Malcolm Baldrige
National
Quality
Award
1

2

• U.S. national quality award
– Leadership
– Strategic planning
– Customer and market focus
– Measurement, analysis, and knowledge mgt
– Human resource focus
– Process management
– Business results
• Formed to bolster U.S. competitiveness
• U.S. president grants awards each year
NIST. (2005e). The malcolm baldrige national quality improvement act of 1987: Public law 100-107. Retrieved June 10, 2005, from http://baldrige.nist.gov/Improvement_Act.htm
NIST. (2005f). Frequently asked questions about the malcolm baldrige national quality award. Retrieved June 10, 2005, from http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/baldfaqs.htm
3

Organizational Profile:
Environment, Relationships, and Challenges
2
Strategic
Planning
5
Human
Resource
Focus
1
Leadership
3
Customer and Market
Focus
6
Process
Management
Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management
4
NIST. (2005b). Baldrige national quality program: 2005 criteria for performance excellence. Gaithersburg, MD: Author.
7
Business
Results
4

• LEADERSHIP (120)
– Senior Leadership (70)
– Governance and Social Responsibilities (50)
• STRATEGIC PLANNING (85)
– Strategy Development (40)
– Strategy Deployment (45)
• CUSTOMER AND MARKET FOCUS (85)
– Customer and Market Knowledge (40)
– Customer Relationships and Satisfaction (45)
• MEASUREMENT, ANALYSIS, AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (90)
– Measurement, Analysis, and Review of Organizational Performance (45)
– Information and Knowledge Management (45)
• HUMAN RESOURCE FOCUS (85)
– Work Systems (35)
– Employee Learning and Motivation (25)
– Employee Well-Being and Satisfaction (25)
• PROCESS MANAGEMENT (85)
– Value Creation Processes (45)
– Support Processes and Operational Planning (40)
• BUSINESS RESULTS (450)
– Product and Service Outcomes (100)
– Customer-Focused Results (70)
– Financial and Market Results (70)
– Human Resource Results (70)
– Organizational Effectiveness Results (70)
– Leadership and Social Responsibility Results (70)
NIST. (2005b). Baldrige national quality program: 2005 criteria for performance excellence. Gaithersburg, MD: Author.
5

Receive Applications
Independent Review
Select Judges for Consensus Review
Consensus Review
Select Judges for Site Visit
Site Visit Review
Review & Recommend Winners
NIST. (2005d). Overview of award process. Retrieved June 13, 2005, from http://baldrige.nist.gov/Overview.htm
6

Year
2004
2003
2002
2001
Manufacturing Small Business
Bama
Medrad
Motorola
Clarke American
Texas Nameplate
Stoner
Beach Smith
Pal’s Sudden
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
2000 Dana, Karlee Los Alamos Bank
1999 ST Microelectronics Sunny Fresh
1998
1997
Boeing
Solar Turbines
3M
Solectron
Texas Nameplate
1996
1995
ADAC Labs
Armstrong, Corning
Custom Research
Trident Precision
1994 Wainwright
Eastman Chemical Ames Rubber
AT&T, TI Granite Rock
Zytec, Solectron
Cadillac, IBM
Milliken, Xerox
Westinghouse
Motorola
Marlow
Wallace
Global
Education
No. Colorado
Community
Pearl River
Chugach
Wisconsin Stout
Health Care
Hamilton
Baptist
St. Luke’s
SSM
Service
Boeing
Caterpiller
Operations Mgt.
Ritz Carlton, BI
Merrill Lynch
Xerox
Dana Credit
AT&T
Verizon
Ritz Carlton, AT&T
FedEx
NIST. (2005a). 1988-2004 award recipients' contacts and profiles. Retrieved June 10, 2005, from http://baldrige.nist.gov/Contacts_Profiles.htm
7

8
6
4
2
0
-2
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
-4
Year
NIST. (2003c). Baldrige stock studies. Retrieved June 13, 2005, from http://baldrige.nist.gov/Stock_Studies.htm
8

Category
Employee
Operating
Customer
Satisfaction
Financial
Performance
Measure
Employee Satisfaction
Attendance
Turnover
Safety/Health
Suggestions Received
Reliability
Timeliness
Processing Time
Errors/Defects
Lead Time
Inventory Turnover
Cost of Quality
Cost Savings
Overall Satisfaction
Customer Complaints
Customer Retention
Market Share
Sales per Employee
Return on Assets
Return on Sales
Better
50%
50%
53%
54%
56%
50%
50%
86%
50%
63%
89%
73%
64%
79%
71%
100%
82%
50%
50%
80%
Worse
44%
50%
47%
46%
38%
50%
50%
0%
42%
25%
11%
0%
27%
21%
29%
0%
18%
50%
39%
20%
Same
0%
0%
14%
8%
13%
6%
0%
0%
0%
6%
0%
27%
9%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
11%
0%
Mendelowitz, A. I. (1991). Management practices: U.S. companies improve performance through quality efforts (GAO/NSIAD-91-190). Washington, DC: General Accounting Office (GAO).
9

10

•
•
– Develop a measurement model, scales, and constructs to model Baldrige criteria
– Test the general theory that leadership drives the system that creates results
– Provide insight into the directions of causation among the Baldrige categories
Wilson, D. D., & Collier, D. A. (2000). An empirical investigation of the malcolm baldrige national quality award causal model. Decision Sciences. 31(2), 361-390.
11

•
– Leadership impact should be recursive
– Double-headed arrows imply otherwise
– NIST does not understand relationships
– Everything is related to everything else
•
– Leadership must cause others to improve
– Systems thinking or systems dynamics
– Categories related in recursive model
– Sign of path coefficients must be positive
Wilson, D. D., & Collier, D. A. (2000). An empirical investigation of the malcolm baldrige national quality award causal model. Decision Sciences. 31(2), 361-390.
12

H
2
1
Leadership
H
3
H
4
H
5
SYSTEM
6
Process
Management
5
Human
Resource
Focus
2
Strategic
Planning
H
6
4
Measurement,
Analysis, and
Knowledge Mgt
H
15
H
16
H
17
H
7
H
8
H
9
H
10
H
11
H
12
H
13
H
14
3
Customer and Market
Focus
- or -
7
Business
Results
H
1
Wilson, D. D., & Collier, D. A. (2000). An empirical investigation of the malcolm baldrige national quality award causal model. Decision Sciences. 31(2), 361-390.
13

• H
1
- H
6
— LEADERSHIP PREDICTS
– Business results
– Customer and market focus
– Process management
– Human resource focus
– Strategic planning
• H
– Measurement, analysis, and knowledge management
7
- H
8
— PROCESS MANAGEMENT PREDICTS
– Customer and market focus
• H
– Business results
9
- H
10
— HUMAN RESOURCE FOCUS PREDICTS
– Customer and market focus
– Business results
• H
11
- H
12
— STRATEGIC PLANNING PREDICTS
– Customer and market focus
– Business results
• H
13
- H
14
— MEASUREMENT, ANALYSIS, AND KNOWLEDGE MGT PREDICTS
– Customer and market focus
• H
– Business results
15
- H
17
— MEASUREMENT, ANALYSIS, AND KNOWLEDGE MGT PREDICTS
– Process management
– Human resource focus
– Strategic planning
Wilson, D. D., & Collier, D. A. (2000). An empirical investigation of the malcolm baldrige national quality award causal model. Decision Sciences. 31(2), 361-390.
14

•
•
•
•
– Pilot survey: 128 firms (29.7% response)
– Final survey: 800 firms (28.3% response)
•
•
Wilson, D. D., & Collier, D. A. (2000). An empirical investigation of the malcolm baldrige national quality award causal model. Decision Sciences. 31(2), 361-390.
15

H
2
1
Leadership
H
3
= 0.229
6
Process
Management
H
4
= 0.379
H
5
= 0.295
5
Human
Resource
Focus
2
Strategic
Planning
H
6
= 0.728
4
Measurement,
Analysis, and
Knowledge Mgt
H
7
= 0.455
H
8
= 0.193
H
15
= 0.160
H
9
H
10
H
16
= 0.187
H
17
= 0.556
H
11
H
12
H
13
= 0.267
H
14
= 0.245
3
Customer and Market
Focus
- or -
7
Business
Results
H
1
Wilson, D. D., & Collier, D. A. (2000). An empirical investigation of the malcolm baldrige national quality award causal model. Decision Sciences. 31(2), 361-390.
16

• Baldrige theory fundamentally sound
– Leadership drives the system
• However, causal relationships exist
– Baldrige is not recursive, but it should be
• Leadership “not” directly related to
– Customer and market focus
– Business results
• Human resource focus and strategic planning “not” directly related to
– Customer and market focus
– Business results
Wilson, D. D., & Collier, D. A. (2000). An empirical investigation of the malcolm baldrige national quality award causal model. Decision Sciences. 31(2), 361-390.
17

•
– Top-notch, scholarly peer reviewed article
– Grounded in a strong literature review
– Solid quantitative research methodology
– Internal and external reliability/validity
•
– Bibliography of economic studies is weak
– Plant-level managers surveyed, not execs
– Did not investigate causal links to firmlevel economic performance
18

•
•
•
•
•
19

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bell, R. R., & Elkins, S. A. (2004). A balanced scorecard for leaders: Implications of the malcolm baldrige national quality award criteria. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 69(1), 12-17.
Bell, R., & Keys, B. (1998). A conversation with curt w. reimann on the background and future of the baldrige award. Organizational Dynamics, 26(4), 51-61.
Chong, P. S., Calingo, L. M. R., Reynolds, G. L., & Fisher, D. G. (2003). Using an innovative approach to shorten coaching and assessment time when applying the baldrige health care criteria for performance excellence in a substance abuse treatment setting. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 14(10), 1121-1129.
Curkovic, S., Melnyk, S., Calantone, R., & Handfield, R. (2000). Validating the malcolm baldrige national quality award framework through structural equation modelling. International Journal of Production Research, 38(4), 765-
791.
Garvin, D. A. (1991). How the baldridge award really works. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 80-93.
Hill, R. C. (1993). When the going gets rough: A Baldrige Award winner on the line. The Academy of Management
Executive. 7(3), 75-79.
Hodgetts, R. M., Kuratko, D. F., & Hornsby, J. S. (1999). Quality implementation in small business: Perspectives from the baldrige award winners. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 64(1), 37-47.
Lee, S. M., Rho, B. H., & Lee, S. G. (2003). Impact of malcolm baldrige national quality award criteria on organizational quality performance. International Journal of Production Research, 41(9), 2003-2020.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2001). Economic evaluation of the baldrige national quality program (Planning Report 01-
3). Gaithersburg, MD: National Insitute of Standards & Technology (NIST).
Przasnyski, Z. H., & Tai, L. S. (1999). Stock market reaction to malcolm baldridge national quality award announcements: Does quality pay? Total Quality Management, 10(3), 391-400.
Przasnyski, Z. H., & Tai, L. S. (2002). Stock performance of malcolm baldrige national quality award winning companies. Total Quality Management, 13(4), 475-488.
Rajan, M., & Tamimi, N. (1999). Baldrige award winners: The payoff to quality. Journal of Investing, 8(4), 39-42.
Shetty, Y. K. (1993). The quest for quality excellence: Lessons from the malcolm baldridge quality award. SAM
Advanced Management Journal, 58(2), 34-40.
Wilson, J. P., Walsh, M. A. T., & LaScola-Needy, K. (2003). An examination of the economic benefits of ISO 9000 and the baldrige award to manufacturing firms. Engineering Management Journal, 15(4), 3-10.
20

• Kan, S. H. (1991). Modeling and software development quality. IBM Systems
Journal, 30(3), 351-362.
• Kan, S. H. (2002). Metrics and models in software quality engineering.
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
• Kan, S. H., Basili, V. R., & Shapiro, L. N. (1994). Software quality: An overview from the perspective of total quality management. IBM Systems
Journal, 33(1), 4-19.
• Kan, S. H., Dull, S. D., Amundson, D. N., Lindner, R. J., & Hedger, R. J. (1994).
AS/400 software quality management. IBM Systems Journal, 33(1), 62-88.
• Kan, S. H., Parrish, J., & Manlove, D. (2001). In-process metrics for software testing. IBM Systems Journal, 40(1), 220-241.
• Kekre, S., Krishnan, M. S., & Srinivasan, K. (1995). Drivers of customer satisfaction for software products: Implications for design. Management
Science, 41(9), 1456-1470.
• Pine, B. J. (1989). Design, test, and validation of the application system/400 through early user involvement. IBM System Journal, 28(3), 376-385.
• Sulack, R. A., Lindner, R. J., & Dietz, D. N. (1989). A new development rhythm for AS/400 software. IBM Systems Journal, 28(3), 386-406.
• Tang, V., & Collar, E. (1992). IBM AS/400 new product launch process ensures satisfaction. Long Range Planning, 25(1), 22-27.
21

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
22