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

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

IJQRM
30,4

426
Received 5 June 2012
Revised 11 June 2012
Accepted 11 September 2012

QUALITY PAPER

An exploratory study of business

excellence 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 Gardiner
The British University in Dubai (BUiD), Dubai, UAE
Abstract

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

Purpose The aim of this paper is to explore the implementation issues of the Business Excellence
Model and the process of self-assessment, from both management and employee perspectives, in a
large government organisation in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where the large Government
organisation is indicative of the type of large indigenous organisation in the region. The organisation
is part of the Dubai Government Excellence Programme (DGEP).
Design/methodology/approach A multi-level case study approach is used, involving repeated
in-depth interviews with managers (n 12) and a questionnaire with employees (n 96) to explore
the implementation issues at all levels.
Findings There was considerable variation in the implementation effectiveness across the different
levels within the organisation. The top down approach had a resonance with the Middle East culture at
management levels. However, insufficient participation and empowerment of lower level employees,
especially amongst non-indigenous employees, led to a lack of closure on corrective actions emerging
from 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 people
development aspects.
Originality/value There is a paucity of multi-level in-depth studies relating to Business Excellence
and 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 the
Dubai 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

Introduction
Over the last two decades excellence models have spread as a way of increasing
competitiveness and reducing costs by helping to incorporate and assess total quality
management (TQM) principles and practices within organisations (Kim et al., 2009;
Al Marri et al., 2007). The European Quality Award of the European Foundation for
Quality Management (EFQM) and the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award are
the most globally used and proven excellence models for quality awards and
self-assessment (Samuelsson and Nilsson, 2002). The models use the process of
self-assessment at different organisational levels to evaluate organisations against the
TQM-based model criteria (Samuelsson and Nilsson, 2002). A review of the literature by
Kim et al. (2009), consistent with the comparative study of quality implementation
in Middle Eastern countries by Najeh and Kara-Zaitri (2007), shows that there has been
significant research and application relating to the business excellence models and the
associated use of self-assessment in Western countries. However, there is a comparative
lack of studies in Middle Eastern countries relating to in-depth implementation studies
of business excellence. Here the application of business excellence and self-assessment
is 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 and
self-assessment is the rigour and effectiveness of the implementation process at all
organisational levels and involving employees from all groupings. The effectiveness of
this implementation is often expressed in terms of key success factors that are
determined by cultural and contextual settings within a country or an organisation
(Najeh and Kara-Zaitri, 2007; Salaheldin, 2009). This paper is based on the experience
of a large Middle Eastern public sector organisation dealing with the implementation
of the Dubai Government Excellence Programme (DGEP). The DGEP is the Dubai
version 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 business
excellence model and the process of self-assessment from both management and
employee perspectives in a large government organisation in the United Arab Emirates
(UAE). The large government organisation is indicative of the type of large indigenous
organisation. The importance of the research lies in the placing of Dubai as an
international business hub seeking to achieve quality and excellence to gain and
maintain competitive advantage and to diversify from an overreliance on oil. One of the
five 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 is
suggested, consistent with Jabnoun and Sedrani (2005) and Jabnoun and Khalifa (2005),
that the effectiveness of the implementation and self-assessment process should include
cultural considerations. As shown by van der Wiele and Brown (2000) an organisation
should have developed some degree of quality culture maturity or experience in TQM
and ISO before embarking in the adoption of business excellence model for
self-assessment. Dales (1996) study argues that organisations need at least three
years of practice in TQM before they can benefit from the process of self-assessment.

Business
excellence
in the UAE
427

IJQRM
30,4

428

Based on the work of van der Wiele et al. (1996) the key reasons for organisations to start
the self-assessment process include: find opportunities for improvement; create a focus
on 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) and
Salaheldin (2009) is especially reliant on employees at lower levels being involved in an
empowered manner to affect change (Jones, 2007). Furthermore, there is a need to link
the process of self-assessment at all levels of the organisation. This approach will avoid
misalignment and unsynchronised quality initiatives which could ultimately lead to
chaos, 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 methods
used for self-assessment on this continuum as: questionnaires, assessment workshops,
pro-formas, and award simulation. These techniques vary in terms of their top down
versus empowered implementation ethos. The literature on Middle Eastern based
studies 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-assessment
at lower levels in Middle Eastern organisations. Jones and Seraphim (2008) contend it is
an unsympathetic environment for the employee involvement and empowerment
aspects 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 in
business 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 Sedranis (2005) study of TQM
implementation and culture shows that the cultural context of business excellence
applications in Middle Eastern countries must be considered as a mediating variable
where the prevalent country culture is sufficiently to affect the organisational context.
Najeh and Kara-Zaitri (2007) suggest that in different cultural settings the complex and
dynamic behaviours within the business excellence implementation process necessitate
bespoke approaches. Jones and Seraphim (2008) suggest the need for further research on
culture and TQM in building on Temtimes (2003) premise that TQM implementation
should be unique to each company and that there is no one size fits all approach.
Attempts to rationalise business excellence implementation typically use CSFs for
implementation. There are relatively few articles published about multi-level
implementation research that are grounded in non-Western societies, especially in the
Arab world (Jabnoun and Sedrani, 2005; Jones, 2007). Al-Tarawneh (2010) study of ISO
implementation in Jordan states the importance of leadership in directing
implementation. However, ISO is more structured and top down in nature (consistent
with 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 East
shows that directive top down leadership helps in implementing accounting uniformity
in Saudi Arabia. They conclude Arabic nations have a tendency towards uniformity,

which is consistent with Hofstede and Hofstedes (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 own
set 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. Hofstedes (1980) and Hofstede
and Hofstedes (2005) studies on these dimensions in the Middle East context have been
used 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.

Business
excellence
in the UAE
429

IJQRM
30,4

430

It is suggested, as shown in Table I, that these well proven dimensions represent

a useful approach for probing top down business excellence and self-assessment. In this
context strong leadership commitment (Al-Tarawnehs, 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 arises
that problems will be caused by this overly directive approach to implementation due
to incongruity with some of the TQM and business excellence principles at lower
levels. These issues can relate to: lack of involvement and empowerment of employees
at all levels ( Jabnoun and Sedrani, 2005; Jones and Seraphim, 2008 high power
distance and high uncertainty avoidance); lack of employee involvement and
empowerment (Salaheldin, 2009; low individualism).
Kim et al.s (2009) review of business excellence research suggests there is a need for
more in-depth observations and context based interpretations. Jones (2007) and Al
Marri et al.s (2007) studies, while emphasising multi-level quality implementation in
UAE banking, does so from a normative Western perspective of best practice rather

Cultural dimension
ratings for the
Middle East
(Hofstede, 1980)

Characteristic

High power-distance Predominance of ruling

class
Lack of upward mobility
Power restricted to ruling
class leaders are not
subject to critique
Leaders remain separate
from employees
High uncertainty
avoidance

High masculinity

Low individualism

Table I.
Cultural influence on
TQM and business
excellence

Low acceptance of
uncertainty at any level
Strict rules, laws, policies
and regulations
Change averse
Risk averse
Reliance on traditional
power structures
Assertive
Competitive
Exclusive
Collectivist society
Loyalty to the ruling group
overriding individual
preferences

Resonance with TQM

and business
excellence principles

Incongruence with
TQM and business
excellence principles

Clearly defined
ownership
Directed top down
approach
Commitment from
senior management
Uniformity of
approach and lack of
inconsistency
Clearly defined goals
and objectives
Clearly defined
procedures
Use of proven
approaches
Uniform approaches
Clear goals
Strong business focus

Lack of involvement
Lack of empowerment
One size fits all
Inappropriate reward
and recognition

Top down driven

Commitment to see it
through
Consistency of
approach

Lack of learning and

experimentation
Lack of empowerment
Limited of participation
Lack of creativity and
innovation
Lack of debate and
knowledge from lower
levels
Lack of inclusivity
Lack of sensitivity to
individuals needs
Lack of creativity and
individual
Lack of recognition of
individual contributions
Limited empowerment
Little learning and
experimentation

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 that
lack of leadership and recognition from the top was an inhibiting factor which was
possibly 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 suggestions
from the quality circles and hence further studies are needed regarding the
implementation process at lower levels. Jones (2007) in a study linking conflict styles
with Hofstedes (1980) and Hofstede and Hofstedes (2005) work suggests that Western
style training, reward, and implementation must be adapted to suit the Arabic culture
or else expected outcomes will be disappointing and distorted. She suggests that
organisational culture and context needs additional studies in relation to issues such as
risk, and customer and colleague relationships, to probe issues on incongruence
(consistent with Jones and Seraphim, 2008 and Table I right-hand column). These
findings also raises the possibility that high uncertainty avoidance may limit new
learning, risk taking, and innovation and creativity, and suggests the need for more
research regarding implementation with consideration of the cultural context. Jones
and Seraphim (2008) suggest, consistent with Table I, that Arabic culture may not fit
with key TQM tenets such as communication at all levels, employee participation,
involvement and empowerment, and team working. They suggest the need for further
research focusing on cultural and context affects of implementation.
Overall the authors suggest that there is a need for more multi-level investigations
of business excellence and self-assessment implementation in Middle Eastern
organisations that takes account of the contextual and cultural settings rather than
assuming idealised Western best practice approaches.
DGEP and case study
In 1997 the Government of Dubai developed the DGEP as the main framework for
business excellence self-assessment within public sector organisations and as a basis
for the Dubai Quality Awards. The DGEP is base on EFQM model. The two models
are 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 to
nationalization (Emiratization) of jobs). This change is due to the special nature of the
employment market in the UAE where expatriates represent approximately 85 per cent
of the workforce (Fernandes and Awamleh, 2006). The case organisation was a large
government organisation in the Dubai Emirate providing large number of services.
Its organisation structure consisted of 24 departments organised around six major
sectors: 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, including
expatriates from different parts of the world, mainly from Arab and Asian countries.
The Administrative Development and Quality Department was the central
department responsible for strategic planning and quality management in the
organisation. In every department there was a small quality unit (two to five employees)
which worked in coordination with the central quality department in implementing
strategy and quality issues. The organisation was the first winner of the quality award
in 1998, followed by many other prestigious awards in different categories of the award

Business
excellence
in the UAE
431

IJQRM
30,4

432

programme such as Distinguished e-Government Department and Distinguished

Technical Project Distinguished. The DGEP offers seven awards in the category of
administrative excellence, which are offered every two years, and nine in the employees
excellence category (offered annually).
The case organisation adopted a traditional approach to self-assessment as shown
by Kim et al. (2009). It consisted of three parts. The input to the plan for assessment
process is the results of the previous assessment, strategic plan, methodologies, KPIs,
and stakeholders satisfaction survey results. The assessment technique followed the
management workshop technique (EFQM, 2011). In this method the departments
prepare for evidence based on the criteria of the model; this evidence is then presented
to 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 literature
review the key research questions, using a Middle Eastern cultural perspective as
defined 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 methodology
Both Yin (2009) and Eisenhardt (1991) suggest that an interpretative research
philosophy is more appropriate to these types of research question to enable in-depth
inquiry, 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 engaged
in a recursive sense making process in which results and discussion are compared and
contrasted, as suggested by Yin (2009), until an understanding is achieved.
The chosen research methodology was that of a case study which is suited to the
interpretive research approach (Yin, 2009; Eisenhardt, 1991). Yin (2009) describes the case
study as a comprehensive research strategy that seeks to investigate a contemporary
phenomenon within its real-life context. The complexity of the implementation of the
business excellence model (the phenomenon) in the Dubai Municipality (the context) is
a 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 to
behaviours and culture led to the choice of a qualitative strategy, where in-depth
semi-structured interviews were used. For the wider range of employees and larger
number, survey questionnaires were more appropriate. Hence a multi-strategy
approach (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 the
management group for the study (Group A). The second management group was
the quality and strategy specialist managers which included all senior employees who
were specialists in quality and strategy and holding positions such as quality specialist
and strategy specialist, plus the heads of quality unit in every department (Group B).
The third group was employees (Group C).

A total of 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted (department directors,

n 6; quality specialists, n 6). All interviews were done in Arabic language, but the
English language was frequently used during the interviews to confirm consensus and
mutual understanding of terms used. The semi-structured interviews required
interviewees to reflect on the business excellence implementation process and to
identify problems in comparison to the idealised Western approach from the literature
and international consultants. Each interview lasted between 1.5 and 2.5 h.
The interviews were transcribed and translated to English. Similar answers of the
interviewees were grouped under similar questions for ease of review, analysis and
pattern matching consistent with Yins (2009) approach. To collect information from the
employees (Group C) a survey questionnaire was used covering the issues raised in
the interviews but also probing empowerment and teamwork. The interview
questionnaire was piloted with managers and academics (working in UAE) leading
to refinements in wording and meaning (e.g. clearer interpretations of wording covering
empowerment and empowered team work). The method used for analysing the
qualitative interview data was based on Radnor and Boadens (2004) method. First
topics and categories were developed using the interview transcripts and document
analysis. Next, the findings were coded within evidence tables and subsequently
interpreted using the literature in an iterative manner. The survey questionnaire was
piloted using ten randomly selected employees and also incorporated learning from the
interview 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 from
the company employee list with 112 responses (response rate 56 per cent); from these six
response sheets were disqualified due to missing data and were not used in the database
giving a useable number of 96. Questionnaires were designed with two columns one in
Arabic and the other in English language. Data were analysed using SPSS V. 15.0 and
compared with the interview and documentation analysis. A five point Likert scale was
used for the responses. Triangulation was obtained from analysis of company
documentation (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 intrinsic
case approach in an exploratory manner. Hence the issues raised may help inform
further cultural related multiple case or cross sectional survey based research, rather
than claiming to have established hypotheses.
Results and discussion
The results and discussion sections are combined due to the style of the mixed research
methodology as suggested by Yin (2009) and Eisenhardt (1991). The structure follows
the 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; and
obstacles and difficulties (mainly covering RQ2).
Implementation of the DGEP
Employee profiles. The distributions of Figures 1 and 2 show the relatively large
minority 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

Business
excellence
in the UAE
433

IJQRM
30,4

Nationalities of respondents to questionnaires

30%

434

51%

18%

Figure 1.
Nationality of respondents
to questionnaires

1%
Expat Arab

Expat Asian

Expat Western

UAE National

30%

70%

Figure 2.
Gender distribution
of respondents
to questionnaires

Male

Female

(Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). These findings have implications for business excellence
due to the high masculinity culture dimension (Table I) leading to assertiveness and
competitiveness which helps with the need for clear goals and a strong business focus as
found by Al-Tarawnehs (2010) and Askery et al.s (2008) Middle East implementation
studies. However, it can also limit the effective involvement of ex pat non-Arabs as shown
by Jones and Seraphim (2008) (Table I).
Perceptions about the DGEP
Reasons and motives. Respondents to interviews (Groups A and B) were asked to indicate
the importance of some of the reasons for conducting self-assessment using the DGEP
model. The list of 14 reasons or motives was adopted from van der Wiele et al. (1996)

which are a useful list of motivations from a Western perspective. Table II presents the
findings, the reasons are ranked from the most important (highest mean 4.36) to the
least important (lowest mean 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 have
high ratings (3.91), indicating the importance of the award process to the management
team. Formal regulations from government has a mean of (3.55), which is above
average an indication of the non-voluntary reason for using the model. All of these
top scoring reasons are consistent with the culture of high power-distance (Table I) in
terms of clear focus and authoritative power (Salaheldin and Zain, 2007).
Opinion about the DGEP. The interview respondents were asked about their opinion
on the DGEP and whether it covers all aspects required to achieve excellence.
All respondents agreed that the model was very comprehensive with a quality specialist
stating: it is a very comprehensive model to the extent that some of the sub-criteria are
not applicable in some departments (i.e. the prescriptive element of the model was
perceived as being excessive). The interviewees also stressed the need for full
implementation of the model criteria in order to get higher results and better performance
improvement. The interviewees were also asked if the model criteria sub criterion parts
covered all the issues of the organisations business. The response was mainly positive
however it was noted that the model also needed to consider the social aspects of the UAE
and 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 model
structure is consistent with the high uncertainty avoidance dimension (Hofstede, 1980)
leading to well proven and structured approaches to business improvement. However, it
also 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. Those
who perceived the improvement was low or moderate referred to problems, consistent
Order

Item

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

To find opportunities for improvement

To direct the improvement process
To provide new motivation for the quality improvement process
To manage the business
To create a focus on the TQM model portrayed by the award criteria
To go for a quality award
To provide a benchmark against other organisations
Formal regulations from government
To help achieve quality system registration (e.g. ISO 9001)
Pressure from top management
Competitors were using self-assessment
To strive for cost reduction
Customers were demanding evidence of self-assessment
Internal champion within the unit

Mean score

SD

4.36
4.36
4.27
4.00
3.91
3.91
3.73
3.55
3.09
3.00
2.91
2.82
2.73
2.55

0.674
0.809
0.786
1.000
1.044
1.446
1.104
1.440
1.300
1.414
0.944
1.168
0.905
1.293

Business
excellence
in the UAE
435

Table II.
Reasons for undertaking
self-assessment

IJQRM
30,4

436

with those found by Al Marri et al. (2007) and Samuelsson and Nilsson (2002). These
included the complexity of the model and the implementation time and effort. Moreover,
sometimes the assessment scores were perceived as an opportunity to compete with
other departments, rather than an opportunity to improve the organisation. In relation
to departmental performance improvement the findings showed that the DGEP had a
near average contribution in the performance improvement, which is consistent with
the top down approach and high uncertainty avoidance cultural dimension which can
lead 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 awareness
amongst employees about quality management. However, the interview data showed
that 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 also
provided a common management language between departments. These perceived
benefits emphasise the structured and uniformity characteristics of the model
consistent with the cultural dimension of high power distance and high uncertainty
avoidance 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 in
performance improvement are summarised in Table IV.
Benefits (responses from directors and quality specialists, n 10)

Table III.
Benefits from the
use of the DGEP in
self-assessment

Table IV.
Importance of the DGEP
in improvement,
employees response

Frequency

1. Provided a framework for performance improvement

2. Encouraged the use of TQM principles, tools and techniques (brain storming,
suggestions system, best practice, benchmarking, etc.)
3. Helped in raising awareness and change of culture towards TQM
4. Provided a common management language in the organisation
5. Increased employees satisfaction
6. Improved strategic partnerships with other organisations

Valid
Not useful
Useful to some extent
Medium
Useful
Very useful
Total
Missing
Total

10
5
5
3
3
2

Frequency

Valid percent

Cumulative percent

1
6
11
29
33
80
16
96

1.0
6.3
11.5
30.2
34.4
83.3
16.7
100.0

1.3
7.5
13.8
36.3
41.3
100.0

1.3
8.8
22.5
58.8
100.0

The results of Table IV show that 36.3 per cent mentioned useful and 41.3 per cent
mentioned very useful. This positive response is an indication of the employees
acceptance of the managements 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).

Business
excellence
in the UAE
437

The implementation CSFs

The list of CSFs identified by Karuppusami and Gandhinathan (2006) was discussed
with the top quality and strategy officials in the organisation where it was modified and
ranked according to the importance to the organisation. The new list was correlated with
the original list using Spearman rank correlation. The correlation coefficient was found
to be rs 0.16, comparing with the Spearmans 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 quality
officials, from one (highest importance) to number 11 (least important).
Based on the Spearmans critical values table (Ramsey, 1989), the correlation
coefficients for the number of pairs 11 (n 11):
rs 0.618 with level of significance 0.05.
0.708 with level of significance 0.02.
0.755 with level of significance 0.01.
Figure 3 shows there is significant difference between the organisations senior quality
officials and directors. The highest correlation coefficient in the group of directors is
0.47 (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 have
a coefficient higher than 0.618, and three specialists have a lower coefficient. Quality
specialists 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 and
quality specialists, and the difference was higher with the directors.

Respondent (DIR: director, SPE: specialist)

DIR1
DIR2
DIR3
DIR4
DIR5
DIR6
SPE1
SPE2
SPE3
SPE4
SPE5

rs(DM )
Correlation with directors and senior quality
specialist
0.29
0.27
0.23
0.24
0.31
0.47
0.13
0.71
0.82
0.56
0.58

Table V.
Spearmans rank
correlation results

IJQRM
30,4

Spearmans rank correlation results

0.9

438

Correlation Coefficient

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

DIR = Dept. Director

SPE = Quality Specialist

E
P
S

E
P
S

1
E
P
S

D
IR
6

D
IR
5

D
IR
4

D
IR
3

D
IR
2

Figure 3.
Spearman rank correlation

D
IR
1

Respondent

Similarly the CSFs list was given to respondents to the questionnaires (Group C) to
rank them. People who answered that they have no knowledge about DGEP were
excluded from the sample in this test. Here, 34.7 per cent of the employees (n 72) had
negative rank correlation (rs , 0), and 95.8 per cent had no significant correlation
(rs , 0.618). Hence, only 4.2 per cent had a significantly positive rank correlation
(rs . 0.618), with the senior quality official. These findings indicate that the top
down approach is accepted rather than being critiqued contextualisation at lower
levels, consistent with the findings of Salaheldin (2009).
Awareness, involvement, and participation
Using the survey awareness, involvement, and participation of people were investigated
with the directors and quality specialists in the interviews (Groups A and B) and also
employees (Group C). From the responses of directors and quality specialists, there was
consensus that all directors received training on the model and that they all participated
in the self-assessment sessions. The people or staff level who participated in the training
were: 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 specialists
disseminated awareness of the model and self-assessment through a variety of
approaches as shown in Table VI. However, further examination of these methods in
the repeat interviews and documentation analysis showed they were all top down with
Means of awareness creation (responses from
directors and quality specialists, n 8)
Table VI.
Methods used in
awareness creation

1.
2.
3.
4.

Through meetings with staff

Sending information to staff via e-mail
Through training courses about the model
Seminars and workshops

Frequency
4
3
2
2

little opportunity for employees to influence the process, consistent with the high
power distance culture dimension (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005).
Level of staff participation in self-assessment. The employees perceptions about
their participation in the self-assessment process are shown in Table VII.
The findings show that almost 70 per cent of those employees who responded
had little or no involvement in the self-assessment process. This finding for an award
winning organisation is in contrast with Western levels of participation for award
winners (Samuelsson and Nilsson, 2002; EFQM, 2011) and possibly reflects high power
distance 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 the
findings of Salaheldin (2009).

Business
excellence
in the UAE
439

Knowledge and quality maturity

Table IX summarises the employees awareness of the DGEP.
Surprisingly 15.6 per cent of the employees had not heard about the DGEP even
though the organisation had 10 years of experience in applying the DGEP and its
recognition in the region as an award winning quality organisations. To further
investigate 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 about
the model. Comparing these findings with those relating to relatively low levels of
Frequency

Cumulative percent

59
7
15
9
6
96

61.5
7.3
15.6
9.4
6.3
100.0

61.5
68.8
84.4
93.8
100.0

Never
Little
Medium
Big
Very big
Total

Nationality
Expat Arab
Expat Asian
Expat Western
UAE National
Total

Heard about DGEP

No
Yes
Total

Never

Little

14
17
0
33
63

0
0
1
5
6

Level of participation in SA
Medium
Big
Very big
7
0
0
5
13

5
0
0
4
9

3
0
0
2
5

Table VII.
Level of participation
in self-assessment

Total
29
17
1
49
96

Frequency

15
81
96

15.6
84.4
100.0

Table VIII.
Nationality and
level of participation
in SA cross-tabulation

Table IX.
Knowledge/lack of
knowledge of employees
about DGEP

IJQRM
30,4

440

Table X.
Nationality and
awareness about DGEP
cross-tabulation

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 no
knowledge about the model (Table XI).
The number of people who received detailed training about the model beyond that
of general awareness is shown in Table XII.
These findings show a selective approach to those who become aware of, trained in
and participate in, the model and self-assessment process. There is a lack of evidence to
support a wider inclusive approach aiming for maximum involvement and contribution
of new knowledge. Rather high uncertainty avoidance, coupled with high power
distance, in using the model, consistent with the cultural norms of the organisation led to
power and participation being privileged (consistent with Eskildsen et al., 2010; Jabnoun
and Sedrani, 2005).
Department directors and quality specialists were asked to position the
organisation in Crosbys 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 dont know why we have problems with quality.
(2) Phase 2 awaking: is it absolutely necessary always to have problems with
quality?

Nationality

No

Expat Arab
Expat Asian
Expat Western
UAE National
Total

1
9
0
5
15

Level of knowledge

Table XI.
Level of employees
knowledge about
the model

28
8
1
44
81

29
17
1
49
96

Cumulative percent

21
24
18
24
9
96

21.9
25.0
18.8
25.0
9.4
100.0

21.9
46.9
65.6
90.6
100.0

No idea at all
Little
Medium
Good
Very good
Total

No
Yes
Total

Total

Frequency

Have you received training in DGEP

Table XII.
Training in the DGEP

Heard about DGEP

Yes

Frequency

80
16
96

83.3
16.7
100.0

(3) Phase 3 enlightenment: through management commitment and quality

improvement 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 and
quality improvement we are identifying and resolving our problems. Hence the
organisation, despite low levels of involvement in implementation, is perceived as
a well developed quality organisation in the UAE context.

Business
excellence
in the UAE
441

Obstacles and difficulties

The volume of work required to prepare for self-assessment was discussed with the
directors 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 model
implementation.
These results reflect an emphasis on refining and improving the existing approach
through the existing channels such as the second most listed inhibitor collection and
documentation of evidence. There was a lack of emphasis on, and recognition of,
overcoming people based obstacles, consistent with the prevailing cultural dimensions
of 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 recommendations
The 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 cultural
and contextual issues unique to the Middle East.
Department
directors and
quality specialists
Employees
Frequency
%
Frequency %
1. We do not know why we have problems with quality
2. It is absolutely necessary always to have problems with
quality
3. Through management commitment and quality
improvement we are identifying and resolving our
problems
4. Defects prevention is a routine part of our operation
5. We know why we do not have problems with quality
Total

0.00

5.3

11.11

8.0

8
88.89
0
0.0
0
0.0
9
100.0
Mean 2.89,
SD 0.33

54
72.0
8
10.7
3
4.0
75
100.0
Mean 3,
SD 0.75

Table XIII.
Department directors
and quality specialists:
quality maturity

IJQRM
30,4

442

Table XIV.
The obstacles of DGEP
implementation

Obstacles and difficulties (responses from directors

and quality specialists, n 11)
1. Documentation of evidence is difficult and time
consuming
2. Assessment method is not efficient (requires all
evidence in a meeting room, short period of
assessment, etc.)
3. Routine work load is very high
4. The model is difficult and needs to be clarified
5. The role of the central quality department in
coordinating the assessment process
6. Attrition rate is very high
7. Organisation is very large, that makes
assessment difficult
8. Resistance from some employees and the need for
culture change
9. Poor commitment from leaders and middle
managers
10. Employees are not well prepared for the model
implementation (lack of training, lack of
communication, etc.)
11. Assessors are incompetent
12. Organisation management system instability

Frequency
9

7
5
4
4
3
2
2
2

2
2
1

It is concluded that Hofstedes (1980) and Hofstede and Hofstedes (2005) cultural
dimension representation of the Middle Eastern culture is a useful framework for
analysing 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 Hofstedes work to
probe a range of TQM issues in the Middle East.
In relation to RQ1 the interviews showed there was a strong top down award-based
focus where the DGEP, driven by senior management, was used as a framework for
national 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 the
responsibility of the central quality department. It is concluded that this approach is
consistent with the high power distance culture dimension which is characterised by high
levels of directive authority and concentration of power in top management levels (Table I;
Hofstede, 1980). A workshop-based technique for self-assessment and was uniformly
applied 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 uncertainty
avoidance cultural dimensions (Table I; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005) where top down
power overrides local deviations or modifications at lower levels. However, this highly rigid
approach ultimately limited meaningful participation and empowered improvement action
at lower levels (consistent with low individualism Table I), especially amongst ex pat
non-nationals. This problem was not recognised or addressed within the implementation
process leading to a lack of improvement at lower levels resulting from the self-assessment
process.

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 or
Middle Eastern culture being reflected in the context of the organisation (i.e. a public
sector 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 business
excellence. The Middle Eastern culture would seen to support the need for strong
leadership and commitment for business excellence implementation (Jabnoun and
Sedrani, 2005); however it was found to conflict with the TQM tenets of employee
participation involvement and empowered action at lower levels. It is suggested,
consistent with Kim et al. (2009), that more research should be undertaken to explore
these apparent contradictions in more detail. Such studies could include more
comparisons between Middle Eastern public sector organisations and globalised
Middle Eastern organisations at multiple levels.
From a practical perspective there is a need for UAE organisations to develop bespoke
culturally 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 for
practitioners to develop cultural awareness programmes in relation to UAE business
excellence practices. The policy implications for the UAE Government are that
standardised training provision from Western sources is a poor substitute for culturally
grounded approaches.
References
Al Marri, K., Ahmed, A.M. and Zairi, M. (2007), Excellence in service: an empirical study of the
UAE 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 accounting
uniformity 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 quality
management, 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 organisations
continue 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 comparative
logic, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 620-627.
Eskildsen, J., Kristensen, K. and Antvor, H. (2010), The relationship between job satisfaction and
national culture, TQM Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 369-378.

Business
excellence
in the UAE
443

IJQRM
30,4

444

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), Cultures 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 Spearmans 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 quality
management 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 SMEs,
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 Europes leading organizations
in quality management practices, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 84-104.

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 empirical
results 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 author
Rodney McAdam can be contacted at: r.mcadam@ulster.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Business
excellence
in the UAE
445

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