Search results

Focuses on some of the ethical concerns pertinent to the application process of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award programme and highlights some of the critical problems which the programme faces. Based on analysis of these issues, endeavours to distil an adequate opinion of the inherent value, merit and significance of Baldrige Award. Observes that, while the Baldrige Award programme does raise certain critical concerns ‐ specifically those related to unfairness, superficiality and publicity ‐ the inherent value of the continuously improving award programme far outweighs its limitations. As has been seen, the Baldrige paradigm is not limited exclusively to the world of business, and can be applied to reinforce quality and enhance productivity in virtually any kind of organization.

Academic libraries have endured rapid change in the past two decades that has had repercussions on how they manage their organization and deliver library services. Skyrocketing costs, especially for journals, explosive growth in new technologies, fiscal exigencies caused by a tightening of public financing of most academic institutions, demands for greater accountability, and the onslaught of electronic delivery of networked information, are just some of the major obstacles libraries are encountering (Lubans, 1996; Riggs, 1993; Shaughnessy, 1987). Customers of academic libraries are increasingly less satisfied because of limited resources and the difficulties they encounter in accessing printed material in a traditional library facility (Doughtery, 1992). The emergence of textual materials in electronic form has added a new dimension to this discontent. While such resources have the potential for meeting the information needs more dynamically, the costs for information have been exorbitant, particularly since full electronic texts have not been sufficient in coverage to supplant printed resources (Tenopir, 1993). These phenomena require academic libraries to use a more integrated and flexible approach to problem solving (Gapen, Hampton & Schmitt, 1993).

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform recently released a preliminary report with recommendations on cutting costs in the federal government, and one of its recommendations included the elimination of the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, formerly known as the Malcolm Baldrige Nationality Quality Award Program. Established by an act of Congress in 1987, during the Reagan Administration, the goal of the Malcolm Baldrige Nationality Quality Award Program was to stimulate and reward product quality excellence. Since the inception of the award, however, there has been a long‐standing controversy among industry leaders and academics on whether winning this award does enhance future financial performance and ultimately shareholders' wealth. This debate has again been recently fueled by the possible elimination of the program by the US government. This study, aims to shed further light on this subject by examining the academic research on the financial performance of the Baldrige Award winners.

The paper examines academic and professional research on whether the Award adds value to firms and their investors.

The conclusion, perhaps not surprisingly, is somewhat mixed; although there is parsimonious evidence to suggest that Award winners do witness an increase in market value. By and large, the authors feel that when all the benefits of the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program are considered and given the short‐term focus of studies in this area, the elimination of the program would be a terrible mistake.

The paper offers an original review and synthesis.

The purpose of this study is to benchmark the use of process improvement techniques among US health care organizations that won the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.

The applications from 13 Baldrige award winning health care organizations were researched to determine which process improvement techniques were used most frequently to guide their operations.

The results from this study identify several best practices in process improvement techniques. Furthermore, the study pinpoints in which aspect of performance that a process improvement technique is most likely to be used.

Only applications from organizations winning the Baldrige award have been studied. The identity and application for organizations that do not win the award are not released to the public. Statistical analysis of the data is limited to the relatively small number (13) of award winners.

The results clearly show that there are certain process improvement techniques used by a majority of the Baldrige winners. It is not possible to guarantee that the use of these same techniques by other health care organizations will result in performance improvement, only that the winners used the techniques and have achieved a high level of performance. The results identify processes for further benchmarking studies.

The process improvement techniques identified in this study have been used by successful health care organizations. This information may be useful to other health care organizations when deciding on which process improvement techniques to pursue in order to improve their own performance. While the Baldrige award process has driven benchmarking efforts, this study uses the Baldrige process to identify benchmarking opportunities for process improvement in health care organizations.

Reviews the Baldrige Award as a modern document and views CompuAdd as a post‐modern organization. Traces the steps of CompuAdd′s application for the Baldrige Award and shows CompuAdd′s culture to be excellent local practices, that are different from the Baldrige Award criteria, and that, despite their local excellence, would be difficult to transfer to another setting.

Initiated in the US Congress in 1987 as a rallying point for quality efforts in the face of (largely Japanese) competition, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award is its country's most prestigious quality prize. It was named posthumously for the late US Secretary of Commerce. Applying for the Baldrige award is open to US‐based companies only. Winners demonstrate superior performance against seven criteria, each of which is allocated a points weighting within a maximum possible score of 1,000 points. The criteria are: leadership; information and analysis; strategic planning; human resource development and management; process management; business results; and customer focus and satisfaction (see figure 1). Following initial self‐assessed submissions a panel of peer‐recognized experts from industry, the professions and academia nominates a short‐list of companies for site visits. The judges can select two winners in each of the three award categories — manufacturing, services and small businesses — or none. Past recipients of the Baldrige award include Motorola, Milliken, Eastman Chemical, Xerox, The Ritz‐Carlton Hotel Company, Federal Express and three divisions of AT&T. It is used as the framework for the Swedish Quality Award and has also been the inspiration for several similar prizes elsewhere in the world, among them the European Quality Award.

Describes the important contributions of quality gurus like Deming, Juran, Crosby, Feigenbaum, Ishikawa and Garvin which led to the evolutionary development of Strategic Quality Management (SQM). In addition, the core concepts of SQM, namely, customer focus, leadership, strategic quality planning, design quality, speed and prevention, people participation and partnership, fact‐based management and continuous improvement are identified and are compared with Malcolm Baldrige and European Quality Award criteria and ISO 9001 certification requirements. Also a framework for implementing strategies based on these seven core concepts is recommended. Develops a comparative analysis of Malcolm Baldridge and European Quality Awards, and ISO 9001 requirements.

Within the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which administers the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA), a NIST technical division has initiated a Baldrige‐based effort to increase the effectiveness of its research and services. The Precision Engineering Division is responsible for providing US industry with practical access to the international and national standards of length and for conducting a diverse program of R&D and services in measurements and standards. These measurements and standards relate to industrial control of dimensional tolerances on features of manufactured goods. The start‐up of this Baldrige‐based effort reported factors such as has involved: introductory training of all staff on the basic concepts of the MBNQA and team processes; training on leading and facilitating teams and site visits to other agencies and industry organizations carrying out TQM‐type programs. This paper reports on employee‐identified successes and failures, managerial lessons learned, and some potential next steps in the start‐up effort’s further development.

The Malcolm Baldrige Award was created in 1987 to curtail the US loss of market share to foreign producers and to encourage a focus on management of quality and customer satisfaction. However, since its inception there has been a long‐running controversy on whether winning this award does enhance future financial performance and ultimately shareholders' wealth. Examines how Baldrige Award winners perform with respect to several accounting and financial metrics. Specifically, assesses Baldrige Award winners' financial performance relative to industry benchmarks and a control group of similar firms. The results suggest that award winners are superior financial performers and are valued higher by investors compared with similar sized firms and industry benchmarks. However, no evidence was found that winning the award causes changes in firm value in the award year and subsequent years. The results suggest that the Baldrige Award winners are examples of firms that stand out as performance leaders in their industries. Since one of the purposes of the award is to stimulate quality awareness among US firms, the Baldrige recipients may be construed as a conspicuous centerpiece of the US quality management movement.

In an increasingly global and competitive environment, an organization’s long‐term survival may depend on improved quality, productivity and customer service. The pressing need to improve competitiveness has resulted in a number of transnational and national quality awards. In broad terms, these awards stress the importance of management process, customer satisfaction, people and total quality to the attainment of superior competitive position. Describes, compares and highlights the key strengths and weaknesses of the following four major national and transnational quality awards: the Deming Application Prize; the European Quality Award (EQA); the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award (Baldrige Award); and the Australian Quality Award (AQA). Discusses the key requirements of each award and their underlying assumptions and impacts. The awards reviewed represent one of the principal devices used to encourage adoption of self‐assessment, total quality concepts, and external focus in four different continents. To spread good total quality practice the awards publicly recognize the achievements of the organizations which have successfully adopted the concepts of total quality management. The winners serve as useful role models for other organizations intent on adopting total quality management practices. The quality awards reviewed are arguably the premier award in their respective continents.