Search results

Through the analysis of a crucial period of the history of quality in Europe – the creation of the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) and the development of the European Quality Award – the author, who was a protagonist of the narrated events, aims to reveal some historical aspects that are generally ignored and that should explain some of the peculiarities of the award model. Taking stock of the present situation, some directions taken in the TQM/Excellence Model's development and use are questioned, and the author reasserts his views on the whole matter.

For the historical part the author has based his research on public documents, EFQM Newsletters and internal documentation and personal correspondence with the protagonists of the events that are mentioned. The author will be glad to share with students who want to conduct research in this area his personal records. The following discussion is mostly based on the author's findings and experiences, compared with the most common practices.

Since the purpose of the paper is to tell a story which the author was a protagonist of, to derive from it some lessons that are important for the future, the first part of the paper is dedicated to narrating those aspect of the European Quality Award Model's development that are crucial to understanding why such a model, initially developed following the Malcolm Baldrige Award scheme, suddenly changed dramatically. In this part the author relates some personal anecdotes to make the story more alive and complete. The second part of the paper presents the author's views on organisational improvement models and self‐assessment and explains why he believes that the present course should be changed, if the risk of negative impacts on quality development is to be avoided.

The paper tells a story of an out of the box approach that strongly affected the development of the European Quality Award Model, now the EFQM Excellence Model; and explains why, in the author's view, further innovation is needed in quality management, if we really want to pursue continuous organisational improvement.

The purpose of this paper is to summarize a series of studies conducted by the Center for Organizational Development and Leadership at Rutgers University from 2003‐2005. Motivating these studies is the recognition that organizational self‐assessment programs such as the Malcolm Baldrige program have achieved prominence and popularity. The paper seeks to focus on the value of the Baldrige program, and, more specifically, the impact of the Excellence in Higher Education (EHE) approach, an adaptation of the Malcolm Baldrige framework tailored specifically for colleges and universities.

This paper reports on a two‐phase investigation of six independent university departments that participated in separate Baldrige/EHE assessment workshops. Through a web‐based survey and in‐person interviews we were interested to discover participants' perceptions of the assessment process, the extent of knowledge acquisition, and extent of organizational change.

Findings suggest that self‐assessment does result in the acquisition of a knowledge and theory base; and leads to the identification of strengths and improvement needs. Results also indicate that in a majority of the departments, the assessment program initiated a genuine commitment to organizational change, one that led to a number of tangible improvements.

Enhancing our understanding of the relationship between knowledge acquisition and change is one of the most fundamental and enduring pursuits of social science – one that is absolutely central to organizational development. This study provides an empirical investigation of how these dynamics operate during organizational self‐assessment, an increasingly popular leadership tool for advancing institutions of all kinds.

The purpose of this paper is to overcome evaluative limitations of previous studies to provide a more decisive test of the causal relationships implied in the Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence (CPE) using a unique data source.

The authors employ partial least squares path modeling on blinded scoring data from Baldrige Award applicants. In addition, the authors conduct multi-group analysis to examine whether the hypothesized causal model is universal across different industry sectors.

The path analysis provided strong support for the CPE framework in its entirety. However, analysis of sector-specific subsets of the data did not confirm all relationships, suggesting the possibility of industry-dependent performance excellence frameworks and raising new research questions to be explored.

This research offers several pertinent implications for managers who seek to translate the theoretical CPE framework to actionable quality-improvement efforts.

CPE operationalizes many total quality management (TQM) concepts and provides guidelines to TQM programs. This study validates the CPE framework using the most relevant data set to date – the applicant scoring data. The authors are also the first to investigate the cross-industry differences in the relationships between the CPE constructs.

This paper aims to contribute to the debate on business excellence by comparing the business excellence models of Malcolm Baldrige, European Foundation for Quality Management and Swedish Institute for Quality. By assessing these in relation to today’s new business landscape, the authors suggest that emphasising issues such as stakeholder co-creation of value, stakeholder dialogue, service innovation, service logic, business ethics and different views on resource integration can alter the view of quality improvement from economic, social and environmental perspectives, in turn, leading to Business Excellence 2.0.

This study examines three business excellence models and compares their adoption of the concepts of today’s new business landscape. The study focuses on whether the models’ fundamental principles and concepts are aligned with the views on sustainability, stakeholder co-creation and service innovation.

The examined business excellence models do not fully respond to the requirements of today’s business landscape. To gain relevance in the private sector, the fundamental ideas of the models in terms of concepts, criteria and evaluation processes must be rethought. Such an opportunity enables the quality movement and service logic research to come together to develop new business excellence models that incorporate the challenges of today’s business landscape.

This paper illustrates the need to develop business excellence models to address the perspectives of today’s new business landscape.

By incorporating strategies in sustainability, stakeholder co-creation and service innovation in business excellence models, organisations can deliver sustainable business growth.

The paper sheds new light on how business excellence models can incorporate aspects of the new business landscape. It also shows how the quality movement and the ongoing service logic research can come together to develop a new business excellence model that addresses the challenges in the new business landscape.

This research deals with the determination of 25 key assessment questions (KAQ) from the Baldrige criteria. It first investigates the performance of all the examination questions through real world applications. The 25 KAQs are then selected based the level of correlation between each of the questions and the overall assessment results. A set of field data are used for validating the key assessment questions in a statistical framework.

The purpose of this study is to find out the reasons why companies achieve different results in following different business excellence (BE) models. This has been done using a case study method, selecting to illustrate the actions taken and the results achieved by two role model companies, one following the Malcolm Baldrige model (MBM) and the other following the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) model.

The research design adopted is as follows: examine the literature of Total Quality Management (TQM) and BE, with specific reference to practices and happenings in Indian industry, to identify the key themes; analyse the research questions RQ1and RQ2 as mentioned above, using the learnings from the literature survey in a qualitative way. The analysis is done using chronological developments in TQM, BE and linking them with the happenings in Indian industry in a cause–effect way; develop a “source to sink” framework to track the various actions implemented by companies to drive BE in their quest to performance excellence, and to analyse the root causes for the success of the actions; illustrate the conclusions through two case studies, of two different companies from India, on the varied results achieved from following two different BE models, one, the MBM by Tata Steel, and, two, the EFQM by BHEL, both award-winning companies, for instilling “excellence” in performance; and develop a model to correlate the observations from the companies using two constructs, identifying latent variables and actions that have been taken to address the outcomes of the variables.

The findings show that the actions taken by the companies are different, under the two models. The reasons for these different actions have been described, and the impact of these on the latent variables and outcomes have been tracked. There are six reasons why the results are different.

The study has highlighted the efforts by two role model companies. These are “comparisons of the best in the business” in their respective industries. However, one needs more studies to verify and establish whether the six reasons described are the ones which are most impactful. More companies need to be studied, and, based on the outcomes, one can establish the “best choice of the BE model” for Indian companies.

The results of the study show that using different BE models can affect the results. A non-optimal choice may lead to longer time and lower results.

Excellent companies are sustainable, which means that they eliminate waste, operate in an environmentally friendly manner and address social issues. Speedily achieving excellence can lead to faster use of sustainable operations.

The work is original in the following ways: data collection through assessment teams; experience through personal engagement; identifying six reasons and two constructs which could lead to different results.

The purpose of this paper is to present a comparative analysis and usage overview of the most common business excellence models: the European Foundation for Quality Management Model, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Model, the Deming Prize Model and the Iberoamerican Model for Excellence in Management.

In order to achieve such goals, the authors have performed a set of statistical analysis over public data sets, related to each one of the analyzed models, as well as making a comparative analysis of the model contents.

The different business excellence models do share a similar set of principles and criteria. However, different adoption patterns have been found across regions of the globe, regarding the use of such business excellence models over the last decades.

As far as the authors were able to find out, based on the literature review carried out, this is the first time that a set of statistical data results, related to the worldwide implementation of business excellence models, is being presented for publication.

The paper aims to present a review and comparison of the Russian Federation Government Quality Award (RFGQA) with the three major business excellence models, Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA), European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Award and Deming Prize.

The paper briefly reviews the RFGQA through a desk-top research method. Then, it adapts the comparative approach used in a similar study by Vokurka et al. (2000). Thus, the comparative analysis consisted in contrasting two characteristics of the RFGQA with those of the MBNQA, EFQM Award and Deming Prize, namely, award descriptors (i.e. objectives and criteria) and emphasis placed on excellence criteria (i.e. weighting). The study also includes a mapping assessment to explore up to what extent the RFGQA addresses the criteria of the major models.

Although the RFGQA was designed based on the concept and structure of the EFQM model, the results of the study indicate that there are still differences among them, especially in terms of internal business processes. RFGQA finds more differences with the MBNQA and Deming Prize excellence models than with the EFQM.

This research would benefit organisations and managers in Russia, as they will be able to acquire a deeper knowledge on the RFGQA. This may facilitate its awareness and implementation.

The paper expands the current knowledge in the area of quality management and models for business excellence, as it is among the very first investigations to have studied the RFGQA model.

Describes the aims, reasons for development, key features, and uniqueness of an online benchmarking and performance improvement resource. The paper begins by describing the historical context within which the Web site has been developed. It describes the growth in the use of business excellence, benchmarking and performance measurement, and how these improvement approaches are related to each other. The Web site’s uniqueness stems from how information within the resource is categorised by the Malcolm Baldrige Model and the European Business Excellence Model, the collection and linking of thousands of snippets of information from case studies and articles relating to best practices and benchmarking studies, the provision of a comprehensive list of performance measures and improvement techniques, and the way that the site has been designed based on the concept of benchmarking. An explanation of how the resource might be used to support an organisation’s benchmarking process is provided. The paper concludes by presenting the positive feedback obtained from an industry review of the Web site’s key features. The Web site aims to be launched by October 2001.

First of a two‐part series. Examines current schemes for self‐assessment and their limitations. Proposes a new method of measuring organisational excellence and continous improvement. Suggests what is needed is an “assessment model” of the company′s quality goals and results, created and analysed through surveys and measurement.