sustainability

Article
Developing a Quality 4.0 Implementation Framework
and Evaluating the Maturity Levels of Industries
in Developing Countries
Ali Zulqarnain *, Muhammad Wasif and Syed Amir Iqbal

Department of Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering, NED University of Engineering & Technology,
Karachi 75270, Pakistan
* Correspondence: alizul@neduet.edu.pk; Tel.: +92-334-3137166

Abstract: Industry 4.0 implementations integrate people, machines, data, technology, and processes
and allow organizations to connect through digitization and cloud-based systems. The purpose of the
present research is to realize the need and sustainability of digitization and connectivity within the
quality management domain in developing countries, which is now called Quality 4.0. In previous
research, several Quality 4.0 frameworks have been proposed. However, most of the frameworks are
based on philosophy or require vast resources to implement. Hence, this research work proposes a
framework for the implementation of Quality 4.0 in different industries. This framework is based on
eleven dimensions that are the core requirements of the Quality 4.0; key variables are evaluated to
gauge the maturity of the implementation of the framework. A research instrument is developed
based on the variables to acquire the industry data, which are statistically analyzed to determine
the maturity of implementation. It was found that scalability, culture, and app development require
the most immense attention from industry to completely implement the requirements of Quality 4.0.
Finally, recommendations are suggested that address the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats in transforming traditional quality management systems to the Quality 4.0 framework.
Citation: Zulqarnain, A.; Wasif, M.;
Iqbal, S.A. Developing a Quality 4.0 Keywords: Quality 4.0; Industry 4.0; Quality Sustainability; digital transformation; digitization and
Implementation Framework and connectivity; quality management; developing countries
Evaluating the Maturity Levels of
Industries in Developing Countries.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811298
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Radu Godina Defining and implementing advancements in quality are always challenging and
Received: 22 July 2022
daunting. The definition of quality evolved from fitness for use and customer satisfaction
Accepted: 6 September 2022
to invariability [1]. Acceptable input to the system and output from the system laid the
Published: 8 September 2022
basis for quality control (QC) including seven QC tools that were later revamped as quality
assurance (QA) that used seven management tools. QA not only controls the quality
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
of inputs and outputs but also ensures it during processing [1]. The concept of quality
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
engineering was introduced to eliminate the online experimental analysis that caused
published maps and institutional affil-
interruptions to production systems. Quality engineering was introduced to conduct
iations.
offline experiments for the design of products or the realignment of processes to determine
optimal process parameters [2]. Later, the evolution of enterprise-wide quality planning was
introduced, which encompasses the strategic alignment of quality with enterprise systems
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
and brought the concepts of total quality management (TQM) and lean six sigma [3].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. High demand rates, short product life cycles, and advancements in production tech-
This article is an open access article nology drive industries to implement high-end automation systems. At one side, these
distributed under the terms and systems have exponentially enhanced throughput rates, but on the other hand, they require
conditions of the Creative Commons robust quality assurance within the production system. In the transformation from Industry
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// 1.0 to Industry 4.0, the need of quality management requirements and implementation of
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ technology increased drastically especially for small and medium enterprises (SME), due
4.0/). to which new tools, techniques, and knowledge were introduced [4–7]. Further innovation

Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811298 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 2 of 22

and development are leading industries towards the new era of technology, which is called
Industry 5.0 [8,9]. The largest enabler of this industrial revolution is the advancement
in technology toward machine-to-machine collaboration. It has not only enhanced the
productivity of manufacturing systems but also affected the service industry, e.g., hotels,
restaurants, and airlines, as well the health care and education industries [8,9]. The fifth
industrial revolution is presently conceptualized for specialized human knowledge and
expertise to collaborate with smart systems. The current literature review presents the ide-
ology that Industry 5.0 is going to bring human capital (employees) to industry [8]. It will
empower and connect humans with collaborative robots (COBOTS) and other machines
and exploit the human expertise and innovation to enhance business process productivity
and management by consolidating these processes with the smart systems [10]. Many
researchers focused on the role of standardization in adoption to Industry 4.0. For instance,
Germany formed a coordination group, and Spain constituted a forum called Standards
for Connected Industry 4.0 [4]. Standardization proposes globally common components
of information exchange (the same vocabulary, syntax, formats, protocols, management
platforms, etc.), design solutions per the standards of Industry 4.0, and specialized training
supports for the transformation from traditional ways [4]. With this standardization need,
Standardization Council Industrie 4.0 (SCI 4.0), DIN (German Institute for Standardiza-
tion), DKE (German Commission for Electrical, Electronic & Information Technologies of
DIN), and VDE (Verband der Elektrotechnik Elektronik Informationstechnik) formulated a
strategic and technically oriented document (road map) in which experts from industry,
research, and other relevant fields proposed standards and specifications for successful
implementations of Industry 4.0 at local levels and for harmonization at international
level [5]. With the transformation of industry, quality management also transformed, which
is quite well defined by the American Society of Quality (ASQ) [11]. Figure 1 illustrates the
transformation of quality management.

Figure 1. Digital transformation from Quality 1.0 to Quality 4.0.

In the beginning of the industrialization era, Quality 1.0, quality was based primarily
on inspections and measurements, and the primary focus was on productivity with higher
volumes. In the second era, named Quality 2.0, maximizing labour productivity was the
priority, but the minimum acceptance levels for quality were defined, and focus shifted
towards reducing scrap and waste. In the era of Quality 3.0, customer satisfaction and
standardization were fully adopted. Concepts of continuous quality improvements and
Deming’s PDSA cycle were adopted, and it was realized that quality is necessary for every
business to generate customer satisfaction and hence business growth. In the current era of
Quality 4.0, digitalization and the adoption of smart techniques are the focus for developing
autonomous systems for the optimal trade-off between quality and productivity [11].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 3 of 22

Industries have an immense need for the state-of-the-art tools and technologies for
agile responses to the shifting field of quality management. In this regard, a comprehensive
literature review has been conducted to evaluate the advancements and gaps in industry
for the implementation of the latest requirements of quality management systems.
Extensive debate led to implementing the total quality management (TQM) philosophy
throughout organizations to produce benefits such as reduced waste, increased revenues,
and strategic advancements. Researchers mainly focused on the standardization or reengi-
neering of processes and organizations’ strategic alignment with customer satisfaction.
The core outcome of the research encompassed a framework that was validated through
implementations in the manufacturing and service industries [12–18]. Industries had a
critical need to adopt digitalization and real-time data management systems to embed
within enterprise-wide resource planning. The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) presented
a comprehensive report encompassing the current conditions and a SWOT analysis of the
global industry in context of Quality 4.0 [19]. Based on that report, the framework for Qual-
ity 4.0 was developed by researchers, professionals, and other stakeholders who outlined
the components, tools, and techniques. The ASQ addressed the evolution of Quality 4.0
and are the main enablers of its implementation in industry [11]. A blog by J. M. Juran
presented a comprehensive framework for the implementation of Quality 4.0, defining the
eleven axes, and their tools and techniques, that are necessary for achieving excellence in
Quality 4.0 [20,21]. Gohane et al. and Theuws reviewed a comprehensive body of literature
and presented the concept and transformation of Quality 4.0. They discussed the issues and
requirements related to the implementation of Quality 4.0 [22,23]. Sarder et al. presented
research outlining the qualitative and quantitative measures through which the impacts of
digitalization on quality performance in organizations can be determined [24]. Zonnen-
shain and Kenneth emphasized that Quality 4.0 is mainly a data-driven discipline and
that there is a need for enterprise-wide data sciences implementation to obtain real-time
data from all business transactions [25]. Escobar et al. presented research highlighting the
contributions of big data and artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of Quality 4.0. They
found that about 80 to 87 percent of big data projects could not deliver value and that most
of industry leaders lack the vision to utilize the big data and AI technologies [26]. Corti et al.
addressed the core issues in implementing Quality 4.0 in the era of Industry 4.0. They also
proposed a framework for the implementation of Quality 4.0 in industry and validated
the same through the outcomes of implementation in a model organization [27]. Chiarini
et al. in an exploratory study performed questionnaire-based research on two different
organizations and assessed their capabilities according to the Quality 4.0. They concluded
that the implementation of Quality 4.0 is totally dependent upon the skills of employees
and quality managers. The main components of Q4.0 are people, processes, and technology,
and people play the dominant role in positive outcomes of Quality 4.0 [28]. Santos et al.
proposed that human resources skills are required for the transformation towards Quality
4.0. Using survey-based research in different countries, they formulated the mandatory
skill set for human resources: an understanding of information and communication tech-
nology (ICT), big data analysis, team and individual management, and common traits
of quality management [29]. Ali and Johl conducted a comprehensive literature review
and presented the required factors for the implementation of Industry 4.0 for total quality
management. The main factors are the commitment of leadership, customer satisfaction,
organizational learning culture, and big data analytics [30,31]. Florencio de Souza et al.
coined the term Total Quality Management 4.0, following a literature review, referring
to processes that are quite similar to Quality 4.0 but that differ in implementation [32].
Glogovac et al. developed a maturity measurement model for the quality in Industry 4.0.
The model is mainly based on the compliance of the system with ISO 9004: 2018. The model
presents a holistic view of quality management [33]. For the sustainability of Industry
4.0 and Quality 4.0 implementation, several researchers presented their frameworks for
knowledge-intensive business processes (KIBPs). The frameworks primarily discuss KIBPs
in the context of knowledge management and analytics. The effective implementation of
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 4 of 22

KIBPs may result in productive outcomes [34–36]. Researchers have also addressed the
legal and environmental issues that can arise in implementing Industry 4.0 and Quality
4.0. Previous studies correlated allied technologies (pillars) of Industry 4.0 with negative
impacts such as air pollution and harmful waste discharge that are noncompliant with
UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [37]. Another study provides the foundation
for improvements in corporate sustainability through environmental aspects. Research
presented the influence of environmental sustainability on Industry 4.0, resulting more
accurate, real-time environmental management in developing industry visions [38]. Based
on the above-mentioned literature review, the concept of Quality 4.0 is not new, but its
implementation with all its components is quite cumbersome. The literature presents the
framework for the implementation of Quality 4.0 and its components but does not outline
the actions required for implementation. The current literature presents the strengths and
weaknesses of industry implementations of Quality 4.0 in developed environments. Hence,
the core idea of this research is to outline the gaps in the implementation of Quality 4.0 in
developing countries such as Pakistan with respect to the following research questions:
 How can industries implement Quality 4.0 in developing countries?
 What is the extent of industry implementation of the overall Quality 4.0 framework?
 What are the factors influencing the implementation of Quality 4.0 in industry?
The methodology of the research starts with the literature review and the identifica-
tion of the research problem, based on which the research questions and the hypothesis
are defined. A research instrument was developed to gauge the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats related to industry Quality 4.0 implementation in developing
countries. The research instrument is a questionnaire which measures the components
of Quality 4.0 in terms of knowledge, understanding, application, and effectiveness. The
content validity index (CVI) of the research questionnaire was measured to determine the
relevance of the questions for the research objectives and the ease of understanding of the
questions. With a pilot survey, Cronbach’s alpha was also determined to evaluate the inter-
nal consistency of the responses. The respondents’ answers were statistically analysed to
check the significance of each variable and validity of the hypothesis. Finally, the results are
presented in a SWOT matrix outlining the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
related to industry implementation of Quality 4.0. An illustration of the methodology is
presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Proposed research methodology.

To address the research questions, a set of hypotheses was proposed as follows:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Quality management practitioners confirm that the Quality 4.0 framework is
being implemented in industry.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Quality management practitioners perceive that all eleven dimensions of the
Quality 4.0 framework are being implemented in industry.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Quality management practitioners perceive that the eleven exes of Quality 4.0
have relationships among each other.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 5 of 22

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Quality management practitioners perceive that the Quality 4.0 framework is
well implemented in multinational organizations.

Hypothesis 5 (H5). Quality management practitioners perceive that the Quality 4.0 framework is
well implemented in large organizations having more than 500 employees.

Hypothesis 6 (H6). Quality management practitioners perceive that the presence of quality
management professionals enables an organization to implement the Quality 4.0 framework.

In the current article, five major sections are identified. The Section 1 discusses the in-
troduction, literature review, and research questions. The Section 2 describes the developed
framework in detail. The Section 3 presents the variables to be measured for the assessment
of framework implementation with the research instrument developed. The validity and
reliability of the research instrument are also discussed in detail. The Section 4 presents
and discusses the results of the statistical analysis of the research instrument response
data. The Section 5 presents the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to
Quality 4.0 industry implementation in developing countries along with recommendations
for improvements. The last section summarizes the research and presents the conclusion of
the work.

2. Conceptualization and Implementation of Quality 4.0 Framework

The core objective of this work is to develop a Quality 4.0 framework that will enable
shifting from traditional to advanced quality assurance systems. The framework is based
on the eleven dimensions of the Quality 4.0 as presented by Juran [20]:
(i) Compliance (iv) Connectivity (vii) Management System (x) Data
(ii) Competency (v) Collaboration (viii) Web-based Applications (xi) Analytics
(iii) Leadership (vi) Culture (ix) Scalability
Each element of the Quality 4.0 framework is applied through the tools and tech-
niques as defined in the presented literature [20,21]. The framework is not limited to the
manufacturing industry but can apply equally in the service industry. The Quality 4.0
framework proposed in this research outlines all eleven dimensions, presented in Figure 3
and discussed in detail.

Figure 3. Proposed Quality 4.0 framework.

2.1. Compliance
Conventionally, SWOT analysis is performed by gathering the needs and requirements
of stakeholders, (either external or internal) to analyse the current strengths and weaknesses
of the organization and the opportunities and threats in the industry, which can affect
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 6 of 22

the objective of any organization. The opportunities and threats are analysed based on
environmental scanning (external factors).
In the Quality 4.0 framework, SWOT analysis can be performed using artificial-
intelligence-based (AI-based) bots. This analysis encompasses the framework dimensions
of compliance and competency. Compliance refers meeting government obligations and
other standards, stakeholder requirements, and industry benchmarks [20]. The government
obligations are mainly related to individual ministries of industries, which plan and assign
strategic goals to different industries and set targets for exports, production level, energy
consumption, labour market factors, and other parameters. Guidelines and annual plans
for SMEs and other enterprises are disseminated by regulatory bodies. The fiscal policies
of state or reserve banks define interest rates and export targets, which are the major in-
puts to the strategic planning of any organization. Regulatory bodies such as state banks,
federal board of tax and revenues, and labour and human resource agencies outline the
organizational constraints related to loads, taxes, labour laws, and other factors. Boards of
directors, employees, trade unions, suppliers, and investors are the core stakeholders and
are focused on productivity, revenues, and constraints in strategic plans. Industry bench-
marks are based on best practices and thus usually serve as targets for organizations, for
instance to reduce defects, increase the value to the customer, improve process capabilities,
or other goals.
AI-based bots are pre-programmed computer programmes that are fed relevant key-
words, such as industry-specific terms, competitors’ names, rule and law terminology,
and minutes of meetings of relevant bodies. The bots search the information from the
websites of relevant entities such as ministries of production, law, labour, environment,
and finances; industry associations, the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO), the American Society for Quality (ASQ), and others. The quantitative and qualitative
data are acquired, filtered, and analysed by AI algorithms under the supervision of per-
sonnel who tweak and provide the essential information to the bots, which perform the
environmental scanning around any organization. The personnel and bots in the Quality
4.0 framework are called business intelligence units (BIUs).

2.2. Competency
Another input to the SWOT analysis is the internal factors of the organization, its
strengths and weaknesses. These factors can be analysed using the AI-based bots, which
acquire the data from enterprise-resource planning (ERP) modules. These internal factors
include the knowledge and skills of the employees and the organization’s structure, type,
size, and location. Supply chains, quality management systems, customer complaints
and their resolution, and information technology implementation play important roles in
determining the strengths and weaknesses in any organization. The BIUs compare actual
performance with defined benchmarks and continuously update practices based on the key
performance indicators (KPIs) through the modules of the ERP. The deviation between the
benchmarks and the KPIs defines the strength and weaknesses of the organizations, and
live dashboards present the overall SWOT analysis findings.
The SWOT analysis is performed based on the internal and external factors (qualitative
data) highlighted by the BIUs. The factors are assigned weights based on their importance
as highlighted by the industry through the AHP or other techniques, and scores are assigned
by the BIU following the pre-defined rubrics. Organizations that comply with the findings
from the real-time data acquisition and SWOT analysis are strong on the dimensions of
compliance and competency in the Quality 4.0 framework.

2.3. Leadership
The next stage of the Quality 4.0 framework is to set the vision and mission of the
organization based on the SWOT analysis findings of the compliance and competency of
the organization. The process involves the organizational knowledge base and the intuition
and far-sightedness. Based on the SWOT analysis and the data from the BIU, forecasts of the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 7 of 22

organization’s revenue, product/service demand, resources, and strategy can be proposed.

Using the gathered qualitative and quantitative data, and business intelligence modules,
the forecasts can determine the organization’s strategies. The knowledge, involvement,
and control of leadership in strategic planning and operations determines an organization’s
strength on this dimension of the Quality 4.0 framework.

2.4. Connectivity
The connectivity in the proposed Quality 4.0 framework is the existence of quality
circles in the organization comprising representatives from different departments. These
representatives may be connected through an ERP system, where data related to quality
are input by quality and other departments, and reports are generated using quality tools.
Quality circle meetings are held frequently, either physically or remotely, to monitor and
control the quality of product and services. Real-time quality reports are presented via ERP
systems using quality tools such as histograms, pareto charts, control charts, and FMEA.
The connectivity dimension of the Quality 4.0 framework ensures that all department in an
organization are working in the same strategic direction as decided by the management.

2.5. Collaboration
The strategic plan of an organization is decided by the leadership based on the vision
and mission of the organization. Hence, it is quite necessary to work together in the same
direction to attain the long-term objectives of the organization. In the proposed Quality 4.0
framework, the strategic objectives developed by the leadership are communicated to the
organization through digital dashboards, signs, and screens in the different departments.
These could display the organization’s vision, mission, slogans, teamwork, targets, rewards,
and individual achievements to enhance productivity and collaboration. Board of directors
meetings provide a forum for the leadership across the whole organization to come together
to discuss the quality performance of the organization. The frequency of these review
meetings, the agenda items, the follow-up actions, and the measurements against the
performance indicators can indicate the strength of the organization on the collaboration
dimension of the Quality 4.0 framework.

2.6. Scalability
Scalability is another dimension in the Quality 4.0 framework; it assesses the effec-
tiveness of implementing the framework irrespective of the size of the organization. It
encompasses the size of data generated through the organization and capabilities to analyse
the data using cloud systems. In the Quality 4.0 framework, departments and divisions
measure their achievement of the KPIs and departmental objectives. Scalability assesses
the level, size, velocity and type of data which is being gathered to generate the KPIs. It
may include the data from the industrial internet of things (IIoTs) and the other IoTs within
the organization.

2.7. Culture
Culture in the proposed Quality 4.0 framework refers to the organization’s culture of
quality. This dimension of the Quality 4.0 framework can be assessed through the existence
of quality circles and the use of quality management tools, as well as the knowledge and
understanding to act on the inferences from the outcomes of these tools. It includes the
confidence of personnel in the organizational processes and procedures and the confi-
dence of the organization in its personnel. Culture includes offering rewards and recogfor
performance improvements.

2.8. Management System

The quality management system is the conventional part of the Quality 4.0 framework
and covers the existence and implementation of standardization, in the form of SOPs,
quality audits, improvements, the involvement of leadership, corrective and follow-up
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 8 of 22

actions, etc. This management system in the Quality 4.0 framework relies on technologies
that allow leadership to observe the real-time statistics, dashboards, and KPIs of the
organization. The communication of organizational policies, SOPs, and KPIs may be easier
using ERP-based systems in the Quality 4.0 framework.

2.9. App Development

This is one of the most important dimensions of the Quality 4.0 framework; it integrates
the whole organization through portals and applications installed on employees’ PCs and
mobile phones. Real-time data related to the quality such as number of units produced,
types of defects, rework, calibrations, and violated SOPs can be communicated for analysis.
Data from customers, retailers, and distributors such as complaints can be acquired and
analysed. The same may be communicated to suppliers and vendors in real time through
the portals and applications. Through this app development, leadership can view the
real-time quality statistics and reports of the organization.

2.10. Data Gathering

This is the most important dimension of the Quality 4.0 framework. Data can be
gathered through the IIoTs and other IoTs in the organization for analysis related to KPIs.
These data can be acquired from sensors installed to detect numbers and types of defects,
reworks, calibrations, setup and idle times, productivity, etc. The data are filtered using
the AI-based programmes, which eliminates the non-credible data and keeps the relevant
data. The data are analysed through the programmes, which are developed using machine
learning techniques and provide the process capabilities in real time. Data gathering is
the main aspect of the whole framework because based on the analysis of the data, the
objectives, strategies, and responses to the SWOT analysis can be improved.

2.11. Analytics
Big data analytics is one the major aspects of Quality 4.0; the data from IIoTs and
other sources are uploaded to cloud storage and analysed using artificial intelligence-based
algorithms to recommend or make the decisions. The quality data relate mainly to rejections
and numbers, types, and causes of defects. Inferences are made from the quality reports
produced based on the analysis of the data that include recommendations.
In the following section, Pakistani industry was assessed for the maturity of its imple-
mentations of the Quality 4.0 framework.

3. Research Instrument and Sampling

To determine the maturity of the industry based on the Quality 4.0 framework, a
survey research instrument was developed to measure the key research variables according
to the framework, presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Research variables mapped to the dimensions of the Quality 4.0 framework.

S. No. Dimension Survey Question Variables

1. Organization Name (Open response) ORGAN
2. Type of Organization (Automotive, Textile, IT, Health Care, Food, Energy, other) ORGTYP
3. Organization Category (Government, Semi-Government, Private) ORGCAT
– Designation (Supervisor, Asst. Manager, Manager, Sr. Manager, Gen. Manager,
4. DESIGN
Director, Other)
Department Name (Supply Chain, Maintenance, Quality, Production,
5. DEPTT
Maintenance, Other)
6. No. of Employees (Less than 100, 101 to 500, more than 500) EMPL
7. Organization Scope (Domestic, Multinational) ORGSC
No. of Quality Professionals having professional certification in the field of
8. NOQP
quality management
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 9 of 22

Table 1. Cont.

S. No. Dimension Survey Question Variables

Strategic goal of the government (Full—5, Major—4, Normal—3, Minor—2,
9. CMPL1
None—1)
10. Guidelines of SME, Industries and Enterprises CMPL2
11. Fiscal policies of the state/reserve banks CMPL3
12. Compliance Regulatory Bodies CMPL4
13. (CMPL) Decisions of Board of Directors CMPL5
14. Decision of Investors CMPL6
15. Requirements of Employers CMPL7
16. Requirements of Suppliers CMPL8
17. Implementation of Quality Standards CMPL9
Knowledge of Quality Assurance (Highest—5, Major—4, Average—3, Normal—2,
18. COMT1
None—1)
19. Competency Competency of Human Resource related to Technology CMPT2
20. (CMPT) Formalization of Organizational Structure CMPT3
21. Organizational Knowledge CMPT4
22. Smart Phones/Gadgets, IT Infrastructure and ERP CMPT5
Connectivity through the IT Infrastructure (Highest—5, Major—4, Normal—3,
23. CONN1
Minor—2, None—1)
24. Connectivity of Strategic and Departmental Objectives CONN2
Connectivity
25. Connectivity through ERP and its linkage with the Quality CONN3
(CONN)
26. Connectivity of Strategic and Departmental Data to form KPIs CONN4
27. Connectivity of Smart Phones/Gadgets with the QMS CONN5
28. Connectivity of Quality System with the IT Infrastructure CONN6
Existence of Quality Circle and its meeting (Highest—5, Major—4, Normal—3,
29. COLL1
Minor—2, None—1)
Collaboration
30. KPIs/Quality Report sharing on regular basis COLL2
(COLL)
31. Existence and effectiveness of Quality Board of Review COLL3
32. Shared responsibilities of follow-ups related to Quality COLL4
Ease in processing small to large-scale data (Highest—5, High—4, Normal—3,
33. SCAL1
Scalability Low—2, None—1)
34. (SCAL) Capability to process small to large-scale manufacturing SCAL2
35. Capability of firm to acquire product/variant wise quality data SCAL3
Involvement in SWOT Analysis (Full-time—5, Mostly—4, Normal—3, A few—2,
36. LEAD1
None—1)
Leadership
37. Leadership alignment with the Vision and Mission LEAD2
(LEAD)
38. Engagement with the Quality Management Systems LEAD3
39. Seriousness towards the Quality 4.0 framework LEAD4
Working culture towards the quality (Highest—5, High—4, Normal—3, Low—2,
40. CULT1
Culture None—1)
41. (CULT) Reward and recognition for improvements in quality CULT2
42. Culture of synergy, collaboration and flexibility CULT3
43. Existence of QMS (Highest—5, High—4, Normal—3, Low—2, None—1) MGS1
Management
44. Frequent Trainings of Quality Management System (QMS) MGS2
System
45. Review Meetings for the performance assessment QMS MGS3
(MGS)
46. Internal and External Audits for the performance reviews of QMS MGS4
47. App Existence of portals for data collections and reporting WAPP1
48. Development Ease of using portals (Complete—5, Major—4, Normal—3, Minor—2, None—1) WAPP2
49. (WAPP) Frequency of portal updates WAPP3
50. Real-time collections of data from different departments DATA1
Data
51. Size of data (Highest—5, High—4, Average—3, Low—2, Least—1) DATA2
(DATA)
52. Reliability of data DATA3
Availability of cloud-based data analytics (Highest—5, High—4, Average—3,
53. ANLY1
Low—2, Least—1)
Analytics
54. Use of machine learning or artificial intelligence-based analysis ANLY2
(ANLY)
55. Existence of real-time dashboards accessible to the leadership and management ANLY3
56. Flexibility in analysis of data ANLY4

Initially, 73 questions were developed, and the final survey comprised 56 survey items.
Each item, all mapped to a variable, were rated on Likert scales from 1 to 5. Table 2 presents
the explanations of the variable responses for the better understanding of the respondents.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 10 of 22

Table 2. Rubrics for the research variables.

Dimension Response Option Description

Full—5 Full compliance with the assessments from the internal and external audits
Major—4 Major compliance with the assessments from the audits
Compliance
Normal—3 Normal compliance with the assessments
(CMPL)
Minor—2 Minor compliance with assessments
None—1 No compliance
Highest—5 Highest knowledge, with professional certification or benchmark standard
Major—4 Major knowledge, with formal certification or benchmark standard
Competency
Average—3 Average knowledge, with self-learning and informal skills
(CMPT)
Minor—2 Normal knowledge, with self-learning
None—1 No knowledge or skills
Highest—5 Highest connectivity, with real-time data gathering and reporting
Major—4 Major connectivity, with data gathering and reporting updates within 1 to 2 h
Connectivity
Normal—3 Normal connectivity, with daily data gathering and reporting
(CONN)
Minor—2 Static connectivity, with weekly data gathering and reporting
None—1 No connectivity at all
Highest—5 Continuous communication online or via daily meetings
Major—4 Major communication through informal social media
Collaboration
Normal—3 Normal communication over phones or VOIP
(COLL)
Minor—2 Low communication through weekly meetings
None—1 Very little communication
Highest—5 Very quickly with a click
High—4 Some work is needed to transform data from small to large scale
Scalability
Normal—3 An IT professional is needed to transform data from small to large scale
(SCAL)
Low—2 The two types of data are handled separately
None—1 Only one type of data is handled
Leadership is totally engaged with the management or real-time actions
Full-time—5
are taken
Leadership Mostly—4 Leadership has several businesses and partially engaged with the management
(LEAD) Leadership looks after the business and engages with the management on
Normal—3
weekly basis
A few—2 Leadership seldom looks after the business or once a month
None—1 There is no engagement of leadership at all
Highest—5 Leadership and employees practice the culture habitually
High—4 The culture is practiced informally in most of the divisions
Culture
Normal—3 The culture is practiced occasionally and only with leadership will
(CULT)
Low—2 A few managers at their own level practice the culture
None—1 No such culture exists
Highest—5 A formal system exists and the leadership is committed to practicing the same
Management A formal system exists but the leadership is partially committed to practicing
High—4
System the same
(MGS) Normal—3 A formal system exists but no leadership commitment exists
Low—2 There is an informal system
None—1 There is no system at all
A paperless system exists in the organization with ease and real-time
Complete—5
connectivity
App
Major—4 A portal exists but the data are entered manually
Development
Normal—3 A few islands of portal exist which are not well connected
(WAPP)
Minor—2 Major tasks are performed on the apps but others are performed manually
None—1 There is no app development
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 11 of 22

Table 2. Cont.

Dimension Response Option Description

Highest—5 Instantaneous data gathering or data size > 1 TB or no filtering needed
Data are updated every hour or data size is greater than 1 GB and less than 1
High—4
TB or little filtering is required
Data Data are updated every day or data size is less than 1 GB or filtering takes a
Normal—3
(DATA) full day
Data are updated every week or data size is less than 1 GB or filtering takes
Low—2
several days
Data are static and is on papers or data size is less than 1 GB or selective data
None—1
is taken
Highest—5 Exists and is fully implemented in the organization
High—4 Exists and implemented for critical data
Analytics
Normal—3 Exists and implemented for quarterly or bi-annual data
(ANLY)
Low—2 Exists and implemented for annual data
None—1 Does not exist

The survey questionnaire was reviewed by three experts in the field to produce a
content validity index (CVI). Out of 73 questions, the experts agreed on 56 questions, and
the universal agreement CVI (S-CVI/UA) was calculated as 0.711, which is higher than
the benchmark, 0.7. Hence, the questionnaire was found to be appropriate for conducting
the research.
The reliability of the responses was measured with a sample survey of 20%. The
Cronbach’s alpha for the sample survey was 0.785. Since the value was higher than the
benchmark of 0.7, the questionnaire was reliable and could be used for further analysis.
The convenience sampling technique was adopted in which the respondents targeted
were leaders and managers, who are significant responsible for quality management
system. Data were collected from small, medium, and large organizations. A sample size of
380 participants was targeted for assessing the maturity of the implementation of Quality
4.0 in third world countries such as Pakistan. A total of 213 responses were submitted,
and 161 responses were found complete and appropriate to be analysed. The distribution
of the respondents according to their industry type, category, designation and number of
employees is presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Number and percentage of respondents according to their organization’s industry, category,
and scope and their designation.

4. Statistical Analysis & Results

The 161 complete responses to the 56 survey questions were statistically analysed to
determine the level of implementation of the Quality 4.0 framework in the different industries.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 12 of 22

For each dimension of the Quality 4.0 framework, the average scores were computed
for each item to determine the status of each organization in implementing the Quality 4.0
framework. As shown in Table 2, the response option 2 reflects minor implementation of
the Quality 4.0 dimension, and 3 indicates the normal implementation of the dimension.
Hence, the average of these two scores is 2.5, which can be taken as minor to normal
implementation of the Quality 4.0 dimension. Figure 5 shows the average scores for each
dimension for the different industries.

Figure 5. Mean scores for each of the eleven Quality 4.0 dimensions by type of organization.

The inferential summary of Figure 5 is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Implementation of the Quality 4.0 Dimensions According to the Type of Organization.

Dimension of Quality 4.0

Industry Type Major Implementation Average Implementation Minor Implementation
(Average Score 4 to 5) (Average Score 2.5 to 3.9) (Average Score 1 to 2.4)
Compliance, Data Gathering,
Competency, Connectivity, Scalability, Culture, and
Automotive Analytics, and
Collaboration, and Leadership App Development
Management System
Compliance, Connectivity,
Competency and Scalability, Culture, and
Energy Leadership, Management System,
Collaboration App Development
Data Gathering, and Analytics
Competency, Collaboration, Connectivity, Scalability, Culture,
Food Leadership, and App Development, and Compliance
Management System Data Analytics
Connectivity, Leadership,
Competency and Compliance, Scalability, Culture,
Health Management System, Data
Collaboration and App Development
Gathering, and Analytics
Competency, Collaboration,
Scalability, Leadership, Culture,
IT None Management System, App Compliance and Connectivity
Development, Data Gathering,
and Analytics
Competency, Connectivity, Compliance, Scalability, Culture,
Others None Collaboration, Leadership, Data Management System, and
Gathering, and Analytics App Development

Figure 6 shows the average scores for each dimension according to the industry category.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 13 of 22

Figure 6. Mean scores for each of the eleven Quality 4.0 dimensions by organization category.

The inferential summary of Figure 6 is presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Implementation of the Quality 4.0 Dimensions According to the Category of Organization.

Industry Category Dimension of Quality 4.0

Major Implementation Average Implementation Minor Implementation
(Average Score 4 to 5) (Average Score 2.5 to 3.9) (Average Score 1 to 2.4)
Competency, Connectivity, Compliance, Scalability, Culture,
Government None Collaboration, Leadership, Data Management System, and
Gathering, and Analytics App Development
Compliance, Leadership,
Competency and Connectivity, Scalability,
Semi-Government Management System, and
Collaboration Culture, and App Development
Data Analytics
Compliance, Connectivity,
Collaboration, Leadership, Scalability, App Development,
Private Competency
Management System, Data and Culture
Gathering, and Analytics

Figure 7 shows the average scores for each dimension according to the organization’s
number of employees.

Figure 7. Mean scores for each of the eleven Quality 4.0 dimensions by number of employees.

The inferential summary of Figure 7 is presented in Table 5.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 14 of 22

Table 5. Implementation of the Quality 4.0 Dimensions According to the Size of Organization.

Dimensions of Quality 4.0

No. of Employees Major Implementation Average Implementation Minor Implementation
(Average Score 4 to 5) (Average Score 2.5 to 3.9) (Average Score 1 to 2.4)
Competency, Connectivity, Compliance, Scalability,
Less than 100 None Collaboration, Leadership, Culture, Management System,
Data, Analytics and App Development
Compliance,
Competency, Connectivity,
Scalability, Culture, and
Between 100 to 500 Collaboration Leadership, Management
App Development
System, Data Gathering,
and Analytics
Compliance, Connectivity,
Competency and Scalability, Culture, and
More than 500 Leadership, Management System,
Collaboration App Development
Data Gathering, and Analytics

Figure 8 shows the average scores for each dimension according to the organiza-
tion’s scope.

Figure 8. Mean scores for each of the eleven Quality 4.0 dimensions by organization scope.

The inferential summary of Figure 8 is presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Implementation of the Quality 4.0 Dimensions According to the Scope of Organization.

Dimension of Quality 4.0

Scope of Organization Major Implementation Average Implementation Minor Implementation
(Average Score 4 to 5) (Average Score 2.5 to 3.9) (Average Score 1 to 2.4)
Compliance, Connectivity, Scalability, Culture,
Domestic Competency Collaboration, Leadership, Management System, and
Data Gathering, and Analytics App Development
Compliance, Connectivity,
Competency, Collaboration, Culture and
Multinational Scalability, Management System,
and Leadership App Development
Data Gathering, and Analytics

The overall mean scores for the eleven dimensions of the Quality 4.0 framework
implementation are presented in Figure 9.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 15 of 22

Figure 9. Overall mean scores for the eleven Quality 4.0 dimensions.

From Figure 9, the overall mean (mean of all the dimensions by the respondents)
shows a value of 3.01, which lies between the minor to normal implementation of the eleven
dimensions, which supports H1. That is, the implementation of Quality 4.0 framework is
significant in the industry. However, to assess the trueness of other hypothesis, the mean
responses of each eleven dimensions of the Quality 4.0 framework are discussed.
The mean responses (see Figure 9) shows that the highest industry maturity (mean
score (MS) between 4 and 5) is in competency (MS = 4.06) and collaboration (MS = 3.97),
which is also evident from Figure 5 to Figure 8, especially in multinational and private
firms, whereas it is lacking in the government sector industries (see Figure 5). The average
normal implementation scores (between 2.5 to 3.99) were for the Quality 4.0 dimensions
of compliance (MS = 2.57), connectivity (MS = 2.91), leadership (MS = 3.78), management
system (MS = 2.76), data gathering (MS = 3.57), and analytics (MS = 3.40), which is also
evident from Figure 5 to Figure 8. The lowest mean scores for the Quality 4.0 dimensions
were for scalability (MS = 2.25), culture (MS = 1.88), and app development (MS = 1.92). It is
also evident from Figure 5 to Figure 9 that according to the industry type, category, size
and respondent scope, these three dimensions lack implementation in Pakistani industry.
Compliance was the major issue across industry types and categories, even food (MS = 2.00,
Figure 5), which is the most sensitive industry for compliance with standards. These
findings clearly reject H2. Industries need to work on the implementation of the Quality
4.0 dimensions, specifically those with the lowest mean scores (MS), to meet the current
requirements of global industry.
To validate the findings for H1 and H2 related to the eleven dimensions of Quality
4.0, and a target value of 2.5 (minor to normal implementation) was set to compare the
means of the responses for each variable. Table 7 provides the mean, standard deviation,
t-value, significance (p-value), and mean difference for each dimension. In this table, if the
significance (p-value) of any dimension is less than 0.05, it shows that the response is within
the 95% confidence interval and is significantly higher than the set value of 2.5 (minor to
normal implementation).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 16 of 22

Table 7. t-test Statistics for the Eleven Dimensions of Quality 4.0.

Significance
Dimension Mean St. Dev. SE of Mean DOF t-Value
(p-Value)
CMPL 2.574 1.091 0.086 161 0.864 0.806
CMPT 4.062 1.350 0.106 161 14.725 1.000
CONN 2.907 1.360 0.107 161 3.814 1.000
COLL 3.969 1.111 0.087 161 16.826 1.000
SCAL 2.247 1.462 0.115 161 −2.203 0.014
LEAD 3.784 1.265 0.099 161 12.924 1.000
CULT 1.877 1.215 0.095 161 −6.533 0.000
MGS 2.759 2.085 0.164 161 1.583 0.942
WAPP 1.919 1.337 0.105 160 −5.512 0.000
DATA 3.568 0.695 0.055 161 19.559 1.000
ANLY 3.398 1.219 0.096 161 9.381 1.000
MEAN 3.007 0.762 0.060 161 8.467 1.000

The last row of Table 7 shows mean statistics for all eleven dimensions, including a
t-value of 8.467 with significance level greater than 0.05. It clearly shows that the mean
of all eleven dimensions rating (3.007) is significantly higher than the threshold rating of
2.5, confirming that H1 is supported as above. Table 7 shows significant (p-value higher
than 0.05) statistics for the dimensions compliance, competency, connectivity, collaboration,
leadership, management system, data gathering, and analytics. The study respondents
report that these dimensions are significantly implemented in their industries, whereas
the results were not significant for culture, scalability, and app development, indicating
limited industry implementation (p-value less than 0.05). These findings support the
findings shown in Figure 9 and then discussed. They also confirm that H2 is not true in that
there is not significant industry implementation of the eleven dimensions of the Quality
4.0 framework.
To assess the trueness of H3, Pearson’s correlations and significance (p-value) between
the implementation responses for the eleven dimensions were also calculated and are
presented in Table 8. The correlations indicate positive, negative, or no relationships
between any two dimensions.
Table 8. Pearson’s Correlations and Significance between the Eleven Dimensions of Quality 4.0.

CMPL CMPT CONN COLL SCAL LEAD CULT MGS WAPP DATA ANLY
CMPL 1 0.212 * 0.225 * −0.021 0.082 0.126 −0.016 0.113 −0.045 0.198 0.252 *
CMPT 0.212 * 1 0.548 * 0.196 0.172 0.186 0.145 0.175 0.158 0.002 0.368 *
CONN 0.225 * 0.548 * 1 0.101 0.221 * 0.353 * 0.170 0.205 * 0.280 * 0.089 0.448 *
COLL −0.021 0.196 0.101 1 0.211 * 0.256 * 0.135 0.235 * 0.154 −0.025 0.232 *
SCAL 0.082 0.172 0.221 * 0.211 * 1 0.261 * 0.433 * 0.607 * 0.680 * 0.057 0.467 *
LEAD 0.126 0.186 0.353 * 0.256 * 0.261 * 1 0.355 * 0.423 * 0.273 * 0.098 0.455 *
CULT −0.016 0.145 0.170 0.135 0.433 * 0.355 * 1 0.435 * 0.571 * 0.142 0.417 *
MGS 0.113 0.175 0.205 * 0.235 * 0.607 * 0.423 * 0.435 * 1 0.558 * 0.065 0.485 *
WAPP -0.045 0.158 0.280 * 0.154 0.680 * 0.273 * 0.571 * 0.558 * 1 0.029 0.498 *
DATA 0.198 0.002 0.089 −0.025 0.057 0.098 0.142 0.065 0.029 1 0.182
ANLY 0.252 * 0.368 * 0.448 * 0.232 * 0.467 * 0.455 * 0.417 * 0.485 * 0.498 * 0.182 1
Correlation 3 3 7 4 7 7 5 7 6 0 9
* significant correlation exists with 95% confidence interval.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 17 of 22

Table 8 shows the Pearson correlation coefficients between the eleven dimensions,
with significance (p-value less than 0.05) indicated by *. It can be seen from Table 8
that all positive coefficients were significant, showing that the correlations between these
dimensions were direct. That is, if one axis is implemented in the industry, it will support
the implementation of another axis. Hence, based on the correlation analysis, we can group
the eleven dimensions of the Quality 4.0 based on their relationships to each other. It can be
seen from the table that data gathering is the only axis having no relationship with any other
axis. Analytics is the only axis having direct relationships with nine other dimensions (only
excluding data). Connectivity, scalability, leadership and management system have direct
relationships with the six other dimensions, whereas app development and culture have
direct relationships with six and five other Quality 4.0 dimensions, respectively. Excluding
data gathering, each of the eleven dimensions has a significant relationship with at least
one of the Quality 4.0 dimensions, supporting H3.
H4 was tested regarding whether the Quality 4.0 framework is being well implemented
in Pakistani multinational organizations, a sample size of 48. A target value of 4.0 (major
implementation) was chosen as the determinant. t-test statistics were calculated for the
“MEAN” of the mean scores for the eleven dimensions of Quality 4.0, which are presented
in Table 9.
Table 9. t-test Statistics for Hypothesis H4.

Mean St. Dev. SE of Mean DOF t-Value Significance (p-Value)

MEAN 3.373 0.713 0.103 47 −6.090 >0.001

The significance level (p-value) for the t-value of −6.090 is less than 0.05, which clearly
shows that the null hypothesis of H4 is not valid. That is, the Quality 4.0 framework is not
well implemented in the multinational organizations in Pakistan.
To determine the trueness of H5, data from the large-scale organizations (more than
500 employees) regarding the eleven dimensions of the Quality 4.0 framework, a sample
size of 101. Since H5 refers to the well implementation of the Quality 4.0 framework, a
mean score of 4.0 (major implementation) was set as the determinant. t-test statistics were
calculated for the “MEAN” of the mean responses for the eleven dimensions. The results of
the t-test are presented in Table 10.
Table 10. t-test for Hypothesis H5.

Mean St. Dev. SE of Mean DOF t-Value Significance (p-Value)

MEAN 3.112 0.759 0.076 101 −11.766 >0.001

Again, the significance (p-value) is less than 0.05, which shows that the null hypothesis
of H5 is also not valid. That is, the Quality 4.0 framework is not well implemented in large
Pakistani companies of more than 500 employees.
To assess the validity of H6, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the
“MEAN” of the mean responses for the eleven dimensions with respect to the independent
variable “NOQP”, which is the number of quality professionals in the organization. The
ANOVA results are presented in Table 11.
Table 11. ANOVA Results for the MEAN with respect to the NOQP.

Sum of Squares DOF Mean Square F-Value Significance Level

Between
6.174 4 1.544 2.776 0.029
Groups
Within
87.290 157 0.556
Groups
Total 93.464 161
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 18 of 22

The table shows that that the significance value is less than 0.05, which depicts that
the factor NOQP, with an F-value of 2.776, significantly affect the implementation of the
Quality 4.0 framework. Hence, the null hypothesis of H6 is true, which states that the im-
plementation of Quality 4.0 framework improves with the number of quality professionals
in any organization in an industry.
Finally, Table 12 presents the results and validation for all six hypotheses tested in
this research.
Table 12. Summary of the Hypothesis Results.

No. Hypothesis Test Result Remarks

The Quality 4.0 framework is t-test Mean of means
H1 True
implemented in the industry. Target value = 2.5 (MEAN) > 2.5
All eleven dimensions of the Quality 4.0
t-test Not all means are
H2 framework are implemented in False
Target value = 2.5 greater than 2.5
the industry.
The eleven dimensions of the Quality 4.0 Sig. Pearson Most of the dimensions
H3 True
have relationships among each other. Correlation Coefficient are correlated
The Quality 4.0 framework is well
t-test
H4 implemented in False p-value < 0.05
Target value = 4.0
multinational organizations.
The Quality 4.0 framework is well
t-test
H5 implemented in large organizations False p-value < 0.05
Target value = 4.0
having more than 500 employees.
The existence of Quality Management
ANOVA
H6 professionals enables an organization to True NOQP is significant
F-value
implement the Quality 4.0 framework

5. Recommendations
Based on the literature review, statistical analysis, and results, Table 13 presents recom-
mendations for the implementation of the Quality 4.0 framework in Pakistani industries.
Table 13. Recommendations based on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT).

SWOT S# Recommendations
According to the respondents, COMPETENCY of human resources is one of the highest implemented
1. dimensions of the Quality 4.0 framework, but the competency is not well utilized, resulting in low
industry implementation of compliance, culture, scalability, and app development.
CONNECTIVITY axis is very well implemented in Pakistani industries, but the industry infrastructure
and the technology are quite obsolete. Industrial Internet of Things (IIoTs), high-speed internet, cloud
computing, and app developments are necessary for industries to effectively integrate quality
STRENGTHS management systems.
As per the respondents, LEADERSHIP has the third highest implementation in industry in Pakistan. This
2. dimension measures the involvement of the leadership in developing organizational strategy, vision, and
mission; engagement with the quality management system, and implementation of Quality 4.0. This is
for the obvious reason that the involvement of the leadership is critical because the outcomes and
development of any organization are dependent on it. In this study, leaders demonstrated seriousness
towards the implementation of Quality 4.0, which motivates the stakeholders in implementing the new
concepts of Quality 4.0 in industries.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 19 of 22

Table 13. Cont.

SWOT S# Recommendations
Fostering a quality CULTURE is the first essential element in developing and implementing Quality 4.0.
Technological advancement to achieve breakthrough performance indicators can only transform the
organization when employees and other stakeholders from the top down take ownership of quality.
Quality Culture and its sustainability is one of the major issues in Pakistani industries, reflected in the
low respondent scores. It is recommended that leadership and human resources staff change their
1. mind-sets towards quality management systems to enhance the customer experience and achieve
continuous sustainability.
Quality culture can be developed in organizations through rewards and recognition systems, especially
through the Kaizen approach recommended under the globally famous Toyota Production System/Lean.
It is strongly recommended that organizations start with quality principles/practices and then
implement the basic tradition tools/techniques in moving towards Quality 4.0.
The Quality 4.0 framework is quite technology oriented, which requires technological infrastructure and
skilled and trained human resources to make continuous updates, which requires huge resources for any
2.
organization. Hence, determining the costs of quality analysis (ANALYTICS) is recommended for the
implementation [39].
Technology and training updates are the integrated feature of the Quality 4.0 framework; hence it is
3. recommended to acquire the human resources (COMPETENCY) willing to continuously adopt the
WEAKNESSES
changes in technology and trainings for the continuous improvement of systems.
It is recommended to provide industry awareness sessions especially in the third world countries
4. developing countries to disseminate the features, importance, and advantages of implementing
Quality 4.0.
The COMPLIANCE and standardization at the organization and industry levels must aim at enhancing
5.
in maturity and customer experience.
The COMPETENCY of the human resources may be effectively utilized for the scalability of the
6. organization to cope with the fluctuating demands. The major dilemma in industries is the constant
production rates and capacity, resulting in the low utilization of resources in non-peak demand periods.
The existence of QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (QMS) is quite weak. They are implemented in
the industry mostly to comply with ISO 9001 standards and surveillance audits. The QMS It is
7.
recommended that both the manufacturing and service industries adopt a QMS and evaluate it through
the internal and surveillance audit.
Integration and CONNECTIVITY of the real-time data from the IIoTs, POS, and other sources may be
8. collected through cloud-based data collection systems, which may be eventually analysed, forecast, and
displayed on dashboards.
There was a considerable lack of data analysis (ANALYTICS); data were often gathered for the sake of
9. auditing purposes. Data analysis is strongly recommended whether in traditional ways or towards
Quality 4.0.
LEADERSHIP capabilities can be exploited for the improvement in Quality Management by having
frequent review meetings, dashboard discussion, customer reviews, etc. Leadership implementation and
execution of Quality 4.0 can enhance overall quality and the customer experience.
1.
Unlike the Total Quality Management philosophy (CULTURE), Quality 4.0 is an implementable
framework that can be adopted by the manufacturing and service industries for enhanced productivity
and customer experience.
The Quality 4.0 framework is as perceived in the previous research not only is an operational framework
2. but also is directly linked with the strategy of any organization (MANAGEMENT SYSTEM). Strategic
planning, execution, implementation, and evaluation are integral to the Quality 4.0 framework.
Since the framework relies on COLLABORATION and input from the government, industry, and other
stakeholder, it is recommended for the smooth implementation of the framework that the framework be
3. implemented in stable organizations. This is because volatility and continuous changes in stakeholder
OPPORTUNITIES requirement may result in the ineffective implementation of the framework, resulting in the loss
of resources.
It is recommended to develop and implement smart KPIs (DATA) and benchmarks for the measurement
of performance at both the macro and micro levels. Real-time collection and analysis of data for KPI
4.
dashboards (APP DEVELOPMENT) are highly recommended to be available for review through the
leadership in the industry.
AI-based cloud computing, which is an important contributor SCALABILITY and decision systems
5. (DATA), are integrated into the Quality 4.0 framework for data analysis and inferences, and results may
be communicated to the relevant people.
In this era of big data collection and analysis, it is important for human resources to be aware of the
6.
importance of real-time data collection and analysis.
To oblige the compliance axis of the Quality 4.0 framework, it is recommended that at the government
7. and industry levels, international benchmarks and COLLABORATION be introduced to enhance
industry competitiveness.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 20 of 22

Table 13. Cont.

SWOT S# Recommendations
1. LEADERSHIP must make great investments to transform.
Due to the unavailability of 5G technology (CONNECTIVITY) in the third world developing countries,
2. cloud computing (SCALABILITY) and smart decision making are huge problems, resulting in high scrap
and defect rates in industries.
Most technology and equipment specified in the general framework of Quality 4.0 are not designed and
manufactured in developing countries, and thus, their acquisition can be a hurdle; in addition, there can
3.
be delays not connected to industry targets due to frequent changes in government policies
THREATS
(COMPLIANCE), especially in Pakistan.
In consideration of digital transformations, traditional quality practices are recommended to drawing
attention to sustainability. A lack of long-term proper application of traditional quality practices,
4. especially in small to medium-scale industries was observed. Employees feel overburdened by following
specified mandatory quality practices and have the perception of adding waste (cost) instead of adding
quality. Quality CULTURE is recommended.
Employees feel threats of downsizing following technological advancements; they must be counselled
5.
regarding the benefits of the advancement of quality CULTURE by leadership.

6. Conclusions
In this research, a framework for the implementation of Quality 4.0 in an enterprise
has been proposed. The framework proposed in this research is based on the philosophy of
Quality 4.0 presented by Juran, although an implementable framework has been suggested
in the proposed work. Based on the developed Quality 4.0 framework, the maturity of Pak-
istani industry was determined. A comprehensive questionnaire comprising of 56 questions
was developed that linked to the eleven dimensions of the Quality 4.0 framework. Survey
responses were gathered and analysed from 161 quality practitioners and professionals
from different industries. Based on the questionnaire responses, means were calculated for
each of the eleven dimensions are determined, and a final mean provides the overall status
of the industry.
Based on the statistical analysis of the respondents’ data, the following comments can
be made:
 Quality 4.0 is not fully implemented in Pakistani industry.
 The eleven dimensions of the Quality 4.0 are not implemented well in the industry,
especially compliance, scalability, culture, and app development. These need the
attention of industry for implementation.
 Implementation of one dimension of the Quality 4.0 framework has direct impacts on
the others; hence, complying with the requirements of one dimension may result in
the implementation of other Quality 4.0 dimensions.
 Quality 4.0 is not implemented in small domestic organizations, but more in-depth anal-
ysis shows that it is also not well implemented in multinational and large organizations.
The number of respondents and sample size can be increased to improve these results.
Future research can be extended to developed and other developing countries. Furthermore,
the implementation of the developed framework may be assessed for its effectiveness in
different industry sectors such as finance or service. The framework was developed to be
generic, and its strengths and weaknesses need to be measured in different manufacturing
and service sectors so that it can be improved. The framework may also be modified for
the specific needs of industries, especially for SMEs.
Initially, the sustainability of traditional quality practices must be properly planned
and executed for long-term digital transformations from traditional quality. Later, the ma-
turity of cycles of continuous sustainability can be evaluated specifically for the agriculture,
industrial, and services sectors, the major contributors to the GDP of Pakistan [40].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 21 of 22

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.Z.; methodology, A.Z.; software, M.W.; validation, A.Z.
and S.A.I.; formal analysis, M.W.; investigation, A.Z. and M.W.; resources, M.W.; data curation, A.Z.;
writing—original draft preparation, A.Z. and M.W.; writing—review and editing, A.Z. and S.A.I.;
visualization, A.Z.; supervision, S.A.I.; project administration, M.W. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors are highly grateful to the industry respondents who participated in
this research. We also acknowledge the authors of the articles we referred to in the research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Montgomery, D.C. Statistical Quality Control, 6th ed.; John Willey and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008.
2. Taguchi, G. Quality engineering in Japan. Commun. Stat.-Theory Methods 1985, 14, 2785–2801. [CrossRef]
3. Gryna, F.M.; Chua, R.C.; DeFeo, J.A. Juran’s Quality Planning and Analysis: For Enterprise Quality; Tata McGraw-Hill Education:
Gautam Buddha Nagar, India, 2006.
4. Javaid, M.; Haleem, A.; Singh, R.P.; Suman, R.; Gonzalez, E.S. Understanding the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in
improving environmental sustainability. Sustain. Oper. Comput. 2022, 3, 203–217. [CrossRef]
5. Villagrán, N.V.; Estevez, E.; Pesado, P.; Marquez, J.J. Standardization: A Key Factor of Industry 4.0. In Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG), Quito, Ecuador, 24–26 April 2019. [CrossRef]
6. Standardization Council Industrie 4.0. German Standardization Roadmap Industrie 4.0, Version 4.0. 2020. Available online:
www.din.de (accessed on 20 August 2022).
7. Habrat, D. Legal challenges of digitalization and automation in the context of Industry 4.0. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 51, 938–942.
[CrossRef]
8. Maddikunta, P.K.R.; Pham, O.V.; Prabadevi, B.; Deepa, N.; Dev, K.; Gadekallu, T.R.; Ruby, R.; Liyanage, M. Industry 5.0: A survey
on enabling technologies and potential applications. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2022, 26, 100257. [CrossRef]
9. Fazal, N.; Haleem, A.; Bahl, S.; Javaid, M.; Nandan, D. Digital Management Systems in Manufacturing Using Industry 5.0
Technologies. In Advancement in Materials, Manufacturing and Energy Engineering 2022, II; Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering;
Verma, P., Samuel, O.D., Verma, T.N., Dwivedi, G., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022. [CrossRef]
10. Elangovan, U. Industry 5.0: The Future of the Industrial Economy, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Oxon, UK, 2022.
11. Quality 4.0, Quality Glossary Definition: Quality 4.0, American Society of Quality (ASQ). Available online: www.asq.org (accessed
on 20 August 2022).
12. Madu, C.N.; Kuei, C.H. Strategic total quality management—Transformation process overview. Total Qual. Manag. 1994, 5,
255–266. [CrossRef]
13. Gummer, B. Total Quality Management. Adm. Soc. Work. 1996, 20, 75–95. [CrossRef]
14. Van der Wiele, A.; Dale, B.; Williams, A. ISO 9000 series registration to total quality management: The transformation journey. Int.
J. Qual. Sci. 1997, 2, 236–252. [CrossRef]
15. Chin, K.; Pun, K.; Hua, H. Consolidation of China’s quality transformation efforts: A review. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2001, 18,
836–853. [CrossRef]
16. Beer, M. Why Total Quality Management Programs Do Not Persist: The Role of Management Quality and Implications for
Leading a TQM Transformation. Decis. Sci. 2003, 34, 623–642. [CrossRef]
17. Klefsjö, B.; Bergquist, B.; Garvare, R. Quality management and business excellence, customers and stakeholders: Do we agree on
what we are talking about, and does it matter? TQM J. 2008, 20, 120–129. [CrossRef]
18. Hur, M.H. The influence of total quality management practices on the transformation of how organisations work. Total Qual.
Manag. Bus. Excel. 2009, 20, 847–861. [CrossRef]
19. Küpper, D.; Knizek, C.; Ryeson, D.; Noecker, J. Quality 4.0 Takes More Than Technology; BCG-ASQ-DG: Boston, MA, USA, 2018.
20. Blog: Quality 4.0: The Future of Quality? Available online: https://www.juran.com/blog/quality-4-0-the-future-of-quality
(accessed on 22 July 2022).
21. Lodi, S.A.; Shaikh, A.A.; Wasif, M.; Butt, F.A. A Quality 4.0 Assurance Framework for the Higher Education Institutes. In
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’22), Valencia, Spain, 14–17 June 2022.
22. Gohane, G.; Bulkunde, A.; Parate, A.; Nagdeve, P.; Mendhe, V.; Pandey, S.; Yadav, H. Study and Review of Quality 4.0 in the
Industry. In Proceedings of the Advances in Materials Processing and Manufacturing Applications (iCADMA), Jaipur, India, 5–6
November 2020. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11298 22 of 22

23. Theuws, F. The Benefits of Quality 4.0. Quality 2021, 60, 51. Available online: www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/benefits-
quality-4-0/docview/2626029858/se-2?accountid=135034 (accessed on 20 August 2022).
24. Sader, S.S.; Husti, I.; Daróczi, M. Suggested Indicators to Measure the Impact of Industry 4.0 on Total Quality Management. Int.
Sci. J. Ind. 4.0 2017, 2, 298–301.
25. Zonnenshain, A.; Kenett, R.S. Quality 4.0—the challenging future of quality engineering. Qual. Eng. 2020, 32, 614–626. [CrossRef]
26. Escobar, C.A.; McGovern, M.E.; Morales-Menendez, R. Quality 4.0: A review of big data challenges in manufacturing. J. Intell.
Manuf. 2021, 32, 2319–2334. [CrossRef]
27. Corti, D.; Masiero, S.; Gladysz, B. Impact of Industry 4.0 on Quality Management: Identification of main challenges towards
a Quality 4.0 approach. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation
(ICE/ITMC), Cardiff, UK, 21–23 June 2021. [CrossRef]
28. Chiarini, A.; Kumar, M. What is Quality 4.0? An exploratory sequential mixed methods study of Italian manufacturing companies.
Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021, 60, 4890–4910. [CrossRef]
29. Santos, G.; Sá, J.; Félix, M.; Barreto, L.; Carvalho, F.; Doiro, M.; Zgodavová, K.; Stefanović, M. New Needed Quality Management
Skills for Quality Managers 4.0. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6149. [CrossRef]
30. Ali, K.; Johl, S.K. Soft and hard TQM practices: Future research agenda for industry 4.0. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2021.
[CrossRef]
31. Ali, K.; Johl, S.K. Impact of Total Quality Management on SMEs Sustainable Performance in the Context of Industry 4.0. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Intelligent Systems (ICETIS 2021), Al Buraimi, Oman,
25–26 June 2021. [CrossRef]
32. De Souza, F.F.; Corsi, A.; Pagani, R.N.; Balbinotti, G.; Kovaleski, J.L. Total quality management 4.0: Adapting quality management
to Industry 4.0. TQM J. 2021, 34, 749–769. [CrossRef]
33. Glogovac, M.; Ruso, J.; Maricic, M. ISO 9004 maturity model for quality in industry 4.0. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excel. 2020, 33,
529–547. [CrossRef]
34. Aviv, I.; Hadar, I.; Levy, M. Knowledge Management Infrastructure Framework for Enhancing Knowledge-Intensive Business
Processes. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11387. [CrossRef]
35. Marjanovic, O. Improvement of Knowledge-Intensive Business Processes Through Analytics and Knowledge Sharing. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems—Digital Innovation at the Crossroads (ICIS 2016), Dublin,
Ireland, 11–14 December 2016.
36. Marjanovic, O.; Freeze, R. Knowledge-Intensive Business Process: Deriving a Sustainable Competitive Advantage through
Business Process Management and Knowledge Management Integration. Knowl. Process Manag. 2012, 19, 180–188. [CrossRef]
37. Oláh, J.; Aburumman, N.; Popp, J.; Khan, M.A.; Haddad, H.; Kitukutha, N. Impact of Industry 4.0 on Environmental Sustainability.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 4674. [CrossRef]
38. Burritt, R.; Christ, K. Industry 4.0 and environmental accounting: A new revolution? Asian J. Sustain. Soc. Responsib. 2016, 1,
23–38. Available online: https://www.analysisinn.com/post/kmo-and-bartlett-s-test-of-sphericity/ (accessed on 22 July 2022).
[CrossRef]
39. Malik, T.M.; Khalid, R.; Zulqarnain, A.; Iqbal, S.A. Cost of quality: Findings of a wood products’ manufacturer. TQM J. 2016, 28,
2–20. [CrossRef]
40. Anwar, S.; Abbas, Q.; Ashfaq, M. Introduction to the Economy of Pakistan. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/321037817_Introduction_to_the_Economy_of_Pakistan (accessed on 22 July 2022).