Good morning,day,night everyone,

While searching for literature which could help me with my following problem I ran into this forum, really great and just what i needed.

Currently I am researching the a various amount of excellence awards (Deming Prize, Shingo, BNQP and EFQM) and try to compare there underlying ideas with ISO 9000:2000. What i am particular interested in is a good comparisation of the model and awards, not because I am evaluating them for my own company, but to understand their deepest differences in phylosophy. While I think they almost all take TQM as underlying idea, their values still differ, while many norms are eventually often the same.

In conclusion i am looking for a overall comparisation on underlying ideas as effects and possible flaws.

Can anybody help me with this? It´s been hard to find any descent literature on this subject.

Thank you very much

did a mod edit my title? cause this title is not reflecting the content of my question.

I don't remember seeing anything that compares them all, much less which lists each of their 'flaws' (or Pros and Cons). You'll probably have to look at them 2 at a time. You might make up a comparison matrix from various files such as ISO 9001 vs. Baldridge, etc. One is Baldridge vs. ISO 9001 (http://elsmar.com/level2/baldrige.html)

did a mod edit my title? cause this title is not reflecting the content of my question.
I did trying to get the essence of your question.

First of all thanks for your reaction.

I am trying to take an approach to these awards and ISO from a cultural perspective. While ISO often not needs a cultural (not only businesswise but also seen from values derived from national values) change as big as the awards do. For gaining an award the whole system of values and norms have to be accepted, while receiving ISO mainly only needs the acceptance of the norms, instead of the total system, including values. Accepting the whole system needs a bigger cultural change then with ISO. Yet it seems I can´t pin this problem down a good as I want to.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by cultural differences. Do you mean ISO 9001, for example, is more proscriptive while the EFQM is more an interpretation of the EFQM 'requirements'?

Yes that´s excatly what I mean. My research takes a cultural point of view on Awards and ISO, don´t get scared of the word of "culture". A problem I see is that all these systems are being discussed in Western oriented firms, neglecting the fact that when these systems are implemented in other value oriented countries this may conflict. Prior to this in many developing countries ISO of suppliers is wanted by global operating firms entering a foreign country.

For example: Many globally operating firms ask for ISO in countries in South America. They think it´s a benefit (they can neglect the important norms and values in that society as trust is purely on relationships established) for their sales, while often it reduces performance of purchasing, because of the cultural mismatch.

My research is aimed at if a particular excellence model has a better cultural fit over another within a particular country as being for example Brasil.

QV, I don't have any material that could assist you in your research, but it is a fascinating topic. I read that you are focusing on "award" based programs, such as EFQM, Deming prize, etc... It seems to me that you should focus the comparison between EFQM and the MBNQA (in the US). The "Brazilian quality culture" is closer and much more influenced by the Americans and Europeans, compared to the Asians. My personal opinion is that the MBNQA, by placing a significant weight to financial results, has more "impact".

A couple of points about some of your previous statements.
It is possible for an organization to win awards such as the Malcolm Baldrige and EFQM through "window dressing", without really embracing the principles and concepts of the award criteria and principles.

Consider also the ISO 9000 principles and how culturally they are (mis) applied. For example, the mutually beneficial supplier relationship (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/understand/qmp.html#Principle8)principle. How many ISO 9001 certified organizations really embrace this? Very few in my estimation. Most organizations still treat their suppliers as adversaries and foment a I-win-you-lose relationship. Case in point, the US Automotive OEM's (for the most part).
Another principle that most Latin American and Asian companies don't pay much attention to: Involvement of people (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/understand/qmp.html#Principle3). For the most part, commercial organizations in LA and Asia treat their workforce like disposable commodity, not fostering an environment where employee participation is truly welcomed. Especially in the product realization assembly lines, most employees are expected NOT to think. Just follow the instructions and tasks at hand...

Good luck in your research.

Thanks for your reply Sidney, really helped me.

If window dressing is making you winning awards, then you are using it as a marketing instrument. While all models and ISO also says that you can only benefit if you adapt the whole system and not only the norms. Perfomance improvement can only be the case where the whole system has been changed. Otherwise (as the models suggest) the norms (rules) will conflict with other norms.

This is an other hard topic to my opinion, can norms be the same while values differ between companies and still they both benefit.

or secondly; are the systems not about synergy between firms but just improvement of your own company? consequents; you may be improving, while you supplier is misintrepetating the values and so decreasing his performance.

After a I gave my search some more direction I found some useful literature on this subjet, if anyone is interested in this I can post it here. most of the articles concern the relationship between TQM,ISO,MBNQA,EFQM.

Greetz