MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888513402 · doi:10.5539/mas.v12n9p140

The Effect of TQM on firm Performance: Empirical Study in Jordanian Private Airlines

2018· article· en· W2888513402 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adnan M. Rawashdeh

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal quality managementBusinessQuality (philosophy)Sample (material)MarketingDescriptive statisticsOrganizational performanceOperations managementHuman resourcesPopulationManagementStatisticsEngineeringMedicineMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to explre the relationship between total quality management and firm performance, i.e. quality, business and organizational performance in Jordanian private airlines. The design of this study has a quantitative approach. Data was obtained by questionnaire instrument. The respondents of this study are all employees in quality department, maintenance department, human resource department, and operation department. The number of population was 480 employees. Random sampling was used in the study. 340 completed questionnaires were analyzed as a final sample. Three hypotheses have been developed through literature review and tested using descriptive statistical analysis performed by SPSS. The results show that total quality management practices have a positive and significant impact on business, quality, and organizational performance in Jordanian private airlines. The study reports that effective implementation of total quality management practices results in enhancing airline performance. The major limitation of this study is that the study asked for perceived data about actual TQM practices and performance measures, but the respondents might have given desired data, which made their companies sound good, most of the respondents were non managers and from different departments in addition to the quality department, who might not understand to answer the questions accurately. Another limitation was that business performance tenets were measured by using one question per each tenet. Future research may investigate those TQM practices and performance measures in another Jordanian industry.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicQuality and Supply ManagementFrench-language works237,207