Download Total Quality Management: An Overview and Evolution and more Study notes Quality Management in PDF only on Docsity!
Part One
The Development, Introduction
and Sustaining of Total Quality
Management (TQM)
The purpose of part 1 is to introduce the reader to some of the fundamentals of TQM. It deals with how to introduce TQM into an organization and its sub- sequent development. Sustaining TQM is far from easy, and the final chapter examines issues to which attention needs to be given. It contains the following seven chapters:
Chapter 1 – TQM: An Overview Chapter 2 – The Role of Management in TQM Chapter 3 – The Received Wisdom on TQM Chapter 4 – The Introduction of TQM Chapter 5 – A Framework for the Introduction of TQM Chapter 6 – Levels of TQM Adoption Chapter 7 – Sustaining TQM
Chapter 1 examines the evolution of quality management (‘co-ordinated activ- ities to direct and control an organization with regard to quality’) from inspec- tion (‘conformity evaluation by observation and adjustment accompanied as appropriate by measurement, testing or gauging’) to quality control (‘part of qual- ity management focused on fulfilling quality requirements’) to quality assurance (‘part of quality management focused on providing confidence that quality requirements will be fulfilled’ (BS EN ISO 9000 (2000)) and finally to Total Quality Management (TQM). In describing this evolution a comparative ana- lysis is made of the essential difference between detection- and prevention-based approaches. The key elements of TQM are also discussed. TQM is not defined in BS EN ISO 9000 (2000) but, put simply, it is the mutual co-operation of everyone in an organization and associated business processes to produce value- for-money products and services which meet and, hopefully, exceed the needs and expectations of customers. Chapter 2 outlines the main reasons why senior management should become personally involved in TQM. It examines what they need to know about TQM
2 Developing, Introducing and Sustaining TQM
and what they need to do in terms of actions. The role of middle and first-line management is also key to putting in place the principles of TQM, and the activ- ities which they need to get involved with are discussed. Chapter 3 deals with the received wisdom on TQM. Quality management experts such as Crosby, Deming, Feigenbaum and Juran have had a considerable influence on the development of TQM throughout the world and their views and teachings are summarized in this chapter. The Japanese have had a profound influence on the understanding and development of TQM. Therefore, no book on TQM would be complete without some discussion of the way in which Japanese companies develop and manage the concept. The views of four influential Japanese experts (Imai, Ishikawa, Shingo and Taguchi) are explored and a sum- mary is provided of Japanese-style Total Quality. Chapter 4 deals with the introduction of TQM. It sets out by examining change and continuous improvement and deals with how the improvement process is triggered, which is usually in combination: the Chief Executive, competition, demanding customers and fresh-start situations. Following this, the chapter goes on to examine a range of approaches which can be followed in the introduction of TQM. Chapter 5 presents a framework to assist with the introduction of TQM. The material draws together a number of issues which need to be considered in its introduction and development. The structure of the framework consists of four main sections: organizing, using systems and techniques, measurement and feedback, and changing the culture. The framework has been used by a num- ber of organizations in both the public and private sectors and in manufactur- ing and service industries to introduce the basic elements and practices of TQM. Companies adopt and commit themselves to TQM in a variety of ways. Chapter 6 examines six different characteristics and behaviours which have been found to be typically demonstrated by organizations across the world. These six levels of TQM adoption can be used as an internal measure by which organizations can compare their standing and which help them review their performance. Most organizations will encounter problems and obstacles in the introduction and development of TQM. If they are aware of what these are, they can agree actions to steer around or minimize them. Chapter 7 explores some of the typ- ical problems in sustaining TQM. Also presented is an Audit Tool by which organ- izations can assess if they are experiencing the factors which can have a negative impact on the sustainability of TQM.
Reference
BS EN ISO 9000 (2000), Quality Management Systems: Fundamentals and Vocabulary. London: British Standards Institution.
4 Developing, Introducing and Sustaining TQM
its spread, from the manufacturing to the service sector and on to public services. What is TQM? In simple terms, it is the mutual co-operation of everyone in an organization and associated business processes to produce value-for-money products and services which meet and, hopefully, exceed the needs and expec- tations of customers. TQM is an ever-evolving practice of doing business in a bid to develop methods and processes which cannot be imitated by competitors. This chapter provides an overview of TQM and introduces the reader to the subject. Many of the themes outlined are explored later in the book. It opens by examining the different interpretations which are placed on the term ‘quality’. It then examines why quality has grown in importance during the last decades. The evolution of quality management (‘Co-ordinated activities to direct and control an organization with regard to quality’: BS EN ISO 9000 (2000)) is described through the stages of inspection, quality control, quality assurance and onwards to TQM. In presenting the details of this evolution the drawbacks of a detection-based approach to quality are compared to the recommended approach of prevention. Having described these stages the chap- ter examines the key elements of TQM – commitment and leadership of the chief executive officer (CEO), planning and organization, using tools and techniques, education and training, employee involvement, teamwork, measurement and feed- back, and culture change. The chapter ends by presenting a summary of the points which organizations need to keep in mind when developing and advancing TQM. This is done under the broad groupings of organizing, systems and techniques, measurement and feedback, and changing the culture.
What is Quality?
‘Quality’ is now a familiar word. However, it has a variety of interpretations and uses, and there are many definitions. Today, and in a variety of situations, it is perhaps an over-used word. For example, when a case is being made for extra funding and resources, to prevent a reduction in funding, or to keep a unit in operation and in trying to emphasize excellence, just count the number of times the word ‘quality’ is used in the argument or presentation. Many people say they know what is meant by quality, they typically claim ‘I know it when I see it’ (i.e. by sensing and/or instinct). This simple statement and the interpretations of quality made by lay people mask the need to define quality and its attributes in an operational manner. In fact, quality as a concept is quite difficult for many people to grasp and understand, and much confusion and myth surround it. In a linguistic sense, quality originates from the Latin word ‘qualis’ which means ‘such as the thing really is’. There is an international definition of quality, the
TQM: An Overview 5
‘degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfils requirements’ (BS EN ISO 9000 (2000)). However, in today’s business world there is no single accepted definition of quality. Irrespective of the context in which it is used, it is usually meant to distinguish one organization, event, product, service, process, person, result, action, or communication from another. For the word to have the desired effect as intended by the user and to prevent any form of misunderstanding in the communication, the following points need to be considered:
- The person using the word must have a clear and full understanding of its meaning.
- The people/audience to whom the communication is directed should have a similar understanding of quality to the person making the communication.
- Within an organization, to prevent confusion and ensure that everyone in each department and function is focused on the same objectives, there should be an agreed definition of quality. For example, Betz Dearborn Ltd. define quality as: ‘That which gives complete customer satisfaction’, and Rank Xerox (UK) as ‘Providing our customers, internal and external, with products and services that fully satisfy their negotiated requirements’. North-West Water Ltd. use the term ‘business quality’ and define this as:
- Understanding and then satisfying customer requirements in order to improve our business results.
- Continuously improving our behaviour and attitudes as well as our pro- cesses, products and services.
- Ensuring that a customer focus is visible in all that we do.
There are a number of ways or senses in which quality may be defined, some being broader than others but they all can be boiled down to either meeting requirements and specifications or satisfying and delighting the customer. These different definitions are now examined.
Qualitative
When the word quality is used in a qualitative way, it is usually in a non-technical situation. BS EN ISO 9000 (2000) says that ‘the term “quality” can be used with adjectives such as poor, good or excellent’. The following are some examples of this:
- In advertising slogans to assist in building an image and persuade buyers that its production and services are the best: Esso – Quality at Work; Hayfield Textiles – Committed to Quality; Kenco – Superior Quality; Philips Whirlpool
- Brings Quality to Life; Thompson Tour Operations – Thompson Quality Makes the World of Difference.
TQM: An Overview 7
of how good a product or service is. The higher the sigma value the lower the number of defects. For example, 3 sigma equals 66,807 DPMO, while 6 sigma equals 3.4 DPMO (these values assume a normal distribution with a process shift of 1.5 sigma). The sigma level is a means of calibrating performance in relation to customer needs. The concept of six sigma (a quality improvement framework) has developed from its origins in Motorola in the 1980s as an approach to improving productivity and quality and reducing costs. Six sigma is the pursuit of perfection and rep- resents a complete way of tackling process improvement from a quantitative approach, involving many of the concepts, systems, tools and techniques described in this book. The six sigma concept is currently very popular as a busi- ness improvement approach. The key features include a significant training com- mitment in statistics and statistical tools, problem-solving methodology and framework, project management, a team-based project environment, people who can successfully carry out improvement projects (these are known as black belts and green belts, based on the martial arts hierarchy), leaders (master black belts) and project champions. Yet another example of a quantitative measure of quality are levels of service performance requirements; see the data in table 1.1.
Uniformity of the product characteristics or delivery of
a service around a nominal or target value
If product or service dimensions are within the design specification or tolerance limits they are considered acceptable; conversely, if they are outside the spe- cification they are not acceptable (see figure 1.1). The difference between what is considered to be just inside or just outside the specification is marginal. It may also be questioned whether this step change between pass and fail has any scientific basis and validity.
Table 1.1 Levels of service performance requirements
Comparative Grade Billing queries: Written complaints: Billing metered measure % answered % answered customers: % read within 5 days within 10 days minus % unread
Well above average A > 95 > 98 >99. Above average B 92–95 96–98 98.5–99. Average C 89–92 94–96 96.0–98. Below average D 86–89 92–94 93.0–95. Well below average E < 86 < 92 <93.
Source : Office of Water Services (OFWAT) (1995/6).
8 Developing, Introducing and Sustaining TQM
Designers often establish specification limits without sufficient knowledge of the process by which the product and/or service is to be produced/delivered and its capability. It is often the case that designers cannot agree amongst them- selves about the tolerances/specification to be allocated, and it is not uncom- mon to find outdated reasoning being used. They also tend to define and establish a tighter tolerance than is justified to provide safeguards and protect themselves. In many situations there is inadequate communication on this matter between the design and operation functions. Fortunately, this is changing with the increasing use of simultaneous or concurrent engineering. The problem with working to the specification limits in a manufacturing situ- ation is that it frequently leads to tolerance stack-up and parts not fitting together correctly at the assembly stage. This is especially the case when one part which is just inside the lower specification limit is assembled to one which is just inside the upper specification. If the process is controlled such that a part is produced around the nominal or a target dimension with limited variation (see figure 1.2), this problem does not occur and the correctness of fit and smooth operation of the final assembly and/or end product are enhanced. The idea of reducing the variation of part characteristics and process para- meters so that they are centred around a target value can be attributed to Taguchi (1986). He writes that the quality of a product is the (minimum) loss imparted by the product to the society from the time the product is shipped. This is defined by a quadratic loss curve. Among the losses he includes time and money spent by customers, consumers’ dissatisfaction, warranty costs, repair costs, wasted natural resources, loss of reputation and, ultimately, loss of market share. The relationship of design specification and variation of the process can be quantified by a capability index, for example, C p which is a process potential capability index:
C Total specification width Process variation width
p =
Figure 1.1 The inside/outside specification dilemma
Lower specification limit
Incorrect to specification
Correct to specification
Upper specification limit
Incorrect to specification
10 Developing, Introducing and Sustaining TQM
from the confusion between quality and grade. Grade represents the addition of features and characteristics to satisfy the additional needs of customers and this clearly requires extra monies, but grade is different to quality.
Fitness for purpose/use
This is a standard definition of quality first used by Juran (Juran 1988; Juran and Godfrey 1999). Juran classifies ‘fitness for purpose/use’ into the categories of: quality of design, quality of conformance, abilities and field service. Focusing on fitness for use helps to prevent the over-specification of products and services. Over-specification can add greatly to costs and tends to militate against a right- first-time performance. How fit a product or service is for use obviously has to be judged by the purchaser, customer or user.
Satisfying customer expectations and understanding
their needs and future requirements
A typical definition which reflects this aim is: ‘The attributes of a product and/or service which, as perceived by the customer, makes the product/service attrac- tive to them and gives them satisfaction.’ The focus of the definition is adding value to the product and/or service. Satisfying customers and creating customer enthusiasm through understand- ing their needs and future requirements is the crux of TQM, and all organiza- tions are dependent on having satisfied customers. TQM is all about customer orientation and many company missions are based entirely on satisfying customer perceptions. Customer requirements for quality are becoming stricter and more numerous, and there are increasing levels of intolerance of poor-quality goods and services and low levels of customer service and care. The customer is the major reason for an organization’s existence and customer loyalty and retention is perhaps the only measure of organizational success. In most situations customers have a choice: they need not place future orders with a supplier who does not perform as they expected or who they feel has deceived them. They will certainly not jeopardize their own business interest out of loyalty to a supplier whose prod- ucts and service fail to perform properly, and will simply go to a competitor. In the public sector the customer may not have the choice to go elsewhere; how- ever, they can go to litigation, write letters of complaint, cause disruption, and use elections to vote officials out of office. The aim of superior-performing companies is to become the supplier of choice to their customers and to ‘lock’ themselves into their customers’ mode of operation by becoming their sole sup- plier, and by adding value to their customers’ businesses by process improvement and cost-down activities. A number of countries have developed a customer
TQM: An Overview 11
satisfaction index. The American index (see <www.theacsi.org>), for example, indi- cates satisfaction with the quality of goods and services in numerous industries. The superior-performing organizations go beyond satisfying their customers: they emphasize the need to delight them by giving them more than what is required in the contract; they also talk about winning customers and becoming infatuated with their customers. These organizations create a total experience for their customers, which is unique in relation to the offerings of competitors (which is called ‘the experience economy’, see Pine and Gilmore (1999)). The wisdom of this can be clearly understood when we consider the situation where a supplier has given more than the customer expected (e.g. an extra glass of wine on an aircraft; a sales assistant going out of their way to be courteous and helpful and providing very detailed information) and the warm feelings generated by this type of action. A customer-focused organization also puts considerable effort into anticipat- ing the future expectations of its customers (i.e. surprising quality), and, by work- ing with them in long-term relationships, helps them to define their future needs and expectations. They listen very closely to their customers and ‘real’ users of the product or service, in order to gain a clearer perspective on customer experiences. They aim to build quality into the product, service, system and/or process as upstream as is practicable. Excitement and loyalty are the words used to describe this situation. Those companies intent on satisfying customer needs and expectations will have in place a mechanism for facilitating a continuous two-way flow of information between themselves and their customers. There are a variety of means available to companies for them to assess issues such as:
- How well they are meeting customer expectations
- How well the brand is respected
- What customers’ chief causes of concern are
- What the main complaints are
- What suggestions for improvements customers might have
- How they might add value to the product and/or service
- How well they act on what the customer says
- The best means of differentiating themselves in the marketplace
The trend is for increasing the level of contact with the customer. These ‘moments of truth’ (Carlzon 1987) occur far more frequently in commerce, public organizations, the Civil Service and service-type situations than in manufac- turing organizations. The means for increasing the level of customer contact include:
- Customer workshops
- Panels and clinics
- Using ‘test’ consumers and mystery shoppers
TQM: An Overview 13
The following extracts some quantitative evidence in relation to these arguments:
- ‘Problems decrease customer loyalty by 15 per cent to 30 per cent’
- ‘50 per cent of individual consumers and 25 per cent of business customers who have problems never complain to anyone at the company’
- ‘If the call centre can resolve a customer’s problem using quality service, thus changing a dissatisfied customer to a satisfied one, the company usually gets an increase in loyalty of 50 percentage points’
- ‘One potential customer will be lost for every 50 who hear someone com- plain about a product or service’
- ‘Market leaders can charge between 5 per cent and 10 per cent premiums for outstanding quality and service’
The customer service information in box 1.1 provides additional quantitative facts about this. These data emphasize the importance of customer acquisition and retention.
BOX 1.1 CUSTOMER SERVICE FACTS
Customer Service Facts: Did You Know That...*
1 If 20 customers are dissatisfied with your service, 19 won’t tell you. 14 of the 20 will take their business elsewhere. 2 Dissatisfied customers tell an average of 10 other people about their bad experi- ence; 12 per cent tell up to 20 people. 3 Satisfied customers will tell an average of 5 people about their positive experience. 4 It costs five times more money to attract a new customer than to keep an exist- ing one. 5 Up to 90 per cent of dissatisfied customers will not buy from you again, and they won’t tell you why. 6 In many industries, quality of service is one of the few variables that can distin- guish a business from its competition. 7 Providing high-quality service can save your business money. The same skills that lead to increased customer satisfaction also lead to increased employee productivity. 8 Customers are willing to pay more to receive better service. 9 95 per cent of dissatisfied customers will become loyal customers again if their complaints are handled well and quickly.
- Statistics compiled by Mattson & Associates from service sector companies in the USA.
Source : CMC Partnership Ltd. (1991).
14 Developing, Introducing and Sustaining TQM
The following are examples of survey data which have focused on the per- ceived importance of product and service quality.
Public perceptions of product and service quality
In 1988 the American Society for Quality (ASQ) commissioned the Gallup organization to survey public perceptions on a variety of quality-related issues. This survey was the fourth in a series which began in 1985; the 1985 and 1988 surveys focused on US consumers and the 1986 and 1987 studies surveyed attitudes of company executives. The 1988 study was done by conducting tele- phone interviews with 1,005 adults in the United States during the summer of
- A selection of results, as reported by Ryan (1988) and Hutchens (1989), is outlined below:
- The following is a ranking of factors that people consider important when they purchase a product:
- Performance
- Durability
- Ease of repair, service availability, warranty, and ease of use (these four factors were ranked about the same)
- Price
- Appearance
- Brand name
- People will pay a premium to get what they perceive to be higher quality.
- Consumers are willing to pay substantially more for better intrinsic quality in a product.
- According to the respondents, the following are the factors what make for ‘higher’ quality in services:
- Courtesy
- Promptness
- A basic sense that one’s needs are being satisfied
- Attitudes of the service provider
- When consumers do experience a problem with the product, they appear reluc- tant to take positive action with the manufacturer. The 1987 survey revealed that executives regard customer complaints, suggestions and enquiries as key indicators of product and service quality.
An ASQ/Gallup survey (ASQ/Gallup 1991) was conducted to survey the attitudes and opinions of consumers in Japan, West Germany and the United States in relation to questions such as: ‘What does quality really mean to them? How do they define it and does it influence their buying behaviour? What is
16 Developing, Introducing and Sustaining TQM
corporations in relation to quality performance and the management of quality; 150 CEOs responded to the survey. The following are some of the main findings as reported by McKinsey and Company (1989).
- Over 90 per cent of CEOs consider quality performance to be ‘critical’ for their corporation.
- 60 per cent of CEOs said that quality performance had become a lot more important than before (late 1970s).
- The four main reasons why quality is perceived to be important are:
- Primary buying argument for the ultimate customer
- Major means of reducing costs
- Major means for improving flexibility/responsiveness
- Major means for reducing throughput time.
- The feasible improvement in gross margin on sales through improved quality performance was rated at an average of 17 per cent.
- More than 85 per cent of the leading CEOs in Europe consider the man- agement of quality to be one of the top priorities for their corporations. 3 Lascelles and Dale (1990), reporting on a survey they carried out of 74 UK CEOs, say that ‘Almost all the respondents believe that product and service quality is an important factor in international competitiveness. More than half have come to this conclusion within the past four years.’ 4 Ahire and O’Shaughnessy (1998) conducted a large-scale survey of quality management practices at suppliers in the automotive industry, looking at such practices as top management commitment, customer focus, supplier quality management, design quality management, benchmarking, statistical process control, internal quality information usage, employee training, employee empowerment, employee involvement, and product quality. They conclude that:
- ‘Firms with high top management commitment implement the other nine TQM implementation elements more rigorously than those with low top management commitment.’
- ‘In firms with high top management commitment, variations among the other nine TQM implementation constructs do not affect product qual- ity significantly.’
- ‘In firms with low top management commitment, four of the nine implementation constructs, namely, customer focus, empowerment, internal quality information usage, and supplier quality management are primary predictors of quality.’
Quality is not negotiable
An order, contract or customer which is lost on the grounds of non-conforming product and/or service quality is much harder to regain than one lost on price
TQM: An Overview 17
or delivery terms. In a number of cases the customer could be lost for ever; in simple terms the organization has been outsold by the competition. If you have any doubt about the truth of this statement just consider the num- ber of organizations that have gone out of business or lost a significant share of a market, and consider the reported reasons for them getting into that position. Quality is one of the factors which is not negotiable and in today’s business world the penalties for unsatisfactory product quality and poor service are likely to be punitive.
Quality is all-pervasive
There are a number of single-focus business initiatives which an organization may deploy to increase profit. However, with the improvements made by com- panies in their mode of operation, reduction in monopolies, government legis- lation, deregulation, changes in market share, mergers, takeovers, collaborative joint ventures, there is less distinction between companies than there was some years ago. TQM is a much broader concept than previous initiatives, encom- passing not only product, service and process improvements but those relating to costs and productivity and to people involvement and development. It also has the added advantage that it is totally focused on satisfying customer needs. A related issue is that organizations are often willing to pay more for what they perceive as a quality product; see the results of the ASQ/Gallup survey of 1992, as outlined in table 1.2.
Quality increases productivity
Cost, productivity and quality improvements are complementary and not altern- ative objectives. Managers sometimes say that they do not have the time and
Table 1.2 Customers willing to pay for quality
Industry type Number of customers Number of customers willing to pay more unwilling to pay extra for a quality product for better quality
Clothing/textiles 135 5 Furniture 74 4 TV/audio 66 6 Home 55 4 Automotive 36 10
Source : ASQ/Gallup (1992)
TQM: An Overview 19
of questionnaire and interview methods, the companies were asked to provide information on four broad classes of 20 performance measures – employee-related indicators, operating indicators, customer satisfaction indicators and business performance indicators. Improvements were claimed in all these indicators (e.g. market share, sales per employee, return on assets, and return on sales). Useful information on financial performance was obtained from 15 of the 20 companies who experienced the following annual average increases:
- Market share: 13.7 per cent
- Sales per employee: 8.6 per cent
- Return on assets: 1.3 per cent
- Return on sales: 0.4 per cent
Larry (1993) reports on a study carried out on the winners of the MBNQA and found that they ‘Yielded a cumulative 89 per cent gain, whereas the same investment in the Standard and Poor (S&P) 500 – Stock Index delivered only 33.1 per cent.’ Wisner and Eakins (1994) also carried out an operation and finan- cial review of the MBNQA winners from 1988 to 1993. One of the conclusions reached was that the winners appear to be performing financially as well as or better than their competitors. As reported by Bergquist and Ramsing (1999), Bergquist carried out a study in 1996, entitled ‘An Assessment of the Operational and Financial Impact on Companies of Quality Awards in the United States’, which used the same approach as the 1991 GAO study, expanding to 40 the original 20 performance measures. The focus of the study was a questionnaire survey of winners and appli- cants of MBNQA and State Quality Awards, between the years 1990 and 1995. They conclude:
89 per cent of the winners and 77 per cent of the applicants who responded to the mail survey believed that using award criteria did have a positive impact on company performance, a link appears to exist between award criteria and perceived company performance.
The Bradford study (Letza et al. 1997), carried out at the University of Bradford Management Centre, identified 29 companies within the UK which display characteristics associated with TQM. Following the US GAO work the study was first carried out over the period 1987 to 1991 and has been repeated for the period 1991 to 1995. Nine measures have been used by the study team to compare company performance with the median for the particular industry. The second study reveals the following:
- 81 per cent of companies are above the industry median for turnover per employee.
20 Developing, Introducing and Sustaining TQM
- 81 per cent of the companies provide a higher salary to turnover ratio than their peers.
- 74 per cent of the organizations remunerate their employees above the median for the industry.
- 65 per cent of the organizations produce above-median profit per employee for their industry.
- 62 per cent of the organizations have a higher net asset turnover than their peer group.
The authors also go on to say that ‘Four of the nine measures are marginally below the median for their industry but this is to be expected as quality becomes institutionalized and more widespread.’ Easton and Jarrell (1998) have undertaken an extremely thorough study which has examined the impact of TQM on financial performance for a sample of 108 firms. The impact of TQM has been assessed by examining the unexpected changes in financial performance for a five-year period following the introduction of TQM. Easton and Jarrell (1998) conclude that ‘The findings indicate that performance, measured by both accounting variables and stock returns, is improved for the firms adopting TQM. The improvement is consistently stronger for firms with more advanced TQM.’ Another very thorough study is that undertaken by Hendricks and Singhal (1996) in America, which began in 1991. They have measured the effects of TQM on long-term business performance. The study sample comprised nearly 600 award- winners (e.g. MBNQA, State Quality Awards and Supplier Awards) and compared their performance with that of similar companies that had not won such an award. The study found that it required a long time period to establish the link between TQM and financial performance because of its evolutionary nature. For the implementation period which started six years before a company won an award, they found no difference between award-winners and non-award-winners. The following are some of the key results from the post-implementation period:
- Winners experienced a 91 per cent increase in operating income compared with their respective controls (43 per cent).
- Winners gained a 69 per cent increase in sales compared with their controls (32 per cent) and attained a 79 per cent increase in total assets compared with the respective controls (37 per cent).
- Winners increased their employees by 23 per cent compared with their respec- tive controls (7 per cent).
- Over the five-year study period the award-winners outperformed the S&P 500 index by 34 per cent.
In the X Factor Report (British Quality Foundation 1999) the award sub- missions from 14 European and UK quality/business excellence award-winning
