Related Research |
---|---|---|---|
The Contexts of the organization (ORG) |
| 7-point scale | Based on the ISO9001:2015 |
Leadership (LED) |
| 7-point scale | Based on the ISO9001:2015 |
The QMS Planning (PLN) |
| 7-point scale | Based on the ISO9001:2015 |
The Support (SUP) |
| 7-point scale | Based on the ISO9001:2015 |
The Operation (OPR) |
| 7-point scale | Based on the ISO9001:2015 |
The Performance evaluation (PER) |
| 7-point scale | Based on the ISO9001:2015 |
The Improvements (IMP) |
| 7-point scale | Based on ISO9001:2015 |
Customer satisfaction (SAT) |
| 7-point scale. | Aaker and Day (1978), Oliver [12] |
Classification | Item | Frequency | Ratio (%) | Classification | Item | Frequency | Ratio (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GENDER | Male | 312 | 76.7 | Type of business | Electric and electronic | 143 | 35.14 |
Female | 95 | 23.3 | Service business | 108 | 26.54 | ||
Total | 407 | 100.0 | Distribution business | 53 | 13.02 | ||
AGE | Less than 20 | 9 | 2.2 | Public organization | 60 | 14.74 | |
20’s | 96 | 23.6 | Others | 43 | 10.57 | ||
30’s | 119 | 29.2 | Total | 407 | 100.0 | ||
40’s | 121 | 29.7 | Business age | Less than 10 years | 36 | 8.8 | |
50’s or higher | 62 | 15.2 | 10 years or older | 165 | 40.5 | ||
Total | 407 | 100.0 | 20 years or older | 133 | 32.7 | ||
SALES AMOUNT | Less than 10 billion KRW | 177 | 43.5 | 30 years or older | 66 | 16.2 | |
Less than 50 billion KRW | 97 | 23.8 | 40 years or older | 7 | 1.7 | ||
Less than 100 billion KRW | 36 | 8.8 | Total | 407 | 100.0 | ||
Less than 500 billion KRW | 41 | 10.1 | Employees | Less than 50 persons | 56 | 13.76 | |
Over 500 billion KRW | 56 | 13.8 | 50–less than 100 persons | 162 | 39.80 | ||
Total | 407 | 100.0 | 100–less than 300 persons | 89 | 21.87 | ||
ISO-certified | 251 | 61.7 | 300–less than 600 persons | 64 | 15.72 | ||
ISO non-certified | 156 | 38.3 | 600–less than 1000 persons | 27 | 6.63 | ||
Total | 407 | 100.0 | 1000 persons or more. | 9 | 2.21 | ||
- | - | - | Total | 407 | 100.0 |
The Component Line That Was Rotated | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The components | |||||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
LED6 | 0.905 | ||||||
LED4 | 0.884 | ||||||
LED2 | 0.859 | ||||||
LED1 | 0.821 | ||||||
PLN5 | 0.834 | ||||||
PLN6 | 0.800 | ||||||
PLN1 | 0.778 | ||||||
PLN4 | 0.775 | ||||||
OPR3 | 0.941 | ||||||
OPR5 | 0.928 | ||||||
OPR2 | 0.884 | ||||||
OPR1 | 0.795 | ||||||
IMP4 | 0.843 | ||||||
IMP2 | 0.799 | ||||||
IMP1 | 0.740 | ||||||
PER3 | 0.820 | ||||||
PER1 | 0.816 | ||||||
PER4 | 0.805 | ||||||
ORG5 | 0.822 | ||||||
ORG3 | 0.817 | ||||||
ORG4 | 0.785 | ||||||
ORG2 | 0.780 | ||||||
SUP4 | 0.797 | ||||||
SUP3 | 0.794 | ||||||
SUP1 | 0.792 | ||||||
SUP5 | 0.777 |
Absolute Suitability Index | Increment Suitability Index | Simple Suitability Index | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RMR | RMSEA | GFI | AGFI | NFI | RFI | IFI | CFI | TLI | X2/df | PGFI | PNFI | PCFI | |
Evaluation standard | <0.08 | <0.08 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | 1 << 3 | >0.5 | >0.5 | >0.5 |
Suitability index | 0.039 | 0.035 | 0.926 | 0.907 | 0.944 | 0.935 | 0.981 | 0.981 | 0.978 | 1.49 | 0.733 | 0.808 | 0.839 |
2nd Level | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
ORG | 0.589 | 0.050 | 11.768 | *** |
LED | 0.761 | 0.046 | 16.439 | *** |
PLN | 0.552 | 0.050 | 11.102 | *** |
IMP | 0.782 | 0.047 | 16.702 | *** |
SUP | 0.577 | 0.045 | 12.692 | *** |
PER | 0.666 | 0.044 | 15.032 | *** |
OPR | 0.451 | 0.043 | 10.531 | *** |
Classification | Absolute Suitability Index | Increment Suitability Index | Simple Suitability Index | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RMR | RMSEA | GFI | AGFI | NFI | RFI | IFI | CFI | TLI | X2/df | PGFI | PNFI | PCFI | |
Evaluation standard | <0.08 | <0.08 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | 1 << 3 | >0.5 | >0.5 | >0.5 |
Suitability index | 0.069 | 0.045 | 0.908 | 0.901 | 0.928 | 0.920 | 0.967 | 0.966 | 0.962 | 1.825 | 0.754 | 0.835 | 0.868 |
Dependent/Independent Variable | Dependent Variable: Customer satisfaction | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | β | t-Value | Significant Probability | Tolerance Limit | |
(Constants) | 2.513 | ||||
ISO9001(2015) | 0.554 | 0.612 | 15.864 *** | 0.000 | 0.977 |
BIZ | −0.057 | −0.096 | −2.376 | −2.376 | 0.884 |
PEO | 0.082 | 0.088 | 2.145 * | 0.033 | 0.866 |
R | 0.643 | ||||
R2 | 0.413 | ||||
The revised R2 | 0.409 | ||||
F | 94.610 *** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Shang, M.; Lee, C.; Cao, J.; Liu, Y. A Construction and Empirical Study of Quality Management Evaluation Index System in the Internet of Things Industry. Systems 2022, 10, 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10060231
Shang M, Lee C, Cao J, Liu Y. A Construction and Empirical Study of Quality Management Evaluation Index System in the Internet of Things Industry. Systems. 2022; 10(6):231. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10060231
Chicago/Turabian StyleShang, Meng, Chulwoo Lee, Junwei Cao, and Yu Liu. 2022. "A Construction and Empirical Study of Quality Management Evaluation Index System in the Internet of Things Industry" Systems 10, no. 6: 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10060231
APA StyleShang, M., Lee, C., Cao, J., & Liu, Y. (2022). A Construction and Empirical Study of Quality Management Evaluation Index System in the Internet of Things Industry. Systems, 10(6), 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10060231