A comparative analysis of the validity of business excellence models (BEMs) has rarely been empirically pursued. In addition to their similarities, BEMs exhibit differences in terms of their criteria, relations and emphasis, and some researchers have claimed that it is because these models tend to represent underlying cultural, economic, or social dynamics, as well as global best practices. Based on three such BEMs (the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) model, the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) model and the King Abdul Aziz Quality Award (KAQA) model), this paper introduces a four-phase study to analyse these models comparatively.
This paper: (1) conceptually delineates the distinctive natures of and differences between the three models; (2) develops a comprehensive measurement model based on the content of these models; (3) reviews the relevant literature on BEMs; (4) discusses the motivation behind this comparative approach and (5) introduces a four-phase study to comparatively analyse these models.
A comprehensive measurement model and three structural models are developed, but empirical tests have not been performed. This developed approach is introduced here as a first step in the advancement of our understanding of BEMs and their underlying theory.
The range of variability and complexity of BEMs—i.e. a holistic and comparative empirical view of BEMs—have not so far been fully considered, and findings in this domain tend to be inclusive, while some of the underlying relations of these models have not been investigated. This paper contributes to filling these research gaps.
