A Comparative Analysis of National and Regional Quality Awards Case Study

Summary

In their article, Vokurka, Stadig, and Brazeal compare and contrast the most influential quality awards. According to the authors, over the past few years, awards stopped being only the means of performance evaluation and a reason for raising the competitive rates in a specific field; instead, awards have become a powerful tool for organizations to analyze their weaknesses and strengths in order to figure out the course for the further growth.

Therefore, the owners of companies can consider existing threats and opportunities. Vokurka, Stadig, and Brazeal have provided a detailed evaluation of the key standards and rubrics of such awards as “the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award from the United States, the European Quality Award, the Deming Prize from Japan, the Canadian Quality Award and the Australian Quality Award” (Vokurka, Stadig & Brazealhave, 2000, 42).

As it turned out, all programs involved have similar quality criteria; yet the approaches that the given awards presuppose are unique. In addition, the points of allocation, which are placed on the above-mentioned criteria, vary considerably. That being said, the provided models work only when applied to a specific case; in addition, without results evaluation, models do not work. Therefore, the models alone cannot improve the quality of organizational management; they are only tools that help approach a problem from different perspectives.

Key Learning Points

1. Quality awards can and must be used to analyze the company’s score and develop further strategies;
2. The criteria used in most awards are largely similar since they all are a part of the global quality model;
3. Each program offers its own definition of quality performance; as a rule, the differences concern the emphasis put on a specific aspect of an organization;
4. Most quality awards stress the necessity to pursue a customer-driven quality of performance;
5. The Japanese Deming Prize is the only award that does not recognize leadership as one of the top criteria, perhaps, due to the cultural specifics of the state and its business traditions;
6. No matter whether the award has been granted or not, an organization must pursue further development based on the evaluation results.

Relevant Statements to the Session

In addition to the analysis of the existing business awards and the way in which their standards can be applied to a specific organization to improve its score and provide the foil for future progress, Vokurka, Stadig, and Brazealhave specify the major advantages and drawbacks of each model. Moreover, the authors of the research make a very important statement concerning the existing awards and the evaluation models in accordance with which these awards have been designed.

Although the researchers stress the significance of the given models, they conclude that blindly following the standards established in the models will not lead to impressive progress. As Vokurka, Stadig and Brazealhave explain, each model has to be customized according to the specifics of a certain organization and tailored to its needs, strengths, and weaknesses defined with the help of SWAT, PEST, or another efficient analysis.

Critical Analysis

There is no doubt that in the course of their research, Vokurka, Stadig, and Brazealhave have done a great job by analyzing the five most prominent awards and comparing every single criterion of the specified awards in order to figure out whether there is an algorithm. Among the obvious strengths of the research, its depth must be mentioned first.

In addition, the authors provide a very detailed and versatile look at the awards in question. It is crucial that Vokurka, Stadig, and Brazealhave approach the awards evaluation from several sides. To be more exact, they address such aspects of the awards as their evaluation of:

• leadership skills and the chosen leadership strategies and tactics;
• strengths and merits of strategic planning provided by the company;
• focus on the customer and the management process, as well as the means to address the aforementioned issues;
• knowledge management and the efficiency of the strategy of information distribution;
• human resources and their allocation;
• process management and control;
• results.

However, the research also has its weak aspects and limitations. Among the most obvious weaknesses of the research, the sources must be mentioned. Although the provided sources, which come mostly from educational establishments, should be considered trustworthy, they are still rather scanty for the research of the given scale. In addition, it would be desirable that the authors should have provided the sources that contained more detailed data concerning the specified awards. However, these are minor nitpicks, which cannot possibly diminish the merits of Vokurka, Stadig, and Brazealhave.

Practical Implications

As it has been mentioned above, the given article offers a very honest and detailed account of the major business excellence awards. Moreover, Vokurka, Stadig, and Brazealhave explaining a very graphic way how the specified awards can help the leader of a company improve his/her leadership skills, develop a more flexible management plan, provide clear guidelines on organizational behavior, and speed up the production process. Therefore, the given article provides a brief yet very clear outline of the methods with the help of which a typical UAE organization can deal with its major problems related to any of the fields mentioned above.

Indeed, by considering the standards of any of the awards described in the article, as well as taking a closer look at the authors’ analysis, which helps specify the unique features of each award, an entrepreneur can coin his/her own plan that will help his/her organization meet the given standards. Thus, the article written by Vokurka, Stadig, and Brazealhave will be of great help for the UAE organizations, the leaders of which are willing to improve their score.

Learning Reflections

The article was written by Vokurka, Stadig, and Brazealhave gives a lot of food for thought. To start with, it helps re-evaluate the purpose of the existing business awards. Although these awards might be considered only the means to rank the state’s or world’s major companies according to their influence on a specific market, they actually appear to set the course for the nominated companies’ development, giving the latter a chance to improve their score and perfect the way in which the organization is run.

In a larger sense, the given article shows that a company leader can never rest on laurels, even after (s)he has been granted the desired award. The more demanding the requirements for a specific award are, the better, for they provide sufficient push for the further improvement of various aspects of the company’s work, such as management, production process, organizational behavior, etc. The given article shows in a very graphic manner that an award is not a thing in itself – instead, it is a motivation for further progress.

Reference List

Vokurka, R. J., Stadig, G. L. & Brazealhave, J. (2000). A comparative analysis of National and Regional Quality Awards. Quality Progress, 33(8), 41–49.