Comparative Analysis: National and Regional Quality Awards
A Concise Summary of Malcolm and European Business Quality Awards
In the 1980s and early 1990s, United States companies fully embraced “total quality management” (TQM). They had experienced stiff competition from Japan industries which had discovered the value of the practice earlier in the 1950’s. Efforts were directed towards customers’ satisfaction. Firm operations shifted to initiatives that were strategic to the industry. Originally, they focused on a specific product. The United States invented its own award system referred to as the “Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award” that helps to monitor the quality production of organizations or industries (Vokerka et al, 2000). The United States government signed the quality award into law on the 20th of August, 1987 to demystify how serious the move was. Their main objective sections were critical strategic sharing, information sharing, quality excellence requirements identification, and awareness promotion.
The European award system is referred to as the “European Foundation for Quality Management” (EFQM). It was formed in 1988 and by 1991 it had developed into a fully-fledged body that honored European splendid businesses. Currently, the award is recognized in 16 countries across Europe. Its main agenda is to enhance business competitiveness through advocating for better management, leadership, strategic policies, as well as through proper resource utilization. Other quality award systems recognized globally include “Demise prize” of Japan, the quality award of Canada and quality award of Australia.
Critical Analysis of Award Systems
Japan was the first country to register more success in businesses after it discovered the power of producing quality products. It began honoring quality management practices of businesses within the scope of the nation back in the 1950s. Later on, the United States discovered the power of observing quality products and services produced in the late 1980s. Thus, businesses within the region began to adhere to a system of “Total Quality Management.” Managers sited improved performance as the possible reason that led them to adopt the new system of business management. In order to cement the system as one of the critical obligations that companies had to observe, a global organization created an awarding program. The system acted as a benchmark upon which companies could evaluate themselves based on many criteria.
Businesses were able to uphold best practices, improve their performances and assess themselves. Optimal observation of quality management has proved effective as it is evidenced that five main regions that observed it keenly gulped more than half of the “Gross National Product” globally. The United States, the European Union, Canada, Japan, and Australia are the main nations having introduced an advanced awarding system based on quality production. As a result, they have ended up sharing approximately seventy-four percent (74%) of the GNP in the world (Vokerka et al, 2000).
The United States has a unique awarding system referred to as the “Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.” The Awards are administered by the “National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST).” NIST developed its own framework to benchmark performances of American businesses. It identified leadership skills, design prevention and quality, future planning, citizenship and responsibility of the company, end results and customer satisfaction as the most significant values. An applicant’s performance was assessed based on seven categories that helped to provide strategic direction for the entire system. These categories were strategic planning, leadership, market and customer focus, focus on human resources, analysis of information, business and the overall management of the business process. The American award system has a major goal of foreseeing quality management improvement. The process is enhanced through improving the criterion for awarding business themselves.
“European Foundation for Quality Management, (EFQM)” is a business award system that is specifically designed for Europe. Some of the countries that conform to it include Russia, Slovenia, United Kingdom, Denmark among others. The award helps to oversee the implementation of effective ways of production of businesses within the European region. Some of the factors considered include customer satisfaction, business results, societal impact and people’s satisfaction in general. Feedback analysis, as well as the application of adjustments, are some of the ways that the model employs to keep itself updated.
Deming is the oldest of all award systems introduced in Japan. The main architects of this award system were the union of engineers and scientists from Japan and were given an acronym JUSE. However, the award was named after a statistician from American who later became the founder of quality management worldwide. Some of the key points it looks at are human resources, policy formulations, organization, quality assurance, standardization, future planning, effects, and improvements. Value is highly accentuated when it comes to making any judgment.
Canada established its own quality award system in 1984. The system was revised by the Canadian Ministry of Industrialization in 1989. The award was inaugurated as “Canada Awards for Business Excellence, (MBNQA).” An institution in charge of national quality took the mantle of honoring most improved organizations within the country. Canada uses different criteria to carry out the assessment which relies on an uninterrupted improvement channel referred to as “The Road map to Excellence.”
Quality production is highly valued in Australia and considered a method of enhancing product competence. The Australian council that is in charge of quality ratified a model for awarding exemplary business performers. The main objective is to enhance deployment and improved the development of a contemporary and a comprehensive body that has best practices and quality principles. It measures the performance of business quality based on seven criteria: analysis and information, strategic planning, policy, and people. Focus on customers is one of the key areas that are underscored by the quality assurance body. The model approaches its quality management decision through a multicultural system of significant management.
Identification of Pertinent Issues and Statements that Relate to the Study
The concept of “Total Quality Management” arose due to the continued increase in demand for quality products and assisted in overall performance enhancement.
Japan was the first country to adopt the system of controlling the quality of products in the 1950s. The system was introduced by an American person known as Deming. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the United States realized the power of controlling quality in influencing consumers’ buying patterns (Vokerka et al, 2000). Consequently, the concept was replicated in other countries. A total of sixteen countries across Europe merged to form an awarding system that was referred to as the “European Foundation for Quality Management, (EFQM).” Superior leadership and customer satisfaction were some of its desired end results. Canada was another country that came up with its own system of awarding businesses that were of exemplary performance. “Canadian Award for Business Excellence”, along with similar systems in other countries is designed to improve the quality of its businesses. Australian authorities had its own awarding system that was referred to as the “Australian Quality Award.” Its main agenda was to see the performance of businesses to improve through the improvement of product quality. Firms were ranked according to their capability to carry out their productivity efficiently. Strategic planning, analysis of information and better policy formulation were some of the criteria evaluated by the Awarding Committee.
Comparative analysis of these models portrays that the end results are similar; hence, it advocates for the achievement of the same objectives. These programs indicate a system where firms depict qualities that are customer-driven. All this is enabled by the capability of the award system of streamlining processes, designing, strategizing on better customer focusing methods, development of human resource and designing of products.
The bench of judges in these award systems evaluates businesses based on different criteria. The applicant’s code of conduct, model and criteria and programs are some of the ways through which the performance of benchmark firms is judged.
The four characteristics that must be exhibited through the assessment procedure are:
- Evaluation of various submissions that are made through examination and assessment.
- Non-partisan examiners are the ones who have the final word on the consensus score.
- Finalists who depict the highest score are awarded a visit to their site.
- Awarding of a company depends on the company’s capability to exemplify various procedures that are advocated in the model of this award itself. A firm to depict most of the critical criteria through demystifying both weight and intent that judges look for (Vokerka et al, 2000).
Community, customers and employees’ satisfaction are the three areas on which judgment criteria are based. However, the benchmarking procedure depends on the standards that the judges set. Nonetheless, these award systems have their own share of differences. MBNQA focuses its attention on improving business results. The European system accentuates on the better ways of reaching customer satisfaction. Canadian quality system surveillance pays more attention to the specific performance of the organization itself. The Australian award system is focused on the production process and care. Meanwhile, in the Japanese Deming system of awards, all critical business evaluation points are used.
Critical Analysis of the Passage Evaluation of the Awarding Systems in Question
Quality management of business operations is highly significant for the economic growth of any country. The creation of an awarding system as a way of enhancing quality production within a country acts as the main driver towards the attainment of a competitive business environment (Vokerka et al, 2000). Businesses and firms will struggle to operate within the set standards in order to gain nation-wide recognition for its exemplary performance. Therefore, awarding companies that exhibit exemplary business performance acts to the advantage of the concerned country. Nevertheless, it is not a guarantee that quality management will be enhanced through the introduction of an awarding system for businesses within a country.
“Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award” is a system that Americans awarding system that has been playing since 1988. Malcolm is a highly recommended method of quality control as it aims at improving the general performance and capability of a business. The award acts as a major facilitator of sharing as well as communicating the best practices among different organizations of the United States. Moreover, Malcolm acts as a performance management tool. Here, the award system acts an instrument for planning, assessment, and training.
According to Giuntsa et al (2011), Malcolm has been identified as a key pillar in enhancing the competence of human resource professionals’ development. The award has been identified as one of the key structures upon which the development of resource managers can be anchored. The majority of businesses have broadened their perception concerning how they viewed the management team. The resultant effect is that businesses have identified the Malcolm award system as one of the answers for professional competency. The majority of American businesses now accept that acumen, as advocated by Malcolm, is one of the best strategies for attaining goals. The award system uses the leadership of an organization and human resource development to benchmark the level of business competence. It is now apparent that managers’ contributions to an organization are highly valued in the contemporary business environment. It acts as a major driver in accelerating the rate of goal attainment. It is critical to note that value creation in business calls for enhanced development of human resources. These businesses observe Malcolm’s principles. Malcolm highly values customers’ orientation as well as advocating better leadership criterion. It states that the two criteria are highly vital for the development of human resources in its fight to achieve the goals of the organization (Giuntsa et al, 2011).
It is apparent that leadership and focus on the market and customers are among the topmost qualities that Malcolm looks for when assessing the human resource. Therefore, this perception led businesses to view employees who were categorized as a non-human resource from another perspective. Employees who are considered human resources to the business have started to regard customers as their co-partner in their business leadership. Currently, Malcolm awards have influenced the business’s programming of human resources such that the majority offers training sessions on the development of leadership. Therefore, businesses have resulted in viewing Malcolm’s leadership competence to be one of the most critical pillars that must be observed by human resources.
Malcolm’s awarding system cannot be said to be excellent in terms of enhancing the competence of American businesses. Initially, the award system was developed as a mechanism for enhancing business competence in the United States. Nonetheless, the same award has been associated with incompetence in enhancing the quality of businesses (Lee et al, 2006). On the other hand, imaging age referred to as e-global has given rise to another business form. This contemporary business mode is referred to as the business-web or the “value-network organization, (VNO)”. VNO has introduced a completely different scenario whereby businesses have taken a collaborative role. Members of the newly formed business organization possess the capability to contribute to the organizations’ value chain. VNO is advantageous since it suggests new speed and flexibility as the solution of catching up with the unstable environment. Consequently, a challenge arises when it comes to the application of quality management into the value chain. It becomes even more arduous when value chains that need to be developed through a strategy of unified quality of VNO go transversely of some national borders. During such instances, award systems such as Malcolm become a difficult option that can be employed to monitor such business operations.
The “European Foundation for Quality Management” is another agent of quality management that proves to be highly efficient in monitoring business in some European countries. EFQM award system assists organizations across Europe to enhance their growth. This is done through enhancement of satisfaction, improvement of employees and customers as well as improvement of business results. Additionally, the system is also advantageous in that it helps countries within the European region to achieve a competitive advantage at the global level (Calvo-Mora et al, 2005). According to Calvo-Mora et al (2005), the quality management model helps in business transformation in a more positive way. Additionally, the method has helped this business overcome various challenges that have remained chronic to various businesses across Europe. Indeed, the method proved to be highly effective in improving business conditions such that it was reassigned into the education field. The logic behind this transfer is that continuous changes taking place in the social and economic set up solely depends on education status modification. Spain was one of the countries that used the model to improve education quality in its Universities (Calvo-Mora et al, 2005). The first plan of this assessment took place in 1995 while the second occurred in 2002. EFQM model led to the emergence of an assessment guide that was three in number. They were referred o as ‘protocols’ that helped to modified research skills, improve university management quality, as well as improving the way lecturers deliver education information (Calvo-Mora et al, 2005).
However, EFQM is not completely effective in improving the economic situation of European countries. It has its own fair share of drawbacks since the model involves the evaluation of businesses across borders of various countries. The model is not confined to one country. According to Ruiz-Carrillo (2005), the EFQM model posses various demerits arising from differences in competitive advantage among various countries. For, instance, businesses in the UK will always have an upper hand as compared to the ones that are located in Belgium and Slovenia. The difference will always create a sense of inferiority to such countries. Consequently, the method acts to pull back such countries rather than a rejuvenating agent.
The Deming quality assessment model is highly critical in upgrading a business in Japan. It recognizes various businesses through the evaluation of various business models across the country. Deming price is one of the highly effective awards in the world today. According to Agarwal (2012), the award organizers enjoy live broadcasting twice in Japan. The two occasions represent two different award ceremonies, one is held for an individual while the other one caters for application purposes. Broadcasting of Deming awarding on national television across Japan republic depicts how critical the event means to the country. This illustrates how precious the award is due to the impact it has on various businesses in Japan. It helps to increase their effectiveness, hence, making them become more competitive. Furthermore, the Japanese government has to demonstrate how serious it values the operation of businesses within the nation by giving a stage to showcase their achievements.
However, Deming prize can act as a demoralizer to companies in Japan (Iaquinto et al, 1994). The award has already been associated with a winner curse. This is where human and financial costs outweigh any latent benefits associated with the award. For instance, “Florida Power& Lighting” incurred a lot of cost in its race to win the prize. Direct expenses reached $399,000 (Iaquinto et al, 1994). Additionally, the company incurred another $888,000 as consultation expenses on its consultations in Japan (Iaquinto et al, 1994). The total cost of the trip to Japan was $71,000 (Iaquinto et al, 1994). Comparing these expenses with the value of the award the company suffered a huge loss. Therefore, this means that the company needs to create a system whereby the competing firms need to be refunded their total expenses cost in order to make the award feasible.
Canada has its own award model that helps to monitor the progress of its businesses. The award model is highly valued due to its strong sense of encouragement in the adoption of principles, processes, and practices that are of good and high quality. The model helps to improve the responsiveness, efficiency, and profitability of organizations. Additionally, the awarding model aims at raising common Canadian living standards. The awarding system is efficient in raising the country’s competitiveness in the sense it had the capability of attracting over 400 business organizations across the country (Steven, 2011). The overall effect is that the country’s awarding system has transformed its economic status. Businesses have raised their efficiency, thus, making them become more competitive.
The quality awarding system of Australia is highly significant in the economic development of the country (Chan, 2012). It is through these quality awards that organizations are streamlined towards achieving the best practices of quality control. The award helps the country create wealth on a national basis. Apart from that, it helps to boost the image of the quality control council of Australia as the best among the commonwealth countries. Australian awarding system has become one of the most competent in the world. At least a fifth of the businesses whose workers are involved in the competition is covered by the award. This helps to increase the efficiency of workers, consequently, increasing their productivity. The country introduced a more modern and streamlined awarding system. This can be attributed to continued improvement in the state of business in Australia. On the other hand, the awarding system can be said to be ineffective in the sense that it led to a lot of rivalry among companies. Furthermore, a company may be efficient in the aspects different from those considered.
Feasible Ways through Which the Quality Awarding System Can Be Used to Measure Quality of Businesses
Different awarding systems act as motivators for businesses of the respective countries. Thus, the process becomes one of the best strategies through which a country can see its economic growth to increase Countries whose awarding systems are strong have witnessed a strong commitment of their business in terms of productivity. This means that quality control through awarding of the best-performing companies can be of some assistance in the process of quality measurement. The quality measurement process is a technique based on a set of activities that help in measuring business performance. It is used on an ongoing basis whereby performance is based on meeting customers’ needs. It values more customers’ perception and the extent to which they feel valued.
Various awarding systems of different countries can be highly applicable in the process of quality delivery and measuring of different businesses. (Fritz, 1993). Customers should have the mandate to judge the performance and quality of service delivery. In this regard, personal as well as organizational learning is highly critical. A successful company has to put partners and employees at the core of its operations. The concerned company should take social cooperate responsibility. Therefore, in the process of measuring the quality of a company the USA should set an assessment guideline based on qualities that the awarding committee looks for. According to Burli (2012), quality awards can be used as a benchmark for measuring significant drivers of business success. Measurement of people’s management can be used to assess the quality of human resource practice that a firm puts in place. Commitment to better leadership can be used to measure the amount of experience that a person employs within an organization or a business. Consideration of services that the administration of business offers paved the way for depicting qualities of this sector. For instance, the manager can be able to measure or to assess various criteria of the administration competence such as the education level of the staff. Moreover, assessment of administration services can be used to measure the level of competence of each and every staff member.
Education level is another criterion that is greatly considered in the awarding process. This criterion can be used to measure how well employees acquitted to their area of work. As a result, it will become easy for the management team to estimate the level of productivity of each task performed (Chaldler, 1990). Management of infrastructure is another major area that the awarding team assesses before it comes to its final conclusion. It means that the quality of management of infrastructure rendered measures the competency of these infrastructures in relation to others. The criteria used by these rewarding teams can be used by the management team to provide strategic policy formulation. The majority of these rewarding bodies use the same information that is essential for the policy formulator of a business.
The European award system can be used to measure the quality of customer satisfaction, level of partnership in its supply chains among other things. Japanese Deming Prize can be useful in assessing the level of commitment for the enhancement of Japanese businesses. It can be used to assess the constant improvement of these businesses. Canadian awarding system can be used to assess the level of employee welfare enhancement by their employers. The Australian system, on the other hand, can be used to assess the level of satisfaction of customers and the quality of businesses in general.
“Total quality management, (TQM)” in a nutshell entails all efforts aimed at enhancing efficiency in the production of a country’s businesses. According to Ho (2011), TQM calls for advocates for customers’ satisfaction, commitment to leadership, teamwork, organizational culture, and IS management and development. During the early 1990s, the majority of firms saw the need to incorporate information systems as a way of addressing the quality satisfaction problems to consumers (Ho, 2011). Therefore, the scenario means that any awarding system will have to incorporate all the steps that business is supposed to observe in order to become efficient. This will depict the awarding system as a critical tool that can be used by a business analyst to estimate the level of quality delivery. For instance, a business that does not incorporate a full information system in its production process can be said to be inefficient especially in the contemporary world. Therefore, the outline of quality assessment tools of a business depicts it as a critical tool that can be used in the quality evaluation process (Moorhead and, Griffin, 1998).
Learning Reflections from Analysis of the Article
Quality management of the business is a vital element that each and every country requires in order to realize positive economic growth. It enhances the process and level of quality of service delivery. Quality management refers to additional services that a business offers to its stakeholders as well as benefits that it passes to its surroundings (Fisher et al, 2006). However, it has to be noted that these services are costly, though they help to increase the efficiency of the business’s performance. Apart from this, they also help boost the image of the company, increasing customers’ loyalty, and hence, the business status rises. However, the respective government plays a critical role in ensuring that each business abides by the virtual rule of rendering quality services to their consumers. The Japanese government is a good example of the body that helped its businesses uphold effectiveness in their production. They strategized on an awarding system that helped its overall business to improve collectively since the award system acts as a motivating factor to businesses. For instance, winning of a Malcolm price by any United States Company will help boost its image nationally.
According to Andrasova et. al. (2011), various companies use the awarding system, EFQM, as a strategic way of developing their employees’ competence. Award systems help companies improve their employee’s welfare beyond what the legal obliges them to deliver. The system plays a highly critical role in helping the business attain sustainable development. For instance, European countries use EFQM to set long-term strategic plans that secure the sustainable development of their businesses (Andrasova et al, 2011). Here, the companies must integrate various life aspects that will help boost their quality delivery in order to conform to the requirements of the award system. These include social, cultural, institutional, environmental, and economic facets.
Businesses may attain sustainable development in three ways. Social, economic and environmental pillars form the majority of ways that businesses seek to conform to the requirements of EFQM in the efforts of trying to earn recognition from the awarding team. Companies are able to act responsibly in the social corporate world. They are presented with a new societal obligation apart from the aim of making more profit. More focus is directed towards ethical awareness by taking care of the environment. Thus, the business award system acts as a significant ingredient in enabling better business performance. Businesses strive to gain recognition from the relevant awarding authorities, and for this reason, the process results in being efficient in production. Businesses have to observe their code of production in diverse ways such as their customer satisfaction and social responsibility, in addition to its original goal of making a profit. In conclusion, a country is able to transform the status of its businesses through the use of a single stroke, awarding them.