Jordan Quality

7/31/2019 Jordan Quality

1/22

enchmarking: An International Journalmerald Article: Jordan Quality Award (King Abdullah II Award forxcellence (KAIIAE)): Characteristics, assessment and benchmarking

brahim A. Rawabdeh

rticle information:

o cite this document: Ibrahim A. Rawabdeh, (2008),"Jordan Quality Award (King Abdullah II Award for Excellence (KAIIAE)):

haracteristics, assessment and benchmarking", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 Iss: 1 pp. 4 - 24

rmanent link to this document:

p://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635770810854326

ownloaded on: 03-04-2012

eferences: This document contains references to 37 other documents

o copy this document: [email protected]

his document has been downloaded 1329 times.

ccess to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAK

or Authors:

you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.

formation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help

r authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

bout Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

ith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in


2/22

Jordan Quality Award(King Abdullah II Awardfor Excellence (KAIIAE))

Characteristics, assessmentand benchmarking

Ibrahim A. RawabdehIndustrial Engineering Department, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present the essence of the Jordan Quality Award (JoQA)that has been developed and implemented in Jordan. The award characteristics, framework,examination criteria, objectives, benefits and comparative assessment are described. The JoQA isbenchmarked with two international quality awards: Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award andEuropean Quality Award.

Design/methodology/approach In order to investigate the experiences of companies and gainfeedback on the awards benefits, achievements, problems, and criteria weights, a questionnaire wasdeveloped. A sample of 49 companies which had applied for the award was selected to test a set ofhypotheses regarding the awards objectives, benefits, problems, and criteria weights, and todetermine areas of weaknesses and potential improvements.

Findings The testing of the hypotheses shows that the objectives of the award, externally, andinternally viewed benefit were achieved. However, various implementation problems exist. Based onthe findings, a recommended change is proposed for the weights of the award criteria.

Research limitations/implications The study is based on a relatively small number ofcompanies who hadparticipated on one occasion in theawards process. Although thefindings confirmthe theoretical framework, more empirical work is needed to better understand the awards impactover a longer time span. Further research should also identify if and how the award influences theparticipating companies in managerial, technical and financial aspects.

Originality/value The paper is unique insofar as it is the first to explore the experiencesof users ofthe JoQA. It contributes to a better understanding of such awards impact on organizations indeveloping countries.

Keywords Total quality management, Quality awards, Benchmarking, Business excellence, Jordan

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionTotal quality management (TQM)is both a philosophy anda set of guiding principles thatrepresent the foundation of a continuously improving organization. It involves theapplication of quantitative methods and the utilization of human resources to improveorganizational performance. TQM integrates fundamental management techniques,existing improvement efforts, and technical toolsunder a disciplined approach focused oncontinuous improvement.During the last decades many organizations became wellawareof TQM and implemented its principles. They sought quality certification andstandardization, recognition of performance excellence, and comprehensive systems forevery aspect of their organization. The pioneers in TQM, such as Deming, Juran,

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

BIJ15,1

4

Benchmarking: An Internationalournal

Vol. 15 No. 1, 2008

p. 4-24q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

463-5771

DOI 10.1108/14635770810854326


3/22

Feigenbaum and Cosby, highlighted the importance of the application of the qualityphilosophy as an essential competitive weapon for the transformation of an organization.

To enhance TQM awareness, there must be some encouragement and incentive;which came in the form of quality awards to acknowledge those users with excellentapplication of the TQM principles and concepts. It is reported that the main reasonsencouraging why companies have developed their TQM maturity levels, is due to theimplementation of quality awards, and providing information for the decision makerregarding indication of the strengths, and the areas for improvement, that is usuallyprovided as an output of the participation in such quality awards (Chung, 2001).A quality award is considered to be a catalyst, with the criteria providing the structurefor the firms quality management (Strategic Direction, 2006).

Quality awards are properties of individual countries, and represent their hostcountries efforts in promoting quality excellence in organizations, products andservices. Such awards provide in their frameworks the essential concepts of TQM forachieving organizational development and long-term business success. Many businessorganizations are using quality awards for self-assessment purposes, as well as forenhancing their competitive position in the global market. The awards provideframeworks for identifying a range of processes which influence an organizations totalquality and the business results.

In the last few years, Jordan demonstrated its capability to reform its economy ina manner that provides the basic steps for thriving into the third millennium.The international community witnessed the dramatic economic changes through itsintroduction of a needed infrastructure of reform in order to be able to compete globally.

Taking this into consideration, the enhancement of the role of the industrial and servicesectors in the development process has led Jordan to be far more competitive. Jordan ispassing through an important phase in itsdevelopment, which is characterized by a newchallenge arising from the fact that companies are expected to face increasedcompetition due to the new world policy of having internationally open markets. Jordannow is a member of the World Trade Organization, it has signed the Jordan-USApartnership agreement, the Jordan-Europe agreement and Arab Free Trade Agreement.

Jordanian companies need to be ready for this new level of competition. It is envisagedthat this will be achieved through adopting a quality award program which was initiallynamed the Jordan Quality Award (JoQA); and which was later changed to King AbdullahII Award for Excellence (KAIIAE). It is considered the highest level of quality recognitionin Jordan. The KAIIAE (i.e. JoQA) was launched in the start of the year 2000 after a longprocess of development. Three cycles have been carried out in the periods: 1999-2000,2001-2002 and 2003-2004 and recently, the fourth (2005-2006) is under preparation.

Through its developmental stage, the JoQA was developed to suit the needs and thecharacteristics of the Jordanian companies in the industrial and service sectors.

This paper focuses on JoQA characteristics, benchmarking and assessment after itssecond cycle. The paper evaluates some of the important points and issues in the award.The main objectives of this paper are to illustrate its scientific characteristics, to make apreliminary assessment of the award, and to benchmark it with other internationalawards. Also it is intended to measure to what extent the awards objectives wereachieved, what types of problems were faced through the implementation process, andwhether the specified weighting criteria are suitable based on the participantsperceptions.

Jordan QualityAward

5


4/22

Quality awardsSeveral countries have developed and implemented their own quality awards; whichhave been extensively examined and reviewed in the quality literature. Manyresearchers described their national quality awards (NQA) characteristics, benefits andassessments, including: the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) in theUSA (Loomba and Johannessen, 1997; Ghobadian and Woo, 1996; Laszlo, 1996; Bohoris,1995; Puay et al., 1998; Khoo and Tan, 2003), European Quality Award (EQA)(Ghobadian and Woo, 1996; Laszlo, 1996; Bohoris, 1995; Puay et al., 1998), UK QualityAward (Taylor,1997; Puay et al., 1998), Australian Quality Award (Lindsay and Preston,2000; Abraham et al., 1997; Zink etal., 1997; Ghobadian andWoo, 1996; Jager, 1996; Puayet al., 1998), Germany Ludwig-Erhard-Preis (Zink and Voss, 1998), Indian Rajiv GandhiNational Quality Award (Wali et al., 2000; Puay et al., 1998), Singapore Quality Award(Lee and Quazi, 2001; Puay et al., 1998; Chung, 2001), Canada Award for Excellence(Laszlo, 1996, 1997; Puay et al., 1998), Japanese Deming Prize (DP) (Ghobadian andWoo,1996; Laszlo, 1996; Bohoris, 1995; Khoo and Tan, 2003), Japan Quality Award (Khoo andTan, 2003), Danish Quality Award (Kristensen and Juhl, 1999), Northern Ireland QualityAward (McAdam, 1996), Swedish Quality Award (Puay et al., 1998; Palmberg andGarvare, 2006), Brazil National Quality Award (Puay et al., 1998), New Zealand NationalQuality Award (Puay et al., 1998), and Fiji National Quality Award (Djerdjouri, 2004).

Two international quality awards were selected to be benchmarked against the JoQA:namely, the MBNQA and EQA. The MBNQA is an annual award to recognize UScompanies for performance excellence, to promote the understanding of the requirementsfor performance excellence and competitiveness improvement, and to share information

on successful performance strategies and the benefits derived from using these strategies.The MBNQA has three eligible sectors including: manufacturing companies, servicecompanies and small businesses. Since, the awards launch, only for-profit organizationshave been eligible. The award recipients may publicize and advertise their awards andexpect to share information about their successful performance strategies with other USorganizations. The award is based upon performance criteria created through apublic-private partnership. The awards applicants are expected to provide informationand data on their companies key processes and results that must be adequate todemonstrate that applicants approaches are effective and yield desired outcomes.The criteria are designed not only to serve as a reliable basis for making the awards butalso to permit a diagnosis for any companys overall performance management system(NIST, 2001).

In 1991 the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) launched theEQA to recognize appropriate companies which show a high level of commitment to

quality. The EQA is awarded to the most successful adopter of TQM in Europe; andthe award is held nominally for one year by the recipient. Applicants must demonstratethat their approach to TQM has contributed significantly to satisfying the expectationsof customers and employees. Benefits of applying for this quality award include:sharpening the focus of an organization and its improvement activities, fosteringteamwork, increasing the awareness of the need of TQM. Benefits of winning include:the winner is administered by the EFQM, provide the winner the opportunity to use thelogo of the EQA in corporate literature, get a support of the European Commission andthe European Organization for Quality, and establish the winners as members of themost successful group of organizations in Europe. There are four award categories

BIJ15,1

6


5/22

including whole companies or parts of companies running as independent businesses,operational units of companies or parts of the company running as cost centers, publicsector organizations or units operating within the public sector, and small and mediumenterprises or whole organizations and part organizations employing less than250 people (EFQM, 1999).

Literature reviewThe literature includes extensive research related to the field of quality awards. Reviewof the literature has identified different topics, themes and subjects that have been

investigated. The focus of this review was to identify topics investigating comparisonamong different awards, companies experience in the award process, countries awardscharacteristics and implementation, and winners characteristics.

There is numerous research related to comparison of awards. Khoo and Tan (2003)compared the distinctive differences and overlapping concepts between the USA and

Japanese approach to TQM, with regard to the countries quality award frameworksand criteria; the MBNQA in the USA, and the DP in Japan. They discussed howculture-related values play a significant role in modern day-to-day management. Puayet al. (1998) presented a comparative study of nine NQA (three European, two NorthAmerican, three Asia Pacific and one South American). They reported that the NQAsdiffer in their emphasis on the framework criteria items. A countrys economicdevelopment status has been observed to play a contributory role in creatingthe differences. Ghobadian and Woo (1996) reviewed four awards (DP, EQA, theMBQA, and the Australian Quality Award). They described briefly the outstanding

features of the awards and attempted to highlight their distinct attributes.Furthermore, the awards were compared with one another. The comparison is basedon the application of categories; underlying frameworks; examination criteria;applications procedures; and scoring methods. The benefits, shortcomings and impactof the awards are also discussed. They concluded that the quality awards havesucceeded in generating awareness and interest in the TQM concept and provide auseful starting point. Bohoris (1995) presented a comparison of three awards (DP, EQA,MBNQA) in terms of their application categories, award criteria and areas ofexamination, and the underlying values and concepts represented in their respectiveframework. He identified differences and similarities among the three different sets ofexamination criteria. A set of seven common criteria/headings have been singled out,highlighting differences, by bringing together the equivalent percentage scoresassigned to eleven criterion in each of the three awards.

Specific awards are discussed in the literature; particularly MBNQA has a

considerable amount of research. Loomba and Johannessen (1997) conducted a studythat described the MBNQA award program, first from a historical perspective discussing thebeginning of theconcept. TheBaldrige Award has three central purposes:to promote awareness and understanding of the importance of quality improvement toUSAs economy; to recognize companies for outstanding quality management andachievement; and to share information on successful quality strategies. The importantmanagement practices that lead to the achievement of quality and high performance arereflected in the MBNQA criteria. Evans (1996) described the MBNQA criteria as beingeasy to classify processes along the traditional management activity classification ofplanning, organizing, directing and controlling, along with continuous improvement.

Jordan QualityAward

7


6/22

Organizations which strive to obtain a competitive advantage can learn much bybenchmarking and studying the practices of these companies as well as recent winnersof the Baldrige Award. Loomba and Johannessen (1997) investigated the MBNQAsinternal dimensions which define their inherent character and qualities, and theirnatural limitations, by focusing on the ethics and ethical aspects of the Baldrige Award.The findings of the study were categorized in three subsections: unfairness,superficiality and publicity-related problems.

The EFQM has also had a considerable amount of research. Li and Yang (2003)developed models and tools to support self-assessment, and described a scientific andaccurate scoring method for decision making as a measurement system of self-assessmentagainst the EFQM model. Li and Yang (2003) developed a decision model that focused ontheprocesses criterion of theEFQM model. This covered thethree main tasks,which areto score the self-assessment submission document; to identify strengths and areas forimprovement; and to simulate different scenarios for improvement planning. Zairi andWhymark (2000) studied the evolvement of TQM and how the role of internal goodpractice has underpinned the development of a continuous improvement culture.

Several researchers have cited companies experiences with the quality awards.Mann and Voss (2000) presented an innovative approach used by PEC (New Zealand)Ltd Company which integrates its ISO 9000-certified management system with theMBNQA model. This company has succeeded in implementing a process improvementapproach that prioritizes improvement projects based on their expected impact on thecompanys Baldrige score. Lobo and Zairi (1999) carried out a survey on ninekey companies in air cargo around the world. The study revealed that the participated

companies are adopting the latest technological developments, trying to be meaner andleaner, qualifying their staff and adopting the requirements of quality managementsystems. Zairi (1999) used business excellence from a practical evidence-basedapproach in a study of an organizations overall performance. He used the criteria ofexcellence from MBNQA and the EQA model as one of the best methods to assess theeffectiveness of the leadership process. Da Silva et al. (2005) investigated the bestcommon management practices of the world-class companies identified in Brazil and

Japan; and proposed a business model aimed at helping companies to achieveworld-class level of excellence. They provided a benchmark of excellence practices andvaluable suggestions to senior managers interested in implementing or improvingtheir TQM process. They subsequently proposed a new business measurement modeland conceptual ways for companies to achieve a world-class level of excellence. Davisand Stading (2005) presented an exploratory study that examines the expectations ofcompany managers, executives, and other professionals regarding the types of firm

performance and returns that would be needed to justify undertaking the MBNQAprocess. The results showed that while financial performance of the firm is thestrongest justification managers consider, and that while their expectations forimproved financial performance are some what high, the financial returns are certainlynot out of the realm of normal expectations for returns from other projects.

Examples of experiences in different countries of the awards have contributed tothe body of literature. In Singapore for example, Chung (2001) reported that qualityaward models provide a comprehensive framework for the application and study ofbenchmarking. He conducted a benchmarking exercise among Singaporesproductivity leaders, which comprised the pioneer batch of organizations in the

BIJ15,1

8


7/22

Singapore Quality Award program. In China, Lau et al. (2004) reported the current stateof quality management implementation and practices in China with reference to theMBNQA criteria. Comparisons were made between firms in three different stages ofthe development of a quality system: including, inspection, statistical quality control,and TQM. Garg and Ma (2005) adapted some of the organizational performance itemsfrom the MBNQA outcome assessment measures in a study for benchmarking cultureand performance in Chinese organizations. For Brazil, Miguel et al. (2004) highlightedsome benchmarking practices in management, by presenting a case study conductedin a company in Brazil, which was awarded with the Brazilian National Award.They reported the last actions taken by the company to apply for the award in the near

future. In Fiji, Djerdjouri (2004) presented the essence of the Fiji Quality Award; itshistory, framework, principles, objectives, and examination criteria. For Australia,Abraham et al. (1997) conducted a study with companies, which were winners of anAustralian Quality Award in the years 1989-1993 inclusive. The study explored thechange processes that were used to move the organization towards the state ofcapability outlined by the award criteria.

Jordan Quality Award (King Abdullah II Award for Excellence)JoQA (KAIIAE) is the highest level of recognition for the award of quality in Jordan.It aims at enhancing the competitiveness of Jordanian businesses by promotingquality awareness and performance excellence, recognizing quality and businessachievements of Jordanian companies, and publicizing successful business strategiesand promoting them. Award activities are held every two years. One award is given ineach of the following categories:

. manufacturing companies or sub-units;

. service companies or sub-units;

. small or medium size manufacturing companies; and

. small or medium size service companies.

The award criteria compel organizations to improve their business practices, theiremployees, and their customer relationships in an objective and measurable waythrough self-assessment. The organizations that are entitled to participate in the awardmust fulfill the conditions of being a registered privateJordanian legal entity and havingdocumented sustained activity over time (at least two years) and have good financialperformance. The awards are given to winners based on criteria, where each criterion isgiven a score. The weighting of these scores are based on three guidelines including thedeployment or the extent to which the applicant approach is applied to all requirementsof the item, the approach or how the applicant addresses the item requirements of thecriteria, and the results or outcomes in achieving the purposes given in the item.

Award criteriaFigure 1 shows the framework that is used for JoQA. It illustrates its components andhow they are related in a manner to form a complete assessment. The model uses a1,000-point scoring system divided into five criteria, i.e. leadership (200 points),strategic planning (150), process management (200), resource management (250), andresults (200). Table I summarizes the criteria and the sub-criteria of the award and thecorresponding points allocated for each.

Jordan QualityAward

9


8/22


9/22

Figure 2 shows the scoring mechanism in which each sub-criterion is evaluated withrespect to five measures: involvement, adoption, communication, continuousimprovement, and benchmarking.

Benchmarking JoQA with MBNQA and EQADuring the past decade benchmarking has received significant attention, especiallyafter its inclusion among Malcolm Baldrige Award criteria (Meybodi, 2005; Denkenaet al., 2006). Table II presents a benchmark between JoQA and MBNQA and EQA. It isbased on the criteria of the JoQA, where the objective was to find the criteria of the other

awards that are/not covered in the JoQA. The results of the table were used to explainthe differences between the JoQA and the two other awards. One major differencebetween the JoQA with MBNQA and EQA is the levels of the criteria. The JoQA hasthree levels, whilst the MBA has two. This illustrates the thoroughness in the JoQAwhere it meets the MBNQA criteria and surpasses it to the next level. For example, inthe MBNQA there is the criterion leadership which has two sub-criteria: leadershipsystem, company responsibility and citizenship. In the JoQA there is also the criterionleadership which has four sub-criteria. Each of them is required to be fulfilled in away taking into consideration the generic sub-criteria that includes: benchmarking,continuous improvement, communication, adoption and involvement. As a result,

JoQA and the MBNQA are much alike; but they have some differences. Some criteriathat serve the same purpose can be found under different main-criteria.

Figure 2.The scoring mechanism

for evaluating eachsub-criterion with respect

to five measures:involvement, adoption,

communication,continuous improvement,

and benchmarking

1.0 Leadership

(200)

2.0 Strategic

Planning (150)

3.0 Processes

Management (200)

4.0 Resources

Management (250)

5.0 Results(200)

1.1 Leadership

Vision (20)

1.2 Leadership

Educational System

(50)

1.3 Leadership

Support (65)

1.4 Leadership

Selection And

Suitability (65)

1.3.1 Communication

and coordination

(20)

1.3.2 Financing

development

projects (15)

1.3.3 Adopting

development effort

(15)

1.3.4 Authority

delegation (15)

Involvement

(10%)

Adoption

(65%)

Communication

(10%)

Benchmarking

(5%)

Continuous

Improvement (10%)

Jordan QualityAward

11


10/22

LeadershipJoQA focuses more on leadership, which is apparent from the score (200/1,000 points)compared to only (110/1,000) for the MBNQA. The leadership system in the JoQA, andthe support and action in MBNQA, addresses top managements duties in having acomplete system for communication and coordination; in addition to their efforts inadopting and implementing TQM concepts. The company responsibilitysub-criterion and the citizenship sub-criterion in the MBNQA are considered in

JoQA in the results criteria (as an impact on society issue from anticipation of public

concerns with current and future products, services and operations to its keycommunities in the companies). The MBNQA award does not address the issues ofleadership-vision, and the leadership-educational systems in a clear manner asapparent in the JoQA. However, the MBNQA describes this facet in subsequent criteria.

For EQA, the leadership-support and action criterion is critical in JoQA, since itdescribes how an organization implements a communication and coordination systembetween the top management, customers and employees. The leadership-support andaction criterion describes the extent of adopting and implementing TQM conceptswithinthe organization. It also describes the senior leaders commitment to efforts directedfor improvement and developing, and how top management delegates authority.

Criteria JoQA MB EQA DA

1.0 Leadership 200 80 100 1001.1. Leadership vision YES No No No1.2. Leadership education system YES No No No1.3. Leadership support and action YES 80 100 No1.4. Leadership suitability and selection YES No No No

2.0 Strategic planning 150 135 80 1002.1. Mission statement Yes No No No2.2.External environmental analysis Yes 95 No No

2.3. Objectives Yes No No No2.4. Strategies Yes 40 No 1002.5. Projects and action plans Yes Yes No Yes2.6. Implementation and control Yes No No Yes

3.0 Process management 250 80 140 2503.1. Quality system Yes 40 140 1503.2. Customer relationship management system Yes 40 No 503.3. Coordination and structure Yes No No 50

4.0 Resources management 200 85 180 2004.1. Human resources Yes 60 90 1504.2. Information resources Yes 25 90 504.3. Financial resources Yes No Yes No4.4. Material resources Yes No Yes No4.5. Technological resources Yes No Yes No

5.0 Results 200 580 510 4005.1. Customer satisfaction Yes 125 200 505.2. Employee satisfaction Yes 50 90 1005.3. Product/service quality and operational performance Yes 205 Yes 1505.4. Supplier performance Yes 45 10 No5.5. Impact on society Yes 30 60 1005.6. Financial Yes 125 150 No

Table II.Comparison betweenoQA and other awards

BIJ15,1

12


11/22

The EQA includes three items: recognition and appreciation of the efforts and success ofindividuals and teams, support of total quality by prevision of appropriate resources andassistance, and involvement with customers and suppliers. The leadership-visionleadership-educational system suitability and selection sub-criteria in JoQA have nosimilar components in the EQA.

Strategic planningThe weighting on the strategic planning criterion in the JoQA are similar as that ofthe MBNQA. The two awards include common sub-criterion such as: externalenvironmental analysis, strategies, and projects and action plans in the JoQA, andcustomer and market knowledge, selection and use of comparative information anddata, analysis and review of company performance, and company strategy in theMBNQA. Both awards strategic planning criteria deal with analyzing political,economic, social and technological environments, as well as benefiting from the result.It additionally identifies current and prospective competitors, and the implementingshort- and long-term strategies and projects and action plans suitable to achieve thepreset objectives. The JoQA focuses on other aspects: objectives, mission statement,and implementation and control; whilst the MBNQA is concerned with the strategicdevelopment process. For the EQA, the criterion of strategic planning is different, inwhich the sub-criteria identify how policy and strategy are based on the concepts ofTQM. This is formed on the basis of information that is relevant to total quality andthe basis of business plans, communicated, regular reviewed and improved.

Process managementJoQA and MBNQA awards have similar process management criteria. The sub-criteriain the JoQA are quality system and customer relationship management system, whilein the MBNQA; they are work system and the customer satisfaction and relationshipenhancement. These sub-criteria are about how work and jobs are designed and howemployees contribute to ensure communication, cooperation and knowledge. The JoQAfocuses on integrating a quality system, explicitly using documentation andcertification (unlike the MBNQA). These sub-criteria deal with customer relationshipand the accessibility and complaint management. The coordination and structurecriterion in the JoQA is not, however, found in the MBNQA. This is due probably to thefact that the companies in the USA have this kind of information implied, and notspecified. In the EQA, process management criteria are named processes, whichinclude the following items: how the processes are identified, how the organizationsystematically manages its key and support processes, how process performance

parameters are used to review key processes and to set targets for improvement. Also,the JoQA criteria customer relationship management system, and coordination andstructure have no similar descriptors in the EQA.

Resources managementJoQA puts more emphasis on the resources management criteria with (200/1,000)compared to (85/1,000) in the MBNQA. An expected reason for this is, that companiesin the USA usually have more advanced techniques and processes than in Jordan(hence they can minimize the resource cost more than Jordanian). Two sub-criteria arecommon: human resources and information resources where the companies are

Jordan QualityAward

13


12/22

required to have methods and procedures for gathering information about employees:their requirements, complaints, and training needs. The other three sub criteria in

JoQA are financial, materials and technological resources, and are presented in theMBNQA in one aspect only, i.e. results. This criterion in the EQA (people management)highlights how the skills and the capabilities of the people are preserved and developedthrough recruitment, training and career progression, and how people and teams agreeon targets and continuously review performance. The items of information, financial,material and technological resources are described in resources criterion in EQA underitems of information resources, financial resources, material resources, and applicationof technology.

ResultsMBNQA has more emphasis on the results criterion. For this criterion, MBNQA and

JoQA deal with issues in a different ways. The criteria addressing customersatisfaction and employee satisfaction, which both awards require, implementingmechanisms and methodologies. For measuring and analyzing the customer andemployee satisfaction, an additional sub-criterion in MBNQA is used, namely: theproduct/service quality and operational performance. The result criteria in the JoQAseem to be the same for the results criteria in EQA. Both address customersatisfaction that describes the methodology used to measure customer satisfaction and the current results that indicate the degree of customer satisfaction, and the systemused to analyze the above results in order to achieve the highest satisfaction. Anothercriterion is employee satisfaction, which is the same for people satisfaction in EQA.

This describes the extent of having and implementing a comprehensive methodologyto measure employee satisfaction, the extent of having and implementing a mechanismand to analyze results in order to achieve the highest satisfaction results. It is seenthat the criteria supplier performance and financial results in the JoQA have the sameitems in business results criterion in the EQA. The criterion impact on society is thesame in both.

Award assessment and research hypothesesThe research was conducted in companies from the four categories of the award whohad applied in its second cycle. The companies in the two cycles considered that theirfirst experience as pilot tests, and they requested time to understand the awardsrequirements and fulfill it. The group of participants in the second cycle was selectedsince it is believed that the level of knowledge and experience in the award processamong the companies is acceptable as a consequence of their experience.

In order to investigate the experiences of companies and gainfeedback on theawardsbenefits, achievements, problems, and criteria weighting, a questionnaire was developedcontaining four parts addressing each of these main issues. The first part of thequestionnaire focuses on the awards objectives and purpose. The second part assessedorganizational benefits (external and internal) from participating in the award. Thethirdpart identified a suggested list of problems faced by the companies through theaward application process, and was related to the awards criteria. The three parts wereassessed using a five-point Likert scale, where number 1 represented least achieved,obtained or existed and number 5 represented highest ones. The fourth part of thequestionnaire includes the suggested weighting for the award and sub-criteria.

BIJ15,1

14


13/22

The questionnaire was validated by a small group of companies representativeswho were asked to provide feedback with respect to the questions and ease ofcompletion; with particular emphasis on the awards four assessment issues. Theirinsights were used to modify the questionnaire prior to its distribution among theselected companies. For completing the questionnaire, a contact person who workedclosely with the award process and participated in the program was identified and senta copy of the questionnaire to be filled. The questionnaires were sent to the 49companies which had applied for the award and the number of filled and returnedquestionnaires were 31; yielding a response rate of 63 percent. In order to assess theaward performance in the related four issues, a set of hypotheses was identified and

tested. The following discusses the hypotheses relating to the award issues.

JoQA achievements of objectivesThe JoQA has been developed in recognition of achieving a set of objectives, such aspromoting awarenessof quality (OBJ1),understanding the requirements of performanceexcellence (OBJ2), sharing information of the strategies that lead to successful TQMimplementation (OBJ3) and adopting and strengthening the competitiveness of

Jordanian companies (OBJ4). There are two principal views regarding the capability ofthe JoQA to achieve its objectives. One view argued is that sincethe award is new, it willbe difficult to influence the Jordanian organizations to implement the concepts of TQM.The other view is that the culture of quality management in Jordanian organizations isestablished, so that the award can achieve its objectives even though the award is new.Based on the point of view of Jordanian organizations, andto test whether the awardhas

achieved its objectives, two sets of hypotheses were developed:Ho1. The JoQA achieved its objectives.

H1. The JoQA did not achieve its objectives.

JoQA and organization benefitsAnalyzing thebenefits of theawardwill have a short-andlong-term impact. However, it isworthy of investigation as the short-term benefits of participating in theawards programwill surface important insight. There are a number of expected benefits for Jordanianorganizations through participating in the award program. The selected benefits to betested include enhanced market advantage (EXB1), better external communication(EXB2), better cultural image (EXB3), increase customer satisfaction (EXB4), and sharedquality experiences (EXB5). From the internal side, the tested benefits include costreductions (INB1); easier management (INB2), lower product cycle time (INB3), awareness

of problems (INB4) and consistency across the organization (INB5).The content of award criteria specifies a set of requirements that identifies a

potential for improving the performance of an organization. If these requirements donot exist it requires the organization to deploy the resources or develop programs toimplement it because they know what to do and what is expected from them.Consequently, they enjoy a greater sense of purpose, direction and focus in theirday-to-day activities. Accordingly, the following hypotheses were developed:

Ho2. Jordanian organization got significant external benefit for participating in the

JoQA program.

Jordan QualityAward

15


14/22

H2. Jordanian organization did not get significant external benefit forparticipating in the JoQA program.

Ho3. Jordanian organization got significant internal benefit for participating in the

JoQA program.

H3. Jordanian organization did not get significant internal benefit forparticipating in the JoQA program.

JoQA and organization problems

The direct relationship between the JoQA program and the identification of theorganizational problems has yet to be explored. However, the following two groups ofproblems were selected to be tested, i.e. personnel-related problems and planning andthoroughness. For personnel-related problems, the following are selected: lack ofleadership commitment (PRP1), lack of employee awareness (PRP2), resistances tochange (PRP3), ineffective cross-functional teams (PRP4), insufficient and ineffectivetraining (PRP5), lack of appropriate incentives and rewards (PRP6), lack ofempowerment (PRP7), and poor vertical and horizontal communication (PRP8). Forplanning and thoroughness, the following are selected: lack of a well-defined strategicplan (P&T1), poor setting of priority goals and objectives (P&T2), emphasis onshort-term results (P&T3), treating symptoms and not causes (P&T4), use of anoff-the-shelf solving program package (P&T5), lack of quality improvementmeasurement (P&T6), and lack of resources (P&T7). Based on this line of reasoning,

the following two hypotheses were developed:Ho4. JoQA can help in identifying and solve organization personnel-related

problems.

H4. JoQA cannot help in identifying and solve organization personnel-relatedproblems.

Ho5. JoQA can help in identifying and solve organization planning andthoroughness problems.

H5. JoQA cannot help in identifying and solve organization planning andthoroughness problems.

JoQA criteria weights

It is noticed that Jordanian companies were questioning the assigned weightings foreach criteria and sub-criteria of the JoQA. Even though the process of development andthe establishment of the award and its criteria were based on the needs andcharacteristics of the local environment, it did not embrace the participants point viewregarding the awards criteria weighting and their distribution among its sub-criteria.The following two hypotheses are intended to test the satisfaction level among theparticipants regarding the criteria weights:

Ho6. There is a high degree of satisfaction of the JoQA criteria weights.

H6. There is not a high degree of satisfaction of the JoQA criteria weights.

BIJ15,1

16


15/22

Assessment resultsTo assess the hypotheses, three different stages of analysis were used. First, a factoranalysis was used to test the validity of the technique and to prove that it was a validmeasure of the hypotheses. Second, reliability testing was used to examine scalevariables for internally consistency before they were used for further analysis.Finally, the t-test analysis was used to test the selected set of hypotheses.

Factor analysisThe aim of factor analysis is to estimate the correlation matrix and identify thecharacteristic equation. This requires two sets of values which are the characteristic

vectors of the matrix or latent vectors or eigenvectors, and the characteristic roots orlatent roots or eigenvalues. A factor extraction method was used to form uncorrelatedlinear combinations of the observed variables. The first component has maximumvariance; successive components explain progressively smaller portions of thevariance and are all uncorrelated with each other. Principal component analysis wasused to obtain the initial factor solution. Table III presents a summary of factoranalysis of the results. From these results, the used technique proved to be a validmeasure of correlation between questions (items). The eigenvalues for these scalesranged from 1.566 to 3.734 and exceed the minimum of 1. Furthermore, the percents ofvariances explained by those scales ranged from 62.2 to 77.0 percent, which indicatethat those scales account for most of the observed variances.

ReliabilityReliability involves computing the correlation matrix, the average inter-itemcorrelation and reliability coefficient for each measurement scale. A correlationmatrix was used to identify the correlation between individual items, and so identifyhow closely the items are related to each other and to the composite weight, and toindicate items that did not strongly contribute to the reliability coefficient value andwhose content was not critical. The reliability coefficient used for the analysis is theCronbachs a, which is a measure of internal consistency, based on the averageinter-item correlation.

Table IV presents a summary of the results of reliability analysis. The value ofCronbachs a is between 0 and 1 and the higher the level indicates a higher reliability ofthe scale. As seen in Table IV, all the values range between 0.6090 and 0.7402 and thusall the scale variables show a high level of internal consistency.

Scales (hypotheses) EigenvaluePercentage of

variance explainedLowestloading

Item withlowest loading

Objectives 1.566 39.2 0.083 OB3External benefits 1.850 37.0 0.196 ExBen2Internal benefits 2.525 50.5 0.409 InBen2Personnel-related problems 3.143 52.4 20.223 PRProb3Planning and thoroughness 3.734 62.2 0.602 PATProb5Various problems 3.343 55.7 20.154 Vprob6General aspects of award 2.260 28.3 20.045 GenAsp5

Table III.Factor analysis

Jordan QualityAward

17


16/22

Results of testing hypothesesAfter internal consistency was confirmed, next a combining of the individual items oneach scale into uni-dimensional variants was conducted; which could be treated assingle entities representing each scale, allowing for further analysis. To assess andcompare the current perception of the quality award among the companies, theperformances of companies in each of the research areas of concern (awards objectives,benefits, and problems) were tested, followed by assessing the criteria weights usingthe scale variables described in the previous section. Table V summarizes thecompanies perceptions regarding the five issues of objectives, external benefits,internal benefits, personnel-related problems, and planning and thoroughness.

Achieving objectives. In examining whether the award met its objectives, the resultsshow that in total, the award has achieved the intended objectives. From their ownassessments, based on the descriptions of the selection of the level of the achievingthe awards objectives, 69.7 percent of the respondents (3.48/5) believe that the awardachieved its objectives. It is expected that all of the objectives have been achieved to thedetermined level since the award brings new insights, knowledge and experience to theparticipated companies. The Jordanian companies reached a good level of benefit fromthe award. It is reported that it is not sufficient to participate in a quality award processonly once to get the expected benefits. Instead one should participate in the processseveral times, with enough time in between the applications in order to completeas many as possible of the improvement projects resulting from the evaluations(Eriksson and Garvare, 2005).

The resultssuggest that the current level of understanding of how much the awardshas achieved its objectives for promoting awareness of quality, understanding the

Item Mean SD jXoj Reject Fail to reject

Objectives 3.484 2.325 1.236 XExternal benefits 3.244 2.786 1.511 XInternal benefits 3.077 3.088 1.663 XPersonal-related problems 2.506 3.380 2.462 XPlanning and thoroughness 2.448 3.153 2.742 XVarious problems 2.410 3.527 2.509 XGeneral aspects of award 3.688 3.371 0.516 XMedia coverage 3.385 3.701 0.925 XApplication of the award 3.544 3.368 0.753 XScheduling issues 3.570 2.177 1.100 X

Table V.-Test

Scales (hypotheses) a Coefficient The (min! max) inter-item correlations

Objectives 0.4090 0.0661! 0.3814External benefits 0.5268 0.0433! 0.4333Internal benefits 0.7402 0.0942! 0.5599Personal-related problems 0.7149 20.0732! 0.7517Planning and thoroughness 0.8642 0.2577! 0.8484Various problems 0.7795 20.0367! 0.7764General aspects of award 0.4921 20.021 ! 0.654

Table IV.Reliability analysis

BIJ15,1

18


17/22

requirements of performance excellence, sharing information of the strategies that leadto successful TQM implementation and adopting and strengthening thecompetitiveness of Jordanian companies is above 70 percent (3.5/5.0). Referring to the

Ho1 hypothesis, results show thatit failed to rejectthe nullhypothesis. This will support

the notion that the culture of quality management in Jordanian organization isestablished so that the award can achieve its objectives even though the award is new.

External and internal benefits. Referring to the benefits that can be obtained byparticipating in the award process, results of Table V show that the award introducedsome external and internal benefits. On average 64.9 and 61.5 percent of participants

believe that the award can help their companies in getting some external and internalbenefits from the participation. Even though this is an acceptable percentage, moreeffort must be directed to elaborate on how the award can increase its impact andraise its tangible and intangible benefits.

In fact, the participated firms mostly agreed on the expected set of benefits of theaward. However, there is one external benefit and one in the internal benefits thatthe participants did not perceive to be valid, namely: better external communicationsand lower product cycle time. These two benefits could not be realized since the firstone is highly related to culture of the organization and the second is a technical issuethat needs more than one cycle of product to generalize the findings. Referring to the

Ho2 and Ho3 hypothesis, results show that it failed to reject the two null hypotheses.

This set of requirements needed by the award criteria specified and identified areas ofimprovement in performance of an organization, and enjoy a greater sense of purpose,direction and focus in their day-to-day activities.

Awards participation problems. It is expected that a set of problems will rise duringparticipation in the award process. Two sets of problems were identified, i.e. thepersonnel-related problems and planning and thoroughness for participation.The response to each questionnaire in this group was rated on a scale of 1(least impact) to 5 (highest impact). A higher mean value indicates a significantproblem. From Table VI, it is clear that many firms have not faced significantproblems during the process of participation in the award, based on the preset level ofsatisfaction (2/5). The 2.51/5.0 and the 2.45/5.0 levels of the impact of thepersonnel-related problems and planning and thoroughness, respectively, are of anacceptable level for the participants. This is supported by the fact that the Ho4 and

Ho5 have failed to be rejected. The relatively low-level of impact that the problems

have had on the process, suggests that most Jordanian firms reach a good level of fullunderstanding of the awards requirements, and that they have a significant

knowledge of its needs.The participants are in total agreement that: the level of the problems wasinsignificant to have a negative impact on the companies participation process.However, some problems appear to have a significant negative impact on the process:resistances to change, insufficient and ineffective training, emphasis on short-termresult, and treating symptoms and not causes. The problem of resistance to change,emphasis on short-term results and treating symptoms and not causes, are not due theparticipation in the award, it is part of the organizational culture (and not unique to

Jordan). It is expected that this will happen with any implementation of a new system,when adopting a new philosophy or deploying a new concept. Training for the award

Jordan QualityAward

19


18/22

is a significant issue. Most of the companies needed a set of training programs tointroduce the award and implement its requirements.

Awards criteria weights. The current JoQA scoring system does not emphasize anyone specific award criterion. In fact scoring is evenly distributed among the fivecriteria. However, there is a wide variation among the weights of the awards criteria.The objectives of this portion of the research are to verify whether the JoQA criteriaand sub-criteria are acceptable to the participants, and to test the hypothesis of:

companies being satisfied with the assigned weights. As discussed earlier, eachJoQA criterion was represented by multiple items in the questionnaire and confirmedby factor analysis. The response to each questionnaire item was rated on a scale of 1(completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). A higher mean value indicates a closermatch (agreement) between the statement and the award criteria weight.

In examining each criterion, the results show that, among the participatingcompanies, the companies accepted the award criteria weights. Table VI shows thedata and analysis using the t-test of the estimation of the weights for each criterion ofthe award in terms of the means, standard deviations, and Xo (test statistic) andwhether the hypothesis is failed to be rejected or not. For example, L1 (leadership sub

Criteria Actual mean SD Desired mean Xo Reject or not

LeadershipLeadership vision 25 11.68 20 2.22 RejectLeadership education system 43.52 13.29 50 22.53 RejectLeadership support and action 63.52 10.45 65 20.74 Fail to rejectLeadership suitabili ty and selection 63.52 10.45 65 20.74 Fail to rejectStrategic planningMission statement 12.26 5.38 10 2.18 RejectExternal environmental analysis 22.52 4.31 25 22.99 Reject

Objectives 16.52 5.47 15 1.44 Fail to rejectStrategies 17.81 5.72 15 2.55 RejectProjects and action plans 25.30 7.77 25 0.20 Fail to rejectImplementation and control 55.93 10.00 60 22.12 Reject

Process managementQuality system 83.89 17.72 80 1.14 Fail to rejectCustomer relationshipmanagement system 56.59 11.45 60 21.55 Fail to rejectCoordination and structure 56.96 15.60 60 21.01 Fail to reject

Resources managementHuman resources 110.37 21.75 120 22.30 RejectInformation resources 30.81 11.19 30 0.38 Fail to rejectFinancial resources 50.74 11.82 60 24.07 RejectMaterial resources 20.07 5.05 20 0.08 Fail to rejectTechnological resources 20.67 8.44 20 0.41 Fail to reject

ResultsCustomer satisfaction 47.59 6.41 50 21.95 Fail to rejectEmployee satisfaction 42.22 8.92 40 1.30 Fail to rejectProduct/service quality andoperational performance 42.48 10.64 40 1.21 Fail to rejectSupplier performance 19.04 2.49 20 22.01 Fail to rejectImpact on society 22.70 12.37 20 1.14 Fail to rejectFinancial 27.63 6.06 30 22.03 Fail to reject

Table VI.Analysis of the criteria

BIJ15,1

20


19/22

criterion number one: vision statement) has a value of 25 points instead of the original20 points assigned by the JoQA criterion. For this criterion, the null hypothesis isrejected. Using the same manner in L1, and for SP6 (strategic planning sixth subcriterion: implementation and control) companies suggested to increase this weightfrom 55 to 60.

However, the participants request to change the awards criteria weights was not asignificant result. They did not, for example, cancel a criterion or suggest one. Most oftheir suggestions are slight modifications of sub-criteria, and there was no request formajor changes. The suggested modifications are presented in Table VII. It is worthy ofnote that the participants are totally satisfied with the current sub-criteria and its

weights. Based on the t-test, results indicate that no significant opposition to thepresent weights of the awards. This is in support of the null hypothesis which reportedthat there is high degree of satisfaction about the current awards weight criteria.

Even though this assessment shows that quality management in Jordan, based onthe awards criteria, has made progress over the years, and there is no suggestion formodifying the awards criteria, this will challenge the level of knowledge andunderstanding of key quality management concepts after only three cycles of theaward. More time and effort must be invested in explaining how the award will link to

Criteria/sub criteria Points (current) Points (suggested)

1.0 Leadership 200 200 1.1 Leadership vision 20 25

1.2 Leadership educational system 50 451.3 Leadership support 65 651.4 Leadership selection and suitability 65 65

2.0 Strategic planning 150 1602.1 Mission statement 10 152.2 External environment analysis 25 252.3 Objectives 15 202.4 Strategies 15 202.5 Projects and action plans 25 252.6 Implementation and control 60 55

3.0 Processes management 200 195 3.1 Quality system 80 853.2 Customers relationship management 60 553.3 Coordination and structure 60 55

4.0 Resources management 250 235 4.1 Human resources 120 115

4.2 Information resources 30 304.3 Financial resources 60 504.4 Material resources 20 204.5 Technological 20 20

5.0 Results 200 210 5.1 Customer satisfaction 50 505.2 Employee satisfaction 40 455.3 Service/product quality (operational performance) 40 455.4 Suppliers performance 20 205.5 Impact on society 20 205.6 Financial results 30 30

Table VII.The suggested

modifications for thecriteria of KAIIAE

Jordan QualityAward

21


20/22

the quality management culture. Without a more developed and widespreadunderstanding of modern quality management in relation to the JoQA, firms willencounter difficulty in advancing the development of quality in Jordan.

Conclusions and future workThis study reports an analysis of the JoQA (KAIIAE) after being implemented for thesecond time. It has three main components: explaining the awards characteristics,benchmarking with international awards, and assessing it based on the participatingcompanies perceptions. The award criteria and sub-criteria and their relationship isillustrated. JoQA is benchmarked with different, well known, international qualityawards, i.e. MBNQA and EQA. This benchmarking addressed the differences in thecriteria of each quality award, concerning the difference in the existence of some subcriteria, and the difference in the weights of the criteria and sub-criteria. The studyfindings indicate that the award has some uniqueness in terms of criteria, sub-criteriaand its weights compared to the other two awards. It has its own set of criteria andweights that took into consideration the two awards, but reflects the Jordaniancompanies culture, expertise and knowledge related to the award issues.

In view of the current state of the awards implementation process in Jordan and theresults of the assessment, a set of action must be taken if Jordanian firms are tosuccessfully continue their current quality development: raise the level ofunderstanding of quality management at the national level in general and awardsrequirements in specific; implement internal and external awareness campaign foreach cycle of the award; and developing training programs in quality management, in

general, and the awards requirements, specifically.Several hypotheses were tested that included JoQA objectives, organization benefits,organization problems, and criteria weights. To a certain extent it can be concluded thatthe award met its objectives and provided the companies with a set of external andinternal benefits. However, the award did not achieve its objective related to somepersonnel-related problems, planning and thoroughness problem-issues. This wasmainly due to either the implementation of the award, still in its early stages, or thecriteria of the award were not well understood by the companies. In general, the awardweights were satisfactory. However, some slight modification to some criteria andsub-criteria could add value to the award weights based on the relevant feedback fromthe participants. It is recommended to study the motivational reasons among thecompanies in participating in the award, the level of TQM knowledge of the companiesand their relationship with the award, and implement the award based on the suggestedmodifications of the award criteria weights and then reevaluate it. It is recommended to

repeat the assessment for the fourth cycle of the award and compare results.

References

Abraham, M., Fisher, T. and Crawford, J. (1997), Quality culture and the management oforganization change, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 14No. 6, pp. 616-36.

Bohoris, G.A. (1995), A comparative assessment of some major quality awards, InternationalJournal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 9, pp. 30-43.

Chung, W.K. (2001), Benchmarking Singapores high-TQM maturity organizations,Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 8-35.

BIJ15,1

22


21/22

Da Silva, J.G., Tadashi, O. and Kikuo, N. (2005), Looking through and beyond the TQM horizon:lessons learned from world-class companies, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 67-84.

Davis, R.A. and Stading, G.L. (2005), Linking firm performance to the Malcolm BaldrigeNational Quality Award implementation effort using multi attribute utility theory,Managerial Finance, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 19-34.

Denkena, B., Apitz, R. and Liedtke, C. (2006), Knowledge-based benchmarking of productionperformance, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 13 Nos 1/2, pp. 190-9.

Djerdjouri, M. (2004), National quality and business excellence awards in a developing country:the Fiji National Quality Award, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 120-4.

EFQM (1999), The European Quality Award Application Handbook, EFQM, Brussels.Eriksson, H. and Garvare, R. (2005), Organizational performance improvement through quality

award process participation, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 894-912.

Evans, J. (1996), Leading practices for achieving quality and high performance, Benchmarkingfor Quality Management & Technology, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 43-58.

Garg, R.K. and Ma, J. (2005), Benchmarking culture and performance in Chinese organizations,Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 260-74.

Ghobadian, A.A. and Woo, H.S. (1996), Characteristics, benefits and shortcomings of four majorquality awards, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 13 No. 2,pp. 10-44.

Jager, J. (1996), Promoting TQM through national quality awards the Austrian experience,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 17-21.

Khoo, H.H. and Tan, K.C. (2003), Managing for quality in the USA and Japan: differences

between the MBNQA, DP and JQA, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 14-24.

Kristensen, K. and Juhl, H. (1999), Five years with quality awards in Denmark, The TQMMagazine, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 80-3.

Laszlo, G.P. (1996), Quality awards recognition or model?, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 8 No. 5,pp. 14-18.

Laszlo, G.P. (1997), US and Canadian national quality awards: increased emphasis on businessresults, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 381-3.

Lau, R.S.M., Zhao, X. and Xiao, M. (2004), Assessing quality management in China withMBNQA criteria, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 21 No. 7,pp. 699-713.

Lee, P. and Quazi, H.A. (2001), A methodology for developing a self-assessment tool to measurequality performance in organizations, International Journal of Quality & ReliabilityManagement, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 118-41.

Li, M. and Yang, J.B. (2003), A decision model for self-assessment of business process based onthe EFQM excellence model, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 164-88.

Lindsay, W.M. and Preston, A.P. (2000), Maintaining quality through evolving strategy: theTVS partnership, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 100/4, pp. 164-71.

Lobo, I. and Zairi, M. (1999), Competitive benchmarking in the air cargo industry: Part I,Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 164-91.

Loomba, A.P.S. and Johannessen, T.B. (1997), Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award:critical issues and inherent values, Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology,Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 59-77.

Jordan QualityAward

23


22/22

McAdam, R. (1996), Developing an appropriate quality award for Northern Ireland, ManagingService Quality, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 22-5.

Mann, R. and Voss, M. (2000), An innovative process improvement approach that integratesISO 9000 with the Baldrige Framework, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7No. 2, pp. 128-46.

Meybodi, M.Z. (2005), Strategic manufacturing benchmarking, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17No. 3, pp. 249-58.

Miguel, P.A., Morini, C. and Pires, S.R.I. (2004), An application case of the Brazilian NationalQuality Award, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 186-93.

NIST (2001), Overview of the criteria for performance excellence, National Institute for Scienceand Technology, Washington, DC.

Palmberg, K. and Garvare, R. (2006), Sustained quality management: how to receive theSwedish quality award twice, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 42-59.

Puay, S.H., Tan, K.C., Xie, M. and Goh, T.N. (1998), A comparative study of nine national qualityawards, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 30-9.

Strategic Direction (2006), Ikea: not Swedens only quality company, Strategic Direction, Vol. 22No. 5, pp. 5-7.

Taylor, C. (1997), The UK quality award the 1996 winners and runners-up, Managing ServiceQuality, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 77-9.

Wali, A.A., Gupta, A.D. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2000), Quality initiatives in an Indian softwareorganization: a case study, Work Study, Vol. 49 No. 7, pp. 285-91.

Zairi, M. (1999), Managing excellence: leadership, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 215-20.

Zairi, M. and Whymark, J. (2000), The transfer of best practices: how to build a culture ofbenchmarking and continuous learning Part 1, Benchmarking: An InternationalJournal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 62-79.

Zink, K.J. and Voss, W. (1998), Quality in Germany an overview, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 10No. 6, pp. 458-63.

Zink, K.J., Schmidt, A. and Vob, W. (1997), Total quality down under: the Australian QualityAward an innovative model for business excellence, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 9 No. 3,pp. 217-20.

Corresponding authorIbrahim A. Rawabdeh can be contacted at: [email protected]

BIJ15,1

24

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

Jordan Quality