The business impact of the ALSL method proposed for the design and implementation of a Quality Management System is analyzed from a series of systematic and systemic evaluations over 6 years in two Branches of the Company UNECA SA, namely, Contractor Branch and Cayo Coco Construction Branch, and 3 years in the Commercial Group of sales to third parties of the “Martín Pérez” Center Warehouse Base.
Entities belonging to the Ministry of Construction of the Republic of Cuba, and with different social objectives, adopting as an evaluation tool the European Quality Model of the EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management), which allows and facilitates an objective examination of the elements key to the business, commercial and works execution strategy. The application of the ALSL method and of the systematic self-evaluation, allowed to promote and focus the efforts of the personnel of these companies in the organization of continuous improvements in their management as a way towards Business Excellence. The combination of the ALSL methodology and the EFQM model significantly influenced the awareness of managers and workers regarding the need to modify their management, making it more efficient,effective and efficient, with an active and conscious participation of the management and workers based on the mission, objectives and results, the satisfaction of staff, customers, suppliers, improvement in the organization and management of processes and resources, the improvement of financial and economic management, as well as other aspects of social, technological, organizational and economic interest.
Keywords: business management, evaluation, ALSL and EFQM, methodology, self-evaluation.
I NTRODUCTION
The implementation of a Quality Management System requires the formulation of a strategy and this, in a general sense, consists of the movements and approaches that management designs to ensure that the company obtains excellent results and more effectively direct its business to achieve the objectives that have been proposed.
Various methodological approaches have been reported to address strategic processes related to quality, some of which have been mentioned in other works published by the authors and which are cited in bibliographic sources. It is evident that none should be applied if the particular characteristics of the organization in which it is to be implemented, as well as its environment and the specific moment in which it is intended to be used, are taken into account. In short, it is important to understand that no methodology has been exempt from criticism nor should its application be generalized.
The ALSL methodology adjusted, applied and evaluated, although it does not strictly follow any of the patterns that have been exposed internationally, if it takes into account and tries to generalize the most significant elements of each one and its main approach is based on the fact that the managers and workers learn to identify their problems and develop a consistent action plan. In addition, it intends to respond to the objective and subjective conditions of the companies in which it will be applied at the current time, in such a way that although it generates notable changes in thinking, it can be understood and accepted.
Consequently, with the aforementioned, it is essential to carry out systematic and systemic evaluations of any model or methodology proposed to implement a quality system in order to verify its advantages and disadvantages in practice. In the international context, such evaluations have been conducted basically through self-evaluation models which have been designed and proposed by different entities and personalities of great prestige and experience in the subject. The one selected for this case, the European Quality Model of the EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management), allows an objective examination of the key elements of the commercial strategy and the evolution of a solidly based improvement program,since it allows periodic evaluations of each of the criteria to determine the degree of development and to facilitate the identification of potential areas for improvement. In addition, it can serve to promote and focus the efforts of the company's staff, in the organization of quality improvements as a way or path towards Business Excellence.
Therefore, the objective of the work has been proposed to evaluate and comment on the impact obtained by applying the ALSL methodology during the implementation of a Quality Management System in three entities under study, using the European Model of Business Excellence as an evaluation tool.
In the Contractor and Construction Branches of Cayo Coco, the study was carried out between 1997 and 2002; Meanwhile, in the commercial group for sale to third parties, at the "Martín Pérez" Center Warehouse Base, this was carried out between 2004 and 2006. In all cases, two evaluations were carried out per year in the months of May and December. which allowed to outline the management strategy to achieve continuous improvement of the business management of these entities. The results shown correspond only to the first and last evaluation carried out.
Brief characterization of the companies under study.
The companies under study were the Contractor Branch and the Cayo Coco Construction Company of Corporación UNECA SA, as well as the “Martín Pérez” Center Warehouse Base, of the Havana Construction Business Group, belonging to the Ministry of Construction of the Republic of Cuba. In this way, three entities with different social objects have been selected, and therefore, that carry out different activities, which is very interesting to measure the scope and possibilities of application of the methodology that is applied and is intended to be validated.
The Unión de Empresas Constructoras Caribe SA (UNECA) was established as a Private Mercantile Company, in Havana, on June 28, 1984 for an indefinite period of time, proposing among some of the main objectives contained in its corporate purpose, inside and outside of the National Territory, the following: All types of projects and execution of engineering, architectural, civil construction and assembly works, including construction of roads, airports, industrial, commercial and residential buildings; carry out studies, designs, provide engineering services and carry out any industrial or commercial activity or of another nature linked to the aforementioned purposes; acquire all or part of the bonds under the terms approved by the General Meeting of Shareholders,shares and securities in the businesses of any company, firms or persons that act in the construction business or others of any kind or similar company, whether they are carried out jointly with other businesses or not; promote companies, particularly in other commercial companies already constituted or participate in the constitution of new companies, subscribing part of their capital; create subsidiaries, branches and other agencies both in national territory and abroad; other activities of commercialization, export and import of materials and articles necessary for the construction work of the Company and represent other foreign companies.promote companies, particularly in other commercial companies already constituted or participate in the constitution of new companies, subscribing part of their capital; create subsidiaries, branches and other agencies both in national territory and abroad; other activities of commercialization, export and import of materials and articles necessary for the construction work of the Company and represent other foreign companies.promote companies, particularly in other commercial companies already established or participate in the constitution of new companies, subscribing part of their capital; create subsidiaries, branches and other agencies both in national territory and abroad; other activities of commercialization, export and import of materials and articles necessary for the construction work of the Company and represent other foreign companies.export and import of materials and articles necessary for the construction work of the Company and represent other foreign companies.export and import of materials and articles necessary for the construction work of the Company and represent other foreign companies.
From its creation, it developed its activities mainly abroad until the end of the 1980s. Later, the decision was made to expand its work capacity in the national territory and through the SIBONEY SA Company, whose capital was 100% of the Corporación UNECA SA, created to operate in the country, administratively attend to companies located abroad and liquidate or close the operations of the mercantile companies constituted and so required. Later, the company Siboney SA stopped operating in the country and also with limited contracts abroad.
At the national level, UNECA focused its work on the tourist centers of Varadero, Cayo Largo, Havana City, Cayo Coco, Santa Lucía, Guardalavaca and Santiago de Cuba, for which it was necessary to create a group of branches that would allow operationally to serve the same.
In order to complete its operating scheme, it maintained close ties with some companies that were initially created under the administrative direction of the Corporation and which were served by the Central Office of the Ministry of Construction.
With the development of foreign investments in Cuba and the capacity and constructive experience of the Corporation, the conditions were created for the creation of International Economic Associations with objectives defined in time and scope, for which important steps were taken, which allowed the materialization of some of these associations.
The "Martín Pérez" Center Warehouse Base was a dependency of the Havana Transportation and Marketing Company (ETCH), belonging to the Havana Construction Business Group (GECHAB), subordinate to the Ministry of Construction of the Republic from Cuba. Its fundamental activity was focused on the storage, distribution and commercialization of construction equipment and materials. In this, a working group was created responsible for the activity not only of storage, distribution and sales, but also with the wide range of activities related to commercial management through which a new segment of the business could be identified. market in which to place the various products and services provided by such entity.
Tool used FOR the evaluation of the impact of the ALSL METHODOLOGY.
Selection of the applied model.
The impact assessment tool of the ALSL methodology was basically supported by a self-assessment model, selecting the European Model of Business Excellence, which allowed the organization to be characterized with a high level of detail, depth and precision, in aspects as important as: Leadership, Policy and Strategy, Personnel Management, Resources, Processes, Customer Satisfaction, Personnel Satisfaction, Impact on Society and Company Results.
The decision to adopt this model to carry out the diagnosis was based on the fact that it is very complete, comprehensive and comprehensive. Furthermore, with a more customer-centric focus, leadership and business strategy.
Another important aspect associated with the decision to adopt this model as an evaluation tool to measure the impact of the ALSL approach was its solid structure and well-documented methodology for this purpose, which allows not only qualitative but also quantitative assessments; for the rest, with great structural and content compatibility with the Ibero-American Model of Excellence in Quality Management of which Cuba is a signatory, and which according to the authors' personal appreciations could be the model to be applied in the immediate future, within the Business Improvement strategy proposed in the country. Furthermore, the companies under study maintain close working relationships with European entities,which will facilitate the understanding of the results based on a common evaluation pattern.
There are no incompatibilities between the aforementioned models, rather they constitute rigorous work tools that, properly used, complement each other, allowing more in-depth and systemic studies to be carried out, as well as providing the possibility of making an accurate comparison between the organizations that use them.
Brief exposition of the foundations of the European Business Excellence Model (EFQM)
Fourteen of the major Western European companies decided to establish the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) in 1988, with members located in most European countries and in most key economic sectors.
Since 1991, the EFQM has set a model for European companies: the European Quality Model (EQM), in an attempt to crystallize their own vision of quality in the European style, in the same way that the Japanese conceived the Deming prize or the Americans the Malcolm Baldrige.
The MEC is nothing more than a series of established criteria that must be met by companies that apply for the annual quality award, which was awarded for the first time in 1992. However, and as the EFQM itself recognizes in the explanatory memorandum of the award, its quality criteria serve as a reference to companies regardless of their competition or not in the annual quality award. They serve, above all, as a useful work tool and as a stimulus or incentive to guide companies towards quality and the customer.
The most valuable aspect of adopting a self-assessment method such as that presented by EFQM is that it allows an objective examination of the key elements of the business strategy and of the evolution of a solidly based improvement program, since it allows periodic evaluations of each one of the criteria to determine the degree of development and to facilitate the identification of potential areas for improvement. Typically, the benefits of the self-assessment method far outweigh the costs it requires. In addition, it can serve to promote and focus the efforts of company personnel, in the organization of quality improvements as a way or path towards Business Excellence.
In the model, the entire TQM (Total Quality Management) process is evaluated dividing it into two halves: those internal aspects "facilitators" of the achievement of the objectives, and the aspects related to the global "results". Processes are the means through which a company channels and unleashes the skills of its "people" in order to produce a result. In other words, processes and people are the agents that deliver the results.
Broadly speaking, an assessment of the model allows us to conclude that customer satisfaction, staff satisfaction (employees) and social impact are managed through leadership, policy and strategy, staff management, resources (how they are deployed in effective way) and processes (management of all activities or sequence of phases that generate added value through the development of the required products / services based on various input factors), which ultimately leads to excellence in economic results.
Each of the nine elements that appear in the model corresponds to the criteria used to evaluate the degree of excellence of a company. These criteria are therefore grouped into two large blocks: Agents and Results.
The criteria grouped around Results refer to what the company has achieved and is achieving. Those grouped under Agents refer to the way in which those results are achieved.
Agents and Results are assigned a value of approximately 50%. Within these groups, Customer Satisfaction has the highest value, with 20%, followed by Personnel with 18% evaluated in the Personnel Management and Personnel Satisfaction sections. The Economic results are listed below with 15%. All these criteria allow quantifying the success of the company in achieving its economic and non-financial objectives; the first, reflected in satisfying the needs and expectations of all agents with a financial interest in the company and, the second, in improving the products and services or internal processes that are essential for the success of the company.
Finally, the work scheme provided by the European quality model is in fact a very valuable diagnostic and planning instrument, which has the great advantage that it can be used with or without the help of external experts or consultants. It can be applied to the entire company or to a simple section, unit or department. It recognizes that each company can use its own methods or approaches to improve its quality, so it does not impose its philosophy.
Steps that were followed for the self-evaluation through the EFQM model as a tool for evaluating the impact of the ALSL methodology.
Compliance with the steps outlined below was systematically checked directly by the heads of quality management groups in each of the companies evaluated, as well as by their top management; these, the managers, were the most responsible for the application.
The steps followed, in question, were: 1. Theoretical preparation and training for the development of skills and habits in the application of the European Model of all the members of the Quality Management Groups in each of the entities; 2. Distribution of the self-assessment document for each work area; 3. Lectures, workshops and seminars given to all workers in each area to explain in detail the content of the document, the need and importance of self-assessment and how to proceed with its application, information ordering, processing and interpretation of the results; 4. Set the date for the members of each group in writing to have answered the questionnaire in the self-evaluation document, with its qualitative criteria and quantitative evaluation of each question; 5.Carry out teamwork in each of the areas in order to seek a collegial and participatory response to them; 6. Final preparation of the document of the work areas, departments, addresses, Branch and company.
The final report should contain: qualitative evaluation of each question, graphic presentation of the quantitative evaluations of each evaluated criterion (Leadership, Policy and Strategy, etc.), measures to be implemented (corrective and preventive actions). In the latter case, it should be specified:
- Who executes what and who is responsible for When each measure will be fulfilled What is needed for its execution How the measure will be executed.
Results of the evaluations. IMPACT OF THE ALSL METHODOLOGY.
As an example, the results obtained in different self-evaluations are presented, in order to evaluate the impact of the application of the ALSL methodology, and brief comments are made on them (See tables and figures in the annexes).
Tables No. 1 and No. 2 summarize some of the main results, which, on a preliminary basis, will allow to evaluate the positive impact of the proposed methodology in two of the main branches of the Corporation: the Contractor and the Construction Company of Cayo Coco.
In the aforementioned tables, the score for each of the criteria of the European Model is given, before and after applying the proposed methodology for the design and implementation of the Quality System, specially designed as a tailored suit for the referred entity., which made it possible to assess the possible advance, stagnation or setback in the criteria under analysis and in each of its Branches.
As a general comment, it is noticeable that both organizations made notable progress in all criteria, highlighting in this regard staff satisfaction, customer satisfaction and process improvement for the Constructora branch (See table 1, annexes). In this case, special mention should be made of all the measures applied in terms of achieving staff satisfaction, which allowed a score of 2.42 times higher than that obtained before applying the ALSL methodology to be achieved.
Overall, it was possible to achieve a score 1.74 times higher in the management of this entity after applying the methodology, in relation to the one obtained before its application.
A global assessment of table No. 2, where the same results are shown for the Contractor branch, shows that the impact on it was very positive, since the scores achieved in all criteria except Leadership were doubled (1, 89) and Policy and Strategy (1.75), even reaching a value of 3.17 times higher than that achieved in the staff satisfaction indicator, before applying the proposed approach.
Undoubtedly, the results shown in the aforementioned tables are eloquent in terms of the positive impact of the ALSL methodology, which has significantly influenced the awareness of managers and workers, the increase in management management based on the mission, the objectives and results, the satisfaction of its personnel, clients, suppliers, the improvement in its processes, the best organization and use of its resources, the improvement of its financial and economic management, as well as other aspects of social interest, technological, organizational and economic.
Figures 1 and 2 of the annexes graphically show the results provided in the aforementioned tables.
It is clearly perceptible through an inspection of the aforementioned tables, the reordering of the criteria once the methodology has been applied, which will be in correspondence with the management of the directors already referred to and the impact of said management on the objectives pursued.
It is interesting to comment how the Contractor branch came to the fore in terms of score: customer satisfaction, company results and impact on society, not being able to specify so clearly the impact of the agents' management and its influence on the results in the Constructora branch, which will require a more focused, deep and rigorous work in the application of the methodology and the management's own management.
In the same way, it is remarkable how in both branches, despite the efforts and orientation towards the task, and even when the score in the criterion "staff satisfaction" was increased, it continues to occupy the last place among all the evaluated criteria. It is more remarkable if one resorts again to tables No. 1 and 2, where it can be seen that the highest percentage increase corresponds in both branches precisely to this criterion.
An analysis of table No. 3 can be conclusive regarding the statement that the best results have been obtained in the Contractor branch. Before applying the methodology, the score of each branch, criterion by criterion, was so similar that they yielded an average percentage value between the two of 0.99. However, after application, the difference became significant, reaching an average percentage value of 1.30 times higher in the Contractor compared to the Construction Company. Figures 3 and 4 graphically show the results provided in table No. 3.
Table 4 shows the data organized, criterion by criterion, for each branch so that it is easier to compare them before and after the application of the ALSL methodology. These same results are shown graphically in Figures 3, 4 and 5.
Table 5 and Figure 6 show the results of the diagnosis obtained before and after applying the ALSL methodology, but now at the Almacenes Centro base of the Ministry of Construction. They confirm the positive impact achieved in the different indicators evaluated. In this sense, it is appreciable how, in general, the results achieved when applying it exceed the initial ones by 1.5 times, obtaining the highest values in the satisfaction of personnel, clients and the management of processes, with 3.12; 3.09 and 2.66, respectively.
The percentage variation of the score obtained before and after applying the ALSL methodology in personnel management (2.05) and the impact on society (2.08) demonstrate how it was possible to improve the results of these two important indicators once it was applied in this way such as the measures derived from the first evaluation carried out, criteria extended to leadership (1.74), policy and strategy (1.84), resources (1.84) and the results of the company (1.44).
CONCLUSIONS
- The ALSL methodological approach was widely accepted by all interested parties involved in its application in the entities under study, achieving with its introduction a highly positive impact on the continuous improvement of its comprehensive management, as well as a high motivation among all stakeholders. managers and workers The implementation of the ALSL methodological approach, more than a myth, constituted an objective reality in terms of its contribution to the continuous improvement of the comprehensive management of the studied companies, their image, their competitiveness and their results. The application of the ALSL methodology Combined with the EFQM model, it allowed to detect and synthesize the main organizational problems that arose for the design and implementation of the quality management system,propose the most effective and adjusted measures for each particular case, as well as comprehensively assess the impact during their application.
RECOMMENDATIONS.
Apply the ALSL methodology combined with the EFQM model in those companies that have set themselves as their objective the continuous improvement of their management and competitiveness, which will facilitate the necessary change of culture by giving them the possibility of outlining the aspects related to quality on the basis of current comprehensive concepts, as an important and effective way to achieve its objectives.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
- Castañeda, L. (1993). We all do quality. Total Quality Guide for employees and workers. Mexico. Clemens, Richard (1998): "Quality Manager's complete Guide to ISO 9000." Prantice Hall. ISO / TC 176 / SC2 / N415. "Introduction to the revision of the ISO 9000 standards". Figari, Claudio (1996). Quality Diagnosis in Chilean Construction. Magister thesis, Department of Engineering and Construction Management, PUC Santiago, Gusev, Valdimir. (1999). "Build with quality, speed and savings, on an ever-increasing scale." Information to Leaders Magazine. CIC 1 Editions Hayden, W. Jr. (1998). How to improve the success of your projects with ISO 9000. Course Brochure. IMECCA.International Federation of Consulting Engineers. (1997). Guide to the Interpretation and Application of the ISO 9001: 94. Standard for the Engineering Consulting sector. FIDIC. Lausanne. Switzerland. Kasttner C. (1997). The Quality Assurance Systems, Bulletin of the Organization for the cultivation of total quality. Luis, A. (1997). Quality Diagnosis in the UNECA Corporation 60p. Technical report. Havana. Luis, A. (1997). Quality Diagnosis in the Varadero Branch of the UNECA Corporation 42p. Technical report. Havana. Luis, A. (1997). Quality Diagnosis in the Contractor Branch of Cayo Coco of the UNECA Corporation 38p. Technical report. Havana. Luis, A. (1997).Quality Diagnosis in the Construction Branch of Cayo Coco of the UNECA Corporation 42p. Technical report. Havana. Luis, A. (1997). Quality Diagnosis in the Cayo Largo del Sur Branch of the UNECA Corporation 36p. Technical report. Havana. Luis, A. (2000). Diagnosis and elements to be considered in the Strategic Projection of the Quality of the UNECA Corporation. Quality Management Report 45 p. Louise.; Luis, S.; Revuelta, C. (2005). Quality Diagnosis in the "Martín Pérez" Center Warehouse Base of the Transport and Marketing Company of Havana. Technical Report 42p. Havana. Luis, A. (2005).ISO 9000, an effective tool to increase the competitive possibilities of Cuban companies with regard to foreign trade. Unpublished Document, 58p. Louise.; Luis, S. (2006). ALSL methodological approach for the implementation of a Quality Management System. In editing process. 18p.Mantilla JM; Valdés AM (1996). Focus on quality improvement. Rev. Normalization No2, ININ. Havana. Madrigal JB (2000). Integrated Management Systems. Myth or Reality? Memories of the '2000 Quality Symposium. Havana. Martín JL (1997). Cuban unions before the special period. The experience of the Workers' Parliaments. Rev. Public Administration: 177-189, Havana. Mendoza, A. (1996).A Structured Analysis Methodology for the Improvement of Construction Processes. Magister thesis, Department of Engineering and Construction Management, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Santiago.Merchán Gabaldón F. (1995). Total Quality Control Manual in construction. 2nd Edition. Editorial Dossat 2000. Madrid. Meseguer García, Á . (1989). "For a theory of quality in construction". Construction Report Magazine. No. 348, Madrid, Spain. Muwassafat. (nineteen ninety six). Preconditions and preparation of the Quality System audits. Loose Page. ININ. Porter A. (1997)."Quality management, an essential aspect of business management" - Summary book of the Third International Architecture and Engineering Exhibition. SIARIN '97Porter A., Luis A. (1999). "Conception and Development of a Quality Audit System in a Construction Company". COMPAT '99 Memories Book. Editorial SAGA & Asociados LTDA Vol. 3. Ryan Rody (1997). Valued added ISO 9000 - An integrated approach to managing change. Memories Book VI IMECCA International Forum on ISO 9000. Whiteley R. (1995) . Client-Company integration, Prentice-Hall Hispanoamericana SA, Mexico.
