Phases and Actions of the Evolution of the Concept of Quality in Canda and Australia - A Theoritical Modelling of the Development of Knowledge in Business Perfromance in the XXI Century - the Approach to Excellence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. IntroductionPerformance Management models are structures supporting organizations in shaping initiatives in choosing appropriate strategies and their implementation through a systematic approach, whose final objective is to continuously improve the performance of organizations.Models of excellence aim is to identify excellent organizational management practices that contributed to the tie between them, all based on a set of concepts or core values together in a model of excellence. Over time, practices have evolved to such an extent that they became global utility models illustrating how to operate an organization to achieve a high level of performance on his way to results maintained at its best.Excellency refers to outstanding performance achieved and express a high level of confidence in the organization has achieved. Today excellence is required not only by economic, but also by non-profit organizations such as schools, universities, hospitals, government, etc.There are many countries that have developed over time through sustained efforts, their own models of excellence, then using them as structures in a process of assessing and recognizing performance in organizations through special programs that grant awards recognition of the value and performance.Internationally, the most popular models of excellence that provides an appropriate framework to support the adoption of the principles of business excellence and develop an efficient method for evaluating the manner in which these principles were embedded, we can mention:* Japanese - resulted in CWQC principles (Company Wide Quality Control based on enterprise-wide quality control);* American - resulted in the criteria for the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award American applied in over 25 countries, both in the US and in New Zealand;* European model - resulted in the European Quality Award criteria;* - translated into Quality Award criteria;* Australian - resulted in the Australian Quality Award criteria.The model of organizational excellence (CAE) introduced by the Ministry of Industry in 1984: Canadian Award for Business Excellence. To reflect the concept of MBNQA criteria and program were revised so that in 1989, the Quality Award was launched by the National Quality Instituterewardingpractical con cern s of com - panies of continuous quality improvement.ABEF Australian model of organizational excellence, developed in 1987, is in turn one of the first four models of organizational excellence that have become recognized worldwide (Australian Business Awards 2012, Standards Australia International Ltd.). model defines a set of criteria and practices that facilitate the identification of high-performance organizations.2. model of organizational excellence (CAE) and the for - a theoretical approachInstead of some specific criteria, the quality Award is based on a continuous improvement guide called Roadmap for Excellence (see Figure no. 1: The for Excellence).The model of organizational excellence (CAE) (Vokurka, R.J., Stading, G.L., Brazeal, ]., 2000), has as main objectives the following (see Figure no. 2: The model of excellence CAE - structure and basic criteria):a) Leadership: mainly focused on the strategic dimension of the organization, taking into consideration the degree of involvement of top management to continuously improve the management process to achieve the best results;b) Focus on the customer: it mean focusing on total customer satisfaction, and in this respect there is a specific concern regarding the identification of customer expectations, the results being permanently measured by proper management of client relationships;c) Planning: implicates to monitor the development process is performed, evaluation, implementation, improvement and verification of results. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".