The Relationship between Work Performance and Quality Management Practices - Example

Abstract, Findings, Discussion, Recommendations and Conclusion Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Date Abstract This research is aimed at assessing the quality management systems for Borouge maintenance workshop. The objectives of the study entailed investigating the extent to which the staff of the company understood the quality management system. Additionally, the research examined the extent to which QMS improves the chances of workshop efficiency, customer satisfaction and the weaknesses and benefits of the QMS system in the organization. The study begins by reviewing a number of literatures from past researches that were conducted on the topic. These involve ten selected literature reviews from trusted sources that examined the implementation of quality management systems in petrochemical plants. Most of the reviews are aimed at establishing the aspects of maintenance workshop where they concentrate on fabrication welding and valve testing shops. The literatures were selected because they purposely suit and contribute to the objectives of this particular study. A key finding in the literature such as the study conducted by Sullivan, Pugh, Melendez and Hun (2004) indicated that a well-run quality management system is supposed to enhance the safety of the staff, ensure comfort, increase equipment life expectancy and facilitate compliance. The methodology of the study entailed the use of both primary and secondary data. Secondary data was derived from trusted websites, workshop publications on quality management from the Borouge workshop and published peer reviewed books and journals. Primary data involved the use of the questionnaires which were semi-structured. The research questions mainly revolved around the weakness and the strengths of the quality management system in the company, the methods used in the QMS and the understanding of quality management by the workforce. The sample size mainly consisted of the whole segment of the workshop divisions. The findings of the study disclosed various critical factors concerning the quality management systems for Borouge maintenance work shop. The findings are to draw the relationship between quality management systems and work performance. Foremost the study discloses that most of the staff in the company do not have understanding of the quality management system. Out of the total respondents only 41% had clear understanding of the system and its contribution to the organization. The remaining percentage had none or little understanding. This basically implies that the remaining 59% of the employees, which is the bigger proportion, did not possess proficient knowledge about the QMS. The factors leading to or affecting quality management systems as well as workshop performance are deduced from the findings and a general trend is established from the research. Additionally, the study discloses that quality management system can be proven to be effective in improving workshop performance. However, various factors have been found to accompany the use of QMS in improving the workshop performance of a plant. The study recommends that the employees should be given more training on the quality management systems. Additionally, measures should be introduced into the system that can aim at minimizing the troubles of executing QMS practices. It is also essential to integrate other methods in the QMS in order to improve work performance. Findings In the research question to determine the effectiveness of quality management systems (QMS) , the extent to which the respondents understood quality management were rated as either low, very low, fair or exemplary. The respondents whose QMS understanding was very low were 9% and their frequency figure was 6. The respondents whose QMS was rated as low were 21% and with a frequency figure of 9. Another group of respondents whose ratings were regarded as fair represented a 29% of all the respondents but their frequency value was 5, a value lower than that whose respondents had a lower percentage of QMS understanding. The result of this particular research were able to produce a 41% rating of the exemplary respondents and 11 frequency value about the extent of their QMS understanding and the its impact in their quality management assessment. In another set of questions, performance dimensions were tested with a value of 5 representing the highest constrictive development while 1 representing the highest pessimist improvement. From the results, an evaluation on customer satisfaction produced a mean value of 2.40 and a standard deviation value of 0.6. Public acceptance produced a mean of 4.40 and a standard deviation value of 1.3. The time for performance dimension resulted to a mean of 3.44 and a standard deviation 0.6. The performance dimension for quality produced a mean value of 2.48 and a standard deviation value of 0.7. An evaluation of performance dimension on cost produced a mean value of 4.15 and a standard deviation value of 0.8. An investigation was also performed to determine the extent to which QMS was undertaken and its effects on the workshop performance. The investigation was also conducted on a 5-point scale which showed the degree at which undertaking quality management contributed to project performance. The ratings on the project success indicated a value of 2 to the smaller extent, a value of 3 to the smaller extent and a value of 1 where the QMS was ineffective in the workforce performance. The failure of QMS on the work performance were found to be 1 on the larger extent, 2 on the smaller extent and 2 where QMS was found to be ineffective. In the same investigation, project stoppage on the larger extent was found to be 1, the stoppage to a smaller extent was found to be 3 and where there was no effect on the stoppage, the value was found to be 4. The workshop performance on the higher expense was found to be 3 on the larger extent, 2 on the smaller extent and 2 on the QMS workshop performance on higher expense. The ratings on the use of less resource were found to be 3 on the larger extent, 3 on the smaller extent and 1 where workshop performance was not effective. The ratings on the use of smaller manpower resulted to the ratings of 2 on the larger extent, 3 on the smaller extent and 2 where there was no effect on the QMS. The mean values of the ratings were then determined. The research questions also aimed at gathering information to determine the weaknesses of QMS on the work performance. The aim was to reveal the extent to which the weaknesses of QMS render it useless on the workshop performance. The limitations of QMS were contrasted with their assumed value. The commencement of fixed authenticity instead of energetic authenticity was given a mean value of 4 and a rank value of 3. Another limitation was rated in the non-disclosure of other factors that influence QMS where the mean ratings were 2.8 and the rank was 3. In another weakness, a test was conducted on providing superiority to the QMS which may be considered as a smaller objective. The mean ratings were found to be 3.7 while the rank was found to be 3. Another weakness of QMS was tested by depicting the past effect as sunk and depicting a lesser value in the current business situation. A mean rating value of 3.8 and a rank value of 3 were obtained. In another research to determine how a difference in smaller number of factors under evaluation can depict a weakness, mean ratings of 2.4 were obtained and a rank value of 6 was obtained. For the research to gather information on the troubles the respondents encountered while undertaking QMS, the outcomes were examined and positioned in a descending order in terms of the recurring troubles. The appraisal for non-monetary consequence resulted to a mean value of 5 and a rank value of 2. Incorporating unknown industrial changes resulted to a mean of 3.8 and a rank value of 3. QMS troubles for creating modification factors and normal modification factors were found to have a mean of value 3.5 and a rank value of 4. Problems in inadequate funding resources for the project were found to have a mean of 3.7 and a rank of 6. Troubles in the deficiency of data evaluation were found to have a mean value of 3.7 and a rank value of 4. Difficulties in collecting information from the personnel obtained a mean value of 2.4 and a rank value of 6. An investigation to determine the responses of those who did not carry out QMS process but appreciated other processes was done through sample questionnaires. Most of the responses from the questionnaires were able to acknowledge many benefits of QMS in the workshop. A number above average was able to recognize the fact that the system is simple, doesn’t require much data and doesn’t require much funding. The respondents who employ other methods other than QMS also gave their various ratings. Most of the respondents were able to prove that the methods work as well as QMS and were effective in the workshop performance. The respondents were also tested on whether they neither were familiar with nor appreciated QMS or other methods. Out of the tested 22 respondents who took the test without being familiar with QMS or other methods to reach their objectives, 9 were familiar, five were well familiar and 8 were fairly familiar. The respondents were also asked to rate whether the projects they tested were performing better without QMS. The results indicated that a normal attainment was 3.5 which meant that the projects were considered to be performing better. In the test with the extent of difference with the statement for QMS users, many respondents did not agree to the statement indicating that the currently used QMS is the best approach and it is difficult for one to oppose the method as being defective. The extent of disagreement to both users and non-users was determined. The results depicted that the greater portion of respondents do not agree with the statement. Discussions From the above findings and those derived from the SWOT analysis, various deliberations can be arrived at with regards to quality management systems at Borouge maintenance work shop. One critical factor is most of the staff in the company do not have understanding of the quality management system. Out of the total respondents only 41% had clear understanding of the system and its contribution to the organization. The remaining percentage had none or little understanding. This basically implies that the remaining 59% of the employees, which is the bigger proportion did not possess proficient knowledge about the QMS. It can be stated that the quality management system can be proven to be effective in improving the workshop performance. However, various factors have been found to accompany the use of QMS in improving the workshop performance of a plant. It was found that, even though a good number of QMS users are putting the elements into practice, not all of them understand the system well and very few can successfully apply it to a level that it meets its objectives. Quality management should be well understood by those who apply it in order to direct the activities undertaken towards the achievement of the workshop performance objectives (Lee, Lim & Arditi, 2011). QMS was found to be performing well in its performance dimensions by satisfying customers, quality product and cost effectiveness. This is probably because the process results to production of high quality products which attract more customers as they meet their expectations. The relationship between value and cost can easily be traced convincing the customers that their spending is worth the quality. Quality management systems, even though are ignored by some personnel in the plant, they combine with other techniques for the performance in the workshop (Simon et al. 2011). In the end, it is observed that products quality is essential and is achieved through various means apart from the QMS. Various ratings from the finding have been able to prove that there are more benefits for using quality management system than avoiding them. Various findings from the respondents also revealed the difficulties in applying quality management processes as one of the factors preventing the effective use of the processes. The difficulties can be thought to arise from the lack of knowledge to apply quality management. The difficulties, however, are said to be fairer than the difficulties faced while employing other methods (van Iwaarden & van der Wiele, 2012). Quality management systems can be described as the strongholds of quality production and services in a plant. The research has arrived at the use of QMS in achieving high performance as the key goal in the quality production especially in the petrochemical industry. In most tabulated data, the positive results have been seen in all the data collected meaning that the personnel, even if not well conversant, have been able to apply quality management practices either directly or indirectly in the production performances (Simon et al. 2011). Recommendations From the research findings, various recommendations can be arrived at. As observed in the findings, not all the personnel in the workshop are aware of the quality management systems and even a few who are aware of the systems do not take keen concern about the matter. This requires that the plant advices and trains all the personnel about the quality management systems so that their positive effects can be realized. Quality management systems, as found out, contribute to customer satisfaction, meaning that when the systems are poorly managed, they result to loss of customers. Even though quality management systems are seen to be taking place in the plant and even some workers are achieving it, various challenges accompany QMS (Lee, Lim & Arditi, 2011). This report recommends that other measures should be introduced into the system that can minimize the troubles of executing QMS practices in the plant. It is also found that some personnel have employed other methods other than QMS in workshop performance. They believe the methods also have positive effects to work performance as well as the QMS. The methods can be well integrated with QMS to enhance the effects of work performance since their effects can be twice as compared to when the methods are being used separately. Conclusion The report has systematically tried to establish the relationship between work performance and quality management practices. It can be seen that the degree of quality management systems used in the plant affects the work performance in the plant. The report has achieved this goal though extensive research carried at in the field and presented in tables and graphs. From the findings and discussions, it is advisable that the plant makes frequent use of quality management systems in the work performance. Quality management systems have been examined in various dimensions to bring out various effects on the strategy on the work performance. As said earlier, quality management systems lead to the customer satisfaction. For this reason, the overall performance of the plant will be improved through the quality management systems. The study has therefore, exclusively covered the aspect of quality management systems and its effects on the workshop performance and the overall output in the organization. References Lee, D. E., Lim, T. K., & Arditi, D. (2011). An expert system for auditing quality management systems in construction. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 26(8), 612-631. Simon, A., Bernardo, M., Karapetrovic, S., & Casadesús, M. (2011). Integration of standardized environmental and quality management systems audits. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(17), 2057-2065. van Iwaarden, J., & van der Wiele, T. (2012). The effects of increasing product variety and shortening product life cycles on the use of quality management systems. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 29(5), 470-500. Read More