case quality

8/18/2019 Case Quality

1/21

QUALITY PAPER

An exploratory study of businessexcellence implementation in the

United Arab Emirates (UAE)public sector

Management and employee perceptions

Rodney McAdam Department of Marketing, Entrepreneurship and Strategy,

Ulster Business School, University of Ulster, Belfast, UK

William Keogh Herriot Watt University, Edinburgh, UK

Adil Ahmed El Tigani Heriot Watt University, Dubai Campus, Dubai, UAE, and

Paul GardinerThe British University in Dubai (BUiD), Dubai, UAE

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to explore the implementation issues of the Business ExcellenceModel and the process of self-assessment, from both management and employee perspectives, in alarge government organisation in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where the large Governmentorganisation is indicative of the type of large indigenous organisation in the region. The organisationis part of the Dubai Government Excellence Programme (DGEP).

Design/methodology/approach – A multi-level case study approach is used, involving repeatedin-depth interviews with managers ( n ¼ 12) and a questionnaire with employees ( n ¼ 96) to explorethe implementation issues at all levels.

Findings – There was considerable variation in the implementation effectiveness across the differentlevels within the organisation. The top down approach had a resonance with the Middle East culture atmanagement levels. However, insufficient participation and empowerment of lower level employees,especially amongst non-indigenous employees, led to a lack of closure on corrective actions emergingfrom the self-assessment process. Overall there was an acceptance of the business improvement side of total quality management (TQM) but there was a need for increased cultural acceptance of the peopledevelopment aspects.

Originality/value – There is a paucity of multi-level in-depth studies relating to Business Excellenceand self-assessment in Middle Eastern organisations where a critical cultural perspective is adopted,even though there has been considerable resources expended by Government in initiatives such as theDubai Government Excellence Programme (DGEP).

Keywords United Arab Emirates, Public sector, Business Excellence Model, Self-assessment, Culture,Multi level case study, Middle East

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm

Received 5 June 2012Revised 11 June 2012Accepted 11 September 2012

International Journal of Quality &

Reliability Management

Vol. 30 No. 4, 2013

pp. 426-445

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0265-671X

DOI 10.1108/02656711311308402

IJQRM30,4

426


2/21

IntroductionOver the last two decades excellence models have spread as a way of increasingcompetitiveness and reducing costs by helping to incorporate and assess total qualitymanagement (TQM) principles and practices within organisations (Kim et al., 2009;

Al Marri et al., 2007). The European Quality Award of the European Foundation forQuality Management (EFQM) and the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award arethe most globally used and proven excellence models for quality awards andself-assessment (Samuelsson and Nilsson, 2002). The models use the process of self-assessment at different organisational levels to evaluate organisations against theTQM-based model criteria (Samuelsson and Nilsson, 2002). A review of the literature byKim et al. (2009), consistent with the comparative study of quality implementationin Middle Eastern countries by Najeh and Kara-Zaitri (2007), shows that there has beensignificant research and application relating to the business excellence models and theassociated use of self-assessment in Western countries. However, there is a comparativelack of studies in Middle Eastern countries relating to in-depth implementation studiesof business excellence. Here the application of business excellence and self-assessmentis less well developed and established beyond that of corporate level applications(Al Marri et al., 2007; Najeh and Kara-Zaitri, 2007; Jones and Seraphim, 2008).

A key theme in research relating to the effectiveness of business excellence andself-assessment is the rigour and effectiveness of the implementation process at allorganisational levels and involving employees from all groupings. The effectiveness of this implementation is often expressed in terms of key success factors that aredetermined by cultural and contextual settings within a country or an organisation(Najeh and Kara-Zaitri, 2007; Salaheldin, 2009). This paper is based on the experienceof a large Middle Eastern public sector organisation dealing with the implementationof the Dubai Government Excellence Programme (DGEP). The DGEP is the Dubaiversion of the European excellence model and is based on the same nine major criteria

with minor differences in the sub-criteria.The aim of this paper is to explore the implementation issues of the businessexcellence model and the process of self-assessment from both management andemployee perspectives in a large government organisation in the United Arab Emirates(UAE). The large government organisation is indicative of the type of large indigenousorganisation. The importance of the research lies in the placing of Dubai as aninternational business hub seeking to achieve quality and excellence to gain andmaintain competitive advantage and to diversify from an overreliance on oil. One of thefive guiding principles of the Dubai Emirate strategic plan (2007-2015) is that of implementing public sector excellence.

Business excellence implementation and self-assessment

Given the increasingly wider geographical application of the excellence model it issuggested, consistent with Jabnoun and Sedrani (2005) and Jabnoun and Khalifa (2005),that the effectiveness of the implementation and self-assessment process should includecultural considerations. As shown by van der Wiele and Brown (2000) an organisationshould have developed some degree of quality culture maturity or experience in TQMand ISO before embarking in the adoption of business excellence model forself-assessment. Dale’s (1996) study argues that organisations need at least threeyears of practice in TQM before they can benefit from the process of self-assessment.

Businesexcellenc

in the UAE

42


3/21

Based on the work of van der Wiele et al. (1996) the key reasons for organisations to startthe self-assessment process include: find opportunities for improvement; create a focuson the TQM model portrayed by the award criteria; direct the improvement process;provide new motivation for the improvement process and to manage the business.

The motivation issue is multi-level and as shown by Jones and Seraphim (2008) andSalaheldin (2009) is especially reliant on employees at lower levels being involved in anempowered manner to affect change (Jones, 2007). Furthermore, there is a need to linkthe process of self-assessment at all levels of the organisation. This approach will avoidmisalignment and unsynchronised quality initiatives which could ultimately lead tochaos, parallelism, loss of strategic direction, and disenchantment with the efficacy of TQM (Najeh and Kara-Zaitri, 2007; Salaheldin, 2009).

The techniques used in self-assessment are mainly based on a continuum of complexity and detail versus simplicity and general approaches (Kim et al., 2009).The EFQM (2011) guidelines ( Assessing for Excellence ), outlines some of the methodsused for self-assessment on this continuum as: questionnaires, assessment workshops,pro-formas, and award simulation. These techniques vary in terms of their top downversus empowered implementation ethos. The literature on Middle Eastern basedstudies indicates a tendency towards top down approaches ( Jones and Seraphim, 2008;Kim et al., 2009) which reflects the prevailing culture (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005;

Jones, 2007) and may explain the relative paucity of in-depth studies of self-assessmentat lower levels in Middle Eastern organisations. Jones and Seraphim (2008) contend it isan unsympathetic environment for the employee involvement and empowermentaspects of TQM which has been developed mainly in Western contexts and culture.

Culture and context – critical success factors (CSFs)The Western based studies of TQM have largely ignored country culture as a factor inbusiness excellence studies due to TQM and resultant models being grounded in

Western cultural norms (Jones and Seraphim, 2008; Najeh and Kara-Zaitri, 2007).Kim et al.’s (2009) review and Jabnoun and Sedrani’s (2005) study of TQMimplementation and culture shows that the cultural context of business excellenceapplications in Middle Eastern countries must be considered as a mediating variablewhere the prevalent country culture is sufficiently to affect the organisational context.Najeh and Kara-Zaitri (2007) suggest that in different cultural settings the complex anddynamic behaviours within the business excellence implementation process necessitatebespoke approaches. Jones and Seraphim (2008) suggest the need for further research onculture and TQM in building on Temtime’s (2003) premise that “TQM implementationshould be unique to each company and that there is no one size fits all approach”.

Attempts to rationalise business excellence implementation typically use CSFs forimplementation. There are relatively few articles published about multi-level

implementation research that are grounded in non-Western societies, especially in theArab world (Jabnoun and Sedrani, 2005; Jones, 2007). Al-Tarawneh (2010) study of ISOimplementation in Jordan states the importance of leadership in directingimplementation. However, ISO is more structured and top down in nature (consistentwith Middle Eastern culture, Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005) in comparison to that of TQM.Similarly, Askery et al.’s (2008) study of accounting and culture in the Middle Eastshows that directive top down leadership helps in implementing accounting uniformityin Saudi Arabia. They conclude “Arabic nations have a tendency towards uniformity”,

IJQRM30,4

428


4/21

which is consistent with Hofstede and Hofstede’s (2005) cultural analysis. Jabnoun and

Sedrani (2005) and Najeh and Kara-Zaitri (2007) used a study of Middle Eastern countries

to form and review TQM implementation factors. This work is consistent with that of

Badri et al. (1995) who conducted research in the UAE to investigate eight critical factors

in the implementation of quality management amongst private sector organisations.They found the main factors to be the role of top management, and quality policy

(consistent with the top down approach). An empirical study by Al Marri et al. (2007)investigated excellence in the banking sector in the UAE with similar results. Youssef

and Zairi (1995) identified a set of 22 critical factors for the success of TQM from the

literature. Their findings showed that while some factors may be applicable to any

organisation, e.g. top management commitment and commitment towards customer

satisfaction, there were others which varied depending on context. Karuppusami and

Gandhinathan (2006) studied the CSFs of TQM in academic publications from 1989 to

2003, revealing a list of 56 distinct CSFs. Karuppusami and Gandhinathan (2006)

concluded that there is no standard set for the success factors, every organisation,

depending on its own culture and internal and external environment will have its ownset of factors.

Based on these contextual arguments it is suggested that in attempting to

understand the application of business excellence and self-assessment in a UAE case

study the prevailing country culture should be examined. Hofstede (1980) and Hofstede

and Hofstede (2005) have developed the concept of cultural dimensions that have been

studied and verified in a range of countries including the Middle Eastern context.

These dimensions can affect social behaviour in employees as they seek to implement

business practices (often grounded and developed in Western contexts, e.g. TQM,

business excellence). Four of these dimensions show unique traits for the Middle

Eastern countries in comparison to Western countries. Hofstede’s (1980) and Hofstede

and Hofstede’s (2005) studies on these dimensions in the Middle East context have beenused in a number of studies on quality and culture in the Middle East: Askery et al.(2008) – quality accounting and culture, Eskildsen et al. (2010) – job satisfaction,quality and culture, Jabnoun and Sedrani (2005) – mutually influencing TQM and

corporate culture, Najeh and Kara-Zaitri (2007) – critical quality factors, Jones (2007) –

lack of congruence between Western quality and Arabic culture and Jones and

Seraphim (2008) – TQM in unfavourable Arabic cultures.

The four cultural dimensions are:

(1) High power-distance: predominance of a caste or tribal system that limits

upward mobility; inequalities in power and wealth; leaders has ultimate power

and are relatively unquestioned and an expectation that leaders will separate

themselves from the group.

(2) High uncertainty avoidance: low acceptance of uncertainty at any level; strict

rules, laws, policies and regulations; change averse and risk averse.

(3) High masculinity: reliance on traditional power structures; assertive;

competitive and lack of caring and inclusivity.

(4) Low individualism: collectivist society; loyalty to the ruling group or family

overriding individual preferences.

Businesexcellenc

in the UAE

429


5/21

It is suggested, as shown in Table I, that these well proven dimensions representa useful approach for probing top down business excellence and self-assessment. In thiscontext strong leadership commitment (Al-Tarawneh’s, 2010; high power difference)and consistent or uniform approaches, i.e. low uncertainty, is essential (Askery et al.,

2008; high uncertainty avoidance). However, as shown in Table I the possibility arisesthat problems will be caused by this overly directive approach to implementation dueto incongruity with some of the TQM and business excellence principles at lowerlevels. These issues can relate to: lack of involvement and empowerment of employeesat all levels ( Jabnoun and Sedrani, 2005; Jones and Seraphim, 2008 – high powerdistance and high uncertainty avoidance); lack of employee involvement andempowerment (Salaheldin, 2009; low individualism).

Kim et al.’s (2009) review of business excellence research suggests there is a need formore “in-depth observations and context based interpretations”. Jones (2007) and AlMarri et al.’s (2007) studies, while emphasising multi-level quality implementation inUAE banking, does so from a normative Western perspective of best practice rather

Cultural dimensionratings for theMiddle East(Hofstede, 1980) Characteristic

Resonance with TQMand businessexcellence principles

Incongruence withTQM and businessexcellence principles

High power-distance Predominance of rulingclass

Clearly definedownership

Lack of involvementLack of empowerment

Lack of upward mobilityPower restricted to rulingclass – leaders are notsubject to critique

Directed top downapproach

One size fits allInappropriate rewardand recognitionCommitment from

senior management

Leaders remain separatefrom employees Uniformity of approach and lack of inconsistency

High uncertaintyavoidance

Low acceptance of uncertainty at any level

Clearly defined goalsand objectivesClearly definedproceduresUse of provenapproaches

Lack of learning andexperimentation

Strict rules, laws, policiesand regulations

Lack of empowermentLimited of participationLack of creativity andinnovation

Change averseRisk averse

High masculinity Reliance on traditionalpower structuresAssertive

Uniform approachesClear goalsStrong business focus

Lack of debate andknowledge from lowerlevels

CompetitiveExclusive

Lack of inclusivity

Lack of sensitivity toindividuals needs

Low individualism Collectivist societyLoyalty to the ruling groupoverriding individualpreferences

Top down drivenCommitment to see itthroughConsistency of approach

Lack of creativity andindividualLack of recognition of individual contributions

Limited empowermentLittle learning andexperimentation

Table I.Cultural influence onTQM and businessexcellence

IJQRM30,4

430


6/21

than considering Arab cultural norms. Salaheldin and Zain (2007) in probing the use of quality circles at lower levels in a large Middle Eastern steel company concluded thatlack of leadership and recognition from the top was an inhibiting factor which waspossibly linked to the quality norms of high power-distance (Table I). Here, the quality

circles were seen as subversive within the hierarchical power structure (Hofstede,1980). There was also little evidence that top management acted on the suggestionsfrom the quality circles and hence further studies are needed regarding theimplementation process at lower levels. Jones (2007) in a study linking conflict styleswith Hofstede’s (1980) and Hofstede and Hofstede’s (2005) work suggests that Westernstyle training, reward, and implementation must be adapted to suit the Arabic cultureor else expected outcomes will be disappointing and distorted. She suggests thatorganisational culture and context needs additional studies in relation to issues such asrisk, and customer and colleague relationships, to probe issues on incongruence(consistent with Jones and Seraphim, 2008 and Table I – right-hand column). Thesefindings also raises the possibility that high uncertainty avoidance may limit newlearning, risk taking, and innovation and creativity, and suggests the need for moreresearch regarding implementation with consideration of the cultural context. Jonesand Seraphim (2008) suggest, consistent with Table I, that Arabic culture may not fitwith key TQM tenets such as communication at all levels, employee participation,involvement and empowerment, and team working. They suggest the need for furtherresearch focusing on cultural and context affects of implementation.

Overall the authors suggest that there is a need for more multi-level investigationsof business excellence and self-assessment implementation in Middle Easternorganisations that takes account of the contextual and cultural settings rather thanassuming idealised Western best practice approaches.

DGEP and case study

In 1997 the Government of Dubai developed the DGEP as the main framework forbusiness excellence self-assessment within public sector organisations and as a basisfor the Dubai Quality Awards. The DGEP is base on EFQM model. The two modelsare identical in the nine criteria with only minor differences in the sub-criteria(in the people criteria additional sub-criteria is added: “The organization is committed tonationalization (Emiratization) of jobs”). This change is due to the special nature of theemployment market in the UAE where expatriates represent approximately 85 per centof the workforce (Fernandes and Awamleh, 2006). The case organisation was a largegovernment organisation in the Dubai Emirate providing large number of services.Its organisation structure consisted of 24 departments organised around six majorsectors: technical services, planning and building affairs, general projects affairs,environmental and public health affairs, financial and fixed assets affairs, and the

administrative and general services affairs. There were 500 employees, includingexpatriates from different parts of the world, mainly from Arab and Asian countries.

The Administrative Development and Quality Department was the centraldepartment responsible for strategic planning and quality management in theorganisation. In every department there was a small quality unit (two to five employees)which worked in coordination with the central quality department in implementingstrategy and quality issues. The organisation was the first winner of the quality awardin 1998, followed by many other prestigious awards in different categories of the award

Businesexcellenc

in the UAE

43


7/21

programme such as Distinguished e-Government Department and DistinguishedTechnical Project Distinguished. The DGEP offers seven awards in the category of administrative excellence, which are offered every two years, and nine in the employeesexcellence category (offered annually).

The case organisation adopted a traditional approach to self-assessment as shownby Kim et al. (2009). It consisted of three parts. The input to the plan for assessmentprocess is the results of the previous assessment, strategic plan, methodologies, KPIs,and stakeholders’ satisfaction survey results. The assessment technique followed themanagement workshop technique (EFQM, 2011). In this method the departmentsprepare for evidence based on the criteria of the model; this evidence is then presentedto the assessors in a workshop that lasts for one day usually.

Based on the aim of the paper, which is stated in the introduction, and the literaturereview the key research questions, using a Middle Eastern cultural perspective asdefined by Hofstede (1980) and Hofstede and Hofstede (2005), are:

RQ1. What are the management and employees perceptions of the key issues for

implementation of the business excellence model and self-assessment?

RQ2. What are the main differences between Western and UAE perceptions of business excellence implementation as found in the case study?

Research methodologyBoth Yin (2009) and Eisenhardt (1991) suggest that an interpretative researchphilosophy is more appropriate to these types of research question to enable in-depthinquiry, which is consistent with the calls for more interpretative research in this area(Kim et al., 2009). In this approach multiple sources of data are embraced and engagedin a recursive sense making process in which results and discussion are compared andcontrasted, as suggested by Yin (2009), until an understanding is achieved.

The chosen research methodology was that of a case study which is suited to theinterpretive researchapproach (Yin, 2009; Eisenhardt, 1991). Yin(2009)describesthe casestudy as a comprehensive research strategy that seeks to investigate a contemporaryphenomenon within its real-life context. The complexity of the implementation of thebusiness excellence model (the phenomenon) in the Dubai Municipality (the context) isa major reason for the choice of the case study methodology for the research.

The need to generate ideas from managers of the organisation in relation tobehaviours and culture led to the choice of a qualitative strategy, where in-depthsemi-structured interviews were used. For the wider range of employees and largernumber, survey questionnaires were more appropriate. Hence a multi-strategyapproach (qualitative/quantitative) was selected as suggested by Bryman and Bell(2003, p. 480) where combing qualitative and qualitative strategies helps to capitalize

on the strengths of each.The groupings and levels considered within the case were labelled as A, B, and C.

There were 24 departments led by department directors who represented themanagement group for the study (Group A). The second management group wasthe quality and strategy specialist managers which included all senior employees whowere specialists in quality and strategy and holding positions such as quality specialistand strategy specialist, plus the heads of quality unit in every department (Group B).The third group was employees (Group C).

IJQRM30,4

432


8/21

A total of 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted (department directors,n ¼ 6; quality specialists, n ¼ 6). All interviews were done in Arabic language, but theEnglish language was frequently used during the interviews to confirm consensus andmutual understanding of terms used. The semi-structured interviews required

interviewees to reflect on the business excellence implementation process and toidentify problems in comparison to the idealised Western approach from the literatureand international consultants. Each interview lasted between 1.5 and 2.5 h.The interviews were transcribed and translated to English. Similar answers of theinterviewees were grouped under similar questions for ease of review, analysis andpattern matching consistent with Yin’s (2009) approach. To collect information from theemployees (Group C) a survey questionnaire was used covering the issues raised inthe interviews but also probing empowerment and teamwork. The interviewquestionnaire was piloted with managers and academics (working in UAE) leadingto refinements in wording and meaning (e.g. clearer interpretations of wording covering“empowerment” and “empowered team work”). The method used for analysing thequalitative interview data was based on Radnor and Boaden’s (2004) method. Firsttopics and categories were developed using the interview transcripts and documentanalysis. Next, the findings were coded within evidence tables and subsequentlyinterpreted using the literature in an iterative manner. The survey questionnaire waspiloted using ten randomly selected employees and also incorporated learning from theinterview process, leading to removal of a number of ambiguities arising from lack of definition of terms. A total of 200 were distributed based on a randomised selection fromthe company employee list with 112 responses (response rate 56 per cent); from these sixresponse sheets were disqualified due to missing data and were not used in the databasegiving a useable number of 96. Questionnaires were designed with two columns one inArabic and the other in English language. Data were analysed using SPSS V. 15.0 andcompared with the interview and documentation analysis. A five point Likert scale was

used for the responses. Triangulation was obtained from analysis of companydocumentation (including self-assessment documents), interviews and questionnaires.It is acknowledged that a single case in the UAE public sector creates issues for

generalisation (Yin, 2009). However, the current exploratory study adopts an intrinsiccase approach in an exploratory manner. Hence the issues raised may help informfurther cultural related multiple case or cross sectional survey based research, ratherthan claiming to have established hypotheses.

Results and discussionThe results and discussion sections are combined due to the style of the mixed researchmethodology as suggested by Yin (2009) and Eisenhardt (1991). The structure followsthe key implementation themes emerging from the analysis: implementation of the

DGEP; perceptions about the DGEP (mainly covering RQ1 ); the implementation CSFs;awareness, involvement and participation; knowledge and quality maturity; andobstacles and difficulties (mainly covering RQ2 ).

Implementation of the DGEP Employee profiles. The distributions of Figures 1 and 2 show the relatively largeminority of ex pat Asian employees (Figure 1) and the predominance of male employees(Figure 2), both of which are characteristic of large organisations in the Middle East

Businesexcellenc

in the UAE

43


9/21

(Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). These findings have implications for business excellencedue to the high masculinity culture dimension (Table I) leading to assertiveness andcompetitiveness which helps with the need for clear goals and a strong business focus as

found by Al-Tarawneh’s (2010) and Askery et al.’s (2008) Middle East implementationstudies. However, it can also limit the effective involvement of ex pat non-Arabs as shownby Jones and Seraphim (2008) (Table I).

Perceptions about the DGEP Reasons and motives. Respondents to interviews (Groups A and B) wereasked to indicatethe importance of some of the reasons for conducting self-assessment using the DGEPmodel. The list of 14 reasons or motives was adopted from van der Wiele et al. (1996)

Figure 1.Nationality of respondentsto questionnaires

Nationalities of respondents to questionnaires

30%

18%1%

51%

Expat Arab Expat Asian Expat Western UAE National

Figure 2.Gender distributionof respondentsto questionnaires

70%

30%

Male Female

IJQRM30,4

434


10/21

which are a useful list of motivations from a Western perspective. Table II presents thefindings, the reasons are ranked from the most important (highest mean ¼ 4.36) to theleast important (lowest mean ¼ 2.55).

Table II shows that the top four reasons for using the model represent the endeavour

of the organisation to improve by using TQM. The reasons: “To go for a quality award”and “To create a focus on the TQM model portrayed by the award criteria” also havehigh ratings (3.91), indicating the importance of the award process to the managementteam. “Formal regulations from government” has a mean of (3.55), which is aboveaverage – an indication of the “non-voluntary” reason for using the model. All of thesetop scoring reasons are consistent with the culture of high power-distance (Table I) interms of clear focus and authoritative power (Salaheldin and Zain, 2007).

Opinion about the DGEP . The interview respondents were asked about their opinionon the DGEP and whether it covers all aspects required to achieve excellence.All respondents agreed that the model was very comprehensive with a quality specialiststating: “it is a very comprehensive model to the extent that some of the sub-criteria arenot applicable in some departments” (i.e. the prescriptive element of the model wasperceived as being excessive). The interviewees also stressed the need for fullimplementation of the model criteria in order to get higher results and better performanceimprovement. The interviewees were also asked if the model criteria sub criterion partscovered all the issues of the organisation’s business. The response was mainly positivehowever it was noted that the model also needed to consider the social aspects of the UAEand the organisation. These include, as suggested by Kim et al. (2009), the programme of increased Arabanization and where expatriates (a large percentage of the population – Figure 1), should not be treated as typical employees. The acceptance of the modelstructure is consistent with the high uncertainty avoidance dimension (Hofstede, 1980)leading to well proven and structured approaches to business improvement. However, italso tends to exclude contributions from other groups and to limit creativity and

innovation (Najeh and Kara-Zaitri, 2007; Jones and Seraphim, 2008). Improvement due to the DGEP . All respondents agreed that the DGEP is likely to

have a positive impact on performance improvement but with varying degrees. Thosewho perceived the improvement was low or moderate referred to problems, consistent

Order Item Mean score SD

1 To find opportunities for improvement 4.36 0.6742 To direct the improvement process 4.36 0.8093 To provide new motivation for the quality improvement process 4.27 0.7864 To manage the business 4.00 1.0005 To create a focus on the TQM model portrayed by the award criteria 3.91 1.044

6 To go for a quality award 3.91 1.4467 To provide a benchmark against other organisations 3.73 1.1048 Formal regulations from government 3.55 1.4409 To help achieve quality system registration (e.g. ISO 9001) 3.09 1.300

10 Pressure from top management 3.00 1.41411 Competitors were using self-assessment 2.91 0.94412 To strive for cost reduction 2.82 1.16813 Customers were demanding evidence of self-assessment 2.73 0.90514 Internal champion within the unit 2.55 1.293

Table IReasons for undertakin

self-assessme

Businesexcellenc

in the UAE

43


11/21

with those found by Al Marri et al. (2007) and Samuelsson and Nilsson (2002). Theseincluded the complexity of the model and the implementation time and effort. Moreover,sometimes the assessment scores were perceived as an opportunity to compete withother departments, rather than an opportunity to improve the organisation. In relation

to departmental performance improvement the findings showed that the DGEP had anear average contribution in the performance improvement, which is consistent withthe top down approach and high uncertainty avoidance cultural dimension which canlead to uniformity (Table I).

Perceived benefits. Table III shows that all interview respondents (Groups A and B)agreed that the model provided a framework for performance improvement. Half of these stated that the model had encouraged them to use TQM tools and techniques.Also half of the respondents perceived that the model helped in raising the awarenessamongst employees about quality management. However, the interview data showedthat this use of tools and techniques, and awareness, was limited within the confines of the high power distance culture dimension (Table I) and resultant top down edicts

regarding how the model was to be interpreted as found by Jones (2007). The model alsoprovided a common management language between departments. These perceivedbenefits emphasise the structured and uniformity characteristics of the modelconsistent with the cultural dimension of high power distance and high uncertaintyavoidance and low Individualism (Jones and Seraphim, 2008; Table I).

Employee perceptions about the model . The results of employee perceptions(respondents to questionnaires; Group C) about the importance of the model inperformance improvement are summarised in Table IV.

Frequency % Valid percent Cumulative percent

ValidNot useful 1 1.0 1.3 1.3Useful to some extent 6 6.3 7.5 8.8Medium 11 11.5 13.8 22.5Useful 29 30.2 36.3 58.8Very useful 33 34.4 41.3 100.0Total 80 83.3 100.0

Missing 16 16.7Total 96 100.0

Table IV.Importance of the DGEPin improvement,employee’s response

Benefits (responses from directors and quality specialists, n ¼ 10) Frequency

1. Provided a framework for performance improvement 102. Encouraged the use of TQM principles, tools and techniques (brain storming,

suggestions system, best practice, benchmarking, etc.) 53. Helped in raising awareness and change of culture towards TQM 54. Provided a common management language in the organisation 35. Increased employees satisfaction 36. Improved strategic partnerships with other organisations 2

Table III.Benefits from theuse of the DGEP inself-assessment

IJQRM30,4

436


12/21

The results of Table IV show that 36.3 per cent mentioned “useful” and 41.3 per centmentioned “very useful”. This positive response is an indication of the employee’sacceptance of the management’s communications on the efficacy of the model,consistent with the high power distance culture dimension (Table I). Throughout the

study there was no evidence of emancipatory benefits from the model implementation,consistent with the high masculinity culture dimension (Kim et al., 2009; Table I).

The implementation CSFsThe list of CSFs identified by Karuppusami and Gandhinathan (2006) was discussedwith the top quality and strategy officials in the organisation where it was modified andranked according to the importance to the organisation. The new list was correlated withthe original list using Spearman rank correlation. The correlation coefficient was foundto be r s ¼ 0.16, comparing with the Spearman’s critical values table (Ramsey, 1989),showing there is difference in the view about the importance of CSFs.

As shown in Table V respondents to the interviews and surveys (Groups A-C) were

asked to rank the list of CSFs (in a random order) as identified by the top qualityofficials, from one (highest importance) to number 11 (least important).Based on the Spearman’s critical values table (Ramsey, 1989), the correlation

coefficients for the number of pairs ¼ 11 ( n ¼ 11):

r s ¼ 0.618 with level of significance ¼ 0.05.

0.708 with level of significance ¼ 0.02.

0.755 with level of significance ¼ 0.01.

Figure 3 shows there is significant difference between the organisation’s senior qualityofficials and directors. The highest correlation coefficient in the group of directors is0.47 (significance between 0.2 and 0.1), which indicates a difference in the views with

the senior quality officer; in the group of quality specialist two out of five havea coefficient higher than 0.618, and three specialists have a lower coefficient. Qualityspecialists have a better correlation compared with that of the department directors.There was a difference in the views of the senior officer and that of directors andquality specialists, and the difference was higher with the directors.

Respondent (DIR: director, SPE: specialist)

r s( DM )Correlation with directors and senior quality

specialist

DIR1 0.29DIR2 0.27

DIR3 0.23DIR4 0.24DIR5 0.31DIR6 0.47SPE1 0.13SPE2 0.71SPE3 0.82SPE4 0.56SPE5 0.58

Table VSpearman’s ran

correlation resul

Businesexcellenc

in the UAE

43


13/21

Similarly the CSFs list was given to respondents to the questionnaires (Group C) torank them. People who answered that they have no knowledge about DGEP wereexcluded from the sample in this test. Here, 34.7 per cent of the employees ( n ¼ 72) hadnegative rank correlation ( r s , 0), and 95.8 per cent had no significant correlation( r s , 0.618). Hence, only 4.2 per cent had a significantly positive rank correlation( r s . 0.618), with the senior quality official. These findings indicate that the topdown approach is accepted rather than being critiqued contextualisation at lowerlevels, consistent with the findings of Salaheldin (2009).

Awareness, involvement, and participationUsing the survey awareness, involvement, and participation of people were investigatedwith the directors and quality specialists in the interviews (Groups A and B) and alsoemployees (Group C). From the responses of directors and quality specialists, there wasconsensus that all directors received training on the model and that they all participatedin the self-assessment sessions. The people or staff level who participated in the trainingwere: directors, heads of sections, heads of units, senior staff (e.g. specialists, engineers,distractive officers, accountants), and staff from the quality units.

The interviewee findings showed that the directors and quality specialistsdisseminated awareness of the model and self-assessment through a variety of approaches as shown in Table VI. However, further examination of these methods inthe repeat interviews and documentation analysis showed they were all top down with

Figure 3.

Spearman rank correlation

Spearman’s rank correlation results

0

DIR = Dept. Director SPE = Quality Specialist

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

D I R

1

D I R 2

D I R 3

D I R

4

D I R 5

D I R 6

S P E

1

S P E

2

S P E

3

S P E

4

S P E

5

Respondent

C o r r e l a t i o n

C o e f f i c i e n t

0.1

Means of awareness creation (responses fromdirectors and quality specialists, n ¼ 8) Frequency

1. Through meetings with staff 42. Sending information to staff via e-mail 33. Through training courses about the model 24. Seminars and workshops 2

Table VI.Methods used inawareness creation

IJQRM30,4

438


14/21

little opportunity for employees to influence the process, consistent with the highpower distance culture dimension (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005).

Level of staff participation in self-assessment . The employee’s perceptions abouttheir participation in the self-assessment process are shown in Table VII.

The findings show that almost 70 per cent of those employees who respondedhad little or no involvement in the self-assessment process. This finding for an awardwinning organisation is in contrast with Western levels of participation for awardwinners (Samuelsson and Nilsson, 2002; EFQM, 2011) and possibly reflects high powerdistance and high uncertainty avoidance as found by Jones and Seraphim (2008).

The participation levels in relation to nationality in shown in Table VIII.These figures, consistent with a high power distance culture dimension reflect the

low participation of non-privileged groups, such as Asian ex pats, consistent with thefindings of Salaheldin (2009).

Knowledge and quality maturity

Table IX summarises the employee’s awareness of the DGEP.Surprisingly 15.6 per cent of the employees had not heard about the DGEP eventhough the organisation had 10 þ years of experience in applying the DGEP and itsrecognition in the region as an award winning quality organisations. To furtherinvestigate the data were analysed with respect to nationality groups (Table X).

Table X shows that from a total of 17 Asian expatriates only eight had heard aboutthe model. Comparing these findings with those relating to relatively low levels of

Frequency % Cumulative percent

Never 59 61.5 61.5Little 7 7.3 68.8Medium 15 15.6 84.4

Big 9 9.4 93.8Very big 6 6.3 100.0Total 96 100.0

Table VILevel of participatio

in self-assessme

Level of participation in SANationality Never Little Medium Big Very big Total

Expat Arab 14 0 7 5 3 29Expat Asian 17 0 0 0 0 17Expat Western 0 1 0 0 0 1UAE National 33 5 5 4 2 49

Total 63 6 13 9 5 96

Table VIINationality an

level of participatio

in SA cross-tabulatio

Heard about DGEP Frequency %

No 15 15.6Yes 81 84.4Total 96 100.0

Table IXKnowledge/lack

knowledge of employeabout DGE

Businesexcellenc

in the UAE

439


15/21

participation indicates the privileging of certain groups in terms of custodianship of the model, consistent with a high power distance perspective (Eskildsen et al., 2010).The findings are consistent with the large percentage of respondents with little or noknowledge about the model (Table XI).

The number of people who received detailed training about the model beyond thatof general awareness is shown in Table XII.

These findings show a selective approach to those who become aware of, trained inand participate in, the model and self-assessment process. There is a lack of evidence tosupport a wider inclusive approach aiming for maximum involvement and contributionof new knowledge. Rather high uncertainty avoidance, coupled with high powerdistance, in using the model, consistent with the cultural norms of the organisation led topower and participation being privileged (consistent with Eskildsen etal., 2010; Jabnounand Sedrani, 2005).

Department directors and quality specialists were asked to position theorganisation in Crosby’s quality grid adopted from van der Wiele et al. (1996).

The same question was posted for employees in the survey. The grid is of five levels of maturity these are:

(1) Phase 1 – uncertainty: “we don’t know why we have problems with quality”.

(2) Phase 2 – awaking: “is it absolutely necessary always to have problems withquality?”

Heard about DGEPNationality No Yes Total

Expat Arab 1 28 29Expat Asian 9 8 17Expat Western 0 1 1

UAE National 5 44 49Total 15 81 96

Table X.Nationality and

awareness about DGEPcross-tabulation

Level of knowledge Frequency % Cumulative percent

No idea at all 21 21.9 21.9Little 24 25.0 46.9Medium 18 18.8 65.6Good 24 25.0 90.6Very good 9 9.4 100.0Total 96 100.0

Table XI.Level of employees’knowledge aboutthe model

Have you received training in DGEP Frequency %

No 80 83.3Yes 16 16.7Total 96 100.0

Table XII.Training in the DGEP

IJQRM30,4

440


16/21

(3) Phase 3 – enlightenment: “through management commitment and qualityimprovement we are identifying and resolving our problems”.

(4) Phase 4 – wisdom: “defect prevention is a routine part of our operation”.

(5) Phase 5 – certainty: “we know why we do not have problems with quality”.

The responses are detailed in Table XIII.The results indicate strong agreement about the quality maturity of the

organisation, i.e. phase 3 – enlightenment: “through management commitment andquality improvement we are identifying and resolving our problems”. Hence theorganisation, despite low levels of involvement in implementation, is perceived asa well developed quality organisation in the UAE context.

Obstacles and difficultiesThe volume of work required to prepare for self-assessment was discussed with thedirectors and senior quality specialists; all agreed on that, the process is very difficult

and time consuming. The obstacles are summarised in Table XIV in the modelimplementation.

These results reflect an emphasis on refining and improving the existing approachthrough the existing channels such as the second most listed inhibitor – collection anddocumentation of evidence. There was a lack of emphasis on, and recognition of,overcoming people based obstacles, consistent with the prevailing cultural dimensionsof Table I which are usually shown to be the main problems in Western studies(Samuelsson and Nilsson, 2002; Dale et al., 2001; Kim et al., 2009).

Conclusions and recommendationsThe choice of a large public sector organisation as a case study for the aim of the paper,

as opposed to a globalised Western type organisation with headquarters in Dubai, was justified by the findings. The multi-level research showed how the implementation of business excellence and self-assessment using the DGEP was influenced by culturaland contextual issues unique to the Middle East.

Departmentdirectors and

quality specialists EmployeesFrequency % Frequency %

1. We do not know why we have problems with quality 0 0.00 4 5.32. It is absolutely necessary always to have problems with

quality 1 11.11 6 8.03. Through management commitment and quality

improvement we are identifying and resolving ourproblems 8 88.89 54 72.0

4. Defects prevention is a routine part of our operation 0 0.0 8 10.75. We know why we do not have problems with quality 0 0.0 3 4.0Total 9 100.0 75 100.0

Mean ¼ 2.89,SD ¼ 0.33

Mean ¼ 3,SD ¼ 0.75

Table XIIDepartment directo

and quality specialisquality maturi

Businesexcellenc

in the UAE

44


17/21

It is concluded that Hofstede’s (1980) and Hofstede and Hofstede’s (2005) culturaldimension representation of the Middle Eastern culture is a useful framework foranalysing the business excellence implementation approach in the Dubai case

organisation. This finding is consistent with existing studies (Jabnoun and Sedrani,2005; Jones and Seraphim, 2008; Salaheldin, 2009) which have used Hofstede’s work toprobe a range of TQM issues in the Middle East.

In relation to RQ1 the interviews showed there was a strong top down award-basedfocus where the DGEP, driven by senior management, was used as a framework fornational and UAE award applications, consistent with the findings of Jabnoun and Khalifa(2005) and Kim et al. (2009). Management of the model implementation was found to be theresponsibility of the central quality department. It is concluded that this approach isconsistent with the high power distance culture dimension which is characterised by highlevels of directive authority and concentration of power in top management levels (Table I;Hofstede, 1980). A workshop-based technique for self-assessment and was uniformlyapplied in a top down manner across all 24 departments within the organisation. It is

concluded that this high level of uniformity is consistent with the high uncertaintyavoidance cultural dimensions (Table I; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005) where top downpower overrides local deviations or modifications at lower levels. However, this highlyrigidapproach ultimately limited meaningful participation and empowered improvement actionat lower levels (consistent with low individualism – Table I), especially amongst ex patnon-nationals. This problem was not recognised or addressed within the implementationprocess leading to a lack of improvement at lower levels resulting from the self-assessmentprocess.

Obstacles and difficulties (responses from directors

and quality specialists, n ¼ 11) Frequency

1. Documentation of evidence is difficult and time

consuming 9

2. Assessment method is not efficient (requires all

evidence in a meeting room, short period of

assessment, etc.) 7

3. Routine work load is very high 5

4. The model is difficult and needs to be clarified 4

5. The role of the central quality department in

coordinating the assessment process 4

6. Attrition rate is very high 3

7. Organisation is very large, that makes

assessment difficult 2

8. Resistance from some employees and the need for

culture change 2

9. Poor commitment from leaders and middle

managers 2

10. Employees are not well prepared for the model

implementation (lack of training, lack of

communication, etc.) 2

11. Assessors are incompetent 2

12. Organisation management system instability 1

Table XIV.The obstacles of DGEPimplementation

IJQRM30,4

442


18/21

It is suggested, in relation to RQ2 , and consistent with Jones and Seraphim (2008),that this major dichotomy in the implementation process is driven by the country orMiddle Eastern culture being reflected in the context of the organisation (i.e. a publicsector organisation). There is a distinct difference, or even a conflict, between the

characteristics on the cultural dimensions and some of the tenets of TQM or businessexcellence. The Middle Eastern culture would seen to support the need for strongleadership and commitment for business excellence implementation ( Jabnoun andSedrani, 2005); however it was found to conflict with the TQM tenets of employeeparticipation involvement and empowered action at lower levels. It is suggested,consistent with Kim et al. (2009), that more research should be undertaken to explorethese apparent contradictions in more detail. Such studies could include morecomparisons between Middle Eastern public sector organisations and globalisedMiddle Eastern organisations at multiple levels.

From a practical perspective there is a need for UAE organisations to develop bespokeculturally based approaches for implementing business excellence and self-assessment.The weighting of some parts of the model may need adjustment in comparison to Western

approaches to avoid unrepresentative results. Furthermore, there is an opportunity forpractitioners to develop cultural awareness programmes in relation to UAE businessexcellence practices. The policy implications for the UAE Government are thatstandardised training provision from Western sources is a poor substitute for culturallygrounded approaches.

References

Al Marri, K., Ahmed, A.M. and Zairi, M. (2007), “Excellence in service: an empirical study of theUAE banking sector”, International Journal of Quality Management , Vol. 24 No. 2,pp. 164-176.

Al-Tarawneh, H. (2010), “Total quality management and leadership: an experimental

investigation of ISO certified companies in Jordan”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 382-399.

Askery, S., Pounder, J. and Yazdifar, H. (2008), “Influence of culture on accountinguniformity among Arabic nations”, Education, Business and Society, Vol. 1 No. 2,pp. 145-154.

Badri, M., Davis, D. and Davis, D. (1995), “A study of measuring the critical factors of qualitymanagement”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management , Vol. 12 No. 2,pp. 36-53.

Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2003), Business Research Methods, Oxford University Press,New York, NY.

Dale, B.G. (1996), “Benchmarking on total quality management adoption: a position model”, Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 28-37.

Dale, B.G., van der Wiele, A. and Williams, A.R.T. (2001), “Quality – why do organisationscontinue to get it wrong?”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 241-248.

EFQM (2011), Assessing for Excellence, European Foundation for Quality Management,Brussels.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1991), “Better stories and better constructs: the case for rigor and comparativelogic”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 620-627.

Eskildsen, J., Kristensen, K. and Antvor, H. (2010), “The relationship between job satisfaction andnational culture”, TQM Journal , Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 369-378.

Businesexcellenc

in the UAE

44


19/21

Fernandes, C. and Awamleh, R. (2006), “Impact of organisational justice in an expatriate work

environment”, Management Research News, Vol. 29 No. 11, pp. 701-712.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,

Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G. (2005), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind ,

McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Jabnoun, N. and Khalifa, A. (2005), “A customised measure of service quality in the UAE”,

Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 374-389.

Jabnoun, N. and Sedrani, K. (2005), “TQM, culture, and performance in UAE manufacturing

firms”, Quality Management Journal , Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 8-20.

Jones, J. and Seraphim, D. (2008), “TQM implementation and change management in an

unfavourable environment”, The Journal of Management Development , Vol. 27 No. 3,

pp. 291-306.

Jones, S. (2007), “Training and cultural context in the Arab Emirates: fighting a losing battle?”,

Employee Relations, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 48-62.

Karuppusami, G. and Gandhinathan, R. (2006), “Pareto analysis of critical success factors of total

quality management: a literature review and analyses”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 4,

pp. 372-385.

Kim, D., Kumar, V. and Murphy, S. (2009), “European foundation for quality management

business excellence model”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management ,

Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 684-701.

Najeh, R. and Kara-Zaitri, C. (2007), “A comparative study of critical quality factors in Malaysia,

Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Libya”, Total Quality Management , Vol. 18 Nos 1/2,

pp. 189-199.

Radnor, Z.J. and Boaden, R. (2004), “Developing an understanding of corporate anorexia”,

International Journal of Operations & Production Management , Vol. 24 No. 3,pp. 424-440.

Ramsey, P.H. (1989), “Critical values for Spearman’s rank order correlation”, Journal of

Educational Statistics, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 245-253.

Salaheldin, S. (2009), “Problem, success factors and benefits of QCs implementation: a case of

QACO”, TQM Journal , Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 87-98.

Salaheldin, S. and Zain, M. (2007), “How quality control circles enhance work safety: a case

study”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 229-233.

Samuelsson, P. and Nilsson, L.E. (2002), “Self-assessment practice in large organizations,

experience from using the EFQM excellence model”, International Journal of Quality

& Reliability Management , Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 10-23.

Temtime, Z. (2003), “The moderating impacts of business planning and firm size on total qualitymanagement practices”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 52-61.

van der Wiele, A. and Brown, A. (2000), “Venturing down the TQM path for SME’s”,

International Small Business Journal , Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 50-69.

van der Wiele, A., Williams, A.R.T., Dale, B.G., Carter, G., Kolb, F., Luzon, D.M., Schmidt, A. and

Wallace, M. (1996), “Self-assessment: a study of progress in Europe’s leading organizations

in quality management practices”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability

Management , Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 84-104.

IJQRM30,4

444


20/21

Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Youssef, M. and Zairi, M. (1995), “Benchmarking critical factors for TQM part II – empiricalresults from different regions in the world”, Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 3-14.

Further reading

DGEP (2007), Dubai Government Excellence Programme, DGEP, Dubai.

Corresponding authorRodney McAdam can be contacted at: [email protected]

Businesexcellenc

in the UAE

44

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints


21/21

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without

permission.

case quality

Documents