Project Quality Activities and goal setting in Project Performance Assessment

Authors:

Brad Masters
Greg Frazier

E-mail: bmasters@uta.edu
Telephone number: 817 615-2339

Mailing address:
P.O. BOX 180011
Arlington, TX 76096

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge Alan Cannon, Edmund
Prater, and Ken Price for their insightful comments and reviews of this manuscript.

Abstract:

A review of TQM and project quality activity (PQA) is presented. Six propositions are
presented based on the relationship of project quality activities (IV) and project performance
(DV). It is theorized that individual goal-setting mediates the IV/DV relationship, while goal
feedback serves as a moderator variable. Previous literature is presented for each of the
propositions, and two figures are presented for the moderator/mediator variables. Based on
the current literature and the propositions, future research areas for the advancement of
project quality activities and increasing project performance are proposed.

Keywords: Goals, Performance, Project Management, Quality, TQM

1
 Project Quality Activities and goal setting in Project Performance Assessment

Introduction

The presence of small-group projects in organizations has been increasing since the early

1980s. The small-group project has different characteristics than the organization, including

time-frame and purpose. A project, as defined by ANSI/ISO/ASQ (1997) guidelines, is:

A unique process, consisting of a set of coordinated and controlled activities with

start and finish dates, undertaken to achieve an objective conforming to specific

requirements, including the constraints of time, cost, and resources.

According to Mantel et al (2005), the PMI (Project Management Institute) had 7,500

members in 1990. In mid 2000, there were 64,000 members, and there were more than 100,000

members by 2004. As the number of projects and the use of projects have increased, so have the

importance of their performance.

Logically, the primary reason their presence is growing is due to perceived increased

productivity/ performance as compared to non-project environments. Responsible organizational

leaders perceive (or more importantly, interpret measures of) significant performance using this

approach as compared to more traditional work group structures. If more resources are expended

for project activity/management, there should be a higher rate of return for those activities than

the return using the resources elsewhere. Otherwise, the organization should abandon project

activities and concentrate on a more productive means of producing a product/service. Given the

increase in project participation over the past twenty years, it is likely that team projects are an

organizational norm which merits research into increasing project performance.

2
 Mirroring the presence of quality in organizations, quality activities in project

management is becoming an issue of interest. Consider the ANSI/ISO/ASQ (1997) guidelines, a

collaborative guideline between American Society of Quality (ASQ) and Project Management

Institute PMI. This guideline stresses the importance of identification, collaboration,

communication, planning, and control of the project and its goals, resources, and timeframe.

The purpose of the current discussion is four-fold. First, using the industry standard and

prior research to identify Project Quality Activity (PQA), is there an increase in project

performance? Does the quality activity make a difference in time, cost, and product deviation?

Next, the goal setting/performance relationship should be examined in project

management. While Kristof-Brown & Stevens (2001) supported a strong relationship between

goal congruency and behavioral/attitudinal outcomes, a potential relationship between individual

goal-setting and measured performance outcomes should be examined for project environments.

Third, it is suggested that goal feedback is a moderator to the PQA/project performance

relationship. The PQA that provide feedback to the individual regarding any deviation from goal

completion will help maximize the individuals goal performance.

Finally, individual goals/goal-setting are theorized to serve as mediators between quality

activities and project performance. Despite any up-front benefits of PQA, if the individuals in the

project do not have clear, challenging personal goals, and the individual goals are congruent with

the project planning goals, their performance in the project will not be as strong as when goal

setting is strong and clear and goal congruency is high.

The organization of the paper is as follows. First, a literature review of quality will be

made. Second, a brief review of available literature examining PQA and project performance is

3
discussed, along with proposal development. Finally, a brief discussion of goals/goal setting will

be presented with proposal development.

Literature Review

Since the 1980s, quality has become a frontline topic in industry and in research

literature. As stated in Powell (1995) and Das et al (2000), 93% of 500 of Americas largest

firms have adopted TQM (Total Quality Management) in some form. As the presence of quality

has increased in American firms, the empirical literature has attempted to meet the growth with

objective research regarding quality. While much has been published regarding quality, there is

much research left to be completed, namely in the call for replication and theory building. The

empirical literature is attempting to bridge the gap between the anecdotal findings found in the

classic quality literature and objective, quantifiable disciplines of management.

The importance of empirical research and sound theory in Quality cannot be understated.

The Academy of Management Review dedicated its July 1994 issue, to quality and its integration

with Management/Management Strategy. Of special interest in more than one article was the

call to develop theory for framing Quality and Total Quality Management. The articles state that

while quality and Total Quality Management is prevalent in the literature, it is heavy on the

practical observations, and light on the theory and empirical research. There is a need for more

empirical research examining the relationship of quality practices and firm performance. Too,

there is a need to identify potential moderators/mediators to this relationship, so that the

knowledge based of quality implementation can be increased (Sousa & Voss, 2002).

TQM and firm performance

Total Quality Management was a concept influenced by Deming and Juran. The idea was

simple: To have the entire organization operate in terms of better assessing the quality

4
requirements of a product, integrating the quality into the product, and evaluating the product for

quality requirements and customer satisfaction.

Essential research began to be published in the 1990s regarding the measurement of

TQM. It was necessary for TQM to be objectively measured. This lack of objectivity facilitated

problems with research, as the term quality can represent many things to many individuals (and

organizations). Beginning with the work of quality pioneers like Juran, Crosby and Deming,

Saraph et al (1989) developed a scale for assessing TQM. Given the use of previous quality

literature, the scale began with strong face validity. The scale was designed primarily to be used

with managers. Through rigorous assessment and statistical methodology, Flynn et al (1994)

proposed a useable scale with strong reliability and validity. Ahire, et al (1996) and Black &

Porter (1996), using as a basis the two scales, developed scales with reported higher reliability

and validity. With the presence of good scales, TQM could be reliably assessed and were

linked with increased firm performance (Curkovic et al, 2000; Powell, 1995).

Several studies linked the success of Total Quality Management with the Baldrige Award.

The Baldrige Award was introduced as industry recognition to significant success in TQM, not

only in execution, but also in implementation. The U.S. Malcolm Baldrige National Quality

Award criterion, for example, requires firms to develop a process for deploying and monitoring

strategic quality plans (Ittner and Larckner, 1997; for a more detailed discussion of the Malcolm

Baldrige Award, see Black and Porter, 1996, and Ittner and Larckner, 1997). Hendricks and

Singhal (1996) examined the relationship between the Baldrige Award and stock prices. They

concluded that there is a significant, positive relationship between the TQM (represented by the

Baldrige Award) and stock performance. The Baldridge Award remains as one of the primary

measures of TQM implementation.

5
Project Quality Activities

On the most fundamental level, organizations explore new initiatives for one primary

reason: to increase performance. Thus, initiatives in PQA should be linked to increased

performance. There have been few studies, though, examining significant results in utilizing

quality activities in project management. Thomas et al (2004), in analyzing construction projects,

reported a 4% cost savings through the use of design/information technology. Hong et al (2004)

investigated the process of minimizing uncertainty in the project environment. In citing Clark

and Wheelright, (1995) the authors assert that it is necessary to define performance outcomes

early in the project. These outcomes include total product quality, efficiency/cost, and speed. The

greater the uncertainty of the environment, the greater the need for mission and target

clarification and cross-functional teamwork (Hong et al, 2004).

Minchin et al (2005) addressed project management for the Department of

Transportation. A qualification model was developed to assess the quality level of contractors

prior to awarding bids. It was hypothesized, that while a company may well submit a lower

quotation for project completion, a lower level of quality can produce an inferior product, which

could lead to rework and eventually, higher costs. This further supports the proposal that PQA

are positively related to increased project performance.

Zwikael & Globerson (2004) identifies the importance of project planning as a significant

component of project success. A PMPQ (Project Planning quality Indicator) was developed and

tested using a questionnaire. These identified knowledge areas and planning processes are

identified in table 2:

Place Table 2 Here

Quality Implementation Theory

6
 If extensive research has been conducted regard to TQM and performance, a similar

comparison to other quality activities and performance may be plausible.

Juran (1988) and Gilmore (1990) agree that firms should improve the quality of the

product and increase performance. Quality is free, or stated differently, quality does not cause a

net increase in costs (Crosby, 1979; Deming, 1986). Rationally, this seems plausible: Any

increase in quality related costs would be offset by increased sales and decreased failure costs.

TQM and project quality activities should increase performance. multiple theories can be

utilized in explaining quality implementation and potential varied measures of success.

Contingency theory has been used by other authors, and provides the basis for examining

primarily moderators/mediators in relation to project quality initiatives and project performance.

Sitkin et al (1994) and Sousa & Voss, (2002) suggest the need to identify contingencies of TQM.

Sitkin et al (1994) identify three as task, organizational, and product/process uncertainty. Das et

al (2000) state that much of the quality literature has been written within a Resource-based view

of the firm. They propose a contingency view. Too, Reed et al (1996) view TQM in terms of

contingency theory and point out that there is a large amount of research that suggests successful

firms effectively develop a match with their external environment.

In light of the observation from Dean & Bowen (1994) and Sitkin et al (1994) of how the

universal nature of TQM contrasts with the contingency approach, Project Quality Activities

(PQA) are much smaller scale than TQM and are thus more likely to have identifiable factors

contributing to their success.

Place Table 1 here

7
 In addition to Contingency theory, the Resource-Based View of the firm has also been

proposed. According to this particular resource theory, firms gain unique resources that combine

with other unique resources, producing performance variance across different firms (Powell,

1995). These resources, however, are not easily replicated (imperfect imitability) by other firms

due to multiple factors. Too, if the firm expends resources to acquire these desired resources, the

Net Present Value of the acquisition is zero. Stated simply, if a resource gives a significant

advantage, everyone will acquire the resource, until no competitive advantage is inherent in the

resource. When the firms purchase the resource, the demand for the resource will increase the

price of it until no value is present (Montgomery & Wernerfelt, 1991).

This theory would suggest that TQM is not a universal resource that every organization

can utilize to gain a significant advantage. TQM would combine with other unique resources to

give a significant advantage. For example, because company A achieves increased firm

performance by utilizing TQM does not assure company B will achieve similar success by

employing TQM. Powell (1995) suggested that one of the reasons TQM has not had a universal

degree of implementation success is due to the Diffusion of Innovation theory. Diffusion of

innovation occurs when the following conditions are satisfied: Perceived relative advantage,

compatibility, simplicity, triability, observability, and homophily/similarity (Rogers, 1983;

Abrahamson and Rosenkopf, 1993).

These six conditions can be satisfied easier in a project environment than in an

organization as a whole. Project teams obviously have different dynamics than organizations as a

whole, which can accelerate the diffusion process. First, organizations often have long-standing

cultures, senior management, and methods which they have dealt successfully with issues in the

past. These are not likely to easily be changed in a short period of time. Projects, however, have

8
an identified beginning and end, minimizing the possibility of having to overcome a culture

within a particular project. Second, PQA are more linked to the fundamental, direct goals of the

project: Increased performance on time, cost and product specifications. The simplicity of the

quality activities lend to easy applicability, and given the number of projects executed in an

organization, increased project performance can easily be observed by individuals in the

organization. Finally, the quality activities have high similarity to the basic project activities

found in any Project Management handbook, thus lending to similarity of project tasks and

quality tasks. In summary, project environments have the potential for much higher Infusion of

Innovation, thereby increasing the adoptability of quality practices into project management.

Thus, it is reasonable that PQA should be at least, if not more strongly, associated with increased

performance, than TQM has shown in the previous TQM/performance literature.

Proposition Derivation

The literature on PQA is quite sparse, hence the reliance on the literature of TQM and

performance. Total Quality Management is quality activity that is implemented on an

organizational/global basis. The activities encompass all departments of the organization. While

there are different dynamics present in an organization as opposed to the small group, it is

proposed that the relationship between quality activities and increased performance are similar.

Referring to Table 2, TQM factors are listed besides the PQA. As many of the constructs are

strikingly similar to one another, it is reasonable to assume TQM and PQA are similar variables

identifying similar inputs to the process.

Proposition 1: If there are contingency factors identified for TQM, there are contingency
factors present for other quality activities.

9
 There is substantial research supporting the idea that goals which tend to be specific and

difficult lead to higher measures of performance, than less specific, difficult goals (just do your

best goals, no goals, or easy/specific goals (as cited in Lee et al, 1991). Too, the importance/

rationale of the assigned goals need to be adequately explained (Lee et al, 1991).

Locke & Latham (2002) said that there are four mechanisms to goals. First, goals serve as

a director for activities/ behaviors. Goals guide the behavior towards the desired activity/purpose,

and away from the non-goal activities. Second, high goals can be considered an energizer, with

better performance produced from high-goals activities than from low-goals activities. Third,

goals prolong the effort towards achieving the goal set. Finally, goals stimulate the discovery of

task-related knowledge, skills and abilities. This discovery may lead to skill-sets already known/

used for previous goals, the adaptation of skill-sets for similar goals, or the quest to acquire new

skill-sets for the new goals (Locke & Latham ,2002).

Given these descriptions of goal mechanisms, it can be argued that at least a portion of

the proposed PQA can be framed in terms of goals. For example, PQA outlining proposed

budgets, time-frames, and product requirements could reasonably be construed as goals. Whether

they are difficult/challenging goals or easy/non-challenging goals will be situation-specific and

may affect the measured strength of the performance outcome. Generally, given increased

presence of PQA related to specific, challenging goals/goal-setting, there should be an increased

measure of project performance (Locke & Latham, 2002).

The existing research presented of relationships between project planning/quality

activities and project performance suggests significant relationships between the two. Also, given

the theoretical explanations of goal setting related to increased performance measures and

10
TQMs similarity to project quality, suggest it is reasonable to propose that the greater the

presence of project quality goal-related activities, the higher the project performance.

Proposition 2: Project performance is increased when there is increased project quality

goal-related activities.

Individual goals/ Goal Setting:

Suggested in the literature is the need for feedback, in relation to the goals (as cited in

Lee et al, 1991). Goal setting would be less effective with minimized feedback. Goal feedback

has been suggested as a moderator of goal-setting and project performance (Locke & Latham,

2002). It is important to the goal-setting/performance relationship that the individual be given

feedback regarding the activities expended towards completing the goal. If the individual

receives no feedback regarding their efforts, how is one to adjust output/ performance more

accurately towards goal-completion? (Locke & Latham, 2002) While project quality goal-related

activities are identified, it is necessary to have feedback mechanisms in-place to assure

appropriate output is expended towards the completion of the goals. The greater the mechanisms

used to provide goal feedback (including feedback-related, PQA), the higher the success of goal

completion.

Proposition 3: The relationship of project quality activities and project performance is

moderated by goal feedback.

It is suggested that increased individual goal-setting (given they are specific and

challenging) is related to increased performance (Locke & Latham, 2002). Individuals

performing in project groups should have similar need for goals/goal-setting as those in previous

goal-setting research. Given the vast amount of research on goals/goal-setting and performance,

it is reasonable to assume that increased goals/goal setting in project teams will have a positive

11
relationship with project performance. The greater the individual personalizes the group-goals,

the greater the likelihood of increasing activities (or acquiring whatever skill set necessary) to

achieve the goals.

Proposition 4: Project performance can be increased by increasing individual goal-

setting activities.

PQA provide clarity of direction and specificity of the project requirements. If the project

does not have clear guidelines/ objectives identified for the project, it is reasonable to assume

that individuals will have less of a point-of-reference from which to construct individual goals,

as they relate to their project efforts. A higher level of PQA can facilitate individual goals/goal

setting. The project resources will be framed in the context of the skills, tasks, training, etc.

required to complete the project requirements. When there is a higher level of individual goals/

goal setting identified, efforts have at least been made to provide feedback between the

supervisor and the individual as to what is to be expected, and how the goals are to be achieved.

Proposition 5: The stronger the individual goals/goal setting is identified within the

projcect, the more the individual project members will contribute to the project quality activities.

Kristof-Brown & Stevens (2001) investigated the relationship of goal congruency within

project teams. The authors found support of a positive relationship of congruence between

perceived team performance goals and personal goals and attitudinal/behavioral outcomes. A

congruency of personal mastery goals and performance goals was theorized to be significant.

The better the congruency, the higher reported satisfaction (Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001).

In short, this study found a significant relevance among goal congruency of the group and

the individuals. Given PQA, individual goal setting, and project performance, the relationship

between PQA and project performance is affected by individual goal-setting. If there has been

12
high goal-setting activity, it is more likely that the process required to implement/execute the

project activities becomes a component of the individuals goals. The individual then identifies

with the value of their effort going towards the quality activities, and that effort being recognized

as a goal fulfillment. Too, if there is high individual goal setting, it is more likely that specific

rewards for goal completion have been identified. The individual then has incentive to complete

goals related to PQA.

If there is high congruency between PQA and individual goal setting, given the results

from previous literature, personal satisfaction and performance will be higher, supporting

stronger project performance. If there is not high goal congruency between the individual goals

and group goals (a product of the PQA), then conflicting individual goals exist and the

relationship between PQA and project performance will be weak. Given this rationale and the

direct identification of individual goals as a mediator (Locke & Latham, 2002):

Proposition 6: Individual goals/goal setting will define the strength of the relationship

between project quality activities and project performance.

It is proposed there will be a significant, positive relationship among the Independent

Variable (IV) Project Quality Activity, and the Dependant Variable (DV) Project performance.

The greater the level of PQA present in project management, more project activity will support

useful work endeavors, with minimal waste/ redundant/ activities. The better documentation that

is utilized through the duration of the project (refer to Table 2), activities within the project that

do not contribute to project purpose/goals, are better identified and minimized.

This relationship is mediated (Mediating Variable-MV) by individual goals/goal setting.

PQA can be explained in relation to individual goals, in that if the quality activities are to be

implemented, the individuals within the group have to identify those activities as a goal to be

13
achieved. The effectiveness of PQA to increase project performance is highly dependant on

successful individual-ownership of the PQA; otherwise, they lose their benefit as an enhancing-

tool, and become a performance-reducing activity (or in more colloquial terms, a boat anchor).

Also, individual goals are related to project performance. Individual goals should align/

complement strong project performance. If the individual(s) is/are pursuing ulterior motives that

are not in alignment to project performance, that performance will be diminished by the

magnitude of the sum of the ulterior motives within the project.

The IV/DV relationship is weakened by low goal feedback (Moderating Variable-MV).

Goal-setting between the individual and project leader is not sufficient for maximizing project

performance. Strong goal-feedback will increase the salience of the identified goals (especially

given Locke and Lathams theory of goal-difficulty) on the part of the individual, serving as

motivation, and most likely maximizing the performance of the individual and the project.

These relationships among the independent, dependent, moderator, and mediator

variables can be viewed as follows:

Insert Figure 1 Here

Insert Figure 2 Here

While the proposals become somewhat interdependent as they progress, each proposal should

provide a rich basis for support through empirical research.

Figure 1 provides explanation for the moderator/mediator relationship for PQA, and

project performance. Individual goals/goal-setting assist in explaining the relationship between

the IV and DV. Before an individual in a project setting might choose to engage in PQA, goals

will need to be clearly identified and aligned with the activities. Otherwise, the individual may

pursue activities within the project that have weak support, no support, or conflict with PQA.

14
Too, the individual goals should be aligned with the project performance, as measured by the

organization and/or project leader. While the organization/project leader goals may be in conflict,

further goal conflicts will be significantly stronger if the individual has measures of project

performance that are different than either the project leader or organization. Thus, individual

goals/goal-setting mediate the IV and DV. The mediator is moderated by goal feedback. While

goals may be clearly identified and congruent with the project leader/organizations goals,

minimal performance gains may be measured, if there is no goal feedback. Strong goal feedback,

which may include praise, correction, feedback, group recognition, challenges, and other

reinforcement measures found in goal/goal feedback literature, will assist the individual in the

project to maximum performance in executing the project quality initiatives, which will

maximize project quality. This relationship can be seen in Figure 2.

Conclusion:

The purpose of this research endeavor is three-fold. First, terminology such as TQM,

quality, quality management, etc. is highly subjective and can create misunderstandings among

quality professionals, practitioners, and academics (Sousa & Voss, 2002). These

misunderstandings could create barriers for expanding on previous research. Project quality

activity can benefit through previous research on TQM and goals. Second, well-established (but

still quite relevant) theories regarding goals, goal-setting, and goal feedback are examined in the

light of a current trend in organizations: Project Management. Finally, the relationship between

PQA and project performance is not a simple relationship. Realistically, Intervening variables are

present, such as goals and goal-feedback. These two intervening variable can be evaluated/

measured by using validated scales, such as those developed by Locke and Latham, and variables

identified within this research.

15
 Much future research is needed in quality/planning activities in Project Management.

While these activities have been identified in the literature, they have yet to be empirically tested

for any relationship to increased project performance. Given the different number of constructs

identified in the guidelines, it remains to be evaluated if all the constructs are significant, and of

the significant constructs, if any have higher predictive power of project performance than the

others.

Next, it is interesting that no specific quality construct was identified in the

ANSI/ISO/ASQ Project Quality guidelines (1997), while specific factors related to product

quality were identified in TQM factors and project quality literature. Research needs to be

conducted to develop valid constructs for assessing product quality in project management. This

might include multiple assessments of design control/design review, and measurements of

customer feedback/reviews processes.

Third, given the identification of external and internal fits for increased TQM

performance, it is not completely unreasonable to assume similar contingencies exist for project

quality. Future research should be conducted to investigate other potential moderators/mediators

that exist between PQA and project performance. In addition, given the amount of research

conducted into the goal setting/performance relationship, the relationship may provide

significant predictive power in Project Management. Further research should examine the role of

goal setting/clarification in project settings. Finally, more theoretical rationale is needed to

provide explanation of the necessary conditions where quality impacts performance and why.

Given the increased popularity of project management and its use in organization, better

indicators of project success will provide guidance for project managers. By focusing on the

16
necessary up-front PQA, and investing time/energy in individual goals/goal setting, the

probability of project performance can be increased.

17
 References

Abrahamson, E., and L. Rosenkopf (1993). Institutional and competitive bandwagons: Using
mathematical modeling as a tool to explore innovation diffusion. Academy of Management
Review, 487-517.

Ahire, S.L, Golhar, D.Y. and Waller, M.A. (1996). Development and Validation of TQM
Implementation Constructs. Decision Sciences, Winter, 27(1): 23-47.

ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q10006-1997. Quality Management-Guideline to quality in project

management. Quality Press.

Benson, P.G., Saraph, J.V. and Schroeder, R.G. (1991). The Effects of Organizational Context on
Quality Management: An Empirical Investigation. Management Science, September 37(9): 1107-
1123.

Black, S.A. and Porter, L.J. (1996). Identification of the Critical Factors of TQM. Decision
Sciences, Winter 27(1):1-21.

Chang, S., Lin, N. and Yang, C. (2003). Quality dimensions, capabilities and business strategy:
an empirical study in high-tech industry. Total Quality Management, 14(4):407-421.

Clark, K., and Wheelright, S. (1993), Managing New Product and Process Development: Text
and Cases, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Crosby, P.B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Curkovic, S., Vickery, S. and Drge, C. (2000). Quality-related Action Programs: Their Impace
on Quality performance and Firm Performance. Decision Sciences, Fall 31(4):885-905.

Das, A. Handfield, R.B., Calantone, R.G. and Ghosh, S. (2000). A contingent view of quality
managementthe impact of international competition on quality. Decision Sciences, July
31(3):649-690.

Dean Jr., J.W., Bowen, D.E., (1994). Management Theory and Total Quality: Improving
Research and Practice Through Theory Development. Academy of Management Review, 19(3):
392-418.

Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering
Study.

Douglas, T.J. and Judge, W.Q. (2001). Total Quality Management Implementation and
Competitive Advantage: The Role of Structural Control and Exploration. Academy of
Management Journal, 44(1):158-169.

18
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. (1994). A framework for quality management
research and an associated measurement instrument. Journal of Operations Management,
11:339-366.

Gilmore, H.L. (1990). Continuous incremental improvement: An operations strategy for higher
quality, lower costs, and global competitiveness. Advanced Management Journal, 55(1): 21-25.

Griesing, D. (1994). Quality: How to make it pay. Business Week, August 8:54-59.

Hendricks, KB., Singhal, VR. (1996). Quality awards and the market value of the firm: An
Empirical Investigation. Management Science, 42 (3), 415-436.

Hong, P., Nahm, A., and Doll, W. (2004). The role of project target clarity in an uncertain
environment. International Journal of Operations and Production management, 24: 1269-1291.

Ittner, C.D. and Larcker, D.F. (1997). Quality, Strategy, Strategic Control Systems, and
Organizational Performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(3/4): 293-314.

Juran, J.M. (1988). Juran on planning for quality. New York: Free Press.

Kristof-Brown, A., Stevens, C. (2001). Goal congruence in project teams: Does the fit between
member personal master and performance goals matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 1083-
1095.

Lee, C., Bobko, P., Earley, P.C., Locke, E. (1991). An Empirical analysis of a goal setting
questionnaire. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 467-482.

Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. (1984). Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique that Works,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and
Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey. American Psychologist, pp. 705-717.

Maani, K., (1989). Productivity and profitability through quality-myth and reality. International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 6(3):11-23.

Mantel, S., Meredith, J., Shafer, S., Sutton, M. (2005). Project Management in Practice. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Minchin, R.E., and Smith, G. (2005). Quality-based contractor rating model for qualification and
bidding purposes. Journal of Management In Engineering, January: 38-43.

Montgomery, C. A., and Wernerfelt, B. (1991). Sources of Superior Performance: Market Share
Versus Industry Effects in the U.S. Brewing Industry, Management Science, 954-959.

19
Port, O., Carey, J., Kelly, K., & Forest, S. A. (1992). Quality: Small and midsize companies seize
the challenge-not a moment too soon. Business Week, November 30:66-72.

Powell, T.C. (1995). Total Quality Management as Competitive Advantage: A Review and
Empirical Study. Strategic Management Journal, 16:15-37.

Reed, R., Lemak, D.J. and Montgomery, J.C. (1996). Beyond Process: TQM Content and Firm
Performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1):173-202.

Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York.

Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G., and Schroeder, R.G. (1989). An instrument for measuring the
-critical factors of quality management. Decision Sciences, 20(4):810-829.

Savolainen, T. (2000). Leadership Strategies for Gaining Business Excellence Through Total
Quality Management: A Finnish Case Study. Total Quality Management. March 11(2).

Sitkin, S.B., Sutcliffe, K.M., and Schroeder, R.G. (1994). Distinguishing control from learning
in total quality management: A contingency perspective. Academy of Management Review,
19:537-564.

Sousa, R.. and Voss, C. (2002). Quality management re-visited: a reflective review and agenda
for future research. Journal Operations Management, 20:91-109.

Thomas, S., Lee, S.H., Spencer, J., Tucker, R., and Chapman, R. (2004). Impacts of
Design/Information Technology on Project Outcomes. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, July/ August: 586-597.

Zwikael, O., and Globerson, S. (2004). Evaluating the quality of project planning: a model and
field results. International Journal of Production Research, 42: 1545-1556.

20
 Table 1: Summary of Research of TQM and Environmental Fit

Author (s): Environmental External/ Internal

Consideration: Environment:
Benson, et al (1991) TQM implementation External/Internal
success and past quality
success, and product
complexity
Chang, et al (2003) Manufacturing strategy Internal
Douglas and Judge (2001) Fit of Organizational Internal
Structure (exploration vs.
control) and TQM
implementation
Greising (1994); Port, et al TQM success and Internal
(1992); Reed et al, (1996). implementation
Hendricks & Singhal (2001) Firm size and maturity of Internal
QM program
Ittner & Larcker (1997) TQM success and scope of Internal
quality projects
Maani (1989); Powell TQM industry specific External
(1995)
Reed, et al (1996) Environmental uncertainty External
Using the Dess and Beard
(1984) terms of dynamism,
munificence, and
complexity.
Reed, et al (1996) TQM implementation External/Internal
success and past quality
success, and firm
orientation/ Industry
Sitkin, et al (1994) TQM and control/ learning, External/Internal
and Organizational
uncertainty
Sousa (2003) Manufacturing strategy Internal

21
 Table 2:
Summary of Quality/Planning Activities in Project Management, and TQM Factors

TQM Factors: ANSI/ISO/ASQ Project Knowledge Areas:

(Powell, 1995) Quality guidelines: (Zwikael & Globerson 2004)
(1997)
Committed Leadership Strategic Processes N/A
Open Organization Interdependency Management Integration
Processes
N/A Time-Related Processes Time
Closer Customer Relations Scope-Related Processes Scope
Employee Empowerment Personnel-Related Processes Human Resources
Increased Training
Zero-defects Mentality Cost-Related Processes Cost
Closer Supplier Relations Resource-Related Processes; Procurement
Purchasing-Related Processes
Measurement N/A Quality
Process Improvement
Flexible manufacturing
N/A Risk-Related Processes Risk
Benchmarking N/A N/A
Adoption and Communication Communication-Related Communication
Processes

Figure 1:
Project Quality Activities and project Performance

MODERATOR:
Goal Feedback

IV: MEDIATOR: DV:

Project quality Individual Goals/ Project
activities Goal Setting Performance

22
 Figure 2:
Project Quality Activities vs. Project Performance in High/Low Goal Feedback

Project
Performance

High Goal feedback

Low Goal feedback

Project Quality Activities

23