Abstract
In this study, a Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) criteria-based survey was used to assess the quality status of organizations that employ quality professionals. The objective was to focus on the relationship between leadership (LS), information and analysis, human resource planning, process quality, and customer focus. The result was the development of an MBNQA-based model that demonstrated the relationship between executive LS and the MBNQA factors.
Electronic access
Introduction
US organizations are using quality improvement techniques to produce higher quality products and services at significantly reduced costs. Studies (Tanner et al., 1995) show that the cost savings associated with quality improvements often occur early, within 3 years, in the long term quality management effort. Hence, actively managing quality is helping US organizations to become more competitive in the global market (Scheuermann et al., 1997).
Consistent with the application of quality improvement techniques is the assessment of quality and evaluation of the internal and external customers' perception of quality. In this study, a Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) criteria-based survey was used to assess the quality status of organizations that employ quality professionals. An MBNQA-based survey, of American Society for Quality (ASQ) Dallas section, was conducted to measure the perceptions of quality among quality professionals and to measure the relationships among the MBNQA dimensions. Specifically, this work focuses on the relationship between leadership (LS), information and analysis (IA), human resource (HR) planning, process quality (PQ), and customer focus (CF). The sample selected for this study comprised of ASQ quality professionals. As a result of the expertise of the respondents, this data set provides an unique insight into the relationships among the dimensions that compose quality in an organization. Developing a measurement instrument is an important step in assessing the quality, or perception of quality, of an organization (Bemowski and Stratton, 1995; Black and Porter, 1996; Prybutok and Stafford, 1997). Hence, exploration of the relationships in the MBNQA as measured by the instrument we developed was the main objective of this work. Factor analysis and regression models were used to explore the relationships among the MBNQA and LS dimensions in the MBNQA quality framework.
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
The United States Department of Commerce (1998) created the MBNQA in 1987 to enhance competitiveness (Bell and Keys, 1998; Decarlo and Sterett, 1990). Specific goals of the award include promoting awareness of the relationship between quality and competitiveness, increasing understanding about the level of quality required to achieve world class recognition, and fostering the sharing of information about quality by world class organizations (Bemowski, 1995; Bemowski andStratton, 1995). One of the most frequent uses of the MBNQA criteria is for self assessment (Bemowski and Stratton, 1995; Black and Porter, 1996; Reimann, 1989; Vokurka, 2001; Wu et al, 1997). Self-assessment is important because it helps an organization to define its quality system and select customer driven quality objectives (Reimann, 1989). The MBNQA criteria consists of which are seven functionally related major categories listed below and each of these major categories are further divided for a total of 32 subcategories.
(1) LS is the category that embodies all other MBNQA criteria (Sullivan, 1992).
(2) IA is the category that supports all of the other categories (Forza, 1995; Omdahl, 1992).
(3) Strategic quality planning examines the organization's strategic business planning and implementation processes (Marquardt, 1992).
(4) HR development and planning analyzes the process by which an organization develops and realizes the full potential of its work force (Leifleld, 1992).
(5) Management of PQ addresses design, production, support systems, supplier quality, and quality assessment (Heaphy, 1992).
(6) Quality and operational results assess how an organization is performing in areas that are ultimately important to the customer and in identifying trends in those areas (case and Bigelow, 1992).
(7) CF and satisfaction focus on how an organization manages its customers (Desatnick, 1992).
These categories fit into a framework composed of four basic elements:
(1) driver,
(2) system,
(3) measures of progress, and
(4) goal.
The 1999 MBNQA criteria lists senior executive LS as the driver that creates values, goals, and systems that guide the pursuit of quality objectives (Bell and Keys, 1998; Sullivan, 1992). Processes such as information analysis, strategic quality planning, HR development and planning, and management of PQ provide the system needed by senior management to measure progress with quality and operational results. Based on the analysis of the information provided by the measure of progress, senior management can determine if the goal of customer satisfaction has been achieved.
Research objectives
The research objective of this work is to explore the relationships between LS and the other dimensions of the MBNQA. This study reports the analysis related specifically to survey items that elicited responses about the quality processes of several organizations in different industries.
Data collection
There is a need for instrument development and research that empirically contributes to the development of TQM practices and selfassessment frameworks for organizations (Black and Porter, 1996; Wu et al, 1997). Therefore, a quality practices assessment instrument was developed by using the content of each of the major MBNQA criterion and writing items requiring either a Likert style (strongly disagree to strongly agree) or to leave the item blank if it is not applicable. This approach parallels the development of Prybutok and Spink's (1999) MBNQA instrument for healthcare. Comparison of the two instruments shows their similarity and strengthens the validity of this instrument. Each item was designed to reflect one aspect of the MBNQA criteria. Quality experts, including a MBNQA lead assessor, a Texas quality award examiner, and several certified quality engineers, reviewed the initial survey for content validity. Two of these survey evaluators had worked for MBNQA winners. After incorporating many of the suggested changes, the survey was reviewed again by the experts.
The survey was administered to members of the ASQ, Dallas section. The members surveyed ranged from CEOs to senior staff members. The industries represented ranges from electronics and other electronic equipment and components, to nondepository credit institutions. Out of the 89 surveys distributed at a Dallas section meeting 62 were returned. Though some respondents occasionally left a response blank, most of the items had 62 respondents. The limitations imposed by the sample were not critical to this work because the intent of this work was to explore the relationships among the MBNQA dimensions and not to describe the views of ASQ members.
Data analysis
Factor analysis
Factor analysis is a multivariate statistical method that identifies the extent to which the responses to the items in the survey have common variances (Hair et al., 1995). Factor analysis was used to determine the interdependence between variables and allows definition or confirmation of conceptualized dimensions (Churchill, 1979). In this study factor analysis was used to determine the groupings (factors) of the items in the instrument to each of the MBNQA dimensions. The goal was to obtain a unidimensional measure for each of the seven dimensions. A principal components factor analysis was used to analyze survey Items 1-7 as they related to senior executive LS, which is the drive for the other six factors.
Survey items: senior executive LS
The responses to seven survey items, which related to the perceptions of executive LS, were analyzed in this study. The items were as follows.
(1) Item 1. My company has a strong set of quality values that is applied consistently throughout all facets of the organization.
(2) Item 2. In my company quality goals are at least as important as financial goals.
(3) Item 3. Top management promotes cooperation among managers and supervisors across different levels and different functions of the organization.
(4) Item 4. My company evaluates performance with regard to quality of all functions of the organization on a regular basis.
(5) Item 5. Top management in my company is concerned with the organization's impact on the external community on the following issues: health and safety.
(6) Item 6. Top management in my company is concerned with the organization's impact on the external community on the following issue: environmental protection.
(7) Item 7. Top management in my company is concerned with the organization's impact on the external community on the following issue: ethical business practices.
Results
Factor analysis
Table I focuses on the results from a factor analysis of Items 1-7 that related to senior executive LS issues, and shows the factor loadings for each item. Items 5 and 6 were removed from the analysis because they did not load cleanly on any factor (over 0.5 loading on one factor and less than 0.5 on all others (Hair et al, 1995)), but rather loaded on several factors. Table I shows that after elimination of these two items the factor analysis produced a unidimensional measure of LS.
The factor loadings revealed that the items grouped into four related factors represent unique dimensions of quality:
Factor 1: HR development and management
Table II shows the ten items loaded onto this factor. These items represent a MBNQA dimension that focuses on the respondents perceptions of HR plans derived from a strategic quality plan, well-defined management practices used to promote individual employee and team contributions to quality objectives, monitoring the extent and involvement by all levels of employees, formal quality training, performance measurement, recognition, and reward, maintaining a work environment conducive to employee growth, and monitoring employee satisfaction.
(1) Item 20. My company has HR plans derived from the strategic quality plan that are aimed at achieving the full potential of the work force.
(2) Item 21. My company has well-defined management practices and other mechanisms (i.e. awards or suggestion systems or similar) that are used to promote individual employee contributions to quality objectives.
(3) Item 22. My company has well-defined management practices and other mechanisms (i.e. work teams or quality circles or similar) that are used to promote team contributions to quality objectives.
(4) Item 23. My company monitors the extent and effectiveness of involvement by all categories and levels of employees.
(5) Item 24. All employees in my company receive formal quality training in the knowledge and skills required for them to meet the quality objectives associated with their responsibilities.
(6) Item 25. My company has systems that support recognition as a quality objective.
(7) Item 26. My company has systems that support rewards as a quality objective.
(8) Item 27. My company has systems that support performance measurement as a quality objective.
(9) Item 28. My company maintains a work environment conducive to the well-being and growth of all employees.
(10) Item 29. My company regularly monitors employee satisfaction and uses the results to support its quality improvement efforts.
Factor 2: CF and satisfaction
Table III shows the 12 items that were loaded on this factor. This factor represents a MBNQA dimensions about the degree of CF and satisfaction achieved within an organization. The dimension includes components that focus on seeking to determine the quality expectations of the customer, the effectiveness of customer management, the ability to measure CF, and how the organization compares on its customer satisfaction with competitors, industry averages, industry leaders, and world leaders.
(1) Item 46. My company has a formal method for determining current quality requirements and expectations of customers.
(2) Item 47. My company has a formal method for determining future quality requirements and expectations of customers.
(3) Item 48. My company has a formal method for determining product and service features desired by the customer and/or customer groups.
(4) Item 49. My company has a formal method for evaluating the relative importance of product and/or service features to its customers.
(5) Item 50. My company provides effective customer management.
(6) Item 51. My company continuously improves its customer management practices.
(7) Item 52. My company has objective service standards against which service quality is measured.
(8) Item 53. My company makes both implicit and explicit commitments that promote trust and confidence from its customers.
(9) Item 54. My company resolves customer complaints promptly and effectively.
(10) Item 55. My company formally analyzes customer complaints to determine their underlying causes in order to make necessary improvements in products and services.
(11) Item 56. My company formally examines customer complaints in order to make necessary improvements to its processes.
(12) Item 57. My company measures and analyzes trends and current levels of customer satisfaction.
(13) Item 58. My company compares its customer satisfaction results with principal competitors.
(14) Item 59. My company compares its customer satisfaction results with industry averages.
(15) Item 60. My company compares its customer satisfaction results with industry leaders.
(16) Item 61. My company compares its customer satisfaction results with world leaders.
Factor 3: management of PQ
Table IV shows the nine items that were loaded onto factor 3. This factor represents a MBNQA dimension that is related to the designs in customer requirements, quality issues in the early design phase, analyzing process capabilities, monitoring the processes used to produce products and services, continuously improving the processes used to produce products and services.
(1) Item 30. My company has a systematic method for introducing new products and services which include designs in customer requirements.
(2) Item 31. My company has a systematic method for introducing new products and services which address quality issues early in the design phase.
(3) Item 32. My company has a systematic method for introducing new products and services which analyze process capabilities.
(4) Item 33. My company monitors the processes used to produce products and services in order to identify when they are out-ofcontrol and make necessary corrections.
(5) Item 34. My company continuously improves the processes used to produce its products and services.
(6) Item 35. My company formally assesses the quality of its systems.
(7) Item 36. My company formally assesses the quality of its processes and practices.
(8) Item 37. My company formally assesses the quality of its products and services.
(9) Item 38. My company maintains documentation and other modes of knowledge preservation and transfer, to support its quality assurance, assessment, and improvement efforts.
(10) Item 39. My company's quality requirements are communicated to all external suppliers of goods and services.
(11) Item 40. My company has methods in place to evaluate the quality of goods and services supplied by external suppliers and guarantee that they satisfy all quality requirements.
(12) Item 41. My company monitors trends and current levels for key measures of product and service quality.
Factor 4: IA
Table V shows the seven items that were loaded onto factor 4. Factor 4 represents a MBNQA dimension that is focused on the respondents' perceptions of their organizations' storage, transfer, and use of information.
(1) Item 8. There are well-documented processes and techniques used to ensure reliability.
(2) Item 9. There are well-documented processes and techniques used to ensure consistency.
(3) Item 10. There are well-documented processes and techniques used to ensure review.
(4) Item 11. There are well-documented processes and techniques used to ensure timely update.
(5) Item 12. My company regularly performs comparisons of its quality processes to worldclass benchmarks to support quality planning, evaluation and improvement.
(6) Item 13. Quality data and information gathered internally are systematically analyzed to help support the company's overall quality objectives.
(7) Item 14. Quality data and information gathered externally are systematically analyzed to help support the company's overall quality objectives.
MBNQA factors that were excluded from this model
Table VI shows the five items that were loaded onto the strategic quality planning dimension of the MBNQA. The strategic quality planning dimension is focused on the respondents' perceptions of their organizations' strategic planning process and strategic plans.
(1) Item 15. My company has a well-defined short-term (1-2 years) strategic quality planning process to help maintain quality LS in the marketplace.
(2) Item 16. My company has a well-defined strategic plan to increase customer satisfaction.
(3) Item 17. My company has a strategic quality plan that details how we will pursue market LS through providing superior quality products and services.
(4) Item 18. My company has a strategic quality plan that details how we will pursue market LS through improving the effectiveness of all operations of the company.
(5) Item 19. My company's strategic quality plan has specific goals and strategies that effectively address issues impacting future quality for key product and quality features.
While these items were all loaded onto one factor, the strategic quality planning factor was not significant in the LS model. Hence, this factor was removed from the model via stepwise regression.
Table VII shows the four items that were loaded onto the quality and operational results factor of the MBNQA. The four items are as follows.
(1) Item 42. My company objectively compares its current quality levels with principal competitors.
(2) Item 43. My company objectively compares its current quality levels with industry leaders.
(3) Item 44. My company objectively compares its current quality levels with world leaders.
(4) Item 45. My company monitors trends and current levels for the most important indicators of supplier quality.
The quality and operational results factor were not significant in the LS model as presented in this study, but this could result in multicollinearity among the factors.
Regression analysis
This analysis was conducted to explore the relationship between senior executive LS and the six other MBNQA dimensions. For each dimension a unidimensional measure was created by removing items that did not specifically load onto one factor. The linear sums of each of the items that were successfully loaded onto a single factor were used to create a measure of that dimension. Each of the MBNQA dimensions were used later as a variable in a regression model. After a stepwise regression procedure the four variables model described below was obtained. As a result of the stepwise regression, senior executive LS was shown to have four significant variables:
(1) HR development and management
(2) CF and satisfaction
(3) management of PQ; and
(4) IA.