Translating the EFQM model into the courts

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop an assessment guide based on the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) model criteria. Courts have been under pressure to become more accountable and responsive organisations. In this context, self-assessment models that drive attention to the way resources are being used and to the results that are being achieved, incorporating the views of different stakeholders, are of particular interest. Design/methodology/approach – A case study approach was used. The meaning of the quality principles that underline the EFQM model was discussed with the court administrator, judges, prosecutors and justice officers. Those perspectives were taken into account when translating the criteria and criterion parts of the EFQM model. The assessment guide was validated by an experts’ panel. Findings – The EFQM model captures the essential features of a court even if the courts terminology and governance models challenge the translation of some criteria. The resulting guide includes a description of the various criteria and criterion parts and the identification of key focus areas, while giving some illustrative examples of initiatives and indicators that could be looked at under each model dimension. Practical implications – The assessment guide can be used to undertake self-assessment exercises in different courts. Originality/value – There is a lack of studies on the measurement of courts’ performance apart from the publication of simple lists of process indicators. The assessment guide developed in this study is perhaps one of the most comprehensive resources for assessing the quality of a court.

Evaluation of Quality and Equality in Education Using the European Foundation for Quality Management Excellence Model—A Literature Review

“…The EFQM Excellence Model reflects the viability of the organization and its weaknesses and strengths, and, therefore, contributes to the improvement of its performance. Due to its ease of use, it has been applied beyond educational organizations [50][51][52] in other sectors, such as the health sector [53][54][55], tourism [56], government [57][58][59], and private services [60,61]. The EFQM Excellence Model is also essential in educational organizations.…”

Quality Assessment of the Services Delivered by a Court, Based on the Perceptions of Users, Magistrates, and Court Officials

“…Among the performance measurement initiatives implemented in the judiciary, it is also worthwhile to mention the development of the Trial Court Performance Standards (TCPS) in the United States in 1987. Despite not being an organizational assessment model [3], it was, according to [21], an important landmark in the introduction of quality management principles in courts, especially by pointing out the importance of collecting and analyzing performance data and introducing a customer focus. In this regard, as stressed by [4] (p. 1873), standard 1.4 states "judges and other trial court personnel are courteous and responsive to the public and accord respect to all with whom they come into contact".…”

“…Later on, in 2004, the Committee on Civil Justice and Home Affairs recommended the creation of a quality charter to improve quality in courts. The system was supposed to include a set of criteria for evaluating judicial systems, benchmark information, a system for dissemination of best practices amongst the member states of the European Union, and an evaluation report on compliance with the quality charter [3]. Yet, no practical developments have occurred.…”

“…Courts tend to be regarded as very bureaucratic and inflexible organizations, incapable of meeting the demands of a quickly changing world [3]; thus, being slow and inept to cope with an increasing demand for judiciary services. According to [4], the difficulty of introducing reforms in courts is strongly related to two particular features of such organizations: (1) courts are dominated by professionals (judges), whose institutional identities and commitments are relatively low if compared to their professional integrity and attachment to personal styles and preferences; and (2) judges lack authority over people key to the court administration.…”