You are on page 1of 11

Journal of European Industrial Training

Emerald Article: The strategic impact and application of the business


excellence model: implications for quality training and development
Denis Leonard, Rodney McAdam

Article information:
To cite this document: Denis Leonard, Rodney McAdam, (2002),"The strategic impact and application of the business excellence
model: implications for quality training and development", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 26 Iss: 1 pp. 4 - 13
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090590210415858
Downloaded on: 16-11-2012
References: This document contains references to 28 other documents
Citations: This document has been cited by 3 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 2237 times since 2005. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *


Davide Maritan, Roberto Panizzolo, (2009),"Identifying business priorities through quality function deployment: Insights from a
case study", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 27 Iss: 5 pp. 714 - 728
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634500910977917
H.K.S. Heng, W.D. McGeorge, M. Loosemore, (2005),"Beyond strategy: Exploring the brokerage role of facilities manager in
hospitals", Journal of Health Organization and Management, Vol. 19 Iss: 1 pp. 16 - 31
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14777260510592112
Sandy Bond, (2011),"Barriers and drivers to green buildings in Australia and New Zealand", Journal of Property Investment &
Finance, Vol. 29 Iss: 4 pp. 494 - 509
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635781111150367

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF DERBY
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. 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 strategic impact and application of the business


excellence model: implications for quality training
and development
Denis Leonard
University of Wisconsin, Madison County, USA
Rodney McAdam
University of Ulster, Belfast, UK

Keywords

Business excellence model,


Quality programmes, Training,
Organizational policy, Strategy,
Awards

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to explore


the tactical role of the business
excellence model (BEM) and the
significance for quality training
and development, in relation to
strategy and operations within
organisations. There are
conflicting accounts in the
literature and praxis in relation to
the role of the BEM. Some
consider it to be a strategic model
while others consider it to be of
use solely at an operational level.
This paper explores this
dichotomy by considering the
tactical role of the BEM in
organisations and the implications
for quality training and
development in organisations. A
grounded theory research
methodology is used. Based on
the research a grounded model of
the BEM application in
organisations is presented and
discussed, showing the current
role of the BEM for managers in
relation to operations and
strategy. The need for a resultant
shift in emphasis in quality
training and development is
shown.

Journal of European Industrial


Training
26/1 [2002] 413
# MCB UP Limited
[ISSN 0309-0590]
[DOI 10.1108/03090590210415858]

[4]

Introduction
A clear divide exists between corporate
strategy and that of operations, at
managerial level. This view is reflected in
comments and observations by Porter (1996),
Peters and Austin (1994) and Juran (1991),
who refer to the lack of distinction between
strategic and operational functions that can
often manifest itself in an organisational
context. It is the appreciation of the
distinction between strategic and operational
functions that distinguish strategists from
managers (Hinterhuber and Popp, 1992).
The aim of this paper is to further explore
the tactical role of the business excellence
model (BEM) and the implications for
Quality training and development, in
strategy and operations within organisations
using a grounded theory research
methodology. A grounded model derived
from the research is presented and discussed,
showing the current role of the BEM for
managers in relation to operations and
strategy.

Operational-strategic divide:
the tactical role
This brief summary of the literature is used
to set the context of the study, as distinct
from establishing accepted theories. The
operational-strategic divide is one of the
primary characteristics that define the
understanding, interpretation and
application of the BEM in organisational
practice.

The pursuit of operational effectiveness is


seductive because it is concrete and
actionable. Caught up in the race for
operational effectiveness, many managers
simply do not understand the need to have a
strategy (Porter, 1996, p. 75).

The research register for this journal is available at


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters

This corresponds with the results of a study


by Zairi et al. (1994) that stated that:

TQM merely offers companies the


opportunity to carry out improvements and
focuses on getting closer to customers. It is
only a license to practice. Companies must
still have the right strategies (Zairi et al., 1994,
p. 43).

A further reflection of the ``strategicoperational divide'' can be seen in the


conclusions of a European survey on selfassessment in 1994:

What appears to be happening with many


business units in the large companies is that
the CEO dictates that self-assessment will
happen. This then forces business unit
management to learn about self-assessment
and implement (Van der Wiele et al., 1995,
p. 17).

This ``delegation'' of the BEM at strategic


level was underlined by Phil Crosby with
regard to the MBNQA when he said that:

. . . executives are happily passing the criteria


package to committees in their company and
backing away from process (Simms et al.,
1991, p. 128).

What influence does this strategicoperational divide have in terms of strategic


functioning? Total quality management
(TQM) should provide an active
environmental sensor for the gathering of
environmental data to provide fast, dynamic
strategic positioning and highlighting
emergent strategies. However, it is more
often passive and, rather than managers
having been aware of new market forces and
emergent strategies, they are simply reacting
to the situation:
Managers are constantly tempted to take
incremental steps that surpass those limits
but blur a company's strategic position
(Porter, 1996, p. 75).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

Denis Leonard and


Rodney McAdam
The strategic impact and
application of the business
excellence model:
implications for quality
training and development
Journal of European Industrial
Training
26/1 [2002] 413

If this operational stance is taken and TQM is


not used strategically, then emergent
strategies are not discovered and cannot be
speedily used to advantage. Rather,
strategies are reacted to in a passive stance
due to, as Porter (1996) termed it, a pressure
or market saturation that eventually meant
that it could not be ignored. If the BEM does
not provide a dynamic corporate impetus or
fulfil an environmental sensor it is not a
corporate strategic framework nor can it
predict the future. The implications for
quality training and development are
considerable. The operational focus will
require comprehensive quality training at a
tool and technique level, as currently seen in
many organisations, in support of an overall
framework such as the BEM. However, such
an approach will fail to encourage those
involved in quality to fully participate at a
strategy formulation level.
The points raised do not preclude the BEM
being used strategically, rather:
Managers must clearly distinguish
operational effectiveness from strategic. Both
are essential, but the two agendas are
different (Porter, 1996, p. 78).

In this duality the strategy provides a


continuity in which the operational
improvements can continue in as dynamic a
manner as possible:
Strategic continuity, in fact, should make an
organisation's continual improvement more
effective (Porter, 1996, p. 78).

In other words, TQM and the use of the BEM


for continuous, and if need be, incremental
improvement, can continue in duality with
the higher level ``strategic layer'' which can
take a more holistic and ``strategic thinking''
attitude to the strategic placing of the
company:

Involving intuition and creativity. The


outcome of strategic thinking is an integrated
perspective of the enterprise (Mintzberg, 1994,
p. 108).

If TQM and the BEM are to be key drivers in


the strategy formulation process, then there
must be a radical change in the quality
training and development policies of many
organisations. There is a need for more
employee development in regard to strategic
quality issues such as macro level
competitiveness, external benchmarking and
market analysis and decision making.
Another issue is that the smaller the
company the closer the link between the
operational and the strategic, the board-room
and the shop-floor become very close and the
dividing line between corporate strategy and
operational considerations becomes
indistinct. One company stated that it could

not separate operational from strategic. In


the larger companies this becomes easier.
TQM needs to be supported at the top. It
needs to have commitment at the corporate
strategic level, with an understanding of its
corporate strategic characteristics and a
clear awareness of the fit and position of the
award models and their application if
appropriate. If it is delegated and used only at
operational level middle level down to do
things like reduce scrap, reduce rework,
lessen the number of faults and in-field
servicing that will save money, but this is
not creating a strategic impact. It will not
highlight the need to move into a different
market or alert to a company to the fact that a
new competitor has entered the market.
These are issues not considered at the
operational level.
If the BEM is not used at strategic level, if
it is not seen as useful at strategic level then
the organisation will not be active in terms of
dynamic strategic thinking and taking that
information back up to strategic level and
using it. The problem with the BEM is
``managers do all of that'', where does it
actually help to map out strategy? An
organisation will be able to observe what it
has achieved annually in comparison to the
previous year, but the BEM cannot help in
terms of looking into the future and creating
visions. This process is the true essence of
corporate strategy, strategic thinking.
Strategic thinking is about synthesising
learning, intuition and creativity into ``a
vision of the direction that the business
should pursue'' (Mintzberg, 1994, p. 104).
The key position of the BEM in this
operational strategic divide is at tactical
level, ``translating the strategy into
deliverable activities and targets'' at the
operational level. This tactical level sits
below the strategic level where the vision,
direction and ``right strategies'' need to be
created. It is at this tactical point that the
BEM aids in the determination and
allocation of the key processes, which need to
be improved on through initiatives at an
operational level. This action will achieve the
goals determined at the strategic level to
drive the organisation toward its corporate
strategy.

Research methodology
Existing deductive theory testing research
methods do not completely capture the
complexity of the context of organisational
settings (Perry and Coote, 1994, p. 3).
Wilkinson and Willmott (1996) state that
there is a ``paucity of systematic and rigorous

[5]

Denis Leonard and


Rodney McAdam
The strategic impact and
application of the business
excellence model:
implications for quality
training and development
Journal of European Industrial
Training
26/1 [2002] 413

evaluation'' in many studies. Furthermore,


they state the need for more theory grounded
and contingency-based research rather than
solely deductive approaches.
A methodology which inquires more
deeply into operational and strategy-related
events within the organisation is needed to
enable a coherent and firmly-founded set of
TQM and strategy theories to be elucidated.
In this situation a phenomenological
perspective is considered to be more
appropriate:
. . . appreciate the different constructions and
meanings that people place upon their
experience . . . explain why people have
different experiences, rather than search for
external causes (Easterby-Smith et al., 1993).

With this social constructionist approach,


the use of the interpretist approach in place
of the deductive option is much more
appropriate for the rich complex research
issue of establishing theory from TQM and
strategy-based organisational practice. In
this approach it is important to listen to
practitioners (Terziovski et al., 1996; Lewin
and Stephens, 1993). Also, to focus on
meaning and reflection of the complex issues
observed:
. . . interpretist researchers see language as
the means of communication in which there
may be differences and nuances of meaning
(Allan, 1998, p. 91).

Grounded theory

One of the most useful and developed


inductive research methods is that of
grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).
In this methodology (Figure 1) the researcher
starts with minimalist a priori constructs
(i.e. the preceding brief discussion on TQM

Figure 1
Generic grounded theory research methodology

[6]

and strategy), inquires deeply into


organisational behaviour and events and
gradually tests and forms theoretical
constructs (Leonard and McAdam, 2001).
The ``researcher being able to develop
theory through comparative method . . .
looking at the same event or process in
different settings or situations'' (EasterbySmith et al., 1993, p. 35). Sitter et al. (1997)
state that grounded theory uses abstract
concepts to describe and analyse a series of
general phenomena but based on practical
experience. It is this intrinsic link to
practical experience that makes the method
attractive to theory forming within the TQM
and strategy discourse. Ropo and Hunt (1994)
emphasise the recursive processual nature of
grounded theory (see loops in Figure 1)
which leads to interplay of organisational
and individual characteristics across time
and which is grounded in data.
Theory building by grounded theory
capitalises on the rich practitioner-based
knowledge-base of TQM and strategy.
Sources of data can include TQM team
meetings, interviews with TQM managers,
TQM case studies, etc. (Perry and Coote,
1994). Strauss and Corbin (1990) show how
such data can be gathered from ``streams of
research''.

Current study

For the current study, 19 organisations were


selected for in-depth study. These
organisations were selected based on their
involvement in TQM and strategy as
evidenced by their use of the BEM (EFQM,
2001) and participation in national quality
awards. These organisations all had 250+

Denis Leonard and


Rodney McAdam
The strategic impact and
application of the business
excellence model:
implications for quality
training and development
Journal of European Industrial
Training
26/1 [2002] 413

employees and had well-developed


operational and strategic plans. The research
was gathered using semi-structured
interviews, ethnography (over a two-year
period) and organisation information and
archives. All the interviews were taped,
transcribed and coded using grounded theory
principles (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). The
key grounded research findings are
summarised under the following main
headings arising from the research.

Results and discussion


A strategic driver

Out of the key issues that emerged is that of


the BEM in a ``strategic driver'' role, or its
impact on corporate strategy.
Statements about the model, such as:

. . . it can also be used to measure the future


the organisation's potential (Quaglia, 1997,
p. 12),

are now commonplace. These claims create


too great a goal for the model and the award.
Other statements such as:
. . . in future, intellectual capital and the
ability of the leaders to guide the organisation
will become a critical success factor. Using
the model to measure these soft elements is
practically a strategic necessity today, and
will become even more important in the
future (Quaglia, 1997, p. 12).

Well, to some extent it washes over the whole


thing . . . we would define as business
excellence. One of our key, of our five key
business areas customer, people, society,
business results is business excellence.

The BEM's role in providing a structured


``clear'' way of driving performance
improvement forward and doing this by
delivering strategically-determined goals
through initiatives and activities. This action
is, therefore, below strategic level, where
higher level decisions are made the BEM is
actively used, therefore, at a more tactical
level. This was reinforced by many of the
companies' quality training and development
programmes which adopted a strategy
implementation approach to quality training
and development programmes. Thus, quality
training and development was based at a
tactical rather than strategic level.
At a strategic level the BEM may structure
planning but its true impact is in delivering
those plans.
This is more evident in the following
statement:
I think it would need to deliver clear strategic
direction and clear alignment, and a process
to enable clear alignment of effort right down
the line towards deliverable goals, that
support that strategic direction.

The BEM takes into consideration aspects of


intellectual capital; however, considering the
limits of the award submission document of
75 pages, how extensively can these issues be
examined? Such statements exceed the
BEM's capabilities. However, the model
cannot be used to predict the future. To what
extent is the BEM a ``strategic necessity
today''?
In the case of one company, the manager
considered business excellence:

In other words, the model in this


organisational context is not helping to
``deliver clear strategic direction''. The model
itself cannot achieve that, it is up to the
leadership of the organisation. The
organisation is also trying to refine the clear
alignment of deliverable goals to support the
strategic direction. This refinement is
another representation of the positioning or
application of the BEM at a tactical to
operational level rather than strategic. The
manager in this organisation goes on to
pinpoint the ``impact on strategy'' from the
BEM:

This would suggest that the model is not in


fact the driver it is referred to since senior
managers do not fully understand it. Also the
emphasis is on attaining certain scores, these
scores, or the goal setting of certain scores, in
this case, is the true driver. It should be noted
that the term ``business excellence'' is used
interchangeably with the BEM:

The key impact for this manager at the


strategic level is not a strategic issue, the
management of performance through process
and the understanding of processes is very
much a tactical and operational role. Once
again, this factor has more to do with
conceptualising the organisation and a
means of creating an overview of the
organisation. The assessment of markets,
new entrants and other such issues of a
strategic nature have not arisen. Attempts to
use the BEM to create a strategic direction

. . . as one of the key drivers, I would say one of


our most widely-communicated goals within
the circles that I move is a score of attaining
700 points or better. So it has come fairly
prominent in terms of what our directions
are. A lot of people could probably tell you,
well quite a few people at fairly senior level
could tell you a bit about it but they are not
familiar with the precepts and concepts
within the model.

Well, one of the key things that, you know, I


think business excellence has driven us
towards is managing performance through
processes and that process approach is
deployed right from the top down. So that's an
example of its impact on strategy.

[7]

Denis Leonard and


Rodney McAdam
The strategic impact and
application of the business
excellence model:
implications for quality
training and development
Journal of European Industrial
Training
26/1 [2002] 413

were not successful in any of the


organisations.
One manager reflects the situation of the
previous company here in a short
description:

The Business Excellence Model, as such, I


think, is seen as a means of translating . . . a
strategic direction into deliverable activities,
you know, we have . . . we have really
recognised quite recently that the BEM per se
was not sufficiently well-defined to provide
strategic direction.

Crucially, the BEM was considered by this


organisation as ``not sufficiently well defined
to provide strategic direction'', something
that the earlier organisation has not yet fully
understood:
Business excellence EFQM [BEM] provides a
tool for senior management for use of TQ in
business that they can feel comfortable . . .
also direct leadership driving improvement
and efficiency.

Again, it is the structured approach and


co-ordination that is of consequence. The
manager sees the BEM as the driver;
however, the assessment was carried out
``before strategic decision making involving
all departments''. Clearly the BEM is used as
part of assessment and data gathering for
strategic decision making, but has no greater
impact or role in that regard. The manager
proceeded to make it clear that the BEM is
not a strategic driver when he states that, ``to
do something new we need, for example,
marketing and other issues not in the
model''.
It is important to be fully aware of this
organisation's view that although the BEM is
a ``good framework'' it is ``not what we use''
and is ``not . . . our driver for the business''.
This organisation has its own model for its
business and sees no advantage in adopting
the BEM other than to provide a benchmark
with other businesses. This is reflected in
other organisations:
We didn't use it as a strategic driver, we just
used it as an example of what other good
companies were using.

As a strategic driver or even in terms of


strategic planning, one company considered
the BEM to have had the following influence
or impact:

People come in and say when they knew come


in through the door and say well you must be
good you've won a few awards but our
credibility was there way before that we
entered the award.

This is in line with the findings of Oldfield


(1999), who interviewed six past UK quality
award winners. Although at the time of
winning the managers felt that the award
confirmed that they were successful; it did

[8]

not help them foresee changes in the market,


nor was self-assessment sustained in
troubled times. Rover, which won the award
in 1994 and had continued to use selfassessment found, in 2000, that it was
overproducing at a time when exports were
falling. Thus, despite its past success and the
continued use of the model, it had not
provided a market or economic indicator to
Rover. This resulted in putting:
. . . the assessment model on the back burner
in the same year. It doesn't matter how many
quality awards you have, in the competitive
world of motor manufacturing they cannot
guarantee survival or success (Oldfield, 1999,
p. 23).

This action of Rover shows that the BEM did


not act as an indicator of the business
environment and was dropped in time of
trouble and, therefore, was not of ultimate
strategic importance. It must be noted that
Rover may have been in more difficulty if it
had not been strengthened by the initial
benefits of the BEM. This was reflected in the
comments of the quality assurance manager
of Pilkington, who stated that the winning of
the award helped his site differentiate itself
from others and so survive ``pruning'' after a
buy-out of the company. Thus, although the
company was going through tough times, it
was able to survive them due to the benefits
of the BEM and would have been worse off
without it.
The ultimate problems in strategic benefits
of the BEM stem from the belief that the
application and implementation of the BEM
can lead to success by itself alone. The effort
needs to be continued and not lapsed. The
only way to ensure this is for the application
of TQM and the use of the BEM to become an
inherent part of the strategic process,
through systematic quality training and
development; however, this seems to be
lacking even in national award winners:
Quality requires effort and so winning an
award can only ever be a snapshot of that
day's achievement, as Mike Mills, MD of
Ulster Carpet Mills, found out. He explains:
``Although winning the 1996 UK Quality
Award had a good effect on staff morale, it
had a bad effect on the future'' (Oldfield, 1999,
p 23).

The BEM, therefore, is not in itself a strategic


indicator or model for success, especially if
used in an off-the-shelf manner with no wider
underpinning of a TQM philosophy that has
become ingrained in the strategic
functioning of the company. In this way the
use of self-assessment will not be stopped, as
it is a part of the strategic process. Dale et al.
(1998) support this, stating that:

Denis Leonard and


Rodney McAdam
The strategic impact and
application of the business
excellence model:
implications for quality
training and development
Journal of European Industrial
Training
26/1 [2002] 413

. . . basics must be in place before the BEM can


be effectively used for assessing an
organisation (Dale et al., 1998, p. 47).

The BEM by itself provides benefits in


addition to it providing a co-ordination of
initiatives, identifying improvements
enabling the monitoring and measuring
improvements. These benefits include
promotion of quality training and
development, culture change, establishment
of empowerment and trust, cross-fertilising
best practice, improved customer perception
building of relationships and financial gain
(Parker et al., 1999). To sustain these over
time and gain full strategic benefit, the BEM
must be part of a wider and more
strategically-founded TQM effort.
In summary, the BEM is clearly not a
``strategic driver'' for organisations. Those
that perceive it as such have had inevitable
difficulties in attaining results in relation to
the model assisting in setting ``strategic
direction''. Most of the organisations in the
research perceive and apply the model as a
framework which aids the structured
thinking of the organisation and as a context
through which initiatives and projects can be
co-ordinated at a tactical level to ensure that
strategic goals are delivered at operational
level. The ``strategic drivers'' are external to
the BEM process and are not influenced by
the BEM. Failure to understand these
distinctions has led many organisations to
give mixed messages in their quality training
and development programmes, resulting in
failed opportunities and mis-used resources.

Tailoring the BEM


Having examined the extent to which the
BEM is used at strategic level and
determined that it is not a strategic driver,
two other issues need to be examined. They
are the degree to which managers see the
BEM, or rather interpret it, from its
promotional level and how that usage differs
from the way the EFQM organisation itself
envisioned the model as being used.
Ghobadian and Woo (1996) cite some other
criticism of the various awards. Some are
obvious; for example, the potential problem
of companies focusing on the winning of the
award rather than the principle of selfassessment. But they also include the fact
that the criteria is not dynamic, and that
critically:

EQA, Baldrige, Deming and, to a lesser extent,


the AQA, fail to define quality clearly, which
is a major shortcoming, because they are
unable to help the organisations to reach a
common understanding (Ghobadian and Woo,
1996, p. 40).

Therefore, as Crosby pointed out, although


the award models provide no definition of
quality ``everyone talks `quality' like there's
a common understanding'' (Simms et al.,
1991, p. 127). Thus, quality training and
development can become localised. While
this tailoring has operational and
optimisation benefits, it can create a lack of
``best practice'' vision for those giving and
receiving the training.
The impact of this issue is compounded by
the resultant home-grown approach to
quality that is encouraged but which ``will
not help them to achieve world-class
performance'' (Ghobadian and Woo, 1996,
p. 41). What can and has evolved from such a
home-grown approach to quality is a
``language and terminology gap''. If there is a
gap between what managers consider TQM,
business excellence, continuous
improvement and the quality awards to be,
and what the EFQM consider them to be,
then this leads to an inevitable failure in
organisations to achieve the intent of the
BEM. Thus, the home-grown quality issue is
problematic, primarily in the spurious
interpretations of the model, which then
create problems in benchmarking and
comparisons on a world-wide basis.
The lack of defining quality and related
issues in the awards which was commented
on by Deming in relation to the MBNQA
when he stated that it did:
. . . not codify principles of quality. It contains
nothing about management of quality . . . it
transgresses all that I try to teach (Simms et
al., 1991, p. 132).

By promoting the award models as models for


organisational excellence there is the danger
of them being perceived as ``exclusive models
for success''. Quality training and
development in some cases has focused on
quality award training, which can be quite
different from that which will lead to
organisational improvement. Thus, the focus
of quality training and development efforts
must continually be questioned and revised
accordingly.
The models, from a strategic perspective,
take no consideration of the move away from
traditional strategic planning and the
production of voluminous plans in favour of
flexible responsive planning processes
(Crosby, 1986).
There is a danger in stating that the BEM
today is a purely corporate strategic tool to
drive organisations and that it will help
establish strategic direction:
. . . the organisers of the MBNAQ may have
conveyed the message to the business
community and the public at large that, by

[9]

Denis Leonard and


Rodney McAdam
The strategic impact and
application of the business
excellence model:
implications for quality
training and development
Journal of European Industrial
Training
26/1 [2002] 413

winning the award, there is guaranteed


business success (Zairi et al., 1994, p. 39).

on but we did not actually seek it for those


reasons.

Garvin (1991) stated that Baldrige Award


winners are as vulnerable as other
companies to the various forces of the
economy, but:

This manager makes the point once again


that the award models are not complete in
terms of business models. This is supported
by Castle who pointed out that:

Even if this statement was indisputably true,


this would be the extent of its ``guaranteed
success'' for organisations.
It is interesting to note this cautionary
comment by one company regarding the use
of the BEM:

The manager goes on to state:

. . . they are better positioned to recover . . . the


Baldrige Award is thus a strong predictor of
long-term survival and a leading indicator of
future profitability.

The danger I see is that we've got a group of


consultants now who have worked with the
quality award assessing it for a year, and next
year they will be out selling that experience to
people on how to win the quality awards, not
how to run your business. And there's a
danger there.

In other words, there is the danger of the


model and its successful application being
used in an off-the-shelf manner. This view
links with and supports the argument made
earlier that a sound understanding of the
organisation's strategy, and the BEM itself
and business improvement is necessary
before it is tailored and implemented for an
organisational context.
This approach of tailoring the model was
continued and the BEM expressed as being
academic:

I think it's academic. I think, you know, we


try not to communicate too much by paper
and so on, we try and do most of it by mouth,
through meetings and whatever, and out team
brief and so on.

This view of the model is supported and


referred to as being ``high powered'', and
points out that the audience is important,
referring to the different approaches that
academics and practitioners would take in
selecting and understanding business
models:

A model for business excellence. You can, you


can make things a little bit high-powered and
it's fine if you, it depends on where your,
what your audience is and who you're dealing
with. If you're in academia and you, you want
a nice model then it's great. If you're dealing
on, on the industrial side you want one shows
the key elements of what makes a successful
company.

This organisation once again tailored an


award model but in this case to create its own
model:
Our model is geared around Baldrige. We
geared our system improvement towards
Baldrige that is what our . . . system is based

[ 10 ]

. . . when organisations build the weightings


attached to activities into the objectives of
their own organisational members. This may
be functional for gaining the award but can
have little relevance to growth and survival if
it precludes their own intelligence activity
(Castle, 1996, p. 7).
. . . if you look at all the elements [of the
companies quality programme] you will see
in the key elements a lot of areas there are not
specifically mentioned within the Baldrige
Award but which we feel are an essential part
of the business.

However, it was interesting to see the


opposite view being put forward:

I particularly choose the model because I, you


know, personally I see a great sense of
completeness with it and it suits my style of
thinking. However, to impose that model on a
company or a business that hadn't a culture
there to run with it I could see many
difficulties.

Ultimately, the BEM is not perceived as an


ideal or ``business model'' rather, as has been
strongly voiced, it is seen and used as a
framework for structuring conceptual
thinking and co-ordinating improvement
activities.

Conclusions a grounded model


for BEM application and quality
training and development
What has emerged from the research is an
application of the BEM that is characterised
by three key layers. This is represented by
the grounded model derived from the
research, as shown in Figure 2. These layers
are reflected in the organisational level in
which they are used, that is the strategic,
tactical and operational applications of the
model. The most critical of these is the
tactical since it is the linchpin or fulcrum of
the usage of the model in practice. It is this
tactical level that tangibly represents the
``strategic-operational divide'' that is such an
inherent part of the use of the model in
practice. The challenge to organisations is to
apply differentiated TQM training and
development, based on the level of TQM
application within the organisation,
i.e. strategic, tactical or operational. The
grounded research shows how the BEM is
used at each of these organisational levels

Denis Leonard and


Rodney McAdam
The strategic impact and
application of the business
excellence model:
implications for quality
training and development
Journal of European Industrial
Training
26/1 [2002] 413

strategic, tactical and operational and is


summarised in the following paragraphs.

Strategic level

At the senior or strategic level (Figure 2) of


an organisation, the BEM is used only to a
limited extent. That extent is as a
``conceptual framework for over-viewing the
organisation and so as a tool for senior
management'' to perceive the application of
TQM-related initiatives in the organisation.
At strategic level, the decisions are made as
to what initiatives will be initiated; the BEM
allowing a visualisation of their positioning
and impact within the organisational
process. However, the detail of such planning
is not carried out at this level, rather it is
delegated to the tactical level.
The BEM has no impact on the formulation
of the strategic plan or the corporate strategy
itself, therefore it was not viewed as a
``strategic driver''. It is not used in, nor does
it influence, the ``strategic direction setting''.
It is evident that the ``strategic drivers'' are
determined ``outside'' the BEM remit and are
then imposed on it, with the BEM acting as a
tool which fulfils those demands. This would
align with the findings of the application of
the model itself.
When the corporate strategy is confirmed
and the strategic goals determined, these are
deployed to the tactical level where the
allocation and determination of how they can
be achieved are planned.
Quality training and development efforts
need to address issues at the strategic level if
organisations are to fully realise the benefits
of TQM and the BEM. Lack of investment in
training approaches such as strategic

Figure 2
The strategic application of the BEM

benchmarking, process reengineering and


innovation as part of the overall TQM
process; will lead to incrementalism rather
than larger-scale strategic improvement.
This level of training and development
requires long-term investment in strategic
TQM, as distinct from being restricted to
short-term operational TQM projects.
Strategic level TQM training and
development requires cultural
improvements in areas such as leadership
and people management.

Tactical level

It is at this level (Figure 2) that the


co-ordinating and structured benefits of the
BEM are applied. The initiatives and
activities that are available, or that are to be
introduced, are aligned with the aid of the
model to ``deliver the strategic goals''. This
involves setting targets, creating teams,
planning the logistics and initiating such
programmes. Therefore, the BEM at this
``tactical'' level provides a ``mechanism'' for
``translating strategy into deliverable or
achievable activities and targets''.
The other crucial role that the BEM plays
at this level is to ``assess and measure''
organisational performance. This role
includes determining the extent to which the
strategic goals are being met at departmental
or unit level.
Throughout, this translating tactical level
of the organisation at which the BEM is used
at its most sophisticated there are three key
tangible impacts of the BEM by which it
actually translates strategic direction into
deliverable activities. They are:
1 planning;
2 structure; and
3 measurement.
The planning and structural attributes are
inherently linked, the model provides a
conceptual framework by which, as at the
strategic level, the organisation and its
processes can be visualised. It is within this
framework that improvement initiatives can
be placed and aligned, thus facilitating the
planning process. The final attribute, which
ensures that the initiatives are achievable
and measurable, is the measurement
capability of the model.
At the tactical level, quality training and
development has a vital role to play in
ensuring the organisation has the capability
to implement its strategic intent. However,
the scope for the effectiveness of training and
development at this level is diminished due
to the strategy having been already
formulated. Organisations, which settle for
this approach, have in many ways limited

[ 11 ]

Denis Leonard and


Rodney McAdam
The strategic impact and
application of the business
excellence model:
implications for quality
training and development
Journal of European Industrial
Training
26/1 [2002] 413

their use of TQM and the BEM. Typical


training in this area could include, for
example, Hoshin Planning, Balanced
Scorecard, and Quality Function
Deployment. Much TQM methodology is
based on this level of TQM application.
However, it is often applied in isolation,
without having a link to TQM at a strategic
level.

Operational level

At the operational level (Figure 2) the


initiatives are actually implemented and the
deliverables must be achieved. This level
represents the main part of BEM application
in terms of the planning being put into
practice and where the results are made or
lost.
At operational level, quality training and
development is mainly that of tools and
techniques. Typical examples are problem
definition, cause and effect and
brainstorming. If organisations restrict their
efforts to this level then their use of TQM and
the BEM loses its strategic impact and the
programme tends to become a quality auditbased approach rather than having strategic
significance. Many organisations start their
TQM training and development at this level.
However, there is a need to progress to
tactical and strategic level TQM training and
development to achieve large-scale
improvement in performance measures.

References

Allan, J. (1998), ``Perspectives in research in


quality management'', Journal of Total
Quality Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 51-5.
Castle, J.A. (1996), ``An integrated model in
quality management, positioning TQM, BPR
and ISO9000'', The TQM Magazine, Vol. 8
No. 5, pp. 7-13.
Crosby, P. (1986), Quality Without Tears: The Art
of Hassle Free Management, McGraw
International, New York, NY.
Dale, B., van der Wiele, T., Williams, R. and
Greatbanks, R. (1998), ``TQM the challenges
for European business'', Quality World, July,
pp. 46-9.
Easterby-Smyth, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A.
(1993), Management Research: An
Introduction, Sage, London.
European Foundation for Quality Management
(EFQM) (2001), The Business Excellence Model,
European Foundation for Quality
Management, Brussels.
Garvin, D.A. (1991), ``How the Baldrige Award
really works'', Harvard Business Review,
November-December, pp. 80-93.
Ghobadian, A. and Woo, H.S. (1996),
``Characteristics, benefits and shortcomings
of four major quality awards'', International

[ 12 ]

Journal of Quality and Reliability


Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 10-14.
Glaser, D.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The
Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research, Aldine, New York, NY.
Hinterbuber, H. and Popp, W. (1992), ``Are you a
strategist or just a manager?'', Harvard
Business Review, January-February.
Juran, J. (1991), ``Strategies for world class
quality'', Quality Progress, March, Vol. 24
No. 3, pp. 81-5.
Leonard, D. and McAdam, R. (2001), ``Grounded
theory methodology and practitioner
reflexivity in TQM research'', International
Journal of Quality and Reliability, Vol. 18,
No. 2, pp. 180-94.
Lewin, A. and Stephens, C. (1993), ``Designing
postindustrial organisations: combining
theory and practice'', in Huber, G. and Glick,
W. (Eds), Organisational Change and
Redesign: Ideas for Improving Performance,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Mintzberg, H. (1994), ``The fall and rise of strategic
planning'', Harvard Business Review,
January-February, pp. 107-44.
Oldfield, H. (1999), ``Quality awards: are they
worth it?'', Quality World, January, pp. 22-3.
Parker, C., Coca-Stefanaik, A. and Murphy, J.
(1999), ``Learning from the quality winners'',
Quality World, January, pp. 10-14.
Perry, C. and Coote, L. (1994), ``Processes of a case
study research methodology: tool for
management development?'', Australian and
New Zealand Association for Management
(ANZAM) 1994 Conference, December,
Victoria University of Wellington, New
Zealand.
Peters, T. and Austin, N. (1994), A Passion for
Excellence: The Leadership Difference, Harper
Collins, New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. (1996), ``What is strategy?'', Harvard
Business Review, November-December,
pp. 61-78.
Quaglia, G. (1997), Model Development, Quality
Link, Vol. 9 No. 49, September.
Ropo, A. and Hunt, J. (1994), ``Entrepreneurial
processes as virtuous and vicious spirals in a
changing opportunity structure: a
paradoxical perspective'', Entrepreneurship:
Theory and Practice, Spring, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 91-112.
Simms, A.C., Bowles, J., Crosby, P.B., Gale, B.T.
and Garvin, D.A. (1991), ``Does the Baldrige
Award really work?'', Harvard Business
Review, January-February, pp. 126-47.
Sitter, L., Hertog, J. and Dankbaar, B. (1997),
``From complex organisations with simple
jobs to simple organisations with complex
jobs'', Human Relations, May, Vol. 50, No. 5,
pp. 497-535.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of
Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques, Sage, Newbury
Park, CA.

Denis Leonard and


Rodney McAdam
The strategic impact and
application of the business
excellence model:
implications for quality
training and development
Journal of European Industrial
Training
26/1 [2002] 413

Terziovski, M., Sohal, A. and Samson, D. (1996),


``Best practice implementation of total
quality management: multiple cross case
analysis of manufacturing and service
organisations'', Journal of Total
Quality Management, Vol. 7 No. 5,
pp. 459-81.
van der Wiele, T., Dale, B., Williams, R., Kolb, F.,
Luzon, D.Moreno, Schmidt, A. and Wallace,
M. (1995), ``State-of-the-art study on self-

assessment'', The TQM Magazine, Vol. 7


No. 4, pp. 13-17.
Wilkinson, A. and Willmott, H. (1996), ``Quality
management, problems and pitfalls: a critical
perspective'', International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 55-65.
Zairi, M., Letza, S.R and Oakland, J.S. (1994),
``Does TQM impact on bottom-line results?'',
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 38-43.

[ 13 ]

You might also like