Business Excellence Awards and Frameworks - Example

Student’s Name Professor’s Name Subject DDMonthYYYY BUSINЕSS ЕХСЕLLЕNСЕ АWАRDS АND FRАMЕWОRKS One of the most common cooperate objective for organizations today is wining either the business excellence awards or the quality awards. The business excellence awards also known as the EFQM Global Excellence Awards are prestigious awards which are given for the purpose of recognizing the world best performing organizations whether nonprofit, public or private. This particular award recognizes industry leaders with a track record that is indisputable and organization with the nick of turning a business strategy into action. The business excellence award is supported by a rigorous assessment system based on the Excellence Model known as EFQM. This paper therefore seeks to compare the difference between the quality and excellence awards in regards to the business environment while bringing forth their significance. The quality awards are developed in response to the global growing concern within organizations on Total Quality Management (TQM) which by the year 2004 had been adopted in an estimated 67 countries (Eriksson et al. 235-242). Moreover, quality awards are claimed to be adopted from the Deming Prize of Japan which was adopted in the year 1951, the US’s Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) was adopted in the country in the year 1987 ,European Quality Management adopted in the year 1991 (EQM) and the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) (Wilson 237-240). Evidently, MBNQA has spread in Asia and South America whereas in the Middle East, Europe and Africa EQA is more common. In addition to this the emergence of quality awards has been attributed to the emergence of Total Quality Management. On the other hand, quality awards have also fostered the adoption of quality improvement tools in organizations for the purpose of boosting their performance (Kathryn et al. 4-15). Organizations today take pride in wining a quality reward due to the prestige and testimony that comes along side this reward system. In this case, the quality reward system is commonly perceived as a reward for an organization for its efforts in maintenance of high quality standards in regards to product and service output as well as its general performance (Djerdjouri and Mohamed 120-124). This explains the efforts and huge investments that organization have made in preparing to win the quality awards due to the opportunity to hog the limelight that comes along with winning this awards (Stading and Vokurka 931-946). Despite the perception that quality awards are awarded based on the organizations quality output this is not entirely true the criterion of awarding quality awards is dependent on a number of factors which include; the company’s performance as well as the organization workforce. In this case, the organization workforce is responsible for the implementation of the quality standards which form the basis of the quality reward system in organizations. The quality of the organization end product and services comes down to its workforce which is comprised of individuals who create and come up with these products and services (Tan 165-171). This therefore inexorably links the organization workforce to the quality reward system. Thus, despite the advancement in technology where organization workforce have increasingly become automated in manufacturing products and creation of services the importance of the workforce has still not diminished. Excellence awards can be traced to the year 1980’s which was categorized by the significant flourishing and development of the Japanese economy. During this time this country’s economy was quite prevalent with the global market feeling the predominance of Japanese economy hence in recent years japan has predominantly been known and associated with quality and time management. In an effort to prevent other country’s economies jeopardy some initiative was taken by the lager countries in Europe through the introduction of the EFQM as well as the EQA which was latter on referred to as the “EFQM Excellence Model” under the excellence awards (Sharma and Talwar 4-20). On the other hand, the excellence reward is dependent on the application of the EFQM excellence model. On the other hand, the excellence reward is also dependent on the evaluation of the company’s current situation as well as its performance and its collective plan towards improvement of its performance gaps (Djerdjouri 120-124). On the other hand, the business excellence rewards is also claimed to be dependent on the binding link between EFQM excellence model and TQM’s philosophy. With more organizations appreciating the excellence reward system the EFQM has become an even more important model for the company’s self-assessment processes. Additionally, empirical studies and results have showcased that this reward system has a relatively high positive effect on the cooperate performance and as such organizations are embracing it to expand their market share (Grigg and Mann 1173-1188). In this case, organizations which have embraced the excellence reward system have experienced drastic improvement in both their short-term and long-term performances. However, there have been some evident shortcomings associated with the business excellence awards, the main one being its inability to foster global sustainability. Thus, experts have called for the development of the Universal Business Excellence Model (UBEM) in order to ensure the excellence reward system fosters sustainability in organizations adopting it. This main problem for the excellence reward system is associated with the imbalances in the management based approaches and the human dimensions (Boys et al. 4-15). On the other hand, this problem of the excellence reward system is also associated with the tendency to focus on objective and the tangible aspects while underestimating the subjective and intangible aspects. This therefore led to the calls for shift of focus to a reward system that appeared to be considerably “soft” from the current quality reward system (Carlos Bou‐Llusar et al. 337-353). The other problem associated with the excellence reward system is that it places unreasonably high importance on the dimensions of the excellence reward model. This therefore leads to this organizations spending relatively high amount of money in order to boost the application reports quality rather than improving the organizations general quality One consequence for this problem among organizations that have embraced the excellence reward system is that is over dependent on the self-assessment approach which could lead to the organization compromising on some issues regarding performance (Eriksson et al.235-242). Literature review Emergences of quality awards can be traced to the year 1970’s and stain on their popularity significantly rose and spread globally. Bohoris (1995) in his analysis of the European, American and Japanese quality awards claims that they are quite significant in the business environment for any organization. He further claims that Deming prize is focused on the statistical aspect, quality control application and improvement of the employee’s relationship. However, he is also keen to point out that there is a significant difference between EQA, Deming Prize and MBNQA (Khoo and Tan 14-24). In this case, he also argues that the EQA does not have some aspect such as societal impact, human resource management operational results and customer satisfaction. Consequently, Laszlo (1997) studied the Canadian and American quality awards and realized that these awards in both countries focus on organization success revolving around the concept of overall quality management. He also noted that quality awards in these two countries are dependent on human resource management. In a research carried out in the National University of Singapore by its Industrial and System Engineering Department National Quality Awards (NQA) on a variety of countries from; Asia, North America, Latin, Europe and Africa involved analyzing the ten main evaluation criteria as well as 35 sub criteria that would be used in the framework. These criteria included; customer management, process management, leadership, information and analysis, resources, strategy and policy plan, partners performance and management, business results, impact on society and strategy and policy planning(Wilson 237-240). In this study it was realized that people management was the second most important factor in reference to none main quality awards within North America, Asia and Europe. Besides, it was observed in the study that the criteria was relatively similar among these quality awards in different countries however, there were some evident differences in different countries development stages. The commonly noticed rewards in these reviewed three continents are the leadership and human resource rewards (Djerdjouri 120-124). On the other hand, in comparison to the five quality awards; the Deming prize, Austlarian Quality Award and Canadian quality award, Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and the European Quality Award it was argued that there was notable commonality in the countries where these awards were administered reflecting on the significance of production on global goods and services accounting for an estimated 74% of the gross national product in the world during this current period (Tan 165-171). This award is also a reflection of organization quality based on the customer approvals through human resource development, product design leadership and strategic plans which are focused on the customer. Further, in these rewards the Human Resource aspect accounts for around 20% whereas leadership accounting for around 10% in overall in the comparison of the Canadian Award for quality with the MBNQA. On the other hand, Taylor (2000) points out that the top performance in regards to the organization performance and quality and service delivery are recognized in this reward system. Miguel (2001) further, provides a detailed study of organizations in his study of an estimated 51 companies in Brazil (Stading and Vokurka 931-946). In this study, Miguel (2001) states that the contribution of the organization workforce and leadership is an estimated 190 points in an estimated 1,000 points in regards to the quality awards method. In another study Tan (2000) compares an estimated national quality awards which are sixteen in number with notable differences and similarities across these awards which have linkable similarities in human resource management and leadership. In consideration to the differences among the countries in the East and West in regards to cultural practice Khoo and Tan (2003), claim that the Japanese Quality Award and the Deming Prize are quite common. However, the evident differences in these two awards are existent due to the perceived cultural differences as well as differences linked to individual freedom. However, on a closer look there appears to be some similarity in consideration to leadership and human resource aspects. They are also keen to point out that one common issue in these awards framework is the TQM concepts. Consequently, Mavroidis, Agoritsas and Toliopoulou (2007), have reviewed an estimated 31 main quality awards in countries which are member states of the European Union and they contend that the participation of these countries in these award systems comes down to their political systems. Kumar (2007), purports that it is notable that there are some remarkable changes in the award criteria in his study of the MBNQA and the Deming Prize. Further, he stresses that technical quality is not the only considered issue as it was in the past however, now a holistic view of the human resource related factors is considered (Tan 165-171). Business Excellence rewards are essential in rewarding excellences within organizations and it is ideal since it helps organizations to foster their competitive advantage through the adoption of the best practices of business. Additionally, they fosters organizations as they strive towards sustainability. Juse (1991), stresses that the business excellence awards are the highest achievable awards that an organization can attain in regards to honor of the services rendered (Carlos Bou‐Llusar et al. 337-353). The emergence of the business excellence awards could be traced to the time when there was a global interest in following the quality awards approach. In this case, the business excellence awards are acclaimed to be an improvement to the Deminng Prize and the Baldridge framework which was relied on in the late 1990s. One example of this is the renaming of Australia Quality Awards to Australia Business Excellence Awards. The purpose behind this action is to raise the consciousness of quality in organizations as well as the general public in their efforts to share best practices and business experiences. Thus, business excellence awards have helped foster the creation of competitive products and services in most organizations globally (Kumar and Madhu 245-258). On the other hand, Wallace, 1993, argues that business excellence awards have also contributed to the acceptance of quality in the global competitive market. He also stresses that the business excellence awards are built on the quality managerial philosophy which has been the ideal driver for excellence in organizations (Eriksson et al. 235-242). Mann and Grigg (2005), in their study of the Australian stock exchange, it was noted that the Business Excellence Award winning organization during the 1990 -2003 period announced improved returns which were higher than the previous benchmarks that were being generated by other organizations in an effort to achieve sustainable growth. Organisations like Ernst and young has been motivated by this awards and they strive to perform better every year in order to win these awards as it motivates their employees and makes the organization attractive to stakeholders. However, Wimer, Esterner (2008), claim that the influence of business awards to organization focus on quality improvement is losing its grip in these organizations. They further claim that this is evident through the extent at which the Business Excellence Foundation is losing its members. Other than this, they also point out a continuous excellence in performance among the excellence award winning organizations with these studies showing significant improvement among the key performance indicators of these organizations in regards to sales and operating income (Grigg and Mann 1173-1188). For instance, the entrepreneur of the year award in the United Kingdom and the USA by Ernst and young, is a globally excellence award that recognizes and helps and motivates entrepreneurs globally to form sustainable businesses in close to 60 countries that are geared towards solving the current problems facing the world. Smith and Adam (2006), maintain that the evident decline in the global embrace of the business excellence awards approach within organization can be blamed on lack of resource promotion and funding by the custodians of these awards as well as the local governments in various countries which have adopted this approach. On the other hand, they also claim that in availability of tools that assist organizations in their adoption of the business excellence model is also a contributory problem to the decline in the global embrace of the business excellence award approach (Mavroidis, Toliopoulou and Agoritsas 454-467). They further point out at the incompatibility of this business excellence award approach which varies in different countries as another problem which has contributed to its notable decline at the global level. Martens (2005), purports that one disadvantage of the business excellence approach is the time and financial investment needed to finance its application. In this case, he gives an example of Toyota Motor Corporation in reference to the year 2002 when this organization won Australia’s Business Excellence Award where it is estimated to have spent close to UD $ 400,000 in the application of this approach as well as a number of years in implementing it in the organization operations in order to ensure that it is part of the organization work practice (Sharma, Anil and Talwar 4-20). However, Martens (2005), also claims that adoption of the business excellence award approach guarantees an organization improvement on its market share as well as profitability. However, some issues such as change in technology and customer taste as well as economic down turn have been blamed on preventing past winners of the business excellence awards such as Motorola, Federal Express and Wallace Company leveraging those awards to dominate their respective markets. Conversely, Anne Bakker the manager of SAI Global claims that organizations that have embraced business excellence award approach are forming alliances to ensure that the influence of this approach does not diminish (Sharma and Talwar 4-20). In this case, she claims that past business excellence award winners are merging in an effort to form an organization which could be the biggest portfolio of the organizations that have embraced business excellence awards approach. Discussion The HR aspect that is covered by the quality awards approach entails workforce management, motivation participatory environment, training, development, incentive performance, employee satisfaction and wellbeing, organization and personnel growth (Wilson and George 237-240). These affected aspects by quality awards approach taken up by organizations seemingly influence the top management of these organizations enabling them to adopt supportive aspects in their managerial style therefore, it underlines the main importance of leadership in an organization. In addition to this, the quality award approach adopted by organization also fosters alignment of personnel with the organization growth (Stading and Vokurka 931-946). Further, the quality reward approach adopted by organizations is also characterized by a centralized strong leadership. In this case, it is notable that the leaders of these organization adopting the quality awards approach have direct control of these organization though coordination all the organization activities either directly or indirectly through the use of subordinates. Thus, in most cases the managing directors and the organizations receive recognitions ignoring the other levels of management that worked tirelessly to achieve this (Grigg, Nigel and Mann 1173-1188). In addition, these leaders also set examples of quality management through their leadership which is reflected through their preservation of the organization culture and their influence in empowering the organization employees in problem ownership and grabbing of opportunities as well as proactive implementation of solutions (Kathryn et al.4-15). Evidently, the quality award approach adopted by organization also ensures that these organization leaders observe a leadership style that is free from dictatorship style and embraces an open leadership style where they involve their subordinates in the organization decision making process (Wilson 237-240). The quality award approach also fosters the implementation of establishment of human resource plans in an organization through ensuring that it provides employees opportunities for utilization of the potential in line with the creation of high performance environments in the organization’s workforce (Eriksson, Henrik, Johansson, and Wiklund 235-242). Also organization that have embraced the quality award approach tend to attract, develop and retain a diverse workforce which is critical in the provision of a variety of skills to the organization workforce as well as fostering business improvement within the organization through employee empowerment. The organizations that have adopted the quality award approach tend to be keen on recognition and rewarding of employee performance in regards to their contribution to the organization growth (Khoo, Hsien and Tan 14-24). Organization that have adopted the quality award approach also tend to have a strong leadership style which is characterized by high workforce quality attributes as well as award winning performance by the organization employees. A good example of organization which have adopted the quality award approach and who have showcases some of these attributed include General Electric Company and Motorola which are former winners of the MBNQA under the tenure of Jack Welch and Robert Galvin respectively (Carlos Bou‐Llusar et al. 337-353). On the other hand, the excellent award principle is rather flexible compared to the quality award principle therefore it is adaptable to any organization. Hence, in the excellent award principle there is seemingly no competition for, funds, customers, services and resources as experienced in the quality award principle (Sharma, Anil and Talwar 4-20). A good example of this analogy can be seen in the case of organizations in Australia and Singapore where most of these organizations have adopted the quality award approach. Thus, it is evident that organizations in these two countries compete for quality, price, reliability and service delivery. This competition problem is blamed on one common aspect in the quality award principles where organization appear to share a common path and business practice which revolves around striving to stay ahead of the competitors which is not the case in the excellent award principle (Grigg and Mann 1173-1188). However, the excellence award principle borrows from the quality award system where the excellence award framework reflects on some issue such as competition evident in the quality award principle. On the other hand, the excellence award principle differs from the quality award principle since the excellence award principles only borrows the Crosby 14 steps for quality improvement, Juran’s 10 steps to quality improvement and the Deming’s 14 points of management aligning them to form the business excellence award philosophy (Carlos Bou‐Llusar et al. 337-353). Despite, the quality award principle borrowing some aspect from the price tag award principle the excellence award principle completely shifted from the price tag award principle. In the excellence award principle it can be adopted by any organization including the education sector as well as non-profit organizations (Khoo and Tan 14-24). However, the quality award principle is not applicable to all organizations and it is quite choosy when it comes to various business sectors and non-profit organizations. In the quality award principles the organization competes for the award however, in the excellence award principle organization do not compete solely for the award rather they compete for benchmarking their practices as well as for the purposes of opportunity improvement (Grigg, Nigel and Mann 1173-1188). Evidently, the self- assessment of the excellence reward monitors its progress in gap identification as well as its strength in opportunity improvement (Mavroidis, Toliopoulou and Agoritsas 454-467). Nonetheless, the measurement metric in the quality reward principle is the organization continuous practice and business growth. This therefore, shows that the excellence award principle is more conclusive compared to the quality award principle and issue which is attributed to the increasing number of organization adopting the excellence award system (Sharma and Talwar 4-20). In addition to this, the preference of the excellence award principle over the quality award principle is attributed to the fact that the excellence award principle also entails the evaluation metric against the organization self-assessment found in the business excellence framework. Conclusion More organizations are adopting the excellence award principle due to its contribution to the organization’s profitability, productivity, workforce wellbeing, safety and innovation. In this case the business excellence principle appears to guarantee long-term success as well as provide good organization performance results as opposed to the quality award principle. This is evident through the reviewed cases of organization in Australia and Singapore which have experiences relatively slow growth and improvement of the business environment due to their adoption of the quality award approach which focuses on the competitive aspect. Business excellence awards are essential as they motivate the workforce, increase their market share as well as the revenues which are central to business operations. References Boys, Kathryn et al. "Evolution Towards Excellence: Use Of Business Excellence Programs By Canadian Organizations". Measuring Business Excellence 9.4 (2012): 4-15. Web. Carlos Bou‐Llusar, J. et al. "To What Extent Do Enablers Explain Results In The EFQM Excellence Model?". International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 22.4 (2012): 337-353. Web. Djerdjouri, Mohamed. "National Quality And Business Excellence Awards In A Developing Country: The Fiji National Quality Award". The TQM Magazine 16.2 (2011): 120-124. Web Eriksson, Henrik, Fredrik Johansson, and H%kan Wiklund. "Effects Of In-Company Quality Awards On Organizational Performance". Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 14.2 (2013): 235-242. Web. Grigg, Nigel, and Robin Mann. "Review Of The Australian Business Excellence Framework: A Comparison Of National Strategies For Designing, Administering And Promoting Business Excellence Frameworks". Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 19.11 (2011): 1173-1188. Web. Khoo, Hsien H., and Kay C. Tan. "Managing For Quality In The USA And Japan: Differences Between The MBNQA, DP And JQA". The TQM Magazine 15.1 (2011): 14-24. Web. Mavroidis, Vassilios, Sophia Toliopoulou, and Constantine Agoritsas. "A Comparative Analysis And Review Of National Quality Awards In Europe". The TQM Magazine 19.5 (2013): 454-467. Web. Ranjan Kumar, Madhu. "Comparison Between DP And MBNQA: Convergence And Divergence Over Time". The TQM Magazine 19.3 (2011): 245-258. Web. Sharma, Anil K., and Balvir Talwar. "Evolution Of “Universal Business Excellence Model” Incorporating Vedic Philosophy". Measuring Business Excellence 11.3 (2012): 4-20. Web. Stading, Gary, and Robert Vokurka. "Building Quality Strategy Content Using The Process From National And International Quality Awards". Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 14.8 (2013): 931-946. Web. Tan, Kay C. "A Comparative Study Of 16 National Quality Awards". The TQM Magazine 14.3 (2012): 165-171. Web. Wilson, George. "The Impact Of The European Quality Award Model On Organizational Performance: A Northern Ireland Perspective". Total Quality Management 9.4-5 (2012): 237-240. Web. Read More