International Journal of Advanced Research in OF Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ADVANCED RESEARCH (Print), ISSN

N 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME

IN MANAGEMENT (IJARM)

ISSN 0976 - 6324 (Print) ISSN 0976 - 6332 (Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014), pp. 01-22 IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijarm.asp Journal Impact Factor (2013): 4.7271 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

IJARM
IAEME

STUDY OF DIFFERENCES AMONG THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS OF THE ISO 9001 CERTIFIED AND NON-ISO 9001 CERTIFIED UNITS OF INDIAN DEFENCE R&D ORGANISATION
Anil Khurana*#, Jamal A Farooquie**, Manjit Singh***, Jimmy Kansal****$ Estate Management Unit (R&D), DRDO, M-1026, Sector-29 A, Chandigarh, India Department of Business Administration, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India *** Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory, DRDO, Sector-30, Chandigarh, India **** Snow & Avalanche Study Establishment, DRDO, Sector - 37 A, Chandigarh, India
** *

ABSTRACT The quality management systems (ISO-9001) were mainly implemented earlier in the manufacturing sector. Being a relatively new concept in the R&D environment, it is surrounded by a great deal of uncertainty and apprehensions. Furthermore, its emergence has raised a number of unresolved questions. This study was undertaken to throw more light on this new development and its impact on the management systems in the Indian Defence R&D organization. The present study was aimed to draw comparisons between the perceptual differences in the facilitators for management systems of the ISO 9001 certified and non-ISO 9001 certified units of Indian Defence R&D Organisation. The data was collected from 500 employees categorised as Senior Ranks (SR), Middle Ranks (MR) and Technical Officers (TO) belonging to the 18 (53% of total ISO certified units) ISO certified units and 7 (39% of total non-ISO certified units) non-ISO certified units by using ISO Perceptual Analysis Questionnaire. The Questionnaire consisted of 30 items dealing with the eight facilitators (based on the eight universally accepted quality management principles) of management system; Customer focus, Leadership, Involvement of people, Process approach, System approach to management, Continual improvement, Factual approach to decision making, and Mutually beneficial supplier relationships in the ISO certified and non-ISO certified units. The study revealed that there are significant differences in the perceptions with respect to all the eight facilitators of management systems between the ISO certified and non-ISO certified groups. Further, no significant differences were found on most of the facilitators and dimensions of management systems between Senior Ranks, Middle Ranksand
1

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME

Technical Officers within the respective groups. Moreover, the differences in the perceptions of the two groups of certified and non-certified units show to indicate positive perception of strong agreement of the various facilitators of the management systems in favour of the certified units. 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Quality in Research and Development (R&D) work has become increasingly important as countries commit themselves to quality improvement programs in all areas of their economic, technological and military activities. Quality management systems have been successfully designed and implemented for manufacturing and service functions; but so far the quality principles and systems have been difficult to translate to the R&D function. A quality management system is the system including activities in an enterprise which affect quality. Management system standards are general principles that are applicable to any organization whether a business enterprise, a public administration or a government department irrespective of its size, nature and type of product or service it offers. A quality management system as defined by (ISO 8402:1994 (E), 1994), Organizational structure, procedure, processes and resources needed to implement quality management. And as given in the latest Fundamentals & Vocabulary of ISO 9000:2005 series of standards; ISO-9000 QMS is defined as management system to direct and control an organization with regard to quality (ISO 9000:2005(E), 2005).In easy to understand language, the quality management system includes activities in an enterprise which affect quality. It shows the relationship of these activities to each other. In this way, the QMS comprises of a network of procedures which must be followed in quality work. ISO is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies to facilitate the international coordination and unification of industrial standards. ISO 9000 is a family of standards consisting of standards and guidelines relating to management systems, and related supporting standards on terminology and specific tools, such as auditing. ISO 9000 standards series is the most popular and widely adopted standard representing all international standards relating to quality management systems. Formally adopted in 1987 by the International Standards Organization, ISO first published its quality standards in 1987, revised them in 1994, and then republished an updated version in 2000, which has been further refined & improved in 2008. ISO's purpose is to facilitate international trade by providing a single set of standards that people everywhere would recognize and respect. ISO 9000 is a series of written set of standard which describe and define the basic elements/clauses of the quality system needed to ensure that an organizations products/or services meet or exceed customer needs and expectations. Up to the end of 2011, at least 1,111,698 ISO 9001:2008 certificates had been issued in 180 countries and economies, (www.iso.org, The ISO Survey-2011 (2011)). India is among the top ten countries in the world where ISO 9001:2008 certification has been awarded.The implementation of a quality management system, and its subsequent certification, is a voluntary process, supported by an organizations own strategy, motivations, policies and goals. To obtain more benefits from ISO 9000 certification, organizations may take into consideration that the design and implementation of an organizations quality management system is influenced by the organization strategy, its size and organizational structure, its organizational environment, changes in that environment, and the risks associated with that environment (ISO 9001:2008, 2008).
2

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME

ISO 9000 is primarily concerned with quality management, meaning what the organization does to ensure that its products conform to the customer's requirements having focus on what needs to be done and not on how it is to be carried out. It is based on eight universally accepted quality management principles with the focus on produce benefits for customers, owners, people, suppliers and society at large.The quality management principles are; customer focus, leadership, involvement of people, process approach, system approach to management, continual improvement, factual approach to decision making and mutually beneficial supplier relationships, with the focus to produce benefits for customers, owners, people, suppliers and society at large. For the purpose of this study, the quality management principles were described as the facilitators. Research and Development (R&D) is a process intended to create new or improved technology that can provide a competitive advantage at the business, industry, or national level (http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/research-and-development/).The process of technological innovation (of which R&D is the first phase) is complex and risky. The majority of R&D projects fail to provide the expected financial results, and the successful projects (25 to 50 percent) must also pay for the projects that are unsuccessful or terminated early by management. For these reasons, a companys R&D efforts must be carefully organized, controlled, evaluated, and managed. In India, R&D in the various fields related to defence is primarily undertaken by Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO). DRDO is one of the premier R&D National Level Organizations of India under Central Government, Ministry of Defence. The Department of Defence R&D executes various R&D programmes and projects through a network of more than 50 laboratories/establishments (herein referred as units) of the DRDO located all over India. DRDO is working for indigenous development of weapons, sensors & platforms required by the Armed Forces. To fulfill this mandate, DRDO is closely working with academic institutions, R&D Centres and production agencies of Science and Technology Departments including Defence Public Sector Undertakings & Ordnance Factories(http://www.drdo.org). Post liberalization policies of the Indian Government have given a real challenge to the Indian Research & Development (R&D) Organisations scientists to live with the paradigm of strict time schedules, improved quality and reduced costs. Scientists are now expected to reduce lead times of design, development, purchasing and deliver the required product, Khurana Anil (2005). Keeping this in view, many Indian Defence R&D Organisationsunits have gone for Quality Management Systems (QMS) implementation and obtained ISO-9001 certification. Prime Minister approved the outline of a Performance Monitoring and Evaluation System (PMES) for Government Departments. Under PMES, each department is required to prepare a Results-Framework Document (RFD). Implementation of ISO 9001 certification was included as a mandatory success indicator in the RFD. Thus studying the effects of implementation of ISO 9001 standard in the context of DRDO will be a big factor in successful implementation and reaping the potential benefits of the same. 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW & NEED FOR THE STUDY

There are various tools for implementing QMS like Pareto analysis - a classical TQM tool introduced by Hong Wu (2005), to measure R&D work. Six Sigma - introduced into Korea in 1997, was regarded as a fascinating management strategy and systematic and
3

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME

scientific approach for management innovation by the integration of four elements; customer, process, manpower and strategy (Park et. al, 2000). Contemporary production/operations managers have available inventory reduction (via just-in-time (JIT) or material requirements planning (MRP), increased speed of product/ process design, and flexible manufacturing to improve quality. Adam et al., 1997;Omachonu et al., 1994, stressed the importance of incorporating quality management planning into the strategic planning process. Bode P., has emphasized the importance of quality assurance and quality control in R&D and associated aspects of certification, accreditation etc. YojiAkao (1998) showed how Quality Function Deployment can be used as an effective tool for obtaining and maintaining QS-9000 certification. Kumar et al., (2009) confirmed the hypothesized positive impact of TQM on all investigated dimensions of company performance, i.e. employee relations, operating procedures, customer satisfaction and financial results. Depending upon the type of organization a combination of different quality management tools can be used for improving performance of the organization. ISO 9001 International standard is generic in nature and QMS based on it can be implemented in any type of organization whatever its size or versatility of activities may be. Research by Kumar & Boyle (2001) outlines practices that are critical for achieving quality management in applied research and development e.g. process development. Ingham and Labbe (2003) discussed the contribution of ISO 9000 to the codification and articulation of technological knowledge at the early stages of a R&D project. Quazi et al., (2004) have studied the nature and extent of impact of ISO 9000 certification on training and development activities of organizations in Singapore. Bayati et al., (2007) found positive impacts of acquiring ISO 9000 certification on the performance of SMEs in Tehran. However, how QMS implementation effects the organization e.g. work culture, employee motivation, financial benefits and so on is a debatable topic and the views differ, as many internal factors of the organization like top management involvement play crucial role in determining it. Kunnanatt (2007) explored how the process of ISO 9000implementation transforms the components of organizational climate, particularly the climate motives existing in an organization. Both internal and external benefits through registration to ISO standards are well published (Colurcio, 1998; Kanji, 1998; Karapetrovic, 1999) and similar factors consistently emerge from a variety of studies. Terziovski (2007) studied the strength of the relationship between motivation for seeking ISO 9000 certification, quality culture, management responsibility, and the perceived benefits derived from ISO 9000 certification. Fotopulos and Psomas (2010) investigated ISO 9001:2000 implementations in the Greek food industry and showed that the major reasons for certification, unlike benefits, concern firstly the internal business environment and then the external one, and no particular difficulties were observed during the standard implementation. Wahid Ab and Corner (2009) investigated critical success factors and problems in ISO 9000 maintenance. The results showed that people who comprise top management, other employees, the reward system, team work, continuous improvement, understanding of the ISO 9000 itself, and measurement of performance and communication are all critical success factors for ISO 9000 maintenance and for successful results of certification. It is clear from the literature survey that most of the research studies of implementation of ISO 9001 on the management systems and working culture have been conducted in the sphere of manufacturing, production, marketing, services sectors but very limited research work is available in the R&D segment and more so in the Indian Defence R&D. It is therefore pertinent to examine the effect of implementation of ISO 9001 towards
4

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME

the management systems and working culture in the Indian Defence R&D process so as to achieve the goal of self-reliance by DRDO in critical technologies relevant to the national security. 3.0 METHODOLOGY

Keeping in view the objectives of the study, General Information about the profile of the respondent was collected along with an ISO Perceptual Analysis Questionnaire having 30 itemswas devised. This Questionnaire deals with understanding the perceptual difference in the management systems in the various Indian Defence R&D Organisation units to make comparisons between the management systems based on the perceptions of the two groups of ISO certified units and Non ISO certified units as well as make comparisons between the three sub-groups of SR, MR and TO. The questionnaire consists of thirty items, primarily based on the universally accepted 8 quality management principles as facilitators of management systems which were finally selected after thorough discussions with the experts, and given highest level of inter judgment agreement. Each item of the questionnaire was required to be answered on a five-point Likert type rating scale having 1 as Strongly Agree to 5 as Strongly Disagree. For 21 Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 & 30, the response 1 depicting the positive aspect of respective opinion and 5 depicting the strongly negative aspect of opinion being expressed. The remaining items, i.e. Items No. 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21 & 26 carry an opposite pattern of scoring with higher score depicting the positive aspect of respective opinion being expressed and lower score depicting the negative aspect of opinion being expressed. A pilot survey was conducted and the questionnaires were administered to a group of 15 scientists and technical officers to judge the suitability of the items and feasibility of the questionnaire. The feedback from the pilot survey with respect to improvements on clarity, readability, content enhancement and layout were incorporated in the second stage of the instrument development. A reliability analysis was run to check the reliability of the scale that has been developed as an instrument to compare the management systems. To take care of the reverse phased statements in items 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21 and 26, the original scores were reversed before conducting the reliability test. Cronbach was used as a criterion for retaining or dropping a particular item from the scale. A value of 0.6 generally indicates unsatisfactory internal consistency reliability and hence any factor bearing value less than or equal to 0.6 is considered unreliable (Malhotra, 2007). All facilitators have met this criterion satisfactorily. The reliability index of the questionnaire having computed by using Cronbach was 0.9298, which was considered to be quite high and appreciably acceptable keeping in view the present study. There are total 52 laboratories / establishments of Indian Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) in India working on the various technologies. The nomenclature of laboratories / establishments of DRDO has been referred to as units in this research study. Out of 52 units, 34 units have implemented quality management systems as per ISO 9001 and have been certified, whereas the other 18 units are yet not ISO 9001 certified. The population for this study is defined as all the scientists belonging to DRDS cadre of DRDO and technical officers belonging to DRTC cadre of DRDO. DRDO employs highly qualified and competent scientists who constitute the Group A (Class I Gazetted) Service known as Defence Research & Development Service (DRDS). The Cadre structure starts from Scientist B to
5

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME

Scientist C, Scientist D, Scientist E, Scientist F, Scientist G and Scientist H (Outstanding Scientist). The scientists in the DRDS cadre of engineers and post graduates in science are involved in conducting research in the various units. DRDO employs engineering diploma and science graduate qualified technologists, a service known as Defence Research Technical Cadre (DRTC), starting with Senior Technical Assistant (STA) - Group C level to Technical Officer - Group A (Class I Gazetted) level. The Cadre structure starts from STA B to Technical Officer A, Technical Officer B, Technical Officer C and Technical Officer D. Technical officers in the DRTC cadre provide technical support to the DRDS cadre and execute the research projects on ground along with the DRDS cadre. The sample was based on the region, type of the laboratory, type of research / activities being carried out etc. so that the complete spectrum of the broad activities of DRDO is covered. After having collected the data from all the respective units, the questionnaire was scored according to the Likerts format coding layout. Having accomplished the scoring of all the Questionnaires, the data was transferred to statistical package for social sciences program SPSS Software for Windows for suitable analysis. Descriptive and inferential types of statistical analysis have been considered suitable for the study. In the descriptive statistics; means, standard deviations of all the variables were used in the study, whereas in the inferential statistics; t-ratios for assessing the significance of differences between the groups belonging to ISO certified and non-ISO certified units, one way ANOVA for assessing the significance of differences between sub-groups of SR, MR and TO under certified and noncertified groups were used for the analysis and interpretations of the results. 4.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

The distribution of the units, status of QMS certification as per ISO 9001, number and profile of respondents is given in the Table 1 (a) & (b) below. The respondents were mainly Scientists C & D at middle level and Scientists E & F at senior level and Technical Officers (TO) B & C at the senior level. The senior-level scientists are the leaders at work involved in the policy formulation & implementation along with conducting research with the help of middle-level scientists C & D. The Technical Officers B & C are quite senior personnel in their cadre with adequate working experience as support technical staff and represent the working culture & ethics of the units, without being in leadership role. These units were identified all across India from Bangalore, Balasore / Chandipur, Chandigarh, Chennai, Dehradun, Delhi, Hyderabad, Kanpur, Leh, Mussoorie& Pune. Out of the 25 units selected, 18 units have implemented quality management systems and certified as per ISO 90001 and 7 have not implemented quality management systems as per ISO 9001. After scrutinizing and editing the filled-in questionnaires, 500 were finally compiled for further processing. Out of which, 415 responses were from ISO 9001 certified units, and 85 responses were from non ISO 9001 certified units.

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME

Table 1 (a): Sample structure - profile of the respondents, units Unit Location Respondents QMS Certification as per ISO 9001 No. Average Work Certified Experience ADE Bangalore 8 11.38 Yes CABS Bangalore 12 13.08 Yes CFEES Delhi 27 14.07 Yes CVRDE Chennai 29 17.97 Yes DEAL Dehradun 32 12.34 Yes DL Jodhpur 18 10.17 Yes DRDL Hyderabad 21 13.62 Yes INMAS Delhi 21 12.95 Yes IRDE Dehradun 26 14.50 Yes ITR Balasore 21 14.81 Yes LRDE Bangalore 21 12.52 Yes PXE Balasore 28 14.57 Yes R&DE Pune 13 16.31 Yes RAC Delhi 7 13.43 Yes RCI Hyderabad 22 15.14 Yes SASE Chandigarh 34 15.59 Yes SSPL Delhi 35 14.60 Yes TBRL Chandigarh 40 12.93 Yes ISO 9001 Certified Units 415 14.07 Yes-18 CAIR Bangalore 14 16.50 No DIBER Haldwani 12 15.00 No DIHAR Leh 9 13.56 No DMSRDE Kanpur 15 14.93 No ISSA Delhi 13 10.38 No ITM Mussoorie 4 20.75 No LASTEC Delhi 18 14.94 No Non-ISO 9001 Certified Units 85 14.64 No-7 Grand Total 500 14.17 18-Yes, 7-No Mean length of service of 137Senior Rank (SR) / level Scientists (Sc.) was 20.61 years ranging from 14 years to 30 years, in the rank of Sc. E & Sc. F. The mean length of service of 295 Middle Rank (MR) / level Scientists was 8.57 years ranging from 5 years to 13 years, in the rank of Sc. C & Sc. D. The mean length of service of 68 Technical Officers (TO) in the rank of TO B & TO C ranged from 19 years to 32 years with an average of 25.49 years. The total mean length of service for all the 500 respondents was 14.17 years. The mean length of service of the sample of ISO 9001 certified units is 14.07 years, whereas the Mean length of service of sample of non ISO 9001 certified units is 14.64 years, which is
7

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME

approximately similar. It can be inferred that the composition of the groups is similar &results of the respondents of the two groups of certified and non-certified units are not likely to differ on that account. Table 1 (b): Sample structure - profile of the respondents Certification SR MR TO Total Status No. Av. Work No. Av. Work No. Av. Work No. Av. Work Exp. Exp. Exp. Exp. 20.61 250 8.69 54 25.56 415 14.07 Certified Units 111 26 20.58 45 7.91 14 25.21 85 14.64 Non-Certified Units Total 137 20.61 295 8.57 68 25.49 500 14.17 To take care of the reverse phased statements, items 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21 and 26 in Questionnaire, the original scores were reversed before conducting the perceptual analysis on the facilitators. Results about the perceptual analysis as assessed by Questionnaire are presented in Table 2, 3 and 4. The Table 2 presents the mean and SD values of Certified and Non-certified units on all the eight facilitators of management systems proposed to assess the perception towards Customer focus, Leadership, Involvement of people, Process approach, System approach to management, Continual improvement, Factual approach to decision making, and Mutually beneficial supplier relationships to draw comparisons between ISO certified and non-ISO certified units. Table 2: t-Test between respondents on the facilitators - ISO certified & non-ISO certified units Facilitators Responses from Responses from t-Test S. No. ISO 9001 Non-ISO 9001 Significant Certified Units Certified Units Difference Level n=415 n=85 Mean SD Mean SD 1. Customer focus 1.89 0.48 2.20 0.21 0.000** 2. Leadership 1.91 0.49 2.18 0.22 0.000** 3. Involvement of people 1.93 0.49 2.19 0.24 0.000** 4. Process approach 1.94 0.48 2.18 0.24 0.000** 5. System approach to 1.99 0.48 2.20 0.26 0.000** management 6. Continual improvement 1.91 0.48 2.19 0.22 0.000** 7. Factual approach to decision 1.92 0.49 2.19 0.23 0.000** making 8. Mutually beneficial supplier 1.94 0.48 2.18 0.24 0.000** relationships ** * denotes significant difference at 0.01. An overview of the values subjected to the t-test shows that there are significant differences (p <0.01) between the mean values of all the perception markers of the facilitators of management systems in favour of certified group. The mean values of all the eight facilitators in the certified group of units are varying between 1.89 to 1.99 whereas the mean
8

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME

values of the facilitators in the non-certified group of units are varying between 2.18 to 2.20 with the low score indicating positive perception of strong agreement of the various facilitators of the management systems among the respondents of ISO certified group as compared to the non-certified group of units. Again, analysis of the perceptual difference amongst the three levels of respondents within group, mean values of the facilitators, the results of ANOVA are presented in Table 3 for ISO certified units. Table 3: ANOVA between various levels of respondents on the facilitators - ISO certified units
S. No. Facilitator Senior Ranks Middle Technical - SR Ranks - MR Officers - TO Total F Sig. Diff. Level NS 0.105 NS 0.086 NS 0.096 NS 0.153 NS 0.323 NS 0.093 NS 0.090

1. Customer focus 2. Leadership 3. Involvement of people 4. Process approach 5. System approach to management 6. Continual improvement 7. Factual approach to decision making 8. Mutually beneficial supplier relationships

n=26 n=45 n=14 n=85 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 1.82 0.481 1.89 0.489 1.99 0.446 1.89 0.483 2.270 1.85 1.87 1.88 1.93 0.482 1.91 0.497 0.474 1.94 0.505 0.456 1.95 0.498 0.440 1.99 0.506 2.02 2.04 2.03 2.05 0.438 0.440 0.433 0.435 1.91 1.93 1.94 1.99 0.488 2.463 0.490 2.353 0.480 1.886 0.481 1.132

1.85 1.86

0.476 1.91 0.494 0.477 1.92 0.499

2.02 2.03

0.437 0.437

1.91 1.92

0.484 2.389 0.487 2.423

1.88

0.463 1.94 0.499

2.04

0.434

1.94

0.483 2.129

NS 0.120

An overview of Table 3 reveals that the F test used for comparing the mean values shows that there is no significant difference in the perceptions of SR, MR and TO on the perception markers of all the 8 facilitators. The results of non-significant differences show that all the three sub-groups, i.e. SR, MR and TO of the ISO certified units carry similar perceptions about the facilitators of management systems; Customer focus, Leadership, Involvement of people, Process approach, System approach to management, Continual improvement, Factual approach to decision making, and Mutually beneficial supplier relationships. Further, analysis of the perceptual difference amongst the three levels of respondents; SR, MR and TO within group, mean values of the facilitators, the results of ANOVA are presented in Table 4 for non-ISO certified units.

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME

Table 4: ANOVA between various levels of respondents on the facilitators - non-ISO certified units
S. No. Facilitator Middle Senior Ranks Technical - SR Ranks - MR Officers - TO Total F Sig. Diff. Level NS 0.588 NS 0.408 NS 0.475 NS 0.440 NS 0.105 NS 0.472 NS 0.435

1. Customer focus 2. Leadership 3. Involvement of people 4. Process approach 5. System approach to management 6. Continual improvement 7. Factual approach to decision making 8. Mutually beneficial supplier relationships

n=26 n=45 n=14 n=85 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 2.17 0.193 2.2 0.224 2.24 0.224 2.20 0.214 0.534 2.15 2.16 2.15 2.16 0.206 0.214 0.225 0.219 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 0.228 0.256 0.244 0.249 2.25 2.26 2.25 2.33 0.234 0.264 0.238 0.311 2.18 2.19 2.18 2.20 0.223 0.905 0.244 0.751 0.237 0.829 0.256 2.318

2.16 2.15

0.200 0.209

2.2 2.2

0.230 0.239

2.25 2.25

0.237 0.246

2.19 2.19

0.222 0.758 0.231 0.841

2.15

0.217

2.2

0.248

2.25

0.250

2.18

0.238 0.803

NS 0.452

An overview of the F test used for comparing the mean values shows that there is no significant difference in the perceptions of SR, MR and TO on the perception markers of all facilitators. The results of non-significant differences show that all the three sub-groups, i.e. SR, MR and TO of the non-ISO certified units carry similar perceptions about the facilitators of management systems; Customer focus, Leadership, Involvement of people, Process approach, System approach to management, Continual improvement, Factual approach to decision making, and Mutually beneficial supplier relationships. To have an in depth analysis of the perceptions of the respondents towards the management systems in the ISO certified and non-ISO certified units, the comparisons were also made on all the thirty dimensions of the 8 facilitators between the two groups of ISO certified and non-ISO certified units as well as between the different levels of respondents; SR, MR and TO within the respective groups of ISO certified and non-ISO certified units with the original scores without reversing. Results about the perceptual analysis on all the thirty dimensions of facilitators as assessed by Questionnaire are presented in Table 5, 6 and 7. The Table 5 presents the mean and SD values of Certified and Non-certified units on all the thirty items proposed to assess the perception towards Customer focus, Leadership, Involvement of people, Process approach, System approach to management, Continual improvement, Factual approach to decision making, and Mutually beneficial supplier relationships.

10

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME

Table 5: t-Test between respondents on all the dimensions - ISO certified & non-ISO certified units
S. No. Facilitator Item Responses from ISO 9001 Certified Units n=415 Mean SD 1.58 0.646 1.61 0.611 Responses from t-Test Non-ISO 9001 Significant Certified Units Difference Level n=85 Mean SD 2.09 0.294 0.000** 2.11 0.346 0.000**

1. 2.

Customer focus

3. 4.

5.

6. 7.

8. 9. 10. 11.

12.

13.

14. 15. 16. 17.

18.

19.

We research to understand clearly the needs and expectations of our customers. We try to ensure that the objectives of the laboratory are linked to the customer needs and expectations. We communicate customer needs and expectations throughout the laboratory. We try to maintain a balance between satisfying customers and the interest of other stakeholders. We measure customer satisfaction on regular basis and take actions on the results. Leadership The goals and targets are set to meet the vision. We lack in the required resources and training to act with responsibility and accountability. We lack in the required freedom to act with responsibility and accountability. The top management Inspires and encourages employees to contribute. Employees contributions are not fairly recognized. Involvement Employees understand the importance of of people their role and contribution in the organization. Employees do not own the problems and hence do not accept the responsibility for solving them. Employees actively look for opportunities to enhance their competence, knowledge and experience. Employees generally avoid discussing the problems and issues openly. Employees share knowledge and experience. Process Individuals goals and objectives of the approach employees are not clearly defined. Employees evaluate their performance against their individual goals and objectives. The laboratory systematically defines the activities necessary to obtain a desired result. We do not have a system to analyze and measure the capability of key activities.

1.67 1.88

0.609 0.481

2.08 2.06

0.352 0.237

0.000** 0.001**

2.00

0.650

2.24

0.427

0.002**

1.76 4.27

0.558 0.617

2.12 3.61

0.391 0.514

0.000** 0.000**

4.36 2.02 4.25 1.94

0.692 0.613 0.672 0.517

3.67 2.14 3.58 2.12

0.497 0.441 0.520 0.324

0.000** NS 0.095 0.000** 0.003**

3.99

0.598

3.81

0.422

0.009**

1.76

0.619

2.15

0.362

0.000**

3.97 1.90 4.27 2.00

0.542 0.697 0.565 0.549

3.82 2.20 3.66 2.19

0.413 0.431 0.501 0.393

0.018** 0.000** 0.000** 0.003**

1.95

0.578

2.21

0.411

0.000**

4.07

0.496

3.86

0.350

0.000**

11

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME
S. No. Facilitator Item Responses from ISO 9001 Certified Units n=415 Mean SD 1.88 0.467 Responses from t-Test Non-ISO 9001 Significant Certified Units Difference Level n=85 Mean SD 2.11 0.346 0.000**

20.

21.

System approach to management

22.

23. 24.
Continual improvement

25.

26.

27.

28. 29. 30.

Factual approach to decision making

Mutually beneficial supplier relationships

We focus the resources, methods, and materials to improve key activities of the laboratory. We lack in structuring a system to achieve the laboratorys objectives in the most effective and efficient way. We understand the interdependencies between various processes in the laboratory. We continually improve the system through measurement and evaluation. Making continual improvement of products, processes and systems is an objective for every employee in the laboratory. Employees are provided with training in the methods and tools of continual improvement. There is no system to recognize and acknowledge improvements made by the employees. We ensure that data and information available in the laboratory are sufficiently accurate and reliable. Decisions and actions are based on factual analysis, experience and intuition. Key suppliers are carefully identified. Improvements and achievements at suppliers side are encouraged and recognized by the laboratory.

4.01

0.560

3.78

0.419

0.000**

1.75

0.634

2.16

0.404

0.000**

1.85 1.89

0.458 0.536

2.11 2.16

0.346 0.404

0.000** 0.000**

1.95

0.608

2.19

0.393

0.000**

4.22

0.655

3.75

0.486

0.000**

1.78

0.649

2.16

0.404

0.000**

1.88 1.82 2.16

0.720 0.580 0.612

2.24 2.11 2.22

0.454 0.346 0.419

0.000** 0.000** NS 0.391

** denotes significant difference at .01. An overview of the values subjected to the t-test shows that there are significant differences (p <0.01) between the mean values of all the dimensions in favour of certified group except item no. 4 and item no. 30 where although the mean values are in favour of certified group but have not been able to achieve the significance level. The comparative lower mean values for Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 & 30 show a positive perception towards the facilitators of management systems; Customer focus, Leadership, Involvement of people, Process approach, System approach to management, Continual improvement, Factual approach to decision making, and Mutually beneficial supplier relationships. Similarly, the comparatively higher mean values for Item Nos. 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21 & 26 (having opposite pattern of scoring) show an agreement with the perceptions represented by the respective items and thereby a positive perception towards the facilitators of management systems; Customer focus, Leadership, Involvement of people, Process approach, System approach to management, Continual improvement, and Factual approach to decision making.

12

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME

Again, analysis of the perceptual difference amongst the three levels of respondents; SR, MR and TO within group, mean values of the various dimensions of facilitators, the results of ANOVA are presented in Table 6 for ISO certified units. Table 6: ANOVA between different levels of respondents on all the dimensions - ISO certified units
S. Facilitator No. Item Senior Middle Ranks - SR Ranks - MR n=111 Mean 1. Customer focus We research to understand clearly the needs and expectations of our customers. We try to ensure that the objectives of the laboratory are linked to the customer needs and expectations. We communicate customer needs and expectations throughout the laboratory. We try to maintain a balance between satisfying customers and the interest of other stakeholders. We measure customer satisfaction on regular basis and take actions on the results. The goals and targets are set to meet the vision. We lack in the required resources and training to act with responsibility and accountability. We lack in the required freedom to act with responsibility and accountability. SD n=250 Mean SD Technical Officers TO n=54 Mean SD Total F Sig. Diff. Level

n=415 Mean SD NS 0.075

1.468 0.615 1.636 0.664 1.574 0.602 1.583 0.646 2.610

2.

1.514 0.601 1.672 0.618 1.519 0.574 1.610 0.611 3.308 0.038*

3.

1.550 0.614 1.712 0.599 1.741 0.620 1.672 0.609 3.162 0.043*

4.

1.856 0.423 1.896 0.512 1.852 0.452 1.880 0.481 0.369

NS 0.692

5.

2.000 0.632 2.012 0.655 1.963 0.672 2.002 0.650 0.127

NS 0.881

6. Leadership

1.793 0.541 1.744 0.558 1.796 0.595 1.764 0.558 0.398

NS 0.672 NS 0.901

7.

4.261 0.628 4.280 0.616 4.241 0.612 4.270 0.617 0.104

8.

4.423 0.640 4.364 0.705 4.241 0.725 4.364 0.692 1.269

NS 0.282

13

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME
S. Facilitator No. Item Senior Middle Ranks - SR Ranks - MR n=111 Mean 9. The top management Inspires and encourages employees to contribute. 10. Employees contributions are not fairly recognized. 11. Involvement Employees of people understand the importance of their role and contribution in the organization. 12. Employees do not own the problems and hence do not accept the responsibility for solving them. 13. Employees actively look for opportunities to enhance their competence, knowledge and experience. 14. Employees generally avoid discussing the problems and issues openly. 15. Employees share knowledge and experience. 16. Process Individuals goals approach and objectives of the employees are not clearly defined. 17. Employees evaluate their performance against their individual goals and objectives. 18. The laboratory systematically defines the activities necessary to obtain a desired result. SD n=250 Mean SD Technical Officers TO n=54 Mean SD Total F Sig. Diff. Level

n=415 Mean SD NS 0.972

2.036 0.587 2.020 0.630 2.019 0.598 2.024 0.613 0.029

4.378 0.688 4.200 0.677 4.185 0.585 4.246 0.672 2.989

NS 0.051 NS 0.797

1.919 0.450 1.956 0.540 1.926 0.544 1.942 0.517 0.228

3.991 0.513 4.008 0.627 3.907 0.622 3.990 0.598 0.628

NS 0.534

1.649 0.598 1.784 0.616 1.852 0.656 1.757 0.619 2.595

NS 0.076

3.964 0.503 3.992 0.560 3.889 0.538 3.971 0.542 0.816

NS 0.443

1.793 0.715 1.928 0.696 2.000 0.644 1.901 0.697 2.083

NS 0.126 NS 0.054

4.378 0.557 4.244 0.553 4.185 0.617 4.272 0.565 2.937

2.117 0.500 1.940 0.567 2.056 0.529 2.002 0.549 4.353 0.013*

1.964 0.538 1.944 0.599 1.981 0.566 1.954 0.578 0.115

NS 0.892

14

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME
S. Facilitator No. Item Senior Middle Ranks - SR Ranks - MR n=111 Mean 19. We do not have a system to analyze and measure the capability of key activities. 20. We focus the resources, methods, and materials to improve key activities of the laboratory. 21. System We lack in approach to structuring a system management to achieve the laboratorys objectives in the most effective and efficient way. 22. We understand the interdependencies between various processes in the laboratory. 23. We continually improve the system through measurement and evaluation. 24. Continual Making continual improvement improvement of products, processes and systems is an objective for every employee in the laboratory. 25. Employees are provided with training in the methods and tools of continual improvement. 26. There is no system to recognize and acknowledge improvements made by the employees. SD n=250 Mean SD Technical Officers TO n=54 Mean SD Total F Sig. Diff. Level

n=415 Mean SD NS 0.352

4.090 0.496 4.084 0.488 3.981 0.532 4.072 0.496 1.047

1.883 0.442 1.864 0.472 1.981 0.495 1.884 0.467 1.406

NS 0.246

3.955 0.511 4.060 0.560 3.926 0.640 4.014 0.560 2.138

NS 0.119

1.703 0.641 1.740 0.621 1.870 0.674 1.747 0.634 1.310

NS 0.271

1.910 0.417 1.836 0.475 1.796 0.451 1.851 0.458 1.442

NS 0.238

1.892 0.474 1.904 0.566 1.815 0.517 1.889 0.536 0.616

NS 0.541

1.991 0.564 1.916 0.631 2.000 0.583 1.947 0.608 0.821

NS 0.441

4.288 0.679 4.204 0.623 4.167 0.746 4.222 0.655 0.855

NS 0.426

15

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME
S. Facilitator No. Item Senior Middle Ranks - SR Ranks - MR n=111 Mean 27. Factual approach to decision making We ensure that data and information available in the laboratory are sufficiently accurate and reliable. 28. Decisions and actions are based on factual analysis, experience and intuition. 29. Mutually Key suppliers are beneficial carefully identified. 30. supplier Improvements and relationships achievements at suppliers side are encouraged and recognized by the laboratory. SD n=250 Mean SD Technical Officers TO n=54 Mean SD Total F Sig. Diff. Level

n=415 Mean SD NS 0.183

1.730 0.660 1.776 0.645 1.926 0.640 1.783 0.649 1.703

1.802 0.749 1.876 0.715 2.093 0.652 1.884 0.720 3.037 0.049*

1.739 0.599 1.820 0.577 1.981 0.532 1.819 0.580 3.212 0.041* 2.135 0.531 2.184 0.651 2.130 0.584 2.164 0.612 0.341 NS 0.711

* denotes significant difference at .05. An overview of the F test used for comparing the mean values shows that there is no significant difference in the perceptions of SR, MR and TO on the dimensions of all Items except, Item Nos. 2, 3, 17, 28 & 29. The results of non-significant differences show that all the three sub-groups, i.e. SR, MR and TO of the ISO certified units carry similar perceptions about the Customer focus, Leadership, Involvement of people, Process approach, System approach to management, Continual improvement, Factual approach to decision making, and Mutually beneficial supplier relationships. However, Item No. 2, 3 17, 28 & 29, show a significant difference between the mean values of perceptions of the three subgroups (p<0.05). Item No. 2 shows that the mean value for SR (Mean 1.51) is significantly better than MR (Mean 1.67) (p< 0.05). The results of the post hoc Tukey test (Schniederjans et al. 2006; Field, 2005) was used to test the level of significance of the potential sub-group differences (two at a time). The p values obtained show that the SR sub-group is better able to link the objectives of the laboratory to the customers needs and expectations as compared to the MR. Similarly, the mean values of SR for Item No. 3 are significantly better than MR depicting that SR sub-group of certified laboratories is better able to communicate customers needs & expectations for the laboratory than the MR sub-group. Further, the significant group differences of Item No. 17 show that MR sub-group of the certified units has got a higher mean value than the SR Sub-group (p< 0.05). It shows that MR sub-group is better able to evaluate their performance against their individual goals and objectives as compared to SR sub-group. The significance difference in the mean values of Item No. 28 shows that SR & MR sub-groups of the certified units have got a higher mean values than the TO sub-group (p< 0.05). It shows that SR and MR sub-groups make their decisions and actions on factual analysis, experience & intuition than the TO sub-group. Similarly, the significant difference in the mean values of SR and TO in Item No. 29 shows that SR has got a better mean value
16

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME

than TO, which shows that SR sub-group is better able to identify the key suppliers than the TO sub-group. Further, analysis of the perceptual difference amongst the three levels of respondents within group, mean values of all the dimensions, the results of ANOVA are presented in Table 7 for non-ISO certified units. Table 7: ANOVA between different levels of respondents on all the dimensions - non-ISO certified units
S. Facilitator No. Item Senior Middle Technical Ranks - SR Ranks - MR Officers - TO n=26 Mean 1. Customer focus We research to understand clearly the needs and expectations of our customers. We try to ensure that the objectives of the laboratory are linked to the customer needs and expectations. We communicate customer needs and expectations throughout the laboratory. We try to maintain a balance between satisfying customers and the interest of other stakeholders. We measure customer satisfaction on regular basis and take actions on the results. Leadership The goals and targets are set to meet the vision. We lack in the required resources and training to act with responsibility and accountability. We lack in the required freedom to act with responsibility and accountability. The top management Inspires and encourages employees to contribute. Employees contributions are not fairly recognized. Involvement Employees understand of people the importance of their role and contribution in the organization. SD n=45 Mean SD n=14 Mean SD Total n=85 Mean SD NS 0.316 F Sig. Diff. Level

2.077 0.272 2.133 0.344 2.000 0.000 2.094 0.294 1.169

2.

2.038 0.196 2.111 0.383 2.214 0.426 2.106 0.346 1.192

NS 0.309

3.

2.038 0.196 2.111 0.383 2.071 0.475 2.082 0.352 0.353

NS 0.704

4.

2.038 0.196 2.022 0.149 2.214 0.426 2.059 0.237 3.907

NS 0.024*

5.

2.192 0.402 2.222 0.420 2.357 0.497 2.235 0.427 0.719

NS 0.490

6.

2.115 0.326 2.133 0.457 2.071 0.267 2.118 0.391 0.132

NS 0.877 NS 0.146

7.

3.577 0.504 3.556 0.546 3.857 0.363 3.612 0.514 1.969

8.

3.731 0.452 3.644 0.529 3.643 0.497 3.671 0.497 0.270

NS 0.764

9.

2.077 0.272 2.156 0.475 2.214 0.579 2.141 0.441 0.487

NS 0.616 NS 0.088 NS 0.826

10.

3.654 0.485 3.467 0.548 3.786 0.426 3.576 0.520 2.507

11.

2.115 0.326 2.133 0.344 2.071 0.267 2.118 0.324 0.192

17

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME
S. Facilitator No. Item Senior Middle Technical Ranks - SR Ranks - MR Officers - TO n=26 Mean 12. Employees do not own the problems and hence do not accept the responsibility for solving them. 13. Employees actively look for opportunities to enhance their competence, knowledge and experience. 14. Employees generally avoid discussing the problems and issues openly. 15. Employees share knowledge and experience. 16. Process Individuals goals and approach objectives of the employees are not clearly defined. 17. Employees evaluate their performance against their individual goals and objectives. 18. The laboratory systematically defines the activities necessary to obtain a desired result. 19. We do not have a system to analyze and measure the capability of key activities. 20. We focus the resources, methods, and materials to improve key activities of the laboratory. 21. System We lack in structuring a approach to system to achieve the management laboratorys objectives in the most effective and efficient way. 22. We understand the interdependencies between various processes in the laboratory. 23. We continually improve the system through measurement and evaluation. SD n=45 Mean SD n=14 Mean SD Total n=85 Mean SD NS 0.801 F Sig. Diff. Level

3.769 0.430 3.822 0.442 3.857 0.363 3.812 0.422 0.222

2.154 0.368 2.133 0.344 2.214 0.426 2.153 0.362 0.262

NS 0.770

3.885 0.326 3.822 0.442 3.714 0.469 3.824 0.413 0.769

NS 0.467

2.115 0.326 2.267 0.447 2.143 0.535 2.200 0.431 1.167

NS 0.316 NS 0.176

3.692 0.471 3.578 0.543 3.857 0.363 3.659 0.501 1.774

2.192 0.402 2.200 0.405 2.143 0.363 2.188 0.393 0.112

NS 0.894

2.192 0.402 2.200 0.405 2.286 0.469 2.212 0.411 0.269

NS 0.764

3.846 0.368 3.867 0.344 3.857 0.363 3.859 0.350 0.028

NS 0.973

2.115 0.326 2.133 0.344 2.000 0.392 2.106 0.346 0.804

NS 0.451

3.769 0.430 3.800 0.405 3.714 0.469 3.776 0.419 0.225

NS 0.799

2.192 0.402 2.111 0.383 2.286 0.469 2.165 0.404 1.088

NS 0.342

2.192 0.402 2.089 0.358 2.000 0.000 2.106 0.346 1.542

NS 0.220

18

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME
S. Facilitator No. Item Senior Middle Technical Ranks - SR Ranks - MR Officers - TO n=26 Mean 24. Continual Making continual improvement improvement of products, processes and systems is an objective for every employee in the laboratory. 25. Employees are provided with training in the methods and tools of continual improvement. 26. There is no system to recognize and acknowledge improvements made by the employees. 27. Factual We ensure that data and approach to information available in decision the laboratory are making sufficiently accurate and reliable. 28. Decisions and actions are based on factual analysis, experience and intuition. 29. Mutually Key suppliers are beneficial carefully identified. 30. supplier Improvements and relationships achievements at suppliers side are encouraged and recognized by the laboratory. SD n=45 Mean SD n=14 Mean SD Total n=85 Mean SD F Sig. Diff. Level

2.077 0.272 2.111 0.383 2.500 0.519 2.165 0.404 6.619 0.002*

2.192 0.402 2.200 0.405 2.143 0.363 2.188 0.393 0.112

NS 0.894

3.731 0.452 3.756 0.529 3.786 0.426 3.753 0.486 0.058

NS 0.943

2.115 0.326 2.178 0.442 2.214 0.426 2.165 0.404 0.318

NS 0.729

2.192 0.402 2.244 0.484 2.286 0.469 2.235 0.454 0.208

NS 0.812

2.115 0.326 2.133 0.405 2.000 0.000 2.106 0.346 0.804

NS 0.451 2.154 0.368 2.178 0.387 2.500 0.519 2.224 0.419 3.930 NS 0.023*

* denotes significant difference at .05. An overview of the F test used for comparing the mean values shows that there is no significant difference in the perceptions of SR, MR and TO on the dimensions of facilitators of all Items except, Item Nos. 4, 24 & 30. The results of non-significant differences show that all the three sub-groups, i.e. SR, MR and TO of the non-ISO certified units carry similar perceptions about the Customer focus, Leadership, Involvement of people, Process approach, System approach to management, Continual improvement, Factual approach to decision making, and Mutually beneficial supplier relationships. However, Item No. 4, 24 & 30 show a significant difference between the mean values of perceptions of the three sub-groups (p<0.05). Item No. 4 shows that the SR & MR sub-groups of the Non-certified units have got a higher mean values than the TO sub-group (p< 0.05). The post hoc Tukey test (Schniederjans et al. 2006; Field, 2005) was used to test the level of significance of the potential sub-group differences (two at a time). The p values obtained show that the Senior Rank & Middle Rank sub-groups are better able to maintain a balance between satisfying customers and interests of the other stake holders than TO sub-group. The significance difference in the mean values of Item No. 24 shows that SR & MR sub-groups of the non19

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME

certified units have got a higher mean values than the TO sub-group (p< 0.05). It shows that SR and MR sub-groups make continual improvement of products, process and systems as objectives for every employee in the laboratory than TO sub-group. Likewise, significant difference in the mean values of Item No. 30 shows that SR & MR sub-groups have got a higher mean value than TO, which shows that SR & MR sub-groups are able to appreciate & recognise the improvements & achievements made at the suppliers side. Perceptual analysis of the responses dealing with the facilitators of the management system, i.e. Customer focus, Leadership, Involvement of people, Process approach, System approach to management, Continual improvement, Factual approach to decision making, and Mutually beneficial supplier relationships from ISO certified and non-ISO certified units shows that certified group of units have certainly significant higher mean values as compared to non-certified ones on all the facilitators (t-test results, Table 2, p<0.01) and on all the dimensions (t-test results, Table 5, p<0.01). It shows that the certified group of units has been able to create a positive perception about the various facilitators & dimensions described herein as compared to the non-certified ones. Looking at the level of awareness, a positive trend emerging from the perception analysis shows that even though the awareness level and knowledge about the implementation process of ISO 9000 in DRDO is relatively low, but it does makes a positive dent in the scientific community for its benefits. The results show that the mean score on items dealing with the facilitators of management systems; Customer focus, Leadership, Involvement of people, Process approach, System approach to management, Continual improvement, Factual approach to decision making, and Mutually beneficial supplier relationships reflect an agreement for the various perceptual expectations under each facilitator. Moreover, the perceptions towards the stated facilitators and each dimension do not differ within the SR, MR and TO sub-groups. All the three sub-groups have similar perceptions about the various facilitators of management systems of the DRDO units, i.e. Customer focus, Leadership, Involvement of people, Process approach, System approach to management, Continual improvement, Factual approach to decision making, and Mutually beneficial supplier relationships as well as on each dimension of the facilitators. Looking at the similarity of the perceptions of all the three sub-groups of certified and non-certified units (Tables 3, 4, 6, &7), on the one hand and overall difference between the certified and non-certified groups on the other, it can be construed that the implementation of quality management system as per ISO 9001 should be able to not only create positive perceptions about ISO certification but should also help to shape the perceptions of various sub-groups accordingly to their roles and responsibilities. The overall group difference of ISO certified and non-ISO certified groups adds to the hypothesis that ISO certified group has been able to instill the healthy and positive practices of management systems, i.e. Customer focus, Leadership, Involvement of people, Process approach, System approach to management, Continual improvement, Factual approach to decision making, and Mutually beneficial supplier relationships, which all act as facilitators for conducting effective Research & Development in Indian Defence R&D Organisation. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS

The quality management systems (ISO-9001) were mainly implemented earlier in the manufacturing sector. Being a relatively new concept in the R&D environment, it is surrounded by a great deal of uncertainty and apprehensions. Furthermore, its emergence has
20

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME

raised a number of unresolved questions. This study was undertaken to throw more light on this new development and its impact on the management systems in the Indian R&D organization. The present study was aimed to draw the comparisons between the perceptual differences in the facilitators for management systems of the ISO certified and non-ISO certified labs of Indian Defence R&D Organisation. It was found that there are significant differences in the perceptions with respect to facilitators of management systems; Customer focus, Leadership, Involvement of people, Process approach, System approach to management, Continual improvement, Factual approach to decision making, and Mutually beneficial supplier relationships between the ISO certified and non-ISO certified groups. Further, there are no significant differences on most of the facilitators and dimensions of management systems of SR, MR and TO within the respective groups. Further, the differences in the perceptions of the two groups of certified and non-certified labs show indicate positive perception of strong agreement of the various facilitators of the management systems in favour of the certified labs. 6.0 [1] REFERENCES Bayati Ali and AllahvirdiTaghavi, (2007), The impacts of acquiring ISO 9000 certification on the performance of SMEs in Tehran, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 140-149. Colurcio, M. (1998), ISO 9000 quality system and product innovation: new evidence from shoe manufacturing factories, Proceedings from the 6th EIASM International Product Development Management Conference. Cronbach, L.J.(1971), Educational Measurement (2 ed.), Washington DC: American Council on Education. Everett E. Adam Jr, Lawrence M. Corbett, Benito E. Flores, Norma J. Harrison, T.S. Lee, Boo-Ho Rho, Jaime Ribera, Danny Samson and Roy Westbrook, (1997),An international study of quality improvement approach and firm performance, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 842-873. Field, A. (2005), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, ed. ii, SAGE Publications. Fotopulos, Ch. V., Psomas, E. L. (2010). ISO 9001:2000 implementation in the Greek food sector. TQM Journal, 22(2), 129142. Hong Jai W. and SatitPhitayawejwiwat, (2005), The Impact of ISO 9000 Certification on Quality Management Practices in Thailand, Volume 21, Number 1 January 2005 through March 2005, www.nait.org. http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/research-and-development/, accessed July 15, 2013. http://www.drdo.org, accessed June 15, 2013. http://www.iso.org, The ISO Survey-2011 (2011). Ingham M. and Labbe E., (2003), Quality Management in R&D Process: Levers and/or inhibitors in Knowledge Codification? How does quality management support knowledge articulation in R&D projects? The R&D Management Conference 2003, Manchester, July. ISO 8402:1994 (E), (1994), Quality management and quality assurance Vocabulary. ISO 9000:2005 (E), (2005). Quality Management Systems - Vocabulary. ISO 9001:2008 (E), (2008). Quality Management Systems - Requirements.
21

[2]

[3] [4]

[5] [6] [7]

[8] [9] [10] [11]

[12] [13] [14]

International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 6324 (Print), ISSN 0976 6332 (Online), Volume 5, Issue 1, January- April (2014) IAEME

[15] Kanji, G.K. (1998), An innovative approach to make ISO 9000 standards more effective, Total Quality Management, Vol. 9 No. 1. [16] Karapetrovic, S. (1999), ISO 9000: system emerging form the vicious circle of compliance, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 2. [17] Kumar Vinod, Franck Choisne, Danuta de Grosbois and Uma Kumar, (2009), Impact of TQM on companys performance, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 23-37. [18] Kunnanatt J. Thomas, (2007), Impact of ISO 9000 on organizational climate Strategic change management experience of an Indian organization, International Journal of Manpower Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 175-192. [19] Malhotra NK (2007) Marketing Research: An Empirical Orientation, ed. V, Pearson Education. [20] Omachonu, V.K. and Ross, J.E., (1994), Principles of Total Quality, St Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL. [21] QuaziHesan A., Ronald L. Jacobs, (2004), Impact of ISO 9000 certification on training and development activities An exploratory study, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 497-517. [22] Schniederjans, M.J., Parast, M.M., Nabavi, M., Rao, S.S. and Raghu-Nathan, T.S. (2006), Comparative Analysis of Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Criteria: An Empirical Study of India, Mexico and the United States, Quality Management Journal, v 13, n 4, pp. 7-21. [23] Terziovski M., Damien Power, (2007), Increasing ISO 9000 certification benefits: a continuous improvement approach, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 141-163. [24] Vinod Kumar and Todd Boyle, (2001), A quality management implementation framework for manufacturing-based R&D environments International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 336-359. [25] Wahid Ab, R.; Corner, J. (2009). Critical success factors and problems in ISO 9000 maintenance. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 26(9), 881893. [26] YojiAkao, Using QFD to assure QS-9000 compliance, Ph.D, Asahi University, Japan. [27] Ajay Dattatraya Jewalikar and Dr.Abhijeet Shelke, The Main Perceived Benefits Associated with HSE Management Systems Certification in MSME Tool Rooms Post Quality Management System Certification, International Journal of Management (IJM), Volume 4, Issue 3, 2013, pp. 125 - 134, ISSN Print: 0976-6502, ISSN Online: 0976-6510. [28] Jimmy Kansal, Neeti Jain, PK Satyawali and Ashwagosha Ganju, Competency Mapping in Knowledge Based Organizations, International Journal of Management (IJM), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 279 - 290, ISSN Print: 0976-6502, ISSN Online: 0976-6510. [29] Dr. Rajesh K. Singh, Quality Management and Performance: A Review, International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), Volume 1, Issue 1, 2010, pp. 1 - 19. ISSN Print: 0976 6324, ISSN Online: 0976 6332.

22