Organizational self-assessment based on common assessment framework to improve the organizational quality in public administration

References

• Akdere, M. (2009). A multi-level examination of quality-focused human resource practices and firm performance: Evidence from the US healthcare industry. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(9), 1945–1964.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akdoğan, A. A. (2008). Türk Kamu Yönetimi ve Avrupa Birliği: Karşılaştırmalı Eleştirel Bir İnceleme [Turkish public administration and European Union: A comparative critical review]. Ankara: TODAİE No. 342.
   Google Scholar
• Arumugam, V., Chang, H. W., Ooi, K. B., & Teh, P. L. (2009). Self-Assessment of TQM practices: A case analysis. The TQM Journal, 21(1), 46–58.
   Google Scholar
• Balcı, A. (2007). Kamu Örgütleri İçin bir Kurumsal Özdeğerlendirme Modeli: Ortak Değerlendirme Çerçevesi [An organizational self-assessment model for public organizations: Common assessment framework]. In A. Nohutçu, & A. Balcı (Eds.), Bilgi Çağında Türk Kamu Yönetiminin Yeniden Yapılandırılması-II [Restructuring of Turkish public administration in the information age-II] (pp. 321–336). İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
   Google Scholar
• Bouckaert, G. (2002). Administrative convergence in the EU: Some conclusions for CEECs. In F. Van Den Berg, G. Jenei, & L. T. Leloup (Eds.), East-West co-operation in public sector reform: Cases and results in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 59–68). Amsterdam: International Institute of Adminisrative Science (IIAS) and IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• CAF. (2015, July 25). CAF users. Retrieved from http://caf.eipa.eu/3/108/&for=searchpost
   Google Scholar
• Caliskan, G., & Baydar, H. O. (2016). Satisfaction scale for athlete (SSA): A study of validity and reliability. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 12(14), 13–26.
   Google Scholar
• Çevik, H. H. (2004). Türkiye’de Kamu Yönetimi Sorunu [Public administration matter in Turkey]. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
   Google Scholar
• Claver, E., Tari, J. J., & Molina, J. F. (2003). Critical factors and results of quality management: An empirical study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 14(1), 91–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Çoban, H., & Deyneli, F. (2005, August). Kamuda Kalite Arttırma Çabaları ve Performansa Dayalı Bütçeleme [Efforts to improve quality in the public with performance-based budgeting]. In S. Sezgin, S. Yaraşır, F. Deyneli, & E. Teke (Eds.), 20. Türkiye Maliye Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı [20th Turkey finance symposium proceedings] (pp. 326–345). Denizli: Pamukkale Üniversitesi Yayınları.
   Google Scholar
• Çokluk, Ö, Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Çok Değişkenli İstatistik. SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları [Multivariate statistics for social sciences. SPSS and LISREL applications]. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
   Google Scholar
• Conti, T. (1998). Kurumsal Öz Degerlendirme [Organizational self-assessment]. İstanbul: KalDer Yayınları.
   Google Scholar
• DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dimitrova, A. (2002). Enlargement, institution-building and the EU’s administrative capacity requirement. West European Politics, 25(4), 171–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EIPA. (2012, November 13). CAF brochure – 2006. Retrieved from http://www.eipa.eu/en/pages/show/&tid=102
   Google Scholar
• Emanet, H. (2007). EFQM mükemmellik Modeli İle Kamu Sektöründe Özdeğerleme Çalışmaları Üzerine Bir Saha Çalışması [A field study on efqm excellence model and self-assessmnet activities in the public sector]. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 8(1), 67–95.
   Google Scholar
• Engel, C. (2002). Common assessment framework: The state of affairs. EIPASCOPE, 1, 35–39.
   Google Scholar
• Ensari, H. (2002). 21. Yüzyıl Okulları İçin Toplam Kalite Yönetimi [Total quality management for 21st century schools] (3rd ed.). İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık.
   Google Scholar
• Eskildsen, J. K., Kristensen, K., & Juhl, H. J. (2004). Private versus public sector excellence. The TQM Magazine, 16(1), 50–56.
   Google Scholar
• Fotopoulos, C. V., & Psomas, E. L. (2010). The structural relationships between TQM factors and organizational performance. The TQM Journal, 22(5), 539–552.
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, P., Dorulova, M., Niculescu, T., & Stemberger, A. (2005). Reference guide for horizontal integration. Bratislava: NISPAcee Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodstein, L., Nolan, T., & Pfeiffer, J. W. (1993). Applied strategic planning: How to develop a plan that really works. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Prof Med/Tech.
   Google Scholar
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J, & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, A., & Halsall, D. N. (2002). Comparison of the 14 deadly diseases and the business excellence model. Total Quality Management, 13(2), 255–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husain, N., Abdullah, M., Idris, F., & Sagir, R. M. (2001). The Malaysian total performance excellence model: A conceptual framework. Total Quality Management, 12(7-8), 926–931.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser, H. F. (1991). Coefficient alpha for a principal component and the Kaiser-Guttman rule. Psychological Reports, 68(3), 855–858.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalfa, M., & Yetim, A. A. (2013). The organizational self-assessment of quality management in public organization with the European Union common assessment framework. Nigde University Journal of Physical Education And Sport Science, 7(2), 151–166.
   Google Scholar
• Kanji, G. K. (2002). Performance measurement system. Total Quality Management, 13(5), 715–728.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitapçı, H. (2001). Toplam Kalite Yönetiminde Özdeğerleme ve Gebze Organize Sanayi Bölgesinde Çalışanların Tatmini Üzerine Bir Saha Araştırması [A study on the self-assessmnet in total quality management and the satisfaction of the employees in the Gebze organized industrial zone] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gebze Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü, Gebze, Kocaeli.
   Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed., 198). Methodology in the social sciences. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koyuncu, E. (2007, May 24). Ortak Değerlendirme Çerçevesi [Common assessment framework]. 8. Kamu Kalite Sempozyumu [8th quality symposium]. Paper presented at the Fourth, Ankara.
   Google Scholar
• Llusar, J. C. B., Tena, A. B. E., Puig, V. R., & Martin, I. B. (2009). An empirical assessment of the EFQM excellence model: Evaluation as a TQM framework relative to the MBNQA model. Journal of Operations Management, 27, 1–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAdam, R., & Leonard, D. (2005). A TQM dynamics perspective on baldrige and business excellence model comparisons. Total Quality Management, 16(6), 771–791.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, C., & Murgatroyd, S. (1997). Total quality management in the public sector. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pinsof, W. M., Zinbarg, R., Knobloch-Fedders, M. L. (2008). Factorial and construct validity of the revised short form integrative psychotherapy alliance scales for family, couple, and individual therapy. Family Process, 47(3), 281–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, L. J., & Tanner, S. J. (2004). Assessing business excellence: A guide to self-assessment (2nd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Sampaio, P., Saraiva, P., & Monteiro, A. (2012). A comparison and usage overview of business excellence models. The TQM Journal, 24(2), 181–200.
   Google Scholar
• Sousa, S. D., Aspinwall, E., Sampaio, P. A., & Rodrigues, A. G. (2005). Performance measures and quality tools in Portuguese small and medium enterprises: Survey results. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 16(2), 277–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staes, P., & Thijs, N. (2005). Report on the state of affairs of the common assessment framework (CAF) after five years. EIPASCOPE, 3, 41–49.
   Google Scholar
• Stringham, S. H. (2004). Does quality management work in the public sector? Public Administration and Management: Interactive Journal, 9(3), 182-211.
   Google Scholar
• Tari, J. J., & Sabater, V. (2004). Quality tools and techniques: Are they necessary for quality management? International Journal of Production Economics, 92, 267–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TEPAV. (2005). Genel Değerlendirme Çerçevesi: Kuruluşunuzu Özdeğerlendirme Aracılığıyla Geliştirin [Common assessment framework: Improve your organization through self assessment]. Ankara: TEPAV Yayınları.
   Google Scholar
• Tomaževič, N., Seljak, J., & Aristovnik, A. (2014). The impact of CAF enablers on job satisfaction: The case of the Slovenian law enforcement agency. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(12), 1336–1351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomaževič, N., Seljak, J., & Aristovnik, A. (2016). TQM in public administration organisations: An application of data envelopment analysis in the police service. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 27(12), 1396–1412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tortop, N., İsbir, E. G., Aykaç, B., Yayman, H., & Özer, M. A. (2007). Yönetim Bilimi [Management science] (7th ed.). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
   Google Scholar
• Vakalopoulou, M. A., Tsiotras, G., & Gotzamani, K. (2013). Implementing CAF in public administration. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 20(6), 744–764.
   Google Scholar
• Zink, K. J., & Schmidt, A. (1998). Practice and implementation of self-assessment. International Journal of Quality Science, 3(2), 147–170.
   Google Scholar
• Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain.. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar