INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 MANAGEMENT (IJM) Volume

e 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012)

ISSN 0976 6367(Print) ISSN 0976 6375(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, May- August (2012), pp. 222-241 IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijm.html Journal Impact Factor (2012): 3.5420 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

IJM
IAEME

DEVELOPMENT OF AN OBJECTIVE QUALITY MEASUREMENT MODEL FOR MEASURING AND EVALUATING QUALITY OF A MANUFACTURING ORGANIZATION
Jayakumar.k Mangalam College of Engineering Ettumanoor (Kerala) INDIA jayakumaredakkad@gmail.com Preethi Sebastian Mangalam College of Engineering Ettumanoor (Kerala) INDIA preethi.jimmy@gmail.com G.S.Santhosh Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Co Ltd. Kundara (Kerala) INDIA santhosh.gs@kel.co.in T.K.Sreekumar Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Co Ltd. Kundara (Kerala) INDIA sreekumar.tk@kel.co.in ABSTRACT Key to success of an organization depends up on the quality of the products and services provided by the organization. Even though there are many methods for measurement of quality of products and services a proper measurement model for quality of organization is yet to be developed. This paper tries to define quality of an organization and attempts to develop an objective quality measurement model for measuring and evaluating the quality of a manufacturing organization. Employs a case study approach, featuring an electrical equipment manufacturing organization which provides a range of brushless alternators and generators to various customers. The case study organization represents only one industry sector. However it is claimed that the methodology can be adopted for any organization with necessary modifications suited to the organization. The model presented is important in that it can be used to measure and evaluate quality of not only organizations but also processes, systems, products and services with suitable modifications. Key words: objective quality measurement model, objective quality evaluation, quality index, quality improvement factor. 1. INTRODUCTION Quality of products and services is a key factor for success of an organization. It is important to recognize that when we speak of quality we are not just talking about the quality of the end product or service. Quality also refers to the quality of the process by which that product or service was created (Charles Tatum, Karyll N shaw and Ray E Main, 1996). 222

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012) The different perspectives of Crosby, Deming and Juran make it clear that quality must permeate entire organization and must be a management imperative (Charles Tatum, Karyll N shaw and Ray E Main, 1996). Crosby defines quality as conformance to requirements. Any product that conforms to requirements is a quality product and any product that does not is not (Crosby, 1979). To Deming quality is a relative term that can only be defined by the customer and will change in meaning depending on the customer needs (Saurez 1992). Improvement of quality envelops the entire production line from incoming materials to the consumer (Deming, 1986). Juran has defined quality as fitness for use (Juran and Gryna, 1988). Almost all definitions now available on quality are based on the quality of product, service or system. This paper attempts to define quality in the organizations perspective. Combining all above definitions quality of an organization can be defined as the degree of effectiveness and efficiency at which an organization achieves its planned goals and objectives. Efficiency is traditionally defined as the use of resources to create outputs and effectiveness is usually defined as outputs relative to some standard or expectation (Pritchard, 1990). Pritchard argues that productivity should include both efficiency and effectiveness, and points out that either efficiency or effectiveness measures used alone can be dysfunctional to the organization. The view in this paper is that effectiveness is the broader concept and efficiency and productivity are components of effectiveness. The reasoning is that for an organization to be effective ( ie to fulfill its mission and meet its goals, it must be productive, manage its resources, keep its stakeholders happy, balance its books and run an efficient operation ( Nebecker et al 1996, Tatum et al 1996). Even though there are a lot of attempts to measure performance and effectiveness, attempts to measure quality of an organization is rare. Measuring performance under stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) involves identifying the stakeholders and defining the set of performance outcomes that measure their satisfaction (Connolly et al, 1980; Hitt, 1988; Zammuto, 1984). Freeman (1984) defines stakeholder as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by achievement of the organizations objectives. This approach is adopted in identifying the planned and desired outputs of the organization in this paper. Superior financial performance is a way to satisfy investors (Chakravarthy, 1986) and can be represented by profitability, growth and market value (Cho & Pucik, 2005, Venkataraman & Ramanujam, 1986). Customers and employee satisfaction are two further aspects to consider. Customers want companies to provide them with goods and services that match their expectations (Fornell, Johnson, Anderson, Cha & Bryant, 1996). Customer satisfaction increases the willingness to pay and thus the value created by a company (Barney & Clark 2007). Employee satisfaction is related to investments in human resource practices (Juliana Bonomi Santos et al, 2012). The satisfaction of these stakeholders according to Chakravarthy (1986), translates itself into a firms ability to attract and retain employees and lower turnover rates. Indirect stakeholders like governments and communities are affected by a number of firm actions especially social and environmental ones. Societal and environmental performance can considered a way to satisfy communities (Chakravarthy, 1986) and governments (Waddock & Graves,1979). In the book Industrial Engineering and Management O.P.Khanna describes production as any process or procedure developed to transform a set of input elements like men, material, capital, information and energy into a specified set of output elements like finished products and services in proper quantity and quality, thus achieving the objectives of the enterprise. This approach is adopted in this paper to identify the planned and desired inputs required to produce planned and desired outputs required to satisfy the various stakeholders of the organisation. The inputs required are classified into various resource groups for their effective and efficient utilization. The various resource groups are men and organization, money and capital, plant and machinery, and material and energy. Men and organization include all employees and managers and different departmental offices and their infrastructure required for smooth functioning of the organization. Money and capital include funds and capital required for various operations of the organization and that are not part of other resource groups. Plant and machinery include the production area or factory, material handling systems, manufacturing machines, tools, jigs, fixtures and other equipments required for production process. 223

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012) Material and energy include all raw materials, semi finished goods and energy required to produce or provide the product or service. 2. METHODOLOGY ADOPTED FOR OBJECTIVE QUALITY MEASUREMENT A participative methodology has been adopted for objective quality measurement for the manufacturing organization. This methodology has been developed with very close and active participation of managers and engineers of the organization as shown in Figure 1 (Sahay, 1997). The methodology is as follows: 1. Defining quality of an organization. 2. Determining goals, objectives and quality policy of the organization. 3. Study organization and departments or sections and find various resource groups to satisfy various stakeholders of organization for achieving the goals and objectives of the organization. 4. Determine required output parameters to satisfy various stakeholders of the organization. 5. Determine required input parameters to various resource groups of the organization for required output parameters. 6. Design objective quality measurement model. 7. Determine different quality elements. 8. Determine actual, planned and desired inputs and outputs for different quality elements. 9. Determine the weightages for each quality element. 10. Develop quality indices for base and current periods and calculate quality improvement factor. 11. Analyze the results and decide the validity and effectiveness of existing quality management system. 12. Recommendations and suggestions for correction and improvement of existing quality management system and integrated quality framework if there is any need for it.

224

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012)

Figure: 1 FLOW CHART OF METHODOLOGY ADOPTED FOR OBJECTIVE QUALITY MEASUREMENT AND ITS EVALUATION OF A MANUFACTURING ORGANIZATION Define Quality of Organization Determine goals, objectives and quality policy of the organization

Study Organization and departments/sections and find various resource groups required to satisfy various stake holders of Organization

Determine required input parameters to various Resource groups for required output parameters

Determine required output parameters to satisfy various stake holders of Organization

Design objective Quality measurement Model

Determine Quality elements

Determine actual, planned and desired inputs and outputs for different quality elements

Determine the weightages for each quality element

Develop Quality indices for base and current periods and calculate Quality improvement Factor

Analyze the results and decide the validity and effectiveness of existing quality management system.

Recommendations and suggestions for correction and improvement of Existing Quality Management System and Integrated Quality Frame work if there is any need for it.

225

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012) 3. OBJECTIVE QUALITY MEASUREMENT MODEL Quality of an organization can be defined as the degree of effectiveness and efficiency at which the organization achieves its planned objectives. Quality of an organization can be expressed through a indicator called quality index. Quality index is the sum of products of coefficient of effectiveness of organization and degree of effectiveness of organization and coefficient of efficiency of organization and degree of efficiency of organization. QI = C1*DE1 (O) + C2*DE2 (O) where, QI = Quality Index, C1 = coefficient of effectiveness of Organization, DE1 (O) = degree of effectiveness of organization, C2 = coefficient of efficiency of Organization, DE2 (O) = degree of efficiency of organization. Value of coefficient of effectiveness of organization is the ratio of planned output to desired output of planned input organization. C1 = PO (O) / D.O = PO (O) / PO (O) + VA (O) where, C1 = coefficient of effectiveness of Organization, PO (O) = Planned output, D.O = Desired output of planned input, VA (O) = value added to planned output by utilization of planned input at desired efficiency. D.O = PO (O) + VA (O) Value of coefficient of efficiency of organization is the ratio of value added by utilization of planned input at desired efficiency to desired output of planned input. C2 = VA (O) / D.O = VA (O) / [PO (O) + VA (O)] where, C2 = coefficient of efficiency of Organization, PO (O) = Planned output, D.O = Desired output of planned input, VA (O) = value added to planned output by utilization of planned input at desired efficiency. Value added by desired efficiency, VA = value added to planned output by utilizing planned input at desired efficiency = planned input x (desired efficiency planned efficiency) = PI [DES E2- PE2] Value added to planned output of organization by utilizing planned input at desired efficiency = VA (O) = value added to planned output of (machinery and plant + material and energy + money and capital + men and organization) = VA (M&P) + VA (M&E) + VA (M&C) + VA (M&O) = PI (M&P) [DES E2 (M&P) - PE2 (M&P)] + PI (M&E) [DES E2 (M&E) - PE2 (M&E)] + PI (M&C) [DES E2 (M&C) - PE2 (M&C)] + PI (M&O) [DES E2 (M&O) - PE2 (M&O)] Degree of effectiveness of Organization is the ratio of actual output to planned output of organization. DE1 (O) = AO (O) / PO (O) where, DE1 (O) = degree of effectiveness of organization, organization, AO (O) = actual output of organization.

PO (O)

Planned

output

of

Planned output of organization = PO (O) = planned output of (machinery and plant +material and energy + money and capital + men and organization) = PO [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)] Actual output of organization = AO (O) = actual output of (machinery and plant + material and energy + money and capital + men and organization) = AO [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)]

226

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012)
Degree of efficiency of organization is the ratio of actual efficiency of organization achieved to desired efficiency of organization. DE2 (O) = A.E2 (O) / DES.E2 (O) where DE2 (O) = Degree of efficiency of organization, A.E2 (O) = actual efficiency of organization, DES.E2 (O) = desired efficiency of organization DES E2 (O) = DO (O) / DI (O) = desired output of organization / desired input of organization Desired output of organization = DO (O) = desired output of (machinery and plant + material and energy + money and capital + men and organization) = DO [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)] Desired input of organization = DI (O) = desired input of (machinery and plant + material and energy + money and capital + men and organization) = DI [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)]

AE2 (O) = actual efficiency of organization = AO (O) / AI (O) = actual output of organization / actual input of organization Actual input of organization = AI (O) = actual input of (machinery and plant + material and energy + money and capital + men and organization) = AI [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)]
Quality improvement factor is the degree of improvement to the quality of the organization due to the quality management system of the organization considered and is the ratio of difference between quality index of the organization for new period considered and quality index of the organization for the base period considered to the quality index of the base period. QIF = QIN QIB / QIB where QIF = Quality improvement factor, QIN = quality index of the organization for new period considered, QIB = quality index of the organization for the base period considered. Base period is the period which is taken as basis for comparison of quality index of new period. If QIF is positive and greater than zero there is improvement in quality of organization. If QIF is negative and less than zero there is decline in quality of organization. If QIF is zero there is no change in quality of the organization.

Table 1 Quality index rating table for checking validity of calculated quality index
GRADE 0.9 1.00 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 PERFORMANCE ZONE Excellent Very good Good Satisfactory RESULT Very high profit High profit Reasonable profit No loss or low profit margin ACTION TO BE TAKEN Expansion Expansion More investment in quality up gradation reduction and new investment

More investment in cost and increase of revenue

0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5

Poor Very poor

No

profit

or low loss margin

High loss

Urgent measures for performance improvement Retrenchment and changes in quality management system and integrated quality frame work Shut down and diversification

0.3-0.4

Worst

Very high loss

227

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012) At grade 0.9 1.0 quality of the organization is at or near to the highest level, degree of effectiveness and efficiency is close to maximum attainable level, the product or service will be in the growth phase of product life cycle, all stake holders (employer, employee, customer, market, society and environment) will be highly satisfied, hence can think of expansion and success of new investment will also be high. At 0.8 0.9 grades even though quality of organization is high there is scope of more improvement in effectiveness and efficiency which can be achieved in short time, hence it is better to think of expansion than new investment. At 0.7 0.8 grades even though there is reasonable profit it is desirable to think of improvement in quality before thinking of expansion. At 0.6-0.7 grades there is no loss or low profit hence it is time to think of reduction in cost and increase in revenue, the phase of product life cycle may be at beginning of decline or end of growth phase. At 0.5 0.6 grades there is no profit or low loss margin the product will be at the beginning of decline state hence can think of urgent measures for performance improvement. At grade 0.4 0.5 there is high loss and satisfaction level of different stakeholders will be low and the life cycle phase will be in the decline and can think of retrenchment and changes in quality management system and integrated quality framework. At grade 0.3 0.4 there will be very high loss and the product will be in the death zone and it is time to think of shut down and diversification. For a valid quality management system this shall be the performance zone, results and action to be taken for different quality indices of a manufacturing organization. Conditions for validity of datas for quality measurement 1. Actual output planned output desired output or AO PO DO, for various resource groups and organization. 2. Actual efficiency planned efficiency desired efficiency OR AE2 PE2 DES E2, for various resource groups and organization. 3. Planned output of a particular resource group or organization shall be the maximum output possible for the particular resource group or organization for the period considered under specified conditions. 4. If the actual conditions vary significantly from specified conditions so that it changes the planned output for the period new planned output shall be calculated based on the actual conditions. 5. Desired output for a particular resource group or organization shall be maximum theoretical output possible for a particular resource group or organization by utilizing maximum capacity of plant and machinery, and organization with least theoretically possible waste based on the existing quality management system which can be achieved through continuous improvement of the organization over a fixed period of time. 6. Actual output and desired output shall be calculated by taking base as the planned output. Conditions for validity and effectiveness of existing quality management system and integrated quality framework based on quality indices and quality improvement factor. 1. For a valid quality management system and integrated quality framework the analysis result of quality indices and quality improvement factor should match with ground realities of the organization and quality index rating table for checking validity of calculated 228

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012) quality index. 2. For an effective quality management system and integrated quality framework the quality improvement factor shall be positive. 4. ASSUMPTIONS & NOTATIONS Following assumptions are taken in the calculation of quality index. 1. Planned outputs are calculated based on past performance of the organization and incorporating an improvement factor as part of the continuous improvement programme based on the existing quality management system. 2. Planned outputs are maximum possible outputs of the organization for specified period to satisfy the various stakeholders of the organization to the maximum possible extent. 3. The various stakeholders of the organization are customer and market, employer and organization, employee and organization, and society and environment. 4. Planned inputs are calculated based on past performance of the organization and incorporating an improvement factor as part of the continuous improvement programme based on the existing quality management system. 5. Planned inputs are minimum possible inputs to various resource groups of the organization for specified period to produce planned outputs. 6. The various resource groups of the organization are men and organization, money and capital, plant and machinery, and material and energy. 7. All calculations are done by taking planned input and planned output as the base. 8. All input and output values are in rupees lakhs corrected to two decimal places. 9. Desired output is the maximum possible theoretical output of the organization or particular resource group based on company norms, process maps, work instructions and quality procedures of the existing quality management system utilizing maximum plant capacity with minimum possible theoretical rejection or wastage of resources. 10. Desired input is the minimum possible theoretical input of the organization or particular resource group based on company norms, process maps, work instructions and quality procedures of the existing quality management system utilizing maximum plant capacity with minimum possible theoretical rejection or wastage of resources to produce the desired output. 11. All variable costs are assumed to be directly proportional to production and sales. Following notations are used in calculations. O Organization, The various resource groups are M&P machinery and plant, M&E material and energy, M&C money and capital, M&O men and organization. The various stakeholders are E&O employer and organization, EE&O employee and organization, C&M customer and market, and S&E society and environment PO planned output, PI planned input, AO actual output AI actual input,. DO desired output, DI desired input, AE2 actual efficiency, DEI Degree of effectiveness PE2 Planned efficiency DES E2 desired efficiency, O (O) = output of organization, I (O) = input of organization, DE1= degree of effectiveness, DE2 = degree of efficiency, VA = value added by utilizing planned input at desired efficiency.

229

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012) 5. CASE STUDY The case study has been carried out in one of the Keralas leading electrical equipment manufacturing company engaged in providing brushless alternators and generators to various customers. Company policy (vision and mission) The policy of company is to achieve customer satisfaction by providing the right product and services at the right time, every time as per customer requirements. This shall be achieved through Ensuring teamwork at all levels. Establishing and maintaining supplier evaluation and rating. Establishing and maintaining a quality system suitable for meeting customer requirements. Continual improvement through constant up gradation of technology/process and skilled manpower. Table 2 Planned input and output to satisfy different stakeholders of the organization Planned input for Men and Organization Planned cost of administration of different offices for planned production and sales (cost of transportation, communication, stationery, facilities, infrastructure, wages and remuneration) Planned output for Men and Organization added Value by planned production, sales and collection of payments Planned value added by (money and capital + material and energy + plant and machinery ) Value added by planned availability and productivity of employees = value added by reduction of accidents, strikes, employee problems rework ,rejection and overtime

For employer and organization satisfaction

For employee and organization satisfaction

Planned cost of increase in incentives, allowances and other benefits for employees, Planned cost of providing improved facilities , working conditions, organization intervention techniques, training and development, safety and security, working environment for improved motivation, job satisfaction and planned productivity of employees Planned cost of (Total quality management) measures taken for reducing customer complaints, timely and proper after sales services, timely delivery of required quantiy of quality products, development of new products and reduction of cost of products and increase in value by value analysis.

For customer and market satisfaction

Value added by reduction in cost of money and capital due to reduction in penalties due to timely delivery, reduction in after sales costs due to reduction in complaints, increase in order and increase in timely payment due to improved quality, cost, value and variety of

230

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012) For environmental and societal satisfaction Planned cost of measures taken to reduce pollution to required level, environmental protection programmes, training and project to students, welfare measures to society. Value added by reduction in cost of capital and money due to better environmental and societal image of the company and training and project fee from students

Output parameters of employer satisfaction are planned production, sales and profit. Since degree of efficiency is calculated which incorporates profit factor, profit is avoided and only production and sales is used for calculating output of employer satisfaction. Output parameters of customer satisfaction are decrease in after sales cost, increase in order and increase in timely payment. Since value added by increase in order and timely payment is very low or nil only decrease in after sales cost is considered for calculating output of customer satisfaction. Reduction in overtime and outsourcing due to increased availability of employees is considered for calculating output of employee satisfaction since all other factors are negligible or nil. Since productivity of employees is already very high due to high experience and familiarity with their machines and operations. Rejection is also negligible. Since value added by reduction of cost of capital and money due to better environmental and societal image of the company nil or negligible and is not accounted only training and project fee from students is considered as output of societal and environmental satisfaction. Since output of pollution control measures and factory licence costs are reflected in production and sales in this company it is included in input parameters for employer satisfaction than in societal and environmental satisfaction. Since ISO expenditure and R&D contributes more to production and sales than customer satisfaction it is also included as office expenses in employer satisfaction 6. SAMPLE CALCULATIONS Quality index for two consecutive years are calculated. The period 2010 -2011 is taken as base period and the period 2011 2012 is taken as the current or new period. Sample calculation done here is for the period 2010-2011. Table 3 Cost of machinery and plant Planned input PI (M&P) Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 Operating cost 75.00 73.00 Maintenance cost 1.06 2.04 Investment cost 0 0 Total 76.06 75.04 Table 4 Output of machinery and plant Planned output PO (M&P) Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 Output (M&P) 76.06 75.04 (in Rs lakhs) Desired input DI (M&P) 2010-11 2011-12 79.90 75.44 1.37 2.14 0 0 81.27 77.58

Actual input AI (M&P) 2010-11 2011-12 71.23 66.61 1.6 1.47 0 0 72.83 68.08

(in Rs lakhs) Actual output Desired output AO (M&P) DO (M&P) 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 61.11 55.87 86.35 86.76

Planned output of machinery and plant, PO (M&P) = planned cost or input of machinery and

231

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012) plant for planned production and sales, PI (M&P). PO (M&P) (2010 2011) = PI (M&P) (2010 2011) = 76.06 Actual output of machinery and plant, AO (M&P) = planned cost or input of machinery and plant for actual production and sales + planned cost or input of machinery and plant for actual production and sales actual cost or input of machinery and plant for actual production and sales = [(PI (M&P) / planned production and sales] x actual production and sales) x 2 - AI (M&P). AO (M&P) (2010 2011) = (76.06 / 2985.72) X 2628.88 X 2 72.83 = 61.11 Desired sales, DS = (planned sales / planned capacity utilization) x total achievable capacity of plant DS (2010 2011) = (2985.72 / 15900kw) X 17520kw = 3289.93 Desired output of machinery and plant, DES O (M&P) = planned cost or input of machinery and plant for desired production and sales + planned cost or input of machinery and plant for desired production and sales desired cost or input of machinery and plant for desired production and sales = [(PI (M&P) / planned production and sales] x desired production and sales x 2 DI (M&P). DO (M&P) (2010 2011) = (76.06 / 2985.72) X 3289.93 X 2 81.27 = 86.35

Table 5 Efficiency of machinery and plant Planned efficiency PE2(M&P) = PO(M&P)/PI(M&P) Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 (M&P) 1 1 Table 6 DE1(M&P), DE2(M&P) and Degree of effectiveness DE1(M&P) = AO(M&P)/ PO(M&P) Particulars 2010-11 (M&P) 0.8034 2011-12 0.7445

Actual efficiency AE2(M&P) = AO(M&P)/AI(M&P) 2010-11 2011-12 0.8391 0.8207

Desired efficiency DES E2(M&P) = DO(M&P)/DI(M&P) 2010-11 2011-12 1.0625 1.1183

VA(M&P)
Degree of efficiency DE2(M&P) = AE2(M&P)/ DES E2(M&P) 2010-11 0.7897 2011-12 0.7339

(in Rs lakhs) Value added by desired efficiency VA(M&P) = PI(M&P)[ DES E2(M&P)- PE2(M&P)] 2010-11 4.75 2011-12 8.88

Table 7 Cost of material and energy Planned input PI (M&E) Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 39.00 Transportation cost 32.04 Storage cost Material cost 1310.16 1264.76 Energy cost Total 1342.20 1303.76

Actual input AI (M&E) 2010-11 2011-12 35.66 32.19 1252.86 1288.52 1145.34 1177.53

(in Rs lakhs) Desired input DES I (M&E) 2010-11 2011-12 33.06 42.00 1355.55 1388.61 1355.76 1397.76

Energy cost is included in operating cost of machinery and plant and storage cost is negligible and not accounted. Hence these values are not included here. 232

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012) Table 8 Output of material and energy Planned output PO (M&E) Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 Output (M&E) 1342.2 1303.76 Actual output AO (M&E) 2010-11 2011-12 1075.05 975.94 (in Rs lakhs) Desired output DES O(M&E) 2010-11 2011-12 1569.30 1457.47

Planned output of material and energy, PO (M&E) = planned cost or input of material and energy for planned production and sales, PI (M&E). PO (M&E) (2010 2011) = PI (M&E) (2010 2011) = 1342.2 Actual output of material and energy, AO (M&E) = planned cost or input of material and energy for actual production and sales + planned cost or input of m material and energy for actual production and sales actual cost or input of material and energy for actual production and sales = [PI (M&E) / planned production and sales x actual production and sales] x 2 - AI (M&E). AO (M&E) (2010 2011) = (1342.2 / 2985.72) X 2628.88 X 2 1288.52 = 1075.05 Desired output of material and energy, DO (M&E) = planned cost or input of material and energy for desired production and sales + planned cost or input of material and energy for desired production and sales desired cost or input of material and energy for desired production and sales = (PI (M&E) / planned production and sales x desired production and sales) X 2 - DI (M&E). DO (M&E) (2010 2011) = (1342.2 / 2985.72) X 3289.93 X 2 1388.61 = 1569.3 Table 9 Efficiency of material and energy Planned efficiency Actual efficiency Desired efficiency AE2(M&E) = DES E2(M&E) = DO PE2(M&E) = PO(M&E)/PI(M&E) AO(M&E)/AI(M&E) (M&E)/ D I(M&E) Particulars (M&E) 2010-11 1 2011-12 1 2010-11 0.8343 2011-12 0.8288 2010-11 1.1301 2011-12 1.0427

Table 10 DE1(M&E), DE2(M&E) and VA(M&E) Degree Degree of efficiency of DE2(M&E) = effectiveness AE2(M&E)/ DE2(M&E) DE1(M&E) = AO(M&E) / PO(M&E) Particulars (M&E) 2010-11 0.801 2011-12 2010-11 0.7486 0.7383 2011-12 0.7949

(in Rs lakhs) Value added by desired efficiency VA(M&E) = PI(M&E)[ DES E2(M&E) PE2 (M&E)] 2010-11 174.62 2011-12 55.67

Table 11 Cost of money and capital Planned input PI (M&C) PARTICULARS 2010-11 2011-12 FINANCIAL 90.16 157.80 CHARGES

Actual input AI (M&C) 2010-11 2011-12 87.13 157.74

(in Rs lakhs) Desired input DI (M&C) 2010-11 2011-12 98.35 168

233

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012) INSURANCE DEPRECIATION TOTAL 0.16 6.96 97.28 0.28 6.96 165.04 0.14 6.96 94.23 0.26 6.96 164.96 0.18 6.96 105.49 0.3 6.96 175.26

Table 12 Output of money and capital Planned output PO(M&C) Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 Output (M&C) 97.28 165.04

Actual output AO(M&C) 2010-11 2011-12 78.74 110.07

(in Rs lakhs) Desired output DO (M&C) 2010-11 2011-12 107.48 184.86

Planned output of money and capital, PO (M&C) = planned cost or input of money and capital for planned production and sales, PI (M&C). PO (M&C) (2010 2011) = PI (M&C) (2010 2011) = 97.28 Actual output of money and capital, AO (M&C) = planned cost or input of money and capital for actual production and sales + planned cost or input of money and capital for actual production and sales actual cost or input of money and capital for actual production and sales = {[(PI (M&C) depreciation) / planned production and sales x actual production and sales] + depreciation} X 2 - AI (M&C). Here depreciation is fixed cost. AO (M&C) (2010 2011) = {(90.32 / 2985.72) X 2628.88 + 6.96} X 2 94.23 = 78.74 Desired output of money and capital, DO (M&C) = planned cost or input of money and capital for desired production and sales + planned cost or input of money and capital for desired production and sales desired cost or input of money and capital for desired production and sales = {[(PI (M&C) depreciation) / planned production and sales x desired production and sales] + depreciation} X 2 DI (M&C). DO (M&C) (2010 2011) = {[(90.32 / 2985.72) X 3289.93] + 6.96} X 2 105.49 = 107.48 Table 13 Efficiency of money and capital Planned efficiency Actual efficiency Desired efficiency PE2(M&C) = AE2(M&C) = DES E2(M&C) = PO(M&C)/PI(M&C) AO(M&C)/AI(M&C) DO(M&C)/DI(M&C) Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 (M&C) 1 1 0.8356 0.6673 1.0189 1.0548 Table 14 DE1(M&C), DE2(M&C) and VA(M&C) Degree Degree of efficiency effectiveness DE2(M&C) DE1(M&C) AE2(M&C)/ = AO(M&C)/ E2(M&C) PO(M&C) Particulars (M&C) 2010-11 0.8094 2011-12 2010-11 0.6669 0.8201 (in Rs lakhs) of Value added by desired efficiency = VA(M&C) = PI(M&C)[ E2(M&C)DES DES PE2(M&C)] 2010-11 1.84 2011-12 9.04

2011-12 0.6326

Cost of men and organization Planned input of men and organization, PI (M&O) = planned input for employer satisfaction, PI (M&O) E&O.S + planned input for employee satisfaction, PI (M&O) EE&O.S + planned input

234

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012) for customer and market satisfaction, PI (M&O) C&M.S + planned input for societal and environmental satisfaction, PI (M&O) S&E.S Input for customer and market satisfaction, I (M&O) C&M.S Table 15 (in Rs lakhs) Planned input Actual input Desired input PI (M&O) C&M.S AI (M&O) C&M.S DI (M&O) C&M.S Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 After sales cost 2.52 0.8 4.3 0.73 2.64 0.82 Total 2.52 0.8 4.3 0.73 2.64 0.82 Output of men and organization for customer and market satisfaction Table 16 (in Rs lakhs) PLANNED ACTUAL OUTPUT DESIRED OUTPUT OUTPUT AO (M&O) C&M.S DO (M&O) C&M.S PO (M&O) C&M.S PARTICULARS 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 OUTPUT 2.52 0.8 -1.23 0.58 2.91 0.932 (M&O) C&M.S Planned output of men and organization for customer satisfaction = PO (M&O) C&M.S = planned input of men and organization for customer satisfaction = planned after sales cost = PI (M&O) C&M.S PO (M&O) C&M.S (2010-2011) = PI (M&O) C&M.S (2010-2011) = 2.52 Actual output of men and organization for customer satisfaction = AO (M&O) C.S = planned after sales cost for actual sales + (planned after sales cost for actual sales actual after sales cost) = (planned after sales cost for actual sales) x 2 actual after sales cost = (planned after sales cost / planned sales) x actual sales) x 2 actual after sales cost AO (M&O) C.S (2010-2011) = (2.52 / 2985.72) X (2628.88 28) X 2 3 = 1.39 Actual sales = actual production and sales closing stock Table 17 (in Rs lakhs) Input to men and organization for employer and organizational satisfaction, I (M&O) E&O.S Planned input Actual input Desired input PI (M&O) E&O.S AI (M&O) E&O.S DI (M&O) E&O.S Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 Transportation cost 13.61 13.81 16.62 11.9 16.93 17.87 Communication cost 3.04 2.44 3.02 2.26 3.4 2.7 Wages and salary 780.8 880.66 784.23 863.69 790.38 887.89 Office expenses 407.36 456.57 399.65 394.89 437.14 486.08 Total 1204.81 1353.48 1203.52 1272.74 1247.85 1394.54 Table 18 Output to men and organization for employer satisfaction (in Rs lakhs) Planned output Actual output Desired output PO (M&O) E&O.S AO (M&O) E&O.S DO (M&O) E&O.S Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 Output (M&C) 1467.66 1497.16 1412.59 1369.67 1523.89 1600.75 Planned output of men and organization for employer satisfaction = PO (M&O) E&O.S = total 235

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012) planned production and sales (planned output of (P&M + M&E + M&C + (M&O) C&M.S) Since input and output for customer and market satisfaction depends and influence input and output of employer satisfaction (production and sales), it is treated in the same way as plant and machinery, material and energy, and money and capital. PO (M&O) E.S (2010-2011) = 2985.72 (76.06 + 1342.2 + 97.28 + 2.52) = 1467.66 Actual output of men and organization for employer satisfaction = AO (M&O) E&O.S = actual production and sales (actual output of (P&M + M&E + M&C + (M&O) C&M.S) AO (M&O) E.S (2010-2011) = 2628.88 (61.11 + 1075.05 + 78.74 + 1.39) = 1412.59 Desired output of men and organization for employer satisfaction = DO (M&O) E&O.S = desired production and sales (Desired output of (P&M + M&E + M&C + (M&O) C&M.S) DO (M&O) E.S (2010-2011) = 3289.93 (86.35 + 1569.3 + 107.48 + 2.91) = 1523.89 Input for employee and organizational satisfaction, I (M&O) EE&O.S Table 19 (in Rs lakhs) Planned input Actual input Desired input PI (M&O) EE.S AI (M&O) EE.S DI (M&O) EE.S Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 Training and 1.6 1.56 1.21 1.85 3.6 2.2 development Welfare expenses 1.08 1.56 1.51 0.62 3.6 2.4 Bonus 16.80 30 20.80 30 24 32 Facilities for improvement Total job 6 25.48 6 39.12 5.98 29.5 4.87 37.34 8 39.2 6.4 43

Output of men and organization for employee satisfaction Table 20 Planned output Actual output PO (M&O) EE&O.S AO (M&O) EE&O.S Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 Output 34 42.5 19.26 20 (M&O) EE.S

(in Rs lakhs) Desired output DO (M&O) EE&O.S 2010-11 2011-12 93.66 63.33

Planned output of men and organization for employee satisfaction = PO (M&O) EE&O.S = value added by planned decrease in overtime and outsourcing PO (M&O) EE&O. S (2010-2011) = 30 + 4 = 34 Actual output of men and organization for employee satisfaction = AO (M&O) EE.S = (planned value of overtime for actual production actual overtime) + (planned value of outsourcing for actual production actual outsourcing) = (planned overtime / planned production and sales) x actual production and sales actual overtime + (planned outsourcing / planned production and sales) x actual production and sales actual outsourcing

236

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012) AO (M&O) EE&O.S (2010-2011) = (70.08 / 2985.72) X 2628.88 - 53.18 + (15 / 2985.72) X 2628.88 2.47 = 61.70-53.18 + 13.21 2.47 = 19.26 Desired output of men and organization for employee satisfaction = DO (M&O) EE.S = (planned value of overtime for desired production and sales) + (planned value of outsourcing for desired production and sales) = (planned overtime / planned production and sales) x desired production and sales + (planned outsourcing / planned production and sales) x desired production and sales. DO (M&O) EE.S (2010-2011) = (70.08 / 2985.72) X 3289.93 + (15 / 2985.72) X 3289.93 = 77.13 + 16.53 =93.66 Input for societal and environmental satisfaction, I (M&O) S&E.S Table 21 (in Rs lakhs) PLANNED INPUT ACTUAL INPUT DESIRED INPUT PI (M&O) S&E.S AI (M&O) S&E.S DI (M&O) S&E.S PARTICULARS 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 0.24 0.18 0.2 0.16 0.24 0.18 COST OF TRAINING FACILITIES TO STUDENTS TOTAL 0.24 0.18 0.2 0.16 0.24 0.18 Output of men and organization for societal and environmental satisfaction Table 22 (in Rs lakhs) PLANNED ACTUAL OUTPUT DESIRED OUTPUT OUTPUT AO (M&O) S&E.S DO (M&O) S&E.S PO (M&O) S&E.S PARTICULARS 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 OUTPUT (M&O) S&E.S TRAINING FEE 1.8 1.8 1.49 1.6 1.8 1.8 Planned output of men and organization for societal and environmental satisfaction = PO (M&O) S&E.S = planned training fee from students Actual output of men and organization for societal and environmental satisfaction = AO (M&O) S&E.S = actual training fee from students Desired output of men and organization for societal and environmental satisfaction = AO (M&O) S&E.S = desired training fee from students Table 23 Input for men and organization, I (M&O) (in Rs lakhs) PLANNED INPUT ACTUAL INPUT DESIRED INPUT PI (M&O) AI (M&O) DI (M&O) PARTICULARS 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 INPUT 1233.05 1393.58 1236.22 1310.97 1289.93 1438.54 (M&O)

237

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012) Table 24 Output of men and organization Planned output PO (M&O) Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 Output (M&O) 1505.98 1542.26 (in Rs lakhs) Actual output Desired output AO (M&O) DO (M&O) 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 1434.73 1391.85 1622.26 1666.81

Input of men and organization = I (M&O) = Input of men and organization for (employer satisfaction + employee satisfaction + customer satisfaction + societal and environmental satisfaction) = I (M&O) (E.S + EE.S + C.S + S&E.S)

Planned input of men and organization = PI (M&O) = PI (M&O) (E&O.S + EE&O.S + C&M.S + S&E.S) Actual input of men and organization = AI (M&O) = AI (M&O) (E.S + EE.S + C.S + S&E.S) Desired input of men and organization = DI (M&O) = DI (M&O) (E.S + EE.S + C.S + S&E.S) Output of men and organization = O (M&O) = output of men and organization for (employer satisfaction + employee satisfaction + customer and market satisfaction + societal and environmental satisfaction) = O (M&O) (E.S + EE.S + C.S + S&E.S) Planned output of men and organization = PO (M&O) = PO (M&O) (E.S + EE.S + C.S + S&E.S) Actual output of men and organization = AO (M&O) = AO (M&O) (E.S + EE.S + C.S + S&E.S) Desired input of men and organization = DO (M&O) = DO (M&O) (E.S + EE.S + C.S + S&E.S)

Table 25 Efficiency of men and organization

Planned efficiency PE2(M&O) = PO(M&O)/PI(M&O) 2010-11 2011-12 1.22 1.11 Actual efficiency AE2(M&O) = AO(M&O)/AI(M&O) 2010-11 2011-12 1.16 1.06 Desired efficiency DES E2(M&O) = DO(M&O)/DI(M&O) 2010-11 2011-12 1.26 1.16 (in Rs lakhs) Value added by desired efficiency VA(M&O) = PI(M&O)[ DES E2(M&O)PE2(M&O)] 2010-11 2011-12 109.9 109.37

Particulars (M&O)

Table 26 DE1(M&O), DE2(M&O) and VA(M&O) Degree Degree of of efficiency effectiveness DE2(M&O) = DE1(M&O) AE2(M&O)/ DES = AO(M&O)/ E2(M&O) Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 (M&O) 0.9677 0.8992 0.9091 0.9045

Planned output of organization = PO (O) = planned output of (machinery and plant + material and energy + money and capital + men and organization) = PO [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)] PO (O) 2010- 2011 = PO [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)] = 76.06 + 1342.2 + 97.28 + 1505.98 = 3021.52 Actual output of organization = AO (O) = actual output of (machinery and plant + material and energy + money and capital + men and organization) = AO [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)] AO (O) 2010- 2011 = AO [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)] = 61.11 + 1075.05 + 78.74 238

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012) + 1434.73 = 2649.43 Desired output of organization = DO (O) = desired output of (machinery and plant + material and energy + money and capital + men and organization) = DO [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)] DO (O) 2010- 2011 = DO [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)] = 86.35 + 1569.3 + 107.48 + 1622.26 = 3385.39 Planned input of organization = PI (O) = planned input of (machinery and plant + material and energy + money and capital + men and organization) = PI [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)] PI (O) 2010- 2011 = PI [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)] = 76.06 + 1342.2 + 97. 24 + 1221.16 = 2736.66 AI (O) 2010- 2011 = AI [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)] = 72.83 + 1288.52 + 94.23 +1196.03 = 2651.61 DI (O) 2010- 2011 = DI [(M&P) + (M&E) + (M&C) + (M&O)] = 81.29 + 1163.26 +105.44 + 1298.74 = 2648.73 Table 27 Input for organization, I (O) Planned input PI (O) Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 Input organization 2748.59 2937.42 I (O) Table 28 Output of organization Planned output PO (O) Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 Output organization 3021.52 3086.10 O (O) (in Rs lakhs) Actual input Desired input AI (O) DI (O) 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2691.8 2721.54 2865.3 3098.74

Actual output AO (O) 2010-11 2011-12 2649.63 2533.73

(in Rs lakhs) Desired output DO (O) 2010-11 2011-12 3385.39 3395.90

Degree of effectiveness of organization = DE1 = actual output of organization / planned output of organization = AO (O) / PO (O) DE1 (2010 2011) = AO (O) / PO (O) = 2649.63 / 3021.52 = 0.88 Degree of efficiency of organization = DE2 = actual efficiency of organization / desired efficiency of organization = AE2 (O) / DE2 (O) DE2 (2010 2011) = AE2 (O) / DE2 (O) = [AO (O) / AI (O)] / [DO (O) / DI (O)] = (2649.63 / 2691.8) / (3385.39 / 2865.3) = 0.98 / 1.18 = 0.83 Table 29 Efficiency of organization Planned efficiency PE2(O) = PO(O)/PI(O) Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 Organization (O) 1.10 1.05

Actual efficiency AE2(O) = AO(O)/AI(O) 2010-11 2011-12 0.98 0.93

Desired efficiency DES E2(O) = DO(O)/DI(O) 2010-11 2011-12 1.18 1.1

239

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012) Table 30 DE1(O), DE2(O) and VA(O) Degree of effectiveness DE1(O) = AO(O)/ PO(O) Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 Organization (O) 0.88 0.82 Degree of efficiency DE2(O) = AE2(O)/ DES E2(O) 2010-11 0.83 2011-12 0.85 (in Rs lakhs) Value added by desired efficiency VA(O) = PI(O)[ DE2(O)- PE2(O)] 2010-11 2011-12 230.53 143.27

Value added by desired efficiency, VA = value added to planned output by utilizing planned input at desired efficiency = planned input x (desired efficiency planned efficiency) = PI [DE2- PE2] Value added to planned output of organization = VA (O) = value added to planned output of (machinery and plant + material and energy + money and capital + men and organization) = VA (M&P) + VA (M&E) + VA (M&C) + VA (M&O) VA (O) (2010 - 2011) = VA (M&P) + VA (M&E) + VA (M&C) + VA (M&O) = 4.75 + 174.62 + 1.84 + 49.32 = 230.53 Quality index = QI = C1 [DE1 (O)] + C2 [DE2 (O)] C1 = coefficient of degree of effectiveness of organization = planned output of organization / (planned output of organization + value added to planned output by utilizing resources at desired efficiency) = P O (O) / [PO (O) + VA (O)] C1 (2010 2011) = PO (O) / [PO (O) + VA (O)] = 3021.52 / (3021.52 + 230.53) = 0.93 C2 = coefficient of degree of efficiency of organization = value added to planned output by utilizing resources at desired efficiency) / (planned output of organization + value added to planned output by utilizing resources at desired efficiency) = VA (O) / [PO (O) + VA (O)] C2 (2010 2011) = VA (O) / [PO (O) + VA (O)] = 230.53 / (3021.52 +230.53) = 0.07 Quality index = QI = C1 [DE1 (O)] + C2 [DE2 (O)] QI (2010 2011) = C1 [DE1 (O)] + C2 [DE2 (O)] = 0.93 X 0.88 + 0.07 X 0.83 = 0.88 Table 31 Coefficient of degree of effectiveness C1 2010-11 2011-12 0.93 0.96 Quality index Coefficient of degree Quality index of efficiency QI C2 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 0.07 0.04 0.88 0.82

Particulars Organization (O)

Quality improvement factor = QIF = (QICURRENT QIBASE) / QIBASE = (QI (2011-2012) QI (2010- 2011)) / QI (2010- 2011) = (0.82 0.88) / 0.88 = -0.0 682 = 6.82 % decrease in QI

240

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012) 7. EVALUATION OF RESULTS
Quality indices for base year (2010-2011) and current year (2011-2012) are 0.88 and 0.82 respectively which is in the very good performance zone according to quality index rating table for checking validity of calculated quality index. According to table at this zone the manufacturing organization should have high profit and can think of expansion. But in actual case the actual efficiency for both periods are 0.98 and 0.93 which are below one and hence they are in loss. Since the ground realities does not match with the quality index rating table the quality management system based up on which quality index is calculated is not valid. As all the conditions for validity of datas used for quality measurement are satisfied the quality index calculated based on the existing quality management system is valid. This shows that the cost of production is very high and the selling price of product is lesser compared to cost of production. Hence the quality management system and integrated quality frame work are not valid and effective since they were unable for timely reduction of cost of production in comparison with the selling price. This was mainly due to the absence of timely value analysis process and modernization and automation of plant and machinery. Quality improvement factor shows a 6.82 % decrease in quality index which shows the existing quality management system is not effective in maintaining and improving quality of the organization. The quality management system is not effective is mainly due to the factor that it failed in ensuring proper implementation of all quality management procedures of the existing quality management system. 8. CONCLUSION & FURTHER RESEARCH In this paper, an objective quality measurement model for measuring and evaluating quality index of a manufacturing organization was developed. A quality index rating table for checking the validity of the existing quality management system was also developed. Quality improvement factor can be used for checking the effectiveness of the quality management system. The methodology used for quality measurement can be used for other organizations, products, services and systems with necessary modifications. Further research is necessary for developing quality index for measuring quality of service organizations, systems, processes, services etc. The proposed model can be a powerful tool for quality managers for measuring and evaluating quality of organizations and opens new frontiers in quality research. REFERENCES [1] Crosby P.B. (1979). Quality is free. New york, NY:Mac Graw Hill [2] Deming W.E (1986). Out of crisis, Cambridge, MA, Massachutets Institute of technology, Centre for advanced engineering study [3] Juran, J.M & Gryna, F.M.(Eds) (1988). The quality control handbook. Newyork, NY,Mc Graw Hill. [4] Pritchard R.D (1990). Organizational productivity.In M.D.Dunnette and L.M Hough (Eds), Hand book of industrial and organizational psychology (vol.3, pp-443-371(2nd ed) Palo Alto, CA, Consulting psychologists press [5] Saurez, J.G (1992) Three experts on quality management: Philip Crosby, W. Edwards Deming & Joseph M Juran (TQLO Publication No 92-02, Arlington VA: Department of navy total quality leadership office. [6] B.Charles Tatum, Karyl N Shaw , Ray.E.Main (1996) Integrating measurement approaches in gain sharing and total quality, Navy personnel research and development centre, San Diego Callifornia 921527250 TN-96-31 [7] Juliana Bonomi Santos, Luiz Artur Ledur Brito (2012); Toward a subjective measurement model for firm performance,BAR, Rio de jeniro, v.9,special issue art.6, pp.95-117 [8] O.P.Khanna (1999), Industrial Engineering and Mnanagement, Page 2.1, Dhanpat Rai publications (p) Ltd. [9] B.S.Sahay (2004), Multifactor productivity measurement model for service organization; www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-040/.htm.

241