Validating Key Results Linkages in the Baldrige Performance Excellence Model
James R. Evans, University of Cincinnati, and Eric P. Jack, University of Alabama, Birmingham.
The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Criteria for Performance Excellence represent a framework for high-performance management systems. Although the criteria have evolved based on the collective wisdom of quality experts and management practitioners throughout the United States, little empirical research has been performed to validate the criteria and its core concepts and values. One of the key linkages in the criteria is the relationship between external results and internal performance metrics, which reflect the processes and management systems that drive results in an organization.
Despite the efforts of many, several researchers have continued to call for more research to validate these linkages. In this study, the authors address this gap by testing and validating some of these linkages by testing 20 hypotheses: The first 10 hypotheses represent linkages among the endogenous variables, and the second 10 hypotheses evaluate direct linkages between the endogenous variables and the exogenous results.
In this study, the authors used canonical correlation to evaluate the hypotheses. The Baldrige results are the canonical variates, and the authors’ hypothesized model of results linkages provides the theoretical context. When the authors compared the hypothesized linkages with those validated by the canonical correlation analysis, they noted that seven of the 10 hypotheses about the linkages among endogenous variables were validated. Also, all 10 of the linkages between the endogenous variables and the exogenous results were significant.
The empirical results from this study support long-standing beliefs and anecdotal evidence by practitioners about the relationships among endogenous and exogenous results for business performance, and lend credibility to causal hypotheses that improving internal management practices leads to improvements in external results.
Traditional Management, Quality Management, and Constraints Management: Perceptions of ASQ Members
Mahesh Gupta, Arthur Adams, and Louis Raho, University of Louisville.
In addition to traditional management approaches, newer management philosophies such as quality management and constraints management are playing a central role in many contemporary organizational activities. Based on a literature review, several characteristics appear to differentiate these philosophies. No empirical work has been reported, however, that simultaneously investigates what differentiates these three management philosophies.
This article examines educators’ and practitioners’ perceptions of modern management approaches relative to more traditional management approaches. The initial research question examined is: “Are traditional management, quality management, and constraints management perceived as being distinct from each other?” A second question asks: “Do educators and practitioners have different perceptions of these approaches.” A third question investigates, “If differences do exist, along what dimensions or characteristics are the approaches perceived to be different?”
Based on existing literature, 19 characteristics or dimensions appear to differentiate these management approaches. These 19 characteristics form the basis for developing a conceptual research model to test the authors’ hypotheses. These hypotheses are: 1) the authors anticipate that the perceptions of the three management philosophies will be different on all characteristics, and 2) the authors anticipate that management educators will have different perceptions than management practitioners.
This study was conducted using a survey instrument used for gathering data from a sample of managers and educators on their perceptions of the management philosophies. Items used to measure a respondent’s perceptions toward these management philosophies were drawn from the pertinent literature. The survey was mailed to 1783 quality professionals in North America, using mailing lists of ASQ members, which were broken down by divisions making it possible to obtain a sample of educators as well as a sample of practitioners.
The results of this study show that the respondents exhibit a relatively consistent perception of these management philosophies when viewed from a general or overall perspective. Specifically, traditional management is viewed as being different from quality management and constraints management, and, to a lesser degree, constraints management is viewed as different from quality management. Further, on about half of the 19 dimensions measured, educators and practitioners had different perceptions of the philosophies.
Business Process Design: Correlates of Success and Failure
Martin Smith, The Stratics Group.
This article summarizes 75 organizational change efforts that had business process design (BPD) as an objective. BPD is one of the most common forms of organizational change, and usually occurs in combination with other types of change. But why is BPD so difficult? Many writers have expressed their opinions; however, only a few studies have tried to answer this question.
This article presents research aimed at expanding one’s understanding of the reasons why BPD is so difficult. Specifically, the research was directed at the following questions:
- What are the enablers of successful BPD?
- What are the most common barriers or deterrents to BPD?
- Are the “success factors” for BPD different from those for other types of change?
- What are the implications for managing BPD?
The research instrument was a questionnaire, which asked respondents to describe a major change effort by their organization to improve its performance. They were asked to limit their selections to efforts that occurred within the last two years. The respondents to the questionnaire consisted of 210 managers from a cross-section of industries and jobs throughout North America. The findings were presented as a set of nine propositions about the management of BPD.
Only 23 percent of process change efforts surveyed in this study attained breakthrough or near-breakthrough success. One key to successful change is to recognize the crucial role of middle management at the department, division, and business-unit level. Their sponsorship was perceived as more related to successful change than sponsorship by the highest corporate officers. The most frequently mentioned reasons for undertaking BPD were cost, product problems, and the desire for greater control over the process. Successful projects were characterized by variables that reflected strong sponsorship, a strong project team, and stakeholder management. A number of factors correlated with failure, but the strongest correlations had to do with breakdowns in leadership.
From these observations, the author derived seven requirements for managing organizational change:
- Managers need guidance.
- The positive and negative factors suggest requirements for managing BPD.
- Project planning and management appear to be critical.
- Communication throughout the project is critical to developing and maintaining stakeholder support.
- Executive and departmental levels should be aligned in support of the change.
- The plan should provide for the contingency of recovering from barriers that stymie a project.
- The implementation plan should provide for replacement of key players given the time span associated with process change.
