Assuring input quality under TQM practices: a comparative analysis of four major Indian passenger car companies.

Prashar, Sanjeev ; Jasial, Sumeet Singh

Introduction

Indian automobile industry has in recent years, flourished and displayed extra ordinary growth capabilities. This has become possible mainly because of improvement in living standards of Indian middle class and increase in their disposable income. When India, under the impact of 2nd phase of liberalization, globalization and privatization, is posed for the growth rate of 9.4% (Economic Times, 18th March, 2008), it is pertinent to sustain its higher growth in manufacturing sector, more specifically in the areas with optimally equal level of capital and labour eg industries like automobile, pharma, food processing, as these contribute significantly higher level of employment in its resultant of GDP. In its initial efforts, seed capital, relatively cheap labour and technology contribute to the creation of such industries. However, it is the enduring Quality Management, both for product and the processes, that profoundly contributes to the sustenance of this industry over the longer period. The strategic approach to facilitate ISO certification, among other things, is to develop Total Quality Management in the organization in every area of operations. The concept of quality exists in the Indian industry but restricted to manufacturing operations that too only in control aspects, thereby excluding planning and improvement of quality across all departments.

The philosophy of TQM has evolved over different perspectives from basic Inspection and Quality Control to final Total Quality Management. This concept of TQM refers to company wide assurance of quality, starting with vendors/ suppliers to the final customers, internal as well as external, using systems approach of documented sets of procedures and control of process variability, in a team spirit with top management commitment (Oakland, 1989). Although researches have extensively examined quality management practices in industrialized countries such as the USA, Japan, the UK, and other European countries (Benson et al., 1991; Easton, 1993; Oakland and Aldridge, 1995; Porter and Smith, 1993), empirical studies on total quality management in the developing countries are limited. However, interest on quality is growing in these countries such as India and Mexico (Knotts and Tomlin, 1994; Lakhe and Mohanty, 1994; Motwani et al., 1994; Vargas and Johnson, 1992). There is a trend towards stronger demand for improved measures of the performance of companies and TQM has significant role to play in this direction (Williams, R., Wiele T., Iwaarden J., 2004). India has its share of such studies especially in service industries like hotels, hospitals and software development (Mohanty and Behera, 1996, Vaidya and Kumar, 2003). Unfortunately, not much work has been ever undertaken on TQM in Indian automobile industry, which is growing presently at 9.2%. Also, need gap is clearly visible on Total Quality Management in various aspect of manufacturing viz. Design & Development Assurance, Vendor Control, Control of Purchased Material, Quality for Process Engineering, Verification and Analysis, Process Control, Maintenance and Control of Production Equipment and Auxiliary Facilities, Measurement Assurance: Inspection, Testing and Calibration, Non-conformity (NC)--Analysis and Control, Post- Production Functions- Handling, Storage, Preservation, Packaging and Delivery, Product Installation and Servicing, Customer Feedback, Servicing and Satisfaction; Product Liability and Quality Costs, Quality Documentation, Records and Audits, Strategic Planning, Commitment and Leadership for Quality, Training and Humanistic Aspects of TQM and Use of Statistical and other Techniques for TQM.

With respect to studies on Vendor Control and Control of Purchased Material, it is noted that continuous improvement depends on the control of procured materials, parts and services (Crosby 1979; Deming, 1982; Garvin, 1983). Vendors' participation during initial design of new products and in the solutions of problems is important to achieve high quality and faster response to market needs. A fundamental concept of Total Quality (TQ) is that the manufacturer of a part should be held responsible for producing quality-perfect parts in first time and accountable for wasting customer's time and money in processing and returning defective parts. A defective part inadvertently going through the process (Beaumont, P.B., Hunter, L.C., & Sinclair, D.M., 1994) would result in build-up of incorrect product which would ultimately produce an unsatisfied customer much against the concept of Total Quality. A manufacturer burdened with a system meant for rejecting defective parts would head for unproductive operations. No supplier should burden its customer with this problem. The best way to ensure perfect quality at the source of the part is to implement a programme designed to emphasise on this concept of quality. Most manufacturers claim the quality systems in their factories are great, but the same manufacturers fail to maintain a quality programme with their suppliers to reduce the number of defective parts in the supplier's process. The main thrust of a total quality system (Lascelles and Dale, 1989; Steeples, 1992) is to solve all quality issues with suppliers before parts are shipped. It will also help to increase the efficiency of the manufacturer by requiring only a small organization to monitor the quality of its own process. So a first-class supplier programme is critical to the success of TQM. Quality programme with suppliers include, lead-time reduction programme with supplier, supplier's process improvement programme, inspection at source, supplier information system, vendor quality certification/vendor qualification and vendor development.

Methodology

With the aim to study and compare the perceptual orientation of management and workers in this industry towards the endeavor of total quality management with respect to assuring of input quality perspectives, an extensive study was undertaken for the duration of five months starting March 2007 with four of the top five passenger car manufacturing companies in India namely Maruti Udyog Ltd (MUL), Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. (HSCIL), General Motors India (GML) and Tata Motors Ltd (Passenger Cars Business Unit) (PCBU, Tata Motors). Comparative study of these companies has been profiled on select two dimensions of Input Quality Management viz. Vendors' Control & Control of Purchased Materials. A total sample of 48 respondents from four passenger car companies was taken and set of two questionnaires, one for Vendors' Control with thirteen questions and other for Control of Purchased Material containing ten questions, were administered. Due care was taken while selecting the respondents that these belong to desired departments only. With relation to the two aspects, mostly close-ended questions with as many as five choice options were framed. For attitudes and opinion assessment, responses has been noted on a 5-point Likert scale with equal interval between any two point ratings being 0.25 viz. a total score of 1 for maximum 5 points. Descriptive statistics are used for the analysis of the collected data. The reliability for questionnaires, determined by computing Cronbach-a using SPSS, came out to be .605, and .855.

Results and Discussion

The findings from two questionnaires, from four companies have been tabulated and summated mean and standard deviation have been calculated on 13 questions relevant to Vendors' Control and ten questions relevant to input quality assuring. Annexure1 reflects the summated findings from the respondents of four companies with respect to thirteen perspectives of Vendors' Control and ten perspectives of Control of Purchased Material. Following is the discussion on quality perspectives with respect to two dimensions:

Vendors' Control

(i) All passenger car companies have an excellent system for identification and documentation of critical quality specifications, requirements, and finalizing drawings prior to purchase order release.

(ii) MUL, HSCIL, GMI, and Tata Motors are outstanding in selection of vendors and subcontractors after proper assessment.

(iii) All Companies, except Maruti Udyog, carry out process capability studies of vendors. MUL, which claims to be best in analyzing process capabilities of its vendors, was found to be very poor in this dimension.

(iv) Vendor surveillance, process audit and inspection at source etc are found to be outstanding at MUL, HSCIL, and Tata Motors, but GMI is weak in carrying out such practices.

(v) MUL, GMI, Tata Motors companies do carry out vendor development through training in Statistical Process Control (SPC), though at lower intensity, but HSCIL reported not carrying any such activities. All the four responding companies were found to be supplying instruments and gauges for vendor development. At MUL, HSCIL, and Tata Motors, conformance verification at source is followed. However GMI favored the system of financial assistance to vendors for their development. None other reported this fact favorably.

(vi) All the four sample companies have contract review provisions regarding quality, cost and services with vendors. Tata Motors takes the lead above the rest three.

(vii) Tata Motors and HSCIL have formal mechanism of settlement of quality disputes with vendors. However, MUL and GMI do not have any such mechanism.

(viii) 75% of vendors in MUL are qualified by second or third party whereas both HSCIL and GMI have 33% and Tata Motors have 38% of its vendors, which are pre qualified by second and third parties.

(ix) All the responding companies maintained list of approved vendors for purchased and subcontracted parts.

(x) 100% companies carried out regular vendor performance evaluation.

Control of Purchased Material

(i) All the four companies claim to have proper system for identification of material and its documentation at all stages throughout production.

(ii) HSCIL and Tata Motors have system of adequate checks through statistical sampling plans; of course it is as low as 50% in MUL and GMI.

(iii) Maintenance of Source-inspection test records are highly carried by Tata Motors and HSCIL, it is reported only 60% in MUL and very low at in GMI (40%).

(iv) Availability of properly calibrated test & measurement (T&M)equipments, gauges, tools, engineering documents and trained inspection personnel was reported in all the four companies taken for study.

(v) All companies have systems institutionalized for marking traceability of material to source/ supplier by records.

(vi) Systems are prevalent among all the four companies involving material issues vide First in First out (FIFO) for ensuring use before shelf life.

(vii) All the four companies separated all withheld or rejected material from accepted one due to nonconformity and supplier are communicated to that effect. Maruti Udyog reportedly leads in this category.

(viii) All companies maintained proper 'receiving-quality' and 'issued quality' records.

(ix) Controlled issue and release of purchased material is reported to be highest at HSCIL followed by Tata Motors. Though all the companies undertake this, however, Maruti Udyog is relatively weaker on this count.

(x) Percent supplies accepted as concessional quality varied with MUL and HSCIL at lowest (1%) to the highest GMI at 5-10%. Here, Tata Motors is intermittently place with acceptable range of 1-5%.

Tables 1 and Table 2 presents the results corresponding to vendors control and control of purchased material. It is evident from the results in Table 1 that PCBU, TATA Motors has better control over its vendors as compared to other companies under study. As per the responses, it is concluded that all the sample companies give importance to develop their vendors, which is good indicator for the quality of the incoming raw material, semi-finished goods etc. It can be seen that control of purchased material, which includes inventory management, is better at PCBU, TATA Motors and HSCIL as compared with MUL, and GMI, as evident from the results.

For analyzing the figures from the study, One-Way ANOVA was performed on both the sets of findings, which are reflected in Annexure 2. The results of this test revealed that there is significant difference of Vendors' Control variable in the four sample companies whereas there is no significant difference of Control of Purchased Material in these sample companies. Further, from t-Statistics for inter-company comparison (as reflected vide Annexure 3), it can be concluded that there is no significant difference between MUL & HSCIL, MUL & GMI, and HSCIL & TATA Motors (PCBU) for Vendor Control. Also, we see that there is significant difference between MUL & TATA Motors (PCBU), HSCIL & GMI, and GMI & TATA Motors (PCBU) for the same variable. Similarly, results obtained from this independent t-test also indicate that there is no significant difference between any two sample companies for Control of Purchased Material.

Suggestions

Depending upon the further fact finding researches, the companies may undertake some of the following suggestive measures:

Vendors' Control

(i) MUL and GMI should carryout process capability studies of vendors more regularly in order to ascertain their suitability to provide desirable specifications and predict inspection requirements on receipt of materials from such vendors.

(ii) Companies should pre-qualify more and more vendors on an objective basis. At least 2/3 of the vendors should be pre-qualified on the basis of their performance. All the four companies ought to focus more on this aspect. Post-contract performance awards could be installed to reward vendors for their exemplary performance and cost-reduction.

(iii) MUL and GMI should develop a formal mechanism for settling quality disputes with vendors. For this, these companies should bring in increased training sessions for vendors and should also provide technical help.

Control of Purchased Material

(i) MUL and GMI have to develop proper in-coming quality inspection plans based on statistical sampling.

(ii) MUL and GMI should maintain source-inspection test records in order to avoid duplicate test and inspection efforts upon receipt and have pre-certified quality.

(iii) Percent supplies accepted as concessional quality is still quite high in the range of 1-510%. In order to have zero defects, companies should try to bring down concessional quality to nil level

Conclusion

All the four major players in the passenger car industry have thoroughly initiated the system for ingraining quality perspectives at two levels of inputs. However, it is worth noting that few dimensions of Vendors' Development and Control like providing them with supplies of instruments and gauges, training in S.P.C, financial assistance and conformance verification at source still loom large at infancy stage. Even prequalification of vendors by second or third party needs long way to go. Control of Purchased Material as a perspective for evaluation faired much better on industry basis. All the dimensions, except level of concessional quality, were rated relatively very high. Contrary to general perception, Tata Motors is more structured and organized in its endeavor towards Total Quality Management on these two issues, than traditionally propagated Maruti Udyog Ltd. However, considering the evolution of ever discerning customer, all the four companies have to go long way in arriving at the globally accepted norms of TQM and hence tread on the path using such dimensions of vendors' control and control of purchased material.

References

Beaumont, P.B., Hunter, L.C., Sinclair, D.M. (1996), "A partnership route to human resource management", Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 3 (2).

Benson, P.G., Saraph, J.V., Schoeder, R.G. (1991), "The effects of organizational context on quality management: an empirical investigation", Management Science, Vol. 37 (9), pp. 1107-24.

Crosby, P.B. (1979), Quality is Free-the Art of Making Quality Certain, Mcgraw Hill, New york, NY.

Deming, W.E. (1982), Quality, Productivity, and Competitive Position, MIT Institute for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA.

Easton, G.S. (1993), "State of US Total Quality Management: A Baldrige Examiner's Perspective", California Management Review, Vol. 35 (3), pp. 32-54.

Garvin, D.A. (1983), "Quality on the Line", Harvard Business Review, September- October, pp. 65-75.

Knotts, R, Tomlin, S. (1994), "A comparison of TQM practices in US and Mexican companies", Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 35 (1), pp. 53-58.

Lakhe, R.R., Mohanty, R.P.(1994), "Total Quality Management: Concepts, evolution and acceptability in developing economies", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 (9).

Lascelles, D.M., Dale, B.G. (1989), "The buyer-supplier relationship in total quality management", Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 25 (3), pp. 10-19.

Mohanty, R.P., Behara, A.K., (1996), "TQM in service sector", Work Study, Vol. 45 (3), pp. 13-17.

Motwani, J.G., Mohmoud, E., Rice, G. (1994), "Quality practices of Indian organizations: An empirical analysis", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 (1), pp. 38-52.

Oakland, J.S. (1989), 'Total Quality Management', Heinemann Publishing Co., Oxford.

Oakland, J.S., Aldridge, A.J. (1995), "Quality management in civil and structural engineering consulting", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 (3).

Porter, L.J., Smith, G.S. (1993), "Total Quality Management in the US retail sector", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 21 (4), pp. 13-19.

Steeples, M. M. (1992). The corporate guide to the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award: Proven strategies for building quality into your organization. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.

Vaidya, O.S., Kumar, S. (2003),"Dependency and its predictions for systems and its components", International Journal for Quality and Reliability, Vol. 20(9), pp. 1096-1116.

Vargas, G.A., Johnson, T.W. (1992), "An assessment of quality management in the US/Mexico export processing industry", International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 30 (8), pp. 1845-59.

Williams, R., Wiele, T.V., Iwaarden, J., and Visser, R. (2004), "TQM: Why it will again become a top management issue", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 21, (6), pp. 603-611.

Sanjeev Prashar, Institute of Management Technology, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad--201001, U.P., India, E-mail: sprashar@imt.edu

Sumeet Singh Jasial, Amity Business School, Amity University, Sector--125, Noida, U.P., India, E-mail: ssjasial@abs.amity.edu

Table 1: Means and Standard Deviation of the scores on Vendors'
Control element of TQM

Company N Sample Results Population Estimates
 (Score) (Score)

 Mean Standard Mean ([mu])
 ([bar.x]) Deviation(s)

MUL 6 6.71 .53 6.15 [less than or
 equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal
 to] 7.24

HSCIL 6 7.58 .74 6.8 [less than or
 equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal
 to] 8.36

GMI 6 6.42 .65 5.74 [less than or
 equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal
 to] 7.1

PCBU, TATA 6 8.21 1.01 7.15 [less than or
Motors equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal
 to] 9.27

Company Population Estimates
 (Score)

 Variance ([[sigma].sup.2])

MUL .11 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] 1.70

HSCIL .21 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] 3.3

GMI .16 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] 2.55

PCBU, TATA .40 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
Motors [less than or equal to] 6.15

Table 2: Means and Standard Deviation of the scores on Control
of Purchased Material element of TQM

Company N Sample Results Population Estimates
 (Score) (Score)

 Mean Standard Mean ([mu])
 ([bar.x]) Deviation(s)

MUL 6 6.88 .79 6.05 [less than or equal
 to] [mu] [less than
 or equal to] 7.71

HSCIL 6 8.13 1.32 6.74 [less than or equal
 to] [mu] [less than
 or equal to] 9.52

GMI 6 7.54 1.05 6.44 [less than or equal
 to] [mu] [less than
 or equal to] 8.64

PCBU, TATA 6 8.25 1.45 6.73 [less than or equal
Motors to] [mu] [less than
 or equal to] 9.77

Company Population Estimates
 (Score)

 Variance ([[sigma].sup.2])

MUL .24 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] 3.76

HSCIL .68 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] 10.5

GMI .43 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] 6.6

PCBU, TATA .82 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
Motors [less than or equal to] 12.7

Annexure 1

Table 3: Means and Standard Deviation of the scores relevant
to Vendors' Control

Dimension Company N Sample Results
 (Score)

 Mean Standard
 (x) Deviation(s)

The company has MUL 6 .9167 .13
a system of
identification & HSCIL 6 1.0000 .00
documentation of
quality critical GMI 6 1.0000 .00
specifications,
requirements and TATA Motors 6 1.0000 .00
drawings prior to
purchase order Total 24 .9792 .07
release

The company has MUL 6 .7500 .16
an established
system where proper HSCIL 6 .8333 .13
assessment precedes
the selection of GMI 6 .7917 .10
vendors and
subcontractors. TATA Motors 6 .8750 .14

 Total 24 .8125 .13

There is proper MUL 6 .4583 .19
analysis and
matching of HSCIL 6 .9167 .13
process-capabilities
of vendors GMI 6 .7500 .00

 TATA Motors 6 .8333 .20

 Total 24 .7396 .23

The company follows MUL 6 .7500 .16
Vendor Surveillance,
vendor Process Audit HSCIL 6 .9167 .13
and inspection at
source GMI 6 .4583 .19

 TATA Motors 6 .8750 .14

 Total 24 .7500 .23

The company has a MUL 6 .2500 .00
system of vendor
development through HSCIL 6 .0000 .00
provision of
training in S.P.C GMI 6 .2500 .00

 TATA Motors 6 .2500 .00

 Total 24 .1875 .11

The company also MUL 6 .2083 .10
has a system of
vendor development HSCIL 6 .1667 .13
through supplying
instrument & gauges GMI 6 .2500 .00

 TATA Motors 6 .2500 .00

 Total 24 .2188 .08

There is a perfect MUL 6 .2083 .10
system of vendors'
development through HSCIL 6 .2083 .10
Conformance
Verification GMI 6 .0000 .00
at source.
 TATA Motors 6 .2500 .00

 Total 24 .1667 .12

The company has a MUL 6 .0000 .00
system of Financial
Assistance for HSCIL 6 .0000 .00
vendors' development
 GMI 6 .2500 .00

 TATA Motors 6 .0000 .00

 Total 24 .0625 .11

Regular Contract MUL 6 .6667 .52
Reviews with vendors
regarding quality, HSCIL 6 .8333 .41
cost and service
are undertaken. GMI 6 .6667 .52

 TATA Motors 6 1.0000 .00

 Total 24 .7917 .42

The company has MUL 6 .1667 .41
formal mechanism for
Settlement of Quality HSCIL 6 .8333 .41
disputes with vendors
contractually GMI 6 .0000 .00

 TATA Motors 6 1.0000 .00

 Total 24 .5000 .51

What percentage of MUL 6 .7500 .16
vendors are pre-
qualified by II HSCIL 6 .3333 .13
or III party?
 GMI 6 .3333 .13

 TATA Motors 6 .3750 .14

 Total 24 .4479 .22

Proper maintenance MUL 6 .7083 .19
of list of approved
vendors for purchased HSCIL 6 .7083 .19
& subcontracted
parts is done. GMI 6 .7500 .16

 TATA Motors 6 .7500 .22

 Total 24 .7292 .18

Regular vendor MUL 6 .8750 .14
performance
evaluation & use of HSCIL 6 .8333 .20
this in the review
of vendors' list GMI 6 .9167 .13

 TATA Motors 6 .7500 .22

 Total 24 .8438 .18

 Company Population Estimates
 (Score)

 Mean ([mu])

MUL .78 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.05

HSCIL 1.00

GMI 1.00

TATA Motors 1.00

Total .95 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.01

MUL .58 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .92

HSCIL .70 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .97

GMI .69 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .90

TATA Motors .73 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.02

Total .76 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .87

MUL .26 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .66

HSCIL .78 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.05

GMI .75

TATA Motors .62 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.05

Total .64 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .84

MUL .58 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .92

HSCIL .78 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.05

GMI .26 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .66

TATA Motors .73 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.02

Total .65 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .85

MUL .25

HSCIL .00

GMI .25

TATA Motors .25

Total .14 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .24

MUL .10 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .32

HSCIL .03 [less than or equal to] [mu]=.30

GMI .25

TATA Motors .25

Total .18 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .26

MUL .10 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .32

HSCIL .10 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .32

GMI .00

TATA Motors .25

Total .12 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .22

 .00

HSCIL .00

GMI .25

TATA Motors .00

Total .02 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .11

MUL .13 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.21

HSCIL .41 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.26

GMI .13 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.21

TATA Motors 1.00

Total .62 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .1.00

MUL -.26 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .60

HSCIL .41 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.26

GMI .00

TATA Motors 1.00

Total .28 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .72

MUL .58 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .92

HSCIL .20 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .47

GMI .20 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .47

TATA Motors .23 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .52

Total .36 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .54

MUL .51 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .91

HSCIL .51 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .91

GMI .58 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .92

TATA Motors .52 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .99

Total .65 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .81

MUL .73 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.02

HSCIL .62 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.05

GMI .78 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.05

TATA Motors .52 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .99

Total .77 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .92

 Company Population Estimates
 (Score)

 Variance ([[sigma].sup.2])

MUL .007 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .11

HSCIL .00

GMI .00

TATA Motors .00

Total .003 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to].01

MUL .01 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .15

HSCIL .007 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .11

GMI .004 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .06

TATA Motors .008 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .12

Total .01 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .033

MUL .01 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .22

HSCIL .007 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .11

GMI .00

TATA Motors .01 = [[sigma].sup.2] [less than
 or equal to] .24

Total .03 = [[sigma].sup.2] [less than
 or equal to] .104

MUL .01 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .15

HSCIL .007 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .11

GMI .01 = [[sigma].sup.2] = .22

TATA Motors .008 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .12

Total .03 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .104

MUL .00

HSCIL .00

GMI .00

TATA Motors .00

Total .007 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .024

MUL .004 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .06

HSCIL .007 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .11

GMI .00

TATA Motors .00

Total .004 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .013

MUL .004 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .06

HSCIL .004 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .06

GMI .00

TATA Motors .00

Total .009 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .03

HSCIL .00

GMI .00

TATA Motors .00

Total .007 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .024

MUL .11 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] 1.63

HSCIL .07 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] 1.01

GMI .11 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] 1.63

TATA Motors .00

Total .11 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .35

MUL .07 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] 1.01

HSCIL .07 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] 1.01

GMI .00

TATA Motors .00

Total .16 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .52

MUL .01 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .15

HSCIL .007 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .11

GMI .007 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .11

TATA Motors .008 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .12

Total .03 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .10

MUL .01 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .22

HSCIL .01 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .22

GMI .01 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .15

TATA Motors .02 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .30

Total .02 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .06

MUL .008 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .12

HSCIL .01 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .24

GMI .007 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .11

TATA Motors .02 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .30

Total .02 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .06

Table 4: Means and Standard Deviation of the scores relevant
to Control of Purchased Material

Dimension Company N Sample Results
 (Score)

 Mean Standard
 (x) Deviation(s)

The company undertakes MUL 6 .7917 .10
proper identification
of material & its HSCIL 6 .9167 .13
documentation at all
stages on batch/ work GMI 6 .9167 .13
order, supplier and
date of arrival basis. TATA Motors 6 .8750 .14

 Total 24 .8750 .13

The company undertakes MUL 6 .5417 .10
adequate sample checks
based on statistical HSCIL 6 .8750 .14
acceptance sampling
plans. GMI 6 .4583 .19

 TATA Motors 6 .9167 .13

 Total 24 .6979 .24

There is a system of MUL 6 .6667 .13
recording the evidence
of quality conformance HSCIL 6 .7917 .19
provided by source
(source-inspection GMI 6 .4583 .19
test record)
 TATA Motors 6 .9167 .13

 Total 24 .7083 .23

The company ensures MUL 6 .7083 .10
availability of
properly calibrated T HSCIL 6 .8333 .20
& M equipments/ tools/
gauges, trained GMI 6 .7083 .19
inspection personnel
& availability of TATA Motors 6 .7917 .19
engineering documents
at the time of receipt Total 24 .7604 .17

To ensure use before MUL 6 .8750 .21
shelf-life, the is
system of material HSCIL 6 .9167 .13
issues involving
F.I.F.O. GMI 6 .9583 .10

 TATA Motors 6 .8750 .21

 Total 24 .9063 .16

The company undertakes MUL 6 .9583 .10
separation of all
withheld or rejected HSCIL 6 .8750 .21
material from accepted
one due to non- GMI 6 .8750 .14
conformity & supplier
communicated to that TATA Motors 6 .7917 .19
effect & records
maintained. Total 24 .8750 .16

Traceability of MUL 6 .7083 .10
material to source/
supplier by records HSCIL 6 .8750 .21
is undertaken.
 GMI 6 .9583 .10

 TATA Motors 6 .8750 .21

 Total 24 .8542 .18

There exists a system MUL 6 .7083 .10
of maintenance of
proper 'receiving-- HSCIL 6 .8750 .14
quality'/'issued--
quality' records GMI 6 .7083 .10

 TATA Motors 6 .8750 .21

 Total 24 .7917 .16

Emphasis is on MUL 6 .6667 .13
controlled issues &
release of purchased HSCIL 6 .9167 .13
materials.
 GMI 6 .7500 .22

 TATA Motors 6 .8333 .20

 Total 24 .7917 .19

What percentage of MUL 6 .2500 .00
supplies is accepted
as concessional HSCIL 6 .2500 .00
quality?
 GMI 6 .7500 .00

 TATA Motors 6 .5000 .00

 Total 24 .4375 .21

Company Population Estimates
 (Score)

 Mean ([mu])

MUL .69 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .90

HSCIL .78 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.05

GMI .78 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.05

TATA Motors .73 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.02

Total .82 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .93

MUL .43 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .65

HSCIL .73 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.02

GMI .26 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .66

TATA Motors .78 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.05

Total .59 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .80

MUL .53 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .80

HSCIL .59 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .99

GMI .26 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .66

TATA Motors .78 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.05

Total .61 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .81

MUL .60 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .82

HSCIL .62 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.05

GMI .51 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .91

TATA Motors .59 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .99

Total .69 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .83

MUL .65 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.1

HSCIL .78 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.05

GMI .85 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.07

TATA Motors .65 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.1

Total .84 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .98

MUL .85 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.07

HSCIL .65 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.1

GMI .73 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.02

TATA Motors .59 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .99

Total .81 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .95

MUL .60 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .82

HSCIL .65 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.1

GMI .85 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.07

TATA Motors .65 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.1

Total .78 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .93

MUL .60 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .82

HSCIL .73 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.02

GMI .60 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .82

TATA Motors .65 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.1

Total .72 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .86

MUL .53 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .80

HSCIL .78 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.05

GMI .512 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .99

TATA Motors .62 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] 1.05

Total .71 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .87

MUL .25

HSCIL .25

GMI .75

TATA Motors .50

Total .35 [less than or equal to] [mu]
 [less than or equal to] .53

Company Population Estimates
 (Score)

 Variance ([[sigma].sup.2])

MUL .004 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .06

HSCIL .007 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .11

GMI .007 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .11

TATA Motors .008 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .12

Total .01 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .033

MUL .004 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .06

HSCIL .008 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .12

GMI .01 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .22

TATA Motors .007 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to].11

Total .03 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .12

MUL .007 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .11

HSCIL .01 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .22

GMI .01 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .22

TATA Motors .007 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .11

Total .03 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .104

MUL .004 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .06

HSCIL .01 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .24

GMI .01 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .22

TATA Motors .01 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .22

Total .017 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .057

MUL .008 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .27

HSCIL .007 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .11

GMI .004 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .06

TATA Motors .008 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .27

Total .015 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .05

MUL .004 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .06

HSCIL .004 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .27

GMI .008 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .12

TATA Motors .01 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .22

Total .015 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .05

MUL .004 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .06

HSCIL .008 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .27

GMI .004 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .06

TATA Motors .008 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .27

Total .02 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .06

MUL .004 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .06

HSCIL .008 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .12

GMI .004 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .06

TATA Motors .008 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .27

Total .015 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .05

MUL .007 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .11

HSCIL .007 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .11

GMI .02 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .30

TATA Motors .01 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .24

Total .02 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .07

MUL .00

HSCIL .00

GMI .00

TATA Motors .00

Total .026 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sup.2]
 [less than or equal to] .09

Annexure 2

Table 5: Summary of One-Way ANOVA Performed on the scores
of Vendors' Control for TQM

Company MUL HSCIL GMI PCBU, TATA Motors

Characteristic

N 6 6 6 6

[bar.X] 6.71 7.58 6.42 8.21

[summation] 1.41 2.74 2.11 5.10
[(x - [bar.x])
.sup.2]

Table 6: ANOVA TABLE

Sources of Variation Sum of Degrees of Mean Value
 squares freedom (v) Square of F

Between samples 12.10 3 4.03 7.15
([S.sub.1.sup.2])

Within Samples 11.27 20 .56
([S.sub.2.sup.2])

Since [F.sub.cal] > [F.sub.tab] (3.10), i.e. calculated value
of F statistic is greater than table value, hence there is
significant difference between sample means of vendor control
in four passenger car companies at 5% level of significance.

Table 7: Summary of One-Way ANOVA Performed on the scores
Of Control of Purchased Material for TQM

Company MUL HSCIL GMI PCBU, TATA Motors

Characteristic

N 6 6 6 6

[bar.X] 6.88 8.13 7.54 8.25

[summation] 3.12 8.71 5.50 10.51
[(x - [bar.x])
.sup.2]

Table 8: ANOVA TABLE

Sources of Variation Sum of Degrees of Mean Value
 squares freedom (v) Square of F

Between samples 7.13 3 2.38 1.71
([S.sub.1.sup.2]

Within Samples 27.86 20 1.39
([S.sub.2.sup.2]

Since [F.sub.cal] > [F.sub.tab] (3.10), i.e. calculated value
of F statistic is less than table value, hence there is no
significant difference between sample means of control of
purchased material in four passenger car companies at 5%
level of significance.

Annexure 3

Table 9: t-statistics for Inter-Company Comparison on Vendors
Control

Company MUL HSCIL GMI PCBU, TATA
Groups Motors

MUL -- (-)/(+) at 2% (+) (-)
 t=2.35 t=.85 t=3.20

HSCIL -- -- (-) (+)
 t=2.70 t=1.23

GMI -- -- -- (-)
 t=3.64

PCBU, TATA Motors -- -- -- --

(+) signifies Null hypothesis, that there is no significance
difference between two sample means at 5% level, is accepted.

(-) reflects Null hypothesis is not accepted.

Table 10: t-statistics for Inter-Company Comparison on Control
of Purchased Material

Company MUL HSCIL GMI PCBU, TATA
Groups Motors

MUL -- (+)/(-) at 10% (+) (+)/(-) at 10%
 t=1.97 t=1.23 t=2.03

HSCIL -- -- (+) (+)
 t=.89 t=.15

GMI -- -- -- (+)
 t=.97

PCBU, TATA Motors -- -- -- --

(+) signifies Null hypothesis, that there is no significance
difference between two sample means at 5% level, is accepted.

(-) reflects Null hypothesis is not accepted.