Rewarding Quality and Innovation: Awards, Charters, and International Standards as Catalysts for Change

  • Michael E. Milakovich
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3035)

Abstract

In the competitive, downsized, and mission-driven global service economy of the early 21st century, all organizations search for models to encourage innovation, measure performance, and raise customer service quality standards. Competition for an award can be a cost effective strategy to identify processes needing improvement, conduct self-assessments, receive objective feedback, and motivate employees to meet higher performance goals. Numerous international, federal, state, local, regional, and private award programs now use similar criteria and methodology to recognize and transfer information about the most effective processes, methods, systems, and results. Awards can advance knowledge about management and organizational learning theory, standardize processes, and assist public, private, and non-profit sector managers in determining which strategies are best suited for their organizations. This paper describes various quality award programs worldwide and reports the preliminary results of an empirical study analyzing the impact of awards on improving service quality in the United States (Survey, 2002).

Keywords

Service Organization Total Quality Management Award Program Audit Standard Improve Service Quality 
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.
Download to read the full conference paper text

References

  1. 1.
    Agor, W.H.: The Measurement, Use, and Development of Intellectual Capital to Increase Public Sector Productivity. Public Personnel Management 26(2), 175–187 (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chuan, T.K., Soon, L.C.: A Detailed Trends Analysis of National Quality Awards World-Wide. Total Quality Management 11(8), 1065–1080 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chu, P.-Y., Wang, H.-S.: Benefits, Critical Process Factors, and Optimum Strategies of Successful ISO 9000 Implementation in the Public Sector. Public Performance and Management Review 25(1), 105–121 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davison, J., Grieves, J.: Why Should Local Government Show An Interest in Service Quality? The TQM Magazine 8(5), 32–38 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Debia, N.S.: Global Perspectives on Quality. Total Quality Management 12(6), 657–668 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DeLancer Julnes, P., Holzer, M.: Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementation. Public Administration Review 61(6), 693–708 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Donaldson, L.: Performance-Driven Organizational Change. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Douglas, T.J., Judge, W.Q.: Total Quality Management Implementation and Competitive Advantage: The Role of Structural Control and Exploration. Academy of Management Executive 44(1), 158–177 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flynn, B., Saladin, B.: Further Evidence on the Validity of the Theoretical Models Underlying the Baldrige Criteria. Journal of Operations Management 19(6), 617–653 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fountain, J.: Building the Virtual State. Brookings Institution, Washington (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hackman, J., Wageman, R.: Total Quality Management: Empirical, Conceptual and Practical Issues. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(2), 309–342 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holzer, M., Callahan, K.: Government At Work: Best Practices and Model Programs. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hui, K., Chaun, T.K.: Nine Approaches to Organizational Excellence. Journal of Organizational Excellence 22(1), 53–65 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kettl, D.: The Global Public Management Revolution: A Report on the Transformation of Governance. The Brookings Institution, Washington (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knotts, U.S., Parrish, L.G., Evans, C.R.: What Does the U.S. Business Community Really Think about the Baldrige Award? Quality Progress 26, 49–52 (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lowery, D.: ISO 9000: A Certification-Based Methodology for Reinventing the Federal Government. Public Performance and Management Review 22(2), 232–250 (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Milakovich, M.: Total Quality Management for Public Sector Productivity Improvement. Public Performance and Management Review 14(1), 19–32 (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Milakovich, M.E.: Improving Service Quality: Achieving High Performance in the Public and Private Sectors. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Milakovich, M.: The Status of Results-Driven Customer Service Quality in Government. Journal of Organizational Excellence 17(2), 47–54 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Milakovich, M.: Balancing Customer Service, Empowerment, and Performance with Citizenship, Responsiveness and Political Accountability. International Public Management Review 4(1), 61–82 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sanderson, I.: Performance Management, Evaluation and Learning in ‘Modern’ Local Government. Public Administration 79(2), 297–313 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Savas, E.S.: Privatization and Public Policy Partnerships Chatham. Chatham House, NJ (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Senge, P.M., et al.: The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. Doubleday, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Senge, P.M.: Leading Learning Organizations. Training & Development 50(12), 36–37 (1996)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thompson, A.A., Strickland, A.J.: Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. McGraw-Hill, Burr Ridge (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tummala, Rao, V.M., Tang, C.L.: Strategic Quality Management, Malcolm Baldrige and European Quality Awards and ISO 9000 Certification: Core Concepts and Comparative Analysis. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 13(4), 8–38 (1994)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van Thiel, S., Leeuw, F.L.: The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector. Public Performance and Management Review 25(3), 267–281 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    West, D.M. (2001) Assessing E-Government: The Internet, Democracy, and Service Delivery by State and Federal Governments (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Wimmer, M. (ed.): Knowledge Management in e-Government. Trauner Druck, Vienna (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zbaracki, M.: The Rhetoric and Reality of Total Quality Management. Administrative Science Quarterly 43(3), 602–636 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael E. Milakovich
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Business AdministrationUniversity of MiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations