Validity and reliability of applying manufacturing excellence frameworks to Indian industries

Validity and reliability of applying manufacturingexcellence frameworks to Indian industriesM Sharma and R Kodali*

Mechanical Engineering Group, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, India

The manuscript was received on 23 May 2007 and was accepted after revision for publication on 19 February 2008.

DOI: 10.1243/09544054JEM909

Abstract: Manufacturing excellence requires a manufacturer to be the best in its field in eachcompetitive priority and to demonstrate industry best practice. This paper explores the validityand reliability of existing manufacturing excellence/world-class manufacturing frameworkswhen applied to Indian companies by means of a survey conducted across a wide range of man-ufacturing companies based in India. The nature of the questionnaire is outlined together withthe results from the analysis of the data obtained from the questionnaire. This research hasidentified that while a majority of the frameworks display a high level of reliability, very fewof them display unidimensionality with respect to the construct, i.e. the manufacturing excel-lence it measures. A frequency analysis shows that the majority of the attributes have a highmean score. As all the frameworks display different elements with some overlap among them,it was found that there is a need for a new framework.

Keywords: manufacturing excellence, world-class manufacturing, globalization, empiricalresearch, validity, reliability, Indian industry

1 INTRODUCTION

From the early 1980s, Japanese companies havedemonstrated the competitive power of manufac-turing excellence by dominating several global indus-tries, notably consumer electronics and automobiles.Manufacturers worldwide now realize the impact ofbest quality norms, continuous improvement, andjust-in-time manufacturing, on producing superiorproducts and services. The rapid adoption of thesetechnologies, processes, and practices has allowedleading manufacturing companies to match and insome cases surpass their Japanese competitors. Themissionary zeal the manufacturing sector showed inresponse to the Japanese challenge has resultedin manufacturing itself going through a completerevolution, with manufacturing becoming a key stra-tegic activity with adequate potential to influencethe competitive position of the firms and industriesin the global marketplace.

Today, Indian firms are facing a very different sce-nario as compared to the past [1]. The Chinese grossdomestic product is growing at a rate of 8 to 9.5 percent per annum on the domestic front and hasrecorded a growth rate of 33 per cent on the interna-tional front. Is such a level of manufacturing-ledgrowth possible in India? After Independence, Indianmanufacturing industries enjoyed a protectionistenvironment until the early 1990s. The Indian econ-omy was inward looking and protected from externalcompetition, but, since the advent of economic liber-alization, Indian companies have faced competitionfrom their international counterparts [2]. Thus,Indian companies need to become competitive interms of cost, range of products, services, perfor-mance parameters, flexibility, dependability and soon. It is no secret that India is an emerging manufac-turing power. India’s manufacturing sector, whichpresently accounts for 15 per cent of the total econ-omy, grew by more than 10 per cent in the secondquarter of 2005 and is expected to contribute 25 percent of the total economy by the end of the next dec-ade [3]. With this growth has come a focus on opera-tional excellence: Indian manufacturing companiesrank second only to their Japanese counterparts interms of the number of Deming awards to a country

*Corresponding author: Mechanical Engineering Group, Birla

Institute of Technology and Science (BITS), Vidya Vihar

Campus, Pilani, Rajasthan 333031, India. email: proframba

[email protected]

723

JEM909 � IMechE 2008 Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture

[4]. India is well on its way to becoming the premiermanufacturing location for companies.

With the rapid growth in off-shore production andoutsourcing across industries, India is emerging asa crucial cog in the wheel of successful global cor-porations. India’s fast-growing local economy haspositioned itself favourably as a centre of competitivesupply, innovations in technology, design, and busi-ness processes. However, the vast economic andmanufacturing potential of India remains relativelyunexploited. Although the opportunities are great,various challenges also exist, including cultural andorganizational differences, learning the strengthsand weaknesses of product and process innovations,production and logistics infrastructures, channel-partnering information systems and technologicaltrends in the country, and understanding how thesefit into an efficient and competitive global sourcing,production, and distribution system. Thus, thevarious challenges that face Indian manufacturingwarrant appropriate responses from both govern-ment and industry to improve sector competitive-ness. Over the last decade, India’s manufacturingsector has changed dramatically and has emergedas the key to meeting the ambitious 9 per cent growthtargets in the tenth 5-year plan. Manufacturing is thelogical engine to provide employment growth inIndia, because the workforce in this sector – a coreengine for growth – is currently only 8 per cent ofthe population [5].

In order to compete in the global marketplace,Indian firms need to develop the competencesrequired for world-class\global manufacturing. ManyIndian companies, including The TVS Group, Marutiand their ancillaries, Tata Motors, and Mahindra andMahindra, are already taking steps in this direction.The Indian manufacturing sector needs to start think-ing about how to achieve manufacturing excellence.To aid this process, a road map is required that notonly fits the Indian scenario but also includes thebest practices pioneered by other countries.

A review of the existing literature revealed numer-ous proposed frameworks and before a new frame-work is developed from scratch, it is sensible tocheck if one of the existing frameworks can be usedin Indian conditions. To accomplish this goal, anationwide survey was performed and the resultsand analysis of this survey are presented in this paper.

In particular, the objectives of this paper are:

(a) to analyse the existing frameworks and checktheir validity for application to Indian conditions;

(b) to perform a reliability analysis on selected fra-meworks;

(c) to identify important elements/parameters viafrequency analysis of the responses from varioussectors of the Indian manufacturing sector.

2 MANUFACTURING EXCELLENCE

The concept of manufacturing excellence is a topicthat is receiving considerable attention. It is consid-ered to be a path to becoming the best manufacturerin that it refers to the ultimate goal of achievingsuperior manufacturing capabilities or best-in-classperformance. Best-in-class performance or outstand-ing performance is defined by the Australian manu-facturing council as:

the co-operative way in which firms and their employ-ees undertake business activities in all key processes –leadership, planning, people, customers, suppliers,community relations, production & supply chainactivities and the use of benchmarking. These prac-tices which when effectively linked together can leadto sustainable World-class outcomes in quality, custo-mer, service, flexibility, timeliness, innovation, costand competitiveness [6].

Kepner–Tregoe [7] defined manufacturing excel-lence as ‘a vision of perfection that guides an organi-zation leadership in a relentless drive to improve thecore value creation process flow, from rawmaterial tofinished product’. On the other hand Roth et al. [8]have defined manufacturing excellence as

a dynamic process that provides unique value, compe-titive advantage, delight to the customers and suppli-ers through the development of internal operationscapabilities that foster continuous improvement inhuman assets, technology material and informationflows, that are synergetic with the total business andthat provide sustainable competitive position in thefirms target market.

Essentially, manufacturing excellence is both avision of the best practices that a company needs toadopt, whether it is business ambience or outsiderequirements, and a process in terms of the measur-able performance of a company’s process and itsimpact on market and customer satisfaction. Manu-facturing excellence in simple terms is a commonway of referring to the goal of achieving superiormanufacturing capabilities. The world is an evolvingand fascinating organism moving forward on humaninterventions, innovations, creativity, and conse-quent changes and learning. While studying the glo-bal competitiveness of firms, the one element thatstands out as the key to competitive manufacturingexcellence is the ability continuously to innovate.Innovation affects the entire value and cost chainincluding: organization, manufacturing, accountingand cost-allocation, logistics, and new product devel-opment functions. According to Schonberger [9]‘today there is a wide agreement that continualimprovement in quality, cost, lead time, and custo-mer service is possible, realistic, and necessary’, andthat ‘one more primary goal, improved flexibility, is

724 M Sharma and R Kodali

Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture JEM909 � IMechE 2008

also part of the package’. In addition, he also statedthat ‘with agreement on the goals, the managementchallenge is reduced to speeding up the pace ofimprovement’. Manufacturing excellence means thepursuance of best practice in manufacturing [10];‘best’ in terms of:

(a) product design and performance;(b) quality and reliability;(c) least manufacturing cost;(d) continually introducing innovative designs more

quickly than competitors;(e) shorter lead times and reliable delivery perfor-

mance;(f) customer service performance that makes custo-

mers prefer to buy from you rather than fromyour competitors.

As per Rubrich and Watson [11], world-class manu-facturing is commonly understood as ‘advancedman-ufacturing techniques that can be adapted and used toelevate a facility’s manufacturing performance toworld-class levels’. Greene [12] defined world-classmanufacturers as those companies which:

(a) continuously outperform the industry’s globalbest practices;

(b) know intimately their customers and suppliers;(c) know their competitor’s performance capabil-

ities;(d) know their strengths and weaknesses.

2.1 Identification of existing frameworksfor manufacturing excellence/world-classmanufacturing

The increasingly dynamic nature of global competi-tion and rapid advances in technology have forcedcompanies to look at manufacturing managementfrom a strategic perspective. In 1969, Skinner pub-lished a paper in which he outlined his belief thatthe manufacturing function should be able to contri-bute to the strategic goals of the business [13]. Hebelieved that manufacturing should be viewed withas much importance as other business functionssuch as marketing, accounting, and sales; and thatmanufacturing should progress from merely reactingto decisions made by these other functions. Skinnerfelt that it was possible for manufacturing to becomeproactive in its contribution to the overall businessstrategy. He believed that by realizing the positivecontribution that the manufacturing function couldmake to the overall business, a lasting, sustainablecompetitive advantage could be developed.

Work carried out by Skinner [13], Hayes andWheelwright [14], Womack et al. [15], and Slack[16], has highlighted that there are many differentviews on the ways that companies can improve their

manufacturing function in order to enhance theircompetitive advantage. Garvin [17] and Peters andWaterman [18] believe that companies striving forexcellence in manufacturing should centre on‘philosophies’ pertaining to incremental improve-ments in every aspect of their businesses so that acompany can become the best in its field. Over theyears there have been several efforts to assess manu-facturing excellence or to give guidance to companiesthrough the development of frameworks of manufac-turing excellence/world-class manufacturing.

Many researchers, experts, and consultants haveproposed different frameworks for manufacturingexcellence/ world-class manufacturing, that can helpand guide an organization to achieve competitivepriorities or manufacturing performance objectives.A review of the literature revealed 23 frameworks[7–9, 19–36]. A full coverage of all frameworks wouldbe impractical, but as far as possible, the most widelypublished and practised ones are considered. It is notintended that these form a definitive list of availableframeworks, but rather, a representative sample ofthose most commonly utilized. The European Foun-dation for Quality Management (EFQM) model isalso considered as a framework for manufacturingexcellence, even though many people believe that itis a framework for excellence in quality. The reasonis that Stewart [37] highlighted that the EFQM awardsare no longer restricted to quality management;rather, the objective of the EFQM award is the promo-tion of total quality and the business excellencethroughout Europe and the support of its members.On the other hand, the ABCD checklist is not consid-ered because it is more a self-evaluation methodologythan a framework (see http://www.bpic.co.uk/abcd_-checklist.htm). Similarly, the Deming prize and theMalcolm Baldridge National Quality Award were notincluded, because these frameworks have alwaysbeen associated with quality and are given for excel-lence in quality management and quality achievementin Japan and the USA respectively. However, manyorganizations take these two as a reference for imple-menting quality. The frameworks can be categorizedunder three broad areas, namely:

(a) researcher/academic based;(b) award based;(c) consultants/experts based.

Table 1 shows the taxonomy of manufacturing excel-lence/world-class manufacturing frameworks.

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Since this research is exploratory in nature, aquestionnaire-based survey methodology is used forthe study. The focus of this study is multisectional

Manufacturing excellence frameworks and Indian industry 725


http://www.bpic.co.uk/abcd_-checklist.htm

as different manufacturing industrial sectors, i.e. theautomobile industry, process industry, machineequipment, the textiles industry, and the electronicsand appliance industry, are considered. The objectiveis to investigate the validity and reliability of existingmanufacturing excellence and world-class manufac-turing frameworks when applied to the prevailingconditions in Indian industries.

3.1 Creation of industry database

The manufacturing sector in India is made up ofmany different areas, each of which is influenced bythe current economic climate, but each of whichalso has its own cyclic behaviour. A database of man-ufacturing companies used within the survey wasobtained from the Confederation of Indian Industrydirectory for the year 2005. Next, to select the samplemanufacturing industries, a brief literature reviewwas performed which revealed that from the Indianperspective, the major manufacturing sectors arethe automobile, electronics, engineering, and processindustries [38]. In addition to these four sectors, thetextile industry was also chosen as a separate sector.A database of 396 companies was generated fromthe directory and the typical products manufacturedin these five industrial sectors are listed in Table 2.Questionnaires were sent to the CEO/chairman/managing director of the targeted companies.

3.2 Design of questionnaire and data collection

A structured questionnaire was developed using thefive-point Likert scale, the details of which are givenin the Appendix, where (1) means not important, (2)means less important, (3) means important, (4)means more important, and (5) means most impor-tant. Respondents were requested to rate the degreeor extent of practice of each element with referenceto the respective performance measure in the five-point response scale.

A typical example is shown in Fig. 1.The questionnaire contained two sections: A and B.

The aim of section A was to build a profile of therespondent and the manufacturing company based

Fig. 1 Framework 1

Table 2 Typical product manufactured in the fiveindustrial sectors

Automobile Four wheelers including cars, trucks, tractors,and buses

Two wheelers including scooters andmotorbikes

Automotive components including shockabsorbers, headlights, battery, bearings,clutches, brakes, steering and suspensionsystems, speedometers, mileage meters,piston and piston rings, engine assembly, etc.

Machines andequipment

Construction machineryGenerators, inverters, rotors, stators, electricmotors, etc.

Diesel enginesAgricultural machineryMaterial handling equipment such as forklifttrucks, cranes, etc.

Sewing machinesRefrigerators, fans

Electronics andcomponents

Electronic consumer items, TV tubes, cablesMeasuring instruments such as electronicenergy metres, optical pyrometres,stabilizers, etc.

Industrial electronics including, micro-circuits, electronic panels, fuse gears,telephone exchange chambers, cables,transformers, etc.

Semiconductors, capacitors, HMCs, etc.Switchgears etc.

Process industries PaperPaintTyresPackaging productsCement, etc.Petroleum and productsMedicinesFertilizers

Textiles Cotton yarnFabricsTextile productsYarn, etc.

Table 1 Taxonomy of manufacturing excellence/world-class manufacturing frameworks

Taxonomy Frameworks

Researcher/academicbased

Gilgeous and Gilgeous [19]Ng and Hung [21]Probe Suite: Made in Europe (Yarrowet al. [22])

EFQM Excellence Model (Watson[24])

Schonberger [9]Silswal and Suryanarayanan [26]Best Manufacturing Practices Model:Australian Manufacturing Council

Yusuff [27]Schultz [28]Gunn (1987)Roth et al. [8]Blackmon et al. [30]Basu and Wright [31]Steudel and Desruelle [32]Farsijani and Carruthers [33]Jetley and Catalano [35]Chan [36]

Award based Shigeo Shingo (Shingo Prize forexcellence in manufacturing) [20]

Best Factory Award Model (Silaswal)Frost and Sullivan’s (IndiaManufacturingExcellenceAwards) [23]

Consultants/expertsbased

EicherConsultancy Services, India [25]Kepner-Tregoe [7]Sharma [34]



on the experience of the respondent and the missionor vision of the company, etc. Section B is a struc-tured questionnaire developed using the five-pointLikert scale to assess the level of importance of eachelement given under various 23 manufacturing excel-lence/world-class manufacturing frameworks, identi-fied from the literature search. A covering letter wasdrafted, in which general information about the pro-ject, the purpose of the study, and how to fill in thesurvey, were discussed. The respondents wereassured of the level of data protection/confidentialityand were requested to share any other information/views they had on the application of manufacturingexcellence concepts in Indian industry. Respondentswere asked to consider each framework both indivi-dually and as part of a path towards achieving manu-facturing excellence, with each element being amilestone to guide an organization towards thatend. The respondents were asked to assign a levelbased on ‘how important is each element of a parti-cular framework to the organization?’ In the majorityof the frameworks the language is lucid and can beeasily understood. However, it was suggested thatthe participants contact the authors if they did notunderstand a question and this did indeed occur onseveral occasions.

A total of 396 questionnaires were sent by post.Subsequently, more than 100 postal reminders and300 emails were sent. In addition, some people werecontacted personally by telephone. Out of the 396

questionnaires, 78 responses were received. How-ever, there were six questionnaires that were incom-plete and considered to be invalid, leaving a total of72 valid responses. These responses included 17from the automobile sector, 19 from the machinesand equipment industry, eight from textile compa-nies, 13 from electronics companies, and 15 fromthe process industry, which represented the lowestresponse rate of only 12.5 per cent. The overallresponse rate was 18.2 per cent, which can be consid-ered good in Indian conditions. The statistics of theindividual sector responses are shown in Fig. 2 andTable 3 respectively.

The aim of this study is to identify the organiza-tional level of understanding of the various elementsto achieve manufacturing excellence as proposed byvarious authors.

3.3 Reliability analysis

Reliability is the extent to which a variable or set ofvariables is consistent in what it is intended to mea-sure [39]. It measures the extent to which a question-naire, summated scale, or item that is repeatedlyadministered to the same people will yield the sameresults. Thus, it measures the ability to replicate thestudy. Reliability can be measured by the test–retestmethod, equivalent form, split halves, and internalconsistency methods. Of these, the internal consis-tency approach is the most reliable method andonly requires a single application [40]. Therefore, itis used in this study. The most widely accepted mea-sure of internal consistency is Cronbach’s a, where ais the average of the correlation coefficients betweenitems [41]. Cronbach’s a can be computed using thestandard commercial package SPSS, which is quiteeasy to use [42].

3.4 Validity analysis

Validity analysis ensures that the item or scale mea-sures only what it has been designed to measureand nothing else. Normally, validity analysis is car-ried out using three measures.

1. Content validity is a judgement by experts, of theextent to which a summated scale truly measuresthe concept that it was intended to measure,based on the content of the items. Content valid-ity cannot be determined statistically. It can onlybe determined by experts [42].

Table 3 Statistics of sector responses

AutomobileMachines andequipment

Electronics andcomponents Process industry Textile industry

Questionnaires sent 84 105 54 120 33Responses received 17 19 13 15 8Response rate (%) 20.2 18.1 24.1 12.5 24.2

Automobile,20.2

Machines andequipment,

18.1

Process Industries, 12.5

Textile Industry,24.2

Electronics & Components,

24.1

Fig. 2 Statistics of sector responses



2. Criterion-related validity investigates the empiri-cal relationship between the scores on a testinstrument (predictor), i.e. framework elementsand an objective outcome (the criterion), i.e.manufacturing excellence. The most importantmeasure for checking criterion-related validity issimple correlation, for testing a scale or elementsfor a single outcome.

3. Construct validity measures whether a scale is anappropriate operational definition of an outcome,i.e. the manufacturing excellence. Since the con-struct cannot be directly assessed, indirect infer-ence about the construct validity can be madethrough empirical investigations. Factor analysisconducted on a single scale will show whetherall the dimensions (elements) within a summatedscale will load a single or same construct orwhether the summated scale measures morethan one construct, i.e. checks the unidimension-ality of the scales towards a single construct.

4 RESULTS

Validity analysis of the frameworks of manufacturingexcellence was performed to check whether the vali-dated frameworks could be used directly for furtherstudy. To assess the content validity of the question-naire, the initial draft of the questionnaire was admi-nistered to 12 academics and eight higher-degreestudents of the mechanical engineering group of theBirla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS),Pilani, who had experience in questionnaire designor understood the concept of manufacturing excel-lence. The questionnaires were also sent to academicsin other institutions and to other consultants, butthe response rate was very poor. The few responsesthat were obtained from them were found to beinvalid. Hence, here, only valid responses obtainedfrom the academics at BITS were considered. Theseresponses were used to frame the final version ofthe questionnaire that was subsequently sent to thetargeted companies.

The frameworks were then checked for criterion-related validity to see whether these measures posi-tively related to the level of manufacturing excellencein an organization. However, since the level of excel-lence of the responding organizations was notincluded, it was presumed that the respondents per-formed a validity analysis on their respective frame-works in their environment. Hence, the criterionvalidity of the frameworks was not assessed. Finally,the frameworks were checked for their constructvalidity. A measure has construct validity if it mea-sures the concept or the theoretical construct it wasintended or designed to measure; in this case,it refers to manufacturing excellence. In order to

perform a validity analysis on the scales, the scalesmust be unidimensional [43, 44] and statisticallyreliable [44]. Hence, unidimensionality checks anda reliability analysis were performed on all theframeworks. The construct validity of each of the 23frameworks was obtained using factor analysis andit was found that only seven frameworks displayedunidimensionality. The factors extracted from eachframework are listed in Table 4.

Table 5 shows an example of a component matrixfor the framework of Ng and Hung, obtained afterthe principal component analysis for the factorextraction.

The frameworks displaying unidimensionality are:

(a) Ng and Hung;(b) Probe suite model;(c) best Manufacturing Practice Model: Australian

Manufacturing Council;(d) model proposed by Kepner–Tregoe Consultants;

Table 4 Factors extracted from each framework

Name of the frameworkNumber of factorsextracted

Gilgeous and Gilgeous 2Shigeo Shingo (Shingo Prize for excellencein manufacturing) 3

Ng and Hung 1Probe Suite : Made in Europe 2Frost & Sullivan’s (IMEA) 3EFQM Excellence Model 2Eicher Consultancy Services, India 3Schonberger 3Silswal and Suryanarayanan 2Best Factory Award Model 2Best Manufacturing PracticesModel: Australian ManufacturingCouncil 1

Kepner-Tregoe 1Yusuff 2Schultz 4Gunn 1Roth et al. 1Blackmon et al. 2Basu and Wright 2Steudel and Desruelle 3Farsijani and Carruthers 6Sharma 1Jetley and Catalano 2Chan 2

Table 5 Component matrix for the framework of Ng andHung

Component 1

Management approach 0.731Manufacturing strategy 0.718Organization structure 0.735Manufacturing capabilities 0.681Performance measurement 0.649Human factor 0.706Technology 0.631

Extraction method: principal component analysis.



(e) Gunn;(f) Rath et al.(g) Sharma.

Among the remaining frameworks, the EFQM frame-work can also be included, as the enablers show uni-dimensionality with the results part-forming thesecond factor.

Inter-item analysis was used to check the scales forinternal consistency or reliability. Cronbach’s a coef-ficient was calculated for each framework, as recom-mended for empirical research in operationsmanagement [42, 45]. Cronbach’s a coefficient foreach framework was found to be greater than 0.7,which is considered to be good. Since the reliabilityanalysis was not performed to test a new question-naire but rather to test existing frameworks, it canbe assumed that an a value of 0.8 or more is needed.All the frameworks that were selected using validityanalysis have a Cronbach’s a coefficient of more

than 0.8 and a mean of more than 3.5. The meanand reliability analysis results for selected frame-works are listed in Table 6.

Table 7 shows an example of the reliability analysisof the framework by Ng and Hung.

The main elements were identified in the selectedframeworks using frequency distribution. Theselected elements were those having a mode (themost frequently occurring value) of four or more.The majority of the elements in each frameworkwere identified but some were not these include:

(a) variation reduction;(b) concurrent engineering;(c) organization structure.

A sample frequency analysis statistic performed onthe framework of Ng and Hung is shown in Table 8.

A total of 51 elements were identified from theeight frameworks.

Table 6 Mean and reliability analysis results for the selected frameworks

Framework nameNg andHung

Probe suitemodel

Best ManufacturingPractice Model: AustralianManufacturingCouncil Kepner-Tregoe Gunn

Rothet al. Sharma

EFQM ExcellenceModel

Overall mean 3.97 4.04 4.12 3.81 3.91 3.95 3.95 4.01Cronbach’s a 0.8199 0.8229 0.8729 0.8919 0.9005 0.8964 0.8516 0.8598

Table 7 Reliability analysis for the framework of Ng and Hung

Number of cases ¼ 72.0Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance

4.0376 3.5526 4.2105 0.6579 1.1852 0.0510

Item-total statisticsScale scale Correctedmean variance item- Squared aif item if item total multiple if itemdeleted deleted correlation correlation deleted

F3.1 24.2368 14.5640 0.7559 0.6499 0.8459F3.2 24.0526 15.7809 0.6930 0.5363 0.8551F3.3 24.7105 15.9410 0.6142 0.4657 0.8651F3.4 24.2368 16.4018 0.6450 0.5061 0.8618F3.5 24.0789 16.8314 0.5543 0.3552 0.8719F3.6 24.1579 16.3798 0.6734 0.6121 0.8575F3.7 24.1053 14.7994 0.6884 0.5128 0.8561

Reliability coefficients seven itemsa ¼ 0.8770 Standardized item a ¼ 0.8771

Table 8 Statistics of the frequency analysis carried out for the framework of Ng and Hung

Managementapproach

Manufacturingstrategy

Organizationstructure

Manufacturingcapabilities

Performancemeasurement

Humanfactor Technology

N Valid 72 72 72 72 72 72 72Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.04 4.22 3.51 3.90 4.03 4.04 4.10Median 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00Mode 4 4 3 4 4 4 4



5 CONCLUSIONS

The validity and reliability of applying existing manu-facturing excellence or world-class manufacturingframeworks to Indian companies has been investi-gated. It has been shown that while the majority offrameworks display high levels of reliability, veryfew display unidimensionality with respect to theconstruct, i.e. the manufacturing excellence it mea-sures. Frequency analysis has shown that the major-ity of the elements have a high mean score. All theanalysed frameworks have different elements with acertain amount of overlap between them. Whilesome Indian frameworks such as Frost and Sullivan’sIndian Manufacturing Excellence Awards and theEicher Consultancy Services framework are available,they do not consider important elements such ashuman resource management and change manage-ment. Therefore, it is concluded that none of theexisting Indian frameworks can be used in their pre-sent form. It has also been found that none of theexisting frameworks, including the Indian frame-works, considers important elements such as greenmanufacturing, knowledge management, processflexibility, world-class maintenance, etc. Hence,none of the existing frameworks can be used in theirpresent form and therefore, a new manufacturingexcellence framework is required to address all thesegaps. To some extent this gap can be filled by combin-ing existing frameworks, which may provide a bettermodel for the Indian context.

Manufacturing excellence is an important objec-tive for Indian companies if they are to competesuccessfully in todays marketplace. Thus, there is arequirement for an appropriate framework for asses-sing manufacturing in India that takes into accountthe prevailing conditions in that country. However,a complete prescription of manufacturing excellenceis beyond the scope of this paper and will be carriedout as part of future research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank those industrialistswho took the time to respond to the questionnaire.The contribution of faculty members and studentsof BITS to the validation of the questionnaire is grate-fully acknowledged.

References

1 Chandra, P. and Sastry, T. Competitiveness of Indianmanufacturing, findings of the 1997 manufacturingfuture survey. Vikalpa, 1998, 23(3), 25–35.

2 Dangayach, G. S. and Deshmukh, S. G. Manufactur-ing strategy: experiences from Indian manufa-cturing companies. Prod. Plan. Control, 2001, 12(8),775–786.

3 Manufacturing excellence in India: implications for arapidly integrating economy. Businessline, Chennai, 9September 2005, 1.

4 Indian manufacturing in a global perspective, availablefrom www.naider.com/ateneo/articuloVentana.asp., lastaccess January 2006.

5 National Manufacturing Competitive Council. Thenational strategy for manufacturing, Government ofIndia Report, 2006.

6 Knuckey, S., Leung-Wai, J., andMeskill, M. Gearing up:a study of best manufacturing practice in New Zealand,AMinistry of CommerceReport, 1999, pp. 64–68 (availablefrom http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/118049/gearingup.pdf#search¼%22%22Best%20Manufacturing%20Practices%20Model%22%22, last access September 2005).

7 The path to manufacturing excellence, available fromhttp://www.Kepner-Tregoe.com, last access December2005.

8 Roth, A. V., Giffi, C. A., and Seal, G. M. Operating stra-tegies for the 1990s: elements comprising world-classmanufacturing. In Manufacturing strategy – processand content (Ed. C. A. Voss), 1992, (Chapman and Hall,London).

9 Schonberger, R. J. World class manufacturing, 1986(Free Press, New York).

10 Todd, J. World class manufacturing, 1994 (McGraw Hill,London).

11 Rubrich, L. and Watson, M. Implementing world-classmanufacturing, 1998 (WCM Associates, Fort Wayne).

12 Greene, A. Plant-wide systems: a world class perspec-tive. Prod. Invent. Mgmt, 1991, 11(7), 14–15.

13 Skinner, W. The focused factory. Harv. Bus. Rev., 1974,52(3), 113–121.

14 Hayes, R. H. and Wheelwright, S. C. Restoring out com-petitive edge – competing through manufacturing, 1984(John Wiley & Sons, New York).

15 Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., and Roos, D. The machinethat changed the world, 1990 (Macmillan, New York).

16 Slack, N. J. The manufacturing advantage, 1991(Mercury, UK).

17 Garvin, D. A. Managing quality: the strategic and com-petitive edge, 1998 (Free Press, New York).

18 Peters, T. J. and Waterman, R. H. In search ofexcellence: lessons from America’s best run companies,1982 (Harper & Row, London).

19 Gilgeous, V. and Gilgeous, M. A framework formanufacturing excellence. Integr. Mfg Systs, 1999, 10(1), 33–44.

20 Shigeo Shingo Prize for Excellence in Manufacturing,available from http:// www.shingoprize.org/AwardInfo/BusPrize/BusinessGuidelines.pdf, last access December2005.

21 Ng, K. C. and Hung, I. W. A model for global manufac-turing excellence. Work Study, 2001, 50(2), 63–68.

22 Yarrow, D., Hanson, P., and Robson, A. Made inthe 21st century: how far have we come on the journeyto excellence? Total Qual. Mgmt, 2004, 15(5-6), 829–839.



http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/118049/gearingup

http://www.Kepner-Tregoe.com

http://www.shingoprize.org/AwardInfo/

23 Frost and Sullivan’s India Manufacturing ExcellenceAwards, available from http://www.frost.com/prod/serv-let/summitsdetailssummary.pag?as¼attend&eventid=30890894, last access December 2005.

24 Watson, P. Implementing the European Foundation forQuality Management model. FIG XXII InternationalCongress, Washington DC, USA, 2002.

25 Eicher Consultancy Services. Advanced manufacturingexcellencemodel, available from http:// www.ecs-limited.com/operations/manufacture.asp, last access January2006.

26 Silswal, R. and Suryanarayanan, K. Assessing manufac-turing excellence: a practice performance gap model.International Conference on SCM for Global Competi-tion, Delhi, India, 1999.

27 Yusuff, R. M. Manufacturing best practices of theelectric & electronic firms in Malaysia. Benchmarking,2004, 11(4), 361–369.

28 Schultz, K. H. World class manufacturing, availablefrom http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel3/5238/14154/00651020.pdf?arnumber¼651020, last access January, 2006.

29 Discenza, R., Couger, J. D., Higgins, L. F., andMcIntyre, S. C. Creative processes to develop worldclass systems for manufacturing. IEEE Trans. Semi-cond. Mfg, 1990, 3, 380–388.

30 Blockmon, K., Hanson, P., Voss, C., and Wilson, F.Being a world class organization – what does it mean?In Best practice, process innovation management , (Ed.M. Zairi), 1999 pp. 344–373 (Butterworth-Heinemann,Woburn, USA).

31 Basu, R. andWright, N.Measuring performance againstworld class standards. IIF Soln., 1996, 28(12), 32–35.

32 Steudel, H. J. and Desruelle, P. Manufacturing in thenineties: how to become a mean, lean, world class com-petitor, 1992 (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York).

33 Farsijani, H. and Carruthers, A. World-class-manufacturing techniques for small and medium sizedenterprises. In Proceedings of IEMC96, 1996 (IEEE,Piscataway NJ), pp. 112–116.

34 Sharma, A. World-class-manufacturing report 2005,available from http://www.cmssoftware.com, last accessMarch 2006.

35 Jetley, S. and Catalano, J. World-class-manufacturing,working paper, College of Technology, Bowling GreenState University, USA, 1999.

36 Chan, K. C. World Class manufacturing. IndustrialManagement-Data Systems, Wembley, 1993, 93(2),5–3.

37 Stewart, A. An investigation of the suitability of theEFQM Excellence Model for a pharmacy departmentwithin an NHS Trust. Int. J. Health Care Qual. Assur-ance., 2003, 16(2), 65–76.

38 Dangayach, G. S. and Deshmukh, S. G. Evidence ofmanufacturing strategies in Indian industry: a survey.Int. J. Prod. Econ., 2003, 83(3), 279–298.

39 Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black,W. C. Multivariate data analysis, 1998 (Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey).

40 Sureshchandar, G. S., Rajendran, C., andAnanthraman,R. N. A holistic model for total quality service. Int. J.Service Ind. Mgmt, 2001, 12(3), 338–412.

41 Nunnally, J. Psychometric methods, 1978 (McGraw Hill,New York).

42 Flynn, B. B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R. G.,Bates, K. A., and Flynn, E. J. Empirical researchmethods in operations management. J. Oper. Mgmt,1990, 9(1), 250–284.

43 Gerbing, D. and Anderson, J. An updated paradigm forsales development incorporating unidimensionality andits assessment. J. Market. Res., 1988, 25, 186–192.

44 Ahire, S. L., Golhar, D. Y., and Waller, M. A. Develop-ment and validation of TQM implementation con-structs. Decisions. Sci., 1996, 27(1), 23–56.

45 Malhotra, M. K. and Grover, V. An assessment of surveyresearch in POM: from constructs to theory. J. Oper.Mgmt, 1998, 16, 407–425.

APPENDIX

Survey QuestionnaireIntroduction: Researchers / Consultants/ Organi-

zations have proposed various frameworks for manu-facturing excellence/world-class-manufacturing thatare available in the literature. Some of the frame-works were developed by empirical study and someof the frameworks were used by various organiza-tions in different parts of world. Twenty-three frame-works are available to achieve manufacturingexcellence/ world-class manufacturing. Hence, theaim of this study is as below:

Aim: Evaluation of reliability, replication and valid-ity of each manufacturing excellence/ world-classmanufacturing framework in Indian Industry.

PART A

General Information:

i. Name:ii. Designation:iii. Experience in years:iv. Name of the organization:v. Number of employees:vi. Does your organization have a vision in manufac-

turing excellence/ world-class manufacturing?Yes / No (Please Tick)

vii. Please write the mission of your organizationviii. Has your organization received any excellence

award in manufacturing/quality/maintenance/productivity? If yes, please name the award &agency and the year in which it is awarded.

ix. Please indicate the growth of the organizationduring the last three years :(a) Increase more than 30%(b) Increase between 10 – 20%



fromhttp://www.frost.com/prod/serv-let/summitsdetailssummary.pag?as

http://www.ecs-limited

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel3/5238/14154/00651

http://www.cmssoftware.com

(c) Increase between 0 - 10%(d) Decrease between 0 - 10%(e) Decrease between 10 - 20%(f) Decrease between 20 - 30%

PART B

Guidelines for filling the questionnaire:

• Please consider each framework in isolation / standalone (individually) to achieve manufacturingexcellence/ world-class manufacturing.

• Please read the framework and its elements care-fully and indicate/assign the actual level of impor-tance of the elements of the frameworkmentioned as per your expertise.

• The level of importance is given from 1 to 5wherein:

• 1: Not important 2: Less Important 3: Important 4:More Important 5: Most Important.

Manufacturing Excellence Frameworks









World-Class Manufacturing Frameworks









Documents

Validity and reliability of applying manufacturing excellence frameworks to Indian industries