The strategic function of quality in the management of innovation

Quality management can be used to support strategically the management of innovation. Tools in strategic quality management can be useful in: creating the organizational conditions in which innovations can be developed; supervising and initiating innovation processes; producing innovation content; and implementing innovations in the primary processes of the organization. This conclusion is based on the results of a research project in the Dutch construction industry. In a large-scale house-building project the supportive use of quality tools in the management of innovation was studied. The study indicates that quality tools are used implicitly and sometimes explicitly to manage innovation processes

Total quality management practices, competitive strategies and financial performance: the case of the Palestinian industrial SMEs

"This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Total Quality Management and Business Excellence on 19 Aug 2013, available online: http://wwww.tandfonline.com/10.1080/14783363.2013.824714."The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between Total Quality Management (TQM) practices, competitive strategies - cost leadership and differentiation- and firm performance in the Palestinian economy. Within this study total quality management has been conceptualized as soft and hard practices, in congruence with the literature. An empirical analysis based upon an extensive validation process was applied to refine TQM, competitive strategies and financial performance scales. Data were collected through surveying 202 in Palestinian industrial small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Structural Equation Modeling was carried out to test the anticipated relationships. Results derived from this study show that TQM practices have indirect, positive and significant relationship with financial performance through competitive strategies. In addition, a direct, positive and significant relationship between competitive strategies and financial performance was observed. Results derived from this study might help managers to implement TQM practices in order to effectively allocate resources and improve financial performance

Global surgery, obstetric, and anaesthesia indicator definitions and reporting: An Utstein consensus report

Background Indicators to evaluate progress towards timely access to safe surgical, anaesthesia, and obstetric (SAO) care were proposed in 2015 by the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery. These aimed to capture access to surgery, surgical workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality rate, and catastrophic and impoverishing financial consequences of surgery. Despite being rapidly taken up by practitioners, data points from which to derive the indicators were not defined, limiting comparability across time or settings. We convened global experts to evaluate and explicitly define—for the first time—the indicators to improve comparability and support achievement of 2030 goals to improve access to safe affordable surgical and anaesthesia care globally. Methods and findings The Utstein process for developing and reporting guidelines through a consensus building process was followed. In-person discussions at a 2-day meeting were followed by an iterative process conducted by email and virtual group meetings until consensus was reached. The meeting was held between June 16 to 18, 2019; discussions continued until August 2020. Participants consisted of experts in surgery, anaesthesia, and obstetric care, data science, and health indicators from high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Considering each of the 6 indicators in turn, we refined overarching descriptions and agreed upon data points needed for construction of each indicator at current time (basic data points), and as each evolves over 2 to 5 (intermediate) and >5 year (full) time frames. We removed one of the original 6 indicators (one of 2 financial risk protection indicators was eliminated) and refined descriptions and defined data points required to construct the 5 remaining indicators: geospatial access, workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and catastrophic expenditure. A strength of the process was the number of people from global institutes and multilateral agencies involved in the collection and reporting of global health metrics; a limitation was the limited number of participants from low- or middle-income countries—who only made up 21% of the total attendees. Conclusions To track global progress towards timely access to quality SAO care, these indicators—at the basic level—should be implemented universally as soon as possible. Intermediate and full indicator sets should be achieved by all countries over time. Meanwhile, these evolutions can assist in the short term in developing national surgical plans and collecting more detailed data for research studies.publishedVersio

Terobosan manajemen : konsep baru tentang tugas manejer

xi, 380 hlm.:ilus.: 21 c