Brief the managers of X corporation

The purpose of this report is to brief the managers of X corporation who are based in Singapore and have branches in Australia, Holland and USA. Furthermore, X Corporation is deciding to pursue a path of continuous improvement through a Quality Award. The managers are aware of the cultural challenges that occur in the different countries. Executive Summary The concepts of quality management have been widely accepted and adopted by businesses over the last few decades. The tools and methods used to manage quality have evolved from those based on statistical techniques, quality circles and quality standards to those broadly categorized under the label of total quality control/management.
While quality management has been recognized as essential for organizational prosperity, recent studies have identified a need for what has been termed competitive quality (Hamel and Prahalad, 1994). This term centers on the requirement for companies to go beyond the skilled application of tools and techniques to include a shift in values, beliefs and assumptions guiding organizational activities. Competitive quality is based on a systems perspective, continuous improvement, high productivity and customer orientation (Docking and Dowen, 1999). While there exists an excess of articles that tie quality to firm operations, the linkage between quality and shareholder price reaction is less clear. This is partly because quality is an extremely difficult variable to measure.
As such, one of the best methods for economic agents to assess the effectiveness of a firm’s pursuit of quality is to use criteria of excellence from prestigious international quality models such as the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA), the European Quality Award (EQA) or the Australian Business Excellence Award (ABEF).

The primary objective of the study is to compare and contrast the influence of the different contributions to quality management awards. The three major quality awards framework will be used are the ABEF, the EQA and the MBNQA. The validity of these awards will be discussed by comparing the requirements of the awards in today’s global environment and the outcome would be justified of which is more important, and which one is more appropriate towards the improvement approach.
Discussion Research Background
For more than twenty years, organisations in the USA, Europe and beyond have come under increasing pressure to improve their business performance, measure themselves against world-class standards and focus their efforts on the customer. To assist this process, organisations have adopted various approaches or philosophies. These include Total Quality Management (TQM) and Business Process Re-engineering (BPR), whilst more recently, many have turned to quality models such as the US Malcolm Baldrige National Award (MBNQA) or the European Foundation for Quality Management’s Business Excellence Model (EFQM) –
The EFQM illustrates key business areas, ‘enablers’ and ‘results’, which are typically addressed by organizations striving for superior business performance. This particular model includes nine main categories such as customer satisfaction, people satisfaction and impact on society achieved through leadership driving policy and strategy, people management, resources and processes, leading ultimately to excellence in business results – both financial and non-financial. Financial measures may include profit, sales, cash flow, working capital, liquidity; non-financial targets may include reduction of non-quality costs, service level achievements, market share, product delivery time, batch processing time or inventory turnover time.
The Baldrige model is very similar to the EFQM, being based on seven basic criteria supplemented by business results and impact on society sections. Self-assessment to a model such as the Baldrige or EFQM involves an organization in the regular and systematic review of its enablers and results allowing the identification of strengths and areas for improvement. Various awards have been set up to encourage adoption of business excellence principles and provide a platform for measurement or self-assessment against world-class standards. One could propose that all three awards were inspired by each other and brought improvements regularly. In order to get clear picture about the awards lets compare and contrast ABEF, EFQM, and MBNQA.
The Australian Business Excellence Award (ABEF) Origin The ABEF awards have grown out of the rich history of the Australian Quality Awards founded in 1988, but with a fresh focus on Business Excellence (AQC, 2002). The awards are currently administrated by Business Excellence Australia, which is a division of Standard Australia. Mission The mission of this award is to promote, recognize, nurture and celebrate organizational excellence in all its forms. The Australian Quality awards Foundation is responsible for the evaluation and selection of applicants. The award was established to enhance quality awareness in Australian organizations.