ARTICLE IN PRESS

Int. J. Production Economics 105 (2007) 7996

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

An analytical network process-based framework for successful

total quality management (TQM): An assessment of Turkish
manufacturing industry readiness
Ozden Bayazita,, Birsen Karpakb
a

Department of Business Administration, College of Business, Central Washington University, 20000 68th Avenue W,
Lynnwood, WA 98036, USA
b
Department of Management, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44555, USA
Received 3 February 2004; accepted 19 December 2005
Available online 9 May 2006

Abstract
In this study, we have developed an analytic network process (ANP)-based framework to identify the level of impact of
different factors on total quality management (TQM) implementation and to assess the readiness of the Turkish
manufacturing industry to adopt TQM practices. ANP is a methodology recently introduced by Saaty for multiple criteria
problems where there is feedback and interdependence among decision attributes and alternatives. We determined the
factors that affect the level of implementation of TQM by doing literature searches and further rened those factors
through a survey conducted among 250 large manufacturing companies in Turkey. We ended up with 32 factors. When we
applied the model into large manufacturing companies zero defect and costly and long-term study turned out to be the most
inuential factors contrary to those of survey respondents quality improvement and higher revenue. The results of our
decision model show that the Turkish manufacturing industry has a readiness level of 59.2% for implementing TQM.
Model identies a number of factors for successful application; therefore, an understanding of the critical factors would
help managers to advance TQM implementation. Since there is feedback and interdependence among these factors, ANP
proves to be an effective framework for assessing readiness to adopt TQM and facilitating TQM implementation.
r 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Factors affecting total quality management implementation; Multiple criteria analysis; Quality management; Analytic network
process; Decision analysis

1. Introduction
In the early 1980s, consumers became more
powerful and started to demand high-quality goods
and services at reasonable prices. The globalization
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 425 640 1574;

fax: +1 425 640 1488.

E-mail addresses: bayazito@cwu.edu (O. Bayazit),
bkarpak@ysu.edu (B. Karpak).

of trade has made high-quality low-cost products

available throughout the world. These factors
increased the pressure on companies around the
world to improve their goods and services. Technologies and methodologies such as total quality
management (TQM) have helped them do this
(Wadsworth et al., 2002). In Turkey, manufacturing
organizations represent a dynamic and important
sector of the economy and they are aware of the
importance to their survival of assuring quality in

0925-5273/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.12.009

ARTICLE IN PRESS
80

O. Bayazit, B. Karpak / Int. J. Production Economics 105 (2007) 7996

their products. A considerable number of organizations have tried to implement these practices and
have failed to achieve much, while many others have
implemented TQM with great success.
The overwhelming volume of literature on TQM
is primarily focused on the elements of TQM and
the approaches taken to assure a successful implementation; however, less attention has been
devoted to identify the critical success factors for
the implementation of TQM program (Dayton,
2001). Black and Porter (1996) developed a model
that identies a set of critical factors of TQM, their
relative importance and the interrelationships between each. Recently Conca et al. (2004) conducted
a similar study to identify critical success factors of
TQM and empirically tested with the answers of 108
ISO certied rms in Spain. Since these critical
factors are interdependent and there is feedback
among them we contend that our analytic network
process (ANP)-based framework is an enhancement
to earlier studies. Since the critical success factors of
TQM have not been studied extensively throughout
the world, it is the intention of this study to
investigate these factors and identify the relative
importance of each of them in a successful TQM
implementation and measure the readiness of the
Turkish manufacturing industry to adopt it.
The approach in this paper is to use the ANP to
investigate the degree to which TQM practices were
adopted in the Turkish manufacturing industry and
to identify the impact of different factors on
successful TQM implementation. This industry is
particularly appropriate for the study of the
effectiveness of TQM program implementation
since the majority of organizations that have
implemented TQM consist of manufacturing companies in Turkey. ANP requires expert judgments to
assess the relative importance of different factors
with respect to each other. In our study these expert
judgments were obtained via survey of 250 manufacturing companies in Turkey. ANP is a new
methodology introduced by Saaty (2001b) that
extends the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for
decision making to cases of dependence and feedback. As Wang et al. (2004) pointed out, more and
more researchers are realizing that AHP is an
important generic method and are applying it.
Whereas, ANP is relatively new and there are few
applications as of yet. Some examples of ANP
applications include re-engineering, supply chain
performance, logistics, quality function deployment,
energy policy planning, project selection decisions,

and performance measurement systems (Hamalainen and Seppalainen, 1986; Partovi and Corredoira,
2002; Sarkis and Talluri, 2002; Agarwal and
Shankar, 2002; Partovi, 2001; Lee and Kim, 2000;
Ashayeri et al., 1998; Meade and Sarkis, 1998;
Sarkis, 1998, 1999, 2003; Karpak and Bayazit, 2001;
Saaty, 2001a, c).
In this paper we developed a framework that
facilitates nding the importance of different factors
on TQM implementation. In addition, we applied
ANP for the rst time to assess the readiness of
manufacturing industry in Turkey to adopt TQM
based on the survey of 62 companies. Since
constructing such a framework can best be approached by studying organizations that have
implemented TQM, we have excluded the ones
which stated that they did not implement TQM. The
paper is organized into ve sections and begins with
a literature search for the factors affecting TQM
implementation. The methodology of the study is
explained in Section 3. Section 4 introduces an
ANP-based framework which identies the importance of different factors on TQM implementation
and Turkish manufacturing industry readiness to
implement TQM. The overall conclusion is given in
Section 5.
2. Background
There is a huge amount of published literature on
TQM. A dominant theme in these writings is that
TQM is an approach to management that is
characterized by the principles of customer focus,
continuous improvement, and teamwork (Ugboro
and Obeng, 2000; Wadsworth et al., 2002; Chan and
Quazi, 2002; Hellsten and Klefsjo, 2000; Scharitzer
and Korunka, 2000; Young et al., 2001; Woon,
2000; Fok et al., 2001). It is broadly agreed that
TQM is an integrated management philosophy
aimed at continuously improving the performance
of products, processes, and services to achieve and
surpass customer expectations.
A number of research studies have been carried
out to examine the implementation process of TQM
and investigate the critical success factors for
implementing TQM. A common conclusion of these
studies is that the way TQM is implemented is
central to its long-term success within an organization (Ghobadian and Gallear, 2001). Flynn et al.
(1995) surveyed 42 US manufacturing rms and
measured the degree of use of quality management practices. Constructs they used were top

ARTICLE IN PRESS
O. Bayazit, B. Karpak / Int. J. Production Economics 105 (2007) 7996

management support, customer relationship, workforce management, work attitudes, process ow

management, statistical process control/feedback
and product design. They found out that different
core quality management practices led to success in
different dimensions of quality. Allen and Kilmann
(2001) reported that using a cross-functional planning approach when developing strategic plans,
forming quality councils and teams, and customer
focus are the important TQM practices. Black and
Porter (1996) conducted a study to determine the
TQM critical success factors using members of the
European Foundation for Quality Management.
They determined that TQM critical success factors
were: people and customer management, supplier
partnerships, communication of improvement information, customer satisfaction orientation, external interface management, strategic quality
management, teamwork structures for improvement, operational quality planning, quality improvement measurement systems, and corporate
quality culture. Dayton (2001) determined that all
of the TQM critical success factors identied in the
Black and Porter (1996) study were important to US
quality assurance professionals as well. Research
conducted by Tsang and Antony (2001) showed the
11 critical success factors for the successful implementation of TQM in the UK service sector are:
customer focus, continuous improvement, teamwork and involvement, top management commitment and recognition, training and development,
quality systems and policies, supervisory leadership,
communication within the company, supplier relationship and supplier management, measurement
and feedback, and cultural change in employees
behaviors and attitudes. Motwani (2001) found
seven critical success factors for TQM implementation after examining six empirical studies. He
recommended that attention should be given mostly
to these ve constructs: top management commitment, employee training and empowerment, quality
measurement and benchmarking, process management, and customer involvement and satisfaction.
Ugboro and Obeng (2000) conducted research
among 800 members of the Association for Quality
and Participation. According to their study, top
management leadership and commitment, teamwork, ow of information within the organization,
employee involvement and empowerment are the
critical strategies for successful TQM programs.
Ghobadian and Gallear (2001) examined 31 TQM
implementation plans and identied the most

81

common initiatives: training, TQM education

course, teamwork, creating quality council/steering
group, quality assurance processes, and mission/
vision development. Laszlo (1999) concluded that a
successful implementation of a quality management
approach within any organization requires commitment, corporate culture, and investment. The
critical factors in TQM found in the literature vary
from one author to another, although there is a
common core formed by the following requirements
(Conca et al., 2004): customer-based approach,
management commitment and leadership, quality
planning, management based on facts, continuous
improvement, human resource management (involvement of all members in the rm, training work
teams, and communication systems that eliminate
communication barriers), learning, process management, and cooperation with suppliers.
Several studies that have been devoted to
examining the implementation process of TQM
have emphasized goals and results. Reed et al.
(2000) concluded that TQM has the potential to
generate competitive advantage. They claimed that
generating competitive advantage depends on not
only on TQM but also on the t between the
strategy, rm orientation, and the environment.
Today a growing number of organizations implement TQM to generate a competitive advantage
(Nilsson et al., 2001; Chan and Quazi, 2002). A
study by Chong (1998) argued that TQM might
provide a fundamental way of conducting business,
making the organization more competitive and
viable, with TQM driving change and improvement.
Many TQM studies we examined claim that the
successful implementation of TQM could also
generate improved products and services, lower
costs, more satised customers, and empowered
employees (Agus and Abdullah, 2000; Wadsworth
et al., 2002; Chin et al., 2003). Chin et al. (2003)
contend that successful TQM results increased
return on investment, and market share as well.
The survey respondents perceived customer focus
and leadership to be the most important elements to
implement TQM in Hong Kong manufacturing
industries (Chin et al., 2003, 2002a). TQM has the
potential not only to increase competitiveness, but
also to improve organizational effectiveness
(Ugboro and Obeng, 2000; Fok et al., 2001).
Radovilski et al. (1996), surveyed 235 companies,
showed that increases in prot, market share, and
productivity, reductions in defects and costs
of achieving quality are among the benets of

ARTICLE IN PRESS
82

O. Bayazit, B. Karpak / Int. J. Production Economics 105 (2007) 7996

implementing TQM. Huang and Lin (2002) reported that cost reduction, sales increase, product
image, service quality, and overall reputation are
some of the improvements companies achieved by
implementing TQM.
Sousa and Voss (2002) recently wrote a reective
review article on TQM. They have synthesized and
organized the literature in the eld and offered
suggestions for further research. They found out
that one important area of research in TQM has
been the examination of the extent to which TQM
practices have an impact on rm performancethe
quality performance model. Some TQM practices
did not have a signicant impact on organizational
performance. They stated that further research is
needed to clarify the relative importance between
mechanistic/process/technical (core) and nonmechanistic/sociobehavioral (infrastructure) TQM
aspects. They also found out that some rigorous
academic studies have started to question the
universal validity of TQM practices, and to
investigate the inuence of the organizational
context on TQM practice.
We concur with Conca et al. (2004) that the
critical factors of TQM differ from one author to
another. The current literature emphasizes various
critical factors of TQM implementation based on
different implementation practices. However, as
demonstrated in Sousa and Voss (2002) there are
certain constructs such as top management commitment, customer focus, supplier quality management,
employee involvement, employee empowerment,
employee training, and statistical process control
usage which are all present in the previous frameworks proposed.
The framework we propose in this research
encompasses common constructs expanded by all
relevant variables and relationships including factors comprising expected benets, risks, and costs of
TQM. It also includes Turkish manufacturing
industry-specic constructs such as dynamic structure of Turkey, unavailability of country-specific
TQM models, and conflict of Turkish management
structure and TQM.
3. Methodology background
In this study ANP serves as the decision analysis
tool and we implemented it using Super Decisionsr ,
a sophisticated and user friendly software that
implements ANP (Saaty, 2001a). ANP makes it
possible to deal systematically with the interactions

and dependencies among the factors in a decision

system. Our factors, as mentioned before, were
based on the results of our literature search and on
the survey conducted among 250 large manufacturing companies in Turkey. In this section, we
describe the ANP methodology and the survey
carried out to identify relative importance of
different critical success factors of TQM.
3.1. Analytic network process
The ANP is a generalization of AHP and can be
used to treat more sophisticated decision problems.
ANP is a coupling of two parts. The rst consists of
a control hierarchy (or network) of criteria and subcriteria that control the feedback networks. The
second part consists of the networks of inuence
that contain the factors of the problem and the
logical groupings of these factors into clusters. Each
control criterion (or sub-criterion) has a feedback
network. A supermatrix of limiting inuence that
gives the priorities of the factors in the network is
computed for each network (Saaty, 2001c).
We used Saatys benets, opportunities, costs,
risks (BOCR) approach. The BOCR are called the
merits of the decision (Saaty, 2001a). Often, though
not in this work, Saaty further decomposes the
merits into control criteria such as economic,
political, and social, each of which will have a
decision network (sometimes referred to as a
subnet) associated with it. Here we directly set up
the subnets for each merit. Each decision network is
composed of clusters, their elements, and links
between the elements. A link between an element
(the parent) and the elements it connects to in a
given cluster (its children) makes up the usual
AHP pairwise comparison set. The interactions,
feedback, inuences, and dependencies in the system
are expressed through these links. Links between
elements within the same cluster are called inner
dependencies, whereas links between a parent
element in one cluster and its children in another
cluster are called outer dependencies (Saaty, 1999).
Inner and outer dependencies are the best way
decision-makers can capture and represent the
concepts of inuencing or being inuenced, between
clusters and between elements with respect to a
specic element. Pairwise comparisons are made
systematically for all combinations using the fundamental comparison scale (19) of AHP that is used
to indicate how many times an element dominates
another. The decision-maker can express his

ARTICLE IN PRESS
O. Bayazit, B. Karpak / Int. J. Production Economics 105 (2007) 7996

preference between each pair of elements verbally as

equally important, moderately more important,
strongly more important, very strongly more important, and extremely more important. These descriptive preferences would then be translated into
numerical values 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, respectively with 2,
4, 6, and 8 as intermediate values for comparisons
between two successive judgments. Reciprocals of
these values are used for the corresponding transpose judgments. In making judgments, the decisionmaker can incorporate experience, knowledge and
hard data (Harker and Vargas, 1990). Tangibles can
be included in the model alongside intangibles.
After the pairwise comparisons are completed,
the results are synthesized. Recognizing that BOCR
often are not equally important in coming to a
decision, they are rated separately, one at a time,
with respect to the strategic criteria to establish their
priorities for the decision. Finally, the BOCR
priorities are used to weight and combine the results
of the decision networks beneath them (Saaty,
2001a). For Costs and Risks pairwise questions,
one asks which is the more costly or risky, so the
results from those subnets must be inverted as
shown in the formula below (for each alternatives
priorities):
If we have the priorities pi ; i 1; . . . ; 4, for each
B, O, C, R, the formula is represented as
p1 B p2 O p3 1=C p4 1=R.
The results are normalized to yield the overall
priorities of the alternatives.
The ANP methodology is explained in Saatys
(2001b) book, so we are not going to explain all the
intricacies of the methodology due to space limitations. Below we give enough of the general approach
to enable the reader to follow the paper with ease.
Step 1 (BOCR priority development): There are
two ways to combine the BOCR subnet priorities
depending upon whether they are equally weighted
or not: (a) Multiplicative analysis: if benets, costs,
opportunities, and risks are all equally important,
obtain for each alternative a single overall weight
using the ratio of the four in the form: BO/CR or
(benets times opportunities) over (costs times
risks) and then choose the alternative with the
largest value. (b) Additive analysis: as we explained
above, if benets, costs, opportunities, and risks are
not equally important, rate the BOCR one at a time
with respect to high-level personal or corporate
strategic criteria that are used to assess the merits of
the different decisions we make (Saaty, 2001b).

83

Step 2 (Model construction): Determine one

decision network for each merit: benets, opportunities, costs, and risks. If in some cases one or more
of the merits are unimportant for the decision, leave
them out. Determine all the elements that affect the
decision and group them into clusters for each
network. Each decision network must contain a
cluster of alternatives. The other clusters contain
elements that are related to the issue such as criteria
or stakeholders.
Step 3 (Formulating the links and performing
paired comparisons between the clusters/elements):
In each network formulate the links between the
elements and perform the following paired comparisons to derive eigenvectors and to form a supermatrix.
(a) Cluster comparisons: Perform paired comparisons on the clusters that inuence a given cluster
with respect to the control criterion for that
network. Weights derived from this process will
be used to weigh the elements in the corresponding column blocks of the supermatrix for that
network.
(b) Comparisons of elements: Perform paired comparisons on the elements within the clusters.
Compare the elements in a cluster according to
their inuence on an element in another cluster
to which they are connected (or on elements in
their own cluster).
(c) Comparisons for alternatives: Compare the
alternatives with respect to all the elements
from which they are connected.
Step 4 (Constructing the supermatrix): The outcome of the process above is the unweighted
supermatrix. Its columns contain the priorities
derived from the pairwise comparisons of the
elements. In an unweighted supermatrix, its columns may not be column stochastic. To obtain a
stochastic matrix, i.e., each column sums to one,
multiply the blocks of the unweighted supermatrix
by the corresponding cluster priority. Raise the
supermatrix to a large power to capture rst,
second, and third degree inuences. When the
differences between corresponding elements of a
column are less than a very small number, for
successive powers of the supermatrix, the process
has converged.
Step 5 (Obtaining overall outcome): Use the
resulting ratings, respectively, to multiply the benet
priorities of the alternatives, the opportunities

ARTICLE IN PRESS
84

O. Bayazit, B. Karpak / Int. J. Production Economics 105 (2007) 7996

priorities of the alternatives, the normalized reciprocals of the costs priorities of the alternatives, and
the normalized reciprocals of the risks priorities
of the alternatives p1 B p2 O p3 1=C p4 1=R.
Since the alternatives that have the highest priority
under Costs and Risks are more costly or risky,
convert the priorities so that less preferred alternatives have lower values than more preferred ones,
by taking the reciprocal of each alternatives
priority. Add these four resulting numbers for each
alternative to obtain its overall priority. Repeat for
all the alternatives and normalize. Finally, select the
alternative with the highest priority.

3.2. The survey

A sample of 250 large companies in Turkey was
randomly drawn from the list of 500 biggest
manufacturing companies in Turkey as determined
by the Istanbul Chamber of Industry. Companies in
the service industry were not included.
Questionnaires were mailed directly to quality
managers of the selected companies. In this
research, quality managers and directors were the
dominant respondents. A cover letter was included
in the mailing, explaining the purpose of the study,
along with the questionnaire and a stamped return
envelope. Of the 250 surveys mailed, 25 were
returned as undeliverable and 100 usable responses
were received for a net response rate of 40.0%.
Some of the questionnaires that were returned were
incomplete. Sixtytwo percent of the companies who
responded had stated that they fully implemented
TQM. Fourteen percent of the respondents reported
that they had not implemented TQM. Twenty-four
percent of them reported that they were preparing
to implement TQM (Bayazit, 2003).
The major purpose of our research was to identify
relative importance of factors affecting the adoption
of TQM implementation and nding out how
favorable the conditions were for adopting TQM
implementation in the Turkish manufacturing
industry. We needed the experts who had TQM
implementation experience, since ANP requires
expert judgment. Therefore, we selected the 62
companies that had already implemented TQM for
our analysis. Those companies quality managers
and directors had the required experience to judge
the relative importance of different factors on TQM
implementation. In actuality, those were the rms
who answered all the questions.

The questionnaire consisted of 25 questions. The

rst part of the questionnaire addressed issues
related to demographic information and the implementation process of TQM. The second part of
the questionnaire addressed the issues related to the
factors affecting TQM implementation.
The factors we used were a combination of those
determined based on the literature search and those
added from the survey. Initially we developed a
total of 28 factors based on literature research.
Some of the open questions in the survey addressed
issues related to improvements achieved, implementation goals, difculties and success factors for
implementing TQM and these helped us to determine the rest. We compiled a total of 45 factors
through the survey analysis. Most of them matched
those we found in the literature. Yet some of the
factors originated from Turkish management structure and were completely different. We have gone
through some initial evaluation of the factors to
eliminate those that were irrelevant to the decision
problem. Of the factors that were rened from the
survey, 13 were eliminated and 32 were perceived to
be signicant to the decision problem and hence
considered as the main factors. These factors were
then categorized under advantages, opportunities,
risks, and disadvantages. We used the term advantages and disadvantages for Saatys terms benets
and costs. The main categories also were divided
into sub-categories (Karpak and Bayazit, 2001).
The judgments used in the analysis used the
fundamental 19 scale of AHP (1 equally, 3
moderately, 5 strongly, 7 very strongly, 9
extremely) and were our interpretation of
survey results. We also used intermediate values
where appropriate (2 equally to moderately,
4 moderately to strongly, 6 strongly to very
strongly, 8 very strongly to extremely).
The factors that will be used to evaluate the
alternatives are described in Table 1. Most of them
coincide with the factors considered in the literature,
such as worker participation, work satisfaction, upper
management support, and zero-defects.
We expanded these factors with expert judgments
(the survey participantsquality managers/directors, experts who have been through TQM
implementation experience) and captured some
additional constructs which are exclusive to the
Turkish manufacturing industry. Of those Turkish
manufacturing industry-specic constructs, these
experts reported that the number of certied
consultant companies who were assisting with TQM

ARTICLE IN PRESS
O. Bayazit, B. Karpak / Int. J. Production Economics 105 (2007) 7996
Table 1
The decision criteria
Complaint reduction

Quality improvement
Price reduction

On time delivery

Higher revenue

Market share

Internal costs

External costs

Appraisal costs

Work-in process
inventory (WIP)
Zero-defects

Workforce (WF)
quality

85

Table 1 (continued )

The companies that are applying TQM

reported an increase in customer
satisfaction and a decrease in customer
complaints.
It was reported that the quality is
improved.
The companies that are applying TQM
achieved higher quality with lower
price.
The companies that are applying TQM
delivered their products to markets
when their customers want to receive
them. It was reported that on-time
delivery frequency increased markedly.
The respondents reported that highquality products are priced higher than
comparable lower quality ones and
yield a greater return.
Because of higher quality the
companies that are applying TQM
reported an increase in market share.
The costs include the costs of scrap, the
cost of repair, rework, paperwork,
rescheduling, delays caused by
defective products and all the costs of
delays, paperwork, rescheduling
caused by defective products. Because
of the principle is to make it right the
rst time, the respondents cited that
total internal quality costs decreased.
These costs include warranty costs, the
cost of returns or recalls, and lost
business and good will. Since the
product quality is improved,
companies reported that total external
quality costs decreased.
This includes the cost of inspection,
testing and other quality control
activities. The respondents reported
that total appraisal costs decreased.
The companies that are applying TQM
achieved reduction in work-in process
inventory.
In the TQM approach it is very
important to design a production
process that does the job right the rst
time. The companies that are applying
TQM reported a decrease in defects.
Although their ultimate aim is to reach
zero-defects, only 5% of respondents
achieved this goal.
Survey participants reported that they
gave workers the responsibility for
improvements and the authority to
make changes to accomplish them.
That way they placed decision making
into the hands of those closest to the
job with considerable insight into
problems and solutions. As a result

Worker participation

Work satisfaction

Upper management
support

Quality education and

training

Dynamic structure of
Turkey

Workers support

they achieved improvement in

workforce quality.
The respondents reported that the use
of teams for problem solving achieves
consensus, gets people involved, and
promotes a spirit of cooperation and
shared values among the employees.
The survey participants reported that
giving workers the responsibility for
improvements and the authority to
make changes to accomplish them
provided strong motivation and
improved morale for employees. It
gave them as sense of job ownership.
They cited that all these factors
increased work satisfaction.
The respondents reported that many
problems on the managerial side result
from a lack of top management
support. Top management must be
committed and involved. If they are
not, TQM will become just another fad
that quickly dies and fades away. Even
if upper management support is there
initially, it might be lost later as the
process progresses.
In TQM philosophy, all employees
from the shop oor to the board
roomas well as suppliers and
customersshould participate in a
comprehensive training program.
These programs were aimed not only at
statistical quality control techniques
but also at the broader concepts of
TQM. The respondents reported that
lack of quality education and training
is a very common shortcut. On the
other hand, quality education and
training may become too expensive
and nding qualied instructor may be
challenging.
The survey participants reported that
the number of certied consultant
companies who are assisting with
TQM implementation is very limited
and mostly uncertied and nonauthorized consultants are willing to
exercise TQM. Although quality
education and training is a major
disadvantage as pointed out above, the
respondents consider it as an expected
shortcoming as well.
Turkey is a dynamic country with up
and downs in its economy. Since it
creates risk, the survey participants
reported that it was very difcult for
the companies to implement TQM in
this kind of environment.
There may be silent resistance from the
workers. Even if there is a support

ARTICLE IN PRESS
86

O. Bayazit, B. Karpak / Int. J. Production Economics 105 (2007) 7996

Table 1 (continued )

Change in perception

Company supplier
relationship

Knowledge in
statistics

Costly and a longterm study

Unavailability of
country-specific
models

Family companies

Table 1 (continued )
from the workers initially, the
respondents cited that workers support
might be lost later on when the process
progresses.
The respondents reported that there
might be an expected change in
managers perception of teamwork.
Selecting and developing vendors that
t into the TQM system is an
important issue. Long-term
relationships are cultivated so that
vendors deliver parts of perfect quality.
Currently vendors are generally
regarded as adversaries. Companies
often use multiple vendors, playing one
off against another, and there is a
heavy emphasis on price. The
respondents reported that lack of
vendors as long-term partners creates
an important risk to successfully
implement TQM in organizations.
The respondents reported that not
enough familiarity with statistical ways
of thinking and limited use of
statistical methods throughout the
organization are another common
failing.
The survey participants reported that
implementing TQM is costly.
Preventing defects, the cost of training,
charting of quality performance to
study trends, revising product designs,
making changes to production
processes, working with vendors and
other activities aimed at improving
quality and preventing defects is costly.
They also cited that adopting TQM is a
long-term process. It may take 26
years to become fully operational in
the organizations.
The respondents reported that they
adopted Deming, Juran, and Japanese
models in their organizations. Yet they
believe that due to differences between
countries, specic TQM models are
necessary. Since country-specic
models were unavailable, they had to
use models developed mainly for other
countries.
It was reported that approximately
90% of the companies in Turkey are
family partnerships and not managed
by professionals. The main reason is
that company owners do not want to
lose their power at every level of
management. This exacerbates the
conict between traditional Turkish
managers and those who would
implement TQM.

TQM expenses

Conflict of Turkish
managementstructure
and TQM

Cooperation level

Difficulty of achieving
teamwork

Long-term
competitive power

Workforce harmony

Achieving quality
culture

The respondents reported that TQM

expenses are considered unnecessary by
upper management.
The respondents reported that in many
companies in Turkey the system is
autocratic and topdown even if the
company is professionally managed.
On the other hand, TQM requires a
democratic bottom up approach. Thus,
it creates conict.
The respondents reported that the
cooperation level between main and
subsidiary industries is very low.
The respondents described the working
style of employees as individualistic
meaning they are perceived to prefer
acting independently rather than
joining teams. Although the
implementation of TQM requires
worker participation, the need to have
it is viewed as a limitation of TQM
implementation as well.
The survey participants reported that
TQM could generate a sustainable
competitive advantage in the long
term, since TQM is capable of
producing a cost-based advantage.
The companies that are successfully
applying TQM concepts in their
organizations expect to achieve
workforce harmony in the long term.
The companies that are successfully
applying TQM expect to achieve a
quality focused culture and consensus
in their organizations.

implementation was very limited. One of these

Turkish manufacturing industry-specic constructs
is the limited number of certied consultant
companies who assist with TQM implementation,
as reported by these experts. Additionally, they
stated that mostly uncertied and non-authorized
consultants were willing to exercise TQM. Quality
education and training is therefore, a major disadvantage and was considered by the respondents
as an expected shortcoming as well. Unavailability
of country-specific models is another factor affecting
TQM implementation in Turkey. The respondents
reported that they adopted Deming, Juran, and
Japanese models in their organizations. Yet they
believe that due to differences between countries,
specic TQM models are necessary. Since countryspecic models were unavailable, they had to use
models developed mainly for other countries.
Although we developed 32 factors, Table 1 shows

ARTICLE IN PRESS
O. Bayazit, B. Karpak / Int. J. Production Economics 105 (2007) 7996

31 factors since the quality education and training

criterion were considered both a risk and a
disadvantage by the survey respondents.
4. The ANP decision model
The ANP-based framework seems to be suitable
to identify the relative importance of different
factors on TQM implementation, since there is
feedback and dependence among them. The framework also assesses the readiness of the Turkish
manufacturing industry to adopt TQM. In this
section we describe the ANP decision model we
used.
Step 1 (BOCR weight development): Unlike
traditional cost/benet analysis, this ANP model
considers different weights for the merits. We
changed the original terms to ones we thought
better described the TQM adoption issue so that
benets became advantages, opportunities stayed
the same, costs became disadvantages, and risks
stayed the same. The strategic criteria we used to
determine the priorities of the BOCR merits are
shown in Fig. 1. These weights are obtained by
using the Rating approach of AHP (Saaty, 2001b).
The strategic criteria are cost of implementing TQM,
amount of time required for implementation, and
effect on product quality. These are the main criteria
needed when a company makes a decision about
implementing TQM. Cost of implementing TQM
refers to the required cost of implementing TQM
such as training costs, etc. Amount of time required

87

for implementation refers to how much time the

alternatives will require for implementation. Effect
on product quality means how TQM implementation
is likely to affect product quality.
The four merits of: advantages, opportunities,
disadvantages, and risks were rated according to
ve intensities (very high, high, medium, very low,
low) listed below along with their priorities. For
example, effect on product quality creates several
advantages to the company but has neither risk nor
disadvantage. Cost of implementing TQM represents investments and creates disadvantages and
risks to the company.
The BOCR priority calculations are summarized
in Table 2 below and the priorities in bold at the
bottom of the table are used in the main top-level
structure to synthesize results. Priorities for the
ratings intensities, shown listed across the top of
Table 2, were derived from pairwise comparisons.
The results for each cell are computed by multiplying the weight of the strategic criteria in the left
column by the priority of the rating selected. For
example, the (cost, advantages) cell in the table
below is assigned a rating of very low. So the value
for very low, 0.06 is multiplied by the value for cost,
0.635, to give the value for that cell. The values are
summed for each column and the totals thus
obtained are normalized to yield the priorities at
the bottom of Table 2.
Step 2 (Model construction): In applying ANP, the
next step is to structure the model to be evaluated.
The overall objective of this ANP model is to

Fig. 1. BOCR merit criteria.

Table 2
Priority ratings for the merits: advantages, opportunities, disadvantages and risks
Advantages

Opportunities

Disadvantages

Risks

Cost (0.635)
Quality (0.287)
Time (0.078)

Very low
Very high
Very low

Low
High
Low

Very high
Very low
Very high

High
Very low
High

Priorities

0.321

0.288

0.195

0.195

Very high (0.420), high (0.260), medium (0.160), low (0.10), very low (0.06).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
88

O. Bayazit, B. Karpak / Int. J. Production Economics 105 (2007) 7996

evaluate the ultimate relative importance of different factors that impact the implementation of TQM
and assess the readiness of the Turkish manufacturing industry to implement TQM. The factors that
will be used to evaluate the alternatives were
developed earlier in the paper. Two alternatives,
Turkish industry should apply TQM and Turkish industry should not apply TQM are determined
and will be evaluated according to these factors.
There are four feedback networksone for each
of four general controlling factors (the merits of the
decision): advantages, opportunities, disadvantages,
and risks. The advantages reect the current benets
of TQM implementation. The opportunities reect
the potential benets of TQM implementation. The
disadvantages reect the limitations of TQM implementation whereas the risks reect the expected
shortcomings of TQM implementation. First, the
factors listed above that affect TQM implementation are classied into advantages, opportunities,

disadvantages, and risks. Then they are grouped

into clusters in the networks under their respective
merits. The clusters in the advantages network are:
advantages to customers, advantages to workforce,
operational advantages, and financial advantages.
There is an alternatives cluster in every network.
The opportunities network consists of only one
other cluster, potential benefits. Since some of the
disadvantages are inherent to TQM whereas some
others originate from the current Turkish management structure, the disadvantages network is
comprised of the clusters: inherent to TQM, and
originates from current Turkish management structure and alternatives. The risks network has the
clusters: managerial risks, and technical risks and
alternatives.
A graphical summary of the overall ANP model
is shown in Fig. 2. If links exist from at least one
element of a cluster to the elements of another
cluster, there is an arrow connecting the clusters. A

Fig. 2. The ANP-based framework for successful TQM implementation and for assessing the readiness of Turkish industry for TQM.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
O. Bayazit, B. Karpak / Int. J. Production Economics 105 (2007) 7996

looped arc on a cluster indicates inner dependence

among the elements of the cluster. The directions of
the arcs signify dependence.
Step 3 (Formulating the interdependencies and
performing pairwise comparisons between clusters/
factors): We then formulated interrelationships
among all the factors. The question asked when
formulating these relationships was: With respect to
a specific factor, which of a pair of factors influences
it more? For example, with respect to complaints
reduction which one affects it more, quality improvement or price reduction; quality improvement or on
time delivery? After creating the links between the
factors, pairwise comparisons are performed with
respect to all those factors that have an impact on
other factors within their own cluster or other
clusters of the network. In this case, the factors in a
cluster are compared according to their inuence on
a factor in another cluster to which they are
connected (or on factors in their own cluster to
which they are connected). To establish the interdependencies in the networks, pairwise comparisons
among all the factors are conducted and these
relationships are evaluated.
The next step is to weigh the clusters. When
clusters are connected, because an element in one is
connected to several elements in another, or vice
versa, then logically they have an inuence on each
other. A series of pairwise comparisons are conducted on the clusters themselves with respect to
impact on clusters to which they are linked and the
weighted priorities are then calculated resulting in the
cluster matrix of priorities used to weigh the
corresponding blocks of the unweighted supermatrix.
Let us examine in detail the network that belongs
to the advantages merit. Tables 37 are for that
network. The cluster matrix, composed of the
eigenvectors derived from making pairwise comparisons of the clusters within the advantages network,
is shown in Table 3. It shows how much a cluster (as
the column heading) is inuenced by the other
clusters it connects to. For example, the cluster of

89

advantages to workforce and operational advantages

are not inuenced by the cluster of advantages to
customer because those entries have zeros indicating
no effect or dependence among the clusters. On the
other hand, the cluster of advantages to workforce
inuences the cluster of advantages to customers
(0.2375). The cluster of financial advantages is
inuenced by the cluster of advantages to customer
(0.3149). The cluster of alternatives is inuenced by
all the clusters.
Step 4 (Constructing supermatrix): As an example,
Tables 46 illustrate some parts of unweighted,
weighted and limit supermatrices of the factors
within the advantages network. Table 4 shows the
pairwise comparisons of the factors. The weighted
supermatrix (Table 5) is obtained by weighting the
blocks in the unweighted supermatrix by the
corresponding priority from the cluster matrix
shown in Table 3. The entries of the weighted
supermatrix itself give the direct inuence of any
one factor on any other factor. The weighted
supermatrix has some zeros indicating no interaction. For example, complaints reduction is inuenced
by quality improvement (0.1990), price reduction
(0.3093), on-time delivery (0.0676), workforce quality
(0.2903), and zero defects (0.1256). On the other
hand, worker participation and WF satisfaction do
not affect the complaints reduction. Decrease in
internal quality costs (0.2022), external quality costs
(0.5709), and appraisal quality costs (0.1075) inuence price reduction. Table 6 shows the stable
priorities of all the factors. From it the priorities
of all the factors and alternatives are extracted and
normalized.
In the limit matrix, the columns are all the same.
To determine the nal local priorities the priorities
of the factors for each cluster in the columns of the
limit matrix are normalized to one. As an example,
within the cluster of advantages to customer the
factor quality improvement is considered to be the
most important with 0.605 or 60.5% as shown in
Table 7 in the column labeled local priorities

Table 3
Cluster matrix for the advantages network
Clusters

Adv
to cust

Adv
to workf

Oper
adv

Finc
adv

Alt

Adv
to cust

Adv
to workf

Oper
adv

Finc
adv

Alt

0.4532
0.2375
0.1029
0.1818
0.0246

0.0000
0.9000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1000

0.0000
0.0000
0.9000
0.0000
0.1000

0.3149
0.0000
0.1594
0.4980
0.0316

0.5523
0.0985
0.0633
0.2857
0.0000

ARTICLE IN PRESS
O. Bayazit, B. Karpak / Int. J. Production Economics 105 (2007) 7996

90
Table 4
Unweighted Supermatrix

Adv
to cust

Oper
adv
. . .

Adv
to workf

Comp. red

Quality

Price

On-time

WF qu

Wor
part

WF sat

Zero

WIP

Adv
to cust

Comp

Quality

Price

On-time

0.0000
0.3196
0.5584
0.1219

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

Adv
to workf

WF qu

Wor
part

WF sat

1.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
1.0000
0.0000

0.3333
0.0000
0.6667

0.2500
0.7500
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

Oper
adv

Zero

WIP

1.0000
0.0000

1.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000

Finc
adv

Higher rev

Market

Int
costs
Ext
costs
Appr
costs

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.2296
0.6483
0.1220

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

Alt

Apply TQM
Not apply TQM
..
.

0.8889
0.1111
..
.

0.9000
0.1000

0.7500
0.2500

0.6667
0.3333

0.8000
0.2000
..
.

0.7500
0.2500

0.7500
0.2500

0.8750
0.1250
..
.

0.8750
0.1250

(normalized by cluster). The global priorities of

those factors are then calculated by weighting their
local priorities by the priority of the advantages
merit, 0.321. For example, for quality improvement
we have 0:321  0:605  0:194. When we again
normalized, we found 0.084. Table 7 shows the
limit priorities of the factors in the advantages
network as they appear in the limit supermatrix,
with the priorities normalized to one for each cluster
and for the global priorities.
We then calculated the global priorities of all the
factors as explained above. The global priorities
indicate that zero defects is the most important
factor with a global weight of 13.3%. The second is
costly and long-term study with a global weight of
10.2%. It shows that zero defects and costly and
long-term study are the factors most affecting TQM
implementation. Table 8 shows the global priorities
of all the factors in the decision-making model.
Step 5 (Obtaining the overall outcome): As Saaty
(2001b) suggested; we used additive synthesis to
evaluate the alternatives in the nal decision. In
additive synthesis, we have for example for Apply

TQM 0:854  0:312 0:841  0:288 0:178  0:195

0:210  0:195 0:592. We also compared multiplicative synthesis outcome with that of additive
synthesis. We have for Apply TQM: 0:8540:321 
0:8410:288  0:1780:195  0:2100:195 which is then normalized by dividing by the sum of all two such
expressions to obtain 0.621 for its priority. Tables 9
and 10 give the necessary information to construct
the overall synthesized results, which indicate
Turkish industry should apply TQM is chosen
by the model, primarily with an overall priority of
0.592.
4.1. Sensitivity analysis
To ensure the stability of the outcome of our
analysis, we conducted sensitivity analysis. Our
results seem to be not very sensitive to how
important we consider the advantages to be. As
shown in Fig. 3, even if the rating goes down to 13%
from 32%, which is the original rating, Apply
TQM is still more preferable than Not Apply
TQM.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
O. Bayazit, B. Karpak / Int. J. Production Economics 105 (2007) 7996

91

Table 5
Weighted supermatrix
Adv
to cust

Oper
adv
. . .

Adv
to workf

Comp. red

Quality

Price

On-time

WF qu

Wor
par

WF sat

Zero

WIP

Adv
to cust

Comp

Quality

Price

On-time

0.0000
0.1990
0.3093
0.0676

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.9484
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

Adv
to workf

WF qu

Wor
par

WF sat

0.2903
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.9000
0.0000

0.3000
0.0000
0.6000

0.2250
0.6750
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

Oper
adv

Zero

WIP

0.1256
0.0000

0.8067
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000

0.9000
0.0000

Finc
adv

Hig
rev

Market

Int
costs
Ext
costs
Appr
costs

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.2022
0.5709
0.1075

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

Alt

Apply TQM
Not apply TQM
..
.

0.0268
0.0033
..
.

0.1740
0.0193

0.0895
0.0298

0.0344
0.0171

0.0800
0.0200
..
.

0.0750
0.0250

0.0750
0.0250

0.8750
0.1250
..
.

0.0875
0.0125

If opportunities were to be decreased from their

original priority of 0.2880.092, Apply TQM is still
preserved as the best alternative. However, as the
priority of opportunities decreases, the best alternative turns out to be Not Apply TQM. The
alternatives are more sensitive to the priorities of
opportunities. If disadvantages were to be increased
from its original priority 0.1950.329, Apply TQM is
still preserved as the best alternative. As the priority
of disadvantages increases, the best alternative
turns out to be Not Apply TQM. If risks were to
be increased from its original priority of 0.195 to
0.357, Apply TQM is still preserved as the best
alternative. As the priority of risks increases, the
best alternative turns out to be Not Apply TQM.
Our sensitivity analysis indicates that for the nal
priorities of the alternatives to change, we would
need to make extreme assumptions on the priorities
of BOCR.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, we have developed a framework
based on ANP to identify the degree of impact of

factors affecting TQM implementation and investigated the readiness of the Turkish manufacturing
industry to adopt TQM practices based on a survey
carried out among 250 large manufacturing companies in Turkey. We used the ANP for decision
making with dependence and feedback based on
four major factors as mapped to Saatys benets,
costs, opportunities, risk (BOCR) model. ANP is a
new methodology that incorporates feedback and
interdependent relationships among decision attributes and alternatives. It leads to fresh insights
about issues. Since we included only manufacturing
companies in our research, this study indicates
manufacturing industry readiness to adopt TQM.
Manufacturing companies have been and will
continue to be, for a while, a mainstay of the
economy in Turkey and hence our results are most
likely a good indicator of Turkish industry readiness
in general. Based on our model we found that in
Turkish industry, conditions for implementing
TQM were 59.2% favorable as opposed to not
implementing TQM. In the literature, only a few
studies addressed the TQM readiness of an industry
(Arasli, 2002; Weeks et al., 1995; Aksu, 2003).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
O. Bayazit, B. Karpak / Int. J. Production Economics 105 (2007) 7996

92
Table 6
Limit supermatrix

Adv
to cust

Oper
adv
. . .

Adv
to workf

Comp. red

Quality

Price

On-time

WF qu

Wor
par

WF sat

Zero

WIP

Adv
to cust

Comp

Quality

Price

On-time

0.0251
0.1231
0.0405
0.0148

0.0251
0.1231
0.0405
0.0148

0.0251
0.1231
0.0405
0.0148

0.0251
0.1231
0.0405
0.0148

0.0251
0.1231
0.0405
0.0148

0.0251
0.1231
0.0405
0.0148

0.0251
0.1231
0.0405
0.0148

0.0251
0.1231
0.0405
0.0148

0.0251
0.1231
0.0405
0.0148

Adv
to workf

WF qu

Wor
par

WF sat

0.0911
0.1608
0.1033

0.0911
0.1608
0.1033

0.0911
0.1608
0.1033

0.0911
0.1608
0.1033

0.0911
0.1608
0.1033

0.0911
0.1608
0.1033

0.0911
0.1608
0.1033

0.0911
0.1608
0.1033

0.0911
0.1608
0.1033

Oper
adv

Zero

WIP

0.1279
0.0057

0.1279
0.0057

0.1279
0.0057

0.1279
0.0057

0.1279
0.0057

0.1279
0.0057

0.1279
0.0057

0.1279
0.0057

0.1279
0.0057

Finc
adv

High
rev

Market

Int
costs
Ext
costs
Appr
costs

0.0215
0.0139
0.0155
0.0405
0.0087

0.0215
0.0139
0.0155
0.0405
0.0087

0.0215
0.0139
0.0155
0.0405
0.0087

0.0215
0.0139
0.0155
0.0405
0.0087

0.0215
0.0139
0.0155
0.0405
0.0087

0.0215
0.0139
0.0155
0.0405
0.0087

0.0215
0.0139
0.0155
0.0405
0.0087

0.0215
0.0139
0.0155
0.0405
0.0087

0.0215
0.0139
0.0155
0.0405
0.0087

Alt

Apply TQM
Not apply TQM
..
.

0.1774
0.0303
..
.

0.1774
0.0303

0.1774
0.0303

0.1774
0.0303

0.1774
0.0303
..
.

0.1774
0.0303

0.1774
0.0303

0.1774
0.0303
..
.

0.1774
0.0303

Table 7
Factors and their priorities for the advantages network
Merits

Clusters

Factors

Priorities from
limit matrix

Local priorities
(normalized by
cluster)

Global priorities

Advantages (0.321)

Advantages to
customer

Complaints
reduction
Quality
improvement
Price reduction
On-time delivery
WF quality

0.0251

0.123

0.017

0.1231

0.605

0.084

0.0405
0.0148
0.0911

0.199
0.073
0.257

0.028
0.010
0.036

Advantages to
workforce

Operational
advantages
Financial
advantages

Worker
participation
Work satisfaction
Zero defects

0.1608

0.257

0.045

0.1033
0.1279

0.291
0.957

0.040
0.133

WIP
Higher revenue

0.0057
0.0215

0.043
0.215

0.006
0.029

Market-share
Internal costs
External costs
Appraisal costs

0.0139
0.0155
0.0405
0.0087

0.139
0.155
0.404
0.087

0.019
0.022
0.056
0.012

ARTICLE IN PRESS
O. Bayazit, B. Karpak / Int. J. Production Economics 105 (2007) 7996
Table 8
Factors and their global priorities
Factors

Global priorities

Complaints reduction
Quality improvement
Price reduction
On-time delivery
WF quality
Worker participation
Work satisfaction
Zero defects
WIP
Higher revenue
Market-share
Internal costs
External costs
Appraisal costs
Long-term competitive power
WF harmony
Achieving quality culture
Costly and a long-term study
Unavailability of country-specic models
Conict Mgt./TQM
TQM expenses
Quality education and training
Family companies
Companysupplier relationship
Difculty of achieving teamwork
Upper management support
Quality education and training
Dynamic structure of Turkey
Workers support
Change in perception
Cooperation level
Knowledge of statistics

0.017
0.084
0.028
0.010
0.036
0.036
0.040
0.133
0.006
0.029
0.019
0.022
0.056
0.012
0.006
0.059
0.060
0.102
0.011
0.022
0.011
0.008
0.024
0.013
0.005
0.029
0.031
0.004
0.012
0.005
0.002
0.085

93

In a decision problem, decision-makers might

intuitively feel that some factors are more important
than others in affecting their nal preference among
alternatives. If there is some feedback and interdependency among the factors, an unimportant
factor may turn out to be far more important than
even the most intuitively important one. So, there
needs to be a methodology like ANP to capture
more realistic results. In our research, we have
identied 32 factors affecting TQM implementation.
Some of the factors initially stated by survey
participants to be the most important ones were
not, interestingly enough. Because of interdependencies among the factors others turned out to be
more important in the decision model. For example,
according to the survey respondents quality improvement and higher revenue were the most
important factors. But our ANP model showed
quality improvement to be the fourth most important
factor with higher revenue one of the least important
factors. On the contrary, in our analysis, due to
inner and outer dependencies, zero defects and
costly and long-term study came up as the most
crucial ones in TQM implementation.
The factors affecting TQM implementation could
be qualitative as well as quantitative. There are
many qualitative concerns when assessing the
factors critical to the TQM implementation process.
Some of the factors in our decision model, for
example, workers support, dynamic structure of
Turkey, family companies, etc., were difcult to
quantify yet we were able to include them. ANP

Table 9
Inverting disadvantages and risks priorities for use in an additive formula

Apply TQM
Not apply TQM
SUM

Diasdv.

1/Disad

1/Disad. normalized

Risks

1/Risks

1/Risks normalized

0.822
0.178
1.000

1.216
5.618
6.830

0.178
0.822
1.000

0.790
0.210
1.000

1.266
4.762
6.028

0.210
0.790
1.000

Table 10
Overall results

Apply TQM
Not apply TQM

Advantages
(0.321)

Opportunities
(0.288)

Disadvantages
(0.195)

Risks (0.195)

Final outcome
(Additive)

Final outcome
(Multiplicative)

0.854
0.146

0.841
0.159

0.178
0.822

0.210
0.790

0.592
0.408

0.621
0.379

ARTICLE IN PRESS
O. Bayazit, B. Karpak / Int. J. Production Economics 105 (2007) 7996

94
1.0
0.9
0.8

QM

ly T

App

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

Not

0.3

app

ly T

QM

0.2
0.1
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Experiments
Apply TQM
Not apply TQM

0.504
0.496

Priority: ADVANTAGES 0.139473685526

Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis for advantages.

enabled us to incorporate both quantitative and

qualitative factors, which are very important in
assessing factors affecting a TQM implementation.
Although we believe our model provides a
comprehensive framework for TQM implementation models, there are some limitations. One is that
ANP requires many comparisons and a good bit of
effort. However, it should not be surprising that
complex decisions may require complex methodology. There are some shortcuts. For example,
clustering the factors helps lessen the number of
pairwise comparisons. In particular, this limitation
might exist if there are several alternatives rather
than just two in the decision model. In terms of
making a large number of pairwise comparisons,
this would be quite demanding. There is an
alternative method that can be used when there
are a large number of alternatives: the Ratings
approach. It can be applied in a rst cut to rate all
the alternatives rather quickly, and then the most
preferable alternatives can be more precisely evaluated by comparing them against each other.
To our knowledge no prior study has been done
to assess Turkish industry readiness for TQM, even
using statistical methods. It would be interesting
for future research to see how the results from
evaluations using statistical methods compare
with the ANP (or AHP) approach. Also, we
may investigate further how to control the important factors affecting TQM implementation to

increase the degree of readiness. Again to the best

knowledge of the authors there is no framework yet
considering potential benets and risks of TQM
implementation.
Chin et al. (2002b) used AHP to investigate the
critical factors and sub-factors that determine the
adoption and implementation of TQM in the stateowned enterprises and foreign joint ventures in
China. This study appears to be the closest endeavor
to ours, yet our framework is an enhancement to the
study of Chin et al. (2002b), since ANP is capable of
dealing with all kinds of feedback and dependence
when modeling a complex decision environment.
Therefore, we contend that our results are more
accurate. In our study the respondents stated that
quality improvement and higher revenue were the
most important factors. However, due to the inner
and outer dependencies, zero defect and costly and
long-term study turned out to be the most important
factors with ANP. Chin et al. (2002b) found the soft
factors of TQM emphasized by both state-owned
enterprises and foreign joint ventures. They might
have reached a different result had they used ANP
instead of AHP. Models we have reviewed that
consider benets of TQM do not distinguish
between current and potential benets. However,
as it was in our model, current and potential benets
may not have the same level of importance in the
eye of experts hence will have different level of
impact in TQM implementation. ANP enables
us to capture the complexity of dealing with this
uncertainty.
This research contributes to both TQM body of
knowledge and ANP implementation. From TQM
perspective we propose an ANP-based framework
for assessing the impact of different factors on TQM
implementation. From an ANP implementation
point of view it is the most comprehensive one.
Based on a review of the articles in literature, only
Saaty used the BOCR approach. In addition to that
we have not seen any application of sensitivity
analysis. In real life problems we contend that
sensitivity analysis of the results is almost as
important as nding what the inuence of different
factors is on TQM.
TQM transformation is a long-term process
requiring a fundamental shift in management
practices and culture. This may explain why there
have been an overabundance of studies questioning
the value of TQM, many by the consulting rms
who work with their clients to implement TQM.
There is little question that when implemented

ARTICLE IN PRESS
O. Bayazit, B. Karpak / Int. J. Production Economics 105 (2007) 7996

properly, TQM can have a dramatic impact on the

performance and culture of an organization (Beer,
2003). If we identify factors affecting TQM implementation and then control for these factors, we
can facilitate and hopefully increase the degree of
success achieved by individual rms. So we believe
our model can be used in other countries, too, as a
framework to measure the degree of TQM readiness
of industry therewith some modications to
account for country specic criteria.
Sousa and Voss (2002) suggest, for future
research, producing guidelines on what practices
should be emphasized by organizations at different
stages of TQM maturity and what might be the best
TQM practice implementation sequence to reach
the end result. Our model does not address this issue
completely yet it can be used by Turkish companies
who want to initiate TQM programs. By controlling
the most inuential factors, the newcomers may
increase the success of TQM implementation in
their companies. For future research, we suggest
improving on our research to identify factors that
need to be emphasized by organizations at different
stages of TQM maturity.
We agree with Sousa and Voss (2002) that how
to implement TQM research stream has taken for
granted that all TQM practices are universally
applicable. Implicit in their view is that it is always
possible and worthwhile to change an organizations setting to accommodate all TQM practices.
However, research on what to do suggests that
there may be innate organizational characteristics
resulting from factors such as the nature of markets,
business strategy, and country of operation that
cannot or are very difcult to change in order to
accommodate standard TQM. Our framework
provides a Turkish manufacturing industry-specic
model. As a future research, we suggest the
generalization of the framework for other nations,
developing an ANP-based framework. This new
framework requires addition and elimination of
country-specic constructs.
Most of the existing models that investigate the
factors affecting TQM implementation have used
statistical methods. We have shown an alternative
approach using expert judgment. Since ANP is
capable of dealing with all kinds of feedback and
dependence when modeling a complex decision
environment, we contend that our results are more
accurate. ANP deals with uncertainty and complexity and provides insights that other, more traditional methods could miss.

95

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Rozann Whitaker, for her helpful comments and suggestions.

References
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R., 2002. Analyzing alternatives for
improvement in supply chain performance. Work Study 51
(1), 3237.
Agus, A., Abdullah, M., 2000. Total quality management practices
in manufacturing companies in Malaysia: An exploratory
analysis. Total Quality Management 11 (8), 10411051.
Aksu, M.B., 2003. TQM readiness level perceived by the
administrators working for the Central Organization of the
Ministry of National Education in Turkey. Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence 14, 563591.
Allen, R.S., Kilmann, R.H., 2001. Aligning reward practices in
support of total quality management. Business Horizons
7784.
Arasli, H., 2002. Gearing total quality into small- and mediumsized hotels in North Cyprus. Journal of Small Business
Management 40, 350360.
Ashayeri, J., Keij, R., Broker, A., 1998. Global business process
re-engineering: A system dynamics-based approach. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 18
(9/10), 817831.
Bayazit, O., 2003. Total quality management practices in Turkish
manufacturing organizations. The TQM Magazine 15 (5),
345350.
Beer, M., 2003. Why total quality management programs do not
persist: The role of management quality and implications for
leading a TQM transformation. Decision Sciences 34 (4),
623642.
Black, S.A., Porter, L.J., 1996. Identication of the critical
factors of TQM. Decision Sciences 27, 121.
Chan, T.H., Quazi, H.A., 2002. Overview of quality management
practices in selected Asian countries. Quality Management
Journal 9 (1), 172180.
Chin, K.S., Tummala, V.M.R., Chan, K.M., 2002a. Quality
management practice based on seven core elements in Hong
Kong manufacturing industries. Technovation: International
Journal of Technical Innovation and Entrepreneurship 22 (4),
213230.
Chin, K.S., Pun, K.F., Xu, Y., Chan, J.S.F., 2002b. An AHP
based study of critical factors for TQM implementation in
Shanghai manufacturing industries. Technovation: International Journal of Technical Innovation and Entrepreneurship
22 (11), 707715.
Chin, K.S., Tummala, V.M.R., Chan, K.M., 2003. Quality
management practice in Hong Kong industries: A comparison
between electronics and toy products manufacturing industries. International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management 20 (9), 10511083.
Chong, C.L., 1998. TQM and ISO in Singapore: Strategy or
ideology. In: Ho, S.K. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third ICIT,
HKBU, Hong Kong, pp. 421426.
Conca, F., Llopis, J., Tari, J.J., 2004. Development of a measure
to assess quality management in certied rms. European
Journal of Operational Research 156, 683693.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
96

O. Bayazit, B. Karpak / Int. J. Production Economics 105 (2007) 7996

Dayton, N.A., 2001. Total quality management critical success

factors, a comparison: The UK versus the USA. Total Quality
Management 12 (3), 293298.
Flynn, B., Schroeder, R.O., Sakakibara, S., 1995. The impact of
quality management practices on performance and competitive advantage. Decision Sciences 26 (5), 659692.
Fok, L.Y., Fok, W.M., Hartman, S.J., 2001. Exploring the
relationship between total quality management and information systems development. Information and Management 38,
355371.
Ghobadian, A., Gallear, D., 2001. TQM implementation: An
empirical examination and proposed generic model. Omega
29, 343359.
Hamalainen, R.P., Seppalainen, T.O., 1986. The analytic network process in energy policy planning. Socio-Economic
Planning Sciences 20 (6), 399405.
Harker, P.T., Vargas, L.G., 1990. Reply to Remarks on the
analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 36,
269273.
Hellsten, U., Klefsjo, B., 2000. TQM as a management system
consisting of values, techniques and tools. The TQM
Magazine 12 (4), 238244.
Huang, Y., Lin, B.M.T., 2002. An empirical investigation of total
quality management: A Taiwanese case. The TQM Magazine
14 (3), 172180.
Karpak, B., Bayazit, O., 2001. Should Turkish industry apply
TQM or not: A dynamic model. ISAHP 2001, Bern, Switzerland, August 24, 205212.
Laszlo, G.P., 1999. Implementing a quality management programThree Cs of success: Commitment, culture and cost.
The TQM Magazine 11 (4), 231237.
Lee, J.W., Kim, S.H., 2000. Using analytic network process and
goal programming for interdependent information system
project selection. Computers and Operations Research 27,
367382.
Meade, L., Sarkis, J., 1998. Strategic analysis of logistics and
supply chain management systems using the analytical
network process. The Logistics and Transportation Review
34 (3), 201215.
Motwani, J., 2001. Critical factors and performance measures of
TQM. The TQM Magazine 13 (4), 292300.
Nilsson, L., Johnson, M.D., Gustafsson, A., 2001. The impact of
quality practices on customer satisfaction and business
results: Product versus service organizations. Journal of
Quality Management (6), 527.
Partovi, F.Y., 2001. An analytic model to quantify strategic
service vision. International Journal of Service Industry
Management 12 (5), 476499.
Partovi, F.Y., Corredoira, R.A., 2002. Quality function deployment for the good of soccer. European Journal of Operational
Research (137), 642656.
Radovilski, Z.D., Gotcher, J.W., Slattsveen, S., 1996. Implementing total quality management: Statistical analysis on survey
results. International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management 13 (1), 1024.
Reed, R., Lemak, D.J., Mero, N.P., 2000. Total quality
management and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal
of Quality Management 5, 526.

Saaty, T.L., 1999. Fundamentals of the analytical network

process. Proceedings of ISAHP 1999, Kobe, Japan, August
1214, pp. 4863.
Saaty, T.L., 2001a. Decision Making in Complex EnvironmentsThe Analytic Network Process for Decision Making
with Dependence and Feedback. RWS Publications, USA.
Saaty, T.L., 2001b. Decision Making with Dependence and
Feedback: The Analytic Network Process, second ed. RWS
Publications, USA.
Saaty, T.L., 2001c. Decision making with the ANP and the
national missile defense example. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Symposium on the AHP, ISAHP 2001, Bern,
Switzerland, pp. 365382.
Sarkis, J., 1998. Evaluating environmentally conscious business
practices. European Journal of Operational Research 107,
159174.
Sarkis, J., 1999. A methodological framework for evaluating
environmentally conscious manufacturing programs. Computers and Industrial Engineering 36, 793810.
Sarkis, J., 2003. Quantitative models for performance measurement. International Journal of Production Economics 86,
8190.
Sarkis, J., Talluri, S., 2002. A synergistic framework for
evaluating business process improvements. The International
Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems (14), 5371.
Scharitzer, D., Korunka, C., 2000. New public management:
Evaluating the success of total quality management and
change management interventions in public services from the
employees and customers perspectives. Total Quality Management 11 (7), 941953.
Sousa, R., Voss, C., 2002. Quality management re-visited: A
reective review and agenda for future research. Journal of
Operations Management 20, 91109.
Tsang, J.H.Y., Antony, J., 2001. Total quality management in
UK service organizations: Some key ndings from a survey.
Managing Service Quality 11 (2), 132141.
Ugboro, I.O., Obeng, K., 2000. Top management leadership,
employee empowerment, job satisfaction, and customer
satisfaction in TQM organizations: An empirical study.
Journal of Quality Management 5, 247272.
Wadsworth, H.M., Stephens, K.S., Godfrey, A.B., 2002. Modern
Methods for Quality Control and Improvement, second ed.
Wiley, New York.
Wang, G., Huang, S.H., Dismukes, J.P., 2004. Product-driven
supply chain selection using integrated multi-criteria decisionmaking methodology. International Journal of Production
Economics 91, 115.
Weeks, B., Helms, M.M., Ettkin, L.P., 1995. A physical
examination of health cares readiness for a total quality
management program: A case study. Hospital Material
Management Quarterly 17, 6875.
Woon, K.C., 2000. Assessment of TQM implementation benchmarking Singapores productivity leaders. Business Process
Management Journal 6 (4), 314324.
Young, G.J., Charns, M.P., Shortell, S.M., 2001. Top manager
and network effects on the adoption of innovative management practices: A study of TQM in a public hospital system.
Strategic Management Journal 22, 935951.