THE IMPACT OF QUALITY RESULTS AND IMPORTANT INNOVATION AS TQM PRACTICES ON ORGANISATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY: THE CASE OF RAILWAY SECTOR

1Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Studies that have empirically investigated the impact of total quality management practices on organization productivity have presented both positive and negative results. This study attempted to investigate the impact of total quality management practices using important innovation as a predictor variable and quality results as a moderating variable to comprehensively understand their impact on productivity in the railway sector by gathering sample data from employees in management of Tanzania Zambia Railway Authority. Model fit, reliability and validity were checked using Principal Component Analysis, Regression Analysis, and Factor Analysis with the help of Jamovi software. The results present a positive significant association between important innovation and productivity. The results also indicate that quality results moderate the relationship between quality results and productivity. The results of this study presents a great theoretical contribution to literature as there has been no study in any sector that attempted to empirically test this relationship using quality results as a moderating variable. Decision makers in organizations are strongly recommended to ensure that they focus and pay attention to quality results at all time in order to encourage innovations that foster higher productivity in their organizations. I hope that this study will be replicated to other industries and that future studies will include other practices of total quality management as mediating and moderating variables to further bring more insights on this association.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yangailo, T. (2022). THE IMPACT OF QUALITY RESULTS AND IMPORTANT INNOVATION AS TQM PRACTICES ON ORGANISATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY: THE CASE OF RAILWAY SECTOR. Proceedings on Engineering Sciences, 4(3), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.24874/PES04.03.010

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free