Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Production Economics:Vol66.Issue3.Jul2000:
Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
Self-assessment using the business excellence model:
A study of practice and process
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale*
Manchester School of Management, UMIST, P.O. Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK
Received 7 December 1998; accepted 17 November 1999
Abstract
This paper reports a study of self-assessment practices in 10 organisations. The research was carried out by
semi-structured interviews directed towards a range of issues related to the process, practice and management of
self-assessment. Amongst the "ndings are that organisations are becoming more aware of the role of self-assessment in
in#uencing strategy and are including the outputs of self-assessment in their business planning process, and selfassessment is seen as making the organisation a more viable commodity. It was also found that the potential of
self-assessment for analysing organisational performance and identifying areas for improvement is underestimated by
managers. On the other hand, it is pointed out that the increasing commercial aspects of self-assessment and the Quality
Award process is diluting their e!ects. Based on the "ndings, two matrices have been developed which de"ne the
organisational and TQM related characteristics that an organisation should exhibit before adopting a particular
approach to self-assessment. ( 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Self-assessment; Business excellence; Quality awards; Total quality management
1. Introduction
If a process of continuous improvement is to be
sustained and its pace increased it is essential that
an organisation monitors, using an appropriate
performance measurement system, on a regular
basis what activities are going well, which have
stagnated, what needs to be improved and what is
missing. Self-assessment against the European
Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM)
Business Excellence Model [1] provides this type of
* Corresponding author. Manchester School of Management,
UMIST, P.O. Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK.
framework and is being given a considerable
amount of attention by European organisations.
There are many de"nitions of self-assessment provided by writers such as Conti [2] and Hillman [3]
but an all-embracing de"nition is provided by the
EFQM [4]:
Self-assessment is a comprehensive, systematic
and regular review of an organisation's activities
and results against a model of business excellence.
The self-assessment process allows the organisation to discern clearly its strengths and areas in
which improvements can be made and culminates in planned improvement actions which are
monitored for progress.
0925-5273/00/$ - see front matter ( 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 5 - 5 2 7 3 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 3 0 - 9
242
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
Self-assessment implies the use of a model on
which to base the evaluation and diagnostics. In
addition to the EFQM model there are a number of
internationally recognised models, the two being
the Deming Application Prize in Japan and the
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
(MBNQA) in the USA. Although there are some
di!erences between the models, they have a number
of common elements as themes.
Since the mid-1990s the topic of quality awards
and self-assessment has received considerable attention from researchers and is well de"ned in the
literature (e.g. [2,5}7]). However, the majority of
the academic literature has concentrated on the
models and comparison of their criteria, and the
relationship between award winners and business
results, see [8}13].
The "rst major research work in Europe was
conducted by co-operation between six European
Universities and reported by Van der Wiele
[14,15]. Other key pieces of work are Bemowski
and Stratton [16], Coulambidou and Dale [17],
Gadd et al. [18], Teo and Dale [19], Van der Wiele
et al. [20], and Voss and Blackmon [21]. One of the
major "ndings from these individual pieces of
research is that self-assessment against a Business
Excellence Model such as those mentioned above is
becoming increasingly recognised as an e!ective
business performance management system. Van der
Wiele et al. [20] emphasises this point by claiming
that if the self-assessment process is not linked with
the business cycles of strategic planning, policy,
deployment, human resources systems, budget
decisions, etc., then it will never become a "t with
the day-to-day fabric of management activities.
It is clear from the literature that a number of
organisations have adopted self-assessment
because it was seen as the thing to do. They have
not recognised fully the complexity of the process
and the organisational changes needed to ensure it
is e!ective. In these organisations it is likely that
there will be a lack of motivation, resistance and the
improvements will lack impact and eventually selfassessment will "zzle out. There is a limited amount
of empirical data on the self-assessment process
with respect to issues such as: selecting the
assessment approach to re#ect di!erent levels
of organisational TQM maturity; the management
planning and resourcing of the process; integrating
the outputs from self-assessment with the business
planning process and the policy deployment activity; and the negative aspects of self-assessment and
how to overcome them. The purpose of the study
reported in this paper was to explore the self-assessment process of a range of organisations with
a view to providing a greater understanding of
these types of issues.
The research has been carried out in 10 organisations using semi-structured interviews, supported
by analysis of secondary data; details of the organisations are given in Table 1. The companies
selected for study were identi"ed by the Group
Business Quality Director of the organisation
sponsoring the research. The primary sources he
used were through contacts with the British Quality Foundation (BQF) and various committee work
associated with the Business Excellence Model
(BEM). All the organisations had implemented
TQM and would achieve scores of 400 points or
above against the BEM criteria. A total of 25 interviews were carried out across the 10 organisations
probing issues relevant to the self-assessment process such as: approach used; ease of implementation; resources, management and time involved;
preparation for self-assessment; motivational
issues; bene"ts/criticisms of self-assessment; and direct and indirect e!ects of the process. Each interview lasted for up to 3 hours and was interactive,
#exible and allowed in-depth discussion and probing of the above type of issues. Attention was paid
to veri"cation of information obtained by crosschecking using data question sets. The objective of
the study was to develop a model to align organisations with speci"c methods of self-assessment in
relation to their level of TQM maturity.
2. Self assessment practices and processes
Table 1 provides an overview of the previous and
current self-assessment practices used by the organisations studied. It can be seen that there have been
a plethora of approaches used by the 10 organisations studied; some which can be used on their own
whilst others, namely, pro formas and the A3 matrix,
are usually introduced as part of a workshop
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
243
Table 1
Self-assessment practices!
Company
Size
Start of
self-assessment
(SA)
Approach
used
current
Approach
used
previous
Use of
external
resources
Integration of
S/A into
business plan
Length of
S/A process
(months)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
1578
780
3500
3000
2200
101
2459
7500
12000
20000
1996/7
1996/7
1997
1993/4
1996
1995
1993
1993
1995/6
1992
5
9
5
5
6
6
6
5
13
1, 10, 12
1
1,
4,
3,
1,
5
1,
1
1,
1,
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partially
No
9}12
3
3
2/3
1}3
1
3
1
2
2
3, 12
8
4
2, 3, 8, 11
3
5, 7, 9, 13
3, 4, 11
!Approaches to self-assessment } legend:
1. Workshop
2. Pro formas
3. Questionnaires
4. A3 matrix } perception based
5. Award simulation
6. Award submission
7. Blue/Green cards
8. Excellence North West questionnaire
9. Business Driver
10. Report
11. Option Finder
12. Assess questionnaire
13. Others (adaptations of model, e.g. British Gas Matrix Approach).
method. A study of the literature revealed there
were 13 claimed approaches, these can readily be
grouped into three broad categories: award based
approaches, questionnaires and workshops. A brief
summary of these three approaches are given in
Appendix A; these methods are outlined in detail in
the EFQM's Self-Assessment Guidelines for Companies [1]. All organisations conducting self-assessment have at one stage or another implemented at
least one approach or more. It is usually the decision of the organisation itself to determine which
approach to start with. Some prefer to `jump in the
deep enda and launch straight into a full award
simulation exercise (having probably conducted
self-assessment workshops for educational purposes) * Company A. Others choose to adopt
a more incremental approach, by using questionnaire-based activities such as The Business Driver
or Rapid Assess (e.g. Company B). The organisa-
tions more developed in self-assessment have
experienced a number of approaches as demonstrated by companies J and K. It can be seen that
the organisations employing a range of approaches
are those with higher sta$ng levels. The exception
to this is Company E which has used and is using
a number of di!erent approaches, not synonymous
with their level of sta! and self-assessment experience. This is due to increased activity within this
area and the fact that the company has become
privatised, and as such is amidst competition for
new markets and customers. Company E perceives
that self-assessment against the BEM will provide
a competitive edge for them and an indication of
areas for improvement to be acted upon for the
immediate future.
Some approaches were common to most of the
organisations examined, for example, the use of the
A3 matrix, workshops and questionnaire. Most of
244
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
the organisations had moved from employing
a simple approach to a more technical one.
The organisations were divided on the use of external resources, some saying that they had involved consultants in either co-ordinating their
assessment or in preparing for it, whilst others
had not and did foresee this in the future. The
majority of organisations will defect to what they
perceive to be superior knowledge, and money well
spent `in the long runa when approaching a new
subject area, and thus purchase the services of consultants. For some this is probably a necessary
step to provide guidance in order to steer management in the right direction but for others it is
possibly a form of escapism, from full emersion in
the process.
The ultimate objective of management is to
introduce new measures into the company culture
and blend them in with a minimum of e!ort. The
same can be said of self-assessment, and its acknowledgement as one of the key inputs into the
business planning process. Organisations have
realised this and are encouraging the use of selfassessment "ndings in directing future business
plans. This is evident in the results, with 8 of the 10
organisations stating that their self-assessment
results were integrated fully into their business
planning processes; Company J stated that this was
not the case throughout the whole company, but
was becoming so.
The length of the actual co-ordination of the
self-assessment process was another area for disagreement with wide-ranging and very di!erent
opinions, even within business units of the same
organisation. On examining Table 1 the consensual
opinion was that the process could be carried out in
approximately 3 months, however there were some
managers who believed the whole process could be
done in one month. There was a degree of initial
confusion as to how to measure the duration of the
process, this being the start of the process by identifying leaders, teams and strategy through to the
identi"cation of improvement areas and action
plans. All the organisations were given the same
criteria for this so that their responses would re#ect
these areas of activity. The largest process was that
undertaken by Company A (9 to 12 months) and
the shortest by Companies F and H (1 month).
3. Interpretation of business excellence
Within the companies studied business excellence is perceived as being a measure of `how good
we area and a means by which `business can move
forwarda. It was also seen as addressing the needs
of both stakeholders and internal customers, and
allowing the business to meet set goals and objectives. Business excellence is considered to be
a long-term process, concerned with key strategic
issues such as developing core functional processes,
to be the best, to get people performing better, and
to develop a quality framework in order to provide
excellent customer service. The end product of business excellence is to instil best practice within an
organisation in order to support its values and
strategic objectives, meet stakeholders expectations, and maintain and exceed its competitive
position.
Rather surprisingly only one manager (Company
A) related the concept of business excellence to
TQM, believing one to be an `extensiona of the
other, although managers from other organisations
did comment on the `holistica nature of the BEM.
Self-assessment should be used by an organisation
in conjunction with, and supported by other tools
and techniques; this point was not raised by any of
those interviewed.
4. Measuring the success of the self-assessment
process
The evidence from the interviews indicates that
the actual measurement of the self-assessment outputs has always been problematic, and for some
this was a di$cult area to provide a concise
response. The views were diversi"ed, however,
there was consensual agreement that the self-assessment process was successful if the outputs, that is
the feedback retrieved, were used in developing
strategy and this was also seen as one of the primary indicators of success.
There was clear emphasis that success need not
be based solely on the end product (i.e. improvements in services, products or processes). It was
also demonstrated by the actual assimilation of the
process into the organisation, why it was adopted
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
and who was actually using it. It was factors such as
these that encouraged the uptake of self-assessment
practices and ensured that they were done e$ciently and thereby ensure `successa.
There were managers who suggested that a successful self-assessment process was one that
produced higher scores for the organisation. For
another manager the success of the process could
be seen by the public image of the organisation.
Necessary criteria for a successful self-assessment
process according to the "ndings include:
f gaining commitment and support from all levels
of sta!,
f action being taken from previous self-assessments,
f awareness of the use of BEM as a measurement
tool,
f incorporation of self-assessment into the business planning process,
f not allowing the process to be `added ona to
employees existing workload,
f developing a framework for performance
monitoring.
5. Objectives of self-assessment
Self-assessment is carried out in organisations for
a number of reasons, for example, changes in the
internal and external environment, changes in
leadership and direction, a need to develop qualitybased procedures, or as part of a continuous improvement strategy. An organisation needs to question why it employs self-assessment, what are the
gains, and are they being realistic in their expectations of its output.
One of the outputs of the self-assessment process
its impact on the culture of an organisation, in
making it more cohesive; co-ordinating a joint
working project, involving teamwork, maximum
utilisation of resources, working towards a uniform
goal and generally making a more productive
working unit. The general consensus from the
organisations studied was that self-assessment does
have a positive e!ect on the corporate culture. The
impacts, as stated by the management of Company
D, were localised, relating to meeting customers
needs, making information more readily available
245
to both customers and suppliers, and maintaining
relations between management and unions.
Some degree of thought was needed in relation to
co-ordination of the self-assessment process in order to encourage continuous improvement and
facilitate cultural change. One obvious di!erence
between the internal business functions and external organisation was the scale of thinking involved. Action concerning self-assessment was
generally carried out on a `larger scalea, that is,
within those areas which impacted on the overall
company direction and purpose. An example of this
could be seen by the admission of one manager
interviewed (Company J) who stated `that selfassessment was employed in order to drive the
organisation to world-class excellencea.
Within Companies A to D there were certain
factors that a!ected the initial introduction of selfassessment practices. These included, attempting to
improve the continuous improvement process,
keeping up-to-date with other departments' progress, and managers recognising the bene"ts and
merits of self-assessment, and therefore `bringing it
on boarda. Such factors were reiterated by the other
organisations examined, however Company E mentioned that factors contributing to the uptake of
self-assessment included the company becoming
privatised and Company J a change in direction
with the introduction of a new Chief Executive.
Twenty-four out of 25 managers interviewed
stated that self-assessment has a de"nite impact on
the processes of their organisation, either in
monitoring performance or streamlining. Only one
organisation (Company G) felt that the self-assessment process would not have a de"nite e!ect on
their existing processes, in altering them, but the
expense involved would not be cost-e!ective. The
manager believed that the impact would probably
be greater in a!ecting `softera quality issues.
6. Bene5ts of self-assessment
The bene"ts of the self-assessment process are
summarised in Table 2.
There was a cross-over of opinions between these
three categories, in that self-assessment was seen as
providing a benchmarking tool as an immediate
246
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
Table 2
Bene"ts of the self-assessment process
Category
Bene"ts
Immediate
Facilitates benchmarking
Drives continuous improvement
Encourages employee involvement and ownership
Provides visibility in direction
Raises understanding and awareness of quality related issues
Develops a common approach to improvement across the company
Seen as a marketing strategy, raising the pro"le of the organisation
Produces `people friendlya business plans
Long-term
Keeps costs down
Improves business results
Balances long and short-term investments
Provides a disciplined approach to business planning
Develops an holistic approach to quality
Increases the ability to meet and exceed customers expectations
Maintains a quality image
Provides a link between customers and suppliers.
Supporting TQM
Helps to refocus employees attention on quality
Provides a `healthchecka of processes and operations
Encourages a focus on processes and not just the end product
Encourages improvements in performance
bene"t, and also as a means of supporting TQM,
and in facilitating an holistic approach to quality as
both as a long-term bene"t and as a means for
TQM development. The raising of the organisation's pro"le within the business and wider social
community was seen by a manager at Company
G to be both an immediate and long-term gain
from carrying out self-assessment. A manager at
Company K felt that the widespread use of selfassessment meant that a common language could
be developed, one that all those involved could
relate; this was also seen to be both an immediate
and long-term bene"t associated with the use of the
BEM. The BEM was also seen by a manager at
Company K as `providing a framework for all
TQM activities to adhere toa.
7. Di7culties associated with the self-assessment
process
As with all new techniques, there are certain
problems that hinder their integration into the
everyday organisational operations. From the information provided, it is clear that there are a number of problematic areas associated with carrying
out self-assessment. A summary of these di$culties
is given in Table 3.
The main di$culties experienced were a lack of
commitment at all levels, ignorance of what selfassessment involved, and general resistant to
change. Some companies had the problem in how
to approach self-assessment and how to get the
process started. One company experienced di$culties maintaining enthusiasm in co-ordinating the
process, especially after winning a quality award.
Other companies commented on the problem of
maintaining the self-assessment educational and
training skills of the `in-housea assessors. One of
the more unexpected di$culties was the admission
that existing processes are di$cult to change, due
to the intricate set up of the process, and the
expense involved. As a consequence of this, it was
mentioned that `areas for improvement associated
with such processes may therefore have to be ignored or shelved until a later datea.
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
247
Table 3
Di$culties experienced with the self-assessment process
Di$culties
Lack of commitment and enthusiasm
The time consuming nature of the process
Not knowing where to start
Selling the concept to the sta! as something other than an `add-ona to their existing duties
People not realising the need for documented evidence
Lack of resources; time, manpower, "nance
Maintaining the self-assessment skills of the assessors
Lack of cross-functional integration between departments and units
Getting the assessment done in time to link it into the business plans
8. Attitudes to self-assessment
When questioned as to whether attitudes to selfassessment had changed, the consensual agreement
amongst all the interviewees was that they had
altered somewhat since the concept was introduced. It was how they had changed that caused any
dissension within this area. In 19 cases the attitude
to self-assessment was more positive, in "ve cases
there was still some cynicism and in one organisation it was claimed that the attitude was more
negative.
There were di!ering views as to why attitudes
concerning the self-assessment process within the
organisation changed. A number of plausible reasons were put forward, for example, people becoming more enthused on seeing the tangible outputs of
the process, be it scores or identifying areas for
improvement; sta! gaining more awareness of and
exposure to the process, and gaining a site visit * it
was claimed that the whole concept becomes more
`reala when this occurs. In one case it was stated
that attitudes towards self-assessment become
more positive after a certain length of time when it
becomes recognised as an integral part of change,
and thus people can relate to its bene"ts.
9. Future plans for self-assessment
The majority of organisations undertaking selfassessment analysis have set plans as to why they
are employing the concept and `where they are
taking ita; it is clear that there are broadly de"ned
future goals in relation to this. The future plans for
self-assessment, included:
f application for quality awards,
f using self-assessment to develop process management and control,
f building self-assessment into business plans, as
a normal practice,
f taking the self-assessment a step further (e.g.
external objective assessment),
f using the self-assessment process as a means of
preparing the organisation for future competition, to make it a more `viable commoditya on
the market, and to use it as a `sellinga mechanism when approaching customers * there is
evidence that in a competitive tendering environment in particular to public authorities, the use
of the BEM does act in the favour of organisations.
There is a focus on certain issues, for example,
application for quality awards, but there were also
discernible di!erences in future activity. To a certain extent there was an obvious focus on the
`enabling facilitya concerned with carrying out the
self-assessment for example, one organisation
(Company H) placed emphasis on monitoring the
ability of the sta! and assessors to actually coordinate the process successfully. In order to do this
the organisation needed to have a systematic
review and upgrading of its training activities; one
way they did this was to introduce self-assessment
into management competency training. This was
248
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
what they believed was of priority in addressing
self-assessment in the future. In general, the actual
facilitation/enabling aspect of carrying out the
process was not considered an important issue in
co-ordinating future self-assessment analysis.
10. A `model approach to self-assessmenta
Based on the "eldwork the extent to which management within an organisation understand the
concept of self-assessment and are realistic in the
objectives varies considerably and ultimately impacts on the "nal outcomes of the assessment.
A lack of coherence will lead to uneducated and
uninformed decisions being made in relation to the
choice of self-assessment approach, the allocation
of resources for the assessment and its co-ordination. As such, organisations need to achieve a certain level of understanding in self-assessment,
award models and TQM, in order to accurately
address the issues evident in the self-assessment
process.
The choice of the `besta approach is a di$cult
process, one which is no doubt done very much in
a `hit or missa capacity by companies addressing
self-assessment for the "rst time (and if unsuccessful, possibly for their last). Organisations when
approaching self-assessment generally experience
di$culties from the outset in planning the process
and allocating manpower to co-ordinate and drive
it. There is usually `blissfula ignorance on the part
of management and sta! alike in relation to the
aims and goals of the self-assessment process and
how it can be used successfully to produce useful
results. As a consequence it is likely to lead to
di$culties in the management of resources and
unrealistic expectations. Organisations can become
disillusioned and either abandon their cause, or
seek professional advice from external consultants.
The "ndings of this research indicate that it is better
in the long run if an organisation can totally own
its self-assessment process. The use of consultants
may be necessary to initiate proceedings but the
organisation should maintain control and understanding of the process.
The formulation of a model which draws attention to a de"ned breakdown in the requisite organ-
isational characteristics of each self-assessment
approach can help an organisation, or business unit
`tacklea this area for the "rst time, or even to decide
what to do next after they have gained some experience. There is a lack of literature on the `besta
approach to start self-assessment. There is no guidance on which approach to actually use. What is of
more interest is that companies do not know
whether they are best suited to one approach rather
than another. There is a lack of advice and guidance available to organisations wishing to undertake self-assessment. Organisations need to possess
and display certain characteristics if they are to be
successful in self-assessment against the BEM.
Based on the "ndings of this study, a simple model
would help alleviate some of the problems experienced by companies in selecting an appropriate
approach to self-assessment.
The model proposed, and later described in the
paper takes the form of a matrix, examining the
characteristics and level of TQM understanding
that an organisation should demonstrate before
employing any self-assessment approach. The
matrix allocates organisational characteristics to
speci"c approaches. The pre-requisite characteristics alter depending on the technicality of the
approach involved. The ones evident within the
matrix are those that an organisation needs to
actively pursue and practice in order to successfully
adopt self-assessment initiatives.
In order to attribute the characteristics needed
for each approach, it is necessary to detail the
complexity of each self-assessment approaches.
These are listed in Fig. 1 in order of increasing
complexity and technicality, for example the most
complex being the award submission, and the least
complex being the A3 perception-based matrix.
The pre-requisite characteristics of each approach
are given in Fig. 2. Organisations should also
exhibit certain TQM-related characteristics to successfully employ each of the di!erent approaches to
self-assessment. The self-assessment process is
based on TQM principles and evidence of such
should be clear within the organisation. Companies
when addressing self-assessment sometimes fail to
fully understand the concept of TQM, and how
essential knowledge of it is before considering selfassessment. Organisations should be aware that
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
249
Fig. 1. Approaches used in the self-assessment process.
they should possess a certain level of TQM experience and development before adopting any selfassessment approach, as identi"ed by the characteristics given in Fig. 3. The aim of the matrix
is to provide an informed and simple overview of
which TQM features organisations should exhibit:
to help prevent any errors in judgement when
choosing an approach, and provide a mechanism
in explaining unrealistic expectations and lack
of success. Because the BEM is based on TQM
principles it is essential that these principles
are practised within an organisation, otherwise it
defeats the purpose of adopting the model. The
characteristics as identi"ed in Fig. 3 are broad in
nature and general, and can be related to all systems and processes within the organisation, for
example, the continuous review of processes and
systems can be applied to distribution, manufacturing, service delivery, customer complaints and
customer feedback.
From the information provided in Figs. 2 and 3 it
can be seen that the organisational characteristics
and TQM features that need to be in place and
actively evident in the company are many and
diverse (the characteristics outlined are the minimal
requirements for each of the approaches). However,
these decrease substantially in quantity as the approach becomes less technical. One factor that
needs to be considered is the motivation behind the
employment of a speci"c approach. For example,
an organisation may be using an approach, such as
an A3 matrix, merely as an educational tool to raise
awareness of self-assessment practices amongst the
sta!. If this is the case, the manager responsible
does not necessarily need to have a hands-on working knowledge of the operations of the organisation
(although it would be bene"cial). If, however, the
aim of the approach is to identify and derive core
areas for improvement, then a knowledge of both
the self-assessment process, and of the key operations of the organisation is essential.
The quantity of approaches mentioned could
easily be reduced in number to fall into three main
categories:
f Award applications (e.g. reports, award simulation, award submission).
f Questionnaires (e.g. The Business Driver, Excellence NW Award, Assess, Option Finder).
f Workshops (e.g. using A3 matrix pro formas).
250
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
Fig. 2. The minimum characteristics that a company should exhibit, preadoption of prescribed approaches to self-assessment.
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
251
Fig. 3. TQM related characteristics associated with individual self-assessment approaches.
11. Conclusion
The research "ndings showed mixed levels of
understanding and experience of both business ex-
cellence and self-assessment within the organisations studied. Organisations were doing self-assessment for di!erent reasons, some because they
had to, or because their director wanted them to.
252
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
Self-assessment as a process is holistic in nature,
and as such will a!ect the whole structure of the
organisation. Managers need to plan for self-assessment and not just choose to do it on a whim to "ll
a void or keep directors satis"ed. This is a shortterm solution and will create a plethora of problems. Other organisations were obliged to adopt
this management technique in order to gain a competitive edge (be it through identifying areas for
improvement and acting upon them, raising public
awareness as a marketing strategy about the company or preparing for a quality award submission).
Some were using self-assessment as a means of
co-ordinating and selling quality initiatives or
merely to `keep up with the rest of the crowda.
Some had a greater incentive than others to carry
out the self-assessment, in the sense that it was felt
that their resources were adequate whilst others
were over-stretched, and some sta! had their performance in this area linked to "nancial bonus
schemes. As a consequence the results are diversi"ed, but to a certain extent that is to be expected in
relation to the background of the organisations,
and the level of exposure to self-assessment and
TQM. Related to this is the motivation behind
self-assessment and the levels of resources, support
and future objectives.
The consensual opinion on self-assessment is
that it provides a useful tool for measuring organisational performance and identifying areas for improvement. In doing so it facilitates benchmarking
internally and externally, provides a common
language between those companies employing selfassessment, and prepares and organisation for
future competition.
The self-assessment process, if deployed properly, requires managers and sta! alike to assimilate
a high level of knowledge, which to a certain extent,
has to be manipulated to suit the operational environment. The self-assessment process should not
necessarily be seen as a technical one, but should
not be treated as something simple either. In this
respect it deserves as much attention as any other
process within the organisation's operations. Management must have the imagination, foresight and
capacity to use self-assessment to its full potential,
otherwise its use will be restricted. It is clear
from this study that some managers can make time
to take the concept more seriously than others.
The rest are left with an increased workload and
several projects getting minimal attention because
they, like self-assessment, are not considered as a
priority.
The matrices described in the paper provide
a means whereby a company can align itself with
speci"ed criteria, from an objective viewpoint
(which not all organisations are willing to do), and
ascertain if what they are doing is right, and if not,
what should they be doing. For a newcomer to
the self-assessment process, they should provide
some direction of purpose and assist them on their
journey.
One of the key "ndings of the study was the
change in manager's response to TQM. Over the
past number of years the attitude towards TQM
has become more negative, people apparently misunderstand the concept, perceive it to be too technical or control oriented, and thus it has gradually
developed it into something else, alternatively
known as TQ or Business Excellence. There is
evidence from the research that managers have
adopted certain aspects of the TQM philosophy,
but not others, producing a diluted version. Based
on this study `Business Excellencea practices advocated today are not the equivalent of TQM, but
a more diluted version of the original TQM concept. It should also be noted that there is genuine
confusion as to what Business Excellence is and
what it can do for an organisation.
Another noticeable development is the changing
nature of the BEM and the process itself. The
model is being increasingly sold on the back of the
quality awards and not as a self-assessment management technique and measurement tool to sustain continuous improvement practices. It is also
being used to attain di!erent goals, such as raising
the corporate pro"le within the public arena,
instead of identifying areas for improvement. When
all is said and done, if a company chooses to
employ self-assessment, they can employ it whatever way they want, as suits them.
One area that needs to be addressed is the assessment aspect of the process and award documents.
Because all services should be customer driven and
focused, most businesses take this into consideration when designing their products and services
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
and will try to accommodate the customers as
much as they can, to ensure customer satisfaction
and repeat trade. This has spilled over to a degree
in the scoring of the self-assessment analysis. More
than one manager interviewed in the course of
the research pointed out that e!orts are generally
made to present the feedback from the assessment
in such a way as to not o!end the customer and to
su$ciently motivate them to make sure they will
continue conducting self-assessment and ensure repeat custom. To some extent this can be seen as
`panderinga to the client, something which is not
acceptable at the level at which self-assessment
operates. If this is true, and assessment practices
are following in this direction, something needs to
be done. The assessors hold a key position in the
whole cycle of events linked to the BEM. Once
these are out of sync the model will eventually loose
credibility.
There is also a degree of complacency developing
within the process, possibly due to misunderstanding of both business excellence and TQM, or
unrealistic expectations of the performance of the
model and the organisation in question. This has
not been helped by the hype that is attached to the
quality awards. This can motivate organisations to
adopt the process, but can also channel their e!orts
in the wrong direction. Every year companies try to
introduce self-assessment practices into their business functions unsuccessfully; organisations should
consider why they are employing the process in the
"rst place.
Appendix A
A.1. Award based
This approach, which can create a signi"cant
workload for an organisation, involves the writing
of a full submission document (up to 75 pp) using
the criteria of the chosen quality award model and
employing the complete assessment methodology
including the involvement of a team of trained
assessors (internal) and site visits. The scoring of the
application, strengths, and areas for improvement
are then reported back and used by the management team for developing action plans.
253
Some organisations have modi"ed and developed the criteria of the chosen award model to
suit their own particular circumstances, provide
more emphasis on areas which are critical to them,
make the criteria easier to understand and use, and
to reduce some of the e!ort in preparing the application document. In some cases, a Corporation
or Holding Company has set a minimum score
which each of its facilities has to achieve within
a set time frame. Once an internal award has been
achieved, its continuation will require the successful
completion of a subsequent assessment, usually
within two years after the initial award has been
granted.
A.2. Questionnaire type
This is usually used to carry out a quick assessment of the organisation's standing in relation to
the award model being used. It involves answering
a series of questions and statements, which are
based on the criteria of the award model being
used, using a yes/no format or a graduated
response scale.
A matrix chart is sometimes used which involves
rating a prepared series of statements, based on the
appropriate award model on a scoring scale. The
statements are usually contained within a workbook which contains the appropriate instructions.
The person(s) carrying out the assessment "nds the
statement which is most suited to the organisation
and notes the associated score.
A.3. Workshop approach
This is where managers are responsible for
gathering the data and presenting the evidence to
colleagues at a workshop. The workshop aims to
reach a consensus score on the criterion and details
of strengths and areas for improvement identi"ed
an agreed.
References
[1] European Foundation for Quality Management (1998)
Self-Assessment Guidelines for Companies, EFQM Brussels.
254
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
[2] T. Conti, Organisational Self-Assessment, Chapman and
Hall, London, 1997.
[3] P.G. Hillman, Making self-assessment successful, The
TQM Magazine 6 (3) (1994) 29}31.
[4] European Foundation for Quality Management (1994).
[5] D.M. Lascelles, R. Peacock, Self-assessment for Business
Excellence, McGraw Hill, Berkshire, 1996.
[6] C. Hakes, The Self-Assessment Handbook for Measuring a
Corporate Excellence, Chapman and Hall, London, 1998.
[7] L. Porter, S. Tanner, Assessing Business Excellence, Butterworth Heinemann, London, 1996.
[8] G.A. Bohoris, A comparative assessment of some major
quality awards, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management 12 (9) (1995) 30}43.
[9] R.E. Cole Comparing the Baldrige and Deming Awards,
Journal for Quality and Participation, July}August (1991)
94}104.
[10] K.B. Hendricks, V.R. Singhal, Quality awards and the
market value of the "rm: An empirical investigation, Management Science 42 (3) (1996) 415}436.
[11] B. Nakhai, J. Neves, The Deming, Baldrige and European
quality awards, Quality Progress, April (1994) 33}37.
[12] Wisver and Eakins (1994).
[13] K.J. Zink, R. Haver, A. Schmidt, Quality assessment: instruments for the analysis of quality concepts based on EN
29000, the Malcolm Baldrige Award and the European
Quality Award, Total Quality Management 5 (5) (1994)
329}343.
[14] T. Van der Wiele, R.T. Williams, B.G. Dale, F. Kolb, D.M.
Wallace, A. Schmidt, Quality management self-assessment:
An examination in European business, Journal of General
Management 22 (1) (1996) 48}67.
[15] T. Van der Wiele, R.T. Williams, B.G. Dale, F. Kolb, D.M.
Luzon, M. Wallace, A. Schmidt, Self-assessment: A study
of progress in Europe's leading organisations in quality
management practices, International Journal of Quality
and Reliability Management 13 (1) (1996) 84}104.
[16] K. Bemowski, B. Stratton, How do people use the
Baldrige Award criteria? Quality Progress 28 (5) (1995)
43}47.
[17] L. Coulambidou, B.G. Dale, The use of quality management self-assessment in the UK: A state of the art study,
Quality World Technical Supplement, September (1995)
110}118.
[18] K. Gadd, J.S. Oakland, L.J. Porter L.J. Business Selfassessment and evaluation of current European practice,
Proceedings of the 1996 Learning Edge Conference, Paris,
1996, pp. 292}313.
[19] W.F. Teo, B.G. Dale, Self-assessment in methods, management and practice, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 211 B (5) (1997) 365}375.
[20] T. Van der Wiele, R.T. Williams, B.G. Dale, (1999) Total
quality management: Is it a fad, fashion or "t, Organisation Studies (under consideration).
[21] C. Voss, K. Blackmon, Where the quality pay-o! comes,
European Quality 3 (1) (1996) 28}30.
Self-assessment using the business excellence model:
A study of practice and process
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale*
Manchester School of Management, UMIST, P.O. Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK
Received 7 December 1998; accepted 17 November 1999
Abstract
This paper reports a study of self-assessment practices in 10 organisations. The research was carried out by
semi-structured interviews directed towards a range of issues related to the process, practice and management of
self-assessment. Amongst the "ndings are that organisations are becoming more aware of the role of self-assessment in
in#uencing strategy and are including the outputs of self-assessment in their business planning process, and selfassessment is seen as making the organisation a more viable commodity. It was also found that the potential of
self-assessment for analysing organisational performance and identifying areas for improvement is underestimated by
managers. On the other hand, it is pointed out that the increasing commercial aspects of self-assessment and the Quality
Award process is diluting their e!ects. Based on the "ndings, two matrices have been developed which de"ne the
organisational and TQM related characteristics that an organisation should exhibit before adopting a particular
approach to self-assessment. ( 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Self-assessment; Business excellence; Quality awards; Total quality management
1. Introduction
If a process of continuous improvement is to be
sustained and its pace increased it is essential that
an organisation monitors, using an appropriate
performance measurement system, on a regular
basis what activities are going well, which have
stagnated, what needs to be improved and what is
missing. Self-assessment against the European
Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM)
Business Excellence Model [1] provides this type of
* Corresponding author. Manchester School of Management,
UMIST, P.O. Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK.
framework and is being given a considerable
amount of attention by European organisations.
There are many de"nitions of self-assessment provided by writers such as Conti [2] and Hillman [3]
but an all-embracing de"nition is provided by the
EFQM [4]:
Self-assessment is a comprehensive, systematic
and regular review of an organisation's activities
and results against a model of business excellence.
The self-assessment process allows the organisation to discern clearly its strengths and areas in
which improvements can be made and culminates in planned improvement actions which are
monitored for progress.
0925-5273/00/$ - see front matter ( 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 5 - 5 2 7 3 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 3 0 - 9
242
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
Self-assessment implies the use of a model on
which to base the evaluation and diagnostics. In
addition to the EFQM model there are a number of
internationally recognised models, the two being
the Deming Application Prize in Japan and the
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
(MBNQA) in the USA. Although there are some
di!erences between the models, they have a number
of common elements as themes.
Since the mid-1990s the topic of quality awards
and self-assessment has received considerable attention from researchers and is well de"ned in the
literature (e.g. [2,5}7]). However, the majority of
the academic literature has concentrated on the
models and comparison of their criteria, and the
relationship between award winners and business
results, see [8}13].
The "rst major research work in Europe was
conducted by co-operation between six European
Universities and reported by Van der Wiele
[14,15]. Other key pieces of work are Bemowski
and Stratton [16], Coulambidou and Dale [17],
Gadd et al. [18], Teo and Dale [19], Van der Wiele
et al. [20], and Voss and Blackmon [21]. One of the
major "ndings from these individual pieces of
research is that self-assessment against a Business
Excellence Model such as those mentioned above is
becoming increasingly recognised as an e!ective
business performance management system. Van der
Wiele et al. [20] emphasises this point by claiming
that if the self-assessment process is not linked with
the business cycles of strategic planning, policy,
deployment, human resources systems, budget
decisions, etc., then it will never become a "t with
the day-to-day fabric of management activities.
It is clear from the literature that a number of
organisations have adopted self-assessment
because it was seen as the thing to do. They have
not recognised fully the complexity of the process
and the organisational changes needed to ensure it
is e!ective. In these organisations it is likely that
there will be a lack of motivation, resistance and the
improvements will lack impact and eventually selfassessment will "zzle out. There is a limited amount
of empirical data on the self-assessment process
with respect to issues such as: selecting the
assessment approach to re#ect di!erent levels
of organisational TQM maturity; the management
planning and resourcing of the process; integrating
the outputs from self-assessment with the business
planning process and the policy deployment activity; and the negative aspects of self-assessment and
how to overcome them. The purpose of the study
reported in this paper was to explore the self-assessment process of a range of organisations with
a view to providing a greater understanding of
these types of issues.
The research has been carried out in 10 organisations using semi-structured interviews, supported
by analysis of secondary data; details of the organisations are given in Table 1. The companies
selected for study were identi"ed by the Group
Business Quality Director of the organisation
sponsoring the research. The primary sources he
used were through contacts with the British Quality Foundation (BQF) and various committee work
associated with the Business Excellence Model
(BEM). All the organisations had implemented
TQM and would achieve scores of 400 points or
above against the BEM criteria. A total of 25 interviews were carried out across the 10 organisations
probing issues relevant to the self-assessment process such as: approach used; ease of implementation; resources, management and time involved;
preparation for self-assessment; motivational
issues; bene"ts/criticisms of self-assessment; and direct and indirect e!ects of the process. Each interview lasted for up to 3 hours and was interactive,
#exible and allowed in-depth discussion and probing of the above type of issues. Attention was paid
to veri"cation of information obtained by crosschecking using data question sets. The objective of
the study was to develop a model to align organisations with speci"c methods of self-assessment in
relation to their level of TQM maturity.
2. Self assessment practices and processes
Table 1 provides an overview of the previous and
current self-assessment practices used by the organisations studied. It can be seen that there have been
a plethora of approaches used by the 10 organisations studied; some which can be used on their own
whilst others, namely, pro formas and the A3 matrix,
are usually introduced as part of a workshop
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
243
Table 1
Self-assessment practices!
Company
Size
Start of
self-assessment
(SA)
Approach
used
current
Approach
used
previous
Use of
external
resources
Integration of
S/A into
business plan
Length of
S/A process
(months)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
1578
780
3500
3000
2200
101
2459
7500
12000
20000
1996/7
1996/7
1997
1993/4
1996
1995
1993
1993
1995/6
1992
5
9
5
5
6
6
6
5
13
1, 10, 12
1
1,
4,
3,
1,
5
1,
1
1,
1,
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partially
No
9}12
3
3
2/3
1}3
1
3
1
2
2
3, 12
8
4
2, 3, 8, 11
3
5, 7, 9, 13
3, 4, 11
!Approaches to self-assessment } legend:
1. Workshop
2. Pro formas
3. Questionnaires
4. A3 matrix } perception based
5. Award simulation
6. Award submission
7. Blue/Green cards
8. Excellence North West questionnaire
9. Business Driver
10. Report
11. Option Finder
12. Assess questionnaire
13. Others (adaptations of model, e.g. British Gas Matrix Approach).
method. A study of the literature revealed there
were 13 claimed approaches, these can readily be
grouped into three broad categories: award based
approaches, questionnaires and workshops. A brief
summary of these three approaches are given in
Appendix A; these methods are outlined in detail in
the EFQM's Self-Assessment Guidelines for Companies [1]. All organisations conducting self-assessment have at one stage or another implemented at
least one approach or more. It is usually the decision of the organisation itself to determine which
approach to start with. Some prefer to `jump in the
deep enda and launch straight into a full award
simulation exercise (having probably conducted
self-assessment workshops for educational purposes) * Company A. Others choose to adopt
a more incremental approach, by using questionnaire-based activities such as The Business Driver
or Rapid Assess (e.g. Company B). The organisa-
tions more developed in self-assessment have
experienced a number of approaches as demonstrated by companies J and K. It can be seen that
the organisations employing a range of approaches
are those with higher sta$ng levels. The exception
to this is Company E which has used and is using
a number of di!erent approaches, not synonymous
with their level of sta! and self-assessment experience. This is due to increased activity within this
area and the fact that the company has become
privatised, and as such is amidst competition for
new markets and customers. Company E perceives
that self-assessment against the BEM will provide
a competitive edge for them and an indication of
areas for improvement to be acted upon for the
immediate future.
Some approaches were common to most of the
organisations examined, for example, the use of the
A3 matrix, workshops and questionnaire. Most of
244
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
the organisations had moved from employing
a simple approach to a more technical one.
The organisations were divided on the use of external resources, some saying that they had involved consultants in either co-ordinating their
assessment or in preparing for it, whilst others
had not and did foresee this in the future. The
majority of organisations will defect to what they
perceive to be superior knowledge, and money well
spent `in the long runa when approaching a new
subject area, and thus purchase the services of consultants. For some this is probably a necessary
step to provide guidance in order to steer management in the right direction but for others it is
possibly a form of escapism, from full emersion in
the process.
The ultimate objective of management is to
introduce new measures into the company culture
and blend them in with a minimum of e!ort. The
same can be said of self-assessment, and its acknowledgement as one of the key inputs into the
business planning process. Organisations have
realised this and are encouraging the use of selfassessment "ndings in directing future business
plans. This is evident in the results, with 8 of the 10
organisations stating that their self-assessment
results were integrated fully into their business
planning processes; Company J stated that this was
not the case throughout the whole company, but
was becoming so.
The length of the actual co-ordination of the
self-assessment process was another area for disagreement with wide-ranging and very di!erent
opinions, even within business units of the same
organisation. On examining Table 1 the consensual
opinion was that the process could be carried out in
approximately 3 months, however there were some
managers who believed the whole process could be
done in one month. There was a degree of initial
confusion as to how to measure the duration of the
process, this being the start of the process by identifying leaders, teams and strategy through to the
identi"cation of improvement areas and action
plans. All the organisations were given the same
criteria for this so that their responses would re#ect
these areas of activity. The largest process was that
undertaken by Company A (9 to 12 months) and
the shortest by Companies F and H (1 month).
3. Interpretation of business excellence
Within the companies studied business excellence is perceived as being a measure of `how good
we area and a means by which `business can move
forwarda. It was also seen as addressing the needs
of both stakeholders and internal customers, and
allowing the business to meet set goals and objectives. Business excellence is considered to be
a long-term process, concerned with key strategic
issues such as developing core functional processes,
to be the best, to get people performing better, and
to develop a quality framework in order to provide
excellent customer service. The end product of business excellence is to instil best practice within an
organisation in order to support its values and
strategic objectives, meet stakeholders expectations, and maintain and exceed its competitive
position.
Rather surprisingly only one manager (Company
A) related the concept of business excellence to
TQM, believing one to be an `extensiona of the
other, although managers from other organisations
did comment on the `holistica nature of the BEM.
Self-assessment should be used by an organisation
in conjunction with, and supported by other tools
and techniques; this point was not raised by any of
those interviewed.
4. Measuring the success of the self-assessment
process
The evidence from the interviews indicates that
the actual measurement of the self-assessment outputs has always been problematic, and for some
this was a di$cult area to provide a concise
response. The views were diversi"ed, however,
there was consensual agreement that the self-assessment process was successful if the outputs, that is
the feedback retrieved, were used in developing
strategy and this was also seen as one of the primary indicators of success.
There was clear emphasis that success need not
be based solely on the end product (i.e. improvements in services, products or processes). It was
also demonstrated by the actual assimilation of the
process into the organisation, why it was adopted
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
and who was actually using it. It was factors such as
these that encouraged the uptake of self-assessment
practices and ensured that they were done e$ciently and thereby ensure `successa.
There were managers who suggested that a successful self-assessment process was one that
produced higher scores for the organisation. For
another manager the success of the process could
be seen by the public image of the organisation.
Necessary criteria for a successful self-assessment
process according to the "ndings include:
f gaining commitment and support from all levels
of sta!,
f action being taken from previous self-assessments,
f awareness of the use of BEM as a measurement
tool,
f incorporation of self-assessment into the business planning process,
f not allowing the process to be `added ona to
employees existing workload,
f developing a framework for performance
monitoring.
5. Objectives of self-assessment
Self-assessment is carried out in organisations for
a number of reasons, for example, changes in the
internal and external environment, changes in
leadership and direction, a need to develop qualitybased procedures, or as part of a continuous improvement strategy. An organisation needs to question why it employs self-assessment, what are the
gains, and are they being realistic in their expectations of its output.
One of the outputs of the self-assessment process
its impact on the culture of an organisation, in
making it more cohesive; co-ordinating a joint
working project, involving teamwork, maximum
utilisation of resources, working towards a uniform
goal and generally making a more productive
working unit. The general consensus from the
organisations studied was that self-assessment does
have a positive e!ect on the corporate culture. The
impacts, as stated by the management of Company
D, were localised, relating to meeting customers
needs, making information more readily available
245
to both customers and suppliers, and maintaining
relations between management and unions.
Some degree of thought was needed in relation to
co-ordination of the self-assessment process in order to encourage continuous improvement and
facilitate cultural change. One obvious di!erence
between the internal business functions and external organisation was the scale of thinking involved. Action concerning self-assessment was
generally carried out on a `larger scalea, that is,
within those areas which impacted on the overall
company direction and purpose. An example of this
could be seen by the admission of one manager
interviewed (Company J) who stated `that selfassessment was employed in order to drive the
organisation to world-class excellencea.
Within Companies A to D there were certain
factors that a!ected the initial introduction of selfassessment practices. These included, attempting to
improve the continuous improvement process,
keeping up-to-date with other departments' progress, and managers recognising the bene"ts and
merits of self-assessment, and therefore `bringing it
on boarda. Such factors were reiterated by the other
organisations examined, however Company E mentioned that factors contributing to the uptake of
self-assessment included the company becoming
privatised and Company J a change in direction
with the introduction of a new Chief Executive.
Twenty-four out of 25 managers interviewed
stated that self-assessment has a de"nite impact on
the processes of their organisation, either in
monitoring performance or streamlining. Only one
organisation (Company G) felt that the self-assessment process would not have a de"nite e!ect on
their existing processes, in altering them, but the
expense involved would not be cost-e!ective. The
manager believed that the impact would probably
be greater in a!ecting `softera quality issues.
6. Bene5ts of self-assessment
The bene"ts of the self-assessment process are
summarised in Table 2.
There was a cross-over of opinions between these
three categories, in that self-assessment was seen as
providing a benchmarking tool as an immediate
246
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
Table 2
Bene"ts of the self-assessment process
Category
Bene"ts
Immediate
Facilitates benchmarking
Drives continuous improvement
Encourages employee involvement and ownership
Provides visibility in direction
Raises understanding and awareness of quality related issues
Develops a common approach to improvement across the company
Seen as a marketing strategy, raising the pro"le of the organisation
Produces `people friendlya business plans
Long-term
Keeps costs down
Improves business results
Balances long and short-term investments
Provides a disciplined approach to business planning
Develops an holistic approach to quality
Increases the ability to meet and exceed customers expectations
Maintains a quality image
Provides a link between customers and suppliers.
Supporting TQM
Helps to refocus employees attention on quality
Provides a `healthchecka of processes and operations
Encourages a focus on processes and not just the end product
Encourages improvements in performance
bene"t, and also as a means of supporting TQM,
and in facilitating an holistic approach to quality as
both as a long-term bene"t and as a means for
TQM development. The raising of the organisation's pro"le within the business and wider social
community was seen by a manager at Company
G to be both an immediate and long-term gain
from carrying out self-assessment. A manager at
Company K felt that the widespread use of selfassessment meant that a common language could
be developed, one that all those involved could
relate; this was also seen to be both an immediate
and long-term bene"t associated with the use of the
BEM. The BEM was also seen by a manager at
Company K as `providing a framework for all
TQM activities to adhere toa.
7. Di7culties associated with the self-assessment
process
As with all new techniques, there are certain
problems that hinder their integration into the
everyday organisational operations. From the information provided, it is clear that there are a number of problematic areas associated with carrying
out self-assessment. A summary of these di$culties
is given in Table 3.
The main di$culties experienced were a lack of
commitment at all levels, ignorance of what selfassessment involved, and general resistant to
change. Some companies had the problem in how
to approach self-assessment and how to get the
process started. One company experienced di$culties maintaining enthusiasm in co-ordinating the
process, especially after winning a quality award.
Other companies commented on the problem of
maintaining the self-assessment educational and
training skills of the `in-housea assessors. One of
the more unexpected di$culties was the admission
that existing processes are di$cult to change, due
to the intricate set up of the process, and the
expense involved. As a consequence of this, it was
mentioned that `areas for improvement associated
with such processes may therefore have to be ignored or shelved until a later datea.
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
247
Table 3
Di$culties experienced with the self-assessment process
Di$culties
Lack of commitment and enthusiasm
The time consuming nature of the process
Not knowing where to start
Selling the concept to the sta! as something other than an `add-ona to their existing duties
People not realising the need for documented evidence
Lack of resources; time, manpower, "nance
Maintaining the self-assessment skills of the assessors
Lack of cross-functional integration between departments and units
Getting the assessment done in time to link it into the business plans
8. Attitudes to self-assessment
When questioned as to whether attitudes to selfassessment had changed, the consensual agreement
amongst all the interviewees was that they had
altered somewhat since the concept was introduced. It was how they had changed that caused any
dissension within this area. In 19 cases the attitude
to self-assessment was more positive, in "ve cases
there was still some cynicism and in one organisation it was claimed that the attitude was more
negative.
There were di!ering views as to why attitudes
concerning the self-assessment process within the
organisation changed. A number of plausible reasons were put forward, for example, people becoming more enthused on seeing the tangible outputs of
the process, be it scores or identifying areas for
improvement; sta! gaining more awareness of and
exposure to the process, and gaining a site visit * it
was claimed that the whole concept becomes more
`reala when this occurs. In one case it was stated
that attitudes towards self-assessment become
more positive after a certain length of time when it
becomes recognised as an integral part of change,
and thus people can relate to its bene"ts.
9. Future plans for self-assessment
The majority of organisations undertaking selfassessment analysis have set plans as to why they
are employing the concept and `where they are
taking ita; it is clear that there are broadly de"ned
future goals in relation to this. The future plans for
self-assessment, included:
f application for quality awards,
f using self-assessment to develop process management and control,
f building self-assessment into business plans, as
a normal practice,
f taking the self-assessment a step further (e.g.
external objective assessment),
f using the self-assessment process as a means of
preparing the organisation for future competition, to make it a more `viable commoditya on
the market, and to use it as a `sellinga mechanism when approaching customers * there is
evidence that in a competitive tendering environment in particular to public authorities, the use
of the BEM does act in the favour of organisations.
There is a focus on certain issues, for example,
application for quality awards, but there were also
discernible di!erences in future activity. To a certain extent there was an obvious focus on the
`enabling facilitya concerned with carrying out the
self-assessment for example, one organisation
(Company H) placed emphasis on monitoring the
ability of the sta! and assessors to actually coordinate the process successfully. In order to do this
the organisation needed to have a systematic
review and upgrading of its training activities; one
way they did this was to introduce self-assessment
into management competency training. This was
248
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
what they believed was of priority in addressing
self-assessment in the future. In general, the actual
facilitation/enabling aspect of carrying out the
process was not considered an important issue in
co-ordinating future self-assessment analysis.
10. A `model approach to self-assessmenta
Based on the "eldwork the extent to which management within an organisation understand the
concept of self-assessment and are realistic in the
objectives varies considerably and ultimately impacts on the "nal outcomes of the assessment.
A lack of coherence will lead to uneducated and
uninformed decisions being made in relation to the
choice of self-assessment approach, the allocation
of resources for the assessment and its co-ordination. As such, organisations need to achieve a certain level of understanding in self-assessment,
award models and TQM, in order to accurately
address the issues evident in the self-assessment
process.
The choice of the `besta approach is a di$cult
process, one which is no doubt done very much in
a `hit or missa capacity by companies addressing
self-assessment for the "rst time (and if unsuccessful, possibly for their last). Organisations when
approaching self-assessment generally experience
di$culties from the outset in planning the process
and allocating manpower to co-ordinate and drive
it. There is usually `blissfula ignorance on the part
of management and sta! alike in relation to the
aims and goals of the self-assessment process and
how it can be used successfully to produce useful
results. As a consequence it is likely to lead to
di$culties in the management of resources and
unrealistic expectations. Organisations can become
disillusioned and either abandon their cause, or
seek professional advice from external consultants.
The "ndings of this research indicate that it is better
in the long run if an organisation can totally own
its self-assessment process. The use of consultants
may be necessary to initiate proceedings but the
organisation should maintain control and understanding of the process.
The formulation of a model which draws attention to a de"ned breakdown in the requisite organ-
isational characteristics of each self-assessment
approach can help an organisation, or business unit
`tacklea this area for the "rst time, or even to decide
what to do next after they have gained some experience. There is a lack of literature on the `besta
approach to start self-assessment. There is no guidance on which approach to actually use. What is of
more interest is that companies do not know
whether they are best suited to one approach rather
than another. There is a lack of advice and guidance available to organisations wishing to undertake self-assessment. Organisations need to possess
and display certain characteristics if they are to be
successful in self-assessment against the BEM.
Based on the "ndings of this study, a simple model
would help alleviate some of the problems experienced by companies in selecting an appropriate
approach to self-assessment.
The model proposed, and later described in the
paper takes the form of a matrix, examining the
characteristics and level of TQM understanding
that an organisation should demonstrate before
employing any self-assessment approach. The
matrix allocates organisational characteristics to
speci"c approaches. The pre-requisite characteristics alter depending on the technicality of the
approach involved. The ones evident within the
matrix are those that an organisation needs to
actively pursue and practice in order to successfully
adopt self-assessment initiatives.
In order to attribute the characteristics needed
for each approach, it is necessary to detail the
complexity of each self-assessment approaches.
These are listed in Fig. 1 in order of increasing
complexity and technicality, for example the most
complex being the award submission, and the least
complex being the A3 perception-based matrix.
The pre-requisite characteristics of each approach
are given in Fig. 2. Organisations should also
exhibit certain TQM-related characteristics to successfully employ each of the di!erent approaches to
self-assessment. The self-assessment process is
based on TQM principles and evidence of such
should be clear within the organisation. Companies
when addressing self-assessment sometimes fail to
fully understand the concept of TQM, and how
essential knowledge of it is before considering selfassessment. Organisations should be aware that
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
249
Fig. 1. Approaches used in the self-assessment process.
they should possess a certain level of TQM experience and development before adopting any selfassessment approach, as identi"ed by the characteristics given in Fig. 3. The aim of the matrix
is to provide an informed and simple overview of
which TQM features organisations should exhibit:
to help prevent any errors in judgement when
choosing an approach, and provide a mechanism
in explaining unrealistic expectations and lack
of success. Because the BEM is based on TQM
principles it is essential that these principles
are practised within an organisation, otherwise it
defeats the purpose of adopting the model. The
characteristics as identi"ed in Fig. 3 are broad in
nature and general, and can be related to all systems and processes within the organisation, for
example, the continuous review of processes and
systems can be applied to distribution, manufacturing, service delivery, customer complaints and
customer feedback.
From the information provided in Figs. 2 and 3 it
can be seen that the organisational characteristics
and TQM features that need to be in place and
actively evident in the company are many and
diverse (the characteristics outlined are the minimal
requirements for each of the approaches). However,
these decrease substantially in quantity as the approach becomes less technical. One factor that
needs to be considered is the motivation behind the
employment of a speci"c approach. For example,
an organisation may be using an approach, such as
an A3 matrix, merely as an educational tool to raise
awareness of self-assessment practices amongst the
sta!. If this is the case, the manager responsible
does not necessarily need to have a hands-on working knowledge of the operations of the organisation
(although it would be bene"cial). If, however, the
aim of the approach is to identify and derive core
areas for improvement, then a knowledge of both
the self-assessment process, and of the key operations of the organisation is essential.
The quantity of approaches mentioned could
easily be reduced in number to fall into three main
categories:
f Award applications (e.g. reports, award simulation, award submission).
f Questionnaires (e.g. The Business Driver, Excellence NW Award, Assess, Option Finder).
f Workshops (e.g. using A3 matrix pro formas).
250
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
Fig. 2. The minimum characteristics that a company should exhibit, preadoption of prescribed approaches to self-assessment.
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
251
Fig. 3. TQM related characteristics associated with individual self-assessment approaches.
11. Conclusion
The research "ndings showed mixed levels of
understanding and experience of both business ex-
cellence and self-assessment within the organisations studied. Organisations were doing self-assessment for di!erent reasons, some because they
had to, or because their director wanted them to.
252
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
Self-assessment as a process is holistic in nature,
and as such will a!ect the whole structure of the
organisation. Managers need to plan for self-assessment and not just choose to do it on a whim to "ll
a void or keep directors satis"ed. This is a shortterm solution and will create a plethora of problems. Other organisations were obliged to adopt
this management technique in order to gain a competitive edge (be it through identifying areas for
improvement and acting upon them, raising public
awareness as a marketing strategy about the company or preparing for a quality award submission).
Some were using self-assessment as a means of
co-ordinating and selling quality initiatives or
merely to `keep up with the rest of the crowda.
Some had a greater incentive than others to carry
out the self-assessment, in the sense that it was felt
that their resources were adequate whilst others
were over-stretched, and some sta! had their performance in this area linked to "nancial bonus
schemes. As a consequence the results are diversi"ed, but to a certain extent that is to be expected in
relation to the background of the organisations,
and the level of exposure to self-assessment and
TQM. Related to this is the motivation behind
self-assessment and the levels of resources, support
and future objectives.
The consensual opinion on self-assessment is
that it provides a useful tool for measuring organisational performance and identifying areas for improvement. In doing so it facilitates benchmarking
internally and externally, provides a common
language between those companies employing selfassessment, and prepares and organisation for
future competition.
The self-assessment process, if deployed properly, requires managers and sta! alike to assimilate
a high level of knowledge, which to a certain extent,
has to be manipulated to suit the operational environment. The self-assessment process should not
necessarily be seen as a technical one, but should
not be treated as something simple either. In this
respect it deserves as much attention as any other
process within the organisation's operations. Management must have the imagination, foresight and
capacity to use self-assessment to its full potential,
otherwise its use will be restricted. It is clear
from this study that some managers can make time
to take the concept more seriously than others.
The rest are left with an increased workload and
several projects getting minimal attention because
they, like self-assessment, are not considered as a
priority.
The matrices described in the paper provide
a means whereby a company can align itself with
speci"ed criteria, from an objective viewpoint
(which not all organisations are willing to do), and
ascertain if what they are doing is right, and if not,
what should they be doing. For a newcomer to
the self-assessment process, they should provide
some direction of purpose and assist them on their
journey.
One of the key "ndings of the study was the
change in manager's response to TQM. Over the
past number of years the attitude towards TQM
has become more negative, people apparently misunderstand the concept, perceive it to be too technical or control oriented, and thus it has gradually
developed it into something else, alternatively
known as TQ or Business Excellence. There is
evidence from the research that managers have
adopted certain aspects of the TQM philosophy,
but not others, producing a diluted version. Based
on this study `Business Excellencea practices advocated today are not the equivalent of TQM, but
a more diluted version of the original TQM concept. It should also be noted that there is genuine
confusion as to what Business Excellence is and
what it can do for an organisation.
Another noticeable development is the changing
nature of the BEM and the process itself. The
model is being increasingly sold on the back of the
quality awards and not as a self-assessment management technique and measurement tool to sustain continuous improvement practices. It is also
being used to attain di!erent goals, such as raising
the corporate pro"le within the public arena,
instead of identifying areas for improvement. When
all is said and done, if a company chooses to
employ self-assessment, they can employ it whatever way they want, as suits them.
One area that needs to be addressed is the assessment aspect of the process and award documents.
Because all services should be customer driven and
focused, most businesses take this into consideration when designing their products and services
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
and will try to accommodate the customers as
much as they can, to ensure customer satisfaction
and repeat trade. This has spilled over to a degree
in the scoring of the self-assessment analysis. More
than one manager interviewed in the course of
the research pointed out that e!orts are generally
made to present the feedback from the assessment
in such a way as to not o!end the customer and to
su$ciently motivate them to make sure they will
continue conducting self-assessment and ensure repeat custom. To some extent this can be seen as
`panderinga to the client, something which is not
acceptable at the level at which self-assessment
operates. If this is true, and assessment practices
are following in this direction, something needs to
be done. The assessors hold a key position in the
whole cycle of events linked to the BEM. Once
these are out of sync the model will eventually loose
credibility.
There is also a degree of complacency developing
within the process, possibly due to misunderstanding of both business excellence and TQM, or
unrealistic expectations of the performance of the
model and the organisation in question. This has
not been helped by the hype that is attached to the
quality awards. This can motivate organisations to
adopt the process, but can also channel their e!orts
in the wrong direction. Every year companies try to
introduce self-assessment practices into their business functions unsuccessfully; organisations should
consider why they are employing the process in the
"rst place.
Appendix A
A.1. Award based
This approach, which can create a signi"cant
workload for an organisation, involves the writing
of a full submission document (up to 75 pp) using
the criteria of the chosen quality award model and
employing the complete assessment methodology
including the involvement of a team of trained
assessors (internal) and site visits. The scoring of the
application, strengths, and areas for improvement
are then reported back and used by the management team for developing action plans.
253
Some organisations have modi"ed and developed the criteria of the chosen award model to
suit their own particular circumstances, provide
more emphasis on areas which are critical to them,
make the criteria easier to understand and use, and
to reduce some of the e!ort in preparing the application document. In some cases, a Corporation
or Holding Company has set a minimum score
which each of its facilities has to achieve within
a set time frame. Once an internal award has been
achieved, its continuation will require the successful
completion of a subsequent assessment, usually
within two years after the initial award has been
granted.
A.2. Questionnaire type
This is usually used to carry out a quick assessment of the organisation's standing in relation to
the award model being used. It involves answering
a series of questions and statements, which are
based on the criteria of the award model being
used, using a yes/no format or a graduated
response scale.
A matrix chart is sometimes used which involves
rating a prepared series of statements, based on the
appropriate award model on a scoring scale. The
statements are usually contained within a workbook which contains the appropriate instructions.
The person(s) carrying out the assessment "nds the
statement which is most suited to the organisation
and notes the associated score.
A.3. Workshop approach
This is where managers are responsible for
gathering the data and presenting the evidence to
colleagues at a workshop. The workshop aims to
reach a consensus score on the criterion and details
of strengths and areas for improvement identi"ed
an agreed.
References
[1] European Foundation for Quality Management (1998)
Self-Assessment Guidelines for Companies, EFQM Brussels.
254
L. Ritchie, B.G. Dale / Int. J. Production Economics 66 (2000) 241}254
[2] T. Conti, Organisational Self-Assessment, Chapman and
Hall, London, 1997.
[3] P.G. Hillman, Making self-assessment successful, The
TQM Magazine 6 (3) (1994) 29}31.
[4] European Foundation for Quality Management (1994).
[5] D.M. Lascelles, R. Peacock, Self-assessment for Business
Excellence, McGraw Hill, Berkshire, 1996.
[6] C. Hakes, The Self-Assessment Handbook for Measuring a
Corporate Excellence, Chapman and Hall, London, 1998.
[7] L. Porter, S. Tanner, Assessing Business Excellence, Butterworth Heinemann, London, 1996.
[8] G.A. Bohoris, A comparative assessment of some major
quality awards, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management 12 (9) (1995) 30}43.
[9] R.E. Cole Comparing the Baldrige and Deming Awards,
Journal for Quality and Participation, July}August (1991)
94}104.
[10] K.B. Hendricks, V.R. Singhal, Quality awards and the
market value of the "rm: An empirical investigation, Management Science 42 (3) (1996) 415}436.
[11] B. Nakhai, J. Neves, The Deming, Baldrige and European
quality awards, Quality Progress, April (1994) 33}37.
[12] Wisver and Eakins (1994).
[13] K.J. Zink, R. Haver, A. Schmidt, Quality assessment: instruments for the analysis of quality concepts based on EN
29000, the Malcolm Baldrige Award and the European
Quality Award, Total Quality Management 5 (5) (1994)
329}343.
[14] T. Van der Wiele, R.T. Williams, B.G. Dale, F. Kolb, D.M.
Wallace, A. Schmidt, Quality management self-assessment:
An examination in European business, Journal of General
Management 22 (1) (1996) 48}67.
[15] T. Van der Wiele, R.T. Williams, B.G. Dale, F. Kolb, D.M.
Luzon, M. Wallace, A. Schmidt, Self-assessment: A study
of progress in Europe's leading organisations in quality
management practices, International Journal of Quality
and Reliability Management 13 (1) (1996) 84}104.
[16] K. Bemowski, B. Stratton, How do people use the
Baldrige Award criteria? Quality Progress 28 (5) (1995)
43}47.
[17] L. Coulambidou, B.G. Dale, The use of quality management self-assessment in the UK: A state of the art study,
Quality World Technical Supplement, September (1995)
110}118.
[18] K. Gadd, J.S. Oakland, L.J. Porter L.J. Business Selfassessment and evaluation of current European practice,
Proceedings of the 1996 Learning Edge Conference, Paris,
1996, pp. 292}313.
[19] W.F. Teo, B.G. Dale, Self-assessment in methods, management and practice, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 211 B (5) (1997) 365}375.
[20] T. Van der Wiele, R.T. Williams, B.G. Dale, (1999) Total
quality management: Is it a fad, fashion or "t, Organisation Studies (under consideration).
[21] C. Voss, K. Blackmon, Where the quality pay-o! comes,
European Quality 3 (1) (1996) 28}30.