A Review of the Tripartite Model Linking Associations between TQM, Organizational Learning, and Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review aims to examine selected research articles that empirically investigated the relationship between Total Quality Management (TQM), Organizational Learning and Performance. The objectives of the current review are threefold. First, it aims to provide a comparative analysis regarding, findings, methodology, and dimensions, second, it explores the dimensions of the relevant constructs based on literature review, and Third, it compares the inferred concepts with those developed in the selected research studies. The current paper found a lack of conceptual clarity of the selected research studies’ dimensions when compared with the conceptually developed ones based on expanded literature review, methodological issues and ill-defined practices during confirmatory factor analysis and unsatisfactory scales selection justification from a theoretical perspective. Recommendations for pertaining future research mainly include building a broader theoretical lens while developing the dimensions of TQM, organizational learning, and performance, enhanced confirmatory factor analysis reporting practices and embracing qualitative research methods that further investigate the tripartite model.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".