Advertisement

Knowledge and Policy

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 55–70 | Cite as

Evaluation in the private sector: Evolution and professionalization of quality management

  • Arnold Godfroij
Feature Articles
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

This article reviews different approaches to quality management in the private sector from an evolutionary perspective. Two dimensions of this evolution are crucial: the scope of evaluation (“product” versus “system”) and the objective versus intersubjective orientation. Experiences within the private sector can be relevant for the public sector, with adaptation for public sector characteristics. Complexity of both object and process of evaluation has implications for the professionalization of the evaluation function.

Keywords

Public Sector Public Organization Quality Management System Internal View Public Sector Organization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahaus, C.T.B. (1991). Invoering van een kwaliteitssysteem in de industrie, In Feringa, W.J., Piëst, E. and Ritsema, H.A. (Eds.),Kwaliteitsmanagement. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, pp. 49–77.Google Scholar
  2. Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1978).Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, P.E. and Naden, J. (1989). Total Quality Management: Eight lessons to learn from Japan.Management Services, (March), 6–10.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, J. P. (1977). On the nature of organizational effectiveness. In Goodman, P.S. and Pennings, J.M.New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  5. Deming, W.E. (1982).Quality, productivity and competitive position, Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  6. E.F.Q.M. (European Foundation for Quality Management) (1992).Total Quality Management, The European Model for Self-Appraisal. Brussels/Eindhoven: E.F.Q.M.Google Scholar
  7. Feringa, W.J., Piëst, E. and Ritsema, H.A. (Eds.) (1991).Kwaliteitsmanagement. Groningen, Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
  8. Godfroij, A.J.A. and Nelissen, N.J.M. (Eds.) (1993).Verschuivingen in de besturing van de samenleving, Bussum, Dick Coutinho.Google Scholar
  9. Imai, M. (1986).Kaizen=(Ky’zen): The key to Japan’s competitive success. New York: Random House Business Division.Google Scholar
  10. Mintzberg, H. (1983).Structure in fives, designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. ——— (1989).Mintzberg on management; inside our strange world of organizations. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Morgan, G. (1988).Riding the waves of change; developing managerial competencies for a turbulent world. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Nash, M. (1983).Managing organizational performance. San Francisco/Washington/London: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Peters, T.J., and Waterman, R.H. (1982).In search of excellence. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  15. Porter, M. (1985).Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  16. Quinn, R.E. (1988).Beyond rational management; mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  17. Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness.Public Productivity Review, 5, 122–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ---. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis.Management Science, (29), 363–377.Google Scholar
  19. Stalk, G., Evans, P. and Shulman, L.E. (1992). Competing on capabilities: The new rules of corporate strategy.Harvard Business Review, (March/April), 57–69.Google Scholar
  20. Ter Hart, W.J., Lemmens, N.G.R. and Peereboom, E. (1984).Management en arbeid nieuwe stijl. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  21. VSB (Vereniging voor Strategische Beleidsvorming) (1989).Spiegel voor Strategen; de invloed van de combinatie van strategische analysetechnieken op het strategisch bewustzijn; PIMS en SPA toegepast bij 16 Nederlandse ondernemingen, ’s-Gravenhage, VSB.Google Scholar
  22. Wit, B. de, and Meyer, R. (1994).Strategy; process, content, context, an international perspective. Mineapolis/St. Paul, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arnold Godfroij
    • 1
  1. 1.the Department of Policy Sciencesthe University of NijmegenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations