Search results

The meaning of “quality” is moving into a new phase. Quality for long has been based on a – what is hereafter called – first and second generation connotation. Recent notions of “accountability” and “responsibility” are blending into the strategy of organisations and (implicitly) into the resultant criterion of “impact on society”. Although still early days, it is argued that there is growing proof indicating an emerging third‐generation notion of quality; a notion that will require a fundamental (re)orientation of long valid (organisational) strategies and practices. This paper provides an overview of these three notions and describes some of the implications of the emerging re‐orientation. As a whole it aims to describe tomorrow’s notion of quality as it emerges today.

As head of the corporate citizenship unit at the UK's Warwick Business School and a former European director of the Council on Economic Priorities Malcolm McIntosh is well placed to assess the clamorous interest of businesses in the “values chain” since the launch last year of SA 8000. He talked to Jan Jonker about the spread of the international standard for social accountability and where it is leading.

This paper seeks to analyse the nature of the communication process involving stakeholders in a working relationship with organisations. While most research has been undertaken to identify who or what these stakeholders are and what the patterns of relationships look like, very little attention has been given to the ways in which the organisation actually engages with them.

The paper draws on qualitative research conducted into a controversial issue concerning protected area management in Victoria, Australia, which was conducted within a framework built around Habermas' concept of communicative action.

The lessons learned from what Stake would call an “instrumental” case study, provided the insight to clarify what form organisational communication with stakeholders should take if it is to result in significant and positive outcomes. It is argued that the basis of any constructive engagement between an organisation and its stakeholders should be communication that is linked to mutual understanding as the basis of agreeable action. Finally the challenges of these findings for modern organisations are addressed.

This paper provides useful information on the nature of the communication process involving stakeholders in a working relationship with organisations.

States that the concept of the “classical” organisation is undoubtedly in transition. As a result new organisational concepts emerge. Addresses the nature of quality management and assurance in “organisations under construction”. Starting with a brief overview of the characteristics of new organisations, blending into the concept of the “individualised company”. The assets of such a company are its core competencies linked to people. The question is: how do existing theories and practices of quality management fit in with these new organisational concepts? To provide the beginning of an answer a new quality approach labelled “personal quality management’ is explored. The essence is that quality management becomes more and more an individual responsibility. Some narrative empirical evidence is provided to support the development of this approach.

One of the ways to deal with stakeholder issues, is the use and application of accountability standards. Two recent accountability standards (AA1000 and SA8000) will be the subject of comparison in this paper. Firstly, the constituent elements of these new standards will be briefly described. The main purpose of this paper is a systematic comparison of both standards on their object and scope, their normative perspective, the basic principles, their improvement perspective and their methodological perspective. The paper concludes by discussing the added value of both standards in their use and practical application. Questions are raised as to whether the instrumental “translation” of notions such as “accountability” and “social responsibility” offer the right support to deal with these issues on an organizational level.

To develop a concept of managing intangible assets in contemporary organisations. Insight is given into the rise of the network organisation and the importance of talent, social capital and identity in this kind of organisation.

This paper develops a conceptual framework based on a theoretical analysis of recent literature in the fields of human resource management and organisational identity.

Organisations in contemporary society fundamentally differ from the ones dominating the twentieth century. Work nowadays is providing service(s), organising based upon a mix of people's talents, social capital and information and communication technology (ICT). Modern organisations depend on talent. Talents make the distinctive difference between an organisation and its competitors. Organising with talents requires a second‐order form of networks: (social) cohesion in the network quintessential to make it work. This can be found in the notion of “social capital”. Yet talents and social capital only thrive in an excellent community of work. Organisations as communities of work hold together by a common identity. With the rise of the modern organisation in the information society the community of work has become a fundamental part of organising.

First there is a growing inter‐affiliation and interdependency of work processes and the community of work. Second, assumptions regarding the manageability of “organisations” are under pressure. More research is needed in the field of the relationship between organisational processes, commitment and identity.

In order to survive and prosper, “modern” organisations acting in the information society need to be flexible configurations bearing a recognisable identity.

This paper gives insight in the relationship between core competencies and identity on the one hand and work processes and the community on the other hand. Talents and social capital need to be placed at the heart of the modern organisation. This demands a re‐balance in the relations between the individual and the organisation.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an analysis of the changes that have occurred in Quality Management to demonstrate that a generational change has occurred. It then seeks to establish a firm theoretical basis for the identified change.

The paper is an analysis and critique of the quality management, stakeholder and management literature and is undertaken to identify emergent trends and themes. By questioning the basic assumptions underpinning the literature these trends and themes have been re‐conceptualised into a model that the authors believe helps with interpretation and explanation.

The findings in this paper are that the notion of quality, which has been around for more than a century, appears to be moving into a new phase. Having commenced as an object‐oriented measurement and control device focusing on the quality of the output (of either a product or service), it has experienced a profound expansion and reorientation to now encompass the overall management of the organisation (TQM). This paper suggests that society is now entering a third generation where notions of transparency, accountability and (social) responsibility are blending into the body of knowledge regarding quality management.

The paper elaborates this idea further by exploring the way in which organisations engage with the broader society in which they operate. It also seeks to develop a theoretical understanding of that growing engagement. In doing this it uses the notion of transactivity, which underpins the connections between the organisation and its societal and business context. More importantly, it demonstrates how this notion provides a link between the changing concept of quality management and the increasingly significant notion of stakeholders. It finally aims to demonstrate that a transformed concept of quality management is emerging in which society plays a quintessential part.

The paper provides a perspective on the quality movement that will help people to identify that the many disparate individual developments in the field are in fact part of a wider, fundamental change that has major implications and consequences.

This paper discusses how a systems approach to management can be used to facilitate the development and implementation of an integrated management system (IMS) in an organization. It is argued that any solution to address the rapidly growing need for the integration of function‐specific management systems requires two elements: a conceptual model and a supporting methodology. While the research on IMS modelling is fairly advanced, evidenced by a number of existing models that would probably qualify to provide the basis for integration, development of methodologies to achieve fully‐integrated systems is still lacking. This paper therefore provides a set of criteria for selection of the most appropriate IMS model, followed by a discussion of one such model based on the systems approach. The presented model can be used to integrate the requirements of existing and upcoming function‐specific management system standards, and provide a foundation for the top‐down integration of internal systems that these standards describe. Subsequently, a short discussion on the issue of the IMS methodology is given, and the paper concludes with a list of questions that will help researchers design a comprehensive IMS methodology.

The pressing need to build common frameworks to redefine the performance and sustainability of organisations, has led to the development of a new standard, AccountAbility 1000 (AA1000). AA1000 is a quality framework that aims to make clear how principles of accountability and sustainability are related and complementary. Accountability is founded in democracy and is also the principle used as the basis of financial and other forms of accounting, auditing and reporting. In accountability’s relationship to sustainability, however, there has been little clarity. Sustainability – defined broadly by the concept of the triple bottom line – is underpinned by three forms of accountability: social‐ethical, environmental and economic accountability. With the introduction of a new social standard AA1000, the difficult‐to‐bridge gaps within the sustainability debate – between morality and science, measurement and performance, inclusion and exclusion – are addressed using a model of accountability. AA1000, it is argued, represents an innovation for sustainability by linking the development of accounting, auditing and reporting of sustainability with the need to create legitimacy for outcomes, through a process of stakeholder engagement and inclusion.

This contribution outlines the development of quality theory through various stages to the point where it now recognises the impact of external groups and individuals on the output of quality products and services. In particular, it articulates how the developments in stakeholder theory have coincided with the development of a theoretical framework for quality management and how stakeholder involvement relates to the output of the organisation. It examines some of the implications of this re‐orientation and aims to describe tomorrow’s emerging stakeholder model of quality. Finally, it argues that the new conceptualisation represents a generational change as it has fundamental ramifications for the nature of organisations and the way they maintain and evaluate quality. The differences between the generations are characterised and examined to demonstrate their potential significance.