Printer Friendly

Quality implementation in small business: perspectives from the Baldrige Award winners.


Over the last two decades, American business has lost worldwide market share in a number of major industries including automobiles, computers, electronics, and textiles. In an effort to improve the overall competitiveness of U.S. industries, Congress created the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award (MBQA) in 1987. Total quality has now become an expectation in contemporary business. However, the debate continues as to the real effectiveness of TQM (Total Quality Management) programs. Shin, et al (1998) argued that TQM programs fail due to an inefficient system for executing the quality principles. While there are recent studies examining TQM (Ernst & Young, 1993; Black & Porter, 1996; and Shiw, Kalinouski, & El-Enein, 1998), it becomes apparent that there is agreement on the building principles of total quality, but the actual implementation is the challenge.

Each year up to two MBQAs can be given to applicants in each of three categories: manufacturing, service, and small businesses. It is the small business category that provides the foundation for this article. Small business encompasses all sections of the economy - manufacturing, service, retail, and warehousing. It should be noted that the Small Business Administration reports that definitions of small business may vary from firms with fewer than 100 employees to those with fewer than 500. A more detailed employment breakdown also used is as follows: less than 20 employees, very small; 20-29, small; 100-499, medium sized; and more than 500, large. These size breaks are consistent with standard business employment, asset and receipt-size classes established on May 18, 1982, by the Office of Management and Budget for use by all federal agencies when publishing business data (Hodgetts & Kuratko, 1998).

Andreichuk (1992) examined the objective measure of quality in U.S. firms. He stated, "It's a common misconception that big firms with extensive human and financial resources can do a better job of educating and motivating their workers to make quality improvements. The truth is that smaller companies can be even more successful at soliciting employee support and involvement because there are fewer management layers to permeate and fewer people to convince of the benefits" (p.29). With this in mind, this article seeks to uncover the traditional as well innovative methods of quality improvement available to small businesses. Research was conducted from 1996 through the latter part of 1997 among the MBQA winners of recent years using on-site visits, telephone interviews, and secondary data, in order to gain insights into the techniques and processes of quality management for small firms.

Background on the Baldrige Award

The core values and concepts of quality are grouped into seven categories that constitute the heart of the Baldrige application. The framework connecting these categories is presented in Figure 1. As the figure shows, the framework has four basic elements; the driver, otherwise known as senior executive leadership, which creates the goals, systems, and values that guide the organization's pursuit of quality and performance objectives; the system, which consists of processes for meeting quality and performance requirements; the goal, which is the delivery of ever-greater value to customers; and the measures of progress, which are quantifiable results that lead to improvement customer value and company performance.

The Baldrige examiners and judges evaluate companies' performance in the seven categories using a checklist of 28 items. In recent years, the number of points allocated to each of the categories has changed; less emphasis is now given to leadership, while more goes to quality and operations results. Here is a 10-year comparison of how the 1,000 points have been awarded. Research reveals that the key to winning is to provide a detailed, well-written application of what quality improvements have been achieved as well as convincing documentation for those achievements. Companies are not required to use any specific quality-improvement techniques. The Baldrige criteria govern where and in what ways companies must demonstrate quality proficiency, but how they accomplish this is up to them. Many winners have used unique approaches to improving quality.
Category 1988 1997

Leadership 150 90
Information and analysis 75 80
Strategic quality planning 75 60
Human resource utilization 150 150
Quality assurance of products
and services 150 140
Quality and operation results 100 180
Customer satisfaction 300 300
Total 1,000 1,000

Many Baldrige winners have found that the first time they applied for the award they did not win but they did receive important feedback on how to improve. This paper examines some of the important lessons that companies should keep in mind when addressing quality improvement.

Of the 32 Baldrige Award Winners since 1988, eight were small businesses, although they did not all apply as small businesses. Some opted for one of the other alternatives such as manufacturing (as was the case for Selectron and Zytec). The following provides a brief description of the five small businesses that participated in this study.

Globe Metallurgical (1988 small business winner), headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, with 450 employees, is a low-cost, high-quality producer of ferro-alloys and silicon metal. The company is well known for its computer-controlled systems and total quality management techniques that have helped it drive down cost and drive up service.

Wallace Company (1990 small business winner), headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a family-owned distribution company serving the chemical and petrochemical industries. It has 280 associates with annual sales totaling $79 million. The firm distributes pipes, valves, and fittings, as well as value-added specialty products, such as actuated valves and plastic-lined pipe. (During 1992 Wallace was acquired by B. F. Shaw, a large fabricator in Louisiana.)

Marlow Industries (1991 small business winner), started in 1973 as a five-person operation headquartered in Dallas. The company processes raw materials into thermoelectric semiconductors, assembles semiconductor devices into thermoelectric coolers, and integrates the coolers into heat exchangers for commercial and defense applications. It employs 160 people and has total annual sales of $12 million.

Solectron (1991 and 1997 manufacturer winner), San Jose, California, specializes in the assembly of complex circuit boards and subsystems for the makers of computers and other electronic products. They also provide subsystems for the makers of computers and other electronic products. They also provide system-level assembly services, such as assembly of personal computers and mainframe mass storage systems, as well as turnkey materials management, board design, and manufacturability consultation and testing. It now has 21 manufacturing facilities worldwide with 22,000 associates and expected sales of $89 billion in 1998.

Zytec Corporation (1991 manufacturing winner), Redwood Falls, Minnesota, began as a small employee-owned company that designs and manufactures electronic power supplies and repairs power supplies and CRT monitors. Today, it has expanded to 748 employees with over $50 million in sales.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this article is to report on the findings from winners of the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award in regard to the following areas:

* Traditional as well as innovative methods of quality improvement.

* Important lessons that companies should keep in mind when addressing quality.

* Insights into the factors needed for quality improvement and implementation.

* Suggests for creative quality implementation efforts.

Through the use of interviews, on-site visits, and secondary information, the techniques and processes used for quality management in these firms can be shared with managers of other small but growing firms.

Key Areas for Quality Implementation

To learn the key areas of quality effort that the Baldrige judges recognize, all of the small firms who received the Baldrige Award were initially considered. The five firms chosen were enthusiastic about sharing all of their quality techniques and efforts and therefore were selected for analysis. The results of these analyses was five key areas that are universal among Baldrige winners and are critical to the success of firms trying to become best in their class. These include top management support, focus on customer needs, training employees, empowering employees, and generating new ideas.

* Top Management Involvement

Among the small firms that have won the Baldrige, top management is actively involved in the total quality effort. In some cases, this has been more a result of operational necessity than of formal planning. Globe Metallurgical is a good example. In an effort to learn more about how to increase efficiency, the company president, Arden Sims, attended a week-long quality seminar, his first exposure to the TQM concepts. Now aware of the benefits that these ideas could provide to a small steel firm that was fighting for its life, Sims began to implement total quality throughout the company. Another example of top management involvement came as a result of unsuccessful negotiations with the union to reduce the overstaffed 380-person workforce. A strike ensued and managers were forced to work on the factory floor.

The company managers worked the furnaces, analyzed materials, and shipped the product. They did this for well over a year and learned firsthand what was required to do each job. They learned how many people and what traits and abilities each job demanded. From these lessons the managers were able to put together a nonunion labor force without supervisors and time clocks. The plant ran successfully with about 140 people (Axland, 1992).

Informal meetings of the personnel generated a host of ideas about how to streamline the production process. In one case, Globe had workers who would break up the metal after it had set in cooling molds. The metal would then be transferred to a storage area. Some of the managers who were doing this job suggested a change: Instead of first breaking up the metal, why not simply drop the metal into the trucks that would be hauling it away? The new approach worked, and the company was able to save more than $300,000 annually as a result. "Globe's trying journey to quality improvement taught management to focus on the process, reduce variation around the process, understand customers' needs, and do what is required to meet those needs" (Axland, 1992).

Each of the small firms in this study went about planning for total quality by first determining the objective and then formulating a plan of action. In the case of Zytec, for example, the firm set four specific objectives: (1) improve the quality of products and processes to become a six sigma company (3.5 million defects per unit) by 1995; (2) reduce total cycle time; (3) improve service to the customer; and (4) use TQM criteria to improve overall operations.

* Focus on Customer Needs

Andreichuk (1992) reports that in order for a quality process to work, a complete customer focus is needed. If a company waits for complaints before initiating improvements, it has waited too long. In addition, customers must believe that management is serious about responding to their needs, requests, suggestions, etc. Hendricks (1992) states that being customer-driven is the heart of TQM.

Small business Baldrige winners focus on customers needs in a number of ways. The two most common are through data gathering and data analysis. Data gathering includes surveys, telephone interviews, and face-to-face meetings. The most common of these is a company-initiated survey.

When problems are detected, procedures are developed for analyzing and resolving them. At Solectron, for example, this process includes (1) entering the problem in a log book; (2) acknowledging to the customer that corrective action will be taken; and (3) implementing the step necessary to resolve the situation and satisfy the customer. The latter entails a wide number of actions including (1) commitment on the part of the employee to getting the matter resolved, (2) empowerment of this person so the individual can take the actions that are judged necessary, and (3) development of the most effective steps for judiciously resolving the issue.

* Training Employees

Niehoff and Whitney-Bammerlis (1995) argued for a comprehensive and integrated approach to training all employees on TQM concepts. The training programs that Baldrige firms use share a number of characteristics including (1) strong commitment and involvement by top management, (2) training that is practical and closely linked to the company's objectives and major programs, so that trainees can quickly apply much of what they learn back on the job, and (3) a consistent training message communicated to all levels and functions, so that everyone is working in consonance.

At Solectron, all employees receive a minimum amount of training each year. In 1991 this was 85 hours but it has been increasing every year, growing to 160 hours in 1995. Training is wide in scope, including quality tools (such as Pareto analysis, fishbone diagrams, and control charts),(1) computer systems, cross-functional education, and general quality training, as well as operations-focused courses and English as a second language. The course selection, driven by the strategic planning process, is part of a broad-based curriculum created by Solectron University and strongly endorsed by senior management. (The training effort is headed by a vice president.)

In most cases, statistical process control (SPC) training begins by first teaching the method to employees and then giving them the opportunity to apply it in the workplace. This is followed by a discussion of the results and the providing of assistance and advice in dealing with any problems or issues that arise when using the technique. Additionally, if the company is providing a course or series of programs on SPC tools, the early sessions address simple applications while the later ones cover more sophisticated tools and techniques. At Zytec, for example, the first six sessions introduce basic tools such as data collection, sampling theory, graphing, Pareto analysis, and cause-and-effect analysis. The other six sessions cover topics such as scatter diagrams, frequency distributions, variable control charts, attribute control charts, process capability studies, and how to pick and choose the right technique for handling a particular job-related problem. While the technical training receives a great deal of time, the "tool box" concept is perhaps even more critical. This session is designed to help participants systematically choose the best problem-solving tools for the matter under study.

Another key tool box concept is to identify the problem-solving tools that are most likely to answer critical questions. The following table is provided by Zytec Corporation.


Whatever the quality techniques, a small firm must keep in mind the cost of training. Andreichuk (1992) warns against training everyone all at once. He recommends that a key steering committee be set up so those representatives can attend seminars or courses and bring the lessons back to the company. There are books and videos available that most companies can afford and put to good use. Cm-Made Corp., a paper packaging firm in Cincinnati, Ohio, sent their key managers to night courses at the University of Cincinnati for the cost of a few hundred dollars per person (Hendricks, 1992).

* Empower Employees

Shin, et al (1998) emphasized the importance of creating a culture conducive to and supportive of TQM implementation; one visible part of that environment is a sense of empowerment by employees. Empowerment is the authority to personally take control and make decisions. Baldrige firms invest a great deal of time and effort teaching and encouraging their employees to become more personally involved and to use their empowered authority to get things done. Solectron, for example, gives its line workers the authority to stop the production line any time they feel it is necessary. Customer service employees at the firm have full authority to return or replace products without needing an okay from their boss. Meanwhile, engineers and sales representatives are trained to deal effectively with customers and to make whatever decisions are needed to meet the needs of these buyers.

Zytec's approach to empowerment is similar to many larger firms in that the company places primary focus on (1) getting employees involved in the process, (2) communicating management's goals so that employees understand the focal points, (3) providing employees with training in how to analyze and solve problems, and (4) giving employees the resources they need to get the job done properly.

At the same time, Zytec's empowerment plan has distinctive elements: the implemented improvement system (IIS), and Japanese-style suggestion system that places major emphasis on employment involvement with the goal of generating new ideas for increased productivity. There are three stages to IIS. During the first stage, the organization encourages employees to examine their jobs and work areas, think of ways of improving them, and make small improvements. In the next stage, the organization develops and educates employees so they are better equipped to analyze problems, device ideal solutions, and undertake more ambitious improvements. In the third stage, the organization encourages employees to pursue major improvements so that significant financial benefits can be realized.

* Generate New Ideas

Closely linked with the concept of empowerment is the goal of generating new ideas. In addition to giving employees the authority to make decisions, Baldrige winners encourage their people to think up new ways of doing things and to submit these ideas for review and implementation. At Zytec, when an employee wants to submit an idea, he or she fills out the top of an IIS form clearly explaining how the proposal will be implemented and presenting, if possible, a cost estimate for any projects that will involve a considerable expenditure. The individual gets the approval of a manager, then implements the idea. When the implementation is completed, the employee fills out the remainder of the IIS form, indicating the date of implementation and summarizing the results of the idea. When this is done, the manager signs the form, confirming that the idea has been implemented.

Zytec combines its IIS program with a recognition system to reinforce new ideas and improvements. This system works this way:

1. For each idea an employee submits, he or she receives a $1 token cash award plus a lottery ticket, which is presented at his or her workstation.

2. The work group with the highest percentage of employee participation (typically everyone in the group has submitted at least one idea) gets to display a trophy for a month, after which it is presented to another group.

3. Each month the names of all employees participating in the program are put in a hat, and one name is drawn for a day off with pay.

4. The winner of the day off chooses a support or staff person to take over his or her job for one day.

5. Each month the program administrator asks for a volunteer from each work group to serve on the board that reviews all ideas submitted that month, choosing the top three. The employees who submitted the top three ideas are given $100, $75, and $50, respectively.

6. Each month the program administrator takes pictures of the three winners and places them on the bulletin boards.

7. A copy of the review board's minutes is published in the company newsletter each month.

In addition, the monthly newsletter includes explanations of each winning idea, in an effort to trigger more ideas from employees, and provides information on two important ways that employees reward one another: with a "warm fuzzy," a bead or certificate that serves as a personal thank you; and a "zystroke," a sign of appreciation for going above and beyond the call of duty.

Suggestions for Creative Quality Implementation Efforts

It is imperative that small firms develop newer methods for quality implementation. As idea generation is critical for a company's revitalization, so too are creative quality efforts for overall quality implementation.

Axland (1992) reports on a number of innovative quality efforts of other small firms that are not necessarily Baldrige Award Winners but have made great strides in their quality efforts. Trident, a manufacturer of precision sheet metal components and electromechanical assemblies with 110 employees, was using traditional manager-led departments and management performance appraisal methods. However, now the company has implemented a new process in which each

employee evaluates his or her own performance. The employee's self-appraisal is then passed on to his or her manager for evaluation. Trident earned the Baldrige Award in the Small Business category in 1996.

Lerd Corporation in Dayton, Ohio, dismantled its manufacturing process and divided its nonunion work force into unsupervised, self-directed work teams. This manufacturer of aerospace isolation mounting systems for fixed-wing aircraft created five teams, each of which is responsible for a group of parts. Every six months the team selects a new team leader to facilitate decision making and problem solving. Each team's responsibilities range from setting up work schedules and requisitioning stock to interviewing and selecting new team members and evaluating each team member's job performance.

To better understand processes on the shop floor, the leaders of Tate Access Floors in Jessup, Maryland, began to participate in the hands-on production experience (HOPE) program. Once every two months, each participant, including the president, spends at least a half-day working with one department manufacturing access floors. Even the president doesn't get to pick his task for the day. He is assigned to do whatever needs to get done, from floor sweeping to problem solving. Tate, which employs about 250 people, is currently examining the possibility of extending the HOPE program to suppliers so they can spend a day on the shop floor to see how their products are being used by Tate employees.

Louis Dreyfus Distribution Center (LDDC), a refrigerated storage and distribution warehouse in Newark, Delaware, employs 30 people. LDDC studies and resolves problems by videotaping processes. LDDC has made about 18 videotapes, some used for process improvement and others to give to customers. When a customer expresses concern about the condition of products it received, LDDC videotapes how it handles products when they arrive at LDDC. This has helped satisfy customer concerns and has encouraged employees to help solve problems.

* Recognize Employees

Recognition takes a number of different forms including financial rewards, days off, vacation trips, choice parking spots (typically for a week or a month), pictures placed on the "Employee of the Month" wall, and names added to a plaque of distinguished employees. Plaques are often displayed prominently in one area of the building and are typically referred to as walls (or halls) of fame. Each of the companies in this research had its own recognition system, although a handful of characteristics typify all of these efforts: (1) recognition is always positive and is given to those actions that have resulted in success; (2) recognition is given openly and tends to be publicized throughout the company or division; (3) recognition is carefully tailored to the needs of the people, so that everyone is motivated to pursue the reward; (4) rewards are given soon after they have been earned; and (5) the relationship between the achievement and the reward is clearly understood by personnel.

At Marlow Industries, in addition to the company's Hall of Fame, other awards include service awards, perfect attendance awards, good housekeeping awards, team recognition awards, individual team bonuses, and profit sharing. At Solectron, there are a series of awards including the chairman/CEO award, which is given for performance, innovation, and invention; and the president's award, which is given for outstanding quality and customer partnership.

* Conquering Fear

While this characteristic is never directly reported in the Baldrige data, it nevertheless remains an indirect element for successful quality programs. People fear change, expression of opinions (especially negative ones), taking the initiative on projects, making decisions, and failing. Mostly this fear arises from the perceived outcomes that face the employee.

The Wallace Co. is a prime example of this characteristic since it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after winning the Baldrige Award. The demands of winning caused everyone in the company to fear changing anything. Financial difficulties were encountered, and even though cutbacks and layoffs were needed management failed to make the tough decisions since TQM usually means retraining the workforce.

However, it was the quality improvement process originally begun in 1985 that brought the Wallace Co. through its most difficult time. Because people had been involved in meetings, discussions, and quality efforts, there was a willingness to speak out, admit mistakes, and reorganize. In 1992, B.F. Shaw, a large fabricator in Louisiana, purchased Wallace, yet because of its quality efforts Wallace will retain its own identity as it pulls out of Chapter 11. (Axland, 1992).

Thus, the quality processes implemented by a Baldrige winner could not guarantee its financial success; however, it did conquer the fear factor and pave the way to reorganize for survival.

* The Continuous Improvement Challenge

All firms in this study shared a common desire for continuous improvement. A variety of continuous improvement tools are used by MBQA winners. Two of the most popular are benchmarking and six sigma. In some instances these two are used in tandem, although this is not a requirement for their application. Benchmarking is the process of comparing a company's current performance with that or organizations judged to be "be in the class." A wide number of sources are used in benchmarking from well-run, internal operations to those of competitors and other outsiders who have processes that can be directly copied or modified.

Baldrige winners approach TQM differently, but they all share a common desire: continuous improvement. By waging an ongoing, incremental battle to do things better and better, they help ensure that they remain on the cutting edge in providing competitive goods and services. The tools and techniques we've discussed in previous chapters are major weapons in this battle. For example, statistical process control (SPC) tools, as well as brainstorming, employee feedback, supplier feedback, and customer surveys, all measure current operating performance and help identify where corrective action is needed. The information obtained from these sources helps companies correct problems and set higher TQM targets.

The continuous improvement process is typical viewed as incremental and additive, rather than explosive and earth shattering. It is characterized more by "rapid inching" than by dramatic, revolutionary progress. Baldrige winners would rather move a foot each day than remain where they are for an indefinite period of time while waiting to make a giant leap forward. A close look at the nature of the continuous improvement process helps explain the logic behind it.

Continuous improvement relies on two developments: consistent, incremental gains and occasional innovation. While the latter is helpful, companies give it less emphasis because it is unpredictable and nonincremental.

Baldrige winners to to great lengths to help employees distinguish between continuous improvement and innovation, then concentrate most heavily on the former. In its training program, for example, Zytec stresses the fact that innovation can move a company from one level of quality to another, but constant improvement helps the firm improve further while waiting for an innovative leap forward. Thus, while innovation is a critical part of TQM at Zytec, constant improvement is viewed as a more critical factor in the overall picture. Table 2 compares these two processes and helps illustrate why so much time and attention is given to the constant improvement.

Benefits and Characteristics

Baldrige winners report a number of benefits from their emphasis on incremental improvements, including (1) increased quality of output, (2) greater competitiveness, (3) higher profitability, (4) a lower operating breakeven point, (5) the opportunity to use a participative management approach that allows employees to play a role in decision making, and (6) a way of learning from past experience and using this information to set realistic, attainable goals.

To achieve these objectives, companies have two routes: they can lead from strength by doing what they do best, or they can work to correct mistakes and deficiencies, or both. Baldrige winners rely on both of these approaches, although they focus on the first, identifying processes or systems at which they are most successful and working to improve them further. In a manner of speaking, they follow the "attack yourself" rule by aiming to get better and better. In the process, they become or remain quality leaders.

Some of the elements of constant improvement that are critical to TQM include the following: everyone in the organization - from senior-level executives to operating personnel must be involved in the effort; the company must understand that it often takes three to five [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 2 OMITTED] years for these efforts to bear fruit, and must avoid the tendency to seek short-run results; and the company must incorporate all aspects of TQM - including productivity, product/service quality, customer service, continued growth, and constancy of purpose - into its continuous improvement effort.

Each Baldrige winner has developed its own continuous improvement process, often by modifying standard tools to meet the specific needs of departments or work units. In some cases, the process is taught during the company's training program; in other cases, employees create their own continuous improvement steps to meet the unique demands of their situations. In either event, the companies all encourages employees to ask the right questions and use the right tool box techniques. For example, Zytec employees use the following list of questions, called the "Five Ws" and "One H" approach, when analyzing a situation. (See Table 3)


Small businesses implementing high-performing quality efforts (Baldrige Award Winners) are able to achieve their objectives and outpace the competition because they have created the right conditions for their success. In doing so, their initial focus is not just on measuring operating results such as error rates, cycle time, or inventory control, but also on careful consideration of the environment in which they are operating and identification of the changes that will have to be made if they are to succeed in the future. Here are some concluding recommendations for managers of small firms seeking to raise quality to higher levels.

1. Look for ways to innovate the current work processes and procedures. The largest increases in quality and productivity are often the result of significantly innovative approaches. This does not mean that organizations abandon their interest in incremental improvements but rather that they complement this idea of "thinking small" with a willingness to "think big." This idea is becoming particularly popular in Japan, where many world-class organizations are coming to believe that incremental improvements alone are not sufficient to allow them to maintain their world-class status.

2. Develop an effective benchmarking and continuous improvement system that relies on New-Age thinking. In both innovating and achieving incremental improvements, benchmarking is particularly important because it provides the basis for doing things differently and often provides the organization with an opportunity to think outside the box. Meanwhile, continuous improvement helps enterprises squeeze more profit and productivity out of their current processes and procedures. Yet both these approaches will prove fruitless if management does not continually review its thinking and ensure that its view of quality and productivity is based on facts and not merely on intuition and anecdotal information.
Table 3. "Five Ws" and One H" (used by Zytec)

1. Who: Who does it? Who is doing it? Who should be doing it?
 Who else can do it? Who else should do it? Who is
 putting together the checklist detailing everything
 that needs to be done?

2. What: What to do? What is being done? What else should be
 done? What else can be done? What checklist are being
 Where else should it be done? Where are checklist
 being done?

3. Where: What to do it? Where is it done? Where should be it be
 done? Where else can it be done?

4. When: When to do it? When is it done? When should it be
 done? What other time can it be done? What other time
 should it be done? Is there any time checklist?

5. Why: Why does he or she have to do it? Why do it? Why do it
 there? Why do it then? Why do it that way?

6. How: How to do it? How is it done? How should it be done?
 Can this method be used in other areas? Is there any
 other way to do it? Are there any checklists in the

Baldrige winners have an overall philosophy and strategy that encompasses all areas of product and service delivery. They do not emphasize one area to the exclusion of others. Additionally, all employees are involved in the effort and understand what is expected of them. As a result, each Baldrige winner is a unified organization.

1 Explanatory note: A Pareto analysis is a special form of vertical bar charts that helps identify problems in the order they are to be solved. A fishbone diagram helps explain the causes of problems and their solutions. Controls charts are used to identify when performance is outside of acceptable ranges and action now needs to be taken.


Adreichuk, B. (1992, March). Getting objective about quality. Small Business Reports, 2838.

Axland, S. (1992, November). Small wonders. Quality Progress, 29-34.

Bauer, R., Collar, E., & Tang, V. (1992). The Silverlake Project. NY: Oxford University Press.

Cannie, J.K., & Caplin, D. (1991). Keeping customers for life. NY: American Management Association.

Davenport, T.H. (1993). Process innovation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hendrick, M. (1992, December). Quality makes a difference. Small Business Reports, 2938.

Hodgetts, R. (1990). Quality or else. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hodgetts, R. (1993). Blueprints for continuous improvement. NY: American Management Association.

Hodgetts, R.M. (1998). Measures of high quality performance. NY: Amacom.

Juran, J.M. (1989). Juran on leadership for quality. NY: Free Press.

Knouse, S.B. (1995, Winter). Variations on skill-based pay for Total Quality Management. SAM Advanced Management Journal. 60(1), 34-45.

Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R.M., & Lee, S. (1993, Fall). New paradigm organizations: From total quality to learning to world-class. Organizational Dynamics.

Luthans, F., Lee, S., & Hogetts, R.M. (1992, Spring). Total Quality Management in Central/Eastern European firms. Organizational Dynamics.

Meyer, C. (1993). Fast cycle time. NY: Free Press.

Niehoff, B.P., & Whitney-Bammerlin, D.L. (1995, Winter). Don't let your training process derail your journey to Total Quality Management. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 60(1), 39-48.

Perry, L.T., Stott, R.B., & Smallwood, W.N. (1993). Real-time strategy. NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Schmidt, W.H., & Finnigan, J.P. (1993). The race without a finish line. NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Schonberger, R.J. (1982). Japanese manufacturing techniques. NY: Free Press.

Schonberger, R.J. (1990). Building a chain of customers. NY: Free Press.

Shin, D., Kalinowski, J.G., & El-Enein, G.A. (1998, Winter). Critical implementation issues in Total Quality Management. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 63(1), 10-14.

Dr. Hodgetts, Professor of Strategic Management, focuses his research on the strategic issues of quality, global challenges in contemporary firms, and strategic concerns of smaller ventures. Dr. Kuratko, Professor of Business and founding director of the Entrepreneurship Program at Ball State, concentrates his research in the areas of entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship, and small business. Dr. Hornsby, Professor of Management and Director of Ball State's Human Resource Management Program, conducts research on corporate entrepreneurship and human resource management issues in small business.
COPYRIGHT 1999 Society for the Advancement of Management
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1999 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award
Author:Hodgetts, Richard M.; Kuratko, Donald F.; Hornsby, Jeffrey S.
Publication:SAM Advanced Management Journal
Date:Jan 1, 1999
Previous Article:Casual dress at work.
Next Article:Economic value added (EVA): its uses and limitations.

Related Articles
The age of transformation.
The Baldrige Award: a quest for excellence?
Baldrige examiners needed for year 2000.
Quality and Performance.
Baldrige winners are announced. (Front and Center).
Living up to the Baldrige. (Tale of Two Presidential Awards).

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters