Abstract
This paper reports a study of self-assessment practices in 10 organisations. The research was carried out by
semi-structured interviews directed towards a range of issues related to the process, practice and management of
self-assessment. Amongst the "ndings are that organisations are becoming more aware of the role of self-assessment in
in#uencing strategy and are including the outputs of self-assessment in their business planning process, and self-
assessment is seen as making the organisation a more viable commodity. It was also found that the potential of
self-assessment for analysing organisational performance and identifying areas for improvement is underestimated by
managers. On the other hand, it is pointed out that the increasing commercial aspects of self-assessment and the Quality
Award process is diluting their e!ects. Based on the "ndings, two matrices have been developed which de"ne the
organisational and TQM related characteristics that an organisation should exhibit before adopting a particular
approach to self-assessment. 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
0925-5273/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 5 - 5 2 7 3 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 3 0 - 9
242 L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
Self-assessment implies the use of a model on planning and resourcing of the process; integrating
which to base the evaluation and diagnostics. In the outputs from self-assessment with the business
addition to the EFQM model there are a number of planning process and the policy deployment activ-
internationally recognised models, the two being ity; and the negative aspects of self-assessment and
the Deming Application Prize in Japan and the how to overcome them. The purpose of the study
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award reported in this paper was to explore the self-assess-
(MBNQA) in the USA. Although there are some ment process of a range of organisations with
di!erences between the models, they have a number a view to providing a greater understanding of
of common elements as themes. these types of issues.
Since the mid-1990s the topic of quality awards The research has been carried out in 10 organisa-
and self-assessment has received considerable at- tions using semi-structured interviews, supported
tention from researchers and is well de"ned in the by analysis of secondary data; details of the organ-
literature (e.g. [2,5}7]). However, the majority of isations are given in Table 1. The companies
the academic literature has concentrated on the selected for study were identi"ed by the Group
models and comparison of their criteria, and the Business Quality Director of the organisation
relationship between award winners and business sponsoring the research. The primary sources he
results, see [8}13]. used were through contacts with the British Qual-
The "rst major research work in Europe was ity Foundation (BQF) and various committee work
conducted by co-operation between six European associated with the Business Excellence Model
Universities and reported by Van der Wiele (BEM). All the organisations had implemented
[14,15]. Other key pieces of work are Bemowski TQM and would achieve scores of 400 points or
and Stratton [16], Coulambidou and Dale [17], above against the BEM criteria. A total of 25 inter-
Gadd et al. [18], Teo and Dale [19], Van der Wiele views were carried out across the 10 organisations
et al. [20], and Voss and Blackmon [21]. One of the probing issues relevant to the self-assessment pro-
major "ndings from these individual pieces of cess such as: approach used; ease of implementa-
research is that self-assessment against a Business tion; resources, management and time involved;
Excellence Model such as those mentioned above is preparation for self-assessment; motivational
becoming increasingly recognised as an e!ective issues; bene"ts/criticisms of self-assessment; and di-
business performance management system. Van der rect and indirect e!ects of the process. Each inter-
Wiele et al. [20] emphasises this point by claiming view lasted for up to 3 hours and was interactive,
that if the self-assessment process is not linked with #exible and allowed in-depth discussion and pro-
the business cycles of strategic planning, policy, bing of the above type of issues. Attention was paid
deployment, human resources systems, budget to veri"cation of information obtained by cross-
decisions, etc., then it will never become a "t with checking using data question sets. The objective of
the day-to-day fabric of management activities. the study was to develop a model to align organisa-
It is clear from the literature that a number of tions with speci"c methods of self-assessment in
organisations have adopted self-assessment relation to their level of TQM maturity.
because it was seen as the thing to do. They have
not recognised fully the complexity of the process
and the organisational changes needed to ensure it 2. Self assessment practices and processes
is e!ective. In these organisations it is likely that
there will be a lack of motivation, resistance and the Table 1 provides an overview of the previous and
improvements will lack impact and eventually self- current self-assessment practices used by the organ-
assessment will "zzle out. There is a limited amount isations studied. It can be seen that there have been
of empirical data on the self-assessment process a plethora of approaches used by the 10 organisa-
with respect to issues such as: selecting the tions studied; some which can be used on their own
assessment approach to re#ect di!erent levels whilst others, namely, pro formas and the A3 matrix,
of organisational TQM maturity; the management are usually introduced as part of a workshop
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254 243
Table 1
Self-assessment practices
method. A study of the literature revealed there tions more developed in self-assessment have
were 13 claimed approaches, these can readily be experienced a number of approaches as demon-
grouped into three broad categories: award based strated by companies J and K. It can be seen that
approaches, questionnaires and workshops. A brief the organisations employing a range of approaches
summary of these three approaches are given in are those with higher sta$ng levels. The exception
Appendix A; these methods are outlined in detail in to this is Company E which has used and is using
the EFQM's Self-Assessment Guidelines for Com- a number of di!erent approaches, not synonymous
panies [1]. All organisations conducting self-assess- with their level of sta! and self-assessment experi-
ment have at one stage or another implemented at ence. This is due to increased activity within this
least one approach or more. It is usually the deci- area and the fact that the company has become
sion of the organisation itself to determine which privatised, and as such is amidst competition for
approach to start with. Some prefer to `jump in the new markets and customers. Company E perceives
deep enda and launch straight into a full award that self-assessment against the BEM will provide
simulation exercise (having probably conducted a competitive edge for them and an indication of
self-assessment workshops for educational pur- areas for improvement to be acted upon for the
poses) * Company A. Others choose to adopt immediate future.
a more incremental approach, by using question- Some approaches were common to most of the
naire-based activities such as The Business Driver organisations examined, for example, the use of the
or Rapid Assess (e.g. Company B). The organisa- A3 matrix, workshops and questionnaire. Most of
244 L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
and who was actually using it. It was factors such as to both customers and suppliers, and maintaining
these that encouraged the uptake of self-assessment relations between management and unions.
practices and ensured that they were done e$cient- Some degree of thought was needed in relation to
ly and thereby ensure `successa. co-ordination of the self-assessment process in or-
There were managers who suggested that a suc- der to encourage continuous improvement and
cessful self-assessment process was one that facilitate cultural change. One obvious di!erence
produced higher scores for the organisation. For between the internal business functions and ex-
another manager the success of the process could ternal organisation was the scale of thinking in-
be seen by the public image of the organisation. volved. Action concerning self-assessment was
Necessary criteria for a successful self-assessment generally carried out on a `larger scalea, that is,
process according to the "ndings include: within those areas which impacted on the overall
company direction and purpose. An example of this
E gaining commitment and support from all levels could be seen by the admission of one manager
of sta!, interviewed (Company J) who stated `that self-
E action being taken from previous self-assessments, assessment was employed in order to drive the
E awareness of the use of BEM as a measurement organisation to world-class excellencea.
tool, Within Companies A to D there were certain
E incorporation of self-assessment into the busi- factors that a!ected the initial introduction of self-
ness planning process, assessment practices. These included, attempting to
E not allowing the process to be `added ona to improve the continuous improvement process,
employees existing workload, keeping up-to-date with other departments' pro-
E developing a framework for performance gress, and managers recognising the bene"ts and
monitoring. merits of self-assessment, and therefore `bringing it
on boarda. Such factors were reiterated by the other
organisations examined, however Company E men-
5. Objectives of self-assessment tioned that factors contributing to the uptake of
self-assessment included the company becoming
Self-assessment is carried out in organisations for privatised and Company J a change in direction
a number of reasons, for example, changes in the with the introduction of a new Chief Executive.
internal and external environment, changes in Twenty-four out of 25 managers interviewed
leadership and direction, a need to develop quality- stated that self-assessment has a de"nite impact on
based procedures, or as part of a continuous im- the processes of their organisation, either in
provement strategy. An organisation needs to ques- monitoring performance or streamlining. Only one
tion why it employs self-assessment, what are the organisation (Company G) felt that the self-assess-
gains, and are they being realistic in their expecta- ment process would not have a de"nite e!ect on
tions of its output. their existing processes, in altering them, but the
One of the outputs of the self-assessment process expense involved would not be cost-e!ective. The
its impact on the culture of an organisation, in manager believed that the impact would probably
making it more cohesive; co-ordinating a joint be greater in a!ecting `softera quality issues.
working project, involving teamwork, maximum
utilisation of resources, working towards a uniform
goal and generally making a more productive 6. Bene5ts of self-assessment
working unit. The general consensus from the
organisations studied was that self-assessment does The bene"ts of the self-assessment process are
have a positive e!ect on the corporate culture. The summarised in Table 2.
impacts, as stated by the management of Company There was a cross-over of opinions between these
D, were localised, relating to meeting customers three categories, in that self-assessment was seen as
needs, making information more readily available providing a benchmarking tool as an immediate
246 L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
Table 2
Bene"ts of the self-assessment process
Category Bene"ts
bene"t, and also as a means of supporting TQM, everyday organisational operations. From the in-
and in facilitating an holistic approach to quality as formation provided, it is clear that there are a num-
both as a long-term bene"t and as a means for ber of problematic areas associated with carrying
TQM development. The raising of the organisa- out self-assessment. A summary of these di$culties
tion's pro"le within the business and wider social is given in Table 3.
community was seen by a manager at Company The main di$culties experienced were a lack of
G to be both an immediate and long-term gain commitment at all levels, ignorance of what self-
from carrying out self-assessment. A manager at assessment involved, and general resistant to
Company K felt that the widespread use of self- change. Some companies had the problem in how
assessment meant that a common language could to approach self-assessment and how to get the
be developed, one that all those involved could process started. One company experienced di$cul-
relate; this was also seen to be both an immediate ties maintaining enthusiasm in co-ordinating the
and long-term bene"t associated with the use of the process, especially after winning a quality award.
BEM. The BEM was also seen by a manager at Other companies commented on the problem of
Company K as `providing a framework for all maintaining the self-assessment educational and
TQM activities to adhere toa. training skills of the `in-housea assessors. One of
the more unexpected di$culties was the admission
that existing processes are di$cult to change, due
7. Di7culties associated with the self-assessment to the intricate set up of the process, and the
process expense involved. As a consequence of this, it was
mentioned that `areas for improvement associated
As with all new techniques, there are certain with such processes may therefore have to be ignor-
problems that hinder their integration into the ed or shelved until a later datea.
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254 247
Table 3
Di$culties experienced with the self-assessment process
Di$culties
8. Attitudes to self-assessment taking ita; it is clear that there are broadly de"ned
future goals in relation to this. The future plans for
When questioned as to whether attitudes to self- self-assessment, included:
assessment had changed, the consensual agreement
E application for quality awards,
amongst all the interviewees was that they had
E using self-assessment to develop process man-
altered somewhat since the concept was introduc-
agement and control,
ed. It was how they had changed that caused any
E building self-assessment into business plans, as
dissension within this area. In 19 cases the attitude
a normal practice,
to self-assessment was more positive, in "ve cases
E taking the self-assessment a step further (e.g.
there was still some cynicism and in one organisa-
external objective assessment),
tion it was claimed that the attitude was more
E using the self-assessment process as a means of
negative.
preparing the organisation for future competi-
There were di!ering views as to why attitudes
tion, to make it a more `viable commoditya on
concerning the self-assessment process within the
the market, and to use it as a `sellinga mecha-
organisation changed. A number of plausible rea-
nism when approaching customers * there is
sons were put forward, for example, people becom-
evidence that in a competitive tendering environ-
ing more enthused on seeing the tangible outputs of
ment in particular to public authorities, the use
the process, be it scores or identifying areas for
of the BEM does act in the favour of organisa-
improvement; sta! gaining more awareness of and
tions.
exposure to the process, and gaining a site visit * it
was claimed that the whole concept becomes more There is a focus on certain issues, for example,
`reala when this occurs. In one case it was stated application for quality awards, but there were also
that attitudes towards self-assessment become discernible di!erences in future activity. To a cer-
more positive after a certain length of time when it tain extent there was an obvious focus on the
becomes recognised as an integral part of change, `enabling facilitya concerned with carrying out the
and thus people can relate to its bene"ts. self-assessment for example, one organisation
(Company H) placed emphasis on monitoring the
ability of the sta! and assessors to actually co-
9. Future plans for self-assessment ordinate the process successfully. In order to do this
the organisation needed to have a systematic
The majority of organisations undertaking self- review and upgrading of its training activities; one
assessment analysis have set plans as to why they way they did this was to introduce self-assessment
are employing the concept and `where they are into management competency training. This was
248 L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
what they believed was of priority in addressing isational characteristics of each self-assessment
self-assessment in the future. In general, the actual approach can help an organisation, or business unit
facilitation/enabling aspect of carrying out the `tacklea this area for the "rst time, or even to decide
process was not considered an important issue in what to do next after they have gained some experi-
co-ordinating future self-assessment analysis. ence. There is a lack of literature on the `besta
approach to start self-assessment. There is no guid-
ance on which approach to actually use. What is of
10. A `model approach to self-assessmenta more interest is that companies do not know
whether they are best suited to one approach rather
Based on the "eldwork the extent to which man- than another. There is a lack of advice and guid-
agement within an organisation understand the ance available to organisations wishing to under-
concept of self-assessment and are realistic in the take self-assessment. Organisations need to possess
objectives varies considerably and ultimately im- and display certain characteristics if they are to be
pacts on the "nal outcomes of the assessment. successful in self-assessment against the BEM.
A lack of coherence will lead to uneducated and Based on the "ndings of this study, a simple model
uninformed decisions being made in relation to the would help alleviate some of the problems experi-
choice of self-assessment approach, the allocation enced by companies in selecting an appropriate
of resources for the assessment and its co-ordina- approach to self-assessment.
tion. As such, organisations need to achieve a cer- The model proposed, and later described in the
tain level of understanding in self-assessment, paper takes the form of a matrix, examining the
award models and TQM, in order to accurately characteristics and level of TQM understanding
address the issues evident in the self-assessment that an organisation should demonstrate before
process. employing any self-assessment approach. The
The choice of the `besta approach is a di$cult matrix allocates organisational characteristics to
process, one which is no doubt done very much in speci"c approaches. The pre-requisite character-
a `hit or missa capacity by companies addressing istics alter depending on the technicality of the
self-assessment for the "rst time (and if unsuccess- approach involved. The ones evident within the
ful, possibly for their last). Organisations when matrix are those that an organisation needs to
approaching self-assessment generally experience actively pursue and practice in order to successfully
di$culties from the outset in planning the process adopt self-assessment initiatives.
and allocating manpower to co-ordinate and drive In order to attribute the characteristics needed
it. There is usually `blissfula ignorance on the part for each approach, it is necessary to detail the
of management and sta! alike in relation to the complexity of each self-assessment approaches.
aims and goals of the self-assessment process and These are listed in Fig. 1 in order of increasing
how it can be used successfully to produce useful complexity and technicality, for example the most
results. As a consequence it is likely to lead to complex being the award submission, and the least
di$culties in the management of resources and complex being the A3 perception-based matrix.
unrealistic expectations. Organisations can become The pre-requisite characteristics of each approach
disillusioned and either abandon their cause, or are given in Fig. 2. Organisations should also
seek professional advice from external consultants. exhibit certain TQM-related characteristics to suc-
The "ndings of this research indicate that it is better cessfully employ each of the di!erent approaches to
in the long run if an organisation can totally own self-assessment. The self-assessment process is
its self-assessment process. The use of consultants based on TQM principles and evidence of such
may be necessary to initiate proceedings but the should be clear within the organisation. Companies
organisation should maintain control and under- when addressing self-assessment sometimes fail to
standing of the process. fully understand the concept of TQM, and how
The formulation of a model which draws atten- essential knowledge of it is before considering self-
tion to a de"ned breakdown in the requisite organ- assessment. Organisations should be aware that
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254 249
they should possess a certain level of TQM experi- requirements for each of the approaches). However,
ence and development before adopting any self- these decrease substantially in quantity as the ap-
assessment approach, as identi"ed by the charac- proach becomes less technical. One factor that
teristics given in Fig. 3. The aim of the matrix needs to be considered is the motivation behind the
is to provide an informed and simple overview of employment of a speci"c approach. For example,
which TQM features organisations should exhibit: an organisation may be using an approach, such as
to help prevent any errors in judgement when an A3 matrix, merely as an educational tool to raise
choosing an approach, and provide a mechanism awareness of self-assessment practices amongst the
in explaining unrealistic expectations and lack sta!. If this is the case, the manager responsible
of success. Because the BEM is based on TQM does not necessarily need to have a hands-on work-
principles it is essential that these principles ing knowledge of the operations of the organisation
are practised within an organisation, otherwise it (although it would be bene"cial). If, however, the
defeats the purpose of adopting the model. The aim of the approach is to identify and derive core
characteristics as identi"ed in Fig. 3 are broad in areas for improvement, then a knowledge of both
nature and general, and can be related to all sys- the self-assessment process, and of the key opera-
tems and processes within the organisation, for tions of the organisation is essential.
example, the continuous review of processes and The quantity of approaches mentioned could
systems can be applied to distribution, manufactur- easily be reduced in number to fall into three main
ing, service delivery, customer complaints and categories:
customer feedback.
From the information provided in Figs. 2 and 3 it E Award applications (e.g. reports, award simula-
can be seen that the organisational characteristics tion, award submission).
and TQM features that need to be in place and E Questionnaires (e.g. The Business Driver, Excel-
actively evident in the company are many and lence NW Award, Assess, Option Finder).
diverse (the characteristics outlined are the minimal E Workshops (e.g. using A3 matrix pro formas).
250 L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
Fig. 2. The minimum characteristics that a company should exhibit, preadoption of prescribed approaches to self-assessment.
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254 251
Self-assessment as a process is holistic in nature, to take the concept more seriously than others.
and as such will a!ect the whole structure of the The rest are left with an increased workload and
organisation. Managers need to plan for self-assess- several projects getting minimal attention because
ment and not just choose to do it on a whim to "ll they, like self-assessment, are not considered as a
a void or keep directors satis"ed. This is a short- priority.
term solution and will create a plethora of prob- The matrices described in the paper provide
lems. Other organisations were obliged to adopt a means whereby a company can align itself with
this management technique in order to gain a com- speci"ed criteria, from an objective viewpoint
petitive edge (be it through identifying areas for (which not all organisations are willing to do), and
improvement and acting upon them, raising public ascertain if what they are doing is right, and if not,
awareness as a marketing strategy about the com- what should they be doing. For a newcomer to
pany or preparing for a quality award submission). the self-assessment process, they should provide
Some were using self-assessment as a means of some direction of purpose and assist them on their
co-ordinating and selling quality initiatives or journey.
merely to `keep up with the rest of the crowda. One of the key "ndings of the study was the
Some had a greater incentive than others to carry change in manager's response to TQM. Over the
out the self-assessment, in the sense that it was felt past number of years the attitude towards TQM
that their resources were adequate whilst others has become more negative, people apparently mis-
were over-stretched, and some sta! had their per- understand the concept, perceive it to be too tech-
formance in this area linked to "nancial bonus nical or control oriented, and thus it has gradually
schemes. As a consequence the results are diversi"- developed it into something else, alternatively
ed, but to a certain extent that is to be expected in known as TQ or Business Excellence. There is
relation to the background of the organisations, evidence from the research that managers have
and the level of exposure to self-assessment and adopted certain aspects of the TQM philosophy,
TQM. Related to this is the motivation behind but not others, producing a diluted version. Based
self-assessment and the levels of resources, support on this study `Business Excellencea practices ad-
and future objectives. vocated today are not the equivalent of TQM, but
The consensual opinion on self-assessment is a more diluted version of the original TQM con-
that it provides a useful tool for measuring organ- cept. It should also be noted that there is genuine
isational performance and identifying areas for im- confusion as to what Business Excellence is and
provement. In doing so it facilitates benchmarking what it can do for an organisation.
internally and externally, provides a common Another noticeable development is the changing
language between those companies employing self- nature of the BEM and the process itself. The
assessment, and prepares and organisation for model is being increasingly sold on the back of the
future competition. quality awards and not as a self-assessment man-
The self-assessment process, if deployed proper- agement technique and measurement tool to sus-
ly, requires managers and sta! alike to assimilate tain continuous improvement practices. It is also
a high level of knowledge, which to a certain extent, being used to attain di!erent goals, such as raising
has to be manipulated to suit the operational envi- the corporate pro"le within the public arena,
ronment. The self-assessment process should not instead of identifying areas for improvement. When
necessarily be seen as a technical one, but should all is said and done, if a company chooses to
not be treated as something simple either. In this employ self-assessment, they can employ it what-
respect it deserves as much attention as any other ever way they want, as suits them.
process within the organisation's operations. Man- One area that needs to be addressed is the assess-
agement must have the imagination, foresight and ment aspect of the process and award documents.
capacity to use self-assessment to its full potential, Because all services should be customer driven and
otherwise its use will be restricted. It is clear focused, most businesses take this into considera-
from this study that some managers can make time tion when designing their products and services
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254 253
and will try to accommodate the customers as Some organisations have modi"ed and de-
much as they can, to ensure customer satisfaction veloped the criteria of the chosen award model to
and repeat trade. This has spilled over to a degree suit their own particular circumstances, provide
in the scoring of the self-assessment analysis. More more emphasis on areas which are critical to them,
than one manager interviewed in the course of make the criteria easier to understand and use, and
the research pointed out that e!orts are generally to reduce some of the e!ort in preparing the ap-
made to present the feedback from the assessment plication document. In some cases, a Corporation
in such a way as to not o!end the customer and to or Holding Company has set a minimum score
su$ciently motivate them to make sure they will which each of its facilities has to achieve within
continue conducting self-assessment and ensure re- a set time frame. Once an internal award has been
peat custom. To some extent this can be seen as achieved, its continuation will require the successful
`panderinga to the client, something which is not completion of a subsequent assessment, usually
acceptable at the level at which self-assessment within two years after the initial award has been
operates. If this is true, and assessment practices granted.
are following in this direction, something needs to
be done. The assessors hold a key position in the A.2. Questionnaire type
whole cycle of events linked to the BEM. Once
these are out of sync the model will eventually loose This is usually used to carry out a quick assess-
credibility. ment of the organisation's standing in relation to
There is also a degree of complacency developing the award model being used. It involves answering
within the process, possibly due to misunderstand- a series of questions and statements, which are
ing of both business excellence and TQM, or based on the criteria of the award model being
unrealistic expectations of the performance of the used, using a yes/no format or a graduated
model and the organisation in question. This has response scale.
not been helped by the hype that is attached to the A matrix chart is sometimes used which involves
quality awards. This can motivate organisations to rating a prepared series of statements, based on the
adopt the process, but can also channel their e!orts appropriate award model on a scoring scale. The
in the wrong direction. Every year companies try to statements are usually contained within a work-
introduce self-assessment practices into their busi- book which contains the appropriate instructions.
ness functions unsuccessfully; organisations should The person(s) carrying out the assessment "nds the
consider why they are employing the process in the statement which is most suited to the organisation
"rst place. and notes the associated score.
[2] T. Conti, Organisational Self-Assessment, Chapman and [14] T. Van der Wiele, R.T. Williams, B.G. Dale, F. Kolb, D.M.
Hall, London, 1997. Wallace, A. Schmidt, Quality management self-assessment:
[3] P.G. Hillman, Making self-assessment successful, The An examination in European business, Journal of General
TQM Magazine 6 (3) (1994) 29}31. Management 22 (1) (1996) 48}67.
[4] European Foundation for Quality Management (1994). [15] T. Van der Wiele, R.T. Williams, B.G. Dale, F. Kolb, D.M.
[5] D.M. Lascelles, R. Peacock, Self-assessment for Business Luzon, M. Wallace, A. Schmidt, Self-assessment: A study
Excellence, McGraw Hill, Berkshire, 1996. of progress in Europe's leading organisations in quality
[6] C. Hakes, The Self-Assessment Handbook for Measuring a management practices, International Journal of Quality
Corporate Excellence, Chapman and Hall, London, 1998. and Reliability Management 13 (1) (1996) 84}104.
[7] L. Porter, S. Tanner, Assessing Business Excellence, But- [16] K. Bemowski, B. Stratton, How do people use the
terworth Heinemann, London, 1996. Baldrige Award criteria? Quality Progress 28 (5) (1995)
[8] G.A. Bohoris, A comparative assessment of some major 43}47.
quality awards, International Journal of Quality and [17] L. Coulambidou, B.G. Dale, The use of quality manage-
Reliability Management 12 (9) (1995) 30}43. ment self-assessment in the UK: A state of the art study,
[9] R.E. Cole Comparing the Baldrige and Deming Awards, Quality World Technical Supplement, September (1995)
Journal for Quality and Participation, July}August (1991) 110}118.
94}104. [18] K. Gadd, J.S. Oakland, L.J. Porter L.J. Business Self-
[10] K.B. Hendricks, V.R. Singhal, Quality awards and the assessment and evaluation of current European practice,
market value of the "rm: An empirical investigation, Man- Proceedings of the 1996 Learning Edge Conference, Paris,
agement Science 42 (3) (1996) 415}436. 1996, pp. 292}313.
[11] B. Nakhai, J. Neves, The Deming, Baldrige and European [19] W.F. Teo, B.G. Dale, Self-assessment in methods, manage-
quality awards, Quality Progress, April (1994) 33}37. ment and practice, Proceedings of the Institution of Mech-
[12] Wisver and Eakins (1994). anical Engineers 211 B (5) (1997) 365}375.
[13] K.J. Zink, R. Haver, A. Schmidt, Quality assessment: in- [20] T. Van der Wiele, R.T. Williams, B.G. Dale, (1999) Total
struments for the analysis of quality concepts based on EN quality management: Is it a fad, fashion or "t, Organisa-
29000, the Malcolm Baldrige Award and the European tion Studies (under consideration).
Quality Award, Total Quality Management 5 (5) (1994) [21] C. Voss, K. Blackmon, Where the quality pay-o! comes,
329}343. European Quality 3 (1) (1996) 28}30.