self-assessment using the business excellence model: a ...directory.umm.ac.id/data...

*Corresponding author. Manchester School of Management,UMIST, P.O. Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK.

Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254

Self-assessment using the business excellence model:A study of practice and process

L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale*

Manchester School of Management, UMIST, P.O. Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK

Received 7 December 1998; accepted 17 November 1999

Abstract

This paper reports a study of self-assessment practices in 10 organisations. The research was carried out bysemi-structured interviews directed towards a range of issues related to the process, practice and management ofself-assessment. Amongst the "ndings are that organisations are becoming more aware of the role of self-assessment inin#uencing strategy and are including the outputs of self-assessment in their business planning process, and self-assessment is seen as making the organisation a more viable commodity. It was also found that the potential ofself-assessment for analysing organisational performance and identifying areas for improvement is underestimated bymanagers. On the other hand, it is pointed out that the increasing commercial aspects of self-assessment and the QualityAward process is diluting their e!ects. Based on the "ndings, two matrices have been developed which de"ne theorganisational and TQM related characteristics that an organisation should exhibit before adopting a particularapproach to self-assessment. ( 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Self-assessment; Business excellence; Quality awards; Total quality management

1. Introduction

If a process of continuous improvement is to besustained and its pace increased it is essential thatan organisation monitors, using an appropriateperformance measurement system, on a regularbasis what activities are going well, which havestagnated, what needs to be improved and what ismissing. Self-assessment against the EuropeanFoundation for Quality Management (EFQM)Business Excellence Model [1] provides this type of

framework and is being given a considerableamount of attention by European organisations.There are many de"nitions of self-assessment pro-vided by writers such as Conti [2] and Hillman [3]but an all-embracing de"nition is provided by theEFQM [4]:

Self-assessment is a comprehensive, systematicand regular review of an organisation's activitiesand results against a model of business excel-lence.The self-assessment process allows the organisa-tion to discern clearly its strengths and areas inwhich improvements can be made and culmi-nates in planned improvement actions which aremonitored for progress.

0925-5273/00/$ - see front matter ( 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 9 2 5 - 5 2 7 3 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 3 0 - 9

Self-assessment implies the use of a model onwhich to base the evaluation and diagnostics. Inaddition to the EFQM model there are a number ofinternationally recognised models, the two beingthe Deming Application Prize in Japan and theMalcolm Baldrige National Quality Award(MBNQA) in the USA. Although there are somedi!erences between the models, they have a numberof common elements as themes.

Since the mid-1990s the topic of quality awardsand self-assessment has received considerable at-tention from researchers and is well de"ned in theliterature (e.g. [2,5}7]). However, the majority ofthe academic literature has concentrated on themodels and comparison of their criteria, and therelationship between award winners and businessresults, see [8}13].

The "rst major research work in Europe wasconducted by co-operation between six EuropeanUniversities and reported by Van der Wiele[14,15]. Other key pieces of work are Bemowskiand Stratton [16], Coulambidou and Dale [17],Gadd et al. [18], Teo and Dale [19], Van der Wieleet al. [20], and Voss and Blackmon [21]. One of themajor "ndings from these individual pieces ofresearch is that self-assessment against a BusinessExcellence Model such as those mentioned above isbecoming increasingly recognised as an e!ectivebusiness performance management system. Van derWiele et al. [20] emphasises this point by claimingthat if the self-assessment process is not linked withthe business cycles of strategic planning, policy,deployment, human resources systems, budgetdecisions, etc., then it will never become a "t withthe day-to-day fabric of management activities.

It is clear from the literature that a number oforganisations have adopted self-assessmentbecause it was seen as the thing to do. They havenot recognised fully the complexity of the processand the organisational changes needed to ensure itis e!ective. In these organisations it is likely thatthere will be a lack of motivation, resistance and theimprovements will lack impact and eventually self-assessment will "zzle out. There is a limited amountof empirical data on the self-assessment processwith respect to issues such as: selecting theassessment approach to re#ect di!erent levelsof organisational TQM maturity; the management

planning and resourcing of the process; integratingthe outputs from self-assessment with the businessplanning process and the policy deployment activ-ity; and the negative aspects of self-assessment andhow to overcome them. The purpose of the studyreported in this paper was to explore the self-assess-ment process of a range of organisations witha view to providing a greater understanding ofthese types of issues.

The research has been carried out in 10 organisa-tions using semi-structured interviews, supportedby analysis of secondary data; details of the organ-isations are given in Table 1. The companiesselected for study were identi"ed by the GroupBusiness Quality Director of the organisationsponsoring the research. The primary sources heused were through contacts with the British Qual-ity Foundation (BQF) and various committee workassociated with the Business Excellence Model(BEM). All the organisations had implementedTQM and would achieve scores of 400 points orabove against the BEM criteria. A total of 25 inter-views were carried out across the 10 organisationsprobing issues relevant to the self-assessment pro-cess such as: approach used; ease of implementa-tion; resources, management and time involved;preparation for self-assessment; motivationalissues; bene"ts/criticisms of self-assessment; and di-rect and indirect e!ects of the process. Each inter-view lasted for up to 3 hours and was interactive,#exible and allowed in-depth discussion and pro-bing of the above type of issues. Attention was paidto veri"cation of information obtained by cross-checking using data question sets. The objective ofthe study was to develop a model to align organisa-tions with speci"c methods of self-assessment inrelation to their level of TQM maturity.

2. Self assessment practices and processes

Table 1 provides an overview of the previous andcurrent self-assessment practices used by the organ-isations studied. It can be seen that there have beena plethora of approaches used by the 10 organisa-tions studied; some which can be used on their ownwhilst others, namely, pro formas and the A3 matrix,are usually introduced as part of a workshop

242 L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254

Table 1Self-assessment practices!

Company Size Start ofself-assessment(SA)

Approachusedcurrent

Approachusedprevious

Use ofexternalresources

Integration ofS/A intobusiness plan

Length ofS/A process(months)

A 1578 1996/7 5 1 Yes Yes 9}12B 780 1996/7 9 1, 3, 12 Yes Yes 3C 3500 1997 5 4, 8 No Yes 3D 3000 1993/4 5 3, 4 Yes Yes 2/3E 2200 1996 6 1, 2, 3, 8, 11 No Yes 1}3F 101 1995 6 5 Yes Yes 1G 2459 1993 6 1, 3 No Yes 3H 7500 1993 5 1 Yes Yes 1J 12000 1995/6 13 1, 5, 7, 9, 13 Yes Partially 2K 20000 1992 1, 10, 12 1, 3, 4, 11 No No 2

!Approaches to self-assessment } legend:1. Workshop2. Pro formas3. Questionnaires4. A3 matrix } perception based5. Award simulation6. Award submission7. Blue/Green cards8. Excellence North West questionnaire9. Business Driver

10. Report11. Option Finder12. Assess questionnaire13. Others (adaptations of model, e.g. British Gas Matrix Approach).

method. A study of the literature revealed therewere 13 claimed approaches, these can readily begrouped into three broad categories: award basedapproaches, questionnaires and workshops. A briefsummary of these three approaches are given inAppendix A; these methods are outlined in detail inthe EFQM's Self-Assessment Guidelines for Com-panies [1]. All organisations conducting self-assess-ment have at one stage or another implemented atleast one approach or more. It is usually the deci-sion of the organisation itself to determine whichapproach to start with. Some prefer to `jump in thedeep enda and launch straight into a full awardsimulation exercise (having probably conductedself-assessment workshops for educational pur-poses) * Company A. Others choose to adopta more incremental approach, by using question-naire-based activities such as The Business Driveror Rapid Assess (e.g. Company B). The organisa-

tions more developed in self-assessment haveexperienced a number of approaches as demon-strated by companies J and K. It can be seen thatthe organisations employing a range of approachesare those with higher sta$ng levels. The exceptionto this is Company E which has used and is usinga number of di!erent approaches, not synonymouswith their level of sta! and self-assessment experi-ence. This is due to increased activity within thisarea and the fact that the company has becomeprivatised, and as such is amidst competition fornew markets and customers. Company E perceivesthat self-assessment against the BEM will providea competitive edge for them and an indication ofareas for improvement to be acted upon for theimmediate future.

Some approaches were common to most of theorganisations examined, for example, the use of theA3 matrix, workshops and questionnaire. Most of

L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254 243

the organisations had moved from employinga simple approach to a more technical one.The organisations were divided on the use of ex-ternal resources, some saying that they had in-volved consultants in either co-ordinating theirassessment or in preparing for it, whilst othershad not and did foresee this in the future. Themajority of organisations will defect to what theyperceive to be superior knowledge, and money wellspent `in the long runa when approaching a newsubject area, and thus purchase the services of con-sultants. For some this is probably a necessarystep to provide guidance in order to steer manage-ment in the right direction but for others it ispossibly a form of escapism, from full emersion inthe process.

The ultimate objective of management is tointroduce new measures into the company cultureand blend them in with a minimum of e!ort. Thesame can be said of self-assessment, and its ac-knowledgement as one of the key inputs into thebusiness planning process. Organisations haverealised this and are encouraging the use of self-assessment "ndings in directing future businessplans. This is evident in the results, with 8 of the 10organisations stating that their self-assessmentresults were integrated fully into their businessplanning processes; Company J stated that this wasnot the case throughout the whole company, butwas becoming so.

The length of the actual co-ordination of theself-assessment process was another area for dis-agreement with wide-ranging and very di!erentopinions, even within business units of the sameorganisation. On examining Table 1 the consensualopinion was that the process could be carried out inapproximately 3 months, however there were somemanagers who believed the whole process could bedone in one month. There was a degree of initialconfusion as to how to measure the duration of theprocess, this being the start of the process by identi-fying leaders, teams and strategy through to theidenti"cation of improvement areas and actionplans. All the organisations were given the samecriteria for this so that their responses would re#ectthese areas of activity. The largest process was thatundertaken by Company A (9 to 12 months) andthe shortest by Companies F and H (1 month).

3. Interpretation of business excellence

Within the companies studied business excel-lence is perceived as being a measure of `how goodwe area and a means by which `business can moveforwarda. It was also seen as addressing the needsof both stakeholders and internal customers, andallowing the business to meet set goals and objec-tives. Business excellence is considered to bea long-term process, concerned with key strategicissues such as developing core functional processes,to be the best, to get people performing better, andto develop a quality framework in order to provideexcellent customer service. The end product of busi-ness excellence is to instil best practice within anorganisation in order to support its values andstrategic objectives, meet stakeholders expecta-tions, and maintain and exceed its competitiveposition.

Rather surprisingly only one manager (CompanyA) related the concept of business excellence toTQM, believing one to be an `extensiona of theother, although managers from other organisationsdid comment on the `holistica nature of the BEM.Self-assessment should be used by an organisationin conjunction with, and supported by other toolsand techniques; this point was not raised by any ofthose interviewed.

4. Measuring the success of the self-assessmentprocess

The evidence from the interviews indicates thatthe actual measurement of the self-assessment out-puts has always been problematic, and for somethis was a di$cult area to provide a conciseresponse. The views were diversi"ed, however,there was consensual agreement that the self-assess-ment process was successful if the outputs, that isthe feedback retrieved, were used in developingstrategy and this was also seen as one of the pri-mary indicators of success.

There was clear emphasis that success need notbe based solely on the end product (i.e. improve-ments in services, products or processes). It wasalso demonstrated by the actual assimilation of theprocess into the organisation, why it was adopted


and who was actually using it. It was factors such asthese that encouraged the uptake of self-assessmentpractices and ensured that they were done e$cient-ly and thereby ensure `successa.

There were managers who suggested that a suc-cessful self-assessment process was one thatproduced higher scores for the organisation. Foranother manager the success of the process couldbe seen by the public image of the organisation.Necessary criteria for a successful self-assessmentprocess according to the "ndings include:

f gaining commitment and support from all levelsof sta!,

f action being taken from previous self-assessments,f awareness of the use of BEM as a measurement

tool,f incorporation of self-assessment into the busi-

ness planning process,f not allowing the process to be `added ona to

employees existing workload,f developing a framework for performance

monitoring.

5. Objectives of self-assessment

Self-assessment is carried out in organisations fora number of reasons, for example, changes in theinternal and external environment, changes inleadership and direction, a need to develop quality-based procedures, or as part of a continuous im-provement strategy. An organisation needs to ques-tion why it employs self-assessment, what are thegains, and are they being realistic in their expecta-tions of its output.

One of the outputs of the self-assessment processits impact on the culture of an organisation, inmaking it more cohesive; co-ordinating a jointworking project, involving teamwork, maximumutilisation of resources, working towards a uniformgoal and generally making a more productiveworking unit. The general consensus from theorganisations studied was that self-assessment doeshave a positive e!ect on the corporate culture. Theimpacts, as stated by the management of CompanyD, were localised, relating to meeting customersneeds, making information more readily available

to both customers and suppliers, and maintainingrelations between management and unions.

Some degree of thought was needed in relation toco-ordination of the self-assessment process in or-der to encourage continuous improvement andfacilitate cultural change. One obvious di!erencebetween the internal business functions and ex-ternal organisation was the scale of thinking in-volved. Action concerning self-assessment wasgenerally carried out on a `larger scalea, that is,within those areas which impacted on the overallcompany direction and purpose. An example of thiscould be seen by the admission of one managerinterviewed (Company J) who stated `that self-assessment was employed in order to drive theorganisation to world-class excellencea.

Within Companies A to D there were certainfactors that a!ected the initial introduction of self-assessment practices. These included, attempting toimprove the continuous improvement process,keeping up-to-date with other departments' pro-gress, and managers recognising the bene"ts andmerits of self-assessment, and therefore `bringing iton boarda. Such factors were reiterated by the otherorganisations examined, however Company E men-tioned that factors contributing to the uptake ofself-assessment included the company becomingprivatised and Company J a change in directionwith the introduction of a new Chief Executive.

Twenty-four out of 25 managers interviewedstated that self-assessment has a de"nite impact onthe processes of their organisation, either inmonitoring performance or streamlining. Only oneorganisation (Company G) felt that the self-assess-ment process would not have a de"nite e!ect ontheir existing processes, in altering them, but theexpense involved would not be cost-e!ective. Themanager believed that the impact would probablybe greater in a!ecting `softera quality issues.

6. Bene5ts of self-assessment

The bene"ts of the self-assessment process aresummarised in Table 2.

There was a cross-over of opinions between thesethree categories, in that self-assessment was seen asproviding a benchmarking tool as an immediate


Table 2Bene"ts of the self-assessment process

Category Bene"ts

Immediate Facilitates benchmarkingDrives continuous improvementEncourages employee involvement and ownershipProvides visibility in directionRaises understanding and awareness of quality related issuesDevelops a common approach to improvement across the companySeen as a marketing strategy, raising the pro"le of the organisationProduces `people friendlya business plans

Long-term Keeps costs downImproves business resultsBalances long and short-term investmentsProvides a disciplined approach to business planningDevelops an holistic approach to qualityIncreases the ability to meet and exceed customers expectationsMaintains a quality imageProvides a link between customers and suppliers.

Supporting TQM Helps to refocus employees attention on qualityProvides a `healthchecka of processes and operationsEncourages a focus on processes and not just the end productEncourages improvements in performance

bene"t, and also as a means of supporting TQM,and in facilitating an holistic approach to quality asboth as a long-term bene"t and as a means forTQM development. The raising of the organisa-tion's pro"le within the business and wider socialcommunity was seen by a manager at CompanyG to be both an immediate and long-term gainfrom carrying out self-assessment. A manager atCompany K felt that the widespread use of self-assessment meant that a common language couldbe developed, one that all those involved couldrelate; this was also seen to be both an immediateand long-term bene"t associated with the use of theBEM. The BEM was also seen by a manager atCompany K as `providing a framework for allTQM activities to adhere toa.

7. Di7culties associated with the self-assessmentprocess

As with all new techniques, there are certainproblems that hinder their integration into the

everyday organisational operations. From the in-formation provided, it is clear that there are a num-ber of problematic areas associated with carryingout self-assessment. A summary of these di$cultiesis given in Table 3.

The main di$culties experienced were a lack ofcommitment at all levels, ignorance of what self-assessment involved, and general resistant tochange. Some companies had the problem in howto approach self-assessment and how to get theprocess started. One company experienced di$cul-ties maintaining enthusiasm in co-ordinating theprocess, especially after winning a quality award.Other companies commented on the problem ofmaintaining the self-assessment educational andtraining skills of the `in-housea assessors. One ofthe more unexpected di$culties was the admissionthat existing processes are di$cult to change, dueto the intricate set up of the process, and theexpense involved. As a consequence of this, it wasmentioned that `areas for improvement associatedwith such processes may therefore have to be ignor-ed or shelved until a later datea.


Table 3Di$culties experienced with the self-assessment process

Di$culties

Lack of commitment and enthusiasmThe time consuming nature of the processNot knowing where to startSelling the concept to the sta! as something other than an `add-ona to their existing dutiesPeople not realising the need for documented evidenceLack of resources; time, manpower, "nanceMaintaining the self-assessment skills of the assessorsLack of cross-functional integration between departments and unitsGetting the assessment done in time to link it into the business plans

8. Attitudes to self-assessment

When questioned as to whether attitudes to self-assessment had changed, the consensual agreementamongst all the interviewees was that they hadaltered somewhat since the concept was introduc-ed. It was how they had changed that caused anydissension within this area. In 19 cases the attitudeto self-assessment was more positive, in "ve casesthere was still some cynicism and in one organisa-tion it was claimed that the attitude was morenegative.

There were di!ering views as to why attitudesconcerning the self-assessment process within theorganisation changed. A number of plausible rea-sons were put forward, for example, people becom-ing more enthused on seeing the tangible outputs ofthe process, be it scores or identifying areas forimprovement; sta! gaining more awareness of andexposure to the process, and gaining a site visit* itwas claimed that the whole concept becomes more`reala when this occurs. In one case it was statedthat attitudes towards self-assessment becomemore positive after a certain length of time when itbecomes recognised as an integral part of change,and thus people can relate to its bene"ts.

9. Future plans for self-assessment

The majority of organisations undertaking self-assessment analysis have set plans as to why theyare employing the concept and `where they are

taking ita; it is clear that there are broadly de"nedfuture goals in relation to this. The future plans forself-assessment, included:

f application for quality awards,f using self-assessment to develop process man-

agement and control,f building self-assessment into business plans, as

a normal practice,f taking the self-assessment a step further (e.g.

external objective assessment),f using the self-assessment process as a means of

preparing the organisation for future competi-tion, to make it a more `viable commoditya onthe market, and to use it as a `sellinga mecha-nism when approaching customers * there isevidence that in a competitive tendering environ-ment in particular to public authorities, the useof the BEM does act in the favour of organisa-tions.

There is a focus on certain issues, for example,application for quality awards, but there were alsodiscernible di!erences in future activity. To a cer-tain extent there was an obvious focus on the`enabling facilitya concerned with carrying out theself-assessment for example, one organisation(Company H) placed emphasis on monitoring theability of the sta! and assessors to actually co-ordinate the process successfully. In order to do thisthe organisation needed to have a systematicreview and upgrading of its training activities; oneway they did this was to introduce self-assessmentinto management competency training. This was


what they believed was of priority in addressingself-assessment in the future. In general, the actualfacilitation/enabling aspect of carrying out theprocess was not considered an important issue inco-ordinating future self-assessment analysis.

10. A `model approach to self-assessmenta

Based on the "eldwork the extent to which man-agement within an organisation understand theconcept of self-assessment and are realistic in theobjectives varies considerably and ultimately im-pacts on the "nal outcomes of the assessment.A lack of coherence will lead to uneducated anduninformed decisions being made in relation to thechoice of self-assessment approach, the allocationof resources for the assessment and its co-ordina-tion. As such, organisations need to achieve a cer-tain level of understanding in self-assessment,award models and TQM, in order to accuratelyaddress the issues evident in the self-assessmentprocess.

The choice of the `besta approach is a di$cultprocess, one which is no doubt done very much ina `hit or missa capacity by companies addressingself-assessment for the "rst time (and if unsuccess-ful, possibly for their last). Organisations whenapproaching self-assessment generally experiencedi$culties from the outset in planning the processand allocating manpower to co-ordinate and driveit. There is usually `blissfula ignorance on the partof management and sta! alike in relation to theaims and goals of the self-assessment process andhow it can be used successfully to produce usefulresults. As a consequence it is likely to lead todi$culties in the management of resources andunrealistic expectations. Organisations can becomedisillusioned and either abandon their cause, orseek professional advice from external consultants.The "ndings of this research indicate that it is betterin the long run if an organisation can totally ownits self-assessment process. The use of consultantsmay be necessary to initiate proceedings but theorganisation should maintain control and under-standing of the process.

The formulation of a model which draws atten-tion to a de"ned breakdown in the requisite organ-

isational characteristics of each self-assessmentapproach can help an organisation, or business unit`tacklea this area for the "rst time, or even to decidewhat to do next after they have gained some experi-ence. There is a lack of literature on the `bestaapproach to start self-assessment. There is no guid-ance on which approach to actually use. What is ofmore interest is that companies do not knowwhether they are best suited to one approach ratherthan another. There is a lack of advice and guid-ance available to organisations wishing to under-take self-assessment. Organisations need to possessand display certain characteristics if they are to besuccessful in self-assessment against the BEM.Based on the "ndings of this study, a simple modelwould help alleviate some of the problems experi-enced by companies in selecting an appropriateapproach to self-assessment.

The model proposed, and later described in thepaper takes the form of a matrix, examining thecharacteristics and level of TQM understandingthat an organisation should demonstrate beforeemploying any self-assessment approach. Thematrix allocates organisational characteristics tospeci"c approaches. The pre-requisite character-istics alter depending on the technicality of theapproach involved. The ones evident within thematrix are those that an organisation needs toactively pursue and practice in order to successfullyadopt self-assessment initiatives.

In order to attribute the characteristics neededfor each approach, it is necessary to detail thecomplexity of each self-assessment approaches.These are listed in Fig. 1 in order of increasingcomplexity and technicality, for example the mostcomplex being the award submission, and the leastcomplex being the A3 perception-based matrix.The pre-requisite characteristics of each approachare given in Fig. 2. Organisations should alsoexhibit certain TQM-related characteristics to suc-cessfully employ each of the di!erent approaches toself-assessment. The self-assessment process isbased on TQM principles and evidence of suchshould be clear within the organisation. Companieswhen addressing self-assessment sometimes fail tofully understand the concept of TQM, and howessential knowledge of it is before considering self-assessment. Organisations should be aware that


Fig. 1. Approaches used in the self-assessment process.

they should possess a certain level of TQM experi-ence and development before adopting any self-assessment approach, as identi"ed by the charac-teristics given in Fig. 3. The aim of the matrixis to provide an informed and simple overview ofwhich TQM features organisations should exhibit:to help prevent any errors in judgement whenchoosing an approach, and provide a mechanismin explaining unrealistic expectations and lackof success. Because the BEM is based on TQMprinciples it is essential that these principlesare practised within an organisation, otherwise itdefeats the purpose of adopting the model. Thecharacteristics as identi"ed in Fig. 3 are broad innature and general, and can be related to all sys-tems and processes within the organisation, forexample, the continuous review of processes andsystems can be applied to distribution, manufactur-ing, service delivery, customer complaints andcustomer feedback.

From the information provided in Figs. 2 and 3 itcan be seen that the organisational characteristicsand TQM features that need to be in place andactively evident in the company are many anddiverse (the characteristics outlined are the minimal

requirements for each of the approaches). However,these decrease substantially in quantity as the ap-proach becomes less technical. One factor thatneeds to be considered is the motivation behind theemployment of a speci"c approach. For example,an organisation may be using an approach, such asan A3 matrix, merely as an educational tool to raiseawareness of self-assessment practices amongst thesta!. If this is the case, the manager responsibledoes not necessarily need to have a hands-on work-ing knowledge of the operations of the organisation(although it would be bene"cial). If, however, theaim of the approach is to identify and derive coreareas for improvement, then a knowledge of boththe self-assessment process, and of the key opera-tions of the organisation is essential.

The quantity of approaches mentioned couldeasily be reduced in number to fall into three maincategories:

f Award applications (e.g. reports, award simula-tion, award submission).

f Questionnaires (e.g. The Business Driver, Excel-lence NW Award, Assess, Option Finder).

f Workshops (e.g. using A3 matrix pro formas).


Fig. 2. The minimum characteristics that a company should exhibit, preadoption of prescribed approaches to self-assessment.


Fig. 3. TQM related characteristics associated with individual self-assessment approaches.

11. Conclusion

The research "ndings showed mixed levels ofunderstanding and experience of both business ex-

cellence and self-assessment within the organisa-tions studied. Organisations were doing self-assess-ment for di!erent reasons, some because theyhad to, or because their director wanted them to.


Self-assessment as a process is holistic in nature,and as such will a!ect the whole structure of theorganisation. Managers need to plan for self-assess-ment and not just choose to do it on a whim to "lla void or keep directors satis"ed. This is a short-term solution and will create a plethora of prob-lems. Other organisations were obliged to adoptthis management technique in order to gain a com-petitive edge (be it through identifying areas forimprovement and acting upon them, raising publicawareness as a marketing strategy about the com-pany or preparing for a quality award submission).Some were using self-assessment as a means ofco-ordinating and selling quality initiatives ormerely to `keep up with the rest of the crowda.Some had a greater incentive than others to carryout the self-assessment, in the sense that it was feltthat their resources were adequate whilst otherswere over-stretched, and some sta! had their per-formance in this area linked to "nancial bonusschemes. As a consequence the results are diversi"-ed, but to a certain extent that is to be expected inrelation to the background of the organisations,and the level of exposure to self-assessment andTQM. Related to this is the motivation behindself-assessment and the levels of resources, supportand future objectives.

The consensual opinion on self-assessment isthat it provides a useful tool for measuring organ-isational performance and identifying areas for im-provement. In doing so it facilitates benchmarkinginternally and externally, provides a commonlanguage between those companies employing self-assessment, and prepares and organisation forfuture competition.

The self-assessment process, if deployed proper-ly, requires managers and sta! alike to assimilatea high level of knowledge, which to a certain extent,has to be manipulated to suit the operational envi-ronment. The self-assessment process should notnecessarily be seen as a technical one, but shouldnot be treated as something simple either. In thisrespect it deserves as much attention as any otherprocess within the organisation's operations. Man-agement must have the imagination, foresight andcapacity to use self-assessment to its full potential,otherwise its use will be restricted. It is clearfrom this study that some managers can make time

to take the concept more seriously than others.The rest are left with an increased workload andseveral projects getting minimal attention becausethey, like self-assessment, are not considered as apriority.

The matrices described in the paper providea means whereby a company can align itself withspeci"ed criteria, from an objective viewpoint(which not all organisations are willing to do), andascertain if what they are doing is right, and if not,what should they be doing. For a newcomer tothe self-assessment process, they should providesome direction of purpose and assist them on theirjourney.

One of the key "ndings of the study was thechange in manager's response to TQM. Over thepast number of years the attitude towards TQMhas become more negative, people apparently mis-understand the concept, perceive it to be too tech-nical or control oriented, and thus it has graduallydeveloped it into something else, alternativelyknown as TQ or Business Excellence. There isevidence from the research that managers haveadopted certain aspects of the TQM philosophy,but not others, producing a diluted version. Basedon this study `Business Excellencea practices ad-vocated today are not the equivalent of TQM, buta more diluted version of the original TQM con-cept. It should also be noted that there is genuineconfusion as to what Business Excellence is andwhat it can do for an organisation.

Another noticeable development is the changingnature of the BEM and the process itself. Themodel is being increasingly sold on the back of thequality awards and not as a self-assessment man-agement technique and measurement tool to sus-tain continuous improvement practices. It is alsobeing used to attain di!erent goals, such as raisingthe corporate pro"le within the public arena,instead of identifying areas for improvement. Whenall is said and done, if a company chooses toemploy self-assessment, they can employ it what-ever way they want, as suits them.

One area that needs to be addressed is the assess-ment aspect of the process and award documents.Because all services should be customer driven andfocused, most businesses take this into considera-tion when designing their products and services


and will try to accommodate the customers asmuch as they can, to ensure customer satisfactionand repeat trade. This has spilled over to a degreein the scoring of the self-assessment analysis. Morethan one manager interviewed in the course ofthe research pointed out that e!orts are generallymade to present the feedback from the assessmentin such a way as to not o!end the customer and tosu$ciently motivate them to make sure they willcontinue conducting self-assessment and ensure re-peat custom. To some extent this can be seen as`panderinga to the client, something which is notacceptable at the level at which self-assessmentoperates. If this is true, and assessment practicesare following in this direction, something needs tobe done. The assessors hold a key position in thewhole cycle of events linked to the BEM. Oncethese are out of sync the model will eventually loosecredibility.

There is also a degree of complacency developingwithin the process, possibly due to misunderstand-ing of both business excellence and TQM, orunrealistic expectations of the performance of themodel and the organisation in question. This hasnot been helped by the hype that is attached to thequality awards. This can motivate organisations toadopt the process, but can also channel their e!ortsin the wrong direction. Every year companies try tointroduce self-assessment practices into their busi-ness functions unsuccessfully; organisations shouldconsider why they are employing the process in the"rst place.

Appendix A

A.1. Award based

This approach, which can create a signi"cantworkload for an organisation, involves the writingof a full submission document (up to 75 pp) usingthe criteria of the chosen quality award model andemploying the complete assessment methodologyincluding the involvement of a team of trainedassessors (internal) and site visits. The scoring of theapplication, strengths, and areas for improvementare then reported back and used by the manage-ment team for developing action plans.

Some organisations have modi"ed and de-veloped the criteria of the chosen award model tosuit their own particular circumstances, providemore emphasis on areas which are critical to them,make the criteria easier to understand and use, andto reduce some of the e!ort in preparing the ap-plication document. In some cases, a Corporationor Holding Company has set a minimum scorewhich each of its facilities has to achieve withina set time frame. Once an internal award has beenachieved, its continuation will require the successfulcompletion of a subsequent assessment, usuallywithin two years after the initial award has beengranted.

A.2. Questionnaire type

This is usually used to carry out a quick assess-ment of the organisation's standing in relation tothe award model being used. It involves answeringa series of questions and statements, which arebased on the criteria of the award model beingused, using a yes/no format or a graduatedresponse scale.

A matrix chart is sometimes used which involvesrating a prepared series of statements, based on theappropriate award model on a scoring scale. Thestatements are usually contained within a work-book which contains the appropriate instructions.The person(s) carrying out the assessment "nds thestatement which is most suited to the organisationand notes the associated score.

A.3. Workshop approach

This is where managers are responsible forgathering the data and presenting the evidence tocolleagues at a workshop. The workshop aims toreach a consensus score on the criterion and detailsof strengths and areas for improvement identi"edan agreed.

References

[1] European Foundation for Quality Management (1998)Self-Assessment Guidelines for Companies, EFQM Brus-sels.


[2] T. Conti, Organisational Self-Assessment, Chapman andHall, London, 1997.

[3] P.G. Hillman, Making self-assessment successful, TheTQM Magazine 6 (3) (1994) 29}31.

[4] European Foundation for Quality Management (1994).[5] D.M. Lascelles, R. Peacock, Self-assessment for Business

Excellence, McGraw Hill, Berkshire, 1996.[6] C. Hakes, The Self-Assessment Handbook for Measuring a

Corporate Excellence, Chapman and Hall, London, 1998.[7] L. Porter, S. Tanner, Assessing Business Excellence, But-

terworth Heinemann, London, 1996.[8] G.A. Bohoris, A comparative assessment of some major

quality awards, International Journal of Quality andReliability Management 12 (9) (1995) 30}43.

[9] R.E. Cole Comparing the Baldrige and Deming Awards,Journal for Quality and Participation, July}August (1991)94}104.

[10] K.B. Hendricks, V.R. Singhal, Quality awards and themarket value of the "rm: An empirical investigation, Man-agement Science 42 (3) (1996) 415}436.

[11] B. Nakhai, J. Neves, The Deming, Baldrige and Europeanquality awards, Quality Progress, April (1994) 33}37.

[12] Wisver and Eakins (1994).[13] K.J. Zink, R. Haver, A. Schmidt, Quality assessment: in-

struments for the analysis of quality concepts based on EN29000, the Malcolm Baldrige Award and the EuropeanQuality Award, Total Quality Management 5 (5) (1994)329}343.

[14] T. Van der Wiele, R.T. Williams, B.G. Dale, F. Kolb, D.M.Wallace, A. Schmidt, Quality management self-assessment:An examination in European business, Journal of GeneralManagement 22 (1) (1996) 48}67.

[15] T. Van der Wiele, R.T. Williams, B.G. Dale, F. Kolb, D.M.Luzon, M. Wallace, A. Schmidt, Self-assessment: A studyof progress in Europe's leading organisations in qualitymanagement practices, International Journal of Qualityand Reliability Management 13 (1) (1996) 84}104.

[16] K. Bemowski, B. Stratton, How do people use theBaldrige Award criteria? Quality Progress 28 (5) (1995)43}47.

[17] L. Coulambidou, B.G. Dale, The use of quality manage-ment self-assessment in the UK: A state of the art study,Quality World Technical Supplement, September (1995)110}118.

[18] K. Gadd, J.S. Oakland, L.J. Porter L.J. Business Self-assessment and evaluation of current European practice,Proceedings of the 1996 Learning Edge Conference, Paris,1996, pp. 292}313.

[19] W.F. Teo, B.G. Dale, Self-assessment in methods, manage-ment and practice, Proceedings of the Institution of Mech-anical Engineers 211 B (5) (1997) 365}375.

[20] T. Van der Wiele, R.T. Williams, B.G. Dale, (1999) Totalquality management: Is it a fad, fashion or "t, Organisa-tion Studies (under consideration).

[21] C. Voss, K. Blackmon, Where the quality pay-o! comes,European Quality 3 (1) (1996) 28}30.


self-assessment using the business excellence model: a ...directory.umm.ac.id/data...

Documents