Analysis of the Relationship between Total Quality Management

and EFQM Business Excellence Model and An Implementation in

TurkeyAssoc.Prof.Dr. Ozkan Tutuncu, Dokuz Eylul University, Institute of Social Sciences, Department of Total Quality ManagementAsist.Prof.Dr. Ozlem Dogan, Dokuz Eylul University, Institute of Social Sciences, Department of Total Quality Management

Abstract

Quality awards are important in terms of encouraging successful quality implementations, disseminating the result of such

implementations to society, making quality culture wide spread, creating a basis for comparison of quality implementations

and directing the quality implementor to continuous improvement. These types of awards are granted after evaluations based

on specific models. Quality implementations in different cultures are not only effected by local values but also they depend

mainly on common values of international quality culture. Many countries have designed various models and awards in order

to evaluate their own quality implementations. However, most of these models are created by inspiring from one of the main

award models such as EFQM Excellence Model. Such is the case of Turkish National Quality Award. The main purpose of

the study is to define the similarities and differences between the respective excellence models applied in Europe and Turkey.

It seems that the excellence model applied in Turkey, which, in fact, is derived from the European Excellence Model, needs

more elaboration so as to fit in the Turkish organizational culture in a better way. The reason for this is the fact that the

EFQM Excellence Award is mainly based on the specific organizational traits of the European organizations. Another point

concerning the relevance of European Excellence Model, is the fact that in case of public institutions, more modifications

might be required in order to adapt the model to the Turkish organizational environment, in line with the specific

requirements circumstances of Turkish public institutions. Thus, outcomes of the study suggest that it is necessary to develop

a sui generis excellence model in accordance with Turkey’s specific conditions, with particular respect to public institutions.

Keywords: Total Quality Management, EFQM Award, Business Excellence Model, Public Sector, Private Sector, Turkey

Introduction

TQM is a philosophy of quality management, the earliest conceptions of which were derived from Deming's

doctrinations to the Japanese in the 1950s and 1960s (Holness, 2001). Based on TQM, the quality of Japanese

products has been regarded as being superior to that of the rest of the world. Therefore, in the early 1980s, the

USA utilised TQM concepts as tools to compete with Japan. Subsequently, Europe also recognized the need for

a keener focus on quality, and in the 1990s, TQM concepts spread to Europe (Sanghera, 1999). However,

making the step towards TQM was much more difficult as there was widespread confusion about the elements of

TQM and how they could be implemented. This was because TQM was a rather abstract philosophy and did not

have clear guidelines on its implementation (Mann and Voss, 2000). The problem became easier to solve as

TQM elements were more clearly understood through the development and the worldwide acceptance of quality

award models.

1

The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA, 1997) was installed by law in the USA in 1987 and

after that there has been a growth in interest throughout the world in the subject of quality management self-

assessment and awards. Many writers, including Cali (1993), De Carlo and Sterrett (1990), and Garvin (1988)

have described the details and background of the MBNQA.

In Europe, this interest in self-assessment was heightened with the introduction of the European Quality Award

(EQA), the quality award model most widely used in Europe developed by the European Foundation for Quality

Management (EFQM), in 1991, with the first winner in 1992. The EFQM was formed in 1988 by 14 leading

European businesses, and it encourages European businesses to improve competitiveness through the use of

TQM philosophy. Further details of the EQA are given by Conti (1993), Hakes (1994), and Nakhai and Neves

(1994).

The EFQM has provided a holistic model (termed "business excellence" or the "excellence model") to facilitate

such a purpose. The model and the associated self-assessment process have given new direction to the quality

movement and have driven deep and lasting changes into participating organizations (Dale et al., 2000).

As of the end of 1998, EFQM had 785 fully-fledged members and it is evident that more and more companies

are using the business excellence model as the means of assessing corporate excellence (Azhashemi and Ho,

1999). The EFQM's Quality Award Model continues to be successful and is used by some 10,000 organizations

across Europe. A list of the most respected companies in Europe, published by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the

Financial Times in November 1998, showed that seven of the top ten were EFQM members (Sanghera, 1999).

Quality award studies were started in Turkey in 1998 by KALDER. The criterion for quality award in Turkey is

the same as the “Business Excellence Model” of EFQM. There is only one difference that public and private

sector apply for the same award together in regional assessment. The objective of this study is to measure how

the Business Excellence Model in Turkey is perceived by the public and private sector that this model is applied

to and to determine the relation of these perceptions with regard to total quality management.

Total Quality Management and EFQM Business Excellence Model

The EFQM model was largely based on the concept of total quality management (TQM) as both a holistic

philosophy and an improvement on other TQM-based models, such as the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality

Award (MBNQA). The application of TQM in Europe was not as successful as it had been in Japan. It is

unexpected that TQM in Europe was reported to be bureaucratic, while the original intention of TQM was

supposed to be flexible. A large study of 600 companies in 20 countries suggested that the application of

management approaches in different countries is affected by the socio-economic context of the countries

(Blackmon et al., 1998), whereby the same method may be successful in one country but not in another. Another

big survey of 500 companies (Ahire et al., 1995) found that less than one-third of the respondents had achieved

something and that about two-thirds of the TQM programmes had ground to a complete halt. Another

longitudinal study revealed that after four years, ten out of 38 companies considered their TQM programme to

have failed (Taylor and Meegan, 1997).

2

In 1999, the EFQM revised the model and made a noticeable switch in language from TQM to organizational

excellence. Nabitz et al. (1999) stated that the word "quality" does not appear in either the sub-criteria or the

areas to address on the revised model. The EQA is now known as the EFQM excellence award.

The EFQM model comprises five "enabler" criteria (Figure 1):

(1) leadership;

(2) policy and strategy;

(3) people management;

(4) resources and partnerships; and

(5) processes.

It also comprises four "results" criteria (Figure 1):

(1) customer satisfaction;

(2) people satisfaction;

(3) impact on society; and

(4) key performance results (EFQM, 2000).

Figure 1 Sub Groups of Excellence Model

These criteria represent critical success factors and are parallel to the TQM principles (Boynton and Zmud, 1984;

cited in Kanji and Tambi, 1999). Criteria affect performance and help organizations achieve organizational

excellence (Oakland, 1999; Kanji and Tambi, 1999). The EFQM excellence model involves nine criteria and the

3

relative importance of these criteria is indicated by the criterion weight structure (Figure 2). Research on the

weight structure has been limited and this is problematic regarding the use of the model because it raises the

question whether or not it makes any sense to compare companies according to an arbitrary weight structure,

which has never been empirically tested (Eskildsen, J. K., Kristensen, K., Juhl H. J, 2002).

Figure 2 The EFQM Criterion Weight

The criterion weights of the award models have been important for the EFQM Excellence Model as well as

others (Lascelles and Peacock, 1996; Porter and Tanner, 1998; Conti, 1997). The logic behind this is that the

award criterion has always been intended to be instruments for comparing an organization with other

organizations or to rate an organization against a commonly-adopted scoreboard (Conti, 1997).

Peters (2000) noted that quality was seen as old-fashioned and superseded, to an extent, by the concept of

"excellence". Dale et al. (2000a) also stated that people at the centre of initiatives including self-assessment

against the EFQM Excellence Model often believe that their performance improvement initiatives are based on

quality although they know little about the subject.

There has been a movement from a "reactive" to a "proactive" quality management approach (Slack et al., 1998;

Dale, 1999). Today, European organizations, which have no objective of applying for the European Quality

Award (EQA) in the short term, simply use the EFQM criteria to assist them in diagnosing the state of health of

their performance improvement process and providing indicators of how to achieve business excellence (Dale,

1999).

The change in focus from quality to excellence was believed to relate to the strong mechanistic history of TQM.

Researchers found that it was difficult to convince managers in departments such as sales and production to take

responsibility for quality. Such managers thought TQM to be the sole responsibility of the quality department

when they saw the word "quality". It was evidently difficult to broaden the ownership of TQM from the quality

department to all levels in an organization and to enable the whole organization to understand the philosophy

4

(Adebanjo, 2001). In contrast, the presentation of the excellence model made it easily adaptable across the whole

organization.

TQM may have been misunderstood narrowly as a tool for quality improvement only. The principles of TQM

aim to improve business performances in terms of cost, productivity, quality, customer satisfaction, delivery,

market share, and (finally) profit. The move from the EFQM model to the European Business Excellence Model

seems justified but more explanation is needed. Otherwise, a feeling may arise that the TQM movement is over

and another new fad of "excellence" is on its way ( Sun et al, 2004) .

The successful implementation of TQM includes leading from the top and cultural issues such as trust,

knowledge, belief, and motivation. The size of the organization was an area of contention for some authors

(Warwood and Antony, 2003). The success of the EFQM Excellence Model has also faced some challenges.

Dale et al. (2000a,b) noted that some chief executives, fed up with excellence without performance, have started

to return to quality and cited "Six Sigma" as the rebirth of classic quality. While there appears to be some

justification for this view, this may not be too surprising and there are likely to be wider issues involved.

The excellence model has evolved to be a framework that can incorporate several other initiatives. Jeanes (2000)

noted that every type of organization will be able to include any one of the dozens of quality initiatives under the

Model and he then went on to identify the relevance of the Model to several initiatives and practices. This view

was also supported by Shephard (2000). Thus, while the Excellence Model provides an overall framework, it

presupposes that an organization has a number of established systems and initiatives to deal with process and

other operational issues. Morgan (2000) asserted that there are a lot of parallels between Six Sigma and the

Excellence Model and that both are complementary approaches.

It has been empirically verified that the application of holistic management models such as The EFQM

Excellence Model has a positive effects corporate performance (Kristensen and Juhl, 1999; Kristensen et al.,

2000). While it can be argued that the wide acceptance of business excellence model slowed down the growth of

the use of classical quality management tools and techniques, it is more debatable that quality died or was totally

eliminated (Adebanjo, 2001).

The search for excellence and dissemination of "best practice" is the main philosophy and a major function of

the Business Excellence Model but many writers like Galloway (1996) have difficulty in defining quality this

way. He considers excellence in the abstract being "transcendent" something to be "... recognized rather than

identified or measured".

Private vs. Public Sector Excellence

Traditional political science literature emphasizes that there are distinct differences between private and public

organizations (Lane, 1993). Mostly, public organizations do not have the strategic freedom that private

companies have since politicians decide some of their strategic goals. This puts constraints on public

organizations' operational abilities and may force public organizations to make decisions that are not sound for

5

society at large (Lane, 1993). Another issue is the resources available to public organizations. They do not

always have the resources needed in order to meet demand - making it necessary for public organizations to

prioritize which customers/users to serve. This situation is usually unfamiliar to private companies (Eskildsen et

al., 2004).

Despite the differences between private and public organizations which are mentioned above they are often

treated as one. This is true in relation to holistic management models (Lascelles and Peacock, 1996; Porter and

Tanner, 1998; Evans and Lindsay, 1999).

The EFQM believed the shifts in business emphasis and new management ideas in the model would fulfil the

requirements of large, small and medium-sized enterprises in the public and private sectors. Their objective,

then, became to provide a model that ideally represents the excellence (TQM) philosophy and which can be

applied in practice to all organizations irrespective of country, size, sector or stage along their journey to

excellence (Sun et al., 2004). This implies that the Model can be applied to all sectors of society including the

public sector. Chapman (2000) explained how two organizations, one each from the public and private sectors,

improved their performance by using a flexible and innovative approach to applying the EFQM Excellence

Model.

EFQM approach requires a high maturity of the organization as it best fits institutions, which are well on the way

to become a total quality organization. However, it is possible that organizations just begin to use the EFQM

model can ensure that it shapes their strategy and approach towards total quality management. Thus, the EFQM

model does not compete with ISO accreditation or visitation. When government agencies are concerned, the use

of the EFQM model is further enhanced within profit and non-profit organizations (Nabitz and Klazinga, 1999).

Research Methodology

The data were obtained by administrating a structured-questionnaire survey. The questionnaire instrument is

consisted of three parts. The first part involved 7 questions regarding basic demographic characteristics of the

respondents such as “Which sector are you working on?”. The second part of the instrument included 36

questions designed to measure the level of the employees’ perception levels on EFQM Excellence model criteria

and presented statements such as “Leaders motivate, support and recognize the organization’s people”. A five-

point Likert scale was used in this part, ranging from ‘definitely agree’ (1) to ‘definitely disagree’ (5). The final

part was devoted to investigating the relationship between employees’ perception level on Business Excellence

Model and Total Quality Management (2 questions). The survey instrument was pilot tested among 25

employees. The pilot results were used to improve the clarity and readability of questions.

The study was carried out in three stages: population, data collection and data analysis. According to the

KALDER, four institutions have applied to EFQM Award in the category of Small and Medium Sized

Enterprises (SME) for Aegean Region of Turkey, this year. Approximately 300 employees work in all

organizations that have been surveyed. As a result, whole population was used for the survey due to its

efficiency. Population of this study has been limited to employees working in Aegean Region of Turkey. In total,

6

300 questionnaires distributed by the researchers and 210 questionnaires were returned, with a response rate of

which is statistically acceptable for data analysis. Of these, 2 were eliminated due to missing data. The data

obtained was analyzed by using a SPSS 11.5 program. Data analysis consisted of descriptive statistics, frequency

distribution, factor analysis, correlation analysis, and regression analysis.

Research Findings

Table 1 profiles the respondents’ demographic characteristics. About half of the respondents were between 18

and 32 years of age, and male. Nearly 78% of the respondents had been working for more than four years. Over

86% of the respondents had completed high school or above, indicating that a large proportion of the sample was

well-educated. The majority of respondents were male (67%). Over 72% of the respondents had been working in

private sector. Nearly 62% of the respondents were married and over 90% of the respondents were happy about

the questionnaire.

Table 1 Numerical and Percentage Dispersion of Sample Profile

NUMB

ER%

NUMB

ER%

Age Sex

18-25 34 16.3 Female 64 30.8

26-32 83 39.9 Male 140 67.3

33-42 61 29.3 Missing 4 1.9

43 and above 26 12.5 Total 208 100.0

Missing 4 1.9 Sector

Total 208 100.0 Public 59 28.4

Working Years Private 149 71.6

Less than 1 17 8.2 Total 208 100

1-3 28 13.5 Marital Status

4-6 65 31.3 Married 128 61.5

7-9 45 21.6 Single 76 36.5

More than 10 years 43 20.7 Missing 4 1.9

Missing 10 4.8 Total 208 100.0

Total 208 100.0 Questionnaire

Education Excellent 83 39.9

Secondary school 28 13.5 Good 67 32.2

High school 68 32.7 Not Bad 37 17.8

University 105 50.5 Bad 9 4.3

Missing 7 3.4 Very bad 5 2.4

Total 100 100.0 Missing 7 3.4

7

Total 208 100.0

The first stage in the analysis of the questionnaire design in respect of perception measurement using Likert-type

scales should become the assessment of item-total correlation, reliability and construct validity. This stage is

significant in designing effective and valid job satisfaction research, as a part of the proposed qualitative

measures, in order to ensure that findings are accurate and to be able to discuss further implications. First, the

alpha value was about .96 (.9590), exceeding the minimum standard (.80) suggested by Nunnally (1978). The

high level of reliability score indicates that the sampling domain has adequately been captured (Churchill, 1979).

Subsequently, a principal factor analysis was performed on perception items in order to identify the construct

validity. Bartlett’s test of sphericty with a value of 4092.9 (p<.001) and the calculation of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

statistics of .92, which can be qualified as ‘marvellous’, indicated that data seemed suitable for factor analysis.

Taking the distribution of scree plot into consideration (Figure 3), principal component factors with an

eigenvalue of one or greater were rotated by the varimax analysis.

Figure 3 Scree Plot

Component Number

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

9

7

5

3

1

Eige

nval

ue

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Variables with loadings equal or greater than .35 were included in a given factor to decrease the probability of

misclassification. Thirty-three items from the factor analysis resulted in six factor groupings and explained 67.7

% of the total variance. Most of the factor loadings were greater than .70, indicating a good correlation between

the items and the factor grouping they represent. A Cronbach’s alpha test was used to determine the internal

consistency of each factor variable of the measurement instrument. The results obtained from this test indicate

that there exists a high level of internal consistency among factor groupings. Ranking mean scores, results

attained the highest score, followed by employees, leadership, partnerships-resources, processes and policy-

strategy respectively. The results of the factor analysis are presented in Table 2.

8

Table 2 Results of Factor Analysis

Items Fact

or

Load

ing

Eige

nval

ue

%of

V

aria

nce

Expl

aine

d

Mea

n

F V

alue

Alp

ha

P

1. Factor (Results) 14.48 43.8 2.18 18.24 0.91 0.01Community perceptions .783Evaluating community perceptions .728Performance indicators(customers) .713Performance indicators(employees) .641Employees erceptions .618Evaluating customer perceptions .601Finanacial&non-financial indicators .588Evaluating basic performance results .571Data evaluation & researches .4682. Factor (Employees) 2.27 6.88 2.35 3.79 0.92 0.01Supporting &improving talents .811Involvement .758Plannıng, managing & improving HR .716Empowerment .639Appreciation .638Communication .5193. Factor (Leadership) 1.83 5.54 1.84 15.55 0.88 0.01Model for employees .738Creating mission,vision&values .719Motivating their employees .705Cooperative .701Favor for change .688Active role on management system .6774. Factor (Processes) 1.35 4.09 1.91 30.70 0.81 001Following renewals &innovations .778Benefit from technology .731Managing knowledge & information .723Managing operational products .542Managing financial resources in accordance with policy &strategy

.424

5. Factor (Partnerships &Resources) 1.28 3.89 1.88 34.42 0.85 0.01Customer focused design .884Customer focused production .870Improving customer relatons throug evaluation

.673

Systamatic design &management .4726. Factor (Policy&Strategy) 1.12 3.41 2.20 3.94 0.69 0.02Expectations of stakeholders .703Disemination with critical processes .510Policy and atrategies are announced and implemented

.397

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin illustration Measurement= .92;the explanation rate of total variance= 0.68

9

In an attempt to investigate if there was any relationship among individual EFQM Excellence Model factors as

independent variables, correlation coefficient vales were calculated. As Table 3 shows, the research findings

suggest that there is a positive relationship between all the factor attributes. For example, there is a very strong

relationship between employees and results. This is quite normal that because employee performances are

evaluated in results. A similar result also exists for the relationship between policy & strategy and results. This

may be due to the fact that the outputs of the policy and strategy are the inputs of results.

Table 3 Correlations

1208

,709** 1208 208

,595** ,689** 1208 208 208

,676** ,652** ,607** 1208 208 208 208

,590** ,470** ,404** ,589** 1207 207 207 207 207

,679** ,655** ,546** ,527** ,451** 1208 208 208 208 207 208

Pearson CorrelationNPearson CorrelationNPearson CorrelationNPearson CorrelationNPearson CorrelationNPearson CorrelationN

Results

Employees

Leadership

Partnerships&Resources

Processes

Policy &Strategy

Results Employees LeadershipPartnerships&Resources Processes

Policy&Strategy

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

T test is made in order to determine the distinction between private sector and public sector with regard to their

approaches towards independent variables. According to the T test, there exist only one null hypothesis between

public and private sector in terms of their perception about the independent variable “processes”. In other words,

the public sector and private sector actually approach to the independent variable “processes” in the same way

other than the other variables ( p≤0,001). It can be inferred that, public sector has more positive approach than

the private sector.

A multiple regression was subsequently used to determine the aggregate impact of certain independent variables

(excellence model criteria) exerting the strongest influence in dependent variables. This method demonstrates the

strength of any variable in the overall model. Results of each process are reported in a table (Tables 4 through 6),

along with the t statistics, standardized regression coefficients and R2 values. Table 4 presents the influence of

six factor variables over the level of the respondents’ perceptions on “Overall, TQM is useful”. The model

accounts for 22 % of the variance in the dependent variable. It has been observed that only the factor variables as

processes, results and policy & strategy had beta coefficients that were statistically significant. Three factor

variables had a similiar influence over the dependent variable. These variables also had a positive score. Items

loaded on leadership, employees, partnerships and resources did not have any influence over the dependent

variable.

Table 4 Regression Analysis of the Factors Affecting TQM

VARIABLES T Sig T

10

Processes .229 2.475 .014

Results .233 2.079 .039

Policy and Strategy .186 2.084 .039

CONSTANT .178 1.053 .293 Note : Multiple R=.467; R square =.218; F=9.340; Sig. F=.0001

Table 5 presents the influence of six factor variables over the level of the respondents’ perceptions on “Overall

EFQM Business Excellence Model is useful”. The model accounts for 12 % of the variance in the dependent

variable. It has been observed that only the factor variable as processes had beta coefficients that were

statistically significant. This variable also had a positive score. Items loaded on results, policy and strategy,

leadership, employees, partnerships and resources did not have any influence over the dependent variable.

Table 5 Regression Analysis of the Factors Affecting EFQM Business Excellence Model

VARIABLES T Sig T

Processes .418 3.534 .001

CONSTANT .739 3,441 .001 Note : Multiple R=.351; R square =.123; F=4.644; Sig. F=.0001

Table 6 presents the influence of seven factor variables (Criteria of EFQM Model and TQM) and over the level

of the respondents’ perceptions on “Overall, EFQM is useful”. In other words, TQM variable is added into the

criteria of the EFQM Business Excellence Model. The model accounts for 31 % of the variance in the dependent

variable. It has been observed that only the factor variables as TQM and processes had beta coefficients that

were statistically significant. First factor variable (TQM) had a higher influence over the dependent variable.

These variables also had a positive score. Items loaded on results, policy and strategy, leadership, employees,

partnerships and resources did not have any influence over the dependent variable.

Table 6 Regression Analysis of Seven Factors Affecting EFQM

VARIABLES T Sig T

TQM .590 7.229 .001

Processes .285 2.658 .008

CONSTANT .631 3.282 .001 Note : Multiple R=.553; R square =.306; F=12.471; Sig. F=.0001

Table 6 demonstrates that the level of TQM was the strongest predictor of “Overall, EFQM Business Excellence

Model is useful” (p<.001), followed by processes (p<.001). The remaining five variables (results, policy and

strategy, leadership, employees, partnerships and resources) were found to be insignificant.

Conclusion

11

The analysis in this research shows that, all items excluding 3 of the EFQM Model, 33 of the items were seen as

valid by the Turkish employees. However, it is also identified that the nine EFQM Business Excellence Model

criterion groups were perceived as six groups by the respondents. In other words, the results criterion groups

were perceived as a single item instead of independent groups. This can be explained by the pragmatic approach

of the Turkish society.

Although the EFQM model is applied in Europe with the distinction of public and private sector, such a

differentiation is not seen in Turkey. Because of this, in this study, the perceptions of the independent variables

stated in the EFQM Model by the public and private sector have been measured. The results show that public

sector employees have a more positive attitude towards the EFQM Model. The reason for this can be explained

with the assumption that private sector employees may think such processes would provide more material and

moral prestige to the owners of the firms rather than themselves. However, as being a non-profit organization,

public sector gives more importance to moral values while there is no possible material benefit. Besides, the

slow and bulky structure of the Turkish bureaucracy can be seen as a barrier to the implementation of

participatory management. Requirement of active participation for the EFQM Model might have positively

affected the employees.

Analysis shows that, although the independent variables were originally created for the EFQM Model, they were

inadequate in explaining EFQM Model but explained total quality management in a better way. It can also be

said that, statistically, the explanation degree of EFQM Model by the independent variables is at the lowest level.

With regard to this fact, it can be concluded that the employees of the Turkish small sized enterprises adopted

total quality management rather than EFQM Model. The main reason for this can be the fact that total quality

management implementations started later than the rest of the world and are still ongoing. Another reason might

be the insufficient advertisement of EFQM Model by KALDER and also the presentation of this model as a

different form of total quality management by the organizations.

Another important point is that the criteria in the EFQM model seem to be explaining the total quality

management philosophy better than the EFQM Model. However, it cannot be stated that these criteria explain

both the EFQM and TQM completely. The best evidence is the increase in the explanation rate of the EFQM

when the TQM variable is added into the criteria of the EFQM Model. In other words, sub criteria of EFQM

cannot comply with the components of the total quality management. As mentioned above, the reasons behind

this can be explained by the fact that the respondents are not informed completely since they are working in the

small and medium sized organizations and/or by the difference of working conditions between the public and

private sector. However, the EFQM Model should be revised and updated for Turkish organizations and

institutions.

Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research

12

This research was conducted among all the small and medium sized enterprises which applied to the EFQM

Quality Award this year. More realistic results can be obtained if this study could be applied to the larger

enterprises and institutions. Moreover, this type of research was conducted for the first time this year. The

sustainability of the research could ensure the reliability and the validity of the data. Therefore, this research can

be planned as longitudinal studies. In this study, only the components of EFQM Model are handled. In another

study, with these dependent variables, the canonical correlation analysis and/or structural equation modeling can

be applied to the components of TQM and EFQM Model. In this respect, a new model can be proposed for

Turkey.

References

Adebanjo, D., 2001, “TQM and business excellence: is there really a conflict?”, Measuring Business Excellence,

5, 3, 37-40.

Ahire, S.L., Waller, M.A., Golhar, D.Y., 1995, "Quality management in TQM versus non-TQM firms: an empirical investigation", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 13, 8, 8-27.

Asare A. E. O., , Longbottom, D., 2002, ” The need for education and training in the use of the EFQM model for quality management in UK higher education institutions”, Quality Assurance in Education, 10, 1, 26-36.

Ashton, C, 1997, "All change in awards", Self-Assessment, 11-17.

Azhashemi, M.A., Ho, S.K.M., 1999, "Achieving service excellence: a new Japanese approach versus the European framework", Managing Service Quality, 9, 1, 40-6.

Blackmon, L.K., Lindberg, P., Voss, C.A., 1998, International Manufacturing Strategies: Context, Content and Change, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.

Cali, C. R. 1993, TQM for Purchasing Management, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Chapman, C., 2000, "The public and private faces of excellence", Quality World, 26, 5, 30-2.

Conti, T., 1993, “Company quality assessment”, Total Quality Management, August: 237–242.

Conti, T., 1997, Organizational Self-Assessment, Chapman & Hall, London.

Dale, B.G, 1999, Managing Quality, 3rd ed., Blackwell, Oxford.

Dale, B.G, Williams, R.T, van der Wiele, T., 2000, "Marginalization of quality: is there a case to answer?", The TQM Magazine, 12, 4, 266-74.

Dale, B.G., van der Wiele, A., Zairi, M., Williams, A.R.T., 2000, "Quality is dead in Europe - long live excellence - true or false?", Quality Focus, 4, 3, 4-10.

De Carlo, N., Sterrett, K. W., 1990, “History of MBNQA”, Quality Progress, March: 21–27.

13

Eskildsen, J. K., Kristensen, K., Juhl H. J. 2002, “Trends in EFQM criterion weights; the case of Denmark

1998-2001”, Measuring Business Excellence, 6, 2, 22-28.

Eskildsen, J. K., Kristensen, K., Juhl, H. J., 2004, “Private versus public sector excellence”, The TQM Magazine, 16, 1, 50-56.

Evans, J.R., Lindsay, W.M., 1999, The Management and Control of Quality, West Publishing Company, St Paul, MN.

Galloway, L, 1996, "But which quality do you mean?", Quality World, 564-8.

Garvin, D. A., 1998, Managing Quality, Free Press, UK.

Hakes, C., 1994, TQM—The Key to Business Improvement, Chapman & Hall, London.

Holness, G.V.R., 2001, "Achieving quality using TQM and ISO", ASHRAE Journal, 43, 1, 195.

Jeanes, C, 2000, "Death by a 1000 initiatives", Quality World, 26, 5, 24-5.

Kanji, G.K, Tambi, A.M., 1999, "Total quality management in UK higher education institutions", Total Quality Management, CARFAX,, 10, 1, 129-53.

Kristensen, K, Juhl, H.J, 1999, "Beyond the bottom line - measuring stakeholder value", Edvardsson, B, Gustafsson, A., The Nordic School of Quality Management, Studentlitterature, Lund.

Kristensen, K, Juhl, H.J., Eskildsen, J.K, 2000, "The excellence index as a benchmarking tool", Edgeman, R, First International Research Conference on Organizational Excellence in the Third Millennium, Estes Park, CO, 155-61.

Lane, J., 1993, The Public Sector, Sage, London.

Lascelles, D., Peacock, R., 1996, Self-Assessment for Business Excellence, McGraw-Hill, London.

Mann, R., Voss, M., 2000, "An innovative process improvement approach that integrates ISO 9000 with the Baldrige framework", Benchmarking: An International Journal, 7, 2, 128-45.

MBNQA, 1997, Criteria for Performance Excellence and Winner Profiles, ASQC. Milwaukee.

Morgan, J, 2000, "Six Sigma excellence", UK Excellence, 20-2.

Nabitz, U, Quagila, G, Wangen, P, 1999, "EFQM's new excellence model", Quality Progress, 118-20.

Nakhai, B., Neves, J., 1994, “The Deming, Baldrige and European Quality Awards”, Quality Progress, April: 33–37.

Nunnaly, J. C,1978, Psychometric Theory, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, NY.

Oakland, J.S, 1999, Total Organizational Excellence, Butterworth-Heineman, Oxford.

O'Brien, J, O'Hanlon, T, 2000, "Business excellence - the best thing ever", Quality World, 26, 5, 16-18.

Osseo-Asare, A.E, 2000, "TQM at the University of Derby", unpublished Masters dissertation, Derbyshire Business School, University of Derby, Derby.

14

Peters, J, 2000, "A quality philosophy", Measuring Business Excellence, 4, 4, 6.

Porter, L.J., Tanner, S.J., 1998, Assessing Business Excellence, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Sanghera, S., 1999, "New directions with Radar: Management Total Quality Management: The `excellence' model used by 10,000 organizations across Europe is being updated, with extra emphasis on innovation, knowledge and partnerships", Financial Times, London, April, p. 21.

Shephard, A, 2000, "Total Integration'", UK Excellence, 40.

Slack, N, Chambers, S, Harland, C, Harrison, A, Johnston, R., 1998, Operations Management, 2nd ed, Pitman Publishing, London.

Sun, H., Li, S., Ho, K., Gertsen, F., Hansen, P., Frick, J., 2004, “The trajectory of implementing ISO 9000

standards versus total quality management in Western Europe”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability

Management, 21, 2, 131-153.

Taylor, W.A., Meegan, S.T., 1997, "Senior executives and the ISO 9000-TQM transition: a framework and some empirical data", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 14, 7, 669-86.

Warwood, S., Antony, J., 2003, “A simple semi-prescriptive self-assessment model for TQM”, Quality Assurance, 10, 67-81.

15