Evaluation of an implemented quality management system (QMS) at one of the South African government departments: employee perceptions of the effect of the QMS intervention
- Authors: Maluleke, Yinywane Leon
- Date: 2009
- Subjects: Total quality management in government Public administration -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MBA
- Identifier: vital:739 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003859
- Description: This study is about the employee perceptions of the effect of the Quality Management System intervention that was implemented at one of South Africa’s government departments. This organisation’s Quality Management System being one of the first in the government or public sector in South Africa to be implemented, creates the possibility for this Quality Management System model to be used to develop Quality Management Systems in other departments or organisations belonging to the government or the public sector in South Africa and the Southern African region. According to Madu & Kuei (1995), Quality Management System describes a situation where all business functions are involved in a process of continuous quality improvement. This implies that the development and implementation of Quality Management Systems in government departments and the public sector will improve the quality of services delivery. The findings of this study indicated that a Quality Management System can be used to improve the level of service delivery in the public sector. The Quality Management System should be planned developed and implemented over a period of time in five phases (i) Phase 1 - Determination of the scope of Quality Management System implementation (ii) Phase 2 – Training (iii) Phase 3 – Development of Procedures (iv) Phase 4 – Pilot implementation of procedures (v) Phase 5 – Evaluation of Quality Management System and rollout. It usually takes three or more years to establish an organisation-wide Quality Management System, although technical improvement to the workflow can be as quickly as six to eight months. And finally, for the Quality Management System to be developed, implemented and maintained successfully, Maximisation of Performance objectives, Good Leadership, Motivation of staff, Implementation of Change Management, Employee Involvement, Long-term Top Management Commitment, Provision of Training, Introduction of Quality Improvement Projects, Measuring Quality Management System Progress and Reward Accomplishment, are the fundamental concepts or principles that should be considered.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2009
- Authors: Maluleke, Yinywane Leon
- Date: 2009
- Subjects: Total quality management in government Public administration -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MBA
- Identifier: vital:739 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003859
- Description: This study is about the employee perceptions of the effect of the Quality Management System intervention that was implemented at one of South Africa’s government departments. This organisation’s Quality Management System being one of the first in the government or public sector in South Africa to be implemented, creates the possibility for this Quality Management System model to be used to develop Quality Management Systems in other departments or organisations belonging to the government or the public sector in South Africa and the Southern African region. According to Madu & Kuei (1995), Quality Management System describes a situation where all business functions are involved in a process of continuous quality improvement. This implies that the development and implementation of Quality Management Systems in government departments and the public sector will improve the quality of services delivery. The findings of this study indicated that a Quality Management System can be used to improve the level of service delivery in the public sector. The Quality Management System should be planned developed and implemented over a period of time in five phases (i) Phase 1 - Determination of the scope of Quality Management System implementation (ii) Phase 2 – Training (iii) Phase 3 – Development of Procedures (iv) Phase 4 – Pilot implementation of procedures (v) Phase 5 – Evaluation of Quality Management System and rollout. It usually takes three or more years to establish an organisation-wide Quality Management System, although technical improvement to the workflow can be as quickly as six to eight months. And finally, for the Quality Management System to be developed, implemented and maintained successfully, Maximisation of Performance objectives, Good Leadership, Motivation of staff, Implementation of Change Management, Employee Involvement, Long-term Top Management Commitment, Provision of Training, Introduction of Quality Improvement Projects, Measuring Quality Management System Progress and Reward Accomplishment, are the fundamental concepts or principles that should be considered.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2009
An evaluation of the constitutionality of the common law crime of criminal defamation
- Authors: Fischer, Carl Frederich
- Date: 2008
- Subjects: Libel and slander -- South Africa , Common law -- Evaluation , Criminal law -- South Africa , Criminal procedure -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10171 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/749 , Libel and slander -- South Africa , Common law -- Evaluation , Criminal law -- South Africa , Criminal procedure -- South Africa
- Description: The challenge in the law of defamation lies in finding the appropriate balance between the two competing rights of freedom of expression and an unimpaired reputation. From Roman and Roman-Dutch law into the modern era, criminal and civil defamation have been very closely linked. The elements and defences are substantially alike. There were several calls prior to 1994 for the abrogation of criminal defamation. Now that the right to an unimpaired reputation, as part of the right to human dignity, and the right to freedom of expression is constitutionally guaranteed, quo vadis the crime of criminal defamation? The Supreme Court of Appeal has recently granted a petition for leave to appeal against convictions for criminal defamation on this very point: is the offence constitutional. Due to the paucity of criminal defamation precedent, the copious civil law precedent concerning civil defamation must be analysed to determine what view the Supreme Court of Appeal will adopt. Prior to 1994 the right to an unimpaired reputation has trumped freedom of expression. Since then, the two leading decisions by the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court have ameliorated this situation slightly, according freedom of expression more weight. Claiming the previous common law position was incorrect, they claim the present common law position is constitutionally sound. Thus the Constitution has in essence had no effect to date upon the balancing of competing rights in the law of defamation. Both courts have erred in according the right to freedom of expression too little weight. This may be due to three judicial errors. Firstly, they have under-appreciated that the values of dignity, equality and freedom fortify and are fortified by the right to freedom of expression. Aspects of dignity such as self-actualisation, self-governance and an acceptance that humans have intrinsic worth are heavily reliant on freedom of expression, particularly political expression. Secondly, while political expression lies at the core of freedom of expression, reputation lies nearer the periphery of the right to dignity. Rights at the core ought to trump competing but peripheral rights. Thirdly, erroneous statements are inevitable in free debate. Unless they too are protected, unacceptable self-censorship occurs. The correct approach is as a matter of policy, particularly regarding political expression, to balance the competing rights with one’s thumb on the free expression side of the scales. This seems the trend of the European Court of Human Rights in recent cases In Canada, an offence punishing libel made intentionally but without knowledge of its falsity was recently ruled unconstitutional. On the other hand, another offence punishing libel made with knowledge it was false, videlicet punishing the intentional publication of defamatory lies, was ruled constitutional. Criminal defamation clearly infringes upon the right to freedom of expression. For this infringement to pass constitutional muster it must be reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society. It fails the limitation test due to the lack of proportionality between its objective in protecting the right to an unimpaired reputation and the harm it does to the right to expression. There are three reasons: firstly the “chilling effect” of imprisonment, over and above pecuniary damages, unacceptably stifles free debate. Secondly, it may punish even the truth, yet protect a falsehood, since the truth per se is not a defence. An undeserved reputation is thus more highly valued than the publication of that truth. Finally there is a well-developed civil remedy that adequately protects the right to reputation of aggrieved persons. In the appeal concerning the constitutionality of the common law offence of criminal defamation, the Supreme Court of Appeal ought to find it unconstitutional.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2008
- Authors: Fischer, Carl Frederich
- Date: 2008
- Subjects: Libel and slander -- South Africa , Common law -- Evaluation , Criminal law -- South Africa , Criminal procedure -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:10171 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/749 , Libel and slander -- South Africa , Common law -- Evaluation , Criminal law -- South Africa , Criminal procedure -- South Africa
- Description: The challenge in the law of defamation lies in finding the appropriate balance between the two competing rights of freedom of expression and an unimpaired reputation. From Roman and Roman-Dutch law into the modern era, criminal and civil defamation have been very closely linked. The elements and defences are substantially alike. There were several calls prior to 1994 for the abrogation of criminal defamation. Now that the right to an unimpaired reputation, as part of the right to human dignity, and the right to freedom of expression is constitutionally guaranteed, quo vadis the crime of criminal defamation? The Supreme Court of Appeal has recently granted a petition for leave to appeal against convictions for criminal defamation on this very point: is the offence constitutional. Due to the paucity of criminal defamation precedent, the copious civil law precedent concerning civil defamation must be analysed to determine what view the Supreme Court of Appeal will adopt. Prior to 1994 the right to an unimpaired reputation has trumped freedom of expression. Since then, the two leading decisions by the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court have ameliorated this situation slightly, according freedom of expression more weight. Claiming the previous common law position was incorrect, they claim the present common law position is constitutionally sound. Thus the Constitution has in essence had no effect to date upon the balancing of competing rights in the law of defamation. Both courts have erred in according the right to freedom of expression too little weight. This may be due to three judicial errors. Firstly, they have under-appreciated that the values of dignity, equality and freedom fortify and are fortified by the right to freedom of expression. Aspects of dignity such as self-actualisation, self-governance and an acceptance that humans have intrinsic worth are heavily reliant on freedom of expression, particularly political expression. Secondly, while political expression lies at the core of freedom of expression, reputation lies nearer the periphery of the right to dignity. Rights at the core ought to trump competing but peripheral rights. Thirdly, erroneous statements are inevitable in free debate. Unless they too are protected, unacceptable self-censorship occurs. The correct approach is as a matter of policy, particularly regarding political expression, to balance the competing rights with one’s thumb on the free expression side of the scales. This seems the trend of the European Court of Human Rights in recent cases In Canada, an offence punishing libel made intentionally but without knowledge of its falsity was recently ruled unconstitutional. On the other hand, another offence punishing libel made with knowledge it was false, videlicet punishing the intentional publication of defamatory lies, was ruled constitutional. Criminal defamation clearly infringes upon the right to freedom of expression. For this infringement to pass constitutional muster it must be reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society. It fails the limitation test due to the lack of proportionality between its objective in protecting the right to an unimpaired reputation and the harm it does to the right to expression. There are three reasons: firstly the “chilling effect” of imprisonment, over and above pecuniary damages, unacceptably stifles free debate. Secondly, it may punish even the truth, yet protect a falsehood, since the truth per se is not a defence. An undeserved reputation is thus more highly valued than the publication of that truth. Finally there is a well-developed civil remedy that adequately protects the right to reputation of aggrieved persons. In the appeal concerning the constitutionality of the common law offence of criminal defamation, the Supreme Court of Appeal ought to find it unconstitutional.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2008
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »