TQM & BUSINESS EXCELLENCE, VOL. 14, NO.

8, OCTOBER, 2003, 931946

Building quality strategy content using the
process from national and international
quality awards
Ganv L. S1abiNc
1
& Roncn1 J. Vokcnka
2
1
Department of Marketing, Management, and Business Administration, University of Houston
Downtown, Houston, Texas, USA &
2
Department of Finance, Econonics and Decision Sciences,
Texas A&M UniversityCorpus Christi, Texas, USA
ans1nac1 In pursuit of total quality management (TQM), rms have used quality awards as
models for strategic implementation of their quality initiatives. Many researchers have written about
the process of implementing TQM, but few have discussed content. Content is dened as the substance
of TQM activities that have an impact on rm performance and the ability to compete. This paper
oers two propositions for implementing quality models and using them eectively. The rst proposition
proposes that national and international award criteria are evolving towards content considerations.
The second proposition addresses ways in which the various award criteria link content with process
in evaluating TQM as a strategic initiative. An analysis is provided of the national and international
quality awards of the United States, Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia, which includes the
similarities and dierences of their underlying quality principles, core values and evaluation criteria.
As these awards are updated and improved, a trend towards a uniform global denition and a model
of quality organizational performance is evolving. The awards are evolving to include strategic
content that does not just blindly following a strategy process. The quality awards provide a foundation
for assessing and encouraging total quality management in the global economy.
Introduction
With customers demanding quality and competitors responding to these demands, businesses
have emphasized customer focus while implementing total quality management (TQM) to
enhance overall performance. In the pursuit of TQM, companies have used quality awards
as models for benchmarking, self-assessment and improvement (Powell, 1995). The Baldrige
model specically provides categories of evaluation and benchmarking for organizations that
proactively seek examination and recognition (Evansy & Lindsay, 1996). Based on core
quality values and subdivided into specic items to address, national awards such as the
Baldrige Award encourage strategic initiatives in the approach and deployment of quality
practices. The Baldrige Award, for example, emphasizes business results focused on continu-
ous quality improvement. As with most successful quality initiatives, this award has undergone
Correspondence: G. L. Stading, Department of Marketing, Management, and Business Administration,
University of HoustonDowntown, One Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002-1001, USA. E-mail:
stadingg@dt.uh.edu
ISSN1478-3363 print/ISSN1478-3371 online/03/080931-16 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/1478336032000090851
932 G. L. STADING & R. J. VOKURKA
continuous improvements in its design and administration (Kolarik, 1995). Because of the
strategic nature of the Baldrige award, it can be used as a guide for rms not only interested
in applying for the award, but also for those interested in implementing total quality
management initiatives (Powell, 1995).
Many authors (Banker et al., 1993; Johnson, 1992; Waldman, 1994) write about the
process of implementing TQM. Reed et al. (1996), argue that few write about content. Reed
et al. (1996) dene TQM content as the substance of TQM activities that have an impact on
rm performance and/or the ability to compete. The end result of not including content in
the model leads to rms like Federal Express, a 1990 Baldrige Award winner, who experienced
rising quality but lower prots (Greising, 1994). One Baldrige Award winner, the Wallace
Company of Houston, led Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Hill, 1993). Reed et al. (1996) argue
that rms such as these focus on the how of TQM instead of the what. This relationship
is not being lost on the organizers of the Baldrige criteria. As Chang (1997) suggests, the
Baldrige Award criteria have evolved to progressively emphasize customer satisfaction and
nancial performance. While the Baldrige and other similar international award criteria are
generally accepted as process oriented, the evolution of the award criteria has brought content
relevance in a synergistic fashion to these criteria.
Hofer & Schendel (1978) argue that separating strategy process from content improves
analysis. Separation should not be done to emphasize one over the other, instead, process
and content are separated to understand interrelationships. Reed et al. (1996) make the
cogent argument that the TQM process is not a panacea. Implementing TQM by following
a model of the process may lead to reduced nancial performance, particularly if content is
not included. Powell (1995) supported this empirically by showing that TQM process
implementation does not automatically lead to improved nancial performance. Baldrige
award organizers are striving continuously to increase the value of the TQM process by
increasing the weight of content in the performance evaluation. Financial and competitive
performance is now a more important consideration in the award criteria.
Sanchez & McKinley (1995) argue that TQM utility depends on a dierentiation
strategy. TQM, if selectively applied and adapted to a given competitive environment, can
be a source of dierentiation from the competition in a global marketplace (Powell, 1995).
Dierentiation is a type of a strategy which Porter (1980, 1985) argues can provide
competitive advantage. As Reed et al. (1996) establish, the process component of the TQM
process is well documented, but it alone is not enough to be a source of dierentiation. As a
source of competitive advantage however, Powell (1995) argues that despite these impressive
dissemination apparatuses, competitive advantage is not just a matter of imitating these
models. This paper proposes that by linking content in these models, each model accounts
for the individualistic infrastructural factors leading to competitive advantage, and the
companies taking advantage of these models will establish a true competitive advantage
leading to performance dierentiation.
Source of competitive advantage
The award criteria being developed by the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia
represents a point of dierentiation. The award criteria are developed by industrial representa-
tives and academics who have built a reputation in understanding the linkages between the
process and content of TQM. It is not everyone who wins the awards, so winning the award
alone becomes a source of dierentiation. Beyond winning the award, the implementation of
the award criteria establishes many of the relevant points in the TQM process for individual
BUILDING QUALITY STRATEGY CONTENT 933
rms. Since the evolution of the criteria has provided a link between process and content,
the award criteria provides an individual rm with a model that is tailored to achieve market
dierentiation. Powell (1995) cites the Baldrige Award as one medium for disseminating
TQM, but he warns that simple imitation is not the answer. This means that individual
organizations cannot blindly apply the Baldrige criteria; they must judiciously tailor the
criteria to t their own individual situations.
Some companies implement a quality programme that meets the ISO 9000 standards
and they then believe they have achieved a TQM strategy (Kolarik, 1995). ISO 9000
registration is a process by which a company proves it has a system of process quality
standards veried through documentation. Therefore, by attaining ISO 9000 registration,
some companies believe they have achieved TQM. This, unfortunately, may be a false sense
of security. Evans & Lindsay (1996) warn that the more abbreviated the model, like an ISO
9000 system standard registration, the less likely the model will be in successfully producing
market dierentiation or competitive advantage.
While ISO 9000 might be considered by some managers as one mechanism for
disseminating a TQM strategy, the dierence between the ISO criteria and a TQM strategy
can be thought of in terms of Terry Hills (1989) order qualitying criteria and order winning
criteria. ISO 9000 is a registration that an organization may need just to be considered as a
supplier to some organizations (an order qualier). This paper advances an argument that a
TQM strategy supported with organizational and infrastructural advantages may provide the
extra benets that gain customer loyalty and business (a order winner). Empirical studies
have begun to dene the boundaries of how a TQM strategy can be used as a dierentiator
in the marketplace.
Terziovski et al. (1997) test organizational performance for an ISO 9000 implementation
in and out of TQMenvironments. They conclude that ISO9000 did not impact organizational
performance either in or out of a strong TQM environment. ISO 9000 implementation is
primarily motivated by customer requirements. Its implementation is not a source of
dierentiation, but it must be done solely to qualify as a supplier. Another study (Powell,
1995) supports TQM as a dierentiator with empirical evidence. Powell (1995) concludes
that companies implementing TQM outperform those that do not.
An explanation for the reason why ISO 9000 registration is an order qualier instead of
an order winner is provided by Yung (1997). Yung (1997) argues that while ISO 9000
focuses on customer requirements, documentation and procedures, TQM focuses on con-
tinual product improvement, reduction in costs and defects, people involvement and leader-
ship of top management. Both initiatives, ISO 9000 and TQM, build organizational
infrastructure, but the ISO 9000 infrastructural systems are easily copied and duplicated by
competitors. The infrastructure the TQM strategy builds, however, is dicult to duplicate.
The TQM infrastructural points of emphasis on leadership, involvement, cost reductions and
product improvement are the foundation for competitive advantage. This is the infrastructural
system that international bodies sponsoring award criteria are interested in motivating in the
industrial work place. These infrastructural points are the primary dierences between
models formed from award criteria and those models formed from ISO 9000 criteria. The
infrastructural considerations of TQM form the foundation for it as a dierentiation strategy
(Powell, 1995).
In completing Hills (1989) argument, however, order winning criteria do not preclude
order qualifying criteria but should include them. This point is supported by Kolarik (1995)
where the argument is made that ISO 9000 registration should be logically incorporated
while striving to achieve a TQM initiative. The Baldrige model, Kolarik (1995) argues, is an
accurate measure of a TQM implementation because it serves as a structural guide and
934 G. L. STADING & R. J. VOKURKA
evaluation basis for the implementation. ISO 9000 is only a partial model. The Baldrige
Award model has the focus of customer satisfaction and market place competition, which
provides the dierentiation, and ISO 9000 with its system standardization is a natural step
along the path to implementing TQM.
Many authors (Sanchez & McKinley, 1995; Reed et al., 1996) argue against the blind
implementation of TQM. Heady &Smith (1995) argue that dierences exist in the application
of the terms TQM and QM. In their empirical study, they found that TQM has a strong
focus toward top management perspective. This nding is consistent with the framework
provided by the Baldrige and other award criteria. Heady & Smith (1995) found Deming-
type topics like barriers, fear, performance appraisals, are more topically oriented toward the
Quality Management literature. The management and leadership emphasis of TQM provides
a key component to competitive advantage. Mata et al. (1995) argue that this management
factor is one of the most signicant sources of competitive advantage a rm has available.
Authors arguing against blind implementation of TQM (Sanchez & McKinley, 1995;
Reed et al., 1996) hold that the success of TQM is a function of the external business
environment in which a rm is competing. Powell (1995) argues that careful internal and
external self-assessments are required. Sanchez & McKinley (1995) argue that while many
rms view standards and product regulations as nancial, technical and political barriers into
the global marketplace, other organizations (those gaining competitive advantage) will make
those barriers strategically work in their own favour. This point can be extended to the award
processes and the implementation of TQM programmes. A rm has a choice; it can allow a
TQM implementation to be a barrier of entry into global competition or it can use the TQM
programme to be a source of competitive advantage. The barriers are monumental. The
time, money and resources to plan against a Baldrige implementation can be overwhelming.
The reward is that competitive advantage may be achieved.
Propositions
In using the award criteria as models to achieve competitive advantage, two propositions are
relevant. The rst proposition states that each of the award criteria are individually evolving
towards content considerations. Each of the award committees understand that results need
to be considered in the evaluation and are not simply a residual of implementing the process
models. The content in these award models is an important consideration.
Proposition 1
Linking process with content through award criteria will facilitate customer interaction,
nancial performance and continuous improvement initiatives with improved customer
satisfaction and business performance further building market dierentiation and competitive
advantage.
This proposition encourages achievement of market dierentiation and competitive
advantage through individual development of infrastructural systems. The award criteria are
built on common beliefs of a TQM strategy process. The international community is generally
evolving toward a common set of beliefs about the TQM process. This becomes a source of
competitive advantage for individual rms competing in the global marketplace if content is
considered and appropriately weighted. Proposition 2 specically addresses a way in which
the various award criteria link content with process in evaluating TQM as a strategic initiative.
BUILDING QUALITY STRATEGY CONTENT 935
Proposition 2
Strategy process and content cannot be separated, but instead must be linked to ensure
individual adaptation, market dierentiation, competitive advantage and rm success.
This proposition hypothesizes that the long-term success of the rm must include linking
strategy process to strategy content. Competitive advantage is not likely to be achieved if one
is present without the other. Customer requirements and nancial performance of the rm
cannot be disregarded if a TQM strategy is adopted. Similarly, a focus on the results without
attention to the process or system implementation is not likely to result in competitive
advantage. Therefore, process and content cannot be separated in these models.
Both of these propositions are evaluated by comparing and analysing the criteria from
ve award models. The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award of the United States, the
European Quality Award, Japans Deming Prize, the Canadian Quality Award and the
Australian Quality Award are examined to evaluate the assertions of these two propositions.
A brief description of the models
The quality awards analysed are the US Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, the
European Quality Award, the Japanese Deming Prize, the Canadian Quality Award and the
Australian Quality Award. These awards represent a signicant amount of the worlds
production of goods and services. Collectively these awards account for approximately 74%
of the worlds Gross National Product (World Bank, 1998).
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (US)
On 20 August 1987, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Improvement Act of 1987. This Congressional Act was a national eort by the
United States Government to improve quality management practices and the competitiveness
of US rms. From it, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award was created to promote
quality awareness, understand the requirements for quality excellence, and share information
about successful quality strategies and benets (Nakhai & Neves, 1997). The National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, 1997) is the current administrator of the
award. The model is rened annually with major improvements implemented every two
years. Consequently, one objective of the Baldnge Award is to provide a model that shows
understanding and improvement of quality management by continuously improving the
award criteria and process.
Striving to dene quality performance, the NIST has developed a set of core principles
for quality management. These principles dene the foundation on which the Baldrige model
and its criteria are built. The core principles include the following categories: customer-
driven quality, leadership, continuous improvement and learning, valuing employees, fast
response, design quality and prevention, a long-range view of the future, management by
fact, partnership development, company responsibility and citizenship and results. The
criteria are linked through a framework model as shown in Fig. 1.
From the awards core values, a framework for performance excellence has been
developed that is the basis of the award criteria. These criteria are used quantitatively to
assess an applicant companys quality of performance. The model begins with leadership and
strategic planning. The model is inuenced by human resource and process management
considerations and is supported by information and analysis. A customer- and market-
936 G. L. STADING & R. J. VOKURKA
Figure 1. Malcolm Baldrige Award Criteria Framework.
focused strategy are an umbrella covering for all of the elements providing the strategic
direction for the system.
European Quality Award
Recognizing the importance of quality performance to business survival and success, 14
major European companies formed the European Foundation for Quality Management
(EFQM) in 1988 with the endorsement of the European Commission (European Foundation
for Quality Management, 1997). Later, in 1991, the European Quality Award was developed
to establish a quality model honouring outstanding European businesses. It is similar to the
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award of the United States. Unlike the other awards,
the European Quality Award is a regional award. A total of 16 countries are currently
participating in the European Quality Award programme. The countries included are Austria,.
Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands,
Norway, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Organizations
from one of these countries are eligible to apply for the award. The EFQM improves its own
quality model by continually analysing applicant feedback (European Foundation for Quality
Management, 1997). The European Quality Model is illustrated in Fig 2.
The European Quality Award model criteria are comprised of enablers and results.
The quality improvement enablers include the following categories: leadership, people
management, policy and strategy, resources and processes. Eective implementation of the
enablers impacts several result categories including people satisfaction, customer satisfaction,
impact on society and business results.
BUILDING QUALITY STRATEGY CONTENT 937
Figure 2. European Quality Model.
Japanese Deming Prize
In 1951, the Deming Prize was established in Japan by the Union of Japanese Scientists and
Engineers (Evans & Lindsay, 1996). It was named in honour of the American statistician
and innovator within the worldwide quality movement, W. Edwards Deming. Today, the
Deming Prize awards private and public organizations for the successful implementation of
quality control activities. Unlike other national or international quality awards, the Deming
Prize does not provide a model framework for organizing and prioritizing criteria. Instead of
a model of the criteria, the Deming Prize evaluation includes ten equally weighted checkpoints
on a list that each company applicant must address. The ten equally weighted checkpoints
on the list used to asses a companys quality performance include the following categories:
policies, organization, information, standardization, human resources, quality assurance,
maintenance, improvement, eects and future plans. Members of the Union of Japanese
Scientists and Engineers ( JUSE) evaluate this list to assess how the applicant performs. Panel
members judge performance against this checklist based on their knowledge and experience.
While a model, per se, is not provided from the Deming Prize criteria, its ten equally weighted
checkpoint categories emphasize values similar to the other award models.
Canadian Quality Award
In 1984, the Canadian Ministry of Industry introduced the Canada Awards for Business
Excellence, which are presented for outstanding general business achievement. This award
was later rened using the concept of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award to form
the Canadian Quality Award in 1989 (National Quality Institute of Canada, 1997). Canada
and its National Quality Institute (NQI) continue to reward the philosophy of continuous
quality improvement; an applicant must demonstrate the implementation of this continuous
improvement philosophy to ultimately win the Canadian Quality Award.
Instead of a framework linking the criteria, the Canadian Quality Award has developed
a path for continuous improvement entitled The Roadmap to Excellence. Figure 3 depicts
this model.
The roadmap is a process where a rm begins by reviewing the quality criteria and
assessing where the rm is currently positioned. An improvement plan must be developed.
The rm communicates its quality message with the improvement plan implementation. The
938 G. L. STADING & R. J. VOKURKA
Figure 3. The roadmap to excellence.
implementation is monitored and updated as assessments are made. Gains need to be
maintained and the continuous improvement cycle continues.
Australian Quality Award
The Australian Quality Award provides a model certied by the Australian Quality Council
(AQC). The AQC is an organization recognized by the Commonwealth Government of
Australia as the top organization for quality management (Australian Quality Council, 1998).
The AQC was formed in 1993 with the merger of four non-prot organizations: Enterprise
BUILDING QUALITY STRATEGY CONTENT 939
Figure 4. Australian quality criteria framework.
Australia, the Total Quality Management Institute, the Australian Quality Awards Foundation
and the Quality Society of Australia. Later, six additional not-for-prot organizations joined
the AQC and contributed their quality initiatives. Consequently, the Australian Quality
Council is now a collective eort encouraging quality performance in all Australian industries.
With the Australian Quality Award, the AQC aims to develop and deploy a comprehen-
sive and contemporary body of quality principles and best practices. The AQC measures
rms against stated criteria when evaluating a company for the Australian Quality Award.
These criteria of quality performance are connected in a framework as shown in Fig. 4.
In the Australian model, the categories of people; information and analysis; and strategy,
policy, and planning aect the quality of processes. The quality of the processes aect
organizational performance. Customer focus and leadership are key elements interacting with
all the other parts of the model.
Comparative assessment of awards
A comparative analysis of the major national and international quality awards gives insight
into the objectives, quality principles and criteria used by the dierent awards (Vokurka et al.,
2000). This reects how the developers of quality awards approach the evaluation of total
quality management.
Some purposes are common to quality awards and models. For each award, a common
strategic vision suggests a focus on continuous quality improvement and similar goals for the
future (see Table 1).
Each of the award organizations are striving for economic success and are encouraging
quality practices. With the exception of the Deming Prize (which is concerned with company-
wide quality control for product manufacturers) all of the other national and international
quality awards focus on organizational quality management. Including the Deming Prize,
each of these quality awards is uniquely eective in providing a quality model (or self-
assessment checklist) as well as feedback to applicants seeking to enhance their organizational
performance. Quality benchmarks are emphasized to improve business practices. Customer,
employee and community satisfaction are also emphasized.
Many of the core values and basic concepts used in the quality award criteria are
9
4
0
G
.
L
.
S
T
A
D
I
N
G
&
R
.
J
.
V
O
K
U
R
K
A
Table 1. Award description
Malcolm Baldrige Award (US) European Quality Award Japanese Deming Prize Canadian Quality Award Australian Quality Award
Major Objectives
To help improve To stimulate and assist To evaluate and recognize To encourage the adoption To give Australian
performance practices and European organizations to methods of company-wide of quality principles, organizations the drive and
capabilities improve customer and quality control for Japanese practices and processes in knowledge for achieving the
To facilitate communication employee satisfaction, businesses Canada worlds best quality practices
and sharing of best practices impact on society and To improve the protability, To secure the Quality
among US organizations business results responsiveness and eciency Council as Australias
To serve as a working tool To support European of organizations through principal quality
for understanding and managers eorts to initiate continuous improvement, organization
managing performance, TQM and achieve global and To create national wealth
planning, training and competitive advantage To bring higher living
assessment standards to Canadians
Major Quality Principles
Quality is determined by the Customer focus Create a vision and Cooperationteam The customer denes
customer Supplier partnership demonstrate commitment partnering win-win quality
Companies must have People development and Learn the new philosophy Leadership involvement All processes are variable
direction involvement Understand inspection example Improve process improve
Excellence requires Processes and facts Stop making decisions purely Primary focus customer output
continual improvement Continuous imrovement on the basis of cost Respect and encouragement Decisions should depend on
Employees are vital to and innovation Improve constantly and heightens employee potential facts
company success Leadership and consistency forever Strategies should be process- Improvement should be
Competition demands quick of purpose Institute training oriented and prevention- planned
response Public responsibility Institute leadership based People work in a system
Quality designproblem Results orientation Drive out fear Companies should People most important
prevention Optimize the eorts of teams continuously improve resource
Market leaders think long- Eliminate exhortations methods and outcomes Leadership direction
term Eliminate numerical quotas Decisions should be made support
Management requires and management by based on factual data or Continuous improvement
factual analysis objective information requires continual learning
Companies need Remove barriers to pride in Companies are obligated to
partnerships workmanship stakeholders and society in
Good performance focuses Encourage education and general
on results self-improvement
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
S
T
R
A
T
E
G
Y
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
9
4
1
Table 1. Continued
Malcolm Baldrige Award (US) European Quality Award Japanese Deming Prize Canadian Quality Award Australian Quality Award
Criteria
1. Leadership 1. Leadership 1. Policies (Hoshin) 1. Leadership 1. Leadership
2. Strategic Planning 2. Policy and Strategy 2. Organization 2. Planning 2. Strategy, iPolicy and
3. Customer and Market 3. People Management 3. Information 3. Customer Focus Planning
Focus 4. Resources 4. Standardization 4. People Focus 3. Information and Analysis
4. Information and Analysis 5. Processes 5. Human Resources 5. Process Management 4. People
5. Human Resource Focus 6. Customer Satisfaction 6. Quality Assurance 6. Supplier Focus 5. Customer Focus
6. Process Manaement 7. People Satisfaction 7. Maintenance 7. Organizational Performance 6. Quality of Process, Product
7. Business Results 8. Impact on Society 8. Improvement and Service
9. Business Results 9. Eects 7. Organizational Performance
10. Future Plans
942 G. L. STADING & R. J. VOKURKA
important aspects of the awards. Improving quality relies on increasing overall organizational
values to create the right performance for global customers. This results in less emphasis on
quality control (Feigenbaum, 1998). Understanding this denition of quality management is
the basis for the redenition of core quality values within the award criteria. On the whole,
these awards exemplify a focus on customer-driven quality that is achieved through the
infrastructural factors streamlining processes, designing product quality, instituting leader-
ship, encouraging human resource development and following strategic directional plans.
The customer focused aspects of the awards are more heavily weighted in the award criteria
used to evaluate quality award applicants. The award goals converge towards infrastructural
factors as award developers seek a common denition for quality performance.
While visionary goals and fundamental values of the awards are similar, approaches and
denitions vary for evaluating elements of quality. To evaluate the awards on this dimension,
a generic set of common criteria is developed in Table 2. Table 2 shows how each award
denes or approaches major areas of quality.
The categories synthesized from the dierent national and international quality awards
are as follows: leadership, planning, customers, employees, processes, suppliers and results.
For these seven areas, each of the awards basis for evaluating these categories is dened in
Table 2. The table suggests that all the awards encourage continuous improvement of
leadership techniques, strategic plans, company processes and stakeholder relationships
through the analysis and change of business results. Common to the awards is an emphasis
on constant analysis and continuous improvement.
The commonalities of the major national and international quality awards are summar-
ized in Table 3. Table 3 shows the overlap of the awards criteria detailing the criteria of the
national and international quality awards being compared. The comparison demonstrates the
interrelationships among specic items within the dierent award criteria.
This summary shows the commonality of the awards criteria. Compared to the Baldrige
Award, for instance, the Deming Prize places more emphasis on process control and
improvement and relatively little consideration for customer and market knowledge. The
Canadian Quality Award is less concerned with competitive information and success mea-
sures, but it is more focused on continuous improvement. Although focused heavily on
results and other interests of the Baldrige model, the European Quality Award is dierentiated
from the Baldrige Award through its separate criteria category devoted to measuring a
companys impact on general society. Even though it is the most similar to the Baldrige
Award, the Australian Quality Award has an increased emphasis on the signicance of
multicultural management.
In addition to the emphasis of the award criteria, dierences also exist in the point
allocations placed on each criterion. Table 3 reveals the dierent percentage divisions for
each of the national quality awards discussed. The individual criteria of greatest weight
include business results for the Baldrige National Quality Award, customer satisfaction for
the European Quality Award, organizational performance for the Canadian Quality Award and
people or process for the Australian Quality Award. The Deming Prize, however, is equally
weighted for all of its checkpoints. The European Quality Award places signicant weights
on the infrastructural factors of leadership, policy and strategy, people management,
resources and processes. The European Quality Award also strongly considers customer
satisfaction, people satisfaction, impact on society and business results. Based on these points
of emphasis, the US, European and Canadian quality awards emphasize content more than
the other two awards.
BUILDING QUALITY STRATEGY CONTENT 943
Table 2. Common generic denition of criteria
Malcolm
Baldrige Award European Japanese Canadian Australian
(US) Quality Award Deming Prize Quality Award Quality Award
Leadership Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented
towards towards towards towards towards
company and support and policy and involvement and company and
community promotion of organization improvement community
leadership TQM leadership
Planning Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented
towards towards towards towards towards
development, policy and planning and development, policy and
deployment and development policy and deployment and integration
performance quality control assessment
initiatives
Customers Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented
towards towards towards towards towards
market measurement of service activities customer needs, customer need
requirements, customer and customer relationship awareness,
customer satisfaction relationships management relationships
relationships and customer and satisfaction
and satisfaction satisfaction
Employees Human resource Release of full Training and Human resource People
development potential motivation of planning, management,
and through people skilled labour participation, involvement,
participatory management personnel learning and training,
environment improvement communication
and satisfaction
Processes Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented
towards towards towards towards towards
process design, identication, standardization, design, product design,
implementation, management, assurance, control, analysis supplier
management review and maintenance, and change and relationships,
and improvement and improvement and
improvement improvement improvement
Suppliers Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented
towards towards towards towards towards
partnering, leadership training and partnership, quality of
evaluation and involvement and associations quality and relationships
performance management of improvement
supplier resource
Results Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented
towards towards towards towards towards
customers, objective quality, delivery, product, organizational
nancials, achievement, cost, prot, operations, performance,
human stakeholder safety and customers, shareholders,
resources, satisfaction, environmental employees and employees and
suppliers and nancial eects nancials community
operations success and
society
944 G. L. STADING & R. J. VOKURKA
Table 3. Approximate percentage of emphasis from each award
Comparative Baldrige European Deming Canadian Australian
category Award Quality Award Prize Quality Award Quality Award
Leadership 11% 10% 10% 10% 14%
Strategic 8% 8% 10% 10% 8%
Planning
Information 8% Imbedded 10% Imbedded 8%
and Analysis Elsewhere Elsewhere
Impact on Imbedded 6% Imbedded Imbedded Imbedded
Society Elsewhere Elsewhere Elsewhere Elsewhere
Human 10% 27% 20% 17% 20%
Resources (3 categories) (2 categories)
(People)
Customer 8% 20% Imbedded 17% 18%
Focus Elsewhere
Process 10% 14% 40% 17% 20%
Quality or (4 categories)
Management
Supplier Imbedded Imbedded Imbedded 5% Imbedded
Elsewhere Elsewhere Elsewhere Elsewhere
Business 45% 15% 10% 24% 12%
Performance
Discussion and conclusion
In comparing the ve award programmes, the Baldrige Award, the European Quality Award,
the Deming Award, the Canadian Quality Award and the Australian Quality Award, the rst
proposition argues that emphasizing customer satisfaction and business results is important
to achieving competitive advantage. Therefore, a TQM process cannot be put in place devoid
of evaluating results. The means may not lead to the desired end. The Baldrige Award
criteria is a leading example of the importance of rating strategy content highly.
The Baldrige Award, when rst implemented, did not allocate substantial weight to
business results. Some award winners provided unfortunate examples of how the process
does not necessarily lead to content when implementing a strategic initiative. The Baldrige
Award evolved to include content considerations. Business results and customer and market
focus currently account for over 50% of the model weighting. Averaging the weightings of
the Baldrige Award, the Australian Award, the Canadian Award and the European Award,
the emphasis of organizational performance and customer satisfaction is close to 40%.
Behind the strength of these weights, the TQM models are currently emphasizing content
considerations.
The linkage between content and process is important. The second proposition argues
that the process and content of the TQM need to be linked. Within the process of
implementing a TQMstrategy, individual infrastructural systems such as leadership, employee
involvement and product and process improvements lead to the success of the rms. A
process like this cannot simply be copied even when results are strongly linked to the process.
Mata et al. (1995) argue that if a model such as this was easily duplicated, then competitive
advantage would not be sustained. Competitive advantage, Mata et al. (1995) argue, is
BUILDING QUALITY STRATEGY CONTENT 945
derived from management. The analysis of these models supports that the criteria highly
weight the infrastructural parameters that are among the most dicult to copy.
The comparative analysis of the award criteria in this paper shows how each of the ve
award criteria emphasize the importance of such processes as leadership, planning, employees
and processes. All ve of the awards average close to 56% of their evaluation on these process
considerations. These factors are individualistic to any organization and would be dicult
for another organization to duplicate even when given an exact blueprint.
Taken together, both propositions show how the award criteria support the argument
for linking process and content to deliver strategic dierentiation. The rst proposition argues
that results are important in an implementation and that the award criteria reect this
importance. The second proposition argues that process and content must be linked and that
simply copying the process from an award model is not enough. Infrastructural factors
converge with leadership, but this is one factor that is specic to each individual business.
In this study, the national and international quality awards of the US, Europe, Japan,
Canada and Australia are compared in detail. As a result, similarities are found in the overall
goals, principles and approaches of the various quality awards. The comparison reveals that
signicant similarities in the criteria can be used for linking strategy and content. The awards
are evolving to include strategic content that do not blindly follow a strategy process. Quality
awards provide a foundation for assessing and encouraging total quality management in the
global economy.
Despite changes in customer expectations, economic pressures and management
approaches, quality awards continue to demonstrate a comprehensive and contemporary
body of quality principles and practices for organizations. If content is not lost, the awards
can be a model for implementing TQM strategy. Organizational success and customer driven
quality improvement remain a measure of success for the awards.
As the economy continues to become globalized, it is clear that customer focus is
becoming the international business language for worldwide trade. International economic
and social forces are fundamentally changing quality concepts and management. With the
national and international quality awards being periodically reviewed and updated, further
similarities in the awards should be facilitated. As the process evolves, a strategic model for
quality and organizational performance assessment is emerging. The model should not,
however, be considered a panacea for competitive advantage. Competitive advantage still
remains a function of individual organizational infrastructure and cannot be achieved by
simply copying one of these models.
References
Acs1naLiaN QcaLi1v CocNciL (1998) Contemporary Quality. A Framework for Business Improvement and Long
Term Success (St. Leonards, Australia, Australian Quality Council).
BaNkcn, R., Po11cn, G. & Scnnocbcn, R. (1993) Manufacturing performance reporting for continuous
improvement, special issue, Management International Review, 33, pp. 6686.
BcNscN, T. (1993) Quality: if at rst you dont succeed, Industry Week, pp. 4859.
CnaNc, R.Y. (1997) The criteria: a looking glass to Americans understanding of quality, Quality Progress,
August, pp. 134143.
EcnoicaN FocNba1ioN ron QcaLi1v MaNacc:cN1 (EFQM) (1997) The European Quality Award 1998
Information Brochure (Brussels, Belgium, EFQM).
EvaNs, J.R. & LiNbsav, W.M. (1996) The Management and Control of Quality, (St. Paul, MN, West Publishing
Company).
FciccNnac:, A. (1998) The future of quality management, Quality Digest, May.
Hcabv, R.B. & S:i1n, M. (1995) An empirical study of the dierences between total quality management
and quality management, Quality Management Journal , 2(3), pp. 2437.
946 G. L. STADING & R. J. VOKURKA
GncisiNc, D. (1994) Quality: how to make it pay, Business Week, 8 August, pp. 5459.
HiLL, R. (1993) When the going gets tough: a Baldrige Award winner on the line, The Executive, 7(3), pp. 7579.
HiLL, T. (1989) Manufacturing Strategy (Homewood, IL, Richard D. Irwin).
Horcn, C.W. & ScncNbcL, D. (1978) Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts (St. Paul, MN, West Publishing
Company).
JonNsoN, H.T. (1992) Relevance Regained: From Top-down Control to Bottom-up Empowerment (New York, NY,
Free Press).
JcnaN, J. (1993) Made in USA: a renaissance in quality, Harvard Business Review, pp. 4250.
KoLanik, W.J. (1995) Quality Concepts, Systems, Strategies, & Tools (New York, McGraw-Hill).
Ma1a, F.J., Fccns1, W.L. & BanNcv, J.B. (1995) Information technology and sustained competitive advantage:
a resource-based analysis, MIS Quarterly, pp. 487505.
Naknai, B. & Ncvcs, J.S. (1997) The Deming, Baldrige and European Quality Awards, Quality Progress, 27,
pp. 3337.
Na1ioNaL INs1i1c1c or S1aNbanbs aNb TccnNoLocv (NIST) (1997) Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award 1998 Criteria for Performance Excellence (Gaithersburg, MD, NIST).
Na1ioNaL QcaLi1v INs1i1c1c or CaNaba (NQI) (1997) The Roadmap to Excellence (National Quality Institute
of Canada, Etobicoke).
Pon1cn, M.E. (1980) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors (New York, The
Free Press).
Pon1cn, M.E. (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (New York, The
Free Press).
PowcLL, T.C. (1995) Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study,
Strategic Management Journal, 16, pp. 1537.
Rccb, R., Lc:ak, D.J. & MoN1co:cnv, J.C. (1996) Beyond process: TQM content and rm performance,
Academy of Management Review, 21(1), pp. 173202.
SaNcncz, C.M. & McKiNLcv, W. (1995) The eect of product regulation on business global competitiveness:
a contingency approach, Management International Review, 35(4), pp. 293305.
Tcnziovski, M., Sa:soN, D. & Dow, D. (1997) The business value of quality management systems
certication. Evidence from Australia and New Zealand, Journal of Operations Management, 15, pp. 18.
Vokcnka, R.J., S1abiNc, G.L. & BnazcaL, J. (2000) A comparative analysis of national and regional quality
awards, Quality Progress, 33(8), pp. 4149.
WaLb:aN, D.A. (1994) The contributions of total quality management to a theory of work performance,
Academy of Management Review, 14, pp. 510536.
WaL1oN, M. (1986) The Deming Management Method (New York, Pedigree).
WonLb BaNk (1998) World Development Indicators 1998 (VA, Herndon).
YcNc, W.K.C. (1997) The values of TQM in the revised ISO 9000 quality system, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 17(2), pp. 221230.
Copyright of Total Quality Management & Business Excellence is the property of Routledge and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.