Pay-off selection criteria for quality and improvement initiatives
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 04/2008; 25(4):366-382. DOI: 10.1108/02656710810865258
Purpose – The variety of possible quality management (QM) and continuous improvement (CI) initiatives and their various possible permutations can make it difficult for a company to choose the best approach for their requirements. This paper aims to address the selection issue by presenting a method to compare popular QM and CI initiatives from the perspective of the pay-offs, or expected benefits, to an organisation which successfully adopts the approach. Design/methodology/approach – The relevant QM and CI literature was analysed, examining key initiatives and their reported pay-offs to the organisation. A matrix diagram approach is introduced which presents the extent and credibility of arguments advanced for these initiatives, in seven categories of pay-off. A system of assessment is proposed, which quantifies the extent and weight of empirical evidence and estimates the strength of the claim for each pay-off. Findings – The pay-off matrix summarises the claims in each of the pay-off categories, assesses their credibility, and displays the similarities and differences for six key initiatives: total quality management, six sigma, ISO 9000, business process reengineering, lean and business excellence. Graphical pay-off profiles are presented. Significant differences between the claimed pay-offs for these initiatives are identified, analysed and discussed. Research limitations/implications – The proposed matrix and assessment system attempts to support a comprehensive and rational approach to assess the pay-offs of QM and CI initiatives. As with any analysis of literature, there is inevitably an element of selection, but this approach consciously attempts to avoid omission and promote objectivity. The analysis is based on articles published between 1990 and 2005. Hence, new research and additional evidence may change the weight and credibility of claims. Originality/value – This paper suggests a way in which evidence from the literature might be most effectively used by managers for decision support in the choice of quality and improvement initiatives. A similar approach might also be used for other areas, where businesses face choices and a considerable body of evidence exists to assist the decision-making process.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There are numerous quality improvement initiatives that can be used by organisations to improve quality, productivity and sustainability towards achieving excellence, such as Six Sigma, Lean, Business Process Reengineering, ISO9000, and Benchmarking. Nevertheless, in reality, no single initiative can solve all problems effectively in the organisation. The right initiatives to be used may vary depending on several contextual factors, for instance, the current maturity level of the organisation, areas in which the initiatives are implemented, organisation type and size, and the capabilities of the workforce. Moreover, there is a lack of clear understanding by people regarding when, where and how to implement initiatives. Due to this situation, many organisations face difficulties in selecting suitable improvement initiatives according to the context. This paper discusses issues of selecting initiatives and proposes an initial conceptual model to select suitable quality improvement initiatives on the journey towards achieving organisational / business excellence (BE). The proposed initial conceptual model focuses on the critical factors that should be considered in selecting suitable quality improvement initiatives as well as some examples of the main initiatives to implement to improve performance according to the level of BE maturity and areas of implementation.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The implementation and improvement of quality management systems conducted according to ISO 9001:2008 standards should bring benefits to any organization. On the basis of research conducted in 753 Polish companies, this publication presents results of analysis concerning the assessment of importance of benefits being a consequence of quality management system. The studies concerning the significance of benefits being a consequence of quality management systems in Polish companies allow claiming that financial benefits and markets ones are the most important for the management team whereas the organizational benefits are of less importance. It leads to neglecting ‘soft’ factors of quality management which are significant in TQM concept and drawing to much attention to so called hard factors- especially financial ones.Quality and Quantity 01/2013; DOI:10.1007/s11135-011-9534-x · 0.72 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Current situations have forced SME(s) to fail and they feel that Balanced Scorecard and Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards are complex and difficult to understand and leverage. This paper reports the results of our literature review and face to face surveys. The results of our literature review identify 18 factors contributing to business performance. The face to face surveys of 167 SMEs with owners and management from various industries, helps to verify the conceptual model derived from our review by eliminating the factors which show no contribution to business performance. The results of the first part of the survey indicate that most of the SME(s) in Thailand do not adopt any performance management models. Only 12% of respondents are currently applying Balanced Scorecard within their organizations. 11% of respondents are having TQA and Just in Time in their operation. 26% of respondents are developing business strategies and all of these are classified as small businesses. None of them knows what Malcolm Baldrige is. The second part of the survey concluded that external factors such as industry, competition, customer and economics analysis did not contribute to business performance. The rest of the factors are used to group (14 remaining factors excluding results) into four perspectives which are Development, Execution, Progress and Results. The factors under Development consist of HR Development and Management, Leadership, Strategy Development and Culture. The factors under Execution include Risk Management, Corporate Social Responsibility, Strategy Implementation and Ownership Structure. The factors under Progress are Customer Focus, Process Innovation, Competency, IT & Knowledge Management and Collaboration. Last but not least factors under Results are Product Outcome, Customer Focus Outcome, Financial and Market Outcome, Workforce Focus Outcome, Process Effectiveness Outcomes and Leadership Outcome.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.