• 품질경영학회지
• /
• 제28권3호
• /
• pp.82-90
• /
• 2000

MBNQA(Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award) was established in 1987 in order to promote the spread of TQM in U.S. Likewise, JQA(Japanese Quality Award) was set up in 1995 in order to upgrade the level of TQM activities in Japan. MBNQA and JQA are quite the same in their basic concepts, values, and the process of the examination, but they differ in the contents of the criteria. The objective of this study is to Identify the differences between MBNQA and JQA in terms of strategy planning category, Therefore, in this paper, strategy planning category is analyzed, especially its theoretical validity is examined by literature review. The major differences are as follows: JQA emphasizes strongly the evaluation process than MBNQA by requiring the measuring of the level of strategic achievement. On the other hand, in MBNQA, strategic objectives must be estimated by decision analysts techniques, scenario tools, and other statistical methodologies.

• 품질경영학회지
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.140-150
• /
• 2000

MBNQA(Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award) was established in 1987 in order to promote the spread of TQM in U.S. Likewise, JQA(Japanese Quality Award) was set up in 1995 in order to upgrade the level of TQM activities in Japan. MBNQA and JQA are quite the same in their basic concept, values, and the process of the examination, but they differ in the contents of the criteria. The objective of this study is to identify the differences between MBNQA and JQA in terms of strategy planning category. Therefore, in this paper, strategy planning category is analyzed, especially its theoretical validity is examined by literature review. The major differences are as follows: JQA emphasizes strongly the evaluation process than MBNQA by requiring the measuring of the level of strategic achievement. On the other hand, in MBNQA, strategic objectives must be estimated by decision analysis techniques, scenario tools, and other statistical methodologies.

• 품질경영학회지
• /
• 제39권2호
• /
• pp.337-348
• /
• 2011

To implement total quality management(TQM), firms and institutions have strategically used quality awards models. In this paper we analyzed the national quality awards of G-20 members such as United States, Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia and Korea. There are three main points to analysis; First, "which type of model is good for Korea?", even though Korea already has adopted MBNQA model. Second, "Are the core values really different from each models?". And third, "Is there any difference in the criteria structure and value points system?" This study aims to design a National Quality Award which is good for the Korean companies and organizations. After analyzing the current quality awards models, we propose some suggestion about core value setting Korean-specific criteria development and value points system change.

• 대한안전경영과학회지
• /
• 제10권3호
• /
• pp.155-166
• /
• 2008

Advanced countries worldwide lead government leading management innovation by suggesting unique managing system which can be survived in global economy war including JQA of Japan and EFQM of Europe based basically on MBNQA of U.S.A. and by rewarding to suitable companies. Mckinsey, global management and consulting company points out that Korea has no management because Korean productivity level which dependence to small and medium sized companies is high by the limitation of elemental invests leading type growth strategy including labor and capital is only 1/2 of U.S.A. and 2/3 of Japan. In particular, the competitive power of Korean small and medium sized companies goes into a recession by productivity lowering according to the chinese follow-up, laboring time shortening, variety and aging, and fundamental management innovation activities for reinforcing survival and competitive power are needed. Therefore, in this study, we try to construct the model of productivity managing system of innovation type small and medium sized companies which make excellent results.

• 품질경영학회지
• /
• 제44권2호
• /
• pp.277-296
• /
• 2016

Purpose: Propose model to diagnose and assess National Defense Industry and quality management by investigating and analyzing established standard model. Methods: Research on established internal model including MB, EQA and JQA model and make standard index for quality index extraction and quantitative index to test objectively for internal state. Results: Extract advantage and disadvantage by performance of National Defense Industry level diagnose and build foundation for quality management policy and road map. Conclusion: Due to result of diagnostic assesment of quality management of national defense industry, dependability, SCQM and safety part shows vulnerability and require improvement and support.