The article provides a comparison between the different quality awards in the different countries. First, the article provides an account of the historical perspectives relating to quality function as observed in Japan. It also provides a relevant understanding of the total quality management concepts in the development of the quality awards. The analysis of the quality awards may have certain similarities and differences that relate to the determination of the global quality standards. The Malcolm Baldridge national quality award is an award in the U.S that sought to determine the competitiveness of the U.S companies. The Malcolm Baldrige awards use the various core principles of quality management. The principles include leadership, planning for future goals, earning, design quality and customer driven focus.
The administrators of the award use selected award criteria that involve seven categories. The categories are market focus, human resource aspects, process management, leadership and business performance. In addition, the award is usually supported by information and relevant analysis focusing on the customers. On the other hand, the European quality awards are a regional award that involves 16 countries in Europe including Austria, Norway, and Spain among others. The EU quality award is said to be similar to MBNQA, but its criteria are different. The criteria of the awards consist of the enablers and results. The enablers include the customer satisfaction, impacts to the society, business results, and the other variables (Robert, Gary & Jason, 2000). Therefore, the paper provides a comparison of the five quality awards in different countries.
- KEY LEARNING POINTS
There are key points that can be learned from the various quality awards. First, the Canadian quality awards use the approach of MBNQA. The quality awards are also used in the honoring of the Canadian organizations based on the continuous quality improvement programs. The roadmap of the Canada involves ten steps of continuous improvement process. It reveals the Canadian excellence frameworks in order to enhance continuous improvement.
The Australian quality award is relevant in the encouragement on quality performance among the Australian industries. The awards involve comprehensive and quality principles that improve quality performance. It also follows the seven criteria of awards that match the global quality awards. However, the main aspects of the award emphasize on customer focus and leadership. In addition, the Australian quality award follows the four assessment procedures in order to understand the organizational quality processes (Chuan, & Soon, 2000).
The Singaporean excellence frameworks are relevant in the setting up of the relevant business processes. The Singaporean frameworks are different from the five quality awards. It considers of the self – assessment tools and awards to the businesses. The achievement of the awards is based on four principles that include the business excellence standards, innovation, people and services. Thus, every business is gauged using the four spectrums in order to promote performance of the business (Lee, Zuckweiler & Trimi, 2006). Most importantly, the Singaporean is different from the other quality frameworks and emphasizes on self-assessment strategies.
In reference to the reading, there are various relevant statements instrumental in the understanding of the quality aspects. The includes the following
- The article provides that Japanese efforts in the late 1950s led to the growth of quality programs. The statement is relevant as it shows the history and the development of the quality awards. It helps to determine the development of the quality awards based on the different strategic initiatives.
- Successful quality awards use the continuous improvement programs in operation’s design. The statement is crucial as it implies that a quality program can be improved through the continuous improvement process in the organizations.
- The article also states that the award criteria usually undergo changes based on the national and regions. The statements are relevant as it reflects the diversity of the different countries and their organizations.
- The award criteria are the major similarity between the five quality awards. The statement is relevant as it provides the similarity of the five quality awards in the different organizations. It also emphasizes on the need for the evaluation of the business results.
Therefore, the statement provided the main points in the comparative analysis of the five quality programs.
- CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The article provides the relevant aspects of quality awards in terms of the various criteria programs. The development of quality award was driven to the meeting of the customer demands and responding to a competitor’s actions. The businesses usually exist to meet the need of its customers. Thus, the quality awards involve the setting up of the relevant factors in the performance of the organizations. According to Brown (2013), the meeting of the customer need is fundamental to the existence of any business organization. In addition, the concept of the total quality management was significant in the continued development and diversity of the quality ward.
In order for the quality awards to meet the different goals and environments, there is a need to implement the quality strategies along the TQM concepts. A comparison of the different quality awards reveals that all the awards eventually follows a certain international approach. The international approach of the quality awards is used to solve for the quality aspects in the different countries. Despite the international approach, other countries including Singapore use different quality approaches. It is also important to obtain the results of the quality reviews. The results help to determine the probable changes in the various variables of the organizations (Lee, Zuckweiler & Trimi, 2006). Therefore, the critical analysis reveals that the quality awards rely on the different fundamental concepts including total quality management.