Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0925-5273/$ - see
doi:10.1016/j.ijp
E-mail addre
Int. J. Production Economics 114 (2008) 105–118
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe
Self-assessment exercises: A comparison between a private sectororganisation and higher education institutions
Juan Jose Tarı
Department of Business Management, University of Alicante, PO Box 99, E-03080 Alicante, Spain
Received 20 December 2006; accepted 2 January 2008
Available online 20 January 2008
Abstract
The debate as to whether public organisations should emulate private managerial practices in the light of contextual
differences is a long-running one. The aim of this paper is to compare the way self-assessment processes have been applied
in five public administrative services at a public university and in a private organisation. It examines self-assessment
exercises, and illustrates differences and similarities between the cases analysed. Based on the case study methodology, the
paper suggests that the same management model (EFQM model) and a similar process may be applicable to the private
organisation and the public services, although differences exist between them. The results also show that the benefits,
difficulties and success factors are similar in the cases compared but their emphasis differs. This paper expands the
theoretical literature about self-assessment in higher education institutions and offers lessons for the public and the private
organisations to learn from one another.
r 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Self-assessment; Quality improvement; Public services; Higher education; Case studies
1. Introduction
Self-assessment is a methodology for continuousimprovement that an organisation can develop bothin a total quality management (TQM) context or asan independent strategy. Organisations from theprivate sector (Van der Wiele and Brown, 1999;Ojanen et al., 2002; Samuelsson and Nilsson, 2002;Bayazit and Karpak, 2007) and the public sector(Jones, 1998; Fraser, 2005; Kanji and Sa, 2007) haveadopted this methodology.
Regarding higher education institutions (HEIs),quality started to gain importance in the late 1980sand early 1990s. HEIs began to worry about quality
front matter r 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved
e.2008.01.005
and develop TQM programmes (Rosa et al., 2001),or formal assessment processes, on a periodicalbasis (Hides et al., 2004). Models based on qualityawards such as the European Foundation forQuality Management (EFQM) model or modelscreated for self-assessment in academia, havebecome an important tool to adopt self-assessmentmethodology for quality improvement in HEIs(Rosa et al., 2001; Hides et al., 2004).
The academic literature on self-assessment hasconcentrated on the study of quality awards modelsand their relationship with performance (Wisnerand Eakins, 1994; Rahman, 2001), the self-assess-ment practice, process, difficulties and benefits (Vander Wiele et al., 1996a, b; Ritchie and Dale, 2000;Samuelsson and Nilsson, 2002; Ahmed et al., 2003),
.
ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.J. Tarı / Int. J. Production Economics 114 (2008) 105–118106
and the development of a self-assessment tool basedon the criteria of quality awards (Lee and Quazi,2001).
Regarding self-assessment practice, process, diffi-culties and benefits, the literature has dealt withthese issues mainly in private organisations (Van derWiele et al., 1996a, b; Van der Wiele and Brown,1999; Ritchie and Dale, 2000; Samuelsson andNilsson, 2002). There are few studies analysingthese issues in the public sector (Wilkes and Dale,1998; Fraser, 2005) and in HEIs, which is why thecomparisons have not been sufficiently explored.
Additionally, the literature has pointed out thatthere are differences in the level of use of someoperations management practices between theprivate and public sector (Ring and Perry, 1985;Andreassen, 1994). These differences can appearwhen adopting TQM and also self-assessment. Forexample, some aspects of TQM, such as customerfocus, are treated with less importance in the publicsector (Dewhurst et al., 1999). Similarly, theemphasis on the criteria of the EFQM model varies:for instance, there is a tendency towards a higherfocus on the enabler block from the EFQM modelamong private organisations (Eskildsen et al., 2004).Although there are some differences, the publicsector can adopt private management practices, butthey need intelligent adaptation and careful im-plementation (Voss et al., 2005). Similarly, HEIsmay learn from private organisations regarding theemphasis on quality, low cost and high efficiency(Yang et al., 2007). These ideas show that HEIs canadapt self-assessment practices to their own envir-onment. However, there is an important gap inresearch on the relationship between business andpublic education concerning how business practicesaffect public education (Ogawa and Kim, 2005).
Therefore, it appears necessary to find outwhether private practices may be transferred toHEIs. In this context, some studies have analysedthe similarities and differences between the twosectors as regards other practices (MacIntosh, 2003;Voss et al., 2005). Consequently, there is a need forresearch on self-assessment comparing the privatesector and HEIs, in order to check whether practicesmay be transferred from one sector to the other, andif one may learn anything from the other.
The aim of this paper is to compare the way self-assessment processes have been applied by fivepublic administrative services at a public universityand a private small- and medium-sized enterprise(SME), by analysing the stages in the process, the
benefits, difficulties and success factors, using casestudy methodology.
The paper begins with a literature review(Section 2) about self-assessment in the privatesector and HEIs, and Section 3 covers the metho-dology. Section 4 describes the self-assessmentstages, difficulties, benefits and success factors, andcompares this exercise in the cases analysed. Finally,conclusions are presented in Section 5.
2. Literature review
Several empirical studies have been performed inorder to analyse the self-assessment methodology,mainly in private organisations. They have analysedthe use of self-assessment against quality awardmodels, the stages, the approach, the benefitsand the difficulties, and impacts on performance(Van der Wiele et al., 1996a, b; Van der Wiele andBrown, 1999; Ritchie and Dale, 2000; Samuelssonand Nilsson, 2002).
Similarly, self-assessment has also been analysedin HEIs. Davies et al. (2001) studied the EFQMmodel as a framework, which also addresses thechallenges faced by universities. Based on case studymethodology, the authors showed that the aim ofthe process was to identify strengths and areas forimprovement as a method for improvement. Osseo-Asare and Longbottom (2002) described the statusof TQM in HEIs using EFQM model self-assess-ment methodology based on semi-structured inter-views. Similarly, Hides et al. (2004) examined issuesin the implementation of self-assessment based oncase study methodology. Finally, Clavo-Mora et al.(2006) found that the leadership and commitment ofthe senior managers of the centres are necessary inorder to adopt the EFQM model. They create anddisseminate the value of this management philoso-phy, set goals and objectives and create an appro-priate organisation and the system to achieve them.
Private firms and universities can use modelsbased on quality awards or academic models as aself-assessment tool. Regarding the former, mentionmust be made of the standardised quality models,such as the Malcolm Baldrige National QualityAward model in the USA (Kumar, 2007; see http://www.quality.nist.gov/Business_Criteria.htm), theEFQM model in Europe (Conti, 2007; EFQM,2003) and the Deming Prize model in Japan(Kumar, 2007; see http://www.juse.or.jp/e/deming/index.html). For instance, the EFQM methodologyas a basis for self-assessment is rapidly emerging in
ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.J. Tarı / Int. J. Production Economics 114 (2008) 105–118 107
the UK education sector (Osseo-Asare and Long-bottom, 2002). In relation to academic models,several academic studies have developed measure-ment instruments for quality management applic-able to manufacturing organisations (Flynn et al.,1994; Ahire et al., 1996) or to both manufacturingand service organisations (Saraph et al., 1989; Blackand Porter, 1995; Grandzol and Gershon, 1998;Quazi and Padibjo, 1998; Rao et al., 1999; Conca etal., 2004). Both the standardised quality models andacademic models can be used to identify improve-ment actions.
Also, universities can adapt models created forself-assessment in academia, such as the EuropeanQuality Improvement System (EQUIS) accredita-tion (see http://www.efmd.org/equis) and the Mal-colm Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellencefor Education (see http://www.quality.nist.gov/Education_Criteria.htm). It is worth analysingthose studies which have developed empiricallyvalidated instruments for quality measurement inHEIs (Owlia and Aspinwall, 1998), or for themeasurement of administrative quality in universi-ties (Waugh, 2002). In Spain, the National Agencyfor Quality Assessment and Accreditation (AN-ECA) has been promoting the use of self-assessmentmethods for the implementation of quality systemsin administrative services using a procedure similarto that used by the EFQM model (see http://www.aneca.es/modal_eval/evalserv_present.html).
Organisations may choose among various ap-proaches to self-assessment: questionnaire, work-shop, pro-forma and award simulation (EFQM,2003). The most common ones tend to fall into threemain categories: award applications, questionnairesand workshops (Ritchie and Dale, 2000). Regard-less of the approach chosen, the generic stages forself-assessment are the following (EFQM, 2003):developing management commitment; communicat-ing self-assessment plans; planning self-assessment;establishing teams and training; conducting self-assessment; establishing action plans; implementingaction plans; and review.
Studies focusing mainly on private firms sug-gested that this process makes it possible to identifystrengths and areas for improvement in order todevelop an action plan, which could be linked tostrategic planning, measure performance, involvepeople in developing a process improvementapproach to quality, and raise the understandingand awareness of quality-related issues (Van derWiele et al., 1996a, b; Van der Wiele and Brown,
1999; Samuelsson and Nilsson, 2002; EFQM, 2003).Ritchie and Dale (2000) found the benefits asso-ciated with the self-assessment process after study-ing self-assessment practices in 10 organisations.They included as benefits, amongst others, identify-ing improvement actions, encouraging employeeinvolvement and ownership, raising understandingand awareness of quality-related issues, developinga common approach to improvement across thecompany, helping to refocus employees’ attentionon quality, providing a ‘‘healthcheck’’ of processesand operations, and encouraging improvements inperformance.
However, some organisations derive little benefitfrom self-assessment processes (Conti, 2001). Thismight be due to the difficulties that may arise.Ritchie and Dale (2000) pointed out, for instance,the lack of commitment and enthusiasm from themanagement and employees; the time-consumingnature of the process; not knowing where to start;and lack of resources. Other difficulties could be thelack of support (e.g. by the quality department) andthe difficulty in implementing the improvementactions.
In view of all this, the literature lists severalsuccess factors, which help to overcome thesedifficulties and leading to successful self-assessment.Such factors are management commitment (Van derWiele et al., 1996b; Van der Wiele and Brown, 1999;Ritchie and Dale, 2000; Samuelsson and Nilsson,2002; Ahmed et al., 2003); employee involve-ment (Ahmed et al., 2003); open communication(Ahmed et al., 2003); training (Van der Wieleet al., 1996b; Wilkes and Dale, 1998; Van der Wieleand Brown, 1999; Ritchie and Dale, 2000); andthe development and review of an improvementplan (Van der Wiele et al., 1996b; Van der Wieleand Brown, 1999; Ritchie and Dale, 2000; Samuels-son and Nilsson, 2002). Out of these researchers,only Wilkes and Dale (1998) analysed a public-owned corporation, although their conclusionswere of a general nature and no comparisons weremade.
Concerning these topics, studies on HEIs men-tioned that the purpose of this methodology is tofocus on the strengths and areas for improvement asa method for improvement, and also identifiedestablishing senior level commitment and focusingon customer delivery as major issues to addressin self-assessment (Davies et al., 2001; Osseo-Asare and Longbottom, 2002; Hides et al., 2004;Clavo-Mora et al., 2006).
ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.J. Tarı / Int. J. Production Economics 114 (2008) 105–118108
Based on this literature review, these issues areevaluated, compared and contrasted in order toanalyse similarities and differences between theprivate SME and the five public services. Thus,three research questions are formulated:
RQ1. Are the stages to success similar in the fivepublic services and the private SME?RQ2. Are the difficulties and benefits similar inthe five public services and the private SME?RQ3. Are the success factors similar in the fivepublic services and the private SME?
3. Methodology
The case study methodology was used to developthe comparison and was chosen because it makes itpossible to verify, illustrate and construct theory.Using this method, the theory construction processcan be based not only on the literature, but also onthe consideration of empirical observations orreality experiences (Carroll and Swatman, 2000).Case study research is defined as research thatprovides a detailed account and analysis of one ormore cases (Johnson and Christensen, 2004) and theevidence may be qualitative, quantitative or both(Yin, 1984; Stake, 2000). The interest here is toshow the results from six cases using quantitativeand qualitative evidence.
Data collection combined several methods: inter-views, surveys, direct observation, organisationdocuments and feedback from one private SMEand five administrative services in HEIs. This way,the findings were validated by employing thetriangulation technique, which reinforces the beliefthat the result is a valid one, and not a methodo-logical artifact (Bouchard, 1976; Yin, 1984). Thus,during the research process primary and secondarydata were obtained. The primary data were col-lected through observation (visits to organisationsand contact with employees); interviews (six inter-views with the person responsible for the Organisa-tion Department, one employee in this departmentand top management in private firm, and eightinterviews with the team members in each publicservice); and surveys with the person responsible forthe Organisation Department at the private firm,and with the self-assessment team members in eachuniversity service. This information was used toanalyse: the objective of the self-assessment and whyit was performed; how the process was started; its
stages, difficulties and benefits; and the successfactors.
One of the interviews was supported by aquestionnaire (measured in a five-point scale) ondifficulties and benefits of the process, based on thework by Ritchie and Dale (2000). More specifically,attention focused on the difficulties and benefitsidentified above. Difficulties measured were thefollowing: lack of staff commitment; time consumedin the process; implementation of improvementactions; support by the quality unit; lack ofcommitment by University of Alicante manage-ment; not knowing where to start; and lack ofresources. Similarly, benefits were measured usingthe following issues: encouraging the improvementof service quality; creating awareness and knowl-edge of quality-related issues; creating a commonimprovement approach for the whole service;enhancing employees’ awareness of the importanceof quality; identifying improvement actions; givingan overview of the service processes; and increasingemployees’ involvement.
The respondents were the person responsible forthe Organisation Department in the private SMEand the team members in each public service. Beforethis interview, the questionnaire was faxed to therespondents to allow the individuals sufficient timein which to prepare their responses.
Secondary data sources included access to inter-nal and external documents: self-assessment plan,written material produced during the process (e.g.forms containing strengths, weaknesses and im-provement actions, forms containing action plans),objectives, indicators, materials from the trainingsessions, and the website. This information was usedto supplement the primary data. Finally, in order totest the credibility of the interpretations of the data,the insights were checked on an ongoing basiswith the informants, asking for their feedback. Themember checks served to revise and hone thefindings (Danneels, 2002).
The selection criteria were as follows: organisa-tions that use quality as a strategic variable withinits management, and conduct all stages of self-assessment suggested by EFQM (2003) in asuccessful manner. The company named Pikolinosand five services at the University of Alicante wereselected because they fulfil these requirements.
Pikolinos is a private Spanish SME from thefootwear sector, engaged in the sale, purchase,commercialisation and distribution of all types offootwear, whose purpose is to satisfy and live up to
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Characteristics of the services at the University of Alicante
Service Employees Products Customers
Prevention 7 Health and prevention services University of Alicante usersa
Sports 16 employees, 23
interns and
subcontracted
coaches
Sports activities: internal competitions, competition
with other universities, with other teams in general,
physical activity with or without coaches
University of Alicante and non-
University of Alicante users
Computing 52 General and specific computing services, control and
maintenance of the University of Alicante computer
systems
University of Alicante users and external
providers
Centre for
doctorate and
postgraduate
studies
13 Academic and administrative tasks related to
doctorate, postgraduate and specialisation studies
University of Alicante users
Technical
research services
37 Research support for University of Alicante
departments and other firms
University of Alicante members
(teachers/researchers and students) and
public and private organisations
aStudents, teachers/researchers and clerical staff.
J.J. Tarı / Int. J. Production Economics 114 (2008) 105–118 109
consumers’ expectations regarding design, comfortand quality. This firm is committed to a qualityculture, as proven by the certificates and awardsobtained. It was the first footwear firm in Spain toobtain the ISO 9001 certificate, it has been awardedthe ISO 14001 certificate, and has also receivedvarious domestic and international awards relatedto Total Quality, export and training, amongstothers, from several public and private entities.They distribute and sell ladies’ and men’s footwearin 45 countries all over the world, and employ 100people, plus 1800 indirect employees in 19 distribu-tion centres. Pikolinos outsources production, set-ting quality criteria. More specifically, in 2004 itsturnover was 55 million euros, and 70% of itsproduction was for export. Table 1 reflects thecharacteristics of the five services from the Uni-versity of Alicante (Spain).
4. Results and discussion
This section is divided into two sub-sections. Thefirst one illustrates the self-assessment steps and thesecond compares the cases.
4.1. Case studies
The first case involves Pikolinos. Since itscreation, this firm has focused on human resources,innovation and the continuous improvement of itsprocesses. Its commitment to quality has led itto adopt new management practices in order to
improve competitiveness, such as the ISO 9001standard (in 1997), strategic planning (in 2001), theISO 14001 standard (in 2004), and the EFQMmodel (in 2003 and 2005). Pikolinos carried out aself-assessment process to improve the firm’s activ-ities in order to move towards excellence. Therefore,the motives for the self-assessment were internalones.
The process started with the support of an EFQMlicensee (external advisor) who taught a trainingcourse in late 2002 to the heads of department, andan initial self-assessment meeting in which themanagement team and the advisor planned theprocess and set up the self-assessment teams. Thisplan focused on defining the scope of activities andplanning their development. This exercise began inFebruary 2003 and finished in June 2003 (Fig. 1).Seventy-six improvement actions were identified(e.g. the whole management team must make apublic appearance, document the review process ofthe strategic plan and revise the existence ofprocedures for the management of improvementteams). In December 2005, 69 actions had beenfulfilled by 100%, and 7 remained to be completedbefore April 2008. Another self-assessment exercisewas carried out in 2005, identifying 78 improvementactions. In September 2006, the firm started todraught a report in order to apply for a qualityaward in the future.
The other cases involve five services at theUniversity of Alicante, which have taken part inthe II Quality Scheme for Spanish Universities
ARTICLE IN PRESS
20032002February
TrainingInitial meetingSelf-assessment:
WorkshopSupport meetingSendingdocuments
Submission tomanagement
Meeting in order to selectand approve action plansMeeting betweenmanagement anddepartmentImplementation
March April May June
Fig. 1. Self-assessment plan at Pikolinos.
J.J. Tarı / Int. J. Production Economics 114 (2008) 105–118110
(approved by central government), focusing on theassessment of university degrees and administrativeservices. In the case of services, the University ofAlicante quality manager developed a qualityscheme aimed at assessing the University ofAlicante services using the EFQM model. Underthis plan, 10 services were assessed in the academicyears 2003–2004 and 2004–2005 using a workshopapproach, and 12 services in the academic years2005–2006 and 2006–2007 using the questionnaireapproach. The case study deals with the first fiveservices assessed according to this scheme becausethe assessment took place simultaneously with thatat Pikolinos. The assessment was carried out inthree stages: internal assessment or self-assessment,from late 2002 to September 2003 (the teammembers prepared a report based on EFQMcriteria, in such a way that for each criterion, theteam members showed the situation of the serviceand listed a number of strengths, weaknesses andimprovement actions); external assessment (externalassessors prepared an external report) and improve-ment plan (with the self-assessment report and theexternal report, the team members prepared animprovement plan), between 2003 and 2004. Thepurpose of this process was to evaluate the situationin each service, in order to develop a plan forimprovement.
The process started with the approval of thescheme by top management. Then, the qualitymanager visited the services involved, in order tonotify them about their participation in the processand receive their agreement to join in. Later, the
academic responsible for the quality area, acting asfacilitator, gave a talk to all the employees in eachservice, in order to help the staff to becomeacquainted with the quality scheme. Following this,the teams were created, and the training and self-assessment began (Fig. 2). The process finished withthe external assessment and the improvement plan.As for the improvement actions in all five services,an average of 18 actions per service was identified.
Based on the self-assessment stages listed inSection 2, an analysis is made of how the self-assessment stages were implemented.
Step 1: Developing management commitment.The literature illustrates how management leader-
ship is an important factor for self-assessment in theprivate sector and in HEIs (Van der Wiele et al.,1996b; Davies et al., 2001; Hides et al., 2004). AtPikolinos, management commitment was obtainedthrough the approval and communication of theprocess, attendance at the training course, partici-pation in a team and support for the improvementactions. At the University of Alicante, this commit-ment was obtained through the approval of theplan, the written communication to each serviceconcerning their participation in the process and thesupport of the improvement actions. In both cases,the commitment has caused the people that conductthe exercise to be aware of its usefulness, and hasprovided support for the implementation of theimprovement actions.
Step 2: Communicating plans.The objectives of self-assessment have to be clear
to everyone involved (Samuelsson and Nilsson,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
20032002Stages OctInitial trainingWorkshops (1)Training on alliances andpolicy criteriaWorkshops: alliances andpolicyTraining on leadership andpeople criteriaWorkshops: leadership andpeopleTraining on processes criterion(I)Workshops: processesTraining on processes criterion(II)Workshops: processesTraining on customer, peopleand society results criteriaWorkshops: customer, peopleand society resultsTraining on key resultscriterionWorkshops: key resultsFinal trainingSelf-assessment report draftSelf-assessment reportcirculationSelf-assessment reportExternal assessmentImprovement plan
(1) In these workshops, the team members prepared an introduction to the self-assessment report describing the functions of the service, partners, structure, rules applicable, etc.
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul …SepAug
Fig. 2. Self-assessment process: training programme at the University of Alicante. ((1) In these workshops, the team members prepared an
introduction to the self-assessment report describing the functions of the service, partners, structure, rules applicable, etc.).
J.J. Tarı / Int. J. Production Economics 114 (2008) 105–118 111
2002). The literature suggests that a commonobjective of self-assessment is to identify areas forimprovement (Ritchie and Dale, 2000; Sharma andHoque, 2002; Saunders and Mann, 2005; Ford andEvans, 2006). This objective was the same for theSME and for the services at the HEI. At Pikolinos,communication with the management team, whowere directly involved in the process, took place atthe initial self-assessment meeting. Communicationwith the employees was carried out in two ways:during one of the two yearly meetings with all theemployees, and through the firm’s Intranet, with amessage sent to all the staff. At the University ofAlicante, communication took place in two ways.First a letter, written and signed by the topmanager, was sent to the person responsible foreach service; second, a talk was given to all theemployees in each service. The results of this stepwere that the employees understood what was to bedone, why, and what the purpose of the methodol-ogy was.
Step 3: Planning self-assessment.As has been said in Section 2, a firm may resort to
various approaches. Both organisations used theworkshop approach, which entails the creation ofteams that meet periodically in order to identifystrengths, areas for improvement and improvementactions. The result of this stage is the selection of themethod for conducting self-assessment, and there-fore, for the determination of the resources that maybe required.
Step 4: Establishing teams and training.In the private organisation, nine teams were
created, with a total of 16 managers from all thedepartments. Each group consisted of four mem-bers, of which at least two belonged to the areaunder assessment and at least one came fromoutside this area. The purpose was to ‘‘mix’’ peoplewho were familiar with the processes with others notbelonging to the area, who would play a criticalrole. All belonged to the management team. Onlytwo out of the 16 managers were acquainted withthe TQM philosophy.
At the University of Alicante, each service createda team, ranging from five to seven members. Noneof these were aware of the existence of TQM. Someof the teams also included people from outside theservice (e.g. some students, professors or even stafffrom outside the University of Alicante). In thiscase, the most common procedure is to initiallybring in external members; however, these usuallyended up quitting the workshops. The recommen-dation for managers is that they should participatein an indirect way, either by providing suggestions(for example, by means of surveys) or being invitedto some of the workshops.
Training is a major component of quality manage-ment (Ishikawa, 1985; Bowen and Lawler, 1992)and it should be a priority when implementingself-assessment (Van der Wiele and Brown,1999) because it is another way of motivatingpeople, and a prerequisite for gaining understanding
ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.J. Tarı / Int. J. Production Economics 114 (2008) 105–118112
(Samuelsson and Nilsson, 2002). At Pikolinos, thetraining seminar for the nine groups (2 days, 19 h)was conducted by the external advisor. At theUniversity of Alicante, the training for the fiveservices was given by means of a 20-h course on theEFQM model and methodology, consisting of eightsessions, taught by an advisor and trainer from theANECA. Each training session reviewed the taskscarried out in the workshops over the previousmonth and explained the criterion or criteriadescribed in Fig. 2.
This training was necessary to become acquaintedwith the EFQM model (criteria, methodology,marking and consensus). In this way, the founda-tions were created to carry out a self-assessmentexercise and to overcome one of the difficultieslisted in the literature: not knowing where to start.
Step 5: Conducting self-assessment.At Pikolinos, the procedure included workshops
and support meetings (see Fig. 1). The former wereaimed at looking for evidence on strengths, areas forimprovement and improvement actions. The pur-pose of the support meetings was to receive thefeedback from the external advisor, who wouldreview the work done by each group.
First, several workshops were held, with eachgroup meeting for 2 h, approximately twice a weekfor 2 or 3 weeks. At the end of these workshops eachteam had agreed on a list of strengths, areas forimprovement and improvement actions, for each ofthe criteria allocated to the group.
Second, a support meeting took place, each groupbeing helped by the advisor, who solved doubts andreviewed the work carried out. Each meeting lastedapproximately 1.5–2 h.
Third, several workshops were held, in which theteams met again in order to improve their work byincorporating the advisor’s suggestions. As a size-able part of the work had already been done, at thisstage the teams usually got together just once aweek, for 2 or 3 weeks. At the end of theseworkshops the team members had prepared a formreflecting a set of action plans, prioritised in order ofimportance (I) and easy implementation (E). Theimprovement actions were valued by means of thefollowing formula, as suggested by the advisor:7I+3E. These evaluation criteria were used toprioritise the improvement actions. This facilitateddecision-making, for these actions could have beendifficult to implement due to feasibility and cost,and it would not have been possible to execute themall at the same time.
Fourth, the groups met with the advisor again,for a second, 1-h support session, in order toexamine the teams’ progress. In these supportmeetings, the advisors’ experience allowed them torefute, and encourage group reflection on previousdecisions. This made it possible to complete theidentification of strengths, areas for improvementand improvement actions that were sent to theadvisor for final review. Finally, as the teamsconsisted of managers, the sources for the reportcame directly from the workshops.
At the University of Alicante, the procedureconsisted of workshops and training sessions (seeFig. 2), with support from the quality area. Thepurpose of the workshops was that the teammembers should identify strengths, areas for im-provement and improvement actions. The trainingwas meant to help the team members to draught theself-assessment report every month. Finally, thequality area was responsible for processing theresults of the employees’ and users’ surveys, andrevising the results of the work by each team.
At the end of these workshops the team hadagreed on a set of strengths, areas for improvementand improvement actions for each of the criteria;the result of these workshops was a self-assessmentreport. The information leading to this report wasobtained from the following sources: workshops,employees and users. As for the information fromemployees and users, the quality area handed inthree surveys to the services. There were two surveysfor the employees, one based on questions fromeach of the criteria in the model, and the otheraimed at assessing their satisfaction level; thecustomer surveys analysed their satisfaction level.These surveys helped the team members to gaugethe employees’ perceptions on each of the criteriaand the satisfaction of employees and customers.This information allowed the team members toconsider other points of view when they conductedthe self-assessment.
In this step, some organisations usually creategroups in such a way that each of these groupsassesses one or two of the nine criteria (Samuelssonand Nilsson, 2002). At Pikolinos, the criteria weredistributed among the teams, whereas at theUniversity of Alicante only some services dividedup the criteria.
Step 6: Establishing action plans.Some authors have pointed out that the establish-
ment of an improvement plan that must bepresented to higher management is a critical stage
ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.J. Tarı / Int. J. Production Economics 114 (2008) 105–118 113
of self-assessment (Van der Wiele et al., 1996b; Vander Wiele and Brown, 1999; Samuelsson andNilsson, 2002). In the absence of this, the improve-ment actions may not be implemented, and theprocess is most likely to fail. At Pikolinos, there wasa meeting during which each group leader gave a10–15min presentation of their results. This meetingallowed each group and the management to becomeacquainted with the results of the teams. At a latermeeting, the top manager, aided by the advisor,selected and approved the action plans, which wereconsidered a priority. This was important in orderto decide which plans were to be implemented andin which order. All the improvement actions wereconsidered, and the priority was established throughthe date of implementation.
At the University of Alicante, each team preparedits action plan according to the self-assessmentreport and the external report. As a consequence anaction plan was established reflecting the improve-ment actions, the tasks needed to implement them,the person responsible, the deadlines, resources,financing, follow-up indicators and the person incharge of follow-up. All the actions were approvedat the meeting with top management, as can be seenin step 7.
Step 7: Implementing action plans.At Pikolinos, once the improvement plans had
been approved, they became objectives integratedinto strategic planning. All the actions becamestrategic objectives. This supports the suggestion bysome authors that the plan for improvement shouldbe included in the strategic business plan (Ritchieand Dale, 2000). Later, a meeting between the topmanager and each head of department specifiedwhich actions would be performed in order toachieve these goals. The meeting ensures thecommitment of each head of department towardsthe implementation of each plan.
At the University of Alicante, the improvementplan was approved by the top manager in a meetingwith the people responsible for the service and thequality area. The result of this meeting was thatcommitment was ensured from both the personresponsible for the service and by the top manager,regarding which actions were to be implemented.
Step 8: Review.Firms should monitor improvement actions (Van
der Wiele and Brown, 1999; Ojanen et al., 2002). AtPikolinos, the person responsible for the improve-ment action met with the Organisation managerevery 2 months, in order to report on the degree of
implementation. Then, the person responsible forOrganisation reported to top management. Thismakes it possible to examine the degree of achieve-ment of each goal and to analyse the difficulties thatmay have arisen, why it was not being fulfilled, andalso to make decisions on potential actions. Theresult of this meeting was included in minutes,which listed any decisions made. At University ofAlicante, this review consisted of periodicallymonitoring the degree of implementation of theactions, which could be done by the quality areaand by the head of the service.
4.2. Analysis
The cases indicated that the private SME and thefive public services conducted self-assessment on thebasis of an existent and generic model (EFQM),considered external support to conduct it and usedthe workshop approach, with the aim of establish-ing an action plan to improve performance. Thissupports the idea that self-assessment can helpto structure continuous improvement planning(Ritchie and Dale, 2000; Siow et al., 2001). Theobjective of self-assessment may influence onthe amount of similarities in different stages of theanalysed self-assessment process. Although there canbe several purposes for self-assessment (e.g. diagnos-ing, improving, comparing), in these cases theobjectives were quite similar in both sectors. Ad-ditionally, the objective of self-assessment in thecases analysed may promote incremental improve-ments. As Benner and Tushman (2003) argued,process management, a TQM-related practice likeself-assessment, may promote exploitation or incre-mental improvements, but not exploration or radicalchanges in organisations. At Pikolinos, improve-ments are included as strategic objectives in itsstrategic plan, and this strategic plan may promoteradical changes. At the University of Alicante,improvements promote incremental changes.
A comparison of the two sectors is offeredconsidering three issues: the stages of self-assess-ment (Table 2); the difficulties and benefits; and thesuccess factors. As for the first issue, the steps ofself-assessment suggested by EFQM (2003) weredeveloped successfully in the six cases presentedhere, although with some differences, namely:
�
At the private firm the teams consisted ofmanagers and at the University of Alicante theywere made up of staff belonging to different
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
Comparison of the cases
Steps of self-assessment Similarities Differences
Pikolinos University of Alicante
Management commitment Yes Top manager participates in a team
Objective Yes
Communication plans Yes
Approach: workshop Yes
Teams No Made up of managers Made up of employees
Training No Initial (before starting self-
assessment); two out of 16 managers
acquainted with TQM philosophy
During the self-assessment process; no
employee acquainted with TQM
philosophy
Conducting self-assessment Yes
Source to identify strengths and
areas for improvement
No Workshops (managers) Workshops (employees and opinions
from users and employees)
Improvement plan Yes 76 improvement actions 18 improvement actions
More specific actions More general actions
Implementing improvement
plan
Yes Included in strategic plan
Follow-up Yes Every 2 months Yearly
J.J. Tarı / Int. J. Production Economics 114 (2008) 105–118114
levels in the hierarchy. Consequently, there wasgreater participation at the University of Ali-cante, where additionally the staff at each servicefilled in EFQM questionnaires and staff satisfac-tion was analysed through a survey.
� The sources for the identification of strengthsand areas for improvement were the workshops,i.e. the management team at the private firm andthe opinion of staff and users at the University ofAlicante.
� At Pikolinos the action plan included moreimprovement actions, and more specific ones(which may be due to the fact that only managersparticipate in teams), than at the University ofAlicante; they become objectives included withinthe strategic planning, and the follow-up is madeaccording to such planning. At Pikolinos thefrequency of follow-up was 2 months, while inpublic services it was 1 year. These differencesmight be due to the differences in the organisa-tional cultures of private and public sectororganisations (e.g. related to stakeholders, legalconstraints, accounting practices) (Ring andPerry, 1985; Black et al., 2001; Voss et al.,2005). For example, customer pressure is greaterat Pikolinos, the accounting practices are moredeveloped in Pikolinos and the legal constraintsare higher in the five public services, which couldincrease the amount of bureaucracy. These issuescould lead to a greater concern about strategic
planning and to follow-up of objectives beingcarried out every 2 months at Pikolinos.
As a result, these public services may follow aprocess similar to those in the business sector,adapting the practices to their context. Thus, thesepublic services may learn from the experience of theprivate SME. For instance, some authors havepointed out the need to include the results of self-assessment in the strategic plan (Ritchie and Dale,2000), whereas according to others some firmsconduct the process successfully without includingit in the strategic plan (Eriksson, 2004). Althoughself-assessment may be successful by itself, as thefive public administrative services have shown (andthe respondents in Pikolinos argued), the benefitsmay be greater if this integration exists. Thishappens because, as was the case at Pikolinos,strategic planning and the quality system may createa continuous improvement culture, which, as aresult, may facilitate the self-assessment. Conver-sely, this private organisation may also learn fromthe five public services. For example, public serviceself-assessment in this case is more participative,with greater emphasis on consultation and con-sensus, as usually happens with other practices inthe public sector (MacIntosh, 2003). Thus, whenlow hierarchical levels take part in this exercise,the self-assessment may facilitate the learningprocess (Balbastre and Moreno-Luzon, 2003).
ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.J. Tarı / Int. J. Production Economics 114 (2008) 105–118 115
In this respect, leadership enables the creation ofthis cooperative and learning context (Andersonet al., 1994; Hales and Chakravorty, 2006). As aconsequence, the employees’ quality awareness isreinforced, which supplements the communicationstage. Based on this idea, it can be said that a moredecentralised self-assessment may facilitate thedevelopment of a quality improvement cultureamong the employees. The propositions related tothese ideas are as follows:
P1. The common self-assessment stages are thesame for public services in HEIs and privatesector organisations.P2. Self-assessment practices may be adapted tothe public services in HEIs context.
Based on interviews and surveys, the second issueshowed similar difficulties and benefits. The lack oftime and lack of commitment were the greatestdifficulties in Pikolinos and the University ofAlicante. The remaining difficulties suggested bythe literature were recognised by the cases analysed,although their importance varied. The benefitsmentioned in Section 2 were valued at the privateSME and the five public services, although inreverse order of importance. In this respect, self-assessment made it possible to identify improvementactions. However, it must be emphasised that thepublic services attached the greatest importance tothe benefits providing knowledge and awareness ofquality-related issues, creating a continuous im-provement approach and helping the staff tobecome aware of the importance of quality, whereasPikolinos rated these as the least important. Thismay be due to the fact that Pikolinos already has aquality culture that has progressively developedalongside the quality system and strategic planning,and thus the self-assessment had a smaller influencethese benefits. Therefore, the benefits and difficultiesare similar in the private SME and in the five publicservices. The propositions related to the latterargument are as follows:
P3. The benefits and difficulties of self-assessmentare the same for public services in HEIs andprivate sector organisations, but order of im-portance may be different.P4. The relative weight of a benefit or a difficultydepends on the quality culture existing in theorganisation as well as on the objective of thewhole self-assessment.
As for the success factors (third issue), they aresimilar in the private SME and in the five public
services, according to the interviews. In this respect,the literature showed that management commitment(Van der Wiele et al., 1996b; Van der Wiele andBrown, 1999; Ritchie and Dale, 2000; Davies et al.,2001; Samuelsson and Nilsson, 2002; Ahmed et al.,2003), and the improvement plan and the follow-up(Van der Wiele et al., 1996b; Van der Wiele andBrown, 1999; Ritchie and Dale, 2000; Ojanen et al.;2002; Samuelsson and Nilsson, 2002; Ford andEvans, 2006) are key to favourable self-assessmentoutcomes. In view of all this, considering therespondents’ perceptions and what has been learntfrom these cases, the success factors may beidentified as follows:�
Management commitment. For employees toperceive such commitment, managers must setan example, attach importance to the subject,and approve the improvement plans. This, inturn, has a positive influence another two successfactors: staff involvement and the implementa-tion and follow-up of the improvement plans. � Communication with employees, explaining tothem the aim of the whole process, at least to theteams who will perform the self-assessment.Information on the usefulness of the processwas given to the team members (so that they wereaware of the benefits for their respective areas)and to the rest of employees.
� Support to the team members, providing train-ing, data and a review of the tasks done.
Therefore, the following propositions are putforward:
P5. Management commitment is related tosuccessful self-assessment in public services inHEIs and private sector organisations.P6. The improvement plan and follow-up arerelated to successful self-assessment in publicservices in HEIs and private sector organisations.P7. Communication with employees and supportto the teams are related to successful self-assessment in public services in HEIs and privatesector organisations.
Based on these ideas, although the cases showeddifferences, the EFQM model and the same processis applicable to the private SME and the five publicservices. This does not mean that, for example,
ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.J. Tarı / Int. J. Production Economics 114 (2008) 105–118116
HEIs should adopt all private practices. There arecontextual differences between the two sectors andthe practices require an intelligent adaptation.
5. Conclusions
The results show that HEIs may adopt businesspractices, but these must be adapted to their owncontext. Although in the cases differences werefound between the private firm and the five publicadministrative services, the findings showed that thesame model (EFQM) and the same methodologyare applicable to the private SME and the fivepublic services. However, private managerial prac-tices need to be adapted to the public services andalso, the private organisation may learn from HEIs,for example, regarding increased employee partici-pation. Thus, the results do not imply that onesector may adopt the other’s practices as a matter ofroutine, but rather that these practices need to beadapted to their environment in both HEIs and theprivate sector.
This paper has highlighted a number of keysimilarities and differences in order to answer thethree research questions related to the stages forself-assessment (research question 1) difficulties,benefits (research question 2) and success factors(research question 3). In relation to the stages forself-assessment, the differences are related to em-ployee participation, which was greater in HEIs(because employees participate in teams), and thehigher quality level at the private firm (because italready had a quality system based on the ISOstandard and a strategic plan that had created aculture of continuous improvement). Regardingthe areas of similarity, these include that the stepsfor self-assessment were developed successfullyin the cases analysed, and therefore it appears thatself-assessment is equally attractive to publicservices managers. Concerning the difficulties, thebenefits and the success factors, they were, ingeneral, similar in the cases analysed, but withvarying degrees of importance, due to contextualdifferences.
These findings show that HEIs may successfullydevelop self-assessment processes if they complywith all the stages suggested by EFQM (2003), and,therefore, the success factors are present. Thecontribution from this paper provides support tothe existing literature dealing with these issues in theprivate organisations, and expands the empirical
literature about these issues in HEIs, as they havenot been explored much in public organisations.Moreover, although it is not possible to extrapolatecase studies to the general population, this paperreports advances in theory and application present-ing a critical review. It provides further insights intheory development about self-assessment in HEIs.
Finally, this study is subject to some limitations,namely, the difficulty to extrapolate and theresearcher’s bias. The latter has been reduced bymeans of triangulation. As for generalisations, thestudy represents a private SME and five publicadministrative services and the ability to generalisefindings across countries and cultures is verylimited. It may illustrate similarities and differencesuseful for other managers of both sectors. Greaterinsights may be developed from replication in awider range of countries and with a wider variety ofpublic organisations. Then, a quantitative studycould test the propositions identified from thisstudy. Future researchers should collect largesamples of empirical data on self-assessment inpublic and private sectors for further comparison.
References
Ahire, S.L., Golhar, D.Y., Waller, M.A., 1996. Development and
validation of TQM implementation constructs. Decision
Sciences 27 (1), 23–56.
Ahmed, A.M., Yang, J.B., Dale, B.G., 2003. Self-assessment
methodology: The route to business excellence. Quality
Management Journal 10 (1), 43–57.
Anderson, J.C., Rungtusanatham, M., Schroeder, R.G., 1994.
A theory of quality management underlying the Deming
management method. Academy of Management Review 19
(3), 472–509.
Andreassen, T.W., 1994. Satisfaction, loyalty and reputation as
indicators of customer in the public sector. International
Journal of Public Sector Management 7 (2), 16–34.
Balbastre, F., Moreno-Luzon, M., 2003. Self-assessment applica-
tion and learning in organization: A special reference to the
ontological dimension. Total Quality Management 14 (3),
367–388.
Bayazit, O., Karpak, B., 2007. An analytical network process-
based framework for successful total quality management
(TQM): An assessment of Turkish manufacturing industry
readiness. International Journal of Production Economics
105, 79–96.
Benner, M.J., Tushman, M.L., 2003. Exploitation, exploration,
and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited.
Academic of Management Review 28 (2), 238–256.
Black, S., Porter, L.J., 1995. An empirical model for total quality
management. Total Quality Management 6 (2), 149–164.
Black, S., Briggs, S., Keogh, W., 2001. Service quality perfor-
mance measurement in public/private sectors. Managerial
Auditing Journal 16 (7), 400–405.
ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.J. Tarı / Int. J. Production Economics 114 (2008) 105–118 117
Bouchard, T.J., 1976. Unobstrusive measures: An inventory of
uses. Sociological Methods and Research 4, 267–300.
Bowen, D.E., Lawler, E.E., 1992. Total quality-oriented human
resources management. Organizational Dynamics 20 (4), 29–41.
Carroll, J.M., Swatman, P.A., 2000. Structured-case: A metho-
dological framework for building theory in information
systems research. European Journal of Information Systems
9, 235–242.
Clavo-Mora, A., Leal, A., Roldan, J.L., 2006. Using enablers of
the EFQM model to manage institutions of higher education.
Quality Assurance in Education 14 (2), 99–122.
Conca, F.J., Llopis, J., Tarı, J.J., 2004. Development of a
measure to assess quality management in certified firms.
European Journal of Operational Research 156, 683–697.
Conti, T., 2001. Why most companies do not get the most out of
their self-assessment. In: Proceedings of the 55th Annual
Quality Congress, American Society for Quality, Milwaukee,
WI, pp. 229–238.
Conti, T.A., 2007. A history and review of the European quality
award model. The TQM Magazine 19 (2), 112–128.
Danneels, E., 2002. The dynamics of product innovation and firm
competences. Strategic Management Journal 23, 1095–1121.
Davies, J., Hides, M.T., Casey, S., 2001. Leadership in higher
education. Total Quality Management 12 (7–8), 1025–1030.
Dewhurst, F., Martınez-Lorente, A.R., Dale, B.G., 1999. TQM
in public organisations: An examination of the issues.
Managing Service Quality 9, 265–273.
EFQM, 2003. Assessing Excellence—A Practical Guide for Self-
Assessment. EFQM, Brussels.
Eriksson, E., 2004. Organizational value of participating in a
quality award process: A Swedish study. The TQM Magazine
16 (2), 78–92.
Eskildsen, J.K., Kristensen, K., Juhl, H., 2004. Private versus
public sector excellence. The TQM Magazine 16, 50–56.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G., Sakakibara, S., 1994. A framework
for quality management research and associated measurement
instrument. Journal of Operations Management 11 (4),
339–366.
Ford, M.W., Evans, J.R., 2006. The role of follow-up in
achieving results from self-assessment processes. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 23 (6), 589–606.
Fraser, W., 2005. Using Baldrige-based self-assessment to drive
public sector agency performance. In: ASQWorld Conference
on Quality and Improvement Proceeding, 403pp.
Grandzol, J.R., Gershon, M., 1998. A survey instrument for
standardizing TQMmodelling research. International Journal
of Quality Science 3 (1), 80–105.
Hales, D.N., Chakravorty, S.S., 2006. Implementation of
Deming’s style of quality management: An action research
study in a plastic company. International Journal of Produc-
tion Economics 103, 131–148.
Hides, M.T., Davies, J., Jackson, S., 2004. Implementation of
EFQM excellence model self-assessment in the UK higher
education sector—Lesson learned from other sectors. The
TQM Magazine 16 (3), 194–201.
/http://www.aneca.es/modal_eval/evalserv_present.htmlS (accessed
29 may 2007).
/http://www.efmd.org/equisS (accessed 29 may 2007).
/http://www.juse.or.jp/e/deming/index.htmlS (accessed 29 may
2007).
/http://www.quality.nist.gov/Business_Criteria.htmS (accessed
29 may 2007).
/http://www.quality.nist.gov/Education_Criteria.htmS (accessed
29 may 2007).
Ishikawa, K., 1985. What is total quality control? The Japanese
way. Prentice-Hall, London.
Johnson, B., Christensen, L., 2004. Educational Research:
Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Approaches. Pearson,
Boston.
Jones, K., 1998. Managing innovation in the police service. Total
Quality Management 9 (2–3), 269–278.
Kanji, G., Sa, P.M., 2007. Performance measurement and
business excellence: The reinforcing link for the public sector.
Total Quality Management 18 (1-2), 49–56.
Kumar, M.R., 2007. Comparison between DP and MBNQA:
Convergence and divergence over time. The TQM Magazine
19 (3), 245–258.
Lee, P.-M., Quazi, H.A., 2001. A methodology for developing a
self-assessment tool to measure quality performance in
organizations. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management 18 (2), 118–141.
MacIntosh, R., 2003. BPR: Alive and well in the public sector.
International Journal of Operations & Production Manage-
ment 23 (3), 327–344.
Ogawa, R.T., Kim, R.H., 2005. The business–education relation-
ship. Using organization theory to conceptualise a research
agenda. Journal of Educational Administration 43 (1), 72–85.
Ojanen, V., Piippo, P., Tuominen, M., 2002. Applying quality
award criteria in R&D project assessment. International
Journal of Production Economics 80, 119–128.
Osseo-Asare, A.E., Longbottom, D., 2002. The need for
education and training in the use of the EFQM model for
quality management in UK higher education institutions.
Quality Assurance in Education 10 (1), 26–36.
Owlia, M.S., Aspinwall, E.M., 1998. A framework for measuring
quality in engineering education. Total Quality Management
9 (6), 501–518.
Quazi, H.A., Padibjo, S.R., 1998. A journey toward total quality
management through ISO 9000 certification—A study on
small and medium-sized enterprises in Singapore. Interna-
tional Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 15 (5),
489–508.
Rahman, S.-U., 2001. Total quality management practices and
business outcome: Evidence from small and medium enter-
prises in Western Australia. Total Quality Management 12
(2), 201–210.
Rao, S.S., Solis, L.E., Raghunathan, T.S., 1999. A framework for
international quality management research: Development and
validation of a measurement instrument. Total Quality
Management 10 (7), 1047–1075.
Ring, P.S., Perry, 1985. Strategic management in public and
private organizations: Implications of distinctive contexts
and constraints. Academy of Management Review 10 (2),
276–286.
Ritchie, L., Dale, B.G., 2000. Self-assessment using the business
excellence model: A study of practice and process. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics 66 (3), 241–254.
Rosa, M., Saraiva, M., Diz, H., 2001. The development of an
excellence model for Portuguese higher education institutions.
Total Quality Management 12, 1010–1017.
Samuelsson, P., Nilsson, L-E., 2002. Self-assessment practices in
large organizations. Experiences from using the EFQM
excellence model. International Journal of Quality & Relia-
bility Management 19 (1), 10–23.
ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.J. Tarı / Int. J. Production Economics 114 (2008) 105–118118
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G., Schroeder, R.G., 1989. An instru-
ment for measuring the critical factors of quality manage-
ment. Decision Sciences 20 (4), 810–829.
Saunders, M., Mann, R., 2005. Self-assessment in a multi-
organisational network. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management 22 (6), 554–571.
Sharma, U., Hoque, Z., 2002. TQM implementation in a public
sector entity in Fiji. Public sector reform, commercialization,
and institutionalism. The International Journal of Public
Sector Management 15 (5), 340–360.
Siow, C.H.R., Yang, J.B., Dale, B.G., 2001. A new modeling
framework for organizational self-assessment: Develop-
ment and application. Quality Management Journal 8 (4),
34–47.
Stake, R.E., 2000. Case studies. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S.
(Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications,
California, pp. 435–454.
Van der Wiele, A., Williams, A.R.T., Dale, B.G., Carter, G.,
1996a. Quality management self-assessment: An examination
in European business. Journal of General Management 22 (1),
48–67.
Van der Wiele, A., Williams, A.R.T., Dale, B.G., Carter, G.,
Kolb, F., Luzon, D.M., Schmidt, A., Wallace, M., 1996b.
Self-assessment: A study of progress in Europe’s leading
organizations in quality management practices. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 13 (1), 84–104.
Van der Wiele, T., Brown, A., 1999. Self-assessment practices in
Europe and Australia. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management 16 (3), 238–251.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., Funk, B., Yarrow, D., Owen, J., 2005.
Managerial choice and performance in service management—A
comparison of private sector organizations with further educa-
tion colleges. Journal of Operations Management 23, 179–195.
Waugh, R.F., 2002. Academic staff perceptions of administrative
quality at universities. Journal of Educational Administration
40 (2), 172–188.
Wilkes, N., Dale, B.G., 1998. Attitudes to self-assessment and
quality awards: A study in small and medium-sized compa-
nies. Total Quality Management 9 (8), 731–739.
Wisner, J.D., Eakins, S.G., 1994. A performance assessment of
the US Baldrige quality award winners. International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management 11 (2), 8–25.
Yang, C.-C., Chen, S.-H., Shiau, J.-Y., 2007. A DFX and
concurrent engineering model for the establishment of a new
department in a university. International Journal of Produc-
tion Economics 107, 179–189.
Yin, R., 1984. Case Study Research. Sage Publications, Beverly
Hills.
