Exploring barriers to Quality 4.0 implementation: a multivariate analysis

Depósito de investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published in The TQM Journal on 10 October 2024, available at: https://doi.org/[10.1108/TQM-02-2024- 0083 The TQM Journal EXPLORING BARRIERS TO QUALITY 4.0 IMPLEMENTATION: A MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS Journal: The TQM Journal Manuscript ID TQM-02-2024-0083.R2 Manuscript Type: Research Paper Keywords: Quality Management, Industry 4.0, Barriers, Quantitative methods The TQM Journal The TQM Journal 1 EXPLORING BARRIERS TO QUALITY 4.0 IMPLEMENTATION: A MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS Abstract Purpose– Industry 4.0 (I4.0) technologies and practices are changing the way quality is managed in organizations, giving rise to the movement known as "Quality 4.0" (Q4.0). In this context, this study aims to analyze the barriers organizations face when trying to implement Q4.0 and to examine whether there are significant differences according to size, sector, level of excellence and degree of readiness for Q4.0 implementation. Design/methodology/approach– The sample comprises 107 Spanish organizations with some form of European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) excellence recognition system. The methodology includes multivariate techniques (factor analysis and mean difference analysis). Findings– The study has managed to summarize the ten main barriers to the implementation of Q4.0 identified in the literature in three groups: organizational (5 barriers), knowledge (2 barriers), and technological (3 barriers). The main barriers are the high investment in technology required to implement Q4.0 and the need for more training and competence of workers. In addition, SMEs encounter more significant technological barriers when implementing Q4.0 than large companies. However, organizational and knowledge barriers are the same. Organizations in the service sector come across more organizational and knowledge barriers to implementing Q4.0 than industrial organizations; no differences were identified for technological barriers. The higher the EFQM seal of excellence achieved, the lower the knowledge barriers faced, with no differences in organizational and technological barriers. Finally, it is observed that the more prepared organizations are to implement Q4.0, the lower the barriers they face. Research limitations/implications– The study helps managers identify the barriers they may encounter when implementing Q4.0, which helps design short- and long-term plans to mitigate or break down these barriers. Originality/value– The study provides empirical evidence on an organization’s barriers to implementing Q4.0. On the other hand, the barriers are related to some of the relevant characteristics that define the organizations, such as their size, the sector of activity, their level of excellence, and their degree of preparation for implementing Q4.0. Keywords Quality 4.0, Industry 4.0, Barriers, Challenges, Implementation, Multivariable analysis 1. Introduction With the advent of I4.0, many organizations are experiencing a radical change in design, manufacturing and service delivery processes (Sony and Naik, 2020). This phenomenon, also known as the "Fourth Industrial Revolution", is based on the use of advanced technologies, digitization, big data or artificial intelligence (Zonnenshain and Kenett, 2020). As Küpper et al. (2019) point out, the implementation of I4.0 is increasing productivity and flexibility in manufacturing and throughout the supply chain. In addition, new technologies and the massive use of data can help improve quality through process control, collecting real-time data or applying analytics that help predict quality problems and equipment maintenance needs. In addition, digital tools also enable people to do their jobs better, faster and at a reduced cost. However, many organizations still struggle with quality management, as evidenced by the high costs of poor quality in some industries for failures, repairs, warranty enforcement or after-sales service (Sony et al., 2021). In this context, research points to one of the most critical I4.0 impacts occurring in the quality function of organizations (Gunasekaran et al., 2019; Sony et al., 2020; De Souza et al., 2022). The concept of Quality 4.0 Page 1 of 25 The TQM Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 The TQM Journal 2 (Q4.0) thus redefines the approach to quality management. It integrates new technologies, big data, connectivity, and digitalization throughout the supply chain for better decision-making (Chiarini & Kumar, 2022). De Souza et al. (2022) point out that I4.0 represents a new paradigm for manufacturing, in which traditional concepts of quality must assimilate changes and prepare for new challenges. Thus, tasks previously performed by people will be automated or computer- and even robotassisted, reducing human involvement almost entirely. However, traditional quality methods will not be replaced; rather, this will be a stage in the evolution of quality in which culture will be promoted, and the human factor will have to adopt a new role (Broday, 2022). Along these lines, Küpper et al. (2019) argue that technology is just one more piece in the quality transformation that must also focus on people and soft skills such as change management, communication, and teamwork. This aspect leads to the need to unite the potential of technologies with that of knowledge, experience, and human capabilities, which implies that the way of understanding and implementing quality management must necessarily change, and new competencies must emerge for quality professionals (De Souza et al., 2022; Sureshchandar, 2022). Thus, this advance in the evolution of quality can be placed within what van Kemenade and Hardjono (2018) call the ‘emergence paradigm’ of quality management. This paradigm considers quality a systemic and dynamic concept capable of creating flexible and innovative responses in a complex, dynamic, uncertain context. For van Kemenade and Hardjono (2018), quality is achieved through dialogue between all organizational stakeholders under the emerging paradigm. Moreover, it considers crises or failures as symptoms linked to a moment in time and a place. Thus, the context must be studied to understand and solve problems. The inability to cope with environmental changes is the problem, and this paradigm seeks a solution through changes and improvements in management processes. It aims for flexibility and innovation (van Kemenade, 2022). For Dahlgaard-Park et al. (2018), quality management in the 21st century must be eclectic and use principles, values, tools, methods, and models from different fields of knowledge, depending on the problem it faces to adapt to context and change. Therefore, the successful implementation of Q4.0 requires a joint optimization of human and technical systems in the organization. However, no universally accepted framework or reference model exists for Q4.0 implementation (Zonnenshain and Kenett, 2020). In this sense, Sony et al. (2021) point out how the lack of frameworks or reference models makes it relevant first to understand what the motivations or benefits expected by organizations are, as well as what the main barriers or challenges that organizations may face are when trying to implement Q4.0 practices and technologies. The issue of barriers and challenges to the implementation of Q4.0 has been addressed by the works of Sony et al. (2021), Antony et al. (2022) and Suhaimi et al. (2023). Thus, Sony et al. (2021) and Antony et al. (2023a) conducted an empirical study in which they collected, among other aspects, the perceptions of quality professionals on the barriers to implementing Q4.0. Suhaimi et al. (2023) analyze barriers and inefficiencies in digital transformation, providing information on which solutions are appropriate for the organization’s future scenario. Page 2 of 25The TQM Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 The TQM Journal 3 This study aims to advance the knowledge of the barriers to implementing Q4.0, analyzing the possible differences according to the size of the organization, the sector in which it operates, the level of excellence achieved and the degree of preparation for implementing Q4.0. For this purpose, different multivariate techniques are used, such as factor analysis and a mean difference analysis (T-test for independent samples and ANOVA). The study sample comprises Spanish organizations with some type of recognition system for excellence from the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM). The study provides empirical evidence on the most relevant barriers an organization may face when implementing Q4.0: organizational and management, knowledge, and technological barriers. It also analyzes the differences in these barriers according to the size of the organization, the sector in which it operates, the level of excellence and the degree of preparation for Q4.0. 2. Literature review 2.1. Industry 4.0 Organizations are facing the fourth industrial revolution, which has also been referred to as the "Smart Industry". I4.0 is based on the use of emerging technologies such as cyber-physical systems, the internet of things, cloud computing, additive manufacturing, artificial intelligence, big data, virtual and augmented reality, drones or blockchain (Vaidya et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2018; Olsen and Tomlin, 2020; Rodal, 2020). Thus, a new reality and way of organizing the means of production based on digitalization and the massive use of information is generated, which allows the company to be more flexible and to be able to adapt better and faster to the changing needs of the markets (Zonnenshain and Kenett, 2020). For Babatunde (2020), I4.0 integrates digital and social changes to create a safer and smarter working environment compared to the three previous revolutions. The technological advances of the Fourth Industrial Revolution have led companies to actively engage and invest in their employees to train and develop their talent rapidly (Balouei et al., 2022). In this sense, training and development opportunities are essential to hone Q4.0-related skills and knowledge (Virmani et al., 2023). Thus, managing resistance to change and transformation is essential (Kumar et al., 2022). I4.0 has enabled more customized products to be sourced and brought to market, preserving mass production while meeting customer requirements (Sader et al., 2019). This can be achieved if organizations can integrate (vertically, horizontally and end-to-end) digital technologies and tools into all value chain processes and involve all stakeholders in the supply chain (Sony et al., 2020). Moreover, as Rodal (2020) points out, emerging technologies and digitization are not exclusive to the industrial sector; they are also successfully used in health, education, the primary sector, leisure, and cities. The above leads us to conclude that the application of I4.0 can improve the competitiveness of organizations. Moreover, there is no doubt that the introduction of the above technologies will pose significant challenges and challenges at management, organizational and supply chain levels as the integration of a large amount of data obtained from related value chain activities becomes necessary (Mohamed, 2018; Chiarini, 2020). The active participation of stakeholders, including customers, suppliers and employees, is paramount for the Page 3 of 25 The TQM Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 The TQM Journal 4 success of Q4.0 initiatives (Santos et al., 2021). Without their involvement, organizations may encounter resistance and miss valuable collaboration opportunities (Javaid et al., 2021). As mentioned above, the literature points out that one of the most critical impacts of I4.0 is occurring in the quality function of organizations. 2.2. Quality 4.0 For Sader et al. (2022), a large body of research assumes that Q4.0 arises from the influence of I4.0. However, Q4.0 has also developed and can be seen as another phase in organizations' evolutionary process of quality. Thus, for Sánchez-Franco et al. (2023) and Sony et al. (2021), Q4.0 is a further stage in an evolutionary quality process. Quality inspection focused on products, and the fundamental objective was to deliver faultless finished products to customers. The system's inefficiency made it necessary to consider new modes of action that also focused on processes. The quality control phase measures observable characteristics, such as reliability, durability, or costs. In these phases, quality conforms to technical requirements or specifications. Later, with increasing supply and competition, quality becomes more proactive and preventive. With quality assurance and quality management systems, the customer and continuous improvement become the focus of attention, i.e., products and services must satisfy customers' changing tastes, wishes, and expectations. In addition, the scope of quality functions has broadened and become a cross-cutting activity in organizations. TQM assumes that organizations with a future do not limit themselves to achieving exemplary customer or financial results but extend their goals to results related to other stakeholders. In addition, there is an awareness of employees' decisive role and commitment to achieving quality results at all levels. As TQM develops, so-called Business Excellence Models such as the EFQM or the Malcolm Baldrige model have emerged. Nowadays, the 4th Industrial Revolution generates a new reality and a new way of organizing the means of production based on digitalization and the massive use of information, which allows the company to be more flexible and to be able to adapt to the changing needs of the markets. The aim is the optimization and interaction of the processes of R&D, design, production, logistics, and the provision of associated services. This will enable organizations to be more productive and flexible in designing, manufacturing, and delivering customized products without excessive costs, and tight deadlines. For Sony et al. (2021), Quality 1.0 was assured by measurement and inspection. Quality 2.0 arose with the Industrial Revolution and Taylorist theory, where quality was based on compliance with standards or specifications that set acceptable levels of quality in processes, products and services. Quality 3.0 goes from Taylor to the end of the 20th century, and quality is considered a fundamental principle for organizations. Particular emphasis is placed on customer satisfaction, process management, continuous improvement, productivity improvement and the commitment of all people in the organization. For Nenadál et al. (2022), business models and management systems will change dramatically over the next decade. Thus, for modern quality management to contribute to these changes, it must continuously develop toward the concept of Q4.0. However, there is still much uncertainty related to possible approaches for the practical implementation of Q4.0. Page 4 of 25The TQM Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 The TQM Journal 5 Thus, the characteristics of Q4.0 have broadened the focus of quality from a local perspective aimed at excluding defective products or monitoring manufacturing processes to a more holistic perspective with intensive monitoring of all elements contributing to the production value chain (Sader et al., 2022). In any case, as Nenadál et al. (2022) point out, business models and management systems will continue to change dramatically over the next decade. For modern quality management to contribute to these changes, it needs to orient its development towards the Q4.0 concept. There currently needs to be a unified and globally recognized definition of Q4.0. The term Q4.0 was first used by Dan Jacob (Antony et al., 2022), and since then, there have been many attempts to define it. A first approach would be to consider Q4.0 as an emerging philosophy in quality management in the era of I4.0 (Sony et al. 2021), i.e. Q4.0 uses digital tools to manage quality (Antony et al., 2022; Swarnakar et al., 2023). Thus, digitization-based production and service delivery and the massive use of information will create new opportunities for organizations to incorporate technological advances that enable them to achieve optimal operational excellence, performance and innovation (Sony et al., 2020). As a result, organizations will improve the quality of products and services and achieve customer satisfaction, which is a competitive advantage (Zonnenshain and Kenett, 2020). In this context, concepts related to Q4.0 also emerge, such as TQM 4.0 (De Souza et al., 2022), which aims to align the competencies of quality professionals with the changes proposed by I4.0 and Q4.0, characterized using technologies in quality management systems. To uncover the full power of Q4.0, organizations must effectively collect and integrate data from various sources across their operations (Bousdekis et al., 2023) to enable them to anticipate and make informed data-driven decisions that empower them to optimize their processes and proactively identify potential problems (Virmani et al., 2023). From the different approaches to the concept of Q4.0, it stands out that to implement it and meet business objectives, both technological and human factors must work in an integrated manner. Thus, Antony et al. (2022) point out that Q4.0 is a socio-technical system in which there must be a symbiotic relationship between HR and technology. In this vein, Sureshchandar (2022) argues that while technology is vital for Q4.0, the 'traditional' elements of quality management such as leadership, culture, customer orientation, quality systems, compliance, HR training and competence, analytical thinking, data-driven decision-making, etc., are mandatory elements for transformation to take place in organizations. For Virmani et al. (2023), with leadership buy-in and support, organizations can allocate resources effectively and drive the necessary changes (Glogovac et al., 2022). Furthermore, fostering a proactive mindset that encourages innovation and tackles problems quickly (Chiarini and Kumar, 2022) with multidisciplinary teams with the right skills and knowledge ensures a holistic approach to Q4.0 (Antony et al., 2023b). Finally, as Chiarini and Kumar (2022), Sony et al. (2021), and Broday (2022) note, Q4.0 is a concept that is at a nascent stage, and there is a need to develop a theory to help conceptualize it and thus have a deeper and more complete understanding of the concept. 2.3. Barriers and challenges to Quality 4.0 implementation While the implementation of Q4.0 benefits organizations, some challenges must be addressed, see Swarnakar et al. (2023). The works of Sony et al. (2020 and 2021), Chiarini and Kumar (2022), Thekkoote (2022), Page 5 of 25 The TQM Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 The TQM Journal 6 Sureshchandar (2023), Antony et al. (2023a) and Mittal et al. (2023) have analyzed the readiness and critical factors for Q4.0 implementation. In this way, they identify factors such as top management leadership and commitment; the consideration of Q4.0 as a strategic issue; the knowledge and awareness of all members of the organization; training and rewards related to Q4.0; an organizational culture aligned with the principles of Q4.0; and the adoption of new technologies, digitalization and the massive use of data (bigdata). For Sony et al. (2021), the successful implementation of Q4.0 is based on integrating technological, socio-cultural and strategic factors. Furthermore, these key ingredients or factors must be methodically and systematically implemented by organizations to achieve success in the implementation of Q4.0. Thus, many challenges and barriers to implementing Q4.0 are related to these key readiness factors (see Table 1). By barriers to Q4.0 implementation, we mean the obstacles and challenges an organization may face when adopting Quality 4.0 principles, practices, and tools. Thus, Sony et al. (2021) and Antony et al. (2023a) identify five barriers that organizations usually face when starting the process of implementing Q4.0: (1) Cost of implementing Q4.0. Investment in technology and digitization can be associated with excessive payback time. As Q4.0 is a new concept, organizations need to be clarified on how to estimate the ROI that Q4.0 initiatives bring about. (2) Lack of resources. Implementing Q4.0 requires financial resources, technological resources, intellectual resources (technical know-how, databases, or intelligent algorithms), human resources such as qualified quality managers, quality engineers or quality managers, and financial resources. (3) Lack of knowledge on how to implement Q4.0. As noted above, a universally accepted framework for implementing Q4.0 has yet to be implemented. (4) Lack of an organizational culture conducive to Q4.0. In this regard, a culture that fosters knowledge creation and transfer, innovation, and creativity is needed. In such a culture, an organization creates an environment that encourages employees to take risks, accept new challenges, and support creative work to meet quality objectives. (5) Failure to consider Q4.0 as a strategic issue source of competitive advantage. In the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, organizations face a challenge: finding the right way to shape their competitive advantage. This is important as it paves the way for long-term survival in the marketplace. The nature of the relationship between Q4.0 implementation and competitive advantage needs to be clarified, and there is no solid evidence concerning this. --------------------------- Table 1. About here. ---------------------------- On the other hand, the study by Küpper et al. (2019) identified a shortage of digital skills, an unclear digital strategy and a lack of quality culture as the top three challenges for companies in successfully implementing Q4.0 initiatives. Other important issues included outdated technology systems and infrastructure, lack of resources, resistance to change, lack of top management support, data integrity and cybersecurity. Along these lines, Sader et al. (2019) recognize the opportunities that I4.0 and its technologies offer to quality management. However, they highlight that there are also ambiguous areas (threats and challenges) within this context. For example, there are knowledge-related difficulties and organizational barriers to implementation. On the other hand, people's experience, skills, and qualifications are needed to reach satisfactory conclusions from the data analysis and information provided by I4.0 technologies. Furthermore, cybersecurity and data Page 6 of 25The TQM Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 The TQM Journal 7 protection are also some of the most critical challenges of I4.0, i.e., how to maintain the flow of information related to quality management while avoiding data loss or inaccuracy. Finally, it is also essential to define a set of specific quantitative measures as evidence to describe the actual impact or benefits of I4.0 on quality practices, e.g., what is the quantitative change resulting from implementing I4.0 in an organization in terms of customer satisfaction, product and process improvement, cost of quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of processes and leadership, the decision-making process and finally in improving the overall results. For Sader et al. (2022), the main challenges of Q4.0 are related to human resources, organizational, technological, and managerial aspects. Moreover, these challenges can also be considered success factors, as qualified human resources, good organizational performance during the change required for Q4.0 implementation, and organizational readiness from a technological point of view will lead to a successful transition from traditional quality management systems to Q4.0. For Chiarini (2020) the implementation of Q4.0 will lead to increased performance as a result of the automation of quality inspection and analysis activities. Therefore, future uses and activities related to quality management will require more sophisticated talents and higher qualifications and competences to understand the new technical opportunities and how to apply them. In this line, Nenadál et al. (2022) point out the need for quality professionals in the I4.0 era to acquire new competences, such as creative thinking or knowledge of new technologies like the internet of things, machine learning, data mining, artificial intelligence or cyber-physical systems. In addition, it will be necessary to combine traditional quality management practices with decisionmaking based on big data. Furthermore, in order to have a successful transition from traditional quality management to Q4.0, quality teams and especially quality managers must be fully aware and understand the new technologies of I4.0 and their impact on quality and must play a leading role in the transition process. Q4.0 does not replace quality management principles but rather enhances them (Sader et al., 2022). Thus, for Nenadál et al. (2022) the success of Q4.0 cannot be achieved without a solid foundation of traditional quality management: management commitment, customer involvement, supplier involvement, process management, information and planning, etc. The technological challenges for Q4.0 relate to infrastructure issues, the selection of the right technologies, the type of data collected, and how it can be analyzed and linked together. The successful implementation of Q4.0 requires reliable data sources and advanced analytical tools to collect accurate information, such as customer feedback on social media, and impose the right actions based on that accurate data (Sader et al., 2022). In addition to the challenges, Q4.0 is also affected by I4.0 challenges, such as the security or reliability of networks and devices (Lu, 2017). For Suhaimi et al. (2023), lack of training and involvement of employees is one of the causes of failure in implementing digitalization and new technologies. Everyone in the organization should be encouraged to take advantage of the potential digital technology offers. Lack of flexibility and adaptability to change is another problem for the failure or underperformance of digital transformation. Thus, many workers resent any positive or negative change because every human needs consistency. Moreover, many would prefer to participate in Page 7 of 25 The TQM Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 The TQM Journal 14 Finally, for technological barriers (Table 14), as was the case for organizational barriers, the differences occur between organizations with a low degree of Q4.0 readiness and a high degree of Q4.0 readiness. Thus, organizations with a high degree of Q4.0 readiness face fewer technological barriers than those with lower degrees of Q4.0 readiness. --------------------------- Table 14. About here. ---------------------------- 5. Discussion The barriers to Q4.0 implementation identified in the literature have been summarized in three groups. Firstly, there are organizational and management barriers, including human resources aspects, such as lack of management support and employee training in Q4.0. Also included are shortcomings related to the principles and values of the organizational culture, especially issues related to the commitment to creativity, innovation, transformation, and change. Finally, strategic aspects are included, such as the failure to consider Q4.0 a critical issue for achieving competitive advantage. In this line, Küpper et al. (2019), Sony et al. (2021), and Antony et al. (2023a) point out that the main challenges faced by organizations that want to implement Q4.0 are related to cultural, strategic, and human resources aspects. Secondly, knowledge barriers refer to the need for more knowledge of frameworks or reference models to guide organizations in implementing Q4.0 and the lack of knowledge about the benefits of its correct implementation. Sader et al. (2019) recognize the opportunities that I4.0 and its technologies offer to quality management but highlight that there are still difficulties related to the knowledge required for its effective implementation. And thirdly, technological and infrastructural barriers. In this case, many organizations are reluctant to implement Q4.0 because of the high investment involved or because they encounter limitations related to the technological infrastructure. Thus, Küpper et al. (2019) point out that their obsolete technological infrastructures are one of the main impediments to organizations' initiating Q4.0 projects. For Sader et al. (2022), the technological challenges of Q4.0 are rooted in the necessary infrastructures and the selection of appropriate technologies. In addition, another increasingly important barrier is cybersecurity concerns. Sader et al. (2019) point out that cybersecurity and data protection are also critical challenges, i.e., maintaining the flow of information related to quality management while avoiding data loss or inaccuracy. On the other hand, we have found that the barriers are not independent of the characteristics of the organizations. On the contrary, there are differences in the four characteristics analyzed: size, sector, level of excellence, and degree of readiness for Q4.0. Thus, SMEs encounter more significant technological barriers to implementing Q4.0 than large companies. This may be due to SMEs' difficulty accessing the financial and other resources needed to acquire and implement technology efficiently (Fernández and Revilla, 2010). However, there are no differences concerning organizational and knowledge barriers. Page 14 of 25The TQM Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 The TQM Journal 15 On the other hand, organizations operating in the service sector encounter more organizational and knowledge barriers to implementing Q4.0 than industrial organizations. This may be because the industrial sector has traditionally been more active in implementing I4.0 principles and practices than the service sector (Calabrese et al., 2021). In contrast, no differences have been identified for technological barriers. In this respect, Rodal (2020) points out that emerging technologies and digitalization are not exclusive to the industrial sector but are also successfully used in health, education, and leisure. Furthermore, it has also been found that the higher the level of excellence of the organization, i.e., the higher the EFQM seal of excellence achieved, the lower the knowledge barriers faced, with no differences in organizational and technological barriers. In this sense, as indicated by Nenadál (2020) and Fonseca et al. (2021), the EFQM Model promotes transformation and a forward-looking approach, which should favor the successful implementation of I4.0 to create value for stakeholders and support the digital transformation of the organization. Furthermore, the EFQM Model's commitment to creativity, innovation, and disruptive thinking are essential ingredients for achieving I4.0. We also observe that the more prepared organizations are to implement Q4.0, the lower their organizational, knowledge, and technological barriers. In this sense, implementing Industry and Q4.0 principles and practices effectively is a time-consuming process in which organizations must take steps. Firstly, they must lay the foundations of an organizational culture that fosters creativity, innovation, and change and have committed management that considers Q4.0 a strategic issue and is aware of its implementation's benefits (Antony et al., 2023a). In addition, investment in technological infrastructures and continuous training of workers will be needed (Nenadál et al., 2022). 6. Implications and contributions The implications and contributions for academy, industry and managers can be seen from a theoretical, practical and managerial point of view and are threefold: (i) From a theoretical perspective, Q4.0 is still at an early stage of study and development, and many organizations are just starting to implement it (Chiarini and Kumar, 2022). As implications and contributions for the literature and research, we can highlight the empirical evidence on the most relevant barriers an organization may face when implementing Q4.0. Furthermore, the study summarizes the barriers identified in the literature into three large groups: organizational and management, knowledge, and technological. The first ones refer to aspects related to human resources, such as the lack of involvement of managers and the need for more competence and training of workers. They also include cultural aspects, resistance to change, and strategic issues. Knowledge barriers, which are the most frequent, are associated with the need for more models or reference guidelines for implementing Q4.0 and the lack of knowledge of the operational, financial, environmental, and social benefits that Q4.0 can bring. Finally, technological barriers stem from the belief that the organization needs to invest in technological infrastructures and concerns about data integrity and cybersecurity. On the other hand, the study relates barriers to some of the relevant characteristics that define Page 15 of 25 The TQM Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 The TQM Journal 16 organizations, such as their size, sector of activity, their level of excellence (their commitment to creativity, innovation, transformation, and disruptive thinking), as well as their degree of preparation for the implementation of Q4.0. As mentioned above, since this is a topic that is still little explored, there should be more theoretical and empirical studies focused on analyzing more deeply these and other barriers that may exist, in different types of industries, and which are not included in this study. (ii) From a practical and managerial point of view, this study also offers important implications for managers responsible for quality management about the barriers they may encounter when implementing Q4.0. Thus, one of the main contributions of this research for managers is that, depending on the characteristics of their organization, they can be aware of the barriers they are most likely to face. This information can be used to design short- and long-term plans to mitigate or break down organizational, knowledge, or technological barriers. Hence, according to the results of the study, the characteristics of the organizations that face the most significant barriers and challenges when implementing Q4.0 are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the service sector and with a low level of excellence and degree of preparation for the implementation of Q4.0. In contrast, the most prepared organizations would be large industrial companies with high levels of excellence and readiness for Q4.0. (iii) All in all, whether from a theoretical, practical or managerial point of view, implementing a Q.4.0 does not just involve developing a quality strategy, it goes further, as it includes developing a strategy for the entire organization, which requires knowledge and anticipation. For example, as mentioned by Antony et al. (2023b), for the successful adoption of Q4.0, managers of both large enterprises and SMEs can benefit from understanding in advance the importance of identifying organizational Q4.0 readiness factors before investing in this implementation. Therefore, anticipating a strategy with other type of barriers that may exist before the implementation of Q4.0, whatever they may be, will be an added value not only for the management but also for the efficiency of the organization. Moreover, it should be noted that not all barriers are present in all types of companies. On the other hand, knowledge barriers related to needing a reference, model, or roadmap for implementing Q4.0 and the lack of knowledge of the benefits that its implementation can bring to the organization are more frequent. This is followed by barriers related to the necessary technological infrastructures and cybersecurity, and, finally, organizational and management barriers related to social aspects such as culture, managers, and workers, as well as strategic issues. 7. Conclusions and limitations Q4.0 is receiving increasing attention from academics and practitioners. In this study, quantitative research is carried out to analyze the barriers to implementing Q4.0. Specifically, ten barriers have been identified in the specialized literature, summarized into three groups: organizational and management, knowledge, and technological. In addition, significant differences in barriers have been identified according to the characteristics of the organizations in the sample. Specifically, SMEs encounter more significant technological barriers when implementing Q4.0 than large companies. Organizations in the service sector come across more organizational and knowledge barriers to implementing Q4.0 than industrial organizations. On the other hand, Page 16 of 25The TQM Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 The TQM Journal 17 the higher the level of excellence of the organization, the lower the knowledge barriers they face. Finally, the more prepared organizations say they are to implement Q4.0, the lower the organizational, knowledge, and technological barriers they face. The study has several limitations that must be considered when interpreting the results and conclusions. Firstly, the sample comprises Spanish organizations with some form of EFQM recognition of excellence, which means that the results cannot be generalized and must be interpreted in this specific context. In this sense, future research lines should broaden the study's scope. Secondly, the perceptions of the respondents (managers and quality managers) were used as measures of the study variables. Hard or objective measures should complement such soft or subjective measures. Thirdly, the study of barriers could be further extended to include more types as the literature progresses, for example, aspects related to the involvement of customers and suppliers in the Q4.0 implementation process. Finally, the analysis could be completed by introducing as a variable to differentiate the barriers whether the organization is a pioneer in adopting Q4.0 in the sector or, on the contrary, decides to implement Q4.0 late (Antony et al., 2023c). Acknowledgements: – Research Center for Business Sciences (NECE) and Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), Grant: UIDB/04630/2020, DOI: 10.54499/UIDP/04630/2020; and FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Technologia and Universidade da Beira Interior, CEECINST/00016/2021/CP2828/CT0005, CEEC Institutional 2021, DOI: 10.54499/CEECINST/00016/2021/CP2828/CT0005 References Antony, J., McDermott, O. and Sony, M. (2022), “Quality 4.0 conceptualisation and theoretical understanding: a global exploratory qualitative study”, The TQM Journal, Vol, 34 No. 5, pp. 1169-1188. Antony, J., McDermott, O., Sony, M., Toner, A., Bhat, S., Cudney, E. A. and Doulatabadi, M. (2023a), “Benefits, challenges, critical success factors and motivations of Quality 4.0–A qualitative global study”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 34 Nos.7-8, pp. 827-846. Antony, J., Sony, M., McDermott, O., Jayaraman, R. and Flynn, D. (2023b), “An exploration of organizational readiness factors for Quality 4.0: an intercontinental study and future research directions”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 582-606. Antony, J., Swarnakar, V., Sony, M., McDermott, O. and Jayaraman, R. (2023c), “How do organizational performances vary between early adopters and late adopters of Quality 4.0? An exploratory qualitative study”, The TQM Journal, DOI 10.1108/TQM-03-2023-0083. Babatunde, O. K. (2020), “Mapping the implications and competencies for Industry 4.0 to hard and soft total quality management”, The TQM Journal, Vol.33 No. 4, pp. 896-914. Balouei Jamkhaneh, H., Shahin, A., Parkouhi, S.V. and Shahin, R. (2022), “The new concept of quality in the digital era: a human resource empowerment perspective”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 125-144. Bocoya-Maline, J., Rey-Moreno, M. and Calvo-Mora, A. (2023), “The EFQM excellence model, the knowledge management process and the corresponding results: an explanatory and predictive study”, Review of Managerial Science, pp. 1-35, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00653-w. Bousdekis, A., Lepenioti, K., Apostolou, D. and Mentzas, G. (2023), “Data analytics in quality 4.0: literature review and future research directions”, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 678-701. Bris, P. and Urbanek, T. (2024), “Monitoring the Connection Between the Application of EFQM Model Principles and the Results of Organisations”, Quality Innovation Prosperity, Vol. 8 No 1, pp.107-126. Page 17 of 25 The TQM Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 The TQM Journal 18 Broday, E.E. (2022), “The evolution of quality: from inspection to quality 4.0”, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 368-382. Calabrese, A., Levialdi Ghiron, N. and Tiburzi, L. (2021), “Evolutions and revolutions in manufacturers implementation of industry 4.0: a literature review, a multiple case study, and a conceptual framework”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 213-227. Chiarini, A. (2020), “Industry 4.0, quality management and TQM world. A systematic literature review and a proposed agenda for further research”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 603-616. Chiarini, A. and Kumar, M. (2022), “What is Quality 4.0? An exploratory sequential mixed methods study of Italian manufacturing companies”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 60 No. 16, pp. 4890- 4910. Colina, C. L. and Roldán, P. L. (1991), “El análisis de componentes principales: aplicación al análisis de datos secundarios”, Papers: revista de sociología, pp. 31-63. Dahlgaard-Park, S. M., Reyes, L. and Chen, C. K. (2018), “The evolution and convergence of total quality management and management theories”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 29 No 9-10, pp. 1108-1128. De Souza, F. F., Corsi, A., Pagani, R. N., Balbinotti, G. and Kovaleski, J. L. (2022), “Total quality management 4.0: adapting quality management to Industry 4.0”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 749-769. Din, A. M., Asif, M., Awan, M. U. and Thomas, G. (2020), “What makes excellence models excellent: a comparison of the American, European and Japanese models”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 33 No 6, pp. 1143- 1162. EFQM (2019), The EFQM Model. Brussels. European Foundation for Quality Management. Fernández, Z. and Revilla, A. (2010), “Hacer de la necesidad virtud: los recursos de las pymes”, Economía industrial, No. 375, pp. 53-64. Fonseca, L. (2022), “The EFQM 2020 model. A theoretical and critical review”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 33 Nos. 9-10, pp. 1011-1038. Glogovac, M., Ruso, J., Arsic, S., Rakic, A. and Milosevic, I. (2022), “Leadership for quality 4.0 improvement, learning, and innovation”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 313-329. Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N. and Ngai, W. T. E. (2019), “Quality management in the 21st-century enterprises: Research pathway towards Industry 4.0”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 207, pp. 125–129. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R. L. and Black, W.C. (2004), “Análisis Multivariante” (5ª ed.), Pearson Prentice Hall, Madrid. Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Pratap Singh, R. and Suman, R. (2021), “Significance of quality 4.0 towards comprehensive enhancement in manufacturing sector”, Sensors International, Vol. 2, Article100109. Kumar, R., Ganesh, L.S. and Rajendran, C. (2022), “Quality 4.0–a review of and framework for quality management in the digital era”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 1385-1411. Küpper, D., Knizek, C., Ryeson, D. and Noecker, J. (2019). Quality 4.0 takes more than technology. Boston Consulting Group, available at: https://www.bcg.com/publications/2019/quality-4.0-takes-more-than- technology.aspx. Lu, Y. (2017), “Industry 4.0: A survey on technologies, applications, and open research issues”, Journal of Industrial Information Integration, Vol. 6, pp. 1–10. Mittal, A., Sachan, S., Kumar, V., Vardhan, S., Verma, P., Kaswan, M. S. and Garza-Reyes, J. A. (2023), “Essential organizational variables for the implementation of Quality 4.0: empirical evidence from the Indian furniture industry”, The TQM Journal, DOI 10.1108/TQM-06-2023-0189. Mohamed, M. (2018), “Challenges and benefits of Industry 4.0: an overview”, International Journal of Supply and Operations Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 256-265. Page 18 of 25The TQM Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 The TQM Journal 19 Nenadál, J. (2020), “The new EFQM model: What is really new and could be considered as a suitable tool with respect to quality 4.0 concept?”, Quality Innovation Prosperity, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 17-28. Nenadál, J., Vykydal, D., Halfarová, P. and Tylečková, E. (2022), “Quality 4.0 Maturity Assessment in Light of the Current Situation in the Czech Republic”, Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 12, 7519. Nunnally, J. C. (1967), “Assessment of reliability”, Psychometric theory, pp. 206-235. Olsen, T.L., and Tomlin, B. (2020), “Industry 4.0: Opportunities and challenges for operations management”, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 113-122. Riera, M. V. A. (2001), Estadística con SPSS v. 10.0, Edicions Universitat Barcelona, Vol. 226, Barcelona. Rodal Montero, E. (2020), Industria 4.0: conceptos, tecnologías habilitadoras y retos. Pirámide. Madrid. Sader, S., Husti, I. and Daróczi, M. (2019), “Industry 4.0 as a key enabler toward successful implementation of Total Quality Management practices”, Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 131-140. Sader, S., Husti, I. and Daroczi, M. (2022), “A review of quality 4.0: definitions, features, technologies, applications, and challenges”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 33 No. 10, pp. 1164– 1182. Sánchez-Franco, M. J., Calvo-Mora, A. and Periáñez-Cristobal, R. (2023), “Clustering abstracts from the literature on Quality Management (1980–2020)”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 34 No 7-8, pp. 959-989. Santos, G., Sá, J.C., Felix, M.J., Barreto, L., Carvalho, F., Doiro, M., Zgodavova, K. and Stefanovic, M. (2021), “New needed quality management skills for quality managers 4.0”, Sustainability, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 13 No. 11, 6149. Sony, M. and Naik, S. (2020), “Critical factors for the successful implementation of Industry 4.0: a review and future research direction”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 31 No. 10, pp. 799-815. Sony, M., Antony, J. and Douglas, J. A. (2020), “Essential ingredients for the implementation of Quality 4.0”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 779-793. Sony, M., Antony, J., Douglas, J.A. and McDermott, O. (2021), “Motivations, barriers and readiness factors for Quality 4.0 implementation: an exploratory study”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1502-1515. Sony, M., Antony, J., Douglas, J.A. and McDermott, O. (2021b), “Motivations, barriers and readiness factors for Quality 4.0 implementation: an exploratory study”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1502-1515. Sony, M., Antony, J., Mc Dermott, O. and Garza-Reyes, J.A. (2021a), “An empirical examination of benefits, challenges, and critical success factors of industry 4.0 in manufacturing and service sector”, Technology in Society, Vol. 67, 101754. Suhaimi, S., Mustapha, R. and Shaik, P. (2023), “Impact of Organizational Barriers, Inefficiencies, and Support on Digital Transformation: Perception on Quality 4.0”, Global Business & Management Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 101-115. Sureshchandar, G. S. (2022), “Quality 4.0–understanding the criticality of the dimensions using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) technique”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 1336-1367. Sureshchandar, G. S. (2023), “Quality 4.0–a measurement model using the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) approach”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 280-303. Swarnakar, V., McDermott, O., Sony, M., Bhat, S. and Antony, J. (2023), “Unveiling the path to sustainable quality 4.0 implementation in organisations: insights from an exploratory qualitative study”, The TQM Journal, pp. 1-26. DOI 10.1108/TQM-07-2023-020 Thekkoote, R. (2022), “Enabler toward successful implementation of Quality 4.0 in digital transformation era: a comprehensive review and future research agenda”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 1368-1384. Page 19 of 25 The TQM Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 The TQM Journal 20 Vaidya, S., Ambad, P. and Bhosle, S. (2018), “Industry 4.0–a glimpse.”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 20, pp. 233-238. Van Kemenade, E. and Hardjono, T. W. (2018), “Twenty-first century total quality management: The emergence paradigm”, The TQM Journal, vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 150-166. Van Kemenade, E. (2021), “Patterns emerging from the TQM paradigm in relation to the 21st century complex context within TQM Journal”, TQM Journal, Vol. 34 No 3, pp. 494-514. Virmani, N., Upadhyay, M., Luthra, S., Singh, S. and Upadhyay, A. (2023), “Assessing solutions to overcome Quality 4.0 barriers: a decision-making framework”, The TQM Journal, pp. 1-26. Xu, L. D., Xu, E. L. and Li, L. (2018), “Industry 4.0: state of the art and future trends”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 2941-2962. Zonnenshain, A., and Kenett, R. S. (2020), “Quality 4.0—the challenging future of engineering”, Quality Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 614-626. Page 20 of 25The TQM Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 The TQM Journal Table 1. Quality 4.0 readiness factors and associated barriers. Readiness factors Barriers Leadership and management commitment •Lack of management support Quality 4.0 as a strategic issue (competitive advantage) •Failure to consider Quality 4.0 as a strategic issue •Unclear digital strategy Awareness and knowledge •Lack of reference Quality 4.0 implementation models •Lack of knowledge about technology and digitalization •Lack of knowledge about the impact or benefits of Quality 4.0 Quality 4.0-related training and rewards •Lack of trained and involved human resources •Lack of competence in human resources Appropriate organizational culture (creativity, innovation, change) •Inadequate organizational culture •Lack of flexibility, innovation, and resistance to change New technologies, digitalization, and big data •High investment in technology •Lack of financial and technological resources •Obsolete technology systems and infrastructure •Data integrity and cybersecurity Table 2. Sample characteristic. Characteristic Frequency Percentage EFQM Excellence Recognition •+200 23 21.5 •+300 13 12.1 •+400 30 28 •+500 29 27.1 •+600 12 11.3 •+700 0 0 Sector •Industry 59 55.1 •Service 48 44.9 Organizational Size •< 250 employees (SMEs) 59 55.1 •≥ 250 employees (large organization) 48 44.9 Quality 4.0 readiness •Low 22 20.6 •Medium 50 46.7 •High 35 32.7 Page 21 of 25 The TQM Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 The TQM Journal Table 3. Quality 4.0 implementation barriers. Barriers Author(s) Lack of support from top management/leaders Küpper et al. (2019), Nenadál et al. (2022), Sader et al. (2022) Lack of training and skills of the workforce Aldag and Eker (2018), Sader et al. (2019), Sony et al. (2021), Antony et al. (2023a), Nenadál et al. (2022), Sader et al. (2022), Suhaimi et al. (2023) Lack of integration of Quality 4.0 in the organization's strategic objectives Sony et al. (2021), Antony et al. (2023a) Difficult fit of Quality 4.0 with the existing organizational culture Küpper et al. (2019), Sony et al. (2021), Antony et al. (2023a) Organizational resistance to innovation and change Küpper et al. (2019), Sader et al. (2022), Suhaimi et al. (2023) Lack of knowledge of reference models for implementing Quality 4.0 Sader et al. (2019), Sony et al. (2021), Antony et al. (2023a) Lack of clarity or knowledge of the benefits of implementing Quality 4.0 Sader et al. (2019) High investment is required to implement Quality 4.0 Sony et al. (2021), Nenadál et al. (2022), Antony et al. (2023a) Limitations related to technological and digitalization infrastructure Küpper et al. (2019), Sony et al. (2021), Sader et al. (2022), Antony et al. (2023a) Cybersecurity concerns Küpper et al. (2019), Lu (2017), Sader et al. (2019) Table 4. Descriptive statistics. Quality 4.0 implementation barriers Mean Median Standard deviation Lack of support from top management/leaders. 3.16 3 1.638 Lack of training and skills of the workforce 4.70 5 1.615 Lack of integration of Quality 4.0 in the organization's strategic objectives. 4.50 5 1.772 Difficult fit of Quality 4.0 with the existing organizational culture. 4.10 5 1.764 Organizational resistance to innovation and change. 4.34 5 1.832 Lack of knowledge of reference models for implementing Quality 4.0. 4.01 4 1.533 Lack of clarity or knowledge of the benefits of implementing Quality 4.0. 2.64 2 1.621 High investment is required to implement Quality 4.0. 5.33 5 1.156 Limitations related to technological and digitalization infrastructure. 4.76 5 1.726 Cybersecurity concerns 4.57 5 1.486 Page 22 of 25The TQM Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 The TQM Journal Table 5. Factor analysis results (principal components). Barriers Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Lack of support from top management/leaders 0.593 Lack of training and skills of the workforce 0.711 Lack of integration of Quality 4.0 in the organization's strategic objectives 0.788 Difficult fit of Quality 4.0 with the existing organizational culture 0.819 Organizational resistance to innovation and change 0.854 Lack of knowledge of reference models for implementing Quality 4.0 0.808 Lack of clarity or knowledge of the benefits of implementing Quality 4.0 0.832 High investment is required to implement Quality 4.0 0.592 Limitations related to technological and digitalization infrastructure 0.673 Cybersecurity concerns 0.723 % variance explained 31.238 20.307 15.097 Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient 0.854 0.871 0.896 Table 6. One-factor determination. Factor (F) KMO coefficient Explained variance (%) F1. Organisational barriers 0.836 72.994 F2. Knowledge barriers 0.753 76.080 F3. Technological barriers 0.852 75.083 Table 7. Mean difference analysis for barriers and size. Size Average factor loadings Levene's test t-Test Confidence interval (95%) SMEs Large organization F Sig. T Sig. Lower Upper Barriers Organizational 0.012 -0.015 0.001 0.982 -0.242 0.214ns -0.41501 0.1593 Knowledge 0.014 -0.017 0.554 0.458 -0.164 0.435 ns -0.41916 0.35522 Technological 0.171 -0.510 0.068 0.795 -1.995 0.025* -0.76256 -0.0023 Note: * p<0.05; ns = not significant. Table 8. Mean difference analysis for barriers and sectors. Sector Average factor loadings Levene's test t-Test Confidence interval (95%) Mann–Whitney test Industrial Service F Sig. T Sig. Lower Upper Z Sig. Barriers Organizational -0.430 0.529 1.542 0.217 5.605 0.001* 0.62059 1.30008 ----- ----- Knowledge -0.204 0.250 0.634 0.428 -2.392 0.009* -0.83197 -0.0777 ----- ----- Technological 0.087 -0.107 28.35 0.001 ----- ----- ----- ----- -1.616 0.106ns Note: * p<0.05; ns = not significant. Page 23 of 25 The TQM Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60