Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Although the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence (CPE) have played a significant role in the practice of quality management, researchers have been slow to embrace the CPE framework. By viewing the CPE as an integrative model of organizational effectiveness that encompasses a number of cross-functional disciplines, one is led to speculate that a large body of literature relevant to the CPE framework exists. Indirectly, through their functional research, scholars from a variety of disciplines have been investigating the theoretical issues that embody the CPE. This article compares the strategic planning category of the CPE against the scholarly literature. The planning framework embedded in the CPE aligns considerably with the conceptual literature on strategic planning. These findings suggest some validity for the CPE framework, which demonstrates the translation of research into managerial practice and might inspire further research. Key words: action plans, long-range planning, strategy deployment, strategy development
The Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence (CPE) are designed to help organizations enhance competitiveness through the delivery of everimproving value to customers and improvements of overall organizational performance and capabilities. The CPE serve as a basis for organizational self-assessments, as well as the basis for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. Numerous state and local agencies (Bobrowski and Bantham 1994) and other countries (Powell 1995) have adopted similar award frameworks. As such, the CPE have attracted considerable industry interest. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which manages the National Quality Program (http://www.quality.nist.gov), reports that more than 1.5 million copies of the criteria have been disseminated since the awards inception in 1987. Many firms use the criteria as a management guide, and considerable evidence exists as to the benefits of doing so (General Accounting Office 1991; Hendricks and Singhal 1997; NIST 1997a; Wisner and Eakins 1994). The CPE are evaluated and improved annually, primarily drawing upon the collective wisdom of examiners, award winners, and other practitioners. Despite a high level of practitioner attention, theoretical and empirical research that focuses on the CPE has been minimal. Most citations have appeared in the operations-related literatures. In addition to the performance studies cited, Garvin (1991) examined the content, purpose, and content of early versions of the criteria based on detailed discussions with award examiners. Ahire, Landeros, and Golhar (1995) used a version of the Baldrige Award framework to classify extant research in quality management. Evans and Ford (1997) examined the relationships between the core values
2000, ASQ
Proposition 1
A definable approach must exist for developing company strategy. The approach must consider factors related to the market environment, the competitive environment, risk, human resource capabilities, company capabilities, and supplier/partner capabilities. Proposition 1 relates to the process of strategy development. In particular, proposition 1 requires a
Representative work
Andrews (1971); Ansoff (1965); Hofer and Schendel (1978) Saloner (1991); Tirole (1986); von Neumann and Morgenstern (1953) Churchman (1968); Cyert and March (1963); Lindblom (1959); Mintzberg (1973, 1978); Pascale (1984); Wrapp (1967) Alchian (1950); Aldrich (1979); Hannan and Freeman (1977); Scherer (1970); Schoemaker (1990) Aguilar (1967); Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) Crosby (1979); Deming (1986); Juran (1989) Lawrence & Lorsch (1967); Simon (1947) Hicks (1946); Lancaster (1966); Marshall (1920); Ricardo (1891); Samuelson (1948) Day (1994); Howard (1983); Kohli & Jaworski (1990); Levitt (1960, 1969); McKitterick (1957); Narver and Slater (1990) Bain (1956); Porter (1980); Oster (1994); Scherer (1970) Alchian (1950); Knight (1921) Brealey and Myers (1981); Lintner (1965); Markowitz (1952); Sharpe (1964) Baird and Thomas (1985); Bettis (1981, 1983);, Mason and Mitroff (1981) Andrews (1971); Bartlett and Ghoshal (1993); Hambrick (1995); Kerr and Jackofsky (1989); Norburn and Birley (1988); Selznick (1957) Barney (1991); Grant (1991); Hofer and Schendel (1978); Mahoney and Pandian (1992); Penrose (1959) Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall (1988); Peck (1994); Schneider and Bowen (1993); Schuler (1992) Andrews (1971); Ansoff (1965); Hofer and Schendel (1978) Barney (1991); Conner (1991); Dierickx and Cool (1989); Penrose (1959); Prahalad and Hamel (1990); Wernerfelt (1984)
2000, ASQ
Environment influence on planning Six factors considered in strategy development: 1. Market environment General environmental scanning Quality management Organization theory Consumer theory Market orientation
Industrial organization and competitive analysis Uncertain environment and the firm Financial risk theory Strategic risk assessment
Managerial development
Resource-based view
Strategic human resources 5. Company capabilities Classic strategy frameworks Resource-based view
6. Supplier/partner capabilities
Ebrahimpour and Mangiameli (1990); Heide and John (1990); Sinha and Cusamano (1991) Hofer and Schendel (1978)
likely relates to the CPE core value of partnership development, which promotes partnerships as a way for the firm to better accomplish its overall goals (NIST 1998, 42). Summary Also see Table 1. Proposition 1 addresses the strategy development process. Strategy as a deliberate,
definable undertaking has constituted an essential element of classical strategic management frameworks developed by strategy scholars. Although scholars tend to disagree on just how formal or linear, the strategy development process needs to be, the general format of proposition 1 is robust enough to accommodate these
M. W. FORD AND J. R. EVANS/ 2000, ASQ 15
Proposition 2
Company strategy must be defined. Action plans must be derived from strategy. Human resource plans related to the action plans must be included. Differences between short- and longer-range plans must be recognized and understood. Proposition 2 addresses a critical outcome of the strategy development process: the strategic plan. Scholars sometimes refer to this notion as strategic content. Proposition 2 prescribes little in terms of what a strategy should contain. The focus, rather, is the notion of action plans derived from strategy and strategy development. Proposition 2 also requires the inclusion of human resource plans related to strategy. Finally, proposition 2 requires an explicit separation of short- and longer-term plans. Proposition 2 provides little detail as to what a strategy or an action plan should contain, or what form it should take. Such a nonprescriptive stance fits a broad range of literature perspectives, since scholars have
Proposition 3
An approach must exist for implementing (deploying) action plans. The approach must consider how critical requirementsincluding human resource plans, key processes, performance measures, and resourceswill be aligned and deployed. Proposition 3 focuses on the structure for implementing strategy. Proposition 3 requires that the critical
Representative work
Barney (1997); Brandenburger and Nalebuff (1995); Hax and Majuf (1988); Itami (1987); Nelson and Winter (1982); Pfeffer and Salancik (1978); Smircich and Stubbart (1985); Weick (1979) Andrews (1971); Barney (1997); Cyert and March (1963); Mintzberg (1987) Harrigan (1985, 1988), Miles and Snow (1978); Mintzberg (1988, 1 67); Porter (1980, 1985); Rumelt (1974) Barnard (1938); Likert (1961); March and Simon (1958); Quinn (1980); Simon (1947); Weick (1979) Anthony (1961); Lorange and Scott Morton (1974) Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall (1988); Nkomo (1987); Peck (1994); Schuler and Jackson (1989) Hrebeniak and Joyce (1984)
Organization theory
Managerial control systems Inclusion of human resource plans Strategic human resources
Strategy implementation
2000, ASQ
Proposition 4
An approach must exist for monitoring company performance relative to the strategic plan. Proposition 4 requires an organized approach for monitoring the firms performance in the context of its strategic objectives. According to Tannenbaum (1968, 1), organization implied control. Newman (1940) viewed the primary roles of the administrator as plan-direct-control. The concept of tracking performance versus objectives received formal treatment by researchers involved with managerial control systems (Anthony 1961; Forrester 1958; Hurst 1979, 114123; Lorange and Scott Morton 1974) and by systems theorists (Ackoff 1970;
Representative work
Andrews (1971); Chandler (1962)
2000, ASQ 2000, ASQ
Daft and Macintosh (1984); Galbraith (1973); Kukalis (1991); March and Simon (1958) Hrebeniak & Joyce (1984)
Representative work
Ackoff (1970); Anthony (1961); Churchman (1968); Forrester (1958); Hurst (1979); Lorange and Scott Morton (1974) Newman (1940); Tannenbaum (1968) Coase (1937); Williamson (1975, 1979) Eisenhardt (1989); Jensen and Meckling (1976); March and Simon (1958)
Proposition 5
Strategy-related changes in key indicators of company performance must be projected. These projections must include relevant comparisons to competitors or other benchmarks, and the assumptions used in the projections. The essence of proposition 5 involves the role of performance measures in strategic planning. Strategic measures of organizational performance must be identified. Changes in organizational performance must be projected into the future, and the assumptions behind those projections must be recognized. Proposition 5 also requires the inclusion of comparative benchmarks in the projections. Hrebiniak and Joyce (1984) argued that if a strategic outcome variable were not measurable, then managers would have difficulty assessing the difference between actual performance and the intended state. Systems theorists stressed measurable objectives to facilitate control and realization of the objective function (Ackoff 1970; Churchman 1968). Objective measures of performance form an essential part of the information-handling process that supports managerial and operational control (Anthony 1961). Hurst (1979,
Representative work
Ackoff (1970); Anthony (1961); Churchman (1968); Hurst (1979); Lorange and Scott Morton (1974) Likert (1961) Hofer and Schendel (1978); Hrebiniak and Joyce (1984); Kaplan and Norton (1992) Fahey and King (1981); Makridakis (1996), Schoemaker (1991), Utterback (1979, 134 144) Churchman (1968) Mason and Mitroff (1981) Aguilar (1967) Oster (1994); Porter (1980) Tucker, Zivan, and Camp (1987)
2000, ASQ
Strategic forecasting Systems theory Strategy development Environmental scanning Competitive analysis Quality management
CONCLUDING REMARKS
It has been demonstrated that the strategic planning framework embedded in the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence (CPE) aligns considerably with the conceptual literature on strategic planning. This alignment brings some theoretical validity to the strategic planning framework embodied by the CPE. A similar approach with other CPE categories (leadership, customer focus, and so on) would likely reveal a similar scholarly basis for the overall CPE framework. Of course, researchers could advance the frameworks validity through more CPE-specific research. It is suggested, however, that researchers attend to the multifunctional grounding of the CPE. The literature base of the CPE is broad and most certainly extends beyond the articles that contain quality as a key word. For example, in this investigation of strategic planning, the authors drew from mainstream strategic management literatureand from more distant streams such as forecasting and systems theory. The general business scope of the CPE framework overlaps a variety of functional disciplines to form an integrative model of organizational effectiveness. A relationship between the CPE framework and rich stream of scholarly literature has been demonstrated. Such validity might inspire further research efforts. On a practical level, the CPEs grounding in the literature reflects the translation of research into managerial practice.
REFERENCES Aaker, D. A. 1988. Developing business strategies. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Ackoff, R. L. 1970. A concept of corporate planning. New York: Wiley. Aguilar, F. J. 1967. Scanning the business environment. New York: The Macmillan Company. Ahire, S. L., R. Landeros, and D. Y. Golhar. 1995. Total quality management: A literature review and an agenda for future research. Production and Operations Management 4, no. 3: 277-306. Alchian, A. A. 1950. Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy 58, no. 5:211221. Aldrich H. E. 1979. Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Amit, R., and B. Wernerfelt. 1990. Why do firms reduce business risk? Academy of Management Journal 33, no. 3:520-533.
M. W. FORD AND J. R. EVANS/ 2000, ASQ 21
BIOGRAPHIES Matthew W. Ford is a doctoral candidate in operations management at the University of Cincinnati. Until 1995, he was a corporate quality systems manager with a FORTUNE 500 manufacturer. He can be contacted at the Department of Quantitative Analysis and Operations Management, College of Business Administration, University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210130, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0130; Telephone: 513-556-7052; Fax: 513-556-5499; E-mail: fordmw@email.uc.edu . James R. Evans is a professor in the Department of Quantitative Analysis and Operations Management and is the director of the Total Quality Management Center in the College of Business Administration at the University of Cincinnati. He has also served as an examiner and senior examiner for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award from 1994 through 1999. Evans earned a doctorate in industrial and systems engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. He may be contacted at the University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210130, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0130; Telephone: 513-556-7152; Fax: 513-556-5499; E-mail: evansjr@email.uc.edu .