INTERNATIONAL QUALITY AWARDSThe secret of joy in work is contained in one word-excellence.To know how to do something well is to enjoy it-Pearl S.BuckIntroduction: 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 enterprisesThe 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

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 SPRINGs 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:

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 learningBALDRIGE AWARD FRAME WORK CUSTOMER AND MARKET FOCUSED STRATEGY

AND ACTION PLANS

AWARD PROCESS:

FEED BACK AND REPORTFIRST 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 ReviewStage 2 - Consensus ReviewStage 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 Japans 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 Michalle 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 organizations level of excellence.

This award is based on the National Quality Institutes 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 companys 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-ClaytonVenu 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 ExcellenceThe 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 Judiciarys 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 targetsIn 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 Singapores quality standard on human resource development by attaining the Peoples 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 Singapores 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/Perf_Venu.htm http://app.subcourts.gov.sg/Data/Files/File/Media/2006Oct17_BusinessTimes.pdfRECEIVE APPLICATION LATE MAY

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

Award secretariat receives applications

STAGE 1-INDEPENDENT REVIEW MID-JUNE TO LATE JULY

JUDGES SELECT FOR CONSENSUS REVIEW LATE JULY

STAGE: 2CONSENUS REVIEW (AUG-SEPT)

JUDGES SELECT FOR STE VISIT (MID-SEP)

FEED BACK REPORT

FEED BACK REPORT

STAGE: 3 SITE VISIT REVIEW (SEP-NOV)

JUDGES REVIEW & RECOMMEND AWARD RECIPIENTS (MID-NOV)

FEED BACK REPORT

STRATEGIC PLANNING

LEADERSHIP

HR DEVELOP & MANAGEMENT

BUSINESS RESULTS

CUSTOMER & MARKET FOCUS

PROCESS MANAGEMENT

INFORMATION & ANALYSIS

LEADERSHIP 100 POINTS(10%)

PEOPLE MANAGEMENT 90 POINTS(9%)

STRATEGY & PLANNING 80 POINTS(8%)

RESOURCES

90 POINTS(9%)

QUALITY SYSTEM & PROCESSES 140 POINTS(14%)

PEOPLE SATISFACTION 90 POINTS(9%)

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 200 POINTS (20%)

INSPECTION SOCIETY 60 POINTS(6%)

BUSINESS RESULTS 150 POINTS(15%)