Total Quality Management Models Comparison Essay (Critical Writing)

EFQM

This was initially known as the European Foundation for Quality Management. It is widely used in Europe and beyond it in both private and public organizations. It is majorly used in organizations than individuals (Ewy 2002, p. 12).

This model is mainly recommended for organizations with ISO Standards of Certification and constitutes the following eight basic principles namely:

1. customer orientation
2. partnership with suppliers
3. coworker development and participation
4. process and facts
5. continuous improvement
6. result orientation
7. leading and target consequence
8. Social responsibility and evaluation

MBNQA

This stands for Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and was established in 1987, with the main aim of promoting quality awareness, enabling understanding of quality excellence requirements, and allowing sharing of information on beneficial strategies of quality and benefits (Hubbard 2001, p. 67).

In this model, neither public nor private organizations are qualified. There is also no recognition of applicants satisfying a given level of performance. Its major principles are good governance, stewardship, accountability, communication, and respect (Arcaro 2005, p. 4).

Deming Prize

Deming prize is based in Japan and is often used as a quality-awarding tool nationwide for industries. Its establishment was in 1951 and was founded by the Japanese Union of Scientists and Engineers (JUSE). This model was however named after W. Edwards Deming, which led to the existence of statistical quality control methodology for Japan after the II World War (Ettorre 2006, p. 16). Its major principle is to ensure national competition whereby organizations doing better in terms of quality are annually identified and would be commended for the good work (Cornesky 2002, p. 17). The awards are usually in three categories namely awards for an individual person, the Deming Application Prizes (awarded to private or public organizations), and Quality Control Award for Factories (Cornesky 2003, p. 45).

Similarity among the three models

1. All of them are related to quality as they deal with the performance of the organization as a whole.
2. Nearly all of them are concerned with the significance of leadership, commitment, and involvement of employees. They both consider the management that is based on process and facts (Spangehl 2000).
3. They all deal with the significance of all stakeholders in the organization
4. MBNQA and EFQM both share the principle of social responsibility.
5. The three models are related in such a way that they all consider continuity in improvement as an important aspect in achieving sustainable excellence. They build a learning organization in the end. The three models revolve around total quality management (Clark 2002, p. 28).

Difference between EFQM and MBNQA

MBNQA is stronger on systems perspectives while EFQM is stronger on managing by process (Bolman & Deal 2007, p. 4).

Differences among the three models

Their ideas are based on different countries and have different origins.

List of References

Arcaro, JS 2005, The Baldrige award for education: How to measure and document quality improvement, Lucie Press, Delray Beach.

Bolman, LG. & Deal, TE 2007, Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

Clark, GJ 2002, Quality Matters the 2002 Decade of Quality 1989 – 2000, Spire City Publishing, London.

Cornesky, R 2002, Using Deming to improve quality in colleges and universities, Magna Publications, Madison.

Cornesky, R 2003, The quality professor: Implementing TQM in the classroom, Magna Publications, Madison.

Ettorre, B 2006, “Is the Baldrige still meaningful?”Management Review, Vol. 85, no. 3, pp 28-31.

Ewy, R 2002, “The Lincoln Foundation for Business Excellence Application,” Journal of Business excellence, Vol. 4, no. 2, pp 15-28.

Hubbard, DL 2001, “Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award for Education 2001 Application,” National award application, Vol. 3, no. 4, pp 113-124.

Spangehl, SD 2000, “Academic quality improvement project”, Journal of Quality Assurance, Vol. 5, no. 1, pp 37-89.