Search results

A critical step in all benchmarking methodologies is “to determine what to benchmark.” Although benchmarking methodologies have been noted in the literature, the need has arisen for the development of structured approaches to determine priority improvement needs. The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for determining improvement needs in higher education benchmarking.

The paper makes use of the analytic hierarchy process to develop a framework. The application of the framework is demonstrated through a case study.

The framework discussed in this paper is consensus-based, allows different viewpoints to be integrated, and promotes input to and ownership of the decision making process and its outcomes. The feedback of the participants confirmed the usefulness of the approach.

The previous research has established that determining improvement needs in benchmarking was mostly unsystematic and ad hoc based. And failures in precisely determining improvement needs can result in a lack of alignment between processes to be benchmarked and strategic priorities of higher education institutions (HEIs). The developed framework can help determine priority improvement needs aligned with the strategic priorities of the HEI.

Since continual improvement is an essential element of all quality initiatives, the framework provides a starting point for benchmarking as well as other improvement initiatives such as total quality management.

Although there are many quality measurement theories and models, all are imperfect; that is, each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Particularly, some models cannot indicate accurate improvement priorities. The purpose of this study is to develop an integrated performance model that improves service quality and acquires accurate improvement priorities that promote customer satisfaction and eliminate resource wastage.

This study applied a performance matrix and quality loss function (QLF) theory to determine priority items needing improvement. A questionnaire was designed to determine the priority of improvement objectives derived from certain questionnaire items that do not fall into the appropriate performance zone (APZ) of the performance matrix. Finally, the QLF was adopted to rank the improvement objectives in terms of priority. A large QLF area indicates customer satisfaction needs improvement.

This study utilized an employee satisfaction survey to demonstrate this matrix, and found that it reflects the improvement priorities of different items and avoids the shortcomings of other models. In this case study, 11 items must be improved; furthermore, five items with the greatest QLF areas became the priority items for improvement.

This performance matrix also considers the items of surplus resource investment, which can be included in improvements, thereby avoiding resource wastage.

A crucial stage in the formulation of operations strategy is the derivation of a ranked (or rated) list of competitive factors such as quality, flexibility, cost. This list is used either to infer an appropriate set of strategic operations decisions or alternatively it is used in conjunction with an independently derived list of the organization′s performance to prioritize each of the competitive factors. Martilla and James take the latter approach to derive an importance‐performance matrix. Examines how the matrix can be modified to reflect managers′ perceived relationships between “importance”, “performance” and “priority for improvement”. Reports two investigations, one dealing with operations improvement at the level of the whole operations function, the other at the level of the department or micro‐operation. Proposes a different zoning of the importance‐performance matrix from that used by Martilla and James.

The purpose of this paper is to summarize a series of studies conducted by the Center for Organizational Development and Leadership at Rutgers University from 2003‐2005. Motivating these studies is the recognition that organizational self‐assessment programs such as the Malcolm Baldrige program have achieved prominence and popularity. The paper seeks to focus on the value of the Baldrige program, and, more specifically, the impact of the Excellence in Higher Education (EHE) approach, an adaptation of the Malcolm Baldrige framework tailored specifically for colleges and universities.

This paper reports on a two‐phase investigation of six independent university departments that participated in separate Baldrige/EHE assessment workshops. Through a web‐based survey and in‐person interviews we were interested to discover participants' perceptions of the assessment process, the extent of knowledge acquisition, and extent of organizational change.

Findings suggest that self‐assessment does result in the acquisition of a knowledge and theory base; and leads to the identification of strengths and improvement needs. Results also indicate that in a majority of the departments, the assessment program initiated a genuine commitment to organizational change, one that led to a number of tangible improvements.

Enhancing our understanding of the relationship between knowledge acquisition and change is one of the most fundamental and enduring pursuits of social science – one that is absolutely central to organizational development. This study provides an empirical investigation of how these dynamics operate during organizational self‐assessment, an increasingly popular leadership tool for advancing institutions of all kinds.

Proposes that it is possible to identify three phases in the development of total quality approaches. The first generation approach is focused on the continuous improvement activities. In the second generation approach, the management recognize that what can make a company truly competitive is the substantial, continuous improvement of its business process performance. The third generation approach is the “mature” phase of total quality. Total quality in these environments is considered to be a new, more effective way of doing business, and its mechanisms are used to obtain a more entrepreneurial style of management. This approach is based on the recognition that the competitive advantage of a business depends very much on its capacity to improve drastically its operating performance (“breakthroughs”), and that the improvement trend constitutes the discriminating factor between failure and success. This model has been adopted, so far, by a dozen multinational firms. The success which they have enjoyed is the main reason for explaining this method.

The application of knowledge management (KM) in government agencies is one strategy to deal with government problems effectively and efficiently. This study aims to identify KM readiness critical success factors (CSFs), measure the level of readiness for KM implementation, identify improvement initiatives and develop KM readiness models for government agencies. This model plays a role in the implementation of KM successful.

The level of readiness is obtained by calculating the factor weights of the opinions of experts using the entropy method. The readiness value is calculated from the results of the questionnaire with average descriptive statistics. The method for analysis of improvement initiatives adopts the Asian Productivity Organization framework. The model was developed based on a systems approach and expert validation.

Reliability testing with a Cronbach’s alpha value for entropy is 0.861 and the questionnaire is 0.920. The result of measuring KM readiness in government agencies is 75.29% which is at level 3 (ready/needs improvement). The improvement in the level of readiness is divided into two parts: increasing the value of factors that are still less than ready (75%) and increasing the value of all factors to level 4 (84%). The model consists of three main sections: input (KMCSFs), process (KM readiness) and output (KM implementation).

The first suggestion is that the sample of employees used in this study is still in limited quantities, that is, 50% of the total population. The second limitation is determining KMCSFs. According to experts, combining this study with factor search and correlation computations would make it more complete. The expert’s advice aims to obtain factors that can be truly tested both subjectively and objectively. Finally, regarding literature selection for future research, it is recommended to use a systematic literature review such as the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses and Kitchenham procedures.

The management must also prioritize KMCSF according to its level and make KMCSF a key performance indicator. For example, at the priority level, active leadership in KM is the leading performance indicator of a leader. Then at the second priority level, management can make a culture of sharing an indicator of employee performance through a gamification program. The last point that management must pay attention to in implementing all of these recommendations is to collaborate with relevant stakeholders, for example, those authorized to draft regulations and develop human resources.

This study proposes a novel comprehensive framework to measure and improve KM implementation readiness in government agencies. This study also proposes a KMCSF and novel KM readiness model with its improvement initiatives through this framework.

This paper presents a methodology to nominate and select improvement projects that are perceived as adding value to customers (both internal and external). The structure of the methodology can be explained in three “stages”. First, the methodology suggests a new way of categorizing improvement opportunities, i.e. reactive‐proactive, to “upgrade” the little Q ‐ big Q categorisation. Then, it develops a roadmap that links performance indicators and improvement projects for both reactive and proactive improvements. Finally, it suggests an algorithm to select the improvement project, where the assessment of to what extent the nominated improvement projects add value to customers relies on the comparison between Overall Perceived Benefits (OPB) and Overall Perceived Efforts (OPE). The improvement project perceived as having the largest impact on adding value to customers receives the highest priority.

Housing conditions affect occupants continuously, and health interventions have shown the positive association between housing investment and improvement in occupant health. Yet only rarely do we hear of the public's own perception of housing improvement internationally. The purpose of this paper is to explore public views on the importance of housing issues, from a worldwide perspective, in analysis of the global survey.

Data were analyzed from the World Values Survey, 2005-2007, the most recent public data sets including demographics, self-rated health status, and beliefs on different social and political issues. Participants were those aged 15 and above. Analyses included χ2 and logistic regression modeling.

Less wealthy countries had the most people who considered housing improvement as top priority. Regions with more than 20,000 residents and lower scale of income levels were linked with higher proportions of people considering housing improvement as top priority. Additionally, people who reported very poor self-rated health tended to view housing improvement as top priority, compared to those who reported very good self-rated health.

Public consensus is that there is an urgent need for housing improvement globally. Effective housing strategies and interventions optimizing population health, well-being, and quality of life are suggested.

To the author's knowledge, this is the first study investigating public opinion on the importance of housing issues using a global, cross-sectional, population-based study for international comparison. Understanding the need on housing improvement from the general public would indicate possible policy reform in the coming decades.

The potential for including patients in implementation processes has received limited attention in the literature. The purpose of this paper is to explore the different roles adopted by 63 patients that emerged during and after four participatory quality improvement interventions, and the nature of their impact upon implementation processes and outcomes.

A cross-case ethnographic comparison of Experience-based Co-design in two clinical pathways in two UK NHS Trusts.

Two key themes emerge from the data. First, the authors found a range of different roles adopted by patients within and across the four projects; some were happy to share their experiences, others also helped to identify improvement priorities alongside staff whilst others were also involved in developing potential solutions with the staff who had cared for them. A few participants also helped implement those solutions and became “experts by experience” through engaging in the whole co-design process. Second, in terms of the impact of patient engagement with the co-design process whilst the changes championed by patients and carers were often small scale, as co-designers patients provided innovative ideas and solutions. Through their involvement and contributions they also acted as catalysts for broader change in the attitudes of staff by providing a motivation for wider organisational and attitudinal changes.

The research was conducted in two clinical pathways in two NHS trusts. However, the findings complement and add to the growing body of knowledge on experience based co-design.

Patient engagement is likely to require support and facilitation to ensure that patients can play a meaningful role as partners and co-designers in service improvement and implementation. Different roles suited particular individuals, with participants stepping in and out of the co-design process at various stages as suited their needs, capacities and (albeit sometimes perceptions re) skills. In this context, facilitation needs to be sensitive to individual needs and flexible to support involvement.

Patients and carers can play active roles in service improvement, particularly where the approach facilitate active engagement as co-designers.

Analysis of the role patients and carers in implementation and improvement.

Several authors have proposed different approaches to help practitioners deal with the complexity of prioritising improvement projects and initiatives. However, these approaches have been developed as “generic” methods which do not consider the specific needs, objectives and capabilities of different industries and organisations. The purpose of this paper is to present an integrated methodology that prioritises improvement projects or initiatives based on two key performance objectives, cost and quality, specifically important for low volume‐high integrity product manufacturers.

The paper reviews some of the most commonly used prioritisation methods and the theory and logic behind the proposed prioritisation methodology. Then, the prioritisation methodology is empirically tested, through a case study, in a world class manufacturing organisation.

The results obtained from the case study indicate that the integrated methodology proposed in this paper is an effective alternative for low volume‐high integrity products manufacturers to identify, select and justify improvement priorities.

Selection and prioritisation of projects and initiatives are key elements for the successful implementation of improvements. The integrated methodology presented in this paper intends to aid organisations in dealing with the complexity that is normally handled over the selection and prioritisation of feasible improvement projects.

This paper presents a novel methodology that integrates two commonly used approaches in industry, Process Activity Mapping (PAM) and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA), to prioritise improvements. This methodology can help, in particular, organisations embarked in the manufacture of low volume‐high integrity products to take better decisions and align the focus of improvement efforts with their overall performance and strategic objectives.