INTERNATIONAL QUALITY AWARDS

“The secret of joy in work is contained in one word-excellence.

To know how to do something well is to enjoy it-Pearl S.Buck”
Introduction:

Throughout the years, organizational studies have documented the evolution of

management and operations in organizations with regards to the development in quality. With
a known and established tenets in quality management, businesses all over the world are now
subjected to awards and recognition provided by different organizations and programs
seeking to improve and elevate the standards of quality in the organizational setting. This
study will provide an overview of several quality awards given to distinct parts of the globe.

Quality Awards:

Quality awards are important means to measure the level on which

organizations gauge their performance. The following discussions will provide a description
of awards given in the United States, Europe, Japan, Asia-Pacific, and Australia.

ESTABLISHED OF DEMING AWARD:

The late Dr. W. E. Deming (1900 - 1993), one of the foremost experts of quality control in
the United States, was invited to Japan by the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers
(JUSE) in July 1950.

Upon his visit, Dr. Deming lectured day after day his, "Eight-Day Course on Quality
Control," at the Auditorium of the Japan Medical Association in Kanda-Surugadai, Tokyo.
This was followed by Dr. Deming's "One-Day Course on Quality Control for Top
Management," held in Hakone. Through these seminars, Dr. Deming taught the basics of
statistical quality control plainly and thoroughly to executives, managers, engineers, and
researchers of the Japanese industries. His teachings made a deep impression on the
participants' mind and provided great impetus to quality control in Japan, which was in its
infancy.

The transcript of the eight-day course, "Dr. Deming's Lectures on Statistical Control of
Quality," was compiled from its stenographic records and distributed for a charge. Dr.
Deming donated his royalties to JUSE. In appreciation of Dr. Deming's generosity, the late
Mr. Kenichi Koyanagi, managing director of JUSE, proposed using it to fund a prize to
commemorate Dr. Deming's contribution and friendship in a lasting way and to promote the
continued development of quality control in Japan. Upon receiving the proposal, the JUSE's
board of directors unanimously made a resolution to establish the Deming Prize.

Later, the Japanese translation of Dr. Deming's book Some Theory of Sampling was
published. Dr. Deming further contributed to the fund using the royalties from his book.
Since then, the Deming Prize has grown considerably, and today JUSE carries the overall
administrative costs for the prize.

The Deming Prize and Development of Quality Control/Management in Japan:

The Deming Prize, especially the Deming Application Prize which is given to companies, has
exerted an immeasurable influence directly or indirectly on the development of quality
control/management in Japan.

Applicant companies and divisions of companies sought after new approaches to quality
management that met the needs of their business environment and challenged for the Deming
Prize. Those organizations developed effective quality management methods, established the
structures for implementation, and put the methods into practice.

Commonly, those who have challenged for the Prize share the feeling that they have had a
valuable experience and that the management principle of achieving a business success
through quality improvement has really worked. Through witnessing the success of these
organizations, many other companies have been inspired to begin their own quest for quality
management. Learning from those who went before them, the new practitioners are
convinced that quality management is an important key to their business success and that the
challenge to attain the Prize can provide an excellent opportunity to learn useful quality
methodologies. Thus, quality management has spread to many organizations, its methods
have evolved over the years, and they contributed to the advancement of these organizations'
improvement activities.

This mechanism that encourages each organization's self-development comes from the
examination process of the Deming Prize, though the very process has invited some criticism
that the examination criterion for the Deming Prize is unclear. The Deming Prize examination
does not require applicants to conform to a model provided by the Deming Prize Committee.
Rather, the applicants are expected to understand their current situation, establish their own
themes and objectives, and improve and transform themselves company-wide. Not only the
results achieved and the processes used, but also the effectiveness expected in the future are
subjects for the examination. To the best of their abilities, the examiners evaluate whether or
not the themes established by the applicants were commensurate to their situation; whether or
not their activities were suitable to their circumstance; and whether or not their activities are
likely to achieve their higher objectives in the future.

The Deming Prize Committee views the examination process as an opportunity for "mutual-
development," rather than "examination." While in realty the applicants still receive the
examination by a third party, the examiners' approach to evaluation and judgment is
comprehensive. Every factor such as the applicants' attitude toward executing Total Quality
Management (TQM), their implementation status, and the resulting effects is taken into
overall consideration. In other words, the Deming Prize Committee does not specify what
issues the applicants must address, rather the applicants themselves are responsible for
identifying and addressing such issues, thus, this process allows quality methodologies to be
further developed.

Total Quality Control (TQC) that had been developed in Japan as discussed above was re-
imported to the United States in the 1980s and contributed to the revitalization of its
industries. While the term TQC had been used in Japan, it was translated as TQM in western
nations. To follow an internationally-accepted practice, Japan changed the name from TQC to
TQM.

In this revision of the Deming Prize Guide, the previous examination checklist is changed to
"the examination viewpoints," which present the activity guides under TQM values.
However, as for the examination criteria, the Committee's basic stance remains unchanged.
Namely, the criteria should reflect each applicant organization's circumstance.

There is no easy success at this time of constant change. No organization can expect to build
excellent quality and management systems just by solving problems given by others. They
need to think on their own, set lofty goals, and drive themselves to challenge for achieving
those goals. For these companies that introduce and implement TQM in this manner, the
Deming Application Prize aims to be used as a tool for improving and transforming their
business management.
Categories of the Deming Prize:

As shown in the diagram below, the categories of the Deming Prize are the Deming Prize for
Individuals, the Deming Application Prize, and the Quality Control Award for Operations
Business Units.

Deming Prize:

• The Deming Application Prize:

Given to companies or divisions of companies that have achieved distinctive

performance improvement through the application of TQM in a designated year.

• The Deming Prize for Individuals:

Given to individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the study of TQM
or statistical methods used for TQM, or individuals who have made outstanding
contributions in the dissemination of TQM.

• The Quality Control Award for Operations:

Business Units:

Given to operations business units of a company that has achieved distinctive

performance improvement through the application of quality control/management in
the pursuit of TQM in a designated year.

• The Deming Application Prize for Overseas Companies:

Because its initial purpose was to encourage the development of quality control
activities in Japan, the Deming Prize was at first restricted to Japanese companies. In
recent years, however, strong interest in the Deming Application Prize by non-
Japanese companies has surfaced.

The Deming Prize Committee, therefore, established the Deming

Application Prize Administrative Regulation in 1984 to allow overseas companies to apply
for and receive the Deming Prize upon successfully passing the examination. In 1997,
another change was made to enable overseas companies to apply for the Quality Control
Award for Operations Business Units. However, if the number of applicants in any year
exceeds the examination capacity of the Deming Application Prize Subcommittee, due to
schedule limitations, some of the applications may be carried forward to the next year or even
later.

The Deming Application Prize, the Quality Control Award for Operations Business Units,
and the Japan Quality Medal are open to overseas companies. However, the Deming Prize for
Individuals are open only to Japanese candidates.

Deming Prize for Individuals:

The Deming Prize for Individuals is an annual award given to individuals who have made
outstanding contributions to the study of TQM or statistical methods used for TQM, or to
individuals who have made outstanding contributions in the dissemination of TQM.

Selection of the Winners:

The Deming Prize Committee welcomes candidates recommendations from others and
applications from individuals for the Deming Prize for Individuals. The application deadline
is July 31 every year. There is no difference in the examination process regardless if the
candidates have been recommended by others or self-applied. Mid-October, the Deming
Prize for Individuals Subcommittee examines and selects the candidates for the Prize and the
Deming Prize Committee selects the winners.

Prize winners are announced in the "Nippon Keizai Shimbun" (Japan Economic Journal) and
also reported in the JUSE's monthly magazines "Total Quality Management" and
"Engineers." At the award ceremony, which takes place in November, winners receive the
Deming Medal with an accompanying certificate of merit from the Deming Prize Committee,
and supplemental prize money from "Nippon Keizal Shimbun." The winners' report meeting
is conducted the next day after the award ceremony.

Deming Application Prize:

The Deming Application Prize is an annual award presented to a company that has achieved
distinctive performance improvements through the application of TQM. Regardless of the
types of industries, any organization can apply for the Prize, be it public or private, large or
small, or domestic or overseas. Provided that a division of a company manages its business
autonomously, the division may apply for the Prize separately from the company.
Companies or divisions of companies that apply for the Prize (applicant companies hereafter)
receive the examination by the Deming Application Prize Subcommittee (the Subcommittee
hereafter). Based on the results of the Subcommittee's examination, the Deming Prize
Committee selects the winners.

There is no limit to the number of potential recipients of the Prize each year. All
organizations that score the passing points or higher upon examination will be awarded the
Deming Application Prize.

In the event that a passing point score has not been attained by the applicant, final judgment
is reserved, and unless withdrawal is requested by the applicant, the status is considered as
"continued examination." Subsequent examinations are limited to twice during the next three
years. Subsequent examinations will focus on what was highlighted at the previous
examination and what has changed since then. The applicant is recognized as having passed
the examination when it has sufficiently improved upon the previously noted issues and has
successfully achieved the necessary levels.

Eligibility for the Prize:

The Deming Application Prize is given to an applicant company that effectively practices
TQM suitable to its management principles, type of industry, and business scope. More
specifically, the following viewpoints are used for the examination to determine whether or
not the applicant should be awarded the Prize.
The European Quality Award:

European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) was founded in 1988 by the
Presidents of 14 major European companies .First European Quality Award issued in 1992
and it was endorsed by the EU Commission and has a newtwork has more than 700 members
and it was formed the European framework for quality improvement along the lines of the
Malcolm Baldrige Model in the USA and the Deming Prize in Japan.

By 1990, the European Community (now the European Union) felt that it had fallen behind
Japan and the United States in the recognition of quality management. In that year, the
European Foundation for Quality Management, with support from the European Organization
for Quality and the European Commission, set about to create its own Deming or Baldrige
equivalent, The European Quality Awards. The first winners were announced in October
1992.

The initial awards favored larger, for-profit companies, so by 1996 the European Commission
began to give out additional awards for public sector organizations and for small- to mid-
sized enterprises. The awards also have a category for operational units of companies, such as
factories, research units, or assembly plants.

European Quality Award levels:

European Award level Explanation Award Winner This award is given to the organization
that is judged to be the best in each of the award categories, providing they meet certain
requirements set by the jurors. The award categories are:

• Large and business units

• Operational units

• Public sector

• Small and medium-sized enterprises

The European Quality Award is based on the following ten parameters:

 Leadership (10%)

 People management (9%)

 Policy and strategy (8%)

 Resources (9%)

 Processes (14%)

 People satisfaction (9%)

 Customer satisfaction (20%)

 Impact on society (6%)

 Business results (15%)

(SMEs), of which there are two subcategories:

• Independent SMEs, and

• Subsidiary (Business Unit) SMEs

Special Prizes Introduced in 2003, these are given to organizations that excel in some of the
fundamental concepts that underpin the EFQM Award framework. Special Prizes will be
given for:

• Leadership and consistency of purpose

• Customer focus

• Corporate social responsibility

• People development and involvement

• Results orientation
The European Model for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises:

While the categories essentially copy those of the Baldrige Award, the emphasis on people's
perceptions of the organization and of the organization's impact on society are unique to the
European Quality Awards and add a societal element lacking in either the Deming or
Baldrige Awards. The European Quality Awards also differ from the Deming and Baldrige,
as noted earlier, in the various categories for eligible organizations. The European Quality
Awards also differ in the nature of their awards jury, which is made up of business leaders as
well as academics. Finally, by its nature, the European Union is more international than either
Japan or the United States, and from the start, the award has been open to companies outside
the European Union. Still, the award is limited to those companies that have at least 50
percent of their activities in Europe.

Applications to the program are examined by a team of six assessors, each of whom undergo
training to ensure a high level of consistency in scoring. Assessors include some academics
and quality professionals, but the majority are drawn from the ranks of experienced practicing
managers from European countries. The application is assessed and scored on a scale from 0
to 1,000 points. Chart 1 illustrates the scoring system for the small- and medium-sized
company award.

The European Quality Award is the European equivalent of the Baldrige Award. The
European Award took the Baldrige Award as a starting point, and refined it so that it had a
similar but unique focus on the adoption of total quality as a business improvement vehicle.
This development led to an approach that at the time was more business orientated than that
of the Baldrige Award. However, in recent years both models have evolved, and both now
have a high degree of business orientation. The award framework discussed in this chapter
was developed by the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM), and as such
they remain the custodians of the framework. Most European countries have adopted the
European model and award process for their national awards. The EFQM notes that the
number of organizations using its framework across Europe is rapidly growing, with over
20 000 organizations currently using the model to drive their improvement activities.

In making this change, which has the objective of promoting role model practices in the
areas, the EFQM notes that organizations will have the opportunity of winning more than one
prize Finalist Finalists are organizations that are short-listed for the award and prizes but do
not achieve the required level of achievement to be confirmed as one of the winners in any of
 the levels above. Finalists receive a framed certificate, and may publicize that they were
short-listed.

THE EUROPEAN MODEL FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED ENTERPRISES

PEOPLE PEOPLE
MANAGE SATISFAC
MENT 90 TION 90
POINTS(9 POINTS(9
%) %)
QUALITY BUSINESS
LEADERSHIP STRATEG SYSTEM & CUSTOME RESULTS
100 Y& PROCESS R 150
POINTS(10%) PLANNING ES 140 SATISFAC POINTS(15%
80 POINTS(1 TION 200 )
POINTS(8 4%) POINTS
RESOURC INSPECTI
ES ON
SOCIETY
90 60
POINTS(9 POINTS(6

ENABLER 500 POINTS 50% RESULTS-500 POINTS 50%

Singapore Quality Award (SQA):

Launched in 1994 with the Prime Minister as its patron, the Singapore Quality Award (SQA)
is the most prestigious award conferred on organisations that demonstrate the highest
standards of business excellence. The Award aims to establish Singapore as a country
committed to world-class business excellence. The SQA is the highest accolade given to
organisations for business excellence. The Award is conferred upon the “best of the best” in
recognition of their attainment of world-class standard of performance excellence. The
Award supports SPRING’s business excellence initiative which provides organisations with a
framework to develop and strengthen their management systems and processes to achieve
high performance and be more competitive. The SQA is one of the 4 national awards under
the Business Excellence Framework.

Singapore Quality Award with Special Commendation: (For Past SQA Winners Only)

Past SQA winners can apply for the SQA with Special Commendation at least 5 years after
winning the SQA .The SQA with Special Commendation, launched in 2006, recognises past
SQA winners for scaling greater heights of business excellence and for demonstrating
sustainable global leadership in key business areas, products or services than when they won
the SQA. Applicants need to demonstrate that they are recognised as benchmarks by
international organizations.

The SQA is the highest national award for organisations who have achieved the Business
Excellence Standard.
The SQA is awarded to organisations with management systems and processes that achieve
outstanding levels of business excellence in all areas.

Criteria:

The SQA criteria form the basis for the evaluation and feedback to applicants on their
performance. The criteria promote:

• Understanding of the requirements for business and organisational excellence

• Enhancement of organisational performance practices and capabilities
• Sharing of best practice information among organisations

Benefits of SQA:

 You can use the SQA logo on all your collaterals.

 The logo is a mark of exceptional excellence. It shows that your business is a
“world-class” organisation with systems and processes that ensure excellence in all the
key areas of your business.
 Continuous journey of improvement
Procedure to apply:
SQA assessment is based on the criterion found in the Business Excellence Assessment for
Continuous Improvement (BEACON) self-assessment tool.

Eligibility Guidelines:
All public and private organisations in Singapore (except trade associations and professional
societies) may apply for any of the Business Excellence (BE) Awards. Private organisations
must have a major business operation in Singapore.

Subsidiary companies applying for any of the BE awards should fulfil the following criteria:

1. For the purposes of the BE Awards, a subsidiary is a business entity with clear
definition of an organisation as reflected in the corporate literature, e.g. organisation
charts, administrative manuals and annual reports.
2. The subsidiary must have existed three years prior to the application. It should be
an autonomous organisation with its own senior management group responsible for a wide
range of management activities.
3. Subsidiaries which primarily perform the business support functions of the parent
company are not eligible. Examples of business support functions are sales marketing /
distribution, customer service, research and development, legal services, purchasing,
finance and accounting, and human resource management

Past Award Recipients:

As a confirmation of their ongoing performance in business excellence, past Award

recipients, except for SQA recipients, will be re-assessed at least five years after winning the
Award, during the BE Awards cycle. The SQA recipients can apply for the SQA with Special
Commendation at least 5 years after winning the Award.

Award Assessment Process:

A team of BE Awards Assessors will evaluate each report, and conduct a pre-site visit
meeting as well as a site visit. Based on the review of the application and the results of the
site visit, appropriate recommendations of Award recipients will be made to the Governing
Council for approval. The decisions made by the Governing Council are final.
PROCESS:

Award secretariat receives

applications

Preliminary screening by
Secretariat

Assessment of applications by
individuals

Consensus review by team of

assessors

Assessment team conducts site

visit

Review by management
committee

Approval by governing council

Award presentation

Distribution of feedback report

Application Submission:

Organisations interested to participate in any of the BE Awards assessments in 2010 are

required to submit the following by 31 March:

 Application Form

 Organisational Chart
 Chart(s) to illustrate the relationship with the parent organisation and/ or other
subsidiaries where applicable

 Organisational Profile

 Application Report (5 sets for niche awards, 10 sets for SQA)

 Definition of Terms and Abbreviations used in the Application Report

Administration Fees:

There is no fee for the application. However, applicants that are shortlisted for site visits will
have to pay an administration fee for the site visits. This fee is $1,000 per site visit day. The
duration of the site visit will be determined when the visit is scheduled.

MALCOLM BALDRIGE NATIONAL QUALITY AWARD:

The U.S. Congress created the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in 1987 largely as
a counterpart to Japan's Deming Prize. The specific goal of the Baldrige Award is to heighten
U.S. awareness of TQM and to formally recognize successful quality management systems.
The award is named for the U.S. Secretary of Commerce from 1981 to 1987. Baldrige was
actually helping in drafting the creation of the award at the time of his death in a rodeo
accident.

The U.S. Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
administers the Baldrige Award. The NIST presents up to two awards each in three divisions:
manufacturing, service, and small business. The NIST gave its first awards in 1988.

The Baldrige Award judges results companies have shown through management practices in
seven specific areas. These are (1) leadership, (2) information and analysis, (3) strategic
planning, (4) human resource focus, (5) process management, (6) business results and
company performance, and (7) customer focus and satisfaction.

The Baldrige Award is open to any for-profit business in the United States. Like the Deming
Prize, the award may be won by a foreign-owned company, but unlike the Deming Prize only
those foreign-owned companies with more than 50 percent of their employees or physical
assets located in the United States are eligible. In addition to its more parochial focus, the
Baldrige differs from the Deming Prize in three significant ways. First, the Baldrige Award
emphasizes customer perceptions and the bottom line emphasizing clear-cut results through
its seven specific areas. This makes the Baldrige more objective-oriented than the more
systemic focus of the Deming Prize.

Second, while the NIST is an independent agency, the Baldrige relies on a wide array of
professional groups to decide on its winners, while from its inception the Deming Prize has
relied solely on the JUSE. The Baldrige is consequently able to draw on a wider range of
expertise among its judges than the Deming Prize, but may be more open to charges of
conflict of interest among the reviewers.

Finally, the Baldrige Award has a stated objective of sharing information while the Deming
Prize does not. Consequently, the Baldrige is more likely to make known to other companies
how the winners have achieved their success so that others may emulate them; the Deming
Prize is more proprietary, allowing winners more readily to keep company secrets if they
wish, thus widening the field of companies which may wish to participate but simultaneously
limiting the benefit to other companies and to the dissemination of TQM principles in
general.

The award is open to small (less than 500 employees) and large firms (more than 500
employees) in the manufacturing and service sectors. There can be only two winners per
category each year. That limits the number of yearly awards to six.The President of the
United States traditionally presents the Awards at a special ceremony in Washington, DC.
Awards are made annually to recognize U.S. organizations for performance excellence. The
Award eligibility categories are:

 manufacturing businesses

 service businesses

 small businesses

 education organizations

 health care organizations

Recipients are expected to share information about their successful performance strategies
with other U.S. organizations.
Key Characteristics of the MBNQA Criteria:

The criteria focus on business results. Companies must show outstanding results in a variety
of areas to win.The Baldrige criteria are nonprescriptive and adaptive. Although the focus on
the Baldrige award is on results, the means for obtaining these results are not prescribed.The
criteria support company-wide alignment of goals and processes.The criteria permit goal-
based diagnosis. The criteria and scoring guidelines provide assessment dimensions.

MBNQA Criteria:

The Criteria are designed to help organizations use an integrated approach to organizational
performance management that results in:

• delivery of ever-improving value to customers,

• contributing to marketplace success

• improvement of overall organizational effectiveness and capabilities

• organizational and personal learning

The Criteria are the basis for organizational self-assessments,for making Awards, and for
giving feedback to applicants. In addition, the Criteria have three important roles in
strengthening U.S. competitiveness:

 to help improve organizational performance practices, capabilities, and results

 to facilitate communication and sharing of best practices information among U.S.

organizations of all types

 to serve as a working tool for understanding and managing performance and for
guiding organizational planning and opportunities for learning
 BALDRIGE AWARD FRAME WORK

“CUSTOMER AND MARKET FOCUSED STRATEGY

AND ACTION PLANS”

STRATEGIC HR DEVELOP &

PLANNING MANAGEMENT

LEADERSHIP BUSINESS RESULTS

CUSTOMER & PROCESS

MARKET FOCUS MANAGEMENT

INFORMATION &
ANALYSIS
AWARD PROCESS:

RECEIVE APPLICATION LATE MAY

STAGE 1-INDEPENDENT REVIEW MID-JUNE

TO LATE JULY

JUDGES
SELECT FOR
FEED BACK
CONSENSUS
REPORT
REVIEW LATE
JULY

STAGE: 2CONSENUS REVIEW

(AUG-SEPT)

JUDGES
SELECT FOR FEED BACK
STE VISIT REPORT
(MID-SEP)

STAGE: 3 SITE VISIT REVIEW (SEP-

NOV)

JUDGES REVIEW &

FEED BACK
RECOMMEND AWARD
REPORT
RECIPIENTS (MID-NOV)
 FEED BACK AND REPORT

FIRST PHASE: The first phase of the Award cycle is to establish that the applicant meets
the eligibility requirements. Applicants submit an Eligibility Certification Package certifying
that the organization is eligible to apply for the Award.

SECOND PHASE: In the second phase, Board of Examiners to conduct a rigorous

evaluation of an organization's performance management system and the results of its
processes.

THIRD PHASE: The third phase of the Award cycle involves the review of the application
package. Applications are reviewed and evaluated by members of the Board of Examiners, all
of whom adhere to strict rules regarding conflict of interest. The review is conducted in three
stages:

Stage 1 - Independent Review

Stage 2 - Consensus Review
Stage 3 - Site Visit Review

Baldrige Examiner:

Appointment to the board of Trustees for the MBNQA Board of Examiners is a very
prestigious designation.Examiners are unpaid volunteers, and must be willing to give up
approximately 10% of their year to serve as an examiner.

JAPAN QUALITY AWARD:

The Japan Quality Award was established in 1995 by the Japan Productivity Centre for
Socio-Economic Development (JPC-SED). It was modelled after the self-assessment theory
of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (commonly known as the MB Award) in
the United States, and modified to accommodate Japanese management practices. The award
is presented to Japanese companies and other corporate entities displaying excellent overall
management qualities. These are companies that continue to create new values through the
continuous process of self-innovation to transform their overall management systems into
customer-oriented structures.

• The award is presented to Japanese companies and other corporate entities displaying
excellent overall management qualities. These are companies that continue to create new
values through the continuous process of self-innovation to transform their overall
management systems into customer-oriented structures.

• Since the inception of the award system, 120 corporate entities have applied over a period
of seven years, and 15 companies have received the award. The award winners are expected
to widely introduce their excellent management activities as “best practices” for a three-year
period after being awarded and lead the development of the industrial community in Japan.

• With the establishment of the award system, comprehensive approaches to management

improvement activities have become widespread within Japan’s industrial community. It also
provided the momentum for the creation of local award systems, and today it is being pursued
in ten regions, including Fukui, Niigata, Chiba, Mie, and Tochigi prefectures.

A new award system targeting local municipalities has been added to the JQA system in 2003
to develop quality management in the public sector as well.

• The Japan Quality Award Promotion Department is primarily in charge of revising and
updating assessment criteria and screening and granting the award. The JPC-SED has also
established the Japan Quality Award Council to systematically publicize the Japan Quality
Program. It is a membership organization currently composed of 373 members. Including the
members of the 18 local quality award councils, however, it boasts a membership of 1,200
nationwide organizations.

Canada Awards for Excellence:

Patron for the Awards:

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the
Governor General of Canada, is the Vice-Regal Patron of the Awards.

About the Awards Program:

The Canada Awards for Excellence (CAE) is an annual awards program to recognize
business excellence in quality, customer service, and workplace health. Since 1984, the
Awards have been presented to private and public sector organizations of all sizes that are
world class. This prestigious award is tangible evidence of an organization’s level of
excellence.
This award is based on the National Quality Institute’s Framework for Organizational
Excellence, which is used by numerous organizations as a management model for continuous
improvement and the achievement of significant operational results.

Awards Categories:

• Quality Award (Business and Public Sector)

• Healthy Workplace®

• Customer Service for Small Business

• Quality and Healthy Workplace® (Integrated)

• Order of Excellence

Selection Process:

Organizations do not compete against each other; instead, they are judged directly against the
criteria for excellence that constitute the NQI Framework. As a result, all organizations,
irrespective of size or sector, compete on an equal footing.

Applications for the award are evaluated by a Pre-Selection Committee composed of

professionals with a background in quality management principles and practices, and
workplace health issues. Organizations that pass an initial screening are visited by teams of
examiners to verify the information in the application. The Selection Jury Panel makes a final
determination of which organizations will receive recognition by being awarded the Gold
Trophy, or Silver and/or Bronze Certificates. The Selection Jury Panel members are respected
professionals with experience in the implementation of quality and healthy workplace
programs.

CAE recipients enjoy the unique opportunity to display organizational success to the world,
to recognize the efforts of employees, and to demonstrate to customers and suppliers that they
are world-class.

The NQI Progressive Excellence Program (NQI PEP®)

If an organization is in the NQI PEP® program, there is a direct link to the CAE Awards at
Levels 3 and 4. To receive the Gold Trophy, organizations must have fully met the NQI
excellence criteria for Level 4, with documented overall achievements and results. To receive
Silver and Bronze recognition, organizations must be at the equivalent of Level 3 in NQI
PEP®.

If you have achieved either of these levels within 24 months of the Awards ceremony, you
may be eligible to apply for CAE without a site visit.

CAE Verifiers:

NQI members are eligible to volunteer for verification teams for both NQI PEP® and CAE.
You must meet specific criteria to be on a team.

CONCULSION:

Essentially, the creation and provision of quality awards have provided

a significant contribution in the development of management and operations all over the
world. Not only does it appeal to the company’s competitive side, it also provides a venue for
organizations to actually have a chance to be assessed by entities external to their
organization. In the same way, companies could establish areas where they are lacking and
find ways to compensate and consequently develop. At any rate, the creation of such quality
awards reinforces the development of quality management in organizations throughout the
world.
CASE STUDIES:

CASE 1:

Sundaram-Clayton

Venu Srinivasan and the Deming Prize. Kudos for India.

The Chennai-based Sundaram-Clayton has won acclaim and international recognition for
setting global quality standards. From the swamp of unreliable quality that the traditional
India Incorporation was known for, Sundaram-Clayton has emerged the flag bearer of global
class. Despite its disdain for TQM, Sundaram-Clayton, the manufacturer of air-brake systems
and castings has emerged as Asia's -- first-ever winner of the Deming Prize for Overseas
Companies. Every rupee of its Rs 139.37 crore turnover now carries the mark of quality that
is world-class.

The Deming Prize is, quite simply, the last word in the world, on quality. The prize was
instituted 40 years ago by Japan to honour the man who gave quality to the world, W.
Edwards Deming. The Deming Prize Committee defines quality as "a system of activities to
ensure the quality of products and services, in which products and services of the quality
required by customers are produced and delivered economically."

Sundaram-Clayton's integrated Deming's 10 parameters into the 4 streams of its quality

practices, namely policies, people, processes, and products, respectively. Its TQM model
ensures Total Employee Involvement, Policy Deployment, Standardisation, Kaizen, and
Training, besides promoting employer - employee relations.

In short, everyone everywhere in the company is a custodian of quality.

Sundaram-Clayton, led by its CEO Venu Srinivasan, 45, has risen above the countrywide
levels for total quality, to be part of an exclusively small global elite, which have integrated
all the Deming's 10 parameters into their streams of quality practices. This small elite group
consists of only three other companies namely the $6.51-billion Florida Power & Light,
which won the Deming Prize in 1989; the $53.26-billion AT&T's Power Systems Division in
1994, and the $38.05-billion Philips' Taiwan unit.Even the great TQM corporations of the
world, like the $48.88-billion Honda, the $55.03-billion Sony, and the $190.84-billion
General Electric, do not belong to it.

On November 14, 1998, when Srinivasan received the coveted prize, he joined the ranks of
163 CEOs and managers who had received the award since it was instituted. What makes
Sundaram-Clayton's winning the Deming Prize for total quality (Company-Wide Quality
Control (or CWQC),)--an extraordinary feat is the fact that no global award for quality makes
more demands of both the body and the soul of the winning corporation, than this award.

Sundaram-Clayton's climb to the top of TQM started way back in 1979, when Venu
Srinivasan took over from his father, T.S. Srinivasan, as CEO after completing his MBA
from Purdue University (US) in 1977. The SWOT analysis he conducted, applying his B-
school learning, revealed to the company's horror, that a 90% market share was no insulation
against top-class competition. Concluding that short-term tactics or defensive strategies
would not deliver what a long-term transition to excellence could, Srinivasan set his company
off on quality street.

In quick succession, Sundaram-Clayton's managers were exposed to the quality practices of

global leaders, trained in modern manufacturing techniques, and taught about Total Quality
Control (TQC), first by Yoshio Kondo in a workshop at the National Institute For Quality &
Reliability in 1986. Srinivasan also set up a core taskforce to baptise Sundaram-Clayton in
the new religion of TQC. The results of Sundaram-Clayton's total quality movement are
reflected on the company's books. Its financial indicators in the 5 years between 1992-93 and
1997-98 tell a tale of top-level performances.

Being a vendor to the auto-makers, its top line, of course, is tied to those of its customers: the
Rs 2,048-crore Ashok Leyland and the Rs 7,450-crore Tata Engineering & Locomotives Co.
for air-brake systems, and the Rs 7,842-crore Maruti Udyog and Hyundai Motors India for
castings. Thus, sales grew at an average rate of 35 per cent per annum, between 1992-93 and
1996-97, although it shrank by 25 per cent in 1997-98, on account of the recession in the
automobile industry.

Likewise, the average growth in net profits in those 4 years was a stunning 83 per cent per
annum--a glowing tribute to quality-led cost management--although it fell back by 35 per
cent in 1997-98. But, internally, its performance improved consistently despite the recession,
with turnover per employee rising by an average of 18 per cent a year, and gross value added
climbing by an average of 12 per cent per annum.What Sundaram-Clayton's progress reveals
is the all-important alignment, of the quality imperatives of the company with the parameters
used by an assessment framework, such as the one applied for the Deming Prize.

Sundaram-Clayton's integrated Deming's 10 parameters into the 4 streams of its quality

practices, namely policies, people, processes, and products, respectively. Its TQM model
ensures Total Employee Involvement, Policy Deployment, Standardisation, Kaizen, and
Training, besides promoting employer - employee relations.

In short, everyone everywhere in the company is a custodian of quality.

At Sundaram-Clayton, the Quality Policy deployment spreads across the entire organisational
value-chain, including the HR team. This is especially crucial in the context of the Deming
Prize, which grades the performance of every department and function separately--including
the CEO himself.

CASE 2:

The Subordinate Courts of Singapore

A Journey of Excellence

The Judiciary of Singapore comprises of both the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts.
The Senior District Judge has overall responsibility of the administration of the Subordinate
Courts. The Subordinate Courts handle more than 95% of the Judiciary’s workload.3 As such
the Subordinate Courts are the public face of justice of Singapore.The 1990s marked the
watershed in the history of the Subordinate Courts as it embarked on the journey towards
judicial reforms. At the helm of such change was the then Chief Justice Yong Pung How, and
the Senior District Judge Richard Magnus of the Subordinate Courts. The paramount task
then, was to clear the backlog of cases and set in place a Court Charter6 with timelines for the
completion or disposal of cases. The step towards judicial reform7 was in tandem with
Singapore's then positioning itself as a commercial and IT hub in the Asia Pacific region. The
judiciary took a determined approach to modernise its justice system and maximise its
resources by enhancing its efficiency and productivity whilst preserving public trust and
confidence in the administration of justice. When Chef Justice Chan Sek Keong took over in
April 2006, he continued the judicial reforms of the 1990s to date.

The following is a discussion of the critical success factors of the reforms that took place
from the 1990s to date.

Visionary Leadership and Strategic Planning:

Leadership and strategic planning are of especial importance as these are the drivers and
determinants of initiatives, programmes, key performance requirements as well as how such
key performance requirements are integrated, deployed and tracked.The Subordinate Courts’
leadership9 provided the direction over the years , best summarised as follows:

� Its Vision : Primus Inter Pares10;

� Visible transformation of the Subordinate Courts from the 1990s;

� Formulation of the Nine Streams of Reforms to meet the change needs of the Subordinate
Courts;

� The encapsulation of the Justice Statement as a timeless reference;

� The provision of additional and new Roles for Judges, such as Judge-Manager, Judge-
Educator; Judge Mediator, Judge- Reformer for a more effective approach to the
administration of justice; Congruent with this approach is the employment of court
administrators of diverse disciplines;

� Strategic Use of Infocomm Technology to manage the processes;

� Inculcating Innovation as a culture that is consistent with the values;

� Engaging and strengthening the community involvement in aspects of the process;

� Strategic Partnership and networking to further enhance the quality of justice and
associated programmes.

In terms of strategic Planning, the Subordinate Courts took a short term and long term
approach. The short term approach is through its yearly workplans and the long term
approach is through scenario planning.13The short term planning is through the use of
workplans14 and this process engages a plan, review and monitor mechanism.
Use of Information:

To translate clearly the programmes and initiatives into clear measurable outcomes for
purpose of monitoring and review, the Subordinate Courts initiated the Justice Scorecard15
as a tool of performance measurement.

With the Justice Scorecard16 the Subordinate Courts can:

� Establish clearer linkages between vision, mission and actions

� Establish and maintain pro-active management

� Establish simple and concise measuring critical indicators

� Establish early warning alerts to areas which are likely to breach targets

In September 2000, the Subordinate Courts launched the eJustice Scorecard System. The
Justice Scorecard comprises four perspectives (Community, Internal Processes, Learning and
Growth and Financial). Each perspective contains a set of Key Performance Indicators, which
are relevant for both the Legal and Corporate Services Divisions. Divisional Heads are
responsible for monitoring these key performance indicators and to ensure that targets are
met, and follow up actions are taken to rectify any missed targets.

People – Human Capital

The Subordinate Courts recognises that maximising and developing human capital creates an
environment, not only responsive to changing stakeholders and court users’ trends, but also
cultivates a culture of learning, innovation and continual improvement. Thus, Subordinate
Courts established a People Developer Standard A pilot programme was conducated in 1998
in the small claims tribunals framework to encourage and enable continual learning. Such a
system identifies learning needs, maps learning and development needs, monitors and
implements learning plans and transfer learning.

There is also a focus on the following areas:

� Human Resource Planning – by attaining the Singapore’s quality standard on human
resource development by attaining the People’s Developer Standard in 1999 and being
recertified in 2002 and 2006;
� Employee Involvement and Commitment – by conducting regular surveys; Equal
Treatment Benchmark; Code of Ethics for court administrators.
� Employee Education, Training and Development – by redefining the roles of the Judges to
include that of Judge- Mediator, Judge Reformer, Judge- Educator and Judge- Manager; By
engaging court administrators of different disciplines to increase a culture of diversity and
constructive approaches; Cross- fertilization of talents with selected organizations; provision
of sponsorhships, scholarships and attachments
� Employee Health and Satisfaction – establishing workplace health programmes; attaining
national heath awards for such directions;
� Employee Performance and Recognition- programmes through staff welfare committee
and Judiciary Recreation committee; Court Administrator of the Year Award; nomination for
efficiency, public service awards; cross-sectional activities.

Processes:
The key process is Case Administration. Technology is used to enhance the quality of court
services through the collection of case information and e-filing. The initiatives are borne
through and innovation process whereby the sources of feedback are filtered through
mechanisms such as cross functional groups, task force and feasibility studies.
There then evolved initiatives aligned to the administration of justice, though
non-traditional.18 These included the following:
� Court Dispute Resolution started in 1994 : on a Voluntary, Consensual, basis
with not only a facilitative approach but also with Early Neutral Evaluation and
Court appointed Independent Expert;
� Mediation of Civil Disputes through e@DR19 ;

� Criminal Mediation for Relational Disputes20

� Family Relations Centre21

� Debt Recovery Plans @SCT22

� Maintenance Mediation Chambers

� Differentiated Case Management

� Night Courts

� Specialist Courts

� Traffic Court
� Centralised Sentencing Court

� Commercial Trial Courts

� Filter/Holding Court

� Community Court

� iCourt Lab – a Proof of Concept Lab where cutting edge technologies are to be
experimented for potential practical uses in the Courts.

� Electronic Filing for civil cases

� Atoms – Automated Traffic Offence Management system where offenders in regulatory

matters could ‘plead guilty’ at kiosks or through internet without having to attend court;

� Night Courts – introduced since 1992 for regulatory offences.

Court Users:

The Subordinate Courts views its users in terms of the public at large (defined as the general
public who benefit from and are protected by the Rule of Law) and direct users such as those
who attend the Subordinate Courts for a variety of reasons. Included are institutional users
which include lawyers and prosecutors who visit the Courts on a regular basis. Users’
requirements are identified through surveys/feedbacks, focus group discussions with industry
partners and statistical reporting. A systematic process of listening and information gathering
is put in place. The resultant effect of this is that the surveys show a consistent high public
trust and confidence. Initiatives implemented with such court users in mind include:

� Informative Website at www.subcourts.gov.sg

� Court Concierges28

� Registry Officers for Service Excellence (ROSE)

� Courts Charter29

� Service Pledge
Results:

The results are whether the quality of justice is kept and the preservation of public trust and
confidence.The results are through statistical reporting kept and monitored. Surveys are
conducted by the Subordinate Courts. There are also assessments through agencies such as
the World Bank, the Accenture Study on e-Government Leadership, Fraser Institute,
Economic Intelligence Unit, the International Monetary Fund, Hong Kong-Based Political &
Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) and Swiss-Based International Institute for
Management Development (IMD).The statistical reports, survey and research kept by
CReST.

Conclusion:

The reforms of the 1990s have paid dividends.

By 1999, the World Bank had accorded the Subordinate Courts a world class status and held
them out as a role model for successful judicial modernisation efforts to developing countries.
By 2006, besides attaining the Singapore Quality Award [SQA], the Subordinate Courts
garnered other national and international awards. Additionally, surveys done by the World
Bank, the Institute for Management Development, the Heritage Foundation and the Political
and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC), give high ratings to the Singapore judicial systems
and their correlation in creating a safe business environment for potential investors, which
have contributed to Singapore’s growth as a financial hub.The Subordinate Courts have
steadfastly maintained their quality of justice through all these years by continuously setting
higher benchmarks in the pursuit of more accessible and affordable justice for the people.
The attainment of the Singapore Quality Award is but the latest manifestation of the all round
excellence in the Subordinate Courts in all their endeavours.The Subordinate Courts in its
continual monitoring and review, remain true to its mission contained in the Justice Statement
of the Subordinate Courts, being to administer Justice.

The journey of and for Excellence has no destination. No organisation, let alone a

Judiciary can rest on a point of excellence. It is a continual journey underlined by

Persistence and Perseverance and Conscientiousness.

Continual improvement on its own, has it importance, but equally important, is the need to
review and re-examine the way we do things in relation to the changing environment around
us, and having the boldness and courage to change where relevant or necessary, with the
tenacity and determination in the implementation of ideas and plans. Justice is too precious a
value to be left to chance, especially when a Judiciary works in a world where its position and
performance are judged by public opinion and the support and goodwill of its constituent
communities. There is an expectation from the public and the general perception that the
Judiciary should be always on the highest pedestal, staying relevant and true even as there are
changes in all other factors. Change is inevitable, and Justice being too precious a value to be
left to chance, it is only proper and appropriate for a Judiciary to be transparent in its
administration of justice and to be benchmarked in its performance.

Excellence is a continual journey!

REFERENCES:

• Total Quality Management-Subburaj Ramasamy,Tata McGraw-Hill 2005 pp

(22.2 -22.4)

• www.deming.org

• www.jqac.com

• www.jpc-net.jp/eng/award/index.html

• http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Log-Mar/Management-
Awards.html
• http://www.efqm.org/
• http://www.quality.nist.gov/

• http://www.spring.gov.sg/QualityStandards/be/bea/Pages/singapore-quality-
award.aspx

• 'Total Quality Ltd', By R Sridharan, Business Today, 1999.

• http://www.themanagementor.com/kuniverse/kmailers_universe/hr_kmailers/Pe
rf_Venu.htm

• http://app.subcourts.gov.sg/Data/Files/File/Media/2006Oct17_BusinessTimes.pdf