INTERNATIONAL QUALITY AWARDSThe secret of joy in work is
contained in one word-excellence.To know how to do something well
is to enjoy it-Pearl S.BuckIntroduction: Throughout the years,
organizational studies have documented the evolution of management
and operations in organizations with regards to the development in
quality. With a known and established tenets in quality management,
businesses all over the world are now subjected to awards and
recognition provided by different organizations and programs
seeking to improve and elevate the standards of quality in the
organizational setting. This study will provide an overview of
several quality awards given to distinct parts of the globe.
Quality Awards: Quality awards are important means to measure the
level on which organizations gauge their performance. The following
discussions will provide a description of awards given in the
United States, Europe, Japan, Asia-Pacific, and Australia.
ESTABLISHED OF DEMING AWARD:The late Dr. W. E. Deming (1900 -
1993), one of the foremost experts of quality control in the United
States, was invited to Japan by the Union of Japanese Scientists
and Engineers (JUSE) in July 1950.Upon his visit, Dr. Deming
lectured day after day his, "Eight-Day Course on Quality Control,"
at the Auditorium of the Japan Medical Association in
Kanda-Surugadai, Tokyo. This was followed by Dr. Deming's "One-Day
Course on Quality Control for Top Management," held in Hakone.
Through these seminars, Dr. Deming taught the basics of statistical
quality control plainly and thoroughly to executives, managers,
engineers, and researchers of the Japanese industries. His
teachings made a deep impression on the participants' mind and
provided great impetus to quality control in Japan, which was in
its infancy.The transcript of the eight-day course, "Dr. Deming's
Lectures on Statistical Control of Quality," was compiled from its
stenographic records and distributed for a charge. Dr. Deming
donated his royalties to JUSE. In appreciation of Dr. Deming's
generosity, the late Mr. Kenichi Koyanagi, managing director of
JUSE, proposed using it to fund a prize to commemorate Dr. Deming's
contribution and friendship in a lasting way and to promote the
continued development of quality control in Japan. Upon receiving
the proposal, the JUSE's board of directors unanimously made a
resolution to establish the Deming Prize.Later, the Japanese
translation of Dr. Deming's book Some Theory of Sampling was
published. Dr. Deming further contributed to the fund using the
royalties from his book. Since then, the Deming Prize has grown
considerably, and today JUSE carries the overall administrative
costs for the prize.
The Deming Prize and Development of Quality Control/Management
in Japan:The Deming Prize, especially the Deming Application Prize
which is given to companies, has exerted an immeasurable influence
directly or indirectly on the development of quality
control/management in Japan.Applicant companies and divisions of
companies sought after new approaches to quality management that
met the needs of their business environment and challenged for the
Deming Prize. Those organizations developed effective quality
management methods, established the structures for implementation,
and put the methods into practice.Commonly, those who have
challenged for the Prize share the feeling that they have had a
valuable experience and that the management principle of achieving
a business success through quality improvement has really worked.
Through witnessing the success of these organizations, many other
companies have been inspired to begin their own quest for quality
management. Learning from those who went before them, the new
practitioners are convinced that quality management is an important
key to their business success and that the challenge to attain the
Prize can provide an excellent opportunity to learn useful quality
methodologies. Thus, quality management has spread to many
organizations, its methods have evolved over the years, and they
contributed to the advancement of these organizations' improvement
activities.This mechanism that encourages each organization's
self-development comes from the examination process of the Deming
Prize, though the very process has invited some criticism that the
examination criterion for the Deming Prize is unclear. The Deming
Prize examination does not require applicants to conform to a model
provided by the Deming Prize Committee. Rather, the applicants are
expected to understand their current situation, establish their own
themes and objectives, and improve and transform themselves
company-wide. Not only the results achieved and the processes used,
but also the effectiveness expected in the future are subjects for
the examination. To the best of their abilities, the examiners
evaluate whether or not the themes established by the applicants
were commensurate to their situation; whether or not their
activities were suitable to their circumstance; and whether or not
their activities are likely to achieve their higher objectives in
the future.The Deming Prize Committee views the examination process
as an opportunity for "mutual-development," rather than
"examination." While in realty the applicants still receive the
examination by a third party, the examiners' approach to evaluation
and judgment is comprehensive. Every factor such as the applicants'
attitude toward executing Total Quality Management (TQM), their
implementation status, and the resulting effects is taken into
overall consideration. In other words, the Deming Prize Committee
does not specify what issues the applicants must address, rather
the applicants themselves are responsible for identifying and
addressing such issues, thus, this process allows quality
methodologies to be further developed.Total Quality Control (TQC)
that had been developed in Japan as discussed above was re-imported
to the United States in the 1980s and contributed to the
revitalization of its industries. While the term TQC had been used
in Japan, it was translated as TQM in western nations. To follow an
internationally-accepted practice, Japan changed the name from TQC
to TQM.In this revision of the Deming Prize Guide, the previous
examination checklist is changed to "the examination viewpoints,"
which present the activity guides under TQM values. However, as for
the examination criteria, the Committee's basic stance remains
unchanged. Namely, the criteria should reflect each applicant
organization's circumstance.There is no easy success at this time
of constant change. No organization can expect to build excellent
quality and management systems just by solving problems given by
others. They need to think on their own, set lofty goals, and drive
themselves to challenge for achieving those goals. For these
companies that introduce and implement TQM in this manner, the
Deming Application Prize aims to be used as a tool for improving
and transforming their business management.
Categories of the Deming Prize:As shown in the diagram below,
the categories of the Deming Prize are the Deming Prize for
Individuals, the Deming Application Prize, and the Quality Control
Award for Operations Business Units.Deming Prize:
The Deming Application Prize:
Given to companies or divisions of companies that have achieved
distinctive performance improvement through the application of TQM
in a designated year.
The Deming Prize for Individuals:
Given to individuals who have made outstanding contributions to
the study of TQM or statistical methods used for TQM, or
individuals who have made outstanding contributions in the
dissemination of TQM.
The Quality Control Award for Operations:
Business Units:
Given to operations business units of a company that has
achieved distinctive performance improvement through the
application of quality control/management in the pursuit of TQM in
a designated year. The Deming Application Prize for Overseas
Companies:Because its initial purpose was to encourage the
development of quality control activities in Japan, the Deming
Prize was at first restricted to Japanese companies. In recent
years, however, strong interest in the Deming Application Prize by
non-Japanese companies has surfaced. The Deming Prize Committee,
therefore, established the Deming Application Prize Administrative
Regulation in 1984 to allow overseas companies to apply for and
receive the Deming Prize upon successfully passing the examination.
In 1997, another change was made to enable overseas companies to
apply for the Quality Control Award for Operations Business Units.
However, if the number of applicants in any year exceeds the
examination capacity of the Deming Application Prize Subcommittee,
due to schedule limitations, some of the applications may be
carried forward to the next year or even later.The Deming
Application Prize, the Quality Control Award for Operations
Business Units, and the Japan Quality Medal are open to overseas
companies. However, the Deming Prize for Individuals are open only
to Japanese candidates. Deming Prize for Individuals: The Deming
Prize for Individuals is an annual award given to individuals who
have made outstanding contributions to the study of TQM or
statistical methods used for TQM, or to individuals who have made
outstanding contributions in the dissemination of TQM.Selection of
the Winners:The Deming Prize Committee welcomes candidates
recommendations from others and applications from individuals for
the Deming Prize for Individuals. The application deadline is July
31 every year. There is no difference in the examination process
regardless if the candidates have been recommended by others or
self-applied. Mid-October, the Deming Prize for Individuals
Subcommittee examines and selects the candidates for the Prize and
the Deming Prize Committee selects the winners. Prize winners are
announced in the "Nippon Keizai Shimbun" (Japan Economic Journal)
and also reported in the JUSE's monthly magazines "Total Quality
Management" and "Engineers." At the award ceremony, which takes
place in November, winners receive the Deming Medal with an
accompanying certificate of merit from the Deming Prize Committee,
and supplemental prize money from "Nippon Keizal Shimbun." The
winners' report meeting is conducted the next day after the award
ceremony.Deming Application Prize:The Deming Application Prize is
an annual award presented to a company that has achieved
distinctive performance improvements through the application of
TQM. Regardless of the types of industries, any organization can
apply for the Prize, be it public or private, large or small, or
domestic or overseas. Provided that a division of a company manages
its business autonomously, the division may apply for the Prize
separately from the company. Companies or divisions of companies
that apply for the Prize (applicant companies hereafter) receive
the examination by the Deming Application Prize Subcommittee (the
Subcommittee hereafter). Based on the results of the Subcommittee's
examination, the Deming Prize Committee selects the winners.There
is no limit to the number of potential recipients of the Prize each
year. All organizations that score the passing points or higher
upon examination will be awarded the Deming Application Prize.In
the event that a passing point score has not been attained by the
applicant, final judgment is reserved, and unless withdrawal is
requested by the applicant, the status is considered as "continued
examination." Subsequent examinations are limited to twice during
the next three years. Subsequent examinations will focus on what
was highlighted at the previous examination and what has changed
since then. The applicant is recognized as having passed the
examination when it has sufficiently improved upon the previously
noted issues and has successfully achieved the necessary
levels.Eligibility for the Prize:The Deming Application Prize is
given to an applicant company that effectively practices TQM
suitable to its management principles, type of industry, and
business scope. More specifically, the following viewpoints are
used for the examination to determine whether or not the applicant
should be awarded the Prize.
The European Quality Award:
European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) was founded in
1988 by the Presidents of 14 major European companies .First
European Quality Award issued in 1992 and it was endorsed by the EU
Commission and has a newtwork has more than 700 members and it was
formed the European framework for quality improvement along the
lines of the Malcolm Baldrige Model in the USA and the Deming Prize
in Japan. By 1990, the European Community (now the European Union)
felt that it had fallen behind Japan and the United States in the
recognition of quality management. In that year, the European
Foundation for Quality Management, with support from the European
Organization for Quality and the European Commission, set about to
create its own Deming or Baldrige equivalent, The European Quality
Awards. The first winners were announced in October 1992.
The initial awards favored larger, for-profit companies, so by
1996 the European Commission began to give out additional awards
for public sector organizations and for small- to mid-sized
enterprises. The awards also have a category for operational units
of companies, such as factories, research units, or assembly
plants.
European Quality Award levels:European Award level Explanation
Award Winner This award is given to the organization that is judged
to be the best in each of the award categories, providing they meet
certain requirements set by the jurors. The award categories are:
Large and business units
Operational units
Public sector
Small and medium-sized enterprisesThe European Quality Award is
based on the following ten parameters:
Leadership (10%)
People management (9%)
Policy and strategy (8%)
Resources (9%) Processes (14%)
People satisfaction (9%)
Customer satisfaction (20%)
Impact on society (6%)
Business results (15%)(SMEs), of which there are two
subcategories:
Independent SMEs, and
Subsidiary (Business Unit) SMEs
Special Prizes Introduced in 2003, these are given to
organizations that excel in some of the fundamental concepts that
underpin the EFQM Award framework. Special Prizes will be given
for:
Leadership and consistency of purpose
Customer focus
Corporate social responsibility
People development and involvement
Results orientation
The European Model for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises: While
the categories essentially copy those of the Baldrige Award, the
emphasis on people's perceptions of the organization and of the
organization's impact on society are unique to the European Quality
Awards and add a societal element lacking in either the Deming or
Baldrige Awards. The European Quality Awards also differ from the
Deming and Baldrige, as noted earlier, in the various categories
for eligible organizations. The European Quality Awards also differ
in the nature of their awards jury, which is made up of business
leaders as well as academics. Finally, by its nature, the European
Union is more international than either Japan or the United States,
and from the start, the award has been open to companies outside
the European Union. Still, the award is limited to those companies
that have at least 50 percent of their activities in Europe.
Applications to the program are examined by a team of six
assessors, each of whom undergo training to ensure a high level of
consistency in scoring. Assessors include some academics and
quality professionals, but the majority are drawn from the ranks of
experienced practicing managers from European countries. The
application is assessed and scored on a scale from 0 to 1,000
points. Chart 1 illustrates the scoring system for the small- and
medium-sized company award. The European Quality Award is the
European equivalent of the Baldrige Award. The European Award took
the Baldrige Award as a starting point, and refined it so that it
had a similar but unique focus on the adoption of total quality as
a business improvement vehicle. This development led to an approach
that at the time was more business orientated than that of the
Baldrige Award. However, in recent years both models have evolved,
and both now have a high degree of business orientation. The award
framework discussed in this chapter was developed by the European
Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM), and as such they remain
the custodians of the framework. Most European countries have
adopted the European model and award process for their national
awards. The EFQM notes that the number of organizations using its
framework across Europe is rapidly growing, with over 20 000
organizations currently using the model to drive their improvement
activities.
In making this change, which has the objective of promoting role
model practices in the areas, the EFQM notes that organizations
will have the opportunity of winning more than one prize Finalist
Finalists are organizations that are short-listed for the award and
prizes but do not achieve the required level of achievement to be
confirmed as one of the winners in any of the levels above.
Finalists receive a framed certificate, and may publicize that they
were short-listed.THE EUROPEAN MODEL FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED
ENTERPRISES
ENABLER 500 POINTS 50% RESULTS-500 POINTS 50%Singapore Quality
Award (SQA):Launched in 1994 with the Prime Minister as its patron,
the Singapore Quality Award (SQA) is the most prestigious award
conferred on organisations that demonstrate the highest standards
of business excellence. The Award aims to establish Singapore as a
country committed to world-class business excellence. The SQA is
the highest accolade given to organisations for business
excellence. The Award is conferred upon the best of the best in
recognition of their attainment of world-class standard of
performance excellence. The Award supports SPRINGs business
excellence initiative which provides organisations with a framework
to develop and strengthen their management systems and processes to
achieve high performance and be more competitive. The SQA is one of
the 4 national awards under the Business Excellence Framework.
Singapore Quality Award with Special Commendation: (For Past SQA
Winners Only)Past SQA winners can apply for the SQA with Special
Commendation at least 5 years after winning the SQA .The SQA with
Special Commendation, launched in 2006, recognises past SQA winners
for scaling greater heights of business excellence and for
demonstrating sustainable global leadership in key business areas,
products or services than when they won the SQA. Applicants need to
demonstrate that they are recognised as benchmarks by international
organizations. The SQA is the highest national award for
organisations who have achieved the Business Excellence
Standard.The SQA is awarded to organisations with management
systems and processes that achieve outstanding levels of business
excellence in all areas.
Criteria:The SQA criteria form the basis for the evaluation and
feedback to applicants on their performance. The criteria promote:
Understanding of the requirements for business and organisational
excellence
Enhancement of organisational performance practices and
capabilities
Sharing of best practice information among organisations
Benefits of SQA:
You can use the SQA logo on all your collaterals.
The logo is a mark of exceptional excellence. It shows that your
business is a world-class organisation with systems and processes
that ensure excellence in all the key areas of your business.
Continuous journey of improvement Procedure to apply:SQA assessment
is based on the criterion found in the Business Excellence
Assessment for Continuous Improvement (BEACON) self-assessment
tool.
Eligibility Guidelines: All public and private organisations in
Singapore (except trade associations and professional societies)
may apply for any of the Business Excellence (BE) Awards. Private
organisations must have a major business operation in
Singapore.
Subsidiary companies applying for any of the BE awards should
fulfil the following criteria: 1. For the purposes of the BE
Awards, a subsidiary is a business entity with clear definition of
an organisation as reflected in the corporate literature, e.g.
organisation charts, administrative manuals and annual reports.
2. The subsidiary must have existed three years prior to the
application. It should be an autonomous organisation with its own
senior management group responsible for a wide range of management
activities.
3. Subsidiaries which primarily perform the business support
functions of the parent company are not eligible. Examples of
business support functions are sales marketing / distribution,
customer service, research and development, legal services,
purchasing, finance and accounting, and human resource
management
Past Award Recipients:As a confirmation of their ongoing
performance in business excellence, past Award recipients, except
for SQA recipients, will be re-assessed at least five years after
winning the Award, during the BE Awards cycle. The SQA recipients
can apply for the SQA with Special Commendation at least 5 years
after winning the Award. Award Assessment Process:A team of BE
Awards Assessors will evaluate each report, and conduct a pre-site
visit meeting as well as a site visit. Based on the review of the
application and the results of the site visit, appropriate
recommendations of Award recipients will be made to the Governing
Council for approval. The decisions made by the Governing Council
are final. PROCESS:
Application Submission:Organisations interested to participate
in any of the BE Awards assessments in 2010 are required to submit
the following by 31 March: Application Form Organisational
Chart
Chart(s) to illustrate the relationship with the parent
organisation and/ or other subsidiaries where applicable
Organisational Profile
Application Report (5 sets for niche awards, 10 sets for
SQA)
Definition of Terms and Abbreviations used in the Application
Report Administration Fees:There is no fee for the application.
However, applicants that are shortlisted for site visits will have
to pay an administration fee for the site visits. This fee is
$1,000 per site visit day. The duration of the site visit will be
determined when the visit is scheduled.MALCOLM BALDRIGE NATIONAL
QUALITY AWARD:
The U.S. Congress created the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award in 1987 largely as a counterpart to Japan's Deming Prize. The
specific goal of the Baldrige Award is to heighten U.S. awareness
of TQM and to formally recognize successful quality management
systems. The award is named for the U.S. Secretary of Commerce from
1981 to 1987. Baldrige was actually helping in drafting the
creation of the award at the time of his death in a rodeo
accident.
The U.S. Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) administers the Baldrige Award. The NIST
presents up to two awards each in three divisions: manufacturing,
service, and small business. The NIST gave its first awards in
1988.
The Baldrige Award judges results companies have shown through
management practices in seven specific areas. These are (1)
leadership, (2) information and analysis, (3) strategic planning,
(4) human resource focus, (5) process management, (6) business
results and company performance, and (7) customer focus and
satisfaction.
The Baldrige Award is open to any for-profit business in the
United States. Like the Deming Prize, the award may be won by a
foreign-owned company, but unlike the Deming Prize only those
foreign-owned companies with more than 50 percent of their
employees or physical assets located in the United States are
eligible. In addition to its more parochial focus, the Baldrige
differs from the Deming Prize in three significant ways. First, the
Baldrige Award emphasizes customer perceptions and the bottom line
emphasizing clear-cut results through its seven specific areas.
This makes the Baldrige more objective-oriented than the more
systemic focus of the Deming Prize.
Second, while the NIST is an independent agency, the Baldrige
relies on a wide array of professional groups to decide on its
winners, while from its inception the Deming Prize has relied
solely on the JUSE. The Baldrige is consequently able to draw on a
wider range of expertise among its judges than the Deming Prize,
but may be more open to charges of conflict of interest among the
reviewers.
Finally, the Baldrige Award has a stated objective of sharing
information while the Deming Prize does not. Consequently, the
Baldrige is more likely to make known to other companies how the
winners have achieved their success so that others may emulate
them; the Deming Prize is more proprietary, allowing winners more
readily to keep company secrets if they wish, thus widening the
field of companies which may wish to participate but simultaneously
limiting the benefit to other companies and to the dissemination of
TQM principles in general.
The award is open to small (less than 500 employees) and large
firms (more than 500 employees) in the manufacturing and service
sectors. There can be only two winners per category each year. That
limits the number of yearly awards to six.The President of the
United States traditionally presents the Awards at a special
ceremony in Washington, DC. Awards are made annually to recognize
U.S. organizations for performance excellence. The Award
eligibility categories are: manufacturing businesses service
businesses small businesses education organizations health care
organizations Recipients are expected to share information about
their successful performance strategies with other U.S.
organizations.Key Characteristics of the MBNQA Criteria:The
criteria focus on business results. Companies must show outstanding
results in a variety of areas to win.The Baldrige criteria are
nonprescriptive and adaptive. Although the focus on the Baldrige
award is on results, the means for obtaining these results are not
prescribed.The criteria support company-wide alignment of goals and
processes.The criteria permit goal-based diagnosis. The criteria
and scoring guidelines provide assessment dimensions.MBNQA
Criteria:
The Criteria are designed to help organizations use an
integrated approach to organizational performance management that
results in: delivery of ever-improving value to customers,
contributing to marketplace success improvement of overall
organizational effectiveness and capabilities organizational and
personal learning The Criteria are the basis for organizational
self-assessments,for making Awards, and for giving feedback to
applicants. In addition, the Criteria have three important roles in
strengthening U.S. competitiveness: to help improve organizational
performance practices, capabilities, and results to facilitate
communication and sharing of best practices information among U.S.
organizations of all types to serve as a working tool for
understanding and managing performance and for guiding
organizational planning and opportunities for learningBALDRIGE
AWARD FRAME WORK CUSTOMER AND MARKET FOCUSED STRATEGY
AND ACTION PLANS
AWARD PROCESS:
FEED BACK AND REPORTFIRST PHASE: The first phase of the Award
cycle is to establish that the applicant meets the eligibility
requirements. Applicants submit an Eligibility Certification
Package certifying that the organization is eligible to apply for
the Award. SECOND PHASE: In the second phase, Board of Examiners to
conduct a rigorous evaluation of an organization's performance
management system and the results of its processes.THIRD PHASE: The
third phase of the Award cycle involves the review of the
application package. Applications are reviewed and evaluated by
members of the Board of Examiners, all of whom adhere to strict
rules regarding conflict of interest. The review is conducted in
three stages:Stage 1 - Independent ReviewStage 2 - Consensus
ReviewStage 3 - Site Visit Review Baldrige Examiner:Appointment to
the board of Trustees for the MBNQA Board of Examiners is a very
prestigious designation.Examiners are unpaid volunteers, and must
be willing to give up approximately 10% of their year to serve as
an examiner.JAPAN QUALITY AWARD:
The Japan Quality Award was established in 1995 by the Japan
Productivity Centre for Socio-Economic Development (JPC-SED). It
was modelled after the self-assessment theory of the Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award (commonly known as the MB Award) in
the United States, and modified to accommodate Japanese management
practices. The award is presented to Japanese companies and other
corporate entities displaying excellent overall management
qualities. These are companies that continue to create new values
through the continuous process of self-innovation to transform
their overall management systems into customer-oriented structures.
The award is presented to Japanese companies and other corporate
entities displaying excellent overall management qualities. These
are companies that continue to create new values through the
continuous process of self-innovation to transform their overall
management systems into customer-oriented structures.
Since the inception of the award system, 120 corporate entities
have applied over a period of seven years, and 15 companies have
received the award. The award winners are expected to widely
introduce their excellent management activities as best practices
for a three-year period after being awarded and lead the
development of the industrial community in Japan.
With the establishment of the award system, comprehensive
approaches to management improvement activities have become
widespread within Japans industrial community. It also provided the
momentum for the creation of local award systems, and today it is
being pursued in ten regions, including Fukui, Niigata, Chiba, Mie,
and Tochigi prefectures.
A new award system targeting local municipalities has been added
to the JQA system in 2003 to develop quality management in the
public sector as well.
The Japan Quality Award Promotion Department is primarily in
charge of revising and updating assessment criteria and screening
and granting the award. The JPC-SED has also established the Japan
Quality Award Council to systematically publicize the Japan Quality
Program. It is a membership organization currently composed of 373
members. Including the members of the 18 local quality award
councils, however, it boasts a membership of 1,200 nationwide
organizations.
Canada Awards for Excellence:
Patron for the Awards:
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michalle Jean, C.C., C.M.M.,
C.O.M., C.D., the Governor General of Canada, is the Vice-Regal
Patron of the Awards.
About the Awards Program:
The Canada Awards for Excellence (CAE) is an annual awards
program to recognize business excellence in quality, customer
service, and workplace health. Since 1984, the Awards have been
presented to private and public sector organizations of all sizes
that are world class. This prestigious award is tangible evidence
of an organizations level of excellence.
This award is based on the National Quality Institutes Framework
for Organizational Excellence, which is used by numerous
organizations as a management model for continuous improvement and
the achievement of significant operational results.
Awards Categories:
Quality Award (Business and Public Sector)
Healthy Workplace
Customer Service for Small Business
Quality and Healthy Workplace (Integrated)
Order of Excellence
Selection Process:
Organizations do not compete against each other; instead, they
are judged directly against the criteria for excellence that
constitute the NQI Framework. As a result, all organizations,
irrespective of size or sector, compete on an equal footing.
Applications for the award are evaluated by a Pre-Selection
Committee composed of professionals with a background in quality
management principles and practices, and workplace health issues.
Organizations that pass an initial screening are visited by teams
of examiners to verify the information in the application. The
Selection Jury Panel makes a final determination of which
organizations will receive recognition by being awarded the Gold
Trophy, or Silver and/or Bronze Certificates. The Selection Jury
Panel members are respected professionals with experience in the
implementation of quality and healthy workplace programs.
CAE recipients enjoy the unique opportunity to display
organizational success to the world, to recognize the efforts of
employees, and to demonstrate to customers and suppliers that they
are world-class. The NQI Progressive Excellence Program (NQI
PEP)
If an organization is in the NQI PEP program, there is a direct
link to the CAE Awards at Levels 3 and 4. To receive the Gold
Trophy, organizations must have fully met the NQI excellence
criteria for Level 4, with documented overall achievements and
results. To receive Silver and Bronze recognition, organizations
must be at the equivalent of Level 3 in NQI PEP.
If you have achieved either of these levels within 24 months of
the Awards ceremony, you may be eligible to apply for CAE without a
site visit. CAE Verifiers:
NQI members are eligible to volunteer for verification teams for
both NQI PEP and CAE. You must meet specific criteria to be on a
team.CONCULSION: Essentially, the creation and provision of quality
awards have provided a significant contribution in the development
of management and operations all over the world. Not only does it
appeal to the companys competitive side, it also provides a venue
for organizations to actually have a chance to be assessed by
entities external to their organization. In the same way, companies
could establish areas where they are lacking and find ways to
compensate and consequently develop. At any rate, the creation of
such quality awards reinforces the development of quality
management in organizations throughout the world. CASE STUDIES:
CASE 1:
Sundaram-ClaytonVenu Srinivasan and the Deming Prize. Kudos for
India. The Chennai-based Sundaram-Clayton has won acclaim and
international recognition for setting global quality standards.
From the swamp of unreliable quality that the traditional India
Incorporation was known for, Sundaram-Clayton has emerged the flag
bearer of global class. Despite its disdain for TQM,
Sundaram-Clayton, the manufacturer of air-brake systems and
castings has emerged as Asia's -- first-ever winner of the Deming
Prize for Overseas Companies. Every rupee of its Rs 139.37 crore
turnover now carries the mark of quality that is world-class. The
Deming Prize is, quite simply, the last word in the world, on
quality. The prize was instituted 40 years ago by Japan to honour
the man who gave quality to the world, W. Edwards Deming. The
Deming Prize Committee defines quality as "a system of activities
to ensure the quality of products and services, in which products
and services of the quality required by customers are produced and
delivered economically." Sundaram-Clayton's integrated Deming's 10
parameters into the 4 streams of its quality practices, namely
policies, people, processes, and products, respectively. Its TQM
model ensures Total Employee Involvement, Policy Deployment,
Standardisation, Kaizen, and Training, besides promoting employer -
employee relations. In short, everyone everywhere in the company is
a custodian of quality.Sundaram-Clayton, led by its CEO Venu
Srinivasan, 45, has risen above the countrywide levels for total
quality, to be part of an exclusively small global elite, which
have integrated all the Deming's 10 parameters into their streams
of quality practices. This small elite group consists of only three
other companies namely the $6.51-billion Florida Power & Light,
which won the Deming Prize in 1989; the $53.26-billion AT&T's
Power Systems Division in 1994, and the $38.05-billion Philips'
Taiwan unit.Even the great TQM corporations of the world, like the
$48.88-billion Honda, the $55.03-billion Sony, and the
$190.84-billion General Electric, do not belong to it.On November
14, 1998, when Srinivasan received the coveted prize, he joined the
ranks of 163 CEOs and managers who had received the award since it
was instituted. What makes Sundaram-Clayton's winning the Deming
Prize for total quality (Company-Wide Quality Control (or
CWQC),)--an extraordinary feat is the fact that no global award for
quality makes more demands of both the body and the soul of the
winning corporation, than this award. Sundaram-Clayton's climb to
the top of TQM started way back in 1979, when Venu Srinivasan took
over from his father, T.S. Srinivasan, as CEO after completing his
MBA from Purdue University (US) in 1977. The SWOT analysis he
conducted, applying his B-school learning, revealed to the
company's horror, that a 90% market share was no insulation against
top-class competition. Concluding that short-term tactics or
defensive strategies would not deliver what a long-term transition
to excellence could, Srinivasan set his company off on quality
street. In quick succession, Sundaram-Clayton's managers were
exposed to the quality practices of global leaders, trained in
modern manufacturing techniques, and taught about Total Quality
Control (TQC), first by Yoshio Kondo in a workshop at the National
Institute For Quality & Reliability in 1986. Srinivasan also
set up a core taskforce to baptise Sundaram-Clayton in the new
religion of TQC. The results of Sundaram-Clayton's total quality
movement are reflected on the company's books. Its financial
indicators in the 5 years between 1992-93 and 1997-98 tell a tale
of top-level performances. Being a vendor to the auto-makers, its
top line, of course, is tied to those of its customers: the Rs
2,048-crore Ashok Leyland and the Rs 7,450-crore Tata Engineering
& Locomotives Co. for air-brake systems, and the Rs 7,842-crore
Maruti Udyog and Hyundai Motors India for castings. Thus, sales
grew at an average rate of 35 per cent per annum, between 1992-93
and 1996-97, although it shrank by 25 per cent in 1997-98, on
account of the recession in the automobile industry. Likewise, the
average growth in net profits in those 4 years was a stunning 83
per cent per annum--a glowing tribute to quality-led cost
management--although it fell back by 35 per cent in 1997-98. But,
internally, its performance improved consistently despite the
recession, with turnover per employee rising by an average of 18
per cent a year, and gross value added climbing by an average of 12
per cent per annum.What Sundaram-Clayton's progress reveals is the
all-important alignment, of the quality imperatives of the company
with the parameters used by an assessment framework, such as the
one applied for the Deming Prize. Sundaram-Clayton's integrated
Deming's 10 parameters into the 4 streams of its quality practices,
namely policies, people, processes, and products, respectively. Its
TQM model ensures Total Employee Involvement, Policy Deployment,
Standardisation, Kaizen, and Training, besides promoting employer -
employee relations. In short, everyone everywhere in the company is
a custodian of quality.At Sundaram-Clayton, the Quality Policy
deployment spreads across the entire organisational value-chain,
including the HR team. This is especially crucial in the context of
the Deming Prize, which grades the performance of every department
and function separately--including the CEO himself. CASE 2:
The Subordinate Courts of Singapore
A Journey of ExcellenceThe Judiciary of Singapore comprises of
both the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts. The Senior
District Judge has overall responsibility of the administration of
the Subordinate Courts. The Subordinate Courts handle more than 95%
of the Judiciarys workload.3 As such the Subordinate Courts are the
public face of justice of Singapore.The 1990s marked the watershed
in the history of the Subordinate Courts as it embarked on the
journey towards judicial reforms. At the helm of such change was
the then Chief Justice Yong Pung How, and the Senior District Judge
Richard Magnus of the Subordinate Courts. The paramount task then,
was to clear the backlog of cases and set in place a Court Charter6
with timelines for the completion or disposal of cases. The step
towards judicial reform7 was in tandem with Singapore's then
positioning itself as a commercial and IT hub in the Asia Pacific
region. The judiciary took a determined approach to modernise its
justice system and maximise its resources by enhancing its
efficiency and productivity whilst preserving public trust and
confidence in the administration of justice. When Chef Justice Chan
Sek Keong took over in April 2006, he continued the judicial
reforms of the 1990s to date.
The following is a discussion of the critical success factors of
the reforms that took place from the 1990s to date.
Visionary Leadership and Strategic Planning:Leadership and
strategic planning are of especial importance as these are the
drivers and determinants of initiatives, programmes, key
performance requirements as well as how such key performance
requirements are integrated, deployed and tracked.The Subordinate
Courts leadership9 provided the direction over the years , best
summarised as follows:
Its Vision : Primus Inter Pares10;
Visible transformation of the Subordinate Courts from the
1990s;
Formulation of the Nine Streams of Reforms to meet the change
needs of the Subordinate Courts;
The encapsulation of the Justice Statement as a timeless
reference;
The provision of additional and new Roles for Judges, such as
Judge-Manager, Judge- Educator; Judge Mediator, Judge- Reformer for
a more effective approach to the administration of justice;
Congruent with this approach is the employment of court
administrators of diverse disciplines;
Strategic Use of Infocomm Technology to manage the processes;
Inculcating Innovation as a culture that is consistent with the
values; Engaging and strengthening the community involvement in
aspects of the process;
Strategic Partnership and networking to further enhance the
quality of justice and associated programmes.
In terms of strategic Planning, the Subordinate Courts took a
short term and long term approach. The short term approach is
through its yearly workplans and the long term approach is through
scenario planning.13The short term planning is through the use of
workplans14 and this process engages a plan, review and monitor
mechanism.
Use of Information:To translate clearly the programmes and
initiatives into clear measurable outcomes for purpose of
monitoring and review, the Subordinate Courts initiated the Justice
Scorecard15 as a tool of performance measurement.
With the Justice Scorecard16 the Subordinate Courts can:
Establish clearer linkages between vision, mission and
actions
Establish and maintain pro-active management
Establish simple and concise measuring critical indicators
Establish early warning alerts to areas which are likely to
breach targetsIn September 2000, the Subordinate Courts launched
the eJustice Scorecard System. The Justice Scorecard comprises four
perspectives (Community, Internal Processes, Learning and Growth
and Financial). Each perspective contains a set of Key Performance
Indicators, which are relevant for both the Legal and Corporate
Services Divisions. Divisional Heads are responsible for monitoring
these key performance indicators and to ensure that targets are
met, and follow up actions are taken to rectify any missed
targets.
People Human Capital
The Subordinate Courts recognises that maximising and developing
human capital creates an environment, not only responsive to
changing stakeholders and court users trends, but also cultivates a
culture of learning, innovation and continual improvement. Thus,
Subordinate Courts established a People Developer Standard A pilot
programme was conducated in 1998 in the small claims tribunals
framework to encourage and enable continual learning. Such a system
identifies learning needs, maps learning and development needs,
monitors and implements learning plans and transfer learning.There
is also a focus on the following areas:
Human Resource Planning by attaining the Singapores quality
standard on human resource development by attaining the Peoples
Developer Standard in 1999 and being recertified in 2002 and
2006;
Employee Involvement and Commitment by conducting regular
surveys; Equal Treatment Benchmark; Code of Ethics for court
administrators.
Employee Education, Training and Development by redefining the
roles of the Judges to include that of Judge- Mediator, Judge
Reformer, Judge- Educator and Judge- Manager; By engaging court
administrators of different disciplines to increase a culture of
diversity and constructive approaches; Cross- fertilization of
talents with selected organizations; provision of sponsorhships,
scholarships and attachments
Employee Health and Satisfaction establishing workplace health
programmes; attaining national heath awards for such
directions;
Employee Performance and Recognition- programmes through staff
welfare committee and Judiciary Recreation committee; Court
Administrator of the Year Award; nomination for efficiency, public
service awards; cross-sectional activities.Processes:The key
process is Case Administration. Technology is used to enhance the
quality of court services through the collection of case
information and e-filing. The initiatives are borne through and
innovation process whereby the sources of feedback are filtered
through mechanisms such as cross functional groups, task force and
feasibility studies.
There then evolved initiatives aligned to the administration of
justice, though
non-traditional.18 These included the following:
Court Dispute Resolution started in 1994 : on a Voluntary,
Consensual, basis
with not only a facilitative approach but also with Early
Neutral Evaluation and
Court appointed Independent Expert;
Mediation of Civil Disputes through e@DR19 ;
Criminal Mediation for Relational Disputes20
Family Relations Centre21
Debt Recovery Plans @SCT22
Maintenance Mediation Chambers
Differentiated Case Management
Night Courts
Specialist Courts
Traffic Court
Centralised Sentencing Court
Commercial Trial Courts
Filter/Holding Court
Community Court iCourt Lab a Proof of Concept Lab where cutting
edge technologies are to be experimented for potential practical
uses in the Courts. Electronic Filing for civil cases
Atoms Automated Traffic Offence Management system where
offenders in regulatory matters could plead guilty at kiosks or
through internet without having to attend court; Night Courts
introduced since 1992 for regulatory offences.Court Users:The
Subordinate Courts views its users in terms of the public at large
(defined as the general public who benefit from and are protected
by the Rule of Law) and direct users such as those who attend the
Subordinate Courts for a variety of reasons. Included are
institutional users which include lawyers and prosecutors who visit
the Courts on a regular basis. Users requirements are identified
through surveys/feedbacks, focus group discussions with industry
partners and statistical reporting. A systematic process of
listening and information gathering is put in place. The resultant
effect of this is that the surveys show a consistent high public
trust and confidence. Initiatives implemented with such court users
in mind include:
Informative Website at www.subcourts.gov.sg
Court Concierges28
Registry Officers for Service Excellence (ROSE)
Courts Charter29
Service Pledge
Results:The results are whether the quality of justice is kept
and the preservation of public trust and confidence.The results are
through statistical reporting kept and monitored. Surveys are
conducted by the Subordinate Courts. There are also assessments
through agencies such as the World Bank, the Accenture Study on
e-Government Leadership, Fraser Institute, Economic Intelligence
Unit, the International Monetary Fund, Hong Kong-Based Political
& Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) and Swiss-Based
International Institute for Management Development (IMD).The
statistical reports, survey and research kept by
CReST.Conclusion:The reforms of the 1990s have paid dividends.
By 1999, the World Bank had accorded the Subordinate Courts a
world class status and held them out as a role model for successful
judicial modernisation efforts to developing countries. By 2006,
besides attaining the Singapore Quality Award [SQA], the
Subordinate Courts garnered other national and international
awards. Additionally, surveys done by the World Bank, the Institute
for Management Development, the Heritage Foundation and the
Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC), give high ratings
to the Singapore judicial systems and their correlation in creating
a safe business environment for potential investors, which have
contributed to Singapores growth as a financial hub.The Subordinate
Courts have steadfastly maintained their quality of justice through
all these years by continuously setting higher benchmarks in the
pursuit of more accessible and affordable justice for the people.
The attainment of the Singapore Quality Award is but the latest
manifestation of the all round excellence in the Subordinate Courts
in all their endeavours.The Subordinate Courts in its continual
monitoring and review, remain true to its mission contained in the
Justice Statement of the Subordinate Courts, being to administer
Justice.
The journey of and for Excellence has no destination. No
organisation, let alone a
Judiciary can rest on a point of excellence. It is a continual
journey underlined by
Persistence and Perseverance and Conscientiousness.
Continual improvement on its own, has it importance, but equally
important, is the need to review and re-examine the way we do
things in relation to the changing environment around us, and
having the boldness and courage to change where relevant or
necessary, with the tenacity and determination in the
implementation of ideas and plans. Justice is too precious a value
to be left to chance, especially when a Judiciary works in a world
where its position and performance are judged by public opinion and
the support and goodwill of its constituent communities. There is
an expectation from the public and the general perception that the
Judiciary should be always on the highest pedestal, staying
relevant and true even as there are changes in all other factors.
Change is inevitable, and Justice being too precious a value to be
left to chance, it is only proper and appropriate for a Judiciary
to be transparent in its administration of justice and to be
benchmarked in its performance.
Excellence is a continual journey!REFERENCES:
Total Quality Management-Subburaj Ramasamy,Tata McGraw-Hill 2005
pp (22.2 -22.4)
www.deming.org www.jqac.com www.jpc-net.jp/eng/award/index.html
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Log-Mar/Management-Awards.html
http://www.efqm.org/ http://www.quality.nist.gov/
http://www.spring.gov.sg/QualityStandards/be/bea/Pages/singapore-quality-award.aspx
'Total Quality Ltd', By R Sridharan, Business Today, 1999.
http://www.themanagementor.com/kuniverse/kmailers_universe/hr_kmailers/Perf_Venu.htm
http://app.subcourts.gov.sg/Data/Files/File/Media/2006Oct17_BusinessTimes.pdfRECEIVE
APPLICATION LATE MAY
Preliminary screening by Secretariat
Assessment of applications by individuals
Consensus review by team of assessors
Assessment team conducts site visit
Review by management committee
Approval by governing council
Award presentation
Distribution of feedback report
Award secretariat receives applications
STAGE 1-INDEPENDENT REVIEW MID-JUNE TO LATE JULY
JUDGES SELECT FOR CONSENSUS REVIEW LATE JULY
STAGE: 2CONSENUS REVIEW (AUG-SEPT)
JUDGES SELECT FOR STE VISIT (MID-SEP)
FEED BACK REPORT
FEED BACK REPORT
STAGE: 3 SITE VISIT REVIEW (SEP-NOV)
JUDGES REVIEW & RECOMMEND AWARD RECIPIENTS (MID-NOV)
FEED BACK REPORT
STRATEGIC PLANNING
LEADERSHIP
HR DEVELOP & MANAGEMENT
BUSINESS RESULTS
CUSTOMER & MARKET FOCUS
PROCESS MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION & ANALYSIS
LEADERSHIP 100 POINTS(10%)
PEOPLE MANAGEMENT 90 POINTS(9%)
STRATEGY & PLANNING 80 POINTS(8%)
RESOURCES
90 POINTS(9%)
QUALITY SYSTEM & PROCESSES 140 POINTS(14%)
PEOPLE SATISFACTION 90 POINTS(9%)
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 200 POINTS (20%)
INSPECTION SOCIETY 60 POINTS(6%)
BUSINESS RESULTS 150 POINTS(15%)