10220140501001 (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

1

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

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH 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 © I A E M E


2

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 organization’s 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

organization’s 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 organization’s 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).


3

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 company’s 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

Organisations’units 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


4

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


5

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 α 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 α 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 α 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


6

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 Likert’s 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 non-

certified 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.


7

Table 1 (a): Sample structure - profile of the respondents, units

Unit Location Respondents QMS Certification as per ISO 9001

No. Average Work Experience

Certified

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


8

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 Status

SR MR TO Total No. Av. Work

Exp. No. Av. Work

Exp. No. Av. Work

Exp. No. Av. Work

Exp. Certified Units 111 20.61 250 8.69 54 25.56 415 14.07

Non-Certified Units

26 20.58 45 7.91 14 25.21 85 14.64

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

S. No. Facilitators Responses from ISO 9001

Certified Units

Responses from Non-ISO 9001 Certified Units

t-Test Significant 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

management

1.99 0.48 2.20 0.26 0.000**

6. Continual improvement 1.91 0.48 2.19 0.22 0.000**

7. Factual approach to decision

making

1.92 0.49 2.19 0.23 0.000**

8. Mutually beneficial supplier

relationships

1.94 0.48 2.18 0.24 0.000**

** * 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


9

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 - SR

Middle Ranks - MR

Technical Officers - TO

Total F Sig. Diff. Level

n=26 n=45 n=14 n=85

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

1. Customer

focus

1.82 0.481 1.89 0.489 1.99 0.446 1.89 0.483 2.270 NS

0.105

2. Leadership 1.85 0.482 1.91 0.497 2.02 0.438 1.91 0.488 2.463 NS

0.086

3. Involvement

of people

1.87 0.474 1.94 0.505 2.04 0.440 1.93 0.490 2.353 NS

0.096

4. Process

approach

1.88 0.456 1.95 0.498 2.03 0.433 1.94 0.480 1.886 NS

0.153

5. System

approach to

management

1.93 0.440 1.99 0.506 2.05 0.435 1.99 0.481 1.132 NS

0.323

6. Continual

improvement

1.85 0.476 1.91 0.494 2.02 0.437 1.91 0.484 2.389 NS

0.093

7. Factual

approach to

decision

making

1.86 0.477 1.92 0.499 2.03 0.437 1.92 0.487 2.423 NS

0.090

8. Mutually

beneficial

supplier

relationships

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.


10

Table 4: ANOVA between various levels of respondents on the facilitators - non-ISO

certified units

S. No.

Facilitator Senior Ranks - SR

Middle Ranks - MR



n=26 n=45 n=14 n=85


1. Customer

focus

2.17 0.193 2.2 0.224 2.24 0.224 2.20 0.214 0.534 NS

0.588

2. Leadership 2.15 0.206 2.2 0.228 2.25 0.234 2.18 0.223 0.905 NS

0.408

3. Involvement

of people

2.16 0.214 2.2 0.256 2.26 0.264 2.19 0.244 0.751 NS

0.475

4. Process

approach

2.15 0.225 2.2 0.244 2.25 0.238 2.18 0.237 0.829 NS

0.440

5. System

approach to

management

2.16 0.219 2.2 0.249 2.33 0.311 2.20 0.256 2.318 NS

0.105

6. Continual

improvement

2.16 0.200 2.2 0.230 2.25 0.237 2.19 0.222 0.758 NS

0.472

7. Factual

approach to

decision

making

2.15 0.209 2.2 0.239 2.25 0.246 2.19 0.231 0.841 NS

0.435

8. Mutually

beneficial

supplier

relationships

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


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


to decision making’, and ‘Mutually beneficial supplier relationships’.


11

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



Level n=415 n=85

Mean SD Mean SD 1. Customer

focus

We research to understand clearly the

needs and expectations of our customers.

1.58 0.646 2.09 0.294 0.000**

2. We try to ensure that the objectives of the

laboratory are linked to the customer

needs and expectations.

1.61 0.611 2.11 0.346 0.000**

3. We communicate customer needs and

expectations throughout the laboratory.

1.67 0.609 2.08 0.352 0.000**

4. We try to maintain a balance between

satisfying customers and the interest of

other stakeholders.

1.88 0.481 2.06 0.237 0.001**

5. We measure customer satisfaction on

regular basis and take actions on the

results.

2.00 0.650 2.24 0.427 0.002**

6. Leadership The goals and targets are set to meet the

vision.

1.76 0.558 2.12 0.391 0.000**

7. We lack in the required resources and

training to act with responsibility and

accountability.

4.27 0.617 3.61 0.514 0.000**

8. We lack in the required freedom to act

with responsibility and accountability.

4.36 0.692 3.67 0.497 0.000**

9. The top management Inspires and

encourages employees to contribute.

2.02 0.613 2.14 0.441 NS

0.095

10. Employees’ contributions are not fairly

recognized.

4.25 0.672 3.58 0.520 0.000**

11. Involvement

of people

Employees understand the importance of

their role and contribution in the

organization.

1.94 0.517 2.12 0.324 0.003**

12. Employees do not own the problems and

hence do not accept the responsibility for

solving them.

3.99 0.598 3.81 0.422 0.009**

13. Employees actively look for

opportunities to enhance their

competence, knowledge and experience.

1.76 0.619 2.15 0.362 0.000**

14. Employees generally avoid discussing

the problems and issues openly.

3.97 0.542 3.82 0.413 0.018**

15. Employees share knowledge and

experience.

1.90 0.697 2.20 0.431 0.000**

16. Process

approach

Individuals’ goals and objectives of the

employees are not clearly defined.

4.27 0.565 3.66 0.501 0.000**

17. Employees evaluate their performance

against their individual goals and

objectives.

2.00 0.549 2.19 0.393 0.003**

18. The laboratory systematically defines the

activities necessary to obtain a desired

result.

1.95 0.578 2.21 0.411 0.000**

19. We do not have a system to analyze and

measure the capability of key activities.

4.07 0.496 3.86 0.350 0.000**


12

S. No. Facilitator Item Responses from ISO 9001 Certified Units



Level n=415 n=85

Mean SD Mean SD 20. We focus the resources, methods, and

materials to improve key activities of the

laboratory.

1.88 0.467 2.11 0.346 0.000**

21. System

approach to

management

We lack in structuring a system to

achieve the laboratory’s objectives in the

most effective and efficient way.

4.01 0.560 3.78 0.419 0.000**

22. We understand the interdependencies

between various processes in the

laboratory.

1.75 0.634 2.16 0.404 0.000**

23. We continually improve the system

through measurement and evaluation.

1.85 0.458 2.11 0.346 0.000**

24. Continual

improvement Making continual improvement of

products, processes and systems is an

objective for every employee in the

laboratory.

1.89 0.536 2.16 0.404 0.000**

25. Employees are provided with training in

the methods and tools of continual

improvement.

1.95 0.608 2.19 0.393 0.000**

26. There is no system to recognize and

acknowledge improvements made by the

employees.

4.22 0.655 3.75 0.486 0.000**

27. Factual

approach to

decision

making

We ensure that data and information

available in the laboratory are sufficiently

accurate and reliable.

1.78 0.649 2.16 0.404 0.000**

28. Decisions and actions are based on

factual analysis, experience and intuition.

1.88 0.720 2.24 0.454 0.000**

29. Mutually

beneficial

supplier

relationships

Key suppliers are carefully identified. 1.82 0.580 2.11 0.346 0.000**

30. Improvements and achievements at

suppliers’ side are encouraged and

recognized by the laboratory.

2.16 0.612 2.22 0.419 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’.


13

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.

No. Facilitator Item Senior

Ranks - SR Middle

Ranks - MR Technical Officers -

TO


n=111 n=250 n=54 n=415


1. Customer

focus

We research to

understand clearly

the needs and

expectations of our

customers.

1.468 0.615 1.636 0.664 1.574 0.602 1.583 0.646 2.610 NS

0.075

2. We try to ensure

that the objectives of

the laboratory are

linked to the

customer needs and

expectations.

1.514 0.601 1.672 0.618 1.519 0.574 1.610 0.611 3.308 0.038*

3. We communicate

customer needs and

expectations

throughout the

laboratory.

1.550 0.614 1.712 0.599 1.741 0.620 1.672 0.609 3.162 0.043*

4. We try to maintain a

balance between

satisfying customers

and the interest of

other stakeholders.

1.856 0.423 1.896 0.512 1.852 0.452 1.880 0.481 0.369 NS

0.692

5. We measure

customer

satisfaction on

regular basis and

take actions on the

results.

2.000 0.632 2.012 0.655 1.963 0.672 2.002 0.650 0.127 NS

0.881

6. Leadership The goals and

targets are set to

meet the vision.

1.793 0.541 1.744 0.558 1.796 0.595 1.764 0.558 0.398 NS

0.672

7. We lack in the

required resources

and training to act

with responsibility

and accountability.

4.261 0.628 4.280 0.616 4.241 0.612 4.270 0.617 0.104 NS

0.901

8. We lack in the

required freedom to

act with

responsibility and

accountability.

4.423 0.640 4.364 0.705 4.241 0.725 4.364 0.692 1.269 NS

0.282


14

S. No.

Facilitator Item Senior Ranks - SR

Middle Ranks - MR

Technical Officers -

TO


n=111 n=250 n=54 n=415


9. The top

management

Inspires and

encourages

employees to

contribute.

2.036 0.587 2.020 0.630 2.019 0.598 2.024 0.613 0.029 NS

0.972

10. Employees’

contributions are not

fairly recognized.

4.378 0.688 4.200 0.677 4.185 0.585 4.246 0.672 2.989 NS

0.051

11. Involvement

of people

Employees

understand the

importance of their

role and

contribution in the

organization.

1.919 0.450 1.956 0.540 1.926 0.544 1.942 0.517 0.228 NS

0.797

12. Employees do not

own the problems

and hence do not

accept the

responsibility for

solving them.

3.991 0.513 4.008 0.627 3.907 0.622 3.990 0.598 0.628 NS

0.534

13. Employees actively

look for

opportunities to

enhance their

competence,

knowledge and

experience.

1.649 0.598 1.784 0.616 1.852 0.656 1.757 0.619 2.595 NS

0.076

14. Employees

generally avoid

discussing the

problems and issues

openly.

3.964 0.503 3.992 0.560 3.889 0.538 3.971 0.542 0.816 NS

0.443

15. Employees share

knowledge and

experience.

1.793 0.715 1.928 0.696 2.000 0.644 1.901 0.697 2.083 NS

0.126

16. Process

approach

Individuals’ goals

and objectives of the

employees are not

clearly defined.

4.378 0.557 4.244 0.553 4.185 0.617 4.272 0.565 2.937 NS

0.054

17. Employees evaluate

their performance

against their

individual goals and

objectives.

2.117 0.500 1.940 0.567 2.056 0.529 2.002 0.549 4.353 0.013*

18. The laboratory

systematically

defines the activities

necessary to obtain a

desired result.

1.964 0.538 1.944 0.599 1.981 0.566 1.954 0.578 0.115 NS

0.892


15

S. No.


Middle Ranks - MR


TO


n=111 n=250 n=54 n=415


19. We do not have a

system to analyze

and measure the

capability of key

activities.

4.090 0.496 4.084 0.488 3.981 0.532 4.072 0.496 1.047 NS

0.352

20. We focus the

resources, methods,

and materials to

improve key

activities of the

laboratory.

1.883 0.442 1.864 0.472 1.981 0.495 1.884 0.467 1.406 NS

0.246

21. System

approach to

management

We lack in

structuring a system

to achieve the

laboratory’s

objectives in the

most effective and

efficient way.

3.955 0.511 4.060 0.560 3.926 0.640 4.014 0.560 2.138 NS

0.119

22. We understand the

interdependencies

between various

processes in the

laboratory.

1.703 0.641 1.740 0.621 1.870 0.674 1.747 0.634 1.310 NS

0.271

23. We continually

improve the system

through

measurement and

evaluation.

1.910 0.417 1.836 0.475 1.796 0.451 1.851 0.458 1.442 NS

0.238

24. Continual

improvement Making continual

improvement of

products, processes

and systems is an

objective for every

employee in the

laboratory.

1.892 0.474 1.904 0.566 1.815 0.517 1.889 0.536 0.616 NS

0.541

25. Employees are

provided with

training in the

methods and tools

of continual

improvement.

1.991 0.564 1.916 0.631 2.000 0.583 1.947 0.608 0.821 NS

0.441

26. There is no system

to recognize and

acknowledge

improvements made

by the employees.

4.288 0.679 4.204 0.623 4.167 0.746 4.222 0.655 0.855 NS

0.426


16

S. No.


Middle Ranks - MR


TO


n=111 n=250 n=54 n=415


27. Factual

approach to

decision

making

We ensure that data

and information

available in the

laboratory are

sufficiently accurate

and reliable.

1.730 0.660 1.776 0.645 1.926 0.640 1.783 0.649 1.703 NS

0.183

28. Decisions and

actions are based on

factual analysis,

experience and

intuition.

1.802 0.749 1.876 0.715 2.093 0.652 1.884 0.720 3.037 0.049*

29. Mutually

beneficial

supplier

relationships

Key suppliers are

carefully identified.

1.739 0.599 1.820 0.577 1.981 0.532 1.819 0.580 3.212 0.041*

30. Improvements and

achievements at

suppliers’ side are

encouraged and

recognized by the

laboratory.

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.


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’,


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 sub-

groups (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


17

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.

No. Facilitator Item Senior

Ranks - SR Middle

Ranks - MR Technical

Officers - TO Total F Sig.

Diff. Level

n=26 n=45 n=14 n=85


1. Customer

focus

We research to

understand clearly the

needs and expectations

of our customers.

2.077 0.272 2.133 0.344 2.000 0.000 2.094 0.294 1.169 NS

0.316

2. We try to ensure that the

objectives of the

laboratory are linked to

the customer needs and

expectations.

2.038 0.196 2.111 0.383 2.214 0.426 2.106 0.346 1.192 NS

0.309

3. We communicate

customer needs and

expectations throughout

the laboratory.

2.038 0.196 2.111 0.383 2.071 0.475 2.082 0.352 0.353 NS

0.704

4. We try to maintain a

balance between

satisfying customers

and the interest of other

stakeholders.

2.038 0.196 2.022 0.149 2.214 0.426 2.059 0.237 3.907 NS

0.024*

5. We measure customer

satisfaction on regular

basis and take actions

on the results.

2.192 0.402 2.222 0.420 2.357 0.497 2.235 0.427 0.719 NS

0.490

6. Leadership The goals and targets

are set to meet the

vision.

2.115 0.326 2.133 0.457 2.071 0.267 2.118 0.391 0.132 NS

0.877

7. We lack in the required

resources and training to

act with responsibility

and accountability.

3.577 0.504 3.556 0.546 3.857 0.363 3.612 0.514 1.969 NS

0.146

8. We lack in the required

freedom to act with

responsibility and

accountability.

3.731 0.452 3.644 0.529 3.643 0.497 3.671 0.497 0.270 NS

0.764

9. The top management

Inspires and encourages

employees to contribute.

2.077 0.272 2.156 0.475 2.214 0.579 2.141 0.441 0.487 NS

0.616

10. Employees’

contributions are not

fairly recognized.

3.654 0.485 3.467 0.548 3.786 0.426 3.576 0.520 2.507 NS

0.088

11. Involvement

of people

Employees understand

the importance of their

role and contribution in

the organization.

2.115 0.326 2.133 0.344 2.071 0.267 2.118 0.324 0.192 NS

0.826


18

S. No.


Middle Ranks - MR



n=26 n=45 n=14 n=85


12. Employees do not own

the problems and hence

do not accept the

responsibility for

solving them.

3.769 0.430 3.822 0.442 3.857 0.363 3.812 0.422 0.222 NS

0.801

13. Employees actively

look for opportunities to

enhance their

competence, knowledge

and experience.

2.154 0.368 2.133 0.344 2.214 0.426 2.153 0.362 0.262 NS

0.770

14. Employees generally

avoid discussing the

problems and issues

openly.

3.885 0.326 3.822 0.442 3.714 0.469 3.824 0.413 0.769 NS

0.467

15. Employees share

knowledge and

experience.

2.115 0.326 2.267 0.447 2.143 0.535 2.200 0.431 1.167 NS

0.316

16. Process

approach

Individuals’ goals and

objectives of the

employees are not

clearly defined.

3.692 0.471 3.578 0.543 3.857 0.363 3.659 0.501 1.774 NS

0.176

17. Employees evaluate

their performance

against their individual

goals and objectives.

2.192 0.402 2.200 0.405 2.143 0.363 2.188 0.393 0.112 NS

0.894

18. The laboratory

systematically defines

the activities necessary

to obtain a desired

result.

2.192 0.402 2.200 0.405 2.286 0.469 2.212 0.411 0.269 NS

0.764

19. We do not have a

system to analyze and

measure the capability

of key activities.

3.846 0.368 3.867 0.344 3.857 0.363 3.859 0.350 0.028 NS

0.973

20. We focus the resources,

methods, and materials

to improve key

activities of the

laboratory.

2.115 0.326 2.133 0.344 2.000 0.392 2.106 0.346 0.804 NS

0.451

21. System

approach to

management

We lack in structuring a

system to achieve the

laboratory’s objectives

in the most effective

and efficient way.

3.769 0.430 3.800 0.405 3.714 0.469 3.776 0.419 0.225 NS

0.799

22. We understand the

interdependencies

between various

processes in the

laboratory.

2.192 0.402 2.111 0.383 2.286 0.469 2.165 0.404 1.088 NS

0.342

23. We continually improve

the system through

measurement and

evaluation.

2.192 0.402 2.089 0.358 2.000 0.000 2.106 0.346 1.542 NS

0.220


19

S. No.


Middle Ranks - MR



n=26 n=45 n=14 n=85


24. Continual

improvement

Making continual

improvement of

products, processes and

systems is an objective

for every employee in

the laboratory.

2.077 0.272 2.111 0.383 2.500 0.519 2.165 0.404 6.619 0.002*

25. Employees are provided

with training in the

methods and tools of

continual improvement.

2.192 0.402 2.200 0.405 2.143 0.363 2.188 0.393 0.112 NS

0.894

26. There is no system to

recognize and

acknowledge

improvements made by

the employees.

3.731 0.452 3.756 0.529 3.786 0.426 3.753 0.486 0.058 NS

0.943

27. Factual

approach to

decision

making

We ensure that data and

information available in

the laboratory are

sufficiently accurate and

reliable.

2.115 0.326 2.178 0.442 2.214 0.426 2.165 0.404 0.318 NS

0.729

28. Decisions and actions

are based on factual

analysis, experience and

intuition.

2.192 0.402 2.244 0.484 2.286 0.469 2.235 0.454 0.208 NS

0.812

29. Mutually

beneficial

supplier

relationships

Key suppliers are

carefully identified.

2.115 0.326 2.133 0.405 2.000 0.000 2.106 0.346 0.804 NS

0.451

30. Improvements and

achievements at

suppliers’ side are

encouraged and

recognized by the

laboratory.

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.


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


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 non-


20

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’,


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


21

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 REFERENCES

[1] 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.

[2] 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.

[3] Cronbach, L.J.(1971), “Educational Measurement” (2 ed.), Washington DC:

American Council on Education.

[4] 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.

[5] Field, A. (2005), “Discovering Statistics Using SPSS”, ed. ii, SAGE Publications.

[6] Fotopulos, Ch. V., Psomas, E. L. (2010). ISO 9001:2000 implementation in the Greek

food sector. TQM Journal, 22(2), 129–142.

[7] 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.

[8] http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/research-and-development/, accessed July 15, 2013.

[9] http://www.drdo.org, accessed June 15, 2013.

[10] http://www.iso.org, “The ISO Survey-2011” (2011).

[11] 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.

[12] ISO 8402:1994 (E), (1994), “Quality management and quality assurance -

Vocabulary”.

[13] ISO 9000:2005 (E), (2005). “Quality Management Systems - Vocabulary”.

[14] ISO 9001:2008 (E), (2008). “Quality Management Systems - Requirements”.


22

[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 company’s 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),

881–893.

[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.