TQM and organizational performance using the balanced scorecard approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between the implementation of total quality management (TQM) and organizational performance, using the balanced scorecard (BSC) approach. Design/methodology/approach In order to investigate the relationship between TQM and BSC, a questionnaire was developed and distributed to 30 largest pharmaceutical distribution companies in Iran. Structural equation modeling was used to evaluate the measurement model and to test the research hypotheses using the data from 933 completed questionnaires. Findings The results supported the research model and revealed that TQM implementation can positively and significantly influence the BSC and its four perspectives. Practical implications Considering the strong association between TQM and all four perspectives of organizational performance (BSC), managers should strongly leverage the implementation of TQM practices in order to reach their strategic objectives. Originality/value This study is the first empirical study conducted on the association of TQM and BSC in the pharmaceutical industry. The findings of this study provide strong evidence supporting the implementation of TQM in the pharmaceutical context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it