#2 Essay Site on Sitejabber
info@theunitutor.com
+44 20 8638 6541
  • 中文 (中国)
  • English GB
  • English AU
  • English US
  • العربية (Arabic)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

PAGE

 

Title page .

 

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    1

 

 

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 – PROBLEM RATIONALE——————————————————————- 2

Introduction————————————————————————————————– 2

Research Problem—————————————————————————————- 4

Significance of the Study——————————————————————————- 5

Scope and Limitation of Study———————————————————————— 7

Definition of Terms————————————————————————————— 8

Chapter 2 – THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS———————————————————– 18

Review of Related Literature———————————————————————— 19

Theoretical Framework——————————————————————————– 46

Research Objective————————————————————————————- 47

Conceptual Framework——————————————————————————- 48

Chapter 3 – THE RESEARCH METHODS————————————————————– 50

Research Design—————————————————————————————- 50

Subjects and Study Sites—————————————————————————– 51           

Research Instruments/Data Measure———————————————————— 52

 

Data Gathering Procedure —————————————————— 54

Statistical Treatment           —————————————————— 55

 

CHAPTER 1

PROBLEM RATIONALE

Introduction

The issues confronting public sector organizations on the need to streamline its processes and to improve the delivery of its services have never been outdated and in fact, are becoming more imperative as its business continues to expand. This challenges remain and is highlighted even more as the call for globalization from various international actors get sturdier.

The sheer fact that government is the largest employer and spender in the world readily reveals how imperative it is to improve the whole organization. The need to improve the performance of pubic sector organizations is further bolstered by the very nature and reason for existence. As public sector organizations exist to provide services for the welfare of the general public, much is expected from them in providing quality services, thereby subjecting them under continuous pressure to improve efficiency. Osborn & Gaebler (1995) pointed out that public service is shifting lens towards market orientation principle in the delivery of its services to the public. Consequently, many principles that are being used in private organizations are also now being adopted in public sector organizations believing that by doing so, public sector performance may be at par with private organizations. However, as correctly pointed out by Mohammed Nor et al. (2015), the quality of public sector organizations is reflected from the quality of services they are rendering to the public. Thus, more than how public sector organizations do their business, public administrators must put premium on the quality of the services they provide to satisfy their customers. Anchored on the foregoing, several initiatives have been forwarded to improve public sector performance. However, in spite of the same, the government as an organization is still continuously marred with issues on excessive bureaucracy, political interference, corruption, poor working conditions, poor work ethics, outdated and outmoded systems, procedures and practices among others (Amanfijnr, 2012).

Over the years, several measures have been developed to improve performance and to increase productivity of public sector organizations. In relation thereto, several countries recognized the need for a program on the adoption and institutionalization of BE framework for the public sector to trigger performance excellence that will yield sustainable superior results. The Philippines has adopted the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award (MBNQA) model as a framework for performance excellence for both public and private organizations. Thus, in connection therewith, the Philippine Quality

Award (PQA) was established in 1998 to set a standard of excellence and to serve as a “template” for competitiveness to help local organizations achieve world-class performance (PQA, 2017). The objectives of PQA are as follows:

  1. To promote standards in organizational performance comparable to those of leading business abroad, pursuant to the country’s effort to be globally competitive;
  2. To establish a national system for assessing quality and productivity performance, thus providing local organizations regardless of size, sector and maturity with criteria and guidelines for self-assessment to guide their quality and productivity improvement efforts; and
  3. To recognize organizations in both the private and public sector which excel in quality management and overall organizational performance, thus providing Philippine industries with benchmarks and models to emulate.

Note, however, that since the inception of the PQA in 1998, there was no study yet which checks on its effectiveness, particularly for public sector recipients of any of the PQA Recognition Categories. Along this line, the researcher seeks to conduct a tracer study to assess the effectiveness of the PQA framework and PQA program, which are just basically and significantly an adoption from the Business Excellence initiative of the US, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.

Research Problem

This research aims to investigate and assess the effectiveness of the adoption of the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence framework for Public Sector Organizations, from which the Philippines patterned its National Quality Award – the Philippine Quality Award. From the foregoing and based on the result of the study, the researcher seeks to improve the existing PQA framework and PQA program that would best fit Public Sector organizations. Finally, the researcher seeks to develop a program implementation framework that will help Public Sector organizations in the adoption and institutionalization of the business excellence model.

To achieve the aforementioned, the following research questions need to be addressed:

  • To date, how many of the recipients of PQA recognition are MSMEs?
  • To date, how are these recipients of PQA recognition fairing in terms of performance in all the PQA Criteria Categories?
  • How successful is the PQA in achieving its objective, particularly for the

MSMEs?

  • What are the issues and challenges faced by the MSMEs in the adoption of the PQA Framework?
  • What are the areas for improvement in the PQA Framework and/or PQA

Program?

Concepts and Variable

PQA Framework Adoption – Adoption of PQA Framework as will be used in the study shall refer to the compliance to the minimum requirements set forth by each of the PQA enabling criteria categories

Indicators: PQA enabling criteria categories which include: *LEADERSHIP,

*STRATEGY, *CITIZEN, *MEASUREMENT, ANALYSIS AND KNOLEDGE MANAGEMENT, *HUMAN RESOURCE, and *OPERATIONS.

Measures: Meeting the requirements of the PQA enabling criteria categories.

Improved Performance – study will be based on the scoring of the PQA using the

Result Criteria Category.

Indicators: Category 7 of the PQA Framework

Measures: Positive levels, trends and comparison results based on a three-year period (will follow the scoring guidelines of PQA).

Effectiveness – is the extent to which an activity fulfils its intended purpose or function.

Indicators: Performance of PQA Recipients

Milestones

Challenges and Issues

Measures: Number of adaptors; Number of recipients; Results of the first 2 concepts; and Objectives

 

Significance of the Study

The researcher intends to seek basis for recommendation to improve the PQA framework and program for the adoption of MSMEs. Therefore, this study will be significant to the following:

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS – Improvement arising from this study would first and foremost impact the Public Sector organizations as it engenders to design a project implementation framework that will ease the adoption of business excellence model for performance improvement that will yield superior results. This study will also allow greater and better access of MSMEs to programs and projects from the DAP which would provide positive impact for sustainable development.

                        PHILIPPINE      QUALITY      AWARD           AWARD     MANAGER     AND

ADMINISTRATOR – The findings of this study may aid them in the improvement of the BE framework for Public Sector and in the interpretation of the criteria categories. Likewise, it may provide them valuable input that would help them improve the conduct of the PQA program.

EDUCATORS (specifically Instructors/Professors of Public Administration and other related courses) – The result and outcome of this research will provide them valuable insights on the foregoing subject matter. In addition, the researcher’s findings and conclusions may be cited by them as actual illustrations on topics like performance improvement and total quality management.

STUDENTS (especially Students of Public Administration and other related courses) – This research is expected to broaden the understanding of the students on the theories and concepts, particularly regarding business excellence and performance measurement. Moreover, that they may develop deeper appreciation, pursue advance learning and even become contributors in further development of the Philippine Government competitiveness in the world index.

FUTURE RESEARCHERS / INTERESTED PRACTITIONERS – This

research may be a good source for future researcher and/or practitioners to gain insights and understanding of the subject matter. Furthermore, researcher’s findings and conclusions may be used and cited by future researchers in their study. Finally, this dissertation may also be adopted by future researchers as the subject matter of their study using different variables or in another locale or with a relatively wider scope.

 

Scope and Limitation of Study

This research aims to investigate and assess the effectiveness of the adoption of the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence framework for Public Sector

Organizations, from which the Philippines patterned its National Quality Award – the Philippine Quality Award. From the foregoing and based on the result of the study, the researcher seeks to improve the existing PQA framework and PQA program that would best fit Public Sector organizations. Finally, the researcher seeks to develop a program implementation framework that will help Public Sector organizations in the adoption and institutionalization of the business excellence model.

The Public Sector organizations that will be tapped for this study will include the recipients of PQA recognition from 1998 to 2014. This is limited only to the recipients of the said period as the recipients from 2015 onwards has yet to implement improvement based on the findings of third party assessors. However, it will cover all the PQA recipients from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.

 

 

Definition of Terms

For better appreciation of concepts related to PQA, the following terms are lifted from the Glossary of the 2017-2021 PQA Government Criteria for Performance Excellence:

APPROACH. The methods your organization uses to carry out its processes. Besides the methods themselves, approach refers to the appropriateness of the methods to the item requirements and your organization’s operating environment, as well as how effectively your organization uses those methods. Approach is one of the factors considered in evaluating process items.

 

BUSINESS EXCELLENCE (BE). As will be used in this study refers to the method of developing and strengthening the management systems and processes of an organization to improve performance and create value for stakeholders. BE is about achieving excellence in everything that an organization does (including leadership, strategy, customer focus, information management, people and processes) and most importantly achieving superior business results (Mann et. al., no date).

 

BASIC REQUIREMENTS. The most central concept of a Criteria item, as

presented in the item title question.

 

CITIZEN / CUSTOMER. An actual or potential user of your organization’s programs or services Citizens/Customers include citizens and private organizations who are end users or direct beneficiaries of your services as well as the general public who may indirectly benefit from your organization’s activities and operations. These also refer to Clients, who might also include other government agencies that may use your services. The criteria address citizens/customers or clients broadly, referencing current and future customers, as well as customers of other comparable organizations possibly in the private sector. Citizen/Customer-focused excellence is a PQA core value embedded in the beliefs and behaviors of high performing organizations. Citizen/Customer focus impacts and should be a factor in integrating your organization’s strategic goals/objectives, work systems and work processes, and organizational outcomes.

 

DEPLOYMENT. The extent to which your organization applies an approach in addressing the requirements of a Criteria item. Evaluation of deployment considers how broadly and deeply the approach is applied in relevant work units throughout your organization. Deployment is one of the factors considered in evaluating process items.

 

EFFECTIVE. How well a process or a measure addresses its intended purpose. Determining effectiveness requires (1) evaluating how well the process is aligned with the organization’s needs and how well it is deployed or (2) evaluating the outcome of the measure as an indicator of process or service performance.

 

GOVERNANCE. The system of management and controls exercised in the

stewardship of your organization. It includes the responsibilities of your organization’s board of directors, and senior leaders. Organizational charters, bylaws, and policies document the rights and responsibilities of each of the parties and describe how they will direct and control your organization to ensure (1) accountability to stakeholders, (2) transparency of operations, and (3) fair treatment of all stakeholders. Governance processes may include the approval of strategic direction, the monitoring and evaluation of the top executives’ performance, succession planning, financial auditing, risk management, disclosure, and reporting. Ensuring effective governance is important to stakeholders’ and the larger society’s trust and to organizational effectiveness.

 

HIGH PERFORMANCE. Ever-higher levels of overall organizational and individual performance, including quality, productivity, innovation rate, and cycle time. High performance results in improved service and value for citizen/customers and other stakeholders. Approaches to high performance vary in their form, their function, and the incentive systems used. High performance stems from and enhances human resource engagement. It involves cooperation between the management and the human resource, which may involve human resource bargaining units; cooperation among work units, often involving teams; empowerment of your human resource, including personal accountability; and human resource input into planning. It may involve learning and building individual and organizational skills; learning from other organizations; creating flexible job design and work assignments; maintaining a flattened organizational structure, where decision making is decentralized and decisions are made closest to the front line; and effectively using performance measures, including comparisons. Many organizations encourage high performance with monetary and nonmonetary incentives based on factors such as organizational performance, team and individual contributions, and skill building. Also, approaches to high performance usually seek to align your organization’s structure, core competencies, work, jobs, human resource development, and incentives.

 

HUMAN RESOURCE. All people actively involved in accomplishing the work of your organization, including paid employees (e.g., permanent, part-time, temporary, as well as contract employees supervised by the organization) and volunteers, as appropriate. Human resources include team leaders, supervisors, and managers at all

levels.

 

INNOVATION. Making meaningful change to improve services, processes, or organizational effectiveness and create new value for stakeholders. Innovation involves adopting an idea, process, technology, service, or work systems that is either new or new to its proposed application. The outcome of innovation is a breakthrough improvement in results services or processes. Innovation benefits from a supportive environment, a process for identifying strategic opportunities, and a willingness to pursue intelligent risks.

 

INTEGRATION. The harmonization of plans, processes, information, resource decisions, human resource capability and capacity, actions, results, and analyses to support key organizational goals. Effective integration goes beyond alignment and is achieved when the individual components of an organizational performance management system operate as a fully interconnected unit. Integration is one of the factors considered in evaluating both process and results items.

 

LEARNING. New knowledge or skills acquired through evaluation, study, experience, and innovation. The PQA framework refers to two distinct kinds of learning: organizational and individual. Organizational learning is achieved through research and development, evaluation and improvement cycles, human resource and stakeholder ideas and input, the sharing of best practices, and benchmarking. Individual learning is achieved through education, training, and developmental opportunities. To be effective, learning should be embedded in the way your organization operates. Learning contributes to strategic advantage and ongoing success for your organization and human resources.

 

LEVELS. Numerical information that places or positions your organization’s results and performance on a meaningful measurement scale. Performance levels permit evaluation relative to past performance, projections, goals, and appropriate comparisons.

 

MANDATE. Legal basis for the existence of a government agency.

 

MEASURES AND INDICATORS. Numerical information that quantifies the input, output, and performance dimensions of processes, programs, projects, services, and the overall organization outcomes. Measures and indicators might be simple (derived from one measurement) or composite. The Criteria do not distinguish between measures and indicators. However, some users of these terms prefer “indicator” (1) when the measurement relates to performance but does not measure it directly (e.g., the number of complaints is an indicator but not a direct measure of dissatisfaction) and (2) when the measurement is a predictor (“leading indicator”) of some more significant performance (e.g., increased service availment might be a leading indicator of customer satisfaction).

 

MISSION. Your organization’s overall function. The mission answers the question, “What is your organization attempting to accomplish?” The mission might define citizens/customers or citizen/customer groups or segments served, distinctive or core competencies, or technologies used.

 

MULTIPLE REQUIREMENTS. The details of a Criteria item, as expressed in the individual questions under each lettered area to address. The first question in a set of multiple requirements expresses the most important question in that group. The questions that follow expand on or supplement that question.

 

OVERALL REQUIREMENTS. The most important features of a Criteria item, as elaborated in the first question (the leading question in boldface) in each paragraph under each lettered area to address.

 

ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE. An assessment of how well an

organization achieved its outputs, outcomes or results vis-à-vis its key performance targets.

 

PARTNERS. Key organizations or individuals who are working in concert with your organization to achieve a common goal or improve performance. Typically, partnerships are formal arrangements for a specific aim or purpose, such as to achieve a strategic objective or deliver a specific service. Formal partnerships usually last for an extended period and involve a clear understanding of the partners’ individual and mutual roles and benefits.

 

PERFORMANCE. Outputs and their outcomes obtained from processes, services, and customers that permit you to evaluate and compare your organization’s results to performance projections, standards, past results, goals, and other organizations’ results. Performance can be expressed in nonfinancial and financial terms. The Criteria address four types of performance: (1) service, (2) citizen/ customer-focused, (3) operational, and

(4) financial.

 

PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE. An integrated approach to organizational performance management that results in (1) delivery of ever-improving value to citizens/customers and other stakeholders, contributing to ongoing organizational success; (2) improvement of your organization’s overall effectiveness and capabilities; and (3) learning for the organization and for people in the human resource. The PQA Organizational Profile, Criteria, core values and concepts, and scoring guidelines provide a framework and assessment tool for understanding your organization’s strengths and opportunities for improvement and, thus, for guiding your planning toward achieving higher performance and striving for excellence.

 

PRODUCTIVITY. Measures of the efficiency of resource use. Although the term is often applied to single factors, such as the human resource (labor productivity), machines, materials, energy, and capital, the concept also applies to the total resources used in producing outputs. Using an aggregate measure of overall productivity allows you to determine whether the net effect of overall changes in a process—possibly involving resource trade-offs—is beneficial.

 

RESULTS. Outputs and outcomes achieved by your organization. Results are evaluated based on current performance; performance relative to appropriate comparisons; the rate, and importance of performance improvements; and the relationship of results measures to key organizational performance requirements. Results are one of the two dimensions evaluated in a PQA-based assessment. This evaluation is based on four factors: levels, trends, comparisons, and integration. For further description, see the Scoring System (pages 53-60).

 

STAKEHOLDERS. All groups that are or might be affected by your organization’s actions and success. Key stakeholders might include citizens/customers, the human resource, partners, collaborators, governing boards, stockholders, donors, suppliers, taxpayers, regulatory bodies, policy makers, funders, and local and professional communities.

 

VISION. Your organization’s desired future state. The vision describes where your organization is headed, what it intends to be, or how it wishes to be perceived in the future.

 

WORK PROCESSES. Your organization’s most important internal value-creation processes. They might include service design, and delivery; citizen/customer support; supply-chain management; core and support processes. They are the processes that involve the majority of your organization’s human resources. Your key work processes frequently relate to your core competencies, the factors that determine your success relative to comparable organizations, and the factors your senior leaders consider important in improving service delivery. The accomplishments of your key work processes are dependent on your human resources.

 

WORK SYSTEMS. How our organization’s work is accomplished, consisting of the internal work processes and external resources you need to develop and deliver services to your citizens/customers. Work systems involve your human resource, your key suppliers and partners, your contractors, your collaborators, and other components of the supply chain needed to deliver your services and carry out your support processes.

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2

THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In this contemporary society characterized by rapid advancement in science and technology and dubbed as the interconnected world, equally important with opportunities for growth and development is the ability of any organization to sustain the same. More than any other organization, this is more pressing for government as they are considered as the driver of economic development.

Acknowledging the importance of the role played by government in development, several countries have taken steps to improve and sustain their respective national productivity through various business excellence initiatives. From the time BE created its own niche in organizational performance excellence, numerous studies over the years have been published attempting to affirm and/or deny how it improves the management systems and processes, and how the same turn the framework into practice, which more often is claimed to yield better to superior business results.

Along this line, this chapter provides a reservoir of related literature from which one can build better understanding of the subject matter. In an nutshell, this section explains the origin of BE and its relationship to TQM. Likewise, it will also show comparison of the most widely use BE models across the globe. It will then zero in on MBNQA model, as it is the model from which the PQA was patterned. Finally, a section will discuss the history of PQA, including its milestones and challenges, and the salient features of the program, highlighting the structure, the process, and the criteria.

 

 

Review of Related Literature

The term “government” has been associated with inefficiency, incompetence, corrupt, inconsistent, old-fashioned, poor service and other negative connotations, just to name a few. This negative branding echoes the need for reform and improvement on how the government does its business. In an article published by the Asian Productivity Organization (APO) in 2016, it highlighted areas for improvement among public sector organizations, to wit:

“a)  Become citizen-focused and accountable to its citizens. Citizens now see themselves as consumers of public services and expect governments to provide services that are tailored to the people who are using them. Services need to be user-centric rather than government-

centric.

  1. Use new technologies that make the delivery of government services easier and more convenient for the citizens. The convergence of four powerful forces – social, mobile, cloud, and information – is driving innovation in the government sector. In particular, new technology is assisting with the development of more intelligent, interactive solutions that focus on individual needs.
  2. Be smart. Smart government integrates information, communication, and operational technologies with planning, management, and operations across multiple domains, process areas, and jurisdictions to generate sustainable public value. Smart government reduces unnecessary

regulations, bureaucracy, and duplication of roles and services.

  1. Be connected and be seen as one service provider. Joined-up government aims to make better use of resources to produce a more integrated or “seamless” set of services so that they are perceived to be provided from one service provider. Thus, a “one-stop shop” may enable a resident to pay local taxes, get information about improvement grants, and access local public health services and advice from a Citizen’s Advice Bureau, all at the same premises or website.
  2. Work with the private sector. Governments have turned to public and private partnerships and outsourcing as a way of accessing external expertise and delivering services more cost effectively.”

On a similar note, Marson (2015) highlighted in his lecture four major challenged areas confronting public sector organizations around the world, which include political, economic, social and technological (Figure 1). These areas post serious issues and challenges which call for an immediate action to address and minimize effect of such potential risks.

 

 

 

Figure 1

Public Sector Around the World

 

Meanwhile, Abanto (2015) focused on the Philippine Public Sector organizations, enumerating the following issues and challenges: performance management framework vary across agencies, citizens’ service expectations unknown to many agencies, some reforms were initiated but not sustained, high cost of transaction, functional departments operate in silos, fragmented capacity building efforts, limited use of data and information, frequent change in leadership, unclear procedures, overlapping functions, too much paper works, inconsistent policies, and graft and corruption.

 

Figure 2

Country Percentile              APO

Rank                       Ranking

World Ranking  
Singapore         99.52                   1 2
Hong Kong         95.69                   2 10
Japan         93.78                   3 14
Republic of China         83.73                   4 35
Korea Republic         82.30                   5 38
Malaysia         81.82                   6 39
Thailand         61.24                   7 82
Philippines 91
India         47.37                   9 111
Sri Lanka Philippines world rank45.93                          10 ing was 7114 ,
Indonesia 91 and 92 in previous 44.45                                   11 years 115
Vietnam         44.02                  12 118  
Mongolia         34.93                  13 137
Iran         28.23                  14 151
Lao PDR         24.88                  15 158
Pakistan         23.44                  16 161
Bangladesh         22.49                  17 163
Cambodia         18.66                  18 171
Nepal         18.18                  19 172
Fiji         16.75                  20 175
Country Percentile

Rank

World Ranking
Finland 100 1
Singapore 99.52 2
Denmark 99.04 3
Sweden 98.56 4
Norway 98.09 5
Switzerland 97.61 6
Canada 97.13 7
Netherland 96.65 8
New Zealand 96.17 9
Hong Kong 95.69 10

Government effectiveness,

APO member rankings

Top 10 Countries

210 countries  and territories assessed, World

Bank 2013          

Clearly, these factors have somehow contributed to the fair performance of the

Philippines in the Government Effectiveness ranking released by World Bank in 2013. Specifically, the Government Effectiveness is measured by survey data, which includes the following: quality of services, quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures, quality of policy formulation and implementation, and credibility of the government’s commitment to such policies.

 

Business Excellence Models

The origin of business excellence may be traced back in the 1980s when total quality management (TQM) was a trend among companies (Porter et al., 2004). However, as correctly pointed out by Elmholt et al. (2013), leading gurus within TQM have described points and steps for quality improvement like Deming’s 14 points, Juran’s 10 steps, and Crosby’s 14 steps, but these frameworks for improvements have became struggles among companies as the same “do not provide guidelines on how to turn such philosophies into practice” (Adebanjo, 2001). Consequently, several business excellence models were developed and later became popular for the exact same reason that makes TQM somewhat unpopular (Adebanjo, 2001). Nevertheless, as appropriately pointed out by Black et al. (1996), the TQM remains basis for excellence and the business excellence models as useful tools to assess the former.

According to Mann et al. (no date), business excellence “is about strengthening the management systems and processes of an organization in a holistic and integrated manner to improve performance and to create value for stakeholders.” Consequently, several researches have been conducted to prove the existence or non-existence of correlation between implementing a BE model and an improved performance. In line with this, as cited by Dahlgaard et al. (2013), some researches affirmed the significant benefits that can be derived from implementing BE model, both in terms of financial profit

(Hendricks & Singhal, 1996; Hausner, 1999; Hendricks & Singhal, 2000; Hansson &

Eriksson, 2002; Jacob et al., 2004; Boulter et al., 2013) and non-financial outcomes (GAO, 1991; Powell, 1995; Curkovic et al., 2000; Hoisington & Huang, 2000; Douglas & Judge,

2001). To corroborate the foregoing, the following sudies were presented:

“The most recent research on the financial impacts of implementing

TQM and BEM (Boulter et al., 2013) compared 120 national, regional and European award winning companies from the period 1990 to 2006 with careful selected comparison companies from the same industry and country as the award winning company. The analyzed companies were all publicly traded. Like the study by Hendrics & Singhal, which compared 600 award winning companies in North America with selected comparison companies from the same industry, no significant differences in financial results could be found in the implementation period (5 years before the award). During the post implementation period (5 years after the award was given) differences between the two groups of companies became bigger and bigger on several financial results. Compared to the comparison companies, award winning companies experienced 1 year after the award a further 8% mean increase in sales revenues, which increased to 17% 3 years after the award, and 77% 5 years after the award. The award winning companies showed further 5 years after the award a higher mean increase of 18% in operating income, 40% in total assets, and a 4.4% further reduction in cost over sales.”

In conclusion, Dahlgaard et al. (2013) argue that as the findings are positive for both North America and Europe, BE models are effective tools in improving the performance of organizations.

Showing the other side of the coin, Dahlgaard et al. (2013) also pointed out that not all studies resulted to positive findings as there are some which “indicate that the use of BE models do not guarantee success (Powell, 1995; Jennibeyond ngs & Beaver, 1997; Fisher et al., 2001; Stephens et al., 2005)”, and that companies were experiencing difficulties in using such models. As correctly pointed out by Chen et al. (2011) citing Jennigs et al. (1997) and Stephens et al. (2005), “although there is compelling evidence that business excellence delivers benefit to the organization, it is clear that it does not work for everyone.”

Despite debates on the effectiveness of BE models, it is a fact unarguably beyond question that BE has already succeeded in spreading its influence across the globe. In fact, a decade earlier, Miguel (2015) claimed that “there are quality and business excellence award programs in at least 76 countries and economies in all United Nations (UN) regions in the globe.” In Asia alone, 17 countries have a national business excellence award as shown in Figure 3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3

National Business Excellence Awards in Asia
        Bangladesh                                                                                          Mongolia

ƒ National Productivity and Quality Excellence Award      ƒ National Productivity Award (NPA)

Fiji                                                                                                         Nepal

ƒ Fiji Business Excellence Award            ƒ FNCCI National Business Excellence Award

Hong Kong

Pakistan

ƒ HKMA Quality Award

ƒ Pakistan National Quality Award

India

ƒ Rajiv Gandhi National Quality Award Philippines

ƒ CII-EXIM Bank Award for Business Excellence ƒ Philippines Quality Award (PQA)

ƒ IMC Ramkrishna Bajaj National Quality Award

ƒ Golden Peacock National Quality Award           Republic of China

Indonesia                                                                                          ƒ Taiwan National Quality Award

ƒ Indonesian Quality Award    Singapore

IR Iran                                                                                                ƒ Singapore Quality Award

ƒ Iran National Quality Award Sri Lanka

Japan                                                                                                 ƒ Sri Lanka National Quality Award

ƒ Japan Quality Award

Korea                                                                                                   Thailand

ƒ Korean Quality Grand Award               ƒ Thailand Quality Award (TQA)

Vietnam

Malaysia

ƒ

ƒ Prime Minister’s Quality Award          Vietnam Quality Award

Development Of Productivity Practitioners (DPP): Basic Course (6 June – 1 July 2016)

Productivity & Quality Improvement and the Performance Excellence Framework by Mr. George Wong© 2016 Hoclink Systems & Services Pte Ltd

Note that in Asia, most of the national business excellence award model were patterned after the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Criteria for Performance Excellence (see Table 1).

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1

Criteria of Business Excellence Models in Asia

Source: Mann et al., no date

 

BE models have indeed gained popular support from different industries. However, as there are several BE models proliferating around, it became a common subject of interest in research to compare and contrast the same with the end view of determining their applicability to certain industry or sector,  and evaluating which among them is the most effective.

Interestingly, the popularity of BE models have also reached the public sector. With the growing challenges to public sector organizations in meeting the needs and requirements of the public, various business excellence models were adopted by different national and regional bodies to improve their respective performance in the Government Competitive Index. Most countries have adopted and/or modified existing models, while other organizations and researchers have developed their own approaches to business excellence.

Of the several business excellence model across the globe, three have the most influence in Asia and the Pacific, these are  Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award

(MBNQA), European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM), and Australian Business Excellence Model (ABEM). Of the three, MBNQA was established first. It was in 1987 when MBNQA was established in the US targeted to public. Initially, three major sectors were identified for the award – manufacturing, service and small business.

Subsequently, two more sectors, education and health, were added.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) Model

Source: The National Institute of Standards and Technology

Development Of Productivity Practitioners (DPP): Basic Course (6 June – 1 July 2016)

Productivity & Quality Improvement and the Performance Excellence Framework by Mr. George Wong© 2016 Hoclink Systems & Services Pte Ltd

Seven business excellence criteria are the embraced in the framework, which include (1) Leadership, (2) Strategy, (3) Customer, (4) Measurement, Analysis, and

Knowledge Management, (5) Workforce, (6) Operations, and (7) Results (see Figure 3). As Pathak (2011) correctly observed, the MBNQA model was widely accepted among developing countries to assess their organizations, although the same was mainly created for measuring developed country performance.

In 1988, or immediately succeeding the establishment of MBNQA, the Australia has also launched its award system, which was initially called Australian Quality Award

(AQA), and was later renamed in 1998 to Australian Business Excellence Award (ABEA).

The criteria of the ABEA is somehow similar to MBNQA, namely: (1) Leadership, (2) Customer and other Stakeholders, (3) Strategy and Planning, (4) Process Management, Improvement and Innovation, (5) People, (6) Information and Knowledge, and (7) Results and Sustainable Performance (see Figure 4).

Figure 5

Australian Business Excellence Award (ABEA) Model

 

At the onset, the award was being managed by the Australian Quality Council, which however, was handed over to Standard Australia Incorporation (SAI) to better market the framework within and outside the country (Pathak, 2011).

Finally, the European Foundation for Quality Management came at later time. It was initiated in 1988, but it only started its award system in 1991. In contrast with MBNQA and ABEA which both have seven criteria, the EFQM model has 9 criteria; five of which are called ‘enablers’ and the other four, ‘results’. The five enablers include (1) Leadership,

(2) People, (3) Policy/Strategy, (4) Partnership and Resources, and (5) Processes,

Products and Services. On the other hand, results embraced the following: (1) People Results, (2) Customer Results, (3) Society Results, and (4) Business Results.

Figure 6

European Foundation Quality Management (EFQM) Model

Source: EFQM

Development Of Productivity Practitioners (DPP): Basic Course (6 June – 1 July 2016)

Productivity & Quality Improvement and the Performance Excellence Framework by Mr. George Wong© 2016 Hoclink Systems & Services Pte Ltd

The EFQM model was an initiative of the public sector with private partnership. Basically, it was developed and intended for application to public sector organizations, which means that places premium on its applicability to public sector (Phatak, 2011).

 

 

MBNQA: Milestones and Challenges

Among the BE models herein discussed, this research will focus on the Malcolm Baldride Criteria for Performance Excellence as the same is the business excellence model adopted by the Philippines in its National Quality Award.

The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) was established in 1988, which was decades ago from 1951 – the year when the Deming Prize was founded in honor of Dr. W. E. Deming for his contribution in promoting quality control in Japan. On the other hand, the MBNQA was founded in honor of Sec. Malcolm Baldrige, the US Secretary of Commerce from 1981-1987, for his contribution to quality management (NIST website). It is worth mentioning that MBNQA started as a framework for manufacturing, services and SMEs before education and health care sectors were included in 1998 (Elmholt et al., 2013).

According to the official website of National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the“MBNQA is a customer-focused award that raises awareness on quality and performance excellence to achieve competitive advantage and higher productivity for U.S. organizations. It is a framework organized in seven main categories, which include

Leadership; Strategy; Customer; Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management; Workforce; Operations; and Results.

There were several studies conducted to investigate the impact of business models to organizations. To this end, winners of MBNQA and other national quality award were used as samples. Results showed that award recipients (which imply adoption of a business excellence model) have a positive correlation to financial results (Jacob et al., 2004) and improved performance (Hendricks et al., 1997; Eriksson et al., 2003). Meanwhile, Wu (2009) in his doctorate thesis, made a comparison among the most commonly used framework for performance measurement and found that MBNQA as a business model is the most suitable for SMEs as it meets the SME performance measurement requirements, in that it is dynamic, flexible and non-institutional, though it falls short on the measure of competition and other external factors.

In a study conducted by Stephens (2000) as cited by Wu (2009), which evaluates the implementation of the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence in SMEs, he identifies the importance of the framework to small firms and to what extent this framework were used by small businesses. It surveyed management practices of business, asking leaders to rate them from least to highly important, and the result showed that strategy development processes and leadership were ranked higher than other items (Stephen 2000, cited by Wu, 2012). It can be implied from the same that managers in small firms spend more time on day-to-day operations.

 

MBNQA and Nonprofit

                                    Because of its popular acceptance from various sectors and industry,

congressional legislation authorized the Baldridge Program to expand award eligibility to nonprofit organizations, which include public sector/government organizations and subunits, beyond education and healthcare. Thus, to fully implement the aforementioned planned expansion so as to cover nonprofit organizations, the 2016 fiscal year appropriation for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has provided for an additional funding for Baldrige Program. Subsequently, NIST worked on the revision of the business version of the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence to align and to customize the requirements on the nature and peculiarities of nonprofit organizations. Finally, in 2007, after “running a pilot ward process in which

Baldrige examiners assessed a nonprofit organization”, the application for the Baldrige Award was opened for all nonprofit organizations, including public sector/government organizations (Schaefer, 2016).

After a decade (2007 – 2017), over 80 nonprofit organizations have already applied for the award.  Only eight have successfully received the prestigious award, of which, three are municipal governments and two are federal units that are part of U.S military and veterans organization (NIST, 2016; Schaefer, 2016).

Although no formal study or research pertaining to the effectiveness of the MBNQA model for public sector organizations has yet been conducted, testimonials from the recipients of the award have readily revealed the benefits they gain from joining the MBNQA. In a publication released by NIST in 2011, it presented several Baldrige Effect on Nonprofits, which include increased customer satisfaction, improved financial performance, excellent service, and satisfied and stable workforce. The date used deducing the foregoing were based on the experiences of nonprofit organizations that are recipients of the Baldrige Award.

 

The Philippine Quality Award (PQA)

The foregoing literatures provided descriptive information on the history and evolution of Business Excellence. It likewise presented related studies which puts premium on the effectiveness of the framework in improving performance of various organizations, both from public and private sector. It made a brief discussion on the most popular BE models and zeroed in on MBNQA.

The Business Excellence model used here in the Philippines is patterned after the

Malcolm Bldridge National Quality Award of the US – the Philippine Quality Award. The Philippine Quality Award Program is a global competitiveness template that aims to encourage and engage public and private organizations and other stakeholders to strive for and attain performance excellence. It is a national award program that recognizes achievements of public and private sector organizations in their journey towards performance excellence.

The PQA official website, provides for a brief historical overview of the award. It expressly provides that “PQA is the centerpiece program of the National Action Agenda for Productivity (NAAP), the blueprint for the country’s integrated approach to improve economy-wide productivity during the term of former President Fidel V. Ramos in response to the growing challenges of globalization. It was created through Executive Order 448 on October 3, 1997 and on February 28, 2001 it was institutionalized through the signing of Republic Act 9013, also known as the Philippine Quality Award Act (See Implementing Rules and Regulations). The PQA sets a standard of excellence to help Filipino organizations achieve world-class performance and serves as a “template” for competitiveness based on the principles of Total Quality Management (TQM). It is a national quality award comparable with the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) of the US and those in Europe and Asia.”

Based on the PQA official website, PQA has three objectives, which are as follows:

  1. To promote standards in organizational performance comparable to those of leading business abroad, pursuant to the country’s effort to be globally competitive;
  2. To establish a national system for assessing quality and productivity performance, thus providing local organizations regardless of size, sector and maturity with criteria and guidelines for self-assessment to guide their quality and productivity improvement efforts; and
  3. To recognize organizations in both the private and public sector which excel in quality management and overall organizational performance, thus providing Philippine industries with benchmarks and models to emulate.

Moreover, the Republic Act 9013 otherwise know as the Philippine Quality Award Act provides for the backdrop of the PQA as a tool adopted by the country for performance improvement, both for public and private sector organizations. Figure 7 shows the institutional Setup of the PQA Program. Considered as the highest award given by the government on quality, the President of the Philippines is designated as the Patron of the Award. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) is serves as the Award Manager, while the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) and the Philippine Society for Quality (PSQ), play the role as Award Administrator for public sector and private sector, respectively.

 

Figure 7

The PQA Recognition and Award is given once a year, and is awarded by the

President of the Republic, usually in the Malacañang Palace. The Award Cycle (see Figure 8) starts with the submission of Eligibility Requirement Form by the applicant to appropriate Award Administrator. If eligible, applicant will have to submit a 50-page

Application Report, which will be independently reviewed by a team of assessors.

Thereafter, the assessors will convene for a joint or consensus review, followed by a site visit to the applicant for clarification and verification. Findings of the team will be presented to a board of judges who in turn will do the final review and will convey recommendation to the Award Manager, DTI. Finally, the President of the Philippines presents the Award and/or Recognition.

 

Figure 8

The PQA has four levels (see Figure 9), three of which are Recognitions, and the highest level is the Award for performance excellence: Level 1 is Recognition for

Commitment to Quality Management; Level 2 is Recognition for Proficiency in Quality Management; Level 3 is Recognition for Mastery in Quality Management; and Level 4 is the Philippine Quality Award for Performance Excellence.

Figure 9

For Award determination, performance of Applicants in the Philippine Quality

Award are measured using the 7 Criteria Categories of the PQA 2017 Criteria for Performance Excellence, which include:

  1. This category asks how senior leaders’ personal actions guide and sustain your organization. It also asks about your organization’s governance system and how your organization fulfills its legal, ethical, and societal responsibilities.
  2. This category determines how your organization develops strategic objectives and action plans, implements them, changes them if circumstances require, and measures progress.
  3. This category asks how your organization engages its customers for long-term marketplace success, including how your organization listens to the voice of the customer, builds customer relationships, and uses customer information to improve and to identify opportunities for innovation.
  4. Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management. This category identifies how your organization selects, gathers, analyzes, manages, and improves its data, information, and knowledge assets; how it learns; and how it manages information technology. The category also determines how your organization uses review findings to improve its performance.
  5. Human Resource. This category ascertains how your organization assesses workforce capability and capacity needs, and builds a workforce environment conducive to high performance. The category also asks how your organization engages, manages, and develops your workforce to

utilize its full potential in alignment with your organization’s overall business needs.

  1. This category asks how your organization designs, manages, and improves its products and work processes, and improves operational effectiveness to deliver customer value and achieve organizational success and sustainability.
  2. This category looks into your organization’s performance and improvement in all key areas – product and process results, customerfocused results, workforce-focused results, leadership and governance results, and financial and market results. The category asks about performance levels relative to those of competitors and other organizations with similar product offerings.

The first 6 criteria categories are called enabling categories, which are being measured through the following:

 

Approach comprises

  • the methods used to carry out the process,
  • the appropriateness of these methods to the item requirements and your operating environment,
  • the effectiveness of your use of the methods, and
  • the degree to which the approach is repeatable and based on reliable data and information (i.e., systematic).

 

Deployment is the extent to which

  • your approach addresses item requirements that are relevant and important to your organization,
  • your approach is applied consistently, and
  • your approach is used by all appropriate work units.

 

Learning comprises

  • the refinement of your approach through cycles of evaluation and improvement,
  • the encouragement of breakthrough change to your approach through innovation, and
  • the sharing of refinements and innovations with other relevant work units and processes in your organization.

 

Integration is the extent to which

  • your approach is aligned with the organizational needs identified in the Organizational Profile and other process items,
  • your measures, information, and improvement systems are complementary across processes and work units, and
  • your plans, processes, results, analyses, learning, and actions are harmonized across processes and work units to support organization-wide goals. (PQA Government Criteria for Performance Excellence 2017-2021 Handbook, page 58)

 

 

 

On the other hand, the Result category is measured through the following:

 

“Levels are your current performance on a meaningful measurement scale.

 

Trends comprise your rate of performance improvement or continuation of good performance in areas of importance (i.e., the slope of data points over time).

 

Comparisons comprise

  • your performance relative to that of other, appropriate organizations, such as competitors or organizations similar to yours, and
  • your performance relative to education-sector leaders or benchmarks.

 

Integration is the extent to which

  • your results measures (often through segmentation) address important performance requirements relating to students and other customers, educational programs and services, markets, processes, and action plans identified in your Organizational Profile and in process items,
  • your results include valid indicators of future performance, and
  • your results reflect harmonization across your processes and work units to support organizationwide goals.” (PQA Government Criteria for Performance Excellence 2017-2021 Handbook, pages 58-59)

 

 

Each of the Criteria Category have a corresponding weight as shown in Figure 7. The Result category weighs almost 50% of the total score, followed by Category 1 which is leadership.

 

Figure 10

There are 14 recipients from 1998-2014 (see Table 2), but these constitutes only 11 public sector organizations as City Government of Marikina received the award twice, first in 1998 for Level 1 Recognition, and in 1999 for Level 2 Recognition; and National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) Region 1, received Level 1 Recognition for 3 times.

 

 

Table 2

Public Sector Recipients of PQA Recognition Categories 1998-2014

 

Anchored on the foregoing review of related literature, the researcher seeks to assess the effectiveness of the PQA Framework, an adopted model from the US, in improving the performance of public sector recipients.

 

 

 

Theoretical Framework

 With the growing challenges to public sector organizations to improve performance, several business excellence models for performance improvement were developed by different national and regional bodies. Most countries have adopted and/or modified existing models, while other organizations and researchers have developed their own approaches to business excellence.

Of the several business excellence model used across the globe, this research focused on the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence as the same is the business excellence model adopted by the Philippines in its National Quality Award.

 

Figure 11

MBNQA Criteria for Performance Excellence

Source: The National Institute of Standards and Technology

In this study, the MBNQA criteria for performance excellence will be used to determine the the level of improvement of public sector recipients and how the subject public sector organizations hve faired from the time they were conferred the PQA recognition. The same BE framework will likewise be used as basis in developing a BE framework and BE program tailor-fitted for the public sector.

 

Research Objectives

This research aims to investigate and assess the effectiveness of Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence framework in improving and sustaining results for public sector recipients of the PQA, which is the model adopted by the Philippines for its National Quality Award – the Philippine Quality Award. Specifically, it aims to:

  • Trace the development of the public sector recipients of PQA Recognition.
  • Assess the impact of the PQA to public sector recipients on PQA

Recognition.

  • Evaluate the level of success of PQA in achieving its objective, particularly for the public sector.
  • Identify the issues and challenges in the adoption and institutionalization of the PQA Framework.
  • Determine the areas for improvement on the PQA framework and/or PQA program.

From the foregoing, the researcher seeks to develop a program implementation framework that will help public sector in the adoption and institutionalization of the business excellence model. Finally, the researcher seeks to develop a program implementation framework that will help public sector in the adoption and

institutionalization of the business excellence model.

Conceptual Framework

As Wu (2009) pointed out, performance results and enablers should be part of any comprehensive performance measurement framework. Such is the case in MBNQA model, which divides the criteria for performance excellence into enablers and results. Consequently, to re-assess the performance of the subject public sector organizations, both performance enablers and results should be measured. On the other hand, the enabler will be scrutinized in assessing the possible issues and concerns that might hinder public sector recipients from implementing the MBNQA framework.

 

Figure 6 Performance Improvement Framework

in terms of performance enablers and performance results. The performance enablers, which produce the performance results, are to be subjected to continuous review and improvement. Developments arising from the performance improvement will be again measured using both dimensions of performance measurement. Consequently, as performance enablers are the drivers to performance results, this research delved into how they can be implemented to public sector organizations to achieve superior results.

 

Chapter 3

THE RESEARCH METHODS

                          This chapter includes a detailed discussion of the methods and procedures

observed and utilized in the conduct of this study.  Included in this portion of the thesis are the following:  design of the study, population and samples of the study; research instruments; data-gathering procedure; and statistical treatment of data.

 

Research Design

A mixed methodology, which utilizes both quantitative and qualitative research, will be used in the conduct of this study. This methodology according to Bryman (1996), takes advantage of both qualitative and quantitative paradigms while reducing the limitations that are likely to be derived from using independently either of the design. Furthermore, Cresswell (2003) supports the use of mixed methodology “in an attempt to confirm, crossvalidate, or corroborate findings within a single study.”

As this present study involves the description, recording, analysis, and interpretation of the present nature, composition or processes of a phenomenon, the researcher deemed it appropriate to employ mixed methodology. A quantitative research will be utilized to measure the present performance of subject public sector organizations as against the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence. Meanwhile, a qualitative review of related literature and studies and a focus group discussions were employed in order to determine the applicability of the MBNQA framework to public sector organizations, and to identify the issues and concerns the adoption of the business excellence model. Finally, an interview and a focus group discussion were conducted to develop a program implementation for the adoption of a business excellence framework. The quantitative and qualitative method complemented the result of each other, which addressed their respective limitations and thereby resulted to a more credible and reliable information.

 

Subjects and Study Sites

 Table 3 shows that from1998-2014, there are already 14 recipients from the public sector. This number is far less than 50% of the total number of recipients from the private sector. Moreover, the highest PQA level received by a public sector organization is only Level 2 or Recognition for Proficiency in Quality Management.

The subject public sector organizations that will be tapped for this study will include only the 14 recipients of PQA recognition from 1998 to 2014. This is limited only to the recipients of the said period as the recipients from 2015 onwards has yet to implement improvement based on the findings of third party assessors. However, it will cover all the PQA recipients from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.

Table 3

Summary of Public Sector Recipient of PQA Recognition 1998-2014

 

Research Instruments/Data Measure

 A combination of different instruments or tools will be used for gathering data in this research, which will serve as the bases for drawing conclusions or making inferences. Some of the tools that will be used by the researcher in the conduct of this study include survey questionnaire, interviews, focus group discussion, and analysis.

Questionnaire. The researcher will be using a questionnaire in order to gather the necessary data to measure the present level of performance of the subject public sector organizations as against the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence.

Data for this study will be collected through the use of a survey questionnaire, which was developed by the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) through its consultant, Dr. Robin Mann, Chairman of Centre for Organisational Excellence Research based in New Zealand.  Part 1 of the survey questionnaire will solicit information pertaining to organizational profile;.

Part 2 will delve on questions that provided an overview of the level of maturity of subject public sector organizations on the different MNBQA criteria. The questionnaire was especially designed for public sector organization and has been used by the DAP in assessing the level of performance of public sector organizations.

Interview. The researcher will conduct interviews to validate the answers of the respondents in the survey questionnaire. Moreover, this would also aid the researcher in probing towards the extraction of necessary information, which cannot be collected by the mere use of a survey questionnaire.

Focus Group Discussion. This form of qualitative research is a good avenue to gather the subject of this study and other stakeholders to discuss their issues and concerns in the adoption of a business excellence model. In contrast with a survey, FGD helped the researcher to know how the group thinks on a particular subject matter, which is of great significance in the development of a program implementation framework for the adoption of a business excellence framework.

Analysis. Analysis will be utilized after the researcher has gathered all the necessary data and pertinent information. The same will be processed – findings revealed, and conclusions and recommendations were drawn out of the careful analysis and examination of all gathered data.

 

 

Data Gathering Procedure

The prepared survey questionnaire will be subjected for validation: 1) the instrument will be presented to his adviser for comments and suggestions; 2) then the revised questionnaire will be subjected to a dry-run to a group of respondents who are not included among the target subjects of the study. This procedure further validated the instrument as to consistency, direction, content and clarity of statements, 3) then the improved and final survey questionnaire will be shown to his adviser for approval and copies readied for distribution to the intended respondents.

The researcher will seek the permission of the administrators concerned for the conduct of this study in the research locale. Questionnaires will be administered and collected. Data will be treated and and will be interpreted. Based on the schedule, the researcher will organize a focus group discussion inviting all interested parties and other stakeholders to discuss the findings and to identify possible issues and concerns in adopting a business excellence model, and thereafter facilitate the development of a program implementation framework.

 

Statistical Treatment

Statistics is one way of getting the information organized. To have a general view of the whole scenario of the study, basic statistical tools will be used.

The following statistical tools will be utilized in this study:   

Frequency Count and Percentage – These descriptive measures will be used in presenting the organizational profile of the subject public sector organizations in terms of the following variables: nature (e.g. national, line, attached, bureau etc.); size; and source of funding.

 

 

Percentages were computed following the formula:

                                                P =      F

                                                            N  X 100

Where:

P         =         percentage

F          =          frequency of a category

N         =         total number of cases

 

 

Weighted Mean – This descriptive measure will employed in determining the assessment of the respondents on the level of maturity of their organizations on BE.  The formula applied is expressed as follows:

 

                        WM = ΣWF

                                           N

Where:     WM = weighted mean
      W = weight of a response
      F = frequency of a response
      N = total number of cases

 

In determining the level of performance of the subject public sector organizations, raw data gathered from the survey questionnaire will be inputted in a software program specially designed for the purpose that will automatically generate result.

 

 

 

 

 

References:

Adebanjo, D. (2001). TQM and business excellence: is there really a conflict?. Measuring Business Excellence, 5(3), 37-40.

 

Amanfijnr, B. (2012), Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in Public Sector

Organizations: A Case Study of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice.

 

Black, S. A., & Porter, L. J. (1996). Identification of the critical factors of TQM. Decision sciences, 27(1), 1-21.

 

Chen, C. et al., (2011). FACT: A Comprehensive Business Excellence Model

 

Dahlgaard, J. et al., (2016). Business Excellence Model: Limitations, Reflections and Further Development.

 

Elmholt, K., and Sondrup, A., 2013. “Sustainable Enterprise Excellence from a SME Perspective, A Theoretical Approach.” Master’s thesis, Aarhus University Business and Social Sciences Department of Business Administration.

 

Eriksson, H., Johansson, F. & Wiklund, H., 2003. “Effects of in-company quality awards on organizational performance.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 14:2, 235-242.

 

Hendricks, K.B. & Singhal, V.R., 1997. “Does implementing an effective TQM program actually improve operating performance? Empirical evidence from firms that have won quality awards.” Management Science, 43:9, 1258-1274.

 

Jacob, R., Madu, C. N., & Tang, C. (2004). An empirical assessment of the financial performance of Malcolm Baldrige Award winners. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 21(8), 897-914.

 

Mann, 2016. Business Excellence Models and Awards for the Public Sector: A Guidebook for National Productivity Organizations. Asia Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan.

 

Mann, 2016. Business Excellence Models and Awards for the Public Sector: A Guidebook for National Productivity Organizations. Asia Productivity Organization,

Tokyo,       Japan.       Retrieved       on       16       October       2017,          http://www.apo-

tokyo.org/publications/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/Buiness-Excellence-Models-andAwards-for-the-Public-Sector2016.pdf

 

Mann, R et al., no date. Understanding Business Excellence: An Awareness

Guidebook for SMEs

 

Marson, B., 2015. Presentation, International Conference on Productivity and Innovation.

 

National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) Official Website.

 

Nor M.N.N., Khalid, S. A., Razali, M.F.M. and Ramli, N.A. (2010), Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction: The Public Sector Perspective.

 

Osborn & Gaebler (1995), Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is transforming the Publik Sector.

 

Pathak, S., (2011). Comparative Analysis of Local, Regional and Intercontinental Business Excellence Models to Recommend Appropriate Model & Quality Management System Structure in Context of Nepal.

 

Philippine Quality Award Official Website (Retrieved on 1 December 2017 at https://www.pqa.org.ph/background-pqa.php)

 

Philippine Quality Award Act (Republic Act 9013)

 

Philippine Quality Award Criteria for Performance Excellence, Development Academy of the Philippines 2008

 

Porter, L.J., S.J. Tanner, and E. European Centre for Business, Assessing business excellence : a guide to business excellence and self-assessment. 2004, Amsterdam [Netherlands]; Boston, Mass.: Elsevier.

 

Schaefer, C. et al., (2011). Baldrige 2020, An Executive’s Guide to the Criteria for

Performance Excellence

 

Schaefer, C. et al., (2016). Improving Government Performance: The Great Promise of the Baldrige Excellence Framework. Retrived on 1 December 2017 at https://patimes.org/improving-government-performance-great-promise-baldrigeexcellence-framework/

 

Wu, D., 2009. “Measuring Performance in Small and Medium Enterprises in the Information & Communication Technology Industries.” A doctorate thesis, School of Management, College of Business, RMIT University.


How The Order Process Works

Amazing Offers from The Uni Tutor
Sign up to our daily deals and don't miss out!

The Uni Tutor Clients