Search results

Based on two quality management self‐assessment survey projects conducted in Europe and Australia, the authors compare practices in these parts of the world. The main questions addressed are: why do organisations use self‐assessment?, how do they implement self‐assessment?, and what are the benefits which they obtain from it? Findings suggest companies in both regions differ slightly in how they implement self‐assessment. Both internal and external factors driving self‐assessment are identified, although in the case of Australia there are two different internal factors. One is related to rejuvenating flagging interest in TQM. Several approaches to self‐assessment are also identified including: assessor driven, management driven, employee driven and tools and techniques driven. Some variations between the two samples were identified here. Analysis of the links between success with self‐assessment and methods used suggested that a management driven approach which may be combined with a quality maturity matrix tended to work best.

Based on a recent European Committee‐sponsored survey on quality management self‐assessment. Outlines research methodology and main findings. Details reasons for self‐assessment in companies and methods of self‐assessment, and discusses whether or not self‐assessment is worthwhile. Provides key learning points based on respondents’ experiences. Concludes that self‐assessment helps management understand what TQM is about and how important it is for the organization.

There is currently little published information about the use of total quality (TQ)‐based self‐assessment in the UK despite the increasing interest in the subject. Discusses the findings of a survey into the practice and benefits of self‐assessment to recognized models such as the European model for Total Quality Management and the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award model. Survey findings indicate that companies are increasingly using self‐assessment and that benefits from this approach are quickly realized.

In Germany Quality Management awards and thus self‐assessment are well known and popular – at least amongst quality management professionals. About 2000 companies have carried out self‐assessment using the EFQM Model as a framework (DGQ, 2005). This is at least approximately the number of participants in German regional and national quality awards. Since 1992, with the first call for the national Ludwig‐Erhard‐Preis, about 1953 companies have taken part in a quality award, see figure (1). The number of participants varies from state to state. This difference may be caused by the application format: There are many applicants where the application is done by the means of a questionnaire, as it is the case of Bavaria (910), Thuringia (402), Northrhein‐Westphalia (267) and Saxony‐Anhalt (60). Fewer applications were received in Berlin‐Brandenburg (65), Saxony (84), Schleswig‐Holstein (40), and with the national quality award (125), where a demanding application brochure is needed. Number of participants and type of application format in quality awards of different federal states of Germany. Information on number of participants was collected from quality award offices.

The New Zealand Benchmarking Club (NZBC), a multi‐organisational network, aimed to improve the performance of member organisations through best practice benchmarking. The purpose of this paper is to critique the NZBC self‐assessment process, report the scores for self‐assessments from 2000‐2002, and present an analysis of the 2001 self‐assessment data.

A questionnaire measured the improvement rate of NZBC organisations through annual self‐assessments against the Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence (CPE). Training was provided for facilitators in each organisation, who supported teams of four to six persons who completed the self‐assessment. Correlation coefficients of pairs of CPE categories and items were used to identify strong relationships between them.

Self‐assessment data from 2001 identified 57 strong relationships between different CPE categories and items. The strongest correlation identified (0.94) among CPE items was found between “customer focused results” and “financial and market results”. Acting on the self‐assessment results, management initiatives were implemented and scores in 2002 showed significant improvements over 2001.

Future research involves case studies and longitudinal studies of annual data to identify possible causes of the strong relationships found.

Results indicate the benefit organisations obtain from sharing best practices, resources, and self‐assessment experiences. The practices required for effective administration of self‐assessment in a network are given.

An example of self‐assessment in a multi‐organisational network, and how it was managed. Of interest to organisations that are in an existing network, or wish to create a similar network. No studies of self‐assessment in a network were found in the literature.

The purpose of this paper is to study the EFQM model self‐assessment in a Spanish university.

A case study methodology is used based on five services provided by a public university in Spain.

The findings show the steps that one university can follow in order to apply this exercise in a successful manner, its benefits, its obstacles and its key factors such as management and employee commitment, and the support to self‐assessment teams (e.g. training, review).

The paper provides lessons for managers from other universities who wish to develop a self‐assessment exercise.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss a self‐assessment scheme and processes that are developed for and applied to a R&D organization based on ISO 9004:2000. The presented self‐assessment has been performed during internal audits based on quality management system in Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) in Korea.

In order to enhance the reliability of the self‐assessment, the preliminary works such as training, workshop, case study and pre‐assessment rating are performed in advance before self‐assessment. Furthermore, this paper evaluates the reliability of self‐assessment results using Cohen's Kappa coefficient and the observed agreement index.

The results of this paper present that an organization's performance maturity level evolves sustainably through self‐assessment scheme and processes.

These results and lessons learned will be very useful to the organization that intends to enhance the performance of its R&D projects and processes and improve its processes continuously.

ISO 9004:2000 presents the guidelines of self‐assessment for the organization that intend to continually improve its performance considering the effectiveness and efficiency of a quality management system. According to ISO 9004, the range and depth of self‐assessment should be planned in relation to the organization's objectives and priorities. This paper discusses a self‐assessment scheme and processes that are developed for and applied to a R&D organization based on ISO 9004:2000.

Continuous improvement is a primary principle in total quality management. It is applied to all aspects of the organisation including products, processes, and even the management of the firm. In this context, quality management self‐assessment is a useful tool for fostering the continuous improvement of the whole company, comparing its activities and results with an excellence model. However, little is known about the variables and relationships underlying self‐assessment application. This paper tries to shed light on this topic.

The methodology is an exploratory case study. Three Spanish organisations with a broad experience in self‐assessment application are analysed.

A model of self‐assessment application – containing variables and relationships among variables is proposed. Thus, the establishment of a holistic or systemic self‐assessment model where all the variables linked to self‐assessment employment are analytically and explicitly interrelated becomes the fundamental contribution of the research presented here.

This framework may constitute a starting point for subsequent academic research in this area.

The framework may also constitute a practical guide for managers interested in the use of self‐assessment technique.

Provides information on self‐assessment in a continuous improvement context.

In recent years, two performance evaluation methodologies have received significant attention in managerial circles: quality audit and self‐assessment. While the quality audit examines the compliance of a quality system with ISO 9000 standards and its suitability to achieve stated objectives, the self‐assessment measures organizational performance against a selected business excellence model. In a continuous improvement effort, an organization can lay out the groundwork by establishing an ISO 9000 quality system, and subsequently use an excellence model to enhance performance, thereby effectively applying both evaluation methodologies. This paper compares the principles and practices of quality audits and self‐assessments, for the purpose of examining their compatibility and providing the basis for integration. Numerous differences in the concepts, purpose, scope and methodology are illustrated, and self‐assessments are found to be more advantageous in enabling continuous improvement. However, it is concluded that audits and self‐assessments are compatible, and further research into the issues of enhancing both methodologies is suggested.

This study investigated the use of self‐assessments in predicting assessment centre outcome, looking at the difference between raw self‐assessments and self‐assessment accuracy scores. The subjects for the study were 60 engineers who attended a one‐day assessment centre in 1991‐1992 selecting trainers for an automotive manufacturer’s training programme. The measures used in the study were the assessor and candidate global exercise ratings, and it was found that self‐assessment accuracy was a better predictor of assessment centre outcome than the raw self‐assessment scores. It is suggested that if self‐assessments are to be used in assessment centres then they need to be thought of in conjunction with assessor ratings, and that self‐assessments may have a use in delivering feedback to candidates.