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, benets 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 awards benets, 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 awards objectives, benets, 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 benet were achieved. However, various implementation problems exist. Based on the ndings, 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 awards process. Although the ndings conrm the theoretical framework, more empirical work is needed to better understand the awards impact over a longer time span. Further research should also identify if and how the award inuences the participating companies in managerial, technical and nancial aspects. Originality/value The paper is unique insofar as it is the rst 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

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 certication and standardization, recognition of performance excellence, and comprehensive systems for every aspect of their organization. The pioneers in TQM, such as Deming, Juran,

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

Jordan Quality Award

BIJ 15,1

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

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

Jordan Quality Award

BIJ 15,1

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. Loomba and Johannessen (1997) investigated the MBNQAs internal dimensions which dene their inherent character and qualities, and their natural limitations, by focusing on the ethics and ethical aspects of the Baldrige Award. The ndings of the study were categorized in three subsections: unfairness, superciality and publicity-related problems. The EFQM has also had a considerable amount of research. Li and Yang (2003) developed models and tools to support self-assessment, and described a scientic and accurate scoring method for decision making as a measurement system of self-assessment against the EFQM model. Li and Yang (2003) developed a decision model that focused on the processes criterion of the EFQM model. This covered the three main tasks, which are to score the self-assessment submission document; to identify strengths and areas for improvement; and to simulate different scenarios for improvement planning. 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. Several researchers have cited companies experiences with the quality awards. Mann and Voss (2000) presented an innovative approach used by PEC (New Zealand) Ltd Company which integrates its ISO 9000-certied management system with the MBNQA model. This company has succeeded in implementing a process improvement approach that prioritizes improvement projects based on their expected impact on the companys Baldrige score. Lobo and Zairi (1999) carried out a survey on nine key companies in air cargo around the world. The study revealed that the participated companies are adopting the latest technological developments, trying to be meaner and leaner, qualifying their staff and adopting the requirements of quality management systems. Zairi (1999) used business excellence from a practical evidence-based approach in a study of an organizations overall performance. 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. Da Silva et al. (2005) investigated the best common management practices of the world-class companies identied in Brazil and Japan; and proposed a business model aimed at helping companies to achieve world-class level of excellence. They provided a benchmark of excellence practices and valuable suggestions to senior managers interested in implementing or improving their TQM process. They subsequently proposed a new business measurement model and conceptual ways for companies to achieve a world-class level of excellence. Davis and Stading (2005) presented an exploratory study that examines the expectations of company managers, executives, and other professionals regarding the types of rm performance and returns that would be needed to justify undertaking the MBNQA process. The results showed that while nancial performance of the rm is the strongest justication managers consider, and that while their expectations for improved nancial performance are some what high, the nancial returns are certainly not out of the realm of normal expectations for returns from other projects. Examples of experiences in different countries of the awards have contributed to the body of literature. In Singapore for example, Chung (2001) reported that quality award models provide a comprehensive framework for the application and study of benchmarking. He conducted a benchmarking exercise among Singapores productivity leaders, which comprised the pioneer batch of organizations in the

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

Jordan Quality Award

BIJ 15,1

Strategic Planning (150) Process Management (200) Leadership (200) Resource Management (250) Results (200)

10

Figure 1. KAIIAE framework

Criteria/sub criteria 1.0 Leadership 1.1. Leadership vision 1.2. Leadership educational system 1.3. Leadership support 1.4. Leadership selection and suitability 2.0 Strategic planning 2.1. Mission statement 2.2. External environment analysis 2.3. Objectives 2.4. Strategies 2.5. Projects and action plans 2.6. Implementation and control 3.0 Processes management 3.1. Quality system 3.2. Customers relationship management 3.3. Coordination and structure 4.0 Resources management 4.1. Human resources 4.2. Information resources 4.3. Financial resources 4.4. Material resources 4.5. Technological 5.0 Results 5.1. Customer satisfaction 5.2. Employee satisfaction 5.3. Service/product quality (operational performance) 5.4. Suppliers performance 5.5. Impact on society 5.6. 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. KAIIAE framework

Figure 2 shows the scoring mechanism in which each sub-criterion is evaluated with respect to ve measures: involvement, adoption, communication, continuous improvement, and benchmarking. Benchmarking JoQA with MBNQA and EQA During the past decade benchmarking has received signicant attention, especially after its inclusion among Malcolm Baldrige Award criteria (Meybodi, 2005; Denkena et al., 2006). Table II presents a benchmark between JoQA and MBNQA and EQA. It is based on the criteria of the JoQA, where the objective was to nd the criteria of the other awards that are/not covered in the JoQA. The results of the table were used to explain the differences between the JoQA and the two other awards. One major difference between the JoQA with MBNQA and EQA is the levels of the criteria. The JoQA has three levels, whilst the MBA has two. This illustrates the thoroughness in the JoQA where it meets the MBNQA criteria and surpasses it to the next level. For example, in the MBNQA there is the criterion leadership which has two sub-criteria: leadership system, company responsibility and citizenship. In the JoQA there is also the criterion leadership which has four sub-criteria. Each of them is required to be fullled in a way taking into consideration the generic sub-criteria that includes: benchmarking, continuous improvement, communication, adoption and involvement. As a result, JoQA and the MBNQA are much alike; but they have some differences. Some criteria that serve the same purpose can be found under different main-criteria.

Jordan Quality Award

11

1.0 Leadership (200) 1.1 Leadership Vision (20) 2.0 Strategic Planning (150) 3.0 Processes Management (200) 4.0 Resources Management (250) 5.0 Results (200) 1.2 Leadership Educational System (50) 1.3.1 Communication and coordination (20) 1.3.2 Financing development projects (15)

1.3 Leadership Support (65) 1.3.3 Adopting development effort (15) 1.3.4 Authority delegation (15)

1.4 Leadership Selection And Suitability (65)

Involvement (10%)

Adoption (65%)

Communication (10%)

Continuous Improvement (10%)

Benchmarking (5%)

Figure 2. The scoring mechanism for evaluating each sub-criterion with respect to ve measures: involvement, adoption, communication, continuous improvement, and benchmarking

BIJ 15,1

Criteria 1.0 Leadership 1.1. Leadership vision 1.2. Leadership education system 1.3. Leadership support and action 1.4. Leadership suitability and selection 2.0 Strategic planning 2.1. Mission statement 2.2.External environmental analysis 2.3. Objectives 2.4. Strategies 2.5. Projects and action plans 2.6. Implementation and control 3.0 Process management 3.1. Quality system 3.2. Customer relationship management system 3.3. Coordination and structure 4.0 Resources management 4.1. Human resources 4.2. Information resources 4.3. Financial resources 4.4. Material resources 4.5. Technological resources 5.0 Results 5.1. Customer satisfaction 5.2. Employee satisfaction 5.3. Product/service quality and operational performance 5.4. Supplier performance 5.5. Impact on society 5.6. 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. Comparison between JoQA and other awards

Leadership JoQA focuses more on leadership, which is apparent from the score (200/1,000 points) compared to only (110/1,000) for the MBNQA. The leadership system in the JoQA, and the support and action in MBNQA, addresses top managements duties in having a complete system for communication and coordination; in addition to their efforts in adopting and implementing TQM concepts. 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, services and operations to its key communities in the companies). The MBNQA award does not address the issues of leadership-vision, and the leadership-educational systems in a clear manner as apparent in the JoQA. However, the MBNQA describes this facet in subsequent criteria. For EQA, the leadership-support and action criterion is critical in JoQA, since it describes how an organization implements a communication and coordination system between the top management, customers and employees. The leadership-support and action criterion describes the extent of adopting and implementing TQM concepts within the organization. It also describes the senior leaders commitment to efforts directed for improvement and developing, and how top management delegates authority.

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

Jordan Quality Award

13

BIJ 15,1

14

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

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; with particular emphasis on the awards four assessment issues. Their insights were used to modify the questionnaire prior to its distribution among the selected companies. For completing the questionnaire, a contact person who worked closely with the award process and participated in the program was identied and sent a copy of the questionnaire to be lled. The questionnaires were sent to the 49 companies which had applied for the award and the number of lled and returned questionnaires were 31; yielding a response rate of 63 percent. In order to assess the award performance in the related four issues, a set of hypotheses was identied and tested. The following discusses the hypotheses relating to the award issues. JoQA achievements of objectives The JoQA has been developed in recognition of achieving a set of objectives, such as promoting awareness of quality (OBJ1), understanding the requirements of performance excellence (OBJ2), sharing information of the strategies that lead to successful TQM implementation (OBJ3) and adopting and strengthening the competitiveness of Jordanian companies (OBJ4). There are two principal views regarding the capability of the JoQA to achieve its objectives. One view argued is that since the award is new, it will be difcult to inuence the Jordanian organizations to implement the concepts of TQM. The other view is that the culture of quality management in Jordanian organizations is established, so that the award can achieve its objectives even though the award is new. Based on the point of view of Jordanian organizations, and to test whether the award has achieved its objectives, two sets of hypotheses were developed: Ho1. The JoQA achieved its objectives. H1. The JoQA did not achieve its objectives. JoQA and organization benets Analyzing the benets of the award will have a short-and long-term impact. However, it is worthy of investigation as the short-term benets of participating in the awards program will surface important insight. There are a number of expected benets for Jordanian organizations through participating in the award program. The selected benets to be tested include enhanced market advantage (EXB1), better external communication (EXB2), better cultural image (EXB3), increase customer satisfaction (EXB4), and shared quality experiences (EXB5). From the internal side, the tested benets include cost reductions (INB1); easier management (INB2), lower product cycle time (INB3), awareness of problems (INB4) and consistency across the organization (INB5). The content of award criteria species a set of requirements that identies a potential for improving the performance of an organization. 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. Consequently, they enjoy a greater sense of purpose, direction and focus in their day-to-day activities. Accordingly, the following hypotheses were developed: Ho2. Jordanian organization got signicant external benet for participating in the JoQA program.

Jordan Quality Award

15

BIJ 15,1

H2. Jordanian organization did not get signicant external benet for participating in the JoQA program. Ho3. Jordanian organization got signicant internal benet for participating in the JoQA program.

16

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

Assessment results To assess the hypotheses, three different stages of analysis were used. First, a factor analysis was used to test the validity of the technique and to prove that it was a valid measure of the hypotheses. Second, reliability testing was used to examine scale variables for internally consistency before they were used for further analysis. Finally, the t-test analysis was used to test the selected set of hypotheses. Factor analysis The aim of factor analysis is to estimate the correlation matrix and identify the characteristic equation. This requires two sets of values which are the characteristic vectors of the matrix or latent vectors or eigenvectors, and the characteristic roots or latent roots or eigenvalues. A factor extraction method was used to form uncorrelated linear combinations of the observed variables. The rst component has maximum variance; successive components explain progressively smaller portions of the variance and are all uncorrelated with each other. Principal component analysis was used to obtain the initial factor solution. Table III presents a summary of factor analysis of the results. From these results, the used technique proved to be a valid measure of correlation between questions (items). The eigenvalues for these scales ranged from 1.566 to 3.734 and exceed the minimum of 1. Furthermore, the percents of variances explained by those scales ranged from 62.2 to 77.0 percent, which indicate that those scales account for most of the observed variances. Reliability Reliability involves computing the correlation matrix, the average inter-item correlation and reliability coefcient for each measurement scale. A correlation matrix was used to identify the correlation between individual items, and so identify how closely the items are related to each other and to the composite weight, and to indicate items that did not strongly contribute to the reliability coefcient value and whose content was not critical. The reliability coefcient used for the analysis is the Cronbachs a, which is a measure of internal consistency, based on the average inter-item correlation. Table IV presents a summary of the results of reliability analysis. The value of Cronbachs a is between 0 and 1 and the higher the level indicates a higher reliability of the scale. As seen in Table IV, all the values range between 0.6090 and 0.7402 and thus all the scale variables show a high level of internal consistency.

Jordan Quality Award

17

Scales (hypotheses) Objectives External benets Internal benets Personnel-related problems Planning and thoroughness Various problems General aspects of award

Eigenvalue 1.566 1.850 2.525 3.143 3.734 3.343 2.260

Percentage of variance explained 39.2 37.0 50.5 52.4 62.2 55.7 28.3

Lowest loading 0.083 0.196 0.409 20.223 0.602 20.154 20.045

Item with lowest loading OB3 ExBen2 InBen2 PRProb3 PATProb5 Vprob6 GenAsp5

Table III. Factor analysis

BIJ 15,1

18

Results of testing hypotheses After internal consistency was conrmed, next a combining of the individual items on each scale into uni-dimensional variants was conducted; which could be treated as single entities representing each scale, allowing for further analysis. To assess and compare the current perception of the quality award among the companies, the performances of companies in each of the research areas of concern (awards objectives, benets, and problems) were tested, followed by assessing the criteria weights using the scale variables described in the previous section. Table V summarizes the companies perceptions regarding the ve issues of objectives, external benets, internal benets, personnel-related problems, and planning and thoroughness. Achieving objectives. In examining whether the award met its objectives, the results show that in total, the award has achieved the intended objectives. From their own assessments, based on the descriptions of the selection of the level of the achieving the awards objectives, 69.7 percent of the respondents (3.48/5) believe that the award achieved its objectives. It is expected that all of the objectives have been achieved to the determined level since the award brings new insights, knowledge and experience to the participated companies. The Jordanian companies reached a good level of benet from the award. It is reported that it is not sufcient to participate in a quality award process only once to get the expected benets. Instead one should participate in the process several times, 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, 2005). The results suggest that the current level of understanding of how much the awards has achieved its objectives for promoting awareness of quality, understanding the
Scales (hypotheses) Objectives External benets Internal benets Personal-related problems Planning and thoroughness Various problems General aspects of award

a Coefcient
0.4090 0.5268 0.7402 0.7149 0.8642 0.7795 0.4921

The (min ! max) inter-item correlations 0.0661 ! 0.3814 0.0433 ! 0.4333 0.0942 ! 0.5599 2 0.0732 ! 0.7517 0.2577 ! 0.8484 2 0.0367 ! 0.7764 2 0.021 ! 0.654

Table IV. Reliability analysis

Item Objectives External benets Internal benets Personal-related problems Planning and thoroughness Various problems General aspects of award Media coverage Application of the award Scheduling issues

Mean 3.484 3.244 3.077 2.506 2.448 2.410 3.688 3.385 3.544 3.570

SD 2.325 2.786 3.088 3.380 3.153 3.527 3.371 3.701 3.368 2.177

jXoj 1.236 1.511 1.663 2.462 2.742 2.509 0.516 0.925 0.753 1.100

Reject

Fail to reject X X X

X X X X X X X

Table V. t-Test

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 (3.5/5.0). Referring to the Ho1 hypothesis, results show that it failed to reject the null hypothesis. 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. External and internal benets. Referring to the benets that can be obtained by participating in the award process, results of Table V show that the award introduced some external and internal benets. On average 64.9 and 61.5 percent of participants believe that the award can help their companies in getting some external and internal benets from the participation. Even though this is an acceptable percentage, more effort must be directed to elaborate on how the award can increase its impact and raise its tangible and intangible benets. In fact, the participated rms mostly agreed on the expected set of benets of the award. However, there is one external benet and one in the internal benets that the participants did not perceive to be valid, namely: better external communications and lower product cycle time. These two benets could not be realized since the rst 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 ndings. Referring to the Ho2 and Ho3 hypothesis, results show that it failed to reject the two null hypotheses. This set of requirements needed by the award criteria specied and identied areas of improvement in performance of an organization, and enjoy a greater sense of purpose, direction and focus in their day-to-day activities. Awards participation problems. It is expected that a set of problems will rise during participation in the award process. Two sets of problems were identied, i.e. the personnel-related problems and planning and thoroughness for participation. The response to each questionnaire in this group was rated on a scale of 1 (least impact) to 5 (highest impact). A higher mean value indicates a signicant problem. From Table VI, it is clear that many rms have not faced signicant problems during the process of participation in the award, based on the preset level of satisfaction (2/5). The 2.51/5.0 and the 2.45/5.0 levels of the impact of the personnel-related problems and planning and thoroughness, respectively, are of an acceptable level for the participants. This is supported by the fact that the Ho4 and Ho5 have failed to be rejected. The relatively low-level of impact that the problems have had on the process, suggests that most Jordanian rms reach a good level of full understanding of the awards requirements, and that they have a signicant knowledge of its needs. The participants are in total agreement that: the level of the problems was insignicant to have a negative impact on the companies participation process. However, some problems appear to have a signicant negative impact on the process: resistances to change, insufcient and ineffective training, emphasis on short-term result, and treating symptoms and not causes. The problem of resistance to change, emphasis on short-term results and treating symptoms and not causes, are not due the participation in the award, it is part of the organizational culture (and not unique to Jordan). It is expected that this will happen with any implementation of a new system, when adopting a new philosophy or deploying a new concept. Training for the award

Jordan Quality Award

19

BIJ 15,1

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 43.52 63.52 63.52 12.26 22.52 16.52 17.81 25.30 55.93 83.89 56.59 56.96 110.37 30.81 50.74 20.07 20.67 47.59 42.22 42.48 19.04 22.70 27.63

SD 11.68 13.29 10.45 10.45 5.38 4.31 5.47 5.72 7.77 10.00 17.72 11.45 15.60 21.75 11.19 11.82 5.05 8.44 6.41 8.92 10.64 2.49 12.37 6.06

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 2.22 22.53 20.74 20.74 2.18 22.99 1.44 2.55 0.20 22.12 1.14 21.55 21.01 22.30 0.38 24.07 0.08 0.41 21.95 1.30 1.21 22.01 1.14 22.03

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. Analysis of the criteria

is a signicant issue. Most of the companies needed a set of training programs to introduce the award and implement its requirements. Awards criteria weights. The current JoQA scoring system does not emphasize any one specic award criterion. In fact scoring is evenly distributed among the ve criteria. However, there is a wide variation among the weights of the awards criteria. The objectives of this portion of the research are to verify whether the JoQA criteria and sub-criteria are acceptable to the participants, and to test the hypothesis of: companies being satised with the assigned weights. As discussed earlier, each JoQA criterion was represented by multiple items in the questionnaire and conrmed by factor analysis. The response to each questionnaire item was rated on a scale of 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). A higher mean value indicates a closer match (agreement) between the statement and the award criteria weight. In examining each criterion, the results show that, among the participating companies, the companies accepted the award criteria weights. 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, standard deviations, and Xo (test statistic) and whether the hypothesis is failed to be rejected or not. For example, L1 (leadership sub

criterion number one: vision statement) has a value of 25 points instead of the original 20 points assigned by the JoQA criterion. For this criterion, the null hypothesis is rejected. Using the same manner in L1, and for SP6 (strategic planning sixth sub criterion: implementation and control) companies suggested to increase this weight from 55 to 60. However, the participants request to change the awards criteria weights was not a signicant result. They did not, for example, cancel a criterion or suggest one. Most of their suggestions are slight modications of sub-criteria, and there was no request for major changes. The suggested modications are presented in Table VII. It is worthy of note that the participants are totally satised with the current sub-criteria and its weights. Based on the t-test, results indicate that no signicant opposition to the present weights of the awards. This is in support of the null hypothesis which reported that there is high degree of satisfaction about the current awards weight criteria. Even though this assessment shows that quality management in Jordan, based on the awards criteria, has made progress over the years, and there is no suggestion for modifying the awards criteria, this will challenge the level of knowledge and understanding of key quality management concepts after only three cycles of the award. More time and effort must be invested in explaining how the award will link to

Jordan Quality Award

21

Criteria/sub criteria 1.0 Leadership 1.1 Leadership vision 1.2 Leadership educational system 1.3 Leadership support 1.4 Leadership selection and suitability 2.0 Strategic planning 2.1 Mission statement 2.2 External environment analysis 2.3 Objectives 2.4 Strategies 2.5 Projects and action plans 2.6 Implementation and control 3.0 Processes management 3.1 Quality system 3.2 Customers relationship management 3.3 Coordination and structure 4.0 Resources management 4.1 Human resources 4.2 Information resources 4.3 Financial resources 4.4 Material resources 4.5 Technological 5.0 Results 5.1 Customer satisfaction 5.2 Employee satisfaction 5.3 Service/product quality (operational performance) 5.4 Suppliers performance 5.5 Impact on society 5.6 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. The suggested modications for the criteria of KAIIAE

BIJ 15,1

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

22

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

Jordan Quality Award

23

BIJ 15,1

24

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

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints