Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RICS CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING RESEARCH CONFERENCE SEPT 2008 RESEARCH
COBRA2008
COBRA 2008 The construction and building research conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Held at Dublin Institute of Technology, 4-5 September 2008 ISBN 978-1-84219-434-8 © RICS 12 Great George Street London SW1P 3AD United Kingdom www.rics.org/cobra September 2008
All papers submitted to COBRA were assessed by expert panel, drawn from the construction and building research community, The conference organisers wish to extend their appreciation to the members of the panel for their work, which is invaluable to the success of COBRA. Kate Carter Heriot-Watt University, UK Keith Cattell University of Cape Town, South Africa Grace Ding University of Technology Sydney, Australia Tom Dunne Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland Charles Egbu University of Salford, UK Chris Fortune University of Salford, UK Rod Gameson University of Wolverhampton, UK Louis Gunnigan Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland Martin Hanratty Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland Alan Hore Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland Myles Keaveny Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland Steven McCabe Birmingham City University, UK Kathy Mitchell University of Cape Town, South Africa Keith Potts University of Wolverhampton, UK David Root University of Cape Town, South Africa Kathy Roper Georgia Institute of Technology, USA Lloyd Scott Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland Winston Shakantu Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa Lorcan Sirr Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland Suresh Subashini University of Wolverhampton, UK Stephen Walsh Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland Sara Wilkinson Deakin University, Australia In addition to this, a specialist panel assessed paper for the session arranged by CIB W113. John Adriaanse London South Bank University, UK Julie Adshead University of Salford, UK Rachelle Alterman Technion, Israel Jane Ball University of Sheffield, UK Michael Brand University of New South Wales, Australia Penny Brooker University of Wolverhampton, UK Ruth Cannon Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland Alice Christudason National University of Singapore Paul Chynoweth University of Salford, UK Philip Chan National University of Singapore Sai On Cheung City University of Hong Kong Ron Craig Loughborough University, UK Jose Caramelo Gomes University of Lusiada, Portugal Asanga Gunawansa National University of Singapore Rob Home Anglia Ruskin University, UK Peter Kennedy Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Anthony Lavers Keating Chambers, UK Tim McLernon University of Ulster, UK Frits Meijer TU Delft, The Netherlands Jim Mason University of the West of England, UK Brodie McAdam University of Salford, UK Issaka Ndekugri University of Wolverhampton, UK Linda Thomas-Mobley Georgia Tech, USA Yvonne Scannell Trinity College Dublin, Ireland Cathy Sherry University of New South Wales, Australia Henk Visscher TU Delft, The Netherlands
1
A conceptual benchmarking framework for world-class
performance in Ghanaian construction firms
Ofori-Kuragu, J.K .
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
Baiden, B.K.
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
Abstract
World-class companies are able to emulate and surpass the best international companies in their field and
use world-class techniques. Construction companies which want to compete at world-class level must
have a competitive edge for survival in the global market. Benchmarking provides information on world-
class performance requirements and this can be used by Construction companies to improve their
performances. The research aims at developing a cost effective framework which can be used by
construction companies in Ghana to measure their performance and to benchmark their performance for
continuous improvement towards world-class standards. Existing frameworks, models and programmes
for improving business performance are reviewed. The paper identifies the weaknesses of these
frameworks and explores a conceptual benchmarking framework which enables construction companies to
measure and benchmark their performance. The paper concluded by establishing a system for
implementation for the conceptual benchmarking framework to be developed.
Keywords: Benchmarking, Framework, Ghana, World-Class, Performance
1. Introduction
World-class companies are able to emulate and surpass the best international companies in their field and
use world-class techniques (Munroe-Faure & Munroe-Faure, 1992). Ghanaian construction companies
which want to compete at world-class level must possess a truly competitive edge (Chang and Kelly
1995). To survive in today’s world markets requires world-class performance. Again, only benchmarking
provides information on what is required for world-class performance (Munroe-Faure & Munroe-Faure,
2
1992). This shows that underperforming Construction companies can improve their performances and
attain world-class performance using benchmarking.
The performance of Ghanaian contractors is a major cause of concern amongst client groups and other
stakeholders in the industry. It is common practice for contracts to be terminated on the grounds of non-
performance. The Government of Ghana, the biggest domestic client has expressed the need for a system
which enables contractors’ performance to be assessed as a means of ensuring that projects are awarded
only to competent contractors. Consequently, a series of workshops have been organised for contractors
and other stakeholders to discuss the causes of underperformance within the industry (Daily Graphic, 22nd
January, 2008 edition). Jones and Shilling (2000) identify performance measurement as a critical to efforts
to solve performance related problems for business success.
The general perceptions of underperformance in the Ghanaian construction industry makes a study into
the causes of underperformance in the construction industry justified. This paper reviews existing
benchmarking frameworks and models for improving performance. The paper examines the weaknesses
and strengths of these models / frameworks and proposes a conceptual framework Ghanaian contractors
can use to assess, benchmark and improve their performance. The framework draws on existing best
practice models to offer an easy-to-use and cost effective model which addresses the weaknesses of the
existing models. To conclude, the paper explores a system which can be used to implement the conceptual
framework to be developed.
2. Definitions
2.1 Benchmarking
Benchmarking may be defined as:
“the pursuit by organisations of enhanced performance by learning from the
successful practices of others. It is a continuous activity which involves
adjusting key internal processes, monitoring performance and making new
comparisons with the current best performers. (Hinton et al 2000).
The UK’s Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) defines benchmarking as a systematic approach to
business improvement where best practice is sought and implemented to improve a process beyond the
benchmark performance (Partnership Sourcing, 1997, p.7). Gryna (2001) defines benchmarking simply as
3
a reference point that is used as a standard of comparison for actual performance and benchmark
organisations as being the “best in any industry”. This definition demonstrates the need to widen the scope
during benchmarking to include the best in the local context and at the global level. Chang & Kelly (1995)
supported this view by identifying four levels of benchmarking – Internal, Competitive, Non-competitive
and World Class. They argued that world class benchmarking involves “looking toward the recognised
industry leader – an organisation that does it better than any other”.
Hinton et al (2000) supported the assertion that benchmarking does not take place only when like data is
compared. Benchmarking can involve adventurous comparisons amongst organisations from different
sectors. This gives an opportunity to see how others operate their activities which also fits into what Camp
(1995) describes as “generic” and “functional” benchmarking.
2.2 Benchmarking framework
Deros et al, 2006 define a Benchmarking Framework as a set of simplified theoretical principles and
practical guidelines to carry out benchmarking implementation and adoption, which can enhance the
chance of success; that are easy to understand, efficient and can be implemented at reasonable costs and
time.
3. Review of existing performance improvement frameworks and models
There are many frameworks and models for improving business performance. This paper reviews the most
models and frameworks used for improving performance (Bassioni, 2008; Petersen, 1999; Tan, 2002;
Kumar, 2007).
3.1 The European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence Model
The EFQM Excellence Model was introduced at the beginning of 1992. It is the framework which is used
for assessing organisations for the European Quality Award. It is also widely used in Europe as the
organisational framework in and the basis for the majority of national and regional Quality Awards.
EFQM is an over-arching framework that, if used as a diagnostic tool, it can help user organisations to put
in place an improvement plan to improve their results. As a practical tool, the EFQM Excellence Model
can be used in several different ways. Some of the uses of the EFQM Excellence Model are:
As a tool for Self-Assessment
As a way to Benchmark with other organisations
As a guide to identify areas for Improvement
4
As the basis for a common Vocabulary and a way of thinking
As a Structure for the organisation's management system
The EFQM is a non-prescriptive and flexible framework based on 9 criteria which allows user
organisations of whatever sector or size to adapt it to their specific needs. The 9 criteria are sub-divided
into ENABLERS and RESULTS criteria respectively. The ENABLERS are what an organisation does and
the RESULTS are what it achieves. The EFQM is an overarching framework which can be used side-by-
side with other tools such as the Investors in People (IIP), Charter Mark, and Balanced Scorecard amongst
others.
3.1.1 Excellence Model Criteria
There are seven criteria which constitutes the model shown in Figure 1. Of these, the first five (5) criteria
– leadership, people, policy, partnerships & resources and processes – are the ENABLERS whilst people
results, customer results, society results and key performance results are the RESULTS criteria.
Figure 1. EFQM Excellence model (Source: www.qualityscotland.co.uk)
With over 30,000 businesses using the EFQM Excellence Model to improve their performance, it is the
most widely used Business excellence Framework in Europe. (Source: www.qualityscotland.co.uk,
website accessed 17th April, 08).
5
3.2 Bassioni’s model for construction excellence
Bassioni (2004) developed and described a model for construction excellence. This model, like the EFQM
Excellence Model divides the criteria into two – the Enablers and the Results criteria as shown below in
Table 1.
Table 1: Bassioni’s Enablers and Results Criteria
Enablers Result Criteria
Leadership, Suppliers, Customer & Stakeholder
focus, Physical Resources, Strategic Management,
Intellectual Capital, Information and Analysis,
Risk, People, Work Culture, Partnership, Process
Management, Leadership
Internal Stakeholders, Project &
External Stakeholders, and
Organisational Business Results
In addition to the criteria outlined in the EFQM Excellence Model, the Bassioni Model, (Bassioni 2004)
introduces additional criteria such as ‘work culture’ and ‘strategic management’ which also play a critical
role in business success as shown in the work of Deros et al (2006), NIST (2008) and Petersen (1999).
3.3 The American System of Promoting Excellence
The Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award is the national programme for recognizing and promoting
excellence in business in the US. It provides criteria which enables organisations to measure their
performance and to target improvements in their performance.
NIST (2008) outlines the Baldridge Award criteria as follows:
1. Leadership
2. Strategic Planning
3. Customer and Market Focus
4. Measurement, Analysis and Knowledge management
5. Workforce Focus
6. Process Management
7. Results
Each of these criteria and the accompanying sub-criteria are weighted and scored as shown in Table 2.
6
Table 2. Criteria For Performance Excellence (Baldridge Award)
Item Category Point
values
Total
1 Leadership 120
1.1 Senior leadership 70
1.2 Governance and social Responsibilities 50
2 Strategic Planning 85
2.1 Strategy Development 40
2.2 Strategy Deployment 45
3 Customer and Market Focus 85
3.1 Customer and Market Knowledge 40
3.2 Customer Relationships and Satisfaction 45
4 Measurement, Analysis and Knowledge Management 90
4.1 Measurement, Analysis and Improvement of Organisational
Performance
45
4.2 Management of information Technology 45
5 Workforce Focus 85
5.1 Workforce Engagement 45
5.2 Workforce Environment 40
6 Process Management 85
6.1 Work systems design 35
6.2 Work Process Management and Improvement 50
7 Results 450
7.1 Product and Service Outcomes 100
7.2 Customer-Focused Outcomes 70
7.3 Financial and Market Outcomes 70
7.4 Workforce Focused Outcomes 70
7.5 Process Effectiveness Outcomes 70
7.6 Leadership Outcomes 70
TOTAL POINTS 1000
Source: NIST (2008)
7
3.4 The Deming Award
The Subcommittee of the Implementation Award for the Deming Prize, 1992 identified 10 criteria
which are assessed for the award of the Deming Prize. These are:
1. Policy
2. Organisation and its management
3. Education and dissemination
4. Collection, dissemination and use of information on quality
5. Analysis
6. Standardization
7. Control
8. Quality assurance
9. Results
10. Planning for the future
4. PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMES
4.1 Promoting Business Excellence in Scotland
Scotland operates four recognition schemes for organisations at different levels of excellence. The
recognition programme is Europe-wide and is referred to as Levels of Excellence. Although Levels of
Excellence is based on the EFQM Excellence model, organisations which may apply are not restricted to
those using the Excellence Model.
The four awards used in Scotland’s adaptation of the EFQM Excellence Model are:
1. Committed to Excellence
2. Recognised for excellence
3. Scottish Awards for Business Excellence
4. European Excellence Award
Committed to Excellence is a practical way for organisations to start their Excellence Journey.
Recognised for Excellence is a standard which is recognised all over Europe for organisations which
demonstrate high levels of performance. The Scottish Awards for Business Excellence recognises
Scottish Organisations which have achieved level of Excellence comparable to the rest of Europe whilst
8
the European Excellence Award is the most prestigious award for organisation excellence in Europe.
(www.qualityscotland.co.uk; website accessed 17th April, 2008).
Being a national Partner of the EFQM, Quality Scotland has adopted the EFQM Excellence model but
with some specific suggestions of standards to be achieved under each of the nine (9) criteria as shown in
the diagram below.
4.2 High Performance Organisations (HPOs)
A high performance organization is an organization that achieves financial results that are better than
those of its peer group over a longer period of time by adapting well to changes and reacting quickly,
managing for the long term. Organisations achieve high performance by setting up an integrated and
aligned management structure, continuously improving its core capabilities and by treating the employees
as its main asset (de Waal 2007). In all, eight factors, shown in Figure 2, are identified by de Waal (2007)
as influencing the behaviour of employees and in turn leading to high performance in organisations. These
are; external environment, organisational design, strategy and process management. The rest are
technology, leadership, individual roles and organisational culture.
Figure 2. Framework of the eight (8) factors affecting high performance (de Waal, 2007)
9
4.3 Drivers of Change
In the rethinking Construction Report, Egan (1998) identifies five (5) drivers of change which according
to the report have driven manufacturing and service industry to achieve radical changes. These drivers of
change are:
1. Committed leadership
2. A focus on the customer
3. Integrating the process and the team around the product
4. A quality driven agenda
5. Commitment to people
These drivers of change according to Egan (1998) provide the model for dramatic improvements and for
business success in the 21st century.
4.4 The New Production Philosophy
Koskela (1992) however identifies eleven (11) heuristic principles for what is described as the New
Production Philosophy. This philosophy, which applies Lean principles to eliminate waste and deliver
increased value to customers, has the following principles according to Koskela (1992): Reduce the share
of non value-adding activities, increase output value through systematic consideration of customer
requirements, reduce variability and reduce cycle time. Others are: simplify by minimizing the number of
steps, parts and linkages, increase output flexibility, increase process transparency and focus control on
the complete process. The rest are; build continuous improvement into the process, balance flow
improvement with conversion improvement and benchmark.
The new production philosophy, according to Koskela (1992), provides a means of improving the
performance of organisations than other conventional and the quality approaches to improving
performance.
4.5 Total quality management
Munro-Faure & Munro Faure (1992) however opine that continued success may be obtained by
organisations using Total Quality Management (TQM). They define TQM as meeting customer
requirements at minimum cost and identify five (5) components of TQM as:
1. Understanding customers.
2. Understanding the business.
3. Quality management systems.
10
4. Continuous quality improvement
5. Quality tools.
Each of the five components described in the Munro-Faure & Munro Faure (1992) model has sub criteria
as shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Components of Total Quality Management
Understanding Customers
Understanding the Business
Continuous Quality Improvement
Quality Management Systems Quality Tools
Functional Analysis Management
Commitment BS 5750
Statistical Process
Control External
Employee
Involvement ISO9000
Quality Function
Deployment
Quality costs Education Benchmarking
Teamwork Problem solving
Measurement Internal
Error prevention
AQAP
Source Munro-Faure and Munro-Faure (1992)
Harris and McCaffer (2001) simplified Deming (1988)’s 14 points into 12 steps as follows:
implementation, training, teamwork and control. Others are capability, systems, design and planning. The
rest are measurements, organisation, commitment & policy and understanding.
Petersen (1999) alluded to Crosby (1994)’s 14 steps of quality improvement. These include: Management
commitment, Quality improvement team, Measurement, Cost of quality, Quality awareness, Corrective
action, Zero defects (ZD) planning, Employee education, ZD day, Goal setting, Error-cause removal,
Recognition, Quality councils, and Do it over again.
Christopher and Thor (2001) suggested 15 strategies for achieving world-class quality including vision,
outcomes, customer value, goals, measures, empowerment, teamwork, continuous improvement,
11
innovation, excellence, learning and knowledge, systems, recognition and celebration, sharing, and
Change.
These strategies and sub-criteria for enabling world-class performance are shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Strategies for achieving world-class quality
STRATEGY SUB-CRITERIA
Vision Outcomes
Customer value 1. The Manufacturing Enterprise Wheel 2. Re-engineering to a customer focus 3. Internal customers
Goals 1. Vision, outcome, goals 2. Setting goals 3. Goals and measures
Measures 1. Examples of families of measures 2. Using an objectives matrix
Empowerment
Teamwork 1. Temporary teams 2. Permanent teams 3. Self-managed teams
Continuous improvement 1. Continuously improved processes 2. Elimination of waste
Innovation
Excellence
1. Benchmarking 2. Strategic benchmarking 3. Business process benchmarking 4. Goal setting
Learning and Knowledge
Systems 1. Systems thinking and systems models 2. A model focusing on customers
Recognition and celebration 1. Learning 2. Education and training 3. Knowledge
Sharing
Change
Source: Christopher and Thor (2001)
12
4.6 Six Sigma
According to Pande et al, (2003), Six Sigma is a comprehensive system for achieving, sustaining and
maximizing business success. Pande et al, (2003) established the Six Sigma Roadmap for launching
improvements in organisations. The five steps which make up this roadmap feature what the authors
describe as the “core competencies” for a 21st century organisation. They are as follows:
4.6.1 Core Competencies of 21st Century Organisations
1. Identify core processes and key customers.
2. Define customer requirements.
3. Measure current performance.
4. Prioritise, analyse and implement improvements.
5. Expand and integrate the Six Sigma system.
Some of the benefits attributed by Pande et al, (2003), to the implementation of Six Sigma are: cost
reduction, productivity improvement, market share growth and customer retention. The rest are cycle time
reduction, defection reduction, culture change and product / service development.
5. Shortcomings of existing frameworks and models
A review of existing performance improvement frameworks and models shows that no one particular
model or framework is able to address all the needs of any particular industry. A comparison of major
existing frameworks reviewed in this paper is shown in Table 5.
Some of the problems identified by Hinton et al, (2000) as affecting the uptake of benchmarking are
identification of suitable partners, identification of comparable data and resource constraints such as time,
finance and expertise. Amongst all the resource constraints cited as hindering benchmarking, time is the
greatest factor. The general feeling in most organisations is that benchmarking is quite time-consuming for
staff and quite expensive (Hinton et al, 2000). This is supported by research conducted by Holloway et al,
(1997), which outlines the resource constraints as time, finance and expertise. Holloway et al (1997) also
found that amongst all the resource constraints cited as hindering benchmarking, time is the greatest
factor. Construction firms will benefit greatly from a generic model which can be implemented with
reduced resource requirements.
13
Table 5. Comparison of major existing frameworks for improving performance
Deming Award (1992)
EFQM (1992) Bassioni 2004 Baldridge Award (NIST 2008)
Proposed conceptual Framework
Policy Leadership and constancy of Purpose
Leadership Leadership Leadership
Organisation and its management
People Customer & stakeholder focus Strategic Planning
Customer and stakeholder focus
Education and dissemination
Policy Strategic management
Customer and Market Focus
Strategic management
Collection, dissemination and use of information on quality
Partnerships and Resources
Information and analysis
Measurement, Analysis and Knowledge management
Information and analysis
Analysis Processes People Workforce Focus
People /HRM
Standardization People Results Partnerships Process Management
Partnerships
Control Customer Results Leadership Results Performance and management of suppliers
Quality assurance
Leadership and Constancy of Purpose
Suppliers Management of resources
People Physical resources Business results
Results Intellectual capital. Work environment
Planning for the future Risk Work culture
Work culture Process management
Process management
Creativity
Suppliers Innovation
14
There is evidence that the costs of benchmarking can outweigh the benefits (Lincoln & Price, 1996);
Sheridan 1993. It is thus important that a cost effective benchmarking model is developed to guarantee
financial benefits for organisations which apply it.
Hinton et al (2000) found out that substantial benchmarking activity was “results” benchmarking as
opposed to “process” benchmarking. Whilst they concede developing process measures is more difficult,
they are more effective in addressing the comparability issue and more valuable in improving
performance. This paper focuses on “process” benchmarking.
Deros et al (2006) studied nearly 20 benchmarking frameworks and concluded amongst other things that
most of the frameworks were too complicated and only provided the “steps to be taken” for benchmarking
in a specific functional area such as manufacturing, innovation and technology management, product
development, customer satisfaction rather than being a general outline for benchmarking implementation
on a wholesale basis. Deros et al (2006) further argue that most of the existing frameworks are based on
large company structures and are unsuitable for small and medium scale organisations.
It can also be deduced from Deros et al (2006)’s review of the existing frameworks that none of them
gives specific examples of areas which organisations can compare their performance with those of the
best-in-class organisations. Holloway et al (1997) argued that large organisations and those which are
subsidiaries of large organisations are most likely to be involved in benchmarking. Such organisations,
even when they do not have previous experience of benchmarking can afford the services of a consultant
to guide them through the benchmarking process. The criteria provided in the framework to be developed
will make it easier for even small organisations to apply without recourse to expensive expert
involvement.
Gbobadian and Woo (1996) assessed the weaknesses of the Deming Prize, the Baldridge Award and the
EFQM Excellence model and criticized the models because of their weak focus on the business results
arguing that the awards are too process oriented. They decried the high cost of implementing these models
and the process of applying for the awards citing Xerox’s $800,000 spent to win the Baldridge Award.
They also questioned the amount of effort and investment required to participate in the award process and
asked an important question – “are small businesses and non-multinationals seriously able to take part”.
15
Owing to these drawbacks of the existing models, the framework proposed in this paper will be
inexpensive and easy to implement.
6. Conclusions
6.1 Towards a conceptual benchmarking framework
Deros et al, (2006) recommended the following criteria as a guide for developing a good framework which
will suit the needs of small organisations too:
• Systematic and easily understood
• Simple in structure
• Having clear links between the elements and the steps outlined
• General enough to suit different contexts
• Represent a roadmap and a planning tool for implementation
• Answers “how to” and not “what is” and
• Implementable at reasonable cost
From the above criteria, the framework to be developed should be a simple generic framework which will
be inexpensive to implement.
According to Bassioni (2008), the EFQM Excellence Model, the Baldridge Award and Excellence Model
in the USA and the Deming Prize and Model are the most utilized quality management models for
improving performance. This view is supported by Petersen (1999) that the most successful quality
programmes are the Deming Prize, the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award and the EFQM. A
good framework should incorporate the more popular models wherever possible. Tan (2002) compared 16
national quality awards including the most successful programmes – Deming Prize, Baldridge Award and
EFQM (Petersen, 1999) and developed a comparative framework which could be used to develop national
quality awards in countries which did not have any programmes for promoting excellence.
Kumar (2007) compared the Deming Prize and the western models of quality award on the basis of their
objectives, quality principles and criteria. The comparison shows the commonalities among different
quality awards. A major commonality is that they all use a minimum of seven criteria:
1. Leadership;
2. Strategic planning;
3. Customer and market focus;
16
4. Information and analysis;
5. Human resource focus;
6. Process management; and
7. Business results.
7. Further research
7.1 Proposed conceptual benchmarking framework
The conceptual benchmarking framework proposed in this paper has been developed by comparing the
existing frameworks, models and programmes for performance improvement which have been reviewed in
this paper. By comparing and ranking the respective criteria used in those reviewed, we have selected
what we perceive as the critical success factors which we consider most important to improving contractor
performance. Table 5 below shows a comparison of the major existing frameworks for improving
performance with the proposed conceptual framework for this research.
Wha
t doe
s th
e O
rgan
isat
ion
wan
t to
do?
Figure 3. Proposed conceptual benchmarking framework (adapted from Deros et al, 2006).
17
7.2 Implementation of the proposed framework
It is proposed that guidelines will be developed to make the conceptual framework to be a do-it-yourself
model which organisations can use to assess their performance, benchmark performance or to improve
their performance. A user friendly computer programme will be developed which enables user
organisations to implement their own improvement programme with minimum external intervention.
Top Management Set Vision For Organisation
Assess Performance/Compare to
Best-In-Class
Check Key Performance
Indicators
Take Action
Select Success Criteria
Decide what to do.
OPTIONAL (Other Performance
Improvement Systems)
Six Sigma IIPISO 9000:200Balanced ScorecardCharter MarkKaizen
RESULTS
WORLD-CLASS PERFORMANCE
UNDERPERFORMANCE
Figure 4. Framework implementation model.
18
8. References
Camp, R. (1995). Business Process benchmarking: Finding and Implementing Best Practices,. WI: ASQC
Quality Press.
Chang, R. K. (1994). Improving Through Benchmarking. London: Kogan Page.
Cook, S. (1995). Practical Benchmarking. London: Kogan Page.
Cook, S. (1995). Practical Benchmarking. London: Kogan Page.
Deros B.M., Y. S. (2006). A Benchmarking Implementation Framework for Automotive Industry.
Benchmarking: An International Journal , 396-430.
Egan, J. S. ( 1998). Rethinking Construction. London: Department of Environment Transport and the
Regions.
Ghobadian, A. G. (1996). Total Quality Management in Construction firms. Vol 24 No. 1, pp.83-106.
Ghobadian, A. W. (1996). Characteristics, benefits and shortcomings of four major quality awards.
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management , 13 (2), 10-44.
Graphic Communications Group. (2008, January 22). Daily Graphic .
Gryna, F. (2001). Quality Planning and Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill .
Hinton, M., Francis, G., Holloway,J. (2000), Best practice benchmarking in the UK”, Benchmarking. An
International Journal , Vol. 7, No. 1, pp 52-61.
Holloway, J. H. (1997). Why Benchmarking? Understanding the Processes of Best Practice
Benchmarking. Milton Keynes: Open University Working Paper.
Hammer M., and Champy J. (2004). Reengineering the Corporation.: Nicholas Brealy Publishing, London
19
Koskela L. (1992), Applications of the New Production Philosphy CIFE, Stanford
Kumar, M. (2007). Comparison between DP and MBNQA : Convergence and Divergence over Time. The
TQM Magazine , 245-258.
Lincoln, S. P. (1996). What benchmarking books don’t tell you. Quality Progress , Vol. 29 No.3, pp.33-6.
McAdam, R. M. (2002). A business excellence approach to generic benchmarking in Construction firms.
Benchmarking: An International Journal , Vol.9 No.1, pp.7-27.
Munro-Faure, L. &.-F. (1992). Implementing Total Quality Management. London: Pitman Publishing.
Pande, S. P. (2003). The Six Sigma Way. New Dehli: Tata McGraw-hill Publishing .
Partnership Sourcing. (1997). Benchmarking the Supply Chain - First Cycle of Surveys. London:
Partnership Sourcing Ltd.
Petersen, B. P. (1999). Total Quality Management and the Deming Approach to Quality Management.
Journal of Management History , 8, 468-488.
Sheridan, J. (1993). Where benchmarkers go wrong. Industry Week , pp. pp.28-34.
Subcommittee of Implementation Award for Deming Prize. (1992). Revision in the comparison of the
Deming Prize and the Baldrige Award.
Tan, C. K. (2002). A comparative study of 16 national quality awards. TQM Magazine , 14 (3), 165-171.
www.eci-online.org. ( Website Accessed 26th October, 2007). European Construction Institute
www.baldridge.nist.gov website accessed 1st June, 2008
Zairi, M. W. (2000a). The transfer of best practices: how to build a culture of benchmarking and
continuous learning –part 1. Benchmarking: An International Journal , Vol 7 No. 1, ., pp.66-78.
