Evaluation Plan

The history of timberland management in the backstage sphere of influence shows an interesting growth along two dimensions. First, the dominant orientation has been broadened from the harvest-time to the total schema of production and deli very(prenominal), and from product-related criteria to external criteria (for example, the environmental impact of products and production processes). Second, an evolution of impressions and practices has taken place concerning the involvement of different types of actors.These developments point to an increasing coordination compoundity of the type management function. Therefore, the first aim of this paper is to examine the implications of this evolution for the professionalization of this function. (Dick 2001) The private and the usual sector have, with respect to quality management and evaluation, followed their own lines of development. Even the cite conceptsquality management and evaluationhave a different meaning, especially with respect to the relation amidst diagnosis and intervention.However, their basic question is the same how can we assess realized performance and use the results to cleanse future performance? Besides, the boundaries surrounded by the private and the common sector ar blurring more than and more (Godfroij & Nelissen, 1993) and twain sectors try to learn lessons from the other. Therefore, the second aim of this paper is to explore the relevance of the above mentioned questions for evaluation in the public sector.The relevance of private sector evaluation approaches for public sector organizations should be related to similarities and differences between the two sectors with respect to their targets and success criteria, their client systems, products and services, influence of stakeholders, and requirements with respect to public accountability. For example, compared to private enterprises, the products and services of public organizations are often less concrete and specific, an d processes have to meet criteria other than technical dexterity.For public organizations, the coiffe of relevant stakeholders is more differentiated, client systems are often more diffuse and anonymous, and feedback processes from client groups can be more indirect and complicated. Because of these differences, public organizations have to be app raised by other and often more complex standards than do private organizations, such as equal accessibility, equity, and democracy. This suggests that public sector performance has to meet more diffuse and diverse criteria, and can be judged less easily.(Airasian 2006) On the other hand, the required performance of public organizations can be regulated quite explicitly. Procedures are often defined more clearly, with a view to accountability and democratic control. And because governments today have huge financial problems, financial criteria are often very specific. Thus, clients, products, and processes of public organizations are ofte n clearly defined, qualitatively as well as quantitatively.Furthermore, private enterprises withal have to take into account more than just economic and technical requirements and often use quality management systems, which give attention to internal social factors as well as societal claims and standards. Thus, the air between public and private organizations is only limited. In the field of evaluation, the challenge is basically the same, although public sector evaluation can be more complicated.For private enterprise, the market is supposed to be the most stiff and efficient mechanism for the selection between good and poor performers. The price mechanism combines quality and efficiency criteria and reflects the added value of the products or services in the eyes of the buyers. Thus, at an aggregated train looking at profit figures is a clear and simple way of evaluation. This method has, however, little explanatory value.In order to get by causes of underperformance, quali ty-related factors and efficiency-related factors should be assessed separately. While efficiency evaluation looks at the cost-generating activities, quality evaluationthe focus of this paperstarts with the product itself. The evolution of quality management in the profit sector started many decades ago as quality control at the level of the finished productdefining quality standards at the product level and comparing the product characteristics with these standards.It took some time before the idea gained ground that the performance (profits) could be raised significantly by shifting attention to the steps in the production process where product deficiencies (and costs) are generated. This brought into vision the distinct process phases as well as the employees contributing to the process. Quality management began to pay attention to the role of the actors involved in production and distribution processes, and to the system of primary and supporting processes as a whole. It is now widely accepted that quality management should have a broad arena total quality management.ReferencesAirasian, P., Gay, L. R., Mills, G.. (2006). Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Applications (8th ed.).Dick, W. & Carey, L. (2001). The systematic design of instruction (5th ed.). Chapter 12. Longman Publishing Group. ISBN 0321037804.Godfroij, A.J.A. and Nelissen, N.J.M. (Eds.) (1993). Verschuivingen in de besturing van de samenleving, Bussum, Dick Coutinho.