Quality Management and Organizational Innovation in Canada
Abstract
In the federal public service, quality was first sought through efficient people. After five decades of predominant attention to processes, the rise of management thinking and program budgeting in the late 1960s led to concern with results. Since the early 1990s, the idea of results-based
accountability facilitated the search for alternative forms of service delivery within our parliamentary system. The current Management Accountability Framework enlarges the notion of results to include the quality of personnel management, service to citizens, risk management and stewardship concerning public resources. The Auditor General finds progress to be very slow, but Citizens First 3 finds a big improvement in opinion ratings of federal services. Current ideals are unattainable, but they are changing the way the public service operates and learning will occur.
Key Words: quality, results, innovation, agencies, accountability.
Introduction
Canada has a Westminster or parliamentary type of government. This means that the government, or cabinet, are all members of the legislature, almost always of the House of Commons, and that they must have the confidence of the House to govern. Ministers are collectively and individually responsible to the House; while they may survive occasional defeats in the legislature, if they lose a vote of confidence (as they did in November, 2005) or a vote on a major legislative proposal (especially a budgetary proposal), the Prime Minister must resign, and his government with him.
While elections must be held at least every five years, the timing of elections is up to the Prime Minister, and they occur more frequently than the five year interval (the modern record being six months later, in 1980. This has occasionally produced a coalition government as during World War I, but it has usually produced majority governments or, in some recent cases (like the present), minority governments that survive only as long as the House lets them. By virtue of his or her control of the selection of ministers and of senior appointments to government and public sector positions1, of the organization of government and of the government’s agenda, the Prime Minister has long been considered first among equals regarding cabinet ministers. In recent years, he has been recognized as the dominant figure in government (Savoie 1999 ,Simpson 2001). Thus the House of Commons has a strong control over the Prime Minister and the government, which is only used occasionally, but the Prime Minister has the active direction of his colleagues and the administration.
Download pdf full text
In the federal public service, quality was first sought through efficient people. After five decades of predominant attention to processes, the rise of management thinking and program budgeting in the late 1960s led to concern with results. Since the early 1990s, the idea of results-based
accountability facilitated the search for alternative forms of service delivery within our parliamentary system. The current Management Accountability Framework enlarges the notion of results to include the quality of personnel management, service to citizens, risk management and stewardship concerning public resources. The Auditor General finds progress to be very slow, but Citizens First 3 finds a big improvement in opinion ratings of federal services. Current ideals are unattainable, but they are changing the way the public service operates and learning will occur.
Key Words: quality, results, innovation, agencies, accountability.
Introduction
Canada has a Westminster or parliamentary type of government. This means that the government, or cabinet, are all members of the legislature, almost always of the House of Commons, and that they must have the confidence of the House to govern. Ministers are collectively and individually responsible to the House; while they may survive occasional defeats in the legislature, if they lose a vote of confidence (as they did in November, 2005) or a vote on a major legislative proposal (especially a budgetary proposal), the Prime Minister must resign, and his government with him.
While elections must be held at least every five years, the timing of elections is up to the Prime Minister, and they occur more frequently than the five year interval (the modern record being six months later, in 1980. This has occasionally produced a coalition government as during World War I, but it has usually produced majority governments or, in some recent cases (like the present), minority governments that survive only as long as the House lets them. By virtue of his or her control of the selection of ministers and of senior appointments to government and public sector positions1, of the organization of government and of the government’s agenda, the Prime Minister has long been considered first among equals regarding cabinet ministers. In recent years, he has been recognized as the dominant figure in government (Savoie 1999 ,Simpson 2001). Thus the House of Commons has a strong control over the Prime Minister and the government, which is only used occasionally, but the Prime Minister has the active direction of his colleagues and the administration.
Download pdf full text
3 Januari 2012 pukul 04.03
I am impressed by the couple of tips which you have mention about quality management and organizational innovation.I am glad you thought about the quality,innovation and results.Looking forward for more.being a author i like the concept that you have put in this post.Thank you for evoking thoughts that you have put together. Wish you best of luck for future.