building quality strategy

7/27/2019 Building Quality Strategy

1/18

TQM & BUSINESS EXCELLENCE, VOL. 14, NO. 8, OCTOBER, 2003, 931946

Building quality strategy content using theprocess from national and internationalquality awards

G L . S 1 & R J. V 21 Department of Marketing, Management, and Business Administration, University of Houston Downtown, Houston, Texas, USA & 2Department of Finance, Econonics and Decision Sciences,Texas A&M UniversityCorpus Christi, Texas, USA

In pursuit of total quality management (TQM ), rms have used quality awards asmodels for strategic implementation of their quality initiatives. Many researchers have written about the process of implementing TQM, but few have discussed content. Content is dened as the substanceof TQM activities that have an impact on rm performance and the ability to compete. This paper o ff ers two propositions for implementing quality models and using them e ff ectively. The rst proposition proposes that national and international award cr iteria are evolving towards content considerations.The second proposition addresses ways in which the various award criteria link content with processin evaluating TQM as a strategic initiative. An analysis is provided of the national and international quality awards of the United States, Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia, which includes thesimilarities and di ff erences of their underlying quality principles, core values and evaluation criteria. As these awards are updated and improved, a trend towards a uniform global denition and a model of quality organizational performance is evolving. The awards are evolving to include strategiccontent that does not just blindly following a strategy process. The quality awards provide a foundation for assessing and encouraging total quality management in the global economy.

Introduction

With customers demanding quality and competitors responding to these demands, businesseshave emphasized customer focus while implementing total quality management (TQM) toenhance overall performance. In the pursuit of TQM, companies have used quality awardsas models for benchmarking, self-assessment and improvement (Powell, 1995). The Baldrigemodel specically provides categories of evaluation and benchmarking for organizations thatproactively seek examination and recognition (Evansy & Lindsay, 1996). Based on corequality values and subdivided into specic items to address, national awards such as theBaldrige Award encourage strategic initiatives in the approach and deployment of qualitypractices. The Baldrige Award, for example, emphasizes business results focused on continu-ous quality improvement. As with most successful quality initiatives, this award has undergone

Correspondence: G. L. Stading, Department of Marketing, Management, and Business Administration,University of HoustonDowntown, One Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002-1001, USA. E-mail:[email protected]

ISSN1478-3363 print/ISSN1478-3371online/03/080931-16 2003 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/1478336032000090851


2/18

932 G. L. STADING & R. J. VOKURKA

continuous improvements in its design and administration (Kolarik, 1995). Because of thestrategic nature of the Baldrige award, it can be used as a guide for rms not only interestedin applying for the award, but also for those interested in implementing total qualitymanagement initiatives (Powell, 1995).

Many authors (Banker et al ., 1993; Johnson, 1992; Waldman, 1994) write about theprocess of implementing TQM. Reed et al . (1996), argue that few write about content. Reedet al . (1996) de ne TQM content as the substance of TQM activities that have an impact onrm performance and/or the ability to compete. The end result of not including content inthe model leads to rms like Federal Express, a 1990 Baldrige Award winner, who experiencedrising quality but lower pro ts (Greising, 1994). One Baldrige Award winner, the WallaceCompany of Houston, led Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Hill, 1993). Reed et al . (1996) arguethat rms such as these focus on the how of TQM instead of the what . This relationshipis not being lost on the organizers of the Baldrige criteria. As Chang (1997) suggests, the

Baldrige Award criteria have evolved to progressively emphasize customer satisfaction andnancial performance. While the Baldrige and other similar international award criteria aregenerally accepted as process oriented, the evolution of the award criteria has brought contentrelevance in a synergistic fashion to these criteria.

Hofer & Schendel (1978) argue that separating strategy process from content improvesanalysis. Separation should not be done to emphasize one over the other, instead, processand content are separated to understand interrelationships. Reed et al . (1996) make thecogent argument that the TQM process is not a panacea. Implementing TQM by followinga model of the process may lead to reduced nancial performance, particularly if content isnot included. Powell (1995) supported this empirically by showing that TQM processimplementation does not automatically lead to improved nancial performance. Baldrigeaward organizers are striving continuously to increase the value of the TQM process byincreasing the weight of content in the performance evaluation. Financial and competitiveperformance is now a more important consideration in the award criteria.

Sanchez & McKinley (1995) argue that TQM utility depends on a di ff erentiationstrategy. TQM, if selectively applied and adapted to a given competitive environment, canbe a source of di ff erentiation from the competition in a global marketplace (Powell, 1995).Di ff erentiation is a type of a strategy which Porter (1980, 1985) argues can providecompetitive advantage. As Reed et al . (1996) establish, the process component of the TQMprocess is well documented, but it alone is not enough to be a source of di ff erentiation. As asource of competitive advantage however, Powell (1995) argues that despite these impressivedissemination apparatuses, competitive advantage is not just a matter of imitating thesemodels. This paper proposes that by linking content in these models, each model accountsfor the individualistic infrastructural factors leading to competitive advantage, and thecompanies taking advantage of these models will establish a true competitive advantage

leading to performance di ff erentiation.

Source of competitive advantage

The award criteria being developed by the United States, Canada, Europe and Australiarepresents a point of di ff erentiation. The award criteria are developed by industrial representa-tives and academics who have built a reputation in understanding the linkages between theprocess and content of TQM. It is not everyone who wins the awards, so winning the awardalone becomes a source of di ff erentiation. Beyond winning the award, the implementation of the award criteria establishes many of the relevant points in the TQM process for individual


3/18

BUILDING QUALITY STRATEGY CONTENT 933

rms. Since the evolution of the criteria has provided a link between process and content,the award criteria provides an individual rm with a model that is tailored to achieve marketdiff erentiation. Powell (1995) cites the Baldrige Award as one medium for disseminatingTQM, but he warns that simple imitation is not the answer. This means that individualorganizations cannot blindly apply the Baldrige criteria; they must judiciously tailor thecriteria to t their own individual situations.

Some companies implement a quality programme that meets the ISO 9000 standardsand they then believe they have achieved a TQM strategy (Kolarik, 1995). ISO 9000registration is a process by which a company proves it has a system of process qualitystandards veri ed through documentation. Therefore, by attaining ISO 9000 registration,some companies believe they have achieved TQM. This, unfortunately, may be a false senseof security. Evans & Lindsay (1996) warn that the more abbreviated the model, like an ISO9000 system standard registration, the less likely the model will be in successfully producing

market di ff erentiation or competitive advantage.While ISO 9000 might be considered by some managers as one mechanism for

disseminating a TQM strategy, the di ff erence between the ISO criteria and a TQM strategycan be thought of in terms of Terry Hill s (1989) order qualitying criteria and order winningcriteria. ISO 9000 is a registration that an organization may need just to be considered as asupplier to some organizations (an order quali er). This paper advances an argument that aTQM strategy supported with organizational and infrastructural advantages may provide theextra bene ts that gain customer loyalty and business (a order winner). Empirical studieshave begun to de ne the boundaries of how a TQM strategy can be used as a di ff erentiatorin the marketplace.

Terziovski et al . (1997) test organizational performance for an ISO 9000 implementationin and out of TQM environments. They conclude that ISO 9000 did not impact organizationalperformance either in or out of a strong TQM environment. ISO 9000 implementation isprimarily motivated by customer requirements. Its implementation is not a source of diff erentiation, but it must be done solely to qualify as a supplier. Another study (Powell,1995) supports TQM as a di ff erentiator with empirical evidence. Powell (1995) concludesthat companies implementing TQM outperform those that do not.

An explanation for the reason why ISO 9000 registration is an order quali er instead of an order winner is provided by Yung (1997). Yung (1997) argues that while ISO 9000focuses on customer requirements, documentation and procedures, TQM focuses on con-tinual product improvement, reduction in costs and defects, people involvement and leader-ship of top management. Both initiatives, ISO 9000 and TQM, build organizationalinfrastructure, but the ISO 9000 infrastructural systems are easily copied and duplicated bycompetitors. The infrastructure the TQM strategy builds, however, is di fficult to duplicate.The TQM infrastructural points of emphasis on leadership, involvement, cost reductions and

product improvement are the foundation for competitive advantage. This is the infrastructuralsystem that international bodies sponsoring award criteria are interested in motivating in theindustrial work place. These infrastructural points are the primary di ff erences betweenmodels formed from award criteria and those models formed from ISO 9000 criteria. Theinfrastructural considerations of TQM form the foundation for it as a di ff erentiation strategy(Powell, 1995).

In completing Hill s (1989) argument, however, order winning criteria do not precludeorder qualifying criteria but should include them. This point is supported by Kolarik (1995)where the argument is made that ISO 9000 registration should be logically incorporatedwhile striving to achieve a TQM initiative. The Baldrige model, Kolarik (1995) argues, is anaccurate measure of a TQM implementation because it serves as a structural guide and


4/18


evaluation basis for the implementation. ISO 9000 is only a partial model. The BaldrigeAward model has the focus of customer satisfaction and market place competition, whichprovides the di ff erentiation, and ISO 9000 with its system standardization is a natural stepalong the path to implementing TQM.

Many authors (Sanchez & McKinley, 1995; Reed et al ., 1996) argue against the blindimplementation of TQM. Heady & Smith (1995) argue that di ff erences exist in the applicationof the terms TQM and QM. In their empirical study, they found that TQM has a strongfocus toward top management perspective. This nding is consistent with the frameworkprovided by the Baldrige and other award criteria. Heady & Smith (1995) found Deming-type topics like barriers, fear, performance appraisals, are more topically oriented toward theQuality Management literature. The management and leadership emphasis of TQM providesa key component to competitive advantage. Mata et al . (1995) argue that this managementfactor is one of the most signi cant sources of competitive advantage a rm has available.

Authors arguing against blind implementation of TQM (Sanchez & McKinley, 1995;Reed et al ., 1996) hold that the success of TQM is a function of the external businessenvironment in which a rm is competing. Powell (1995) argues that careful internal andexternal self-assessments are required. Sanchez & McKinley (1995) argue that while manyrms view standards and product regulations as nancial, technical and political barriers intothe global marketplace, other organizations (those gaining competitive advantage) will makethose barriers strategically work in their own favour. This point can be extended to the awardprocesses and the implementation of TQM programmes. A rm has a choice; it can allow aTQM implementation to be a barrier of entry into global competition or it can use the TQMprogramme to be a source of competitive advantage. The barriers are monumental. Thetime, money and resources to plan against a Baldrige implementation can be overwhelming.The reward is that competitive advantage may be achieved.

Propositions

In using the award criteria as models to achieve competitive advantage, two propositions arerelevant. The rst proposition states that each of the award criteria are individually evolvingtowards content considerations. Each of the award committees understand that results needto be considered in the evaluation and are not simply a residual of implementing the processmodels. The content in these award models is an important consideration.

Proposition 1Linking process with content through award criteria will facilitate customer interaction,nancial performance and continuous improvement initiatives with improved customersatisfaction and business performance further building market di ff erentiation and competitiveadvantage.

This proposition encourages achievement of market di ff erentiation and competitiveadvantage through individual development of infrastructural systems. The award criteria arebuilt on common beliefs of a TQM strategy process. The international community is generallyevolving toward a common set of beliefs about the TQM process. This becomes a source of competitive advantage for individual rms competing in the global marketplace if content isconsidered and appropriately weighted. Proposition 2 speci cally addresses a way in whichthe various award criteria link content with process in evaluating TQM as a strategic initiative.


5/18


Proposition 2Strategy process and content cannot be separated, but instead must be linked to ensureindividual adaptation, market di ff erentiation, competitive advantage and rm success.

This proposition hypothesizes that the long-term success of the rm must include linkingstrategy process to strategy content. Competitive advantage is not likely to be achieved if oneis present without the other. Customer requirements and nancial performance of the rmcannot be disregarded if a TQM strategy is adopted. Similarly, a focus on the results withoutattention to the process or system implementation is not likely to result in competitiveadvantage. Therefore, process and content cannot be separated in these models.

Both of these propositions are evaluated by comparing and analysing the criteria fromve award models. The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award of the United States, theEuropean Quality Award, Japan s Deming Prize, the Canadian Quality Award and the

Australian Quality Award are examined to evaluate the assertions of these two propositions.

A brief description of the models

The quality awards analysed are the US Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, theEuropean Quality Award, the Japanese Deming Prize, the Canadian Quality Award and theAustralian Quality Award. These awards represent a signi cant amount of the world sproduction of goods and services. Collectively these awards account for approximately 74%of the world s Gross National Product (World Bank, 1998).

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (US)

On 20 August 1987, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Malcolm Baldrige NationalQuality Improvement Act of 1987. This Congressional Act was a national e ff ort by theUnited States Government to improve quality management practices and the competitivenessof US rms. From it, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award was created to promotequality awareness, understand the requirements for quality excellence, and share informationabout successful quality strategies and bene ts (Nakhai & Neves, 1997). The NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology (NIST, 1997) is the current administrator of theaward. The model is re ned annually with major improvements implemented every twoyears. Consequently, one objective of the Baldnge Award is to provide a model that showsunderstanding and improvement of quality management by continuously improving theaward criteria and process.

Striving to de ne quality performance, the NIST has developed a set of core principles

for quality management. These principles de ne the foundation on which the Baldrige modeland its criteria are built. The core principles include the following categories: customer-driven quality, leadership, continuous improvement and learning, valuing employees, fastresponse, design quality and prevention, a long-range view of the future, management byfact, partnership development, company responsibility and citizenship and results. Thecriteria are linked through a framework model as shown in Fig. 1.

From the award s core values, a framework for performance excellence has beendeveloped that is the basis of the award criteria. These criteria are used quantitatively toassess an applicant company s quality of performance. The model begins with leadership andstrategic planning. The model is in uenced by human resource and process managementconsiderations and is supported by information and analysis. A customer- and market-


6/18


Figure 1. Malcolm Baldrige Award Criteria Framework.

focused strategy are an umbrella covering for all of the elements providing the strategic

direction for the system.

European Quality Award

Recognizing the importance of quality performance to business survival and success, 14major European companies formed the European Foundation for Quality Management(EFQM) in 1988 with the endorsement of the European Commission (European Foundationfor Quality Management, 1997). Later, in 1991, the European Quality Award was developedto establish a quality model honouring outstanding European businesses. It is similar to theMalcolm Baldrige National Quality Award of the United States. Unlike the other awards,the European Quality Award is a regional award. A total of 16 countries are currently

participating in the European Quality Award programme. The countries included are Austria,.Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands,Norway, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Organizationsfrom one of these countries are eligible to apply for the award. The EFQM improves its ownquality model by continually analysing applicant feedback (European Foundation for QualityManagement, 1997). The European Quality Model is illustrated in Fig 2.

The European Quality Award model criteria are comprised of enablers and results .The quality improvement enablers include the following categories: leadership, peoplemanagement, policy and strategy, resources and processes. E ff ective implementation of theenablers impacts several result categories including people satisfaction, customer satisfaction,impact on society and business results.


7/18


Figure 2. European Quality Model.

Japanese Deming Prize

In 1951, the Deming Prize was established in Japan by the Union of Japanese Scientists andEngineers (Evans & Lindsay, 1996). It was named in honour of the American statisticianand innovator within the worldwide quality movement, W. Edwards Deming. Today, theDeming Prize awards private and public organizations for the successful implementation of quality control activities. Unlike other national or international quality awards, the DemingPrize does not provide a model framework for organizing and prioritizing criteria. Instead of a model of the criteria, the Deming Prize evaluation includes ten equally weighted checkpointson a list that each company applicant must address. The ten equally weighted checkpointson the list used to asses a company s quality performance include the following categories:policies, organization, information, standardization, human resources, quality assurance,maintenance, improvement, e ff ects and future plans. Members of the Union of JapaneseScientists and Engineers ( JUSE) evaluate this list to assess how the applicant performs. Panelmembers judge performance against this checklist based on their knowledge and experience.While a model, per se, is not provided from the Deming Prize criteria, its ten equally weightedcheckpoint categories emphasize values similar to the other award models.

Canadian Quality Award

In 1984, the Canadian Ministry of Industry introduced the Canada Awards for BusinessExcellence, which are presented for outstanding general business achievement. This award

was later re ned using the concept of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award to formthe Canadian Quality Award in 1989 (National Quality Institute of Canada, 1997). Canadaand its National Quality Institute (NQI) continue to reward the philosophy of continuousquality improvement; an applicant must demonstrate the implementation of this continuousimprovement philosophy to ultimately win the Canadian Quality Award.

Instead of a framework linking the criteria, the Canadian Quality Award has developeda path for continuous improvement entitled The Roadmap to Excellence . Figure 3 depictsthis model.

The roadmap is a process where a rm begins by reviewing the quality criteria andassessing where the rm is currently positioned. An improvement plan must be developed.The rm communicates its quality message with the improvement plan implementation. The


8/18


Figure 3. The roadmap to excellence.

implementation is monitored and updated as assessments are made. Gains need to bemaintained and the continuous improvement cycle continues.

Australian Quality Award

The Australian Quality Award provides a model certi ed by the Australian Quality Council(AQC). The AQC is an organization recognized by the Commonwealth Government of Australia as the top organization for quality management (Australian Quality Council, 1998).The AQC was formed in 1993 with the merger of four non-pro t organizations: Enterprise


9/18


10/18


11/18

Table 1. Continued

Malcolm Baldrige Award (US) European Quality Award Japanese Deming Prize Canadian Quality Award Austral

Criteria1. Leadership 1. Leadership 1. Policies (Hoshin) 1. Leadership 2. Strategic Planning 2. Policy and Strategy 2. Organization 2. Planning 23. Customer and Market 3. People Management 3. Information 3. Customer Focus P

Focus 4. Resources 4. Standardization 4. People Focus 4. Information and Analysis 5. Processes 5. Human Resources 5. Process Management 4. P5. Human Resource Focus 6. Customer Sati sfaction 6. Quality Assurance 6. Supplier Focus 5. Cu6. Process Manaement 7. People Satisfaction 7. Maintenance 7. Organizational Performance 6. Qu7. Business Results 8. Impact on Society 8. Improvement

9. Business Results 9. E ff ects 10. Future Plans


12/18


important aspects of the awards. Improving quality relies on increasing overall organizationalvalues to create the right performance for global customers. This results in less emphasis onquality control (Feigenbaum, 1998). Understanding this de nition of quality management isthe basis for the rede nition of core quality values within the award criteria. On the whole,these awards exemplify a focus on customer-driven quality that is achieved through theinfrastructural factors streamlining processes, designing product quality, instituting leader-ship, encouraging human resource development and following strategic directional plans.The customer focused aspects of the awards are more heavily weighted in the award criteriaused to evaluate quality award applicants. The award goals converge towards infrastructuralfactors as award developers seek a common de nition for quality performance.

While visionary goals and fundamental values of the awards are similar, approaches andde nitions vary for evaluating elements of quality. To evaluate the awards on this dimension,a generic set of common criteria is developed in Table 2. Table 2 shows how each award

de nes or approaches major areas of quality.The categories synthesized from the di ff erent national and international quality awards

are as follows: leadership, planning, customers, employees, processes, suppliers and results.For these seven areas, each of the award s basis for evaluating these categories is de ned inTable 2. The table suggests that all the awards encourage continuous improvement of leadership techniques, strategic plans, company processes and stakeholder relationshipsthrough the analysis and change of business results. Common to the awards is an emphasison constant analysis and continuous improvement.

The commonalities of the major national and international quality awards are summar-ized in Table 3. Table 3 shows the overlap of the awards criteria detailing the criteria of thenational and international quality awards being compared. The comparison demonstrates theinterrelationships among speci c items within the di ff erent award criteria.

This summary shows the commonality of the awards criteria. Compared to the BaldrigeAward, for instance, the Deming Prize places more emphasis on process control andimprovement and relatively little consideration for customer and market knowledge. TheCanadian Quality Award is less concerned with competitive information and success mea-sures, but it is more focused on continuous improvement. Although focused heavily onresults and other interests of the Baldrige model, the European Quality Award is di ff erentiatedfrom the Baldrige Award through its separate criteria category devoted to measuring acompany s impact on general society. Even though it is the most similar to the BaldrigeAward, the Australian Quality Award has an increased emphasis on the signi cance of multicultural management.

In addition to the emphasis of the award criteria, di ff erences also exist in the pointallocations placed on each criterion. Table 3 reveals the di ff erent percentage divisions foreach of the national quality awards discussed. The individual criteria of greatest weight

include business results for the Baldrige National Quality Award, customer satisfaction forthe European Quality Award, organizational performance for the Canadian Quality Award andpeople or process for the Australian Quality Award. The Deming Prize, however, is equallyweighted for all of its checkpoints. The European Quality Award places signi cant weightson the infrastructural factors of leadership, policy and strategy, people management,resources and processes. The European Quality Award also strongly considers customersatisfaction, people satisfaction, impact on society and business results. Based on these pointsof emphasis, the US, European and Canadian quality awards emphasize content more thanthe other two awards.


13/18


Table 2. Common generic de nition of criteria

MalcolmBaldrige Award European Japanese Canadian Australian(US) Quality Award Deming Prize Quality Award Quality Award

Leadership Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented Orientedtowards towards towards towards towardscompany and suppor t and policy and involvement and company andcommunity promotion of organization improvement communi tyleadership TQM leadership

Planning Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented Orientedtowards towards towards towards towardsdevelopment, pol icy and planning and development, pol icy anddeployment and development policy and deployment and integrationperformance quality control assessment

initiatives

Customers Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented Orientedtowards towards towards towards towardsmarket measurement of service activities customer needs, customer needrequi rements, customer and customer relationship awareness,customer satisfaction relationships management relationshipsrelationships and customer and satisfactionand satisfaction satisfaction

Employees Human resource Release of full Training and Human resource Peopledevelopment potential motivation of planning, management,and through people skilled labour par ticipation, involvement,par ticipator y management personnel learning and training ,environment improvement communication

and satisfaction

Processes Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented Orientedtowards towards towards towards towardsprocess design, identi cation, standardization, design, product design,implementation, management, assurance, control, analysis suppliermanagement review and maintenance, and change and relationships,and improvement and improvement andimprovement improvement improvement

Suppliers Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented Orientedtowards towards towards towards towardspar tnering , leadership training and par tnership, quality of evaluation and involvement and associations quality and relationshipsperformance management of improvement

supplier resource

Results Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented Orientedtowards towards towards towards towardscustomers, objective quality, deliver y, product, organizationalnancials, achievement, cost, pro t, operations, performance,human stakeholder safety and customers, shareholders,resources, sat isfaction, environmental employees and employees andsuppliers and nancial e ff ects nancials communityoperat ions success and

society


14/18


Table 3. Approximate percentage of emphasis from each award

Comparative Baldrige European Deming Canadian Australiancategory Award Quality Award Prize Quality Award Quality Award

Leadership 11% 10% 10% 10% 14%Strategic 8% 8% 10% 10% 8%Planning

Information 8% Imbedded 10% Imbedded 8%and Analysis Elsewhere Elsewhere

Impact on Imbedded 6% Imbedded Imbedded ImbeddedSociety Elsewhere Elsewhere Elsewhere Elsewhere

Human 10% 27% 20% 17% 20%Resources (3 categories) (2 categories)(People)

Customer 8% 20% Imbedded 17% 18%Focus Elsewhere

Process 10% 14% 40% 17% 20%Quality or (4 categories)Management

Supplier Imbedded Imbedded Imbedded 5% ImbeddedElsewhere Elsewhere Elsewhere Elsewhere

Business 45% 15% 10% 24% 12%Performance

Discussion and conclusionIn comparing the ve award programmes, the Baldrige Award, the European Quality Award,the Deming Award, the Canadian Quality Award and the Australian Quality Award, the rstproposition argues that emphasizing customer satisfaction and business results is importantto achieving competitive advantage. Therefore, a TQM process cannot be put in place devoidof evaluating results. The means may not lead to the desired end. The Baldrige Awardcriteria is a leading example of the importance of rating strategy content highly.

The Baldrige Award, when rst implemented, did not allocate substantial weight tobusiness results. Some award winners provided unfortunate examples of how the processdoes not necessarily lead to content when implementing a strategic initiative. The BaldrigeAward evolved to include content considerations. Business results and customer and marketfocus currently account for over 50% of the model weighting. Averaging the weightings of

the Baldrige Award, the Australian Award, the Canadian Award and the European Award,the emphasis of organizational performance and customer satisfaction is close to 40%.Behind the strength of these weights, the TQM models are currently emphasizing contentconsiderations.

The linkage between content and process is important. The second proposition arguesthat the process and content of the TQM need to be linked. Within the process of implementing a TQM strategy, individual infrastructural systems such as leadership, employeeinvolvement and product and process improvements lead to the success of the rms. Aprocess like this cannot simply be copied even when results are strongly linked to the process.Mata et al . (1995) argue that if a model such as this was easily duplicated, then competitiveadvantage would not be sustained. Competitive advantage, Mata et al . (1995) argue, is


15/18


16/18


G , D . (1994) Quality: how to make it pay, Business Week , 8 August, pp. 54 59.

H , R . (1993) When the going gets tough: a Baldrige Award winner on the line, The Executive , 7(3), pp. 75 79.H , T . (1989) Manufacturing Strategy (Homewood, IL, Richard D. Irwin).H , C .W . & S , D . (1978) Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts (St. Paul, MN, West Publishing

Company). J , H .T . (1992) Relevance Regained: From Top-down Control to Bottom-up Empowerment (New York, NY,

Free Press). J , J. (1993) Made in USA: a renaissance in quality, Harvard Business Review , pp. 42 50.K , W . J. (1995) Quality Concepts, Systems, Strategies, & Tools (New York, McGraw-Hill).M , F . J., F , W .L . & B , J.B . (1995) Information technology and sustained competitive advantage:

a resource-based analysis, MIS Quarterly , pp. 487 505.N , B . & N , J.S . (1997) The Deming, Baldrige and European Quality Awards, Quality Progress , 27,

pp. 33 37.N I S T (NIST) (1997) Malcolm Baldrige National Quality

Award 1998 Cr iteria for Performance Excellence (Gaithersburg, MD, NIST).N Q I C (NQI) (1997) The Roadmap to Excellence (National Quality Institute

of Canada, Etobicoke).P , M .E . (1980) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors (New York, The

Free Press).P , M .E . (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (New York, The

Free Press).P , T .C . (1995) Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study,

Strategic Management Journal , 16, pp. 15 37.R , R ., L , D . J. & M , J.C . (1996) Beyond process: TQM content and rm performance,

Academy of Management Review , 21(1), pp. 173 202.S , C .M . & M K , W . (1995) The e ff ect of product regulation on business global competitiveness:

a contingency approach, Management International Review , 35(4), pp. 293 305.T , M ., S , D . & D , D . (1997) The business value of quality management systems

certi cation. Evidence from Australia and New Zealand, Journal of Operations Management , 15, pp. 1 8.V , R . J., S , G .L . & B , J. (2000) A comparative analysis of national and regional quality

awards, Quality Progress , 33(8), pp. 41 49.

W , D .A . (1994) The contributions of total quality management to a theory of work performance, Academy of Management Review , 14, pp. 510 536.

W , M . (1986) The Deming Management Method (New York, Pedigree).W B (1998) World Development Indicators 1998 (VA, Herndon).Y , W .K .C . (1997) The values of TQM in the revised ISO 9000 quality system, International Journal of

Operations & Production Management , 17(2), pp. 221 230.


17/18


18/18

Copyright of Total Quality Management & Business Excellence is the property of Routledge and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

building quality strategy

Documents