Benchmarking: An International Journal

Emerald Article: Jordan Quality Award (King Abdullah II Award for Excellence (KAIIAE)): Characteristics, assessment and benchmarking Ibrahim A. Rawabdeh

Article information:
To cite this document: Ibrahim A. Rawabdeh, (2008),"Jordan Quality Award (King Abdullah II Award for Excellence (KAIIAE)): Characteristics, assessment and benchmarking", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 Iss: 1 pp. 4 - 24 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635770810854326 Downloaded on: 03-04-2012 References: This document contains references to 37 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 1329 times.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

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

BIJ 15,1

Jordan Quality Award (King Abdullah II Award for Excellence (KAIIAE))
Characteristics, assessment and benchmarking
Ibrahim A. Rawabdeh
Industrial 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 is benchmarked with two international quality awards: Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and European Quality Award. Design/methodology/approach – In order to investigate the experiences of companies and gain feedback on the award’s benefits, achievements, problems, and criteria weights, a questionnaire was developed. A sample of 49 companies which had applied for the award was selected to test a set of hypotheses regarding the award’s objectives, benefits, problems, and criteria weights, and to determine areas of weaknesses and potential improvements. Findings – The testing of the hypotheses shows that the objectives of the award, externally, and internally viewed benefit were achieved. However, various implementation problems exist. Based on the 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 of companies who had participated on one occasion in the award’s process. Although the findings confirm the theoretical framework, more empirical work is needed to better understand the award’s impact over a longer time span. Further research should also identify if and how the award influences the participating companies in managerial, technical and financial aspects. Originality/value – The paper is unique insofar as it is the first to explore the experiences of users of the JoQA. It contributes to a better understanding of such awards’ impact on organizations in developing countries. Keywords Total quality management, Quality awards, Benchmarking, Business excellence, Jordan Paper type Research paper

4

Benchmarking: An International Journal Vol. 15 No. 1, 2008 pp. 4-24 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1463-5771 DOI 10.1108/14635770810854326

Introduction Total quality management (TQM) is both a philosophy and a set of guiding principles that represent the foundation of a continuously improving organization. It involves the application of quantitative methods and the utilization of human resources to improve organizational performance. TQM integrates fundamental management techniques, existing improvement efforts, and technical tools under a disciplined approach focused on continuous improvement. During the last decades many organizations became well aware of TQM and implemented its principles. They sought quality certification and standardization, recognition of performance excellence, and comprehensive systems for every aspect of their organization. The pioneers in TQM, such as Deming, Juran,

Taking this into consideration. This paper focuses on JoQA characteristics. Also it is intended to measure to what extent the award’s objectives were achieved. A quality award is considered to be a catalyst. products and services. it has signed the Jordan-USA partnership agreement.e. The awards provide frameworks for identifying a range of processes which influence an organization’s total quality and the business results. highlighted the importance of the application of the quality philosophy as an essential competitive weapon for the transformation of an organization. Such awards provide in their frameworks the essential concepts of TQM for achieving organizational development and long-term business success. Jordan demonstrated its capability to reform its economy in a manner that provides the basic steps for thriving into the third millennium. which came in the form of quality awards to acknowledge those users with excellent application of the TQM principles and concepts. Jordan now is a member of the World Trade Organization. Jordan Quality Award 5 . In the last few years. Many business organizations are using quality awards for self-assessment purposes. Jordanian companies need to be ready for this new level of competition. It is considered the highest level of quality recognition in Jordan. the fourth (2005-2006) is under preparation. is due to the implementation of quality awards. It is envisaged that this will be achieved through adopting a quality award program which was initially named the Jordan Quality Award (JoQA). and providing information for the decision maker regarding indication of the strengths. 2001). with the criteria providing the structure for the firm’s quality management (Strategic Direction. and whether the specified weighting criteria are suitable based on the participants’ perceptions. and which was later changed to King Abdullah II Award for Excellence (KAIIAE). and the areas for improvement. the enhancement of the role of the industrial and service sectors in the development process has led Jordan to be far more competitive. Jordan is passing through an important phase in its development. The KAIIAE (i. and represent their host countries’ efforts in promoting quality excellence in organizations. To enhance TQM awareness. there must be some encouragement and incentive. 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 and recently. JoQA) was launched in the start of the year 2000 after a long process of development.Feigenbaum and Cosby. as well as for enhancing their competitive position in the global market. which is characterized by a new challenge arising from the fact that companies are expected to face increased competition due to the new world policy of having internationally open markets. what types of problems were faced through the implementation process. the JoQA was developed to suit the needs and the characteristics of the Jordanian companies in the industrial and service sectors. the Jordan-Europe agreement and Arab Free Trade Agreement. The main objectives of this paper are to illustrate its scientific characteristics. Quality awards are properties of individual countries. Through its developmental stage. It is reported that the main reasons encouraging why companies have developed their TQM maturity levels. benchmarking and assessment after its second cycle. and to benchmark it with other international awards. that is usually provided as an output of the participation in such quality awards (Chung. Three cycles have been carried out in the periods: 1999-2000. to make a preliminary assessment of the award. The international community witnessed the dramatic economic changes through its introduction of a needed infrastructure of reform in order to be able to compete globally. 2006). The paper evaluates some of the important points and issues in the award.

Bohoris. 1997. Japanese Deming Prize (DP) (Ghobadian and Woo. Palmberg and Garvare. Canada Award for Excellence (Laszlo. the award’s launch. Applicants must demonstrate that their approach to TQM has contributed significantly to satisfying the expectations of customers and employees.. provide the winner the opportunity to use the logo of the EQA in corporate literature.. The MBNQA has three eligible sectors including: manufacturing companies. 2003). Ghobadian and Woo. Singapore Quality Award (Lee and Quazi. 1996. 2000. 1997. 1996. Puay et al.1997. 2004). Puay et al. Bohoris. Ghobadian and Woo. Laszlo. the MBNQA and EQA. Two international quality awards were selected to be benchmarked against the JoQA: namely. fostering teamwork. and establish the winners as members of the most successful group of organizations in Europe. Khoo and Tan.. Laszlo. Jager. 1998). The MBNQA is an annual award to recognize US companies for performance excellence. 1999). Australian Quality Award (Lindsay and Preston. Benefits of applying for this quality award include: sharpening the focus of an organization and its improvement activities. There are four award categories . Germany Ludwig-Erhard-Preis (Zink and Voss. 1996). and Fiji National Quality Award (Djerdjouri. 1998. 1998). Danish Quality Award (Kristensen and Juhl.. Zink et al. The award is based upon performance criteria created through a public-private partnership. Northern Ireland Quality Award (McAdam. Bohoris. Swedish Quality Award (Puay et al. only for-profit organizations have been eligible.. Many researchers described their national quality awards’ (NQA) characteristics. Indian Rajiv Gandhi National Quality Award (Wali et al.. 1998. Chung. 2003). 1998). New Zealand National Quality Award (Puay et al. In 1991 the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) launched the EQA to recognize appropriate companies which show a high level of commitment to quality. get a support of the European Commission and the European Organization for Quality. 2006). 2001).. 1996. 1998). 1996. UK Quality Award (Taylor. 1996. Khoo and Tan. and to share information on successful performance strategies and the benefits derived from using these strategies. 1998.. Since. Puay et al. Brazil National Quality Award (Puay et al.. The EQA is awarded to the most successful adopter of TQM in Europe. 2001. Japan Quality Award (Khoo and Tan. 1997. 1995. European Quality Award (EQA) (Ghobadian and Woo. 1996. Benefits of winning include: the winner is administered by the EFQM. 1996. 2003). ¨ 2000.1 6 Quality awards Several countries have developed and implemented their own quality awards. Laszlo. including: the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) in the USA (Loomba and Johannessen. 1996. 1998). Puay et al. Abraham et al.. The award’s applicants are expected to provide information and data on their companies’ key processes and results that must be adequate to demonstrate that applicants’ approaches are effective and yield desired outcomes. 1995. service companies and small businesses. 1996. 1998). 1998). which have been extensively examined and reviewed in the quality literature. to promote the understanding of the requirements for performance excellence and competitiveness improvement. Puay et al..BIJ 15.. Puay et al. 1998). increasing the awareness of the need of TQM. 1997. benefits and assessments. 2001). Puay et al. and the award is held nominally for one year by the recipient. The criteria are designed not only to serve as a reliable basis for making the awards but also to permit a diagnosis for any company’s overall performance management system (NIST. The award recipients may publicize and advertise their awards and expect to share information about their successful performance strategies with other US organizations.. 1995.

companies experience in the award process. The benefits. and small and medium enterprises or whole organizations and part organizations employing less than 250 people (EFQM. A set of seven common criteria/headings have been singled out. Khoo and Tan (2003) compared the distinctive differences and overlapping concepts between the USA and Japanese approach to TQM. Loomba and Johannessen (1997) conducted a study that described the MBNQA award program. Literature review The literature includes extensive research related to the field of quality awards. Puay et al. Ghobadian and Woo (1996) reviewed four awards (DP. three Asia Pacific and one South American). Specific awards are discussed in the literature. and scoring methods. They concluded that the quality awards have succeeded in generating awareness and interest in the TQM concept and provide a useful starting point. They reported that the NQAs differ in their emphasis on the framework criteria items. two North American. The focus of this review was to identify topics investigating comparison among different awards. themes and subjects that have been investigated. the MBQA. 1999). They described briefly the outstanding features of the awards and attempted to highlight their distinct attributes. with regard to the countries’ quality award frameworks and criteria. Furthermore. Jordan Quality Award 7 . and the Australian Quality Award). They discussed how culture-related values play a significant role in modern day-to-day management. underlying frameworks. particularly MBNQA has a considerable amount of research. MBNQA) in terms of their application categories. A country’s economic development status has been observed to play a contributory role in creating the differences. and winners’ characteristics. Review of the literature has identified different topics. The Baldrige Award has three central purposes: to promote awareness and understanding of the importance of quality improvement to USA’s economy. shortcomings and impact of the awards are also discussed. to recognize companies for outstanding quality management and achievement. along with continuous improvement. award criteria and areas of examination. Bohoris (1995) presented a comparison of three awards (DP. first from a historical perspective – discussing the beginning of the concept. and the underlying values and concepts represented in their respective framework.including whole companies or parts of companies running as independent businesses. the MBNQA in the USA. EQA. He identified differences and similarities among the three different sets of examination criteria. and the DP in Japan. by bringing together the equivalent percentage scores assigned to eleven criterion in each of the three awards. The comparison is based on the application of categories. and to share information on successful quality strategies. EQA. highlighting differences. public sector organizations or units operating within the public sector. The important management practices that lead to the achievement of quality and high performance are reflected in the MBNQA criteria. directing and controlling. operational units of companies or parts of the company running as cost centers. applications procedures. (1998) presented a comparative study of nine NQA (three European. There is numerous research related to comparison of awards. countries awards characteristics and implementation. organizing. Evans (1996) described the MBNQA criteria as being easy to classify processes along the traditional management activity classification of planning. the awards were compared with one another. examination criteria.

and to simulate different scenarios for improvement planning. Li and Yang (2003) developed a decision model that focused on the “processes” criterion of the EFQM model. which are to score the self-assessment submission document. Chung (2001) reported that quality award models provide a comprehensive framework for the application and study of benchmarking. and other professionals regarding the types of firm performance and returns that would be needed to justify undertaking the MBNQA process. Zairi (1999) used business excellence from a practical evidence-based approach in a study of an organization’s overall performance. qualifying their staff and adopting the requirements of quality management systems. Da Silva et al. The results showed that while financial performance of the firm is the strongest justification managers consider. Davis and Stading (2005) presented an exploratory study that examines the expectations of company managers. They subsequently proposed a new business measurement model and conceptual ways for companies to achieve a world-class level of excellence. The findings of the study were categorized in three subsections: unfairness. The EFQM has also had a considerable amount of research. the financial returns are certainly not out of the realm of normal expectations for returns from other projects. The study revealed that the participated companies are adopting the latest technological developments. which comprised the pioneer batch of organizations in the . Examples of experiences in different countries of the awards’ have contributed to the body of literature. (2005) investigated the best common management practices of the world-class companies identified in Brazil and Japan.1 8 Organizations which strive to obtain a competitive advantage can learn much by benchmarking and studying the practices of these companies as well as recent winners of the Baldrige Award. Zairi and Whymark (2000) studied the evolvement of TQM and how the role of internal good practice has underpinned the development of a continuous improvement culture. Li and Yang (2003) developed models and tools to support self-assessment. This covered the three main tasks. This company has succeeded in implementing a process improvement approach that prioritizes improvement projects based on their expected impact on the company’s Baldrige score. Loomba and Johannessen (1997) investigated the MBNQA’s internal dimensions which define their inherent character and qualities. by focusing on the ethics and ethical aspects of the Baldrige Award. He conducted a benchmarking exercise among Singapore’s productivity leaders. executives. superficiality and publicity-related problems. Lobo and Zairi (1999) carried out a survey on nine key companies in air cargo around the world.BIJ 15. In Singapore for example. and their natural limitations. and that while their expectations for improved financial performance are some what high. He used the criteria of excellence from MBNQA and the EQA model as one of the best methods to assess the effectiveness of the leadership process. to identify strengths and areas for improvement. Several researchers have cited companies’ experiences with the quality awards. and proposed a business model aimed at helping companies to achieve world-class level of excellence. Mann and Voss (2000) presented an innovative approach used by PEC (New Zealand) Ltd Company which integrates its ISO 9000-certified management system with the MBNQA model. They provided a benchmark of excellence practices and valuable suggestions to senior managers interested in implementing or improving their TQM process. and described a scientific and accurate scoring method for decision making as a measurement system of self-assessment against the EFQM model. trying to be meaner and leaner.

Abraham et al. The study explored the change processes that were used to move the organization towards the state of capability outlined by the award criteria. resource management (250). In China. Miguel et al. objectives. leadership (200 points). Jordan Quality Award (King Abdullah II Award for Excellence) JoQA (KAIIAE) is the highest level of recognition for the award of quality in Jordan. and . They reported the last actions taken by the company to apply for the award in the near future. Table I summarizes the criteria and the sub-criteria of the award and the corresponding points allocated for each. (2004) highlighted some benchmarking practices in management.e. Award activities are held every two years. In Fiji. (1997) conducted a study with companies. and examination criteria. The model uses a 1. For Brazil. The organizations that are entitled to participate in the award must fulfill the conditions of being a registered private Jordanian legal entity and having documented sustained activity over time (at least two years) and have good financial performance. Jordan Quality Award 9 .Singapore Quality Award program. and their customer relationships in an objective and measurable way through self-assessment. . manufacturing companies or sub-units. and the results or outcomes in achieving the purposes given in the item. the approach or how the applicant addresses the item requirements of the criteria. For Australia. process management (200). The awards are given to winners based on criteria. statistical quality control. Garg and Ma (2005) adapted some of the organizational performance items from the MBNQA outcome assessment measures in a study for benchmarking culture and performance in Chinese organizations. . principles. Comparisons were made between firms in three different stages of the development of a quality system: including. inspection. its history. by presenting a case study conducted in a company in Brazil. where each criterion is given a score. small or medium size manufacturing companies. strategic planning (150). and publicizing successful business strategies and promoting them. i. Djerdjouri (2004) presented the essence of the Fiji Quality Award. The award criteria compel organizations to improve their business practices. which were winners of an Australian Quality Award in the years 1989-1993 inclusive. framework. The weighting of these scores are based on three guidelines including the deployment or the extent to which the applicant approach is applied to all requirements of the item. Award criteria Figure 1 shows the framework that is used for JoQA. their employees. recognizing quality and business achievements of Jordanian companies. It illustrates its components and how they are related in a manner to form a complete assessment. (2004) reported the current state of quality management implementation and practices in China with reference to the MBNQA criteria. service companies or sub-units. small or medium size service companies. Lau et al. which was awarded with the Brazilian National Award. and results (200). It aims at enhancing the competitiveness of Jordanian businesses by promoting quality awareness and performance excellence.000-point scoring system divided into five criteria. and TQM. One award is given in each of the following categories: .

Employee satisfaction 5.5.1.0 Results 5.0 Processes management 3.4. Financial results Points 200 20 50 65 65 150 10 25 15 15 25 60 200 80 60 60 250 120 30 60 20 20 200 50 40 40 20 20 30 Table I. External environment analysis 2. KAIIAE framework Criteria/sub criteria 1. Customer satisfaction 5.1.2.1 Strategic Planning (150) Process Management (200) Leadership (200) Resource Management (250) Results (200) 10 Figure 1. KAIIAE framework . Financial resources 4. Service/product quality (operational performance) 5.4.0 Resources management 4.0 Leadership 1.1. Projects and action plans 2. Material resources 4. Mission statement 2.0 Strategic planning 2. Strategies 2. Objectives 2.3. Human resources 4.3. Leadership educational system 1. Customers relationship management 3. Implementation and control 3.2. Coordination and structure 4.6.4.3.5.3.2. Information resources 4. Leadership selection and suitability 2.BIJ 15.6. Leadership support 1.3.4. Quality system 3.5. Technological 5.1.2.1.2. Suppliers’ performance 5. Impact on society 5. Leadership vision 1.

whilst the MBA has two. communication. The JoQA has three levels. Table II presents a benchmark between JoQA and MBNQA and EQA. In the JoQA there is also the criterion “leadership” which has four sub-criteria. company responsibility and citizenship.Figure 2 shows the scoring mechanism in which each sub-criterion is evaluated with respect to five measures: involvement.3.. adoption.3.4 Leadership Selection And Suitability (65) Involvement (10%) Adoption (65%) Communication (10%) Continuous Improvement (10%) Benchmarking (5%) Figure 2.3 Adopting development effort (15) 1. 2006). This illustrates the thoroughness in the JoQA where it meets the MBNQA criteria and surpasses it to the next level. Each of them is required to be fulfilled in a way taking into consideration the generic sub-criteria that includes: benchmarking. Jordan Quality Award 11 1. continuous improvement. and benchmarking . It is based on the criteria of the JoQA. Denkena et al.2 Leadership Educational System (50) 1. where the objective was to find the criteria of the other awards that are/not covered in the JoQA. continuous improvement. Some criteria that serve the same purpose can be found under different main-criteria. adoption. Benchmarking JoQA with MBNQA and EQA During the past decade benchmarking has received significant attention.0 Results (200) 1. continuous improvement. but they have some differences.2 Financing development projects (15) 1. The results of the table were used to explain the differences between the JoQA and the two other awards.0 Processes Management (200) 4. and benchmarking. 2005.0 Strategic Planning (150) 3.3. The scoring mechanism for evaluating each sub-criterion with respect to five measures: involvement. JoQA and the MBNQA are much alike. As a result. communication. communication. in the MBNQA there is the criterion “leadership” which has two sub-criteria: leadership system.0 Leadership (200) 1.3 Leadership Support (65) 1. especially after its inclusion among Malcolm Baldrige Award criteria (Meybodi.4 Authority delegation (15) 1. For example. adoption and involvement.1 Leadership Vision (20) 2. One major difference between the JoQA with MBNQA and EQA is the levels of the criteria.0 Resources Management (250) 5.1 Communication and coordination (20) 1.3.

0 Results 5.4.1.3.3. Leadership support and action 1. Financial resources 4. since it describes how an organization implements a communication and coordination system between the top management. in addition to their efforts in adopting and implementing TQM concepts. Strategies 2. Coordination and structure 4. addresses top management’s duties in having a complete system for communication and coordination. Quality system 3. and the support and action in MBNQA. The leadership system in the JoQA.4.1 Criteria 1. However. Mission statement 2. For EQA.2.BIJ 15.2. Customer relationship management system 3. . customers and employees. It also describes the senior leader’s commitment to efforts directed for improvement and developing. Information resources 4.4. Comparison between JoQA and other awards Leadership JoQA focuses more on leadership. the MBNQA describes this facet in subsequent criteria.5.2. Supplier performance 5.0 Resources management 4.3.1. Impact on society 5.5. Human resources 4. and the leadership-educational systems in a clear manner as apparent in the JoQA.2.3. Material resources 4.6.2. Employee satisfaction 5. services and operations to its key communities in the companies).1.1.0 Strategic planning 2. Leadership vision 1. Projects and action plans 2.3.0 Process management 3. Technological resources 5.000) for the MBNQA.1.4. The “leadership-support and action” criterion describes the extent of adopting and implementing TQM concepts within the organization. Implementation and control 3. Objectives 2. and how top management delegates’ authority. The MBNQA award does not address the issues of leadership-vision.0 Leadership 1. Financial JoQA 200 YES YES YES YES 150 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 250 Yes Yes Yes 200 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 200 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MB 80 No No 80 No 135 No 95 No 40 Yes No 80 40 40 No 85 60 25 No No No 580 125 50 205 45 30 125 EQA 100 No No 100 No 80 No No No No No No 140 140 No No 180 90 90 Yes Yes Yes 510 200 90 Yes 10 60 150 DA 100 No No No No 100 No No No 100 Yes Yes 250 150 50 50 200 150 50 No No No 400 50 100 150 No 100 No 12 Table II. Customer satisfaction 5. which is apparent from the score (200/1. Product/service quality and operational performance 5.000 points) compared to only (110/1. the “leadership-support and action” criterion is critical in JoQA.6.5. The company “responsibility” sub-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.External environmental analysis 2. Leadership suitability and selection 2. Leadership education system 1.

regular reviewed and improved. selection and use of comparative information and data. Resources management JoQA puts more emphasis on the “resources management” criteria with (200/1.000) in the MBNQA. It additionally identifies current and prospective competitors. that companies in the USA usually have more advanced techniques and processes than in Jordan (hence they can minimize the resource cost more than Jordanian). social and technological environments.The EQA includes three items: recognition and appreciation of the efforts and success of individuals and teams. economic. These sub-criteria are about how work and jobs are designed and how employees contribute to ensure communication. and not specified. strategies. Two sub-criteria are common: human resources and information resources where the companies are Jordan Quality Award 13 .000) compared to (85/1. The sub-criteria in the JoQA are quality system and customer relationship management system. cooperation and knowledge. Process management JoQA and MBNQA awards have similar process management criteria. whilst the MBNQA is concerned with the strategic development process. the JoQA criteria customer relationship management system. process management criteria are named processes. communicated. and the implementing short. and coordination and structure have no similar descriptors in the EQA. This is due probably to the fact that the companies in the USA have this kind of information implied. however. while in the MBNQA. Also. how the organization systematically manages its key and support processes. and projects and action plans in the JoQA. and involvement with customers and suppliers. Both awards’ “strategic planning” criteria deal with analyzing political. the criterion of strategic planning is different. The JoQA focuses on other aspects: objectives. The “leadership-vision” “leadership-educational system” “suitability and selection” sub-criteria in JoQA have no similar components in the EQA. support of total quality by prevision of appropriate resources and assistance. and implementation and control. which include the following items: how the processes are identified. in which the sub-criteria identify how policy and strategy are based on the concepts of TQM. An expected reason for this is. The JoQA focuses on integrating a quality system.and long-term strategies and projects and action plans suitable to achieve the preset objectives. For the EQA. explicitly using documentation and certification (unlike the MBNQA). The coordination and structure criterion in the JoQA is not. and customer and market knowledge. how process performance parameters are used to review key processes and to set targets for improvement. These sub-criteria deal with customer relationship and the accessibility and complaint management. This is formed on the basis of information that is relevant to total quality and the basis of business plans. mission statement. analysis and review of company performance. they are work system and the customer satisfaction and relationship enhancement. Strategic planning The weighting on the “strategic planning” criterion in the JoQA are similar as that of the MBNQA. and company strategy in the MBNQA. found in the MBNQA. The two awards include common sub-criterion such as: external environmental analysis. as well as benefiting from the result. In the EQA.

1 14 required to have methods and procedures for gathering information about employees: their requirements. material and technological resources are described in resources criterion in EQA under items of information resources. The group of participants in the second cycle was selected since it is believed that the level of knowledge and experience in the award process among the companies is acceptable as a consequence of their experience. an additional sub-criterion in MBNQA is used. which both awards require. . materials and technological resources. implementing mechanisms and methodologies. In order to investigate the experiences of companies and gain feedback on the award’s benefits. obtained or existed” and number 5 represented “highest ones”. achievements. financial. and criteria weighting. which is the same for people satisfaction in EQA. training and career progression. The three parts were assessed using a five-point Likert scale. This describes the extent of having and implementing a comprehensive methodology to measure employee satisfaction. For this criterion. material resources. The first part of the questionnaire focuses on the award’s objectives and purpose. a questionnaire was developed containing four parts addressing each of these main issues. Both address customer satisfaction – that describes the methodology used to measure customer satisfaction – and the current results that indicate the degree of customer satisfaction. The fourth part of the questionnaire includes the suggested weighting for the award and sub-criteria. financial resources. The companies in the two cycles considered that their first experience as pilot tests. Award assessment and research hypotheses The research was conducted in companies from the four categories of the award who had applied in its second cycle.BIJ 15. and are presented in the MBNQA in one aspect only. complaints. The items of information. namely: the product/service quality and operational performance. where number 1 represented “least achieved. The second part assessed organizational benefits (external and internal) from participating in the award. Another criterion is employee satisfaction. For measuring and analyzing the customer and employee satisfaction. results. The other three sub criteria in JoQA are financial. Results MBNQA has more emphasis on the “results” criterion. and application of technology. and how people and teams agree on targets and continuously review performance. and the system used to analyze the above results in order to achieve the highest satisfaction. MBNQA and JoQA deal with issues in a different ways. The third part identified a suggested list of problems faced by the companies through the award application process. the extent of having and implementing a mechanism and to analyze results in order to achieve the highest satisfaction results.e. and training needs. It is seen that the criteria supplier performance and financial results in the JoQA have the same items in business results criterion in the EQA. problems. and they requested time to understand the award’s requirements and fulfill it. This criterion in the EQA (people management) highlights how the skills and the capabilities of the people are preserved and developed through recruitment. The criterion impact on society is the same in both. The criteria addressing customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction. and was related to the award’s criteria. i. The result criteria in the JoQA seem to be the same for the results criteria in EQA.

Jordanian organization got significant external benefit for participating in the JoQA program. Based on the point of view of Jordanian organizations. increase customer satisfaction (EXB4). JoQA achievements of objectives The JoQA has been developed in recognition of achieving a set of objectives. The JoQA achieved its objectives. Jordan Quality Award 15 . the tested benefits include cost reductions (INB1). One view argued is that since the award is new. better external communication (EXB2). In order to assess the award performance in the related four issues.The questionnaire was validated by a small group of companies’ representatives who were asked to provide feedback with respect to the questions and ease of completion. However. lower product cycle time (INB3). The questionnaires were sent to the 49 companies’ which had applied for the award and the number of filled and returned questionnaires were 31. If these requirements do not exist it requires the organization to deploy the resources or develop programs to implement it because they know what to do and what is expected from them. There are two principal views regarding the capability of the JoQA to achieve its objectives. so that the award can achieve its objectives even though the award is new. it is worthy of investigation as the short-term benefits of participating in the award’s program will surface important insight. two sets of hypotheses were developed: Ho1. with particular emphasis on the award’s four assessment issues. better cultural image (EXB3). a set of hypotheses was identified and tested. and shared quality experiences (EXB5). The following discusses the hypotheses relating to the award issues. Consequently. There are a number of expected benefits for Jordanian organizations through participating in the award program. The selected benefits to be tested include enhanced market advantage (EXB1). Accordingly. JoQA and organization benefits Analyzing the benefits of the award will have a short-and long-term impact. it will be difficult to influence the Jordanian organizations to implement the concepts of TQM. and to test whether the award has achieved its objectives. direction and focus in their day-to-day activities. For completing the questionnaire. the following hypotheses were developed: Ho2. Their insights were used to modify the questionnaire prior to its distribution among the selected companies. such as promoting awareness of quality (OBJ1). awareness of problems (INB4) and consistency across the organization (INB5). H1. The content of award criteria specifies a set of requirements that identifies a potential for improving the performance of an organization. The JoQA did not achieve its objectives. From the internal side. The other view is that the culture of quality management in Jordanian organizations is established. sharing information of the strategies that lead to successful TQM implementation (OBJ3) and adopting and strengthening the competitiveness of Jordanian companies (OBJ4). yielding a response rate of 63 percent. easier management (INB2). a contact person who worked closely with the award process and participated in the program was identified and sent a copy of the questionnaire to be filled. understanding the requirements of performance excellence (OBJ2). they enjoy a greater sense of purpose.

Jordanian organization got significant internal benefit for participating in the JoQA program. lack of empowerment (PRP7). it did not embrace the participants’ point view regarding the awards criteria weighting and their distribution among its sub-criteria. the following are selected: lack of a well-defined strategic plan (P&T1).BIJ 15. JoQA cannot help in identifying and solve organization personnel-related problems. use of an off-the-shelf solving program package (P&T5). JoQA cannot help in identifying and solve organization planning and thoroughness problems. 16 H3. resistances to change (PRP3). For personnel-related problems. ineffective cross-functional teams (PRP4). poor setting of priority goals and objectives (P&T2). H5. Ho5. H6. the following two groups of problems were selected to be tested. JoQA can help in identifying and solve organization personnel-related problems. treating symptoms and not causes (P&T4). the following are selected: lack of leadership commitment (PRP1). the following two hypotheses were developed: Ho4. However. Even though the process of development and the establishment of the award and its criteria were based on the needs and characteristics of the local environment. Ho3. Jordanian organization did not get significant external benefit for participating in the JoQA program.e. lack of employee awareness (PRP2). and poor vertical and horizontal communication (PRP8). lack of quality improvement measurement (P&T6). Based on this line of reasoning. JoQA and organization problems The direct relationship between the JoQA program and the identification of the organizational problems has yet to be explored. lack of appropriate incentives and rewards (PRP6). There is a high degree of satisfaction of the JoQA criteria weights.1 H2. and lack of resources (P&T7). JoQA can help in identifying and solve organization planning and thoroughness problems. For planning and thoroughness. Jordanian organization did not get significant internal benefit for participating in the JoQA program. . insufficient and ineffective training (PRP5). emphasis on short-term results (P&T3). personnel-related problems and planning and thoroughness. JoQA criteria weights It is noticed that Jordanian companies were questioning the assigned weightings for each criteria and sub-criteria of the JoQA. There is not a high degree of satisfaction of the JoQA criteria weights. The following two hypotheses are intended to test the satisfaction level among the participants regarding the criteria weights: Ho6. i. H4.

the percents of variances explained by those scales ranged from 62.0 50.154 20. which is a measure of internal consistency. Principal component analysis was used to obtain the initial factor solution. based on the average inter-item correlation. Table III presents a summary of factor analysis of the results.343 2. three different stages of analysis were used. and so identify how closely the items are related to each other and to the composite weight. The reliability coefficient used for the analysis is the Cronbach’s a. and to indicate items that did not strongly contribute to the reliability coefficient value and whose content was not critical.0 percent.2 55.5 52. successive components explain progressively smaller portions of the variance and are all uncorrelated with each other. The eigenvalues for these scales ranged from 1.045 Item with lowest loading OB3 ExBen2 InBen2 PRProb3 PATProb5 Vprob6 GenAsp5 Table III.566 to 3.2 37.2 to 77.196 0. and the characteristic roots or latent roots or eigenvalues. which indicate that those scales account for most of the observed variances.409 20. the used technique proved to be a valid measure of correlation between questions (items). Table IV presents a summary of the results of reliability analysis.083 0.3 Lowest loading 0. The first component has maximum variance. Factor analysis The aim of factor analysis is to estimate the correlation matrix and identify the characteristic equation.7 28.734 3.7402 and thus all the scale variables show a high level of internal consistency. the average inter-item correlation and reliability coefficient for each measurement scale.260 Percentage of variance explained 39.850 2.602 20. all the values range between 0.143 3. This requires two sets of values which are the characteristic vectors of the matrix or latent vectors or eigenvectors.6090 and 0. Second. Furthermore. Factor analysis . A correlation matrix was used to identify the correlation between individual items. As seen in Table IV.Assessment results To assess the hypotheses. a factor analysis was used to test the validity of the technique and to prove that it was a valid measure of the hypotheses. reliability testing was used to examine scale variables for internally consistency before they were used for further analysis. Jordan Quality Award 17 Scales (hypotheses) Objectives External benefits Internal benefits Personnel-related problems Planning and thoroughness Various problems General aspects of award Eigenvalue 1.525 3.223 0. Finally. the t-test analysis was used to test the selected set of hypotheses. First.566 1.4 62.734 and exceed the minimum of 1. From these results. Reliability Reliability involves computing the correlation matrix. The value of Cronbach’s a is between 0 and 1 and the higher the level indicates a higher reliability of the scale. A factor extraction method was used to form uncorrelated linear combinations of the observed variables.

external benefits.663 2.448 2. 2005).570 SD 2.0661 ! 0. understanding the Scales (hypotheses) Objectives External benefits Internal benefits Personal-related problems Planning and thoroughness Various problems General aspects of award a Coefficient 0. with enough time in between the applications in order to complete as many as possible of the improvement projects resulting from the evaluations (Eriksson and Garvare. based on the descriptions of the selection of the level of the achieving the award’s objectives. the award has achieved the intended objectives. internal benefits.5268 0.410 3.48/5) believe that the award achieved its objectives.509 0.0732 ! 0.BIJ 15.1 18 Results of testing hypotheses After internal consistency was confirmed.380 3. Reliability analysis Item Objectives External benefits Internal benefits Personal-related problems Planning and thoroughness Various problems General aspects of award Media coverage Application of the award Scheduling issues Mean 3. Instead one should participate in the process several times. next a combining of the individual items on each scale into uni-dimensional variants was conducted. 69. To assess and compare the current perception of the quality award among the companies. personnel-related problems.527 3.153 3. knowledge and experience to the participated companies.325 2. benefits.925 0. and planning and thoroughness. It is reported that it is not sufficient to participate in a quality award process only once to get the expected benefits.2577 ! 0.0433 ! 0.688 3.7517 0.5599 2 0.177 jXoj 1.3814 0.7764 2 0. t-Test .742 2.4090 0.462 2. which could be treated as single entities representing each scale.8642 0.654 Table IV.7 percent of the respondents (3.368 2.0942 ! 0.100 Reject Fail to reject X X X X X X X X X X Table V.753 1.385 3.371 3.544 3. Table V summarizes the companies’ perceptions regarding the five issues of objectives. Achieving objectives. In examining whether the award met its objectives.4333 0.7149 0. followed by assessing the criteria weights using the scale variables described in the previous section.236 1.786 3. the performances of companies in each of the research areas of concern (award’s objectives. the results show that in total.484 3.506 2.244 3.8484 2 0.0367 ! 0.077 2.021 ! 0. allowing for further analysis.7795 0.511 1. The results suggest that the current level of understanding of how much the award’s has achieved its objectives for promoting awareness of quality.7402 0. The Jordanian companies reached a good level of benefit from the award. From their own assessments. and problems) were tested. It is expected that all of the objectives have been achieved to the determined level since the award brings new insights.701 3.4921 The (min ! max) inter-item correlations 0.088 3.516 0.

some problems appear to have a significant negative impact on the process: resistances to change. In fact. emphasis on short-term result. results show that it failed to reject the two null hypotheses.0 levels of the impact of the personnel-related problems and planning and thoroughness.5/5. The 2. The response to each questionnaire in this group was rated on a scale of 1 (least impact) to 5 (highest impact). are of an acceptable level for the participants. the participated firms mostly agreed on the expected set of benefits of the award. direction and focus in their day-to-day activities.e. This is supported by the fact that the Ho4 and Ho5 have failed to be rejected.45/5.51/5. However. External and internal benefits. based on the preset level of satisfaction (2/5). From Table VI. These two benefits could not be realized since the first one is highly related to culture of the organization and the second is a technical issue that needs more than one cycle of product to generalize the findings.0 and the 2. This set of requirements needed by the award criteria specified and identified areas of improvement in performance of an organization. namely: better external communications and lower product cycle time. when adopting a new philosophy or deploying a new concept.5 percent of participants believe that the award can help their companies in getting some external and internal benefits from the participation. there is one external benefit and one in the internal benefits that the participants did not perceive to be valid. it is clear that many firms have not faced significant problems during the process of participation in the award. The relatively low-level of impact that the problems have had on the process. and treating symptoms and not causes. and that they have a significant knowledge of its needs. insufficient and ineffective training. It is expected that this will happen with any implementation of a new system. suggests that most Jordanian firms reach a good level of full understanding of the award’s requirements. Award’s participation problems. Referring to the Ho2 and Ho3 hypothesis.requirements of performance excellence. sharing information of the strategies that lead to successful TQM implementation and adopting and strengthening the competitiveness of Jordanian companies is above 70 percent (3. Referring to the benefits that can be obtained by participating in the award process. A higher mean value indicates a significant problem. Even though this is an acceptable percentage. However. The participants are in total agreement that: the level of the problems was insignificant to have a negative impact on the companies’ participation process. more effort must be directed to elaborate on how the award can increase its impact and raise its tangible and intangible benefits. respectively. The problem of resistance to change.0). Referring to the Ho1 hypothesis. On average 64. results show that it failed to reject the null hypothesis. i. and enjoy a greater sense of purpose. the personnel-related problems and planning and thoroughness for participation. This will support the notion that the culture of quality management in Jordanian organization is established so that the award can achieve its objectives even though the award is new. Two sets of problems were identified. results of Table V show that the award introduced some external and internal benefits. It is expected that a set of problems will rise during participation in the award process.9 and 61. emphasis on short-term results and treating symptoms and not causes. Training for the award Jordan Quality Award 19 . are not due the participation in the award. it is part of the organizational culture (and not unique to Jordan).

92 10.03 Reject or not Reject Reject Fail to reject Fail to reject Reject Reject Fail to reject Reject Fail to reject Reject Fail to reject Fail to reject Fail to reject Reject Fail to reject Reject Fail to reject Fail to reject Fail to reject Fail to reject Fail Fail Fail Fail to reject to reject to reject to reject 20 Table VI.07 0.29 10.41 21.37 6.52 63.01 1.14 22.38 4.31 5.99 1.05 8. there is a wide variation among the weights of the award’s criteria.08 0.22 22. the results show that.60 21.52 17.59 56.20 22.06 Desired mean 20 50 65 65 10 25 15 15 25 60 80 60 60 120 30 60 20 20 50 40 40 20 20 30 Xo 2.53 20.63 SD 11.1 Criteria Leadership Leadership vision Leadership education system Leadership support and action Leadership suitability and selection Strategic planning Mission statement External environmental analysis Objectives Strategies Projects and action plans Implementation and control Process management Quality system Customer relationship management system Coordination and structure Resources management Human resources Information resources Financial resources Material resources Technological resources Results Customer satisfaction Employee satisfaction Product/service quality and operational performance Supplier performance Impact on society Financial Actual mean 25 43.26 22.64 2.37 30.47 5.59 42.44 6. In fact scoring is evenly distributed among the five criteria.00 17.89 56.52 12.30 0. Analysis of the criteria is a significant issue.38 24. the companies accepted the award criteria weights.14 21.95 1.07 20.45 10.93 83.74 20. The objectives of this portion of the research are to verify whether the JoQA criteria and sub-criteria are acceptable to the participants. In examining each criterion.45 5.74 2.68 13.81 50.18 22.72 7. Most of the companies’ needed a set of training programs to introduce the award and implement its requirements.96 110.72 11. and to test the hypothesis of: “companies being satisfied with the assigned weights”.82 5. The response to each questionnaire item was rated on a scale of 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree).52 63. Award’s criteria weights. As discussed earlier. L1 (leadership sub . For example.55 0.04 22.74 20.52 16. among the participating companies.45 15. However. standard deviations.12 1.30 1.19 11.48 19.41 8.49 12.70 27.81 25. Table VI shows the data and analysis using the t-test of the estimation of the weights for each criterion of the award in terms of the means.21 22.30 55.77 10.55 21.75 11.44 2. The current JoQA scoring system does not emphasize any one specific award criterion.22 42.BIJ 15. and Xo (test statistic) and whether the hypothesis is failed to be rejected or not.01 22. A higher mean value indicates a closer match (agreement) between the statement and the award criteria weight. each JoQA criterion was represented by multiple items in the questionnaire and confirmed by factor analysis.67 47.

3 Financial resources 4. and for SP6 (strategic planning sixth sub criterion: implementation and control) companies suggested to increase this weight from 55 to 60.2 Employee satisfaction 5. results indicate that no significant opposition to the present weights of the awards. For this criterion. the participants request to change the award’s criteria weights was not a significant result.5 Impact on society 5. They did not.4 Suppliers’ performance 5.criterion number one: vision statement) has a value of 25 points instead of the original 20 points assigned by the JoQA criterion.2 Information resources 4. This is in support of the null hypothesis which reported that there is high degree of satisfaction about the current award’s weight criteria.3 Coordination and structure 4.1 Leadership vision 1.6 Implementation and control 3.0 Strategic planning 2. The suggested modifications are presented in Table VII.1 Mission statement 2. Even though this assessment shows that quality management in Jordan. Most of their suggestions are slight modifications of sub-criteria.6 Financial results Points (current) 200 20 50 65 65 150 10 25 15 15 25 60 200 80 60 60 250 120 30 60 20 20 200 50 40 40 20 20 30 Points (suggested) 200 25 45 65 65 160 15 25 20 20 25 55 195 85 55 55 235 115 30 50 20 20 210 50 45 45 20 20 30 Table VII.2 External environment analysis 2. this will challenge the level of knowledge and understanding of key quality management concepts after only three cycles of the award.3 Service/product quality (operational performance) 5. and there is no suggestion for modifying the award’s criteria.4 Material resources 4. However.0 Processes management 3. based on the award’s criteria.5 Projects and action plans 2. Based on the t-test.2 Leadership educational system 1.2 Customers relationship management 3. for example. It is worthy of note that the participants are totally satisfied with the current sub-criteria and its weights.0 Results 5.1 Quality system 3. has made progress over the years.1 Human resources 4. the null hypothesis is rejected.4 Leadership selection and suitability 2.3 Objectives 2. The suggested modifications for the criteria of KAIIAE .3 Leadership support 1.4 Strategies 2. Using the same manner in L1.0 Resources management 4. More time and effort must be invested in explaining how the award will link to Jordan Quality Award 21 Criteria/sub criteria 1. cancel a criterion or suggest one.1 Customer satisfaction 5.0 Leadership 1. and there was no request for major changes.5 Technological 5.

Vol. MBNQA and EQA. It is recommended to study the motivational reasons among the companies in participating in the award. and criteria weights. G. However. firms will encounter difficulty in advancing the development of quality in Jordan. 30-43. 14 No. References Abraham. well known. and Crawford. organization benefits. sub-criteria and its weights compared to the other two awards. planning and thoroughness problem-issues. “Benchmarking Singapore’s high-TQM maturity organizations”. T. or the criteria of the award were not well understood by the companies.K. J. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. To a certain extent it can be concluded that the award met its objectives and provided the companies with a set of external and internal benefits. and developing training programs in quality management. organization problems. Vol. in general. Benchmarking: An International Journal. M. pp. This was mainly due to either the implementation of the award. international quality awards. This benchmarking addressed the differences in the criteria of each quality award. and the difference in the weights of the criteria and sub-criteria. The study findings indicate that the award has some uniqueness in terms of criteria. Chung. pp. Without a more developed and widespread understanding of modern quality management in relation to the JoQA. 12 No.e. 9. Bohoris. In view of the current state of the award’s implementation process in Jordan and the results of the assessment. some slight modification to some criteria and sub-criteria could add value to the award weights based on the relevant feedback from the participants. (1995). specifically. and the award’s requirements. concerning the difference in the existence of some sub criteria. It has its own set of criteria and weights that took into consideration the two awards. It has three main components: explaining the award’s characteristics. (2001). 616-36. expertise and knowledge related to the award issues. 1. Several hypotheses were tested that included JoQA objectives. still in its early stages. 8 No. It is recommended to repeat the assessment for the fourth cycle of the award and compare results.A. and assessing it based on the participating companies perceptions. pp. 6. and implement the award based on the suggested modifications of the award criteria weights and then reevaluate it. JoQA is benchmarked with different.BIJ 15. the award did not achieve its objective related to some personnel-related problems. i. a set of action must be taken if Jordanian firms are to successfully continue their current quality development: raise the level of understanding of quality management at the national level in general and award’s requirements in specific. W. Conclusions and future work This study reports an analysis of the JoQA (KAIIAE) after being implemented for the second time. but reflects the Jordanian companies’ culture. However. “A comparative assessment of some major quality awards”. Vol. benchmarking with international awards. (1997). the level of TQM knowledge of the companies and their relationship with the award. The award criteria and sub-criteria and their relationship is illustrated. 22 . 8-35. implement internal and external awareness campaign for each cycle of the award.1 the quality management culture. Fisher. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. “Quality culture and the management of organization change”. In general. the award weights were satisfactory..

pp. Djerdjouri. 22 No. N.A. Benchmarking: An International Journal. Vol. “Looking through and beyond the TQM horizon: lessons learned from world-class companies”. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. Jordan Quality Award 23 . “Promoting TQM through national quality awards – the Austrian experience”. Lindsay. 11 No. pp. Vol. Vol. 164-91. Vol. (2003). 1. 5. 9. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. H. “National quality and business excellence awards in a developing country: the Fiji National Quality Award”. Khoo. The TQM Magazine. Vol. K. “A methodology for developing a self-assessment tool to measure quality performance in organizations”. 13 Nos 1/2. T. 2. G. “Assessing quality management in China with MBNQA criteria”. 20 No. (2004). 13 No.A. “Managing for quality in the USA and Japan: differences between the MBNQA. (1999). J. and Xiao. (1996).H. 18 No. (2006). and Liedtke.P. “Quality awards – recognition or model?”. 120-4. Vol. DP and JQA”.M.S. pp. pp.A. 14-18. 80-3. 5. Vol. C. and Yang. R. and Woo. R. pp. G. Vol. (2001). (1997).B. 43-58.. 6 No. (2005). The TQM Magazine. and Garvare. 2. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. pp. 2. 17 No. Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology. 1. Li. Evans. 7. “Competitive benchmarking in the air cargo industry: Part I”. 699-713. “A decision model for self-assessment of business process based on the EFQM excellence model”. Lee. benefits and shortcomings of four major quality awards”. H.S. B. The TQM Magazine. 15 No. Laszlo. pp. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. “Knowledge-based benchmarking of production performance”. Benchmarking: An International Journal. The TQM Magazine. 118-41. The European Quality Award Application Handbook. “Leading practices for achieving quality and high performance”. Vol. Vol. Managerial Finance. (1997). 2. and Quazi. Garg. 3 No. M. 8 No. 894-912. Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology. K. Laszlo. “Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award: critical issues and inherent values”.G. pp. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. 190-9. pp. and Zairi. Apitz. M. “Five years with quality awards in Denmark”.. 9 No. Brussels. pp. R. 164-71. ¨ Jager. A. M. “Characteristics. A. 10-44. Vol. H. 16 No. J. Loomba. 1. Eriksson.C. and Ma. 3. Vol. I. (1996). (1996). and Juhl. Vol.M. and Johannessen.P. Vol.. 6 No. Industrial Management & Data Systems. H. 17-21. (2005). J. 4 No. 260-74. (1996). 164-88. “Benchmarking culture and performance in Chinese organizations”. and Kikuo. (2000). pp. EFQM (1999). Lau.Da Silva.K. X. R. (2003).S. 19-34. Vol. pp. 2. 31 No. Zhao. J. 67-84. 2. A. pp. 4. 100/4. EFQM. O.L. The TQM Magazine. Vol. 381-3. (2004). pp. The TQM Magazine. pp. pp. Ghobadian. Denkena. Vol. Lobo. pp. W. and Stading. 12 No. Davis. G. Kristensen.B. and Tan. R. 59-77. Managing Service Quality. (2005). “Organizational performance improvement through quality award process participation”. (1999). Vol. “Maintaining quality through evolving strategy: the TVS partnership”. J. pp. H. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 14-24. Tadashi. P. (2005). “Linking firm performance to the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award implementation effort using multi attribute utility theory”. pp. 3. and Preston. Vol. M. 2. “US and Canadian national quality awards: increased emphasis on business results”.P.P. 21 No.

and Deshmukh. 4. “An application case of the Brazilian National Quality Award”. Strategic Direction (2006). “Ikea: not Sweden’s only quality company”. Zink. and Garvare. Taylor. 42-59. A. National Institute for Science and Technology. S. 3. Vol. Zairi. 77-9. Corresponding author Ibrahim A. pp. and Voss. 62-79. 7. “Strategic manufacturing benchmarking”. pp. pp. Vol. Gupta.. Vol. Work Study. T. 2. pp.J. “Overview of the criteria for performance excellence”. “A comparative study of nine national quality awards”. K.jo To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. “Developing an appropriate quality award for Northern Ireland”. Vol. M.Z. Tan. 49 No. Xie. pp. and Pires. pp.A. “Managing excellence: leadership”. Vol. 5. 217-20. A. The TQM Magazine. 285-91. (1996). 249-58. Meybodi. NIST (2001). The TQM Magazine. Vol. (2000). 7 No. (2000). Schmidt.R. 11 No. (2006). 1.. J. 10 No. W. K. 3. 3. pp. M. 7 No. pp. 23 No. Vol.. (1998).edu. 22 No. 6 No. 10 No. Benchmarking: An International Journal.com/reprints .. pp. 5-7. 17 No. S. Vol.1 24 McAdam. Vol.N. Palmberg. 128-46. and Goh. pp. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. The TQM Magazine. 2. K. (1998). Zairi. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 16 No. Mann.J. and Vob. W. The TQM Magazine. and Whymark. 215-20. M. Rawabdeh can be contacted at: rawabdeh@ju. C. Vol. 6.BIJ 15. Vol. Wali.G. M. (2005). “Quality in Germany – an overview”. Miguel. 2. Vol. pp. 22-5. Zink. Managing Service Quality. Washington. A. S. “The transfer of best practices: how to build a culture of benchmarking and continuous learning – Part 1”. K. “Sustained quality management: how to receive the Swedish quality award twice”. (1997). R. 9 No. 1. (2004). (1999).D.C. Vol. Managing Service Quality. The TQM Magazine. (2000). Puay. R.I. Strategic Direction. R.com Or visit our web site for further details: www. pp. P. 7 No.H. The TQM Magazine. “Total quality ‘down under’: the Australian Quality Award – an innovative model for business excellence”. and Voss. 458-63.emeraldinsight. “Quality initiatives in an Indian software organization: a case study”. (1997). 30-9. Morini.. 1. “An innovative process improvement approach that integrates ISO 9000 with the Baldrige Framework”.A. “The UK quality award – the 1996 winners and runners-up”. C. M. 186-93. DC. pp.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful