The role of follow‐up in achieving results from self‐assessment processes

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to investigate follow‐up as a salient factor in achieving results from organizational self‐assessment.Design/methodology/approachData were collected from 14 organizations involved in self‐assessment. Qualitative methods were used to analyze the follow‐up patterns in high and low achievers to discern key factors of follow‐up and their relationship to self‐assessment outcomes.FindingsThe paper finds that high achievers appeared to engage in a consistent set of follow‐up activities. These activities included top management team dialogue that set the tone for follow‐up, a planning process that generated a large, documented action plan, and incentive and monitoring‐based implementation controls using existing structure.Research limitations/implicationsSmall sample size limits the generalizability of the findings. Larger empirical studies could evaluate the strength of the relationships between the factors of follow‐up and outcomes. Future research should also investigate why some organizations undertake follow‐up while others do not. Plausibly, degree of follow‐up might relate to uncertainty facing the organization, or the extent to which managers understand organizational processes.Practical implicationsAn organization can execute a picture perfect self‐assessment analysis and still realize little benefit if it does not effectively follow‐up on the findings. Effective follow‐up is driven by top‐management and cannot be delegated.Originality/valueThis paper extends the literature by elaborating the role of follow‐up in the self‐assessment process.

Introducing management models in service organisations in developed and developing countries

“…Such factors are management commitment, employee involvement, open communication, training, the development of an improvement plan and follow-up (Ahmed, Yang, & Dale, 2003;Balbastre et al, 2005;Ford & Evans, 2006;Ritchie & Dale, 2000;Samuelsson & Nilsson, 2002;Van der Wiele & Brown, 1999;Van der Wiele et al, 1996b;Wilkes & Dale, 1998).…”

“…Although models and scope vary, this technique helps to identify strengths and areas for improvement in order to develop improvement actions which can be linked to strategic planning. Different benefits from the process may include performance measurement, providing a 'health check' of processes and operations; people involvement in developing an improved process approach to quality; raising the understanding and awareness of quality-related issues; facilitating the integration of quality factors in everyday practices; and service improvement (Balbastre et al, 2005;EFQM, 2003;Ford & Evans, 2006;Hartley & Downe, 2007;Holzer et al, 2009;Ritchie & Dale, 2000;Samuelsson & Nilsson, 2002;Sharma & Hoque, 2002;Van der Wiele & Brown, 1999; Van der Wiele, Williams, Dale, & Carter, 1996a;Van der Wiele et al 1996b). …”

Sustainable Enterprise Excellence: Cohesion of TQM/Be Models, Iso Standards and Sustainability

“…The prime focus, somehow, is being slightly shifted from the outset of an award or recognition towards gauging the running performance of the operations, and of the organization as a whole, against higher objectives for excellence. In this view foundation of self-assessment methodologies is a march towards continuous improvement process (Williams et al, 2006;Ford and Evans, 2006;Ritchie and Dale, 2000). Literature suggests that self-assessment using TQM award model has been carried out by private (Samuelsson and Nilsson, 2002), public (Sharma and Hoque, 2002) and by both type of organizations (Wilkes and Dale, 1998).…”

Modelo EFQM y organismo autónomo de entidad local: ¿Compatibilidad?

“…Así, cabe destacar estudios como el realizado por Tarí y de Juana-Espinosa (2007), en el cual se realiza una exhaustiva revisión de anteriores trabajos en el sector, de la cual extraen como consecuencia que el objetivo del proceso de autoevaluación, previa a la implantación efectiva del modelo de gestión de calidad, no es otro que identificar los puntos fuertes y las áreas de mejora como método para conseguir unos mejores resultados, pudiendo elegir para realizar esta labor entre distintas herramientas, entre las cuales las tres principales son los cuestionarios, los talleres de trabajo y los sistemas de premios. En apoyo de sus argumentos, estos autores citan los trabajos de Powell (1995), Kaynak (2003) y Heras (2006), todos ellos relativos a la implantación de la GCT en la empresa privada, y los de Hammons y Maddux (1990), Sharma y Hoque (2002) En este contexto de estudio centrado en el sector público, el establecimiento de técnicas de autoevaluación es una vía para continuar este continuo proceso de mejora (Ritchie y Dale, 2000;Ford y Evans, 2006;Williams et al, 2006). Así, ésta ha sido usada en Institutos de Educación Secundaria como camino para desarrollar un sistema de calidad (Davies et al, 2001).…”