Self-assessment

  • Klaus J. Zink
  • Andreas Schmidt

Abstract

Assessing a company is (again) getting more and more important, not only because of the increasing relevance and acceptance of international quality awards (together with the implementation of Management by Objectives (MbO) at IBM and General Motors (GM), systematic and regular assessments of the management were already known as an important approach in the 1930s. Peter Drucker mentioned - based on his examinations of the GM management system - already in 1954 in his publication ‘The Practice of Management’ the terms MbO and Self Control) (Odiorne, 1980). Thus, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (United States Department of Commerce, 1995), the European Quality Award (European Foundation for Quality Management, 1995) and the Deming Prize (Juse, 1986) demand that all quality endeavors are being checked and improved regularly by management. The ISO 9000 series - an assessment-system for quality management systems - also includes at least one management review within the QM element ‘Responsibility of Management’. One of its central themes is to assess the progress and adequacy of the quality policy and the goals set by top management (Deutsches Institut für Normung, 1992). Those systems do not explicitly demand a Self-Assessment and only the European Foundation for Quality Management is supplying ‘concrete tips’ for the execution of a Self-Assessment (European Foundation for Quality Management, 1995, pp. 28-64).

Keywords

Europe Marketing Assure Rosen Dispatch 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blackburn, R., Rosen, B. (1993) Total Quality and Human Resource Management-Lessons Learned from Baldrige Award-winning Companies, in: Executive, 7(3), 59 (pp. 46-66).Google Scholar
  2. Bleicher, K. (1992) Das Konzept integriertes Management, 2nd rev. and ext. edition, Frankfurt/Main, New York, pp. 265–266.Google Scholar
  3. Conti, T. (1991) Company Quality Assessments (Part 1), in: The TQM Magazine, 3(3), 112 (S. 111-115).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conti, T. (1993) Building Total Quality: A Guide for Management, London, p. 120.Google Scholar
  5. Crew, T. (1994) Business Excellence Self-Assessment within Royal Mail, in: European Foundation for Quality Management (ed.) Total Quality The Learning Edge, Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Education, Training and Research, Universidad de Navarra, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, V.S. (1992) Self-audits: First Step in TQM, in: Human Resources Magazine, 37(9), 39 (pp. 39-41).Google Scholar
  7. Deutsches Institut für Normung (ed.), DIN EN ISO 9001. QM-Systeme: Modell zur Darlegung des QM-Systems in Design/Entwicklung, Produktion, Montage und Kundendienst, Berlin 1994 und Deutsches Institut für Normung (ed.), DIN ISO 8402/E03.92. Qualitatsmanagement und Darlegung des QM-Systems-Begriffe, Berlin 1992.Google Scholar
  8. European Foundation for Quality Management (ed.), Self-Assessment Guidelines 1996, Brussels 1995, p. 7.Google Scholar
  9. Frese, E. (1971) Ziele als Führungsinstrument. Kritische Anmerkungen zum Management by Objectives, in: Zeitschrift für Organisation, 40(5), 227 (pp. 227-238).Google Scholar
  10. Heller, R. (1993) TQM-The Quality Makers, St Gallen 1993, p. 145ff.; without ed. Quality through Customer Care at Rank Xerox, in: Industrial Relations Review & Report, Sept., No. 544, p. SSSS3 (pp. SSSS2-SSSS5).Google Scholar
  11. Heller, R. (1993) How the Royal Mail rode out its shame and found a culture, in: Management Today, 4, 30–34.Google Scholar
  12. Odiorne, G.S. (1980) Management by Objectives: Führungssysteme für die achtziger Jahre, München, pp. 14-18.Google Scholar
  13. Ritter, D. (1993) A tool for improvement using the Baldrige Criteria, in: National Productivity Review, 12(2), 167–182.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sayle, A.J. (1988) Management Audits: The assessment of quality systems, London, pp. 11-1-11-5.Google Scholar
  15. Staehle, W.H. (1994) Management. Line verhaltenswissenschaftliche Perspektive, 7th ed., revised by Conrad, P. Sydow, J., München, p. 805-807, p. 633.Google Scholar
  16. Striening, H.D. (1988) Prozeβmanagement, Frankfurt, pp. 159-163.Google Scholar
  17. Union of Scientists and Engineers (JUSE) (1986) (ed.), The Deming Prize Guide for Overseas Companies, Tokyo, p. 24-25.Google Scholar
  18. United States Department of Commerce (Technology Administration) (1995) National Institute of Standards and Technology (ed.): The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award-1996 Award Criteria, Milwaukee (WI), p. 26.Google Scholar
  19. Zink, K.J., Hauer, R. and Schmidt, A. (1992) Quality Assessment: Instrument zur Analyse von Qualitätskonzepten auf der Basis von EN 29000, Malcolm Baldrige Award und European Quality Award (Teil 2), in: Qualität und Zuverlässigkeit, 37 Jg., Heft 11, pp. 657-658 (pp. 651-658).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus J. Zink
  • Andreas Schmidt

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations