Abstract
Quality awards are important in terms of encouraging successful quality implementations, disseminating the result of such implementations to society, making quality culture wide spread, creating a basis for comparison of quality implementations and directing the quality implementor to continuous improvement. These types of awards are granted after evaluations based on specific models. Quality implementations in different cultures are not only effected by local values but also they depend mainly on common values of international quality culture. Many countries have designed various models and awards in order to evaluate their own quality implementations. However, most of these models are created by inspiring from one of the main award models such as EFQM Excellence Model. Such is the case of Turkish National Quality Award. The main purpose of the study is to define the similarities and differences between the respective excellence models applied in Europe and Turkey.
It seems that the excellence model applied in Turkey, which, in fact, is derived from the European Excellence Model, needs more elaboration so as to fit in the Turkish organizational culture in a better way. The reason for this is the fact that the
EFQM Excellence Award is mainly based on the specific organizational traits of the European organizations. Another point concerning the relevance of European Excellence Model, is the fact that in case of public institutions, more modifications might be required in order to adapt the model to the Turkish organizational environment, in line with the specific requirements circumstances of Turkish public institutions. Thus, outcomes of the study suggest that it is necessary to develop a sui generis excellence model in accordance with Turkey’s specific conditions, with particular respect to public institutions.
Keywords: Total Quality Management, EFQM Award, Business Excellence Model, Public Sector, Private Sector, Turkey
Introduction
TQM is a philosophy of quality management, the earliest conceptions of which were derived from Deming's doctrinations to the Japanese in the 1950s and 1960s (Holness, 2001). Based on TQM, the quality of Japanese products has been regarded as being superior to that of the rest of the world. Therefore, in the early 1980s, the
USA utilised TQM concepts as tools to compete with Japan. Subsequently, Europe also recognized the need for a keener focus on quality, and in the 1990s, TQM concepts spread to Europe (Sanghera, 1999). However, making the step towards TQM was much more difficult as there was widespread confusion about the elements of
TQM and how they could be implemented. This was because TQM was a rather abstract philosophy and did not have clear guidelines on its implementation (Mann and Voss, 2000). The problem became easier to solve as
TQM elements were more clearly understood through the development and the worldwide acceptance of quality award models.
1

The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA, 1997) was installed by law in the USA in 1987 and after that there has been a growth in interest throughout the world in the subject of quality management selfassessment and awards. Many writers, including Cali (1993), De Carlo and Sterrett (1990), and Garvin (1988) have described the details and background of the MBNQA.
In Europe, this interest in self-assessment was heightened with the introduction of the European Quality Award
(EQA), the quality award model most widely used in Europe developed by the European Foundation for Quality
Management (EFQM), in 1991, with the first winner in 1992. The EFQM was formed in 1988 by 14 leading
European businesses, and it encourages European businesses to improve competitiveness through the use of
TQM philosophy. Further details of the EQA are given by Conti (1993), Hakes (1994), and Nakhai and Neves
(1994).
The EFQM has provided a holistic model (termed "business excellence" or the "excellence model") to facilitate such a purpose. The model and the associated self-assessment process have given new direction to the quality movement and have driven deep and lasting changes into participating organizations (Dale et al.
, 2000).
As of the end of 1998, EFQM had 785 fully-fledged members and it is evident that more and more companies are using the business excellence model as the means of assessing corporate excellence (Azhashemi and Ho,
1999). The EFQM's Quality Award Model continues to be successful and is used by some 10,000 organizations across Europe. A list of the most respected companies in Europe, published by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the
Financial Times in November 1998, showed that seven of the top ten were EFQM members (Sanghera, 1999).
Quality award studies were started in Turkey in 1998 by KALDER. The criterion for quality award in Turkey is the same as the “Business Excellence Model” of EFQM. There is only one difference that public and private sector apply for the same award together in regional assessment. The objective of this study is to measure how the Business Excellence Model in Turkey is perceived by the public and private sector that this model is applied to and to determine the relation of these perceptions with regard to total quality management.
Total Quality Management and EFQM Business Excellence Model
The EFQM model was largely based on the concept of total quality management (TQM) as both a holistic philosophy and an improvement on other TQM-based models, such as the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award (MBNQA). The application of TQM in Europe was not as successful as it had been in Japan. It is unexpected that TQM in Europe was reported to be bureaucratic, while the original intention of TQM was supposed to be flexible. A large study of 600 companies in 20 countries suggested that the application of management approaches in different countries is affected by the socio-economic context of the countries
(Blackmon et al.
, 1998), whereby the same method may be successful in one country but not in another. Another big survey of 500 companies (Ahire et al.
, 1995) found that less than one-third of the respondents had achieved something and that about two-thirds of the TQM programmes had ground to a complete halt. Another longitudinal study revealed that after four years, ten out of 38 companies considered their TQM programme to have failed (Taylor and Meegan, 1997).
2

In 1999, the EFQM revised the model and made a noticeable switch in language from TQM to organizational excellence. Nabitz et al.
(1999) stated that the word "quality" does not appear in either the sub-criteria or the areas to address on the revised model. The EQA is now known as the EFQM excellence award.
The EFQM model comprises five "enabler" criteria (Figure 1):
(1) leadership;
(2) policy and strategy;
(3) people management;
(4) resources and partnerships; and
(5) processes.
It also comprises four "results" criteria (Figure 1):
(1) customer satisfaction;
(2) people satisfaction;
(3) impact on society; and
(4) key performance results (EFQM, 2000).
Figure 1 Sub Groups of Excellence Model
These criteria represent critical success factors and are parallel to the TQM principles (Boynton and Zmud, 1984; cited in Kanji and Tambi, 1999). Criteria affect performance and help organizations achieve organizational excellence (Oakland, 1999; Kanji and Tambi, 1999). The EFQM excellence model involves nine criteria and the
3

relative importance of these criteria is indicated by the criterion weight structure (Figure 2). Research on the weight structure has been limited and this is problematic regarding the use of the model because it raises the question whether or not it makes any sense to compare companies according to an arbitrary weight structure, which has never been empirically tested (Eskildsen, J. K., Kristensen, K., Juhl H. J, 2002).
Figure 2 The EFQM Criterion Weight
The criterion weights of the award models have been important for the EFQM Excellence Model as well as others (Lascelles and Peacock, 1996; Porter and Tanner, 1998; Conti, 1997). The logic behind this is that the award criterion has always been intended to be instruments for comparing an organization with other organizations or to rate an organization against a commonly-adopted scoreboard (Conti, 1997).
Peters (2000) noted that quality was seen as old-fashioned and superseded, to an extent, by the concept of
"excellence". Dale et al.
(2000a) also stated that people at the centre of initiatives including self-assessment against the EFQM Excellence Model often believe that their performance improvement initiatives are based on quality although they know little about the subject.
There has been a movement from a "reactive" to a "proactive" quality management approach (Slack et al ., 1998;
Dale, 1999). Today, European organizations, which have no objective of applying for the European Quality
Award (EQA) in the short term, simply use the EFQM criteria to assist them in diagnosing the state of health of their performance improvement process and providing indicators of how to achieve business excellence (Dale,
1999).
The change in focus from quality to excellence was believed to relate to the strong mechanistic history of TQM.
Researchers found that it was difficult to convince managers in departments such as sales and production to take responsibility for quality. Such managers thought TQM to be the sole responsibility of the quality department when they saw the word "quality". It was evidently difficult to broaden the ownership of TQM from the quality department to all levels in an organization and to enable the whole organization to understand the philosophy
4

(Adebanjo, 2001). In contrast, the presentation of the excellence model made it easily adaptable across the whole organization.
TQM may have been misunderstood narrowly as a tool for quality improvement only. The principles of TQM aim to improve business performances in terms of cost, productivity, quality, customer satisfaction, delivery, market share, and (finally) profit. The move from the EFQM model to the European Business Excellence Model seems justified but more explanation is needed. Otherwise, a feeling may arise that the TQM movement is over and another new fad of "excellence" is on its way ( Sun et al , 2004) .
The successful implementation of TQM includes leading from the top and cultural issues such as trust, knowledge, belief, and motivation. The size of the organization was an area of contention for some authors
(Warwood and Antony, 2003). The success of the EFQM Excellence Model has also faced some challenges.
Dale et al.
(2000a,b) noted that some chief executives, fed up with excellence without performance, have started to return to quality and cited "Six Sigma" as the rebirth of classic quality. While there appears to be some justification for this view, this may not be too surprising and there are likely to be wider issues involved.
The excellence model has evolved to be a framework that can incorporate several other initiatives. Jeanes (2000) noted that every type of organization will be able to include any one of the dozens of quality initiatives under the
Model and he then went on to identify the relevance of the Model to several initiatives and practices. This view was also supported by Shephard (2000). Thus, while the Excellence Model provides an overall framework, it presupposes that an organization has a number of established systems and initiatives to deal with process and other operational issues. Morgan (2000) asserted that there are a lot of parallels between Six Sigma and the
Excellence Model and that both are complementary approaches.
It has been empirically verified that the application of holistic management models such as The EFQM
Excellence Model has a positive effects corporate performance (Kristensen and Juhl, 1999; Kristensen et al.
,
2000). While it can be argued that the wide acceptance of business excellence model slowed down the growth of the use of classical quality management tools and techniques, it is more debatable that quality died or was totally eliminated (Adebanjo, 2001).
The search for excellence and dissemination of "best practice" is the main philosophy and a major function of the
Business Excellence Model but many writers like Galloway (1996) have difficulty in defining quality this way.
He considers excellence in the abstract being "transcendent" something to be "... recognized rather than identified or measured".
Private vs. Public Sector Excellence
Traditional political science literature emphasizes that there are distinct differences between private and public organizations (Lane, 1993). Mostly, public organizations do not have the strategic freedom that private companies have since politicians decide some of their strategic goals. This puts constraints on public organizations' operational abilities and may force public organizations to make decisions that are not sound for society at large (Lane, 1993). Another issue is the resources available to public organizations. They do not
5

always have the resources needed in order to meet demand - making it necessary for public organizations to prioritize which customers/users to serve. This situation is usually unfamiliar to private companies (Eskildsen et al., 2004).
Despite the differences between private and public organizations which are mentioned above they are often treated as one. This is true in relation to holistic management models (Lascelles and Peacock, 1996; Porter and
Tanner, 1998; Evans and Lindsay, 1999).
The EFQM believed the shifts in business emphasis and new management ideas in the model would fulfil the requirements of large, small and medium-sized enterprises in the public and private sectors. Their objective, then, became to provide a model that ideally represents the excellence (TQM) philosophy and which can be applied in practice to all organizations irrespective of country, size, sector or stage along their journey to excellence (Sun et al., 2004). This implies that the Model can be applied to all sectors of society including the public sector. Chapman (2000) explained how two organizations, one each from the public and private sectors, improved their performance by using a flexible and innovative approach to applying the EFQM Excellence
Model.
EFQM approach requires a high maturity of the organization as it best fits institutions, which are well on the way to become a total quality organization. However, it is possible that organizations just begin to use the EFQM model can ensure that it shapes their strategy and approach towards total quality management. Thus, the EFQM model does not compete with ISO accreditation or visitation. When government agencies are concerned, the use of the EFQM model is further enhanced within profit and non-profit organizations (Nabitz and Klazinga, 1999).
Research Methodology
The data were obtained by administrating a structured-questionnaire survey. The questionnaire instrument is consisted of three parts. The first part involved 7 questions regarding basic demographic characteristics of the respondents such as “Which sector are you working on?”. The second part of the instrument included 36 questions designed to measure the level of the employees’ perception levels on EFQM Excellence model criteria and presented statements such as “Leaders motivate, support and recognize the organization’s people”. A fivepoint Likert scale was used in this part, ranging from ‘definitely agree’ (1) to ‘definitely disagree’ (5). The final part was devoted to investigating the relationship between employees’ perception level on Business Excellence
Model and Total Quality Management (2 questions). The survey instrument was pilot tested among 25 employees. The pilot results were used to improve the clarity and readability of questions.
The study was carried out in three stages: population, data collection and data analysis. According to the
KALDER, four institutions have applied to EFQM Award in the category of Small and Medium Sized
Enterprises (SME) for Aegean Region of Turkey, this year. Approximately 300 employees work in all organizations that have been surveyed. As a result, whole population was used for the survey due to its efficiency. Population of this study has been limited to employees working in Aegean Region of Turkey. In total,
300 questionnaires distributed by the researchers and 210 questionnaires were returned, with a response rate of
6

which is statistically acceptable for data analysis. Of these, 2 were eliminated due to missing data. The data obtained was analyzed by using a SPSS 11.5 program. Data analysis consisted of descriptive statistics, frequency distribution, factor analysis, correlation analysis, and regression analysis.
Research Findings
Table 1 profiles the respondents’ demographic characteristics. About half of the respondents were between 18 and 32 years of age, and male. Nearly 78% of the respondents had been working for more than four years. Over
86% of the respondents had completed high school or above, indicating that a large proportion of the sample was well-educated. The majority of respondents were male (67%). Over 72% of the respondents had been working in private sector. Nearly 62% of the respondents were married and over 90% of the respondents were happy about the questionnaire.
Table 1 Numerical and Percentage Dispersion of Sample Profile
Age
18-25
26-32
33-42
43 and above
61
26
Missing
Total
4
208
Working Years
Less than 1
1-3
4-6
7-9
17
28
65
45
More than 10 years 43
Missing 10
208 Total
Education
Secondary school 28
High school
University
Missing
Total
NUMBER %
34
83
16.3
39.9
Sex
Female
Male
68
105
7
100
29.3
12.5
1.9
Missing
Total
Sector
100.0 Public
8.2
Private
Total
13.5 Marital Status
31.3
21.6
20.7
Married
Single
Missing
13.5 Good
32.7 Not Bad
50.5 Bad
3.4 Very bad
100.0 Missing
Total
9
5
67
37
NUMBER %
64
140
30.8
67.3
4
208
59
149
208
128
76
4
4.8 Total
100.0 Questionnaire
208
Excellent 83
7
208
1.9
100.0
28.4
71.6
100
61.5
36.5
1.9
100.0
39.9
32.2
17.8
4.3
2.4
3.4
100.0
7

The first stage in the analysis of the questionnaire design in respect of perception measurement using Likert-type scales should become the assessment of item-total correlation, reliability and construct validity. This stage is significant in designing effective and valid job satisfaction research, as a part of the proposed qualitative measures, in order to ensure that findings are accurate and to be able to discuss further implications. First, the alpha value was about .96 (.9590), exceeding the minimum standard (.80) suggested by Nunnally (1978). The high level of reliability score indicates that the sampling domain has adequately been captured (Churchill, 1979).
Subsequently, a principal factor analysis was performed on perception items in order to identify the construct validity. Bartlett’s test of sphericty with a value of 4092.9 (p<.001) and the calculation of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin statistics of .92, which can be qualified as ‘marvellous’, indicated that data seemed suitable for factor analysis.
Taking the distribution of scree plot into consideration (Figure 3), principal component factors with an eigenvalue of one or greater were rotated by the varimax analysis.
16
14
8
6
4
12
10
2
0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
Component Number
Variables with loadings equal or greater than .35 were included in a given factor to decrease the probability of misclassification. Thirty-three items from the factor analysis resulted in six factor groupings and explained 67.7
% of the total variance. Most of the factor loadings were greater than .70, indicating a good correlation between the items and the factor grouping they represent. A Cronbach’s alpha test was used to determine the internal consistency of each factor variable of the measurement instrument. The results obtained from this test indicate that there exists a high level of internal consistency among factor groupings. Ranking mean scores, results attained the highest score, followed by employees, leadership, partnerships-resources, processes and policystrategy respectively. The results of the factor analysis are presented in Table 2.
8

Table 2 Results of Factor Analysis
Items
1. Factor (Results)
Community perceptions
Evaluating community perceptions
Performance indicators(customers)
Performance indicators(employees)
Employees erceptions
Evaluating customer perceptions
Finanacial&non-financial indicators
Evaluating basic performance results
Data evaluation & researches
2. Factor (Employees)
Supporting &improving talents
Involvement
Plannıng, managing & improving HR
Empowerment
.783
.728
.713
.641
.618
.601
.588
.571
.468
.811
.758
.716
.639
14.48
2.27
43.8
6.88
P
2.18 18.24 0.91 0.01
2.35 3.79 0.92 0.01
In an attempt to investigate if there was any relationship among individual EFQM Excellence Model factors as independent variables, correlation coefficient vales were calculated. As Table 3 shows, the research findings suggest that there is a positive relationship between all the factor attributes. For example, there is a very strong relationship between employees and results. This is quite normal that because employee performances are
9

evaluated in results. A similar result also exists for the relationship between policy & strategy and results. This may be due to the fact that the outputs of the policy and strategy are the inputs of results.
Ta ble 3 Corre lations
Result s
Employees
Pearson Correlation
N
Pearson Correlation
Result s
1
208
,709**
208
Employees Leadership
1
208
Leadership
Partnerships
&Resources
Proces ses
N
Pearson Correlation
N
Pearson Correlation
N
Pearson Correlation
N
Pearson Correlation
,595**
208
,676**
208
,590**
207
,679** Policy
&S trat egy
N 208
**. Correlation is s ignificant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
,689**
208
,652**
208
,470**
207
,655**
208
1
208
,607**
208
,404**
207
,546**
208
Partnerships
&Resources Proces ses
1
208
,589**
207
,527**
208
1
207
,451**
207
Policy &
St rategy
1
208
T test is made in order to determine the distinction between private sector and public sector with regard to their approaches towards independent variables. According to the T test, there exist only one null hypothesis between public and private sector in terms of their perception about the independent variable “processes”. In other words, the public sector and private sector actually approach to the independent variable “processes” in the same way other than the other variables ( p≤0,001). It can be inferred that, public sector has more positive approach than the private sector.
A multiple regression was subsequently used to determine the aggregate impact of certain independent variables
(excellence model criteria) exerting the strongest influence in dependent variables. This method demonstrates the strength of any variable in the overall model. Results of each process are reported in a table (Tables 4 through 6), along with the t statistics, standardized regression coefficients and R 2 values. Table 4 presents the influence of six factor variables over the level of the respondents’ perceptions on “Overall, TQM is useful”. The model accounts for 22 % of the variance in the dependent variable. It has been observed that only the factor variables as processes, results and policy & strategy had beta coefficients that were statistically significant. Three factor variables had a similiar influence over the dependent variable. These variables also had a positive score. Items loaded on leadership, employees, partnerships and resources did not have any influence over the dependent variable.
Table 4 Regression Analysis of the Factors Affecting TQM
VARIABLES
Processes
Results

.229
.233
T
2.475
2.079
Policy and Strategy .186 2.084
CONSTANT .178 1.053
Note : Multiple R=.467; R square =.218; F=9.340; Sig. F=.0001
Sig T
.014
.039
.039
.293
10

Table 5 presents the influence of six factor variables over the level of the respondents’ perceptions on “Overall
EFQM Business Excellence Model is useful”. The model accounts for 12 % of the variance in the dependent variable. It has been observed that only the factor variable as processes had beta coefficients that were statistically significant. This variable also had a positive score. Items loaded on results, policy and strategy, leadership, employees, partnerships and resources did not have any influence over the dependent variable.
Table 5 Regression Analysis of the Factors Affecting EFQM Business Excellence Model
VARIABLES
Processes

.418
T
3.534
CONSTANT .739 3,441
Note : Multiple R=.351; R square =.123; F=4.644; Sig. F=.0001
Sig T
.001
.001
Table 6 presents the influence of seven factor variables (Criteria of EFQM Model and TQM) and over the level of the respondents’ perceptions on “Overall, EFQM is useful”. In other words, TQM variable is added into the criteria of the EFQM Business Excellence Model. The model accounts for 31 % of the variance in the dependent variable. It has been observed that only the factor variables as TQM and processes had beta coefficients that were statistically significant. First factor variable (TQM) had a higher influence over the dependent variable.
These variables also had a positive score. Items loaded on results, policy and strategy, leadership, employees, partnerships and resources did not have any influence over the dependent variable.
Table 6 Regression Analysis of Seven Factors Affecting EFQM
VARIABLES
TQM
Processes

.590
.285
T
7.229
2.658
CONSTANT .631 3.282
Note : Multiple R=.553; R square =.306; F=12.471; Sig. F=.0001
Sig T
.001
.008
.001
Table 6 demonstrates that the level of TQM was the strongest predictor of “Overall, EFQM Business Excellence
Model is useful” (p<.001), followed by processes (p<.001). The remaining five variables (results, policy and strategy, leadership, employees, partnerships and resources) were found to be insignificant.
Conclusion
The analysis in this research shows that, all items excluding 3 of the EFQM Model, 33 of the items were seen as valid by the Turkish employees. However, it is also identified that the nine EFQM Business Excellence Model criterion groups were perceived as six groups by the respondents. In other words, the results criterion groups were perceived as a single item instead of independent groups. This can be explained by the pragmatic approach of the Turkish society.
11

Although the EFQM model is applied in Europe with the distinction of public and private sector, such a differentiation is not seen in Turkey. Because of this, in this study, the perceptions of the independent variables stated in the EFQM Model by the public and private sector have been measured. The results show that public sector employees have a more positive attitude towards the EFQM Model. The reason for this can be explained with the assumption that private sector employees may think such processes would provide more material and moral prestige to the owners of the firms rather than themselves. However, as being a non-profit organization, public sector gives more importance to moral values while there is no possible material benefit. Besides, the slow and bulky structure of the Turkish bureaucracy can be seen as a barrier to the implementation of participatory management. Requirement of active participation for the EFQM Model might have positively affected the employees.
Analysis shows that, although the independent variables were originally created for the EFQM Model, they were inadequate in explaining EFQM Model but explained total quality management in a better way. It can also be said that, statistically, the explanation degree of EFQM Model by the independent variables is at the lowest level.
With regard to this fact, it can be concluded that the employees of the Turkish small sized enterprises adopted total quality management rather than EFQM Model. The main reason for this can be the fact that total quality management implementations started later than the rest of the world and are still ongoing. Another reason might be the insufficient advertisement of EFQM Model by KALDER and also the presentation of this model as a different form of total quality management by the organizations.
Another important point is that the criteria in the EFQM model seem to be explaining the total quality management philosophy better than the EFQM Model. However, it cannot be stated that these criteria explain both the EFQM and TQM completely. The best evidence is the increase in the explanation rate of the EFQM when the TQM variable is added into the criteria of the EFQM Model. In other words, sub criteria of EFQM cannot comply with the components of the total quality management. As mentioned above, the reasons behind this can be explained by the fact that the respondents are not informed completely since they are working in the small and medium sized organizations and/or by the difference of working conditions between the public and private sector. However, the EFQM Model should be revised and updated for Turkish organizations and institutions.
Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research
This research was conducted among all the small and medium sized enterprises which applied to the EFQM
Quality Award this year. More realistic results can be obtained if this study could be applied to the larger enterprises and institutions. Moreover, this type of research was conducted for the first time this year. The sustainability of the research could ensure the reliability and the validity of the data. Therefore, this research can be planned as longitudinal studies. In this study, only the components of EFQM Model are handled. In another study, with these dependent variables, the canonical correlation analysis and/or structural equation modeling can
12

be applied to the components of TQM and EFQM Model. In this respect, a new model can be proposed for
Turkey.
References
Adebanjo, D., 2001, “TQM and business excellence: is there really a conflict?”, Measuring Business Excellence,
5, 3, 37-40.
Ahire, S.L., Waller, M.A., Golhar, D.Y., 1995, "Quality management in TQM versus non-TQM firms: an empirical investigation", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 13, 8, 8-27.
Asare A. E. O., , Longbottom, D., 2002, ” The need for education and training in the use of the EFQM model for quality management in UK higher education institutions”, Quality Assurance in Education, 10, 1, 26-36.
Ashton, C, 1997, "All change in awards", Self-Assessment, 11-17.
Azhashemi, M.A., Ho, S.K.M., 1999, "Achieving service excellence: a new Japanese approach versus the
European framework", Managing Service Quality, 9, 1, 40-6.
Blackmon, L.K., Lindberg, P., Voss, C.A., 1998, International Manufacturing Strategies: Context, Content and
Change , Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
Cali, C. R. 1993, TQM for Purchasing Management , McGraw-Hill, New York.
Chapman, C., 2000, "The public and private faces of excellence", Quality World, 26, 5, 30-2.
Conti, T., 1993, “Company quality assessment”, Total Quality Management, August: 237–242.
Conti, T., 1997, Organizational Self-Assessment , Chapman & Hall, London.
Dale, B.G, 1999, Managing Quality , 3rd ed., Blackwell, Oxford.
Dale, B.G, Williams, R.T, van der Wiele, T., 2000, "Marginalization of quality: is there a case to answer?", The
TQM Magazine, 12, 4, 266-74.
Dale, B.G., van der Wiele, A., Zairi, M., Williams, A.R.T., 2000, "Quality is dead in Europe - long live excellence - true or false?", Quality Focus, 4, 3, 4-10.
De Carlo, N., Sterrett, K. W., 1990, “History of MBNQA”, Quality Progress, March: 21–27.
Eskildsen, J. K., Kristensen, K., Juhl H. J. 2002, “Trends in EFQM criterion weights; the case of Denmark 1998-
2001”, Measuring Business Excellence, 6, 2, 22-28.
Eskildsen, J. K., Kristensen, K., Juhl, H. J., 2004, “Private versus public sector excellence”, The TQM
Magazine, 16, 1, 50-56.
Evans, J.R., Lindsay, W.M., 1999, The Management and Control of Quality , West Publishing Company, St Paul,
MN.
Galloway, L, 1996, "But which quality do you mean?", Quality World, 564-8.
Garvin, D. A., 1998, Managing Quality , Free Press, UK.
13

Hakes, C., 1994, TQM—The Key to Business Improvement, Chapman & Hall, London.
Holness, G.V.R., 2001, "Achieving quality using TQM and ISO", ASHRAE Journal, 43, 1, 195.
Jeanes, C, 2000, "Death by a 1000 initiatives", Quality World, 26, 5, 24-5.
Kanji, G.K, Tambi, A.M., 1999, "Total quality management in UK higher education institutions", Total Quality
Management, CARFAX,, 10, 1, 129-53.
Kristensen, K, Juhl, H.J, 1999, "Beyond the bottom line - measuring stakeholder value", Edvardsson, B,
Gustafsson, A., The Nordic School of Quality Management, Studentlitterature, Lund.
Kristensen, K, Juhl, H.J., Eskildsen, J.K, 2000, "The excellence index as a benchmarking tool", Edgeman, R,
First International Research Conference on Organizational Excellence in the Third Millennium, Estes Park, CO,
155-61.
Lane, J., 1993, The Public Sector , Sage, London.
Lascelles, D., Peacock, R., 1996, Self-Assessment for Business Excellence , McGraw-Hill, London.
Mann, R., Voss, M., 2000, "An innovative process improvement approach that integrates ISO 9000 with the
Baldrige framework", Benchmarking: An International Journal, 7, 2, 128-45.
MBNQA, 1997, Criteria for Performance Excellence and Winner Profiles , ASQC. Milwaukee.
Morgan, J, 2000, "Six Sigma excellence", UK Excellence, 20-2.
Nabitz, U, Quagila, G, Wangen, P, 1999, "EFQM's new excellence model", Quality Progress, 118-20.
Nakhai, B., Neves, J., 1994, “The Deming, Baldrige and European Quality Awards”, Quality Progress, April:
33–37.
Nunnaly, J. C,1978, Psychometric Theory, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, NY.
Oakland, J.S, 1999, Total Organizational Excellence , Butterworth-Heineman, Oxford.
O'Brien, J, O'Hanlon, T, 2000, "Business excellence - the best thing ever", Quality World, 26, 5, 16-18.
Osseo-Asare, A.E, 2000, "TQM at the University of Derby", unpublished Masters dissertation, Derbyshire
Business School, University of Derby, Derby.
Peters, J, 2000, "A quality philosophy", Measuring Business Excellence, 4, 4, 6.
Porter, L.J., Tanner, S.J., 1998, Assessing Business Excellence , Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Sanghera, S., 1999, "New directions with Radar: Management Total Quality Management: The `excellence' model used by 10,000 organizations across Europe is being updated, with extra emphasis on innovation, knowledge and partnerships", Financial Times, London, April, p. 21.
Shephard, A, 2000, "Total Integration'", UK Excellence, 40.
Slack, N, Chambers, S, Harland, C, Harrison, A, Johnston, R., 1998, Operations Management , 2nd ed, Pitman
Publishing, London.
14

Sun, H., Li, S., Ho, K., Gertsen, F., Hansen, P., Frick, J., 2004, “The trajectory of implementing ISO 9000 standards versus total quality management in Western Europe”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 21, 2, 131-153.
Taylor, W.A., Meegan, S.T., 1997, "Senior executives and the ISO 9000-TQM transition: a framework and some empirical data", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 14, 7, 669-86.
Warwood, S., Antony, J., 2003, “A simple semi-prescriptive self-assessment model for TQM”, Quality
Assurance, 10, 67-81.
15