Development of A Market-Oriented EFQM Excellence Model For Analyzing The Implementation of Quality Management in Developing Countries

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/332237817
Development of a market-oriented EFQM excellence model for analyzing the

implementation of quality management in developing countries
Article in International Journal of Construction Management · April 2019

DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2019.1590975
CITATIONS READS
3 604
7 authors, including:
Jingxiao Zhang Bo Xia

Chang'an University Queensland University of Technology
70 PUBLICATIONS 753 CITATIONS 220 PUBLICATIONS 4,810 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Martin Skitmore Si Pu
Bond University Chang'an University
545 PUBLICATIONS 16,809 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Cost Overrun Risk Assessment in Power Plant Projects View project
Cyber bullying literature review View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Si Pu on 07 April 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Construction Management
ISSN: 1562-3599 (Print) 2331-2327 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20
Development of a market-oriented
EFQM excellence model for analyzing the
implementation of quality management in
developing countries
Jingxiao Zhang, Hui Li, Bo Xia, Martin Skitmore, Si Pu, Quanxue Deng &
Weixing Jin
To cite this article: Jingxiao Zhang, Hui Li, Bo Xia, Martin Skitmore, Si Pu, Quanxue Deng &
Weixing Jin (2019): Development of a market-oriented EFQM excellence model for analyzing
the implementation of quality management in developing countries, International Journal of
Construction Management, DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2019.1590975
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1590975
Published online: 05 Apr 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 7
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjcm20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1590975
Development of a market-oriented EFQM excellence model for analyzing

the implementation of quality management in developing countries
Jingxiao Zhanga, Hui Lib, Bo Xiac, Martin Skitmorec,d, Si Pua, Quanxue Dengb and Weixing Jinb
a
School of Economics and Management, Chang’an University, Xi’an, China; bSchool of Civil Engineering, Chang’an University, Xi’an,
China; cSchool of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia; dFaculty
of Computing, Engineering and the Built Environment, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence Model is popular to meas- EFQM Excellence Model;
ure service quality. However, to determine the enablers of EFQM’s current implementation level market-oriented strategy;
across the construction industry, it should be adjusted for different development demands and growth management
model; construction service
interests to be useful in different environments. This study used the judgment sampling method quality; sustainability
to distribute 1250 questionnaires containing the EFQM results and DECMOR scale. The average
score methods and the entropy weight method were used to analyze the collected data. This
article presents the Market Oriented EFQM (MOEFQM) model, that combines the Developing
Country Market Orientation (DECMOR) scale and Growth Management Model (GMM) and the
EFQM model to analyze the overall implementation level of market-oriented quality manage-
ment in the construction industries of developing countries. The model is demonstrated in a
case study of 120 construction firms in Xi’an, Beijing and Shanghai, China, concluding that the
current market-oriented growth of the firms is still in the second phase of quality management
and identifying the main influencing factors that need to be prioritized in embarking on the
next phase of development. The framework has the potential for analyzing the main factors
influencing general growth in quality management in other industries and localities.
Abbreviations: GMM: Growth management model; IAB: Industry Advisory Board; EFQM:
European Foundation for Quality Management; MOEFQM: Market-oriented European
Foundation for Quality Management; ASM: Average Score Method; EWM: Entropy
weight Method
Introduction frameworks, the environment and culture to meet

The formal management of quality has been a feature construction’s market-oriented needs (Elghamrawy
of the construction industries of many countries for and Shibayama 2008).
over the last 25 years, including the United States, As the latest popular tool, the EFQM model is sup-
(Miyagawa and Yoshida 2010), United Kingdom ported by many questionnaire surveys of construction
(Shammas-toma et al. 1998) and such developing firms (Moradi et al. 2011; Yao et al. 2012; Gasparık
countries as China (Wong and Fung 1999; Aoieong and Gasparıkova 2013; Vukomanovic et al. 2014;
et al. 2002; Tang et al. 2009; Yao et al. 2012; Lau Shanmugapriya and Subramanian 2015; Oladinrin
et al. 2016) and Egypt (Elghamrawy and Shibayama and Ho 2016); Vukomanovic et al. (2014), for
2008). This has involved the development and use of example, find that the EFQM model is the most pre-
numerous industrywide tools and processes, such as ferred with self-assessment a popular application. For
Total Quality Management (TQM) and the European the successful adoption of EFQM to construction
Foundation for Quality Management Excellence work, however, it is important to consider the imple-
model (EFQM). In their Guidelines for Implementing mentation level and potential applications as these
Total Quality Management in the Engineering and affect subsequent decisions concerning the respective
Construction Industry, Oswald and Burati (1992) strategies and action plans. To do this involves modi-
point out that the implementation of quality fications to the EFQM weights (Vukomanovic et al.
management at the industry level not only 2014) and evaluation scores (Liu and Ko 2017).
enhances customer satisfaction, but also provides Vukomanovic et al. (2014), for example, analyze the
CONTACT Jingxiao Zhang [email protected]; [email protected]

ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. ZHANG ET AL.
Enablers Results
People People Results
Processes,
Customer Business
Leadership Strategy Products &
Results Results
Services
Partnerships &
Society Results
Resources
Learning, Creativity and Innovation

Figure 1. The EFQM Excellence Model (EFQM 2016).
EFQM weights and the context of the construction Thus, the research objective is to identify the ena-
industry in southeastern Europe. blers of the current level of implementation of EFQM
However, the concept of EFQM was not intro- in the whole construction industry, and develop strat-
duced into China until less than 10 years and certifi- egies for their amelioration to improve overall quality
cated by the China Quality Association no more than development. In order to achieve this, an innovative
2 years ago. As a developing country, China’s con- integrated framework, the Market Oriented EFQM
struction industry has been advancing through (MOEFQM) model, is presented to respond to the
increased marketing-orientation, and hence it is measurement of the overall level of EFQM implemen-
necessary to examine the EFQM adaptation needed tation in the construction industry using the
to match China’s specific context in analyzing its Developing Country Market Orientation (DECMOR)
implementation level in construction. However, scale and process framework of Growth Management
although many industry-level studies of China have Model (GMM) within the EFQM excellence model.
devoted attention to such aspects as organization, The integrated framework is then demonstrated in a
management and policy (Lei and Weber 1997; Wong case study of 120 construction firms in Xi’an, Beijing
and Fung 1999; Han and Ofori 2001; Li and Yin and Shanghai, China, in a similar way to the assess-
2009; Tang et al. 2009; Wang et al. 2011; Zhang ment of EFQM implementation by 34 construction
et al. 2017), few have considered quality manage- companies in South Eastern Europe (Vukomanovic
ment. In response, this article addresses the question: et al. 2014).
How can the construction industry measure the This is the first time an implementation analysis of
overall implementation level of market-oriented a market-oriented EFQM for construction is
quality management and identify the current influ- employed at the industrial level in a developing coun-
encing factors involved? try. The research not only extends the theory of
Sullivan also argues that little attention has been EFQM in the context of a market-oriented industry
paid to the implementation of quality management at in a developing country, but also furthers the analysis
the industry level and the potential obstacles of current industrial level quality management as well
involved generally , and so has ‘remained primarily the potential obstacles involved. Empirical research
unaffected’ by classical quality management pro- into Chinese construction industry is also demon-
grams (Sullivan 2011). Similarly, research into strated as a case study to establish the practical appli-
EFQM generally has focused on the project level, cation of the framework and method of analysis,
without considering the industry as a whole. In other indicating the approach provides a sound reference
words, most EFQM examples are of quality initia- for industry level policy formation, implementation
tives at the project level, with little regard for and the improvement of construction service quality
market-orientation at the level of the construction management including developing countries.
industry (Forbes and Ahmed 2011) as well as the Following this introductory section, Section 2
manufacturing and service industries (Ostolaza and reviews the related literature, such as the EFQM
Garcia 1999; Nabitz et al. 2001; Westlund 2001; Excellence Model, scale of market orientation in the
Rusjan 2005; McCarthy and Greatbanks 2006; construction industry and sustainable management.
Gasparık and Gasparıkova 2013; Doeleman et al. Section 3 introduces the proposed framework and
2014; Oladinrin and Ho 2016). quantitative approach. Section 4 applies the developed
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 3
model to an empirical case study to demonstrate the available information to create more value for their
model’s practical application and implement the pro- customers (Van Raaij and Stoelhorst 2008). Four mar-
cedures and measurements involved. The results and ket orientation scales have been developed to date.
findings of the case study are analyzed and discussed These are
Section 5, followed by the conclusions, and a sum-
mary of the results, highlights and contribution of the A. Jaworski and Kohli’s (1993) 32-item scale of four
research in Section 6. components: intelligence generation, intelligence
dissemination, response design and response
implementation.
Literature review
B. Narver and Slater’s (1990) single dimension scale
The EFQM excellence model of three behavioral components (customer orien-
EFQM is an advanced tool for quality self-assessment tation, competitor orientation and inter-func-
(Michalska 2008) by organizations. It comprises the tional coordination) and two decision criteria
definition of guidelines and requirements (Michalska (long-term horizon and profit emphasis). Narver
and Szewieczek 2007), with a model (EFQM 2016) and Slater (1990) also apply a 20-item scale in an
containing nine elements clustered into five ‘Enablers’ empirical experiment to test the effect of market
criteria of Leadership, Strategy, People, Partnerships orientation on business profitability.
& Resources and Processes, Products & Services, and C. Chang and Chen’s (2011) modified Scale (B) on
four ‘Results’ criteria of Customer Results, People the assumption that expected short-term and
Results, Society Results and Business Results. As long-term profits are an integrated part of market
shown in Figure 1, the Enablers represent how the orientation, wherein two decision variables are
organization operates, while the Results illustrate the replaced with a simplified performance anticipa-
accomplishments for stakeholders and how they can tion component comprising a quarterly profit
be measured and targeted (EFQM 2016). objective expectation, quick payback expectation
The EFQM Excellence model offers a framework and long-term market performance anticipation.
for identifying the key factors for achieving the results D. Zebal and Goodwin’s (2011) Developing Country
expected (Escrig and de Menezes 2015; G omez et al. Market Orientation, developed using measures
2015), which can be categorized into five approaches from previous studies (Weiss 2011) revised to
of (1) exploring the relationships between the better reflect the local cultural situation, was
Enablers and the Results by Structural Equilibrium eventually applied to validate the adoption of
Modeling (SEM) (Jackson and Bircher 2002; Bou- market orientation in the Bangladesh private
Llusar et al. 2005; Nabitz et al. 2006; Bou-Llusar and banking industry.
Escrig-Tena 2009; Nabitz et al. 2009); (2) describing a
case’s contextual operation (Osseo-Assare and Sustainable management model
Longbottom 2002); (3) evaluating internal consistency
in the framework by SEM (Calvo-Mora et al. 2005, The goal of sustainable management is to provide an
2006; Bou-Llusar and Escrig-Tena 2009; Heras- approach to developing organization sustainability
Saizarbitoria et al. 2012); (4) evaluating the specific and integrate an organization’s current development
function of the leadership in the framework (Calvo- status and strategy (Ramirez 2012). In order to
Mora et al. 2006), and (5) analyzing kinship with improve organization management, a sustainable
other TQM methods (Bayo-Moriones et al. 2011). management model can be utilized to help customers
assess the organization’s current development status
and influencing factors by providing an objective
Market orientation in the construction industry evaluation criteria and self-evaluation tool (McIntyre
The literature defines market orientation in various 2015). The sustainable management model consists of
ways, with behavioral, cultural and the integrationist three elements: (a) organization management factors
being the three main perspectives. Most agree that and corresponding criteria; (b) assessing methods;
market orientation embraces the generation of market and (c) a sequence for improvement. Some models
intelligence, its subsequent dissemination and then have been proposed for organizational change from
application (Lafferty and Hult 2001), and also that the perspective of process management (McIntyre
market orientated organizations are well aware of the 2015), such as the Process Model for Embracing
market and capable of taking advantage of the Sustainability (Silvestri and Gulati 2015) and Growth
4 J. ZHANG ET AL.
Figure 2. Incorporating GMM into MOEFQM Enablers and Results.
Table 1. Filter condition. construction companies. In this study, a judgment

Filter condition Threshold sampling method was used to screen enterprise size,
enterprise size Medium and above enterprise qualification, registered personnel and pro-
enterprise qualification A-level qualification as general contractor ject number in the yellow pages of Chinese construc-
registered personnel More than 30 people
project number More than 20 tion enterprises (as shown in the Table 1).
Questionnaires were sent to 1,250 senior managers of
Management Model (GMM) (McIntyre 2015; Zhang 180 enterprises in Beijing, Shanghai and Xi’an by tele-
et al. 2016a; 2017). Researchers have adapted some phone, email and regular mail, and 829 questionnaires
concepts of the framework of the Industry Advisory were received. Finally, 583 valid questionnaires from
120 construction companies were obtained after elimi-
Board (IAB) GMM (McIntyre 2015) to match the
nating those obviously filled at random and did not
internal organizational diagnosis in analyzing sustain-
reflect the real thoughts of the respondents and the
able processes. The GMM is derived from fundamen-
questionnaires with too much data missing.
tal management theory and is sufficiently generic to
SPSS 18 statistical analysis software was used to
work for any industry (McIntyre 2015).
analyze the reliability and validity of the MOEFQM
The present study’s incorporation of GMM
model. The criteria of item-to-total correlation is used
(McIntyre 2015; Zhang et al. 2016a; 2017) into the
to test the reliability and validity of the questionnaire
EFQM Excellence Model based on the market-ori-
and Cronbach’s alpha to test the internal consistency.
ented scale, adapts the EFQM Enablers to form the This study used the average score methods and the
new integrated diagnostic model for measuring the entropy weight method to analyze the collected data.
overall implementation level of market-oriented qual- As a common method of calculating the growth level,
ity management and identify the current influencing the average score method can reflect part of the over-
factors involved, illustrated in Figure 2. all information. However, it divides the importance of
each indicator and causes the loss of information. In
Research methods response to the loss of this information, this study
introduces the entropy weight method to process the
This study used a questionnaire survey method for scoring information contained in the questionnaire.
data collection. The survey targets are construction The entropy weight method can accurately calculate
companies in Beijing, Shanghai and Xi’an. The rea- the weight of each index through the information
sons for choosing these three cities are as follows: entropy of the index, and then weight all the indica-
Beijing is the capital of China and the political, cul- tors to obtain a more objective comprehensive evalu-
tural and educational center of the country; Shanghai ation result.
is known as the economic center of China; Xi’an is
the capital of Shaanxi Province and the center of
Northwest China. Construction companies in Beijing Proposed enhanced framework
and Shanghai represent a high level of China’s con- Higher service quality is essential for companies to
struction industry, and Xi’an’s construction compa- survive in the face of increasing global competition
nies represent the average level of regional (Cierna and Sujova 2015; Ezzabadi et al. 2015),
Figure 3. Theoretical framework and research steps.
making it important to improve the quality of services As revealed in the literature review, the EFQM
in the construction industry (Vukomanovic et al. Excellence Model provides the best methodology to
2014; Shanmugapriya and Subramanian 2015; measure the quality of services (Michalska 2008) and
Oladinrin and Ho 2016). is used here in enhanced form to measure of the
6 J. ZHANG ET AL.
Table 2. Summary of the survey questionnaires.

No. of survey No. of No. of Return Valid
No. Date City sent out survey returned valid survey rate (%) rate (%)
1 2018.3.24 Beijing 450 312 248 69.4 79.5
2 2018.4.11 Shanghai 400 268 198 67 73.9
3 2018.4.11 Xi’an 400 249 137 62.3 55
quality of construction services, while Scale (D) is MOEFQM Enablers/Results subsystems. This phase is
adopted to specify the strategy of the model in also an improved step for both EFQM and GMM in
designing the initial MOEFQM questionnaire. The providing an operational approach to broadening the
growth management model of sustainable manage- original framework and potential applications in sys-
ment areas is then incorporated into the MOEFQM tematically phased and iterative sustainable develop-
to form a contingency model, which services the ment. Thus, an integrated framework is proposed to
growth position to realize sustainable quality manage- assess the level of sustainable growth management
ment as illustrated in Figure 2. and internal influencing factors in the corresponding
As shown in Figure 2, the vertical axis represents the subsystem, which provides a better means of stably
Enablers and Results of the MOEFQM model and the advancing Enablers/Results quality management
horizontal axis relates to Scores. The transition period is within the MOEFQM framework.
located in different developing levels. Recognizing the The major impact index formula (Li et al. 2014) is
transition period and the corresponding influencing fac- used to measure the top influence factors, with
tors is the major task of the research. X
n
From the integrated EFQM Excellence Model Ai ¼ xi di = xi di 100% (1)
based on the market-oriented strategy and GMM, we i¼1
evaluate and confirm the growth levels of quality where Ai represents the indices’ impact, xi the index
management. The theoretical framework and the cor- entropy weight, di the index standardization value
responding research steps are shown in Figure 3. and n the index number.
EWM is applied to compare the growth levels and
propose an alternative method to enrich the quantita-
tive analysis. In this way, the EFQM Excellence Response
model, market orientation scale and sustainable man- For the last step, a list of Enablers/Results top impact
agement model are integrated to form a market-ori- factors is identified within the MOEFQM item dimen-
entated sustainable management framework for sion framework, compared and listed within the cor-
quality management and construct the MOEFQM responding subsystem dimension framework, and
scale for data collection and further analysis in the compared and confirmed by both ASM and EWM
specific case of a developing country. methods. Some responses are then proposed to target
the confirmed top influence factor in the case context,
The overall implementation level measurement aimed at promoting the quality management growth
of the sustainable construction industry of the devel-
The averaging method of the traditional GMM model
oping country.
is first used to evaluate the Enablers and Results level
within the MOEFQM framework, then EWM
(Berezi nski et al. 2015; Li et al. 2015; Wilson 2015; Case study
Zhang et al. 2016a, b) is applied for confirmation. As Data collection
an analog to the IAB GMM model, suppose there was
a K ¼ 4 scaling of each indicator in each unit, where Data were collected by a questionnaire survey based
A ¼ 1 (strong disagreement) to E ¼ 5 (strong agree- on Zebal and Goodwin, containing the EFQM results
ment), then there would also be 4 (K ¼ 4) levels to be and DECMOR scale with responses on a Likert scale
graded for the sample. from 1 (¼A ¼ No Evidence/ Don’t Know), 2
(¼B ¼ We have plans), 3 (¼C ¼ On our way), 4
(¼D ¼ Close to good) and 5 (¼E ¼ Fully done). 1250
Measurement of top influencing factors
questionnaires were mailed to the top administrators
The top impact index formula (Li et al. 2014) is used of 120 construction firms in each of Xi’an, Beijing
to generate the top internal influencing factors in the and Shanghai, including their CEOs, vice presidents,
Table 3. Demographic statistics.

Means
N Standard deviation Variance
4 Enablers/5 Results Statistics Statistics Standard error Statistics Statistics
Leadership (LEA) 583 2.835 .028 .678 .459
People (PEO) 583 2.822 .029 .692 .479
Market-Oriented Strategy (MoS) 583 2.820 .027 .659 .435
Partnership & Resource (PR) 583 2.817 .029 .693 .480
Processes, Products & Services (PPS) 583 2.810 .029 .708 .502
People Results (PeoR) 583 2.844 .033 .788 .621
Customer Results (CR) 583 3.184 .033 .792 .627
Society Results (SR) 583 3.043 .032 .776 .603
Business Results (BR) 583 2.855 .033 .797 .636
Total 583
Table 4. Enablers level using ASM.

Level I II III IV
Scope [44,88) [88,132) [132,176) [176,220]
Figure 5. Results level using ASM analog to IABGMM.
Li et al. 2015; Wilson 2015; Zhang et al. 2016a, b) is

applied to obtain the average score of the 583 sam-
Figure 4. Enablers level using the ASM analog to IABGMM.
ples, with f ¼ 126:235: The growth level of inte-
grated model from Table 2 is identified at Level II
Table 5. Results level using ASM. in Table 4, with the Enablers effect shown in
Level I II III IV Figure 4.
Scope [30,60) [60,90) [90,120) [120,150]
(B) The Results. Table 7 shows that 30 items of the
project managers, general managers, directors and
32 items in the Results system are refined to assess
general managers. A total of 583 usable questionnaires
the growth level of the integrated model. The average
were returned, representing all the firms involved.
score of the 583 samples is calculated by EWM
Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the firms,
(Berezi
nski et al. 2015; Li et al. 2015; Wilson 2015;
and Table 3 provides the demographic statistics of the
Zhang et al. 2016a, b), with f ¼ 89:371: Following
respondents.
Table 2, the growth level is again identified on Level
The item-to-total correlation value of at least 0.4
II in Table 5, and the transition phase in Figure 5.
(Muijs 2011; Boateng et al. 2012) is used to accept the
reliability and validity of the questionnaire, and Targeted factors
Cronbach’s alpha value of at least 0.7 is recognized as
acceptable internal consistency (Muijs 2011; Boateng (A) Enablers. Equation (1) in section 3.4 is used to
et al. 2012). assess and compare the degree of influence of the
Enablers factors. The results are given in Table 6,
which shows MoS-13, PPS-5, PPS-2, PPS-3, PPS-4
Result I – ASM and LEA-6, with all over 89% influence rate, to be the
targeted factors to most sustain Enablers. For each
Grading level: ASM
Enabler, LEA-6 (89.2%) is the targeted factor for
(A) The Enablers. Table 7 shows that 44 of 46 items Leadership, PR-4 (89.2%) and PR-7 (86.8%) for
remained to assess the integrated model level from Partnership & Resources, PEO-5 (88.3%) and PEO-8
the five subsystems. EWM (Berezi nski et al. 2015; (88.3%) for People, PPS-5 (90.2%) for Processes,
8 J. ZHANG ET AL.
Table 6. Enablers targeted factors based on ASM.

Index LEA-1 LEA-2 LEA-3 LEA-4 LEA-5 LEA-6 PR-1 PR-2 PR-3 PR-4
Frequency 263 414 275 266 509 520 508 494 503 510
Frequency rate% 45.1 71.0 47.2 45.6 87.3 89.2 87.1 84.7 86.3 87.5
Index PR-5 PR-6 PR-7 PEO-1 PEO-2 PEO-3 PEO-4 PEO-5 PEO-6 PEO-7
Frequency 307 305 510 271 282 508 512 515 497 506
Frequency rate% 52.7 52.3 87.5 46.5 48.4 87.1 87.8 88.3 85.2 86.8
Index PEO-8 PPS-1 PPS-2 PPS-3 PPS-4 PPS-5 PPS-6 PPS-7 MoS-1 MoS-2
Frequency 515 504 525 523 520 526 423 411 414 513
Frequency rate% 88.3 86.4 90.1 89.7 89.2 90.2 72.6 70.5 71.0 88.0
Index MoS-3 MoS-4 MoS-5 MoS-6 MoS-7 MoS-8 MoS-9 MoS-10 MoS-11 MoS-12
Frequency 508 503 511 479 284 424 427 282 260 493
Frequency rate% 87.1 86.3 87.7 82.2 48.7 72.7 73.2 48.4 44.6 84.6
Index MoS-13 MoS-14 MoS-15 MoS-16
Frequency 527 504 513 515
Frequency rate% 90.4 86.4 88.0 88.3
Table 7. Results targeted factors based on ASM.

Index CR-1 CR-2 CR-3 CR-4 CR-5 CR-6 CR-7 CR-8 CR-9 BR-1
Frequency 106 120 104 91 193 108 339 338 334 103
Frequency rate% 18.2 20.6 17.8 15.6 33.1 18.5 58.1 58.0 57.3 17.7
Index BR-2 BR-3 BR-4 BR-5 BR-6 BR-7 BR-8 PeoR-1 PeoR-2 PeoR-3
Frequency 95 182 363 110 356 337 118 356 87 95
Frequency rate% 16.3 31.2 62.3 18.9 61.1 57.8 20.2 61.1 14.9 16.3
Index PeoR-4 PeoR-5 PeoR-6 PeoR-7 SR-1 SR-2 SR-3 SR-4 SR-5 SR-6
Frequency 203 368 345 364 103 93 124 192 134 324
Frequency rate% 34.8 63.1 59.2 62.4 17.7 16.0 21.3 32.9 23.0 55.6
Products & Services and MoS-13 (90.4%) for Market- (B) Results. Using Equation (1), the average score is
Oriented Strategy. The Acronym of enablers is shown 2.910. From Table 3, the growth level of integrated
in the Appendix E about the result of questionnaire model is identified as Level II in Table 11, and the
reliability analysis. Results effect is shown in Figure 7.
(B) Results. Again using Equation (1) in “Response” Targeted factors

section, the degree of influence of the Results are (A) Enablers. Equation (1) in “Response” section is
assessed and compared in Table 7, which shows used to assess and compare the degree of influence of
PeoR-5, PeoR-7, BR-4, BR-6 and PeoR-1 to be the the Enablers factors. The results are given in Table
targeted factors most sustaining Results with all over 12, which shows MoS-12, LEA-5, MoS-16, PEO-8 and
61% influence rate. For each Result, CR-7 (58.1%) is PPS-1 with all over 96% influence rate, to be the tar-
the targeted factor for Customer, BR-4 (62.3%) for geted factors to most sustain Enablers. For each
Business; PeoR-5 (63.1%) and PeoR-7 (62.4%) for Enabler, LEA-5 (98.1%) is the targeted factor for
People Results and SR-6 (55.6%) for Society. The Leadership, PR-7 (95.4%) for Partnership & Resources,
Acronym of Results is shown in the Appendix E PEO-8 (96.6%) for People, PPS-1 (96.1%) for
about the result of questionnaire reliability analysis. Processes, Products & Services and MoS-12 (99.1%) for
Market-Oriented Strategy.
Result II– entropy method (B) Targeted factors of results. Once more using
EWM Equation (1) in “Response” section, the degree of
influence of the Results are assessed and compared in
Following the steps of EWM (Berezi nski et al. 2015; Table 13, which shows SR-3, BR-2, BR-1, BR-8 and
Li et al. 2015; Wilson 2015; Zhang et al. 2016a, b), BR-5 to be the targeted factors most sustaining
Tables 8 and 9 show the entropy weight of Enablers. Results with all over 78% influence rate. For each
Result, CR-7 (73.4%) is the targeted factor for
Grading level: EWM Customer, BR-2 (85.9%) for Business; PeoR-1 (62.1%)
(A) Enablers. Using Equation (1), the average score is for People Results and SR-3 (87.3%) for Society.
2.769. From Table 3, the scope of the integrated
Discussion
model level using the entropy method is established
in Table 10, while the evolutionary growth of This study designs a Market-Oriented Strategy ques-
Enablers effects is shown in Figure 6. tionnaire for developing countries, replacing the
Table 8. Entropy weight of enablers.

Entropy weight 0.016 0.026 0.024 0.017 0.014 0.020 0.021 0.038 0.017 0.022
Entropy weight 0.019 0.019 0.016 0.019 0.018 0.041 0.040 0.021 0.022 0.015
Entropy weight 0.015 0.016 0.019 0.020 0.021 0.020 0.026 0.025 0.027 0.040
Entropy weight 0.041 0.041 0.038 0.016 0.018 0.027 0.026 0.019 0.017 0.014
Entropy weight 0.020 0.021 0.016 0.014
Table 9. Entropy weight of results.

Entropy weight 0.040 0.038 0.026 0.024 0.043 0.026 0.030 0.032 0.032 0.023
Entropy weight 0.022 0.039 0.032 0.024 0.031 0.032 0.024 0.033 0.025 0.025
Entropy weight 0.041 0.060 0.057 0.058 0.024 0.037 0.023 0.041 0.025 0.034
Table 10. Enablers level using EWM.

Level I II III IV
Scope [1,2) [2,3) [3,4) [4,5]
Figure 7. Enablers level using EWM analog to IABGMM.
These suggest that, in order to achieve sustainable

quality management, construction firms recognize the
Figure 6. Enablers level using entropy method analog importance of the EFQM Excellence Model’s four
to IABGMM. Enablers subsystems and consider ways to deal with
the three targeted subsystems of Market-Oriented
Table 11. Enablers level using EWM. Strategy, Leadership and People.
Level I II III IV
Scope [1,2) [2,3) [3,4) [4,5] 1. Market-Oriented Strategy. Organizations can
obtain more revenue by satisfying customer
original EFQM questionnaire used in developed demands better than their competitors, which also
countries, and integrates market orientation scale helps them form a relatively stable consumer mar-
and sustainable management model to form a ket. For construction firms, the targeted factor
MOEFQM framework. The proposed MOEFQM MoS-12 should be prioritized for quality manage-
framework takes into account the market growth ment growth, which means that construction indus-
stages and is suitable for developing countries. try adopting a market-oriented strategy to handle
important short-run changes to major customers or
markets (Calvo-Mora et al. 2015; Yousefinezhadi
et al. 2015). At the same time, strengthening the
Comparison of top enablers influencing factors
coordinated activities of the different departments
Tables 14 and 15 compare the Enablers targeted fac- of the whole company would help construction
tors for ASM and EWM. firms avoid the influence factor MoS-16.
10 J. ZHANG ET AL.
Table 12. Top impact influence factors of Enablers based on entropy method.
Frequency 346 330 237 315 572 542 529 318 536 517
Frequency rate% 59.3 56.6 40.7 54.0 98.1 93.0 90.7 54.5 91.9 88.7
Frequency 329 323 556 299 312 324 332 527 517 551
Frequency rate% 56.4 55.4 95.4 51.3 53.5 55.6 56.9 90.4 88.7 94.5
Frequency 563 560 543 547 542 542 338 332 321 336
Frequency rate% 96.6 96.1 93.1 93.8 93.0 93.0 58.0 56.9 55.1 57.6
Frequency 321 311 321 529 322 337 344 316 304 578
Frequency rate% 55.1 53.3 55.1 90.7 55.2 57.8 59.0 54.2 52.1 99.1
Frequency 547 533 558 570
Frequency rate% 93.8 91.4 95.7 97.8
Table 13. Top impact influence factors of Results based on EWM.

Frequency 86 100 238 251 165 238 428 350 357 491
Frequency rate% 14.8 17.2 40.8 43.1 28.3 40.8 73.4 60.0 61.2 84.2
Frequency 501 166 377 458 387 354 485 362 230 240
Frequency rate% 85.9 28.5 64.7 78.6 66.4 60.7 83.2 62.1 39.5 41.2
Frequency 178 301 279 289 243 71 509 175 434 321
Frequency rate% 30.5 51.6 47.9 49.6 41.7 12.2 87.3 30.0 74.4 55.1
Table 14. Top Enablers targeted factors compared. Table 16. Top Results targeted factors compared.
EWM ASM EWM ASM
No. Item Frequency% Item Frequency% No. Item Frequency% Item Frequency%
1 MoS-12 99.1 MoS-13 90.4 1 SR-3 87.3 PeoR-5 63.1
2 LEA-5 98.1 PPS-5 90.2 2 BR-2 85.9 PeoR-7 62.4
3 MoS-16 97.8 PPS-2 90.1 3 BR-1 84.2 BR-4 62.3
4 PEO-8 96.6 PPS-3 89.7 4 BR-8 83.2 BR-6 61.1
5 PPS-1 96.1 PPS-4 89.2 5 BR-5 78.6 PeoR-1 61.1
6 MoS-15 95.7 LEA-6 89.2 6 SR-5 74.4 PeoR-6 59.2
7 PR-7 95.4 PEO-5 88.3 7 CR-7 73.4 CR-7 58.1
8 PEO-7 94.5 PEO-8 88.3 8 BR-6 66.4 CR-8 58.0
9 PPS-3 93.8 MoS-16 88.3 9 BR-4 64.7 BR-7 57.8
10 MoS-13 93.8 MoS-15 88.0 10 PeoR-1 62.1 CR-9 57.3
Table 15. Top Enablers targeted factors compared, Table 17. Top Results targeted factors compared,
by subsystems. by subsystems.
Subsystems Method Influencing factors Subsystems Method Influencing factors
Leadership EWM LEA-5, LEA-6 Customer EWM CR-7, CR-9
ASM LEA-6, LEA-5 ASM CR-7, CR-8
Partnerships & Resources EWM PR-7, PR-3 Business EWM BR-2, BR-1
ASM PR-4, PR-7 ASM BR-4, BR-6
People EWM PEO-8, PEO-7 People Results EWM PeoR-1, PeoR-5
ASM PEO-5, PEO-8 ASM PeoR-5, PeoR-7
Processes, Products & Services EWM PPS-1, PPS-3 Society EWM SR-3, SR-5
ASM PPS-5, PPS-2 ASM SR-6, SR-4
Market-Oriented Strategy EWM MoS-12, MoS-16
ASM MoS-13, MoS-16
that their leader has a great willingness, vision,

2. Leadership. Leaders’ role changes and willingness time and energy to support the changes. The
have been associated with success or failure in importance of targeted factor LEA-5 suggests
organizational growth. Canning and Hanmer- that organizational leadership concentrate on
Lloyd (2002), for example, suggested leader inspiring people and creating a culture of excel-
support is an important facilitating factor lence (Golp^ıra and Rostami 2015; Moura e Sa
encouraging organizations to accept and adapt and Albuquerque 2015).
to new processes (Tucker and Russell 2004). In 3. People: The importance of human resource man-
this respect, employees need to be informed agement is emphasized in Ahmad and Schroeder
(2002), which observes that human resources are developed growth management framework,
the key factors for the TQM success and talent is MOEFQM, provides a new way to complement the
the foremost attribute needed to realize the sus- market-oriented diagnosis approach to sustainable
tainable development of firms’ quality manage- quality management growth in the construction
ment. Wilkinson et al. (1997) applies regression industry within the existing EFQM framework. This
analysis to six manufacturing companies, finding involves targeting the current growth management
that the importance to employees, and employee phase, together with its core influencing factors, pay-
involvement in the TQM-and-HR relationship is ing special attention to diagnosing the targeted factors
a multi-scaled aspect (Tarı and Sabater 2006). and areas involved, and grading the MOEFQM
The importance of targeted factor PEO-8 also Enablers/Results level. In doing this, the MOEFQM
indicates that construction firms’ human resource questionnaire enables the Enablers/Results growth
management (HR) should concentrate on devel- phase of quality management to be quantitatively
oping people’s knowledge and skills (Ciurea and evaluated using two methods for validation.
Filip 2015; Dinu and Popescu 2015). The empirical results confirm the growth level of
MOEFQM application with the two methods, with
the most important Enablers of the integrated frame-
Comparison of top results influencing factors work identified as the market-oriented strategy of
Tables 16 and 17 compare of Results targeted factors knowing of the important short-run changes to major
for ASM and EWM. These suggest that construction customers or markets; leadership, by the company
firms recognize the importance of the EFQM inspiring people and creating a culture of excellence;
Excellence Model’s three Results subsystems and con- a market-oriented strategy of coordinated activities of
sider ways to deal with the two targeted subsystems the departments of the whole company; people focus,
of Society results and Business results. in terms of developing people’s knowledge and skills;
and processes, products and services, with the com-
1. Society results. Organizations need to consider all pany designing and managing processes taking into
stakeholders’ benefits and not just their own and account stakeholder needs. The major Results con-
be socially responsible enough to help promote cluded from the integrated framework concern soci-
their reputation and build strong relationships ety, with the company regularly supporting activities
with all stakeholders to enhance their market encouraging employees’ social commitment; business,
competitiveness. For construction firms, prioritiz- by providing indicators measuring market and sales
ing the targeted factor SR-3 should help to qual- performance and the firm’s financial health, and
ity management growth. In addition, the understanding the rationale behind the evolution of
construction industry’s regular support is needed the indicators measuring the business results; and
to encourage social activities. positive trends in business results indicators the over
2. Business results: The importance of BR-2, BR-1, the past 3 years.
BR-8 and BR-5 indicates that the construction This proposed framework can also be used to
industry (a) concentrates on using rational indi- examine the actual market-oriented growth level of
cators to measure the market and sales perform- quality management and analyze the major influenc-
ance, (b) measure its financial health with an ing factors affecting the quality growth management
appropriate set of indicators, (c) understands the in other industries. The current limitation of needing
rationale behind the evolution of the indicators to conduct the analysis within MOEFQM framework
measuring business results and (d) attaches due to the sequential data boundary will be addressed
importance to the positive trends of the indica- in future research.
tors measuring business results over recent years.
Disclosure statement
Conclusion The authors declare no conflict of interest.
As the generic quality management framework,
EFQM focuses on the analysis of organizations’ Funding
Enablers and Results based on different development Research is supported by the National Natural Science
demands. Taking the IABGMM and developing coun- Foundation of China [No. 71301013]; Humanity and Social
try market-oriented scale into consideration, the Science Program Foundation of the Ministry of Education
12 J. ZHANG ET AL.
of China [No. 17YJA790091]; List of Key Science and Bou-Llusar JC, Escrig-Tena AB, Roca-Puig V, Beltran-
Technology Projects in China’s Transportation Industry in Martın I. 2005. To what extent do enablers explain
2018-International Science and Technology Cooperation results in the EFQM Excellence Model?: an empirical
Project [No. 2018-01639]; Shaanxi Province Social Science study. Int J Qual Reliab Manag. 22(4):337–353.
Fund [No. 2017S004, No. 2016Z047 and No. 2014HQ10]; Calvo-Mora A, Leal A, Roldan, JL. 2005. Relationships
Shaanxi Province Social Science Bidding Fund [No. between the EFQM Model Criteria: a study in Spanish
2016ZB017]; Shaanxi Province Social Sciences Major Universities. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell. 16(6):
Theoretical and Practical Research Fund [No. 2017Z028 741–770.
and No. 2019Z035]; Xi’an Social Science Fund [No. Calvo-Mora A, Leal A, Roldan, JL. 2006. Using enablers of
18J139]; Xi’an Science Technology Bureau Fund [No. the EFQM model to manage institutions of higher educa-
CXY1512[2]]; Xi’an Construction Science and Technology tion. Qual Assur Educ. 14(2):99–122.
Planning Projects [No. SJW201705]; Xi’an Science Calvo-Mora A, Pic on-Berjoyo A, Ruiz-Moreno C, Cauzo-
Technology Bureau Fund (No. 201805070RK1SF4(6)); Bottala L. 2015. Contextual and mediation analysis
Shaanxi Universities Second Batch of Youth Outstanding between TQM critical factors and organisational results
Talents Support Projects [No. [2018]111]; Shaanxi Province in the EFQM Excellence Model framework. Int J Prod
Higher Education Teaching Reform Project [No. 17BZ017]; Res. 53(7):2186–2201.
Education Funding of Master of Engineering Management Canning L, Hanmer-Lloyd S. 2002. Modelling the adapta-
in China [No. 2017-ZX-004]; Shaanxi Province Civil tion process in interactive business relationships. J Bus
Engineering “first-class professional” project [No. Indus Market. 17(7):615–636.
300103292801 and No. 300103292804]; Special Fund for Chang T-Z, Chen S-J. 2011. Service Quality and Business
Graduate Student Education Reform of Central College, Performance: The Role of Organizational Factors.
Chang’an University [No. 300111002005, No. International Joint Conference on Service Sciences.
300103187091, No. 310623176201, No. 310623176702, No. Cierna H, Sujova E. 2015. Parallels between corporate social
310628176702 and No. 310628161406]; Fundamental responsibility and the EFQM excellence model. MM Sci
Research for Education Reform of Central College, J. 2015(03):670–676.
Chang’an University [No. 300104292304, No. Ciurea C, Filip FG. 2015. Validation of a business model
300104292305, No. 300104292308, No. 300103292806, No. for cultural heritage institutions. Inf Econ. 19(2):46–56.
300104282301, No. 300104282318, No. 300104282323, No. Dinu G, Popescu D-M. 2015. Romanian higher education:
310623172904, No. 310623171003 and No. 310623171633]; an argument to apply efqm excellence model. Qual
Fundamental Research for Funds for the Central Access Success. 16:154.
Universities (Humanities and Social Sciences), Chang’an Doeleman HJ, ten Have S, Ahaus C. 2014. Empirical evi-
University [No. 300102239616]; Fundamental Research for dence on applying the European Foundation for Quality
Funds for the Central Universities, Chang’an University Management Excellence Model, a literature review. Total
[No. 300102238201]. Qual Manag Bus Excell. 25(5/6):439–460.
EFQM. 2016. EFQM excellence model. Brussels; [accessed
2018 Jun 1]. http://www.efqm.org/
References Elghamrawy T, Shibayama T. 2008. Total quality manage-
ment implementation in the egyptian construction indus-
Ahmad S, Schroeder RG. 2002. The importance of recruit- try. J Manage Eng. 24(3):156–161.
ment and selection process for sustainability of total Escrig AB, de Menezes LM. 2015. What characterizes lead-
quality management. Int J Qual Reliab Manag. 19(5): ing companies within business excellence models? An
540–550. analysis of “EFQM Recognized for Excellence” recipients
Aoieong RT, Tang SL, Ahmed SM. 2002. A process in Spain. Int J Prod Econ. 169:362–375.
approach in measuring quality costs of construction proj- Ezzabadi JH, Dehghani Saryazdi M, Mostafaeipour A. 2015.
ects: model development. Constr Manag Econ. 20(2): Implementing Fuzzy Logic and AHP into the EFQM
179–192. model for performance improvement: a case study. Appl
Bayo-Moriones A, Merino-Dıaz-de-Cerio J, Antonio Soft Comput. 36:165–176.
Escamilla-de-Le on S, Mary Selvam R. 2011. The Impact Forbes LH, Ahmed SM. 2011. Modern construction lean
of ISO 9000 and EFQM on the use of flexible work prac- project delivery and integrated practices. Boca Raton, FL:
tices. Int J Prod Econ. 130(1):33–42. CRC Press,. CRCnetBASE - Full text online http://www.
Berezi
nski P, Jasiul B, Szpyrka M. 2015. An entropy-based library.uiuc.edu/proxy/go.php?url¼ http://www.crcnet-
network anomaly detection method. Entropy. 17(4): base.com/isbn/9781420063134.
2367–2408. Gomez JG, Martınez Costa M, Martınez Lorente AR. 2015.
Boateng CD, Bensah EC, Ahiekpor JC. 2012. Assessing the An in-depth review of the internal relationships of the
higher National Diploma Chemical Engineering EFQM model. TQM J. 27(5):486–502.
Programme in Ghana: students’ perspective. Eur J Eng Gasparık J, Gasparıkova V. 2013. Improvement of quality
Educ. 37(2):205–215. management level in construction company by using
Bou-Llusar JC, Escrig-Tena AB. 2009. An empirical assess- EFQM Model. Int J Manag Innov. 5(1):46–60.
ment of the EFQM Excellence Model: evaluation as a Golp^ıra H, Rostami S. 2015. Quantitative approach for pro-
TQM Framework Relative to the MBNQA Model. J Oper ject management standards evaluation, based on EFQM
Manag. 54(1):1–22. criteria. Proj Manag Dev Pract Perspect. 4:135–144.
Han SS, Ofori G. 2001. Construction industry in China’s Muijs D. 2011. Doing quantitative research in education
regional economy, 1990–1998. Construction. Manag with SPSS. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Econ. 19(2):189–205. Nabitz U, Jansen P, Van der Voet S, Van den Brink W.
Heras-Saizarbitoria I, Marimon F, Casades us, M. 2012. An 2009. Psychosocial work conditions and work stress in
empirical study of the relationships within the categories an innovating addiction treatment centre. Consequences
of the EFQM Model. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell. for the EFQM Excellence Model. Qual Control Appl Stat.
23(5):523–540. 54(3):317–319.
Jackson S, Bircher R. 2002. Transforming a run down gen- Nabitz U, Schramade M, Schippers G. 2006. Evaluating
eral practice into a leading edge primary care organisa- treatment process redesign by applying the EFQM
tion with the help of the EFQM Excellence Model. Int J Excellence Model. Int J Qual Health Care. 18(5):336–345.
Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv. 15(6): Nabitz U, Severens P, Brink WVD, Jansen P. 2001.
255–267. Improving the EFQM Model: an empirical study on
Jaworski BJ, Kohli AK. 1993. Market orientation: antece- model development and theory building using concept
dents and consequences. J Market. 57(3):53–71. mapping. Total Qual Manag. 12(1):69–81.
Lafferty BA, Hult G. 2001. A synthesis of contemporary Narver J, Slater S. 1990. The effect of market orientation on
market orientation perspectives. Eur J Market. 35(1/2): business profitability. J Market. 54(4):20–35.
92–109. Oladinrin OT, Ho CMF. 2016. Critical enablers for codes
Lau AWT, Li YS, Tang SL, Chau KW. 2016. TQM applica- of ethics implementation in construction organizations. J
tion by engineering consultants in Hong Kong. TQM J. Manag Eng. 32(1):1–10.
28(4):561–587. Osseo-Assare AE, Longbottom D. 2002. The need for edu-
Lei T, Weber S. 1997. Incorporating computerization into cation and training in the use of the EFQM Model for
Chinese construction management. J Prof Issues Eng quality management in UK Higher Education
Educ Pract. 123(2):71–77. English. Institutions. Qual Assur Educ. 10(1):26–36.
Li B, Yang Z, Su F. 2015. Measurement of vulnerability in Ostolaza E, Garcia AB. 1999. EFQM/SPICE integrated
human-sea economic system based on set pair analysis: a model: The business excellence road for software inten-
case study of Dalian city. Geogr Res. 34(5):967–976. sive organisations. In: Oivo M, Kuvaja P, editors.
Li F, Wan NQ, Shi BL, Liu XM, Guo ZJ. 2014. The vulner- International Conference on Product Focused Software
Process Improvement. Espoo: Technical Research Centre
ability measure of tourism industry based on the per-
Finland; p. 437–452.
spective of “Environment-Structure” integration a Case
Oswald TH, Burati JL. 1992. Guidelines for implementing
Study of 31 Provinces in Mainland China. Geogr Res.
total quality management in the engineering and con-
33(3):569–581.
struction industry: a report to the Construction Industry
Li G, Yin Y. 2009. On productivity evaluation of China’s
Institute. Austin, Tex.: Bureau of Engineering Research,
Construction Industry on the basis of the supper-efficient
University of Texas at Austin.
DEA Model. J Beijing Inst Technol. 11(04):36–40.
Ramirez GA. 2012. Sustainable development: paradoxes,
Liu Y-L, Ko P-F. 2017. A modified EFQM Excellence
misunderstandings and learning organizations. Learn
Model for effective evaluation in the hotel industry. Organ. 19(1):58–76.
Total Qual Manag Bus Excell. 29:1580–1593. Rusjan B. 2005. Usefulness of the EFQM excellence model:
McCarthy G, Greatbanks R. 2006. Impact of EFQM theoretical explanation of some conceptual and methodo-
Excellence Model on leadership in German and UK logical issues. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell. 16(3):
organisations. Int J Qual Reliab Manag. 23(9):1068–1091. 363–380.
McIntyre C. 2015. A framework for understanding IAB out- Shammas-Toma M, Seymour D, Clark L. 1998. Obstacles to
put and IAB management. San Antonio, TX: ACCE; implementing total quality management in the UK con-
[accessed 2016 Jan 3]. http://www.acce-hq.org/images/ struction industry. Constr Manag Econ. 16(2):177–192.
uploads/IAB_Growth_Management_Model_Version_3.pdf. Shanmugapriya S, Subramanian K. 2015. Structural equa-
Michalska J. 2008. Using the EFQM Excellence Model to tion model to investigate the factors influencing quality
the process assessment. J Achiev Mater Manuf Eng. performance in Indian construction projects. Sadhana.
27(2):203–206. 40(6):1975–1987.
Michalska J, Szewieczek D. 2007. The improvement of the Silvestri L, Gulati R. 2015. From Periphery to core: a pro-
quality management by the activity-based costing. J cess model for embracing sustainability. In: Henderson
Achiev Mater Manuf Eng. 21(1):91–94. R, Gulati R, Tushman M, editors. Leading sustainable
Miyagawa M, Yoshida K. 2010. TQM practices of Japanese- change: an organizational perspective. 1st ed. Oxford,
owned manufacturers in the USA and China. Int J Qual UK: Oxford University Press; p. 81–110.
Reliab Manag. 27(7):736–755. Sullivan KT. 2011. Quality management programs in the
Moradi M, Rahim Ramazanian M, Maisam Momeni S. construction industry: best value compared with other
2011. Knowledge mapping based on EFQM Excellence methodologies. J Manage Eng. 27(4):210–219.
Model: A practical tool to make visible organizational Tarı JJ, Sabater V. 2006. Human aspects in a quality man-
knowledge. Proceedings of the European Conference on agement context and their effects on performance. Int J
Knowledge Management. Vol. 2, p. 668–675. Human Resour Manag. 17(3):484–503.
Moura e Sa P, Albuquerque A. 2015. Translating the Tucker BA, Russell RF. 2004. The influence of the trans-
EFQM model into the courts. Int J Qual Serv Sci. 7(2/3): formational leader. J Leadersh Organ Stud. 10(4):
230. 103–111.
14 J. ZHANG ET AL.
Van Raaij EM, Stoelhorst JW. 2008. The implementation of Wong A, Fung P. 1999. Total quality management in the
a market orientation - a review and integration of the construction industry in Hong Kong: A supply chain
contributions to date. Eur J Market. 42(11/12): management perspective. Total Qual Manag. 10(2):
1265–1293. 199–208.
Vukomanovic M, Radujkovic M, Nahod MM. 2014. EFQM Yao DL, Du ZC, Hu Y. 2012. Application of EFQM-based
excellence model as the tqm model of the construction Excellence Model in PPP Projects. In: Shao Y, Hao S,
industry of southeastern Europe. J Civil Eng Manag. Luo Y., editors. Advnced building materials and sustain-
20(1):70–81. able architecture, Pts 1-4. Stafa-Zurich: Trans Tech
Wang X, Zhou S, Liu B. 2011. An empirical study on Publications Ltd; p. 2957–2965.
regional construction efficiency in china based on three - Yousefinezhadi T, Mohamadi E, Safari Palangi H, Akbari
stage DEA Model. Constr Econ. 350(12):87–90. Sari A. 2015. The effect of ISO 9001 and the EFQM
Weiss J. 2011. September Industrial Policy in the Twenty- Model on improving hospital performance: a systematic
First Century: Challenges for the Future. review. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 17(12):e23010–e23010.
Katajanokanlaituri 6 B, 00160 Helsinki, Finland: UNU Zebal MA, Goodwin DR. 2011. Market orientation in a
World Institute for Development Economics Research. developing nation – antecedents, consequences and the
Tang W, Qiang M, Duffield CF, Young DM, Lu Y. 2009. moderating effect of environmental factors. Market Bull.
Enhancing total quality management by partnering in 22(4):127–168.
construction. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Pract. 135(4): Zhang J, Schmidt K, Li H. 2016a. An integrated diagnostic
129–141. framework to manage organization sustainable growth:
Westlund AH. 2001. Measuring environmental impact on an empirical case. Sustainability. 8(4):23.
society in the EFQM system. Total Qual Manag. 12(1): Zhang J, Xie H, Schmidt K, Li H. 2016b. A new systematic
125–135. approach to vulnerability assessment of innovation cap-
Wilkinson A, Godfrey G, Marchington M. 1997. Bouquets, ability of construction enterprises. Sustainability. 8(1):
brickbats and blinkers: total quality management and 25.
employee involvement in practice. Organ Stud. 18(5): Zhang K, Wang M, Wei B, Sun D(J). 2017. Analysis and
799–819. potential application of the maturity of growth manage-
Wilson C. 2015. Designing the purposeful organization: ment in the developing construction industry of a prov-
how to inspire business performance beyond boundaries. ince of China: a case study. Sustainability. 9(1):36.
1st ed. London: Kogan Page. English.
Appendix A: Developing Country Market Orientation (DECMOR) Scale

Table A1. Developing Country Market Orientation (DECMOR) Scale put forward by Zebal and Goodwin.
Scale items
DECMOR 1 – Customer Emphasis
1. Customer comments and complaints are encouraged.
2. We are strongly committed to our customers.
3. We are always looking at ways to create customer value in the products or services that we offer.
4. We always try to measure whether our customers are satisfied.
DECMOR 2 – Information Generation
1. We research our end users at least once a year to assess how they perceive the benefits of our offerings.
2. We are fast enough to identify our customers’ product preferences.
3. We are slow to detect the competitive, regulatory and technological changes that take place in our business environment.
DECMOR 3 – Information Coordination
1. We arrange interdepartmental meetings on a regular basis to discuss market trends and developments.
2. It is the requirement of the marketing people of our company to share customers’ future needs and wants with our other functional departments.
3. We disseminate information on customer satisfaction at all levels in our company.
4. When one department finds out something important about competitors, it is slow to inform other departments.
5. If anything important happens to a major customer or market, the whole company knows about it in a short period.
DECMOR 4 – Action Initiation and Implementation
1. We take forever to decide how to respond to our competitors’ benefit changes.
2. We periodically review our product offering efforts to ensure that they are in match with what customers wants.
3. For one reason or another we tend to ignore changes of our customers’ product or service needs.
4. When we find that customers would like us to modify a product or service offering, we make an effort to do so.
5. The activities of the different departments of our company are well coordinated.
Appendix B: The questionnaire development used in this research
Table B1. The questionnaire for growth management model.

Rank the following best practices based on the scale below:
1 ¼ A ¼ No Evidence/ Don’t Know
3 ¼ B ¼ We have plans
5 ¼ C ¼ On our way
7 ¼ D ¼ Close to good
9 ¼ E ¼ Fully done
Leadership Ranking
LEA-1: Leaders have developed and shared the Mission and Vision of the organization.
LEA-2: Leaders have developed a set of values and a code of ethics for the organization.
LEA-3: Leaders act as role models for the values of the organization.
LEA-4: Leaders have identified external stakeholders (Society, Partners, Customers … ) and have regularly
engaged with them.
LEA-5: Leaders inspire people and create a culture of excellence.
LEA-6: Leaders assure the organization is agile and flexible enough to face change effectively.
Partnership & Resource Ranking
PR-1: We have chosen our partners and suppliers based on our strategy and manage our relationships with
them accordingly.
PR-2: Our relations with them are based on mutual trust, respect and openness.
PR-3: Our cooperation with partners and suppliers is based on sustainable benefits.
PR-4: We manage our finances to secure sustained success.
PR-5: We manage our buildings, equipment, materials and natural resources in a sustainable way. We continu-
ally reduce their impact on the environment.
PR-6: Technology is used appropriately, as a support to deliver the strategy.
PR-7: We manage information to optimize decision making.
People Ranking
PEO-1: Our Strategy includes a plan on the People we need for the future.
PEO-2: Our People understand the mission, vision, values and strategy and their evaluation is based on those.
PEO-3: We have created a culture that develops and rewards people’s dedication, skills, talents and creativity.
PEO-4: Our internal communication is efficient and works in all direction: Top-down, Bottom-up and Lateral.
PEO-5: We ensure that all necessary data and information are appropriately shared and understood.
PEO-6: We take care of the health and safety of our People and we provide good working conditions.
PEO-7: We have a system of rewards and recognition to honor and motivate our people.
PEO-8: We develop our People’s knowledge and skills.
Processes, Products & Services Ranking
PPS-1: We design and manage processes taking into account our stakeholders’ needs.
PPS-2: We develop our products and services in order to create optimum value for customers.
(continued)
16 J. ZHANG ET AL.
PPS-3: We use market research, customer surveys and other forms of feedback to identify improvements.
PPS-4: We effectively promote and market our products and services.
PPS-5: Our products and services are produced and delivered to meet, or exceed, customer needs.
PPS-6: We manage and enhance customer relationships by knowing well who our different customer groups
are and by anticipating their different needs and expectations.
PPS-7: We build and maintain a dialogue with all our customers, based on openness, transparency and trust.
Market-Oriented Strategy Ranking
MoS-1: Customer comments and complaints are encouraged.
MoS-2: We are strongly committed to our customers.
MoS-3: We are always looking at ways to create customer value in the products or services that we offer.
MoS-4: We always try to measure whether our customers are satisfied.
MoS-5: We research our end users at least once a year to assess how they perceive the benefits of
our offerings.
MoS-6: We are fast enough to identify our customers’ product preferences.
MoS-7: We are slow to detect the competitive, regulatory and technological changes that take place in our
business environment.
MoS-8: We arrange interdepartmental meetings on a regular basis to discuss market trends and
developments.
MoS-9: It is the requirement of the marketing people of our company to share customers’ future needs and
wants with our other functional departments.
MoS-10: We disseminate information on customer satisfaction at all levels in our company.
MoS-11: When one department finds out something important about competitors, it is slow to inform other
departments.
MoS-12: If anything important happens to a major customer or market, the whole company knows about it in
a short period.
MoS-13: We take forever to decide how to respond to our competitors’ benefit changes.
MoS-14: We periodically review our product offering efforts to ensure that they are in match with what cus-
tomers wants.
MoS-15: For one reason or another we don’t tend to ignore changes of our customers’ product or ser-
vice needs.
MoS-16: The activities of the different departments of our company are well coordinated.
Customer Results Ranking
CR-1: We’re holding a regular customer survey, with indicators that monitor the satisfaction of customers.
CR-2: Our survey measures the loyalty of our customers.
CR-3: Our survey measures the likeliness of customers recommending us.
CR-4: We monitor complaints and suggestions from customers.
CR-5: We monitor the customer’s perception of our performance.
CR-6: We have positive trends over the past three years for the indicators in the customer survey.
CR-7: We achieve the quantitative goals we set for the indicators in the customer survey.
CR-8: We monitor and predict our performance and compare it with benchmarks.
CR-9: We understand the rationale behind the evolution of our indicators in our surveys and
internal measures.
Business Results Ranking
BR-1: We measure our financial health with an appropriate set of indicators.
BR-2: We have indicators measuring our market and sales performance.
BR-3: We have indicators to measure our productivity and our overall operational performance.
BR-4: We have indicators to measure our innovation performance.
BR-5: We have positive trends over the past three years for the indicators measuring our business results.
BR-6: We achieve the quantitative goals we set for the indicators measuring our business results.
BR-7: We compare our performance with benchmarks for the indicators measuring our business results.
BR-8: We understand the rationale behind the evolution of the indicators measuring our business results.
People Results Ranking
PeoR-1: We have indicators in our people-survey to monitor the satisfaction of our employees.
PeoR-2: Our people-survey has indicators to monitor the employees’ understanding of the strategy and the
quality of internal communication.
PeoR-3: We measure the adequacy of individual competencies to the needs of the organization.
PeoR-4: We have developed indicators to assess and improve employees’ productivity.
PeoR-5: We achieve the quantitative goals we set for the indicators concerning our people.
PeoR-6: We compare our performance with benchmarks for the indicators concerning our people.
PeoR-7: We understand the rationale behind the evolution of the indicators concerning our people.
Society Results Ranking
SR-1: We use indicators to assess the image of the organization as being concerned about the environment.
SR-2: We use indicators to assess the environmental impact of the organization.
SR-3: Our organization regularly supports activities that encourage employees’ social commitment.
SR-4: We have positive trends over the past three years for the indicators measuring our societal performance.
SR-5: We compare our performance with benchmarks for the indicators measuring our societal performance.
SR-6: We understand the rationale behind the evolution of the indicators measuring our societal performance.
TOTAL
Appendix C: Integrated questionnaire
Table C1. Integrated questionnaire.

1 ¼ A ¼ No Evidence/ Don’t Know
2 ¼ B ¼ We have plans
3 ¼ C ¼ On our way
4 ¼ D ¼ Close to good
5 ¼ E ¼ Fully done
1. Leadership(LEA) Q1 Leaders have developed and shared the mission and vision of the
organization.
Q2 Leaders have developed a set of values and a code of ethics for the
organization.
Q3 Leaders act as role models for the values of the organization.
Q4 Improvements throughout the organization are monitored, reviewed and
championed by Leaders.
Q5 Leaders have identified external stakeholders (Society, Partners,
Customers … ) and have regularly engaged with them.
Q6 Leaders inspire people and create a culture of excellence.
Q7 Leaders assure the organization is agile and flexible enough to face
change effectively.
2. Partnership & Resource (PR) Q8 We have chosen our partners and suppliers based on our strategy and
manage our relationships with them accordingly.
Q9 Our relations with them are based on mutual trust, respect
and openness.
Q10 Our cooperation with partners and suppliers is based on sustain-
able benefits.
Q11 We manage our finances to secure sustained success.
Q12 We manage our buildings, equipment, materials and natural resources in
a sustainable way. We continually reduce their impact on the
environment.
Q13 Technology is used appropriately, as a support to deliver the strategy.
Q14 We manage information to optimize decision making.
3. People (PEO) Q15 Our Strategy includes a plan on the people we need for the future.
Q16 Our people understand the mission, vision, values and strategy and their
evaluation is based on those.
Q17 We have created a culture that develops and rewards people’s dedica-
tion, skills, talents and creativity.
Q18 Our internal communication is efficient and works in all direction: Top-
down, Bottom-up and Lateral.
Q19 We ensure that all necessary data and information are appropriately
shared and understood.
Q20 We take care of the health and safety of our people and we provide
good working conditions.
Q21 We have a system of rewards and recognition to honor and motivate
our people.
Q22 We develop our people’s knowledge and skills.
4. Processes, Products & Services (PPS) Q23 We design and manage processes taking into account our stakehold-
ers’ needs.
Q24 We develop our products and services in order to create optimum value
for customers.
Q25 We use market research, customer surveys and other forms of feedback
to identify improvements.
Q26 We effectively promote and market our products and services.
Q27 Our products and services are produced and delivered to meet, or
exceed, customer needs.
Q28 We manage and enhance customer relationships by knowing well who
our different customer groups are and by anticipating their different
needs and expectations.
Q29 We build and maintain a dialogue with all our customers, based on
openness, transparency and trust.
5. Market-Oriented Strategy (MoS) Q30 Customer comments and complaints are encouraged.
Q31 We are strongly committed to our customers.
Q32 We are always looking at ways to create customer value in the products
or services that we offer.
Q33 We always try to measure whether our customers are satisfied.
Q34 We research our end users at least once a year to assess how they per-
ceive the benefits of our offerings.
Q35 We are fast enough to identify our customers’ product preferences.
Q36 We are slow to detect the competitive, regulatory and technological
changes that take place in our business environment.
Q37 We arrange interdepartmental meetings on a regular basis to discuss
market trends and developments.
Q38
(continued)
18 J. ZHANG ET AL.
It is the requirement of the marketing people of our company to share

customers’ future needs and wants with our other functional
departments.
Q39 We disseminate information on customer satisfaction at all levels.
Q40 When one department finds out something important about competi-
tors, it is slow to inform other departments.
Q41 If anything important happens to a major customer or market, the
whole company knows about it in a short period.
Q42 We take forever to decide how to respond to our competitors’ bene-
fit changes.
Q43 We periodically review our product offering efforts to ensure that they
are in match with what customers wants.
Q44 For one reason or another we tend don’t to ignore changes of our cus-
tomers’ product or service needs.
Q45 When we find that customers would like us to modify a product or ser-
vice offering, we make an effort to do so.
Q46 The activities of the different departments of our company are well
coordinated.
6. Customer Results (CR) Q47 We’re holding a regular customer survey, with indicators that monitor
the satisfaction of customers.
Q48 Our survey measures the loyalty of our customers.
Q49 Our survey measures the likeliness of customers recommending us.
Q50 We monitor complaints and suggestions from customers.
Q51 We monitor the customer’s perception of our performance.
Q52 We have positive trends over the past three years for the indicators in
the customer survey.
Q53 We achieve the quantitative goals we set for the indicators in the cus-
tomer survey.
Q54 We monitor and predict our performance and compare it
with benchmarks.
Q55 We understand the rationale behind the evolution of our indicators in
our surveys and internal measures.
7. Business Results (BR) Q56 We measure our financial health with an appropriate set of indicators.
Q57 We have indicators measuring our market and sales performance.
Q58 We have indicators to measure our productivity and our overall oper-
ational performance.
Q59 We have indicators to measure our innovation performance.
Q60 We have positive trends over the past three years for the indicators
measuring our business results.
Q61 We achieve the quantitative goals we set for the indicators measuring
our business results.
Q62 We compare our performance with benchmarks for the indicators meas-
uring our business results.
Q63 We understand the rationale behind the evolution of the indicators
measuring our business results.
8. People Results (PeoR) Q64 We have indicators in our people-survey to monitor the satisfaction of
our employees.
Q65 Our people-survey has indicators to monitor the employees’ understand-
ing of the strategy and the quality of internal communication.
Q66 We measure the adequacy of individual competencies to the needs of
the organization.
Q67 We have developed indicators to assess and improve employees’
productivity.
Q68 We have positive trends over the past three years for the indicators con-
cerning our people.
Q69 We achieve the quantitative goals we set for the indicators concerning
our people.
Q70 We compare our performance with benchmarks for the indicators con-
cerning our people.
Q71 We understand the rationale behind the evolution of the indicators con-
cerning our people.
9. Society Results (SR) Q72 We use indicators to assess the image of the organization as being con-
cerned about the environment.
Q73 We use indicators to assess the environmental impact of the
organization.
Q74 Our organization regularly supports activities that encourage employees’
social commitment.
Q75 We have positive trends over the past three years for the indicators
measuring our societal performance.
Q76 We achieve the quantitative goals we set for the indicators measuring
our societal performance.
Q77 We compare our performance with benchmarks for the indicators meas-
uring our societal performance.
Q78 We understand the rationale behind the evolution of the indicators
measuring our societal performance.
Appendix D: Descriptive statistics
Table D1. Descriptive statistics.

Frequency statistics Means
Item Statistics 1 2 3 4 5 Statistics Standard error Statistics Statistics
Q1 583 33 82 104 321 43 3.4443 .04177 1.00850 1.017
Q2 583 68 151 149 139 76 3.0069 .05052 1.21981 1.488
Q3 583 28 100 99 76 280 3.8233 .05463 1.31917 1.740
Q4 583 286 86 98 84 29 2.1149 .05356 1.29319 1.672
Q5 583 38 91 91 316 47 3.4168 .04362 1.05332 1.109
Q6 583 37 93 320 96 37 3.0051 .03781 .91286 .833
Q7 583 40 329 92 89 33 2.5643 .04203 1.01479 1.030
Q8 583 48 306 106 80 43 2.5952 .04392 1.06043 1.125
Q9 583 247 97 109 87 43 2.2830 .05548 1.33953 1.794
Q10 583 58 79 308 102 36 2.9640 .04049 .97762 .956
Q11 583 50 293 105 92 43 2.6312 .04469 1.07910 1.164
Q12 583 45 96 108 292 42 3.3259 .04457 1.07620 1.158
Q13 583 53 88 103 302 37 3.3122 .04520 1.09135 1.191
Q14 583 45 99 313 82 44 2.9674 .03976 .96001 .922
Q15 583 52 73 89 322 47 3.4099 .04519 1.09122 1.191
Q16 583 44 81 95 322 41 3.4031 .04371 1.05540 1.114
Q17 583 285 84 87 83 44 2.1715 .05649 1.36402 1.861
Q18 583 290 75 97 82 39 2.1509 .05570 1.34491 1.809
Q19 583 51 310 90 98 34 2.5780 .04357 1.05208 1.107
Q20 583 45 303 108 78 49 2.6278 .04464 1.07792 1.162
Q21 583 45 84 320 96 38 2.9966 .03885 .93793 .880
Q22 583 46 88 325 89 35 2.9640 .03840 .92711 .860
Q15 583 44 87 308 102 42 3.0189 .03963 .95679 .915
Q16 583 33 333 99 86 32 2.5729 .04108 .99194 .984
Q17 583 45 323 97 79 39 2.5609 .04294 1.03677 1.075
Q18 583 45 319 102 73 44 2.5746 .04352 1.05069 1.104
Q19 583 45 319 104 81 34 2.5540 .04205 1.01539 1.031
Q20 583 72 151 135 158 67 2.9949 .05049 1.21911 1.486
Q21 583 59 157 139 152 76 3.0497 .04998 1.20677 1.456
Q30 583 78 137 158 127 83 3.0000 .05173 1.24905 1.560
Q31 583 285 89 85 81 43 2.1561 .05607 1.35388 1.833
Q32 583 263 100 86 82 52 2.2453 .05719 1.38097 1.907
Q33 583 260 98 87 87 51 2.2642 .05728 1.38308 1.913
Q34 583 256 105 95 87 40 2.2281 .05506 1.32946 1.767
Q35 583 43 87 291 113 49 3.0652 .04083 .98574 .972
Q36 583 40 94 88 316 45 3.3979 .04403 1.06303 1.130
Q37 583 80 151 135 145 72 2.9623 .05159 1.24573 1.552
Q38 583 76 151 145 141 70 2.9623 .05079 1.22627 1.504
Q39 583 48 83 94 309 49 3.3911 .04512 1.08949 1.187
Q40 583 39 80 93 318 53 3.4563 .04359 1.05244 1.108
Q41 583 39 71 346 91 36 3.0240 .03689 .89064 .793
Q42 583 50 323 93 82 35 2.5352 .04271 1.03132 1.064
Q43 583 38 319 102 73 51 2.6226 .04427 1.06891 1.143
Q44 583 45 94 321 75 48 2.9777 .03992 .96388 .929
Q45 583 51 80 94 80 278 3.7787 .05752 1.38875 1.929
Q46 583 36 94 336 80 37 2.9794 .03705 .89457 .800
Q47 583 42 86 97 77 281 3.8045 .05636 1.36078 1.852
Q48 583 37 83 126 72 265 3.7633 .05492 1.32601 1.758
Q49 583 40 75 107 321 40 3.4220 .04248 1.02562 1.052
Q50 583 34 78 106 326 39 3.4425 .04141 .99985 1.000
Q51 583 81 144 123 156 79 3.0137 .05263 1.27080 1.615
Q52 583 38 86 101 315 43 3.4099 .04299 1.03796 1.077
Q53 583 38 320 105 88 32 2.5815 .04155 1.00333 1.007
Q54 583 43 318 96 86 40 2.5918 .04339 1.04769 1.098
Q55 583 34 320 105 77 47 2.6278 .04344 1.04883 1.100
Q56 583 43 79 322 102 37 3.0189 .03842 .92761 .860
Q57 583 38 74 330 103 38 3.0497 .03759 .90773 .824
Q58 583 66 144 148 147 78 3.0463 .05051 1.21965 1.488
Q59 583 47 325 96 72 43 2.5523 .04344 1.04877 1.100
Q60 583 43 77 327 88 48 3.0360 .03946 .95270 .908
Q61 583 45 324 95 85 34 2.5523 .04234 1.02222 1.045
Q62 583 34 333 90 81 45 2.6055 .04341 1.04804 1.098
Q63 583 40 99 321 78 45 2.9811 .03903 .94232 .888
Q64 583 40 332 90 74 47 2.5815 .04383 1.05833 1.120
Q65 583 39 70 105 325 44 3.4545 .04228 1.02087 1.042
Q66 583 33 79 105 321 45 3.4563 .04172 1.00739 1.015
(continued)
20 J. ZHANG ET AL.
Table D1. Continued.

Frequency statistics Means
Item Statistics 1 2 3 4 5 Statistics Standard error Statistics Statistics
Q67 583 72 152 140 141 78 3.0017 .05130 1.23869 1.534
Q68 583 29 94 86 82 292 3.8816 .05447 1.31528 1.730
Q69 583 293 85 90 83 32 2.1012 .05421 1.30886 1.713
Q70 583 272 94 105 80 32 2.1527 .05351 1.29193 1.669
Q71 583 280 97 94 80 32 2.1201 .05357 1.29338 1.673
Q72 583 33 80 107 323 40 3.4408 .04141 .99975 .999
Q73 583 37 79 76 102 289 3.9039 .05452 1.31644 1.733
Q74 583 35 103 328 70 47 2.9846 .03842 .92768 .861
Q75 583 71 142 142 144 84 3.0480 .05164 1.24675 1.554
Q76 583 245 93 115 87 43 2.2967 .05546 1.33912 1.793
Q77 583 54 75 316 102 36 2.9846 .03978 .96044 .922
Q78 583 49 290 108 93 43 2.6415 .04464 1.07779 1.162
Sum 6329 11763 11651 10727 5004
Appendix E: The result of reliability analysis.
Table E1. The result of reliability analysis.

Cronbach’s Alpha if Item to total New code after
Subsystem Code Item description Cronbach’s Alpha item deleted correlation item test
Leadership (LEA) Q1 Leaders have developed 0.791 0.742 0.652 LEA-1
and shared the mis-
sion and vision of the
organization.
Q2 Leaders have developed 0.759 0.546 LEA-2
a set of values and a
code of ethics for the
organization.
Q3 Leaders act as role mod- 0.790 0.410 LEA-3
els for the values of
the organization.
Q4 Improvements through- 0.819 0.262 Deleted
out the organization
are monitored,
reviewed and champ-
ioned by Leaders.
Q5 Leaders have identified 0.746 0.623 LEA-4
external stakeholders
(Society, Partners,
Customers … ) and
have regularly
engaged with them.
Q6 Leaders inspire people 0.733 0.735 LEA-5
and create a culture
of excellence.
Q7 Leaders assure the 0.757 0.565 LEA-6
organization is agile
and flexible enough
to face change
effectively.
Partnership & Q8 We have chosen our 0.835 0.797 0.687 PR-1
Resource (PR) partners and suppli-
ers based on our
strategy and manage
our relationships with
them accordingly.
Q9 Our relations with them 0.843 0.444 PR-2
are based on mutual
trust, respect
and openness.
Q10 Our cooperation with 0.800 0.678 PR-3
partners and suppli-
ers is based on sus-
tainable benefits.
Q11 We manage our finances 0.797 0.680 PR-4
to secure sus-
tained success.
(continued)
Table E1. Continued.

Q12 We manage our build- 0.830 0.472 PR-5
ings, equipment,
materials and natural
resources in a sus-
tainable way. We
continually reduce
their impact on the
environment.
Q13 Technology is used 0.827 0.491 PR-6
appropriately, as a
support to deliver
the strategy.
Q14 We manage information 0.793 0.728 PR-7
to optimize deci-
sion making.
People (PEO) Q15 Our Strategy includes a 0.869 0.872 0.443 PEO-1
plan on the People
we need for
the future.
Q16 Our People understand 0.872 0.437 PEO-2
the mission, vision,
values and strategy
and their evaluation
is based on those.
Q17 We have created a cul- 0.855 0.632 PEO-3
ture that develops
and rewards people’s
dedication, skills, tal-
ents and creativity.
Q18 Our internal communica- 0.855 0.625 PEO-4
tion is efficient and
works in all direction:
Top-down, Bottom-up
and Lateral.
Q19 We ensure that all 0.839 0.760 PEO-5
necessary data and
information are
appropriately shared
and understood.
Q20 We take care of the 0.840 0.752 PEO-6
health and safety of
our People and we
provide good work-
ing conditions.
Q21 We have a system of 0.845 0.724 PEO-7
rewards and recogni-
tion to honour and
motivate our people.
Q22 We develop our 0.847 0.711 PEO-8
People’s knowledge
and skills.
Processes, Products & Q23 We design and manage 0.893 0.875 0.718 PPS-1
Services (PPS) processes taking into
account our stake-
holders’ needs.
Q24 We develop our prod- 0.868 0.777 PPS-2
ucts and services in
order to create opti-
mum value
for customers.
Q25 We use market research, 0.865 0.792 PPS-3
customer surveys and
other forms of feed-
back to identify
improvements.
Q26 We effectively promote 0.866 0.782 PPS-4
and market our prod-
ucts and services.
Q27 Our products and serv- 0.866 0.786 PPS-5
ices are produced
(continued)
22 J. ZHANG ET AL.

and delivered to
meet, or exceed, cus-
tomer needs.
Q28 We manage and 0.895 0.561 PPS-6
enhance customer
relationships by
knowing well who
our different cus-
tomer groups are and
by anticipating their
different needs and
expectations.
Q29 We build and maintain 0.902 0.503 PPS-7
a dialogue with all
our customers, based
on openness, trans-
parency and trust.
Market-Oriented Q30 Customer comments 0.923 0.920 0.575 MoS-1
Strategy (MoS) and complaints
are encouraged.
Q31 We are strongly commit- 0.919 0.628 MoS-2
ted to our customers.
Q32 We are always looking 0.919 0.624 MoS-3
at ways to create cus-
tomer value in the
products or services
that we offer.
Q33 We always try to meas- 0.919 0.621 MoS-4
ure whether our cus-
tomers are satisfied.
Q34 We research our end 0.919 0.621 MoS-5
users at least once a
year to assess how
they perceive the
benefits of
our offerings.
Q35 We are fast enough to 0.916 0.745 MoS-6
identify our custom-
ers’ product
preferences.
Q36 We are slow to detect 0.920 0.589 MoS-7
the competitive,
regulatory and
technological changes
that take place in our
business
environment.
Q37 We arrange interdepart- 0.919 0.597 MoS-8
mental meetings on
a regular basis to dis-
cuss market trends
and developments.
Q38 It is the requirement of 0.920 0.564 MoS-9
the marketing people
of our company to
share customers’
future needs and
wants with our other
functional
departments.
Q39 We disseminate informa- 0.919 0.592 MoS-10
tion on customer sat-
isfaction at all levels.
Q40 When one department 0.921 0.513 MoS-11
finds out something
important about
competitors, it is slow
to inform other
departments.
Q41 0.917 0.742 MoS-12
(continued)

If anything important
happens to a major
customer or market,
the whole company
knows about it in a
short period.
Q42 We take forever to 0.916 0.746 MoS-13
decide how to
respond to our com-
petitors’ bene-
fit changes.
Q43 We periodically review 0.916 0.746 MoS-14
our product offering
efforts to ensure that
they are in match
with what custom-
ers wants.
Q44 For one reason or 0.916 0.768 MoS-15
another we don’t
tend to ignore
changes of our cus-
tomers’ product or
service needs.
Q45 When we find that cus- 0.927 0.356 Deleted
tomers would like us
to modify a product
or service offering,
we make an effort to
do so.
Q46 The activities of the dif- 0.916 0.763 MoS-16
ferent departments of
our company are well
coordinated.
Customer Q47 We’re holding a regular 0.869 0.852 0.641 CR-1
Results (CR) customer survey, with
indicators that moni-
tor the satisfaction
of customers.
Q48 Our survey measures 0.858 0.585 CR-2
the loyalty of
our customers.
Q49 Our survey measures 0.843 0.745 CR-3
the likeliness of cus-
tomers recommend-
ing us.
Q50 We monitor complaints 0.842 0.762 CR-4
and suggestions
from customers.
Q51 We monitor the custom- 0.862 0.539 CR-5
er’s perception of our
performance.
Q52 We have positive trends 0.842 0.758 CR-6
over the past three
years for the indica-
tors in the cus-
tomer survey.
Q53 We achieve the quanti- 0.864 0.492 CR-7
tative goals we set
for the indicators in
the customer survey.
Q54 We monitor and predict 0.864 0.499 CR-8
our performance and
compare it
with benchmarks.
Q55 We understand the 0.865 0.486 CR-9
rationale behind the
evolution of our indi-
cators in our surveys
and
internal measures.
(continued)
24 J. ZHANG ET AL.

Business Results (BR) Q56 We measure our finan- 0.912 0.899 0.737 BR-1
cial health with an
appropriate set
of indicators.
Q57 We have indicators 0.899 0.745 BR-2
measuring our market
and sales
performance.
Q58 We have indicators to 0.918 0.560 BR-3
measure our product-
ivity and our overall
operational
performance.
Q59 We have indicators to 0.899 0.740 BR-4
measure our innov-
ation performance.
Q60 We have positive trends 0.899 0.737 BR-5
over the past three
tors measuring our
business results.
Q61 We achieve the quanti- 0.898 0.745 BR-6
tative goals we set
for the indicators
measuring our busi-
ness results.
Q62 We compare our per- 0.898 0.748 BR-7
formance with bench-
marks for the
indicators measuring
our business results.
Q63 We understand the 0.897 0.763 BR-8
evolution of the indi-
cators measuring our
business results.
People Results (PeoR) Q64 We have indicators in 0.812 0.761 0.758 PeoR-1
our people-survey to
monitor the satisfac-
tion of
our employees.
Q65 Our people-survey has 0.792 0.528 PeoR-2
indicators to monitor
the employees’
understanding of the
strategy and the
quality of internal
communication.
Q66 We measure the 0.796 0.502 PeoR-3
adequacy of individ-
ual competencies to
the needs of the
organization.
Q67 We have developed 0.783 0.582 PeoR-4
indicators to assess
and improve employ-
ees’ productivity.
Q68 We have positive trends 0.841 0.198 Deleted
over the past three
tors concerning
our people.
Q69 We achieve the quanti- 0.781 0.594 PeoR-5
tative goals we set
for the indicators
concerning
our people.
Q70 We compare our per- 0.783 0.582 PeoR-6
marks for the
(continued)

indicators concerning
our people.
Q71 We understand the 0.784 0.574 PeoR-7
cators concerning
our people.
Society Results (SR) Q72 We use indicators to 0.810 0.776 0.613 SR-1
assess the image of
the organization as
being concerned
about the
environment.
Q73 We use indicators to 0.811 0.424 SR-2
assess the environ-
mental impact of the
organization.
Q74 Our organization regu- 0.760 0.730 SR-3
larly supports activ-
ities that encourage
employees’
social commitment.
Q75 We have positive trends 0.781 0.574 SR-4
over the past three
tors measuring our
societal performance.
Q76 We achieve the quanti- 0.825 0.358 Deleted
tative goals we set
for the indicators
measuring our soci-
etal performance.
Q77 We compare our per- 0.765 0.693 SR-5
marks for the
indicators measuring
our societal
performance.
Q78 We understand the 0.779 0.587 SR-6
cators measuring our
societal performance.
Source: Compiled by the authors with SPSS 18.
Note: Deleted represents the deleted item, which shows that the corresponding item did not meet the critical value of reliability and validity analysis.
Appendix F: Grading method Table F1. The scope of MOEFQM level using the average
score method.
Grading the level with the two methods
Level I II III IV
The average score was applied to grade the GMM level.
Scope n [1;2) n [212 ð1 þ 3;3) n [312 ð1 þ 3;4) n [412 ð1 þ 3;512 ð3 þ 5Þ]
The main steps (McIntyre Charles 2015) for the calculating
the average score to evaluate the integrated model level are
(1) Calculating the average score of total sample
Suppose there are m units and n indicators to be eval- The entropy weight method is the applied focusing on
uated to establish the sum in the indices objective and realistic information to reach
Xn the GMM level for Enablers and Results within the
ZFi ¼ f
t¼1 st
(F1) MOEFQM framework. The entropy method is an object-
ive approach to reflect the degree of disorder of informa-
where s ¼ 1,2,3^m；t ¼ 1,2,3^n；ZFs ¼ the score sum of sth tion in not only information theory but also in the
sample； fst ¼the tth index score of the sth sample. Then, expansion of social and economic areas, in which the
the average score of m units is weights of individual indicators are determined by calcu-
X
m lating the entropy and entropy weight. The greater the
f¼ ZF s =m (F2) entropy, the smaller the corresponding entropy weight. If
s¼1
the entropy weight is zero, it provides no useful informa-
The scope of each level is shown in Table F1. tion to the decision-maker, and this indicator may be
26 J. ZHANG ET AL.
removed. The amount of useful information that the tar- Table F2. The scope of integrated model level using the
get provides to the decision-maker is objective. The main entropy method.
steps (Berezi
nski et al. 2015; Li et al. 2015; Wilson 2015; Level I II III IV
Zhang et al. 2016a, b) are Scope [1,2) [2,3) [3,4) (4,5]
Step 1: Formation of the evaluation matrix
Suppose there are also m units and n indicators to be
evaluated to establish the original data matrix Appendix G: Method of sample size
R ¼ ðrst Þmn ðs ¼ 1; 2 ; m; t ¼ 1; 2 ; nÞ (F3) determination
where rst represents the actual value of the tth index of In general, the larger the sample size, the more representa-
sth unit. tive the sample is. However, considering the cost factor, we
Step 2: The standardization of the evaluation matrix need to scientifically formulate the sample size within the
The following is used to normalize the matrix B, allowable error range, and balance the relationship between
rst rmin the survey cost and the survey accuracy.
B ¼ ðbst Þmn ðs ¼ 1; 2 ; m; t ¼ 1; 2 ; nÞ with bst ¼ For non-repetitive sampling, the formula used to deter-
rmax rmin
(A4) mine the sample size for the survey is:
where rmax and rmin represent the maximum and minimum z 2 S2

n¼
values respectively for the evaluation unit. d2
If the indicator is the positive tropism (þ) Where n represents the required sample size; Z represents
rst rmin the Z statistic at the confidence level, the Z statistic for the
bst ¼ (F4-1)
rmax rmin 90% confidence level is 1.64, 95% Z is 1.96, 99% Z is 2.68;
S represents the overall Standard deviation; d represents 1/2
If the indicator is the negative tropism ()
of the confidence interval, which is the allowable error or
rmax rst investigation error in practical applications. The sample
bst ¼ (F4-2)
rmax rmin sizes under different confidence intervals and sampling
Step 3: Calculation of entropy errors are shown in the following table.
The entropy of the system can be defined by Table G1. The sample sizes under different confidence inter-
! vals and sampling errors
X
m
Ht ¼ fst ln fst = ln m ðs ¼ 1; 2 ; m; t ¼ 1; 2 nÞ Sample size required for different
s1 confidence levels
(F5) Sample sampling error 90% 95% 99%
10% 67 96 166
where Pm 5% 269 384 666
fst ¼ bst = s1 bst ; if fst ¼ 0, redefine the fst as 3% 747 1067 1849
X
m
fst ¼ ð1 þ bst Þ= ð1 þ bst Þ (F6) As can be seen from the above table, to achieve a 95%
s1 confidence level at 5% sampling error, the required sample
size is 384.
Step 4: Calculation of entropy weight
! The number of questionnaires issued depends on three
X
n X
n
important factors: the response rate, the rate of occurrence
w ¼ ðxt Þ1n ; xt ¼ ð1Ht Þ= n Ht with xt ¼ 1 and the completion rate of the respondents:
t1 t1
(F7) sample size response rate occurrence rate

Step 5: Calculation of score completion rate ¼ sample size completed
Use entropy weight to calculate the score of integrated Reasonably estimate the response rate of the sending
model level, channel, the occurrence rate of the target population, and
X
n the completion rate of the questionnaire, and then calculate
sf ¼ xi f i (F8) the sample size according to the formula. Assuming a
i¼1
response rate of 60%, an occurrence rate of 80%, and a
where xi ¼the entropy weight of the ith index, and fi ¼ the completion rate of 70%, the sample size is:
score of the ith index.
384 60% 80% 70% ¼ 1143
Step 6: Grade the level.
Analogous to the average score method above, the According to the calculation results, the sample size of
entropy method to grade integrated model level is shown in this study should not be less than 1143. Therefore, the num-
Table F2. ber of questionnaires issued by 1250 meets the requirements.
View publication stats

Development of A Market-Oriented EFQM Excellence Model For Analyzing The Implementation of Quality Management in Developing Countries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development of A Market-Oriented EFQM Excellence Model For Analyzing The Implementation of Quality Management in Developing Countries

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development of A Market-Oriented EFQM Excellence Model For Analyzing The Implementation of Quality Management in Developing Countries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Development of a market-oriented EFQM excellence model for analyzing the

Article in International Journal of Construction Management · April 2019

Jingxiao Zhang Bo Xia

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Cost Overrun Risk Assessment in Power Plant Projects View project

Cyber bullying literature review View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Si Pu on 07 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN: 1562-3599 (Print) 2331-2327 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1590975

Published online: 05 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Development of a market-oriented EFQM excellence model for analyzing

Introduction frameworks, the environment and culture to meet

CONTACT Jingxiao Zhang [email protected]; [email protected]

People People Results

Learning, Creativity and Innovation

Figure 2. Incorporating GMM into MOEFQM Enablers and Results.

Table 1. Filter condition. construction companies. In this study, a judgment

Figure 3. Theoretical framework and research steps.

Table 2. Summary of the survey questionnaires.

Table 3. Demographic statistics.

Table 4. Enablers level using ASM.

Figure 5. Results level using ASM analog to IABGMM.

Li et al. 2015; Wilson 2015; Zhang et al. 2016a, b) is

Table 6. Enablers targeted factors based on ASM.

Table 7. Results targeted factors based on ASM.

(B) Results. Again using Equation (1) in “Response” Targeted factors

Table 8. Entropy weight of enablers.

Table 9. Entropy weight of results.

Table 10. Enablers level using EWM.

Figure 7. Enablers level using EWM analog to IABGMM.

These suggest that, in order to achieve sustainable

Table 13. Top impact influence factors of Results based on EWM.

that their leader has a great willingness, vision,

Appendix A: Developing Country Market Orientation (DECMOR) Scale

Appendix B: The questionnaire development used in this research

Table B1. The questionnaire for growth management model.

Appendix C: Integrated questionnaire

Table C1. Integrated questionnaire.

It is the requirement of the marketing people of our company to share

Appendix D: Descriptive statistics

Table D1. Descriptive statistics.

Table D1. Continued.

Appendix E: The result of reliability analysis.

Table E1. The result of reliability analysis.

Table E1. Continued.

Table E1. Continued.

Table E1. Continued.

Table E1. Continued.

Table E1. Continued.

where rmax and rmin represent the maximum and minimum z 2 S2

(F7) sample size response rate occurrence rate

View publication stats

You might also like