Quality Management in Spanish Thalassotherapy Centers
6.3.4 Data Analysis
The descriptive analysis carried out in order to analyze the level of implementation or degree of maturity of Quality Management in Spanish Thalassotherapy Centers enables us to detect a number of strengths and areas for improvement thereof regard- ing Quality Management.
It is observed that Leadership (LE) is the best managed factor with an average of 5.73, followed by Learning (L) with an average of 5.60, Quality policy and planning (PO) with 5.47, Alliances and resources (AR) with 4.85 and Employee management (EM) with an average of 5.14, which are those factors with a lower score. The implementation pattern shows an important score considering the scale used, with an implementation level higher than 69 % for all the critical factors analyzed (Table 6.1 ).
Regarding the results, the one with the highest mean score is Customer Satisfaction (CS), reaching an average of 6.03, and the worst rated is social impact (SI) with a mean score of 4.49, which is still higher than the average level of the seven-point Likert scale used.
Before proceeding with the analysis of critical factors and results separately, we analyze the correlations between the critical factors and the different results (results of customers, employees, social impact and key). For this we analyzed the correla- tion matrix (Table 6.2 ).
We note that in all cases there is correlation, but it not signifi cant in the relation- ship between leadership with key results and social impact. This is also the case for the relationship between learning and social impact. In summary, it is demonstrated that the form of managing the critical factors is related and may infl uence positively on the results achieved by the company, except for the non-signifi cant relationships that we have observed.
Continuing the analysis, we analyzed each of the items (see Appendix ) that form each criteria and quality results, in order to go into the research more in depth and with the aim of fi nding the strengths and weaknesses of each of the critical factors, in order to improve (Fig s. 6.1 , 6.2 , 6.3 , 6.4 , 6.5 , 6.6 , and 6.7 ).
From the analysis of mean scores obtained for each of the items, we observe which is the main strength and the greatest weakness (Table 6.3 ):
Table 6.1 Mean and standard deviation of the critical factors and results in Spanish Thalasos Critical factors Mean (from 1 to 7) a Standard deviation % degree of implementation Results Mean (from 1 to 7) b Standard deviation LE Leadership 5.7355 0.97623 81.94 % CS Customer satisfaction 6.0369 0.77193 L Learning 5.6089 1.14598 80.13 % PO Quality policy/planning 5.4731 1.21614 78.19 % KR Key results 5.3172 1.15177 CI Continuous improvement 5.3427 1.18584 76.32 % ES Employee satisfaction 5.0072 1.3593 PM Process management 5.3088 1.17056 75.84 % EM Employee management 5.1408 1.35265 73.44 % SI Social impact 4.4919 1.72117 AR Alliances and resources 4.8566 1.36089 69.38 % Source: Author’s a Mean score between 6 and 7 – Strongly implemented; Mean score between 5 and 6 – With an important score; Mean score between 4 and 5 – Average Implementation; Mean score below 4 – Low implementation b Mean score between 6 and 7 – Totally agree; Mean score between 5 and 6 – Strongly agree; Mean score between 4 and 5 – Agree; Mean score below 4 – Indifferent
Table 6.2 Pearson correlation between the elements of quality and results Leadership Quality policy/planning Alliances and resources Employee management Learning Process management Continuous improvement Customer satisfaction r 0.235** 0.475** 0.658** 0.456** 0.407* 0.573** 0.774** Sig. 0.003 0.007 0.000 0.010 0.023 0.001 0.000 Employee satisfaction r 0.454* 0.579** 0.755** 0.626** 0.458** 0.716** 0.615** Sig. 0.010 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 Social impact r 0.689 0.334 0.565** 0.365* 0.256 0.732** 0.440* Sig. 0.075 0.067 0.001 0.043 0.164 0.000 0.013 Key results r 0.640 0.663** 0.666** 0.492** 0.416* 0.627** 0.412* Sig. 0.087 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.020 0.000 0.021 Source: Author’s r = Pearson correlation; **Correlation is signifi cant at 0.01; *Correlation is signifi cant at 0.05
5,6452 6,0000 6,1613
5,6129
5,3548
5,8065 5,8065
5,3226
5,6129 6,0323
4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00
LE1 LE2 LE3 LE4 LE5 LE6 LE7 LE8 LE9 LE10 (Source: Author’s)
6,0645
5,6774 5,8065
5,4516 5,2903
5,6774 5,5806
4,1613
5,5484
4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00 6,50
PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 PO7 PO8 PO9 Fig. 6.2 Quality policy/
planning (Source: Author’s)
4,8387 4,5484
5,6452
4,5161 4,6452 5,1935
4,8387 5,0968
4,3871 4,00
4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00
AR1 AR2 AR3 AR4 AR5 AR6 AR7 AR8 AR9 Fig. 6.3 Alliances and
resources (Source: Author’s)
5,3548 5,4839 5,5806
5,4839 5,7097
3,2903 4,3548
5,4516 4,9355 5,2258 5,6774
3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00 Fig. 6.4 Employee 6,50
management (Source:
Author’s)
5,2258 6,0645 6,1290
5,6774 5,3548
5,6774 5,4516
5,2903
4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00 6,50
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8
Fig. 6.5 Learning (Source:
Author’s)
5,5484 5,5161 5,4194
4,9677 5,0645
5,5484
5,0968
4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00
PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PM7
Fig. 6.6 Process manage- ment (Source: Author’s)
6,0000
4,1290 4,3226
5,3548
5,1290 5,2581 6,16136,3871
4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00 6,50
CI1 CI2 CI3 CI4 CI5 CI6 CI7 CI8
Fig. 6.7 Continuous improvement (Source:
Author’s)
In the graphs that follow, each result is analyzed separately with its respective items (see Appendix ) (Figs. 6.8 , 6.9 , 6.10 , and 6.11 ).
As with the critical factors, the main strength and greatest weakness, in the case of results is shown in the Table 6.4 :
The student-T statistical test was considered in order to check for signifi cant dif- ferences in the level of implementation or maturity degree in Quality Management (critical factors and results), depending on whether Thalassotherapy Centers in Spain are certifi ed or not in any QMS. Twenty-four centers are not implemented and
certifi ed in any QMS and seven centers do have some QMS implemented and certi- fi ed (ISO 9001, ISO14001 standard or both).
The results show that there are signifi cant differences in Quality Policy/Planning, Alliances and Resources, Process Management and Continuous Improvement (sig.
0.029, sig. 0.022, sig. 0.025, sig. 0.014), with no signifi cant difference relating to results. Thalassotherapy centers that have implemented some QMS have higher levels of implementation of quality policy/planning (6.36), Alliances and resources (5.87) Process Management (6.16) and Continuous Improvement (6.28) compared with (5.21, 4.56, 5.05 and 5.06) respectively in centers that do not have any QMS implemented and certifi ed. The differential is greater than 1.10 in all cases, based on the seven-point Likert scale used (Table 6.5 ).
Table 6.3 Weaknesses and strengths in the critical factors
Leadership a 81.94 % Strength: managers actively communicate to employees their commitment to the process of providing quality service to their customers
Weakness: administrators keep more contacts with customers, suppliers and other external agents, thereby promoting more active involvement, participation in alliances and development of continuous improvement actions
Learning a 80.13 % Strength: most employees understand the basic processes used to create the products/services offered and have suffi cient knowledge about the basics of the sector
Weakness: insuring that all employees receive training which helps them to understand how and why the organization performs
Quality policy/
planning a 79.19 %
Strength: the management communicates to all staff its strategy and objectives
Weakness: communication of company strategy and objectives by management to customers, suppliers and other external agents for them to know them
Continuous
improvement a 76.32 %
Strength: managers and supervisors support activities which improve customer satisfaction
Weakness: the need to implement a program to fi nd the losses of time and costs in all processes
Process management
a 75.84 %
Strength: ensuring that the services offered are consistent with previous designs and subsequent developments
Weakness: Employees involved in different processes do not know how to evaluate them
Employee management
a 7.44 %
Strength: people are encouraged and supported to take responsibility and make decisions without risk for the organization, to be involved in improvement activities, team work, etc
Weakness: the need to improve or implement a transparent system to reward staff achievements and improvements, as well as a system of social benefi ts such as pension plans, kindergarten, etc
Alliances and resources
a 69.38 %
Strength: suppliers are provided with the established requirements (quality) of the goods or services
Weakness: the need to manage more and better alliances and resources in line with the strategy
Source: Author’s
a Percentage of implantation
5,4194
5,16135,1613 5,4839
5,2903
4,5161 5,0968
5,0645
3,8710 3,50
4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00
ES1 ES2 ES3 ES4 ES5 ES6 ES7 ES8 ES9 Fig. 6.9 Employee
satisfaction (Source:
Author’s)
5,9355
5,1935 5,2258
4,0645
4,4516
3,8065 3,9032
3,3548 3,00
3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00 6,50
SI1 SI2 SI3 SI4 SI5 SI6 SI7 SI8 Fig. 6.10 Social impact
(Source: Author’s)
4,6452 5,3548
5,6129 5,6774
5,2258 5,3871
4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00
KR1 KR2 KR3 KR4 KR5 KR6
Fig. 6.11 Key results (Source: Author’s)
6,4516
6,3548 6,1613 6,2258 6,1613
4,2903 4,00
4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00 6,50
CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5 CS6 CS7
(Source: Author’s)
Table 6.4 Strengths and weaknesses in results
Customer satisfaction
Strength: customer satisfaction shows improvement over time.
Weakness: the need for conducting comparative results of clients with those of main competitors, to determine whether the comparison is favorable, providing valuable information, enabling to learn from them.
Key results Strength: objectives in this context are established and the key results achieved fulfi ll them.
Weakness: increasing fi nancial results.
Employee satisfaction
Strength: employee satisfaction shows improvement over time.
Weakness: the need to compare employee results with those of main competitors to determine whether the comparison is favorable or otherwise learn from them.
Social impacts Strength: policies to reduce and prevent risks to health and safety are carried out and the company participates in some activities of society.
Weakness: comparing its results with those of main competitors to determine whether the comparison is favorable or otherwise learn from them.
Source: Author’s
Table 6.5 Importance of the critical factors when having or not a QMS certifi cate in thalasos centers
Critical factor Certifi cations Mean (from 1 to 7)
Standard
deviation Difference
PO Quality policy/planning Not 5.2130 1.24330 1.1521
Yes 6.3651 0.52003
AR Alliances and resources Not 4.5602 1.36377 1.3128
Yes 5.8730 0.75748
PM Process management Not 5.0595 1.16889 1.1038
Yes 6.1633 0.71632
CI Continuous improvement Not 5.0677 1.18641 1.2180
Yes 6.2857 0.54350
Source: Author’s