Search results

The implementation of quality in health services should go beyond legal, regulatory and purely technical obligations in relation to carrying out health insurance practices. The purpose of this paper is to present a management model that intends to equip private health care companies in favor of quality development from the use of a model for forming a competitive strategy in the supplementary health sector companies.

In this approach the proposed model is grounded on guiding procedures for the process of strategy formulation, with a systemic structure that separates in analysis involving the internal and external environment to the organization to verify the strategy that best applies. It is based on prescriptive strategy – the five competitive forces and, with adaptive strategy, the competition arenas.

Through the proposed model the analytical mechanisms of political-legal environments surrounding companies in the sector can be described, identify organizations and their process performance, study them, and perform comparative analysis of information between them. All of this development seeks to ensure the formation of policies, to guide strategic action in health insurance.

This work strongly contributes to the foundation and strengthening of strategic knowledge and has quality aimed at the study of the private health care market, due to the high degree of regulatory requirements by the state to the businesses, the environment turns into a chain of complex information that migrates from the condition of just meeting legal requirements, to also satisfying the demands of a hypercompetitive market.

Total quality management (TQM) and technology are fast becoming essential features of business strategy for the success of many leading organizations in the world. More and more companies are using technology and adapting TQM for sustaining competitiveness in the marketplace. TQM works well for internal integration of logistics companies and they can benefit from the use of technology, including information technology (IT), to gain further internal and external integration. Seeks to examine this issue.

This research examines the relationship between quality management practices, technology and performances of the logistics companies. The study seeks to gain insights from organizational variables and their effect on operational, quality, technology and overall business performance.

TQM and technology play important and complementing roles in improving the performance. The analysis shows that both high technology firms and high technology TQM firms perform significantly better than their low technology peers.

The use of IT is crucial in improving operational, quality and overall business performance. The information and management technologies strongly correlate to TQM and serve as an enabler to quality performance.

The use of technology assists logistics operations in many ways, such as cutting down information and processing lead‐time, improve efficiency and minimize errors to the minimum. Perhaps, the logistics companies should look at the long‐term benefits of technology and gradually engage its use to streamline their operations.

The results in this research provide recognition for the importance of technology in quality management in the logistics industry.

This paper aims to investigate the differences in mean cost, revenue and profit efficiency scores of conventional versus Islamic banks. It also aims to examine the effect of size and age on cost, revenue and profit efficiency of the sampled banks.

This study evaluates a cross‐country level data compiled from the financial statements of 40 banks in 11 Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) countries over the period 1990‐2005. The data were collected for each year available from the BankScope database. The DEA nonparametric efficiency approach originally developed by Farrell was applied to analyse the data.

The findings suggest no significant differences between the overall efficiency of conventional and Islamic banks. However, it was noted that, on average, banks are more efficient in using their resources compared to their ability to generate revenues and profits. The average bank lost an opportunity to receive 27.9 percent more revenue, given the same amount of resources. Similarly, the average bank lost the opportunity to make 20.9 percent more profits utilising the same level of inputs. Clearly there is substantial room for improvement in cost minimisation and revenue and profit maximisation in both banking systems. The size and age factor did not significantly influence the efficiency scores in both banking streams.

This research is substantially different from the prior work in this area in three main ways. First, it investigates cost, revenue, and profit efficiency, whereas previous studies focus on cost, profit, or cost and profit efficiency. Also, no previous studies have compared conventional and Islamic banks. Second, this study distinguishes differences among big versus small, and old versus new banks, which allows more detailed insights on the efficiency issue. Third, the age issue in Islamic banks has been addressed, so far undocumented.

Part V analyzes the details of how to assess materiality. It first tackles qualitative versus quantitative criteria and the role of professional judgment. It then analyzes the selection of quantitative threshold, to expand to the choice of benchmarks. It contrasts the whole financial statements with subaggregates, line items, and components.

Specific sections contrast IASB, FASB, SEC, and other guidance on materiality applied to comparative information, interim reporting, and segment reporting.

The section on estimates mingles complex guidance coming from accounting, auditing, and internal control over financial reporting to explain how the management can improve its assessment of materiality concerning estimates.

After explaining the techniques to move from individual to cumulative misstatements, the part tackles verification ex post, and finally summarizes the intricacies of whether immaterial misstatements are permissible and their consequences.

This paper aims to bring greater clarity to the debate on the merits (or demerits) of relative performance evaluation through a broad assessment of current UK National Health Service (NHS) benchmarking. It seeks to examine whether benchmarking is being used dynamically to disseminate best practice in healthcare, or whether it is primarily a government tool to enforce static competitive performance standards.

Draws on recent literature and government pronouncements. It charts the development of the health care policy discourse that articulated a move from the internal market of the early 1990s to the metrics approach of New Labour.

Benchmarking is one of the private sector‐grown “managerialist” tools whose application and significance is rapidly increasing in the UK public sector. Despite its prevalence, the nature (competitive or comparative), the process (based on indicators or ideas) and the outcomes (standards or “best practice”) of benchmarking in public services remain unclear. The findings reveal that benchmarking requirements, imposed by government policy, are articulated in terms of comparative ideas – benchmarking with the stated objective of “sharing best practice”, but are operationalised and disseminated in the form of indicator league tables with standardised benchmarks for performance. Hence, there is an apparent “articulated policy – implemented practice gap”. Concludes that, whilst benchmarking is a highly desirable policy instrument, its practical relevance to health care improvement is still in doubt.

The findings are relevant to both NHS policy‐makers and to NHS actors who must engage with the processes and outcomes of benchmarking practices.

Provides an introduction to benchmarking in UK higher education. The introduction of subject benchmarking by the Quality Assurance Agency means that most academics are now aware of the term but they associate it with the process of regulating academic standards through a process of referencing to a subject benchmark statement (regulatory benchmarking). But there are other meanings and applications of benchmarking which focus on the process as an aid to collaborative learning and self‐improvement (collaborative benchmarking). Provides an overview of the concept and methodology and provides examples of the ways in which benchmarking is being used in the UK.

Benchmarking is a tool for analysing a property or portfolio performance against its peers. This paper outlines some of the central components of benchmarking and demonstrates how benchmarking can bring perspective to operating expenses and ultimately positively affect the valuation of a property. Careful benchmarking of operating expenses can reveal much about the value of investment properties and help to identify opportunities to create value or enhance the value of an asset. Examples illustrate how the value of a given asset can vary dramatically, with even small percentage changes in operating expenses. Such information, in turn, provides the basis for facility and asset management decisions, ranging from estimating budgets to planning capital expenditures for upgrades or improvements. Benchmarking can also enable detailed comparative analysis, which in turn, can assist in identifying areas for improving operations and management by trimming costs or adjusting service levels.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.