A key symbol, of the growing appreciation of management as an area of vast significance, has been the increase, in the late twentieth century, of awards that a range of governments gives their most stupendous organizations.
This official acknowledgment of management practice and quality mirror the principle, at the top levels, that excellent management practice may be learned and cultivate d by supporting recognition of innovative procedures and best practices. This section will discuss and compare various frameworks of quality management.
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality became established, in 1989, by the United States. This establishment of this prize became motivated by the successes of Japan industrial sectors, due to the introduction of Deming Prize.
The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality award seeks to acknowledge successful quality management systems and enhance total quality management, in America. The award gets administered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (Brown 2004; Vokurka et al. 2000).
MBNQA focuses on seven criteria including “Leadership, Strategic Planning, Customer Focus, Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge management, Workforce Focus, Process management, and Results” (Pryor et al. n.d. p. 7).
These centers on the following values “ customer-driven excellence, visionary leadership, organizational and a personal learning, agility, focus on the future, managing for innovation, valuing partners and employees, focus on results, creating value, management by fact, social responsibility and systems perspective”(Pryor et al. n.d. p. 7).
MBNQA resembles and differs with the Deming award, in several ways. The Malcolm Baldrige National Award, similar to the Deming Prize, gets applied to corporations owned by aliens (Khoo and Tan 2003; Zairi1994). However, MBNQA can only be applied to alien corporations that have half of their assets in America, unlike the Deming award.
MBNQA stresses on customer focus, through its seven criteria (Hui and Chuan 2002). Hence, MBNQA centers on certain objectives, unlike the Deming award, which is system-centered.
Besides, MBNQA uses several professionals in determining the corporations eligible for the award, while the Deming Prize relies, entirely on the JSU, in making decisions..
Lastly, MBNQA is apt to disclosing information of a winning company to others, unlike the Deming Prize, which keeps secrets of the winning company.
The Deming Prize
The Deming Prize, the Japanese management award, became formed in 1950, by Japanese Union of Scientists and Engineers and became first awarded in 1951 (Gabor 1990; Vokurka et al. 2000). The award recognizes reliability and quality of commodities, in Japan.
The standard assesses a corporation, in the fields of quality improvement, sales, profits, productivity enhancement and cost diminution. Also, it evaluates quality-assurance procedures, with the overall goal of determining the level of total quality control commitment, in a company.
This prize can be administered n two forms including the Deming Application Prize and the Deming Prize. Whereas the Deming Application Prize gets based on achievements related to TQC implementation, the Deming Prize may be issued to persons or companies that appreciate TQC, and show progress, in its practice.
Also, those eligible for the Deming Prize must have received the Deming Application Prize earlier. The Japanese Union of Scientists and Engineers expects the Deming final award to encourage award holders in enhancing quality control of earlier recipient of the award. However, all Deming prizes become awarded at the same time of the year.
The Deming awards may be awarded other countries, apart from the factory and individual medal.
The European Quality Awards
The European Quality Award became established, in 1992, after the establishment of the Deming and MBNQA. The structure of the award resembles the MBNQA. However, the first awards went to large, profit-oriented corporations, until 1996, when the award adjusted to suit small and medium sized enterprises.
A group of six assessors, comprising of quality experts and academicians, assess the practice of the program.
The European Quality Awards bases on nine criteria including “people management, leadership, resource management, policy and strategy, customer satisfaction, process management, impact on society, business results and people satisfaction” (Vokurka et al. 2000 p.43).
Most of these criteria resemble those of the MBNQA. However, The European Quality Award stresses on the impact on society and individual s perceptions, which lack in the Deming and MBNQA.
The European Quality Award, unlike the Deming and MBNQA, vary in the criterion for qualified corporations. Besides, The European Quality Awards vary, in the group of award assessors, as it includes quality experts and academicians.
The European Quality Award matches with MBNQA in that it can only be rewarded to companies that have at least half of their dealings in Europe. However, the European Quality Award is applicable to more nations, than the Deming and MBNQA awards.
The Canada Awards for Excellence
Canada established the excellent award, in 1983, so as, to credit the practice of management. In the initial phases, the Canadian government became responsible for administering the award (Funk 2004). Ten years later, the National Quality Institute, took direction over the award.
Since inception, the Canada Awards for Excellence varied from Deming Prizes in significant ways. First, this award focused more on results than the Deming Prize. Consequently, MBNQA decided to imitate this result perspective into its structure. Similarly, MBNQA adopted the seven criteria just like the Canada Awards for Excellence. Therefore, most criteria in MBNQA can also be found in the Canada Awards for Excellence.
The award has seven drivers including “organizational performance, leadership, customer focus, people focus, planning, supplier focus and process management” (Vokurka et al. 2000 p.44).
The Canada Awards for Excellence, equally, differs with the European Quality Awards. While the Canadian excellent award remained applicable to both private and public sectors, the European award could only be applied to for-profit firms. However, the European award later expanded to incorporate corporations in the public sector (Stading and Vokurka 2003).
Although Canada Awards for Excellence are valuable, just like the European Quality Awards, Deming Prize and MBNQA, they operate on a small span because Canada’s population is not large.
The Australian Quality Awards for Business Excellence
The Australian Quality Awards became established in early 1990s. The award gets issued by the Australian Quality Council. The aim of the award is to develop best practices and quality principles (Vokurka et al. 2000).
The award follows seven groups of criteria including “leadership, people, information and analysis, strategy, policy and planning, customer focus, quality of process, product and service and organizational performance” (Vokurka et al. 2000 p.44).
According to the model, information, people, strategy, analysis, planning and policy and categories have supreme impact on the quality of processes (Vokurka et al. 2000). While the Australian award resembles MBNQA, it stresses more on the importance of multicultural management. It, also, stresses on people and processes, unlike the Deming and other awards.
China Quality Award
China Quality Award became established in 2001, by the China Association for Quality (CAQ) (Pompeo, 2010). The award gets offered to businesses that promote quality management, develop the general quality and competitive capacity, in order to serve the people and community. China Quality Award follows the Baldrige criteria (Pompeo, 2010).
Similar to other awards, for instance, European Quality Award, Deming Prize and MBNQA, beneficiaries of China Quality Award become selected following a lengthy assessment (Pompeo 2010; Tan 2003).
ISO 9001:2000
ISO 9001:2000, refers to quality management practices that seek to meet “customer’s quality requirements and applicable regulatory requirements, achieve continual improvement of performance, and enhance customer satisfaction in pursuit of these objectives” (Pryor et al. n. d. p.8).
ISO 9000 becomes founded on 8 principles including “ Customer Focus; Leadership; Involvement of People; Process Approach; System Approach to management; Continual Improvement; Factual Approach to Decision Making; and Mutually Beneficial Supplier Relationships” (Pryor et al. n. d. p.8).
Hence, ISO 9001:2000 eight principles resemble MBNQA, and other related awards Criteria, in some ways.
How “ISO 9001:2008” framework gets implemented in a real organization operating in the “United Arab Emirates
In this part, we shall focus on the preparation and implementation of the ISO 9001:2008, in UAE, by Organization X. Organization X is a real security firm in UAE, known as First Security Guard. The following is a discussion of the steps that First Security Guard (referred to as organization X), follows in implementing the ISO 9001:2008.
Preparation
Organization X makes preparation by attempting to understand the ISO 9001:2008 standard.
Organization X, then appoints a ISO 9001 “Management Representative, or the Quality Manager, who is responsible for the preparation and implementation of the appropriate procedures and Quality Manual to guarantee quality at every phase, beginning from acquiring the order to after sales service.
Organization X then prepares training for the quality manager, in accordance with the manual. Subsequently, the organization ensures that the executives back the ISO 9001 and necessities that may be associated with this implementation. Also, the founder of Organization X informs all the workers about the significance and feasibility of ISO 9001, so that they do not fear the changes.
Quality Manual, Quality Policy and Procedures
Organization x prepares various documents including Six Quality Procedures, Quality Objectives, Quality Manual, Process Flowchart and Quality Policy. Organization X ensures that all these documents meet all the necessities of the ISO 9001:2008 standard. In addition to the above documents, the organization formulates work instructions, with detailed steps on how processes will function.
Implementation, Training and Work Instructions
Organization X introduces the novel requirements incorporated in the organization’s Implementation Manual. The organization, through various departments, instructs workers regarding implementation of the standard, and ensures that they fine-tune their methods of working to the new requirements.
Internal Audits
Organization X hires Abdul, a subcontractor who audits the implementation of the standards. Organization X presents Abdul with the implementation manual of the organization. Abdul examines whether organization X meets the provisions of ISO 9001:2008 as described in the organization’s Implementation Manual.
Certification
Organization X, then selects an appropriate registrar, who can award the certificate. The manager of organization X structures an evaluation form, in an effort to find the best registrar.
After the certification audit, organization X uses the new ISO 9001 certification as a marketing tool.
The manager of organization X sends announcement cards to its clients, prepares a press release, print the certification blot on letterheads, exhibits a banner outside the organization and adds the ISO 9001 certification mark in its advertisements. Also, the manager of the organization appreciates all workers for their hard work, towards implementation of the standard.
Finally, Organization X recognizes the need to maintain the standards, as the registrar of the ISO 9001 certificate must conduct inspection audits several times, in every year, to confirm sustained ISO 9001 fulfillment. Therefore, organization X encourages its workers not to relax, so that they can maintain their excellent position. Also, the Organization maintains its internal audits, so as, to correct any inconsistencies.
Organization X recognizes that the first manual, which details the first Quality & Procedures of ISO 9001 quality management system, is not necessary. Instead, Organization X uses the streamlining manual to revise ISO 9001 Quality & Procedures Manual.
Benefits and problems that will face the “X organization” with its future application of Six-sigma quality management
Rizwan (n.d.) defines ‘six sigma’ as a modern quality tool that employs data and statistical analysis to assess and enhance a corporation’s operational performance, systems and practice. The following is a discussion of the benefits and problems that will face the organization X with its future application of Six-sigma quality management.
Six Sigma models utilize the combination of statistical assessment tools with modern management techniques to attain results. Thus, Six sigma will help X organization in quality development through boosting customer satisfaction and yield, and thus, enhancing the profitability of the organization, as it centers on incessant quality enhancement.
Besides, Six Sigma models will aid X organization in linking with its customers. Customers need to collaborate with organizations, in describing their wants. Six Sigma instruments make this connection, amid the chief elements, actions, vision and strategies, easy. Six Sigma model will enhance the communication, of X Organization’s vision, to all its stakeholders in the most suitable language.
However, the employment of Six Sigma model may pose several challenges to X organization, since it is in UAE, which is a developing country. This is because execution of the model, in developing states, encounters numerous difficulties.
This occurs because Six Sigma model appears as an integrated process, which can not be taken in parts. Once an organization begins to use the model, it must do so to the end. In a country like UAE, which is a developing state, most government policies do not complete their term or else the policies are short term. Such discontinuity in the policies impedes the efficiency of Six Sigma. Hence, X organization will have challenges in implementing the Sigma model.
Also, Six Sigma centers on the technical recognition of diverse factors and then corrective measures get planned against the factors. However, the model usually fails to take into account the human factor, which facilitates the failure of almost 50% of all Six Sigma proposals that organizations in developing nations assume.
Human factor is extremely significant, in this case, because X Organization has low automation, and the fact that the organization relies on human capital rather than machines because of cheap and accessible manpower. Such shortcomings point out that organizations should not center on executing Six Sigma, individually.
Again, those factors that make Six Sigma effectual are, as well, accountable for reducing its general efficiency. Six Sigma model requires much statistical examination, relying on data, in order to recognize defect field. Correcting such areas is likely to enhance quality, reduce costs and boost efficiency.
Fiscal benefits become set as pointers of enhancement for management. However, Non-existence of accurate and high quality data, in X organization, is a critical factor that will hinder effectual implementation. Since X organization is in UAE, which is a developing state, economic, legal, social and political factors are likely to bring long range variances.
Lastly, the status quo, in X organization does not allow managers to intermingle with other employees, and; consequently, transmission of manager’s vision to employees does not occur, efficiently. These trends, of developing nations led to unsynchronized thinking for most organizations.
In conclusion, we have seen that various quality management frameworks can be compared in several ways. MBNQA resembles and differs with the Deming award, in several ways. MBNQA, similar to the Deming Prize, becomes applicable to corporations owned by aliens. However, MBNQA can only be applied to alien corporations that have half of their assets in America, unlike the Deming award.
The European Quality Award, unlike the Deming and MBNQA, vary in the criterion for qualified corporations. Besides, The European Quality Awards vary, in the group of award assessors, as it includes quality experts and academicians. The European Quality Award matches with MBNQA in that it can only be rewarded to companies that have at least half of their dealings in Europe.
However, the European Quality Award is applicable to more nations, than the Deming and MBNQA awards. The Canada Awards for Excellence, equally, differs with the European Quality Awards. While the Canadian excellent award remained applicable to both private and public sectors, the European award could only be applied to for-profit firms.
Although Canada Awards for Excellence are valuable, just like the European Quality Awards, Deming Prize and MBNQA, they operate on a small span because Canada’s population is not large. While the Australian award resembles MBNQA, it stresses more on the importance of multicultural management.
It, also, stresses on people and processes, unlike the Deming and other awards. Similar to other awards, for instance, European Quality Award, Deming Prize and MBNQA, beneficiaries of China Quality Award become selected following a lengthy assessment. ISO 9001:2000 eight principles resemble MBNQA, and other related awards Criteria, in some ways.
Also, we have seen the implications of X organization adopting the Sigma quality management. First, Six Sigma models utilize the combination of statistical assessment tools with modern management techniques to attain results.
Thus, Six sigma will help X organization in quality development through boosting customer satisfaction and yield, and thus, enhancing the profitability of the organization, as it centers on incessant quality enhancement. Six Sigma model appears as an integrated process, which can not be taken in parts.
Once an organization begins to use the model, it must do so to the end. In a country like UAE, which is a developing state, most government policies do not complete their term or else the policies are short term. Such discontinuity in the policies impedes the efficiency of Six Sigma. Hence, X organization will have challenges in implementing the Sigma model.
References
Brown, MG 2004, Baldrige award winning quality: how to interpret the Baldrige criteria for performance excellence, Portland, Productivity Press Inc.
Funk, V 2004, ‘Quality awards listing’, Quality Progress vol. 37, no. p548.
Gabor, A 1990, The man who discovered quality: How W. Edwards Deming Brought the quality revolution to America: the stories of Ford, Xerox, and GM. New York, Times Books.
Hui, K H and Chuan TK 2002, ‘Nine approaches to organizational excellence’, Journal of Organizational Excellence, vol. 22, p.535.
Khoo, H H and Tan, KC 2003, ‘Managing for quality in the USA and Japan: differences between the MBNQA, DP and JQA’,”TQM Magazine, vol. 15, no. 1, p.144.
Pompeo, J 2010, Living inside china’s quality revolution. Web.
Pryor, M G, Toombs, L and Anderson, D n.d, ‘What management and quality theories are best for small businesses’, Journal of Management and Marketing Research, pp.1-12. Web.
Rizwan, A n.d, Six sigma and developing countries, Pakistan, University of Engineering & Technology.
Stading, GLand Vokurka, RJ, 2003. ‘Building quality strategy content using the process from national and international quality awards’, TQM & Business Excellence, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 93146.
Tan, KC 2003, ‘Factors affecting the development of national quality awards’, Business Excellence, vol. 7, no. 3, p.375.
Vokurka, R J, Stading, G L, and Brazeal, J 2000, ‘A comparative analysis of national and regional quality awards’ , Quality Progress, vol. 33, pp.42-49.
Zairi, M. 1994, Measuring performance for business results, London, Springer.